The End for America is Now in Sight

Finally after six years of back-to-back Obama scandals, I realize the right wing people are not nut jobs.  It looks like they were right all along.

A few days ago, there was a joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Turkey and President Obama of the United States.  During the conference, there was a light drizzle of rain. Obama forced two US Marines to hold umbrellas: one over his own head, and the other over the head of the Turkish state.  To me, this was an insignificant act.  The marines were standing around doing nothing anyway.  It's not like they were busy at the time rescuing the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi.  No no, they were just standing around listening to a bunch of stupid questions being fielded by Obama and the Turkish guy.  They were probably hoping the rain would intensify enough to call off the whole thing.

But I was wrong.  This was not insignificant. What I did not know, was that no US president had ever asked a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head during a press conference - other than Obama.  And it was not the first time for Obama either.  The linked video clearly shows pictures of various Presidents holding their own umbrellas, and other pictures of Obama getting marines to hold his umbrella.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI_3hLrixOU

Now for the true insult of this seemingly small act.  If you didn't notice yourself, don't be embarrassed.  It means you are probably not from the Southern U.S. Many Canadians, like me, will miss this too.  Here is the clue: Look at the skin colour of the two men.  The one holding the umbrella is white, the one having the umbrella held over him is black. Therein lies the insult to real Americans (i.e. Southerners).

The true American way to do this, and one that would not have raised a single eyebrow south of Cincinnati and East of Waco Texas, would have been for the white guy to be the President of the USA, and the black guy to be the Marine holding the umbrella.

This umbrella thing was Obama's plan all along.  Health Care was a mere diversion. Killing Osama Bin Laden, a smoke screen.  Boosting the Dow Jones from 7,000 to 15,000 in six years was a red herring.  The hidden plan was to humiliate the white race by making them hold umbrellas for black people, thus destroying the real America.  There is no going back. Real Americans will have to reluctantly, and with heavy hearts, begin gearing up for the second Civil War  (or as real Americans prefer to call it:  "the Second War Between the States" or  "Second War for Southern Independence" or  "Second War of Northern Aggression".) And finally, Al Quaida's plan will be complete: America torn apart just like they destroyed the Soviet Union back in 1990.  All their thanks go to Obama.

An outsiders opinion (from Nigeria) http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350336

Picture: From http://astuteblogger.blogspot.ca/2013/05/obama-umbrellas-and-what-it-all-rev.html

Who Owned More Slaves, Grant or Lee?

The answer to the well known question about General Grant, which is "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb", is Grant. That question was more like a joke or a riddle than a real historical question.  But there is a real historical question: "Did General Grant own slaves?"  This is a very interesting question, given that Grant was the top General fighting for the Union in the US civil war, and that many people argue whether or not the war was mainly about slavery.  (and I assume everyone knows the Union was the side allegedly opposed to slavery)

The problem with trying to research questions like this is that there is no one source of "truth" in the U.S.A. (or maybe any country, but the distinction is really obvious in America)  So you may find in one book, that Grant did own slaves, thus proving that the Civil war was NOT about slavery.  And you may also come across this quote from Robert E. Lee, the top general of the Southern Confederate states (the ones who allegedly supported slavery)

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Robert E. Lee December 27, 1856

That quote, along with Grant's ownership of slaves seems to prove that the war  was not really about slavery.

But hold on just a minute.  If you are to learn anything about the "truth" it is that truth can be manipulated.

By doing some further research, you will find out that Grant bought a slave and set him free.  Does that mean that Grant "owned" slaves?  Of course it does.  From the moment a slave is bought, you own him until the moment you officially set him free, which will take at least a few days, or so I imagine.  It's true, Grant owned slaves.  Or one slave, anyway.  And you will also find out that this slave helped Grant build a log cabin, before being set free.  And that later on Grant hired him again on salary as a free man.  And you will also find out that Grant's wife inherited slaves, and that Grant did not set them free until the end of the war. From there you can dig deeper and deeper and never find the truth.

On the other hand, you can research Robert E. Lee's statement about slavery ("as an institution")  being evil.  And then find out that Lee had slaves and whipped them, and sold their children to break up the family units.  And that although Lee knew that slavery was evil, he also "knew" it was ordained by God, and God would forgive the evil (but necessary) deeds of the slave owners.  And that Lee hated abolitionists a lot more than he hated whipping his slave women.  And again the further you dig, the harder it becomes to root out the truth.

For every argument there is a counter argument.  For every interpretation, there is another interpretation.

Be careful when seeking the truth, it's easy to get lost and never find your way home.

REFERENCES

The Book on Amazon  "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" claims Grant owned slaves.
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-American-History/dp/B006J3VA60

Book Review of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by right wing Christians
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/review-the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-american-history/

Wikipedia article on Grant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Historical_reputation

Another bash at Grant vs Lee, with lots of interesting comments at the end.
http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html

General Lee's views on slavery in a letter (The whole letter is on this page, not just a cherry picked quote)
http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

Picture: The house built by Grant and his slave from this page.  http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94503889/

Social Consequences of the Theory of Evolution

There will be gradual changes to the broader civilization as we move away from the religious ideas of biblical Creationism and toward scientific ideas of Evolution.

The Bible has a story of creation that you can believe literally, or allegorically.  Either way it has the power to influence our behaviour. To begin with, it tells us that Men are the dominant sex, and that women were an afterthought, taken from man.  Also, man was created by God in the image of God, once again giving us the idea that men are more important than women.

Another aspect of the creation story is that Man is different from all other animals. In the the story of creation, only man was made in the image of God.  All the other creatures were crafted to look different from God. We are also to understand that Man's morality comes from God, as told in the story of Adam and Eve.  Furthermore we are told that man actually has no innate morality, and is born a natural sinner who needs to obey God, or will suffer punishment.

There are a few other ramifications to this religious story.  It becomes easy to believe that God prefers men to women, and it is also a small step further to believe that one type of man is preferred over other types of men. For example, white men over black men.*   And there is also a very strong support that whoever believes in the "true" Biblical account has the support of God, and anyone of a different faith should be converted or enslaved or killed.

* Although it is not specifically stated in the Bible, white people seem to believe that God is also white.  I can't really prove that of course, but just how many movies, paintings, drawings, have to be made before it's quite clear?

Now what happens to a civilization that is based on such a story of creation, when it finds out that humans were not directly created by God?  That maybe we are not so different from the animals.  Does it mean that now we have no morals any more?  That there is no punishment for being bad?  That our culture and race have no claim to a god-given superiority over any other culture, race, or religion?  That we can't even insist that men are superior to women?

Some people, without fear of a magical all-seeing being overhead, may get a little (or a lot) crazy.  For the vast majority of people, though, I think we will gradually find out that is was not really religion that was stopping them from becoming mass murderers, it was something else built deep inside the human brain.  You can say God put it there, if you wish,or that it evolved that way if you are more scientific.

If you need some proof of this, you should look at animals more closely.  You will notice that animals are capable of kindness.  But you do have to look carefully, as animals, of course do not have exactly the same sense of morality as humans.  But nature is full of heartwarming stories of animals doing good.  And human history has enough examples of religiously motivated people doing unspeakable evil.

Can we predict what will happen to individuals and societies as these scientific ideas spread?  I suspect that we may indeed have more killings and bad behaviours, but I think it is tied more to increasing populations, and new technologies facilitating mass murder, and greater access to information.  I suspect that there is not much real difference in the amount of bad behaviour today or in the future, from what there was a thousand years ago.  No matter what desperate religious conservatives have to say on that subject.  (for example blaming Darwin and the evolution of species for the Nazi holocaust)

But as these ideas of science spread, we will probably find that there will be less religious conflict in the future.  Much more freedom of religion and free thinking.  More equality between women and men.  Less racism.  More kindness to animals, and possibly more care for the natural environment.  Fewer missionaries trying to convert people.  And not a whole lot of difference in average levels of cruelty and violence in society- because it seems more and more apparent, that good and kind behaviour never was a function of religion alone.

Again the Question, Why are Universities so Liberal?

Why are university professors mostly liberals?  If this question is being asked at all, that may be a sign there is something wrong with our thinking patterns.  I always thought it was pretty obvious.  But not so obvious to someone who does not understand the traditional role of a University, or the traditional role of liberals in society.

Here is an article in the National Post, where again this question comes up.  Why so many liberals at universities?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/marginalized-and-on-the-defensive-university-conservatives-forced-to-grow-tougher/

Let's just go over the basics again.  Liberal is not a dirty word, at least not before Rush Limbaugh and Fox News made it so.

Definition of liberal

lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Now lets just check what a conservative is:

con·ser·va·tive  (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

Finally, can I let someone from the early part of the twentieth century explain the traditional role of a University?

Essays: English and American.
The Harvard Classics.  1909–14.
The Idea of a University. I. What Is a University?

John Henry Newman

IF I were asked to describe as briefly and popularly as I could, what a University was, I should draw my answer from its ancient designation of a Studium Generale, or “School of Universal Learning.” This description implies the assemblage of strangers from all parts in one spot;—from all parts; else, how will you find professors and students for every department of knowledge? and in one spot; else, how can there be any school at all? Accordingly, in its simple and rudimental form, it is a school of knowledge of every kind, consisting of teachers and learners from every quarter. Many things are requisite to complete and satisfy the idea embodied in this description; but such as this a University seems to be in its essence, a place for the communication and circulation of thought, by means of personal intercourse, through a wide extent of country.

Based on these definitions, and the idea of a university being people of diverse backgrounds coming together to exchange ideas and/or learn new ideas, I think I can come up with a theory.  A liberal is, by definition, a person open to new ideas, a person wanting to learn.  A conservative is by nature a person opposed to new ideas.  The highest aspiration of a University is to encourage new ideas.

All through history, every time people who were interested in learning came together to form a university, ideas have been exchanged, new ideas have flourished.  Sometimes the authorities did not like what they saw, and shut down the universities.  Sometimes the authorities were tolerant of new ideas, and allowed the university to exist. Sometimes they even gave money to the universities.  History provides a number of examples where societies supporting free-thinking universities flourished in arts, social justice, and in technology. Those that suppressed freedom of thought in universities tended to be held back in those areas.

A modern North American conservative's idea of higher learning is really either "job training", or a place for indoctrination into some religion.  Conservative places of learning tend to have predefined goals, and encourage conformity.  For example, a conservative think tank, or a bible study college.  Conservatives are more interested in money, so they are more likely to go straight into business, using their father's connections to guarantee a good job.  If they do go to a free-thinking traditional "University" it is often just a recreational interlude, with spring breaks, wild frat parties, drugs, football and such.  After four years of being wasted, then they collect their degree and get a high paying job using their father's business connections.

So that is the answer to the question "Why are there so many liberals at university?"  It is because a true university favours the open minded approach to learning new things.  It is not because universities deliberately try to exclude Republicans, the very wealthy, the conformists, the racists, the bigots, and the religious fanatics. It is because the basis of higher learning is to be open minded, and that's the only way to have a true university. Conservative "universities", rarely generate any new ideas.  In fact their entire raison d'etre tends to be the opposition to new ideas. (Like Evangelical universities, still fighting to suppress the Theory of Evolution.)

The picture is from the University of Minnesota at Duluth, the Unfair Campaign against racism.  This (very likely liberal) poster has drawn criticism from white conservatives in the U.S.A., who do not think that white Americans are racist.  An example of how liberals seem to dominate university campuses.
http://unfaircampaign.org/resources/see-it/

Ezra Levant Mentioned in MacLean's Magazine

The only reason I read MacLean's is to distract me from the pain of a dentist visit.  So I was at the dentist .. again .. and the latest MacLean's was there, with an article about Ezra Levant. The perfect anesthetic before going to the dentist chair.

"Ezra Levant: Love him or hate him, he keeps winning" A profile of the right-wing gadfly who loves to offend by Jonathon Gatehouse on Saturday, January 12

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/12/going-on-the-offensive/


I found one quote in the article particularly relevant, where Ezra Levant blamed the Jews for Canada's human rights laws and here it is:

"The people to blame for the “illiberal and un-Canadian” human rights laws and tribunals he’s been crusading against for the past seven years are well-represented in the theatre. 'It came from us. I mean the Jews, my friends.'"

Well well, apparently Ezra was asleep during History class, which is especially annoying to me, as an ex-History teacher.  So now I have to fill him in on what he missed.  Here goes.

It was just after WW2, when the Allies found concentration camps full of dead and starving Jews.  In the final tally, about 6 million Jews had been killed in what we called the "Holocaust".  The horrified allies tried to analyse what happened to result in this tragic outcome, and concluded at the time that it was years of anti-Jewish propaganda that had built to a fever pitch in the war, and had precipitated this great tragedy, and made it possible for it to happen.  I don't have the time or space to go into every cultural and sociological factor here, but that's what people in Canada, and the other allied countries generally thought back in the fifties.  So, because nobody wanted another world war, many things were done to try and avert the recurrence of such a situation.  Things like the establishment of the UN, the generous financial aid provided to the losers (Germany and Japan specifically), and the prevention of any further campaigns of propaganda against helpless minorities.  And this means not just Jews, but any minorities.  We did not want this to happen ever again, to anyone.  So every country tried to pass some kind of legislation to protect minorities from genocide, including Canada.  That's why we have the Canadian Human Rights Act.

So in a way, Ezra was right. It was because of the Jews that we have the Human Rights Act in Canada.  Ironically, he finds that it is very restrictive in his campaign to demonize Arabs in the way that Hitler demonized the Jews.  Well, sorry for your bad luck Ezra, but anyone who was awake during history class already knows that the Human rights stuff came about because of the Jews who died in the Holocaust, and was also supported after the war by Canadian Jews.

By the way, recent Right wing emails have tried to persuade us that it was not propaganda that enabled the holocaust.  The two main right wing theories regarding the origin of the holocaust are currently

It was gun control.  If the Jews had guns the holocaust would never have happened.  (FYI, France had guns, they surrendered.  Russia had guns, they lost 8 million people fighting the Nazi invasion, Britain had guns, they retreated to their island and got heavily bombed. The Jews in Warsaw had guns, but the Nazis simply leveled their ghetto with artillery and tanks.  I don't think this argument stands up to much scrutiny.)

It was Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  Apparently Hitler decided that Darwin's theory of evolution meant that he had to kill all the Jews before they became a new species or something.  Maybe I misunderstood that argument.  Anyhow it's quite weak, compared to the many hundreds of years of anti-Jewish religious hatred in Europe.  Here is a quote from Martin Luther, the German who started the protestant reformation. (not the black guy who was killed in the Civil Rights movement).

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism#On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them".[19]

I don't think Charles Darwin said anything as bad as that.  Actually, some people think Darwin was a Jew.  That mistake has never been made with Luther. Or Hitler.

Making Racism Part of the Presidential Debate

It seems like a lot more than usual is riding on the presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  Before the first debate, we were told that the debates historically did not affect the outcome of the election.  But after the first debate, where Obama had a weak performance, the polls showed that the lead in the popular vote had changed hands.  It went from an almost insurmountable lead by Barack Obama, to a small lead by Mitt Romney. So for the second debate, Obama needed to perform better or possibly lose the election.

When the pundits and experts analyze the debates, it seems to me that they pay a lot of attention to the style, and very little to the substance.  This does not make much sense to me.  As a teacher, when marking essay questions, for example, I would first of all look for facts that show the student knows what they are talking about.  I would pay much less attention to style - e.g. handwriting neatness, spelling, grammar (Unless it was a course in handwriting spelling or grammar of course.)  And I would try to not be influenced by racism or prejudice against certain a students. (Yes some students are way more likeable than others, in case you were wondering).  And most of all, I would be looking for B.S.  Here is an example.  "For ten marks, write a one page essay about how you would improve the US economy."  One students writes "I understand the US economy, so obviously I would know many ways to fix it". And then proceeds to fill the rest of the page with the same thought stated over and over.  That would fetch him or her a zero regardless of neat penmanship.  If another student goes ahead and lists ten different points, that all seem perfectly valid possible actions to take that might improve the economy, and correspond what was discussed in class, even though I may not agree with them personally, I would probably give a 10/10.

Apparently in Presidential debates, style matters more than substance, especially this time.  I wonder why?  One answer I can think of, is that people are looking for someone they can trust to lead the country into prosperity.  Since nobody really knows how to fix the economy, the substance is unimportant.  The important thing is: Do you trust this person to make the right decisions, do you think his entire world view is basically right, is he a deluded stooge who people will not respect?  Is he or she a real leader who can get things done?

Unfortunately, if we are going to start valuing style over substance, it also means that prejudice takes hold, and in a country like the USA, which has a history of racism right up to present day, that means Barack Obama has a  handicap in the election.  But this handicap is reinforced by pundits who take up a lot of space arguing about who has better style, instead of doing some much needed fact checking.  Also the Republicans insist they are "Not going to be dictated to by fact checkers".  If style is valued over substance, another casualty is the truth.

This is what I see in the first debate, if style is the only standard.  Debate one: Stereotypical wealthy white man yelling at black man about what a bad job he did.  Black man avoiding eye contact and saying "yes massa". Nobody questions the truth of what the massa says, or his right to say it. Apparently this style resonated very strongly with some parts of America, and immediately after the debate, the polls indicated Romney (the white guy) had wiped out Obama's lead in the popular polls.

Now what do I see in the second debate?  The black guy is not going to take any more crap, and basically says "You are lying."  To which the white guy stares him in the face and says "You dare to question me, boy?  For this you will be punished."  Then the moderator jumps in and says "Well basically he is right." And then all the white supremacists go crazy.  That is my summary of the style of the second debate.

If you would like to watch it again, in this light and see if it makes sense, here is the debate video - fast forward to one hour and 13 minutes, for the 2 minute part part where Romney tells Barack Obama how bad he was for not calling the attack terrorism right away. Obama says, but I did call it terrorism right away, and Romney flashes his eyes about being challenged on a fact, then the moderator jumps in "But Obama is right".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps   (The second debate)

Then read about the attitude displayed by Mitt Romney's son, about this "President" essentially calling his father a liar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9617247/Tagg-Romney-wanted-to-take-swing-at-Obama.html

In the old south, if a white gentleman made a statement like "On September 12th in the Rose Garden, I said it was terrorism", and another white gentleman said "No you did not", the rest of the conversation would go like this: "Sir, are you calling me a LIAH?"  second southern gentleman. "That I am, sir."  first gentleman "Bring your duelling pistols and your attendant tomorrow at dawn.  Good day.".

Picture: Romney's best "You dare to speak back to me, boy?" face.  Style over substance.

Extremism for Dummies

There are two definitions of extremism in common use. Because we seem to be getting more extremists than ever before, I want to come up with a useful definition.

The first meaning is "outside the norm of a given society", which is used in the Wikipedia entry on extremism. I don't think this definition is right any more. Maybe it used to be accurate, when you could assume that the norm of any society was moderation. But if the norm in a society becomes extremism, then is being outside the norm still extremism?

The second meaning is "Uncompromising". This, I think, is a more generally applicable definition. For one thing, it gives a universal standard of behaviour to judge extremism by. If someone or some government is willing to compromise, it is not extremist. According to this definition, it is possible to be a moderate minority within an extremist majority.

There are examples of extremism throughout history, using the second definition. The Spanish Inquisition would be extremist because they did not compromise with heretics. Instead of compromise, there was burning at the stake and torture. The Nazis were extremists, as shown by the Czech Peace Agreement. The British and French signed a compromise deal for peace, agreeing to give Czechoslovakia to the Nazis in return for peace without further land claims. Instead, the Nazis invaded Poland, which clearly established them as extremists. No real compromises could be made with the Nazis or Hitler, despite their willingness to talk of peace. Ultimately, this revelation of extremism made it impossible for Britain to surrender on good terms after the fall of France, even though Hitler pleaded that he meant them no harm, and would allow them to keep their sovereignty.

The Nazis went on to show themselves as extremists in many other ways, but were finally beaten by a coalition of moderates.

There are good examples of extremism today in certain religions. Extremist Moslems want to wipe Israel off the map, and the USA too, if they could. Extremist Jews want all Palestinian disputed territories for themselves, and want to deny independence to the Palestinians, and would resort to any means to accomplish that including killing. I suppose you could say Jesus was an extremist, but an extremist for peace. Now, extremist Christians want to bomb Iran, and kill doctors who perform abortions.

None of these religious groups is interested in any compromise. All would prefer the world to end than give up their demands - and that gives us yet another way to define extremism. If you would be willing to kill yourself and the rest of humanity rather than accept a compromise with another, you are an extremist.

Most people are not born extremists, but are sometimes driven to extremism by forces beyond their awareness. First, a very fearful life with a lot of uncertainty can make one predisposed to extremism. Certain powers like to promote fear and extreme views in order to benefit from the support of extremists.

If you were talking to an extremist, whether a friend or family member, or a total stranger, is there some way to know this is an extremist? You you use the definition of "outside the norm", you may not be able to ever tell. But if you use the definition of "uncompromising", it is easier to figure out if you are dealing with a moderate or an extremist. One clue is that an extremist will hardly ever admit their side can be wrong. But for the most reliable indicator of extremism, try proposing a compromise and see the reaction you get. An angry reply, a refusal to discuss further, or both, may be a clue you are talking to an extremist.

There is not much point in discussing things with extremists. While you may learn something of their point of view, you will simply become frustrated by their means of discussion. Instead of logically addressing an issue, you will find they present you with multiple arguments, usually handed on from other sources. If you question them about the issue on an obvious flaw of logic, they can quickly change the subject. Most of their opinions are designed not for truth seeking but for provoking anger and confrontational arguments.


Picture: from the Anti-Defamation League website discussing extremism.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/

The ADL was set up in 1913 to combat anti-Jewish extremism Their website names a lot of extremist people, organizations and movements. I could not find a mention of the Jewish Settler movement, although according to my definition, those people would also be extremists because they are not interested in compromise. On the other hand, maybe the mandate of the Anti Defamation League is only to attack non-Jewish extremism. Would that make the ADL itself an extremist organization?

This was the 1913 incident that gave the ADL its start (and re-started the Ku Klux Klan).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

Why Does the Birther Movement Not Go Away?

The "Birther" movement in the USA has nothing to do with abortions, although it kind of sounds like it might. No, it is made up of all the Americans who question whether Barack Obama was born in the USA. If he was not born in the USA, then he is not qualified to be president. Recently, Chris Matthews, a self proclaimed liberal journalist, and "enemy of the Birthers" basically joined the Birther movement by asking why Barack Obama had not produced the long form of his birth certificate.

Being Canadian, I am not actually concerned about the fine points of being born in the USA. But I have noted that there is a racist overtone to the entire Birther approach to this problem.

Every comment by a birther in the New York Times article, and in Chris Matthews own comment, has the same fundamental logic: It is not good enough that the US Congress, the electoral college, and the Supreme Court have accepted Barack Obama as the legitimate President. This would of course be good enough if he was white, then everyone would shut up. But because the president is black, we have the equivalent of the old lynch mob gathered around the courthouse howling guilty. Every person in the birther movement has the same attitude. It is not good enough that the existing system of democracy has spoken. Obama is still not qualified in the minds of each one of those birthers. Each and every birther is their own judge, jury and executioner, standing outside the system. Each one requires their own personal proof of his innocence. The Birthers place themselves above authority of the system that was put in place to decide such things once and for all.

It is not enough for a black man to prove his case to the US government, and the Supreme Court. A black man must carry his documents at all times and present them to any white man who may ask for them, whenever they ask. That was the way back in the good old days of slavery, segregation, and apartheid. The birthers are blind to any other system. They simply cannot accept that the existing institutions work for black folks and white folks equally, and there is no going back on the old lynch mob mentality.

In sports, if the ref's final decision is that you're out, then you're out. Everybody agrees to accept the judgment and move on.  It would be stupid to think that every call in a game would be subject to each and every spectator's own final ruling, and that unless every spectator was satisfied, that the game was not legitimate.  And I might add, in sports not all rulings are even right!  Many important games have been settled by a bad call, in my opinion.  But that does not make the sport any less valid.

The Government has decided that Barack Obama is the President. He is not obligated to prove his case to each and every person individually. The case is settled by a well documented process. Everyone is honour bound to accept the outcome of the process.

Does Conrad Black Need More Time to Recuperate?

I have never agreed with many of Conrad Black's ideas. Giving up his Canadian citizenship to take a title of Lord in England, summarizes the differences between him and me. But up till now, I had always thought of him as an intellectual, someone who could write well, and researched their ideas. But recently I read this article of his in the National Post "Four Ideas for a Better Canada and a Better World", and I think he is beginning to unravel mentally. Here is the link.

I will take the liberty of summarizing in my own words. Read it for yourself in case I am distorting his ideas.

1. The Canadian government can make money by investing in Chrysler Corporation [instead of taxing the rich]. He didn't mention not taxing the rich in this article, but in "How to revive the Liberal Party" from a few days ago. I simply connected the dots.
2. Encourage immigration from white countries instead of brown or black countries.
3. Make Haiti a joint protectorate of Canada and the USA. That way we can put an end to Haitian piracy and stop the pirates from cutting all the trees in Haiti to build ships. And he calls Cuba a "Stalinist sex slave emporium".
4. Don't incarcerate non-violent offenders if they don't steal as much as Bernie Madoff. i.e Conrad Black

I would normally try to explain what is wrong with these ideas, but I think in this case, I would simply recommend that Conrad get some rest, maybe being in jail in Florida was too much for him.

Picture: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/13/black-britain.html

About Supporting the Troops, Canadian Style

I just read a headline in today's newspaper "Taliban Smell Victory". I think they could smell victory quite a while ago, or they would not have been able to recruit so many people to run around blowing themselves up and planting land mines.

The point where I realized that the war in Afghanistan was going nowhere was at a CIGI talk given by the Canadian Brigadier General Denis Thompson, April 15, 2008 in Waterloo. He gave a presentation of all the methods Canadian forces were going to employ to pacify Afghanistan. Afterwards was a question and answer, where one person asked "Since the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan, what makes you think Canada can win?"

The Brigadier General answered "Because we were invited there." I knew right away he had made a slip up, because the Russians had been invited too. However, the Q&A was not a debating forum, you simply asked your question and the speaker replied and then on to the next questioner.

http://www.cigionline.org/events/archive/35?page=4

I'm sure if any Taliban were sitting in the room at CIGI with us, they could have smelled victory right there, too.

I do not particularly like being accused of "Not supporting the troops" when I say we are not going to win this one. In order to win, you need to know what you're up against. We lost it a long ago when we allowed the Christian Fundamentalists to make this into a Holy War against Islam. We lost it when we admitted that we could not stop the torturing of detainees. We lost it when we started thinking that we were going to advance the cause of women's liberation in Afghanistan. We lost it when the U.S. decided to pull out and go fight Saddam for the oil, instead of hunting Bin Laden. The fighting itself is now just window dressing. You can't win a war if you can't think, and we cannot think while we have our heads full of ridiculous propaganda.

But when it comes to supporting the troops, I am right there. Recently, a friend of mine died, and I went to a reception after the funeral. The reception was held at the local Royal Canadian Legion. I had no sooner walked in than somebody hissed at me that I was dishonouring the dead and I needed to remove my hat. Apparently the dead he was referring to were the war dead. Later I found out that every branch of the Legion has the same inflexible rule. Hats off to honour the dead. No headgear of any kind. I took my hat off. I want to support the troops after all.

But last week, there was a Halloween party at the Royal Canadian Legion in Campbellford, and somebody dishonoured the dead by wearing a hat. Did somebody tell him to remove it? NO. He was given a prize for his costume. Was there any talk of dishonouring the dead? Apparently not. It sounds like a double standard to me. I cannot wear a baseball cap that says "Canada" on it, but this guy can wear a Ku Klux Klan hood, and carry a noose draped around the neck of a pretend black guy, and wins a prize.

Not one article or comment I have seen about this has anything to say about the "no hats rule". I don't want to get into a ridiculous argument of whether or not this was bad taste. But apparently I'm the only one who remembered that wearing any hat at the Legion hall dishonours the dead, let alone a KKK hood. Next time, you sanctimonious hat haters, how about reminding the racists to remove their hoods, too.

I just want to follow up with the comment that if people at the Legion, presumably with some military sensibilities, cannot figure out whether this KKK guy should be kicked out immediately, then we really have no chance winning a war in Afghanistan, because winning requires some cultural smarts as well as air strikes. If we are going to be idiots, we should stay home and be idiots.

Here are the links to the rule, that requires anyone entering a Canadian Legion (an Armed Forces veterans’ association) premises to remove their hat.

http://www.aroundtaber.com/Default.aspx?alias=www.aroundtaber.com/tleg
www.openschool.bc.ca/features/samples/law12_sample.pdf

And about Sikh Turbans in the Legion???
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/moan-zone/93334-hat-etiquette.html
http://www.williamgairdner.com/poppies-trump-turbans/

Considering all the controversy about wearing headgear of any kind, how come the KKK guy gets a free pass and a prize to dishonour our war dead?

Picture: Bikers supporting troops, from this website. http://westerncanada-un-nato-veterans.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Newt Gingrich's Comments on Obama Make More Sense Turned Around

Recently there was a blatantly racist comment on Obama by Newt Gingrich. Check this website "obamareleaseyourrecords.com" Gingrich described Obama's behaviour as Kenyan. Racist theory says that having one drop of black blood in you will make you an inferior being, and hamper your ability to think rationally. Racists believe only pure white blood will make you a rational intelligent human.

OK that's all I want to say about why his remarks are racist. Now to get down to my purpose here, which is to show how it makes more sense to turn around this propaganda against the people Gingrich supports.

Here is his quote:

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

The statement makes no sense, because Obama was raised by white grandparents, and was not taught about anti-colonial ideas by his father. Here is the reverse, where the assumption is that Obama is rational, and it is the Republicans who are batsh*t crazy:

“What if [The Republicans] are so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand southern Slave-owning Racists behavior, can you begin to piece together [their actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for their behavior.”

Second quote:

“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”

And reversed:

“I think [the Republicans] worked very hard at being a party that is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true, In the Nixon tradition, they were being the party they needed to be in order to achieve the position they needed to achieve . . . they were authentically dishonest.”

Notice first how easy it is to turn it around, and how it even ends up making more sense that way.

Picture: From the same website. "Obamareleaseyourrecords" By the way, it's not really about where he was born, and everybody should know it. The Republicans are just not allowed to say it's because he is partly black, because racism is unpopular with undecided voters.

Queers Against Israeli Apartheid Back in the Pride parade

Recently, I was sent a copy of an email by an activist friend of mine, which was critical of the group "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid". I had no interest in it initially, but on second thought I decided to look into this unusual development.

This group was going to be banned from participating in the upcoming Toronto Gay Pride parade, which has become a major event. But after some protests, the ban was overturned.

My question is why are the gays, lesbians and transsexuals supporting Palestinians, while Palestinians themselves apparently discriminate against homosexuality? At the same time, my understanding is that Israelis were very tolerant.

After I read a bit on this web page, explaining the origin of this group

http://queersagainstapartheid.org/who/

more questions arise and some answers.

The Israeli treatment of Palestinians is probably worse in many ways than the Palestinian discrimination against homosexuals. Not being a homosexual or a Palestinian myself, I am not an expert on these issues, and I may not fully understand the discrimination each one faces. And furthermore, maybe I'm using the incorrect terms such as "queer" instead of LGBT. In which case I apologize, but I am not anti-gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual/queer. I am simply for universal human rights and freedom.

Homosexuals, even in Islamic countries, do not have their rights taken away unless they are "discovered", and even then, their entire families are not punished by having their houses bulldozed. Homosexuals are not marked from birth to be denied housing and free access to jobs. Homosexual leaders are not regularly targeted by missile attacks in densely populated areas.

On the other hand, I am told that homosexuality is something that has been around a long time, and apparently homosexuals exist all over the world, and throughout history, in many antagonistic cultures.

I find it interesting that a homosexual group such as this would take the trouble to speak out in support of other people (like the Palestinians) who have been denied their rights, even though most Palestinians may not be queer themselves, and may discriminate against homosexuals.

Meanwhile Israel has apparently been the only country in the middle East to openly tolerate homosexuals, while gays are persecuted in the Islamic Arab countries.

Here is Wikipedia on Israel, Palestine and homosexuals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

Meanwhile, this right wing web page calls gay marriage in Israel "Worse then the holocaust" and "far worse to allow the homosexualization of the Holy Land than to give back land to the Arabs" I guess Rabbi Levin thinks it is better to give the Holy Land back to the Arabs than to allow homosexuality.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06112107.html

Also, homosexuals can still be (illegally) murdered in Israel, presumably by Orthodox Jews:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1914391,00.html

Then, in a weird turnaround, Israeli settlers plan "Jewish Pride" parades through Arab neighbourhoods in retaliation for "Gay Pride" parades in Israel.

http://www.alternet.org/world/140934/right-wing_israeli_extremists_using_gay_rights_to_justify_incursions_into_arab_villages/

And a long article about the politicization of homosexuality, and how it is affected by the occupation of Palestine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/02/israel.gayrights

And furthermore, a documentary on the Iranian practice of forcing sex change operations on homosexuals.

http://current.com/news-and-politics/76312142_transsexuality-in-iran.htm

It's hard for me to draw any conclusions, but still, I find it interesting that Gays, who have plenty of problems of their own, are not so self absorbed that they can't also express support for fellow human beings who are suffering from discrimination for a different reason.


Picture: Israeli gay pride parade

Lessons Learned from the Nazis

If you Google "lessons learned from the Nazis" you will see only 5 hits, and one of those is this blog. In all the billions of web pages out there on every topic possible, maybe this indicates that we have not learned a lot. (BTW "Lessons learned from Vietnam: 20,700 hits, "Lessons learned from the depression": 109,000. If you check this and I am wrong, please leave a comment, but remember that Google does change slightly with time)

What did we learn from the Nazis? Let's do it like a Letterman top ten list, start with the least important. I have actually 11.

11 - We need an international institution where the nations of the world can come together and discuss their differences, and solutions to war. That's why the UN was set up, and almost every country in the world participates.

10- Dictatorships tend to declare war with a lot less justification than true liberal democracies. But even having a democracy is no guarantee against being a warlike country. In fact some democracies are actually fake, where people are killed if they vote for the opposition. Or ballots are not fairly counted.

9- Every country in the world claims to be acting only in self defense, including the Nazis. Hitler frequently declared he was a man of peace. So words of peace alone are not a reliable indicator of peaceful intentions.

8- Arms buildups are not wrong all by themselves, but the size and intensity may be an indication of future trouble.

7- Nobody is allowed to use the legal defence "I was only following orders" when they are torturing and killing civilians.

6- Torturing people is wrong, that's why we have the Geneva convention.

5- Group punishments, and reprisals against innocent civilians for sabotage and terrorism are wrong.

4- Invading a foreign sovereign state is wrong. No excuses are permitted such as "They were mistreating their people" or "they attacked us first". The only acceptable way to invade a foreign country today would be with the full support of the rest of the international community, such as the UN, for example.

3- Hate propaganda against weak ethnic/religious groups is wrong, although this must be balanced against freedom of speech. At the very least, the ethnic/religious group should be given equal air time or print pages to respond to hate propaganda. And it is not only about the Jews, hate propaganda could be about any weak, minority group.

2- Gassing civilians to death based on religion/race/politics is wrong. Also wrong to do it based on intelligence. And not just gassing alone, any form of mass killing that you might ever invent in the future would still be wrong.

And finally, number one, numero uno, in all caps because it deserves it: NOBODY IS THE MASTER RACE

These are the lessons we should have learned from the Nazis. But in the sixty or so years since WW2 ended, we did not seem to really understand these lessons. We still can justify our own Nazi-like actions. And we are still reluctant to find out the truth about what is really going on right under our noses.

No matter how bloodthirsty and warlike we are, we always manage to compare ourselves to the Jews under Hitler, and compare our enemies to the Nazis. So it seems we have not really learned that much.

The most ironic example of ignoring the lessons from the Nazis is the Jews themselves, who are now occupying a country they invaded 40 years ago, and are still moving Jewish settlers into this occupied land, putting up barriers and military checkpoints up for Muslims, disallowing Muslims the freedom of housing, travel, or commerce. And of course they still compare themselves to the poor downtrodden Jews under Hitler all in the name of "Israel has the right to defend herself". Or maybe they did learn some lessons, but all the wrong ones.

The Debate on Health Care for Palestinians

Today I came across a news article in the Jerusalem Post about a conference in England about health care for Palestinians under occupation of Israel. It was titled "Oxford U. blames Israel for poor Palestinian healthcare". In this article, several issues came up, that may not have been well known before, and perhaps merit some attention.

First, a little background. Since 1967, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories. The living conditions of Palestinians have been a concern to many people around the world. Even those who are not Palestinian themselves have this feeling, fuelled by news reports from some sources. Is there any truth these allegations that Palestinians receive poor health care? This article in the Jerusalem Post could shed some light on the matter.

Just to clarify one point, and this comment was also made on this website, it was not actually Oxford University that hosted the conference, it was the "Society for Medicine".

So on with the facts. The conference, "Healthcare Under Siege", described itself this way

“In this conference, the speakers will draw on their personal experiences in the occupied Palestinian territories to expose the devastating effect of crippling economic blockades and military attacks on civilian health and access to medical care in Gaza,”

You can already tell there is going to be Israeli-bashing in this conference, from the words "devastating effect" "crippling blockades" "military attacks on civilian". And the Jerusalem Post also points out that George Galloway will be attending, a British politician who is famous for bringing relief supplies to Palestinians, and is very outspoken in his criticism of Israel and the USA.

But because the article is actually in a Jewish newspaper, naturally there are also some nice things to be said about the medical care Palestinians receive from Israel. Although I do not think these statements were made at this conference. I will try to summarize them here anyway.

Lord Leslie Turnberg, former president of the Royal College of Physicians, and has visited two hospitals in Israel, made these comments for the Jerusalem Post

• “At Safra Children’s Hospital [Tel Hashomer] at any one time, there are 30-40 children from Gaza with their families receiving specialist care such as cardiac surgery or bone marrow transplantation"
• "More than half of [Safra Children's Hospital] cardiac surgery patients are from Gaza."
• "At the Schneider Children’s Hospital [in Petah Tikva] we saw many Palestinian children being cared for"
• "A pediatrician from Gaza spent 18 months training in pediatric oncology" [At Schneider]
• "There are many such interactions, but they remain largely unpublished, in part at least because of the fear of Hamas,”

Also quoted in this article, is David Katz, professor of Immunology at University College London, speaking about the "Health Care Under Siege" conference. Although he was not quoted about the actual health care of Palestinians, he was quoted about the credibility of the panel.

“Unfortunately, this panel does not inspire confidence and suggests a propaganda publicity stunt. Surely an eminent epidemiologist like Sir Iain should be circumspect about associating with George Galloway, or indeed with Dr. Horton, whose poor track record of judgment on the MMR [Measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine saga speaks for itself.”

Finally, Stuart Stanton, professor emeritus at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, and chairman of Hadassah UK (Hadassah I think is an Israeli hospital.) Was quoted as saying

• "Israeli hospitals don’t discriminate."
• “Hadassah, and other hospitals in Israel, brings first-class medical attention to the Palestinian population,”
• “Hadassah in Jerusalem saved the lives of Palestinian suicide bombers injured while killing hundreds of Israelis." (I paraphrased this a bit, just left out a little bit of rhetoric, that's all. You can check the original article if you don't believe me.)
• "we save lives of Palestinian babies with severe heart defects."
• "we conduct dozens of collaborative research and clinical projects with Palestinian physicians in a variety of medical and health areas.”

How can we interpret these pro-Israeli comments? Well for one thing, we seem to be missing all the anti Israeli facts, if there were any presented at this conference. Such as what is the relative survival rate for infants, and all the other yardsticks by which we usually measure health care. Not being there myself, I cannot even know if these Palestinians in Israeli hospitals were getting their health care for free or if they were paying for it. I know that in Canada, we make Americans pay.

It may be true that Israeli Hospitals don't discriminate, but it is also true that Palestinians get discriminated against at checkpoints on the way to the hospitals. I would like to know if an Israeli checkpoint would ever let a Palestinian ambulance through in an emergency.

Hadassah hospital is supposed to have saved the life of a suicide bomber who killed hundreds of Israelis.  Obviously, if a suicide bomber is still alive, the Israelis are going to try to save his life for security reasons, so that they can interrogate him, and get valuable information to prevent it from happening again.  This is not really a humanitarian issue, and says nothing about the general health care of Palestinians.  It's more of a reminder that any Palestinian may also be a suicide bomber.

I would have to say, that in the balance I found this article quite unconvincing in presenting a case for Palestinians getting "first class medical attention", although I can well imagine that if a Palestinian could get into a Jewish hospital, they would be taken care of as human beings, and not made to suffer. Just like me in an American hospital.

Picture: Palestinian Ambulance being checked out by Israeli soldiers. Problem? There may be a bomb on board, which sadly is a possibility with all Palestinian ambulances. One of the many actual problems of health care for Palestinians.

Left NOT Angry with Obama's Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Last weekend at our family get-together, someone mentioned that Barack Obama was "A very controversial president". This is the equivalent of "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" entry about the subject of planet Earth. All it said was "Mostly harmless".

Sometimes we are mislead by simplifications. Yes, Obama is a controversial president, but it is not because of his policies or anything he has done. The controversy comes because he is "black", and to millions of racist Americans, he is the AntiChrist. So the real controversy is not that Obama is radical, but that millions of Americans are racists and are looking for any excuse to stop him.

Obama's latest initiative proves that he has learned a lot from trying to debate health care with southern conservatives. The health care debate dragged on for over a year, and was nearly sunk by trying to discuss "Death Panels" and socialism. Now Obama realizes that trying to discuss anything with conservatives is like trying to discuss which end of the bus that African-Americans should sit in. i.e. no debate is possible, as too many of these people are nutters like Glenn Beck.

So this morning I heard that Obama had launched an anti-nuclear proliferation initiative. The way it was presented on TV was that "Obama has angered the right wing militarists and the left wing pacifists with this program". Wait a minute, that is pure propaganda. It seems like the news writer was trying to make it sound like left winger nut jobs will not be happy with anything less than total, unconditional, dismantling of all American nuclear weapons, without waiting for anyone else. This is absolutely not true. As a left wing nut job, I am very happy with Obama's initiative. It is the smart thing to do. It was the general approach to non-proliferation that has been around for at least fifty years. Basically, a pledge to not attack non-nuclear nations with atomic weapons.

So why is the TV station harping on about lefties being upset with it? Well actually, I guess the Toronto Star reported there was one guy who said that he didn't like the fact that Obama increased the budget for maintaining their existing nuclear arsenal. That is an entirely separate issue. The Los Alamos Study Group seems to be focused on keeping the budget for nuclear weapons low. They do not seem to be experts in foreign policy nor do they seem to be very knowledgeable about how to diplomatically persuade other countries to go the non-nuclear route.

So as far as I'm concerned, there are NO legitimate "lefties" who are angry at Obama about this. I say thumbs up to Barack Obama, and yet another reason why the Nobel committee was prescient in awarding the Peace prize to Obama. Too bad he couldn't win two in a row.

Picture: The Enola Gay, restored in 2003, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb in anger.

Ann Coulter Fails to Prove Canada Suppresses Free Speech

Several Canadians have expressed concern about the stifling of Ann Coulter by the University of Ottawa.

"The costs of free speech may be high, but the costs of doing without it are even higher to our democracy."

From the Toronto Star
Nathalie Des Rosiers
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

---------------------------------

"Was it her potential message that Canada found unpalatable? If so, what are the RWB[*] approved messages that might lead other nations to a high press-freedom rating like Canada's?"

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs North Vancouver
Vancouver Sun *Found it strange that Reporters Without Borders rated press freedom higher in Canada than in the USA

And I'm sure there was a lot of similar hand wringing from coast to coast. Relax, people, let me explain. First let's take a measure of the intellectual level of what is being said here. I'm going to go with just one example. Ann Coulter says Arab students should be barred from flying on any airplanes due to the danger they pose. An Arab student asks what alternative they have. Ann Coulter says "Take a camel".

I could go on for hundreds of examples if I cared to take the time, but this would not be the first time that someone is judged by one isolated statement. And, actually, this statement is fairly representative of the type of statements that made Ann Coulter famous and even loved by the racists in the USA and Canada.

Only a Nazi would say that Hitler's call for the gassing of the Jews was a "contentious view". To Jews it goes far beyond contentious, all the way to threatening extermination. Calling a black man a "Nigger" is not a contentious statement, in my opinion, it is a racial slur. Ann Coulter's camel statement is not really a "contentious view" either. It is an ignorant and racist insult designed to threaten and provoke rage. It belongs on Fox News, or on an American Hate Radio program. If the University of Ottawa had not invited Ann Coulter to speak, their students would have been none the dumber for it. On the other hand, by inviting her and finding out how they got played for suckers by the racists, I hope those U of O people learned a valuable lesson. Don't play with fire unless you have asbestos underwear.

We do not need the presence of Ann Coulter in Canada to prove that we have free speech. So by logical extension:
If it does not deny free speech to NOT invite her, it is not suppressing free speech when the affair is cancelled.

Now to deal with the question of who has the greater freedom of the press: Canada or the USA? I will explain this with a simple parable, without mentioning any names. Please do not try to fill in the names for me, because this is a logic exercise only to prove a point. Just keep an open mind and follow the logic.

There once was a country filled with hate, run by one party, the party of hate. All peace loving, tolerant reporters were fired, only the hateful reporters kept their jobs, and they are monitored constantly to make sure they continue to spew hate against the oppressed minorities. Nearby, there was another country of peaceful, tolerant people, who never fired a reporter for their views, even if that reporter sometimes said hateful things. That's because that country was "tolerant" and valued freedom of the press.

One day, at a university in the peaceful country, it was decided to invite a reporter from the hate filled country to give a speech, the better to understand their hate-filled neighbours. A protest was staged, and the speech was cancelled.

So, logically, does that mean the tolerant peaceful country has no more freedom of the press than the country of hate?

The answer is no. Because freedom of the press involves much more than people sitting quietly and listening to hate speeches. And freedom of the press should never be mutually exclusive to freedom of public protest.

I am not trying to make a point about either Iran or Canada. Simply that "Freedom of the press" is not necessarily at stake with one protested speech by a guest reporter. Freedom of the press is a measure of how many reporters fear for their jobs in a given country, based on their views. Or how much pressure is put on reporters to stick with a "party line" in that country, on the average. It is also a measure of whether or not one party line had predominance over the other.

I think the Reporters without Borders probably believed that in Canada, there was less of a tendency to force reporters to conform to one side or another of a political discussion. And there was less tendency for reporters to be fired for disagreeing with their bosses. I'm not sure they would even factor in the Ann Coulter controversy in this measure, as she is not a Canadian reporter and does not normally report on Canadian affairs. Recently there have been several right wing pundits fired for not being right wing enough in the USA. Just last week it was David Frum. I remember during the last political campaign it was right winger Christopher Buckley, son of William F Buckley who came under fire.

And naturally, when you suggest taking away the rights of certain groups of citizens, you may expect them to protest, and not sit quietly and listen to you. The freedom to protest without fear for your life is a part of free speech, and that seems to be doing well in Ottawa.

Ann Coulter and Ottawa

I feel saddened to hear that Ann Coulter was invited to the University of Ottawa and paid $10,000 to speak. It would be OK in a certain context, let's say that she was invited to a closed laboratory and asked to speak in front of experts on mental illness, so that they could do some research on how to stop the spread of Ann Coulter's disease. But not to invite her to speak in front of a crowd of undergraduates including Arabs. That is nothing more than than a setup for the type of freak show that is Ann's bread and butter.

Making things worse, the Provost of the University sent her a letter ahead of time warning her of Canada's hate laws. A better way to handle this would have been to let Ann deal with the laws herself. Or just not invite anyone who needed to be warned. Just imagine the U of O inviting Hitler to speak and sending him a message beforehand saying "Be careful of Canada's hate laws, you could get locked up". The reason you invite Hitler is because of his hate speech, and only because of his hate speech. Without the hate, Hitler is just another Austrian kid that nobody cares about.

The most important thing to understand is that Ann Coulter is not suitable for a University setting. She is not logical, she does not make sense. Instead of paying her money to insult people's religion and race, just get a panel of experts to debate her impact on American society. That would be educational.

I wonder how her next engagement at the University of Alberta will go down. Alberta probably has more Ann Coulter sympathizers than any other place in Canada, I'm guessing.

Picture: T-shirt commemorating Ann's response to Muslim student asking how she would be able to travel with Ann's call to ban Muslims from all airplanes.

Coincidentally, there is a CBC show on TV tonight "Love Hate and Propaganda" about WW2.