Heritage Site Jeopardized by Big-Box Retailer

The John Street Roundhouse, a beautifully restored heritage site in Toronto's vibrant downtown core, and once home to the steam engines that helped to build our nation, is about to become the newest location of a Leon's discount furniture outlet.

The current tenant of the Roundhouse is Steam Whistle Brewing, a family-run business that thrives on cultural, social and environmental responsibility, funding literally hundreds of events and organizations each year, opening their doors to charities and functions, and keeping the historic nature of their home intact, all while brewing a quality pilsner that Canadians can be proud of (and Canadians appreciate their beer!)

Cam Heaps, co-founder and President of Steam Whistle Brewing, summed it up nicely when he said, "I think the difference is (Steam Whistle) has an art gallery, an event space that supports over 100 charities a year, a tour facility open to the public to highlight the history of the building and the history of making beer... Walking through and looking at dinettes and leather couches is a very different type of concept."

But it seems that those with concerns for Toronto's heritage and the importance of culture over big-box retail, are left without a voice. Now, anyone who has visited this site before is likely more than aware of my stance as a flaming socialist. So when it was brought to my attention that the Roundhouse is not only owned by the city, but that the city’s Cultural Division supports Leon’s, you can imagine my dismay. I’ve written at length of the tragic circumstances that place all social responsibility in the hands of the private sector, when it’s our cities, provinces, and federal government that should be protecting the things that matter – oftentimes, the less lucrative things, like a heritage site nestled between the Gardiner Expressway, Rogers Centre and C.N. Tower. As it stands now, the plans for Leon’s are going ahead, with full support from the municipal government and applicable divisions. And the argument seems to be that Leon’s wants to remake their image as socially conscious by putting money into the site itself… a means to an end? I’d support them if they simply wanted to donate the necessary funds and then use that little piece of philanthropy in their next TV commercial, but the day that one of Toronto’s foremost historic sites sports a Leon’s logo and teems over with mass produced furniture at discounted rates, is a very sad day indeed.

Leon’s website boasts entire paragraphs declaring their proud position as the “first example of big-box retailing in the country”, and speaks of the capitalist “logic” of placing locations in small towns, since their Wal-Mart-esque consolidation quickly annihilated every business in its path. They even include the sickeningly self-righteous subheading “The Answer for Small Towns”.

I’m encouraged by the fact that the phones at Steam Whistle are ringing off the hook with concerned individuals wondering what they’re going to do to stop this. And plans are in the works for a host of activist measures as the momentum builds and truly local, culturally sensitive organizations join together to take a stand against corporate greed.


For more information on how to join this fight, either return to this site, visit http://www.friendsoftheroundhouse.ca/, join our facebook group "LEON'S in the Roundhouse - Say NO to big-box retail in a heritage site!" or email savetheroundhouse@steamwhistle.ca

Updates:

7/18: BIG UPDATE! On Monday, July 16, Steam Whistle President Cam Heaps delivered the Roundhouse Rail Museum Proposal to City Council. In response to it and Councillor Vaughan's Motion M88 (found here) City Council VOTED IN FAVOUR of putting a stop to the Leon's agreement and considering Steam Whistle's proposal. Of course it wasn't long before threats of a lawsuit began to come in, resulting in a re-vote later this week. This will be preceded by an open debate at 2pm today, Wednesday, July 18! Stay tuned!!!

7/09: There's a Press Conference coming up this Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 9:30am outside the Roundhouse, where the leaders of businesses in the area will be convening to voice their concerns to the media. This conference is open to the public to attend, so if any of you are interested in joining us, I invite you to the Roundhouse at 9:30am on Wednesday!
This is a huge step in garnering support for our cause, and further proof that nothing has been carved in stone - the fight isn't over yet! Keep checking back (or visit www.friendsoftheroundhouse.ca) for updates.

7/02: http://www.friendsoftheroundhouse.ca/ is live!

6/25: Tune in to CP24 on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 @ 9pm to hear City Councillor Adam Vaughan discuss this issue!

Links:

Leon’s Corporate Site

The Star Article

Steam Whistle Brewing

Friends of the Roundhouse

Finals: Week 1

Well, today was the first day of finals - we'll definitely be back @ the beginning of May. Here's a little gift to keep you going:

Marketing Neo-Conservativism in Universities

For those readers who haven't noticed, we've taken a bit of a hiatus as Tim, Max and I suffer through exams, but I wanted to briefly share with you a topic of incredible concern to me before I return to writing an essay on the what a couple of dead theorists WOULD have thought of the Internet had they been alive...

I just returned home from my Monday night Intro to Marketing course, completely horrified. The professor has had a knack for making ridiculously ignorant comments throughout the semester, but for the most part has been excused with assumptions like "well, he's kind of old" or "maybe he doesn't watch the news". But tonight went too far.

It began with his statement:
"I have to say, this global warming thing doesn't sound quite right to me."

I look up, distracted from rolling up my rim (I'm Canadian), immediately on the defense but making a distinct effort to hear him out regardless.

He continues, and I'm not even joking:
"The Earth's really big. If you ask me, what's heating it up is the sun!"

I turn to the guy beside me and say in a stunning display of my own intelligence:
"What the fuck?!"

But the professor goes on:
"And why do they call it Greenland? When the Vikings first arrived, it was green, and they planted things, and called it Greenland. That says to me that at one point the Earth was a lot warmer than it is now."

At this point I'm taking deep breaths and the guy beside me is squeezing my hand.

"Besides," concludes the professor, "we're Canadian... it's cold here. If we cut back our energy usage, we'll freeze. What, do they want us to go back to dogsleds?" He laughs at his hilarious comment. "It's just not practical."

This man is teaching tomorrow's leaders. Tomorrow's business men. Tomorrow's MARKETERS, and we certainly don't require further proof of the influence marketing has on society. The class has 200 students, and he teaches 4 other sections with goodness knows how many more students in each. To make matters worse, he's been teaching the course for some 20 years.

And the madness didn't stop there. We were next shown a series of billboard ads for a workboot company, featuring attractive female models in sexy lingerie wearing workboots and holding powertools in suggestive poses. He then showed a clip from a CBC report on the women who were offended and their success in having the billboards removed. I, like an idiot, am thinking "oh okay, finally he'll influence these future marketers for the better and maybe do some good in terms of the objectification of women." But no.

He explains his point:
"By putting these ads on billboards where anyone could see them, this company missed their target audience. People were angry, and the result was negative publicity for the organization. These types of ads should be strategically placed in men's magazines, etc. where they will not be seen by women who'll take offence."

Just before I began to pack up my things to leave in a fury, he made a comment regarding taxes on SUV's and other larger vehicles, claiming it doesn't make any sense for the Canadian government to harm the automotive industry just for the sake of the environment.
"The last time I checked, the only fuel efficient car manufactured in Ontario was the Toyota Corolla. So should the government penalize the entire industry? I don't think so." What!?

And to top it off, a final comment that I plan, for my own sanity's sake, to place in the "maybe he doesn't watch the news" category:
"How will pet food manufacturers market their organizations as trustworthy ever again? Did you hear about what happened? Completely innocently, they had rat poison in their warehouses that got into the pet food, and is now killing pets!" Click here or here if you'd like to join me in wondering where the hell he came up with that.

It was time to go.

This man has a responsibility to the future. He is an educator, and more importantly, an educator of one of our culture's most influential (not to mention harmful!) industries. It is not a secret to anyone reading this (way to preach to the choir, I know) that advertising is the root of much of Western society's ailments. Ask Noam Chomsky, or Sut Jhally, or read a little Marshall McLuhan. And this professor, unlike many of us, is actually in a position to do some good. But instead, he promotes a neo-conservative free market capitalist agenda to the world's future business leaders, claiming that global warming is junk science, and what those crazy feminists don't know can't hurt them.

How do you fix this?

Immortality Is...

...not, contrary to popular belief, living eternally. Nay, immortality is being immortalized in memory, be it a person’s or society’s, for all eternity. We, as humans, focus upon the wrong thing, the concept of living forever. We instead should focus upon that quest for pure memory, for existing beyond our years as an idolized and idealized version of ourselves, hoisted up in memory for deeds both great and horrific.

“Who has achieved immortality?” you may ask. Many a great people, who started out humble and meek, rose to greatness and achieved a power greater than any single man should ever possess. Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Robert LeRoy Parker, Guy Fawkes, Mary Tudor, Mary Magdalene, Mother Teresa and a host of other men and women have achieved this grand dream, the dream of perpetual existence. Tyrant or saint, queen or libertarian, butcher or savior, they are known for deeds tremendous in scope and terrifying in reality. We remember them as men and women who have achieved great or monstrous deeds, but what of the true man or woman behind the veil?

Do not remember these people for the events they perpetuated; instead, remember them for why they perpetuated these events, why they were the one remembered.

(This is a short vignette on remembrance as a response to Saint Patrick's Day. Remember his for what he did, not for being Irish. Remember his day not as a day of drinking and merriment but as a day of dreams and victory.)

The U.S. Media and Hugo Chavez

CLICK to hear a discussion of this post on Australia's #1 Podcast "G'Day World"

In December 1998, a new President was democratically elected to lead the Republic of Venezuela, one of the United States’ leading suppliers of oil (1). Hugo Chávez, a left wing, ex-coup leader with an open, unapologetic distaste for U.S. foreign policy and a determination to give his own country’s government a complete overhaul, was immediately portrayed by the mainstream U.S. media as a threat. It’s no secret that socialist and third world countries are consistently given a bad name by the American press, but the case of Venezuela has been one of constant personal attack on the President himself. Since December 1998, the media has been used consistently as a method of antagonizing Chávez, employing tactics that promote a culture of negativity toward him amongst the American people. Now one could argue that things are bit different now - Hugo and President Bush have been touring concurrently through Latin American countries, and while the fiery Venezuelan has been met with open arms, Bush has been welcomed at every stop with fierce demonstrations and burning effigies. What I want to look at here, though, is the context that coverage of this situation has been built within. Bush may have low approval ratings, etc. but anyone following the relationship between Bush and Chavez via the mainstream media will not be looking at the most recent events with a fresh mind. We’re going to do a little case study, primarily referring to the New York Times, and take a look at three of the tactics the press has used to make sure that any coverage of Chavez whatsoever is positioned in a negative way. This may seem obvious to Frigidspeak readers, (what? the media is biased? gasp!) but even if I’m preaching to the choir, I think an explicit investigation plays an important role in spreading some kind of media literacy about these issues. So to go about this essay stylz, the three tactics we’re going to analyze are: labeling, the placing of blame, and the use of traditional American values to promote anti-Chávez ideals.

Labels

President Chávez has been described by the U.S. media under a number of labels, and few of them complimentary. The first example is one employed at the beginning of this post, namely, his identity as the leader of a failed coup-attempt in 1992, resulting in his imprisonment. Despite having returned in 1998 to win the presidency by legitimate, democratic means, the American people are constantly reminded of this piece of his past in a derogatory way, seeming to suggest he is unfit for leadership because of it; an ex-convict, by American standards. From the New York Times front page headline announcing his initial election victory, “Venezuelans Elect An Ex-Coup Leader As Their President”(2) to an article over two years later regarding changes he’s making in the school system, where he’s described in the first paragraph as “a leftist 46-year-old former army colonel who once led an unsuccessful coup attempt”(3), and countless examples in between, this label repeatedly establishes the context within which the American audience is lead to evaluate President Chávez. Granted, this association is arguably subtle, as there are no examples to cite of explicit references to the disparaging implications of being an ex-coup leader. Though it may also be said that it is exactly this subtlety that is so easily overlooked and therefore effective in shaping public opinion, President Chávez is also consistently referred to as a dictator, despite his unmistakable position as a democratically elected leader. This seemed to begin in 1999 when Chávez introduced his new Bolivarian Constitution (4), containing a complete reworking of Venezuela’s previous charter. The day of the vote, the New York Times ran a story on page A3 stating that:

“Venezuela has the chance…to accelerate what its president…terms a ‘peaceful revolution’ or to reject what his opponents say would be a constitutional dictatorship befiting Mr. Chavez at the expense of the millions of poor citizens he says he represents (5). Rarely has a political fight divided this country, the world’s third largest oil exporter and major supplier to the United States, with such passion and invective” (6).

Having presented Chávez’s opponents as equal in number to his allies, the next day’s follow up story relating the vote’s actual outcome was far more humble. Tucked away on page A11 under the obstinate headline “Venezuelans Give Chávez All The Powers He Wanted”, reporter Larry Rohter writes: “Brushing aside predictions by the opposition that Mr. Chávez would use the new charter to give himself near-dictatorial powers, 71% of voters cast their ballots for the new Constitution”(7). This label becomes increasingly casual, particularly in the weeks leading up to his own remarkably temporary removal from power when his leadership is referred to as a “combative brand of left-wing authoritarianism”(8), his potential resignation a “choice between democracy and dictatorship”(9) and his time in power the “turbulent three-year reign of a mercurial strongman”(10).

In addition to being labeled an ex-convict and dictator, associations are constantly made between Hugo Chávez and Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, (who’s getting better!). Never explicitly referring to Chávez as a communist, it seems enough to discredit him as being labeled a friend and associate of Cuba, a nation whose politics have lead the United States to enforce a four decade-long trade embargo(11). This label was established as early as the day before Chávez was even elected, when he was cited as having "visited Cuba and praised President Fidel Castro and ‘the Cuban way’" (12). To question the validity of his Bolivarian Constitution, Larry Rohter wrote in his December 15, 1999 article: “’I feel happy to follow the path of Fidel,’ [Chávez] said during a state visit to Havana last month, adding that Venezuela was swimming ‘toward the same sea as the Cuban people,’ which he described as ‘a sea of happiness, social justice and true peace’"(13). He is spoken of as “strengthening ties with American antagonists like Fidel Castro”(14) and in the midst of his being temporarily overthrown, it is stated that “President Fidel Castro and Mr. Chávez had formed a close friendship”(15). This label ties in closely with a commonly accepted explanation of media bias: Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model as discussed in their book Manufacturing Consent.(16). The fifth of five filters within this model is anti-communism, or as David Cromwell explains when updating the filter to the context of our times, “’the enemy’ or an ‘evil dictator’”(17). It is herein argued that the media employs the tactic of creating or emphasizing an evil dictator - all the more applicable to associate him with an actual communist - who is then “useful, essential even, in justifying strategic geopolitical maneuvering and the defense of corporate interests around the world, while mollifying home-based critics of such behaviour” (Cromwell). This is further proof that the labeling of Chávez is hardly beyond the usual methods of the mainstream U.S. media, yet his being referred to as a communist-friendly, dictatorial ex-convict is not the only tactic employed to advance the American people’s culture of negativity toward him.

Blame

Any reference made to the actual relations between the United States and Venezuela places the latter in an explicitly antagonistic role. Hugo Chávez in particular is blamed for any animosity between the two countries, as the media consistently portrays the U.S. as making every possible effort to maintain a good relationship. The coverage of President George W. Bush’s first summit in Montreal included a list of the obstacles impeding his ability to effectively negotiate with Latin America, emphasizing the fact that “Venezuela refused to accept the schedule for putting the hemispheric trade pact into operation”(18) without offering any of Venezuela’s justifications for doing so. A month later, Chávez, “an ardent nationalist…irritated American officials by refusing to allow their anti-narcotics flights to overfly his nation”(19) and later that year “annoyed Washington with his leftist pronouncements and reservations about American military aid to fight the war against drugs in Colombia,” effectively “test[ing] the limits of US tolerance”(20). Four days later, and a mere six months before President Chávez is forced temporarily from power, “his displays of friendship with leaders like Presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba and Saddam Hussein of Iraq…also irritated the United States, though American policy toward Venezuela remains one of engagement, rather than exclusion”(21). Though this coverage seems overt in its bias, it is arguably the language itself and not only the message conveyed that is of the most concern. Words like ‘irritate’, ‘annoy’, ‘refuse’, and the idea of ‘testing the limits of one’s tolerance’, when combined, speak explicitly to the notion of an impudent child misbehaving, ignoring the rules established for its own good by an older, wiser, ‘tolerant’ authority figure. Venezuela may be young in it’s history of democracy, but this case of one political leader expressing their disagreement with the policies of another is portrayed by the U.S. media instead, as a headstrong dictator needlessly serving as a thorn in the United States’ proverbial side. Rather than explain the alternative viewpoints of each side, Hugo Chávez is described as “eager to drive a wedge between the United States and Latin America”(22) regardless of any attempts reportedly made by President Bush to the contrary.

All-American Values:

Robert A. Hackett said of foreign news coverage in the Canadian Journal of Political Science that it “reflects Western biases by emphasizing ‘coups and catastrophes and other sensational and stereotyped depictions’ rather than positive and long-term achievements”(23). David L. Altheide took this claim a step further in the Public Opinion Quarterly, saying that “news organizations present negative and critical images of other countries because of procedures and guidelines awash in ideological interests compatible with Western values and policies”(24). One of the most effective ways the media can promote negativity toward Venezuela and its President is through the use of these ‘ideological interests’. Positioning Chávez as anti-democracy, or threatening to the American ‘way of life’ allowed by Venezuela’s oil exports, effectively establishes a context within which the American people approach the entire situation - one of patriotism and camaraderie against a perceived common enemy. When other methods fail, the media turn to pre-established American values, aligning Chávez with the likes of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein (25). Two days before Chávez’s removal, the front page of the New York Times proclaimed “Mideast and Venezuela Turmoil Sends Oil Prices into Wild Swing”(26), explicitly blaming Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chávez for the high gas prices plaguing innocent Americans. Perhaps the most ironic article was one entitled “Latin America’s Muzzled Press”, placing Chávez as anti-freedom of speech, claiming that “he routinely launches into diatribes against the press, and his followers have physically attacked media outlets”(27). Hackett speaks of “US patterns of foreign coverage (such as a sensitivity to perceived threats to US interests or a bipolar Cold War view of the world which may ignore or distort the specificity of Third World problems”, all of which seem to culminate in one statement made by Pat Robinson on his delightful Fox News show The 700 Club in reference to Hugo Chávez’s assassination:

“I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger…controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another 200-billion-dollar war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with”(28).

Clearly this is ridiculous. But you have to recognize that as much as we make fun of Fox News, in many parts of the United States, it’s actually a trusted, mainstream news source. Regardless of the success of spreading such an absurd viewpoint, this serves as an example of just how President Hugo Chávez is being portrayed.

Now next week I’m planning to write about public broadcasting in Canada, particularly the role of the CBC, and my beloved George Stroumboulopoulos. As a little teaser, if you will, his coverage on The Hour of Chavez was presented in the form of a list, The Top 5 Reasons Bush Hates Chavez. Long live alternative media and publicly funded broadcasting, the benefits and perspectives of which we’ll take a closer look at next week.

Endnotes

(1) Rohter, Larry. “U.S., Irritated by Criticism, Calls Envoy Home From Venezuela.” New York Times 3 Nov 2001: A4
(2) Rohter, Larry. “Venezuelans Elect An Ex-Coup Leader As Their President”. New York Times 7 Dec 1998: A1
(3) Rohter, Larry. “Venezuela Leader Broadens Focus on Reshaping Schools”. New York Times 7 May 2001: A4
(4) Bolivarian Constitution. 2006. Embassy of Venezuela in the United States. 16 October 2006. http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm
(5) emphasis added
(6) Rohter, Larry. “A Divided Venezuela Votes on New Charter Today”. New York Times 15 Dec 1999: A3
(7) Rohter, Larry. “Venezuelans Give Chávez All The Powers He Wanted”. New York Times. 16 Dec 1999: A11
(8) “Latin America’s Muzzled Press”. New York Times. 4 Apr 2002: A22
(9) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Woes Worsen as State Oil Company Calls Strike”. New York Times. 9 Apr 2002: A3
(10) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela’s Chief Forced to Resign; Civilian Installed”. New York Times. 13 Apr 2002: A1
(11) Cuba and the United States. 2006. PBS NewsHour. 18 October 2006. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/cuba/index.html
(12) Schemo, Diana Jean. “Renegade Officer Favoured in Venezuelan Election”. New York Times. 6 Dec 1998: A4
(13) Rohter, Larry. “A Divided Venezuela Votes on New Charter Today”. New York Times 15 Dec 1999: A3
(14) Rohter, Larry. “U.S., Irritated by Criticism, Calls Envoy Home From Venezuela.” New York Times 3 Nov 2001: A4
(15) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela’s Chief Forced to Resign; Civilian Installed”. New York Times. 13 Apr 2002: A1
(16) Herman, Edward S, and Chomsky, Noam. “Manufacturing Consent”. New York: Pantheon, 2002.
(17) Cromwell, David. The Propaganda Model: An Overview. 2002. Chomsky.Info. 14 October 2006. http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm.
(18) DePalma, Anthony. “Talks Tie Trade in the Americas to Democracy”. New York Times. 23 Apr 2001: A1
(19) Marquis, Christopher. “New Drug Plan Shifts Focus in Latin America”. New York Times. 17 May 2001: A12
(20) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Doesn’t See ‘Carlos’ as a Terrorist”. New York Times. 13 Oct 2001: A5
(21) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Waits for ‘Revolution’ to Bear Fruit”. New York Times. 17 Oct 2001: A3
(22) “Mr. Bush Looks South”. New York Times. 23 Mar 2002: A16
(23) Hackett, Robert A. “Coups, Earthquakes and Hostages? Foreign News on Canadian Television”. Canadian Journal of Political Science 22.4 (1989): 809-825
(24) Altheide, David L. “Media Hegemony: A Failure of Perspective.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 48. 2 (1984): 476-490
(25) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Waits for ‘Revolution’ to Bear Fruit”. New York Times. 17 Oct 2001: A3
(26) Banerjee, Neela. “Mideast and Venezuela Turmoil Sends Oil Prices Into Wild Swing.” New York Times. 9 Apr 2002: A1
(27) “Latin America’s Muzzled Press”. New York Times. 4 Apr 2002: A22
(28) Pat Robinson Clarifies His Statement Regarding Hugo Chavez. 24 Aug 2005. Pat Robinson. 12 Oct 2006. http://www.patrobertson.com/pressreleases/hugochavez.asp.

Why Blame Marijuana?

I visited cnn.com today and noticed a report on marijuana smugglers in the States. I know that the laws in the states for marijuana smuggling or even possession have greater penalties than they do here in Canada. This report was more about what state would prosecute these “felons” but they also mentioned that there was a definite War on Drugs. To prove a point I want to switch focus for a bit, so let’s talk about cigarettes for a minute. Scientists and doctors denied the fact that cigarettes cause cancer and so of course the entire world believed them and kept on lighting up. The government was happy because they could make money off of cigarettes easily and so they kept cigarettes in process despite their proven deadly contents.

Now let’s look at marijuana. It doesn’t kill. When a person smokes marijuana the THC resin does not stay in their lungs. Marijuana actually raises a person’s metabolism granted that the munchies do not get the better of them. I also began to think of those anti-marijuana ads that have been on TV more so in the last couple of years. One in particular involves a guy who is smoking a joint and whilst doing this, he forgets to pick up his little brother from soccer practice. I hate these commercials for one very good reason. The marijuana is not the culprit in this case, it is the guy’s lack of complete and utter responsibility. If you have “shit to do” then DON’T SMOKE UP. It’s simple, and you can’t blame the drug, you blame the person who is stupid enough to get high before he has to do important errands. Think of it this way: if that same guy in the commercial was an alcoholic and got completely smashed before he had to go pick up his little brother from soccer practice, people wouldn’t blame his lack of responsibility on the alcohol would they? They will blame the person, “poor Billy Joe is an alcoholic” so why do we blame marijuana?

So why can’t the government and some anti-marijuana individuals think of marijuana in the same way? I would think it would be a no brainer and I consider marijuana right up there in the same category with alcohol consumption. It lowers your inhibitions to properly function depending on how much is consumed of either alcohol or marijuana. I know some will argue that marijuana isn’t legalized because you can’t test for the presence of THC in the body. I did hear somewhere that they can quickly swab the underarm of a person which can excrete THC. Some would also say that marijuana is bad just because the government hasn’t legalized it at all; people like to trust the government. But think about this: I’m sure all those drugs that you see advertised on television for allergies & bladder control have MANY more effects than marijuana, but people take those pills and some of them have been recalled due to adverse effects to the body, including death. People do this because the ole mighty trusting government says it’s ok. Hmmm...

If the government legalizes marijuana they won’t be able to make an ample amount of money from it because people can just grow it themselves. They would actually lose money because they would have to shell out the big bucks in order to create a plan of action of how they can test a person who is under the suspicion of being high if they are say, driving a car for example. In Max’s opinion, I’d rather have the money go towards that than to the “war on terror”.



References:

CNN Marijuana threshold?
http://edition.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/03/14/lavandera.catch.and.release.cnn

School vs. Max

Hi everyone, I regret to inform you that my post for this week will be late. With school getting very busy it's difficult for me to write an article. But do not fret! I promise you all I will be writting once again! As for now, hope all is well, and keep on checking in!

Max

Call to Arms: Identifying Class

I was travelling by train today as a Via Rail first class passenger where I found a distinct separation of class. Not actively so, where people actively disdained those of lower class, but passively making the lives of the lower class uncomfortable. For example, Union Station in Toronto has a separate lounge for 1st class passengers that has comfortable seating, free refreshments, and desks from which you can work while you wait for your train. What do Economy passengers get? A standing line where you could be waiting for several hours until your train is boarding. Quite unfair, I think. Also, free alcohol, high quality dinners, comfortable seating, and larger than average washrooms await your pleasure in first class. Now, if I can enjoy the perks of being first class, why should I be complaining, or even finding fault? Why not just enjoy my perks in silence? Because I have a roommate who does not have these accomodations, and there are many people who will only dream of being able to travel in such splendour. Why should they be subjugated to lesser travel accomodations just because they paid less?

You may say, "Because you paid more, you should get more." You may also say, "Executives deserve to be different from the rest." But both those statements, and many more similar to them, are products of the poorly designed system. Company executives are still people, no different than the high school teacher who taught you History (I was visiting my old high school, where my History teacher stopped me to talk for several painfully slow minutes, so forgive me) or the taxi driver who brings you to and from the train station, so why should they get any more special treatment because they have money? Oh right, "Because you paid more, you should get more." How about give the service, and the same price, to everybody? Exclusion is only the start of revolution, and the more you exclude, the more dangerous the revolution becomes. This brings me to the state of scoiety today: a society that has no more equality than Victorian England and no more fairness than Caesarian Rome, we've just given it a different name.

Capitalism. Free market economy. Independent wealth. These terms come up often enough when we consider society and who is running it. In order to be considered successful, you need to earn money. In order to earn money, you have to participate in the free market economy and compete. In order to compete and win in order to be considered successful, you need to be independently wealthy. Hmm...something doesn't seem right here. You need to have money to make money to be considered successful. This doesn't seem...oh, what is that term, oh, right...sane. It also means that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer just like every society of the past 2000 years. Capitalism, and a democracy run by capitalism, is only another name for an autocracy who reside at the top of the economic scale.
Doubtful is the nature of classes going to change; most likely it will be the method in which we define the class structure that changes; however, the more people who can see the class structure the more likely revolution will occur and the sooner we may be able to leave our greedy humanistic natures behind.

This is the first of several articles entitled "Call to Arms". These are published on the first Sunday (or Monday, as the case may be) and deal with the identification of the class system in today's society.

(I apologize for the late article - the server is having issues...thanks for your patience)

Go Green or Go Home

I visited Foxnews.com yesterday and discovered an alarming news video. It was entitled, Not-So-Green Gore? I watched the whole video through, and really listened to what the right-winged news station had to say. Almost immediately my “Bullshit Alarm” went off. John Gibson’s “The Big Story” segment of Fox News is claiming that at Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion consumes twenty times as much energy in a year than an average American household does in one year. Fox News is known for its right-wing agenda and I’m not surprised that they decided to bash Gore. Right off the bat, he is a prime target for scrutiny and anything Gore does environmentally will be under inquiry. You don’t see Fox News going in depth into the Bush Administration asking any questions about his War in the East do you?

The choice of words that Gibson uses in this segment is astonishing as well. He says that Gore wants people to hop on his “Green Band Wagon”. Using these words is showing the viewers that this is just a trend and it if you do not go green then it's not a big deal. It’s like saying, “Hop on the blonde hair band wagon”, or “Hop on the Doritos band wagon” With those simple words they trivialized Gore’s hard work on the global warming crisis.

Gibson asks the question, “What is Gore doing to make a different, apparently he talks a lot.” The following will be dripping with sarcasm: Um…Hello? I think Gore created this documentary, I think it was about Global Warming. I do also remember hearing somewhere that he travels all over the world to give his lecture about the crisis of global warming. You can’t tell me that Gore isn’t doing anything to make a difference, the very fact that you’re talking about him is because of the documentary, so Gibson, you’ve heard of it?

Next Gibson introduces Drew Johnson the president of the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research. Gibson asks him to explain the allegations against Gore. Johnson does not talk about anything else but the fact that Gore uses twenty times as much energy as an average household does in a year and that Gore is a hypocrite. Near the end of the segment between Johnson and Gibson:

Gibson: Is there something Green that Gore is doing that you and I are not discussing?

Johnson: Not that I can see.

Are you kidding me? Again, they are assuming that Gore has all this knowledge about how to reduce carbon emissions and you act like he does not do them. Johnson and Gibson are muddling the facts, what is an average household anyways? Because of Gore I know about the global warming crisis and now so do billions of people all over the world. Again I ask, is that not being green? You can’t tell me that that’s not green enough for ya Gibson.

Johnson then mentions Gore’s carbon credits are, “a way for him to buy his way out of his own guilt”. In response to this Gore brought on Laura Swartz, a democratic strategist. She explains exactly what Gore does, he calculates carbon footprint which means how much carbon his house emits, and offset the rest that can’t be cut back, because not everything can be. It’s not electricity, it’s CARBON EMMISIONS. Swartz explains it, and Johnson just ends the segments by saying that he has to look up what she just told him. Basically, Gore is doing everything he can, and they were just stooped.

Max’s Final Thought

Why does Fox need to bash Gore personally? Does this prove that global warming isn’t happening? Does this mean that the ice caps won’t melt and that we should all buy Hummers? If what Gibson is accusing Gore of is in fact is true, and Gore does emit a ton of carbon emission into the atmosphere (which in fact Fox News did NOT prove, but we’ll use this argument to make a point) does this mean that we could just forget about the problem of global warming and just sit back, relax and wait for the earth to warm up? Does this mean that all the hard work Gore has done for this cause should go unwarranted because John Gibson claims that Gore is a hypocrite? No, Fox News has proved nothing of the sort; Gibson actually accused Gore of something that he in fact did not even understand.

Gibson would do better to take a good look at the wonderful job Bush is doing to save the world and comment on that, because isn’t Bush using troops for his own fight for oil or something like that? John Gibson and Drew Johnson should watch Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and then make sure that they understand what carbon is before they try to bash the man who is undoubtedly trying to save the world.

References:

Fox News: John Gibson’s “The Big Story”
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?022707/022707_big_gore2&Big_Story&Not-So-Green%20Gore%3F&acc&Politics&-1&News&387&&&new

BSODed destroyers?

So I found some interesting news today: Microsoft is now entering military service. "Windows for Warships", they call this initiative. "Suicide for Suckers", is what I say. By and large most users, including myself, have suffered from the infinitely dreadful Blue Screen of Death, and/or a malware attack. What would happen, if say a Type-45 warship (a British air-defence surface ship) failed to destroy a surface-skimming missile? BOOM. Personally, I don't think I would like that to happen. So why would the British government sign off on this?

I sat back and thought about installing Windows on Navy vessels. An unsecured operating environment installed on the networked command system of a several hundred ton destroyer intended to protect British fleets and land from low-flying, supersonic missiles. Not too sure about that decision. Actually, two pieces of fictionalized media came to my mind: the first is Battlestar Galactica and how the Cylons attacked the Colonies and second is this joke at spacebattles.com. General consensus is that there are inherent dangers to networked computers and to Windows-based computers and these dangers multiply hundred-fold when attributed to the military. There obviously is a benefit to the use of higher-tech computers and operating systems in military craft, especially when the current technology resembles hardware that existed since the 70s or 80s; however, when it comes to computers, networks, and operating systems, the military should go completely proprietary. Less access to the software and network means less likely to hack into the system and cause an issue - this is one of those basic tenets system administrators hold dear.

I frankly believe it was a silly decision to go with Windows as the operating system of choice and it will probably end badly, cost taxpayers a lot of money, and result in turnover at the top of the military organizational hierarchy but at least they'll have learned their lesson. Hopefully this does not become a precedent for all military forces to follow and definitely let us hope that they never Blue Screen of Death (or need an upgrade).

Harper's True Colours

Stephen Harper did a bad thing.

Now don’t say “what else is new?” because we have to be fair to our conservative readers. I want to establish from the outset that my intention is not to attack all of our Blue friends’ ideas, and though I tend to refer to the NDP leader as “Buddy Jack” and Mr. Dion as “My Hero”, I actually know a number of conservative voters who I’m more than willing to speak with on a daily basis. Mr. Harper himself, however, is fair game, particularly after yesterday’s question period.

I will divulge that I’m a native of Mississauga. And my MP WAS Wajid Khan. I hold him forever in past tense simply because he’s a soulless floor crosser and a waste of my vote. Granted, I voted in Windsor this past election and I voted NDP (I like to feel like a winner) but had I been home, I would have voted for this Khan fellow, and he betrayed what could have been.

Now Harper’s after another Mississauga MP, only this time, instead of stealing him, he’s decided to resort to the most horrifically juvenile character assault imaginable. It’s even better than those absurd election campaign-stylz attack ads he has out against My Hero. See, Liberal MP Navdeep Singh Bains, representing Mississauga-Brampton South, was mentioned in the Vancouver Sun recently, as apparently his father-in-law was “allegedly interviewed in connection with the Air India bombing case” (CBC). For those of you who don’t remember, or who, like me, were barely a year old at the time, the Air India bombing took place in 1985 and killed 329 people.

The extent of it is that (bear with me…) “Bains's father-in-law told the RCMP he had met a man who was later convicted of shooting a potential witness in the Air India trial. He also allegedly said he met with Ajaib Singh Bagri, who was later acquitted in the Air India bombing” (CBC). That’s a couple too many “potential”s and “allegedly”s for me.

However, it was enough that during yesterday’s question period, while accusing the Liberals of being in opposition to police officer’s having a voice in judiciary decisions, Harper commented that he was "not surprised, given what I'm reading in the Vancouver Sun today when I read this is how the Liberal party makes decisions." As he began to mention our Liberal MP, the rest of our heroes in Red began to shout and bang on their desks (always a strong choice in politics) until finally the House Speaker stopped the questioning altogether. Bain sat quietly with his head down.

So let’s recap. The schoolyard bully (tubby kid, beady eyes - you know the type) made fun of the brown kid’s dad. A fight broke out, during which the kid who’d been made fun of slinked off while his buddies fought the bully, until the teacher came out and none of them were allowed to play anymore.

Here’s the best part: When the bully was told to apologize to the brown kid, he refused, saying that he didn’t even do anything wrong because all the Liberals, sorry, the brown kid’s friends, started shouting for no reason before he’d even said anything.

I am certainly not suggesting that schoolyard antics are anything new in our esteemed House of Commons. Indeed, these kinds of eruptions are a little more than ocassional. But I have to say, Harper’s getting pretty damn desperate. The attack ads were one thing, but to harp (no pun intended) on the family history of one MP, and in dangerous fashion due to his clear position as an ethnic minority, is something else entirely. He accused the MP with a turban of having a family of terrorists!

CTV covered the incident as well, but with far less emphasis on Harper’s display of character and more on the political issues he tried to use this information to gain leverage on. A quote from Liberal Ralph Goodale explained that Harper was implying “that somehow the decision-making process within the Liberal Party is shaped by some family connection on this very serious issue on what is the right security law for Canada” (CTV).

Why does this feel like an election campaign? Can we have another election? Please?

And meanwhile, Buddy Jack continues to divide his time between his lonely quest to abolish ABM fees and guest starring on Canadian comedy programs with the likes of Sabrina Jalees.

Not that she isn’t funny, but c’mon Jack, we’re tumbling towards a world of privatized healthcare and you think access to our own money should be free?

But I digress. Prime Minister Harper is a middle aged, moderately overweight, caucasian man whom George W. Bush refers to as “my buddy Steve”. Kyoto’s trashed, free trade’s freer than ever (while people themselves require increasing amounts of documentation to cross the border) and we’re quickly losing our reputation as the wickedest country in the world. We’re not the kind of nation that enjoys a terribly conservative government. For goodness sake, we like gays, women and ethnic minorities, not to mention marijuana. Do you remember during the election before last, when the tories’ numbers were soaring and the rest of us were getting concerned, and Michael Moore stepped in to save the day? He made one public comment, something along the lines of “If the Conservatives win, it won’t be long before Canada looks just like the U.S.” and within a day, the numbers changed. Where was our 4am miracle last election? Harper knows his days are numbered, or he wouldn’t be behaving this way. But we’ll have the chance to fix things soon. With any luck, it’ll even be before the polar icecaps melt and we all drown.

References

“Bank Fees No Problem, Consumer Group Says.” CBC. 19 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/02/16/consumers-bank.html.

Bolan, Kim. “Liberal MP’s Inlaw Interviewed in Air India Case.” Vancouver Sun. 21 Feb. 2007. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=572691d1-56ba-4268-bc33-0abc4afe890d.

“Liberals Shout Down PM Over ‘Base’ Attack.” CBC. 21 Feb. 2007.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/21/harper-house.html?ref=rss.

“Liberals Furious over Harper’s Smear of MP.” CTV. 21 Feb. 2007. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070221/harper_libs_070221/20070221?hub=TopStories.

“Ontario MP Khan Leaves Liberals to Join Tories.” CBC 5 Jan. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/05/khan-defect-070105.html.

The Electric Car Graveyard

“In 1996 Electric cars began to appear on roads all over California. They were quiet and fast, produced no exhaust, and ran without gasoline.” This quote from the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car” is quite a shocker when considering for decade’s cars primarily ran on gasoline. In 1996 I didn’t know this was going on, granted I was only eleven years old and had no knowledge of cars or even the potential future environmental damage cars would inevitably endorse. In the last six months the talk about the environment was the number one concern on Canadians minds due in most part to the late start of the frigid winter in 2006. It was at this point that people began to actually see the damage first hand and were starting to get scared.

In the past couple of months I have seen more commercials on TV for hybrid vehicles than I had ever seen before. It angers me to see in a CBC article entitled Hybrid cars, written on February 16th, began with, “Auto manufacturers may be touting the age of environmentally friendly alternatives of hybrid, diesel and fuel cell technologies…”. Although it is great that auto companies are finally trying to sell cars that are healthier for the environment and that will lessen the emissions of greenhouse gases, but didn’t we already have this touting age in 1996 with the electric car? The electric car seems to have been completely ignored and forgotten about for the last eleven years since its existence as if it never were, like fairies or democracy in the United States. The idea of never having to use gasoline again with the coming of the electric car seems pristine for the environment, the customers dealing with the soaring gas prices caused by the War in the East and the people dying of cancer and asthma caused by the toxins in the air. But like the documentary title suggests, someone killed that idea and has set back the public knowledge of these scientific advancements of even more and improved fuel efficient cars.

When I see an SUV, I want to take a can of spray paint and write, “I’m killing the environment”, or “I’m the reason you have asthma” across the side of it, much like the animal activists that did to people wearing fur coats. It often seems like people just don’t care, they think that one single person can’t change the environment that much, but every gas powered car that burns a gallon of gas adds 19 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere. Imagine the amount of CO2 and SUV would add.

Without a doubt the main culprits are the oil companies. It only makes sense that oil companies do not want people abandoning oil and going electric, they would lose the billions of dollars they’ve made and of course they would be out of a job, on the streets begging for food, freezing to death with a blanket made of a million dollar bills.

But are Canadians to blame as well? The director of J.D. Power and Associates in the CBC article states, “Canada is already fuel efficient and that is why hybrid technology is not growing as fast as perhaps the public might think…”. Yes Canada is fuel efficient much more than the United States but why be fuel efficient when we can be “fuel-less” and banish the idea of oil all together? It seems like a crazy proposal, but in 1996 this crazy idea was being developed by those who actually cared and people had the hope of a vehicle that would save the environment. This hope ended quickly and it was because of the all mighty dollar.

According to the documentary, “the claim that there is no demand for [an electric] car is false.” In 1996 people couldn’t buy an electric car, only lease it, which meant they had to fill out a ton or paper work and sometimes people would have to submit a resume just to lease one! And of course because all the vehicles were leased, when the auto companies were told to stop offering the cars, they could legally take the cars away from the people who leased them. Then they were all compounded; like hiding the evidence of a murder and throw in an electric car grave yard, never to be seen again. Fortunately, it seems in 2006 and 2007 a hybrid can be actually owned by a person, so it sounds like they cannot be ripped away from their proud owners are here to stay, for now.

Hopefully now that hybrid cars are being sold, eventually people will demand a gasoline and oil free car, but then again, it had been proven it would take more than consumer demand. It will take the integrity and willingness of the oil companies. Some of you probably will scoff and say, “yeah right, that will never happen.” Maybe it won’t, but if it does, it will probably come at a cost. Maybe it will be when all the ice caps melt, sinking half the world in its wake. Maybe it will be intense heat waves killing millions of people all over the world. Or maybe, just maybe it will be the realization that their children and their grandchildren won’t have the same life that they once had; or a life at all, to enjoy the billions of dollars that they’ve inherited from their relatives by knowingly destroying the world.


References:

CBC Article Hybrid Cars
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/autos/hybrid-cars.html

Who Killed the Electric Car?
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html

Midterms and Time

Sorry folks. I have several stories in the works but none of them finished; however, I do plan on having a story for you folks by tomorrow night at the latest.

Good night!

- T

Capitalism to Save the Planet?

“Bashing flyers has become part of the conversation whenever the chattering classes gather, especially in London, Paris and New York. Admitting in such company that you like to fly is the new farting loudly.” When I read this quote in the article “Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR” from Economist.com, I knew I’d found my subject for this week.

The environment has been a topic of widespread public concern for six whole months now. Of course, science has pointed for decades to the problems we are currently facing, but within the last year, likely due in large part to Al Gore’s staggering documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the issue of climate change has entered the public discourse as a legitimate cause for distress. This after thirty years of attributing warnings to the rants of freedom-hating environmentalist quacks.

The consensus amongst scientists worldwide is that the lifestyles of heavily industrialized first world nations are destroying our planet. It really is as simple as that. But in a society where the supreme being we all fear and worship is the economy, a complete overhaul of the way we live our lives seems a difficult task, particularly without the assistance of lawmakers, happily sleeping with the corporations who benefit from the harmful emissions responsible for global warming.

Though hardly a flawless solution, the Kyoto Accord could have helped, but not without the cooperation of the US. Sadly, the agreement has now lost Canada’s support as well, thanks to our year-old Conservative minority government. The Opposition is attempting to legislate the promises made in regards to Kyoto, details of which can be found in the CBC article listed below.

But while the entire planet faces a crisis of such epic proportions that the sustainability of our entire race is at stake, our human will to survive seems not to be enough to stop us from driving SUV’s. Particularly as I sit at home, with my own little Toyota Echo buried in three feet of snow, I am confident that global warming will not be on the public agenda at least until spring. After an entire six months of public discourse, it became clear to one man that more incentive than continuing life on this planet needed to be offered.

Enter Sir Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin and all of its ventures. His next undertaking, having accomplished his dream of starting the world’s first space tourism business, Virgin Galactic, is to use what he knows best (Capitalism) to entice someone else to save the world.

It’s called the “Virgin Environmental Challenge” and it goes like this: “The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.”

The contest closes in 5 years, at which time the winner receives the first $5m in prize money. Ten years following that, if their invention has succeeded in removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and should continue to do so, they will then receive the remaining $20m.

Someone please tell me if this is anything more than global bulimia. When the scientific evidence is overwhelming that our planet will heal if we simply cut back our emissions, we don’t seem to have even tried! Instead, a man who makes the bulk of his staggering wealth from an airline and his own personal satisfaction from a space tourism business, is offering a tiny piece of the fortune to anyone who can suck the emissions he puts in back out. Air travel is one of the biggest offenders against the makeup of the earth’s atmosphere, and yet the only viable solutions seem to be the ones that don’t require any sacrifices on our part. Well why not? I can’t believe its possible that human beings on an individual basis would not make personal lifestyle changes - should they be made available and affordable - to save the planet, if only for their children’s sake. Even CEO’s of major corporations, including the least environmentally friendly ones, are rarely evil people at a personal level. But this contest – I’m sorry, “challenge” – is the kind of solution that presents itself when it is left entirely to the private sector to make all the changes.

Call me a socialist, for I’d proudly follow in the footsteps of C.B. Macpherson and if you insist, Hugo Chavez, but I believe we elect a government for a reason. And right now, the one directly south of us offers a $100,000.00 tax write-off to SUV owners, legally qualifying as “small trucks” when it comes to emissions standards. Apparently your average North American family requires a small truck, and is rewarded for it come tax time. The system is in place to provide incentives - financially, if that’s what’s required - to entice people to do the right thing. Instead of offering $25m to develop a way of taking the greenhouse gases out so we can keep putting them back in, why don’t we just stop? I flew from Chicago to Detroit this past weekend, and though the plane holds 137 passengers, it took off with 18 seats sold. Should I feel good about my contribution to the environment because I took a plane that weighed less due to lack of passengers? Doubtful.

Now Al Gore is with Sir Richard on this one, and Bill Clinton gave him a hug. I’m somewhat of the mind that anything Al Gore thinks is a good idea, I like too. Similar to the notion that if Johnny Depp agreed to be in a movie and I didn’t like it, I must be mistaken, because Johnny couldn’t be wrong. But I can’t help but think that this won’t stop the former future president of the United States of America from continuing to demand a little more. He's a politician - he knows how to play the game. And besides, the contest doesn’t close for another five years. What do we do until then?

References

An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006.

“Kyoto Bill Sparks Constitutional Questions.” CBC. 15 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/15/kyoto-bill.html?ref=rss.

McQuaig, Linda. It’s The Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Anchor Canada, 2005.

“Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR.” Economist.com. 13 Feb. 2007. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8692742&fsrc=RSS.

Virgin Earth Challenge. 2007. Virgin Group. http://www.virginearth.com/.

Islam not Youtube Appropriate?

While exploring the vastness of the web, I discovered an interesting "Your Rights Online" article on Slashdot (link). Youtube censored a video by the atheist Nick Ginsburne that contained verses from the Qur'an, claiming its content is "inappropriate". On first glance, this looks like a case of Internet censorship, but is it really? I decided to look into the issue and not just take it at face value. What was in this video and why was it taken offline along with the banning of Gisburne's account?

First stop, the video. I followed through the link provided by dear Slashdot and watched the 9m14s video. This is bloody long. Wow, a video that claims these are "Islamic Teachings" from the Qur'an, but really these are all a bunch of snippets with the common theme: "Let's kill all those other 'unbelievers' who believe in other Gods and send them to Hell because ours is a mighty God who can kill with a single thought". Right, like you, Mr. Gisburne, are innocent. Look, I can quote things too, and this is from your video: "If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next" (2:85). Hmm, when all you decide to show is these snippets, the vast majority of the public will NOT take it with a grain of salt and they will believe this is what all Islamic people believe.

Afterwards, I compared this video to the rest of Mr. Gisburne's collection. Huh, logical arguments against Christian belief systems. Cross-analysis of Christian and Jewish beliefs. Seems like typical atheist fare. So why did Gisburne use a different way of dealing with his commentary on Islam? Why is there no real podcast-like video with Islam being the topic? Had an argument that you wanted to get across without offending anyone, Mr. Gisburne? Seems like you failed.

I decided to send an email to Youtube (which'll probably be ignored and placed under the same category as the Gisburne supporters) and Mr. Gisburne (who might ignore it, might not). My Youtube email is as follows:

To whom this may concern,
I am a member of the press doing an Internet rights piece for the local media, and I have a few questions regarding the censorship and account deletion of Nick Gisburne who was recently banned and his videos deleted. Firstly, is the "inappropriate content" flag system automated or is it a human-supervised content review system? Also, if it is automated, how many flags are required to have a video banned? Secondly, what was the reason behind the banning of the account? Thirdly, what was the content of the video that conflicted with the "Terms of Service" or "Community Guidelines"?
Thank you for your assistance.

My email to Nick Gisburne is as follows:

Mr. N. Gisburne,

I am a member of the free press doing an Internet rights piece for the local media and I have a few questions regarding your Islam scripture video you posted on Youtube. Why did you choose a different format from your previous videos for your Qur'an video? Why did you choose those particular quotations from the Qur'an? What was your intention in posting that video and what message did you intend to get across to your audience?

Thank you for your cooperation.

When and if I get replies, I will append them to this article.

So why was Mr. Gisburne's video and account considered "inappropriate"? I read through the Youtube "Community Guidelines" and "Terms of Service" and in both documents are the statements "We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality" (Community Guidelines) and "(iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libellous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate" (Terms of Service). Where Mr. Gisburne's previous videos are perfectly acceptable within these terms and guides, the Qur'an video is not because it fully supports the current stereotype that all Islamic followers are vengeful and destructive terrorists by nature. Personally, I feel this is a "malicious use of stereotypes", to put it in the words of the Youtube Community Guidelines, and the community responded by flagging this as inappropriate. Community: 1, Nick Gisburne: 0.

So, Mr. Gisburne, there is no conspiracy to censor you; your Qur'an video was inappropriate and supported the neoconservative view that all Islamic followers are terrorists. Mr. Gisburne, I say to you only this: wake up and smell the roses; the world isn't out to get you. Also, you are no longer what is known as a "publically-active atheist"; you are now a perpetrator of hate-crimes. If everyone learned to respect other people's choices, the world would be a better place.

- T

66% is Still a Pass...

Last month in Vancouver, Canada’s first sextuplets were born. As may be expected, each newborn weighed in at less than 2lbs, and tragically, two of them passed away. When the survival of the remaining babies seemed dependent on their receiving blood transfusions, three of them were seized by the province and the procedure was administered against their parent’s will. Why? Because these babies were born into a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions.

Of course, everyone loves a good controversy, and what’s more newsworthy than a couple of religious fanatics gleefully sacrificing their own babies because the Bible told them so? In fact, these parents were even told beforehand that if they chose early on to abort two of the six fetuses, the remaining four would increase their chances of survival significantly. Jehovah’s Witnesses also don’t believe in abortion, leading to the deaths of two babies after birth. But speaking as an ex-Jehovah’s Witness (one who left after 18 years with a thorough knowledge of the belief system and a strong distaste for cults) I can tell you that the parents of these babies have not been fairly portrayed.

The New Testament calls on its followers to “abstain from blood” (Acts 15:28, 29). Taken in context, this is considered by many to refer to the level at which one cooks the meat they ingest. If your prime rib is raw enough to still be seeping blood, you’re not abstaining. Jehovah’s Witnesses take this a step further. I remember it being explained to me when I was quite young in the following way:

If your doctor tells you not to drink alcohol, so instead, you just inject it right into your veins, is that much better? No. So if God says don’t eat blood, why would you respond by injecting it directly into your veins?

At age six, this makes sense. Less so as you get older and realize that blood in your veins and alcohol in your veins are a little different, and no one's doctor is comparable to God.

But if there’s one thing I can say for nearly every Jehovah’s Witness I’ve been lucky enough to know on a personal basis, it is that they are all incredibly kind, well meaning people. Especially the women - after a lifetime of care-giving and the inability to maintain a leadership role in their own household (only men may be in positions of power), they are all remarkably good-natured, nurturing individuals, who love their children as much as anyone else.

Follow me for a moment as we weed through some twisted cultish logic: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that after Armageddon, all of God’s people will be resurrected, returned to a paradise earth where they will live in his care, in peace and harmony forever. Gosh, it sounds great. But here’s the catch: You have to be born first. Remember how the parents turned down the option of aborting two of the fetuses, only to let them die later anyways? Tragically misguided as it may seem to the rest of us, only now do these poor parents have the hope of one day being reunited with their lost children on a paradise earth. Had they aborted them, they would have been lost forever. Now, don’t ask me why abortion is prohibited if an unborn baby isn’t human enough to be resurrected, because that’s something I’ve never been able to get them to answer. Nor can anyone explain the fact that to become pregnant with sextuplets in the first place, the couple was very likely involved in some form of fertility treatment; also Biblically questionable to a religion that prohibits masturbating on account of the sacred nature of God's plan... might be tricky to get a semen sample without a moment alone.

But to return to this idea of life forever on a paradise earth, the resurrection that these parents can now look forward to is something that brings every one of Jehovah’s Witnesses more comfort than I can describe. Honestly, if there’s one thing our culture lacks, its any kind of real consolation when a loved one passes away, and in the most intrinsically human way, this is what many Jehovah’s Witnesses hold onto, and in a lot of cases, the reason they joined up in the first place.

After this whole debacle appeared on the news, my younger brother recommended a couple of chat rooms to investigate, both pro and anti-JW, just to see what the consensus was. I was shocked at how many people, women in particular, felt the same way. Nearly everyone agreed that should they be in the same situation, torn between their devotion to God and the excruciating agony of losing a child, they would declare just once that they refuse to approve the blood transfusion, then step back and pray that the doctor or if necessary the province itself will take over and save their babies. Then their spiritual conscious will be intact and their children saved.

Now, for the sake of time and space, I will refrain from going into the political details surrounding the mainstream coverage of this debate, and save my biting analyses for the coming weeks. Suffice to say, the victims in this case are not only the two children whose lives were lost before they’d begun, but also two parents, left tragically helpless as they’re forced to choose between what a cultish sect has told them is the path to God, and the lives of their newborn babies. If you ask me, when the blood of innocent people continues to be spilled needlessly on battlefields worldwide every minute of every day, what kind of God would prohibit us from using it to save the life of a newborn?

And an interesting precedent may be set here, if the JW couple is successful in suing the province for an apology. I didn’t know you could do that. What happened to suing for money? These crazy religious folk and their intrinsic values.

Assassinating Iranian Uranium?

So I was crawling around through a bunch of newsfeeds when I noticed a story published by that terrible network Fox News. Sure, they're a bunch of pigs who give the most biased news ever. Sure, the story itself is written to sound as if Mossad did the right thing. Bastards.

Once I found the story, I decided to pop on over to my friend, George MacDonald. While chilling over a good game of Halo 2 in his room, we talked about the recent "news".

"So, what's your opinion on the assassination of an Iranian uranium researcher?" I asked as I made a headshot.

George shrugged. "Inevitable." George jumped down from the cliff and into a Warthog. "When a man is so predictable that you can see the gears turning in his head during his pre-written speeches, it ain't hard to figure out the way his thoughts will go. 'No war? But Iran bad. How we stop with no war? Secret war? No, that no make sense. Secret...secret...brilliant idea me have! Secret agents! New Bond movie was good, use my Bond. Kill nuke guys! I save world!"

I shook my head as I chased George in a Scorpion. "You know, according to FoxNews.com it was done by the Mossad, not Bush."

George sneered. "So Israel has started sneezing without the States telling them what colour to do it in? I hadn't realised."

I laugh after I destroyed his Warthog. "You seem somewhat jaded about this."

"Just a trifle." Came the reply. "I'm just mildly sick of the issue. Even assuming that Iran developed nuclear weapons that had sufficient operational range to directly threaten the United States, they aren't dumb enough to use it. The only system in which the stupid remain in power is a democracy. In every other system the safeguard of assassination due to extreme incompetence is allowed. So despite the image we get over here of mindless fanatics, the fact is, if these fanatics were mindless they would never remain in power for long."

"True enough." I settled back into my seat and continued the battle of Red vs. Blue.

Once I was done at George's, I decided to look deeper into the issue and see what other newsfeeds are saying about the assassination. Scanning through several newsfeeds and digging deep through the major North American networks, I turned up nothing. Nada. No bloody information from any other North American news source, which said something about North American reportage.

Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.

So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.

At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.

Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!

I settled back down into my chair and smiled over dinner. This is one of those pieces of "news" that is actually "olds" -- something that could have been completely non-propaganda (a uranium researcher dying of gas poisoning) has been turned into a propaganda piece by the right-wing American news services that used a sympathetic viewpoint on the concept of "assassination". What has the United States come to now that it supports covert assassinations of civilians important to improving quality of life in 3rd world and 2nd world countries?

- T

Conclusions

I settled back down into my chair and smiled over dinner. This is one of those pieces of "news" that is actually "olds" -- something that could have been completely non-propaganda (a uranium researcher dying of gas poisoning) has been turned into a propaganda piece by the right-wing American news services that used a sympathetic viewpoint on the concept of "assassination". What has the United States come to now that it supports covert assassinations of civilians important to improving quality of life in 3rd world and 2nd world countries?

- T

Research

Once I was done at George's, I decided to look deeper into the issue and see what other newsfeeds are saying about the assassination. Scanning through several newsfeeds and digging deep through the major North American networks, I turned up nothing. Nada. No bloody information from any other North American news source, which said something about North American reportage.

Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.

So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.

At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.

Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!

[More to come later]

Conversations

Once I found the story, I decided to pop on over to my friend, George MacDonald. While chilling over a good game of Halo 2 in his room, we talked about the recent "news".

"So, what's your opinion on the assassination of an Iranian uranium researcher?" I asked as I made a headshot.

George shrugged. "Inevitable." George jumped down from the cliff and into a Warthog. "When a man is so predictable that you can see the gears turning in his head during his pre-written speeches, it ain't hard to figure out the way his thoughts will go. 'No war? But Iran bad. How we stop with no war? Secret war? No, that no make sense. Secret...secret...brilliant idea me have! Secret agents! New Bond movie was good, use my Bond. Kill nuke guys! I save world!"

I shook my head as I chased George in a Scorpion. "You know, according to FoxNews.com it was done by the Mossad, not Bush."

George sneered. "So Israel has started sneezing without the States telling them what colour to do it in? I hadn't realised."

I laugh after I destroyed his Warthog. "You seem somewhat jaded about this."

"Just a trifle." Came the reply. "I'm just mildly sick of the issue. Even assuming that Iran developed nuclear weapons that had sufficient operational range to directly threaten the United States, they aren't dumb enough to use it. The only system in which the stupid remain in power is a democracy. In every other system the safeguard of assassination due to extreme incompetence is allowed. So despite the image we get over here of mindless fanatics, the fact is, if these fanatics were mindless they would never remain in power for long."

"True enough." I settled back into my seat and continued the battle of Red vs. Blue.

[More to come later]

SPECIAL BULLETIN:

So I was dicking around through a bunch of newsfeeds when I noticed a story published by that crapulent network Fox News. Sure, they're a bunch of pigs who give the most biased news ever. Sure, the story itself is written to sound as if Mossad did the right thing. Fucking bastards.

[More to come later]