One could easily argue that prospects for peace and prosperity in the Middle East have never looked dimmer. Indeed, the last few years have been extremely tough for the region, to say the least. From the civil wars in Syria and Yemen to the brutality of the Islamic State, not to mention the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there just doesn't seem to be any end to the bloodshed and misery. It's no wonder then that people both inside and outside the Middle East are pessimistic about the region's future. I too believe that the situation in the Middle East will worsen. Yes, I'm afraid that the region will see a lot more blood spilled and a lot more ammunition spent, but I also believe that eventually, a new Middle East will be born - a Middle East in which people prosper and live in peace and tranquility with each other. Why do I believe this? Because I know my history. I know, for example, that there was a time when many if not most people in Europe never believed that the bloody conflicts that had raged throughout the continent would come to an end.
If you have at least some general knowledge of European history, you will know that conflicts between the various peoples of the continent have lasted far longer then, say, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The peoples of Great Britain and France, for instance, fought each other for a millennium. In fact, the two countries only achieved a genuine peace in the early years of the twentieth century. France and Germany too were once the bitterest of enemies. But fast forward to the late 20th century and the two countries forged an alliance that has been a key impetus for the creation and expansion of the European Union - a union that was prophesied by Winston Churchill just after World War II. Indeed, it is remarkable that immediately after the worst conflict in European and world history, the British Prime Minister predicted that there would be what he called a "United States of Europe." Yet less than half a century later, the European Union was formed out of nation-states that just a few decades earlier were at each others' throats. This union now spans most of continent's nation-states, including some that just one generation ago were part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, meant to wage war against the nation-states of western Europe. Now of course, modern Europe has not been entirely free of violent conflict. As many people reading this might know, the last decade of the 20th century saw the outbreak of wars in the Balkans. Particularly brutal was the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina that saw atrocities reminiscent of those committed by the Nazis in World War II. But what a difference less than thirty years makes, because now most of the states involved in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s are well on their way to EU membership. Two of them, Slovenia and Croatia, are part of the bloc already. The point I'm trying to make is that if in just a few decades, the countries of Europe were able to go from bitter enemies to strong allies in a politically and economically integrated Europe, so too can the countries and peoples of the Middle East go from hated adversaries to solid partners in a new, peaceful and prosperous region.
As I've said before, I believe that there is still much more violence and bloodshed to come in the Middle East. Things in the region will get a lot worse before they get better, just as they did in Europe. But in the end, the peoples of the Middle East will join together to create a region that is free of war, free of violent conflict and free of the kind of despair that has befallen the region for so many years.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Syria: The Staging Point for a Third World War
Today, Russian warplanes bombed targets in Syria. The Russians say that they were targetting the Islamic State. Unfortunately, this is just another one of Putin's lies. Indeed, Putin's claim that he is helping fight terrorism in Syria is just as hollow as his assertion that his forces are not directly involved in the occupation of eastern Ukraine, not to mention his takeover of Crimea last year. In the short term, Putin is simply giving more support to fellow dictator, Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. In the long term, however, he's doing something even more dangerous. He's creating a staging point from which he and his Iranian allies can conquer the entire Middle East.
Russia's military buildup in Syria has barely started, yet it is already substantial and includes soldiers, tanks and even anti-aircraft weapons. I know I'm not the only one asking why Russia needs anti-aircraft systems to fight the Islamic State when the latter has no air force to speak of. It's time to face up to the facts. The forces that Putin's Russia has deployed to Syria are not there to fight the Islamic State or any other terrorists. They're there to defend Bashar Al-Assad's regime and safeguard the strategic Russian naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus. Putin already lost an ally in the Middle East when Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi was deposed and he does not want to lose another one. Actually, it is very unfortunate that the Western powers did not intervene in Syria as they did in Libya, not only because doing so would probably have saved thousands of lives, but also because Assad's removal from power in Syria would have significantly curtailed Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Russia would likely have lost its naval base in Syria and their foothold in the Mediterranean, while Iran would have lost their most important ally in the region, along with much of their ability to support Hezbollah and Hamas in their attacks on Israel. Hence, the Western powers missed a golden opportunity to curtail Russian and Iranian influence in the region.
Syria and World War III
Over a year ago, as the world commemorated the anniversary of the beginning of the First World War, I wrote a blog post arguing that the possibility of a third world war was very likely and that such a war would pit a bloc of countries led by the West against another alliance of states led by Russia, China and Iran (see: World War I Began One Hundred Years Ago. How Likely is Another World War? Unfortunately, Very Likely). So how does Syria play into this scenario? If you read my blog, you will notice that I mention the Middle East as being one of the key fronts in the third world war, where some of the bloodiest battles will take place. I even suggest that the war may begin with an attack on Israel. If such an attack is indeed what starts World War III, I believe that it will be staged from Syria and will be part of a wider offensive by Russia and Iran to conquer the entire Middle East region.
Russia's military buildup in Syria has barely started, yet it is already substantial and includes soldiers, tanks and even anti-aircraft weapons. I know I'm not the only one asking why Russia needs anti-aircraft systems to fight the Islamic State when the latter has no air force to speak of. It's time to face up to the facts. The forces that Putin's Russia has deployed to Syria are not there to fight the Islamic State or any other terrorists. They're there to defend Bashar Al-Assad's regime and safeguard the strategic Russian naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus. Putin already lost an ally in the Middle East when Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi was deposed and he does not want to lose another one. Actually, it is very unfortunate that the Western powers did not intervene in Syria as they did in Libya, not only because doing so would probably have saved thousands of lives, but also because Assad's removal from power in Syria would have significantly curtailed Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Russia would likely have lost its naval base in Syria and their foothold in the Mediterranean, while Iran would have lost their most important ally in the region, along with much of their ability to support Hezbollah and Hamas in their attacks on Israel. Hence, the Western powers missed a golden opportunity to curtail Russian and Iranian influence in the region.
Syria and World War III
Over a year ago, as the world commemorated the anniversary of the beginning of the First World War, I wrote a blog post arguing that the possibility of a third world war was very likely and that such a war would pit a bloc of countries led by the West against another alliance of states led by Russia, China and Iran (see: World War I Began One Hundred Years Ago. How Likely is Another World War? Unfortunately, Very Likely). So how does Syria play into this scenario? If you read my blog, you will notice that I mention the Middle East as being one of the key fronts in the third world war, where some of the bloodiest battles will take place. I even suggest that the war may begin with an attack on Israel. If such an attack is indeed what starts World War III, I believe that it will be staged from Syria and will be part of a wider offensive by Russia and Iran to conquer the entire Middle East region.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Why Do Many Canadians Not Vote?
Many years ago, I remember driving through the Kensington Market neighbourhood of downtown Toronto and seeing some graffiti posted on a brick wall that said, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." If I remember correctly, the graffiti post was done by members of a socialist youth group, but I'm not certain. Regardless of who did do it, the point is that there are people in this country that don't think voting in elections changes anything. In fact, a lot of people think this way. But there are also a lot of people that think voting is a civic duty and that no one should ever miss the chance to vote in an election, be it municipal, provincial or federal. Some people even think that voting should be mandatory. So why such a difference of opinion on exercising one of our fundamental democratic rights?
Chances are that the people who tend to stay away from the polls and think voting doesn't change anything are people who feel disenfranchised; people who believe that no one standing for election cares about them. But who are these people? Well, in most places where people do enjoy the right to elect their leaders, the usual suspects among non-voters are the poor, marginalized ethnic or religious groups, and almost always young people under the age of 30. So it's no surprise that in Canada, if you're young, poor, aboriginal or perhaps more than one of these things, you're less likely to cast a ballot come election time.
The people who do tend to show up at the polls are, at least in my opinion, mostly folks who do believe that the candidates up for election will represent their views and concerns - at least to an extent. These are often the same people who will tell you that if you don't vote, you forfeit the right to complain about the issues because you failed to show up at the ballot box.
Personally, I think if you have the right to vote, you should exercise it. I make it a point to vote in every municipal, provincial and federal election and have done so since I was in my early 20's. This includes the most recent Ontario provincial election when I "declined" my ballot, which in effect meant that I voted none of the above. But hey, I still showed up, which is more than I can say for almost half of the eligible voters who didn't cast a ballot in that election. So do I agree with the argument that failing to vote means forfeiting your right to complain? I most certainly do not, for a number of reasons.
Say, for example, that in the upcoming federal election, there is a candidate in your riding that you think deserves your vote. So what's stopping you from going to the polls and casting a ballot for him or her? Well, how about the fact that the candidate you want to vote for is running for a party that has no chance of winning in your riding. After all, even if you do vote for that person, you'll be throwing your vote away because not only does he or she not get elected, but since Canada still uses the ridiculously antiquated first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system, which has been abandoned by most mature democracies, your vote won't even make a difference in how seats are distributed in the House of Commons. Think about this and you realize that voting for the person you want is a waste of time.
Heck, even if your ideal candidate is running for a party that will have seats in the next parliament, you still might be wasting your time going to the polls. Your chosen candidate may, for instance, be a New Democrat, and I think it's safe to say that there will be NDP members in the next parliament. But before you start trotting off to the ballot box to vote for the Orange Crush, remember that you're in a riding full of staunch Conservative voters, and based on what the opinion polls are saying, the NDP has virtually no chance of winning in your riding, which means that by voting for an NDP candidate, you'll basically be throwing your vote away. The same goes for someone who wants to vote for a Conservative candidate, but lives in downtown Toronto where the lefties rule the roost.
Now of course, there are municipal elections where candidates don't run on party tickets. But as most of us know, municipal politicians don't even have half the power that their provincial and federal counterparts do. Let's face it, folks, the real power is based in Canada's provincial capitols and Ottawa. And worse still, that power isn't even in the hands of the candidates you cast ballots for. It's in the hands of their party leaders, who don't give a damn about what their backbenchers think. So perhaps you're full of joy when your favourite Liberal Party candidate wins in your riding, because you know that he or she is just as opposed to allowing abortions as you are. Then you find out that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau told his caucus a long time ago that anti-abortion votes in the House of Commons won't be tolerated. To make a long story short, the person who won the election in your riding with the help of votes from people like you can't even represent you properly because he or she is too busy towing the party line. When you realize this, you might be asking yourself why you bothered to vote at all.
I think it's safe to say that if folks who believe that voting in elections is a duty read this, they will probably tell me that we can't take our democratic rights for granted and that we should exercise these rights in the name of all of those brave people who fought and died so that we could keep them. To these people, my response is that we've already taken our democratic rights granted. We've taken them for granted by allowing party discipline to get so draconian that our elected politicians represent their party leaders rather than us, and by allowing the continuation of an electoral system that perverts the will of the people, gives more representation to parties that don't deserve it, and gives little representation, if any, to people and parties that do.
Chances are that the people who tend to stay away from the polls and think voting doesn't change anything are people who feel disenfranchised; people who believe that no one standing for election cares about them. But who are these people? Well, in most places where people do enjoy the right to elect their leaders, the usual suspects among non-voters are the poor, marginalized ethnic or religious groups, and almost always young people under the age of 30. So it's no surprise that in Canada, if you're young, poor, aboriginal or perhaps more than one of these things, you're less likely to cast a ballot come election time.
The people who do tend to show up at the polls are, at least in my opinion, mostly folks who do believe that the candidates up for election will represent their views and concerns - at least to an extent. These are often the same people who will tell you that if you don't vote, you forfeit the right to complain about the issues because you failed to show up at the ballot box.
Personally, I think if you have the right to vote, you should exercise it. I make it a point to vote in every municipal, provincial and federal election and have done so since I was in my early 20's. This includes the most recent Ontario provincial election when I "declined" my ballot, which in effect meant that I voted none of the above. But hey, I still showed up, which is more than I can say for almost half of the eligible voters who didn't cast a ballot in that election. So do I agree with the argument that failing to vote means forfeiting your right to complain? I most certainly do not, for a number of reasons.
Say, for example, that in the upcoming federal election, there is a candidate in your riding that you think deserves your vote. So what's stopping you from going to the polls and casting a ballot for him or her? Well, how about the fact that the candidate you want to vote for is running for a party that has no chance of winning in your riding. After all, even if you do vote for that person, you'll be throwing your vote away because not only does he or she not get elected, but since Canada still uses the ridiculously antiquated first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system, which has been abandoned by most mature democracies, your vote won't even make a difference in how seats are distributed in the House of Commons. Think about this and you realize that voting for the person you want is a waste of time.
Heck, even if your ideal candidate is running for a party that will have seats in the next parliament, you still might be wasting your time going to the polls. Your chosen candidate may, for instance, be a New Democrat, and I think it's safe to say that there will be NDP members in the next parliament. But before you start trotting off to the ballot box to vote for the Orange Crush, remember that you're in a riding full of staunch Conservative voters, and based on what the opinion polls are saying, the NDP has virtually no chance of winning in your riding, which means that by voting for an NDP candidate, you'll basically be throwing your vote away. The same goes for someone who wants to vote for a Conservative candidate, but lives in downtown Toronto where the lefties rule the roost.
Now of course, there are municipal elections where candidates don't run on party tickets. But as most of us know, municipal politicians don't even have half the power that their provincial and federal counterparts do. Let's face it, folks, the real power is based in Canada's provincial capitols and Ottawa. And worse still, that power isn't even in the hands of the candidates you cast ballots for. It's in the hands of their party leaders, who don't give a damn about what their backbenchers think. So perhaps you're full of joy when your favourite Liberal Party candidate wins in your riding, because you know that he or she is just as opposed to allowing abortions as you are. Then you find out that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau told his caucus a long time ago that anti-abortion votes in the House of Commons won't be tolerated. To make a long story short, the person who won the election in your riding with the help of votes from people like you can't even represent you properly because he or she is too busy towing the party line. When you realize this, you might be asking yourself why you bothered to vote at all.
I think it's safe to say that if folks who believe that voting in elections is a duty read this, they will probably tell me that we can't take our democratic rights for granted and that we should exercise these rights in the name of all of those brave people who fought and died so that we could keep them. To these people, my response is that we've already taken our democratic rights granted. We've taken them for granted by allowing party discipline to get so draconian that our elected politicians represent their party leaders rather than us, and by allowing the continuation of an electoral system that perverts the will of the people, gives more representation to parties that don't deserve it, and gives little representation, if any, to people and parties that do.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
My High Holiday Rant
Jews call the period that begins with Rosh Hashana and ends with Yom Kippur the "High Holidays", because it's supposed to be the most important period of the Jewish calendar from a religious standpoint. It's the time when even the most secular of Jews attend synagogue. Not me, though. I remember dabbling in synagogue in my childhood, but now I make it a point not to set foot inside one unless it's for someone else's sake. And personally, I don't know how people who do go can stand it. For one thing, it's expensive, at least if you live in the Diaspora. Here in Canada, the High Holidays is when the synagogues hit you with their membership fees, which are usually a small fortune. I honestly don't understand why people would pay thousands of dollars when they only attend a few services during the High Holidays. It just doesn't make sense to me. And as if the synagogue membership fees aren't bad enough, there's also all the other inconveniences that come with attending services during this time of year - the overcrowding, the repetitive prayers, the endless getting up and sitting down, the rabbis who just want to hear themselves talk forever, and of course the boredom.
Okay, so going to synagogue during the High Holidays is a drag, but there are good things about the High Holidays too, right? Meh, sort of. It's a time for family togetherness, which I think is a very good thing. But other than that, I don't really view this time of year as a time of joy. Now just to be fair, Yom Kippur was never meant to be a joyous occasion, but rather the time we ask forgiveness from the Almighty for our sins. Someone should explain to me, however, why Rosh Hashana has to be so somber. Indeed, if you're Jewish and your Rosh Hashana is anything like it is for members of my extended family here in Canada, it consists simply of a family dinner and synagogue. This is a far cry from the way most people in the world celebrate New Year's Eve on December 31st. Fireworks, parties and so forth. It's unfortunate that the most festive thing we Jews do for our new year is dip apples in honey. Wow, big whoop. I would personally love to see fireworks light up the sky all over Israel on Rosh Hashana. But instead, I keep hearing stories about Israelis packing the airport to leave for the High Holidays because they want to be in a happier place.
Okay, so going to synagogue during the High Holidays is a drag, but there are good things about the High Holidays too, right? Meh, sort of. It's a time for family togetherness, which I think is a very good thing. But other than that, I don't really view this time of year as a time of joy. Now just to be fair, Yom Kippur was never meant to be a joyous occasion, but rather the time we ask forgiveness from the Almighty for our sins. Someone should explain to me, however, why Rosh Hashana has to be so somber. Indeed, if you're Jewish and your Rosh Hashana is anything like it is for members of my extended family here in Canada, it consists simply of a family dinner and synagogue. This is a far cry from the way most people in the world celebrate New Year's Eve on December 31st. Fireworks, parties and so forth. It's unfortunate that the most festive thing we Jews do for our new year is dip apples in honey. Wow, big whoop. I would personally love to see fireworks light up the sky all over Israel on Rosh Hashana. But instead, I keep hearing stories about Israelis packing the airport to leave for the High Holidays because they want to be in a happier place.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
What Would Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister Mean for Canada? Look at Ontario to Find Out
If you want to know what Canada with Justin Trudeau as prime minister would look like, you need look no further than my home province of Ontario, where the provincial Liberal Party has been in power since 2003. So what does Ontario look like after over a decade of Liberal rule? Do you really want to know the answer to that question? Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you.
Ontario under the Liberals has suffered from years and years of fiscal mismanagement and scandal after scandal. As soon as they came to power, the Liberals didn't waste any time in tearing the province apart. The first major blow came shortly after Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty was elected. One of his first moves was to bring in a very large new tax known as the Health Premium. According to the National Citizens Coalition, this amounted to the largest tax grab in Ontario's history - and from a party that promised not to raise taxes if it was elected. Then came the HST and skyrocketing hydro rates. Indeed, ever since the Liberals came to power, Ontarians just can't get a break from their seemingly endless money grabs. The results? Lost jobs, lost businesses and a lot of pain for the average Ontario taxpayer.
Worse still, the Liberals have squandered Ontarians' tax dollars in one fiasco after another. If you live in Ontario and follow provincial politics, terms like eHealth, gas plants and smart meters all provoke the memories of scandals that cost the province and its taxpayers billions of dollars. Ontario's debt has more than doubled, its debt-to-GDP ratio has risen significantly and its credit rating has been downgraded. But what does this have to do with Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals? A lot, unfortunately.
Trudeau is basically pitching the same kind of tax and spend policies that have run Ontario into the ground for over a decade. He's announced plans to run budget deficits for the next four years if he becomes prime minister. Clearly, he's not afraid of a backlash by more fiscally prudent-minded voters. And why should he be? After all, running big deficits and racking up debt has unfortunately not hurt the Ontario Liberals. Heck, they went from a minority government to a majority in the last election! The question is, will all of Canada make the same mistake that Ontario voters have made three times already? I sincerely hope not, because just as the provincial Liberals under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have made Ontario a have-not province, their federal cousins under Justin Trudeau will make Canada a have-not country.
Ontario under the Liberals has suffered from years and years of fiscal mismanagement and scandal after scandal. As soon as they came to power, the Liberals didn't waste any time in tearing the province apart. The first major blow came shortly after Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty was elected. One of his first moves was to bring in a very large new tax known as the Health Premium. According to the National Citizens Coalition, this amounted to the largest tax grab in Ontario's history - and from a party that promised not to raise taxes if it was elected. Then came the HST and skyrocketing hydro rates. Indeed, ever since the Liberals came to power, Ontarians just can't get a break from their seemingly endless money grabs. The results? Lost jobs, lost businesses and a lot of pain for the average Ontario taxpayer.
Worse still, the Liberals have squandered Ontarians' tax dollars in one fiasco after another. If you live in Ontario and follow provincial politics, terms like eHealth, gas plants and smart meters all provoke the memories of scandals that cost the province and its taxpayers billions of dollars. Ontario's debt has more than doubled, its debt-to-GDP ratio has risen significantly and its credit rating has been downgraded. But what does this have to do with Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals? A lot, unfortunately.
Trudeau is basically pitching the same kind of tax and spend policies that have run Ontario into the ground for over a decade. He's announced plans to run budget deficits for the next four years if he becomes prime minister. Clearly, he's not afraid of a backlash by more fiscally prudent-minded voters. And why should he be? After all, running big deficits and racking up debt has unfortunately not hurt the Ontario Liberals. Heck, they went from a minority government to a majority in the last election! The question is, will all of Canada make the same mistake that Ontario voters have made three times already? I sincerely hope not, because just as the provincial Liberals under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have made Ontario a have-not province, their federal cousins under Justin Trudeau will make Canada a have-not country.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Canada Votes 2015
Well Canada, it's that time again. Time to stand up and make your voices heard at the ballot box. So is anything different in this federal election than in previous ones? On the surface, not much. The issues are pretty much the same. The economy, health care, and so forth. Also the same are our choices. As in other elections prior, our choice is primarily between the three fat cat parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, whose leaders are all equally uninspiring. Yes, there are other players, such as the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois, not to mention a bunch of other fringe parties that most Canadians have never heard of. But in a country that still uses the unfair and antiquated first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system, none of these parties have a chance of forming the next government or even taking part in it. Most of them will be lucky just to win seats in the next parliament.
And as if our electoral system doesn't make our elections unfair enough, the current government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed the rules so that this year's election might be the most unfair in Canada's recent history. For starters, the election campaign is a record eleven weeks long. Why does this matter? Because the Tories have more campaign funds than the Liberals and New Democrats combined, so they are much more capable of sustaining an effective, long-term campaign than their challengers. The Tories have also phased out the per-vote subsidy, public funds that were allocated to political parties based on the number of votes they garnered in the past election. This subsidy helped small parties like the Greens compete in an electoral system that heavily favours large parties with deep pockets. To make a long story short, the Conservatives have stacked the rules in their favour and made it a lot harder for the opposition parties to remove them from power, not to mention the fact that they've spent millions of our tax dollars on partisan government advertising that has essentially given them a giant head start over their challengers in winning the hearts and minds of Canadian voters. Still, the latest polls show a tight, three-way race between the main parties with many voters undecided, hence Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair, the leaders of the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats respectively, all have a chance to become Canada's next Prime Minister. So what do I have to say about these three uninspiring party leaders? Plenty, believe me.
Stephen Harper: The Increasingly Arrogant Incumbent
I have traditionally supported our current prime minister, especially in matters related to foreign policy. But over the last year or two, he's been trying my patience with his growing arrogance. He's been arrogant with our tax dollars, spending millions of them on partisan ads promoting his so-called Economic Action Plan. Some action plan, Mr. Prime Minister! You put all of Canada's eggs in one basket, relying solely on oil to fuel the country's economic growth. So now since the oil boom has become a bust, what's your plan for the future? I'm still waiting for an answer, and until I hear one, I'm going to assume that your arrogance has blinded you to the needs of anyone who lives and works outside of the oil patch.
Unfortunately, the only thing Prime Minister Harper has been good at of late is bribing Canadians with their own tax dollars, promising bigger tax cuts; tax cuts that will see more money flow mostly into the pockets of wealthy Canadians instead of into programs and initiatives that will give help to those who really need it. Universal prescription drug coverage? Affordable childcare? Dream on, Canada! Prime Minister Harper needs to feed his wealthy friends.
Justin Trudeau: The Little Boy Who Won't Grow Up
I want to be honest with everyone reading this. I hate the Liberal Party. I have for ages. Furthermore, I have never voted Liberal in any federal election and I don't know if I ever will, especially when the party is headed by a juvenile incompetent like Justin Trudeau. The current Liberal leader is essentially a wannabe. He seeks nothing more than to fill the shoes of his father, the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Personally, I think that if he didn't share his father's last name, he wouldn't even be on the map as far as Canada's political scene is concerned. Moreover, the only trait that Justin seems to have taken from his father is his arrogance. Yes, I believe that Justin is just as arrogant as his father was, if not more so. The big difference is that Pierre Trudeau actually had a vision for Canada, whereas his son Justin does not. Actually, having original ideas is very uncharacteristic of the federal Liberal Party outside of the Pierre Trudeau era. The federal Liberals have a history of stealing ideas from the New Democrats and Conservatives and winning election campaigns with them. So in a way, Justin Trudeau is the perfect leader for the Liberals. He is certainly not, however, a good candidate to be Prime Minister of this great country we call Canada.
Worst still, the young Trudeau knows nothing about what it takes to govern a country. He's never held a post in any government on any level. He can't even hack it as an ordinary Member of Parliament. If he could, he wouldn't have held the infamous distinction of having the worst attendance record of any MP. So inasmuch as you may be annoyed by those frequent Conservative ads saying that Justin Trudeau is "just not ready", the truth is that he isn't ready in any way, shape or form to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
Tom Mulcair: A Liberal Pretending to be a New Democrat?
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that NDP leader Tom Mulcair was actually a Liberal. Much to the chagrin of some NDP faithful, Mulcair is probably the most centrist of leaders in the history of the party. In fact, he used to be a Liberal, at least at the provincial level, having served as a member of Quebec's National Assembly since the mid-90's and eventually making his way into the provincial cabinet. He actually became a New Democrat less than ten years ago, winning a federal by-election in a Quebec riding in 2007. Now of course, it is certainly not uncommon for politicians to switch allegiances, but the question I have to ask is, does Mulcair actually believe in the traditional left-wing principles of the NDP, or is he just disguising himself, campaigning like a New Democrat, but planning on governing like a Liberal if he wins the election?
Pick Your Poison, Canada
Well, there you have it. We get to choose between an incumbent prime minister, who doesn't seem to care about anyone without deep pockets, an inexperienced young buck who is so bereft of ideas on how to run this country that he makes everything up on the fly, and a guy who wraps himself in NDP orange, perhaps only to cover up the Liberal red underneath. Isn't democracy great!?
And as if our electoral system doesn't make our elections unfair enough, the current government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed the rules so that this year's election might be the most unfair in Canada's recent history. For starters, the election campaign is a record eleven weeks long. Why does this matter? Because the Tories have more campaign funds than the Liberals and New Democrats combined, so they are much more capable of sustaining an effective, long-term campaign than their challengers. The Tories have also phased out the per-vote subsidy, public funds that were allocated to political parties based on the number of votes they garnered in the past election. This subsidy helped small parties like the Greens compete in an electoral system that heavily favours large parties with deep pockets. To make a long story short, the Conservatives have stacked the rules in their favour and made it a lot harder for the opposition parties to remove them from power, not to mention the fact that they've spent millions of our tax dollars on partisan government advertising that has essentially given them a giant head start over their challengers in winning the hearts and minds of Canadian voters. Still, the latest polls show a tight, three-way race between the main parties with many voters undecided, hence Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair, the leaders of the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats respectively, all have a chance to become Canada's next Prime Minister. So what do I have to say about these three uninspiring party leaders? Plenty, believe me.
Stephen Harper: The Increasingly Arrogant Incumbent
I have traditionally supported our current prime minister, especially in matters related to foreign policy. But over the last year or two, he's been trying my patience with his growing arrogance. He's been arrogant with our tax dollars, spending millions of them on partisan ads promoting his so-called Economic Action Plan. Some action plan, Mr. Prime Minister! You put all of Canada's eggs in one basket, relying solely on oil to fuel the country's economic growth. So now since the oil boom has become a bust, what's your plan for the future? I'm still waiting for an answer, and until I hear one, I'm going to assume that your arrogance has blinded you to the needs of anyone who lives and works outside of the oil patch.
Unfortunately, the only thing Prime Minister Harper has been good at of late is bribing Canadians with their own tax dollars, promising bigger tax cuts; tax cuts that will see more money flow mostly into the pockets of wealthy Canadians instead of into programs and initiatives that will give help to those who really need it. Universal prescription drug coverage? Affordable childcare? Dream on, Canada! Prime Minister Harper needs to feed his wealthy friends.
Justin Trudeau: The Little Boy Who Won't Grow Up
I want to be honest with everyone reading this. I hate the Liberal Party. I have for ages. Furthermore, I have never voted Liberal in any federal election and I don't know if I ever will, especially when the party is headed by a juvenile incompetent like Justin Trudeau. The current Liberal leader is essentially a wannabe. He seeks nothing more than to fill the shoes of his father, the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Personally, I think that if he didn't share his father's last name, he wouldn't even be on the map as far as Canada's political scene is concerned. Moreover, the only trait that Justin seems to have taken from his father is his arrogance. Yes, I believe that Justin is just as arrogant as his father was, if not more so. The big difference is that Pierre Trudeau actually had a vision for Canada, whereas his son Justin does not. Actually, having original ideas is very uncharacteristic of the federal Liberal Party outside of the Pierre Trudeau era. The federal Liberals have a history of stealing ideas from the New Democrats and Conservatives and winning election campaigns with them. So in a way, Justin Trudeau is the perfect leader for the Liberals. He is certainly not, however, a good candidate to be Prime Minister of this great country we call Canada.
Worst still, the young Trudeau knows nothing about what it takes to govern a country. He's never held a post in any government on any level. He can't even hack it as an ordinary Member of Parliament. If he could, he wouldn't have held the infamous distinction of having the worst attendance record of any MP. So inasmuch as you may be annoyed by those frequent Conservative ads saying that Justin Trudeau is "just not ready", the truth is that he isn't ready in any way, shape or form to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
Tom Mulcair: A Liberal Pretending to be a New Democrat?
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that NDP leader Tom Mulcair was actually a Liberal. Much to the chagrin of some NDP faithful, Mulcair is probably the most centrist of leaders in the history of the party. In fact, he used to be a Liberal, at least at the provincial level, having served as a member of Quebec's National Assembly since the mid-90's and eventually making his way into the provincial cabinet. He actually became a New Democrat less than ten years ago, winning a federal by-election in a Quebec riding in 2007. Now of course, it is certainly not uncommon for politicians to switch allegiances, but the question I have to ask is, does Mulcair actually believe in the traditional left-wing principles of the NDP, or is he just disguising himself, campaigning like a New Democrat, but planning on governing like a Liberal if he wins the election?
Pick Your Poison, Canada
Well, there you have it. We get to choose between an incumbent prime minister, who doesn't seem to care about anyone without deep pockets, an inexperienced young buck who is so bereft of ideas on how to run this country that he makes everything up on the fly, and a guy who wraps himself in NDP orange, perhaps only to cover up the Liberal red underneath. Isn't democracy great!?
Monday, July 20, 2015
Are Jews and Arabs Really So Different?
I think it's ironic that Jews and Arabs currently find themselves in such a divisive conflict, because the truth is that we're not that different from one another. In fact, we share several attributes in common, starting with our origins. For those of you who know your Bible, you're probably familiar with the story of Abraham, which is found in the Book of Genesis. Abraham is considered a patriarchal figure by both Jews and Arabs. Why? Because both Arabs and Jews are descendants of Abraham's offspring. The Arabs are the direct descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first born son. The Jews are the direct descendants of Jacob, whose father was Isaac, Abraham's second born son. Hence, the Jews and Arabs are cousins.
It is probably no coincidence then, that Jews and Arabs have similar languages. Any linguistics expert who is familiar with the languages of Africa and the Middle East will tell you that Hebrew and Arabic are both in the same family of languages - the Semitic family. And as someone who has studied both Hebrew and Arabic, I can tell you that the two languages are very often quite similar to each other. Many of the words are either the same or at least somewhat similar. I can still remember how much easier it was for me to learn Arabic than it was for the others I studied it with since I already had a working knowledge of Hebrew at the time. I also had a work colleague from Egypt who said that she took a Hebrew course and achieved a grade in the high 90s because, as she told me, the two languages are very similar and knowing one makes it a lot easier to learn the other. Those of you who have studied languages probably know that studying a new language is a whole lot easier if you already know a language of the same linguistic family.
So Jews and Arabs clearly have commonalities in both origins and language, but our similarities don't stop there. Jews and Arabs also share various cultural traits and values. For example, both Jews and Arabs in general have the frequent tendency to use hand gestures to communicate. This is a cultural trait that is common not just amongst Jews and Arabs, but amongst all Mediterranean cultures, including the Italians, Maltese and Greeks. Jews and Arabs also share another commonality with other Mediterranean cultures in that both peoples have a very special relationship with food. If you've ever been to a meal in a Jewish or Arab home, you'll understand what I mean. Indeed, if you do get the opportunity to be hosted by a Jewish or Arab family, you'll quickly find out that food is big part of our common tradition of hospitality. Now of course, being hospitable is not something distinct to Jews and Arabs, but I would say that the two peoples are more well-known for it than others. Jews and Arabs also both have a long tradition of being very family-oriented. I can tell you from personal experience that for many Jews and Arabs, the family is the number one priority.
The fact of the matter is that Jews and Arabs have more similarities than they do differences. Unfortunately, it is the differences between the two peoples that the Arab-Israeli conflict has magnified. These differences are mainly political, though there is one other important factor that has divided the children of Abraham: The fact that while the Arabs have remained in their homeland, we the Jews were largely exiled from ours for approximately two thousand years. Why is this important? Well, a lot can happen to a people when they are dispersed and largely absent from their original homeland for two millennia. One thing that happen was that the Jewish people, particularly those of us who lived in the Western world, went through cultural, linguistic and even racial changes. We were also exposed to modern, Western ideas that had largely not yet made their way to the Middle East. Hence, by the time we Jews began returning to the Land of Israel, we and our Arab cousins didn't recognize each other anymore. The Arabs looked at us and saw just another wave of European colonizers, while we looked at them and saw a primitive people who had no grasp of modern civilization as it was understood in the eyes of Europeans. So what should have been a joyful family reunion instead became the beginning of a long and bitter family feud - a feud that I hope will soon come to a peaceful end.
It is probably no coincidence then, that Jews and Arabs have similar languages. Any linguistics expert who is familiar with the languages of Africa and the Middle East will tell you that Hebrew and Arabic are both in the same family of languages - the Semitic family. And as someone who has studied both Hebrew and Arabic, I can tell you that the two languages are very often quite similar to each other. Many of the words are either the same or at least somewhat similar. I can still remember how much easier it was for me to learn Arabic than it was for the others I studied it with since I already had a working knowledge of Hebrew at the time. I also had a work colleague from Egypt who said that she took a Hebrew course and achieved a grade in the high 90s because, as she told me, the two languages are very similar and knowing one makes it a lot easier to learn the other. Those of you who have studied languages probably know that studying a new language is a whole lot easier if you already know a language of the same linguistic family.
So Jews and Arabs clearly have commonalities in both origins and language, but our similarities don't stop there. Jews and Arabs also share various cultural traits and values. For example, both Jews and Arabs in general have the frequent tendency to use hand gestures to communicate. This is a cultural trait that is common not just amongst Jews and Arabs, but amongst all Mediterranean cultures, including the Italians, Maltese and Greeks. Jews and Arabs also share another commonality with other Mediterranean cultures in that both peoples have a very special relationship with food. If you've ever been to a meal in a Jewish or Arab home, you'll understand what I mean. Indeed, if you do get the opportunity to be hosted by a Jewish or Arab family, you'll quickly find out that food is big part of our common tradition of hospitality. Now of course, being hospitable is not something distinct to Jews and Arabs, but I would say that the two peoples are more well-known for it than others. Jews and Arabs also both have a long tradition of being very family-oriented. I can tell you from personal experience that for many Jews and Arabs, the family is the number one priority.
The fact of the matter is that Jews and Arabs have more similarities than they do differences. Unfortunately, it is the differences between the two peoples that the Arab-Israeli conflict has magnified. These differences are mainly political, though there is one other important factor that has divided the children of Abraham: The fact that while the Arabs have remained in their homeland, we the Jews were largely exiled from ours for approximately two thousand years. Why is this important? Well, a lot can happen to a people when they are dispersed and largely absent from their original homeland for two millennia. One thing that happen was that the Jewish people, particularly those of us who lived in the Western world, went through cultural, linguistic and even racial changes. We were also exposed to modern, Western ideas that had largely not yet made their way to the Middle East. Hence, by the time we Jews began returning to the Land of Israel, we and our Arab cousins didn't recognize each other anymore. The Arabs looked at us and saw just another wave of European colonizers, while we looked at them and saw a primitive people who had no grasp of modern civilization as it was understood in the eyes of Europeans. So what should have been a joyful family reunion instead became the beginning of a long and bitter family feud - a feud that I hope will soon come to a peaceful end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)