Top : News and Views : Page 2

PEIBlogs.com: the definitive Prince Edward Island blogroll since 2004.: News and Views

Home | Add Site | Change Site | New | Cool | Top Rated | Random | Email Updates | Search

DotServing dotServing, the number 1 choice for Islanders looking for web hosting. Setup your presence today with web design and development plans available. Rates starting at $5 a month. Or take advantage of our affilate program available with payouts as high as $100!! Visit us at www.dotserving.pe.ca.

Links:

Contract All | Expand All

Guardian Columns - The Guardian, PEI's largest daily "Covers the Island Like the Dew". This is the feed for their columns.
(Added: 28-Jan-2006 Hits: 226 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Guardian Decision 07 - News on the May 28 2007 Provincial Election.
(Added: 1-May-2007 Hits: 89 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Guardian Editorials - The Guardian, PEI's largest daily "Covers the Island Like the Dew". This is the feed for their editorials.
(Added: 28-Jan-2006 Hits: 204 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

I told you so long ago - More op-ed pieces by Henry Srebrnik of UPEI.
(Added: 25-Jul-2006 Hits: 163 Rating: 10.00 Votes: 6) Rate It

  • Articles you will find here:
    What's Left of Trudeau? Everything, by Steven Albert and Henry Srebrnik
    Confrontations     (published by New Democratic Youth, Ottawa), August/September 1968

    Israel and the Palestinians, by Sheldon Kirshner and Henry Srebrnik
    Montreal Star, February 5, 1969

    Rosemary's Baby: Old Wine, New Bottles
    Hevra, March 15, 1972

    Second-Class Status May Be in the Future for English Quebec
    Canadian Jewish News, March 11, 1977

    Star Wars ? Racism as Science Fiction?
    Canadian Dimension (Vol. 13, No. 2), 1978

    Why Most of the World Is Against Israel
    Canadian Jewish News, April 14, 1978

    Attempts to Tar Israel by Comparing It to S Africa Seen as Historically False
    Canadian Jewish News, May 26, 1978

    A Changing World Political Scene Causes a Drop in Jewish Communism
    Canadian Jewish News, July 14, 1978

    Anti-Semitism Derives Ideas from an Elaborate Construct
    Canadian Jewish News, August 4, 1978

    Torah vs. Trudeau: The Battle for Montreal Jewry
    The [FPI] Eye, January, 1982

    Signs of the Times, by Shloime Perel and Henry Srebrnik
    The Jerusalem Post, January 22, 1982
    Republished, with explanatory introduction, in The [FPI] Eye, January, 1982

    Age-Old Religious Wars Overshadow Territorial Conflicts in Middle East
    Ann Arbor News, November 3, 1983

    Renewed Militancy of Shi'ite Arabs Set Off by Chain of Events in 1979
    Ann Arbor News, December 8, 1983

    Using the Holocaust Against the Jews
    [Boston] Jewish Advocate, January 19, 1984

    Iran's "Nationalist" Fervor
    [Frederick, MD] News-Post, June 18, 1985

    Denials of the Holocaust: A Monstrous Lie Continues
    Washington Jewish Week, May 8, 1986

    The Pogroms Come Later
    [Baltimore] Sun, January 3, 1989

    Jews Were the Traditional Victims of Marxist 'Proletariat' Hypocrisy
    [Harrisburg, PA] Patriot, January 19, 1990

    What Kind of Canada Is Expatriate Returning To?
    [Penticton, BC] Herald, May 12, 1990

    Is Multicultural English Canada in Peril of Disintegrating?
    [Regina, SK] Leader-Post, August 20, 1990

    Gulf War Reveals Cultural Battle Between Left, Right
    Canadian Jewish News, February 14, 1991

    "Two Nations" Scheme May Not Be Best for Jews
    Canadian Jewish News, May 9, 1991

    The Reform Party: A Rising Tide in Canada?
    Viewpoints, September 3, 1992

    Homophobia: The Ideological Hysteria of the 90s?
    [Calgary] Jewish Free Press, March 15, 1993

    Could we survive Quebec's exit? Yes!
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian, January 20, 1996

    Diasporas Challenge Fragile Nation-States
    Calgary Herald, September 26, 1996

    Perspective on Kosovo
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian, March 30, 1999

    Kosovo War Was Fought to Reassure Muslim World
    Calgary Herald, August 20, 1999

    Israel Could be Facing a Cold New World
    Calgary Herald, November 12, 1999

    Humanitarian Imperialism Possibly New Global Danger
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian, December 9, 1999

    Have We Become a Value-Free Country?
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian, November 1, 2001

    In the War Against Terrorism, Is Somalia Next?
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian, January 2, 2002


  • January 2, 2002: In the War Against Terrorism, Is Somalia Next?
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:

    (click image to enlarge)
  • November 1, 2001: Have We Become a Value-Free Country?
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:





















    (click image to enlarge)
  • December 9, 1999: Humanitarian Imperialism Possibly New Global Danger
    [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:


    (click image to enlarge)
  • November 12, 1999 : Israel Could be Facing a Cold New World
    The Calgary Herald:


    (click image to enlarge)

In Memory of Canada - Commentary on the social, domestic and external components of Canada, by UPEI History and Political Science student Dan Aiken. From the perspective of Prince Edward Island.
(Added: 8-Jul-2007 Hits: 68 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

  • Banned!
    Mr Heibein will not be joining us for some time.

    It seems the authoritarian regime of the country he is currently residing in has blocked this website in its entirety.

    Perhaps calling on information to become a Human Right put them over the edge?
  • Canada's Human Rights Violations

    In Western civilization Human Rights are where we have an absolute trust and appreciation. As Canadians; we are unknowingly deficient while blissful in our ignorance. Through linguistics, a subject in which our country ought to reign supreme above all others, we have misrepresented our culture and our past achievements. Canada and Canadians collectively have stalled on the journey to prosperity and national self-acceptance. In the early 19th century Canada had a goal of achieving law and order. In the late 19th century, a goal of becoming a unified country.


    With these goals achieved, we entered the industrial era.


    In the early 20th century our goals were simple, to prove ourselves to our fellow countrymen in Britain. Immediately followed by desire to give aid, to prevail and to embrace freedom. With the close of World War II Canada became emboldened, her stride more pronounced upon her great journey and Canadians began to stand up and declare triumphantly "I am Canadian!"


    Disaster appeared on the horizon in the late 1900's with the threat of economic, territorial and populous separation. It was here and now that Canada?s goals became apparent and realized as ? survival. Having defeated the separatists at such a narrow victory, the country and Canadians as a whole entered a post-climatic state of relaxation. A country that once charged to the finish line in Olympic track run fashion, has now taken to kicking the proverbial can with frayed-untied-shoe laces and steel toed work boots.


    In our boredom, the country has become emphatically anti-American and profoundly self-righteous. Canadians in the 21st century aren?t able to name all ten provinces, their capitals or point themselves out in an international family portrait. Canada has lost its way. Canadians have lost their initiative. And, as recent evidence as shown, we?re smoking more pot than virtually everyone else. Canada has become the wayward student who graduated high school, took over the family basement and never gave university a second thought.


    Canadians pride themselves on falsehoods of our identity. We are the peacekeepers who don?t go on peacekeeping missions. We are the worlds diplomats ? who prefer silence and neutrality for Terrorism v. Israel?s Right to Exist. We are compassionate care givers with universal health care ? so long as you?re willing to wait a year for the doctor. We proudly support our national public broadcaster in their endeavor to promote our culture ? the Little Mosque way. (We may not have associated ourselves with rampant Muslims but, hey, look on the bright side, the Americans always did).


    It?s time to either practice what we preach, or just stop preaching it. The first step is telling the truth about ourselves.


    Canada can become a world leader ? really, this time ? as a proponent of Human Rights if we so choose. Human Rights extend far beyond the basics of water, food, medical care and freedom. These are the first steps, however, not the be-all-and-end-all. What seems almost lost on Canadians is the right in which they have been so blatantly deprived ? the right to information. As water is the sustenance of the brain, information is the sustenance of the mind. Information is crucial to the academic world, the scientific world, the political world and for a parliamentary democracy, information should be a requirement prior to balloting.


    The right to information has been partially recognized by the government through its Privacy Protection and Access to Information Act which enables citizens or entities to submit a direct request for specific government information. However, there is no current legislation that protects the integrity, authenticity or timely release of information. Further to that, there is no direct penalty under the Criminal Code for obstructing information or withholding its release.


    Information is provided in various ways. Newspapers provide information on a daily basis. However, that information is not necessarily accurate. How many times have newspapers printed false stories on page 1, and retracted them days later on page 9? Surprisingly, more often than one would guess. Which presents the question: who penalizes newspapers for spreading false information? Currently, journalists are bound by nothing other than a ?golden rule? that asks them to behave?if they don?t, they?ll be subjected to strongly worded emails.


    That would be enough to keep me on the straight and narrow. Perhaps I?ll run that one by my supervisor.


    Newspapers and other media entities are self-governing with integrity and ethics being self-administered, self-monitored and self-penalized.


    Canadian media are a walking, talking, publishing dictatorial empire with little or no boundaries. Recently, the prime minister appointed a new commissioner of the RCMP because the former commish was decidedly corrupt. Few would have expected corruption at the highest levels of our respected national police force, yet it happened. There are some in the political world who would say the Globe and Mail is a little too left-wing, and the National Post a little too right-wing. Many more would say the CBC is a little too.. uhh.. communist.


    Remember the Reuters photo scandal of 2006? Yeah, neither does anyone else. If any other industry had committed such pervasion of the truth with obvious malicious intent, the media would have lined them up before a firing squad. Yet, when judging their own ethics, the media has displayed an uncharacteristic ability to forgive and forget. So who do we report them too? The RCMP? No. The CRTC? No. The Courts? Good luck with that.


    When a media outlet is guilty of spreading false information, disinformation or is simply exercising its bias, the only avenue of pursuit is the outlet themselves ? directly or through an association of media outlets, that includes the offending party, that have created their own media oversight committee. If, of course, the offending outlet bothered to join up with any of its buddies for self review.


    Canada has a deliberate system of separation of powers. The executive, legislative and judicial branches must all remain separate in order to provide ethical and accountable administration. Yet, our media composes itself like our very own sorority. Canadian journalism has evolved into its own society, its own government, its own police and its own judiciary. Collectively, this group remains ideological, activist and intertwined in the events they record. As a means of progression and development, Canada must champion a revolution in information delivery.


    The only things we stand to lose are CBC reporters. It?s definitely worth it.
  • (no subject)

    There is something wrong with Stephane Dion and his opposition party.


    Here in Canada, we need to do more to protect the environment. Canada needs to protect its fresh water resources, prevent acid rain and provide clean energy for residential and industrial consumption. Surely the former Minister of the Environment would agree. Yet, surprisingly, he does not. Stephane Dion does not support environment initiatives. What's worse -- at every opportunity he attempts to prevent environment protection bills from being passed in parliament.

    Stephane Dion, and his friends at CBC, have subscribed to the notion that the best way to take care of our environment, is to not take care of our environment at all, but to use our tax dollars to pay other countries to take care of their environment. A notion so philosophically obscure it truly takes a liberal to fully comprehend its design. In essence, Dion and his party desire not to protect the environment, not to provide a clean and healthy ecosystem for the next generation, but to provide social support for Russia.

    That's right. Dion believes that Canada should engage in Kyoto Protocol green credit trading. Wherein, Canada would do nothing for the environment and subsequently spend billions of dollars on green credits -- from Russia. This fee, coupled with international fines imposed by the United Nations for failing to meet legal obligations. This plan is ludacris. Absolutely ludacris. Economists predict such a move would cripple the nations economy with thousands of Canadians losing their jobs, unprecedented increases in taxes and costs of living with record high unemployment across the country.

    Why not just protect the environment at home?

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the current US Administration have been cooperating to make a North American solution to climate change. An initiative that could see real environment policies, real action on the environment and real results. All without crippling taxes and job losses. How could anyone oppose this plan? How could any forward-thinking policy maker oppose real action, in favour of tax and grab measures?

    If Canada agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, and did nothing for the environment at home as the opposition liberals have triumphed, what would Russia do with the billions of dollars we'd be giving them? Would they build more nuclear weapons? Would they transfer more weaponry to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan? (Terrorists that regularly attack Canadian peace makers). Would the Russians use our money to make more AK 47 death rifles to be used against democracy-supporting Christians in Chechnya?

    We just don't know what Russia would do with our money.
    So why give it to them?
  • (no subject)

    The prevailing belief system in Western culture leads one to believe that what appears in print or in a documentary is clearly a fact. A verifiable point. A clear message. The truth. A famed liberal failure perpetuates this belief system by instilling further comfort-driven attributes to his title An Inconvenient Truth. Ethically, one must ask the question, in order to call your opinion based film An Inconvenient Truth, shouldn't the content of the film actually be true?


    This concept is lost on Al Gore.


    Gore is the liberal candidate who was defeated by President George W Bush in the 2000 United States Presidential Election. He has since transformed his image to be an "environmentalist" rather than a failed politician. Protecting Gore is the left wing media who staunchly connect his opinions to the dangers of a global change in climatic conditions. Yet, the questions around Gore continue to mount.


    Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film, asserting that the Arctic had a similar temperature in the 1930s before the mass emissions of carbon dioxide began. Former University of Winnipeg geography professor Dr. Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore?s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific temperate period.

    [Source: Wikipedia Encyclopedia]


    A March 13, 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they "argue that some of Mr. Gore?s central points are exaggerated and erroneous". Gore's discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet is contrasted with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that "a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore?s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium."
    An April 19, 2007 article in The Daily Telegraph reported on concerns among parents who claim that the film is "inaccurate and politically motivated." The parents also challenge the legality of broadcasting this 'propoganda film' in British schools.

    The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the media supported belief regarding human-caused global warming. The film claims that in An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has misrepresented the data, and that the actual relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is the other way round (that is, rise in temperature causes an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). Climatologist Fred Singer argued that the documentary is "devastating" to Gore's movie: "...The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician."

    [Source: Wikipedia Encyclopedia]


    An honest question: Why does Al Gore care so much about the environment, after serving two terms as Vice-President of the United States (and President of the United States Senate), and having done nothing to prevent climate change?


    The answer: Don't get too caught up in his hype. Gore doesn't live by his own words.


    The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has obtained actual copies of Gore's utility bills for his personal mansion. The figures are startling. Gore -- in his home -- has 20 times more of a negative impact on our environment than the average American family. On top of that, Gore frequently travels the world in a private jet, and occasionally in giant gas guzzling tour buses. Gore's home is well lit with electric fixtures decorating the exterior and surrounding areas, reports the TCPR.


    Gore has been pretending to care about climate change, but not taking any personal action whatsoever.


    July 7, 2007 the National Post newspaper featured an article on the growing discontent with Gore and his false 'environmentalism.' By organizing the Live Earth music concerts, Gore claims to be raising awareness about climate change. But one must ask the question, Do we need to raise awareness about the number one issue in the 21st century? These concerts have lead to increased air travel -- with hundreds of extra flights around the world -- increased auto usage in several world cities -- massive usage of electricity for the concerts -- and, of course, an incalcuable amount of electricity being used by viewers watching the concerts on television.


    Al Gore has just had an acute detrimental effect on the global climate crisis. And the liberal media paints him to be a saint. While climate change continues to worsen, Gore is riding a wave of multimedia falsehoods and intentional ambiguity. Vote Gore-Clinton in 2008, perhaps?

    Climate change is something we should take seriously.
    Al Gore is something we should lock up in Guantanomo.




  • Thoughts for the Ideologically Fair
    The best way to provide fairness, equality and accountability is to just do so. If only someone would inform the left-wingers, we?d be all set. In Canada there is a common belief system that states ?the best way to deal with discrimination, is reverse discrimination.? Perhaps that belief system has never been expressed so blatantly or in such words, but the truth remains. A common perception states that a certain gender, and a certain skin color, has an advantage of becoming employed. Liberal thought dictates that in order to level the playing field, we must discriminate against these young white men ? thereby providing fairness. Whatever happened to just being fair?
    A bureaucracy of liberal fairness is about as useful to this country as a liberal bureaucracy can be.
    Recent events in the United States should serve an important lesson for Canadian policy makers. In Canada, we pride ourselves on our fairness, our equality and the freedom our country shares with newcomers. This pride largely stems from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Pierre Trudeau?s endowment to Canadians. Often portrayed as the be all and end all of Canadian national identity, the Charter is many things to many people and has been used in various ways. It has been used to protect known terrorists from prison sentencing. And, of course, the Charter was used to protect Trudeau?s former wife from criminal charges ? when arrested for drunk driving.

    In the constant struggle to provide a fair and open environment the approach our policy makers should take has been mapped by the US Supreme Court. Fairness should be fairness ? not holding down would-be leaders. By allowing employers to ask such questions based on skin color, sex, or physical impalements we are perpetuating discrimination and allowing it to not only prevail, but also to become profound and instigate tensions. A country at peace with itself would welcome the opportunity to institute a merit based civil architecture, wherein the people of Canada would succeed by their own character-attributes and not physical-attributes.

    A country at peace with itself, perhaps, would go one step further. And ask the necessary questions to move forward. The questions that need to be answered are frequently blockaded by liberal thought and perceptions. Take highway 401 for example. Why was the highway temporarily closed this week? (Good question). The answer: because the Mohawk warriors blockaded Canada?s busiest highway in an effort to gain respect. Why don?t the Mohawk have our respect? (Good question). The answer: because of the civil failures within the confines of their communities and their dependancy on the taxpayers for income. Why are the Mohawk dependant on the taxpayers for income when everyone knows they?re drug dea.... uh, oh... liberal barriers approaching...

    Perhaps one day Canada will be free to look in the mirror in an attempt to make self-improvements. Perhaps those improvements will include health care, schools and equal opportunities (real ones, not just holding down the white kids) for Canada?s First Nations. Perhaps one day Canada will move beyond the failed policies of its past. Perhaps, one day, liberalism will allow Canada to enter the 21st century. "Liberalism is a mental disorder." - Michael Savage.

IRAC - Current News - Latest news (gas prices, etc.) from the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (no RSS).
(Added: 2-Sep-2005 Hits: 284 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Island NDP News - Latest news from the PEI New Democratic Party
(Added: 6-Apr-2007 Hits: 92 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

ITYS - I Told You So-Essays on politics - Henry Srebrnik, a UPEI Political Studies professor, teaches comparative politics and ethnic relations. In his research he examines the impact of nationalism and ethnically-based political conflict, especially among diaspora peoples and in island societies.
(Added: 28-Jun-2006 Hits: 172 Rating: 10.00 Votes: 4) Rate It

  • (no subject)
    Opinion pieces by Henry Srebrnik, listed chronologically:

    Note: These and other opinion pieces are also available at http://www.freewebs.com/itys/

    Please visit as well: ?I Told You So Long Ago,? at http://i-told-you-so-long-ago.blogspot.com

    March 27, 2003 ? Canadian Jewish News:
    Canadian Jews should rethink alliances.

    April 23, 2003 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Will the Kurds seize the day and attempt to create a sovereign state?

    October 21, 2003 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Defining ourselves by government: Permanent Liberals: PC ? Alliance merger may provide serious opposition, but don?t bet on it.

    December 11, 2003 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Canada faces problems of national identity, regionalism and legislative ineptitude.

    January 3, 2004 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Living a life of Western guilt: Some professors, journalists seem embarrassed by their privileged status.

    March 23, 2004 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Stephen Harper?s experience makes him the right person for the job: The new leader of the Conservative Party has served for many years in the political trenches.

    April 17, 2004 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Just how far would the Liberals have gone to ?save? Canada?

    May 20, 2004 ? [Calgary] Jewish Free Press:
    Winning, and then losing, in Iraq.

    May 27, 2004 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    What do the political contours of the federal election look like?

    May 31, 2004 ? The Calgary Herald:
    ?Party of State? pegs its future on felling Harper.

    September 30, 2004 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Taking a closer look at the selection of judges.

    October 6, 2004 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    The state of politics and the new Parliamentary session.

    November 1, 2004 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Why John Kerry will win the American Presidency.

    November 5, 2004 - The Calgary Herald:
    Lament from the Ivory Tower.

    November 18, 2004 ? [Calgary] Jewish Free Press:
    What does the Bush victory mean for Israel and the Mideast?

    December 30, 2004 ? The Calgary Herald:
    Is stronger Canada Chretien?s Legacy?

    April 21, 2005 ? [Calgary] Jewish Free Press:
    Jerusalem and the three Abrahamic faiths.

    August 19, 2005 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Canada and Hans Island: Is it worth fighting for?

    September 7, 2005 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Is it fair to criticize the new occupants of Rideau Hall?

    September 24, 2005 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    No matter what, Canadians think Liberal rule is just fine.

    October 18, 2005 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Defying laws of politics when it comes to Quebec and Alberta.

    December 27, 2005 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Let's try changing our political architecture: Why not create a bicameral Parliament for PEI?

    January 5, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Who is responsible for Canada?s slide towards national disintegration?

    January 17, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    When did ?Canadian Values? become such an issue?

    January 25, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    An analysis of why the Liberals lost.

    February 10, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Conservatives should remove opposition to same-sex marriage from their agenda.

    February 22, 2006 ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    Different reasons why some approved, others condemned the Danish cartoons.

    March 11, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Examining our role in Afghanistan: Should we be there?

    March 22, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    The U.S. is on the verge of losing the war in Iraq.

    March 23, 2006 - [Calgary] Fast Forward Weekly:
    Nationalism persists as a mobilizing force; ethnic and religious conflict remains the primary cause of war in the world.
    http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2006/0323/view.htm

    April 2006 - Newsletter of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS):
    UPEI faculty opposes gag laws.
    http://www.safs.ca/april2006/srebrink.html

    April 20, 2006 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    The federal Liberals should choose Ignatieff as leader.

    May 5, 2006 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    As Fijians go to the polls.

    May 16, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    A few brickbats.

    August 4, 2006 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Pondering what will happen next for Lebanon.

    August 31, 2006 - [Calgary] Jewish Free Press:
    Hezbollah's strength.

    October 18, 2006 - [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    The Liberals, Israel and the issue of war crimes.

    October 19, 2006 - [Calgary] Jewish Free Press:
    Are Quebec's political elites too sensitive to criticism? A personal recollection.

    November 2, 2006 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    A changing political landscape.

    November 22, 2006 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Is Quebec really a nation?

    December 20, 2006 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Harper?s motion poses the question: Who is a Québécois?

    March 29, 2007 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    What of Quebec's Anglophones?

    April 6, 2007 ? The Calgary Herald:
    Greens must keep focused on cause.

    April 28, 2007 ? The Calgary Herald:
    Gov. Gen. has power to thwart an election.

    August 3, 2007 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Barack Obama: Trailblazer for Black Americans.

    August 4, 2007 - The Calgary Herald:
    A strong dollar, and short memory.

    August 16, 2007 - [Toronto] Jewish Tribune:
    Does Israel have a right to exist?

    August 25, 2007 - The Calgary Herald:
    Israel     only state to be singled out.

    September 6, 2007 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    The endless American vote.

    October 1, 2007 ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    A strong dollar, but where are the savings?

    November 1, 2007 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    The loonie versus the U.S. dollar.

    December 17, 2007 - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    The American Presidential race - so far.

    December 27, 2007 ? [Toronto] Jewish Tribune:
    Back to the future in a consociational Palestine?

    February 6, 2008     - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    ?Banal? Nationalism: America, Canada and Quebec.

    February 19, 2008     - [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Is Hillary Clinton a Democrat?

    March 3, 2008 ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    Clinton and Obama: Who's Been More Oppressed?

    March 10, 2008     ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Hillary Clinton?s mud sticks to Obama

    March 15, 2008     ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    A Caustic Look at the Never-Ending Primary War

    March 25, 2008     ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    John McCain: A Political Resurrection?

    March 25, 2008     ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    The year 1968: Where Did the Time Go?

    April 3, 2008     ? [Toronto] Jewish Tribune:
    Carville and the J-Word

    April 4, 2008 ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    The Democratic Party Race: The Beat Goes On...and On...and On

    April 25, 2008     ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    Has Running for the U.S. Presidency Become a Wrestling Match?

    April 30, 2008     ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Hillary wins     Pennsylvania - but why?

    May 6, 2008     ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    Indiana and North Carolina Vote . . . What Next?

    May 8, 2008     - [Toronto] Jewish Tribune:
    The Delayed Reaction to the Holocaust

    May 22, 2008 - [Halifax, Nova Scotia] Chronicle-Herald:
    Clintons' shady dealings have taken the shine off Two-for-One-Deal, Part 2
    http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1057351.html

    June 6, 2008 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    Discourse and the end of the Clinton campaign

    June 24, 2008 - [Toronto] Jewish Tribune:
    Will gender rivalries impact institution of marriage?
    http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/content/view/730/53/

    June 25, 2008 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    How would Clinton fit on the Vice-Presidential ticket?

    July 4, 2008 ? [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer:
    Barack and Bill: Not a Good Match

    August 15, 2008 ? [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian:
    A Tale of Goose and Gander





  • (no subject)
    August 15, 2008

    A Tale of Goose and Gander

    Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

    So, we?re suddenly confronted with another war in the Caucasus -- not over Chechnya this time, but rather South Ossetia, a place few Canadians have ever heard of.

    Russia is now fighting on behalf of, rather than against, a region seeking to secede from another country.

    Last week, Russian troops crossed their border into South Ossetia, which technically belongs to a former Soviet Republic, Georgia. Russian-supported separatists in another breakaway region of Georgia, Abkhazia, have also targeted Georgian troops by launching air and artillery strikes to drive them out.

    What is this all about? It?s probably best to see it as the continuing ?slow-motion? unraveling of that faux Communist federation, the old Soviet Union.

    When the USSR collapsed in 1992, full-fledged so-called ?union republics,? such as Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine ? and Georgia ? were quickly recognized by the international community as being entitled to nationhood, and became sovereign entities, with UN seats, embassies in foreign countries, and all the other accouterments of statehood.

    The same thing occurred in the other multi-national Communist federation, Yugoslavia, where Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, even Bosnia-Herzegovina (a hodge-podge that was hardly a candidate for independence), all attained sovereignty.

    Because of the vagaries of history, though, ethnically homogeneous units such as Albanian Kosovo (part of Serbia), Chechnya (part of Russia proper) and South Ossetia (part of Georgia) were merely ?autonomous regions? or ?autonomous republics.?

    But this was all just Communist claptrap. These territories had simply been ?tacked on? to the larger units for the sake of political convenience.

    Not surprisingly, when the Communist empires collapsed, Kosovars, Chechens, Ossetians, Abkhazians, and many other peoples, quite understandably also wanted to exercise their right to slf-determination.

    Yet the same nations that had just acquired their freedoms refused to grant it to others. Hence the wars of the Soviet and Yugoslav successions.

    The 70,000 people in South Ossetia are overwhelmingly ethnic Ossetians, related to the people in North Ossetia (across the border in the Russian Federation). Like the Kosovar Albanians, they have demonstrated their desire to be free of foreign control.

    In two referenda held in the territory in 1992 and 2006, they voted overwhelmingly to secede from Georgia. They broke away from the Tbilisi-based Georgian government during a bloody 1991-1992 conflict that killed more than 1,000 people. They have been a self-governing entity for almost two decades, yet remain a de facto state not recognized by the international community.

    Ottawa and Washington were quick to blame Russia for the violence, though it remains unclear whether Moscow was in fact responding to a Georgian attempt to reclaim South Ossetia by force.

    ?We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia?s territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil,? U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement. The European Union and NATO also called for a halt to hostilities.

    But ?who started it? is not the point here. The Ossetians do not want to be ruled from Tbilisi, any more than the Albanians in Kosovo wanted to be governed from Belgrade.

    Interesting, isn?t it, that the U.S., in a case of ?diplomatic amnesia,? has seen fit to ignore the obvious parallels between Kosovo in 1999 and South Ossetia today. The Russians have not.

    Earlier this year, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, warned Rice that if the U.S. recognized Kosovo, they would be setting a precedent for South Ossetia and other breakaway provinces.

    Yet American commentators see only Russian aggression. Robert Kagan in the Washington Post suggested that ?Putin cares no more about a few thousand South Ossetians than he does about Kosovo's Serbs. Claims of pan-Slavic sympathy are pretexts designed to fan Russian great-power
    nationalism at home and to expand Russia's power abroad.?

    How do we know that? How quickly the discourse of the Cold War reasserts itself!

    What if I wrote this in 1999: ?Bill Clinton cares no more about a few thousand Kosovar Albanians than he does about Iraqi Kurds. Claims of pro-democratic sympathy are pretexts designed to fan American great-power nationalism at home and to expand America's power abroad.?

    After all, if ?sovereignty? and ?territorial integrity? are such important principles to Canada, the United States, and other western countries, why then did they wrest Kosovo away from Serbia nine years ago and recognize Kosovo's independence earlier this year? Or is sauce for the NATO goose different than sauce for the Russian gander?
  • (no subject)

    July 4, 2008

    Barack and Bill: Not a Good Match

    Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer

    Now that the American general election campaign is underway, Barack Obama has begun making overtures to Bill as well as to Hillary Clinton. At the end of June, Obama spoke to the former president, asking Bill to campaign with him this fall. They also discussed making a public appearance together later this month.

    Obama has told his advisers that he is eager to bury any animosity and seek advice from Clinton.

    ?Senator Obama had a terrific conversation with President Clinton and is honored to have his support in this campaign,? Obama spokesman Bill Burton told the Washington Post.

    ?He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation?s great leaders and most brilliant minds, and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel in the months to come.?

    Actually, Obama would be wise to keep as far away from the former president as possible.

    In recent years, Americans have begun to treat past presidents like retired grandees ? allowing them to build mausoleums (?presidential libraries?) as monuments to themselves, as Egyptian pharaohs once did, referring to them by the honorific ?president,? as if they were still in office, and so forth.

    But the trade-off was that these ex-presidents would become ?elder statesmen? who did not get involved in partisan politics.

    Bill Clinton this past spring broke all these unwritten rules by engaging in a vicious political war against Obama. He has also been involved in all sorts of questionable business practices since leaving the White House. He is in effect the first *former* ?former president.?

    In any case, Obama?s attempts to mend fences have so far been unreciprocated. According to the London Telegraph, a senior Democrat who worked for Clinton has revealed that the forty-second president recently told friends that Obama could ?kiss my [posterior]? in return for his support.

    ?You can't talk like that about Obama,? added the source. ?He?s the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.?

    A second source said that Clinton still does not believe Obama can win the election. ?He is telling people he doesn?t believe Obama can win round voting groups, especially working-class whites, in the swing states,? remarked this strategist.

    As well, many black Democratic members of Congress with large African-American constituencies who supported Hillary Clinton rather than Obama during the primaries now face anger from their supporters. Though the two former rivals have begun to put their divisions behind them, some strains remain evident. As for Bill Clinton, many blacks still accuse him of having played the ?race card? against Obama on behalf of Hillary and are not at all ready to forgive him.

    Maybe Obama needs to mend fences with Hillary, who still commands a large following, especially among women, but he should definitely stay away from Bill.


  • (no subject)
    June 25, 2008

    How Would Clinton Fit on the Vice-Presidential Ticket?

    Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

    Barack Obama has finally bested Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democratic Party. But no sooner had he won than her supporters began a campaign, on the internet, in newspapers, and on television, to force her onto the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee.

    Right to the end, Clinton maintained that she, not Obama, deserved to win ? she claimed she had more of the popular vote and had won most of the primaries in major states, including California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

    Indeed, earlier in the campaign, she had suggested that Obama become her running mate.

    So why, despite the animosity between the two rivals during the long, drawn-out primary campaign, might Clinton accept the second spot?

    Because it?s a win-win situation.

    Obama, by allowing the party bosses to place her on the ticket, would show himself to be a weak person amenable to pressure.

    If he managed to win the election, due in large part because of Clinton?s support from women, blue-collar whites, and others -- people who would otherwise not vote for Obama -- then she, not to mention former president Bill Clinton, would be in the driver?s seat.

    The Clintons would be dictating policy from the vice-presidential mansion, much as Dick Cheney did with George W. Bush. And Bill Clinton?s rather questionable business dealings since 2001 would erode Obama?s squeaky-clean image and slogan of change.

    It would become untenable. As commentator Chris Matthews observed on MSNBC, you can?t have three presidents in the White House.

    If Obama lost, it would be because the millions of people who thought he represented change would sit home or even, to prevent a ?third Clinton term,? cast their ballot for John McCain. So much of Obama?s vote would actually come from Hillary?s base.

    She?d be able to say to the party, ?had you reversed this, and selected me as the nominee, we would have won.? Obama, having lost the election, would disappear from the scene, the party would again be in the hands of the Clintons and their entourage ? insiders like Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe -- and Hillary Clinton would make another run for the nomination in 2012.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans have decided to portray Obama?s spouse Michelle as an angry and unpatriotic black woman. She has been referred to as Barack Obama?s ?baby mama,? a colloquial term for an unwed mother (which of course she is not).

    The Democrats seem to be retaliating by painting Cindy McCain as a woman with a troubled past, including drug use.

    With the U.S. still mired in a war in Iraq and the economy in a terrible state, is this really what the election will be about? I hope all those who were so dedicated to Hillary Clinton, and angry at any instances of sexism against her, will come to the defence of these two women as well.
  • (no subject)
    June 24, 2008

    Will gender rivalries impact institution of marriage?

    Henry Srebrnik, [Toronto] Jewish Tribune

    Given the ?gender nationalism? that was unleashed by Hillary Clinton?s campaign for the presidency of the United States, is the battle between the sexes becoming literal?

    Women?s groups such as Emily?s List, the National Organization for Women, and the Women Count Political Action Committee(WCPAC) provided unconditional and uncritical support for Clinton, held rallies on her behalf, reviled women who supported other candidates as ?traitors,? and considered any criticism of Clinton as being motivated by misogyny and sexism.

    From Chaviva Hosek, Michele Landsberg and Judy Rebick in Canada, and Betty Friedan, Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Gloria Steinem in the US, Jewish women have had a very high profile in the modern women?s movement, as theoreticians and activists. Clinton was supported by political strategists such as Ann Lewis, her senior campaign advisor.

    Clearly, feminism, which has now become a political movement in America and Canada, has produced a paradigm shift in our society. Has the primary conflict become that of gender, as opposed to class, ethnicity, religion, or any other division?

    I used to think there would be a ?self-correcting mechanism? that would not allow animosities between men and women to go beyond a certain point. True, relations between the sexes have always been problematic and fraught with a kind of danger: After all, romance and love may involve rejection and humiliation of a particularly intimate and psychologically damaging sort, which oftentimes has resulted in negative feelings towards the opposite sex. This has been the stuff of novels and poems from time immemorial.

    Still, most men and women have always somehow managed to accommodate and show concern for each other. After all, racial, ethnic or even religious groups can live in physically segregated and homogenous territories, up to and including sovereign states, should it prove necessary, but most men and women inhabit households that usually include partners of the other sex, may have both male and female children, and have parents and other relatives of both genders.

    This, I thought, made it impossible to carry gender hostility to the levels we have seen among rival ethnicities, nationalities or religions throughout history.

    To belabour the obvious, Gentiles don?t have to care about the fate of Jews, Serbs about Croats, Hindus about Muslims, or whites about Blacks. Callousness and indifference do not have an immediate and personal impact. Those who harbour particularly deep prejudices and hostilities can avoid, if they wish, most personal ties with the objects of their hatred or bigotry. But such separatism has been almost ?biologically? impossible between men and women.

    Nowadays all that seems to be changing, and a lot of male-female relations are beginning to feel like religious or ethnic intermarriage, in which larger group divisions can overwhelm what might otherwise be a harmonious alliance between two individuals.

    Social scientists tell us that our identities are socially constructed ? even if they do sometimes build upon physical traits such as skin colour or sex. Religions, ethnicities and cultures are the products of human development, not ?natural? phenomena. And they only too often acquire significance when they become markers by which people segregate themselves into competing groups.

    For example, Catholics married to Protestants do not face personal dilemmas if they live in a society where religion is not a salient political issue ? say, in secular and liberal countries such as Canada or the United States ? or where both their respective faiths are marginal ? Hindu India or Muslim Iran, for instance.

    But their religious background would remain a constant problem and have an immense impact on their lives in Northern Ireland, where members of their two faiths form antagonistic communities and vie for political power.

    In the same way, a Jew and an Arab would have an easier time of it as a married couple in Arizona than in either Israel or Iraq, and a Black married to a white might prefer Indonesia to Zimbabwe. All of this is surely self-evident.

    But gender is now forming an ideological and political fault line and is becoming a socially significant means of differentiating between people; it is thus assuming a role not that dissimilar to those historically occupied by ethnicity, language, culture and religion.
    If men and women will indeed come to see each other primarily in terms of conflict, as contenders for jobs, power, position and status in society, then, with increasing frequency, heterosexual relationships may in the future face strains similar to those that used to be confined to unions that crossed ethnic or racial or religious lines.

    And a very large percentage of marriages may become subject to the types of stresses previously confined to intermarriage. (Statistics Canada tells us that almost 40 per cent of marriages in this country now end in divorce.)

    Perhaps there?s a material basis for this change in society. Men and women in our society simply don?t need each other as much as they once did. Women can work, and they don?t need men to provide for them. And advanced technology makes even the most basic reason for male-female cohabitation ? reproduction ? unnecessary.

    Most members of historically antagonistic ethnic groups have always understood that it is prudent to avoid intimate relations with people from the opposing camp. That way lies grief. Are men and women now moving in the same direction? This will not be good for anyone, including Jews.

Journal-Pioneer Blogs - Various Blogs from Summerside's Journal-Pioneer
(Added: 18-May-2007 Hits: 64 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Journal-Pioneer Columns - Columns from Summerside's Journal-Pioneer.
(Added: 3-Jun-2006 Hits: 160 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Journal-Pioneer Decision 07 - Coverage of the May 28 2007 PEI election from the Journal-Pioneer.
(Added: 1-May-2007 Hits: 76 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Journal-Pioneer Editorials - Editorials from Summerside's Journal-Pioneer.
(Added: 3-Jun-2006 Hits: 157 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Warning: MagpieRSS: Failed to parse RSS file. (syntax error at line 1, column 62) in /home/derekm/public_html/magpie/rss_fetch.inc on line 238
    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/derekm/public_html/peiblogs/News_and_Views/more2.php on line 923

Journal-Pioneer Headlines - Headlines from Summerside's Journal-Pioneer.
(Added: 3-Jun-2006 Hits: 146 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Journal-Pioneer Late Breaking News - Late Breaking News from Summerside's Journal-Pioneer.
(Added: 3-Jun-2006 Hits: 133 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Journal-Pioneer Letters to the editor - Letters to Summerside's Journal-Pioneer.
(Added: 3-Jun-2006 Hits: 119 Rating: 0 Votes: 0) Rate It

Prev 15 Next 15

Feel free to use this button on your site to link to PEIBlogs.com:

Search, Recommend

Search the site for something in particular
More search options
Search the Internet with Google

Click to recommend this site to a friend

Weather, Tides, Travel


PEI tide times Ch'town Transit
Bridge: Conditions BridgeCam
Flights Ferries: NFL CTMA
Road conditions Gas Prices

PEI Gov't IslandCam


Click for bigger picture updated each sec.

Blogstream of selected recently-updated blogs:

News

Listen Live to CBC Charlottetown Radio One    Watch the latest Canada Now PEI newscast

Photo of the day from Eastern Kings

Today's photo from Today in the Life of Eastern Kings:



Photo of the Month

Pages Updated On: 9-May-2008 - 06:25:04
Links Engine 2.0 By: Gossamer Threads Inc.