Questioning the Weatherman

I subscribe to The Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report podcast, a daily independent news show out of the US. I admit, it's pretty lefty (surprise, surprise), but what I appreciate most about the show is that host Amy Goodman questions everyone, for example when a guest called Karl Rove a liar, she asked them to back it up, even though most people wouldn't dispute that statement. So when I heard former Weather Underground members Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were going to be on the program, I got excited. Sure, the Weather Underground were lefty radicals, but many people believe they took it too far, myself included, and I thought for sure Amy Goodman and co-host Juan Gonzales were going to take these two to task.

To give you a bit of background on The Weather Underground and where I formed my opinions on them, they were a radical anti-Vietnam war group during the late 1970s, who bombed banks, New York City Police Headquarters, the US Capitol, and The Pentagon. I learned about them through watching the documentary The Weather Underground a few years ago. The group usually bombed buildings at night when no one was supposed to be around, but during a bomb making session in a Manhattan town house, three Weather Underground members were killed. The bombs they had been making were supposed to be used to bomb a dance at an army base.

I know the 1960s and early 1970s were a tumultuous time — government corruption, racism, violence, an unpopular and unjust war that killed millions of Vietnamese and Americans. Even though we face similar circumstances right now, it's nothing compared to the upheaval the Western World, the USA in particular, was going through. Nevertheless, I can't condone bombing; The Weather Underground (or The Weathermen as they were originally known) could have hurt innocent people, and did kill some of their own members as a result of their actions. How does that make them any different than sending off poor kids, many of them black, to their deaths in Vietnam?

On the show, Bill Ayers denied The Weather Underground were ever a terrorist organization because no one ever got hurt. But terrorism doesn't have to result in people getting hurt or killed, by definition it is violence and intimidation used for political gains, and there's little more violent or intimidating than a bomb. Sure, the people responsible for the Vietnam war, the beating of protesters, the beating and murders of African Americans deserved a nice wallop of karma coming their way, but violence isn't the answer to violence.

Unfortunately, when the townhouse explosion came up in the Democracy Now! interview, when Bernadine Dohrn said it was after this explosion that the group decided human casualties were no longer acceptable, neither Goodman nor Gonzales pressed Dohrn or Ayers about whether they had intended to kill people originally, and/or why were human casualties acceptable. 

Goodman then went on to ask Ayers about an accusation Bill O'Reilly made about The Weather Underground bombing a police station and not regretting it, and he skirted the question, speaking generally about him not condoning the groups actions in his latest book Fugitive Days (which had the initial, unfortunate, release date of September 11, 2001). Yet later Ayers says he has no regrets about what they did. 

I'm not seeking justice here — most of The Weather Underground members served their time and are now getting on with their lives. It's the fact they don't see the error of their ways, or the possible consequences that bothers me. I see where they were coming from, and I understand their rage, but bombing banks and police stations are not and were not the way to get the government to listen to what you had to say. While I'm sure some of the "bad" people were intimidated by the bombings and actions of The Weather Underground, many more innocent people were scared and thus turned off from their ideas. Yes, Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon  were assassinated, but their messages of peaceful protest and change have reached far more people than The Weather Underground's bombings. 

I'm not going to stop listening to Democracy Now! because of this interview, as it's otherwise an informative program not only about the United States but situations happening all around the world. However this has put a damper on my excitement about the program — as journalists it's our job to question people, even if they're our heroes, our best friends, or our own mothers, and in this interview I don't think that criteria was met. 

Blame Jack?

I attended a Liberal Party rally in downtown Vancouver last night to cover the event for The Ubyssey, UBC's student newspaper. It was a bloodbath for the Liberals, winning only five of a possible 36 seats in BC, but two of the winning candidates — Hedy Fry, and Ujjal Dosanjh— were in attendance and full of fire and brimstone for the New Democratic and Green Party leaders. Basically, they blamed their loss on vote splitting, on the New Democrats fooling Canadians into thinking they could form a government, on the Greens for being the "Ralph Nader" of Canadian politics, and the media for not doing its job properly in failing to show Canadians Dion was a better choice for prime minister than Harper. 

I understand the argument on vote splitting, but I think it's pompous and naive of the Liberals to believe Canadians had been "tricked" into voting for Jack Layton or Elizabeth May. I, for one, had a really hard time deciding who to vote for this time around; the Liberals, NDP, and Greens all had positions that I agreed with, but they also had positions I disagreed with. I usually vote NDP, but Jack Layton rubbed me the wrong way this election, particularly with his attempt to block Elizabeth May from the leadership debates. But I also don't agree with the Green Party's position on the seal hunt. I was tempted to voted Liberal, but since moving to Vancouver poverty and homelessness has become an important issue to me, and the gap between the rich and poor increased dramatically under the Liberal government during the 1990's. When it came down to the wire I sucked up my dislike of Layton and voted NDP. 

Conservatives only took 44.4 per cent of the vote in BC, and 37.63 per cent of the vote in Canada as a whole — hardly the 50 per cent plus one ideal for a winning party. If you believe what the Liberals claim about vote splitting and "stealing", the NDP, Greens, and Liberals combined took 51.24 per cent of the country's vote, meaning the majority of Canadians did not support the Conservative government. Fair enough, but the Liberals are assuming Canadians who didn't want a Conservative government were "confused" and would have voted Liberal if they had known better. 

The NDP might not be forming a government anytime soon, but they did increase their seat count from 19 t0 29 in the 2006 election, and to 37 during this election — a long way from a minority government, but steadily rising. I'm no rocket scientist, but I think this means there are some Canadians out there who identify more with the NDP platform than Liberal or Conservative. 

The Greens didn't get any seats this time, but they did take 6.8 per cent of the vote — more than the previous election. Oh, and then there's the Bloq Quebecois with 50 seats out of a possible 75. Perhaps it was because it was a British Columbia rally, but neither Fry nor Dosanjh mentioned the Gilles Duceppe when listing off election scapegoats. 

I am disappointed with the outcome of last night's election — particularly the record low voter turnout (less than 50 per cent in Newfoundland? Seriously?!) — but I think the blame for the Conservative minority government should fall mostly on our first past the post voting system. Most of the opposition parties supported a reformed proportional representation electoral system, such as Mixed Member Proportionality, though this was a new stance for the Liberals - perhaps because they haven't been able to form a majority government since 2002. Whether or not they'll maintain this stance if they should form government again remains to be seen. 

Photo: Vancouver Centre MP Hedy Fry. Credit: Alfred Hermida, http://flickr.com/photos/hermida/2888671333/

Prayer solves gas pains?

Every time (and it happens quite frequently) that I hear someone say "Americans are stupid" or something to that effect, I cringe. It doesn't matter how intelligent that person is, once they utter that phrase they go down in my esteem. It's like saying Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are stupid — it's a sweeping generalization, and it makes you sound ignorant and arrogant. There are over 350 million Americans and if they were all stupid, America would not have reached the super power status is has today — I'm not saying it deserves that status, but it didn't get there by being a country populated entirely by idiots. 

That being said, there are, like anywhere, some stupid, arrogant people in the United States and some of them are crediting God for lowering their gas prices. 

I make no secret of my lack of spiritual beliefs, but I try not to infringe on the spiritual sides of others. However, this really got my goat, as it were. There are over 6 billion people living on earth today, and according to the World Bank over one billion people live in extreme poverty, living on less than $1 a day. According to world religion statistics compiled by adherents.com, the number one religion is Christianity with approximately 2.1 billion devotees, followed by Islam with 1.5 billion, Hindus close behind at 900 million, and so on  — in short, there are a lot of believers out there, which leads me to make what I believe to be a well-educated guess that a lot of people pray at least once a day. 

Though most world religions teach you to be selfless, chances are a lot of people are praying that they make it through the day, and yet a lot of people die from something we take for granted in the West like nutritional deficiencies or influenza, many of them small children. So it boggles my mind that there are people out there praying for gas prices to be lowered, particularly since they believe their prayers are being answered. 

When I first heard the story on CBC radio this morning, one woman complained that she had to make the decision between food and gas for her car — now, I don't know her exact situation, maybe there is no public transit where she lives, and she can't carpool or walk to work. But then again, maybe she can, and in that case she needs to get her priorities straight. 

The "Pray at the Pump" movement are ignoring some statistics from the Federal Highway Administration, which says Americans are driving less — 53.2 billion miles less — and that's what's causing the drop in American gas prices to $3.78/gallon from the over $4/ gallon it was this in July. 

Perhaps I'm taking this too seriously, and I should be laughing off people who think the drop in gas prices is a direct result of divine intervention. But there's something about this that just reeks of a sense of entitlement due to living in a first world country. 

Someone told me recently that if third world countries were as rich as Canada or the U.S., they would be just as decadent. That may very well be true, but it's no excuse for whining over not being able to drive our cars when some people don't even have access to bicycles.

The elephant in the University

I was going to avoid making commentary on the Memorial presidential search for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the over abundance of commentary already being made, but ignoring the elephant in the room in this case has almost become impossible. And it's probably more important than Russia trying to ban emo and goth culture, which is what I was originally going to write an entry about.

First off, I've interviewed Joan Burke a couple of times and I liked her. I'm a sucker for a polite politician, I must admit, especially one that took the time to call me back when I was a student journalist (okay, I guess I still AM a student journalist, but whatever), even if she did end a few interviews asking me what I was doing in school like some aunt I hadn't seen since I was *this* high. 

We've got a great deal on tuition and education in the province and we owe a lot of it to her — or perhaps to Danny, which is what brings me to my point. Burke is suddenly admitting to interviewing and vetoing presidential candidates for the University, which is dicey at best, but I find if very interesting that all the blame and ire is falling on her while Danny Williams seems to be getting off scot free. When was the last time anything happened in that government that Danny didn't know about?

Tom Rideout, you say. Yes, the man acted of his own accord, and look what happened to him — not only was he demoted, but his fellow cabinet ministers hung him out to dry claiming he bullied them into giving him extra money for his constituency (after finding out there will still communities in his riding without paved roads, I can't say I blamed him). Rideout was leader of the Progressive Conservative party at one time, not to mention premier of the province and deputy premier under Danny, and NO ONE in his party stood up for him. 

The Muse first heard rumblings of something fishy happening vis-a-vis government interference with the University's presidential search during the winter semester, and even asked Burke if she was involved in the vetoing of any candidates. She denied any involvement or knowledge of such interference. Perhaps we worded the question incorrectly, or maybe she hadn't actually vetoed any candidates yet — but then why were the rumours flying already?

I don't think Burke is totally blameless for this intrusion into Memorial's autonomy — she is a very strong willed and independent person, in my experience. But It's no secret that Danny likes to be in control (really, what premier doesn't?), so I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that he was the puppet master in this scenario. We'll just have to wait and see if Burke will go down in flames for this, bring the whole government with her, or if it will all blow over in the face of oil money and more jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

What's the deal with human rights?

China seems to have backed out of their promise to decrease infringements on human rights during the Olympic Games next month in Beijing by blocking foreign journalists access to certain websites (though I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that these websites are blocked to everyone in China, journalists just won't be the exception they had hoped they would). 

I have two roommates, a married couple, from China. One of them has been living here since January 1, and since that time we've had several discussions about Western opinion and criticism of China, particularly its government. He doesn't understand why Western societies, particularly the U.S., harps on China's human rights record since a) the U.S. has an equally bad human rights record, and b) the people of China are happy with the way things are, and c) incidents like the Tienanmen Square protest were so long ago.

I find flaws in his arguments, but I admit that I haven't pressed the issue very hard for two reasons: because I know very little about China, and because I have a western bias. He hasn't swayed me on my belief in human rights, but I haven't changed his mind either and I don't expect to. I don't think we know the whole truth about China, considering the inherent bias of all media, but I don't think he does either, and I think there is something to what we hear about the Chinese government, whether it's worse or better than we're told.

 

I firmly believe that governments are a human invention ("Well, duh," I hear you saying, but what I mean is I don't think any god gave us the idea, or created us to be able to have the idea). If it wasn't for government laws, we could literally do whatever we wanted (inside the laws of physics, of course), and while I'm thankful we have laws to deter most people from killing, raping, plundering, etc., I don't agree with laws that prevent us from ruling ourselves like China's ban on certain websites — or Canada's laws against drug use, but that's another tangent.  

Though I'm not a spiritual person, I do believe in truth (I think it lies somewhere between both sides of the story) and I believe we all have a right to seek it. Maybe the Falun Gong are a cult, and maybe the Dali Lama is a terrorist, but if that's the case, shouldn't people have a right to figure that out for themselves? 

Governments shouldn't put parental controls on their people and censor what information they have access to — the people are supposed to control the government (and I think that applies in all forms of government. Even if you have a dictator, aren't they, in theory, supposed to carry out the will of the people?). If the government is so convinced that they're right, what are they so afraid people will find out?

Discriminatory banning practices

Anyone who gives a toss one way or the other about Canada's annual seal hunt is paying attention to the actions of the European Union (EU) right now to see if they will indeed ban Canadian seal products from both being sold in their member countries and being shipped through their countries, making it difficult to get the products to countries like Russia, one of Canada's largest markets for seal products. 

Yesterday the EU's Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced a bill that he is pushing through the union to implement such a ban on products derived from countries with hunts that "practice cruel hunting methods." There was a major exception, however: seal products from traditional Inuit hunters. There is something about this that doesn't sit right with me.

I admit right away to being pretty ignorant to traditional Inuit seal-hunting practices, but is it any more humane than the methods white hunters use?  Granted, if only Inuit hunted seals, there would be a lot less seals killed, but from what I can gather from anti-hunt protesters, they don't care if the number of seals killed decreases — they don't want them killed at all.

I don't think bans should be implemented on seal products one way or another — as long as a sustainable hunt is carried out, I fail to see how the seal hunt is any different than killing cows, chickens, or pigs in slaughter houses. At least these seals have a chance at living to see another day, and know freedom — a cow in a slaughter house is going to die before it's time regardless of whether it ends up on your plate, covering your back, or killed off for being defective. 

That being said, I don't see why special privileges should be given to Inuit hunters in this scenario. The EU isn't putting a ban on the hunt — if they included Inuit hunters in the ban they wouldn't be taking away a traditional food or clothing source for the Inuit, or destroying an ancient way of life. They just wouldn't be able to sell or ship their products to EU countries, thereby possibly destroying their livelihoods, like they will for the non-Inuit hunters. 

Does the EU think Inuit are too stupid or ignorant to find other means of employment? What about the non-Inuit hunters who don't have any other vocational training, and maybe didn't even finish grade school? Yes, there are significantly less Aboriginal people with post-secondary training in Canada than non-Aboriginals, but the numbers are slowly getting better.

My theory — and I recognize that I could be way off base with this, but hear me out — is that the EU fears Inuit and Aboriginal protests if they include Inuit hunt products in the ban. In order to avoid appearing racist, they will allow Inuit products to come through. But in efforts to avoid being labeled as bigots, they are actually discriminating against non-Aboriginal hunters for not being Aboriginal. That's like cops pulling over everyone who isn't black to avoid appearing as though they use racial profiling. 

If I had my way, no seal product bans would pass in the EU, but as it's becoming more and more likely that a ban is imminent, I believe all seal products should be banned and no allowances made for the colour of your skin or how long your ancestors have lived in this country.

The epitome of taking yourself too seriously

I don't feel like writing an entire blog entry about this, partly because I'm lazy and partly because I think my ire is pretty self-explanatory. In short, there is ridiculous controversy surrounding an upcoming Paul McCartney concert in Quebec City, and it has nothing to do with seals.