Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Israeli academic speaks out on York University conference

 

"THIS WAS AN 'ACADEMIC' VERSION OF DURBAN,"

SAYS ISRAELI PROFESSOR ON YORK U. CONFERENCE

 

We are pleased to share with you below an op ed published in today's online edition of the Toronto Star by Na'ama Carmi, a professor from Haifa University, who participated in the recent York University conference, "Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace". The op ed titled, "Middle East conference anything but academic," speaks for itself. We congratulate Prof. Carmi on her intellectual honesty in coming forward to report on the anti-Israel climate of the conference.

 

We also encourage those who have not already done so to visit B'nai Brith Canada's website for a full analysis of what transpired at the conference. The brief by B'nai Brith can be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.bnaibrith.ca/files/260609.pdf.

 


MIDDLE EAST CONFERENCE ANYTHING BUT ACADEMIC

By Na'ama Carmi

Toronto Star, June 30, 2009

 

I hesitated whether to accept the invitation to participate in the conference at York University on "Models of Statehood in Israel/Palestine."

 

Such conferences, even when organized with goodwill, are frequently hijacked and become anti-Israeli events. However, the dilemma is always whether to leave the floor only to the most extreme and one-sided views, or to try to bring a different voice, one that attempts to display the complexity of the situation and presents a perspective that would not be presented if one were to stay away.

 

Reaction to the pressure put on the conference and the Jewish Defense League's (JDL) activity against it, and the desire to present such a voice seemed good reasons to take part, and not to surrender to attempts to silence debate and curb academic freedom.

 

Although the extreme manner in which they were presented was sometimes hard to hear, I was not surprised by the same Palestinian arguments that have been around for decades.

 

Thus, we heard that Israel is a racist, apartheid state; that the Palestinians are the "indigenous" and Zionists the colonials; that the only reason for the unwillingness of Jewish Israelis to give up a Jewish national state is their unwillingness to surrender power and privileges; and that Zionism has an inherent tendency toward war crimes.

 

Unfortunately, this was not accompanied with introspection or self-criticism by the Palestinians. Hamas was not mentioned at all. Apparently it does not exist in the virtual map of the Palestinian participants. Another "marginal" phenomenon that disappeared as if it did not exist is the lethal Palestinian terror against Israeli citizens.

 

But if all this was quite an expected scenario, not in my worst dreams did I imagine an atmosphere that was totally incompatible with academic discourse. The university rightly resisted outside pressures aimed at silencing the conference. But there were attempts at the conference itself to silence unpopular views.

 

A hostile atmosphere toward people with different views generally, and Jewish-Zionist Israelis in particular, was created. Anyone who challenged the Palestinian perspective was intimidated or even labelled a racist. The audience vocally applauded those whose views it approved. At times, those presenting a different view were subject to abuse and ridicule.

 

For me, this reached an extreme when one interlocutor, rather than debating the substantive arguments I presented, questioned my psychological state. And all of this without any apparent attempt by the organizers to stop it. Never before in my whole academic career have I encountered the rudeness that I experienced at this conference.

 

Academic discourse implies in-depth analysis of issues, even loaded ones, theorizing and making well-based arguments. Reasoned criticism is a first-degree instrument for the advancement of academic knowledge. Ad-hominem offence and the silencing of unpopular views are its antithesis. If one has good arguments, one doesn't need to resort to such tactics. As an Israeli politician once reputedly wrote on the side of his written text: "Here the argument is weak, raise your voice."

 

After my presentation, people approached me to thank me for presenting an alternative view. They admitted that in the prevailing atmosphere they were deterred from stepping forward and expressing a different voice. This is a disgrace for the academic host of this conference. I'd very much want to believe that the organizers were only naive. It's more difficult to accept that there was no agenda, explicit or hidden, to this conference

 

The Palestinians' pain and rage are understandable. But what happened at York University reflects a worrying, dangerous and, unfortunately, not uncommon pattern. Persons who demand the protection of human rights abandon them and display little tolerance for the views of others when they have the power to marginalize them. This provides food for thought. Surely such tolerance would be a sine qua non in the liberal democratic state that many participants in the conference purport to support.

 

The universities that sponsored this conference should give themselves an accounting. While the JDL demonstrated outside the campus, a pro-Palestinian demonstration took place inside the conference itself, from the floor, under an academic disguise.

 

This was not an academic conference, but an "academic" version of Durban.

 

Na'ama Carmi teaches at the faculty of law of Haifa University, Israel.

 

B'nai Brith Canada has been active in Canada since 1875 as the foremost Jewish human rights organization. To learn more about its advocacy work and diverse community and social programs, please visit http://www.bnaibrith.ca.  

 


Friday, June 26, 2009

Special Report: CBC Issues On-Air Clarification After HRC Complaint

 
            
 
 Special Report: CBC Issues On-Air Clarification After HRC Complaint  June 26, 2009
 
  By: Mike Fegelman, Executive Director

Click Here to View this Article Online and Discuss on Headlines and Deadlines
 
Dear HonestReporting Canada Subscriber,

Nobody likes watching a talking head read news script for hours on end. With this in mind, broadcasters feature graphics and roll stock footage in the background of a news anchors report to better illustrate what is being said. This footage aims to either reinforce the story's narrative or to expand on it with the relevant visuals to captivate and inform the viewer.
 
But sometimes what you see in the background of a news report is not actually as it should be.

Case in point: a recent CBC Newsworld report on Sunday June 14 discussed Hamas' 2nd anniversary where it violently wrested control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah. CBC host Danielle Bochove stated the following:
"Whatever the Israeli Prime Minister says today he will have to address the issue of Hamas. The militant Palestinian group is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and today marks the 2nd anniversary of Hamas taking over Gaza. It was a violent power struggle between the radical Hamas and the more centrist political party Fatah. Hamas won legislative elections in the Palestinian territories, but voters also selected rival Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian President. The result is now a split between Gaza and the West Bank, with Gaza remaining under Hamas rule and the West Bank under the rule of Fatah."
Our concerns did not stem from what Ms. Bochove said, but rather from the background file footage that CBC staff used to illustrate this news story about the Palestinian civil war which began in earnest in 2006. With respect to this report, we would have expected to have seen file footage of either Palestinians at polling stations or stock footage of the intra-Palestinian blood feud between Fatah and Hamas, but instead, for some unknown reason, CBC staff decided to show footage of Israeli tanks, helicopters, armoured personnel carriers, and Israeli homes and citizens during Israel's war with Hamas in January 2009. These images had nothing to do with Hamas' "2nd anniversary" and instead painted a picture that could be falsely interpreted as Israel, in some way or another, playing a role in either Hamas' violent coup or in interfering with the Palestinian domestic legislative elections.

To view the full report please click here or on the image below:

               

Considering the severity of this error and the implications that it posed, we immediately brought our concerns to the attention of senior editors at CBC who commendably issued a prompt on-air clarification to remedy this error. We are also pleased to inform HRC members that senior CBC editors have reviewed procedures with their writers who we trust are now sensitized to our concerns.

To view the on-air clarification that was aired on Sunday June 21 please click here or on the image below:

                                             

Here is the transcript of the 30-second clarification: "Now a clarification about a story we told you about last week. Last Sunday on this program, we told you about the 2nd anniversary of the Hamas takeover of Gaza. In that report, we showed old video of Israeli military videos and aircraft firing missiles – those pictures were shown in error. The video was from another conflict, not the struggle between Hamas and its rival Fatah. Israeli forces were not involved in the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007. We apologize for the mistake."

While we applaud the CBC for setting the record straight with this clarification and apology as a means of remedying  their original error, notwithstanding, many CBC viewers who saw the original report did not see this clarification and continue to be misled in believing that Israel had played a role in Hamas' coup d'état. Such is the importance of the media getting it right in the first place. Let this be a lesson for us all – remember to always keep a keen and critical eye on what you are seeing.
 
How You Can Make a Difference:

HonestReporting Canada — the only organization dedicated exclusively to ensuring fair and accurate Canadian media coverage of Israel and the Middle East — needs your support. As you can see for yourself our efforts do make a difference. Through your donations, you can help ensure that Canadian journalists are held to the highest standards of "honest reporting."

Please join us in defending Israel against biased reporting in the Canadian media. Please consider the following sponsorship options:
 

·         Supporter                                                                            $50

·         Donor                                                                                  $100

·         Contributor (Underwrite one month of research)     $250

·         Sponsor (Underwrite one email communiqué)          $500

·         Benefactor (Underwrite an HRC Special Report)    $1,000

·         Partner (Ensure vital projects are realized)            $5,000
 

To donate by cheque our mailing address is:

HonestReporting Canada
P.O. Box 6, Station Q
Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7
 
            
 
 
   
 
 
Toronto Office: P.O. Box 6, Station Q Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7
Montreal Office: P.O. Box 42508, Succursale Snowdon Montreal, Quebec H3W 3H7
Office: (416) 915-9157 E-mail: info@honestreporting.ca Web: www.honestreporting.ca
 

 

You are currently subscribed to honestreportingcanada as: pressing4truth.canada@blogger.com
Add info@honestreporting.ca to your email address book to ensure delivery.
Forward to a Friend  |  Manage Subscription  |   Subscribe  |   Unsubscribe
Net Atlantic

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Jonathan Kay is Wrong about Burkas

Today in the National Post's Full Comment, Jonathan Kay suggests that the burka is a religious expression.


[Which hood hides the real terrorists? Contestants, please remove your hoods!]

We can understand where Jonathan is coming from. He is saying that if we ban one form of religious expression, then all can be banned. A valid point.

However a burka [ burkha, burka or burqua from Arabic: برقع‎ burqu'] is a hood with holes for eyes in it.

What if Muslim terrorists decide to start wearing that guise as they travel our streets? Do we really want people entering public buildings with a hood over the head showing only eye-holes? Would that be a danger to our public places and way of life?

In our society, some things must be a given. We DO NOT hide our faces; if we do we are trying to hide something that could identify us later, after a robbery. [Where DID I put that balaclava? I need to make a withdrawal. (:-)]

Freedom of religion is one thing but this is NOT freedom of religion as experts on the Qu'ran will tell you.

Nicholas Sarkozy is right, Jonathan is wrong.


Comments re Full Comment
Jun 24 2009

Nath_BC ... you don't understand left and right wings ...

There are so-called "right-wing" dictators and there are so-called "left-wing" dictators.

Hitler would have been a right-wing dictator and Castro and Chavez are left wing dictators.

Right wing simply means you belong to the group of people that does not believe the government is supposed to solve ALL our problems.

Left wing usually means those who believe we should be taxed more so the government can re-distribute our earnings because they know better how to do it. Obama would be a case in point, close to home.

While we can all agree that some people cannot look after themselves, have disabilities and need our compassion and help, government as a model of how best to spend money is a farce.

If most governments in the world were businesses and had to make a profit, most would be bankrupt. The only reason that they are not is because they just tax us more to make up the difference. And if that is not enough then they start taxing our children, our children's children and all future unborn.

Businesses on the other hand MUST make a profit and return a portion of it to the shareholders. That is democracy, capitalism and the free market. Not all good but better than the alternative.

Everywhere in the world, left-wing socialist governments either have failed or are in the process of failing. Some exceptions duly noted but just give them time!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, June 12, 2009

CBC Ombud Upholds Complaint Against Al-Jazeera English Reporter



CBC Ombud Upholds Complaint Against Al-Jazeera English Reporter June 12, 2009

By: Mike Fegelman, Executive Director

Click Here to View this Article Online and Discuss on Headlines and Deadlines

Dear HonestReporting Canada Subscriber,

It's been recently reported that Al-Jazeera English (AJE) may get regulatory approval from the CRTC to broadcast in Canada by as early as this fall. Its parent company, Al Jazeera Arabic, notorious for its anti-Israel and anti-Semitic content, has been described as "a form of terror TV, an unfettered soapbox for sociopaths," and that's putting it lightly.

Canadian Jewish and pro-Israel groups are concerned about AJE's entrance into Canada and they have every reason to be.

Bernie Farber, CEO of Canadian Jewish Congress, noted recently that "the only true record we have of Al-Jazeera is the parent Arabic station, which has broadcast anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial." Likewise, Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, said that Al-Jazeera has a record of advancing "a skewed narrative of the past and present without regard for objectivity or the journalistic standards we have established in Canada." Frank Dimant, Executive Vice-President of B'nai Brith Canada, said that "the introduction of an English-language Al-Jazeera into Canadian homes can only provide yet another outlet for vicious anti-Israel propaganda. Al-Jazeera may masquerade as an unbiased, neutral media outlet, but it is fooling nobody."

HonestReporting Canada echoes these views. We are apprehensive that AJE will be unabashedly anti-Israel, journalistically unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced, and may potentially carry content which exposes Jews to hatred and anti-Semitism. We have relayed our concerns to the CRTC and to the Canadian sponsor of AJE, Ethnic Channels Group Ltd.

These concerns are not just drawn from mere suspicions or whims, instead, they are based on AJE's already troubling track record of news coverage which we feel has not complied with the CRTC's own journalistic standards and practices, coupled with the network's troubling relationship with its parent company.

Case #1: AJE Reporter Misses the "Target"

Following the recent war between Israel and Hamas this past January, one of our members, Mr. Michael Bloomfield, flagged a January 6 AJE report which aired on CBC Newsworld for being unfair and inaccurate.

In the report, AJE Gaza correspondent Mr. Ayman Mohyeldin recounted complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN that some of their workers were being wounded and killed, but Mr. Mohyeldin went a step further and stated by some unknown veracity that "they have obviously been targeted" by the Israelis. Such an allegation implied that Israeli forces were committing war crimes and were conducting activities that went against the Geneva Conventions.



After filing a complaint with the CBC asking the network to provide "irrefutable proof" to support these allegations, Mr. Bloomfield's concerns were answered by Mr. Vince Carlin, the CBC's Ombudsman, who concluded in his review on May 28 (see document by clicking here) that this AJE report "did not meet the standards of accuracy and fairness within the CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices."

According to Mr. Carlin's review:
  • "I screened the program segments in question as objectively as I could. One of the crucial questions is whether Mr. Mohyeldin was attributing his comment to the ICRC (or another international agency) or stating it on his own. If he were working as a surrogate CBC journalist, he would have had to fulfill the obligation to prove anything he stated as fact. Were he reporting the views of others, that obligation does not exist."
  • "My first conclusion was that the statement "they have obviously been targeted" was Mr. Mohyeldin's conclusion. He may have based it on statements from the ICRC or United Nations officials, but it seems clear that, in context, he offered it as a statement of fact."
  • "The next question is the meaning of "targeted." While the parsing of "targeted" in Newsworld's response is undoubtedly accurate as far as it goes, I have to fall back on what a reasonable person watching that broadcast would conclude: not that they had fallen victim of random fire, but that they had been deliberately fired upon despite their vests and other identification."
  • "What is clear is that the clip you referenced did not meet the standards of CBC journalism. Mr. Mohyeldin needed to offer proof that the claim was true, or the anchor needed to offer context to the statement."
This is a stunning acknowledgement by the CBC that the charges levelled by this AJE correspondent were not supported by fact. Ironically, this same reporter, Mr. Ayman Mohyeldin, was lauded as being a "war hero" in a published report in Haaretz. Columnist Gideon Levy described him as "the cherry on top of this journalistic cream," and Tony Burman, the ex-CBC editor-in-chief and now Managing Editor of AJE, also spoke the praises of Mr. Mohyeldin by reading this "war hero" elegy at an event at the University of Toronto this past February.

Mr. Burman has never been shy about his desire to have Al Jazeera available in Canada. Now the only question remains is whether he will temper his praises of Mr. Mohyeldin given his former CBC colleague's review chastising his Gaza correspondent.

Case #2: AJE Whitewashes Palestinian Prisoners

On October 24, 2007, CBC Around the World broadcasted a one-sided report by AJE correspondent Jacky Rowland which covered the aftermath of a Palestinian riot in Israel's Ketziot Prison.

This AJE report featured a broader discussion about Palestinian prisoners where she whitewashed the inmates by describing them as "widely respected fighters against the occupation." In an HonestReporting Canada alert, we noted that absent from Ms. Rowland's report was the fact that many of these prisoners have "blood on their hands," Israel's term for people involved in attacks against Israelis.



No reference was made that many of these prisoners were jailed for conducting terror attacks against Israelis, and therefore many of them, in the parlance of the Israeli-Arab conflict, have "blood on their hands." As a result of this AJE report presenting only the Palestinian perspective, CBC viewers were left with the impression that most Palestinian prisoners are political prisoners, not gunmen, bombers, etc., who have been unjustly detained by Israeli prison authorities.

Ms. Rowland's report also failed to put any Israeli officials on camera to provide an alternative perspective on the nefarious backgrounds of some of the Palestinian prisoners. Overall, the report failed to provide necessary context about the terror resumes and rap sheets of Palestinian prisoners and instead presented them as "widely respected fighters against the occupation."

How We Can Make a Difference:

In the past, the CRTC heeded complaints about possible incitement with Al Jazeera, the parent company of AJE, and stipulated that interested cable providers must ensure that AJ broadcasts did not violate Canadian hate laws and that they must keep round the clock recordings of all of its broadcasts. In answering the CRTC's call for comments on whether to give Al-Jazeera English its license to broadcast in Canada, we asked the CRTC to impose the aforementioned strict provisions along with other new quality control protocols to ensure that the network adheres to its responsibilities.

Should AJE come to Canada, HonestReporting Canada will be vigilant in ensuring that AJE complies with the CRTC's standards. We look forward to working with our 23,000 members and other community organizations in a united front to oppose this threat.







Toronto Office: P.O. Box 6, Station Q Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7
Montreal Office: P.O. Box 42508, Succursale Snowdon Montreal, Quebec H3W 3H7
Office: (416) 915-9157 E-mail: info@honestreporting.ca Web: www.honestreporting.ca



VIDEO:Canada Human Rights

VIDEO of CTV PowerPlay Canada Human? Rights Commission?

Iranian S-Elections?

Evolution / Intelligent Design

Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed

I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?

We have become a nation of beggars

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]

POINTS

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:

Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.

To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.

We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.

Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.

Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.

Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.

At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.

And why not?

Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

Educational Purposes Only

All articles quoted here are for educational purposes only. Canada-For-Truth encourages you to read the original articles on their respective sites.
We do not necessarily agree with all links posted here but we include them to bring balance to an unbalanced media.