Yesterday, leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May walked into the lion's den. She came to a conservative film festival to debate Ezra Levant on the ethics of the Alberta oil sands.
This act of courage is to be commended. Unlike so many on the left Ms. May actually engaged a philosophical opponent in dialogue. And I say, thank you Ms May!
It is good to know that a leader on the left side of the political spectrum wants to have debates and is willing to speak in front of non believers. That really shows well her character.
Now, I wouldn't want any of her policies enacted and I will never vote for her but I do have a new respect for her.
Through the debate there were times when she made me laugh, frustrated the hell out of me but I confess she has given me a few things to think about - information that I didn't have earlier, but want to investigate. Okay, her voice got a little shrill and shrieky when the two of them were really going at it but she is improving in her debate skills.
Note to Ms. May's staff - while practice makes perfect perhaps a few lessons with a vocal coach and a communications specialist will help with that. Really, she needs to control the modulations of her voice - it will help get her points across better.
That's democracy in action. When people from opposing issues can come together (and it was a sell out crowd BTW) debate the issues and try, or at least try to try, to find some common ground on which policies and governance can be built.
Also let's face it - what kind of masochist do you have to be to take on Ezra? I wouldn't debate Ezra on something we both agree with! He has a memory that allows him to recall obscure bits of information, a vocabulary that should be consulted by the good people who publish the Oxford English Dictionary and the tenacity of a pitbull.
By coming to the Free Thinking Festival, Elizabeth May showed she has really big ovaries! And I want to again offer my sincere thank you for her agreeing to come and debate.
BTW people - it is not too late to come on down to the National Library and Archives to watch some fine films and get engaged yourself in debate. Today we are showing Mr. Conservative.
Producer, narrator and granddaughter CC Goldwater takes viewers on a cinematic journey into the life of Barry Goldwater. The film reveals Goldwater as a man either glorified or vilified by the American public, and traces the roots of Goldwater’s conservative philosophy, conveys how he united the conservative movement to lead the Republican Party into a new generation of politics and demonstrates how his consistently Libertarian mindset led him to diverge from the Conservative party orthodoxy in the ‘80s and ‘90s. As journalist George Will has said of Goldwater’s pivotal presidential race against Lyndon B. Johnson, “People say Goldwater lost in 1964. Some of us think Goldwater won. It just took 16 years to count the votes. In 1980, we finally got the results in. And conservatism had won.”
Speakers after the film include John Robson from the Ottawa Citizen, Joseph Ben Ami from the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, Karen Selick of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and our lefty in residence Terry Glavin journalist and author!
We are also showing the film For Neda, about the Iranian woman who during the recent protests for democracy was murdered. This is her story and it's important to hear it and help the people of that oppressed country find the freedom they so desparately deserve!
Our gala film tonight will be The Stoning of Soraya M, another story out of Iran. Academy Award® nominee Shorheh Aghdashloo stars as Zahra, a woman with a burning secret. When a journalist (Jim Caviezel) is stranded in her remote village, Zahra takes a bold chance to reveal what the villagers will stop at nothing to hide. Thus begins the story of Soraya (Mozhan Marnò), a kind woman whose cruel, divorce-seeking husband trumps up false charges of infidelity against her, which carry an unimaginable penalty.
Soraya and Zahra attempt to navigate the villagers' scheming, lies and deceit to prove her innocence. But when all else fails, Zahra must risk everything to use the only weapon she has left - her voice - to share Soraya's shocking story with the world.
From the Wall Street Journal:
"The Stoning of Soraya M." is as blunt as the rocks hurled in the execution of its title. The independent film, set in an Iranian village in the late 1980s, tells the story of a woman falsely accused of adultery, then put to death according to religious laws enacted after the country's Islamic revolution. A grisly climax helped doom the film's chances for traditional distribution in the U.S., but the filmmakers say it was essential to call attention to the horror of stoning, which still occurs in Iran and some other Muslim countries, according to human-rights groups.
"A movie like this needs to be absolutely uncompromising in its approach. The subject demands it," says director Cyrus Nowrasteh, who was born in Colorado to Iranian parents. He has tackled sensitive topics in his previous work, such as the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11," which he wrote and produced.
Please come.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
The Showdown in O-Town
It's today people - the Ezra Levant and Elizabeth May debate at the Free Thinking Film Festival.
Yes, The Showdown in O-Town! Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, will be debating Ezra Levant, author of "Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands," at the National Library and Archives. Seating precedence will be given to Festival Pass Holders.
The debate will follow the movie, Mine Your Own Businsess. This documentary hacks away at the cosy image of environmentalists' as well meaning, harmless activists, and asks the hard questions of foreigners who lead campaigns to "save" remote areas from development. Their answers are often disturbing, with racist overtones, but we, in the west, blindly support such campaigns that want to keep people in poverty.
Now for the first time we ask local people about their lives and what they want for the future. This film demolishes the cosy consensus that environmentalists are well meaning agenda free activists and shows them to be anti-development ideologues who think the poor are happy being poor and don't want the development that we, in the west, take for granted.
Needless to say, this documentary makes us all think about the unintended consequences of blindly supporting environmentalist/anti-development campaigns across the globe. It is a challenge to the cosy consensus that allows westerners to deny progress to those who need it most.
Be there!
Yes, The Showdown in O-Town! Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, will be debating Ezra Levant, author of "Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands," at the National Library and Archives. Seating precedence will be given to Festival Pass Holders.
The debate will follow the movie, Mine Your Own Businsess. This documentary hacks away at the cosy image of environmentalists' as well meaning, harmless activists, and asks the hard questions of foreigners who lead campaigns to "save" remote areas from development. Their answers are often disturbing, with racist overtones, but we, in the west, blindly support such campaigns that want to keep people in poverty.
Now for the first time we ask local people about their lives and what they want for the future. This film demolishes the cosy consensus that environmentalists are well meaning agenda free activists and shows them to be anti-development ideologues who think the poor are happy being poor and don't want the development that we, in the west, take for granted.
Needless to say, this documentary makes us all think about the unintended consequences of blindly supporting environmentalist/anti-development campaigns across the globe. It is a challenge to the cosy consensus that allows westerners to deny progress to those who need it most.
Be there!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Free Thinking Film Fest
It's here.
After a year of planning, The Free Thinking Film Festival is going to launch tonight at 7pm in the National Library and Archives here in our nation's captial.
This is the only - I repeat only - film festival in this country that is strictly focussed on films with conservative values. THE ONLY ONE. It is important to support this event especially in a time when the media and pop culture are dominated by left wing values.
As conservatives you should understand this - it's economics. If you don't want documentaries, tv, news, music etc to be controlled by the left then you must actually support efforts to fight that. In other words - you need to buy tickets. You need to donate. You need to open your wallet when you open your mouth and make a valuable contribution.
Tonight is a fundraiser for the Military Family Resource Centre, an organization dedicated to supporting the families of military personnel. It's a good cause.
Tomorrow's hightlight is sure to be the Ezra Levant and Elizabeth May debate. I am really looking forward to it and if you are coming be sure to be there early to ensure a seat!
But go to the website and check it out. There are lots of movies and debates to see, great merchandise like books, mugs, t-shirts (for both the ladies and the gents) and caps, and of course we are going to have some great autographed books to purchase and some DVDs!
Free Thinking Film Fest!
After a year of planning, The Free Thinking Film Festival is going to launch tonight at 7pm in the National Library and Archives here in our nation's captial.
This is the only - I repeat only - film festival in this country that is strictly focussed on films with conservative values. THE ONLY ONE. It is important to support this event especially in a time when the media and pop culture are dominated by left wing values.
As conservatives you should understand this - it's economics. If you don't want documentaries, tv, news, music etc to be controlled by the left then you must actually support efforts to fight that. In other words - you need to buy tickets. You need to donate. You need to open your wallet when you open your mouth and make a valuable contribution.
Tonight is a fundraiser for the Military Family Resource Centre, an organization dedicated to supporting the families of military personnel. It's a good cause.
Tomorrow's hightlight is sure to be the Ezra Levant and Elizabeth May debate. I am really looking forward to it and if you are coming be sure to be there early to ensure a seat!
But go to the website and check it out. There are lots of movies and debates to see, great merchandise like books, mugs, t-shirts (for both the ladies and the gents) and caps, and of course we are going to have some great autographed books to purchase and some DVDs!
Free Thinking Film Fest!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
In Flanders Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Kalifornistan
Opening Night Gala
"Kalifornistan"
Friday, November 12, 2010
Library and Archives Canada
Main Auditorium
7:00 PM
The opening night gala is also a fundraiser for the Military Family Resource Centre which helps military families in the capital region.
In the shadowy Port of Los Angeles, an insane terrorist stalks a beautiful dancer ... while plotting the nuclear apocalypse he hopes will make him a celebrity. KALIFORNISTAN is a darkly comic satire on terrorism made by Canadian actress and filmmaker Govindini Murty and American filmmaker Jason Apuzzo. KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called 'Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan' as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with a nuclear bomb - while being distracted by a sultry exotic dancer. KALIFORNISTAN fuses film, video, documentary and surveillance footage into a cutting-edge narrative on the violence, narcissism and delusional fantasies that fuel contemporary Islamic terrorism. KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbour into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.
Human Events says of KALIFORNISTAN: “The film clicks as strong, effective satire ... Kalifornistan ... dares to see the average terrorist for what he truly is -- a laughably warped soul with a world view shaped by Islamic radicalism -- and too many extremist blogs ... and once you meet the terrorist at the heart of the film you’ll wonder why more filmmakers haven’t taken this approach before.” LA's Daily Breeze says that "Kalifornistan may be the South Bay's 21st century cinematic equivalent of Gone in 60 Seconds, the 1974 cult classic." Online journal Rational Review says that KALIFORNISTAN "is beautifully shot" and "it's Fellini meets Kubrick."
Govindini Murty is an Ottawa native who co-founded the Liberty Film Festival in Los Angeles with her husband Jason Apuzzo in order to provide a greater diversity of viewpoints in Hollywood. Murty and Apuzzo have been frequently featured in the media, are independent filmmakers, and are also the Co-Editors of Libertas Film Magazine.
Speakers after the film: Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo
"Kalifornistan"
Friday, November 12, 2010
Library and Archives Canada
Main Auditorium
7:00 PM
The opening night gala is also a fundraiser for the Military Family Resource Centre which helps military families in the capital region.
In the shadowy Port of Los Angeles, an insane terrorist stalks a beautiful dancer ... while plotting the nuclear apocalypse he hopes will make him a celebrity. KALIFORNISTAN is a darkly comic satire on terrorism made by Canadian actress and filmmaker Govindini Murty and American filmmaker Jason Apuzzo. KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called 'Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan' as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with a nuclear bomb - while being distracted by a sultry exotic dancer. KALIFORNISTAN fuses film, video, documentary and surveillance footage into a cutting-edge narrative on the violence, narcissism and delusional fantasies that fuel contemporary Islamic terrorism. KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbour into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.
Human Events says of KALIFORNISTAN: “The film clicks as strong, effective satire ... Kalifornistan ... dares to see the average terrorist for what he truly is -- a laughably warped soul with a world view shaped by Islamic radicalism -- and too many extremist blogs ... and once you meet the terrorist at the heart of the film you’ll wonder why more filmmakers haven’t taken this approach before.” LA's Daily Breeze says that "Kalifornistan may be the South Bay's 21st century cinematic equivalent of Gone in 60 Seconds, the 1974 cult classic." Online journal Rational Review says that KALIFORNISTAN "is beautifully shot" and "it's Fellini meets Kubrick."
Govindini Murty is an Ottawa native who co-founded the Liberty Film Festival in Los Angeles with her husband Jason Apuzzo in order to provide a greater diversity of viewpoints in Hollywood. Murty and Apuzzo have been frequently featured in the media, are independent filmmakers, and are also the Co-Editors of Libertas Film Magazine.
Speakers after the film: Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
I am a Zionist
I had the pleasure of accompanying my friend Fred from GayAndRight to the Gala Dinner for the conference being held in Ottawa on anti-semetism.
It was an honour and a pleasure to be there with hundreds of people from around the planet who are working hard to combat anti-semitism. A disease of the heart in the words of keynote speaker, John Mann who gave an inspiring speech that roused the crowd to a standing ovation!
I have never shied away from my support of Israel, but then again I haven't really blogged about it either.
So, today I shout from the rooftops that I am a Zionist and I want to know are you?
But what is Zionism? According to the Jewish Virtual Library:
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.
Well, that is a very simple and concise explanation. But perhaps not enough to make you jump up and say "hell yeah!". Perhaps you think you need more information. And you ask yourself:
Are Jews a Nation or a Religion? Again, the good people at the Jewish Virtual Library have this to say:
Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.
Throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century, most of the European world agreed that Jews constituted a distinct nation. This concept of nation does not require that a nation have either a territory nor a government, but rather, it identifies, as a nation any distinct group of people with a common language and culture. Only in the 19th century did it become common to assume that each nation should have its own distinct government; this is the political philosophy of nationalism. In fact, Jews had a remarkable degree of self-government until the 19th century. So long as Jews lived in their ghettos, they were allowed to collect their own taxes, run their own courts, and otherwise behave as citizens of a landless and distinctly second-class Jewish nation.
Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that binds Jews together as a nation. It is the religion that defines foods as being kosher and non-kosher, and this underlies Jewish cuisine. It is the religion that sets the calendar of Jewish feast and fast days, and it is the religion that has preserved the Hebrew language.
Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.
If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race.
Okay, this is good because it very simply explains what seems a complex question.
So are you moved to call yourself a Zionist? No? What's that - racist? No, just the opposite in fact - some more on that topic from you guessed it - the Jewish Virtual Library:
In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution slandering Zionism by equating it with racism. In his spirited response to the resolution, Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog noted the irony of the timing, the vote coming exactly 37 years after Kristallnacht.
Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland.
History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through a national homeland. Zionism recognizes that Jewishness is defined by shared origin, religion, culture and history.
The realization of the Zionist dream is exemplified by more than four million Jews, from more than 100 countries, including dark-skinned Jews from Ethiopia, Yemen and India, who are Israeli citizens. Approximately 1,000,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs, Druze, Baha'is, Circassians and other ethnic groups also are represented in Israel's population.
Many Christians have traditionally supported the goals and ideals of Zionism. Israel's open and democratic character and its scrupulous protection of the religious and political rights of Christians and Muslims rebut the charge of exclusivity.
The Arab states define citizenship strictly by native parentage. It is almost impossible to become a naturalized citizen in many Arab states, especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several Arab nations have laws that facilitate the naturalization of foreign Arabs, with the specific exception of Palestinians. Jordan, on the other hand, instituted its own "law of return" in 1954, according citizenship to all former residents of Palestine, except for Jews.
The presence of thousands of black Jews in Israel is the best refutation of the calumny against Zionism. In a series of historic airlifts, labeled Moses (1984), Joshua (1985) and Solomon (1991), Israel rescued almost 42,000 members of the ancient Ethiopian Jewish community.
To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."
The 1975 UN resolution was part of the Soviet-Arab Cold War anti-Israel campaign. Almost all the former non-Arab supporters of the resolution have apologized and changed their positions. When the General Assembly voted to repeal the resolution in 1991, only some Arab and Muslim states, as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam were opposed.
And there you have it, an explanation of what Zionism is and isn't.
Why am I a Zionist? There are many reasons to plead the case for Israel - read the book and documentary The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. He is much more eloquent than I could ever hope to be. The website has excellent information. Read the book, watch the movie.
I have no new arguments to add to this. I need Israel to exist. I need to know in that part of the world there is an oasis of sanity. A place where democracy and freedom can reign.
As some of you may know, this past year saw me visit Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Israel. Israel is the only place I would want to call home. It is a sanctuary, an oasis. A beacon for people like me - people who embrace human dignity, rights, individual freedom, equal justice for all and modern with a willingness to learn, grow and be better! Israel shines in spite of being in a very dark part of the world.
I could go on and on. Simply put, I believe that Israel has a right to exist. And I guess that makes me a Zionist.
It was an honour and a pleasure to be there with hundreds of people from around the planet who are working hard to combat anti-semitism. A disease of the heart in the words of keynote speaker, John Mann who gave an inspiring speech that roused the crowd to a standing ovation!
I have never shied away from my support of Israel, but then again I haven't really blogged about it either.
So, today I shout from the rooftops that I am a Zionist and I want to know are you?
But what is Zionism? According to the Jewish Virtual Library:
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.
Well, that is a very simple and concise explanation. But perhaps not enough to make you jump up and say "hell yeah!". Perhaps you think you need more information. And you ask yourself:
Are Jews a Nation or a Religion? Again, the good people at the Jewish Virtual Library have this to say:
Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.
Throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century, most of the European world agreed that Jews constituted a distinct nation. This concept of nation does not require that a nation have either a territory nor a government, but rather, it identifies, as a nation any distinct group of people with a common language and culture. Only in the 19th century did it become common to assume that each nation should have its own distinct government; this is the political philosophy of nationalism. In fact, Jews had a remarkable degree of self-government until the 19th century. So long as Jews lived in their ghettos, they were allowed to collect their own taxes, run their own courts, and otherwise behave as citizens of a landless and distinctly second-class Jewish nation.
Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that binds Jews together as a nation. It is the religion that defines foods as being kosher and non-kosher, and this underlies Jewish cuisine. It is the religion that sets the calendar of Jewish feast and fast days, and it is the religion that has preserved the Hebrew language.
Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.
If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race.
Okay, this is good because it very simply explains what seems a complex question.
So are you moved to call yourself a Zionist? No? What's that - racist? No, just the opposite in fact - some more on that topic from you guessed it - the Jewish Virtual Library:
In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution slandering Zionism by equating it with racism. In his spirited response to the resolution, Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog noted the irony of the timing, the vote coming exactly 37 years after Kristallnacht.
Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland.
History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through a national homeland. Zionism recognizes that Jewishness is defined by shared origin, religion, culture and history.
The realization of the Zionist dream is exemplified by more than four million Jews, from more than 100 countries, including dark-skinned Jews from Ethiopia, Yemen and India, who are Israeli citizens. Approximately 1,000,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs, Druze, Baha'is, Circassians and other ethnic groups also are represented in Israel's population.
Many Christians have traditionally supported the goals and ideals of Zionism. Israel's open and democratic character and its scrupulous protection of the religious and political rights of Christians and Muslims rebut the charge of exclusivity.
The Arab states define citizenship strictly by native parentage. It is almost impossible to become a naturalized citizen in many Arab states, especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several Arab nations have laws that facilitate the naturalization of foreign Arabs, with the specific exception of Palestinians. Jordan, on the other hand, instituted its own "law of return" in 1954, according citizenship to all former residents of Palestine, except for Jews.
The presence of thousands of black Jews in Israel is the best refutation of the calumny against Zionism. In a series of historic airlifts, labeled Moses (1984), Joshua (1985) and Solomon (1991), Israel rescued almost 42,000 members of the ancient Ethiopian Jewish community.
To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."
The 1975 UN resolution was part of the Soviet-Arab Cold War anti-Israel campaign. Almost all the former non-Arab supporters of the resolution have apologized and changed their positions. When the General Assembly voted to repeal the resolution in 1991, only some Arab and Muslim states, as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam were opposed.
And there you have it, an explanation of what Zionism is and isn't.
Why am I a Zionist? There are many reasons to plead the case for Israel - read the book and documentary The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. He is much more eloquent than I could ever hope to be. The website has excellent information. Read the book, watch the movie.
I have no new arguments to add to this. I need Israel to exist. I need to know in that part of the world there is an oasis of sanity. A place where democracy and freedom can reign.
As some of you may know, this past year saw me visit Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Israel. Israel is the only place I would want to call home. It is a sanctuary, an oasis. A beacon for people like me - people who embrace human dignity, rights, individual freedom, equal justice for all and modern with a willingness to learn, grow and be better! Israel shines in spite of being in a very dark part of the world.
I could go on and on. Simply put, I believe that Israel has a right to exist. And I guess that makes me a Zionist.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Harlan Pepper
Look at the future of Canadian music.
These young lads are 17 and 18. I just saw them open up for Lee Harvey Osmond and it was love at first sight! These young men are major talents. Incredible. Simply incredible.
Go to their website and buy their CD and buy some more as gifts! Christmas is coming so stock up.
These young lads are 17 and 18. I just saw them open up for Lee Harvey Osmond and it was love at first sight! These young men are major talents. Incredible. Simply incredible.
Go to their website and buy their CD and buy some more as gifts! Christmas is coming so stock up.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
What type of Conservative are you
Yesterday's slug fest ... I mean debate on the politics of sex got me thinking about the different factions in the Conservative party. So I started doing some research and it appears that others have put a great deal of thought into this.
Here's what I found from Justin Quinn,
There is wide debate within the conservative movement over how differing ideologies can fall under one common category. Certain conservatives may doubt the legitimacy of others, but there are arguments for each view. The following list attempts to clarify the discussion, focusing on conservative politics in the US. Some may feel the list falls short because conservatives can find themselves divided when attempting to describe themselves using these definitions. Admittedly, categories and definitions are subjective, but these are the most widely accepted.
1. Crunchy Conservative
National Review commentator Rod Dreher first coined the term "crunchy conservative" in 2006 to describe his personal ideology, according to NPR.org. Dreher says "crunchy cons" are conservatives “who stand outside the conservative mainstream,” and tend to focus more on family-oriented, culturally conservative concepts such as being good stewards of the natural world and avoiding materialism in everyday life. Dreher describes crunchy cons as those “who embrace a counter-cultural, yet traditional conservative lifestyle." On his blog, Dreher says crunchy cons are as mistrustful of big business as they are big government.
2. Cultural Conservative
Politically, cultural conservatism is often confused with social conservatism. In the US, the term often incorrectly describes members of the religious right because the two share ideologies on social issues. Christian conservatives tend to like being described as cultural conservatives, because it implies that America is a Christian nation. True cultural conservatives worry less about religion in government and more about using politics to prevent fundamental changes to US culture. The goal of cultural conservatives is to preserve and maintain the American way-of-life both at home and abroad.
3. Fiscal Conservative
Libertarians and Constitutionalists are natural fiscal conservatives due to their desire to reduce government spending, pay off the national debt and shrink the size and scope of government. Nevertheless, the Republican Party is most often credited with creating the fiscal conservative ideal, despite the big-spending tendencies of the most recent GOP administrations. Fiscal conservatives seek to deregulate the economy and lower taxes. Fiscal conservative politics has little or nothing to do with social issues, and it is therefore not uncommon for other conservatives to identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.
4. Neoconservative
The neoconservative movement sprouted in the 1960s in response to the counter-culture movement. It was later bolstered by disillusioned liberal intellectuals of the 1970s. Neoconservatives believe in a diplomatic foreign policy, stimulating economic growth by lowering taxes and finding alternative ways to deliver public welfare services. Culturally, neoconservatives tend to identify with traditional conservatives, but stop short of providing guidance on social issues. Irving Kristol, co-founder of Encounter magazine is largely credited with founding the neoconservative movement.
5. Paleoconservative
As the name suggests, paleoconservatives emphasize a connection with the past. Like neoconservatives, paleoconservatives tend to be family-oriented, religious-minded and opposed to the vulgarity permeating modern culture. They are also opposed to mass immigration and believe in the complete withdrawal of US military troops from foreign countries. Paleoconservatives claim author Russell Kirk as their own, as well as political ideologues Edmund Burke and William F. Buckley Jr. Paleoconservatives believe they are the true heirs to the US conservative movement and are critical of other "brands" of conservatism.
6. Social Conservative
Social conservatives adhere strictly to a moral ideology based on family-values and religious traditions. For US social conservatives, Christianity -- often Evangelical Christianity -- guides all political positions on social issues. US social conservatives are mostly right-wing and hold firmly to a pro-life, pro-family and pro-religion agenda. Thus, abortion and gay rights are often lightning rod issues for social conservatives. Social conservatives are the most recognized group of conservatives on this list due to their strong ties to the Republican Party.
So this is obviously written with an American take but I think it is pretty easy to project this on Canadians as well.
But I would like to add another group!
7. Closeted Conservative (or the CloCon) - A CloCon is an average sort of Canadian who really doesn't get very involved in politics - they are not ideologues. They are just folk who want to keep more of their pay cheques, keep criminals off their streets, make sure that kids are fed and the roads are safe. They have solid Conservative values but they are kind of embarrassed to admit they have conservative values because they are afraid that their friends will think that they are religious fanatics or cold heartless SOBs.
I know many CloCons. Acquaintances who come up to me after a dinner party or some other gathering and tell me that they agree with me but could never say what I say because of the backlash they would get with their other friends or coworkers.
Seriously.
I think that is one of the reasons I spend a lot of time criticizing SoCons when it comes to matters of abortion, gay marriage, sex education, contraception and prostitution. SoCons are driven by religious zealotism. A CloCon is not. They tend to be live and let live sorts. Follow the rules of society and mind your manners.
I think there are more CloCons than any other group. In fact I am pretty sure of it. Take a look at membership numbers in each of the EDAs. At election time the CPC candidate always gets more votes than there are official members in the EDA. What does that tell you?
It tells me that many conservatives are only willing to admit their political allegiance behind a sheet of corrugated cardboard on a sheet of paper that is folded and can't be traced back to them.
Classic CloCon behaviour.
So what kind of conservative are you?
Here's what I found from Justin Quinn,
There is wide debate within the conservative movement over how differing ideologies can fall under one common category. Certain conservatives may doubt the legitimacy of others, but there are arguments for each view. The following list attempts to clarify the discussion, focusing on conservative politics in the US. Some may feel the list falls short because conservatives can find themselves divided when attempting to describe themselves using these definitions. Admittedly, categories and definitions are subjective, but these are the most widely accepted.
1. Crunchy Conservative
National Review commentator Rod Dreher first coined the term "crunchy conservative" in 2006 to describe his personal ideology, according to NPR.org. Dreher says "crunchy cons" are conservatives “who stand outside the conservative mainstream,” and tend to focus more on family-oriented, culturally conservative concepts such as being good stewards of the natural world and avoiding materialism in everyday life. Dreher describes crunchy cons as those “who embrace a counter-cultural, yet traditional conservative lifestyle." On his blog, Dreher says crunchy cons are as mistrustful of big business as they are big government.
2. Cultural Conservative
Politically, cultural conservatism is often confused with social conservatism. In the US, the term often incorrectly describes members of the religious right because the two share ideologies on social issues. Christian conservatives tend to like being described as cultural conservatives, because it implies that America is a Christian nation. True cultural conservatives worry less about religion in government and more about using politics to prevent fundamental changes to US culture. The goal of cultural conservatives is to preserve and maintain the American way-of-life both at home and abroad.
3. Fiscal Conservative
Libertarians and Constitutionalists are natural fiscal conservatives due to their desire to reduce government spending, pay off the national debt and shrink the size and scope of government. Nevertheless, the Republican Party is most often credited with creating the fiscal conservative ideal, despite the big-spending tendencies of the most recent GOP administrations. Fiscal conservatives seek to deregulate the economy and lower taxes. Fiscal conservative politics has little or nothing to do with social issues, and it is therefore not uncommon for other conservatives to identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.
4. Neoconservative
The neoconservative movement sprouted in the 1960s in response to the counter-culture movement. It was later bolstered by disillusioned liberal intellectuals of the 1970s. Neoconservatives believe in a diplomatic foreign policy, stimulating economic growth by lowering taxes and finding alternative ways to deliver public welfare services. Culturally, neoconservatives tend to identify with traditional conservatives, but stop short of providing guidance on social issues. Irving Kristol, co-founder of Encounter magazine is largely credited with founding the neoconservative movement.
5. Paleoconservative
As the name suggests, paleoconservatives emphasize a connection with the past. Like neoconservatives, paleoconservatives tend to be family-oriented, religious-minded and opposed to the vulgarity permeating modern culture. They are also opposed to mass immigration and believe in the complete withdrawal of US military troops from foreign countries. Paleoconservatives claim author Russell Kirk as their own, as well as political ideologues Edmund Burke and William F. Buckley Jr. Paleoconservatives believe they are the true heirs to the US conservative movement and are critical of other "brands" of conservatism.
6. Social Conservative
Social conservatives adhere strictly to a moral ideology based on family-values and religious traditions. For US social conservatives, Christianity -- often Evangelical Christianity -- guides all political positions on social issues. US social conservatives are mostly right-wing and hold firmly to a pro-life, pro-family and pro-religion agenda. Thus, abortion and gay rights are often lightning rod issues for social conservatives. Social conservatives are the most recognized group of conservatives on this list due to their strong ties to the Republican Party.
So this is obviously written with an American take but I think it is pretty easy to project this on Canadians as well.
But I would like to add another group!
7. Closeted Conservative (or the CloCon) - A CloCon is an average sort of Canadian who really doesn't get very involved in politics - they are not ideologues. They are just folk who want to keep more of their pay cheques, keep criminals off their streets, make sure that kids are fed and the roads are safe. They have solid Conservative values but they are kind of embarrassed to admit they have conservative values because they are afraid that their friends will think that they are religious fanatics or cold heartless SOBs.
I know many CloCons. Acquaintances who come up to me after a dinner party or some other gathering and tell me that they agree with me but could never say what I say because of the backlash they would get with their other friends or coworkers.
Seriously.
I think that is one of the reasons I spend a lot of time criticizing SoCons when it comes to matters of abortion, gay marriage, sex education, contraception and prostitution. SoCons are driven by religious zealotism. A CloCon is not. They tend to be live and let live sorts. Follow the rules of society and mind your manners.
I think there are more CloCons than any other group. In fact I am pretty sure of it. Take a look at membership numbers in each of the EDAs. At election time the CPC candidate always gets more votes than there are official members in the EDA. What does that tell you?
It tells me that many conservatives are only willing to admit their political allegiance behind a sheet of corrugated cardboard on a sheet of paper that is folded and can't be traced back to them.
Classic CloCon behaviour.
So what kind of conservative are you?
Friday, November 5, 2010
Shine
What are you doing tomorrow night?
If you live in Ottawa you should come down to The Elmdale Tavern (Laurier's favourite drinking hole) and listen to Tom Wilson and his new band Lee Harvey Osmond.
If you can't, then enjoy this gem of Tom's from 1997!
If you live in Ottawa you should come down to The Elmdale Tavern (Laurier's favourite drinking hole) and listen to Tom Wilson and his new band Lee Harvey Osmond.
If you can't, then enjoy this gem of Tom's from 1997!
Some call it honor..
Something very interesting from The Jerusalem Post
Some call it ‘honor’
By LARRY DERFNER
11/05/2010 16:33
One woman is risking all to break the conspiracy of silence surrounding so-called honor killings, and thus, hopefully, bring some honor back to Lod.
Samah Salaime Egbariya, the leading Arab women’s activist in Lod, the country’s most dangerous city for Arab women, is quietly giving advice to a beautiful ninthgrade girl wearing a hijab, or Muslim head scarf, and tight black slacks. It’s dark outside and they’re in a local high-school classroom where Egbariya’s after-school discussion group on “human skills” has just let out. At a glance, the girl looks like she’s trying to bridge two dissonant worlds. She also looks like a girl who could find herself in trouble in a place like Lod.
Egbariya had a girl like that in a youth group she led a couple of years ago in Ramle – 16, pretty, eager for freedom. Her family punished her, kept her home and Egbariya didn’t hear from her. A year or so later, she ran into the girl in town. “She told me her family had married her off to a much older man. It was a payoff to settle a family dispute. About a year after that she was murdered,” says Egbariya, 35, a social worker who now heads the local NGO Arab Women in the Center.
“These teenagers want so badly to be free. They see me as a role model,” she says after the girl leaves the classroom.
She shows me pictures from the march in Lod two weeks ago attended by some 1,000 local Arabs, including Islamic religious leaders, against the recent killings of women that have made the city infamous. The march focused the blame on Lod politicians and police for treating the problem with malign neglect, but it also faulted – in diplomatic terms – the violent, tyrannical strain of male chauvinism in many extended Muslim families, or hamulot.
“Most of the women at the rally were devout Muslims, and they were chanting, ‘Allahu akbar, God is great,’ and denouncing ‘traitors’ and ‘collaborators’ and the police. We, the secular feminists, a few dozen of us, were chanting against the killing of women, against the orphaning of children. It became almost a competition and the religious women didn’t like it, and I said we have to stop competing and come together, so we agreed to chant, ‘By God, stop killing Muslim women,’” she says.
Egbariya organized the pupils in the after-school class to hand out leaflets for the march, and many attended. She explains why the class is so topheavy with boys: “I lost about 10 girls in the last couple of weeks because their fathers said it was too dangerous for them to come home in the dark.”
Among the topics she discusses with the kids is honor killings – the murder of a woman by male blood relations – cousins, uncles, brothers, the father – for “dishonoring” the hamula by acting “immodestly,” thus giving rise to suspicions or false accusations that she is having extramarital sex.
Asked if the kids in class know that honor killing is wrong, she replies, “Of course they know,” noting that teenage girls are the most common victims. “They talk against it in class. But not all of them feel safe enough to talk against it outside.”
IN THE LAST MONTH, two Muslim women (as well as an Arab man) have been murdered in Lod, bringing the total this year to four. In Lod and adjacent Ramle – “many of the hamulot are spread out across both cities,” Egbariya notes – 20 Muslim women have been murdered in the last five years.
Police have generally written them off as honor killings, which incenses the Arab community – both because it’s not true and because it stigmatizes the family of the victim, especially the family’s unmarried girls.
Neither of the two Lod women shot to death in the last month, Abeer Abu Khatifan and Amal Khalili, were killed by blood relations, says Egbariya. With other activists in her NGO, funded by the Connecticut-based “social entrepreneurship” fund Echoing Green, she keeps in close touch with the families of victims, follows the police investigations and stays tuned to the local grapevine.
Abu Khatifan, 33, a mother of four, was shot by a masked man at her home. Afterward, her husband and other relatives grieved openly – not the typical public behavior of a family whose members have carried out an honor killing. Egbariya says the family suspects she was killed by a relative over a property dispute, not “honor.”
Khalili, 27, a divorced mother of three, was shot to death by a masked man while sitting in her car with her brother and little daughter, who were left unharmed except for scratches from broken glass. In this case, suspicion has fallen on Khalili’s ex-husband and his family, who reportedly had harassed the victim since the court awarded her the couple’s house. If true, she was killed over an economic dispute fueled by divorce, not family “honor.”
Going over a list of the 20 Arab women in Lod and Ramle killed in the last five years, Egbariya says that to the best of her knowledge, nine were honor killings, usually of unmarried adolescent girls. In only two of these nine cases did family members testify against the killers. In the overwhelming majority of these murders, no one was convicted or went to jail.
Whether the motive was “honor,” economics or anything else, what links these killings is that in every case, says Egbariya, “a woman was doing something that a man disapproved of, that challenged his power.”
WE’RE DRIVING through some of the Arab neighborhoods of Lod: Ramat Eshkol (“This used to be a Jewish neighborhood, but now it’s only Arabs and Ethiopians,” she says), Neveh Yerek, or Green Fields (“I don’t see a lot of green here,” she notes), and Rakevet, near the railroad tracks, as poor a shantytown – dotted, though, with drug dealers’ villas – as can be found in any Israeli city. “You see the spikes on top of all the gates? Self-protection is the name of the game around here,” she says.
Egbariya is a tall, quietly charismatic woman who, when describing harsh realities, often resorts to ironic humor. But when we drive up to the community center she ran when she first came to Lod in 2000, she is in plain distress, covering her face with her hand. “I haven’t been back here in nearly seven years, since I left.”
In 2004, months after she left, the center was torched by some unknown assailant for an unknown unreason. Now it is a dark, cavernous squat for junkies. The floor is black with accumulated trash and filth, mocking the murals that were painted on the walls in more hopeful times.
This was where Egbariya’s work with local Arab women victims began. After a little while on the job, she saw that a lot of the women coming to the center were tense, crying, afraid to leave the house. They told her the source of their “inner terror” – the violence and threats from some of the men in their hamulot. Egbariya decided it was necessary to end the “conspiracy of silence” and she organized a conference at the center for Arab women, public figures and religious leaders.
“A short time before,” she recalls, “a man from Lod killed his 15-year-old niece. He’d been beating his divorced sister and his niece threatened to call the police on him, and one afternoon the girl was sleeping and he put a pillow over her face and shot her dead. The mother was going to speak at the conference – in ‘disguise,’ but everyone would know from her words who she was. A few hours before the conference, the man comes to the community center – he was walking around free – and told me he wanted to make a sulha, a truce, with his sister – which wasn’t true – but that if she spoke at the conference, he would make a balagan, a ruckus. I asked him what he meant by balagan, and he said he would bring an M-16 into the center and start shooting.
“I called the police and they told me to cancel the conference, and so did a lot of the people planning to attend. But I said if we do that, we’ve lost and this guy and all the others like him have won, and a lot of people backed me up. So the police planted some officers in the audience. About 120 people showed up. The mother told her story, the audience knew who she was. People were crying. The father didn’t show up that night – and I’ve never seen him since.”
Some 40 regulars at the community center went on to become activists in the city, she notes.
Egbariya left after four years when some local Arabs plugged in to the municipality decided they wanted “one of theirs” to run it, she says.
They tried bribing her to quit, without success, and one day a young married man showed up in her office and started coming on to her. “When all else fails, they go after a woman’s honor – it’s where she’s most vulnerable. I told the man, ‘You want to catch me in a fadiha, a shameful act? I’ll call your wife right now and we’ll see whose fadiha it is.’ There was a video camera in the office and I started filming him.
“He left, but when I got home, my husband told me that’s it, if they’re willing to go to such lengths to get rid of you, then this is too dangerous. So I resigned.”
Living with her husband, who is a teacher, and their three sons in the Jewish-Arab village Neveh Shalom, she was first exposed to the phenomenon of honor killings – and the conspiracy of silence – as an adolescent in the Galilee village of Turan. A village girl just a little older than herself was poisoned by her father. Egbariya asked the men in her family why, and was told that the girl had “made a mistake.” She asked her older sister what sort of mistake could lead a girl to be killed by her father, and was told, “You’ll understand when you’re older.”
EGBARIYA MENTIONED that 20-year-old killing in a lecture to some 120 police officers in the North, which was arranged through the Abraham Fund. “A policeman in the audience said he remembered it,” she says. “The father was released from prison after five or six years. The head of the Arab local authorities was his main character witness.”
She went on to get her master’s degree in social work at the Hebrew University, starting her career in Jerusalem’s Old City, where “the families live one on top of another, seven to a room. There’s incest, sexual molestation in the alleys, and if the women report it to the authorities, they’re considered traitors.” But she didn’t have to deal with murder until coming to Lod.
The streets in the city’s Arab neighborhoods are an assault on the senses – here and there sewage runs openly along the curb, the smell of animal carcasses hangs in the air, heaps of trash and rubble seem to be everywhere, and in the roughest parts of town, such as Pardess Snir and the Dahamesh enclave, residents say they hear gunfire through the night.
We stop at the entrance to the Muslim cemetery. “When a woman is murdered over family ‘honor,’ there’s no funeral, no gravestone, somebody just comes at night, digs a grave, throws the body in and covers it up,” Egbariya says, then tells the story of an Arab mother from Ramle who stood up against this on behalf of her murdered daughter, who is buried in the cemetery.
“Her daughter was 17 and she was killed a few years ago by her son. He didn’t want to do it, but men in the hamula kept pressuring him, until one night they drugged him and he killed his sister, then they threw the body into a hole and covered it up. The mother went to the police, she testified against her son and he was convicted and imprisoned. This is unique. The mother put up a gravestone on her daughter’s burial place, and had it inscribed with a saying from the Koran, ‘On Judgment Day, God will ask: ‘For what crime were you killed?’ The hamula didn’t like this, so they destroyed the gravestone. Since then, the mother has lost her mind, she goes around talking to herself.”
BREAKING THE CONSPIRACY of silence around honor killings requires relatives of victims to go to the police and testify, but this means either death or exile from Israeli Arab society. Egbariya recommends the creation of a witness protection program, but it’s hard to imagine people coming forward in any but the rarest cases when the consequences are so dire. Still, she blames police and other municipal authorities for taking an attitude of “as long as the Jewish population isn’t being hurt, it’s not our problem.”
Honor killings take place in Muslim communities across the Middle East, and occasionally in the West; the reason usually given why Lod ranks No. 1 in Israel’s Arab sector is because of the extent of violent crime and guns, which are also controlled by hamulot.
With police notorious for refusing to intervene until after a crime has been committed, Egbariya has even found herself turning to the hamulot themselves for justice and protection for her charges. Once a teenage girl in Ramle was being hounded by her parents and relatives for being too “free,” and one day she was reported to have passed what looked like a note to a man in the shouk, and the rumor went around that it was a love note to her boyfriend. Shots were fired at her family’s house; the girl was in immediate danger.
“Her brother was a drug dealer under house arrest, and the girl told me he beat her up until she agreed to sell drugs for him. The man she met in the shouk was a buyer and the ‘note’ she gave him was a packet of drugs in exchange for money for her brother,” says Egbariya. “I went to the heads of her hamula and told them the story. Next thing I heard, they’d sent men to beat up the brother.”
A girl’s life was saved. A murder of surpassing dishonor was prevented. In Egbariya’s words, this was a rare winning battle “in a long, terrible war.”
Some call it ‘honor’
By LARRY DERFNER
11/05/2010 16:33
One woman is risking all to break the conspiracy of silence surrounding so-called honor killings, and thus, hopefully, bring some honor back to Lod.
Samah Salaime Egbariya, the leading Arab women’s activist in Lod, the country’s most dangerous city for Arab women, is quietly giving advice to a beautiful ninthgrade girl wearing a hijab, or Muslim head scarf, and tight black slacks. It’s dark outside and they’re in a local high-school classroom where Egbariya’s after-school discussion group on “human skills” has just let out. At a glance, the girl looks like she’s trying to bridge two dissonant worlds. She also looks like a girl who could find herself in trouble in a place like Lod.
Egbariya had a girl like that in a youth group she led a couple of years ago in Ramle – 16, pretty, eager for freedom. Her family punished her, kept her home and Egbariya didn’t hear from her. A year or so later, she ran into the girl in town. “She told me her family had married her off to a much older man. It was a payoff to settle a family dispute. About a year after that she was murdered,” says Egbariya, 35, a social worker who now heads the local NGO Arab Women in the Center.
“These teenagers want so badly to be free. They see me as a role model,” she says after the girl leaves the classroom.
She shows me pictures from the march in Lod two weeks ago attended by some 1,000 local Arabs, including Islamic religious leaders, against the recent killings of women that have made the city infamous. The march focused the blame on Lod politicians and police for treating the problem with malign neglect, but it also faulted – in diplomatic terms – the violent, tyrannical strain of male chauvinism in many extended Muslim families, or hamulot.
“Most of the women at the rally were devout Muslims, and they were chanting, ‘Allahu akbar, God is great,’ and denouncing ‘traitors’ and ‘collaborators’ and the police. We, the secular feminists, a few dozen of us, were chanting against the killing of women, against the orphaning of children. It became almost a competition and the religious women didn’t like it, and I said we have to stop competing and come together, so we agreed to chant, ‘By God, stop killing Muslim women,’” she says.
Egbariya organized the pupils in the after-school class to hand out leaflets for the march, and many attended. She explains why the class is so topheavy with boys: “I lost about 10 girls in the last couple of weeks because their fathers said it was too dangerous for them to come home in the dark.”
Among the topics she discusses with the kids is honor killings – the murder of a woman by male blood relations – cousins, uncles, brothers, the father – for “dishonoring” the hamula by acting “immodestly,” thus giving rise to suspicions or false accusations that she is having extramarital sex.
Asked if the kids in class know that honor killing is wrong, she replies, “Of course they know,” noting that teenage girls are the most common victims. “They talk against it in class. But not all of them feel safe enough to talk against it outside.”
IN THE LAST MONTH, two Muslim women (as well as an Arab man) have been murdered in Lod, bringing the total this year to four. In Lod and adjacent Ramle – “many of the hamulot are spread out across both cities,” Egbariya notes – 20 Muslim women have been murdered in the last five years.
Police have generally written them off as honor killings, which incenses the Arab community – both because it’s not true and because it stigmatizes the family of the victim, especially the family’s unmarried girls.
Neither of the two Lod women shot to death in the last month, Abeer Abu Khatifan and Amal Khalili, were killed by blood relations, says Egbariya. With other activists in her NGO, funded by the Connecticut-based “social entrepreneurship” fund Echoing Green, she keeps in close touch with the families of victims, follows the police investigations and stays tuned to the local grapevine.
Abu Khatifan, 33, a mother of four, was shot by a masked man at her home. Afterward, her husband and other relatives grieved openly – not the typical public behavior of a family whose members have carried out an honor killing. Egbariya says the family suspects she was killed by a relative over a property dispute, not “honor.”
Khalili, 27, a divorced mother of three, was shot to death by a masked man while sitting in her car with her brother and little daughter, who were left unharmed except for scratches from broken glass. In this case, suspicion has fallen on Khalili’s ex-husband and his family, who reportedly had harassed the victim since the court awarded her the couple’s house. If true, she was killed over an economic dispute fueled by divorce, not family “honor.”
Going over a list of the 20 Arab women in Lod and Ramle killed in the last five years, Egbariya says that to the best of her knowledge, nine were honor killings, usually of unmarried adolescent girls. In only two of these nine cases did family members testify against the killers. In the overwhelming majority of these murders, no one was convicted or went to jail.
Whether the motive was “honor,” economics or anything else, what links these killings is that in every case, says Egbariya, “a woman was doing something that a man disapproved of, that challenged his power.”
WE’RE DRIVING through some of the Arab neighborhoods of Lod: Ramat Eshkol (“This used to be a Jewish neighborhood, but now it’s only Arabs and Ethiopians,” she says), Neveh Yerek, or Green Fields (“I don’t see a lot of green here,” she notes), and Rakevet, near the railroad tracks, as poor a shantytown – dotted, though, with drug dealers’ villas – as can be found in any Israeli city. “You see the spikes on top of all the gates? Self-protection is the name of the game around here,” she says.
Egbariya is a tall, quietly charismatic woman who, when describing harsh realities, often resorts to ironic humor. But when we drive up to the community center she ran when she first came to Lod in 2000, she is in plain distress, covering her face with her hand. “I haven’t been back here in nearly seven years, since I left.”
In 2004, months after she left, the center was torched by some unknown assailant for an unknown unreason. Now it is a dark, cavernous squat for junkies. The floor is black with accumulated trash and filth, mocking the murals that were painted on the walls in more hopeful times.
This was where Egbariya’s work with local Arab women victims began. After a little while on the job, she saw that a lot of the women coming to the center were tense, crying, afraid to leave the house. They told her the source of their “inner terror” – the violence and threats from some of the men in their hamulot. Egbariya decided it was necessary to end the “conspiracy of silence” and she organized a conference at the center for Arab women, public figures and religious leaders.
“A short time before,” she recalls, “a man from Lod killed his 15-year-old niece. He’d been beating his divorced sister and his niece threatened to call the police on him, and one afternoon the girl was sleeping and he put a pillow over her face and shot her dead. The mother was going to speak at the conference – in ‘disguise,’ but everyone would know from her words who she was. A few hours before the conference, the man comes to the community center – he was walking around free – and told me he wanted to make a sulha, a truce, with his sister – which wasn’t true – but that if she spoke at the conference, he would make a balagan, a ruckus. I asked him what he meant by balagan, and he said he would bring an M-16 into the center and start shooting.
“I called the police and they told me to cancel the conference, and so did a lot of the people planning to attend. But I said if we do that, we’ve lost and this guy and all the others like him have won, and a lot of people backed me up. So the police planted some officers in the audience. About 120 people showed up. The mother told her story, the audience knew who she was. People were crying. The father didn’t show up that night – and I’ve never seen him since.”
Some 40 regulars at the community center went on to become activists in the city, she notes.
Egbariya left after four years when some local Arabs plugged in to the municipality decided they wanted “one of theirs” to run it, she says.
They tried bribing her to quit, without success, and one day a young married man showed up in her office and started coming on to her. “When all else fails, they go after a woman’s honor – it’s where she’s most vulnerable. I told the man, ‘You want to catch me in a fadiha, a shameful act? I’ll call your wife right now and we’ll see whose fadiha it is.’ There was a video camera in the office and I started filming him.
“He left, but when I got home, my husband told me that’s it, if they’re willing to go to such lengths to get rid of you, then this is too dangerous. So I resigned.”
Living with her husband, who is a teacher, and their three sons in the Jewish-Arab village Neveh Shalom, she was first exposed to the phenomenon of honor killings – and the conspiracy of silence – as an adolescent in the Galilee village of Turan. A village girl just a little older than herself was poisoned by her father. Egbariya asked the men in her family why, and was told that the girl had “made a mistake.” She asked her older sister what sort of mistake could lead a girl to be killed by her father, and was told, “You’ll understand when you’re older.”
EGBARIYA MENTIONED that 20-year-old killing in a lecture to some 120 police officers in the North, which was arranged through the Abraham Fund. “A policeman in the audience said he remembered it,” she says. “The father was released from prison after five or six years. The head of the Arab local authorities was his main character witness.”
She went on to get her master’s degree in social work at the Hebrew University, starting her career in Jerusalem’s Old City, where “the families live one on top of another, seven to a room. There’s incest, sexual molestation in the alleys, and if the women report it to the authorities, they’re considered traitors.” But she didn’t have to deal with murder until coming to Lod.
The streets in the city’s Arab neighborhoods are an assault on the senses – here and there sewage runs openly along the curb, the smell of animal carcasses hangs in the air, heaps of trash and rubble seem to be everywhere, and in the roughest parts of town, such as Pardess Snir and the Dahamesh enclave, residents say they hear gunfire through the night.
We stop at the entrance to the Muslim cemetery. “When a woman is murdered over family ‘honor,’ there’s no funeral, no gravestone, somebody just comes at night, digs a grave, throws the body in and covers it up,” Egbariya says, then tells the story of an Arab mother from Ramle who stood up against this on behalf of her murdered daughter, who is buried in the cemetery.
“Her daughter was 17 and she was killed a few years ago by her son. He didn’t want to do it, but men in the hamula kept pressuring him, until one night they drugged him and he killed his sister, then they threw the body into a hole and covered it up. The mother went to the police, she testified against her son and he was convicted and imprisoned. This is unique. The mother put up a gravestone on her daughter’s burial place, and had it inscribed with a saying from the Koran, ‘On Judgment Day, God will ask: ‘For what crime were you killed?’ The hamula didn’t like this, so they destroyed the gravestone. Since then, the mother has lost her mind, she goes around talking to herself.”
BREAKING THE CONSPIRACY of silence around honor killings requires relatives of victims to go to the police and testify, but this means either death or exile from Israeli Arab society. Egbariya recommends the creation of a witness protection program, but it’s hard to imagine people coming forward in any but the rarest cases when the consequences are so dire. Still, she blames police and other municipal authorities for taking an attitude of “as long as the Jewish population isn’t being hurt, it’s not our problem.”
Honor killings take place in Muslim communities across the Middle East, and occasionally in the West; the reason usually given why Lod ranks No. 1 in Israel’s Arab sector is because of the extent of violent crime and guns, which are also controlled by hamulot.
With police notorious for refusing to intervene until after a crime has been committed, Egbariya has even found herself turning to the hamulot themselves for justice and protection for her charges. Once a teenage girl in Ramle was being hounded by her parents and relatives for being too “free,” and one day she was reported to have passed what looked like a note to a man in the shouk, and the rumor went around that it was a love note to her boyfriend. Shots were fired at her family’s house; the girl was in immediate danger.
“Her brother was a drug dealer under house arrest, and the girl told me he beat her up until she agreed to sell drugs for him. The man she met in the shouk was a buyer and the ‘note’ she gave him was a packet of drugs in exchange for money for her brother,” says Egbariya. “I went to the heads of her hamula and told them the story. Next thing I heard, they’d sent men to beat up the brother.”
A girl’s life was saved. A murder of surpassing dishonor was prevented. In Egbariya’s words, this was a rare winning battle “in a long, terrible war.”
Conservative Obsession with other people f***ing!
* Please note, if you are easily offended and don't like very graphic language - don't read this! I don't want to read comments complaining about the salty language. But now you've been told!
What is it with Conservatives? Why are so many of them obsessed with the sex lives of others?
Gay marriage
Too many conservatives fought this one. REAL Women of Canada actually suggested that allowing gay people to get married decreases the number of straight people getting married. Really?
Maybe formal marriages are decreasing because people see no need to get that little piece of paper for a variety of reasons. But I am pretty sure that people aren't getting married because gay people can. Although I did read that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made a public statement saying that they would not get married until gay marriage was legalized in California. But I dont' think that is what REAL was talking about.
If my friend Fred over at GayAndRight decided to get married to his very charming and handsome boyfriend it would in no way offend me. Or make my own marriage less valid, sacred or whatever in any way. The only thing that offends me is that as an event planner I haven't been able to break into that market! (Note to self - develop new marketing plan.)
Abortion
On this topic I agree with President Bill Clinton. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Any woman who is faced with this decision has my deepest and sincerest empathy. I do not envy her this choice and I won't judge any woman on this. Who knows what the circumstances leading up to her pregnancy were. No woman wakes up and says to herself, "Hmm, I think today is a good day to get pregnant, then have an abortion later on". Okay, maybe Sinead O'Connor did but that girl has got issues.
Too many conservatives are still fighting to have the legislation on this changed. But it's done. Women in Canada have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy. That is not going to change. I don't have any stats but I suspect that abortion isn't more common because it's legally available.
Women have induced abortions for thousands of years. A tea of mugwort and pennyroyal has been a standard for European women for centuries. Other cultures and climates have their own concoctions to induce. My mother told me of how women she knew used knitting needles or got blind drunk on Pernod to terminate a pregnancy.
Mugwort and pennyroyal will kill if the mixture isn't prepared exactly. Knitting needles and coat hangers cause deadly infections. Alcohol poisoning can knock you out forever. No woman deserves to die because she has an unwanted pregnancy.
Abortions aren't going to stop.
Want to prevent abortions? Well, then we need to get to my next point with the SoCon obsession with other people fucking.
Sex Ed and Contraception
All the folks ranting and raving about sex ed in the schools are conservative. And the suggestion that condoms be handed out in high schools is enough to make a SoCon's head implode. (Don't come with comments about it's not the school's responsibility either. I don't buy that - this is a health issue. We immunize kids in schools. Prevent pregnancy is morally akin to preventing disease. We do one and should do the other.) But I digress.
Remember the third world maternal health program? Remember when it was first announced that contraception would not be included? Remember the reaction?
Stephen Harper looked like a schmuck and Conservatives looked like ignorant, self righteous prigs.
Information and condoms for everyone! Conservatives like to pride themselves on business acuity. Seems to me that an investment in sex ed and condoms/birth control will pay off in saving millions, hell, billions on welfare, healthcare (think AIDS and STDs) and prison.
Prostitution
And this is the item that inspired me to write this post. It appears that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is appealing to Craigslist to remove ads for prostitutes. Doesn't he have anything better to do with his time? Real criminals to be concerned with?
Okay, I know it is illegal to solicit but why is that?
Some women agree to have sex after a man takes them out to dinner and a movie. Some women have sex because they feel the need to get laid. Some women agree to have sex after a man proclaims his love. Some women agree to have sex with a man only after he has said "I do" in a very official ceremony. And some women have sex with men who give them cash.
Cash, dinner, diamond ring. One thing being exchanged for another.
What goes on between consenting adults who want to fuck each other - how they negotiate that is quite frankly nobody's business but their own.
And there you have it. The conservative obsession with other people fucking.
It makes me wonder why. Why are so many conservatives obsessed with the sex lives of others ? Psychology 101 tells me that it's because they aren't getting any of the good stuff themselves. So they project. Sad really.
Conservatives need to have more sex. Even Mark Steyn thinks we should be having more sex and he's advocating unprotected sex! And who am I to argue with Mark Steyn.
So like the man I have previously called the most perfect man on the planet, I encourage all conservatives to start having more sex.
I don't care with who you have sex with. None of my business. Or why you have sex. None of my business.
But, I am always open for a good gossip session. I would like to formally invite any MP staffer (don't care about party affiliation) out for drinks. I just want to buy a refreshing beverage for all you poor overworked, under appreciated foundations of our democracy. I know that you are the legs that your MP stands on. I understand - I once worked for a politician as community liaison,event management and communications, I know you are overworked and undervalued! You drink, I buy. I listen. We'll have fun!
But it all comes down to this message for conservatives. Stop obsessing with other people fucking and start obsessing about who you are fucking.
Like the ad says, just do it.
What is it with Conservatives? Why are so many of them obsessed with the sex lives of others?
Gay marriage
Too many conservatives fought this one. REAL Women of Canada actually suggested that allowing gay people to get married decreases the number of straight people getting married. Really?
Maybe formal marriages are decreasing because people see no need to get that little piece of paper for a variety of reasons. But I am pretty sure that people aren't getting married because gay people can. Although I did read that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made a public statement saying that they would not get married until gay marriage was legalized in California. But I dont' think that is what REAL was talking about.
If my friend Fred over at GayAndRight decided to get married to his very charming and handsome boyfriend it would in no way offend me. Or make my own marriage less valid, sacred or whatever in any way. The only thing that offends me is that as an event planner I haven't been able to break into that market! (Note to self - develop new marketing plan.)
Abortion
On this topic I agree with President Bill Clinton. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Any woman who is faced with this decision has my deepest and sincerest empathy. I do not envy her this choice and I won't judge any woman on this. Who knows what the circumstances leading up to her pregnancy were. No woman wakes up and says to herself, "Hmm, I think today is a good day to get pregnant, then have an abortion later on". Okay, maybe Sinead O'Connor did but that girl has got issues.
Too many conservatives are still fighting to have the legislation on this changed. But it's done. Women in Canada have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy. That is not going to change. I don't have any stats but I suspect that abortion isn't more common because it's legally available.
Women have induced abortions for thousands of years. A tea of mugwort and pennyroyal has been a standard for European women for centuries. Other cultures and climates have their own concoctions to induce. My mother told me of how women she knew used knitting needles or got blind drunk on Pernod to terminate a pregnancy.
Mugwort and pennyroyal will kill if the mixture isn't prepared exactly. Knitting needles and coat hangers cause deadly infections. Alcohol poisoning can knock you out forever. No woman deserves to die because she has an unwanted pregnancy.
Abortions aren't going to stop.
Want to prevent abortions? Well, then we need to get to my next point with the SoCon obsession with other people fucking.
Sex Ed and Contraception
All the folks ranting and raving about sex ed in the schools are conservative. And the suggestion that condoms be handed out in high schools is enough to make a SoCon's head implode. (Don't come with comments about it's not the school's responsibility either. I don't buy that - this is a health issue. We immunize kids in schools. Prevent pregnancy is morally akin to preventing disease. We do one and should do the other.) But I digress.
Remember the third world maternal health program? Remember when it was first announced that contraception would not be included? Remember the reaction?
Stephen Harper looked like a schmuck and Conservatives looked like ignorant, self righteous prigs.
Information and condoms for everyone! Conservatives like to pride themselves on business acuity. Seems to me that an investment in sex ed and condoms/birth control will pay off in saving millions, hell, billions on welfare, healthcare (think AIDS and STDs) and prison.
Prostitution
And this is the item that inspired me to write this post. It appears that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is appealing to Craigslist to remove ads for prostitutes. Doesn't he have anything better to do with his time? Real criminals to be concerned with?
Okay, I know it is illegal to solicit but why is that?
Some women agree to have sex after a man takes them out to dinner and a movie. Some women have sex because they feel the need to get laid. Some women agree to have sex after a man proclaims his love. Some women agree to have sex with a man only after he has said "I do" in a very official ceremony. And some women have sex with men who give them cash.
Cash, dinner, diamond ring. One thing being exchanged for another.
What goes on between consenting adults who want to fuck each other - how they negotiate that is quite frankly nobody's business but their own.
And there you have it. The conservative obsession with other people fucking.
It makes me wonder why. Why are so many conservatives obsessed with the sex lives of others ? Psychology 101 tells me that it's because they aren't getting any of the good stuff themselves. So they project. Sad really.
Conservatives need to have more sex. Even Mark Steyn thinks we should be having more sex and he's advocating unprotected sex! And who am I to argue with Mark Steyn.
So like the man I have previously called the most perfect man on the planet, I encourage all conservatives to start having more sex.
I don't care with who you have sex with. None of my business. Or why you have sex. None of my business.
But, I am always open for a good gossip session. I would like to formally invite any MP staffer (don't care about party affiliation) out for drinks. I just want to buy a refreshing beverage for all you poor overworked, under appreciated foundations of our democracy. I know that you are the legs that your MP stands on. I understand - I once worked for a politician as community liaison,event management and communications, I know you are overworked and undervalued! You drink, I buy. I listen. We'll have fun!
But it all comes down to this message for conservatives. Stop obsessing with other people fucking and start obsessing about who you are fucking.
Like the ad says, just do it.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Andrew Klavan: Liberal Fantasies vs. Reality, Can you Spot the Difference?
It's nice to see that what I have been saying about the lack of conservative cultural space is being said by others.
The creators of music, movies, television - any form of mass consumed culture are the people who are controling the public agenda. Too many people rely on celebrities for information. Sadly, some of those aforementioned people are politicians and policy makers. Remember Bono and Paul Martin?
So again, I implore you please support Canada's only conservative film festival. Fight liberal fantasies!
The creators of music, movies, television - any form of mass consumed culture are the people who are controling the public agenda. Too many people rely on celebrities for information. Sadly, some of those aforementioned people are politicians and policy makers. Remember Bono and Paul Martin?
So again, I implore you please support Canada's only conservative film festival. Fight liberal fantasies!
Do you think the University of Ottawa got this memo?
STATEMENT OF NOBEL LAUREATES ON ACADEMIC BDS ACTIONS AGAINST ISRAELI ACADEMICS, ISRAELI ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS AND ACADEMIC CENTERS AND INSTITUTES OF RESEARCH AND TRAINING WITH AFFILIATIONS IN ISRAEL
By Roger Kornberg, Stanford University and Steven Weinberg, University of Texas at Austin
Published in: A Project of the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Task Force on Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions October 28, 2010
Statement of Nobel Laureates on Academic BDS Actions Against Israeli Academics, Israeli Academic Institutions and Academic Centers and Institutes of Research and Training With Affiliations in Israel
Believing that academic and cultural boycotts, divestments and sanctions in the academy are:
* antithetical to principles of academic and scientific freedom,
* antithetical to principles of freedom of expression and inquiry, and
* may well constitute discrimination by virtue of national origin,
We, the undersigned Nobel Laureates, appeal to students, faculty colleagues and university officials to defeat and denounce calls and campaigns for boycotting, divestment and sanctions against Israeli academics, academic institutions and university-based centers and institutes for training and research, affiliated with Israel.
Furthermore, we encourage students, faculty colleagues and university officials to promote and provide opportunities for civil academic discourse where parties can engage in the search for resolution to conflicts and problems rather than serve as incubators for polemics, propaganda, incitement and further misunderstanding and mistrust.
We, and many like us, have dedicated ourselves to improving the human condition by doing the often difficult and elusive work to understand complex and seemingly unsolvable phenomena. We believe that the university should serve as an open, tolerant and respectful, cooperative and collaborative community engaged in practices of resolving complex problems.
Sidney Altman
Yale University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1989
Lawrence Klein
University of Pennsylvania
Nobel Prize in Economics, 1980
Kenneth Arrow
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Economics, 1972
Walter Kohn
University of California Santa Barbara
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1998
Robert J. Aumann
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2005
Roger D. Kornberg
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2006
Mario Capecchi
University of Utah
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2007
Harold Kroto
Florida State University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996
Aaron Ciechanover
Technion
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2004
Finn Kydland
University of California Santa Barbara
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2004
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
École Normale Supérieure
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1997
Leon Lederman
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1988
Robert Curl
Rice University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996
Tony Leggett
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Nobel Prize in Physics, 2003
Edmond H. Fischer
University of Washington
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1992
Robert Lucas, Jr.
University of Chicago
Nobel Prize in Economics, 1995
Jerome Friedman
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1990
Rudolph A. Marcus
California Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1992
Andre Geim
Manchester University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 2010
Roger Myerson
University of Chicago
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2007
Sheldon Glashow
Boston University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1979
George A. Olah
University of Southern California
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1994
David Gross
University of California Santa Barbara
Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004
Douglas Osheroff
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1996
James Heckman
University of Chicago
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2000
Martin L. Perl
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1995
Avram Hershko
Technion
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2004
Andrew V. Schally
University of Miami
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1977
Roald Hoffman
Cornell University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1981
Richard R. Schrock
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2005
Russell Hulse
University of Texas Dallas
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1993
Phillip A. Sharp
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1993
Tim Hunt
London Research Institute
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2001
Steven Weinberg
University of Texas at Austin
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1979
Daniel Kahneman
Princeton University
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2002
Elie Wiesel
Nobel Peace Prize, 1986
Eric Kandel
Columbia University
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2000
Torsten Wiesel
Rockefeller University
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1981
By Roger Kornberg, Stanford University and Steven Weinberg, University of Texas at Austin
Published in: A Project of the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Task Force on Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions October 28, 2010
Statement of Nobel Laureates on Academic BDS Actions Against Israeli Academics, Israeli Academic Institutions and Academic Centers and Institutes of Research and Training With Affiliations in Israel
Believing that academic and cultural boycotts, divestments and sanctions in the academy are:
* antithetical to principles of academic and scientific freedom,
* antithetical to principles of freedom of expression and inquiry, and
* may well constitute discrimination by virtue of national origin,
We, the undersigned Nobel Laureates, appeal to students, faculty colleagues and university officials to defeat and denounce calls and campaigns for boycotting, divestment and sanctions against Israeli academics, academic institutions and university-based centers and institutes for training and research, affiliated with Israel.
Furthermore, we encourage students, faculty colleagues and university officials to promote and provide opportunities for civil academic discourse where parties can engage in the search for resolution to conflicts and problems rather than serve as incubators for polemics, propaganda, incitement and further misunderstanding and mistrust.
We, and many like us, have dedicated ourselves to improving the human condition by doing the often difficult and elusive work to understand complex and seemingly unsolvable phenomena. We believe that the university should serve as an open, tolerant and respectful, cooperative and collaborative community engaged in practices of resolving complex problems.
Sidney Altman
Yale University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1989
Lawrence Klein
University of Pennsylvania
Nobel Prize in Economics, 1980
Kenneth Arrow
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Economics, 1972
Walter Kohn
University of California Santa Barbara
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1998
Robert J. Aumann
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2005
Roger D. Kornberg
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2006
Mario Capecchi
University of Utah
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2007
Harold Kroto
Florida State University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996
Aaron Ciechanover
Technion
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2004
Finn Kydland
University of California Santa Barbara
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2004
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
École Normale Supérieure
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1997
Leon Lederman
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1988
Robert Curl
Rice University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996
Tony Leggett
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Nobel Prize in Physics, 2003
Edmond H. Fischer
University of Washington
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1992
Robert Lucas, Jr.
University of Chicago
Nobel Prize in Economics, 1995
Jerome Friedman
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1990
Rudolph A. Marcus
California Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1992
Andre Geim
Manchester University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 2010
Roger Myerson
University of Chicago
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2007
Sheldon Glashow
Boston University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1979
George A. Olah
University of Southern California
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1994
David Gross
University of California Santa Barbara
Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004
Douglas Osheroff
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1996
James Heckman
University of Chicago
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2000
Martin L. Perl
Stanford University
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1995
Avram Hershko
Technion
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2004
Andrew V. Schally
University of Miami
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1977
Roald Hoffman
Cornell University
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1981
Richard R. Schrock
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2005
Russell Hulse
University of Texas Dallas
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1993
Phillip A. Sharp
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1993
Tim Hunt
London Research Institute
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2001
Steven Weinberg
University of Texas at Austin
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1979
Daniel Kahneman
Princeton University
Nobel Prize in Economics, 2002
Elie Wiesel
Nobel Peace Prize, 1986
Eric Kandel
Columbia University
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2000
Torsten Wiesel
Rockefeller University
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1981
I'm glad someone else brought this up
This is a very telling bit of news. Former MP Inky Mark has publicly voiced concerns over the process in which candidates are selected.
I am glad that this has finally hit the harsh light of day. I had been actively involved in my local EDA and was completely frustrated by the nomination process to get a candidate in place. Still am.
The candidate search process was and is clearly pro forma. There is no taking this to the membership. Some ridings have candidates that they can get into the community before a writ is dropped and some (like the one I live in) are being denied this advantage.
HQ seems to be waiting for someone they deem suitable to show interest and if not,then look up. What's that? Is it a bird? A plane? No wait, it's parachute candidate.
Let me state that my local EDA works very hard. The people who volunteer are good people. People who are hard pressed. Much put upon by the party. But, they have no more control over this process than any other EDA.
This is a problem.
The power structure of the Conservative party is apparently forgetting an important lesson. It's simple. The Reform Party.
HQ is forgetting just who they work for.
The membership doesn't need the suits on the Hill to tell them what to think. We can do that very well for ourselves thank you very much. In fact, it's the membership that lays down the law,so to speak. We decide what works for us and what doesn't. And guess what else the membership can do? That's right. Money and votes can walk away. Remember Preston Manning? How many votes and dollars did he take from the PC party? You'd think Harper would be acutely aware of that.
Or perhaps HQ needs a little more recent lesson. Look at Alberta. How about Danielle Smith?
Conservative "leadership" needs to change this paternalistic attitude. One member, one vote and every member gets to have a say.
I once saw an accident. I saw it coming. I saw the speeding car and I saw the red light. I knew that car was going to hit the other car going through the intersection. Couldn't stop it. All I could do was call 911 and run to provide assistance.
I see a crash about to happen to the Conservative Party of Canada. I am helpless to stop it. But it can be prevented. Perhaps Nigel Wright will set things right.
I hope.
I have hope.
I am glad that this has finally hit the harsh light of day. I had been actively involved in my local EDA and was completely frustrated by the nomination process to get a candidate in place. Still am.
The candidate search process was and is clearly pro forma. There is no taking this to the membership. Some ridings have candidates that they can get into the community before a writ is dropped and some (like the one I live in) are being denied this advantage.
HQ seems to be waiting for someone they deem suitable to show interest and if not,then look up. What's that? Is it a bird? A plane? No wait, it's parachute candidate.
Let me state that my local EDA works very hard. The people who volunteer are good people. People who are hard pressed. Much put upon by the party. But, they have no more control over this process than any other EDA.
This is a problem.
The power structure of the Conservative party is apparently forgetting an important lesson. It's simple. The Reform Party.
HQ is forgetting just who they work for.
The membership doesn't need the suits on the Hill to tell them what to think. We can do that very well for ourselves thank you very much. In fact, it's the membership that lays down the law,so to speak. We decide what works for us and what doesn't. And guess what else the membership can do? That's right. Money and votes can walk away. Remember Preston Manning? How many votes and dollars did he take from the PC party? You'd think Harper would be acutely aware of that.
Or perhaps HQ needs a little more recent lesson. Look at Alberta. How about Danielle Smith?
Conservative "leadership" needs to change this paternalistic attitude. One member, one vote and every member gets to have a say.
I once saw an accident. I saw it coming. I saw the speeding car and I saw the red light. I knew that car was going to hit the other car going through the intersection. Couldn't stop it. All I could do was call 911 and run to provide assistance.
I see a crash about to happen to the Conservative Party of Canada. I am helpless to stop it. But it can be prevented. Perhaps Nigel Wright will set things right.
I hope.
I have hope.
I can't believe I am about to say this...
...but there is a court that is even crazier than any Canadian Human Rights tribunal.
A judge in New York has ruled that a six year old girl can be sued. Two years ago little Juliet Breitman was riding her training bike with her little buddy when there was an accident and the kids crashed into 87 year old Claire Menagh who broke her hip. She died three months later.
Sad. But suing a six year old? Not only is Menagh's family suing a six year old (who has no assets) but they are suing the parents.
According to Reuters:
"For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule," Wooten wrote, adding that the girl had been three months shy of turning 5.
Wooten also disagreed with the lawyer's assertion that Juliet Breitman should not be held responsible because her mother was supervising the children at the time.
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote. He added that "the term 'supervising' is too vague to hold meaning here."
Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence that "another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."
I am shocked. We are not talking about young offenders who knowingly commit crimes. We are talking about a four year old learning to ride a bike and accidently hitting a pedestrian.
This is beyond the pale. I don't know what to say.
Okay, I do know what to say. I am glad that Canada is not as litigous as the US.
A judge in New York has ruled that a six year old girl can be sued. Two years ago little Juliet Breitman was riding her training bike with her little buddy when there was an accident and the kids crashed into 87 year old Claire Menagh who broke her hip. She died three months later.
Sad. But suing a six year old? Not only is Menagh's family suing a six year old (who has no assets) but they are suing the parents.
According to Reuters:
"For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule," Wooten wrote, adding that the girl had been three months shy of turning 5.
Wooten also disagreed with the lawyer's assertion that Juliet Breitman should not be held responsible because her mother was supervising the children at the time.
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote. He added that "the term 'supervising' is too vague to hold meaning here."
Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence that "another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."
I am shocked. We are not talking about young offenders who knowingly commit crimes. We are talking about a four year old learning to ride a bike and accidently hitting a pedestrian.
This is beyond the pale. I don't know what to say.
Okay, I do know what to say. I am glad that Canada is not as litigous as the US.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Who thinks Danny Williams has a small penis?
I don't know if Newfoundland premier Danny Williams has a little dick but I imagine that he does. I am pretty sure though that he does have the metaphorical thin skin.
Men who are confident about their endowment can take a joke about the size of their manhood. They don't have volunteers fired for it.
Danny Williams needs to grow a pair.
Men who are confident about their endowment can take a joke about the size of their manhood. They don't have volunteers fired for it.
Danny Williams needs to grow a pair.
A Reuben by any other name
I love this. It's a classic tale of human nature.
This theme is applicable within any religion. Hell, I have even had to deal with "witchier than thou" pagans. And believe me when I say those types are especially annoying. What is it about human nature to insist that their tribe did something first, better, bigger - whatever!
Of course, this not only applies to religions and races but it also applies to politics. Conservative politics. I know. I have been told by a number of proclaimed conservatives that I am not conservative. Those people come out whenever I criticize the Prime Minister or his government. I've even been called Warren Kinsella. Seriously, I kid you not, right here on the pages of my own blog.
We are a house divided. And it is is going to bring our house down. Where are our foundations? What shall we build on?
And just where the hell am I going with this?
The Free Thinking Film Festival is a conservative cultural event that is showing films and documentaries that promote solid conservative values. The Free Thinking Film Society was established in 2007 in Ottawa to provide an outlet for filmmakers and moviegoers alike who are looking for an alternative to the ‘alternative’. In other words, we celebrate the efforts of risk-taking documentarians whose work espouses the values of limited, democratic government, free market economies, equality of opportunity rather than equality of result, and the dignity of the individual, all underscored by a healthy and patriotic respect for Western culture and traditions. Although there are a lot of courageous voices in the non-fiction film industry producing thoughtful pieces of art which reject cultural relativism, central economic planning and American culpability for all that ills the world, you wouldn’t know it by looking at the listings for most art house cinemas. We’re dedicated to changing that by bringing these exciting and challenging documentaries to Canada’s capital.
The left rules the media and the cultural landscape because they have built a solid foundation for their philosophies. They know that edutainment creates loyal followers. In other words - voters! Young people, impressionable people are influenced by the media that they are exposed to. And what they are exposed to is something by Michael Moore or James Cameron. Left wing propaganda.
Conservatives need to wake up to this reality. Then they need to take action. There are far too many conservatives who think that ideology is enough to change people minds and to win their hearts (and votes) but that simply isn't so.
Take action by buying a pass. Can't go - buy a pass and give it to someone. Can't go and don't know anyone to give to - then just buy the pass anyway and consider yourself a patron of the arts. Free Thinking Films receive no taxpayer dollars! C'mon - support the arts. Support conservative arts!
Okay, long meandering rant but let's face it - it's been a long month for me. I had my roof replaced, basement renovated, a house full of guests, married off a daughter, went to Vegas and landed at YOW in a cocktail dress, feathered capelet and sequined pink skull shoes to head off to the Crowne Plaza to honour the phenomenon known as Ezra Levant. I think I am still a little high from meeting Mark Steyn (the world's only perfect man from what I can tell but that's another blog).
I'm tired. But I'm right. And yes, I am also that other right.
Hell, I am Rightchik.
This theme is applicable within any religion. Hell, I have even had to deal with "witchier than thou" pagans. And believe me when I say those types are especially annoying. What is it about human nature to insist that their tribe did something first, better, bigger - whatever!
Of course, this not only applies to religions and races but it also applies to politics. Conservative politics. I know. I have been told by a number of proclaimed conservatives that I am not conservative. Those people come out whenever I criticize the Prime Minister or his government. I've even been called Warren Kinsella. Seriously, I kid you not, right here on the pages of my own blog.
We are a house divided. And it is is going to bring our house down. Where are our foundations? What shall we build on?
And just where the hell am I going with this?
The Free Thinking Film Festival is a conservative cultural event that is showing films and documentaries that promote solid conservative values. The Free Thinking Film Society was established in 2007 in Ottawa to provide an outlet for filmmakers and moviegoers alike who are looking for an alternative to the ‘alternative’. In other words, we celebrate the efforts of risk-taking documentarians whose work espouses the values of limited, democratic government, free market economies, equality of opportunity rather than equality of result, and the dignity of the individual, all underscored by a healthy and patriotic respect for Western culture and traditions. Although there are a lot of courageous voices in the non-fiction film industry producing thoughtful pieces of art which reject cultural relativism, central economic planning and American culpability for all that ills the world, you wouldn’t know it by looking at the listings for most art house cinemas. We’re dedicated to changing that by bringing these exciting and challenging documentaries to Canada’s capital.
The left rules the media and the cultural landscape because they have built a solid foundation for their philosophies. They know that edutainment creates loyal followers. In other words - voters! Young people, impressionable people are influenced by the media that they are exposed to. And what they are exposed to is something by Michael Moore or James Cameron. Left wing propaganda.
Conservatives need to wake up to this reality. Then they need to take action. There are far too many conservatives who think that ideology is enough to change people minds and to win their hearts (and votes) but that simply isn't so.
Take action by buying a pass. Can't go - buy a pass and give it to someone. Can't go and don't know anyone to give to - then just buy the pass anyway and consider yourself a patron of the arts. Free Thinking Films receive no taxpayer dollars! C'mon - support the arts. Support conservative arts!
Okay, long meandering rant but let's face it - it's been a long month for me. I had my roof replaced, basement renovated, a house full of guests, married off a daughter, went to Vegas and landed at YOW in a cocktail dress, feathered capelet and sequined pink skull shoes to head off to the Crowne Plaza to honour the phenomenon known as Ezra Levant. I think I am still a little high from meeting Mark Steyn (the world's only perfect man from what I can tell but that's another blog).
I'm tired. But I'm right. And yes, I am also that other right.
Hell, I am Rightchik.
Peter MacKay, Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Stephen Harper - pay attention
There are 70,000 active regular force military personnel.
There are 30,000 active reserve force military personnel.
As of 2003 there were 309,000 living veterans.
In 2008, 13,929,093 votes were cast.
Now let's assume that each active military personnel and veteran have 2 people that love and care about them. Oh and let's also assume those people vote. Vote in a manner that is sympathetic to their patriotic loved one.
So we have 409,000 active and retired military voters with another 818,000 people who love them and could be persuaded to vote in a way that benefits aforementioned loved ones.
That is 1,227,000 voters - roughly 10 percent of actual voters.
Can you really afford to alienate that many people?
Because if there is even a grain of truth to the story about the Conservative government manipulating budgets to cut costs at Veterans Affairs, none of you deserve to be where you are.
Mr. MacKay, next Mother's Day don't send an email to my husband asking him to extend your best wishes to me for my support of his service. Mr. Blackburn save your apologies. Mr. Harper, save your platitudes.
Make no mistake - check the stats on voter turnout for military personnel and their families. Go on. Get one of your assistants to check with their counterparts at StatsCan.
Do you think what you're doing - and not doing - isn't noticed? Do you think that a Conservative vote is a shoo in for someone who serves or has served their country?
Let me tell you something about every soldier I know. They may be good at taking orders but they are even better at thinking for themselves and on their feet. It's the survival instinct that has been drilled into them.
Just how do you think this Conservative government is tapping into that instinct?
There are 30,000 active reserve force military personnel.
As of 2003 there were 309,000 living veterans.
In 2008, 13,929,093 votes were cast.
Now let's assume that each active military personnel and veteran have 2 people that love and care about them. Oh and let's also assume those people vote. Vote in a manner that is sympathetic to their patriotic loved one.
So we have 409,000 active and retired military voters with another 818,000 people who love them and could be persuaded to vote in a way that benefits aforementioned loved ones.
That is 1,227,000 voters - roughly 10 percent of actual voters.
Can you really afford to alienate that many people?
Because if there is even a grain of truth to the story about the Conservative government manipulating budgets to cut costs at Veterans Affairs, none of you deserve to be where you are.
Mr. MacKay, next Mother's Day don't send an email to my husband asking him to extend your best wishes to me for my support of his service. Mr. Blackburn save your apologies. Mr. Harper, save your platitudes.
Make no mistake - check the stats on voter turnout for military personnel and their families. Go on. Get one of your assistants to check with their counterparts at StatsCan.
Do you think what you're doing - and not doing - isn't noticed? Do you think that a Conservative vote is a shoo in for someone who serves or has served their country?
Let me tell you something about every soldier I know. They may be good at taking orders but they are even better at thinking for themselves and on their feet. It's the survival instinct that has been drilled into them.
Just how do you think this Conservative government is tapping into that instinct?
The religion of peace and love
Whatever god all infidels pray to, it may be a good idea to pray for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who all suspect will soon be buried up to her head and then stoned.
Yes, another example of the religion of peace and love in action.
Yes, another example of the religion of peace and love in action.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Oh yes, of course...
... religion of peace and love. This just proves it.
Is anyone concerned about Christianophobia? Hate crimes against Christians?
Where are the Imams to condemn this atrocity? I have said it before and I will say it again, when Muslim clerics don't condemn armed violent jihad and Muslim community leaders don't denounce these types of acts, their silence only enables the violence.
The silence is deafening but telling.
Is anyone concerned about Christianophobia? Hate crimes against Christians?
Where are the Imams to condemn this atrocity? I have said it before and I will say it again, when Muslim clerics don't condemn armed violent jihad and Muslim community leaders don't denounce these types of acts, their silence only enables the violence.
The silence is deafening but telling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)