Renaissance Man

EGYPTIAN NEWS COVERAGE

2011-01-29T10:03:00.000-08:00

Incidentally, the Renaissance Man has been following the Egyptian situation on Al Jazeera's English language service. They have been playing it straight, it seems. The coverage has been excellent.

EGYPTIAN UPRISING

2011-01-29T08:58:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man has mixed feelings about the Egyptian Uprisings.

On the one hand it is a great joy to see a people rise up against a dictatorship. It has been wonderful to see, in my lifetime, Filipinos, Czechs, East Germans, South Koreans and others rise up against those who tyrannized them and claimed their countries for themselves. The state belongs to the people and governments ought only to govern with the consent of those people.

On the other hand, such uprisings often do not result in democracy. Those Russians, for example, who climbed on army tanks to defend Boris Yeltsin must be very disappointed in the resurgence of Russian dictatorship.

Furthermore, in the Middle East, mobs and demonstrations usually seem to be manipulated by religious leaders (or at least by leaders invoking religious reasons) who have no interest in democracy or the rule of law. Such leaders, by merely invoking the Koran, seem capable of manipulating such mobs to do whatever they want.

The most powerful Islamist movement in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Renaissance Man is apprehensive that this organization may, at some strategic point, step in to assert its power and even control. It is virtually a "state within a state" inside Egypt and is well prepared to take over if it thinks its moment has come.

Should the Muslim Brotherhood step in and take over, the joy of the uprising that we see would be transformed into something far different. Potential victims of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover include Egypt's Coptic Christan population. The Copts have been the frequent victims of Islamist inspired (and organized) mass murder including this past Christmas when Al Quaeda bombed a Coptic Church killing dozens. Imagine their fate if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power.

Another great concern involves Israel. Israel has just seen an Islamist terrorist group, Hezbollah, take power on its northern border, in Lebanon. If they then have to confront, on their southern border, an Islamist government in Egypt, their security situation would become very complicated. Add this to the fact that the United States President Barack Obama is not generally seen as supportive of Israel and Israel would seem to be facing a threat of even greater international isolation.

The Renaissance Man is on tenterhooks.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2008

2008-01-04T15:22:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man wishes everyone a happy and prosperous 2008.

THE CHILD EMANUEL

2008-01-04T15:13:00.000-08:00

There are some points regarding the failed “rescue” of the three FARC- held hostages.

First, it was a lie when the FARC said that the delivery of their victims to the Red Cross, or to Chavez’ designates could not be complied with because of Colombian military operations in the supposed rescue zone. The true reason was that there were delays in their efforts to re-kidnap Emanuel. “Re-kidnap” is the appropriate verb because Emanuel has already been kidnapped once. According to police Intendant Jhon Frank Pinchao, who escaped from the FARC last year, Emanuel was taken from his mother shortly after his birth. This was the first kidnapping. The second effort was the efforts made in the last two weeks by the FARC to recover the child from Bienestar Familiar (Colombia’s child welfare agency). These failed, but the efforts took time. That is why the release did not take place.

Secondly, Venezuelan President Chavez owes Colombian President Uribe an apology over his incendiary comments after Pres. Uribe announced the Emanuel hypothesis last 31 December.

The Renaissance Man also has some questions.

First: Did Pres. Chavez know that Emanuel was with Bienestar Familiar (ICBF)? The question arises because some days before the release was supposed to take place Chavez, in a speech, went on about how he had a dream in which he saw Emanuel fat, healthy and happy.

The Renaissance Man does not believe that Chavez has visions, thus suspicions arise. Int. Pinchao’s information made it clear that Emanuel was in very bad condition the last time he saw him. Supposedly, Emanuel has been in the jungle since then (late 2005). How was Emanuel, being dragged through the Colombian jungle, to be returned to health? The Renaissance Man wonders whether, in its communications with Chavez, the FARC indicated that the child was with ICBF. If so, then would Chavez not be complicit in the re-kidnap attempt? Just asking.

Second: Will we ever hear an acknowledgement from Chavez that, in fact, the FARC was lying when it propounded that it could not release the hostages because of Colombian military operations in the release zone? Will we ever hear an acknowledgement from Chavez or, for that matter, French President Sarkozy, ex-Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, Brazilian President Lula or anyone else that, in fact, the Colombian government did everything possible to comply with the demands of the FARC and Chavez to achieve the release? It’s doubtful that such an acknowledgement will ever surface.

Third: Are ex-congresswoman Consuelo González de Perdomo and Clara Rojas (Emanuel’s mother) even alive? These questions are only asked because there has been no evidence of their survival provided by the FARC for a number of years. It is known that González is in bad health. The whereabouts of Rojas are completely unknown as she was separated from the group that included Pinchao and the now famous Ingrid Betancourt in 2005 and nothing has been seen or heard of her since. It is the concern of the Renaissance Man that one of these, perhaps González (as a result of her precarious health) may have succumbed recently.

What is eminently clear to the Renaissance Man, and any other fair minded person, is that the FARC are a bunch of animals. Oliver Stone was quoted as saying, when the hostage release fell apart last 31 December, that the fault was that of Uribe. He stated that the FARC had no reason not to release the hostages. Either he is not keeping up on current events, or he was indulging in some of Colombia’s more illicit products because the FARC had EVERY REASON not to release the hostages. The reasons are clear: they do not see their victims as human beings. They are nothing more or less than commodities. They are their currency. They are assets pure and simple, and they are not ever going to freely release anyone. Period.

This brings the Renaissance Man to the final point in this post: the so-called “zona de despeje”. There is too much pressure on President Uribe from sources both inside and outside Colombia to agree to this zone.

The last time such a zone existed was during the term of President Andres Pastrana. That was a previous, failed, effort to negotiate a peace deal with the FARC. Its failure was well recognized by Colombians who, to this day, revile Pastrana. During the time of the zone, which was a large area centred around the city of Florencia (near where Clara Rojas and Ingrid Betancourt were captured, by the way) the Colombian state was absent from the area encompassed by it.

During that time, the population lived in complete terror. Apart from the fact that the FARC used the time to strengthen its military capabilities, to move arms and drugs, most horrendous is what the population was subjected to. Women and girls were raped, people were murdered, many, including children were kidnapped and forced into the military ranks of the FARC, land mines were scattered about (which, to this day, continue to blow the legs off children playing football in the wrong place) and more. And there was no protection for these Colombians from the Colombian state (much less from France, Switzerland or Denmark, all among those pushing for a new zona de despeje) because there were so-called negotiations going on.

It is beyond the comprehension of the Renaissance Man how states such as France, as well as other states, pressure groups, NGOs, and politicians can seek to pressure President Uribe to agree to another such zone. What kind of people can wish Colombians, even one Colombian, to be consigned again to the tender mercies of the FARC? Such individuals cannot care one iota for the Colombian people. The FARC say they want a 45 day zona de despeje (another lie, of course), but think about it. A person can be kidnapped in 30 seconds. A rape can be committed in minutes. Killings can happen in an instant. Imagine what the FARC could to these people even if the time limit were only 45 days.

If there is to be such a zone, the Renaissance Man suggests that it be in Paris.

COLOMBIA'S "SEQUESTRADOS"

2007-12-12T09:55:00.000-08:00

The news focus on the tragic situations being endured by the kidnapped victims of the FARC is putting a lot of pressure on the Colombian government, and particularly on President Alvaro Uribe Velez, to reach some sort of "humanitarian accord" with the guerrillas. The idea seems to be that thousands of convicted guerrillas held in Colombian prisons should be exchanged for about 50 "exchangables"...prominent hostages held by the FARC.

The pressure on President Uribe is based on a number of factors.

One of the most prominent "exchangeables" is a dual citizen of France and Colombia. Ingrid Betancourt, former Green Party candidate for president was captured by the FARC after entering a "red zone" near Florencia despite repeated warnings from the military that she should not go (and the refusal of her bodyguards to go with her...one said later that his job description did not include suicide). The French government wants her freed and is pressuring President Uribe to do anything necessary to get her out, regardless of what principles have to be ignored, or what notions of national sovereignty must be destoyed...in other words, do what France would do.
The recent photos of Ms. Betancourt show that she is in terrible shape. She looked, to put it in the vernacular, like death warmed over.
Other Colombians also want their loved ones returned. Some of them have been in captivity for almost 10 years. In reality, there may be as many as 3000 hostages, though only the 50 most prominent are usually mentioned.
The FARC wants a "zona de despeje", which means a large area of the country which they can control, in order to "negotiate" the exchange of prisoners/hostages.
The recent rupture in relations between President Uribe and Venezuelan President Hugo Chaves Frias has created another pressure point because, for some reason, Chavez has taken it personally that he was disinvited from interfering in Colombia's internal affairs. He is threatening to create obstacles to Colombian-Venezuelan trade, which could hurt the Colombian economy (also the Venezuelan economy, but that is a matter of indifference to Chavez as he thinks he can insulate the country from such effects through the use of petroleum revenues).

All of this raises some questions for the Renaissance Man.

Why the focus on one hostage? While Ms. Betancourt is important, is she really that much more important than the farmers, police officers and infantry privates who are also held? Their families miss them too. The Renaissance Man finds this focus on but a single hostage distasteful and elitist.
If Chavez and President Sarkozy of France (and, for that matter, the other Europeans) are so fond of the idea of a "zona de despeje" why not have one...in Venezuela, France, Switzerland...
Finally, given the attitude of moral superiority of France, the Renaissance Man has a question for President Sarkozy. According to recent news reports out of the United States, the practice of "waterboarding" seems to provide fast and accurate intelligence, though some people regard it as torture. My question is whether, if a captured FARC guerrilla knew the location of Ms. Betancourt, would an interrogation that included the use of "waterboarding" be justified in order to ascertain her whereabouts?

Just asking.

CHAVEZ AND THE REFERENDUM

2007-12-07T08:27:00.000-08:00

Following Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’ “gracious” (by his weird standards) concession speech following the Referendum, the Renaissance Man told everyone who would listen to just wait. His pattern is to start out calmly and then, after a slow burn, explode. Just the most recent example, of course, was when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe V. removed President Chavez from the negotiations for a humanitarian accord regarding the hostages held by the FARC. Pres. Chavez, at first, accepted the decision with magnanimity and as the sovereign decision of a sovereign state.

Later in the week (and really up until this minute) he went off the deep end.

As usual, the Renaissance Man was right about what would happen this time. Graciousness has been replaced by vulgarity, rage and threats. On Wednesday of this week, just two days after the concession speech, Chavez attacked the winning “No” side as having had a “shit” victory (it went on like that, but the Renaissance Man sees no need to dirty this blog with additional vulgarities).

Yesterday, Chavez attacked his supporters for not going out and voting. He attacked those who voted “No” as “little Yankees” and castigated his followers for not getting enough “Si” votes out to the polls. He attacked the voters of Caracas saying that they owed him a debt, which they had not repaid by supporting his constitutional reform. He then threatened “We’ll see if the debt is repaid or not”.

The Renaissance Man has a few short points to make here. First, the complete contempt in which Chavez holds not only his opponents but their democratic victory in the referendum is clear and troubling. It is evident that those who regard his acceptance of the results of the referendum as a manifestation of his essentially democratic nature are seriously mistaken. In fact, he clearly holds no respect for democracy, its norms, the right of citizens to disagree with their leaders, or for democratic outcomes that run counter to his wishes.

Secondly, Chavez’ remarks reconfirm his abysmally shallow understanding of democratic, republican and even socialist theories of government. In democratic and republican theory, the people NEVER “owe” any sort of debt, personally, to their leaders. In a republic, the leader is simply a citizen representative and in no democratic or republic style system can an elected leader claim any personal right to be supported by the people. On the contrary, he or she owes their position to the people. The debt, if there is one, runs the other way.

Even socialist theory, which is based upon equality of all, would deny that any leader can be owed a personal debt by his/her subjects. Of course, socialist theory frequently collapses, in practice, into statism and dictatorship.

Chavez reveals, in these comments, his true nature. He is neither republican, nor democrat, nor socialist. He regards the presidency of Venezuela as his personal fiefdom, and his so-called “populism” is merely a convenient tool to buttress what is essentially a dictatorship in waiting.

Thirdly, despite the shrewdness that some people attribute to him, the Renaissance Man is concerned that there is a certain instability about Chavez. The way he ratchets up his anger, for example, is not normal. In some reports, following his Tuesday attack on his opponents, it was posited that he was drunk. After looking at the video, who knows? The Renaissance Man ventures no opinion on Chavez’ sobriety, much less on whether or not an alcohol problem would be better or worse than a mental condition.

All that can be said is that Chavez is dangerous to the world, the region and to Venezuela.

PAKISTAN'S BORDERS

2007-11-09T13:56:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man has a question.

If a country abandons sovereignty over its territory, or any portion of it, must other states recognize and respect the putative borders, particularly when they are attacked from bases located inside the abandoned territory?

This is the situation as it exists on the Pakistani-Afghani border. Pakistan has "negotiated" arrangements with tribal leaders in the acknowledgedly lawless provinces of North and South Waziristan. The agreement is that agents of Pakistani state authority (i.e. police and armed forces) will withdraw from those provinces provided that the tribal leaders will enforce the "law" and prevent terrorists (such as Al Quaeda and the Taliban) from setting up shop there. Effectively, the Pakistani state writ will be withdrawn from these provinces.

The tribal leaders said "Suuuuuure. No prob." People are complaining, rightly, about the suspension of Pakistani constitutional order as a result of the recently declared "State of Emergency", but what about the abandonment by the Pakistani state of these two provinces?

Consequently, Al Quaeda and Taliban training bases have been established there, Sharia law is enforced in the absence of Pakistani secular law. Meanwhile, Canadian, American, British and Dutch troops are getting killed by attackers raiding into Afghanistan from across the border. (The German, French, and other NATO troops are in Kabul and points north...safely out of harm's way).

This past week we saw the Islamist control expand out of the Waziristans and southward into the region called Swat. Pakistani troops there surrendered to the incoming Jihadists without a fight.

So what do we see: Islamists expanding their areas of control (a la Afghanistan following the departure of the Soviets) and the unwillingness of Pakistani state forces to assert control over their territory.

And so, back to the opening question. Why must Afghanistan recognize and respect the border if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to do so?

The reality is that the mountainous region straddling the Afghan-Pakistani border is one region. The border is an artificial construct. Historically, neither the British, nor the Russians, nor the Pakistanis have been able to assert full control over the area.

The Renaissance Man wonders whether it may be time that Afghanistan and the NATO forces assisting it, recognize the reality and treat the entire area as one region. This would entail and permit, of course, surgical strikes at Taliban/Al Quaeda targets located inside the border of Pakistan. However, such strikes ought to be proportional, and ought not to place in question Pakistan's legal authority to control the area, should it so desire. But, in the absence of the exercise of sovereignty over this region by Pakistan, is it not reasonable that those who are suffering from acts mounted from Pakistani territory be able to defend themselves?

The alternative, it appears to the The Renaissance Man, is that these attacks be attributed to Pakistan, a consequence that it is doubtful the authorities in Islamabad would want.

REFERENDUM TO ABOLISH CANADIAN SENATE

2007-11-06T08:00:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Prime Minister Harper will agree to an NDP proposal for e referendum on the abolition of the Canadian Senate. The sadness is that, as a result of sheer lack of education and/or interest, Canadian journalists will be unable or unwilling to explain the true issues before Canadians.

People are badly served by the media when it comes to getting an explanation of the role of the Senate. As a Federation, some provinces were stronger and more populous than others, when they joined. The straight “rep-by-pop” system of the Commons would have overwhelmed the smaller provinces who had, nonetheless, entered Confederation as equals.

Thus, as in the US, the Senate was designed to provide regional representation. But, because it is unelected, it has become illegitimate. But the need for such representation at the centre of the Canadian state still exists. We have seen jury-rigged procedures such as First Minister’s Conferences and the so-called Council of First Ministers. But there is no substitute for what was really intended…i.e. regional representation in the centre of the government.

The Renaissance Man believes that the real solution is an elected Senate. Unfortunately, journalists who have not studied the foundation of this issue are poorly equipped to explain it to Canadians. Thus we hear a lot of Ontario based complaints that the Senate disproportionately represents the Maritimes. An informed journalist would reply “Of course it does!”

THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWS: A NEW ERA?

2007-09-26T08:41:00.000-07:00

Bill Wirtz died today.

Had The Renaissance Man written yesterday about Mr. Wirtz it would have been to excoriate him. Today, civility and decency demands that comments be more restrained, and this is probably for the better.

That said, The Renaissance Man, though Canadian “bred and buttered” (as they say) is a life-long fan of the Chicago Blackhawks. I am young enough to still be ambulatory and, as such, I have never seen my beloved ‘Hawks win a Stanley Cup. I knew that, as long as Mr. Wirtz owned the club, I never would.

As a hockey-loving Canadian kid I was drawn to the Blackhawk superstars: Bobby Hull, Kenny Wharram, Doug Mohns, Pierre Pilote, Denis DeJordy, Elmer “Moose” Vasko, Dennis Hull and, my childhood hero, Stan Mikita. Later, other greats (great in skill, personality and sometimes both) came along, such as Lou Angotti, Jim Pappin, Tony (Tony “O”) Esposito, Pat Stapleton, Cliff Koroll, Bill White, Ivan Boldirev, Keith Magnusson, Denis Savard, and Jeremy Roenick. The Renaissance Man will never forget the 1971 Stanley Cup finals against Montreal in which Game 7 was lost on a goal scored by Jacques Lemaire, virtually from centre ice. The Renaissance Man’s heart was broken, but not his bond of loyalty.

It was a bond of loyalty, however, not reciprocated by Bill Wirtz. The Chicago Blackhawks were a team with a great history, in a hockey supporting city playing proudly in, incidentally, the greatest uniform in the world of professional sports. Bar none.

And Mr. Wirtz drove it into the ground. He had no commitment to winning; he felt no obligation to the team’s supporters or to the city. The bottom line was the bottom line. The Renaissance Man does not know whether it is true or only apocryphal, but Mr. Wirtz was once quoted as saying that, for him, the best of all possible worlds would be to proceed through the playoffs and lose Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals at home.

Even if the quote is made-up, the fact that it circulates demonstrates the low regard in which he was held by ‘Hawk fans.

Following the players’ lockout, three years ago, a lot of ‘Hawk fans thought that this was a chance for a comeback. The salary cap combined with a draft of good players at lower salaries would have allowed the ‘Hawks to stock the team with some real talent. Instead we go Eric Weinrich? Mr. Wirtz, ever miserable with a dollar, allowed yet another golden opportunity to pass.

His obituary today on CTV.ca notes that Mr. Wirtz was a great philanthropist and for that The Renaissance Man honours him. Everyone has a good and a bad side. I am sure that he was loved by his wife and children and, no doubt, was generous to friends, family and the less fortunate. That is what, in the end, is important and for what he should most be remembered.

Jay Mariotti, of the Chicago Sun-Times, says today that he loved his Chicago Blackhawks. Fair enough. He had a funny way of showing it, however, and he seemed not to care that the fans also loved the team. A lot still do, I suppose.

So, we’ll say goodbye to Bill Wirtz, hope that he finds peace with Our Heavenly Father, and express our condolences to the family that loved him.
The we will move on and hope that, under new leadership, the great Blackhawk franchise will revive.

See: http://www.tsn.ca/ctvnews/sportsstory.asp?story_id=219229And http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mariottiweb/574844,mariottiweb092607a.article

WELL, THAT OUGHTA TAKE CARE OF THAT!!

2007-09-20T12:47:00.000-07:00

According to CTV.ca;

DION PLEDGES TO BECOME MORE PERSONABLE

Now, why didn't we think of that before?

via :www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070920/dion_personable_070920/20070920?hub=Politics

THE NORTHERN PESO

2007-09-20T12:19:00.000-07:00

The Renaissance Man recalls the “Northern Peso”, the nickname attached to the Canadian dollar in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Who could forget the $.62 dollar which virtually imprisoned Canadians in their own country? The exchange rate was so unfavourable that, for many, travel became prohibitively expensive, particularly to the United States.

Times have changed. Today, via CTV.ca we learn that the Canadian dollar has, for the first time in 30 years, reached par.

CANADIAN DOLLAR HITS PARITY WITH GREENBACK

The Canadian dollar reached parity Thursday morning with the U.S. currency for the first time in nearly 31 years.
The loonie was supported by lofty commodity prices, a strong domestic economy and
concerns about a U.S. economic slowdown. At 10:58 a.m. EDT, the loonie rose as high as US$1.0004 before backing off to 99.86 cents US -- up 1.36 cents US
from Wednesday. Analysts say what helped pushed the Canadian dollar over the
top was some new trade data from Statistics Canada, which reported the economy
was surprisingly strong in July.

The Renaissance Man remembers that many analysts were, at the time of the low dollar, perplexed at the exchange rate. The fundamentals of the economy were good, the budget was under control and inflation was no problem. Industrial and commodity production were strong and unemployment was low. Why, then, was the dollar at such a low level.

A lot of analysts said, at the time, that the fiscal and monetary policy of the Liberal government under The Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien was to keep the dollar low in order to promote exports. The theory was that, if the dollar rose in value, Canadian exports would suffer as they would become more expensive. This was the excuse to punish hard working Canadians by keeping their dollar devalued.

How wrong he was! As set out today in Bloomberg.com, Canada has the strongest economy in the G-7.

``I don't see any barrier in the way of parity now,'' said Toronto-based James
Dutkiewicz, who manages C$5 billion in fixed- income assets at CI Investments
Inc., Canada's second-largest mutual fund manger. ``This is a story of U.S.
dollar weakness, the commodity boom, and our unparalleled fiscal situation among
the Group of Seven countries.''

We hear some of the same concerns today, namely that our economy will suffer if the dollar reaches par. Well, it HAS reached par and the sky hasn't fallen. The Renaissance Man believes that the productivity of the Canadian economy and the Canadian workforce, well justify and support a strong currency.

Hurrah for the loonie…it flies again!

SPORTING LIFE

2007-09-14T08:26:00.000-07:00

The Renaissance loves sport, particularly hockey and baseball.

That said, there is a problem. This morning we have in the news a sort of "twin killing" of our illusions about sport at the highest level.

First, we have the McLaren F1 team fined $100,000,000.00 by Formula One's governing body for spying on Team Ferrari. They will be displaced as the Constructor's Champion and their participarion next season will be decided later.

This same morning we have the New England Patriots of the N.F.L. being found guilty of using a video camera to record and use opposing team's bench signals, contrary to clear league rules.

Both McLaren and the Pats have said in their respective defences that the information received was not used to gain a competitive advantage. The Renaissance Man says "suuuurrrreee", but even if it's true, it's a lame defence. They cheated.

In recent months we have seen an NBA referee charged and admitting to cheating in his calling of games to assist gambling interests. We have seen the doping debacle of the Tour de France, which has lost all credibility. We have seen countless steroid and blood doping scandals in sports as varied as track and fireld to wrestling. There is great concern among many, including the Renaissance Man, that China is the new East Germany and that its technological prowess in the field of athletic cheating will allow them to dominate the Peking Olympics.

The Renaissance Man is still seeking a solution. All he knows is that money has corrupted sport, in general, and that day by day the joy is bleeding out.

IF THIS IS TRUE...

2007-08-16T11:14:00.000-07:00

If this is true, how is it not genocide?

Yazidis fear annihilation after Iraq bombings
By Peter GraffThu Aug 16,
10:56 AM ET
Angry members of a minority sect in Iraq said on Thursday they
feared annihilation after scores were killed in possibly the worst suicide bomb
attack of the four-year conflict.Frail clay houses in the centre of
Kahtaniya, one of two villages targeted on Tuesday by garbage trucks packed with
explosives, were flattened for several blocks.Chunks of concrete and twisted
aluminum lay in the street beside the destroyed homes of hundreds of Yazidis, a
minority sect regarded by Sunni militants as infidels.Estimates of the death
toll varied from 175 to 500."Their aim is to annihilate us, to create
trouble and kill all the Yazidis because we are not...
"NO MORE YAZIDIS"
"Al Qaeda wants to kill all the Yazidis," said another
Kahtaniya villager, who gave his name only as Hossein. "Another bomb like this
and there will be no more Yazidis left."
Yazidis are members of a pre-Islamic
Kurdish sect of several hundred thousand in northern Iraq and Syria who say they
are persecuted for their beliefs...

This is from Reuters. If it is true, al Qaeda has now expanded its gaols from exterminating Jews to exterminating other, non-Muslim groups. Their ambition is exceeded only by their barbarism. The targetting of specific groups meets the definition of the Genocide Convention, as explained by the International Court of Justice in the recent (Feb. 2007) case of Bosnia v. Serbia.

The Renaissance Man askes why al Qaeda seems to be getting a pass on its genocidal goals from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

WAITING FOR THE ASTERISK

2007-08-03T08:31:00.000-07:00

In 1961, when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, Major League baseball statistics recorded it with the famous, or infamous, asterisk. The asterisk noted that Maris' record occurred in a 162 game season, rather than the 154 game season which existed during the Ruth era. Of course many were indignant about it, but the use of the asterisk raises the question as to what ought to be done when Barry Bonds hits his 756th home run and breaks the record now held by Hank Aaron.

Bonds' record is tainted, not by some extra games played during the season, but by the odour of steroid use. Investigations in the United States have left Bonds' use of performance enhancing substances an open secret. His ex-mistress has recently confirmed that Bonds used these substances out of a jealous need to catch Mark McQuire (whose own accomplishments are sufficiently tainted to have led to his failure to be elected to the Hall of Fame). He has, so far, avoided indictment because an agent/lawyer associated with Bonds in the acquisition of these substances refused to comply with a court order to testify and has served jail time for contempt of court. To put it bluntly, Bonds has been able to avoid prosecution because the chief witness fell on his sword.

Aaron was not only a great athlete...he was an honest one. Nothing taints his record.

For that reason, a lot of baseball fans posit that Bonds' record, when it is etched in the history books, ought to have its own asterisk: one that recognizes that a number of the home runs noted were achieved by unfair means.

This week a number of fans have been wondering what has happened to Bonds. He has been stuck on number 754 for almost a week. The Renaissance Man, who followed Aaron's race for the record avidly, has ignored Bonds' chase. The Renaissance Man does not care, because he does not, and will not, recognize the record.

So far as the Renaissance Man is concerned, those who watch Bonds, on the edges of their seats, are waiting for an asterisk.

TOMMY MAKEM'S DEATH

2007-08-02T12:42:00.000-07:00

It is news such as this that makes the Renaissance Man feel older. As a child, many happy family hours were spend listening to, and singing along with, The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem...a set of their recordings still sits in the Renaissance Man's CD collection. I learned "The Foggy Dew" from their records...before I learned the Act of Contrition.

And so, the news today that Tommy Makem has died, joining with Pat and Tom Clancy in the great Band in Heaven, is bittersweet. While it brings back happy memories of listening to the songs with my parents, particularly my mom, it is sad to know that the great voice is now silenced.

Makem was a wonderful singer, musician, storyteller and songwriter. Anyone familiar with the genre is familiar with the classic "Four Green Fields".

The Renaissance Man is irritated by the Associated Press obituary (appearing in the Toronto Star among other places) which discusses this song. It says

He brought audiences to tears with "Four Green Fields," about a woman whose sons
died trying to prevent strangers from taking her fields.

Of course, anyone who knows anything about the singer, or history, knows that is not what the song is about. The "Four Green Fields" are the four ancient counties of Ireland. The "stranger" stealing the fields is England, and the lost "field" is Ulster. The "old lady" is Ireland herself.

Makem was an Irish nationaist and one sadness is that he died before seeing Ireland united. That said, the Good Friday Accord has set the wheels in motion and we know that one day, within the next generation, Ireland will be re-united.

The Renaissance man hopes that Tommy Makem, watching from his stool up above, will have a smile when the "old lady" finally gets back her "lost field".

COLLE RESIGNATION

2007-07-29T12:18:00.000-07:00

The resignation by Ontario Citizenship and Immigration Minister Mike Colle (why does a province need a Citizenship and Immigration Minister?) followed a scathing report by Ontario’s Auditor General. This report was begrudgingly requested by Premier Dalton McGuinty after questions arose over the disbursement of about $32,000,000.00 in grants at the end of the last fiscal year.

These grants were given out “informally”, to put it kindly. More accurately, they were shovelled out, in the shadows, by a government trying to use up unspent tax dollars before a new fiscal year began. Normal granting procedures were not followed; no one knew about the availability of the funds, no one was able to apply, and there was no bureaucratic oversight of the disbursement of the funds.

The Toronto Star (27 July 2007) dealt with the scandal in its lead editorial wrote the following:

His initial failure to recognize that ad hoc distribution of tax dollars is
inexcusable and that taxpayers deserve full accounting and transparency into how
their money is spent was disturbing.
The question now is whether McGuinty can assure voters that he has truly fixed the grants program – before they go to the polls in October.

As usual, in its effort to protect its favoured political party, The Star has either missed or fudged the real point. At its essence, this is not about the granting procedure, flawed (and potentially corrupt) as it was. It is about the attitude of the government about tax monies under its control. If there was $32,000,000.00 of extra money, the immediate reaction was not to save it, but to spend it as quickly as possible, like a bunch of drunken sailors.

The difference between drunken sailors and this government is that the seamen on shore leave are generally spending their own earnings. The government does not seem to have any comprehension that the money is not theirs; it belongs to the taxpayers. In a government in which top, and even middle level civil servants earn in excess of $100,000.00 per year, our representatives seem acclimatized to stratospheric incomes. They have no idea how difficult it is, in the real world, to earn $100,000.00 per year (or $50,000.00, or even $30,000.00).

The Renaissance Man has a question for the government, and the Toronto Star. Why, when they realized that they had saved $32,000,000.00, did the government not regard this as something to publicly brag about? Why wasn’t this good news for the taxpayers for which they could try to grab some credit?

MORE EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAS GONE WRONG IN US POLITICS

2007-07-24T17:13:00.000-07:00

Last night the Democrat contenders for their party's presidential nomination participated in the so-called "YouTube" debate. In the course of dealing with a question about his willingness to meet personally with foreign dictators of "rogue regimes". Senator Obama indicated a willingness to meet with the likes of Castro, Ahmadinejab, Chavez, Kim and Assad without any preconditions.

Subsequent reaction from Senator Clinton was, predictably, negative. She called his position "naive".

Senator Obama's response?

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, circulated a memo by Obama spokesman Bill
Burton saying Obama's response to the question had played well with focus groups
and that Clinton had changed her position on the subject — a claim her campaign
denied

So there you have it. It's not what is best for the country that matters; it's what plays well with focus groups.

Sometimes I worry that the U.S. is doomed.

LAZY JOURNALISTS (CHAPTER 647)

2007-07-19T09:58:00.000-07:00

There is a diplomatic dispute underway between Russia and the United Kingdom regarding the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. This is an issue which the Renaissance Man believes highlights the essential laziness of the media.

Anyone who follows the news knows that Scotland Yard detectives went to Moscow to investigate the murder of Mr. Alexander Litvinenko. As a result of their "enquiries" they have concluded that Mr. Andrei Lugovoi ought to be charged with his murder and have requested his extradition.

But Mr. Lugovoi is a Russian citizen. In refusing the extradition request, the Russian government has said that their constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens.

All the media have dutifully reported these facts...he said /she said style.

But the Renaissance Man asks himself : what would a halfway industrious reporter do to follow up this dispute? Wouldn't any reporter with the slightest curiosity about the issue check to find out what the Russian constitution actually says on this point?

This is worth reporting. If the Russians are being truthful, then it would be illegal for them to extradite Mr. Lugovoi. Futher, the British should know this (or at least be able to confirm it, as should any modestly curious reporter). Thus, if the Russians are being truthful, then the British expulsion of 4 diplomats would look a bit disingenuous, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, if the Russian constitution contains no such prohibition, then their refusal to extradite Mr. Lugovoi takes on a completely different texture, as would their "retaliation" in expelling 4 British diplomats. It would raise questions about why the Putin government is protecting Mr. Lugovoi.

In other words, a lot of fundamentally important questions which really should be reported on, and even the laziest of reporters could get started on this by Googling "Russian constitution ". Then they could check out Article 61. It prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens.

And then, if they had even a modicum of curiosity, they could start to ask a few questions.

But they are gut lazy.

ANTI-SEMITISM AT THE BBC? DO TELL...

2007-07-17T13:10:00.000-07:00

Over the last two years the left wing biases of the BBC, which have been obvious to anyone actually watching it, have been confirmed by a number of reports. The most recent was just a month ago when an internal BBC report found that complaints of left wing bias were well founded.

This morning comes news which ratifies the understanding we all have about the BBC's Anti-Semitism.

Apparently, the BBC programme Radio Five Live has a message board. The house rules provide for the removal of posts that are "likely to disrupt, provoke attack or offend others or are considered racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable".

One clearly anti-semitic post contained the following:

Zionism is a racist ideology where jews [sic] are given supremacy over all other
races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud. There is a law
called Baba Mezia which allows jews to lie as long as its to non-jews.
Many pro jewish supporters will cringe at this being exposed because they
know it exists, yet they keep quiet about it, hey frip, jla and co [the
aliases of other people taking part in the discussion]. The Law of Baba
Mezia!! Tsk tsk tsk! It's in the Talmud.

The BBC received complaints about the obvious anti-semitic content of the post and demands that it be removed. The BBC's response? "We have decided that it does not contravene the House Rules and are going to leave it on the site..."

Obviously, the BBC cannot even recognize anti-semitism. or hate speech when it sees it. More accurately, it regards such speech as mainstream.

You can see the entire story at the Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1184613676334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

ANTI-SEMITISM AT THE BBC? SHOCKING...

2007-07-17T11:26:00.000-07:00

This morning comes news which ratifies the understanding we all have about the BBC's Anti-Semitism.

Apparently, the BBC programme Radio Five Live has a message board. The house rules provide for the removal of posts that are "likely to disrupt, provoke attack or offend others or are considered racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable".

One clearly anti-semitic post contained the following:

Zionism is a racist ideology where jews [sic] are given supremacy over all
otherraces and faiths. This is found in the Talmud. There is a lawcalled Baba
Mezia which allows jews to lie as long as its to non-jews.Many pro jewish
supporters will cringe at this being exposed because theyknow it exists, yet
they keep quiet about it, hey frip, jla and co [thealiases of other people
taking part in the discussion]. The Law of BabaMezia!! Tsk tsk tsk! It's in the
Talmud.

Obviously, the BBC cannot even recognize anti-semitism. or hate speech when it sees it. More accurately, it regards such speech as mainstream. You can see the entire story at the Jerusalem Post

“TALK CAN SETTLE ANY CONFLICT” REALLY?

2007-07-16T10:26:00.000-07:00

It is common among political analysts, journalists and, in general, among the literati, to “urge dialogue”. We must “talk” with Hamas, Iran, the FARC…you name it.

This is based, of course, on the concept that any and all conflict can be settled by discussion and negotiation.

The Renaissance Man has a question. Even if conflict can always be resolved through discussion, how can it possibly stop conquest?

Surely the literati does not believe that the motivation to conquer is extinct.

DARWINISM v. CHRISTIANITY

2007-07-16T10:20:00.000-07:00

How many times have we heard bad behaviour justified as follows: “Too bad…the world’s not fair”? Such a response, which leaves us powerless to prevent the continuation of the "unfairness", is frustrating. What many do not realize is that it also lies on the cusp of the conflict between Darwinism and Christianity.

Most of us who are Catholic, or follow some other form of Christianity accept, somewhat routinely, the validity of the Theory of Evolution. We, the Renaissance Man included, have accommodated it into our belief system. It is not particularly difficult to reconcile evolution with the belief that God created the “heavens and the earth”; mostly we just assume that He set it all in motion and things just “evolved”, so to speak.

To many of us, therefore, the so-called “Creationists” are sometimes a bit of an embarrassment. They espouse a literal view of natural development which, they say, contradicts evolution. Many (though perhaps not all) tend to be evangelical or fundamental Christians who want to read the Bible literally. Thus, they have to propound a version of natural history that flies in the face of the fossil and geological record.

That said, it is important to recognize the down side of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. While it may operate satisfactorily as an explanatory system, it is completely unacceptable as a basis of a moral or “civilizational” system. If we move from saying that “survival of the fittest is how things happen” to “survival of the fittest is how things should happen” then we may potentially lose our essential humanity.

Nietzche’s superman, Hitler’s superior race, and eugenics are all based upon the elevation of Darwinism from a description to a recipe. Under all of these, the weakest, the less valuable, or more useless are pushed aside. Of course, it is generally the elite who will self-define themselves as the strong, the valuable and useful.

It is at this point that Darwinism comes into conflict with Christianity. Christianity is founded on the protection, not the discarding, of the weak. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me” or “The meek shall inherit the earth” are just two examples in which Christ elevated the weaker and disadvantaged members of humanity.

As a religion Christianity is, by definition, a moral code. Thus, it stands in stark opposition to Darwinism. It is in Darwinism, via Nietzche, that we can find Hitler’s philosophical or moral justification for the extermination of the Jews. It can also provide a foundation justifying genetic manipulation, euthanasia and abortion. When we add in a bit of Sartre’s concept that there are no moral absolutes, the recipe becomes a witches’ brew.

Fundamentalist Christians, in their revolt against the Theory of Evolution, are onto something. They reject the idea of Darwinism as a potential moral or philosophical base for the ordering of civilization and have chosen to manifest their rejection by attacking the factual basis underlying Darwin’s theories.

The Renaissance Man takes a different approach. It is unnecessary to defend the values of Christianity by denying facts. Christianity does not exist in defiance of facts. The Renaissance Man prefers that the facts stand as they are, and that Darwin’s theories, though useful as an explanatory tool, never be elevated to the status of a moral system. This must be vigorously opposed.

In the end, the Renaissance Man is left to conclude that Christianity is more humanistic (and humanitarian) than Darwinism.

CAN A SECULAR SOCIETY MEASURE "DECADENCE"?

2007-07-15T11:35:00.000-07:00

The Renaissance Man has a couple of questions about decadence. We have all heard that the Roman Empire was decadent, and that it collapsed because of its own decadence. There are those who say that western society is decadent. Looking at the behaviour and fame of Paris Hilton it’s hard to disagree, but this raises some questions.

If we live in a secular society, how do we measure “decadence”? How do we define it? By what standard do we assess behaviour; indeed, by what right do we assess behaviour?

Just askin’.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH TERRORISTS AND ROGUE REGIMES

2007-07-13T14:07:00.000-07:00

The Renaissance Man has a question. Where is the evidence that negotiating with terrorists and/or rogue regimes ever achieves success?

By "success", of course, is meant peace, security, the rule of law...in other words values that are hallmarks of civilization.

And, while we're at it, why not have a "zona despeje" in France?

WHY DO WE HAVE THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?

2007-07-13T11:15:00.000-07:00

The Geneva Conventions, as they now stand, are a revision and updating of Conventions originally written in the mid 19th century in reaction to the horrors of war. They were designed among other things, to establish minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians and non-combatants. As updated in 1949, the Third Convention included definitions of “combatants”, “protected persons” and “perfidy”. The 1977 Protocol I, which has not been universally ratified, continued to included perfidy, the necessity for national emblems on combatant’s forces and required minimum treatment for anyone captured in combat. Even though Protocol I permitted some fighters to enter into combat without uniform, it required that such fighters carry their arms openly before and during combat, and to avoid “perfidy”. They were/are bound by requirements to protect prisoners.

Among the many reasons such rules were instituted were (1) to protect civilian populations from attack and (2) to allow combatants to distinguish who the enemy was.

Currently, in Afghanistan, Canadian and other NATO troops have come in for criticism because, in the course of military operations, there have been civilian casualties. However, the Taliban do not operate in accordance with any of the Geneva conventions, or their Protocols. Thus, they conceal themselves in civilian dress, and do not carry their arms openly. They utilize “perfidy” in violation of the Conventions and Protocols.

Apart from the illegality of their actions, the fact is that it is this behaviour that contributes to the civilian death toll. Canadian and NATO troops are entitled to defend themselves. If, in the course of defending themselves they have problems distinguishing the enemy from the civilians, the fault is not theirs.

RETURNED

2006-05-19T09:21:00.000-07:00

The Renaissance man has been offline for over two months. This was due to jungle travel in the Amazon region. It was great.

Now, he's back.

IRAN AGAIN

2006-05-19T09:20:00.000-07:00

The Renaissance Man has a question.

There are a fair number of people out there who have observed that the current Iranian president is elected. Apologists for Iran say that the country, while an imperfect democracy is freer and more democratic than most other countries in the region. (At the same time they point out the democratic elections for the Palestinian Authority).To an extent it is true...though the Mullahs prevented Reformers from running, Iranians did select Mr.Ahmadinejad ahead of Mr. Rafsanjani, and there seems to be no doubt that this selection was legitimate.

One of the theories coming out of WWII about the Holocaust was that "peoples", were not to be held collectively responsible for the acts of their leaders. Thus, though we prosecuted many Nazi and Japanese leaders for various war crimes and crimes against humanity, we did not prosecute the civilian population (and low level military) even though many of them at least knew what was happening and a lot were complicit.

Maybe that made sense when you consider that both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were brutal dictatorships. Maybe the people were essentially powerless against the regime (this is giving them the benefit of the doubt, I know, for there certainly was lots of support for the regimes in both countries).

But (and here is the question) should the same rule apply when the government committing the atrocities is democratically elected? When the people make a conscious decision to select a government in the knowledge of the policies they will likely follow, do we still immunize that same population from the easily foreseeable consequences of their actions?

The Palestinians were well aware and were warned that if they elect Hamas, they will lose international support, but they went ahead anyway...what is wrong with allowing them to experience the consequences of their conscious and collective decision?

This new policy coming from the Iranian government is just another in a long line of lunacies stretching back to the Revolution. But now these decisions are being made by a president who forecast them both as mayor of Teheran and in his election campaign.

Fine...it was no secret to Iranians what he would do...maybe he would lead them to disaster with his nuclear programme, but that was a risk they were willing to take.

The Renaissance Man understands the reluctance to contemplate sanctions or even military action against the Iranian people. At home in Canada he knows lots of Iranians, and I can tell you that, at least the ones he knows are great folks. In a different situation, Iran is a country the Renaissance Man would love to visit.

But, it is beyond the ken of the Renaissance Man to see how the security of the civilized world...lets say the CIVILIZATION of the civilized world...can be permitted to be threatened by the insane fanatics in charge in Teheran.

If the people of Iran were a people held hostage by this regime, then perhaps the equation would change. But that is not the case...they voluntarily picked this guy.

Doesn't that change things?

JUST A LITTLE THING WE LIKE TO CALL "SOUR GRAPES"

2006-03-15T11:35:00.000-08:00

This was on CNN.com today.

'BROKEBACK' author: We were robbed
Annie Proulx rips 'Crash,' Academy
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Annie Proulx, whose 1997 short story inspired the film "Brokeback Mountain," has penned a scattershot blast in a British newspaper unleashing her anger over the film's best-picture Oscar loss.
Proulx criticizes Oscar voters and the Academy Awards ceremony in the 1,094-word rant, which appeared in Saturday's issue of The Guardian, a liberal paper boasting 1.2 million readers daily.
The best-picture Oscar went to "Crash," which focuses on race relations in Los Angeles.
Academy members who vote for the year's best film are "out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city," Proulx writes. (Read her Guardian column here .)
The 70-year-old Pulitzer-prize winning author points out that "Brokeback," which was nominated for eight Academy Awards, was named best picture at the Independent Spirit Awards one day before the March 5 Oscars.
"If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit choices," Proulx advises.
She even lashes out at Lionsgate, the distribution company behind "Crash."
"Rumour has it that Lionsgate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash -- excuse me -- Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline," Proulx writes.
She decries the "atmosphere of insufferable self-importance" inside the Kodak Theatre, the Oscars site, and describes the audience as a "somewhat dim LA crowd." The show, she writes, was "reminiscent of a small-town talent-show night."
"Clapping wildly for bad stuff enhances this," Proulx writes.
She notes that "Brokeback's" three Oscar wins, for original score, adapted screenplay and direction for Ang Lee put it "on equal footing with King Kong."
When Jack Nicholson announced "Crash" as the best-picture winner, "there was a gasp of shock," Proulx writes.
"It was a safe pick of 'controversial film' for the heffalumps," she writes, using the elephant-like "Winnie the Pooh" character to describe academy voters.
"For those who call this little piece a Sour Grapes Rant," Proulx concludes, "play it as it lays."
Calls by the Associated Press to Proulx's Wyoming home and her literary agent, Elizabeth Darhansoff, were not immediately returned Tuesday.

Not much more to say about that.

MILOSEVIC

2006-03-13T10:20:00.000-08:00

This past weekend saw the death of Slobodan Milosevic.

While it was possible to view a number of Serbs who mourned the death of Milosevic, the Renaissance Man mourns his life. It is lamentable that he lived.

Most people go through life, leaving an impression on their family and friends, but little on the world at large. A few achieve fame and honour. Whether great or minor, these people manage to leave a positive impression on the world at large.

It is the rare monster whose entire legacy is unmitigated disaster, horror and without redeeming quality. Such a creature was Slobodan Milosevic, who mobilized ethnic pride and mutated it into ethnic hatred. In the end, as a result of his endeavours, hundreds of thousands of people were killed while others, seduced by his perverted vision committed atrocities that will jeopardize their eternal souls. The country of Yugoslavia, that seemed so joyful during the Sarajevo Winter Olympics was rent asunder.

The Renaissance Man mourns the life of Slobodan Milosevic and regrets that he ever existed.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT...

2006-03-10T08:35:00.000-08:00

If anyone ever doubted that Iran is run by madmen, read the following from todays Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting site (official voice):

"Conference held on Holocaust myth

02:30:51 È.Ù
Isfahan, March 7 - A conference on the myth of Holocaust, entitled 'Holocause, myth or reality,' was held in Isfahan Monday attended by students and professors of the Isfahan university.

The conference was initiated by the Isfahan office of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.

Head of the Presidential office on studying the Palestinian issue, Alireza Soltanshahi told the conference that the Holocaust myth has turned into an industry for the Zionists to gain money.

He explained that Germany had to pay compensation to Israel for the Holocaust untill 2020 while there is no documents to substantiate the claim.

Soltanshahi said the Zionist regime has tried to show that the Holocaust is real through new methods such as establishing international institutions to propaganda on it as well as giving literary prizes to people who had written about it positively."

Here's the website link:
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=208946

MUNICH: THE MOVIE

2006-02-12T09:32:00.000-08:00

Okay, the Renaissance Man has now seen one of the films nominated for Best Movie Oscar.

It should not win, but it is not as bad as some people have said. It does have a lot of faults and, to the Renaissance Man, it shows all the signs of having been made in a hurry.

There is no problem, in the Renaissance Man's view, with the portrayal of the protagonist (and some of his team members) as troubled by what they are doing. We would not want our heroes to be psychopathic killers who blow up people without a twinge of conscience. That is the big difference between our side and the terrorists.

The problem is that the film is simplistic. Basically, they get the locations of their targets from Louis, and his family (whoever they are) and then go blow up the target. Period. Then, on to the next one. The moralizing seems to be less heartfelt than a rather weak attempt to instill more of a story into the picture.

A more interesting story would be the family from whom the Israelis get their information. Who are they? How do they know this stuff? How did they come to be? Why does the father have sympathy for the Jews?

From a character point of view, the only interesting person in the film is Louis' father. It would have been interesting to see the relationship between he and Avner develop a bit more.

Three Stars

IRAN...AGAIN

2006-02-12T09:17:00.000-08:00

It is the view of the Renaissance Man that the President of Iran may be certifiable.

Today, he has recapitulated the two of his most outrageous contentions (though it is difficult to rank all of them). He has called the Holocaust a "fairy tale" and has, again, called for the removal of Israel.

The Holocaust denial establishes that he is continues to live in a fantasy world, albeit a fantasy world that normal humans would regard as a nightmare.

As for the removal of Israel, this is, once again, a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. The Renaissance Man asks when with the Iranian State be held to account for its continous violation of Article 4 of the Charter. There are options...see my 11 Jan 2006 entry simply entitled "Iran" for available options at International Law, together with precedents.

Attached below is the news coverage of the relevant bits of the speech, as well as a link to the entire piece.

Ahmadinejad: Israel 'will be removed'Tehran (dpa) - Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations"
will eventually remove Israel from the region. Addressing a mass demonstration
in Tehran - one of many organized throughout Iran to commemorate the 27th
anniversary of the Islamic revolution - he once again questioned the Holocaust
"fairy tale". "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and
if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and
other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony
marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution. "Do the removal of
Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional
nations," the ultra-conservative president said. He once again called the
Holocaust a "fairy tale" and said Europeans have become hostages of "Zionists"
in Israel. He also accused Europeans for not allowing "neutral scholars" to
investigate in Europe and make a scientific report on "the truth about the fairy
tale of Holocaust." "How comes that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide
is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the
fairy tale Holocaust is not?" Ahmadinejad said. "The real Holocaust is what is
happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of
Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and
making innocent people homeless," Ahmadinejad said.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=78985

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

2006-02-07T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man wishes that this conclusion had been reached during the NHL Strike last year, but it is better to have it now, than not at all.

The lawsuit was based on the premise that, when Lord Stanley granted the Stanley Cup, the trustees were to award it to the best hockey team in Canada. Fine, the NHL has taken it over, but when there is a work stoppage, so the argument went, the Cup still had to be awarded.

Under the settlement, the Cup CAN be awarded (though it need not be). This means that the trustees have the power to award the Stanley Cup to a non-NHL team if there ever is another work stoppage in the league.

Here is the story from CTV.ca

Court: Non-NHL teams could vie for Cup

TSN - The Sports Network

2/7/2006

TORONTO (CP) - Chalk one up for the little guy.

Two Toronto hockey buffs have won their fight to ensure the Stanley Cup doesn't have to stay in mothballs in the event of another NHL labour dispute.

Tim Gilbert, lawyer for Gard Shelley and David Burt, confirmed Tuesday that a settlement has been reached with the NHL. Shelley and Burt, members of a Toronto pickup hockey league called the Wednesday Nighters, went to court during the recent lockout to challenge the NHL's claim that it controlled the Stanley Cup and could prevent it from being used as a trophy for other leagues.

A court hearing on the case was scheduled for Tuesday, but Gilbert said a deal was struck last Friday.

"A David and Goliath story," Gilbert said Tuesday morning.

"They were doing this to establish a principle," Gillbert added of his clients.

Under the agreement, the National Hockey League acknowledges that the trustees who control the prize can award it to a non-NHL team in a year where the league doesn't operate.

As part of the settlement, the league will inject $100,000 a year into hockey leagues for women and underprivileged children for the next five years.

The two argued that the cup's trustees - Ian (Scotty) Morrison, former head of the Hockey Hall of Fame, and former NHL official Brian O'Neill - could award it to someone else since the NHL wasn't using it.

Their argument hinged on determining what Lord Stanley's intentions were when he donated the Cup as a challenge trophy in 1892 and whether the trustees overstepped their bounds when a 1947 agreement (revised in 2000) handed its control over to the NHL.

The settlement does not mean the trustees have to award the cup in the event of another work stoppage.

An NHL spokesman declined comment Tuesday morning.

JUST ASKING

2006-02-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

Does this mean we can go burn down an Iranian Embassy?

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons (From The Australian 7 Jan 2006)

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.
"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.
Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated.
Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted international anger when he dismissed the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.
Mr Mortazavi said tomorrow's edition of the paper will invite cartoonists to enter the competition, with "private individuals" offering gold coins to the best 12 artists - the same number of cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Last week, the Iranian foreign ministry also invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Teheran to take part in a planned conference on the Holocaust, even though the idea has been branded by Mr Blair as "shocking, ridiculous, stupid".
Mr Blair also said Mr Ahmadinejad "should come and see the evidence of the Holocaust himself in the countries of Europe", to which Iran responded by saying it was willing to send a team of "independent investigators". (LINK: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss )

BY THEIR FRIENDS SHALL YE KNOW THEM...

2006-02-06T10:10:00.000-08:00

When the IAEA voted last Saturday to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, three countries voted against the referral. They were Syria, Venezuela and Cuba.

'Nuff said....

ABOUT THE EMASSY BURNINGS

2006-02-05T08:09:00.000-08:00

The Reniassance Man has just two quick comments to make about the burning of the Danish Embassies in Syria and Lebanon.

The first is that the Renaissance Man believes that this is the work of Hezbollah. This Islamofascist organization operates a "State within a State" inside Lebanon, is funded by Iran and provided Syria with significant muscle during their occupation of Lebanon. Thus, insofar as Syria goes, it is ideally situated to organize a distraction (from Syria's problems with the UN over the Hariri investigation) as it can mobilize angry mobs at a moment's notice.

In Lebanon it is especially capable, given the weakness of the Lebanese State and the inability of the State to deal with this true threat to Lebanese sovereignty.

In respect to this, it is interesting to note that the Lebanese mob attacked a Maronite Catholic Church. Apart from the hypocrisy of thios (supposedly, these Muslims are up in arms about insult to a religious figure, yet they do the same), to the Renaissance Man this is just another fingerprint of the radical Hezbollah group.

The second point is this. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (See Article 31 about State's "special duties") requires host states to protect embassy and consular facilities within their countries. In both cases, Syria and Lebanon have failed to do this. Syria failed to provide added protection in the days before the attack despite requests from the Danish Embassy. In both the Syrian case and the Lebanese case, such security officials as there were disappeared, leaving the Embassies and their staffs to fend for themselves.

This is a clear violation of the rules of International Law for which the States must be held accountable.

Incidentally, this is more evidence of Hezbollah invovement. They are the well known surrogate of the Iranian regime.

The Iranian regime followed a similar pattern when it permitted the occupation of the US Embassy by radical students. In particular, it failed to provide added, or adequate security to the Embassy and consulates when asked, despite prior attacks on the facilites by mobs. Later, when the students occupied them and took the staff hostage, the Iranian State tried to hold out that it was a group of students and not the government that was responsible (their subsequent ratification of the student's acts and awards to them belied their position on this).

The current Iranian president was one of the student leaders involved in this outrage, and the Renaissance Man is of the view that the mindset of that fanatic allows him to believe that if the technique worked once, it can work again. This time the surrogates are not Iranian student radicals, but Hezbollah terrorist/radicals.

The Renaissance man says that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...well you know the rest.

THE RENAISSANCE MAN DOES NOT FOLLOW SHARIA LAW

2006-02-03T13:05:00.000-08:00

What started a couple of weeks ago as a small wave of protest about the publication in Denmark of some cartoon images of Mohammad has become a virtual "tsunami" of Muslim anger.

It is tempting to call it a "jihad"

If the reaction of western media, and politicians is anything to judge by, we may be lost.

It is troubling to witness editors fired for reproducing the drawings, and politicians expressing regret for any upset that they may have caused. The image of the Danish Prime Minister prostrating himself before the media thugs of the Arab world demonstrates how far Europe has declined since World War II. Remember WWII? Recall how the Danes protected their Jewish population by evacuating them to Sweden in advance of the German invasion. No one apologized to Hitler for that.

Today, Agence France Press reports (the Renaissance Man gets it via Yahoo) that United States media outlets are avoiding the publication of the images on the basis that they might be offensive. Given the frequency with which the most insulting images are published about Christian religious figures, dieties and beliefs, these comments are unfathomable. Bennetton has made a virtual industry out of insulting Christianity, the Pope and any other value that anyone in the west might hold dear.

Given the frequency with which things like "Piss Christ" are reproduced in everything from the NY Times to Time Magazine, the Renaissance Man is left to conclude that North American publications, who are now so sensitive about offending the values of some (i.e. Muslim) readers, have been publishing Anti-Catholic, other anti-Christian and Anti- Jewish images out of conviction and agreement with the sentiments expressed.

The caricatures offend Sharia law. If the caricatures were created in a country governed by Sharia Law, it would probably be justifiable to prosecute.

But the Renaissance Man does not live in such a country and neither adheres to nor feels bound by such law. Indeed, if flogging, amputation and stoning were acceptable punishments, this site would be called the "Pre-Renaissance Man", or "Medieval Man".

Some of the cartoons are not fair comment about Mohammad (though, there is nothing wrong with expressing those opinions), but one that seems highly appropriate in the "Turbans as Bomb" image. Mohammad was warlike...he was a military campaigner, and the radical Islamists of today's world cite his conduct as an example for their own atrocities. Accordingly, it is fair comment, and clever at that (in light of the numerous unusual places suicide bombers hide their explosive surprises).

BTW:

If you are interested in the AFP story, here is an exerpt

Editors contacted at several news organizations throughout the country said they were covering the escalating row over the cartoons but had generally decided not to reprint them or air them on television out of respect for their readers or viewers.

"If I were faced with something that I know is gonna be offensive to many of our readers, I would think twice about whether the benefit of publication outweighed the offense it might give," Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at the Washington Post, told AFP.

Keith Richburg, the paper's foreign editor, said he had ruled out running the cartoons, even to better illustrate news articles about the row, as they would likely offend readers.

"This is a clear example where people would find those offensive so we don't see any particular reason to do it just for shock value," he said.

Hiatt and Richburg said the paper had also ruled out running the cartoons -- as several European newspapers have done -- to defend the right to free speech and in solidarity with the Danish newspaper that first published them. The drawings have sparked violent protests and boycotts of Danish products across the Muslim world.

One of the cartoons shows the Muslim prophet wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise is running out of virgins for suicide bombers.

The Islamic religion bans depictions of Mohammed.

Peter Gavrilovich, foreign editor of the daily Detroit Free Press in the state of Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab communities outside the Middle East, said it was out of the question for his paper to reprint the cartoons, either to illustrate the story or to show solidarity with counterparts in Europe.

"I don't think we would run a cartoon in this newspaper that would be deemed offensive to any religious figure," Gavrilovich told AFP. "We're very careful in terms of any photo or any caricature that we run."

Maria Henson, deputy foreign editor at the Sacramento Bee in California, said her publication had not yet decided whether to reprint the cartoons and was planning to run an editorial on the issue this weekend.

The New York Times declined to comment for this article.

CNN television on Thursday showed copies of European newspapers that have printed the cartoons but blocked out the images of Mohammed saying it did not wish to offend viewers.

The television network ABC for its part showed a copy of a French newspaper with one of the cartoons clearly visible. The drawing depicts God speaking with the prophet and telling him: "Stop complaining Mohammed. We've all been caricatured."

The NBC network also gave coverage to the uproar but said it had decided against airing the cartoons, which were nonetheless available on the network's website.

Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060203/ts_alt_afp/europeislammediaus

MORE GOOD NEWS REGARDING MINE SAFETY IN WEST VIRGINIA

2006-02-01T15:24:00.001-08:00

Drudge is reporting that the Governor of West Virginia is shutting down all coal mines pending a State-wide safety investigation.

Here is the text of Drudge's report:

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin has ordered all mines to cease production until safety checks can be conducted following the deaths of two workers in separate accidents Wednesday.

'We're going to check for unsafe conditions, and we're going to correct any unsafe conditions before we mine another lump of coal...'

This is excellent news because it indicates that Gov. Manchin takes the poor saftey record in W. Virginia mines seriously.

It is interesting to contrast the problems there with last weekend's successful rescue of 72 miners from a Saskatchewan potash mine. It is true that potash mines are completely different from coal mines. Yet the big difference is the safety. In the Saskatchewan incident, everything showed that safety was THE priority, and it showed in the results.

As the Renaissance Man has said before, it is key to get the United Mine Workers involved in the West Virginia coal mines. Those guys know safety, and they have been saving miner's lives for over a century.

Manchin's decision today is a great first step.

WHAT A SLIMER!

2006-02-01T15:24:00.000-08:00

This piece is in today's Toronto Star online. Read it and weep for the legal profession.

Lawyer kept stolen art for 3 decades
Feb. 1, 2006. 12:22 PM

BOSTON (AP) — A retired Massachusetts lawyer says he secretly held seven stolen paintings for 28 years, including a Paul Cezanne still-life worth millions of dollars, because he wanted a 10 per cent finder's fee.

The paintings, including Cezanne's Bouteille et Fruits, had been stolen from a collector's home in the Berkshires in 1978.

Robert Mardirosian, the retired lawyer, said the work was left in a bag in his attic by a client he was representing in another case.

"He was going to bring them to Florida to fence them, but I told him that if he ever got caught with them with the other case hanging over his head, he'd be in real trouble," Mardirosian said in Wednesday's Boston Globe. "So he left them upstairs in my attic in a big plastic bag."

When Mardirosian said he discovered the paintings in 1979, the alleged thief, David Colvin, had been shot to death by two men seeking to collect on a debt. The lawyer said he considered returning the works to their owner, Michael Bakwin of Stockbridge, Mass., but changed his mind when he discovered that none of the art had been insured.

Mardirosian, 71, hid the paintings in Monaco and then in a Swiss bank while he said he worked to recoup 10 per cent of their value from Bakwin. He set up a shell company to facilitate a trade or sale.

A lawsuit filed last year by Bakwin and the Art Loss Register, a London-based company that tracks stolen artwork, led to a hearing Tuesday in London, during which Mardirosian was identified as sole owner of the shell company, Erie International.

The judge ruled that Mardirosian was responsible for paying an estimated $3 million in court, legal and investigative fees accumulated by Bakwin in trying to get his paintings back.

"I know some things don't look good here, but I believe I have a legitimate case to make," Mardirosian said. "I could have sold these a dozen times, but never did. My whole intent was to find a way to get them back to the owner in return for a 10 per cent commission."

The other works include two portraits by Chaim Soutine and two by French painters Maurice de Vlaminck and Maurice Utrillo.

The chairman of Art Loss Register, a London-based company that tracks stolen art, said he hopes the FBI investigates Mardirosian role in the theft.

"Mardirosian should have surrendered these stolen pictures as soon as he knew of their location," said Julian Radcliffe, chairman of the Art Loss Register. "We will be providing all the help that we can to the FBI."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1138811310128&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

The key point here is that (a) he was not a "finder" and (b) any privilege he had died with his client.

As a lawyer, he knows that a finder's title is good against the whole world, except the true owner. He knew who the true owner was, and yet he kept the items. Ultimately, he was not a "finder", but an accomplice.

He had no right to a fee, legally, ethically or morally.

DID YOU SEE THE LOOK ON HER FACE?

2006-02-01T09:15:00.000-08:00

There will be a lot of anaysis today about President Bush's State of the Union speech last night.

For the Renaissance Man, the most...shall we say "curious"....moment came when President Bush was talking about Social Security reform. He joked that this year, his father's two favourite people will qualify...himself, and President Clinton (a comment about how close the former President Bush and Bill Clinton seem to be these days).

The camera shot at that moment to Senator Hillary Clinton. She didn't laugh, she didn't smile...she looked as though she had just eaten a lemon. It was great.

The Renaissance Man says hmmmmmmmm.....

GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE SAGO MINE INVESTIGATION

2006-01-26T16:50:00.000-08:00

Here is some very good news about the investigation into the Sago Mine disaster.

A United States Federal District Court Judge ruled today that the United Mine Workers must be permitted to participate in the investigation. The Company had tried to exclude the union on the grounds that they would hinder the investigation and were only trying to advance the union drive in a non-union mine. (who cares...safety is the issue).

The Judge basically said "bollocks!". He observed that the union has decades of experience in mine safety (to a large extent it is their "raison d'etre"). The Judge said that "...there is a strong public interest in in allowing miners to play a role in this investigation as it is their health and safety that is at issue."

The Renaissance Man says "Damn straight!"

Here are some salient exerpts from the news article:

"ELKINS, W.Va. - Breaking an impasse that had briefly held up the investigation of the Sago Mine disaster, a federal judge ruled Thursday that officials with the United Mine Workers union can accompany state and federal investigators while they gather evidence underground...The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration took the owner of the Sago Mine, International Coal Group Inc., to court on Wednesday after ICG blocked union representatives from entering the nonunion mine. The coal company argued that the UMW's presence would hinder the investigation and that the union was only trying to boost its organizing efforts.

But U.S. District Judge Robert E. Maxwell ordered ICG to allow the union representatives to enter the mine, saying the UMW has decades of expertise in mine disasters to offer.

"There's no question that the public interest is best served by a complete and thorough investigation into the occurrence of the problems at the Sago Mine," Maxwell said. "There is a strong public interest in allowing miners to play a role in this investigation, as it is their health and safety that is at issue."

The federal mine-safety agency has already recognized the UMW as a partner in the investigation, and the union has been sitting in on investigators' interviews, over the coal company's objections. The UMW is representing the interests of two of the 97 employees at the mine. Ninety-two others signed a petition to represent themselves.

All ICG operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and Illinois are nonunion.

After the hearing, a union official denied the intent was to boost membership.

"We have one goal and the goal is to find out what the cause was, how to prevent it in the future and to make sure other miners and miners' families don't have to go through this," said Tim Baker, a UMW health and safety official.

MSHA attorney Tim Williams said the teams of investigators would probably need seven to 10 days underground to gather evidence. The company had asked the judge to impose a 10-day limit on the union's involvement, but he refused to do so."

Here is the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060126/ap_on_re_us/mine_investigation

The Renaissance Man has a question...why would the company want to exclude a union that has as its main function the safety of its members? Are they hiding something?

The Renaissance Man wants to know.

HAMAS: THE DEVIL YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT

2006-01-26T10:50:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Paelestinians elected the terrorist group Hamas to a majority of the seats in their Parliament. This creates a problem.

Having just seen the Canadian Liberal party defeated on Monday, it is understandable that an electorate would want to turf out a tired, ineffective and corrupt group of self serving politicians. All the analysis indicates that this is what was behind the electoral choice made yesterday by the Palestinians.

Al Fatah was, and is, the corrupt spawn of the corrupt Yasser Arafat. While it can be said that it led Palestinians to its quasi-statehood, it is equally true that it prevented the establishment of a true state, and impoverished its subjects for the benefit of the kleptocrats that ran the Palestinian Authority. The elections held yesterday were the first in ten years and for good reason: Al Fatah is not democratic and they feared the electorate. They were, and are, nothing more than a glorified protection outfit.

But they were the devil we knew.

They lost, and now the Middle East and the world have to deal with Hamas.

According to all the public relations spin, they are (financially speaking) uncorrupt. They run schools and hospitals efficiently and honestly and they operate the only social welfare programmes that exist in Gaza for the Palestinians (of course Fatah couldn't afford to set up such programmes - not if they wanted to fill their Swiss bank accounts).

If that was the whole story...great. Unfortunately, it is only a piece, and a spun piece at that.

Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamist terrorist organization. They may be financially incorruptible but, if Islam is the religion of peace and love that we are told it is, they have corrupted the teachings of one of the world's great religions in furtherance of hate filled anti-Semitism. They may run schools, but their schools are really Islamist indoctrination centres. They may provide welfare, but there are strings attached. Recipients include the families of those whom they send with bombs strapped to their bodies to blow up Israeli kids.

A lot of the commentary out today says that now that Hamas is in power, they will become more practical in their views. One Israeli said that power moderates.

The Renaissance Man hopes so, but has doubts. The doubts are based on an assessment of human nature, and it is this: people who can develop bomb packs, strap them to the bodies of young people and dispatch them to vaporize themselves in the middle of groups of unarmed civilians think differently than normal people. They are pathological, and sociopathic. They lack a normal human conscience. They view the world through a narrow focussed lens and experience life with cretinous, crabbed black souls.

They who will murder without a twinge of conscience will lie.

Hamas may be another disaster for the people of Palestine, but also for everyone else in the Middle East. If so, they will be another self inflicted disaster for the Palestinians because they knew, and know, exactly what Hamas is, and they voted for it in that knowledge. They did not make a choice between the devil they knew and the devil they didn't...they chose between two devils.

And chose the worst.

LIBERAL PARTY RENEWAL IN CANADA.

2006-01-25T13:26:00.000-08:00

As mentioned in yesterday's post about the Canadian election, a lot of Liberals were well aware that the time had come for their party to leave office. In one sense, it was as necessary for the party as it was for the country. The Liberals need an opportunity to renew themselves, rethink what they stand for and to put their internal civil war (between the Martin and Chretien camps) behind them.

One big problem for a lot of Liberal "party men" was the drift of the party into the left wing territory normally occupied by the NDP. Because the party was being led by leaders without any real vision or values, they advanced policies that they believed were popular...pursuit of power for power's own sake. Their advisors were people who were unconstrained by values either; rather, they were like political advisors everywhere: they only looked for an edge and tried to win at all costs. Since most of the advisors came from Toronto, or Vancouver or other big cities, they adopted the ideas of the big cities. Thus, the "progressive" ideas of the CBC, and the Toronto Star found great favour in the Prime Minister's Office.

And so the party tilted left. The electorate, with no opposition to vote for, elected the Liberals repeatedly. To the Liberals this was a ratification of their policies when,in fact, they were nothing more than a glorified "default" setting on the electoral computer.

The Liberal move to the left allowed the Conservative Party to position itself more towards the centre. This repositioning proved of great worth to them in Monday's election.

Tom Axworthy, who was Prime Minister Trudeau's principal secretary in the early 1980's discusses this in todays Toronto Star. Here is what he says about the Tory strategy and about how the Liberals should reposition themselves:

"...What should Liberals most fear from their opponents? That they would quiet the cowboys and move to the centre. At their national convention in Montreal in 2005, the Conservatives did exactly that — disciplining the party to put on the back burner divisive moral issues, all for the greater good of getting the Grits out. Demonstrating the lessons they had learned from their own loss in the 2004 campaign, Harper put everyone on notice that he was moving toward a Bill Davis definition of conservatism, not Ralph Klein's. In response, the Martin government brought forward a raft of initiatives, almost all of them popular in themselves, but with little inner consistency. The Liberal pudding had no theme...

...Liberals should grant the new government a period of grace, but Liberals should not be so benign with the NDP. When the Harper Conservatives eventually fade, as all governments do, where will progressives turn? Gordon Ashworth, one of the most astute Liberal strategists, advocates that as the Conservatives roll out their agenda, Liberals should constantly remind Jack Layton and the NDP: "We were for daycare, but you wanted an election."...

...But if the Conservatives now have the levers of power, what can Liberals do to change the context? The mantra of the party must be inclusion. Before the party again flies apart into various leadership coups, Liberals of all stripes, regions and generations should once again learn to work together. The way to do this is not to engage in recrimination, but instead to look at strengthening assets — the Liberals are still the party of urban Canada, with not one Conservative elected in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver — and diminishing the negatives by bringing in fresh faces and new voices...
...I have been impressed with the dedication of the Greens — why not a Liberal-Green alliance on the environment? "

Axworthy is both right and wrong. It is true that the Liberals must become more inclusive, but they will not win elections by making alliances with the Green Party. Rather, they must again become more accommodating, and open, to the ideas of those who once made up their core...the centrists. The moderate left and, yes, the moderate right must be listened to. This means that those liberals (and there are a lot of them in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Manitoba, and the parts of Ontario that are not inside the Greater Toronto Area) who are uncomfortable with on demand abortion or gay adoption must receive some respect. After all, it was they who for decades nailed the signs to telephone poles, and canvassed door to door so that Martins, Bevilaquas and all the rest could get their seats.

There is talk that now the Liberals may have a new Kingston Conmference, in which the party can seek to redefine itself. This is a wonderful idea, so long as they don't bring only the left.

It will be very interesting to watch and see what happens.

CANADIAN ELECTION: THE MULRONEY INFECTION FINALLY EXPUNGED?

2006-01-24T15:05:00.000-08:00

The Canadian election, which was held yesterday, provided the first indication of a return to health of the Canadian body politic. This is not merely because the incumbent Liberal government fell to the Conservatives but because there is a sign that the distortions introduced into the political system by ex-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney are finally beginning to dissipate.

There is no doubt that the Liberals had to leave power. Everyone, including the Liberals themselves, knew it. Aside from the ADSCAM scandal which had immobilized and discreditied the Liberal party, there was just the fact that they had been in office for almost 13 years. In that time they had wasted billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in idiocies like the gun registry and the HRDC scandal to mention only two. Any healthy democracy needs a periodic change of government.

The Liberals under Prime Minister Chretien were aimless. Chretien’s raison d’etre was to fight Quebec separatism and to be in power. Once the separatists were defeated all he had left was the power. That was his motivation for his last four years in office, and this was apparent in all his acts as Prime Minister. When he was replaced by Paul Martin, there was hope that the new Prime Minister would lead the country forward with vigour and vision. Instead he became “Mr. Dithers”. As Margaret Wente put it in The Globe and Mail last Saturday, Martin’s goal was only to be Prime Minister, and he had no idea what he wanted to do once he had achieved that.

Canadians were tired of the Liberals at least two elections ago. The problem was the lack of alternatives. For this the blame must be placed on Brian Mulroney who ought to be regarded as the most disastrous Prime Minister in the history of the country.

The Renaissance Man does not say that Mulroney was a disaster because of NAFTA (which had been working for us up until the US decided to disregard the results of the arbitration process). It is not because of the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accords which were (thank God) defeated. It is not because of the GST, because, as Canadians we seem to be able to tolerate almost any level of taxation and still have a thriving economy. It is not because of the massive debt that he left, because Paul Martin got us out of that successfully.

No, Mulroney was a disaster because of the havoc he wreaked upon our political system.

Historically, Canada had three national political parties. Two, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives (now Conservatives) have been “mass parties” meaning that they draw support from a broad range of the public. The Liberals have always been the most successful because they managed to advance policies which appealed to people ranging from centre-left to centre-right, which is a very broad part of the Canadian political spectrum. The Conservatives, on the other hand, drew support from centre-right to far right as well as certain non-political constituencies such as farmers, small business types and so on.

The Liberals and the Tories each had a particular responsibility to the political system The Liberals duty was to soften the left wing tendencies of some Canadians by providing a home for moderate socialists. This had the effect of marginalizing Canada’s socialist parties.

On the right, the conservatives had the same role…to dilute the strength of the far right wing. The idea was that the far right would have nowhere to go but the Conservative party. Thus, they would have some influence inside their own party, but really right-wing ideas would never get good traction on the Canadian political landscape.

Of course this was never written down anywhere. It was just the way things worked and was basically acceptable to Canadians.

This model had two consequences. The first is that Canadian government policies were always basically moderate. Secondly, it meant that the Conservatives would attain power less frequently than the Liberals. The Liberal base was much broader and nationally based than that of the Tories. The Tories would come into office from time to time, perhaps when the Liberals had been in office too long and become tired or arrogant (or both). But soon, after a renewal, the Liberals would return to power for another stretch.

For Brian Mulroney, this model was unacceptable, He wanted power, he wanted it NOW, by damn, and he wanted it at all costs. The biggest obstacle he faced was the block of seats in the province of Quebec. These seats, numbering in the range of 70 to 75 depending on the current redistribution, would return 75% of their seats to the Liberals. In order to form a majority government this block had to be broken. As Blackadder would have put it, Mulroney had a cunning plan.

Mulroney turned to Quebec nationalists to join his Progressive Conservatives. They were invited to run under Tory colours with the promise that, if the Conservatives were elected, Mulroney would deliver to them greater provincial powers. And so, from right to left on the political spectrum these nationalists flocked to the Conservative party. The most prominent was Lucien Bouchard, but there were others even more radical than he. Many were closet separatists; others were completely open about it.

With the support of the nationalists, Mulroney won two large majorities. These victories were built on the foundation not only of strong western support, but large blocks of Quebec nationalists winning Federal seats for the Tories.

The problem came with power. Apart from the fact that Mulroney was unable to deliver to these nationalists (many of whom were separatists, and all of whom had primary allegiance to Quebec and not Canada) the constitutional changes they had come to seek, he was faced with a wide variety of political views in his caucus. The party had no unified political approach. Some were right-wingers, as had always been there, but now some were socialists, unionists, even fascists.

To govern, Mulroney had to legislate from the centre and also “kowtow” to his Quebec caucus. This alienated many of the Tory party’s most loyal supporters in the west. As his government moved more into the centre (turf normally occupied by the Liberals) the right wing of the party became more and more alienated.

In the end, Mulroney destroyed the Progressive Conservative party. By promising the Quebec nationalists more than he could deliver, he caused the bulk of them to split off to form what is now called the Bloc Quebecois. By alienating the right-wing of the party, he caused them to break off under Preston Manning to form the Reform Party. The Progressive Conservative party became a parliamentary rump, consisting of some Ontario MPs and a few from the Atlantic Provinces.

The problem for the Canadian political system arose when the public became tired of the Liberal Chretien government. There was no organized alternative. The right-wing had shattered into two parties who were feuding with each other. Neither had the ability to form a government, or even to become the Official Opposition (as a result, for years we had the spectacle of the Bloc Quebecois forming Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition…to their credit they did a responsible job of it, in the opinion of the Renaissance Man).

As a result of Mulroney’s hubris, Canadians were unable to rid themselves of the Liberals when their time had come due. Consequently, we were forced to endure aimless government, led by Prime Ministers with no vision or real idea of where they wanted to go. Government became reactive rather than proactive. The Liberals campaigned not on new programmes but on personal destruction. The Renaissance Man believes that Canadians became tired of the politics of personal destruction and scaremongering.

Under Stephen Harper there are signs that rationality has returned to the Canadian political system. The main thing is that the conservatives won 10 seats and 25% of the vote in Quebec…without closet separatists as candidates. They won their seats as Tories and as federalists.

Also, there are now, once again, two national mass parties. The personalized politics of the liberals failed.

There are still some aspects of the system out of skew, mostly with the Liberals. The Liberals are now occupying a part of the political spectrum far to the left of their normal place. There are many Liberals who do not agree with same-sex marriages, abortion on demand, legalization of marijuana, a billion dollar non-functioning gun registry etc. That is not to say that they will not support a government propounding just those things, but they will not accept being vilified by their party leaders simply for having a different opinion. In the past, the Liberals accommodated different viewpoints on these types of issues, and moved incrementally. If they wish to regain the centre right part of their base they will have to find ways to again appear receptive to opinions held by Maritime, and western liberals and not just the Toronto, white-wine types.

And so, it was an interesting election, with some hopeful signs for the Canadian political scene. It remains to be seen what will evolve.

A couple of days ago the Renaissance man suggested that the Conservatives would have difficulty governing with a minority. At the moment, with Paul Martin indicating he will step down as leader, it appears that the Tories have some breathing room. Still, once the parties refill both their batteries and their coffers the question of bringing down the government will arise yet again. It remains to be seen how long the Prime Ministry of Stephen Harper will last before he goes back to the polls.

It promises to be a fun year.

CANADIAN ELECTION

2006-01-22T10:32:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, 23 January 2006, Canadians vote in a Federal election (viewers of CNN International, and BBC World will be excused for not knowing anything about this event...it has been virtually unmentioned. This is understandable as the elections in Chile, Bolivia, Liberia, whales swimming up the Thames, anti-smoking campaigns in East Timor etc are all far more important than the election in the world's 8th largest economy).

It appears that the Conservatives are poised to win the most seats. The Renaissance Man predicts that although the Conservatives may win the popular vote, the number of seats they win will exceed those won by the Liberals by less than 30. this is because the concentration of Conservative votes in the West will skew the poplular vote.

If there is a plurality of seats won by the Conservatives, the Renaissance Man predicts that they will be unable to form a minority government as no other party in the Commons will wish to work with them More likely, the Liberals will work once again with the NDP and receive some phantom support from the Bloc Quebecois in order to hold power.

For Harper to become Prime Minister, the Conservatives will need an outright majority. In light of how the votes are spread out throughout the country, this is highly unlikely.

HOOTERS RESTAURANT

2006-01-22T10:29:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man has learned that the HOOTERS chain will be opening its first restaurant in Colombia this April, in Bogota.

Based on what he has seen in Colombia, the Renaissance Man predicts that this may well become the best Hooters in the world.

The food will probably be pretty good too...

Canada in Afghanistan

2006-01-22T10:14:00.000-08:00

The Toronto Star, on the political continuum of Canadian newspapers, falls to the left. It can fairly be said that its editorial policy is advanced through the way it spins news stories. The Renaissance Man has personal knowledge of how The Star distorts news reporting to advance its own political agenda.

That said, it is Canada's largest daily, and is very influential. There is no doubt that it does some very fine reporting and has good writers.

Given that The Star tends to oppose the use of the Canadian military in any role other than glorified social work the Renaissance Man was greatly surprised to find the following article in The Star's online edition this Sunday. It is not an article by one of the paper's own writers. Normally, when views are held that are so diametrically opposed to Star policy they simply cannot find their way into the pages of the newspaper.

Somehow this article made it. The Renaissance Man has no illusions that this heralds a dew dawn of intellectual honesty at The Star. He simply has enjoyed the experience of reading the article, and commends the piece to everyone.

CANADA'S REALITY IN KANDAHAR
Jan. 22, 2006. 01:00 AM
SEAN
M. MALONEY
SPECIAL TO THE STAR (Toronto)

The spectacularly lethal suicide attack against the Canadian Provincial
Reconstruction Team in Kandahar last weekend has raised concerns about Canada's
viability in the region and generated spurious comparisons to the American
experience in Iraq.

Let us be clear: Kandahar province is the Canadian-held portion of the
front line in the global war against Al Qaeda, a war that is as much fought in
the psychological realm as in the physical. Succumbing to a terrorist act like
this, particularly by withdrawing any component of the PRT, is exactly what
Canada's enemies are counting on.

Unfortunately, there are myths and misperceptions of the nature and
extent of Canada's war in Afghanistan that lurk in the Canadian consciousness,
myths that over-simplify a complex and dangerous but critical environment. If
not addressed, our ability to accomplish our goals in Afghanistan may be put at
risk.

First, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not and has never been
"peacekeeping."
Canada joined the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition in
2001 in order to destroy the Taliban shield that was protecting Al Qaeda's
infrastructure in Afghanistan. In the transition from major combat to
stabilization operations after the collapse of the Taliban government, another
international force was introduced into Afghanistan: the International Security
Assistance Force.
ISAF was never a peacekeeping operation. Its job was to
back the emergent Afghan interim government and, when that government was
legitimized through elections, to build the Afghan security forces' ability to
protect their government from its enemies.
Canada contributed to both
Enduring Freedom and ISAF. Both missions used lethal force; there was no
impartiality involved.

Canada's decision to assume command of a Provincial Reconstruction Team
has presented the Canadian people with some confusion, particularly with the
last-minute replacement of the word "regional" with "reconstruction" at the
insistence of the Afghan government.

The PRT is not a peacekeeping tool Ñ it is a counterinsurgency tool.
The organization has a number of functions, but the primary ones involve
assessing Kandahar province in all areas, delivering developmental assistance
and facilitating capacity-building in the provincial government. The objectives
of these programs are to ensure that the Afghan government has a functional
bureaucracy in the region, that the bureaucracy has a relationship with the
central government in Kabul, and that local needs, both in the security and
livelihood realms, are addressed effectively.

Canada and Afghanistan are engaged in a counterinsurgency war. Canadian
non-lethal assistance goes hand in hand with the conventional and special
operations being conducted by Canadian and allied troops. The elements cannot be
separated, no matter how many skittish Ottawa bureaucrats would like them to be.

The ultimate objective is to limit and then destroy the remnants of the
Al Qaeda-supported Taliban, and prevent them from interfering with the
construction process. After nearly 30 years of war Ñ beginning with the
pro-Soviet coup of 1978 and the Red Army invasion of Dec. 25, 1979 Ñ this
activity is not "reconstruction," it is "construction." Indeed, Canada also
deploys a Strategic Advisory Team in Kabul, a military and civilian organization
to assist the Afghan government with national-level projects.

Regarding the enemy Ñ a term some Canadians are afraid to use after
years of successful social engineering designed to convince us that Canada has
no enemies Ñ insurgent forces employing both terrorist and guerrilla warfare
tactics have killed and maimed Canadian soldiers and civilians who are in
Afghanistan specifically to thwart the Al Qaeda-trained and supported Taliban.
Unfortunately, simplistic media analysis asserts that, because there are more
suicide attacks lately, the situation is deteriorating, the war is getting worse
and the Taliban are poised to take over Afghanistan all over again. This is
nonsense.

The Taliban movement will never regain the allegiance of the bulk of
the Afghan population, no matter how many of their operatives liquefy themselves
against coalition armoured vehicles or in the midst of Afghan sporting events.
Afghans saw how the power-drunk Taliban, heady from successes against small
criminal groups, converted the country into a violent, terroristic theocracy.
The Afghan peoples do not want a return to this state of affairs.

Within certain Pashtun tribal areas in the south, however, the Taliban
ideology still resonates, though it does not have widespread support. It is
unlikely that it will ever again grow to be a mass revolutionary movement. It is
considered to be an import from Pakistan, a country that is viewed with fear and
loathing by numerous Afghans I spoke with on several research trips.
The
movement can continue to detonate its members, but that will not sway the
population to realign itself with the movement. The classic 1960s terrorist
concept, in which extreme violence demonstrates the impotence of the state and a
revolutionary movement takes control on the backs of it, does not apply in the
Afghan environment.

Afghans turn in Taliban cells all the time. Indeed, Afghans assist
coalition forces in hunting guerrillas in the hills. The Pashtun code deems the
Canadian military to be guests and the violent Taliban outsiders, based in and
supported from Pakistan, are an embarrassment.
The media's simplistic
interpretation of the violence is, however, a danger to the coalition effort.
The enemy wants the media to do its dirty work and undermine support back in
Canada and the other coalition countries. This has succeeded with the Dutch, who
will not thus far contribute to operations out of fear of what one opponent to
Enduring Freedom operations repeatedly called the possibility of "a second
Srebrenica," in reference to the 1995 massacre in that Bosnian town.
If the
enemy were to be successful in convincing Ottawa to withdraw soldiers and recall
highly effective development workers, it would reduce the the PRT's ability to
perform, generating a loss of confidence between Canada and the national
government in Kabul, and between Canada and the Kandahar provincial government.

If Canada is seen to cut and run too often, our ability to influence
events and support the ongoing effort to limit Taliban influence and ultimately
to destroy the movement will seriously decrease. The only people who benefit
from this are the Taliban and, by extension, Al Qaeda Ñ and perhaps the careers
of risk-averse individuals in Ottawa or those who oppose what Canada is doing in
Afghanistan because it doesn't fit their mythological notions of Canadian
"peacekeeping."

The Afghan and Canadian peoples, partners in the global war to thwart
Al Qaeda, do not benefit from this behaviour.

Kandahar is our part of the line, as Vimy Ridge was our part of the
line in World War I.
Developmental aid deployed by civilians and protected
by soldiers is an integral part of today's battle. And our enemy does not
distinguish between soldier and civilian.

Sean M. Maloney, author of Enduring The Freedom: A Rogue Historian in Afghanistan, teaches in the War Studies Program at the Royal Military College in Kingston.

You can link to the piece at the following website:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137845786787&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

OFFLINE A FEW DAYS

2006-01-22T10:09:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man has been offline for the last few days. The reason relates to other writing/work obligations.

The Renaissance Man coaches a Jessup Intenational Moot Court team and the deadline to complete and submit our team's Memorials was last week. Of course everything happened at the last minute. In addition, before the end of next week The Renaissance Man must complete two academic articles for books, one on Administrative Law and the other on International Law.

So, there will be sporadic posting until next weekend.

The Renaissance Man apologizes.

THE ROLE OF AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE

2006-01-17T12:00:00.000-08:00

There is always a dispute about the proper role of elected representatives in a democracy. There are those who assert that Parliamentarians ought to reflect the wishes of their constituents. To be ciphers, or stengraphers. To tilt with the prevailing political winds.

Others say that the role of the MP, MLA. Congressman, Senator...what have you...is to heed the opinions of their constituents, but to apply their own best judgement.

Sir Edmund Burke was one of England's great lawmakers. He lived in the 18th Century, but the words he passes in a campaign in 1774 are as true today as they were then...in the opinion of the Renaissance Man.

Read, enjoy...and think.

Excerpt From the Right Honourable Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfaction, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not inclination; and, what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the general good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you.

Edmund Burke (17501797) was one of the foremost political thinkers of 18th century England.

LAW LORDS

2006-01-13T12:28:00.000-08:00

Fair enough.

BBC World does not report on the Judges who occupy seats on the Supreme Court of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Jamaica...the list goes on.

But the Renaissance Man notes the same noticable ommission about Britain's highest Judges; the Lords of Appeal. These members of the Judicial Committee of the House of lords are ananymous.

What are their names? Are they liberal or conservative? What organizations did they belong to when in University? What has been their paper trail?

One will search in vain on the BBC, BBC World or anywhere else in relation to that illustrious news gathering organization if you want to find out about those who make up the roster of Britains highest judges.

Which brings up the main point. If the BBC cannot be bothered to report, enquire, question or even note the occupants of their own country's highest court, why does it spend so much time and energy reporting on nominations to the Supreme Court of its former colony The United States of America?

I have seen interviews, analysis, "Hard Talk" interviews and reports about every facet of the Samuel Alito nomination process (and the process over John Roberts before that) and am left with the question "why?"

The decisions of the US Supreme Court are not binding in Britain and are not even particularly persuasive to the judges.

I cannot imagine why the BBC spends so much time reporting on the USSC and not on its own. The Renaissance Man has a theory...it is part of the BBC's obvious and ongoing agenda to report not on the Court but on President Bush, and to portray him as a right wing zealot.

INTELLECT UNCHECKED BY MORALITY

2006-01-12T15:30:00.000-08:00

The exposure that Dr. Hwang Woo-suk is a scientific fraud artist has been big news this week. The world seems shocked...shocked I say!...that the South Korean scientist fabricated his human cloning research.

The Renaissance Man is not among those who were surprised.

This individual was engaged in research that could be characterized as eugenics. He was trying to develop a means to clone humans. Whether it was under the cover, for now, of stem cell research, the fact remains that the route to the stem cells was by means of cloning a human embryo.

He was manufacturing human beings.

He was interested in designer babies.

He is not the only person who claims to be conducting similar research. The Renaissance man has no doubt that in the months and years to come the world will be treated to more breathtaking developments in this field. Those who question the ethics of such work will be called old fashioned, religiously fanatic, backward or narrow minded and will be accused of imposing their own personal values on others at the expense of those who might benefit from such research.

But here is the reality. The cloning of human beings has been, since the concept came into existence, taboo. It has been the stuff of science fiction and, in science fiction, has been portrayed as an abomination.

In the classic science fiction TV programme "Star Trek", a part of the "pre-history" of the series is the so-called Eugenics Wars, in which humanity's nadir was reached when it became extensively involved in human cloning.

Thus, human cloning has been regarded philosophically, religiously, legally and emotionally as a line beyond which humanity should not pass.

But Dr. Hwang Woo-suk claimed to have crossed it it and danced on the other side. For that received accolades, honours and grants.

This is the key. Hwang Woo-suk was prepared to cross a line that humanity, for decades, had regarded as inviolable. Why? Perhaps he is truly interested in the subject. More importantly, however, there are great benefits that come from being a pioneer in such a field. There are honours to be won...not just the Nobel Prize, but many other. There are grants to be given to support the research...one should never ignore the allure of cold, hard cash. There was fame...the ego too is a great motivator.

The Renaissance Man believes that once someone such as Dr. Hwang Woo-suk decides that the common values of humanity are no longer of importance, and are but an impediment to personal aggrandizement, then other values too can fall, and even more easily.

Really, are not truth, honour, respect old fashioned values, rooted in the same antiquated ideals that prohibit cloning?

Honesty is nothing to a man who can with a clear conscience wipe away a taboo so fundamental as the one against cloning humans.

The Renaissance Man believes that this scientist, and any others who are engaged in justifying similar research are unconstrained by values such as honesty. Thus, it would behoove us all to take great care when we are presented with any more such spectacular breakthoughs in the future.

As Ronald reagan used to say about the Soviets "Trust but verify".

IRAN

2006-01-11T13:25:00.000-08:00

The world community is faced with a seriously dicey situation in relation to the challenge of how to deal with Iran.

The recent acts of the Iranian state to advance its uranium enrichment programme (contrary to agreements reached with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have led to suggestions that Iran be referred to the United Nations Security Council. Earlier calls by calls by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel be “wiped from the map” were widely condemned and led to a call by the Israeli Vice President for the expulsion of Iran from the United Nations. Other utterances by Mr. Ahmadinejad questioning the historical veracity of The Holocaust have left most of the sane world speechless.

Ahmadinejad is an Iranian version of “shock and awe”.

If the statements of Mr Ahmadinejad were isolated instances of loose lips by an Iranian leader on an international stage, his words could perhaps be dismissed as an impropriety, a careless slip of the tongue, or (as some apologists tried to do) explained away as intemperance arising from inexperience. But, apart from the fact that Mr Ahmadinejad tends to repeat and ratify his most egregious remarks, Iran itself, since its 1979 Revolution, has created a disturbing record in terms of its international relations. The record includes:
• The November 1979 takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran (as well as two other consular offices), by Iranian students. For 444 days 66 United States diplomats and consular employees were held hostage. Initially the Iranian government denied official involvement, though this left unanswered its legal obligation at international law to guarantee consular security. Later acts of the Iranian State ratified the student’s acts, including demands made in February 1980 for Palestinian prisoners held in Israel to be set free in return for the release of the hostages. This confirmed that the Iranian government did, in fact, exercise control over the students. The subsequent decoration of the student leaders by the Iranian government was a definitive act by the Iranian state ratifying a clear breach of international law. Iran was (and is) a signatory to numerous International conventions guaranteeing the security of diplomatic and consular personnel; the Iranian State chose to disregard these obligations rather unapologetically. It is interesting to note that the current Iranian president participated in the student takeover.
• Following the release of the hostages, the United States commenced legal proceedings for compensation from Iran in the International Court of Justice. Iran as a member of the United Nations is also a party to the Statute of the ICJ. As well, by virtue of the above noted conventions regarding the safety of diplomatic personnel, Iran agreed that the ICJ had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes. In spite of this Iran refused to participate in the case and denied the clear jurisdiction of the ICJ over the matter. Indeed, Iran never so much as sent a lawyer; its’ sole intervention was to forward correspondence to the President of the court.
• In 1991 then president of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani, stated that a Muslim state ought to annihilate Israel with a nuclear attack. These days, Rafsanjani is referred to as a “moderate”.
• Iran has been a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 1958 and has ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Notwithstanding that, it has refused to cooperate with IAEA efforts to monitor its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA and, in September 2005, the Board of the IAEA passed a Resolution declaring Iran to be in non-compliance with its Safeguard Agreement. The matter is now before the UN Security Council. Despite possessing some of the world’s largest oil reserves, Iran insists that its nuclear programme is all about energy production. Doubters recall the Iranian president’s words of 1991.
• This week, in breach of its undertakings to the IAEA, The European Union and the rest of the world, Iran recommenced its uranium enrichment programme.
• It continues to financially and materially support Hezbollah, a group operating inside southern Lebanon as a virtual state within a state. Hezbollah presents as great a threat to the national sovereignty of Lebanon as did Syria and has been the object of various United Nations resolutions to withdraw. Nonetheless, Iran continues its presence inside Lebanon.

The above list is not exhaustive. Western leaders say, once again, that they are “losing patience” with Iran. In the end, however, the question must be answered: what do we do?
The Renaissance Man wishes to focus on three factors which must form part of the assessment.
1. The current situation is exactly why the United Nations was formed. Though officially created after the end of WWII, it really came into being while the war was raging. And while many saw the UN as a means of achieving world health, education and de-colonialization, its fundamental goal was security. That is why we have a Security Council. So the question we must ask is whether we continue to see the UN as a viable means of providing security in the current world situation. If so, then we must require that it act. If it fails to act, then it may have lost its value, at least insofar as that purpose is concerned.
2. Iranian president’s comments about the Holocaust are not merely unacceptable. They are delusional. And they are not his only delusions. He appears to believe that there were no Jews in “Palestine” before the end of WWII (it should be noted that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was born in Palestine in 1928). It is also a part of his religious orthodoxy that Jerusalem was not built by Jews. This is an orthodoxy that is fundamental to the teachings of the religious leadership that currently controls Iran. Accordingly, delusional anti-Semites are on the verge of having atomic weapons.
3. Iran has no regard for the means that the modern world has developed for resolving international relations. International law, treaties, conventions…even sporting event…are of no value to the Iranian regime. It is for that reason the The renaissance Man has so may doubts that diplomacy will be effective in dealing with the Iranian regime.

While some writers postulate the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike against Iran, perhaps by the Israelis, the United States or the Europeans (or perhaps by a combination) the Renaissance Man would like to go back to the Israeli idea. What about Iran’s United Nations membership?

The difficulty arises from the fact that UN membership is held by the State and not by its government. Thus, the expulsion of a state would punish the people of a country for the acts of its leaders. This may be seen to be harsh and even unjust when the people of a country may be led by leaders who hold the position by undemocratic means. In addition, while the United Nations Charter contains provisions for adding new members, it does not contain provisions for their removal. Nonetheless, various states have, in the past, lost their seats or, at least, the ability to occupy their seats at the United Nations. Some of these precedents may be instructive.

In the absence of clear precedents, some guidance can be drawn from previous examples.
• In the early 1990’s when the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up, a number of the former Republics obtained seats in the UN as independent states. The remaining portion of Yugoslavia, calling itself the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sought to continue holding the same UN seat as its predecessor. The UN Security Council was opposed, however, and indicated that the remaining part of Yugoslavia was, in fact, a new state. Accordingly, the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had to apply in its own right for new membership. Many commentators, recognizing the essentially political nature of such decisions, have observed that, to some degree at least, Yugoslavia was the author of its own misfortune. Yugoslavia was perceived as engaging in widespread human rights abuses against Bosnians, and Croatians and, as a result was punished by the Security Council. If this is correct then a consequence of non-adherence to the UN Charter was the indirect loss of an existing Yugoslavian seat at the UN.
• The Republic of China was a charter member of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council. Effective control of the territory of China, after 1949, was in the hands of the Communist government in Beijing. Until 1970, however, the UN continued to recognize the Kuomintang government as the legitimate government of China. As such, until 1970, the Chinese seat was effectively held at the UN by Taiwan. In 1970, however, the UN altered the situation and recognized the Beijing government as the legitimate government of China; as such it was entitled to hold China’s UN seat. Since then Taiwan has had no UN representation.
• The Republic of South Africa was also a founding member of the United Nations. Throughout the 1970´s and 1980´s its’ internal policy of Apartheid became increasingly unpalatable for the international community. One result of this was that, at the UN, South African representatives had a credentials problem. Specifically, beginning in 1986, South African diplomatic representatives were unable to occupy the South Africa seat at the UN as their credentials were not recognized that is to say, accepted.

In all these cases it can be seen that when a state falls out of favour with the UN it may suffer an impediment in its ability to participate in the activities of the organization. One consequence can be the loss of a seat by indirect means as experienced by Taiwan and Yugoslavia. Another consequence is the continued existence of the seat, but the inability of the state’s delegates to occupy the seat and to participate in UN business.

It is perhaps this latter situation that may provide some guidance in this situation. As stated above there may not be a mechanism to expel a member state. Those instances in which a state has lost a seat have occurred through a fortunate or unfortunate (depending on your point of view) confluence of events.

Additionally, it may not be fair to the people of Iran that they lose their seat as a result of the actions of their government. The South African credentials case provides a reasonable mid point for those who feel some action is necessary. In particular, just as the racist apartheid system formed the basis of the United nations efforts versus the South African government, the same concept could well apply to the Iranian situation.

South Africa had racial apartheid, Iran has religious apartheid. No candidates not vetted by the supreme religious authorities of the country could stand for office, and in the end, only 25% of the electorate even voted.

There are those, of course, who would assert that no action is necessary. That position does raise another point, however, about the real meaning of the United Nations Charter and of its ratification by states.

The Renaissance Man believes that the act of denying the current Iranian government legitimacy in the international community that it so disdains could prove to be a powerful act to wrench the regime back to the world of reality. Better yet, it might provide an impetus to the truly democratic and rational elements that exist in Iran today to take to the streets in a new Iranian Revolution.

Otherwise, the Renaissance Man fears things may go “hot”.

THE INABILITY TO ASSESS RIGHT AND WRONG

2006-01-10T12:13:00.000-08:00

In 1991 Andrea Yates murdered 4 of her children by drowning them in a bathtub. Her 1992 conviction was overturned because errors in the testimony of a prosecution expert may have misled the jury. As such she is currently being retried in Texas.

Blogger Tammy Bruce has an interesting take on the possibility that the prosecution may agree to a plea deal for Mrs. Yates, rather than prosecute her to the limit of the law. She points out that the Media is seemingly sympathetic to Mrs. Yates as a victim of post partum depression (Ms. Bruce asserts that in fact she was not) and argues that this is another example of the erosion of the concept of right and wrong in the US. Then she states the following:

"This case is the epitome of the death of right and wrong in this nation. While her conviction was overturned on a technicality, the prosecutors had better have the courage to not allow this mass-murderer of children to walk away.

"Of course, creatures like the leftist, nihilistic MSM support Yates, as does the increasingly sick feminist establishment. Last time I checked, being a feminist did not mean working to support women who kill children. Could the pro-life community be right that the passive attitude toward abortion creates a passive attitude toward living children?

Because I'm appalled at the idea, and want to reject it outright, it is one I must consider. The moral relativism which has consumed our society is also partly to blame. There is also still a prevailing refusal among society to accept the fact that women are capable of all things, including murder. I suppose many want to believe that a woman must be insane if she kills her children. That's a safe thing to believe. Certainly more reassuring than to think a woman, a mother, could simply be that selfish, that narcissistic, that evil."

This is a fascinating take on the issue. The Renaissance man would point out the increasing number of jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia, the others that turn a blind eye to it, and still others that either do not prosecute or grant lenient sentences to those who kill babies in their first 10 days (or so) outside the womb.

The piece raises a very interesting point. To read the rest of it click on the following link: http://tammybruce.com/archives/2006/01/murder_your_chi_1.php

IRONY?

2006-01-10T10:04:00.000-08:00

Is it only The Renaissance Man who finds it ironic that the latest bird flu epidemic is taking place in Turkey?

ORWELL HAD A POINT: HE WHO CONTROLS LANGUAGE CONTROLS THOUGHT

2006-01-10T09:59:00.000-08:00

The English language adds thousands of new words annually. The Renaissance Man heard a new one (to him) yesterday while watching BBC World. It is not known whether the word is a creation of the BBC or the use of an existing word; nonetheless, the news organization made an ideological goof by not paying attention to its own language.

The news story was a lengthy item about a growing tendency in parts of India to abort female foetuses. In some populations, there are now only 7 girls born for every 10 boys according to the piece. The reporter was bemoaning the potential sociological implications of this and noted that adverse selection against females was illegal.

Etymologically speaking, the great efforts made to avoid using terms such as "unborn child", "baby" etc (which might have imported the ideologically taboo concept of humanity to the foetus) were not unexpected. What WAS interesting, however, was that the reporter referred to the abortions as “foeticides” (The Renaissance man is unsure of the spelling…maybe it’s foetuscide, foetus-cide).

In any event there it was. The word foeticide can now take its place along “suicide”, (a human killing him or herself) “homicide (a murder of a human) and “genocide” (the mass killing of humans based on their ethnicity).

The Renaissance man believes that if the BBC editors thought of it they would be extremely embarrassed at their politically incorrect slip.

THE RENAISSANCE MAN RETURNS

2006-01-10T09:53:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note to say that The Renaissance Man is back from a short vacation...really just a long weekend to get some sun.

While away, however, the Canadian Junior Men's Hockey team won the world championship, defeating Russia 5-0 in the Gold medal game.

It should be noted that Canada went into this tournament as underdog. Few of their players had any international experience, and any number of other countries were expected to skate away with the gold. Russia was the favourite, but the United States, and Finland were also seen as potential winners.

But the Canucks came though, so congratulations!

ROBERTSON STEPS IN IT AGAIN

2006-01-05T13:46:00.000-08:00

This news item (NBC Affiliate KARE 11 http://www.kare11.com/news/cooler_article.aspx?storyid=115851) is the kind of thing that drives the Renaissance Man crazy.

The Reverend Pat Robertson says Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's massive
stroke could be God's punishment for giving up Israeli territory. The founder of
the Christian Broadcasting Network told viewers of "The 700 Club" that Sharon
was "dividing God's land," even though the Bible says doing so invites "God's
enmity." Robertson added, "I would say woe to any prime minister of Israel who
takes a similar course." He noted that former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was
assassinated. Robertson said God's message is, "This land belongs to me. You'd
better leave it alone."

First of all, every now and again these quotes come out from Pat Robertson and they seem to be about God striking down people or wanting them struck down (for example Hugo Chavez, the nut running Venezuela these days).

First these utterances have nothing to do with Christianity. God doesn't act this way. Maybe it's because I'm a Catholic, but I'm a "free willer". For better or worse, God has allowed us run the show...we are advised to do so correctly or face the consequences later. But He isn't going to intervene in political decisions.

The other pont is that this just gives the media more ammunition to make Christians look like nutbars. The truth is that we are't. Robertson doesn't speak for me or anyone else other than himself.

And certianly not for God.

IT USED TO BE A JOKE...

2006-01-05T13:16:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man remembers when the concept of feeding booze to an alcoholic used to be a semi humorous way of describing a really bad idea. Suddenly, it would seem to be reasonable, based on the following story from REUTERS.
TORONTO, Ontario (Reuters) -- Giving homeless alcoholics a regular supply of booze may improve their health and their behavior, the Canadian Medical Association Journal said in a study published on Tuesday.

Seventeen homeless adults, all with long and chronic histories of alcohol abuse, were allowed up to 15 glasses of wine or sherry a day -- a glass an hour from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. -- in the Ottawa-based program, which started in 2002 and is continuing.

After an average of 16 months, the number of times participants got in trouble with the law had fallen 51 percent from the three years before they joined the program, and hospital emergency room visits were down 36 percent.

"Once we give a 'small amount' of alcohol and stabilize the addiction, we are able to provide health services that lead to a reduction in the unnecessary health services they were getting before," said Dr. Jeff Turnbull, one of the authors of the report.

"The alcohol gets them in, builds the trust and then we have the opportunity to treat other medical diseases... It's about improving the quality of life."

Copyright 2006 Reuters.
This garbage has its roots in the same intellectual corruption I was discussing the other day (see below). All over the formerly civilized world we are told that it is good to give needles to heroin addicts, used supermarket carts to the homeless and now this. What's next...used 7-UP cans to crack addicts? Free airplane glue to glue sniffers?
If I understand the current accepted wisdom about alcoholism, it is supposed to be a disease, isn't it? Therefore, aren't these doctors, rather than treating the alcoholism contributing to the diseae? When you get TB, or Aids they don't try to give you more of it do they?
Arent't they making the "patients" even sicker by making them even more alcohol dependent?
The Renaissance Man has a question: why isn't this malpractice?

"It's Dark as a Dungeon, Damp as the Dew..."

2006-01-04T08:41:00.000-08:00

Let's start first with being grateful that at least one miner seems to have survived West Virginia's latest coal mine disaster. The Renaissance Man is a"half full", not "half empty" kind of guy (some friends say he's half baked, but we'll leave that for another time). In the circumstances it is really a miracle that even one survived. Congratulations and thanks must go out to the draegger teams that risked their own lives to go deep into the mine to try and save their comrades.

That said, it amazes the Renaissance Man that in the hours of tedious coverage by the media, and inane questions and comments by Anderson Cooper, for example, relevant questions were not stumbled upon, even by accident.

The Renaissance Man comes from a family of coal miners, though not from West Virginia. Had CNN, or the other media, bothered to ask a few miners anything important they would have learned a few things about this most dangerous of occupations. There is at least one truth about coal mining...the miners themselves know the ground, the seam and the dangers they face better than anyone.

What are the dangers? Here are just a few.

Methane gas, which the media focussed on, is one obvious danger. It seeps out of the coal seam constantly. Some seams are "gassier" than others, and West Virginia has some of the worst. The presence of methane requires constant monitoring and constant ventilation. As the coal is cut from the mine face, methane seeps out and must be cleared away. But it also comes from other areas as well, where coal is. It must always be measured. This requires costly ventilation systems which must be constantly maintained.
Coal Dust. This is a product of mining as well, and is a highly flammable substance. It must be kept down at all times and the usual way is through lime powder. Coal mines must be constantly "limed"...this is fundamental. It also is a costly part of the overhead of mining.
Rock falls are a constant danger. Coal mining is soft rock mining. The ceilings and walls must be contantly checked to ensure there has been no weakening of the shoring. This is also a costly but essential activity.
Monitoring equipment maintenance, sparking, oxygen levels etc are just a few more of the safety factors that must be constantly under review.

These things are expensive and it is for this reason that coal producers sometimes cut corners. When corners are cut, however, lives are lost.

The Renaissance Man acknowledges that unions are, at times, a problem. Teacher's unions may do as much harm to education as they do good. It is questionable whether civil servants, whose greatest risk factor is a paper cut, need to be unionized. Essential services are just that and involve a public trust. Workers in outfits like the police and fire departments need to have as their first loyalty the public. Loyalty to a union can dilute that.

But some industries are so essentially dangerous that a Union is essential.

In coal mining there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the shareholders and the workers. Shareholders want to maximize profits, workers want to maximize safety. Where such a potential conflict exists it is unconscionable that all the power to make the cost decisions be on one side, namely management. Unions are an essential part of mine safety. Mine Safety Committees with representatives from both sides are essential. Unions have to have the power to ensure that all safety measures are taken and, if they are not, to remove their men from the pit at a moment's notice. Without repercussions.

We see what happens in mines where mine safety is irrelevant and miners dig out coal at the fastest rate regardless of the risk. Every month there is a story of a mine disaster in Russia, or the Ukraine, or in China where coal miners are killed by the score. Russia and Ukraine are emerging from Communism into kleptocracies while China, for all its economic power, remains one of the world's most brutal dictatorships. In none of them do the workers have any real power.

On the other hand we saw, before they were closed, Cape Breton coal mines operated in relative safety. Why? Because the coal companies had to work with The United Mine Workers. Google "Westray" to see what happened in another part of the same Canadian province when a non-union mine was opened in a gassy seam at Stellarton Nova Scotia.

In all the coverage of the West Virginia situation there was never a question asked about the safety procedures at the mine. Rather than hearing for the hundredth time "How did you feel when..." there were many more serious and informative questions that the Renaissance Man wanted to have answers to. Such as:

Was this a union mine?
Was there a Mine Safety Committee? If so, were there miners on it? If not, why not?
Did the miners have the legal right to leave the mine if they felt their safety was at risk?
What safety procedures were followed regarding monitoring of methane levels? Liming? Maintenance of gas monitors?

The list could go on, but this would have done for a start.

In the end, my heart goes out to the men and their families. It is a terrible loss.

The Renaissance Man will close out this post with a few words from Rita Mac Neil's anthem to Cape Breton coal miners, for the words apply to miners wherever they go underground.

WORKING MAN

It's a working man I am

And I've been down underground

And I swear to God if I ever see the sun

Or for any length of time

I can hold it in my mind

I never again will go down underground.

CORUPTION: INTELLECTUAL AND OTHERWISE

2006-01-03T11:36:00.000-08:00

The Renaissance Man believes that Rudolph Giuliani’s most lasting legacy as Mayor of New York will not be his leadership following the attack on 9/11, but the reduction of crime (especially murder) in the city. When Mayor Giuliani went about making New York a safer city the key was where he focussed his efforts. Sure, the police went after murderers, and robbers and the like, but the KEY was to attack what was considered small stuff. He went after graffiti. Vagrants. Turnstile jumpers.

Giuliani did not allow himself to be waylaid by apologists for the small time criminals. Graffiti was not “urban art” and the artists were delinquents. Vagrants were not “homeless poor”, but trespassers on the public space and a threat to personal security. Shelters were available for the homeless, so they were no longer permitted to sleep in people’s doorways.

And, as everyone now knows, it worked. Crime went down drastically and New Yorkers (and tourists) were once again able to walk the streets at night.

What has this to do with corruption?

We first must answer the question “What IS corruption?” Corruption is rot. It is an internal decay that affects institutions, whether they be businesses or governments or states. Once the rot sets in, it can spread rapidly. Eventually it will kill its host.

Institutional corruption spreads by means of impunity. Impunity means that those who practice corruption are not held accountable, even by those who are aware of its presence. It includes the lowering of institutional standards to excuse the need to hold the corrupt to account. It can be as simple as making excuses for the corrupt acts of others. Once it becomes accepted that others are corrupt and are acting with impunity others very quickly ask “If them, why not me?”

And so the rot spreads.

The problem is that, once it has begun to spread it begins to affect the entire institution. As with gangrene; it may require the amputation of a portion of the organism to save the life of the whole.

Corruption need not necessarily be economic, though it often has a financial component. Greed is a great motivator, but so too are power, public acclaim and ego. Thus corruption can be intellectual, moral and of course, political.

We can see in the example of Enron how financial corruption ate away at the organs of the firm, with the result that the company itself was destroyed together with other businesses who dealt with it.

But what about Jean Paul Sartre? The Renaissance Man believes that the famed French philosopher presents an example of intellectual corruption, but on an even grander scale. Intellectual impunity allowed Sartre and his thought to weaken the ability of western society to assess itself from a point of view of right and wrong. According to Sartre everything was subjective. Nothing was objectively right or wrong. Murder is not objectively right or wrong, but only right or wrong depending on the situation. Yet, Sartre was fashionable, and it became a badge of honour to be seen with him. So, through impunity, the infection spread.

Corruption in International institutions is observed in the operations of the United Nations. It is easy to point to the financial corruption (Oil for Food is the obvious example) but the real corruption arises from the intellectual dishonesty of the organization itself. The fact that places like Libya and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had the right to sit on (and even chair) the UN’s Human Rights Commission is evidence that the institution had abandoned its standards. Impunity manifests itself in the fact that the situation is accepted without question.

Once corruption sets in, an institution be it a business or state, loses the ability to defend itself. Reform requires harsh measures and perhaps decapitation. The United Nations is in a straitjacket because so may of its players (bureaucrats and states) are themselves corrupt and invested in corruption. It is doubtful that any true reform can occur under the leadership of Kofi Annan.

Few governmental organizations on the planet are as corrupt as the Palestinian Authority. Consequently, it lacks the ability to defend itself against armed groups, including its own police force, who defy its legitimate acts. It makes deals with kidnappers to release hostages. It hopes that it will receive enough international aid money, supposedly targeted for the poor but really meant to pay off its opponents, that it will be able to survive the upcoming “elections”.

Intellectual corruption leads to New York Senator Charles Schumer getting away with his comments yesterday about security leaks. He posited that the legality of the leaking to the New York Times of President Bush’s electronic interception of communications programme should be assessed on the basis of the leaker’s motives. Sartre would be proud. Impunity manifests itself in the fact that the view is not widely denounced and its speaker outed as intellectually dishonest. On the contrary, he is widely quoted and receives acclaim. And so the rot spreads.

But where does the rot start? The Renaissance Man believes that, while there will always be those who are corrupt, it is through impunity that it is allowed to spread. In addition, while corruption at high levels catches attention, the roots are much lower and broader. It starts in the street, when nobody reports the theft of a manhole cover, or the appearance of graffiti in a public space. It continues when businesses don’t comply with contracts or guarantees and there is no recourse. It is as simple as when people have loud parties late at night showing disrespect for their neighbours, and when the neighbour complains it is the complainer who is criticized. Rot works its way up.

It works its way up to the highest levels of the state. It is well known that France will deal with any terrorist or hostage taker. This is simply the manifestation at the national level of the corruption that permeates the French state. France lacks the national vigour to stand up against such attacks. Indeed, as the Renaissance Man will suggest below, France is not merely corrupt, but a corrupting influence.

Corruption eats away the legitimacy of governments, for the people lose faith in the elected institutions. That is why it is so dangerous. The fabric of the state can be weakened.

To expunge corruption requires strong and sustained measures starting at local levels. This is why the acts of Giuliani were so important. The corruption he contended with was not the crime, as such, but the intellectual corruption of the apologists for the perpetrators of small time crime (and even big time crime). Giuliani, and anyone else who decides to oppose this intellectual corruption, must be prepared to accept name calling. They will be called at best hard liners and at worst fascists.

A state that tries to tackle the problem at a national level may come in for international criticism. For example, Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia is always referred to in the foreign media as a “hardliner”, yet within the country he is regarded as incorruptible (hence popularity ratings at about 70%). Yet he is under constant pressure from France to negotiate with FARC guerrillas (the Renaissance Man recognizes that he is again referencing France but, if the beret fits…).

France wants Uribe to negotiate the release of Ingrid Betancourt a French/Colombian dual citizen kidnapped by the FARC during the last election and held ever since (she was the Green Party presidential candidate who went into FARC territory against military advice and was predictably captured. Quelle surprise!). Pres. Uribe has maintained a firm line against the guerrillas, but France wants him to abase Colombia and follow their corrupt example by exchanging convicted and jailed terrorists for her. It is a shame because there is enough corruption already in Colombia. Uribe is trying to fight it by setting a proper example. The Renaissance Man believes that he will be more like Giuliani than the likes of Mitterand, Chirac and de Villepin.

In the end, the fight against corruption of all types and at all levels is a difficult one. It requires resolve and the ability to withstand attacks by the corrupt. It is a fight that never ends. It is a fight, however, that is worth waging. The Renaissance Man believes that everyone should keep clear minds, a clear view of right and wrong, and support leaders who stand up against the apologists of corruption. This means that corruption that amounts to actual acts (financial theft, transfer of state secrets etc) should be treated as subversion for it weakens the state in the same way. As for intellectual corruption, the Renaissance Man would not restrict free speech. He would, however, demand clear and forceful rebuttals by elected politicians, editorialists and anyone else with an interest in intellectual honesty.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

2006-01-01T10:06:00.000-08:00

Here's hoping that everyone has a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

All the best from The Renaissance Man

ELECTIONS IN CANADA AND COLOMBIA

2006-01-01T09:58:00.000-08:00

It just happens that election campaigns are underway in two of the United States’ closest allies. Canadians vote on 23 January, while Colombians don’t vote until May.

It will not come as a shock that the two campaigns are completely different. In Canada, the process is orderly and peaceful while, in Colombia, there are few activities more dangerous than running for public office (except maybe crossing a street in front of a bus).

In Canada the parties and candidates campaign door to door and their biggest risk is of being asked to leave someone’s doorstep. Perhaps a sign will be torn down.

In Colombia, the government is obliged to ensure the safety of all candidates, of all parties. The election has to run in all areas of the country, including in areas where anti-guerrilla operations are being conducted.

In Canada, candidates can lose their reputations. In Colombia, they can lose their lives.

And yet, there has been one similarity. Both the Canadian Prime Minister and the Colombian President have, in recent weeks, warned the United States against interfering in their electoral processes.

In the case of Canada, the US Ambassador made a speech complaining that Prime Minister Martin was using the United States as a scapegoat on environmental issues in order to gain electoral advantage. He said that such comments could adversely affect Canada-US relations. Clearly, he wanted such comments removed from the Canadian electoral debate.

In Colombia, the US Ambassador worried aloud about the role of paramilitaries in the upcoming elections. He warned against permitting paramilitaries, or their surrogates, standing for congressional or municipal office.

In both instances the Canadian and Colombian leaders were quick to respond that the United States should stay out of what is a completely internal affair, that is to say, national elections.

The Renaissance Man is mystified by the United States behaviour in these cases. It is not that the Renaissance Man agrees or disagrees with the substance of what the ambassadors said.

What is troubling is the lack of appreciation that the US seems to have about the potential consequences of such actions. In Canada, Canadians have their backs up over the softwood lumber issue and need little more provocation to become even more angry at their southern neighbours.

In Colombia, despite the close relationship between the current Colombian administration and the United States, American influence is not an issue in the election. It is in the best interests of the US that it not become an issue.

So, the Renaissance Man has this advice for the US. If you want a happy, friendly ally on your northern border and a continuing supportive government in the fight against drugs in Colombia, then you should just back off. If you have complaints or concerns, discuss them in private, or get editorialists to write op ed pieces.

It’s just a word of friendly advice from the Renaissance Man.

APPARENTLY, I HAVE BAD TASTE

2006-01-01T09:52:00.000-08:00

I have just come face to face with a sad reality. It hurts. I don’t know how I will sleep knowing it.

I seem to have bad taste. Or worse, I’m a rube.

By what means have I reached this Epiphany? I just finished reading the list of this year’s best movies. More accurately, I read the lists of movies that, in the opinions of Time Magazine, The New York Times and the MSN.com are the year’s best. And the sad truth is that from all three lists I have been to see the grand total of…ZERO. The Renaissance Man has forked out cold hard cash neither to sit in a darkened theatre nor to rent any of the listed films. (I suppose now I must learn not to use the word “movie”…so gauche).

The arbiters of taste have pronounced…the Oracles have spoken and, sadly, the Renaissance Man has been found…pedestrian.

For example, number one on all the lists is “Brokeback Mountain”. The Renaissance Man did some deep soul searching (or “heart searching” as BBC World now calls it) and came to the realization that he just is not interested in seeing a love story about homosexual cowboys. Feel free to make the movie, Ang Lee, but the Renaissance Man is not going to spend hard earned money to watch it.

The same goes for “The Squid and the Whale”. No thanks.…not interested.

Another title seems to virtually plead with me to spend my cash. The New York Times gave number 7 to something called “Look at Me”. Sorry. I’m not looking at you, or it. And as for “Kung Fu Hustle (Number 8 on Time’s list) I didn’t like the song …no way I go to see the picture. Number 5 on the MSN list is “Layer Cake”. Consider the Renaissance Man on a diet.

The Renaissance Man is worried that next year he is going to be faced with some difficult entertainment choices. Will he have to decide between the newest Jean Pourtfeuy offering “The Albatross and the Penguin” or Stewart Mary Claidness’ release of “My Life as a Gladiola”.

It’s not that I am uneducated, or even uninterested in an eclectic range of subjects. After all this IS the Renaissance Man you’re talking to (or at least reading). It’s just that I don’t appreciate this type of, shall we say,”art”. The Renaissance Man, it seems, is unsophisticated.

I know it has been a bad year for the movie industry. The papers have been full of the record breaking numbers of people NOT going to theatres. Losses are high, and executives have been pulling out their hair (those who have hair. Those without pull out their assistant’s hair, I suppose) looking for solutions.

In the end the fault must be placed where it belongs…at my doorstep. There are just too many rubes, like the Renaissance Man, out there who just don’t appreciate a great movie.

I mean film.

CLONES

2005-12-22T09:14:00.000-08:00

CLONES

Clones are always in the news these days, or so it seems. While we hear a lot of coverage of South Korean advances in human cloning (as well as questions about the veracity of the research), another interesting topic is whether this technology ought to be used to resurrect extinct species.

This has become a live issue, so to speak, in recent days with the discussion about the possibility of cloning mammoths, a species of elephant that fell extinct about 10,000 years ago. It has also come up in relation to work being done by the Royal Australian Museum in an effort to bring back the Thylocene (Tasmanian Tiger) which became extinct in the 1930’s.

Regarding the mammoth, the news this week was that scientists had recovered DNA from a well preserved specimen frozen in the Russian ice about 20,000 years ago. As a result, there appears to be some confidence that they will be able to completely map the mammoth’s genome within a reasonable period of time. This in turn, we are told, will lead to the ability to genetically create an embryo which can be nurtured to birth in the womb of an Indian elephant (the closest existing relative of the extinct mammoths).

Scientists have has less luck with the Thylocene genome. Though an intact specimen exists in the Australian museum, it has been preserved in chemicals which have destroyed the DNA. Though efforts to sequence the genome have been underway since the late 1990’s, the work has not been a success. Though it continues we may, ironically, be closer to seeing a live mammoth than a living Tasmanian Tiger.

One thing both these extinctions have in common is humans may have been wholly or partially at fault. With the Thylocene it is clear...they were hunted to extinction by Tasmanian and Australian farmers who considered the doglike marsupial to be a pest. As for the mammoth, though climate change may have contributed to its demise, archaeological evidence now seems to indicate that human hunting was also a factor in the species being wiped out.

Some people have raised ethical issues about the efforts to bring back these extinct species. They say that it is unethical and that they should be left to the history books.

The Renaissance Man takes a different view of this. He fully supports efforts to bring back the mammoth, mastodon, thylocene, dodo or any other animal rendered extinct by the acts of man. If man was the cause of these animals becoming extinct then, it seems, if man can rectify the wrong by reviving the species he should do so.

We rightly expend great efforts in trying to prevent the extinction of the Panda, though the panda itself seems hell bound to render itself extinct (it is a fussy eater and seems most reluctant to reproduce). There seems little ethical difference between fighting to prevent the extinction of one species and bringing another back where we have been the cause of its extinction.

As far as the Renaissance Man is concerned, “Bring on the Clones!”

WHERE DOES FREEDOM OF THE PRESS END AND DEMOCRACY BEGIN?

2005-12-22T08:30:00.000-08:00

What do the following have in common?

This week, the United States media, led by the New York Times, has pressured President Bush warrantless domestic electronic surveillance. The story broke in the New York Times in time (arguably deliberately so) to derail the renewal of the Patriot Act.
Canadian media coverage (particularly in the CBC and Torstar Corporation newspapers) of the legalization of gay marriage featured massively pro-legalization coverage and coverage of opposition forces as religious extremists.
BBC World coverage of the Ugandan elections has focussed on the incumbent President Yoweri Museveni as an incipient strongman and would-be dictator. His opponent Kizza Besigye is in jail on charges of treason. While the existence of the charges has been mentioned, no information whatever is supplied as to what those charges are about.

The common thread linking these items and many others in the western news media is the blurring of the lines between news reporting and editorializing. Though they won’t admit it, the perception among many today is that the free media in the democratic world appears to no longer feel a responsibility to report the news in such a way that the public may assess facts and draw its own conclusions. Rather, its role is to form public opinion by framing the issues as it wishes them to be seen. While pretending to be objective, it actually supplies as news facts that support its views in a positive light, while ignoring, or presenting as caricature, facts running in the other direction.

This is not original thought. Conservative commentators around the United States have been railing about the phenomenon for years and even decades. Radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, media monitoring organizations such as Accuracy in Media and a multitude of bloggers (Debbie Schlussel, Michelle Malkin, American Thinker to name a few ) devote significant space to debunking what they call the Mainstream Media (MSM). In the US an entire news network, Fox News, was created to balance off the leftward tilt of the main news media (CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC). Its slogan, “Fair and Balanced” is meant to stand in contradistinction to the news operations of its competitors.

The MSM deny the existence of bias and, at the same time, seek to deny the legitimacy not only of the complaints but of the complainers. The MSM continues its self portrayal as objective purveyors of information and its critics as crackpots and extremists.

There have been numerous studies in the past verifying to one degree or another the objective existence of media bias in the United States (studies, for example, indicating that voting patterns of journalists are massively pro- Democrat). This past week, however, a study released by UCLA political scientists backs up those who believe there is massive left-wing bias in the US media, even in such organizations as the Wall Street Journal considered conservative. They say:

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the
newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

(You can follow this link to the full UCLA news online article:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 )

In Britain, the question of the written media’s bias is complicated by the distinction between the serious media (real newspapers) and the tabloids. The tabs, which occupy significant market share, lack credibility and are thus unpersuasive regardless of their biases. As for the broadsheets, they are so closely identified with their reader’s ideologies that they really preach to the converted.

The BBC, on the other hand, pretends to be an objective news gathering and reporting organization. Indeed, this is its statutory mandate. Yet, its biases have come in for criticism, official and otherwise, in recent years. Apart from the scandal about falsified news reporting on the events leading to the Iraq War (which led, after an official inquiry to the downfall of the BBC chairman), coverage of the United States in general and the Iraq war in particular have drawn complaints from many quarters. Its coverage of the difficulties encountered by US officials in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was almost gleeful. As recently as this week Guto Harri, the BBC reporter in New York covering the transit strike called efforts by the city government “bully boy tactics”, despite the fact that the remedies sought, in contrast to the strikers (whose strike is illegal) are completely within the law.

It is not, however, only in its US coverage that BBC is criticized. It has been accused of anti-Semitism in its coverage of Israel, and there are web-sites dedicated to efforts to hold accountable the BBC for this.

But even in respect of a matter as seemingly routine as covering an election in Uganda the BBC cannot report cleanly. Let’s be clear: the Renaissance Man is not a supporter of African dictators and strongmen. It is fair to say, however, that even a Renaissance Man does not keep up on day to day Ugandan politics. As such he, and almost everyone else, is dependent upon the news media to provide the basic facts. Who is Kizza Besigye? Why is he in jail? What is the evidence? Does this comprise an offence in Uganda? After that, if the BBC wants to editorialize, then fine. Do so, and I will gladly consider it. I may even agree with it, after seeing the facts. The Renaissance Man may oppose African dictators, but he also sees little difference in the news censorship of African (or other) dictators and the censorship of all powerful news editors and producers.

The failure to provide the basic facts suggests a basic weakness in the facts as a foundation for the conclusion propounded by the BBC about the elections. Thus, it detracts from the credibility of its coverage.

Is the media a monolith? Do its leaders have weekly meetings to discuss what misinformation they wish to dispense in upcoming weeks? Obviously not.

The answer, I believe, lies in a book written some years ago by Dinesh D’Sousa called ILLIBERAL EDUCATION. In that book Mr. D’Sousa posited that higher education in the United States was dominated by professors who had had their academic formation in the 1960`s. Over the years, they had gradually settled into academia and gained tenure. As leaders of faculties, editors of learned journals, and teachers of impressionable freshmen they have managed to direct the direction of academic thought and higher education in the US.

My point is that not all the students of the 60`’s went into academia. A lot went into journalism. And, just as their contemporaries were promoted up the academic ranks, so too were the reporters promoted. Now they are publishers and editors.

These new opinion leaders head what I believe are the most powerful institutions in the democratic world…the media. The media is unelected, unaccountable and not subject to review. It controls itself, which means, of course, there is no control.

Elected officials, even of the most powerful countries of the world are at the mercy of the media because politicians, in power or in opposition, have no access to the voters. The media filters and decides what portions of their message will reach the public, and how that information is spun.

This week the New York Times took an interesting position in relation to the release of the electronic monitoring story. It held out that it had considered the security consequences of releasing the story at this time and decided that there were no negative security implications in making it public. A great deal of evidence indicates that the information had been in the hands of the Times for many months and that the timing of the story had dual purposes. First, it would help promote a book being published by a Times reporter.Secondly, its release may have been designed to prevent the re-enactment of the Patriot Act.

Even if these ulterior motives did not exist, however, the sheer arrogance of the Times to assert that it had deemed there were no security implications in releasing the information is breathtaking. What standing does a newspaper have to embark on such an assessment? It does not stand in the shoes of the nation’s security establishment, it does not have the information that those charged with national security have, and it does not have an electoral mandate to make decisions about the country’s security.

Yet, it seems obvious that the attitudes of the Times editors are that of those who had their coming of age in the Vietnam era. For those whom Daniel Ellsberg is a hero this is a chance to recreate the excitement of their youth. There is a cause, again, for which to fight. What does NOT exist is a desire to report on whether there does or does not exist a legal basis for these measures. (See an interesting article by James Robbins in National Review Online which has a persuasive legal analysis. http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp). That work, I am afraid, will be left to the blogosphere which, by this writing has copious detail on the topic.

This attitude permeates the media in Canada, where they are from the same era but, being from north of the border, are “wannabe’s” , and the UK as well.

In the end, the power of the free media is a question that will have to be addressed in some way. The Renaissance Man does not advocate limits on the freedom of the press. He does suggest that governments should be fearless in opposing the press when its acts threaten the security of the country. That means when violations of national security occur illegally, they must be prosecuted regardless of the public relations consequences. Subversion is subversion, even when committed by leading news organizations.

As for the public…the public is turning its back on the MSM in increasing numbers. This is not enough, however, for the MSM can truthfully say that the alternative sources are biased. Indeed, the Rush Limbaugh’s of the media world make no pretence of objectivity. In this they are far more honest that the MSM because they make clear their biases.

The public has to insist on unbiased reporting from its media. This blog is my personal call for a return to objective reporting.

I have no illusions that it will come, but that is no excuse not to fight for it.

INTRODUCTORY BLOG

2005-12-20T13:04:00.000-08:00

Leonardo da Vinci was the original “Renaissance man”. He was interested in everything. He studied art, anatomy, astronomy, music, engineering and, if Dan Brown is to be believed, he even sought the Holy Grail. It was said that he knew everything about everything.

But Leonardo lived in the 15th century. When he got started, it was possible to know everything…or at least almost everything.

Today, things are different. No one can know it all…not even Bill O’Reilly.

Of course, I am no Leonardo da Vinci. I am not a genius, have lousy spatial and can’t draw worth a damn. Yet like him and, I suspect, a lot of other people, I have a ridiculously broad range of interests. From astronomy to archaeology, from music to sports, from history to current events, I find more things to fascinate me than there are minutes in the day.

Rather than sating my appetite, the internet adds to the hunger. It is like driving along a country road…I always want to keep going to see what lies beyond the next hill. (Oh, by the way, I like travel too).

And so, this is the point of RENAISSANCE MAN. I hope to blog on things which interest me. The range of items will be broad, eclectic and maybe even eccentric. I also intend to include links to interesting sites with more information on the topic at hand. Whether it is cloning a mammoth, the discovery of a new planet Celtic music or Iran versus…well, versus pretty much everyone, there will be commentary about it.

I will also link to blogs and other sites that I find fascinating. Apart from interesting topics, I love good writing and, if I see something well stated I will make it available to you even if I disagree with it.

So, welcome to RENAISSANCE MAN.

The url is www.therenaissanceperson.com let no one say I am politically incorrect. I hope that, after you have looked in on it for awhile you will feel free to drop a line.