I recently had a (leftist) friend on Facebook tell us that he'd just made his 72nd blood donation. He lamented the 'discrimination' at play. I don't think it had to do with the rules regarding recent tattoos or piercings or recent travel, or medications used, previous disease, hospital stays or any of the myriad reasons why a blood donation may be refused. It was in regards to the rules around gay men.
A few people piped in, supporting the friend's notion that the system discriminates. Of course, as a I am what I am and as the resident Conservative amoung his 'friends', I had to stick my oar in.
My post follows:
Perhaps we can consider that the rules are there not for political or personal reasons but for reasons of safety and after cost-benefit risk analysis AND considering the perception of the public for whom the blood system is for. Even if AIDS infection rates were the same with gay men as with the rest of the public, (I don't claim to be an authority on such things) the perception that it might not be might compel people to not accept donations or worse, not donate at all. Like many things, perception IS reality. Sorry, but the viability of the system is more important than some ruffled feathers. Why is my right to safety less important than someone else's 'right' to not be offended? 'Political Correctness' be damned. Not EVERYTHING is supposed to be a Charter Right.
Now, if there is no higher risk by allowing gay men to donate, then great! Educate the public, then change the rules. We CAN be an enlightened bunch. I suspect that in this era of falling all over ourselves appeasing special interest groups, we'd have done this already if the stats told us to or even if the stats could be distorted enough to tell us to.
'Discriminating' does not equal 'discrimination' every time.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
CAW Greed and Short-sightedness
Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza wants Ontario to guarantee the pensions of retired workers should GM and/or Chrysler fail.
The audacity of such a demand is blinding.
The North American automakers are in such trouble because of two main factors: one, the unbridled and short-sighted greed of the Unions and two, the colossal mismanagement of the automakers. Other factors like product quality were secondary as the automakers were forced to cut corners. This slippery slope has contributed to the fact that ‘Big Three’ no longer holds the same meaning.
In the 1990’s, when GM was considered ‘too big to fail’, the Union lobbied the Government to allow GM to not properly fund its worker’s pension fund. Why? Because the cookie jar was already empty and those now-loosened funds could buy more cookies for the Union’s members. And as the first deal made come negotiation time is used as a template, all of the ‘Big Three’ were set on the same hook.
These retirees made wages and enjoyed benefits well beyond that of other union and non-union workers (most of whom with superior skills and qualifications) and in their collective stupidity and arrogance believed everything their union told them about the party never ending; that they always had their employer dominated. Most, it seems, planned for their individual financial futures accordingly, depending on their gold pensions to be there.
Now the Union is telling the government that they should make you and I pay their way. I don’t have a pension. I have to save for my own retirement. And I might be made to fund the retirements of workers who had remuneration packages entirely incongruent with their skill-set and the market value for their work.
I think not. Let these retirees go back to work. I wouldn’t anticipate retiring without planning ahead. Why should they?
The audacity of such a demand is blinding.
The North American automakers are in such trouble because of two main factors: one, the unbridled and short-sighted greed of the Unions and two, the colossal mismanagement of the automakers. Other factors like product quality were secondary as the automakers were forced to cut corners. This slippery slope has contributed to the fact that ‘Big Three’ no longer holds the same meaning.
In the 1990’s, when GM was considered ‘too big to fail’, the Union lobbied the Government to allow GM to not properly fund its worker’s pension fund. Why? Because the cookie jar was already empty and those now-loosened funds could buy more cookies for the Union’s members. And as the first deal made come negotiation time is used as a template, all of the ‘Big Three’ were set on the same hook.
These retirees made wages and enjoyed benefits well beyond that of other union and non-union workers (most of whom with superior skills and qualifications) and in their collective stupidity and arrogance believed everything their union told them about the party never ending; that they always had their employer dominated. Most, it seems, planned for their individual financial futures accordingly, depending on their gold pensions to be there.
Now the Union is telling the government that they should make you and I pay their way. I don’t have a pension. I have to save for my own retirement. And I might be made to fund the retirements of workers who had remuneration packages entirely incongruent with their skill-set and the market value for their work.
I think not. Let these retirees go back to work. I wouldn’t anticipate retiring without planning ahead. Why should they?
Monday, April 06, 2009
Health Care: Looking For Middle Ground
As expected, there are groups in the United States using the tragic and untimely death of Natasha Richardson as fodder to diss ‘Canadian-style’ healthcare. I don't fault the Canadian system for her death. These things happen. Its not tragic because she was pretty, or because she was famous, or because it happened in Canada. She was young and the injury preventable and seemingly mundane. Its tragic because it would seem she sought out treatment too late.
Pragmatism should (usually) come before national pride, so I am not a proponent of the status quo with respect to the Canadian health care system. The notion that health care should still be delivered through a bloated government monopoly is asinine and idealistic.
Health care has come a long way and is a lot more complex and expensive than it was 40+ years ago. When Tommy Douglas’ idea went national, cancer patients simply died. Diagnoses and treatments that we have now for many diseases and disorders just didn’t exist. These are often very expensive. Things have changed drastically since the systems inception. Why shouldn’t the system?
Horror stories abound on both sides of the border and point to the faults of both. We hear of people dying in Emergency Rooms because they had diagnostic appointments weeks or months in the future. And we hear of people not having access at all because of finances. We also hear wonderful stories of the successes each system has. That’s all rhetoric. No system is perfect.
The truth often lies in between both extremes. If we are pragmatic, we might realize that changes can be made in both systems to improve access and timeliness.
Why can’t a ‘for profit’ clinic invest its privately-funded start-up capital in diagnostic machinery and then staff qualified, well-paid (though probably non-union) personnel and charge back the services it provides to the public system? If the public system can do it cheaper, then the private company would have to only live off the excess demand. Perhaps we could even ask the patient if they’d like to cover the difference and take the private option if it can be provided sooner. (I know I would) But if as I suspect, a private venture could do it cheaper, so much the better. The savings can be sent elsewhere. I don’t see the threat to our system that the NDP and Liberals talk about.
I don’t care what the United States ultimately decides to do. I am only concerned with the Canadian system. I think it’s a broken system. Moreover, I don’t think Tommy Douglas would disagree given how things have changed since the 1960’s. We can't let our misplaced pride in being different from the United States stop us from seeing the truth and changing according.
Unfortunately, while the system is considered a sacred cow, we won't be able to save it from itself. Because of that, I believe the system will eventually collapse.
Pragmatism should (usually) come before national pride, so I am not a proponent of the status quo with respect to the Canadian health care system. The notion that health care should still be delivered through a bloated government monopoly is asinine and idealistic.
Health care has come a long way and is a lot more complex and expensive than it was 40+ years ago. When Tommy Douglas’ idea went national, cancer patients simply died. Diagnoses and treatments that we have now for many diseases and disorders just didn’t exist. These are often very expensive. Things have changed drastically since the systems inception. Why shouldn’t the system?
Horror stories abound on both sides of the border and point to the faults of both. We hear of people dying in Emergency Rooms because they had diagnostic appointments weeks or months in the future. And we hear of people not having access at all because of finances. We also hear wonderful stories of the successes each system has. That’s all rhetoric. No system is perfect.
The truth often lies in between both extremes. If we are pragmatic, we might realize that changes can be made in both systems to improve access and timeliness.
Why can’t a ‘for profit’ clinic invest its privately-funded start-up capital in diagnostic machinery and then staff qualified, well-paid (though probably non-union) personnel and charge back the services it provides to the public system? If the public system can do it cheaper, then the private company would have to only live off the excess demand. Perhaps we could even ask the patient if they’d like to cover the difference and take the private option if it can be provided sooner. (I know I would) But if as I suspect, a private venture could do it cheaper, so much the better. The savings can be sent elsewhere. I don’t see the threat to our system that the NDP and Liberals talk about.
I don’t care what the United States ultimately decides to do. I am only concerned with the Canadian system. I think it’s a broken system. Moreover, I don’t think Tommy Douglas would disagree given how things have changed since the 1960’s. We can't let our misplaced pride in being different from the United States stop us from seeing the truth and changing according.
Unfortunately, while the system is considered a sacred cow, we won't be able to save it from itself. Because of that, I believe the system will eventually collapse.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Lets Set Aside the 'Science' of Global Warming
Forgive me if this is a bit willy-nilly. Its 1AM and I'm cobbling this together from snippets of a thread. I'm debating Global Warming with someone on the National Post's website. I only copied and edited my own contributions, so I don't have to give credit to the other individual or explain any plagarism.
The 'Hockey Stick Graph' is the poster child for the 'Warmists' and it makes the most compelling visual (to the masses) in Al Gore's propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth". If you've seen the movie, you know what I am talking about.
In any case, I could talk about how the 'Hockey Stick Graph' has been debunked, and you can talk about how that debunking has since been debunked.
And I can talk about scientists that have sold their souls and can't go back on what they have been yelling at us with megaphones for fear of losing credibility, and you can talk about the ones who MUST be in the pay of Big Oil.
And we can bicker over 'consensus'. Is it really there? Was it ever there? Is it crumbling?
But what does all that MEAN?
Yes, there is 'science' supporting both sides with everything from computer models to core samples. So what? Where does that get us if each side suspects the other of having a political and/or monetary agenda? We can boast that 'my science and beat up your science'. The science is what it is. It all comes down to who happens to be right in the first place. In any case, only science that supports AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) gets published these days, and even then, it has to have more doom and gloom than the last story or else it won't fly. This week its 1 metre rise in sea levels; next week it'll be a 2 metre rise. Who cares that their isn't that much water in the world. Why let facts get in the way of scaring the crap out of those who won't or can't think for themselves?
So let’s make all the 'science' suspect and go back to anecdotal evidence. History records what people saw and things that happened. The people who recorded it all died off before they had a chance to care about how much money people make selling fossil fuels or preaching the 'Word according to Al'. Let's try to explain in an objective manner what they saw.
During the Medieval Warming Period temperatures were far warmer than we see today. Of course, Medieval Man had no means to empirically measure the temperatures so we need to use anecdotal evidence to support the notion that they experiences temperature far higher than we see today. We see evidence that grapes were cultivated in England and that parts of Europe had two growing seasons. They also had hurricanes. I can’t recall one hitting Europe in my lifetime. Can you?
A scientist makes a theory then looks at fact and checks for fit. A true scientist is satisfied with the answer: the truth, whatever it may be. Ideally, they should be equally happy to have the theory disproved as it is still one step closer to understanding Nature. A scientist holding his theory above truth is no longer a scientist. A theory is just that until disproved. It is never proven, really. All it ever is, is 'the best we have right now'. Newtonian physics works just fine when you look at cars colliding in an intersection. But when you look at really big things, really small things and things going really fast, Sir Isaac Newton didn't quite have all the answers. How could he? Nonetheless, he was able to explain a lot about the world he could see.
Newtonian physics applies to two cars colliding as well as it does two trucks or two satellites in orbit. So it stands to reason that any theory that presumes to explain warming should not fall flat when used to explain a previous warming, right?
'Warmists' can't explain the Medieval Warming Period because, quite simply, it doesn't fit their theory. So they are forced to change the Medieval Warming Period into a little blip on the Hockey Stick Graph. Its fraud. Its playing fast and loose with the facts. Its unscientific. For them its just an inconvenient truth to be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
The 'Hockey Stick Graph' is the poster child for the 'Warmists' and it makes the most compelling visual (to the masses) in Al Gore's propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth". If you've seen the movie, you know what I am talking about.
In any case, I could talk about how the 'Hockey Stick Graph' has been debunked, and you can talk about how that debunking has since been debunked.
And I can talk about scientists that have sold their souls and can't go back on what they have been yelling at us with megaphones for fear of losing credibility, and you can talk about the ones who MUST be in the pay of Big Oil.
And we can bicker over 'consensus'. Is it really there? Was it ever there? Is it crumbling?
But what does all that MEAN?
Yes, there is 'science' supporting both sides with everything from computer models to core samples. So what? Where does that get us if each side suspects the other of having a political and/or monetary agenda? We can boast that 'my science and beat up your science'. The science is what it is. It all comes down to who happens to be right in the first place. In any case, only science that supports AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) gets published these days, and even then, it has to have more doom and gloom than the last story or else it won't fly. This week its 1 metre rise in sea levels; next week it'll be a 2 metre rise. Who cares that their isn't that much water in the world. Why let facts get in the way of scaring the crap out of those who won't or can't think for themselves?
So let’s make all the 'science' suspect and go back to anecdotal evidence. History records what people saw and things that happened. The people who recorded it all died off before they had a chance to care about how much money people make selling fossil fuels or preaching the 'Word according to Al'. Let's try to explain in an objective manner what they saw.
During the Medieval Warming Period temperatures were far warmer than we see today. Of course, Medieval Man had no means to empirically measure the temperatures so we need to use anecdotal evidence to support the notion that they experiences temperature far higher than we see today. We see evidence that grapes were cultivated in England and that parts of Europe had two growing seasons. They also had hurricanes. I can’t recall one hitting Europe in my lifetime. Can you?
A scientist makes a theory then looks at fact and checks for fit. A true scientist is satisfied with the answer: the truth, whatever it may be. Ideally, they should be equally happy to have the theory disproved as it is still one step closer to understanding Nature. A scientist holding his theory above truth is no longer a scientist. A theory is just that until disproved. It is never proven, really. All it ever is, is 'the best we have right now'. Newtonian physics works just fine when you look at cars colliding in an intersection. But when you look at really big things, really small things and things going really fast, Sir Isaac Newton didn't quite have all the answers. How could he? Nonetheless, he was able to explain a lot about the world he could see.
Newtonian physics applies to two cars colliding as well as it does two trucks or two satellites in orbit. So it stands to reason that any theory that presumes to explain warming should not fall flat when used to explain a previous warming, right?
'Warmists' can't explain the Medieval Warming Period because, quite simply, it doesn't fit their theory. So they are forced to change the Medieval Warming Period into a little blip on the Hockey Stick Graph. Its fraud. Its playing fast and loose with the facts. Its unscientific. For them its just an inconvenient truth to be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Toronto's 'Africentric' school
Can anyone tell me why this notion is not racist? Can non-black people go to this school?
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/03/09/toronto-s-africentric-signs-up-enough-students-will-open-in-fall.aspx
Ostensibly, this is an effort to engage black students in school so they don't drop out. Its interesting that school boards are even ALLOWED to consider skin colour when collating data on dropout rates. Blacks don't drop out of school because of inferior intellect, and they don't drop out because we force them to study 'white' math, 'white' geography and 'white' reading. There might be the complaint that Canadian history is 'white' history but largely, it is. But isn't it still part of the curriculum? Should it not be?
I don’t know, it seems like segregation to me, even though its voluntary.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/03/09/toronto-s-africentric-signs-up-enough-students-will-open-in-fall.aspx
Ostensibly, this is an effort to engage black students in school so they don't drop out. Its interesting that school boards are even ALLOWED to consider skin colour when collating data on dropout rates. Blacks don't drop out of school because of inferior intellect, and they don't drop out because we force them to study 'white' math, 'white' geography and 'white' reading. There might be the complaint that Canadian history is 'white' history but largely, it is. But isn't it still part of the curriculum? Should it not be?
I don’t know, it seems like segregation to me, even though its voluntary.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Canada Should Not Fight For Clemency For Canadians Abroad
I agree with the Conservative Government's action in regards to Ronald Smith. He is being punished in a democratic country and that's good enough for me.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1357626
I have never supported the notion of capital punishment as a mode of revenge or even deterrence. I have always supported the notion of capital punishment as a way of mitigating the (negative) impact of a particular human being’s existence on this Earth. So, obviously, I don’t even like the name ‘capital punishment’. Perhaps ‘capital mitigation’ is a better term.
Imagine the good that could be done with the money and resources used instead to keep people like Mr. Smith incarcerated until they die of natural causes.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1357626
I have never supported the notion of capital punishment as a mode of revenge or even deterrence. I have always supported the notion of capital punishment as a way of mitigating the (negative) impact of a particular human being’s existence on this Earth. So, obviously, I don’t even like the name ‘capital punishment’. Perhaps ‘capital mitigation’ is a better term.
Imagine the good that could be done with the money and resources used instead to keep people like Mr. Smith incarcerated until they die of natural causes.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Sid Ryan Gets the Smackdown He Deserves
As individuals, if we don’t have enough to worry about anymore or if we are bored with our own existence, we might allow ourselves to become focused on things that really are none of our business. And the most arrogant of us might presume to develop opinions on issues about which we know nothing. And I suppose organizations can do the same. Clearly this is the case for CUPE’s leadership.
Perhaps it’s a sign that unions are no longer necessary that CUPE felt it was right to dabble in International Politics.
CUPE’s membership published an open letter to Mr. Ryan and the rest of their leadership.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/28/cupe-members-to-sid-ryan-time-to-say-goodbye.aspx
The text of the letter follows:
An open letter to Sid Ryan andthe CUPE Ontario leadership:We, the undersigned academic members of CUPE Ontario, wish to express our outrage at the recent actions taken by Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials. These actions, which approve a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, both violate the authority with which they have been entrusted and, worse, undermine academic freedoms.
CUPE national, as well as the University of Toronto Education Workers, CUPE local 3902, have disapproved of this motion and decision, and for good reason. The most urgent matter of concern to the union is the ratification of reasonable contracts across Ontario. The primary mission of the union is to ensure the fair employment and treatment of its members. The current leadership has overreached its mandate, recklessly and irresponsibly dabbling in complex international politics. This leadership has demonstrated its resolve to continue in this fashion even though it is not competent to do so, it has not been elected to do so, and it is not in its jurisdiction to do so.
These actions have harmed our union.
As is widely known, Sid Ryan and the current leadership have decided to boycott Israeli academic institutions, based on their readings of events in the Middle East. In doing so, Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials are using union dues to forward a one-sided political agenda. This constitutes a misappropriation of union dues for partisan purposes.
This misguided political agenda was never put to the vote of the total membership, and demonstrates the degree to which CUPE Ontario policy is the expression of an autocratic minority that has disregarded the tenets of the democratic socialist tradition; namely, the freedom of discussion, votes involving all members and transparency. The leadership, headed by Sid Ryan, grandiosely claims to represent “civil society.” But Sid Ryan represents only himself and like-minded colleagues — civil society has not been consulted.
Surely Mr. Ryan knows that had he consulted his constituents, he could not claim that union members would support a focus on boycotting academic institutions. But of course, none of us has had the opportunity to express any opinion on the use of our dues for his partisan political preferences.
Many have pointed out that singling out predominantly Jewish institutions for this boycott suggests a discriminatory policy. The experience at York University campus only last week demonstrates how quickly anti-Israel positions can translate into anti-Semitic slogans. Whatever the intent, the question arises: “Why is the leadership doing anything that could be remotely construed as anti-Semitic?” This accusation of anti-Semitism shames our union. Such policies are an inept and disgraceful abuse of the authority vested in this leadership.
It is ironic that this censorial activity is led by a man who is quick to claim for himself the mantle of human-rights activist. Freedom of thought is a most fundamental human right, yet it seems to be a right that Sid Ryan has no trouble trampling on. Sid Ryan seems to think that he and his closest colleagues have the right to determine which academics we ought to listen to and which ought to be censored. That tells us all we need to know about Mr. Ryan’s estimation of his own moral and intellectual capacities, and how little he values those of others.
To Mr. Ryan, we say this: We are academics. Without academic freedom, there is no civil society. The boycott he champions in our name undermines civil society by weakening the very freedom on which it depends. The freedom of thought is arguably the most important foundation and fruit of civil society. The boycott of academic institutions is an attack upon this freedom, which an enlightened union should be supporting, rather than limiting. For Mr. Ryan’s boycott limits the freedom not only of the academics he wishes to prevent from speaking (in this case, Israeli academics), but also of those who might wish to listen (Canadians).
For all of the above reasons, we, as Ontario academics, call on Sid Ryan to resign for undermining our union.We do not consent to have our wages used to support resolutions on which we have not been allowed to vote, which violate the spirit of the union’s constitution and which compromise our integrity at a most fundamental level.
Signed by members of CUPE 3902, University of Toronto:Paul Nahme, Jenn Cianca, Carolyn Reimer, Ian Richards, Callie Callon, Lindsay Ann Cox, Jonthan Newman, Sarah Kleeb, Shari Goldberg, Jade Weimer, Tim Langille, Emily Springay, Matt King, Amy Fisher, Zvi Halpern, Aldea Muldhern, Tema Smith, G. Anthony Bruno, Kathleen Gibbons, Nicholas Dion, Benjamin W. Carter, Jason McKinney.
Perhaps it’s a sign that unions are no longer necessary that CUPE felt it was right to dabble in International Politics.
CUPE’s membership published an open letter to Mr. Ryan and the rest of their leadership.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/28/cupe-members-to-sid-ryan-time-to-say-goodbye.aspx
The text of the letter follows:
An open letter to Sid Ryan andthe CUPE Ontario leadership:We, the undersigned academic members of CUPE Ontario, wish to express our outrage at the recent actions taken by Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials. These actions, which approve a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, both violate the authority with which they have been entrusted and, worse, undermine academic freedoms.
CUPE national, as well as the University of Toronto Education Workers, CUPE local 3902, have disapproved of this motion and decision, and for good reason. The most urgent matter of concern to the union is the ratification of reasonable contracts across Ontario. The primary mission of the union is to ensure the fair employment and treatment of its members. The current leadership has overreached its mandate, recklessly and irresponsibly dabbling in complex international politics. This leadership has demonstrated its resolve to continue in this fashion even though it is not competent to do so, it has not been elected to do so, and it is not in its jurisdiction to do so.
These actions have harmed our union.
As is widely known, Sid Ryan and the current leadership have decided to boycott Israeli academic institutions, based on their readings of events in the Middle East. In doing so, Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials are using union dues to forward a one-sided political agenda. This constitutes a misappropriation of union dues for partisan purposes.
This misguided political agenda was never put to the vote of the total membership, and demonstrates the degree to which CUPE Ontario policy is the expression of an autocratic minority that has disregarded the tenets of the democratic socialist tradition; namely, the freedom of discussion, votes involving all members and transparency. The leadership, headed by Sid Ryan, grandiosely claims to represent “civil society.” But Sid Ryan represents only himself and like-minded colleagues — civil society has not been consulted.
Surely Mr. Ryan knows that had he consulted his constituents, he could not claim that union members would support a focus on boycotting academic institutions. But of course, none of us has had the opportunity to express any opinion on the use of our dues for his partisan political preferences.
Many have pointed out that singling out predominantly Jewish institutions for this boycott suggests a discriminatory policy. The experience at York University campus only last week demonstrates how quickly anti-Israel positions can translate into anti-Semitic slogans. Whatever the intent, the question arises: “Why is the leadership doing anything that could be remotely construed as anti-Semitic?” This accusation of anti-Semitism shames our union. Such policies are an inept and disgraceful abuse of the authority vested in this leadership.
It is ironic that this censorial activity is led by a man who is quick to claim for himself the mantle of human-rights activist. Freedom of thought is a most fundamental human right, yet it seems to be a right that Sid Ryan has no trouble trampling on. Sid Ryan seems to think that he and his closest colleagues have the right to determine which academics we ought to listen to and which ought to be censored. That tells us all we need to know about Mr. Ryan’s estimation of his own moral and intellectual capacities, and how little he values those of others.
To Mr. Ryan, we say this: We are academics. Without academic freedom, there is no civil society. The boycott he champions in our name undermines civil society by weakening the very freedom on which it depends. The freedom of thought is arguably the most important foundation and fruit of civil society. The boycott of academic institutions is an attack upon this freedom, which an enlightened union should be supporting, rather than limiting. For Mr. Ryan’s boycott limits the freedom not only of the academics he wishes to prevent from speaking (in this case, Israeli academics), but also of those who might wish to listen (Canadians).
For all of the above reasons, we, as Ontario academics, call on Sid Ryan to resign for undermining our union.We do not consent to have our wages used to support resolutions on which we have not been allowed to vote, which violate the spirit of the union’s constitution and which compromise our integrity at a most fundamental level.
Signed by members of CUPE 3902, University of Toronto:Paul Nahme, Jenn Cianca, Carolyn Reimer, Ian Richards, Callie Callon, Lindsay Ann Cox, Jonthan Newman, Sarah Kleeb, Shari Goldberg, Jade Weimer, Tim Langille, Emily Springay, Matt King, Amy Fisher, Zvi Halpern, Aldea Muldhern, Tema Smith, G. Anthony Bruno, Kathleen Gibbons, Nicholas Dion, Benjamin W. Carter, Jason McKinney.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Toronto mosque offers 'detox' for extremists
The National Post - 11FEB2009
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1275285
'12-step program targets al-Qaeda sympathizer'
Good on him. But we'll need a whole lot more of this if Islam is to mature like other faiths have.
Given the rather extreme instructions and absurd promises in the Koran (please, enlighten me if I am wrong as I am no theology expert) that can easily be used to justify violence, (salvation through murder of 'Infidels', virgins in the afterlife and all that) we won't see the end of violent Islamist Fundamentalism in our lifetime. Moreover, the fundamental differences between the Islamic notion of 'peace' and our notion of 'peace' are too great. 'Peace' to us is non-violent co-existence. 'Peace' to a Muslim is defined as the point in time when all walking this Earth worship Allah.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1275285
'12-step program targets al-Qaeda sympathizer'
Good on him. But we'll need a whole lot more of this if Islam is to mature like other faiths have.
Given the rather extreme instructions and absurd promises in the Koran (please, enlighten me if I am wrong as I am no theology expert) that can easily be used to justify violence, (salvation through murder of 'Infidels', virgins in the afterlife and all that) we won't see the end of violent Islamist Fundamentalism in our lifetime. Moreover, the fundamental differences between the Islamic notion of 'peace' and our notion of 'peace' are too great. 'Peace' to us is non-violent co-existence. 'Peace' to a Muslim is defined as the point in time when all walking this Earth worship Allah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)