Weapons of Mass Enlightenment

Green Party of Canada finally gets it

It takes an American to get eleceted as leader of the Canadian Green Party and tell it to stop beating the environmental war drum.

Elizabeth May had some choice words for an invigorated political party...more

It will take some time for the party to get taken seriously.  This is because by calling itself the Green Party, it automatically sheds itself of many supporters by sounding like an advocacy group for a single cause.  We don't have an Economics Party, or the Health Party.

Although these are all important issues for Canadians, perceptions of committment to mainly one issue looks like the party is ignoring all the other important election issues.  It marginalizes the party, putting it on the fringe, makes it a party that only those "environmental types" vote for.

Next up is a name change.

Japanese perspective on the Israeli - Hezbollah war

"The role of Israel is not to prove how powerful it can be, but to prove that it is a blessing to all. Only by doing so, can history praise the wisdom of having approved Israel and rebuke anyone who argues differently. Yet, again and again, Israel has been defensive and forceful when threatened..." more

Agnes Chan, writing for the Japanese publication Asahi Weekly, puts forth a perspective different than any in Western media.  Even objective writers never seem to get at the main issues of this Israeli - Hezbollah conflict.  But even with some bones thrown to Israel, Chan discusses the issue in a non confrontational, Japanese way.  And the main issue is --- what validity does Israel have to be where it is?  Chan even seems to think the historic suffering of the Israeli people is enough justification.  But is it? 

Can the suffering of party A, by no fault of party B, justify taking something that belongs to B and giving it to A?  This question was at the center of the principles which went into creating the legal system of the United States, and its understanding is key to understanding the phrase "due process of law" that appears frequently in the American Constitution.

The clear answer American legal principles give to that question is NO.  If Israel wants to be accepted to the point that other countries will protect its sovereignty like they do their own, it needs to show it belongs.  And what do you do when your party has received something unjustly from another party?  You need to tread lightly and compensate to the point that everyone feels justice has finally been done.

In Israel's case it means drawing some permanent boundaries for its state EXCLUDING any territory the international community deems taken illegally, and maybe then some.  It means supporting a Palestinian state, and generally make it seem like it shares an interest in the happiness of its Arab neighbours.

Leaving Japan and the war

I'm going on a European tour starting tomorrow, so there may be a gap in posts for a while until I find an internet cafe over there.

A few interesting things to talk about before I go:

Recently Israel has made some shocking statements along these lines..

1) Israel will not allow a UN force to deploy at the Lebanese border.  They claim a better trained, more reliable force is needed.

2) Israel expressed frustration, even anger at the current force there, saying it has not shared information, is doing nothing to stop rocket attacks against Israel, and UN posts are continuously used as cover for Hezbollah militants.  (maybe not so shocking, except it came days after Israel bombed a UN post)

3) Israel refused UN involvement in the investigation into the UN post bombing wich killed four peacekeepers.

4) Most shocking of all, Israel said that by the lack of a unified call for a cease fire from a meeting of concerned nations in Rome, the world is giving Israel a green light to deal with Hezbollah.

With regards to the last point, exactly the opposite is true.  The world minus America was unanimous in its call for an end to the fighting.

The United Nations loses influence in the Middle East

It's clear the UN no longer holds sway over events in the middle east.  In fact, other than European Matters, the UN's demands to world leaders regarding human suffering and conflict, or shady activities such as support of terrorism, arms smuggling and the like, go routinely ignored. 

The UN resolution for the disarming of Hezbollah - ignored.

The UN resolution calling for Syria to pull out of Lebanon, ignored until threatened by the US.

The many UN resolutions against Israel - almost always ignored.

This latest exchange between Kofi Annan and Israel has really left the UN looking embarrassed.  It is the first time I have seen a world leader (since Bush pre Iraq) openly rebuff the UN in such a contemptuous way, and this after a deadly attack on the ground.

The United Nations does an incredible service to the world.  Apart from sponsoring and attempting to solve various global problems, it keeps the world power's ambitions in check, pressuring any country whose individual stake in world affairs becomes the driving force for its actions.   This way we have been able to avoid major wars unless everyone can agree one is warranted...that is until the Bush era.

Since Bush snubbed the UN during the build up to Iraq, it has given Israel courage to do the same, to the detriment of the rest of the world.

Dershowitz calls Hezbollah racist

Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and famous American defense lawyer, says Hezbollah is trying to exterminate Jews from Arab lands.   He doesn't need to do much convincing there but he makes a good argument..  read it here at the Christian Science Monitor.

Dershowitz argues that selective apologies made by Hizbollah for the accidental killing of Muslims when Jews were intended targets proves they are intent on exterminating all Jews.  While this may be true, those apologies do not by themselves prove anything - not while there is an adequate reason for Hezbollah to take up arms.  And this reason may be the continual occupation of a small area called Sheeba Farms that the UN actually says belongs to Syria, but who listens to them anyway.

As long as there are valid grievances over land by Palestinians or other Muslim groups, any violence against Jews can be framed in that context, and Mr. Dershowitz is wrong to call selective targeting of Jews an extermination attempt - although it is very likely fundamentalist groups like Hezbollah want just that.

For the sake of not sounding fundamentalist myself, I believe Israel, although created with many injustices to Arabs, has a permanent place in the Middle East.  Any threats to its existence are inappropriate and need to be dealt with by Israel.  I fully support that notion.  I just have a problem with the approach.  The deal needs to be about land, the root of the problem.  I don't fully support the disarming of Hezbollah or other groups as long as that deal is not on the horizon.  If you believe Israel has a right to defend itself, then you must believe Palestinians and Lebanese have some rights in claiming land which once belonged to them.

The Israel/Palestinian/Lebanese problem can be blamed on all the parties involved.

First, Britain and the colonial powers gave little thought to inhabitants needs when they partitioned that area of the world, and for that they are to blame.

Second, the Zionists who helped establish Israel were intent on depriving the current inhabitants of that area of political rights.  Israel was to be a country controlled entirely by Jews. Understandable, but Israel never compensated those inhabitants for their losses of land and rights. For this, they are to blame.

Third but not least, Muslim leaders have rejected deal after deal that would have given them some compensation for Israel.  Since WWI they have gone for the all or nothing option, and now they have nothing.  Shame on them, and for that they are to blame.

Bush not a history buff

"I want the world to address the root causes of the problem, and the root cause of the problem is Hezbollah." ---- The other day at the G8 meeting in St. Petersburg President and again yesterday, Bush made a statement calling for everyone to remember how the Middle East violence all started.

Well if we are going to talk about root causes, you might have to go further than that... at least to the time when Britain decided to put Israel where it is today, which was early 20th century.  Israelis might go further to Biblical times and point out they were kicked out of that area back then.

What a stupid remark Bush made, so characteristically short sighted and ignorant and unbefitting a president.  Extending the time frame of that area's conflict to recent memory means you disregard the injustice the very creation of Israel brought to the people living on that land then.  LAND - you forget that is what this battle is about, not about bombs, soldiers, ideologies.  LAND.  Ask anyone living outside Israel's borders or familiar with the feelings of regular Palestinians, or Lebanese.  From what I hear, they are overwhelmingly supportive of resistance against what they perceive is Israeli occupation and a systematic oppression and subjugation of the surrounding Muslim population.  Why cut people off from their loved ones, why destroy homes and civilian infrastructure unless you are punishing an entire nation of people?

Yet Israel likes to keep the focus on rocket attacks, Iranian, Hamas, Hezbollah rhetoric, weapons smuggling... all things that make us forget this struggle is about land, and it started long, long ago.  It all comes down to justice, but how can we talk about that?  Which countries have their roots in justice, and which in colonization, genocide, and religious INjustice? Certainly America has no moral high ground to speak from, neither do most European countries.

But hey, that was a long time ago, it was no big deal to smoke those Indians out of their tee-pees.  It was even cool to kidnap black people from Africa and make them pick cotton in Virginia a little later on.  We don't think much about that now, we certainly don't hold it against America.

We gotta give a hand to Israel though, they didn't go for the genocide option..But, taking land from person A and giving it to person B goes against any sense of right and wrong.  That is kind of what happened with the creation of Israel, and by the West's support of Israel we are condoning that injustice for as long as it goes unrectified.  It's a big deal with Israel because all this happened recently in comparison to European conquests.  Our idea of acceptable international conduct has come a long way since colonial times and the post WWII era.  These displaced Palestinians are fighting for their modern rights.  They refuse to back down.  They form resistance movements.  They attack Israel.  Is this all terrorism?  I can't think of it that way.  I am inclined to give Hamas and Hezbollah some credibility as resistance forces who have a right to fight injustice just like any free nation has a right to defend itself.

Israel itself can claim credibility for its existence.  Jews came together like no other people to create a well functioning country that is recognized as such by most of the world.  Israel must remain where it is, and Muslims must recognize to some extent that power rules and Israel is powerful.  They will never reclaim all their land.  The ideas of hardliners in Israel and those in Hamas, Hezbollah and elsewhere are unworkable.  (Although the world is slowly coming in line with Israel and the US I think).  But still, the powers at be will not accept a desecration of Palestinians and their supporters just like they will not support the destruction of Israel.

I think when moderates from both sides gain power and clout simultaneously again (like we had with Izaak Rabin and Fatah), a serious agreement can be brokered that would compensate the Palestinians for their injustices at the hands of Israel and their supporters, and on the other hand give Israel the recognition and security it deserves.

Oops, I ran away with this post again.  Too many topics to talk about.

There is one answer I am searching for.  How do people with the same mindset as myself and similar opinions on all subjects (like Ezra Klein and many other bloggers), how can they justify Israel's actions to such great lengths?  I don't understand it...

Good discussion about this topic with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now.. listen to it here

conditioned victim

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Black Americans should end "victim-like thinking" and seize opportunities to help close gaps between the nation's rich and poor, NAACP president Bruce S. Gordon said Monday.

He urged members to keeping pushing for reauthorization of expiring portions of the Voting Rights Act, which is scheduled for a vote this week in the Senate, and to improve black voter turnout...more

The annual National Association for the Advancement of Colored People meeting has in recent years made the news for the wrong reasons.  Namely it was the absence of President Bush, the first sitting president in a long, long time to decline to speak at the event.  There were calls for his presence again this year, but its unclear if he will show up. 

What's interesting is I have been hearing black community leaders speak about turning the focus on themselves to fix some problems they face.  I hear sone of them (in the US and Canada) are an income gap and violence (especially in Toronto).  In Toronto there used to be a lot of friction between the black community and the police force while working together to tackle violence in those communities.  Some in the police force brought up the "victim like" mentality but recieved criticism for it.

I think it is the case with all visible minorities that when some injustice occurrs to them, the first inclination is to wonder if it was raically motivated.  In an environment when it often is, this is only natural to think.  But it becomes easy to place blame externally until you forget that you are really in control of the situation and you can change it yourself.  Or, the prejudice you feel isn't really prejudice but you interpret it that way incorrectly.

It is as if the person in the minority who suffers discrimination begins to discriminate himself to deal with it.  I have been on both ends of this situation, strangely, and I find both behaviour innapropriate.  Its unfortunate to come up to someone without any hostile feelings and recieve only a defensive reaction because of an unwarranted expectaion that your out to offend that person.

Best story since the million dollar webpage

Man trades red paperclip for house

One year ago, the 26-year-old blogger from Montreal set out to barter one red paper clip for something and that thing for something else, over and over again until he had a house.

On Wednesday the quest is ending as envisioned: MacDonald is due to become the proud owner of a three-bedroom, 1,100-square-foot home provided by the town of Kipling, Saskatchewan. MacDonald and his girlfriend, Dominique Dupuis, expect to move there in early September....more

                           *                           *                            *

This story is actually a brilliant new business model.  When it comes to investing money everyone thinks "buy low and sell high".  But things sell in a certain price range and usually you can't make much on just one sale.  Kyle's idea of "look around for something quirky, trade, trade, trade, sell high" is a better formula.  initial investment is low, and things add up pretty quickly from there.

Unrelated to this story, I have a beer coaster with a picture of a wombat that I am offering up for trade.  I don't know if a wombat is a rodent or marsupial, but if you are interested, you probably know already.  Come on all you wombat fans, I know from the 1.5 people who visit my page daily that this coaster wont be available for long...

World Cup update

Seems like poor Materazzi hasn't been such a good boy after all.  This video portrays him as a bit of a goon in league play.  Apparently he gave Zidane a purple nipple to provoke the head butt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpG4AHlZrL4&search=materazzi

World Cup final: Italy 5 - France 3 (PK)

I've been reading all these reviews of the game saying how sloppy and vicious it was.  That's not true.  Are these sports writers on drugs?  Didn't they see the Portugal - Holland game?  That was sloppy.  The World Cup final was a fine game thanks to Zidane's early penalty kick goal.  Unbelievably that woke the Italians up and they started playing an attacking game to get even.  Players were closing down space in the last third of the pitch!

The players were on edge and there were some unnecessary fouls but the ref called it well.  The only dangerous foul came via a late tackle from behind by Italy, for which a red would of been deserving.  The ref took it easy on the cards though, compared to the incomprehensible carding spree of the first two rounds.

I guess people will most remember Zidane's wild head ramming into the chest of Italy's goal scorer Marco Materazzi.  It all looked innocent as the two exchanged words but all of a sudden Zidane turned around and charged.  Zidane is known for spazzing out and I think I know what Materazzi said to him.  It must of been one of two things:

1) "That hair line has moved back since last time I saw you."

or

2) "Torro! Torro!"

On gay marriage

I asked my students in debate class what they thought of a gay couple raising children.  Their responses were overwhelmingly along the lines of:  "I disagree because the children will be bullied in school." or "Because it is not natural, and the child will feel sad, or have other social or psychological problems."  One boy made an interesting point by asking if anyone will be comfortable with their child sleeping over at a friend's house if that friend's parents were a gay couple.  In a country like Japan with strict social norms, where single mothers are ostracized and see many life opportunities slip away, I expected such opinions.

Most students were quite warm to the idea of gay marriage though, opposing gay parenting on practical grounds like the good of the child rather than on issues of principle.  In North America, where opinions on such matters combine with religious fervor, the big debate is still on the issue of gay marriage.

For some time now I've thought there is a solution within reach.  The debate isn't really about the right of gay marriage.  If you believe a gay couple can love each other, why would society deny them a union?  If you agree a gay couple can love each other in the same way a heterosexual couple can, who am I to say they will not be faithful to their partner the way traditional couples can be.  In this sense gay couples can form partnerships like the ones to which we afford all the legal rights such as tax breaks, insurance coverage, and so on.  I suspect there are not so many people who are openly against gay rights.  It is easy to label them as unfair and discriminatory.

So what is the problem?  It's the term marriage, and all the religious meaning attached to it.  I suspect the religious community looks at the sacrament of marriage as an important thing, with a long history.  Monogamous marriage is at the core of Christian family values.  It is the starting point of a family after all.  It's understandable that Christians wouldn't want this word to be used for gay unions.  That is not just a twisting of the definition of marriage, like a friend suggested. Gay unions are exactly opposite to the values the word 'marriage' conveys. 

When we use an institution's own tenet to represent an opposing idea than that which it was traditionally used for, it is not just offensive.  It is sacrilegious.  It is a direct attack on what that institution stands for, especially if that institution is a paranoid, religious one like the Catholic Church.  If you don't understand how Christians, and especially Catholics feel about 'gay marriage', then you don't understand how Muslims felt about Mohammed's picture in the papers.  I am not equating those at all, just the feeling of having something you deeply believe in insulted.

Secondly, we cannot have gay marriage for the simple reason of semantics.  Its an oxymoron.  Sure, we have oxymorons, but those make sense in some relative way.  You can't have gay marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman.  And the term is too loaded to just expand its meaning.  We wouldn't want to anyway.  English wouldn't work if we just spoke in "umbrella" terms like compromise, institution, good, bad.. we need to be able to single out specific ideas in our language.  I can't expect people to understand I am talking about an apple if I call it an orange, or if I call it a fruit.

Americans may find agreement in creating a new union for gay couples, one which is respected with legal benefits comparable to those of marriage.  This union (and a brand new name can be created - or why not call it a 'union'?) will give gays an equal institution to that of marriage, and at the same time save the term 'marriage' for all that it stands for.  You will have opposition from both gays and hardcore religious folks, but that is what you want - to convince the reasonable majority.  That's the way democracy works isn't it? Legalizing gay marriage and grouping it in with traditional marriage goes too far.  It's insulting to religious folks and to the English language.

Al Sharpton turns on fundamentalist Christians

Al Sharpton seems to be working for CNN as another celebrity writer.  He wrote something pretty good...

"...some high-profile black ministers continue to employ an agenda focused solely on sexually-based themes, like denying a women's right to choose an abortion or a gay couple's right to marry, to rally their congregations and drive a wedge through our people."

"Not only are they speaking narrowly on the issues of gay marriage and abortion, but even as the Supreme Court is today taking on affirmative action, there has been silence from the black church."  more...