I went out for my daily 5k but it was such a nice day out I decided to run the 8k course instead. I run outside. No gym treadmill for me, to cheap or too romantic. I run different routes depending on how hard i feel like working. The smallest is a 5.4km distance, my usual one. I have mapped out distances up to 22k, but I save those for when I really need to run far.
I like to run. It can start hard. I warm up, get my stretches in. But it still takes a kilometer or so for the small aches to disappear. Then it smooths out, I get into a rhythm and let my body take over. It is like breathing, in that you can forget you are doing it at all. My pace is slow and steady, plenty of time to think and watch the activity around me.
On the road you need to be aware of your surroundings. Car drivers that don't look both ways. Sidewalks with shared with bikes, scooters and walkers. What I don't see a lot of are other runners. Perhaps they are all at the gym. I said roads can be hazardous, the weather cold and icy in the winter, much to hot in the summer. You get rained, covered in grit breathing exhaust at stop lights. Gyms are starting to sound good again.
We are built to run. Our bodies finely tuned by evolution. I run like my ancestors ran, a shared act,going back a million years. Is that romantic or not.
I like feeling and hearing the world around me. In the winter as the snow falls against me melting, cooling my face. The crunch of snow underfoot. My pace checked by ice, slowing through drifts. The feeling I get when I'm done is marvelous. The seasons change around me. I'm part of it in a small way. Spring rain drenches, feeds the land,cleans the streets and prepares for summer. I feel the heat in summer. Water is my focus on those days of July and August. You can not run a kilometer with out it, some do but they pay for it. Then it's back to fall, cooling days, jogging pants instead of shorts, t-shirts give way to hoodies.
I like all the seasons. Each offers unique challenges to body and mind. But i favour cooler temperatures, after all when it get cold I can put on a jacket; when it gets hot there is only so much you can take off before it does you no good. If cornered I would pick that point in spring when the flowers and fruit trees blossom and the air is filled with a thousand scents. You can't get that in a gym.
It is a shame so few people are out there sharing the roads with me. I see so many that could benefit.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Slut Walk
Yesterday women in Toronto marched in protest. Its was called the slut walk and it is the second one. It was sparked by the comments of a police officer who said at a seminar last year that
“women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.
What the officer was saying is that it's your fault, in whole or in part if you are assaulted. Women have been subjected to this particular belief for a very long time. It's not you it's you outfit, but since you chose to dress that way i guess it is you after all.
Around the world the dress code for women can differ greatly. In less free nations laws require women to cover their entire bodies. In some other countries modesty requires covered heads and plain dress. In my country and much of the West there are no laws regarding dress. That does not mean women are exactly free to dress as they like. Women face cultural and social pressures to conform to a standard of dress.
Moral and religious codes displaced from our time by thousands of years and a chunk of geography, urge women dress modestly. As an outward sign of Chasity, Obedience and Submissiveness. It is uniform; marking out Good women from Bad women.
So women are to dress modestly as a protection against sexual assault. How offensive is this? The temptation of the female body is so great, that men are powerless to restrain themselves. Men as victims? Women as wanton sexual creatures? We are all powerless in the face of biology and desire. The message is that Men can't restrain themselves. So women must cover up, avoid certain situation and above all comport themselves with modesty; so as not to tempt men.
That kinda of thinking needs to stop. It is why they had the slut walk. There is no justification or provocation for any type of sexual assault. It is a decision made by one man to attack one women because he wanted to. She dressed a certain way is an excuse, she was drunk is an excuse, she was in the wrong place is an excuse. No women is ever asking for it.
A reworking of how culture and society describes and defines women is occurring. This time it's in their hands. Everything from the right to choose, to pay equity. The right to dress as one likes is just one of many fronts that women are fighting on. The purpose is to end the "woman as a possession or object". Equality.
A note on the comment sections following the slut walk articles. Even if you discount trolls, there are a large number of people that still find fault in females that don't safeguard themselves. A position that ultimately excuses the assault.
“women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.
What the officer was saying is that it's your fault, in whole or in part if you are assaulted. Women have been subjected to this particular belief for a very long time. It's not you it's you outfit, but since you chose to dress that way i guess it is you after all.
Around the world the dress code for women can differ greatly. In less free nations laws require women to cover their entire bodies. In some other countries modesty requires covered heads and plain dress. In my country and much of the West there are no laws regarding dress. That does not mean women are exactly free to dress as they like. Women face cultural and social pressures to conform to a standard of dress.
Moral and religious codes displaced from our time by thousands of years and a chunk of geography, urge women dress modestly. As an outward sign of Chasity, Obedience and Submissiveness. It is uniform; marking out Good women from Bad women.
So women are to dress modestly as a protection against sexual assault. How offensive is this? The temptation of the female body is so great, that men are powerless to restrain themselves. Men as victims? Women as wanton sexual creatures? We are all powerless in the face of biology and desire. The message is that Men can't restrain themselves. So women must cover up, avoid certain situation and above all comport themselves with modesty; so as not to tempt men.
That kinda of thinking needs to stop. It is why they had the slut walk. There is no justification or provocation for any type of sexual assault. It is a decision made by one man to attack one women because he wanted to. She dressed a certain way is an excuse, she was drunk is an excuse, she was in the wrong place is an excuse. No women is ever asking for it.
A reworking of how culture and society describes and defines women is occurring. This time it's in their hands. Everything from the right to choose, to pay equity. The right to dress as one likes is just one of many fronts that women are fighting on. The purpose is to end the "woman as a possession or object". Equality.
A note on the comment sections following the slut walk articles. Even if you discount trolls, there are a large number of people that still find fault in females that don't safeguard themselves. A position that ultimately excuses the assault.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Baird on Religious Freedom
Foreign Minister John Baird said recently that Canada has gone soft on defending rights like Religious Freedom. He said this in front of an American audience at the Religious Liberty Dinner. Canada went soft on religious freedom after world war two, the Harper government intends to reverse that trend, was the message They have a plan to fund a religious freedom office within Foreign Affairs at the cost of 5 million dollars. The purpose is to help Canada support religious freedom throughout the world. It is an ambitious goal. And a worthy one.
In his speech he spoke of defending all religious groups for persecution, though the body of the speech dealt with Christian and Jewish persecution. He noted the thousands of years of persecution of the Jewish people. Throwing in the he ubiquitous your with us or the appeasers Baird saying;
"The world cannot take the words of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime as mere rhetoric and cannot risk appeasing these malicious actors in the same way as it once appeased the Nazis."
He is right, on the issue of appeasement, it tends to embolden the aggressor. He is wrong on directly comparing the situation Israel with Nazi era Europe.
Or here where Baird levels the usual charge, though muted slightly, that criticizing Israel springs from bigotry.
"We contend that modern anti-Semitism is alive in the disproportionate criticism Israel receives, and the refusal to accept its right to exist."
This part of the speech was an affirmation of Israel and Canada's unwavering support for them. With Baird saying,
"Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and under this foreign affairs minister, Canada will stand with the Jewish state and people as they struggle to protect their very right to exist."
Israel is in a tough spot no one can disagree. That it is partly of their own making can also not be argued. But they are lucky enough to have over 200 nuclear weapons, the best trained/technologically advanced armed forces in the region, and the support of the United States of America.
He makes mention of repression of Muslims,
"Burma, despite recent reforms, the regime continues to discriminate against certain forms of Buddhism and restricts the activities of Muslims."
But as he is addressing a Christian group he moves on quickly to the plight of Christians.
" We have grave concerns about the persistent and serious violations in Iran of the rights of Iranian citizens to practise Christianity, including those facing charges of apostasy."
A nod is thrown out to the neocons in the crowd.
"In Iraq, where the United States has fought mightily and paid dearly to combat tyranny and secure for the people a better, brighter future, many challenges remain. Fundamental freedoms are the domain of the select few. And Christians are not always among the few."
The speech includes a veiled shot at Liberals for i guess, abandoning the theme of religious freedom.
"Canada has a tradition that some in our country seemed to forget during the latter half of the last century: a tradition of standing for freedom and fundamental rights, a tradition of standing against oppression."
"So I’m proud to say Canada no longer simply “goes along to get along” in the conduct of its foreign policy."
The elevation of terrorism.
"Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of his generation, terrorism is the great struggle of ours."
The remainder of the speech talks about the importance of religious freedom. How Democracy and religious freedom are inseparable.
"Simply put, societies that protect religious freedom are more likely to protect other fundamental freedoms.
The inference here is a bit blurry but i get the idea that Baird is trying to say that without religious freedom there is no Democracy. True, but i can say that about freedom of speech, press, against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The core idea of Democracy is recognition that the citizen has rights that the state may not unduly abridge.
Since Baird was talking to a religious audience it is not unreasonable he would emphasize that aspect of democracy.
This was a political speech. It's content directed towards a conservative audience. I won't fault the idea behind the speech. It is important that people are free to practise their beliefs; that minorities are safe from persecution. That tolerance of the other is a key democratic principle. The coating of the speech is just not to my liking.
A last note, atheism made no appearance. In many places it is also unsafe to express no belief.
In his speech he spoke of defending all religious groups for persecution, though the body of the speech dealt with Christian and Jewish persecution. He noted the thousands of years of persecution of the Jewish people. Throwing in the he ubiquitous your with us or the appeasers Baird saying;
"The world cannot take the words of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime as mere rhetoric and cannot risk appeasing these malicious actors in the same way as it once appeased the Nazis."
He is right, on the issue of appeasement, it tends to embolden the aggressor. He is wrong on directly comparing the situation Israel with Nazi era Europe.
Or here where Baird levels the usual charge, though muted slightly, that criticizing Israel springs from bigotry.
"We contend that modern anti-Semitism is alive in the disproportionate criticism Israel receives, and the refusal to accept its right to exist."
This part of the speech was an affirmation of Israel and Canada's unwavering support for them. With Baird saying,
"Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and under this foreign affairs minister, Canada will stand with the Jewish state and people as they struggle to protect their very right to exist."
Israel is in a tough spot no one can disagree. That it is partly of their own making can also not be argued. But they are lucky enough to have over 200 nuclear weapons, the best trained/technologically advanced armed forces in the region, and the support of the United States of America.
He makes mention of repression of Muslims,
"Burma, despite recent reforms, the regime continues to discriminate against certain forms of Buddhism and restricts the activities of Muslims."
But as he is addressing a Christian group he moves on quickly to the plight of Christians.
" We have grave concerns about the persistent and serious violations in Iran of the rights of Iranian citizens to practise Christianity, including those facing charges of apostasy."
A nod is thrown out to the neocons in the crowd.
"In Iraq, where the United States has fought mightily and paid dearly to combat tyranny and secure for the people a better, brighter future, many challenges remain. Fundamental freedoms are the domain of the select few. And Christians are not always among the few."
The speech includes a veiled shot at Liberals for i guess, abandoning the theme of religious freedom.
"Canada has a tradition that some in our country seemed to forget during the latter half of the last century: a tradition of standing for freedom and fundamental rights, a tradition of standing against oppression."
"So I’m proud to say Canada no longer simply “goes along to get along” in the conduct of its foreign policy."
The elevation of terrorism.
"Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of his generation, terrorism is the great struggle of ours."
The remainder of the speech talks about the importance of religious freedom. How Democracy and religious freedom are inseparable.
"Simply put, societies that protect religious freedom are more likely to protect other fundamental freedoms.
They are typically more stable and more prosperous.
When you have religious freedom, other freedoms follow."
The inference here is a bit blurry but i get the idea that Baird is trying to say that without religious freedom there is no Democracy. True, but i can say that about freedom of speech, press, against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The core idea of Democracy is recognition that the citizen has rights that the state may not unduly abridge.
Since Baird was talking to a religious audience it is not unreasonable he would emphasize that aspect of democracy.
This was a political speech. It's content directed towards a conservative audience. I won't fault the idea behind the speech. It is important that people are free to practise their beliefs; that minorities are safe from persecution. That tolerance of the other is a key democratic principle. The coating of the speech is just not to my liking.
A last note, atheism made no appearance. In many places it is also unsafe to express no belief.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
The Back Bench Blues
Conservative David Wilks MP for Kootenay-Columbia was meeting with his constituents to discuss the CPC budget. He went there to answer questions and talk to voters. This is one of the things he said.
"At the end of the day, in my opinion, they’ve made up their mind and this is how we’re going to vote. One person is not going to make a difference, one MP is not going to make a difference.”
I was never under the impression that the back bench was a seething pool of dissent, waiting like a coiled spring to strike out against Prime Ministerial over reach. In Canada the back bench is where you sit while waiting to cast a vote for government bills. You cheer what ever the government says boo the opposition. You occupy the background looking interested,in case the camera pans your way, your role is to provide a solid wall of support for your government.
The back bench is necessary as it provides vote support for government bills. But it lacks any effective power. The caucus does not chose the party leader, as a result the Prime Minister has no need to play to his caucus. The size of parliament in the United Kingdom allows the government greater leeway in dealing with dissident MPs. There the government can afford a few independent minded people without fear of losing close votes. In Canada the small size of parliament calls for greater conformity. Even at the committee stage their work is to see bills on their way, not to advise or amend the legislation.
So it is easy to see how an MP can get down in the mouth. What bothers me is the resignation he showed. He has in effect given up trying. I don't know why he got into politics. I don't know what fired him up enough to put his name in to the hat. But it seems like that fire is gone out of him. Mr. Wilks is just a seat warmer and that is sad. Sad for him and sad for us. We need dedicated men and women in parliament. People willing to sit when they need to but also willing to rise up and be heard when it gets to hard to hold their tongues.
There will be fallout from this. Mr. Wilkes has already had a statement issued regarding his support for the budget. You can find it at the bottom of the article referenced by this piece.
"At the end of the day, in my opinion, they’ve made up their mind and this is how we’re going to vote. One person is not going to make a difference, one MP is not going to make a difference.”
I was never under the impression that the back bench was a seething pool of dissent, waiting like a coiled spring to strike out against Prime Ministerial over reach. In Canada the back bench is where you sit while waiting to cast a vote for government bills. You cheer what ever the government says boo the opposition. You occupy the background looking interested,in case the camera pans your way, your role is to provide a solid wall of support for your government.
The back bench is necessary as it provides vote support for government bills. But it lacks any effective power. The caucus does not chose the party leader, as a result the Prime Minister has no need to play to his caucus. The size of parliament in the United Kingdom allows the government greater leeway in dealing with dissident MPs. There the government can afford a few independent minded people without fear of losing close votes. In Canada the small size of parliament calls for greater conformity. Even at the committee stage their work is to see bills on their way, not to advise or amend the legislation.
So it is easy to see how an MP can get down in the mouth. What bothers me is the resignation he showed. He has in effect given up trying. I don't know why he got into politics. I don't know what fired him up enough to put his name in to the hat. But it seems like that fire is gone out of him. Mr. Wilks is just a seat warmer and that is sad. Sad for him and sad for us. We need dedicated men and women in parliament. People willing to sit when they need to but also willing to rise up and be heard when it gets to hard to hold their tongues.
There will be fallout from this. Mr. Wilkes has already had a statement issued regarding his support for the budget. You can find it at the bottom of the article referenced by this piece.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Monetising Users Is An Ugly Phrase
I was watching CNBC, when the phrase “Monetizing Users” was uttered. I took immediately dislike to it. It came up during a discussion of Facebook, mobile media and advertising. The questioner was wondering how Facebook was going to turn its user base into cash. It was noted that the internet was becoming mobile, smart phones and tablets are being taken up by people at a phenomenal rate. These platforms especially smart phones make advertising difficult due to a smaller screen size and the way they are used.
A basic description of online advertizing is one where the host gets paid by the number of unique page loading, targeted ads to specific users or clicks. It is much more complicated than that but the basic nature is getting eyes on ads. This is how formerly “bricks and mortar” media like magazines or newspapers are trying to create profit, though some are trying pay walls or subscriptions. This is also how “free” social media applications pay the freight.
Advertizing has been around for over a century. It has infiltrated, (I hate to use that word but it seems so right), every part of our lives. Our attention has been the price we paid for such things as, newspapers and magazines. They filled their pages with ads that we look over while catching up on the latest news or gossip. Radio and TV were “free”; sitting through commercials was the actual cost. It didn’t seem an inconvenience, the advertisers got their audience and we were entertained. It was a fair trade. We could always turn the set off and walk away. Telemarketing made things a little worse tying up our phones and junk mail over flooding our mailboxes. Now we employ “do not call list”. We ban what mail we can.
Now it seems different. Social media and mobile internet are not just in our lives but very much part of it them. The young are firmly entrenched in the net. The older generation is fast taking up their place in the web too; the difference is only in degree.
Advertising doesn’t feel the same way. It seems intrusive, demanding and at times alive by the way it can target likes, tailoring ads to the specific person.
We have become commodities. We have been monetized. Even as the advertiser sells to us we are bundled up and sold by Facebook, Google or any number of mass media outlets. We can’t walk away from the net the way we did the Old Media. So we need to learn to live with it.
The situation is not dire. There is no looming danger from some rising internet tyrant. We citizens (not consumers, don’t get me started) encountering a new way of doing things. We have the intelligence to plan the future of the internet commerce and define our relationship to it. We can install proper safe guards and regulations that will Take the all the Ugly out of the phrase “Monetising Users”.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
The Naked PM
Art is comment. Satire is a tool of the artist.
“Emperor Haute Couture” is the title of a nude painting of Prime Minister Harper, by the artist Maggie Sutherland. It presently hangs in the Kingston Public library. It depicts a nude Harper stretched out over a chaise lounge, surrounded by suited attendants, depicted without heads, offering the PM a Tim Horton’s coffee. Oh and a little dog too.
The PM did not sit for painting. It is a work of political satire. I would know this even if the artist had not said it herself. Harper, depicted nude surrounded by headless advisors or conservative MPs being served a Timmies couldn’t be anything else.
Opposition piped in with “It's probably the only double-double in the picture,” said Liberal MP Scott Brison. “Nudes have been part of art for hundreds of years, so I don't find the painting morally offensive. Perhaps aesthetically offensive. This is a case where we need a Conservative cover-up.”
The PM’s office made a little joke about Harper being a cat person. Added a pundit, “This is a shot at everyday Canadians who do begin their mornings by going to (sic)Tim Hortons. It's the artist's way of showing disdain for those people the way she is showing disdain for the prime minister,” said Brian Lilley. Thank you Sun News for telling us what the artist was thinking.
From the Kingston Whig-Standard we get this from the Artists Agent. “This piece is an anomaly,” said Sutherland's agent Mary Sue Rankin, owner of the Edward Day Gallery in Toronto.
“Maggie is not a sensationalist. She's actually very shy.”
“But when she told me about this piece, she said to me 'this is my only form of protest,'" Rankin said. “She was just fed up with all the cuts to arts programs by the Harper government."
You need to do a little digging to find the “Disdain for Everyday Canadians” that Lilley was inferring, a lot more digging than I was prepared to do.
If you look to the comments section that follows on articles about the Nude PM we see the response from “Everyday Canadians”. As you might suspect the opinions and level of upset were split ideologically. The media outlet you read the story from plays a large part in that too. The conservatives, outraged at the depiction of our PM. The usual complaints about “Lefty Artists”, 5 dollar lattes and “if this happened to your leader you would not be laughing”. The other 61 percent were in fact, laughing.
The painting sums up nicely this Prime Minister and his government. Headless suits, depicting the role conservatives MPs are allowed to play, that of vote caster. This portion could well apply to advisors, research councils or the public. Harper does the thinking so you don’t need a head.
The coffee is for some pundits, the authenticity test of whether you are an “everyday Canadian”. Take no mind of the ubiquity of Tim Horton’s. Every corner has one. This is how it is used by political parties. Tim Horton’s has become short hand “I’m like you are can’t you see me holding a coffee”. I see the artist’s use of the coffee as a way to explode that touchstone. Showing me you understand takes more than a coffee, a donut and a hockey jersey.
The nudity is interesting. Harper shows no shame or discomfort at his nakedness. We know that nakedness is often a tool of humiliation and subjugation. But here is a depiction of a man with nothing to hide no secrets, comfortable and completely at ease. We have been told of Harper’s hidden agenda, this pose puts paid to that. His agenda and ambition are there to see. Harper has nothing to hide and absolutely need to try.
There are quite a few countries where this painting would have earned the artist exile, many years in prison or death. Luckily Canada is not on that list. One of the benefits of living in a democracy is the right to laugh at your leaders. We have the right to hold those deserving of derision up to public ridicule, and to argue whether such ridicule is deserved.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
To Blog
I have a perfectly good blog just sitting there, yet i don’t write. I certainly have plenty of opinions, ask my friends. I will endeavour to write more. It's not that i think the world needs another blogger, it doesn't, but it couldn’t hurt either. Writing down your thought has a therapeutic affect. Getting the concerns of the day off your chest and onto paper. Diaries and journals have been around for sometime, today paper gives way to digital but providing the same salutary effect. Allowing you to organize your thoughts into some semblance of coherence. Appearing on "paper", concerns take on a different perspective, being outside the author, no longer entirely theirs.
In the case of public journals, the blog , we have an ecosystem of ideas, concerns and opinions being argued, refined or abandoned. A diversity of thought. Democracy, thrives on diversity, is made more resilient and healthier, just like a biological ecosystem. So more citizens engaged, in as many ways as possible with their communities is a good thing.
That is a jumble of thoughts, ideas and possible directions for further posts.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
For Some Khadr's Life Will be condensed to Four Days
For some Omar Khadr's life will be condensed to only 4 days. The day on a battlefield in Afghanistan where he was captured and charged with murder, attempted murder and working with al Qaeda. The second day when he plead guilty to all five charges in as part of a prearranged plea agreement. The third when he is sentenced to anywhere between 8 years and life in prison. The last day will be when he gets out if ever that occurs.
Reducing Khadr’s life to those four days makes his story easier to tell. Captured terrorist, pleads guilty, finally convicted, goes to jail forever. The story could write itself, only it doesn’t, there are many hands doing the work. Filling out the very dry accounting of events with a diatribe, emotion, accusation and slur.
Let me add to the story.
On Day 1 was that Khadr was captured and charge with crimes that earned him a trip to the Guantanamo detention centre. Omar was not born on the battlefield as it may often appear. Born in Canada to a family with passive and active ties to extremist groups. Raised in an environment that virtually ensured his participation in the terrorism. He was a child soldier, as much as the right hates to admit this. Perhaps not with the same brutality of the Congo or other armed struggles, but with the same essential quality, he was a child denied a path away from violence, denied the protection from violence that all our children deserve. It is inevitable that his life would lead to death or capture at the hands of some opposing force. Please do not read this as an excuse, it’s not, it’s an explanation. Khadr arrived at that battlefield because of choices made for him, by others who should have cared more for the boy, than the cause, and he was a boy 15 years old and that matters too. Omar Khadr’s did not have a lot of choice, for that matter it is unlikely that he even noticed the poverty of his options. If you don’t realize you can say “no” then as a choice it doesn’t exist. What does it matter when we say a person chooses freely, if we don’t acknowledge the scarcity of paths in the first place.
On Day 2 he pleads guilty to murder and terrorism. The conservative press gleefully shouts “we told you so , see he’s guilty and you tried to help him, how do you feel now”. I feel bad, but not for what you think. It was unlikely that Khadr was innocent. I never thought they ought to just let him go. I feel bad that it took nearly 3000 days to get to this point. Omar Khadr arrived at Guantanamo October 30, 2002 and entered his plea October 25, 2010. During those almost 3000 days his legal and human rights were striped from him the ones remaining were abused in a fashion that is an anathema to our way of life. Yes he was tortured, pretend all you want that it didn’t happen but that’s all your doing, pretending. In 2006 3 men died at Guantanamo, ruled suicides, but there are credible accounts that death occurred as a result of torture.
Military tribunals instead of civilian criminal courts because guilty verdicts are easier to secure. Denied coverage under Geneva convention and so denied the protections that convention offers. Denied due process, denied speedy trial. Denied those Canadian Chartre rights 7 to 14 and the American Constitutional equivalents that we all enjoy. Omar Khadr was denied justice. Maybe you don’t think terrorists deserve justice, on that point you would be wrong. A bedrock principle like justice can not be selectively applied.
Again we come to paucity of Choice Omar Khadr can continue in his prison, face a tribunal where a guilty verdict is all but assured or plead out so the endgame can begin. Again a paucity of choice.
On Day 3 he will receive his sentence. For some, forever would be too short a time. But whatever the sentence many on the right will complain, hurl their slurs at “liberal terrorist sympathizers” , because that is what their readers expect. When you take a life, you have to pay, that is part of what justice demands. The ideal is that you pay with both time in jail and afterwards if you are deemed fit to return to society, by contributing positively to that society for the remainder of your life.
On Day 4 if he gets out we will be treated to rehash of what went before. Curiously in some quartres the story will remain as shrill and accusatory filled with fear and loathing as the day ink first went to paper.
Khadr’s story is a small part of a larger tale. Systematic rights abuses, violent extremism, the triumph of the war monger over the peace maker.
Reducing Khadr’s life to those four days makes his story easier to tell. Captured terrorist, pleads guilty, finally convicted, goes to jail forever. The story could write itself, only it doesn’t, there are many hands doing the work. Filling out the very dry accounting of events with a diatribe, emotion, accusation and slur.
Let me add to the story.
On Day 1 was that Khadr was captured and charge with crimes that earned him a trip to the Guantanamo detention centre. Omar was not born on the battlefield as it may often appear. Born in Canada to a family with passive and active ties to extremist groups. Raised in an environment that virtually ensured his participation in the terrorism. He was a child soldier, as much as the right hates to admit this. Perhaps not with the same brutality of the Congo or other armed struggles, but with the same essential quality, he was a child denied a path away from violence, denied the protection from violence that all our children deserve. It is inevitable that his life would lead to death or capture at the hands of some opposing force. Please do not read this as an excuse, it’s not, it’s an explanation. Khadr arrived at that battlefield because of choices made for him, by others who should have cared more for the boy, than the cause, and he was a boy 15 years old and that matters too. Omar Khadr’s did not have a lot of choice, for that matter it is unlikely that he even noticed the poverty of his options. If you don’t realize you can say “no” then as a choice it doesn’t exist. What does it matter when we say a person chooses freely, if we don’t acknowledge the scarcity of paths in the first place.
On Day 2 he pleads guilty to murder and terrorism. The conservative press gleefully shouts “we told you so , see he’s guilty and you tried to help him, how do you feel now”. I feel bad, but not for what you think. It was unlikely that Khadr was innocent. I never thought they ought to just let him go. I feel bad that it took nearly 3000 days to get to this point. Omar Khadr arrived at Guantanamo October 30, 2002 and entered his plea October 25, 2010. During those almost 3000 days his legal and human rights were striped from him the ones remaining were abused in a fashion that is an anathema to our way of life. Yes he was tortured, pretend all you want that it didn’t happen but that’s all your doing, pretending. In 2006 3 men died at Guantanamo, ruled suicides, but there are credible accounts that death occurred as a result of torture.
Military tribunals instead of civilian criminal courts because guilty verdicts are easier to secure. Denied coverage under Geneva convention and so denied the protections that convention offers. Denied due process, denied speedy trial. Denied those Canadian Chartre rights 7 to 14 and the American Constitutional equivalents that we all enjoy. Omar Khadr was denied justice. Maybe you don’t think terrorists deserve justice, on that point you would be wrong. A bedrock principle like justice can not be selectively applied.
Again we come to paucity of Choice Omar Khadr can continue in his prison, face a tribunal where a guilty verdict is all but assured or plead out so the endgame can begin. Again a paucity of choice.
On Day 3 he will receive his sentence. For some, forever would be too short a time. But whatever the sentence many on the right will complain, hurl their slurs at “liberal terrorist sympathizers” , because that is what their readers expect. When you take a life, you have to pay, that is part of what justice demands. The ideal is that you pay with both time in jail and afterwards if you are deemed fit to return to society, by contributing positively to that society for the remainder of your life.
On Day 4 if he gets out we will be treated to rehash of what went before. Curiously in some quartres the story will remain as shrill and accusatory filled with fear and loathing as the day ink first went to paper.
Khadr’s story is a small part of a larger tale. Systematic rights abuses, violent extremism, the triumph of the war monger over the peace maker.
Would i Still Question the F-35 if the Liberals were in Charge?
Why do I question the purchase of the F-35 jet fighter? If it were a Liberal government would I still feel the same way? It’s a good question, as there are times when politics can degrade reason. So lets review my reasoning, for bias.
The order is for 65 advanced jets, the procurement is sole sourced.
For me the question revolves around need. It is clear that our F-18s are nearing their operational life and will need replacement. The liberal government under Chrétien entered into a agreement with other nations to develop a 5th generation fighter. The deal gave then say in development, though that say is limited in comparison to the United states and other big spenders like Britain. It also ensured a share of the contracts for manufacturing this jet.
A good deal all around, influence, jobs and jets. Thirteen years later and what we have is an order for 65 jets at 16 billion dollars all coinciding with a near economic collapse we haven’t quite pulled out of. I can’t blame either the Liberal government for getting in on the deal or the Conservatives that continuing it. Like I said its jobs and jets, both are needed.
There is no evidence that if we don’t sign the contract the jobs are gone. Our companies at least for now are in the supply chain , though future opportunities for work might be reduced. Nor will cancelling the contract result in large payouts like the ill fated helicopter deal cancelled by the newly elected Liberal government. It also doesn’t mean that our Air Force need make do with old planes, we can buy new versions of exiting fighters.
The question of what kind of jets do we need? It’s a practical question, the kind you ask when buying any piece of equipment. What do we need our jets to do? Our jets provide first response in defence of our airspace. Just days ago they were required to intercept a civilian air liner suspected of having bombs aboard. At that would not have been done better by F-35s. The Russians have been doing fly bys lately and we need aircraft that can counter them. Again do we need the top of the line to do that? Though to be clear interceptions are just a formality we could not stop a serious incursion from the dominant militaries. Our jets also aid in SAR which require capable air craft but hardly the cutting edge.
Can we continue to contribute to our local, NORAD and international NATO, commitments without the F-35? I have yet to see an argument advanced that suggests we cannot. Yes, it can be more complicated to organise missions with different aircraft, supply issues come to mind, but its hardly a critical issue. The Unite States operates over 2 dozen different aircraft types.
At present we can expect to fight combat missions against groups without aircraft and countries with inferior forces. Something we can do with the present generation of aircraft.
It appears we can meet our present obligations with newer versions of jets aircraft already in existence , that come with proven records and supply chains already in existence.
What of future needs? Should we worry that we will be overtaken by technologically superior designs?
A good question. The only response I can come up with is “who do you think we might be fighting”. The F-35 is being bought by our allies. China and Russia are working on their own 5th generation fighters. I don’t foresee us fighting the first group or sadly being able to beat either of the latter if they chose to start a war with us.
What this feels like is a political process upending a practical one. The reasonable course would be a review first of what our air force needs, I’m not sure this was done.
If our experts declare that we need this advanced fighter I can live with the result.
Canada is not a Warrior Nation, oh how I hate that term, we are instead a Dutiful Nation. A willingness to fight not a desire to, is our hallmark. We fight as needed for our own defence and the defence of our neighbours. We need the right tools to do it, not the most expensive. Diplomacy first and foremost is the friend of a small nation.
The order is for 65 advanced jets, the procurement is sole sourced.
For me the question revolves around need. It is clear that our F-18s are nearing their operational life and will need replacement. The liberal government under Chrétien entered into a agreement with other nations to develop a 5th generation fighter. The deal gave then say in development, though that say is limited in comparison to the United states and other big spenders like Britain. It also ensured a share of the contracts for manufacturing this jet.
A good deal all around, influence, jobs and jets. Thirteen years later and what we have is an order for 65 jets at 16 billion dollars all coinciding with a near economic collapse we haven’t quite pulled out of. I can’t blame either the Liberal government for getting in on the deal or the Conservatives that continuing it. Like I said its jobs and jets, both are needed.
There is no evidence that if we don’t sign the contract the jobs are gone. Our companies at least for now are in the supply chain , though future opportunities for work might be reduced. Nor will cancelling the contract result in large payouts like the ill fated helicopter deal cancelled by the newly elected Liberal government. It also doesn’t mean that our Air Force need make do with old planes, we can buy new versions of exiting fighters.
The question of what kind of jets do we need? It’s a practical question, the kind you ask when buying any piece of equipment. What do we need our jets to do? Our jets provide first response in defence of our airspace. Just days ago they were required to intercept a civilian air liner suspected of having bombs aboard. At that would not have been done better by F-35s. The Russians have been doing fly bys lately and we need aircraft that can counter them. Again do we need the top of the line to do that? Though to be clear interceptions are just a formality we could not stop a serious incursion from the dominant militaries. Our jets also aid in SAR which require capable air craft but hardly the cutting edge.
Can we continue to contribute to our local, NORAD and international NATO, commitments without the F-35? I have yet to see an argument advanced that suggests we cannot. Yes, it can be more complicated to organise missions with different aircraft, supply issues come to mind, but its hardly a critical issue. The Unite States operates over 2 dozen different aircraft types.
At present we can expect to fight combat missions against groups without aircraft and countries with inferior forces. Something we can do with the present generation of aircraft.
It appears we can meet our present obligations with newer versions of jets aircraft already in existence , that come with proven records and supply chains already in existence.
What of future needs? Should we worry that we will be overtaken by technologically superior designs?
A good question. The only response I can come up with is “who do you think we might be fighting”. The F-35 is being bought by our allies. China and Russia are working on their own 5th generation fighters. I don’t foresee us fighting the first group or sadly being able to beat either of the latter if they chose to start a war with us.
What this feels like is a political process upending a practical one. The reasonable course would be a review first of what our air force needs, I’m not sure this was done.
If our experts declare that we need this advanced fighter I can live with the result.
Canada is not a Warrior Nation, oh how I hate that term, we are instead a Dutiful Nation. A willingness to fight not a desire to, is our hallmark. We fight as needed for our own defence and the defence of our neighbours. We need the right tools to do it, not the most expensive. Diplomacy first and foremost is the friend of a small nation.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Short Note on Taxation and Why I Am OK With It
If you accept that people are born into different situations, good and bad.That those citizen affected by adverse circumstance need help to achieve their potential. If you accept that it is in the interest of a nation to mitigate what inequalities they can. Programs to address these needs must be created and paid for through taxation. Progressive taxation is a ideal way to pay for programs as it taxes those most able to bear the extra burden. If you don't accept that premise in whole or in part then progressive taxation seems wrong and a flat tax seems fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)