Are we to Trust an Ally like Turkey

Russian SU-24

Turkey's Claim:A SU-24 jet was 19,000 feet high in Turkey’s airspace for 17 seconds and travelled 1.84 km across the southern tip.  

Facts
Generally in less tense times air incursions happen pretty regularly but generally you’d expect warning shots to be fired and attempts to force the intruder to leave or to land. Not was this case in Syria between Turkey and Russia.

The Turks shot down a Russian Su-24 jet and did so within 17 seconds – with Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu revealing that he personally gave the order to down the Russian Su-24 fighter jet– suggesting very strongly they were waiting for a Russian plane to come into or close enough to Turkish airspace with the aim of delivering a rather pyrotechnic message.

This is a highly ambiguous allegation and much media is neglecting to consider some of the mathematical facts.

The Su-24's max speed is 1320 km/hour (at sea level) and can be greater at a higher altitude  i.e. 19,000 feet per Turkey's letter to the UN, so it would mean that the SU-24 would have been in an out (if it is was) of Turkish airspace (1.84 km width) in 5 seconds! Whereas the Turks claim it was in for 17 seconds.

 This means that the supersonic jet on a mission of war would have been flying at a much less stable or controllable 390 km/hour speed. Highly impossible.

Now in context, Ankara is fiercly anti-Assad and in addition to being generally displeased with Russia's efforts to support the regime, just four days ago, Turkey summoned Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov over the alleged bombing of Turkish villages near the border. Ankara warned bombing villages populated by the Turkmen minority in Syria could lead to 'serious consequences.'

Of course Russia wasn't just bombing Turkish civilians for the sheer hell of it. It's likely Moscow was targeting the very same FSA-affiliated Alwiya al-Ashar militiamen who shot and killed the parachuting Russian pilot earlier that day.

In short, it looks like Ankara saw an opportunity to shoot down a Russian jet in retaliation for strikes on Turkish rebel fighters who are operating alongside anti-Assad forces. Erdogan is essentially gambling that Russia will not retaliate militarily against Turkey because doing so would open the door for a direct confrontation with NATO.

I hope our Prime Minister gets all the facts before jumping in with NATO. Treaty or not.

Dichotomy of Canada's right to free expression (Muslim or First Nation)

I quite regularly have my opinions as do many other of my fellow Canadians, but I am speechless in this situation. Canada has it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and within it there is a section granting free expression. Within limits - which has come to include hate speech not being tolerated.

Back in February of this year, the French magazine Charlie Hebdo printed some sarcastic caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammed. It caused a riot and some deaths in France because of it.

Back here in Canada, Angus Reid conducted a poll for the National Post; about the magazines right to publish the incendiary cartoons. That poll indicated the vast majority of Canadians supported Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed and most prioritised freedom of speech over fear of offending religious sensibilities by a clear 70 per cent.

Now here is the dichotomy

This year also saw a bandwagon of out door concerts and festivals begin to ban the wearing of First Nations headdresses. On the website for Montreal’s Osheaga Music and Arts Festival, beneath the customary rules and regulations was a comprehensive list of items banned from the festival premises, including laser pointers, fireworks, drones and selfie sticks. This year the list — surprise surprise —  contained the addition: traditional First Nations headdresses.

The rule was clear and ironclad. Any attendee who showed up wearing a headdress would have it confiscated upon entry or be asked to leave and return without it.

The First Nations headdress was also much-discussed when a young white woman donned one at the Winnipeg Folk Festival.  A few surreptitious snapshots circulated on social media, arousing a maelstrom of outrage and indignation and within hours, the festival had issued a statement denouncing such gestures of cultural appropriation and insisted that the organisers consider banning headdresses from future events.

“this time of greater awareness”... respect First Nations culture.

The incident effected more substantive change elsewhere, as music festivals across Canada continued to speak out against appropriation and imposed hardline bans. The Edmonton Folk Festival revealed on Facebook that at “this time of greater awareness” it would like its attendees to respect First Nations cultures and to not wear any type of First Nations headdresses during the festival. The Calgary Folk Festival, following Winnipeg’s precedent, publicly implored its patrons to leave headdresses at home but would not officially forbid them.

So in a nutshell, Canada agrees with the public mocking of a religious leader in the name of free speech, and yet demonises free expression from a few young women for enjoying the aethestic beauty (not mocking, not desecrating) of a First Nations Headdress. Both situations concerning religious attitudes and yet both treated very differently.

THE SOFT REALITY

---

It is language which avoids, shifts or denies responsibility. It conceals and prevents thought. It makes the unnatural seem natural, bad seem good, the unpleasant seem attractive, the negative seem positive and makes winners out of losers.

A-word	F-word	K-word	P-word	U-word	Z-word
B-word	G-word	L-word	Q-word	V-word
C-word	H-word	M-word	R-word	W-word
D-word	I-word	N-word	S-word	X-word
E-word	J-word	O-word	T-word	Y-word

1-word, Stop!

A euphemism, “the substitution of an indirect or vague term for one considered to be harsh or offensive” and it pretends to communicate but doesn't. 

If you cannot call a spade a spade when you write or speak then don't try. If you cannot say someone died instead of 'passing' don't say it. We are educated to write and read and to put words into a truthful honest narrative. Why are we continuing to 'beat around the bush'. 

When I was a child, I ate black liquorice candies called nigger babies. There I said it. That was then. Of course I would not call the candy that now, but nor should I replace N-word for something that was years and years ago.

Not everything in life needs to be sugar coated, nor should it. 

Hang 'em high or Disavow: the privilege to say, "I am Canadian"

Our Oath:

I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Disrespect to his country

The old ways:

"[Name], in a few short weeks it will be spring. The snows of winter will flow away, the ice will vanish, the air will become soft and balmy.The annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass. The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea. The timid desert flowers will put fourth their tender shoots. The glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. From every tree top, some wild songster will carol his mating song. Butterflies will sport in the sunshine.

But you will not be their to enjoy it, because I command the sheriff of the county to lead you away to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak and let you hang until dead.

And then [Name], I further command that such officers retire quickly from your dangling corpse, that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing is left but the bare, bleached bones of a cold-blooded, blood-thirsty, throat-cutting, murdering S.O.B." - Judge Roy Bean.

More civilised:

As pointed out in an interview by the National Post with Defence Minister Jason Kenney.
In addition to terrorism, the law applies to dual nationals convicted of treason and spying for foreign governments, as well as members of armed groups at war against Canada, such as those fighting with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“This is about respecting the value of Canadian citizenship,” Kenney said in an interview on the weekend.

 “If someone hates Canada so much that they’re prepared to demonstrate violent disloyalty to the country, they forfeit their citizenship. It’s a simple principle.”

He cited the case of former Montreal resident Sami Elabi, who posted a video online from Syria, where he was fighting with al-Qaida. It showed him burning his Canadian passport and then propping it against a wall and shooting it with an assault rifle.

“I think it’s bizarre in the extreme that he should be able to show up at a Canadian embassy … and that we should then be obliged to issue him a new passport and welcome him back to Canada. That’s the position of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair. It is an insult to the integrity of Canadian citizenship.”

Do we really need to argue, that a dual citizen who commits Terrorism, Treason, Espionage, and Foreign Military engagement against our country deserves to be able to say "I am Canadian"?

Mulcair: When push comes to shove what country would he choose?

---

Thomas Mulcair is a dual citizen. He has both Canadian and French citizenship. He has French because of his wife. He had the option and jumped through the bureaucratic hoops — for which France is famous — including one to five years of uninterrupted residency, signing a contract stating you will assimilate into French society, completing civics training with an understanding of France’s public services and completing French exams. Also, based on France’s Civil Code, future French citizens must sign a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities including an obligatory pledge of allegiance to France.

The NDP leader claims he sought this French citizenship so he and his family could travel together on French passports; But his wife is Canadian too, so what is wrong with a Canadian passport?

I would prefer that a leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenship...

His predecessor, Jack Layton previously scorned an ex-Liberal candidate Mr. Dion for having two citizenships having said,  “I would prefer that a leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenship, because one represents so many Canadians...it’s better to remain the citizen of one country.”

Mulcair says what's wrong with having two citizenships, a lot of people do? He simply does not understand the responsibilities of being the leader of a country. He still has the mind of an opposition leader and will not change.

As leader of a country your allegiance and for that matter, your loyalty, is to one and only one country. And that should be to Canada.

For Refugees sake, define them correctly.

---

Many media sources are misusing the term migrant. It may be ignorance, lack of education, inadequate world events experience or just plain laziness, but it is doing the refugees  no justice.

The Law defining Refugee

International law defines a refugee as someone fleeing for safety from armed conflict or persecution - often without warning and is outside their normal habitual residence or country of origin. Refugees travel light with very few belongings or nothing at all, and the quest is often fraught with danger and great hardship. Many risk their lives crossing borders. They leave family and friends without saying goodbye and are unable (if ever) to return home until conditions in their native lands improve.  

The United Nations' refugee agency UNHCR said in its definition of refugees, "Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they [must] cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries", and once they are recognised as such, these people are protected under international law and can receive humanitarian assistance.

The Migrant (a conscious decision)

A smaller proportion of those crossing from countries where there is no ongoing conflict and where they have not been persecuted are people known as migrants, or economic migrants. According to the International Rescue Committee, a New York-based humanitarian organization migrants —unlike refugees— are people who make a conscious decision to leave their countries to seek a better life elsewhere. They do not emigrate because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but rather seek to work, study abroad or reunite with family. Before they leave their countries, migrants are able to research their destinations, explore employment opportunities, and study the language of the country where they plan to live. Migrants can plan their travel in advance and pack belongings; most importantly,  they are free to return home whenever they choose. 

Today, many of those attempting to travel through Turkey and Greece are refugees, having fled violence and oppression across the Middle East. One of the biggest groups of refugees are Syrians who've fled the country's grinding civil war and ISIS' campaign of violence. However, some of the people travelling across the Mediterranean Sea from northern Africa, as well as some of those staying in camps in the French port of Calais, may fall into the migrant category.

Key Difference

The key difference is that if migrants chose to return home, they would likely continue to receive the protection of their government — unlike refugees.

Conflating refugees and migrants can have serious consequences for the lives ...

Why is the distinction important?

According to the UNHCR, conflating refugees and migrants by Western governments and media organisations can have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. Blurring distinctions of the two terms detracts attention from the specific legal protections refugees require and can undermine public support for refugees and the institution of asylum at a time when refugees need such protection more than ever before. However, being mindful to treat all human beings with respect and dignity ensuring that the human rights of migrants are respected while at the same time providing an appropriate legal response for refugees, because of their particular predicament.

What term to use?

The UNHCR refers to movements of people by sea or in other circumstances where thought of both groups may be present — boat movements in South East Asia are another example as  'refugees and migrants'. The term 'refugees' on its own when meaning people fleeing war or persecution across an international border and 'migrants' when meaning people moving for reasons not included in the legal definition of a refugee.

Referring to refugees as migrants is a disservice to both categories. Choices about words do matter.
I hope others will give thought to doing the same. 

Is Canada too Multicultural to Appreciate OUR History?

---

I finished watching a fantastic television series the other day. It was called, "The Sons of Liberty".

From Sons of Liberty

It was a co UK-USA production about events leading up to the Revolutionary War and the signing of the USA declaration of independence in 1776.
Airing about a month before, I saw another series (Texas Rising) that was about the Texan struggle for their independence from Mexico in the post Alamo time frame of 1835–1836.

From Texas Rising

Both these shows were extremely well done. I am now glued to another series — yet to be finished — done by the BBC called Poldark. It's a story in the post US revolutionary time of the 1780s in Cornwall at the south of England. 
This series is more like a historical novel, but is very interesting to see the way of life back then and be entertained.

These three shows have character, depth and above all, their countries' life during the parts of their 18th century heritage. Both countries are prepared to enlighten and entertain us with that part of our ancestry. 

From Poldark

I respect Canada's multicultural ideals, but since much of our history is being neglected in schools, I am wondering if the CBC is forgetting where and how Canada got its start or just ignoring it because it is the in thing to do.

Is Canada too Multicultural to Appreciate OUR History? It is not. Our history is deep and deserves more than some small vignettes on the multi-cultural TV station..

CBC - give some thoughts to enlightening and entertaining us with some Canadian History, unless you consider our pride is not worth viewing.   

One Flag No - Another Flag Yes

---

Pre-amble

The following narrative is not to be taken as hatred or incitement against the people of Japan. Their deed is done albeit unrecognised by them. It is solely a comparison used to exemplify some inequities within our social mind.

Hinomaru (Rising Sun Flag)

To the Japanese, the Hinomaru was the “Rising Sun flag that would light the darkness of the entire world.” To Westerners and the rest of Asia, it was one of the Japanese military's most powerful symbols.

Axis of Evil

Our society that abhors Nazis and dislikes the Southern Confederacy holds not the same standard for the images of the Japanese Rising Sun — the symbol of the Empire of Japan during late 19th and early 20th centuries and truly much more offensive than the Swastika or CSA Battle flag.

Everyone knows about Adolf Hitler and his organization having committed atrocities against humanity and the importance the affect was of the holocaust. But wait; maruta, the Rape of Nanking, the Palawan Massacre and many more brutal events are alien to our public schools history. Why?

Canada Day - some of our history

---

Canada Day would not be the same if it were not for at least some recollections of our great country and what it took to build. So much is always said about our founding fathers and the actual act of confederation in 1867 but I have my favourite stories also, especially since I grew up not terribly far from where this battle took place.

A Discovery

Historians and chroniclers for nearly two centuries made no mention of this episode in the Iroquois wars of the 1660s. It was lost to time only that in the 19th century, a discovery by Dollier de Casson’s unveiled — in my mind — an incredible act of bravery and how much this land of ours meant to the new Europeans living here. That discovery was a manuscript of the Histoire du Montréal, which gave detailed accounts of the combat of May 1660 — otherwise known as, “the Battle of the Sault”.

Confederate Flag is not the Problem.

---

It was a “rich man's war and a poor man's fight”.

Article XIV of the Constitution (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed): No State shall make or enforce any law which shall.... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property (Slaves were property, legally paid for with US currency).

Battle Flag of the CSA.

The Confederate States of America (CSA) aka. ‘the South’, fought for something they believed in but recognising the fact that the vast majority of those southerners were not wealthy or political — they just fought for their land.

The consciousness of the working class

Step back in time and you can realise that during this period of american history the individual state and regional consciousnesses were more important to working-class minds than national consciousness — or the war just could not have happened.

Tennessee 20th Infantry

A Caste Society

There was an anecdote I once heard where a Union (the North) soldier asked a lowly Confederate POW (prisoner of war), “Why are you fighting in this war?” and the answer came as, “Cause y’all are down here!”. That told the story to me. They saw what they believed to be their homeland, threatened by what they considered to be foreigners.Understand also,that communications and vetting of truths were very poorly done in those days. A caste system of sorts existed and propaganda from the more educated community leaders continually elevated white skin over black to help the impoverished white feel slightly less inferior since they reckoned the black was even lower and more savage. Although the word was unknown until 1895, the German term schadenfreude could rightfully be applied. 

Honour forgiveness respect

Confederate Soldier Grave Marker

The war in today's mind-set may have been wrong but just because the South lost, does that mean they must forget their ancestors bravery, honour and heritage?
Japan does not recognise their part in WWII or the atrocities that race committed. They even celebrate their war criminals and yet the USA respects and trades with that nation. They too had controversy surrounding their flags prominence.

Bust of General Robert E. Lee

There are many symbols of the Old South and Confederacy (flags, statues, busts, paintings,antebellum architecture) but politically correct people appear to be going after the low hanging fruit and not looking at racism from a holistic viewpoint encompassing all American life. The North has as much to blame for racial views as does the South. The North continues (to this day) to belittle and condescend the South helping to ever perpetuate that caste society.
 
Police in northern or non-confederate states abuse blacks as much if not more than the south. Even blacks themselves help to continue (in America) a racist view when it suits them to do so.

Testimonials

There are many testimonials of blacks from the UK and other European countries telling of hearing black Americans (not African-American) playing the racist card. In UK and elsewhere it appears that education is that which dictates a kind of class, not skin colour.

I'm a black American living in London. My experience is that here in the UK discrimination tends to be class-based and that there are pockets of society overtly xenophobic.
But to get down to a more granular level...
Freedom of speech as I know it from an American standpoint does not exist over here.  Hate speech is not protected and one can be prosecuted for making racist statements or even sending racist tweets. As a black American I struggle with this notion. Whilst I find that sort of behaviour appalling I do think it is an infringement on civil liberties. Simultaneously, as someone who has been subjected to racial taunts (in the US) I find the notion of punishing racist behaviour refreshing and progressive. (Perhaps this is hypocritical of me, but it's not something that I have reconciled yet.)

In UK race is closely related to class, and less with ‘separateness’ than USA. At a football [soccer in USA] match, or in a housing estate black and white would generally be more mixed than in USA.

It seems to me there is more social separation in USA. Mixed-race couples are far more common in UK than USA and neighbourhoods are less obviously divided. USA has more separate but equal. Even with people watching different TV programs with more ''appropriate' same-race actors or different sports.

The friends I know in that situation in USA (white wife, black husband, New Jersey) commented that it was hard for them to find a neighbourhood they felt comfortable in: she felt an outsider in black neighbourhoods or vice versa. Other friends in UK (black wife, white husband) didn't recognise that concern: the idea of a 'black suburb' was meaningless.

In summary, if America believes that the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag  or the removal of nigger from Huckleberry Finn will solve or even start to solve racial issues there, they have not done their sociological and anthropological homework.

Remember the colours of the American Flag are still red, white and blue but black is black, white is white, and black and white is Confederate Gray [sic].

Sometime you need a heart.

---

A small poem, ode to those that do assist others.

Sometime the man with the shovel can help
Sometime the man with the pen can help
Sometime the man with the mouth can help
Sometime the man with the gun can help
Sometime the man who teaches can help
but right now you need me;
Sometime the man with a heart can help.

---

~vision from my brain, so I guess that means

it is intellectual property but copies can 

be had for 20 cents and 50 cents for colour

 ( £$₫ )

---

When is it time to hang up the keys?

---

It's time. Here are the keys.

No amount of telling, arguing or presenting of facts will win an answer.
North Americans are especially hard to convince (win over) because we love our cars. Putting it mildly, public transport is not a fully functioning alternate way of transport on this continent. At least in Europe there is a modicum of transit opportunities; so there lies the biggest problem — dependency. 

“You're a great dad and a super boss but you're neither to me. I decide when it's time to stop”.    - Henry Reagan (Blue Bloods)

So far, I have been challenged with only 3 events in my life that required this debate. From my experience the only way to hang up the keys is through their own self-recognition (barring any medical reason). Try to chauffeur them around or take a bus or train together. Help to wean them from their dependency of sitting behind that wheel but don't try to take their license away. The support of a loving family leading the decision does help. 

In the end....

It is truly up to the older person who must accept the fact that the keys need to be hung.

Apology not needed - Nor should it be accepted.

---

19th Century Apache

The current out cries about the way aboriginal children were mistreated and how cultural genocide was practised is well meant, however, it is also part of history. No one person, group, religious sect or government should have to apologise for any historic act. You should acknowledge the facts, but not apologise for them.

“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin”. -Deuteronomy 24:16

“It is unfortunate that in most cases when the sins of the father fall on the son it is because unlike God, people refuse to forgive and forget and heap past wrongs upon innocent generations”.
― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly 

Should the Jews apologise for the crucifixion of Christ?

Should the Italians apologise for the Roman occupations and the Colosseum butchery?

Should the Spanish apologise for the annihilation and extinction of the Incas, Taino, Olmecs, Astecs and Mayans? 

Should the Germans still have to apologise for Hitler and WWII?

These events are part of history. We may (in today's way of thinking) feel some shame or remorse of what occurred, but not to apologise for it.

19th Century Apache

As an individual, maybe you bullied someone, fought with someone or maybe even shoplifted or stole something. Did your conscience bother you? Maybe a little, right? But have you as an adult gone back to that person or shop etc. and seriously apologised for how you misbehaved? I would venture to say No. You learned from your mistakes and made amends with future events. That is my point. Always 20-20 vision when looking into the past, but the present is never that clear.

Students 1879

St Pauls Middle School Manitoba Circa 1900

“It is true that all of us are the beneficiaries of crimes committed by our ancestors.... These are good reasons for keeping our mouths shut about the past: but tell me, what are our reasons for silence about atrocities still to come”?
― Damon Knight, One Side Laughing: Stories Unlike Other Stories

History is a tool, a tool that allows us to see what right and what wrong we did as individuals and as societies. We learn from history and try to not repeat the bad. As for these children, we cannot undo what has happened. We can show remorse and learn how to more appropriately assimilate the aboriginal peoples into our society and to learn their culture — not apologise.

HIT AND RUN - WHAT COWARDS

---

Last Friday Gerry (one of my brothers-in-law) was riding his tricycle (motorised) along Afan Salvador St. in Guimba, Nueva Ecija when he was struck by two drag racing cars.  His bike was hit and he flew across the opposite side of the road and was struck again by another vehicle and a bus. The two cars racing, never stopped.

Holding the torch for America

---

G

El Nido to Puerto Princessa (230 km) 5 1/2 hours

ood deeds? I am not sure I can call what I did a good deed but I think I might rightly call it a passing on of the remembrance baton. I was in the Philippines this year and I happened to be on the Island of Palawan travelling the long incredibly winding road down from El Nido in the north, to Puerto Princesa City in the south. The trip took about five hours. During that time, a young American man was sitting next to me. He was alone and travelling back to Seoul after an extensive trip. He conveyed he travelled a lot and had also been to many of his own countries hot spots. I asked him — among other things — what sights he visited in Palawan. He rhymed off a few known locations, and yet one spot he did not mention. So I asked him if he had gone to the US memorial site of the WWII Palawan Massacre? “No” he replied, “What’s that?” 

I then conveyed this abridged story: