Friday, December 10, 2010

Dan Gardner's Ignorance

Dan Gardner has written several articles that display strong left leanings without actually telling us who he really is.


He wrote an article commenting that Republicans have no ideas, but still the Democrats won. 


He has also written an article comparing President Bush, getting information from terrorists to Mr. Assange. I was not aware that Mr. Assange was fighting any wars, were you?


Both of those articles were answered on Full Comment on the National Post website.


Here is my answer to his ignorance about why war is conducted and why it is NOT pretty, just necessary!


Dan Gardner says
"almost all its leading figures feel the near-drowning of suspects is a valid interrogation technique?"

Again Mr. Gardner expresses his high tolerance of ignorance. 

First: WE ARE at war with a military that is too cowardly to put on a uniform and hides behind women and children. 

Second: Perphaps Dan is not familiar with the concept of war. War is when you send YOUR soldiers out to KILL enemy soldiers. It 's not fun, but it's necessary to prevent being overrun by bullies, and speaking German, Russian or Chinese for the rest of your life

"ALMOST" is NOT DEAD! To save many lives, even if 1 were killed, would it not be worth it? We are not talking about policemen Dan, we are talking ENEMIES who would kill, bomb, shoot, and murder, not talk mean to you or spit in your face!

So yes "near-drowning" of not suspects but terrorists captured in a war zone is mild, and much better than the creation of public beheading videos of innocents broadcast for the world to see.

"Almost" is an interesting word. When you drive on the 401, or QEW, every moment you are ALMOST DEAD, because a slight turn of about 1" [2.54 cm] will kill you, but somehow millions do that every workday and other than high stress levels do NOT die from ALMOST! In fact I doubt that they were even thinking about how dangerous it really is when a slight turn of the wheel or a moment of inattention in heavy traffic can kill you DEAD, not just ALMOST.

So if we look at it from another point of view, would it be better to just allow the terrorists to kill more innocents, bomb more civilians, sacrifice MORE of their children and wives, and the families of others or simply make someone who is vicious enough to shoot you dead on sight, to simply be more comfortable after doing it? 

Sorry but I try to make my guests comfortable and would if necessary kill an enemy who is dedicated to killing me, or even Dan Gardner, not to make them "feel at home".

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/03/dan-gardner-why-should-assange-be-punished-when-bush-goes-free/#ixzz17jrB5YRT

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Canadian Media Bark up the Wrong Tree in Lebanon Ambush

Canadian Media Bark up the Wrong Tree in Lebanon Ambush
August 4, 2010
 

  
View this Article Online and Discuss on Headlines and Deadlines
                                                                                                             

Dear HonestReporting Canada Subscriber,
When it comes to news coverage of Mideast skirmishes and conflicts, sometimes, to quote real estate agents worldwide, the only thing that matters is "Location, Location, Location!"
Yesterday's fatal exchange of fire between Lebanese soldiers and the IDF on Israel's northern border, which left one Israeli soldier dead along with four other fatalities on the Lebanese side, raised several questions concerning the integrity and accuracy of the media that covered the events.
Lebanese forces admittedly opened fire on IDF soldiers performing routine maintenance work by the security fence near the border. The IDF soldiers were clearing bushes to improve the line of sight over the border and to prevent Hezbollah terrorists from hiding in the undergrowth and carrying out an attack or kidnapping. The routine work had been cleared in advance with UNIFIL, which has recently confirmed that the tree in question was in Israeli territory.

It's vital to note that the UN demarcated Blue Line that marks the official border between Israel and Lebanon does not always follow the route of the security fence. While the IDF was operating over the fence, it was still within Israeli territory as seen on the map below.

          
When Wire Services Get it Wrong, Media Fall Down the Ugly Tree
As is so often the case in any incident involving Israel, official Israeli statements were ignored in favour of Lebanese accusations that the IDF had crossed into Lebanese territory, a theme taken up by wire services like the Associated Press which had initially described the crane as being located on the Lebanese side of the border. CTV.ca and CBC.ca were two such Canadian media outlets which succumbed to incorrect captioning by AP.
CTV.ca article yesterday stated that the incident had occurred "on the Lebanese side of theborder in the southern village of Adaisseh." HonestReporting Canada notified CTV executives about this error and commendably the following amendment was immediately issued:

                
CBC.ca also recognized this same photo caption error and issued an amendment for the online photo while commissioning the following correction:

              
It's also worth noting that both CTV.ca and CBC.ca also carried articles today reporting on the UN's claim that this incident had occurred on sovereign Israeli territory.
Meanwhile, Toronto Star correspondent Olivia Ward's report was balanced and contextualized in scope, however her statement claiming that Israel was cutting trees in a nebulously-termed "buffer zone" was not:
"The Israelis say they were trying to cut trees in the buffer zone along the border area - and had notified the United Nations peacekeeping force UNIFIL in advance - when Lebanese snipers opened fire, killing Lt.-Col. Dov Harari, and gravely wounding the platoon commander."
A buffer zone sounds rather vague and may imply that Lebanon's response was mitigated or evenunderstandable. Interestingly, Ward didn't specifically cite either country's claim to the tree itself. Likewise, the Globe and Mail's account of this incident saw reporter Patrick Martin conducting verbal gymnastics to avoid conceding outright that the incident had occurred on Israeli territory.
How and Why Were the Photographers There?
An AP report on the incident places Ronith Daher, a Lebanese journalist at the scene. Evidently, someone from Reuters was also at the location. But why were they there in the first place taking photographs before the incident even occurred? After all, pruning foliage is hardly headline news on an ordinary day unless something out of the ordinary was expected.
Was this incident a staged and pre-planned ambush as evidenced by the presence of photographers and journalists even before the exchange of fire? Were these journalists there precisely because they had advance notice of a potential flashpoint?
Credit goes out to CBC correspondent Irris Makler for filing a report today on "World Report" whichacknowledged
 that "There was also a large number of Lebanese journalists and Israel claims they must have been alerted ahead of time to be present at this distant border region." Makler also noted that the UN's findings vindicate Israel's position, stating that this "could bolster the Israeli claim that there was a Lebanese sniper unit waiting to attack the Israeli soldiers while they were lopping trees." To listen to this report please click here. Makler also filed a similar report on CBC TV's News Now today which can be accessed here or on the image to the right.
Causation Lost in Translation
Listeners of last night's broadcast of the CBC Radio program "As It Happens" and readers of today'sOttawa Citizen were given the false impression that Israel had in some way provoked/instigated a Lebanese retaliation. To quote the As It Happens teaser: "When Israeli soldiers cut down trees along the border with Lebanon, tensions flare -- and five people are killed." Likewise, the Citizen featured a report today from Times of London correspondent James Hider stating that the "Latest confrontation (was) spurred by (an) Israeli attempt to cut down a tree."

Of course, the reverse chronology of these statements is the truth. Namely that tensions and confrontations were "flared" / "spurred" when a Lebanese Armed Forces sniper instigated aggressive hostilities against Israeli soldiers who were cutting down trees in Israeli territory.
Meanwhile, reports aired yesterday by Global National's Stuart Greer (see right) and freelancer Ben Gilbert on two CBC programs (see here andhere), along with the Globe and Mail's report today, got lost in translation for their portrayal of the location of the incident's hostilities and what brought the skirmish to a fore, as simply being boiled down to a matter of "he said/she said" between Israel and Lebanon.
A Simple Narrative Ignored by the Media
Many media outlets, including the BBC, have given equal or more weight to Lebanese claims surrounding the nature of the incident despite the overwhelming evidence. CNN stated that "Two separate narratives emerged about the incident." Commenting on the media coverage, particularly from the New York TimesBarry Rubin says:
"The truth, however, is easy to ascertain--did Israel announce the maintenance, permit the photographers and UN people to watch and then cross deliberately into Lebanon?--but Israel is being portrayed as an aggressor that caused the outbreak of fighting. So millions of people will either believe that Israel was at fault or that the event is in question.

The narrative, however, is simple: In an unprovoked attack, Lebanese soldiers fired on Israelis and murdered one soldier.
"
In a similar vein, a staff editorial which will appear in tomorrow's National Post stated that "Not surprisingly, the event is being used as a rallying point to try to unite Lebanese disparate factionsagainst Israel. Even in the West, many of the usual suspects are simply ignoring the UN-stipulated facts and blaming Israel for what we now know was a Lebanese act of murder. From Jenin to Gaza to Lebanon, this pattern is always the same: Never let the truth get in the way of stirring up hate against the Jewish state."
How You Can Make A Difference:
Watch out for incorrectly captioned photos and inaccurate stories in your local media outlets and take action to secure corrections and amendments. To see how additional Canadian media outlets have reported on this incident, please see the following television, radio, print, and online media reports that have appeared in recent days:
TV: CBC National brief report (Aug. 3) CBC News Network brief report (Aug. 3), CTV National Newsreport by Joanne Clancy (Aug. 3), CTV News Channel interview of Andrea Tenenti of UNIFIL, RDIreport by Luc Lapierre (Aug. 3) Radio-Canada report by Luc Lapierre (Aug. 3)
Radio: CBC "World at Six" report by Irris Makler (Aug. 3), CBC "World Report" segment by Ben Gilbert (Aug. 3) Radio-Canada Radio report by Laure Stephan (Aug. 4)
Print: Hamilton SpectatorVictoria Times ColonistCalgary HeraldLe SoleilLe Droit, Montreal Gazette (See here and here), La Presse, 24 Heures (here, and here), Edmonton Journal, Journal de Quebec (here and here), Daily GleanerGlobe and MailCharlottetown GuardianLa Tribune,Kingston Whig StandardNational PostPrince Albert Daily HeraldLe Devoir (here and here)The TelegramToronto/Edmonton Sun,  Moose Jaw TimesWinnipeg SunVancouver Sun,Windsor Star, and the Daily Observer/North Bay Nugget/Sun Times/Recorder Times

Online: Radio-Canada, Canoe (hereherehereherehere, and here) Cyberpresse (herehere,herehere, and here)
____________________________________________________________________________
This communique was adapted fromHonestReporting.com
Click on the image to the right to find out more information, to subscribe, and to take action.
____________________________________________________________________________
                             View this Article Online and Discuss on Headlines and Deadlines
 
 

SLANDEROUS REMARK not appreciated

J Brean whoever you are ...


In your Things to Watch column, you are SO notably biased against evangelicals that you cannot leave out an opportunity to slam us. Who do you think you work for? The CBC?


When you refer to the proposed, rather outrageous Ugandan law to kill homosexuals and insert the phrase "and the apparent support it received from American evangelical groups" you show that IF WE WERE BLACK you would be looking for a lynch mob to hang us. Sorry but your verbal lynchings are also NOT acceptable.


Your inappropriate slanderous remark reflects more on YOUR prejudice than ANY evangelicals.


I could pick individual evangelical groups, some of which are not in favour of ANY KIND of capital punishment to those whose ministries send many individuals and millions of dollars to help people from Haiti and others around the world. More apparently, stats show that the "unevangelicals" apparently keep more of their money tight-fistedly to spend on themselves. I could cite sources if you wish. I read them in the NP as well as elsewhere.


Can you really picture the aging Billy Graham, or even the embarrassingly outspoken Pat Robertson of Operation Blessing and CBN or Rick Warren whose "Purpose-Driven" books sell in the millions around the world or many millions of the less-famous, jumping up and down for glee at the thought of  homosexuals being killed? What ivory tower do you live in? Come out the air is fine!


These American evangelicals are usually the same people who are AGAINST the accepted practice which you probably endorse of killing unborn babies, of course dressed up in harmless words like "fetuses". I have news for you, it isn't just the "feet" that are killed!


No if you picked on any group which has the earmarks of being in favour of such nonsense maybe you should look to the pro-abortionists, who more "apparently" are in favour of the murder of helpless individuals for the convenience of someone else. 


Sincerely
Charles G. Pedley BA MSED [two degrees, both above zero]
Fonthill




www.schoolgenius.com

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The damage done - Anti-Vaccine Doctor Bribed by $700, 000 Offer

The damage done

Michael Fumento,  National Post 
The doctor who launched the modern anti-vaccine movement acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly," Britain's General Medical Council has ruled. But fear not. Dr. Andrew Wakefield is still a hero to his many acolytes. And others, with curious credentials, fight on to terrify parents into denying their children vaccines.

In 1998 Wakefield wrote and then vociferously hawked an article in the British medical journal Lancet linking autism to the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella). After the council's decision, Lancet retracted the article on Jan. 28. Among the facts that have come out of the inquiry into Wakefield's research is that two years before his paper appeared, lawyers seeking to sue vaccine-makers paid Wakefield the equivalent of $700,000.

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.