Japan's Lack of Remorse for WWII

 

Japan’s recognition of World War II is complex, focusing on a "peace nation" identity while often omitting, minimizing, or denying specific war crimes and atrocities committed in Asia. Official apologies have been issued, but the education system and political actions frequently downplay their brutality during the war.

Key aspects of Japan's often considered selective memory of World War II include:

·         Education and Textbook Controversies: Japanese school curricula are accused of skimming over actions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, leading to younger generations with limited knowledge of, or sensitivity to, wartime atrocities.

·        Contested History: While acknowledging the suffering caused, some officials and, to a limited extent, public discourse have attempted to revise or deny events like the Rape of Nanking and the use of comfort women.

·         Lack of Formal Recognition for Specific Crimes: The Japanese government has not formally acknowledged or educated the public about specific atrocities, such as those conducted by Unit 731.

·         Official Statements vs. Public Sentiment: Despite numerous, often deemed insufficient or insincere, apologies, nationalist views often deny that Japan did anything "wrong," causing continued tension with neighbours like China and South Korea.

·         Focus on Victimhood: The narrative in Japan often emphasizes the devastation of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rather than its role as an aggressor.

While acknowledging the "deep regret" for the suffering caused, Japan has not fully embraced a comprehensive acknowledgment of all wartime atrocities in its official historical narrative, leading to an ongoing, contested memory of the war.

Finally a Court Decision - Glacial Pace While Citizens Rot

 

The Federal Court of Appeal will release its decision this Friday on whether the Federal Government broke the law by invoking the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors during the 2022 Freedom Convoy and by freezing the victims' bank accounts.

After nearly four years, Canadians will finally see the court’s ruling on the Emergencies Act appeal.

That timeline alone must jump out at you and make you think. When government action directly impacts fundamental rights and freedoms, justice delayed is accountability denied. 

Decisions of this magnitude should not take years to resolve. At the same time, the consequences are immediate, lasting, and deeply personal for the people affected, including peaceful protesters who were beaten, arrested, and jailed. At the same time, the government was able to quietly coast along without consequence.

And let’s not forget what happened in the meantime. Canada went through a federal election. Justin Trudeau exited quietly. And then a banker who had not lived in Canada for years was effectively parachuted into the leadership. All of that occurred before Canadians received a judicial answer to whether the most extreme use of state power in modern Canadian history was lawful.

Serious questions:

How can the public meaningfully hold government to account if our courts move at a glacial pace?

What does the rule of law mean when rights can be restricted quickly, but remedies arrive years later?

How is democratic accountability preserved when political consequences come and go before legal scrutiny is complete?

Courts do play a critical role in checking government power — but timeliness matters. When courts hold government to account, the public must be able to do the same, while decisions are still relevant and leaders are still answerable.

CANADA'S DAIRY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT - MAINTAIN OR MODIFY

 Canada's Dairy Supply Management System is a policy that uses production quotas, price controls, and import tariffs to stabilize the market, and could likely result in a mixed impact on farmers' employment if it were reduced or eliminated. While it could lead to short-term job losses and farm closures for some smaller and/or less efficient operations due to increased competition from imports, evidence suggests it wouldn't necessarily devastate the sector overall. Instead, it might accelerate ongoing consolidation trends, foster efficiency, and potentially create new opportunities in exports and processing. The following is a breakdown based on some economic analyses, historical examples, and key arguments from both sides.

Potential for Job Losses and Farm Closures

1. Competition and Consolidation: Without supply management, Canadian dairy farmers could face cheaper imports (e.g., from the U.S.), potentially reducing domestic market share by around 8% in the short term based on effects from recent trade agreements like CUSMA. This may force inefficient farms to exit. This happened with Australia's dairy deregulation in 2000, where the number of farms decreased from around 22,000 in 1980 to fewer than 6,000 today, amid low global prices and production declines. Similar patterns occurred in New Zealand, the UK, and the U.S., with mass farm exits and greater reliance on imports. In Canada, this could disproportionately affect rural areas, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, where 74% of farms are concentrated, leading to job reductions in production and related sectors.
2. Vulnerability of Small Farms: Supply management currently supports smaller herds (e.g., average 83 cows in Quebec vs. almost double in the Prairies), but its removal could centralize production in more efficient regions, putting less competitive farmers out of work. Critics argue this risks economic instability in rural communities, as the system helps maintain stable prices and prevents aggressive foreign competition. 
3. Risks: The Canadian dairy industry supports around 117,000 direct jobs (43,000 in production, 23,000 in processing), and sudden changes could jeopardize a portion of these if domestic production falls. However, no study predicts total collapse; instead, losses would likely stem from overcapitalization and inability to compete without quotas.

Counterarguments: Limited Net Job Loss and Potential Gains

1. Ongoing Consolidation Under the Current System: Dairy farms have already declined dramatically from 145,000 in the 1970s to about 9,000 today under supply management—a higher consolidation rate than in non-managed agricultural sectors. Canada loses around 500 dairy operations annually, a rate similar to that in U.S. states like Wisconsin, which lack such protections. This suggests the system does not prevent exits and that reform might not accelerate job losses beyond existing trends.
2. Efficiency and Growth: Ending quotas could allow efficient farmers to expand, relocate to optimal regions (e.g., Prairies with abundant water), and boost exports, addressing a projected global dairy shortage of 30 million tonnes by 2030. Following deregulation, Australia's exports increased to 50% of production, resulting in higher profitability and new employment opportunities in the processing and value-added products sector (e.g., cheese, yogurt). Canada's other agricultural sectors thrive without supply management, and examples like Ontario's wine industry show that transitioning with government support can increase sales, profits, and jobs. 
3. Economic Benefits: The system currently wastes resources (e.g., 6.8 billion litres of milk dumped between 2012–2024, worth $15 billion) and requires billions in subsidies (e.g., $5 billion for trade concessions). Elimination could reduce bureaucracy, lower consumer prices (saving households $300-444 annually), and free up resources for innovation, potentially creating jobs in export-oriented roles. It benefits only a tiny minority (less than 8% of farms) while harming others, like grain and beef producers. 

Influencing Factors

1. Elimination vs. Reduction: Abrupt elimination risks more disruption and job losses, while gradual reduction (e.g., phasing out quotas over 10 years with compensation) could mitigate impacts, allowing farmers to adapt or exit with support. 
2. Trade and Policy: Supply management complicates trade deals, leading to concessions in other sectors that affect jobs (e.g., auto, steel). Reform could strengthen Canada's position in negotiations, potentially preserving or creating jobs economy-wide. 
3. Balanced Viewpoint: Proponents of maintaining the system emphasize stability and rural job protection, while critics highlight inefficiencies and argue for free-market benefits. Studies show no consensus on massive net job destruction, but transitional support would be crucial to avoid undue hardship.

Summary

In summary, while some farmers could be put out of work through consolidation and competition, the sector's history of decline under supply management and positive post-reform examples from other countries indicate that overall employment might stabilize or even grow with proper reforms. The net effect depends on implementation, with reduction likely posing less risk than full elimination.

Conrad Black: A betrayal of Canada

Regular readers will recall my intermittent objections to the most extreme allegations of atrocities committed against Indigenous people in Canada, particularly in the residential schools. The process of official self-defamation of the government and people of this country as genocidists is a much more outrageous scandal than the conduct of those who created the residential schools and related Aboriginal policies. The Trudeau government has deliberately proclaimed and incited the world to believe that this country has been guilty of attempted genocide. That is a monstrous blood libel on English and French Canadians and as I have written and said many times, it is a betrayal of Canada that should morally disqualify the government from re-election.

Among the latest episodes in this saga is a submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites Associated With Indian Residential Schools (Canada). The United Nations official to whom this submission was addressed, Francisco Cali Tzay, is presumably the officeholder who inspired Prime Minister Trudeau to swaddle David Johnston in the portentous title “special rapporteur,” Trudeau’s ill-fated Chinese electoral interference whitewash. An even more pretentiously styled office is the special interlocutor, Kimberly Murray, who has no more standing than anyone else in the world, without exception, to write as she did to this particular special rapporteur.

Ms. Murray was given this position in June 2022 and the order-in-council installing her required her to advise the minister of justice, not to petition the UN special rapporteur, as she did on January 30 of this year, with a 21-page submission of almost uninterrupted falsehoods. Her submission has been forcefully rebutted in subsequent responses to Mr. Tzay, but several points should be emphasized. Ms. Murray wrote that “The existence of unmarked graves and burial sites of children who died while being forced to attend Indian residential schools in Canada is a stark example of the ongoing harm of assimilative of government laws… The Indian residential school system was put in place for the express purpose of ’killing the Indian in the child’ and has been characterized as genocide by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC).”

This is almost completely false. There is not a single verified “unmarked grave and burial site” of residential school children other than those burial sites that were previously known or on record. The federal government authorized $27 million to locate such unmarked graves but those responsible for conducting this investigation have not even excavated one of the original suspect sites.

The phrase about “killing the Indian in the child” never had anything to do with official policy and was likely first used in reference to residential schools by the historian John Milloy in 1999 and was popularized by the Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner Murray Sinclair in a scandalously inaccurate speech at the United Nations in 2010. Application forms from thousands of parents who voluntarily enrolled their children in residential schools are publicly available on the Library and Archives School of Files Series website. Thousands of orphans were accepted by residential schools because they had no living parents nor any relative or member of their community to care for them. While it is undoubtedly true that many of the students were treated very poorly, and some were abused, it is also true that they also had substantially enhanced capabilities of going on to prosperous and successful adulthood as a result of their attendance. The great majority of those who died in the schools were victims of tuberculosis and other diseases, and many students contracted tuberculosis before they were enrolled in the schools.

Then Murray's letter also states: “Based on significant documentary evidence and survivor testimony the TRC concluded that many children who were forcibly taken to these institutions were subject to neglect, mistreatment, and extreme physical, sexual, spiritual and mental abuse by those entrusted with their care… Many children were never returned home from Indian residential schools.”

She adds: “Survivors have shared information of children who were there one day then disappeared the next, of newborn babies being put into incinerators, being forced to dig the graves of children who died.” Ms. Murray provides no verifiable evidence whatsoever for these claims of mysterious deaths. There is none, and none is to be found in the TRC Report.

Ms. Murray further wrote that ”In the years following the TRC inquiry there is a growing recognition amongst Canadians that the (Indian Residential Schools) constituted genocide.” That is a lie. It is not an exaggeration, hyperbole, or an arguable position. It is a lie. Attaching the syllable “cide” to a word connotes physical annihilation, as in suicide, homicide, or insecticide. Cultural genocide is really assimilation, which does not mean the extermination of another culture, and is not always discreditable or even involuntary. There were many mistakes in this country’s Aboriginal policy over many years, but it is a heinous falsehood to impute to any official policy of any jurisdiction of this country a desire to conduct any kind of genocide against anyone. “Cultural genocide” is a malicious sophistry. This claim was largely respectablized by former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, but it is both a conceptual fraud and a shameful historical slur.

When rigorous research finally catches up with the horrifying exaggerations of those who claim that our forebears were responsible for the systematic murder of the native people, we may turn to the question of why Canadian opinion has been such fertile ground for these appalling fictions. My own theory is that in our long-ingrained reflex to emulate the Americans, since we cannot reproach ourselves for slavery, (despite Beverley McLachlin’s attempt to drag us into that cesspool as well), the best we can do at pseudo-historical self-torment is to invite and to join the native victimhood industry, which often has more to do with the progressive politics of the day than anything else, in morally crucifying us as a nationality. In the spirit of Canada Day just past, we should make a collective effort to face up to the full gravity of the fact that, though thoroughly imperfect, our history is one of the least blameworthy of any nation in the world and it is rightly a subject of modest pride and not confected shame.

The Bonnie Blue Flag

We're a band of brothers, native of the soil
Fighting for our liberty, and the property we gained by honest toil.
When first our rights were threatened, and the cry rose near and far
We raised up high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!

Chorus:

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!

As long as the Union was faithful to her trust
Like friends and like brethren, kind were we, and just
But now, when Northern treachery attempts our rights to mar
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Chorus

First gallant South Carolina came nobly to the stand
Then came Alabama and took her by the hand
Quickly, followed Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida
All raised on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Chorus

Ye men of valour gather round the banner of the right
Texas and fair Louisiana join us in the fight
Davis, for a President, and Stephens statesmen rare
Now rally 'round the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Chorus

Now here's to brave Virginia, the Old Dominion State,
With the young Confederacy at last has sealed her fate,
And spurred by her example, now other states prepare
To hoist high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Chorus

Then cheer, boys, cheer, raise a joyous shout
For North Carolina and Arkansas now have both gone out,
And let another rousing cheer for Tennessee be given,
For the single star of the Bonnie Blue Flag has grown to be eleven.

Chorus

Then here's to our Confederacy, strong we are and brave,
Like patriots of old we'll fight, our heritage to save;
And rather than submit to shame, to die we would prefer,
So cheer for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Chorus

Government Debt

Government Debt VS Unfunded Liabilities

It is important to note that some people prefer a broader definition of government debt to include all future government liabilities, such as pension payments, that the government has contractually agreed to, but not yet paid. While these are certainly a form of debt, we choose to classify them separately as unfunded liabilities. In many ways, these unfunded liabilities present a greater burden to future generations than all government debt combined. 

Dangers of Government Debt

So now that we have a basic understanding of what government debt is, let’s explore the consequences of government taking on too much debt. The primary concern has its origin in the very nature of the debt itself. When a government takes on debt to finance its expenditures, it receives money from external investors. It does this through the sale of Government Bonds. These bonds provide the government with money up front, but require the government to pay back the investor the principal of the investment plus a predetermined amount of interest. This works not unlike a loan you may take out from a local bank to pay your school expenses or to finance a new car purchase.

The Interest Rate Trap

As a government’s national debt increases over time, so too do the interest payments needed to “service” the debt. The increased money needed to pay interest on the debt makes it even harder for a government to raise enough revenues to meet their expenditures. This leads to more borrowing, greater amounts of debt and even higher interest payments. This compounding cycle continues until a government manages to balance its budget or defaults on its financial obligations.

To comprehend the size of the problem here in Canada, consider the fact that our federal government alone spends over $26 billion a year on interest payments. The Canadian government spends more to simply maintain our current levels of debt each year than on our entire military budget.  Previous generations have expanded entitlements without paying for them, and are now leaving future generations with the bill.

Bidding a bittersweet farewell to Benson Public School

 

Hundreds gather in Cardinal to share memories at Celebration of Generations

NEWS JUN 18, 2017 BY MONICA MROZ  ST. LAWRENCE NEWS

A celebration of life, strength of community and families have capped a 68-year history of Benson Public School in Cardinal.

The Saturday, June 17 party to mark the final closing of the school was not so much a locking of classrooms doors, but a renewing of friendships and telling tales of the past, with a vision to the future.

The Upper Canada District School Board voted to close Benson earlier this year, as part of a sweep of rural schools throughout the region to deal with declining enrolment.

It was that strong sense of community in which Benson was a focal point of pride and spirit that drew about 300 people to the school to reminisce and see the bright halls and classrooms decorated with children’s artwork one last time.

 “I loved it here,” said Jamie (Amell) Riddell, who started Kindergarten at Benson in 1969. Her mother June Amell started Grade 7 at Benson in 1949, the first year it opened. They described a wonderful community school, where your neighbours were your classmates and friends. While Riddell said she can understand the school board's decision to close from a business standpoint, it is a sad day for Cardinal.

Lorne Bender, principal at Benson for six years beginning in 1979, was greeted warmly by his past students. Despite his pleasure at taking part in the celebration, he said “there’s a sad spot in my heart.” This community was number one.”

Bender noted there were about 230 students attending Benson when he was principal, and at times the school roster reached about 400 students. Fewer than 70 children will walk through the doors for the last time when the school closes at the end of this school year.

Lynn Barkley, the school’s beloved Kindergarten teacher at Benson for 34 years who retired in 1999, told the gathering on the school’s lawn that she was the one who learned so much from her approximately 1,800 “little lambs” whom she helped guide to adulthood. Laughing, sharing and learning something new every day were keys to happiness that she took with her.

Barkley lamented the “one size fits all” board decision to close the rural school that she says did not recognize local spirit and values. Barkley also pointed to the community’s tremendous volunteer spirit and dedication to the school that helped children learn and flourish to become healthy and productive adults.

In her humourous recollections of her teaching days, Barkley looked at contrasts to today’s classrooms. It was a time when teachers always wore suits and dresses, wearing makeup was frowned upon, there were no teacher aides or planning time, and every teacher had a strap in their desk.

Kevin Van Camp, a student at the school in the late 1950s and early 1960s, well recalls those straps. “We had a lot of fun and we got in a lot of trouble,” he said. His hands were still wet and cold when he got the strap for throwing snowballs over the fence at the corn factory workers next door. “A.C. Casselman, he was really strict,” Van Camp said of the first principal at Benson from 1949.

Donna Gladstone led the charge during the past year to keep Benson Public School open as part of the Save Our Schools (SOS) Help Save Benson Committee. Despite the hard fight, she’s ready to take a page from her daughter’s book on looking forward. Eight-year-old Ellie will move to South Edwardsburg Public School in Johnstown in September with her classmates. Gladstone said her daughter is looking forward to “the next chapter” in her life and is excited. “We learn from our children,” said Gladstone. Her husband and mother also attended Benson, and she acknowledges “letting go is hard.”

John Bourne is the current principal at Benson, and he will move with his students to Johnstown. His five years at Benson have been the best of his 20-year career in education, he said, adding that he will “profoundly miss” the love and care and community at Benson.

People may be anxious and angry about the closing, but the community can be proud of what it has accomplished at Benson over the past 68 years, Leeds-Grenville MPP Steve Clark said at the celebration. He said he has witnessed such spirit and love at the school, and the community will be able to take that energy to remember the good times and direct them into making new good memories to celebrate in the future.

Favouritism - but why?

This week the Muslim world will be celebrating Eid al-Fitris which marks the end of the month long fasting of Ramadan. It is a special Muslim celebration. You can hear or see on all types of media this week, from TV commentators to political leaders to journalists and they all seem to have one thing in common; They are saying, “Eid Mubarak” which means nothing more than Happy Eid, but is Arabic.  I am puzzled as to why we seem to be brown-nosing to our Muslim neighbours for Eid. Do they hold something that we want, are we afraid to offend them? This is bending over — why in Arabic?

Arabic and Hebrew both belong to the Semitic language family making them similar languages. The structure, pronunciations and words resemble one another. Even the basic greetings are remarkably similar,

• 'Assalamualaikum' Muslim greeting generally means 'peace be unto you'.
• 'Shalom aleikhem' Hebrew greeting meaning 'peace be upon you'.

But when it comes to Jewish celebrations, we all say 'happy hanauka' and think nothing of it. I can't recall anytime hearing, "Pesach Sameach" (PAY-sock sah-MEY-akh) to wish them a happy Passover. In fact, unlike the Muslim greeting above, I had to look up this Jewish greeting. Are we only playing favourites?

I am not Islamophobic, but the obsequious greeting used by non-muslims should stop. It is just a mannered display conjured up by the social elite.  I wish we would stop pretending and simply wish them a good and happy Eid.

Ontario Cap and Trade - 2017 - Do you know how much per tonne?

Are you like me, trying to understand the Ontario governments new cap and trade system? I understand the basic concept, however the costs of the program seem a little hidden.

Everyone speaks in terms of cost per tonne of carbon dioxide [CO2] emitted, and the government has not really told us that amount. They have given us a 4.3¢ tax on gasoline and said for natural gas it may add $50-60 to your yearly bill.

So I used my basic chemistry and financial knowledge to try and help even the playing field by giving us what I believe to be the cost per tonne we will be paying Ontario under the current Cap and Trade.

I simply began by trying to determine how much CO2 is produced by both gasoline and natural gas and worked backwards from the pricing that has been issued. The results of my calculations concluded that we will be paying approximately $18.60 per tonne of CO2 in both instances.

Then of course, we must ultimately add HST to that so we are looking at around $21.00 a tonne.

Scary thing about US Presidential Nominees

The United States, spends roughly 560 billion dollars a year and has the most powerful military in the world. Its GDP at approximately 16 trillion dollars is more than twice that of China's GDP. For most of the world, the U.S.A. is where the power rests. The president, the comander-in-chief of the nuclear codes.

That is an incredible amount of power given to such a few people. Demographically, the world population —the total number of humans currently living— was estimated at 7.4 billion this year while the US population at 324 million represents slightly over 4% of the globe.

Currently there is much news and disbelief about the results of the 2016 Presidential election. It's true so much uncertainty about the results are cause for anxiety, but for me, living outside the US, what is even more unnerving is that so few people were involved in the election process especially given their dominace of the world.

Results of this election, as indicated in the chart above, roughly even split the vote between the major candidates of Trump and Clinton, but what is also so disheartening is the fact that 40% of eligible voters did not vote.  And of that 40, there were 72 million Americans (83%)  who did not even take the time to register to vote.

Now to make this last election process even more pitiful is that half of the primary voters chose candidates other than Trump or Clinton. Just 14% of eligible adults voted for either Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton as the Rep/Dem presidential candidate giving the american public no one from which to choose. So even if the entire nation had voted in the election, the primary candidates were still only put forth by a mere 9% of the nation or 32 million people to control the world.

Who do you vote for when there is rubbish under both bushes?

Does any one know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?

According to a legend of the Chippewa tribe, the lake they once called Gitche Gumee "never gives up her dead." Thus began the Newsweek article in the issue of November 24, 1975.

On November 10, 1975, an ore carrier —the Edmund Fitzgerald— sank in Lake Superior during a November storm, taking the lives of all 29 crew members. Later that month, Gordon Lightfoot, inspired by that article in Newsweek Magazine, took the dry journalistic material and wrote what is probably his most famous and haunting song: 

Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down

of the big lake they called "Gitche Gumee."

The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead

when the skies of November turn gloomy.

With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more

than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty,

that good ship and true was a bone to be chewed

when the "Gales of November" came early. 

The ship was the pride of the American side

coming back from some mill in Wisconsin.

As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most

with a crew and good captain well seasoned,

concluding some terms with a couple of steel firms

when they left fully loaded for Cleveland.

And later that night when the ship's bell rang,

could it be the north wind they'd been feelin'?

The wind in the wires made a tattle-tale sound

and a wave broke over the railing.

And ev'ry man knew, as the captain did too

'twas the witch of November come stealin'.

The dawn came late and the breakfast had to wait

when the Gales of November came slashin'.

When afternoon came it was freezin' rain

in the face of a hurricane west wind.

When suppertime came the old cook came on deck

Sayin' "Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."

At seven P.M. a main hatchway caved in; he said,

"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"

The captain wired in he had water comin' in

and the good ship and crew was in peril.

And later that night when 'is lights went outta sight

came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Does any one know where the love of God goes

when the waves turn the minutes to hours?

The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay

if they'd put fifteen more miles behind 'er.

They might have split up or they might have capsized;

they may have broke deep and took water.

And all that remains is the faces and the names

of the wives and the sons and the daughters.

Lake Huron rolls, Superior sings

in the rooms of her ice-water mansion.

Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams;

the islands and bays are for sportsmen.

And farther below Lake Ontario

takes in what Lake Erie can send her,

And the iron boats go as the mariners all know

with the Gales of November remembered.

In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed,

in the "Maritime Sailors' Cathedral."

The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times

for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down

of the big lake they call "Gitche Gumee."

"Superior," they said, "never gives up her dead

when the gales of November come early!"

Below is a copy of the article.

Arguments and Fallacy Observations

This past year has been full of political arguments on both sides of the 49th, but none so savage as that which is taking place for the US Presidency. It brought to mind an article I read by Lora Wegman. It was primarily intended for written communications but I have found it to be very useful as well when comparing these debating combatants. I hope you recognise some of the characteristics.

The key to writing a strong argument is logic; however, even writers who typically have sound logic can fall into illogical conclusions when they are passionate about a topic and use unsound arguments—typically referred to as fallacies.

Here are a few tips for identifying the most common fallacies in writing and how to avoid them.

Overgeneralisations

This fallacy, also called a “hasty generalisation,” happens when the writer draws a conclusion about a group of people based on insufficient data. Often, these assumptions come from stereotypes and implicit biases, so these can sometimes be the trickiest fallacies to detect in your own writing. Perhaps you assume, for instance, that all members of a particular political party have the same stance on the death penalty, or you believe that all people who attend a certain school are wealthy. Basing an argument on unproven assumptions will ultimately make your position weaker and therefore easier to attack. As you’re reviewing and come across an assumption, ask yourself, “Do I really know that this is true?”

Straw Man

A straw man argument oversimplifies an opponent’s position and then attacks it. This is often a big one for politicians, who might portray larger-picture views instead of nuance. For example, imagine that you are assigned to write an essay opposing school uniforms. If you state, “Requiring students to wear uniforms means they will lose all sense of individuality,” then you may be setting up a straw man argument. Instead of arguing for why students should be able to wear their own outfits, you instead take the argument to a simpler and perhaps more emotional conclusion, and then argue against that broader implication. When you’re listening to politicians, as yourself whether their argument is against what their opponents are actually suggesting, or have they thrown a straw man into the ring by misrepresenting their opponents’ position as something more extreme?

Ad Hominem

In ad hominem attacks, a position is attacked not through reasoning related to the argument itself, but instead by attacking the opponent’s personal character. For example, if Crookedhillary says we should have chocolate cake for dinner, and Littlefingers responds by saying that Crookedhillary is an idiot, he’s using an ad hominem attack—addressing only Crookedhillary’s character—and not making a logical argument about why chocolate cake for dinner is bad.Closely related to the ad hominem attack is the tu quoque fallacy: This is when, instead of opposing an argument or a criticism, the speaker or writer responds by turning it back on the accuser. It’s essentially an argument that says, “Oh, yeah? What about you?” An example would be crafting an argument against doctors’ anti-smoking messages by pointing out statistics about how many doctors smoke. Those facts would have nothing to do with the anti-smoking argument itself but instead simply attack the behaviour of those on the opposing side.

Post Hoc

A post hoc argument assumes one event caused another, based solely on the order of occurrence. The full Latin phrase—“post hoc, ergo propter hoc”—means “after this, therefore, because of this.” So, to use a historical example that was once believed to be fact: “People who spend time outside at night are more likely to catch malaria, therefore, night air causes malaria.” The fact that things happen in order doesn’t mean that one thing actually caused the next to happen. We now know that malaria is caused by a parasite transmitted by mosquitoes, not by night air.This is somewhat like the “slippery slope” fallacy. In these cases, you’re arguing against something with the assumption that it will lead to another undesirable outcome through a series of incremental steps. But in reality, the events may not actually be related if they do occur, or the first event might happen without the catastrophic result.

Red Herring

A red herring is a classic misdirection. We see this all the time in fiction, from Sherlock Holmes stories to modern-day thrillers. False clues are planted to throw the reader off. Similarly, a red herring fallacy can pop up in your writing when your argument veers into an area only tangentially related to the core topic. This may be purposeful, but it’s also easy to do without intending to. Here’s an example in which President Ronald Reagan used humour and diversion as a red herring in answering a debate question:Reporter: You already are the oldest president in history. ... President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?Reagan: Not at all ... and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.So, how do you catch yourself using fallacies? Play devil’s advocate with your own writing. Ask yourself what the logical counter-argument is and whether yours holds up. Then, identify any stereotypes or biases you are inadvertently using to inform your position. This should help you identify holes in your logic and set you up for a stronger result.


Lora Wegman is a contributing writer for Varsity Tutors

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?