1)Paul Krugman had an article in the New York Times the other week. In it, he makes highly dubious statements about Paul Ryan's plan to try and balance the deficit. Krugman spends the article deconstructing Ryan's argument, and then comes up with declaration in the last 2 paragraphs:
"So why have so many in Washington, especially in the news media, been taken in by this flimflam? It’s not just inability to do the math, although that’s part of it. There’s also the unwillingness of self-styled centrists to face up to the realities of the modern Republican Party; they want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense. And last but not least, there’s deference to power — the G.O.P. is a resurgent political force, so one mustn’t point out that its intellectual heroes have no clothes.
But they don’t. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future."
So, Mr. Krugman, what exactly is the Democrat's plan to balance the budget? Wait, they also don't have one. Except Paul Ryan is a mere congressman, while Obama is the President and has no plan. Then again, Krugman doesn't really care about balanced deficits anyways, so I don't see what he's angry about.
2) Article in the National Post speculating that Democrats may block a plan that will transfer oil from the oil-sands to the US. This apparently may cost Canada an estimated 30 billion dollars a year in revenue, so we should maybe start to get worried about this.
3) A nice little excerpt from a speech, about how cool Jews are.
4) A fascinating article about Pakistan, that goes beyond the shallow analysis usually written about the country.
5) So listen to this. Some guy had a friend who tragically died in a drunk driving accident. Since then, he has waited outside bars offering to drive drunk people home for free. Eventually this raised the ire of taxi drivers, who were losing business. Said guy, then was arrested for not having a business license to drive people home...
6) Really teacher's union? Really?
7) Debunking the claim that Gaza is like Darfur. I can't believe people really would think it is.
8) Showing once again how barbaric the Taliban are.
9) Study apparently proving that who we are as 6 year olds will predict how we are as adults. The conclusions of the study didn't seem logical to me.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Maybe this should be kept secret.
So the National Post has an article today about a guy, who in case of a terrorist attack on the internet, has one of 7 internet keys that would put the web back online.
Now think about the article in this way.
Security officials are mildly scared that terrorists might put the internet offline, thus they put in a safeguard by giving these security keys to 7 people.
Now imagine that their is a terrorist group sophisticated enough to carry out the attack on said servers that control the internet.
This terrorist group would then also presumably be sophisticated enough to google maps where this guy lives, and the 6 other people they mention by name as having the security keys to the internet!
So ya, maybe this should have been kept under wraps a little more.
Now think about the article in this way.
Security officials are mildly scared that terrorists might put the internet offline, thus they put in a safeguard by giving these security keys to 7 people.
Now imagine that their is a terrorist group sophisticated enough to carry out the attack on said servers that control the internet.
This terrorist group would then also presumably be sophisticated enough to google maps where this guy lives, and the 6 other people they mention by name as having the security keys to the internet!
So ya, maybe this should have been kept under wraps a little more.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Dissecting a Paul Krugman article.
Who Cooked the Planet?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(Krugman in normal font, me in bold)
Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record.
Of course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one year’s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date — but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on its own terms.
But will any of the deniers say “O.K., I guess I was wrong,” and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.
So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Because Democrats don’t want to pass it as much as most Republicans? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.
First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.
This is patently untrue. A lot of people don’t believe in the science of climate change. I think it’s pretty absurd to say that if the majority of people believed climate change would devastate the earth, they would just ignore it. Continue....
Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don’t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.
If you read other newspapers besides the New York Times you would know that the commissions looking into Climategate were severely flawed. Many members of those panels had ties to the people they were investigating. Oh yes, the Shirley Sherrod case is definitely analogous to this situation. I wager that Krugamn tries this analogy many more times in the following months.
Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate.
Nobody said the market would collapse; it would just become a lot more inefficient. There’s a reason people believe in a free market. They think it works best. Once you inject other things into it that messes up its effectiveness.
So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?
The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.
Two adjectives destroyed it.
If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon Evidence?, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.
Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.
We should totally expect businesses to voluntarily destroy themselves for Krugman’s happiness.
Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? Like Barack Obama?You already know the answer.
By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.
There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.
There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.
And what about Obama’s promise to pass this bill? I mean he is the president with 59 senators and controls the House...
Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price.
You were funny in Get Him to The Greek, Paul Krugman.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Highly unethical.
The New York Times has an article up about how the U.S Congress might pass a bill allowing online gambling, and the subsequent taxing of it, to become legal. They of course are doing this to help make up some of the huge debt they've accrued. The tax could apparently make 42 billion dollars in 10 years.
First ridiculous thing: the government actively helping citizens indulge in their vices. This seems highly unethical.
However, the most ridiculous thing has to come from Barney Frank, who said, "“Some adults will spend their money foolishly, but it is not the purpose of the federal government to prevent them legally from doing it.”
In other words, people can do anything we please, we don't care, just give us your tax dollars. It's also crazy considering Barney Frank is perfectly content with taking the rich's money, and funneling them into social programs.
Not to say, I don't agree with the decision. Like Frank, says, government shouldn't interfere with how we want to spend our money. However, the government shouldn't be making money off of it. Also, Barney Frank is being a hypocrite for trying to act like a libertine on this issue, when he is anything but that on any other issue.
First ridiculous thing: the government actively helping citizens indulge in their vices. This seems highly unethical.
However, the most ridiculous thing has to come from Barney Frank, who said, "“Some adults will spend their money foolishly, but it is not the purpose of the federal government to prevent them legally from doing it.”
In other words, people can do anything we please, we don't care, just give us your tax dollars. It's also crazy considering Barney Frank is perfectly content with taking the rich's money, and funneling them into social programs.
Not to say, I don't agree with the decision. Like Frank, says, government shouldn't interfere with how we want to spend our money. However, the government shouldn't be making money off of it. Also, Barney Frank is being a hypocrite for trying to act like a libertine on this issue, when he is anything but that on any other issue.
A perfect example of a dumbed down article
Giant Panda Accidently Gassed in China
A giant panda eats bamboo--REUTERS/Stringer
This just might be the saddest news you will hear today—a giant panda, living in China's Jinan Zoo, died after accidently being gassed with carbon monoxide and chlorine.
An autopsy released on Tuesday revealed that the 21-year-old panda, Quan Quan, inhaled the gases that were being used to disinfect a nearby former air raid shelter. The toxic gases caused her lungs to collapse and despite attempts to save her, Quan Quan died in the hospital.
(See TIME's photo essay on panda Tai Shan's journey to China)
Zoo officials say that the gases had come through ventilation pipes that the zoo shared with the raid shelter. Activists are already pointing to Quan Quan's death as another indication of how zoos should improve their treatment of animals in captivity.
(See the viral sneezing panda clip in TIME's 50 best YouTube videos)
"These pandas are being bred for a life in captivity," said Kati Loeffler, a veterinary advisor for the International Fund for Animal Welfare. "Why are they being bred? Just so they can circulate through zoos and live next to old air raid shelters?"
As pandas are on the endangered species list, Quan Quan was reportedly considered a “heroic mother” in China, because she has given birth to seven cubs. (via the Los Angeles Times)
Obviously a really sad story, but did we really need a link to a sneezing panda (in red ink)! Time article: A panda died, now watch it sneeze! I find this ridiculous for whatever reason.
Two articles about marriage, sexuality, and society.
Lorne Gunter had a provocative (for the National Post) article in the National Post the other day entitled " Heterosexuals are the greatest threat to marriage."
He posited that in the 5 years since same sex marriage has been legalized in Canada, the stature of the insitution of marriage has stayed the same. It is so, because as he puts it, "Heterosexuals have already hollowed out the institution of marriage so thoroughly that it no longer means what it once did..."
His contention is that the government has a role in promoting stable families, as evidence has shown that stable two parent families lead a child to a better outcome than he/she would otherwise. However, the introduction of common law marriage (of which there are 500 000 common law families, compared to 6000 homosexual ones with kids) changed all that. Children living in common law family homes have higher rates of crime, ergo the government should not have let common law marriages.
Since they did, it becomes unjustifiable to deny homosexuals the right of marriage. Also, they are by far a smaller group than common law marriage families. Therefore he feels it is hypocritical that heterosexuals demonize homosexuals for destroying the meaning of marriage, when they in fact are doing a much better job of it.
The subtext behind his article seems to indicate, that if it was up to him, no common law marriages or homosexual marriages would be allowed. That's kind of strange I guess. Interesting nevertheless.
I saw a second article in Haaretz, in which a group of Orthodox rabbis and educators signed a statement of principle saying, "Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community."
This is obviously a controversial topic in the Orthodox community, and really states that it is better to bring people into the fold, rather than ostracizing them.
"The question or cause of one's sexual orientation is irrelevant "to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect," the signatories said."
I think overall I have to agree with that sentiment. As easy as it is to push people away for who they are, I feel it is better to do the more difficult thing and accept them. The Orthodox community does not treat people who cheat on their wives, steal, or do a whole host of other things as badly as they treat the gay community. Obviously there seems to be some sort of cultural component for why gays are treated in this way.
The signatories say they won't officiate marriages between same sex couples, as that would be against Halakah.
However, I think this statement is a good compromise position for the Orthodox community too take.
He posited that in the 5 years since same sex marriage has been legalized in Canada, the stature of the insitution of marriage has stayed the same. It is so, because as he puts it, "Heterosexuals have already hollowed out the institution of marriage so thoroughly that it no longer means what it once did..."
His contention is that the government has a role in promoting stable families, as evidence has shown that stable two parent families lead a child to a better outcome than he/she would otherwise. However, the introduction of common law marriage (of which there are 500 000 common law families, compared to 6000 homosexual ones with kids) changed all that. Children living in common law family homes have higher rates of crime, ergo the government should not have let common law marriages.
Since they did, it becomes unjustifiable to deny homosexuals the right of marriage. Also, they are by far a smaller group than common law marriage families. Therefore he feels it is hypocritical that heterosexuals demonize homosexuals for destroying the meaning of marriage, when they in fact are doing a much better job of it.
The subtext behind his article seems to indicate, that if it was up to him, no common law marriages or homosexual marriages would be allowed. That's kind of strange I guess. Interesting nevertheless.
I saw a second article in Haaretz, in which a group of Orthodox rabbis and educators signed a statement of principle saying, "Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community."
This is obviously a controversial topic in the Orthodox community, and really states that it is better to bring people into the fold, rather than ostracizing them.
"The question or cause of one's sexual orientation is irrelevant "to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect," the signatories said."
I think overall I have to agree with that sentiment. As easy as it is to push people away for who they are, I feel it is better to do the more difficult thing and accept them. The Orthodox community does not treat people who cheat on their wives, steal, or do a whole host of other things as badly as they treat the gay community. Obviously there seems to be some sort of cultural component for why gays are treated in this way.
The signatories say they won't officiate marriages between same sex couples, as that would be against Halakah.
However, I think this statement is a good compromise position for the Orthodox community too take.
Arcade Fire Album.
The new Arcade Fire album, 'The Suburbs' can simply be described as fantastic. If one has not listened to their previous albums, 'Funeral', and 'Neon Bible', one really is missing out on some great music. The critics seem to agree, as 'The Suburbs' has garnered a score of 93 on Metacritic (that's really good).
Their sound is so eclectic that reviews of the album have compared them too: U2, Neil Young, Depeche Mode, Tom Petty, and the Rolling Stones (I detect some Blondie).
Only one guy seems to dislike the album because he thinks Win Butler is being disdainful of his fans. Who cares? That doesn't change the quality of the music.
I personally found 'We Used to Wait' and 'Sprawl 2' to be the best songs, although all of them are very good.
Anyways, I'm not going to pretend I'm a music critic, but I highly recommend you give this new album a listen.
And they're Canadian, go Canada!
Their sound is so eclectic that reviews of the album have compared them too: U2, Neil Young, Depeche Mode, Tom Petty, and the Rolling Stones (I detect some Blondie).
Only one guy seems to dislike the album because he thinks Win Butler is being disdainful of his fans. Who cares? That doesn't change the quality of the music.
I personally found 'We Used to Wait' and 'Sprawl 2' to be the best songs, although all of them are very good.
Anyways, I'm not going to pretend I'm a music critic, but I highly recommend you give this new album a listen.
And they're Canadian, go Canada!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Some interesting articles
Here are some really long and interesting articles.
1) A series of articles on Slate about Street Signs and the importance they play in cities. What makes this interesting is that you wouldn't ever really give a second thought to something as mundane as this topic.
2) An article examining what makes one a good teacher, and how we can train teachers to be better. A good teacher is the best way to predict future success.
3) Speculative article about the political future of Liz Cheney. It is kind of remarkable how Dick Cheney has managed to stay in the zeitgeist.
4) Article about the wackiness that is Scientology.
And some shorter ones.
1) Quick example of how the media focuses on the wrong stories.
2) Funny how people are getting really rich off carbon trading schemes.
3) Both sides of the political debate are hypocrites. I have also noticed this.
4) Couples who move in before marriage have a higher rate of divorce. Interesting.
5) Funny article about Rahm Emanuel.
1) A series of articles on Slate about Street Signs and the importance they play in cities. What makes this interesting is that you wouldn't ever really give a second thought to something as mundane as this topic.
2) An article examining what makes one a good teacher, and how we can train teachers to be better. A good teacher is the best way to predict future success.
3) Speculative article about the political future of Liz Cheney. It is kind of remarkable how Dick Cheney has managed to stay in the zeitgeist.
4) Article about the wackiness that is Scientology.
And some shorter ones.
1) Quick example of how the media focuses on the wrong stories.
2) Funny how people are getting really rich off carbon trading schemes.
3) Both sides of the political debate are hypocrites. I have also noticed this.
4) Couples who move in before marriage have a higher rate of divorce. Interesting.
5) Funny article about Rahm Emanuel.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Academy Awards Preview.
Hurrah, it is the Oscars. It should be interesting to see how the 10 best picture nominees will affect the viewership numbers. The hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, don't inspire much of anything, unless one is approaching retirement age.
On too the picks.
1) Best Picture Nominees (in order of how much I like them)
Best Director
I suppose James Cameron sort of deserves this. Despite making a sucky movie, it was a really epic sucky movie. I personally am disposed to the Hurt Locker, as I thought it was the finest war movie made in a long time. The tense shots and skillful storytelling was really made the most of by Kathryn Bigelow. Also, she would be the first woman to win. The other movies were pretty conventional, so I don't think the directing was so special.
Best Actor
I didn't see Crazy Heart or A Single Man, but apparently Jeff Bridges is going to win. I thought Clooney and Freeman were fine, but nothing spectacular. Renner was better, but I guess the movie wasn't as character driven as Crazy Heart is. And The Dude is long overdue anyways
Best Actress
Honestly have no clue who will win. Definitely not Bullock. Thought Mulligan and Sidibe were just ok. I'll say one of Streep and Mirren.
Best Supporting Actor
Only saw Invictus and Basterds, but everyone has already given the award to Waltz. And he was great in his role, despite being a Nazi.
Best Supporting Actress
Without a doubt Mo'Nique gave the best acting performance of the year. I have no clue why she isn't up for best actress. One will not see a better portrayal as a hurt, angry, and generally f***ed up person on screen. It's worth seeing Precious just for her.
Best animated movie
Gotta go with my boy Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson here. I love the book Fantastic Mr. Fox, and the movie was just about its equal. Nothing against Up, which was also a great movie, but Fantastic Mr. Fox was just the bomb. Didn't see the others. I hear Coraline is pretty messed up though
And I'm too lazy to pick anymore. The other categories are pretty bleh. Just hope the Israeli film wins best foreign picture. I though Food Inc. was a decent documentary. Fantastic Mr. Fox should have been up for Best Picture.
Comments?
On too the picks.
1) Best Picture Nominees (in order of how much I like them)
1. The Hurt Locker
2. Inglorious Basterds
3. Up
4. Precious
5. District 9
6. A Serious Man
7. The Blind Side
8. Up in the Air
9. Avatar
10. An Education
And the winner, should be, The Hurt Locker. By far the best movie made this year. No other movie on this list will suck you into the plot quite like this one. There's been a lot of speculation that Avatar may win. For humanity's sake I hope that doesn't happen. As an aside, if you want to see any of these movies, I can give them to you on a USB. Except Avatar, I wouldn't make Satan himself watch that, or An Education.Best Director
"Avatar" James Cameron "The Hurt Locker" Kathryn Bigelow "Inglourious Basterds" Quentin Tarantino "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" Lee Daniels "Up in the Air" Jason Reitman
I suppose James Cameron sort of deserves this. Despite making a sucky movie, it was a really epic sucky movie. I personally am disposed to the Hurt Locker, as I thought it was the finest war movie made in a long time. The tense shots and skillful storytelling was really made the most of by Kathryn Bigelow. Also, she would be the first woman to win. The other movies were pretty conventional, so I don't think the directing was so special.
Best Actor
- Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart"
- George Clooney in "Up in the Air"
- Colin Firth in "A Single Man"
- Morgan Freeman in "Invictus" (Warner Bros.)
- Jeremy Renner in "The Hurt Locker"
I didn't see Crazy Heart or A Single Man, but apparently Jeff Bridges is going to win. I thought Clooney and Freeman were fine, but nothing spectacular. Renner was better, but I guess the movie wasn't as character driven as Crazy Heart is. And The Dude is long overdue anyways
Best Actress
- Sandra Bullock in "The Blind Side"
- Helen Mirren in "The Last Station"
- Carey Mulligan in "An Education"
- Gabourey Sidibe in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
- Meryl Streep in "Julie & Julia"
Honestly have no clue who will win. Definitely not Bullock. Thought Mulligan and Sidibe were just ok. I'll say one of Streep and Mirren.
Best Supporting Actor
- Matt Damon in "Invictus"
- Woody Harrelson in "The Messenger"
- Christopher Plummer in "The Last Station"
- Stanley Tucci in "The Lovely Bones"
- Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds"
Only saw Invictus and Basterds, but everyone has already given the award to Waltz. And he was great in his role, despite being a Nazi.
Best Supporting Actress
- Penélope Cruz in "Nine"
- Vera Farmiga in "Up in the Air"
- Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Crazy Heart"
- Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air"
- Mo'Nique in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Without a doubt Mo'Nique gave the best acting performance of the year. I have no clue why she isn't up for best actress. One will not see a better portrayal as a hurt, angry, and generally f***ed up person on screen. It's worth seeing Precious just for her.
Best animated movie
"Coraline" (Focus Features) Henry Selick "Fantastic Mr. Fox" Wes Anderson "The Princess and the Frog" John Musker and Ron Clements "The Secret of Kells" Tomm Moore "Up"
Gotta go with my boy Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson here. I love the book Fantastic Mr. Fox, and the movie was just about its equal. Nothing against Up, which was also a great movie, but Fantastic Mr. Fox was just the bomb. Didn't see the others. I hear Coraline is pretty messed up though
And I'm too lazy to pick anymore. The other categories are pretty bleh. Just hope the Israeli film wins best foreign picture. I though Food Inc. was a decent documentary. Fantastic Mr. Fox should have been up for Best Picture.
Comments?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Khaled Abu Toameh on Israel Apartheid Week.
Khaled Abu Toameh gave a very interesting talk tonight about what it means to be pro Palestinian, IAW, and Israeli-Palestinian relations in general. I'll just introduce his background, and then summarize some of his main points.
Khaled Abu Toameh is an Israeli Arab, who works for the Jerusalem Post and many other media organizations. He used to be a journalist for the PLO, but felt it would better to work in the international media, where one could actually write freely.
Some of his points:
1) Saying one is pro Palestinian by participating in IAW is a useless label. He said IAW is just fanning hatred on both sides, and does little to actually help Palestinians. The Palestinians are in their terrible situation because of Palestinian corruption, more than Israeli 'Apartheid'. He said one should advocate for reform and democracy in Palestine, rather than delegitimizing Israel. As an aside, I have always thought events like IAW is just an attempt by people to say I'm helping Palestine without actually helping them. Slandering Israel may make one feel good, but doesn't help anyone.
2) Freely admits Israel has done terrible things, this does not make it an Apartheid. One has to realize that both sides are in a war. There is a cycle of violence. He asked the group how would you react to 8000 rockets?
3) Says the peace process can only move forward once a stable and transparent partner is found. How can Israel make peace if there is both Fatah and Hamas? Although he said Fatah would collapse without Israeli support.
4) Said the Goldstone Report does nothing to help the situation. He can understand why Israel acted in the way it did.
5) Said Gaza also borders Egypt. Why do they never help the people of Gaza. He says why should Israel have to support the Palestinians. Where are the other Arab countries?
6) Says when terror stops, Israel will loosen its restrictions.
7) Said both sides are there, and must be respectful of each other.
8) Believes Israel truly does want peace, but is just looking for a partner.
9) Jamal Zahalka, a member of Knesset, is speaking at IAW, saying Israel is an Apartheid state. Says Zahalka should be focusing on helping Israeli Arabs, i.e his job. All his words are doing is making the Israeli Arabs look like a fifth column. He is actually hurting them.
In summation, he was very critical of corrupt Palestinian politicians, and says the Palestinians must take responsibility of their own future. They should earn a state, not have one handed over to them. Unilateral moves by Israel will not work. Says calling Israel an Aparthid state inflames passions. Inflamed passions leads people to become suicide bombers.
This was a very interesting speech, and I actually do think it may have changed some people's perspectives.
Khaled Abu Toameh is an Israeli Arab, who works for the Jerusalem Post and many other media organizations. He used to be a journalist for the PLO, but felt it would better to work in the international media, where one could actually write freely.
Some of his points:
1) Saying one is pro Palestinian by participating in IAW is a useless label. He said IAW is just fanning hatred on both sides, and does little to actually help Palestinians. The Palestinians are in their terrible situation because of Palestinian corruption, more than Israeli 'Apartheid'. He said one should advocate for reform and democracy in Palestine, rather than delegitimizing Israel. As an aside, I have always thought events like IAW is just an attempt by people to say I'm helping Palestine without actually helping them. Slandering Israel may make one feel good, but doesn't help anyone.
2) Freely admits Israel has done terrible things, this does not make it an Apartheid. One has to realize that both sides are in a war. There is a cycle of violence. He asked the group how would you react to 8000 rockets?
3) Says the peace process can only move forward once a stable and transparent partner is found. How can Israel make peace if there is both Fatah and Hamas? Although he said Fatah would collapse without Israeli support.
4) Said the Goldstone Report does nothing to help the situation. He can understand why Israel acted in the way it did.
5) Said Gaza also borders Egypt. Why do they never help the people of Gaza. He says why should Israel have to support the Palestinians. Where are the other Arab countries?
6) Says when terror stops, Israel will loosen its restrictions.
7) Said both sides are there, and must be respectful of each other.
8) Believes Israel truly does want peace, but is just looking for a partner.
9) Jamal Zahalka, a member of Knesset, is speaking at IAW, saying Israel is an Apartheid state. Says Zahalka should be focusing on helping Israeli Arabs, i.e his job. All his words are doing is making the Israeli Arabs look like a fifth column. He is actually hurting them.
In summation, he was very critical of corrupt Palestinian politicians, and says the Palestinians must take responsibility of their own future. They should earn a state, not have one handed over to them. Unilateral moves by Israel will not work. Says calling Israel an Aparthid state inflames passions. Inflamed passions leads people to become suicide bombers.
This was a very interesting speech, and I actually do think it may have changed some people's perspectives.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Europe is a crazy place, and other news.
I noticed while reading online this week that a lot of the article were about Europe. Some of them were quite unusual.
Enjoy.
1) Headline: Austrian straight couple applies for gay marriage.
2) Some British politician calling the President of the EU a bum. Pretty funny video. Makes the 'you lie' controversy seem lame in comparison.
3) The brilliance of French advertising.
4) Headline: Vienna museum hosts swingers club to expose sexual inhibitions. Such an enlightened place.
5) Greece is going bankrupt. They are blaming Germany for their situation by invoking the Nazis. That will surely help them get bailed out by the EU. For a country that invented Democracy, not very impressive.
6) Spain- a country where little children write anti-Semitic stuff in postcards. So adorable.
7) Article about Phil Jones being interrogated by the UK Parliament. He was the head of the University of East Anglia's climate research facility. Telling line:"And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research. " Sounds like we should give this guy a trillion dollars to fix climate change!
Stuff about Israel.
1) A guy in Haaretz doesn't think Mossad would be so sloppy in killing this arms facilitator. I would agree. And who can trust the Dubai police. They just scream competence.
2) Satirical article about many things Israel related. Quite funny.
Stuff about Obama.
1) Good article on how Obama needs to become more pragmatic to succeed. I agree. He really does seem like good guy.
2) If your parents ever get on your case about smoking cigarettes, remind them that Obama does it.
3) Article claiming to have found the Republican Obama. It seems every week there's some dark horse Republican ready to win in 2012. EG: John Thune, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio. I still believe in you Mitt. And Ron Paul, he would be hilarious.
Other stuff.
1) Article showcasing the resiliency of people in third world countries.
2) Robert Mugabe eats a feast for his birthday on live TV. His country is starving. Still more interesting than Leno. Boom!
3) Not only did we win gold in hockey. Our economy expanded at a 5% rate last quarter. Whoo!
Now I can finally close all those tabs....
I will do another article this week about IAW, and one about the Oscars. I saw all 10 best picture movies. And surprisingly, I am wearing pants, and do not live in my mother's basement.
Enjoy.
1) Headline: Austrian straight couple applies for gay marriage.
2) Some British politician calling the President of the EU a bum. Pretty funny video. Makes the 'you lie' controversy seem lame in comparison.
3) The brilliance of French advertising.
4) Headline: Vienna museum hosts swingers club to expose sexual inhibitions. Such an enlightened place.
5) Greece is going bankrupt. They are blaming Germany for their situation by invoking the Nazis. That will surely help them get bailed out by the EU. For a country that invented Democracy, not very impressive.
6) Spain- a country where little children write anti-Semitic stuff in postcards. So adorable.
7) Article about Phil Jones being interrogated by the UK Parliament. He was the head of the University of East Anglia's climate research facility. Telling line:"And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research. " Sounds like we should give this guy a trillion dollars to fix climate change!
Stuff about Israel.
1) A guy in Haaretz doesn't think Mossad would be so sloppy in killing this arms facilitator. I would agree. And who can trust the Dubai police. They just scream competence.
2) Satirical article about many things Israel related. Quite funny.
Stuff about Obama.
1) Good article on how Obama needs to become more pragmatic to succeed. I agree. He really does seem like good guy.
2) If your parents ever get on your case about smoking cigarettes, remind them that Obama does it.
3) Article claiming to have found the Republican Obama. It seems every week there's some dark horse Republican ready to win in 2012. EG: John Thune, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio. I still believe in you Mitt. And Ron Paul, he would be hilarious.
Other stuff.
1) Article showcasing the resiliency of people in third world countries.
2) Robert Mugabe eats a feast for his birthday on live TV. His country is starving. Still more interesting than Leno. Boom!
3) Not only did we win gold in hockey. Our economy expanded at a 5% rate last quarter. Whoo!
Now I can finally close all those tabs....
I will do another article this week about IAW, and one about the Oscars. I saw all 10 best picture movies. And surprisingly, I am wearing pants, and do not live in my mother's basement.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Links.
Some interesting things I've come across in the past few days.
1) Some more stuff about the global warming controversy.
2) Climate scientists evidently cannot predict the future so well.
3) Analysis of the current political state in Washington.
4) Syria is reasserting its dominance over Lebanon. This is a really big letdown after the hopes of the Cedar Revolution.
5) Interesting article about IED's. It has robots in the article!
6) Promising news in the fight against AIDS.
7) The USA is spending 1 billion dollars on building a new embassy in Government. That seems a tad expensive.
8) European public sector workers are getting increasingly peeved about their financial situation. Deal with it, times are tough.
9) Google is our overlord.
Enjoy the Olympics.
1) Some more stuff about the global warming controversy.
2) Climate scientists evidently cannot predict the future so well.
3) Analysis of the current political state in Washington.
4) Syria is reasserting its dominance over Lebanon. This is a really big letdown after the hopes of the Cedar Revolution.
5) Interesting article about IED's. It has robots in the article!
6) Promising news in the fight against AIDS.
7) The USA is spending 1 billion dollars on building a new embassy in Government. That seems a tad expensive.
8) European public sector workers are getting increasingly peeved about their financial situation. Deal with it, times are tough.
9) Google is our overlord.
Enjoy the Olympics.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Some interesting things from the past few days.
No real theme here, just too much too post on Facebook.
1) The Climate scientist who came up with the now disproved 'hockey stick' climate graph, admits no serious global warming has occurred in the last 15 years. Couple this with a weak global economy, and it looks like little will be done to stop climate change. This could either be a good thing or bad thing, depending on one's opinion.
2) Sort of relating too the above. The common misconception that locally made food is better for the environment is not true!
3) I know most people are enamored with pharaohs. So, it has been discovered that King Tut probably died of malaria. Stupid mosquitoes. Also, he had a club foot.
4) Good article about Amnesty International, and how it has lost its way.
5) David Brooks in the New York Times portrays a grim outlook for people seeking work in the current job market, especially men.
6) Sports is beneficial to women later on in life. Now I don't feel bad how much of it I watch on TV.
7) David Miller is ruining Toronto, by not knowing how to balance a budget. You're supposed to spend the same amount that you're able to take in. Doesn't take a genius!
8) Doctors in Qubec hold human life in such high regard, they want to be able to kill you if you want them too. Don't worry, they'll only do it if the patient is deemed lucid. You can pretty much print out lucid evaluation forms on the internet, so there should never be confusion.
9) A tracker of the cliched words used at the Olympics.
10) Worst date movie ever? A Clockwork Orange. Who knew people wouldn't want too watch brutal rape scenes on a first date? I could also propose most other Kubrick, Tarantino, and some choice Scorceses movies as bad choices too. And anything with Rob Schneider.
1) The Climate scientist who came up with the now disproved 'hockey stick' climate graph, admits no serious global warming has occurred in the last 15 years. Couple this with a weak global economy, and it looks like little will be done to stop climate change. This could either be a good thing or bad thing, depending on one's opinion.
2) Sort of relating too the above. The common misconception that locally made food is better for the environment is not true!
3) I know most people are enamored with pharaohs. So, it has been discovered that King Tut probably died of malaria. Stupid mosquitoes. Also, he had a club foot.
4) Good article about Amnesty International, and how it has lost its way.
5) David Brooks in the New York Times portrays a grim outlook for people seeking work in the current job market, especially men.
6) Sports is beneficial to women later on in life. Now I don't feel bad how much of it I watch on TV.
7) David Miller is ruining Toronto, by not knowing how to balance a budget. You're supposed to spend the same amount that you're able to take in. Doesn't take a genius!
8) Doctors in Qubec hold human life in such high regard, they want to be able to kill you if you want them too. Don't worry, they'll only do it if the patient is deemed lucid. You can pretty much print out lucid evaluation forms on the internet, so there should never be confusion.
9) A tracker of the cliched words used at the Olympics.
10) Worst date movie ever? A Clockwork Orange. Who knew people wouldn't want too watch brutal rape scenes on a first date? I could also propose most other Kubrick, Tarantino, and some choice Scorceses movies as bad choices too. And anything with Rob Schneider.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Provoking questions.
In the National Post, Kelly McParland posted an interesting article. It focuses on an article in The Washington Post, called "Why are liberals so condescending?" He then posted an article from the Guardian, which tried to disprove this article, but ended up showing the condescension of some liberals.
I only really want to focus on the thesis of the first article, although it's fun to read the second one. As an aside this is not a general statement about all Liberals, rather I think a fairly neutral observer can see truth in the argument. Indeed, if anyone has watched The Daily Show recently you would know what the article was talking about. Liberals like to portray the Republican party as a party with no ideas, and although many in the party are brainless, this is a gross generalization. The sort that so called 'smart people' should not make. Sometimes this arrogance manifests itself in such a way, that it is just as stupid as the people they are trying to attack.
Case in point. John Oliver on The Daily Show had a segment in which he talks about how everyone in Hawaii has free health care. He then proceeds to interview 5 random guys for Hawaii, who love free health care. Who wouldn't? But that is a pretty shallow reason for saying everyone should get free health care, even if I don't disagree with that idea per se. He then talks to members of the Republican National Committee who claim free health care would never work. Yes. What buffoons. Can't they not see that carrying out this experiment in Hawaii, is the exact same as trying it across a country of 300 million! What idiots!
Some supporters of the health care bill say, we need a public option, lower Medicare to people who are 55, etc... Nobody would disagree with that idea. But you need to pay for it. People get what you're saying Obama. They don't need to hear you give 50 speeches about health care. They're not dumb. They can see that someone needs to pay for all this. That is a totally legitimate argument against health care.
The article also alludes to the idea that if one is in favour of a trendy topic he must be right. People in favour of global warming, free health care, anti-oil companies, are seen as paradigms of virtue, while opposition are idiots. Maybe that's why people think Obama is out of touch. He either sees half of America as too stupid to follow his enlightened ideas, or he is too dumb to see the legitimacy of their arguments.
I hope this somewhat mad sense. It's a pretty random spew. I just thought it was pretty thought provoking. It also seems pretty intuitive that if half a country disagrees with something, their ideas have legitimacy.
Another brief article. A guy in The Independent bring up the ticking time bomb scenario. The author of the article advocates potentially torturing one's family to obtain information from him, if it would stop an imminent devastating attack. I don't like to think of myself as a moral relativist, but then again I don't know if the torture issue can be looked at in a vacuum. It is easy for someone in Iceland to say torture is always wrong; different for security services in Pakistan trying to stop a potential attack. I think in the end of the day we would in fact torture to get this information. In one sense it's terrible, but I think human life is worth more than an ideal.
That is probably one of the pressing moral issues of our time.
Let me know what your opinions are.
I only really want to focus on the thesis of the first article, although it's fun to read the second one. As an aside this is not a general statement about all Liberals, rather I think a fairly neutral observer can see truth in the argument. Indeed, if anyone has watched The Daily Show recently you would know what the article was talking about. Liberals like to portray the Republican party as a party with no ideas, and although many in the party are brainless, this is a gross generalization. The sort that so called 'smart people' should not make. Sometimes this arrogance manifests itself in such a way, that it is just as stupid as the people they are trying to attack.
Case in point. John Oliver on The Daily Show had a segment in which he talks about how everyone in Hawaii has free health care. He then proceeds to interview 5 random guys for Hawaii, who love free health care. Who wouldn't? But that is a pretty shallow reason for saying everyone should get free health care, even if I don't disagree with that idea per se. He then talks to members of the Republican National Committee who claim free health care would never work. Yes. What buffoons. Can't they not see that carrying out this experiment in Hawaii, is the exact same as trying it across a country of 300 million! What idiots!
Some supporters of the health care bill say, we need a public option, lower Medicare to people who are 55, etc... Nobody would disagree with that idea. But you need to pay for it. People get what you're saying Obama. They don't need to hear you give 50 speeches about health care. They're not dumb. They can see that someone needs to pay for all this. That is a totally legitimate argument against health care.
The article also alludes to the idea that if one is in favour of a trendy topic he must be right. People in favour of global warming, free health care, anti-oil companies, are seen as paradigms of virtue, while opposition are idiots. Maybe that's why people think Obama is out of touch. He either sees half of America as too stupid to follow his enlightened ideas, or he is too dumb to see the legitimacy of their arguments.
I hope this somewhat mad sense. It's a pretty random spew. I just thought it was pretty thought provoking. It also seems pretty intuitive that if half a country disagrees with something, their ideas have legitimacy.
Another brief article. A guy in The Independent bring up the ticking time bomb scenario. The author of the article advocates potentially torturing one's family to obtain information from him, if it would stop an imminent devastating attack. I don't like to think of myself as a moral relativist, but then again I don't know if the torture issue can be looked at in a vacuum. It is easy for someone in Iceland to say torture is always wrong; different for security services in Pakistan trying to stop a potential attack. I think in the end of the day we would in fact torture to get this information. In one sense it's terrible, but I think human life is worth more than an ideal.
That is probably one of the pressing moral issues of our time.
Let me know what your opinions are.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Why the SSMU Motion re: The Defense of Human Rights, Social Justice, and Environmental Protection is disgraceful.
Besides the unsavory motives of the group that is tabling this motion, the declaration itself is filled with factual errors. If passed it would be a joke.
Dissecting some problems in depth:
1) Say what you want about Israel, but to single it out for condemnation above every other country in the world is a hilarity. I really hate breaking out the Antisemitism card, but the EU definition of Antisemitism states: ``Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.``
How about singling out a country like Saudi Arabia, where women can`t drive, or get lashed if they`re raped. Or for that matter, most other countries in the Middle East or other parts of the world where basic freedoms are not protected. You may not like what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank, but it`s still a democracy which respects the basic human rights of all its citizens. So basically problem one is that this is political motion by a group that loves to single out Israel above all other countries.
2) I will quote one of the paragraphs from the motion which is, to put it bluntly, full of s**t:
``WHEREAS the occupation of The Occupied Palestinian Territories has also been declared illegal by the following UN Resolutions: Resolution 181, Resolution 242, Resolution 446, Resolution 452, Resolution 465, Resolution 471, and Resolution 476, as well as Article 1 of the UN Charter, and the following Covenants: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, both of which have been signed and ratified by Canada``
Wow, what an impressive list:
a) Resolution 181 is about the partition plan. Ya.... that really does not declare anything illegal.
b) Resolution 242 is recognized by most moderates to mean, when there will be a peace deal, the land for peace issue will be worked out. Once again, says nothing about legality.
c) Resolution 446 does say that there is no legal basis for settlements in the occupied territories. However, this motion portrays the Israeli side as land grabbing power, which does not ever seek peace. The Disengagement from Gaza would speak otherwise.
d) 452 was passed two months after 446, and says the same thing. What the UN was doing in 1979 is beyond me. Maybe they should have stopped that whole Ayatollah Khomeini thing.
e) 465 passed in 1980 said, hey Israel do something.
f) 471 passed a few months after 465...says the same thing.
g) 476 passed in the same month... says the same thing, excepts mentions Jerusalem.
In summation, a) and b) don`t say what the motion claims they say. Resolution 242 is basically accepted as the starting point for peace negotiations. The last 5 mentioned were all basically passed in the same year, and all say the same thing. Of course the UN said Zionism is Racism in 1975, so I really don`t think anything they says is representative of justice. Keep in mind that these decisions were passed by arbiters of moral judgment such as : Bangladesh, Gabon, Kuwait, Nigeria, Tunisia. Don`t you love it when these countries judge democratic ones.
As another aside, not listening to a UN resolution is hardly something that Israel alone does. Didn`t the UN pass some sort of motion telling Iran to stop trying to acquire nuclear materials? Or tell Sudan to you know stop the genocide in Darfur. Oh ya, but who cares if they don't follow what the UN says, they're not Israel.
And Article 1 of the UN charter says: ``The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;``
Once again, nothing about Israel.
So... I don`t really know how they can pass a motion when half the sources don`t even relate to the topic at hand, and were just trotted out to make an impressive list.
If there`s anything I forgot, let me know....
Dissecting some problems in depth:
1) Say what you want about Israel, but to single it out for condemnation above every other country in the world is a hilarity. I really hate breaking out the Antisemitism card, but the EU definition of Antisemitism states: ``Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.``
How about singling out a country like Saudi Arabia, where women can`t drive, or get lashed if they`re raped. Or for that matter, most other countries in the Middle East or other parts of the world where basic freedoms are not protected. You may not like what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank, but it`s still a democracy which respects the basic human rights of all its citizens. So basically problem one is that this is political motion by a group that loves to single out Israel above all other countries.
2) I will quote one of the paragraphs from the motion which is, to put it bluntly, full of s**t:
``WHEREAS the occupation of The Occupied Palestinian Territories has also been declared illegal by the following UN Resolutions: Resolution 181, Resolution 242, Resolution 446, Resolution 452, Resolution 465, Resolution 471, and Resolution 476, as well as Article 1 of the UN Charter, and the following Covenants: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, both of which have been signed and ratified by Canada``
Wow, what an impressive list:
a) Resolution 181 is about the partition plan. Ya.... that really does not declare anything illegal.
b) Resolution 242 is recognized by most moderates to mean, when there will be a peace deal, the land for peace issue will be worked out. Once again, says nothing about legality.
c) Resolution 446 does say that there is no legal basis for settlements in the occupied territories. However, this motion portrays the Israeli side as land grabbing power, which does not ever seek peace. The Disengagement from Gaza would speak otherwise.
d) 452 was passed two months after 446, and says the same thing. What the UN was doing in 1979 is beyond me. Maybe they should have stopped that whole Ayatollah Khomeini thing.
e) 465 passed in 1980 said, hey Israel do something.
f) 471 passed a few months after 465...says the same thing.
g) 476 passed in the same month... says the same thing, excepts mentions Jerusalem.
In summation, a) and b) don`t say what the motion claims they say. Resolution 242 is basically accepted as the starting point for peace negotiations. The last 5 mentioned were all basically passed in the same year, and all say the same thing. Of course the UN said Zionism is Racism in 1975, so I really don`t think anything they says is representative of justice. Keep in mind that these decisions were passed by arbiters of moral judgment such as : Bangladesh, Gabon, Kuwait, Nigeria, Tunisia. Don`t you love it when these countries judge democratic ones.
As another aside, not listening to a UN resolution is hardly something that Israel alone does. Didn`t the UN pass some sort of motion telling Iran to stop trying to acquire nuclear materials? Or tell Sudan to you know stop the genocide in Darfur. Oh ya, but who cares if they don't follow what the UN says, they're not Israel.
And Article 1 of the UN charter says: ``The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;``
Once again, nothing about Israel.
So... I don`t really know how they can pass a motion when half the sources don`t even relate to the topic at hand, and were just trotted out to make an impressive list.
If there`s anything I forgot, let me know....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)