Already I am beginning to get tired of Justin Trudeau's voice and image. But that is not his fault, just the overkill of broadcast journalism. He ran a good campaign and the Liberals deserved to win, although they got some fortunate help from what turned out to be blunders by opposing parties.
The NDP were outflanked on the left by the Liberals. Thomas Mulcair in his campaign tried too hard to reassure voters that things wouldn't change too much, at least on the economic front. He wanted to convince voters, especially in Ontario, that the NDP were not a 'tax and spend' party, and that they wouldn't run deficits the way Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario had done. So right from the early days of the campaign he promised to balance the budget. I think most voters realized that if he were to keep this promise then he would have little room for any of the programs he wanted to introduce e.g. universal child care. That meant his credibility was open to question, especially after the Conservatives tried to play up how he had switched parties - from a Quebec Liberal to the NDP - and how he had publicly expressed admiration for Margaret Thatcher.
The Conservative blunder was over the niquab issue. It backfired, not so much because it wasn't successful in Quebec, but rather because it was too successful. It pulled a lot of support from the NDP - Quebec was the party's base in the last election - and when this started showing up in the polls, the Anyone-But-Harper voters in the country at large, saw that the best way to defeat Harper was to go with the Liberals. The Liberals too opposed Harper on the niquab ban, but unlike the NDP did not lose support in Quebec over it - mainly because they didn't have a lot of support there to begin with, but also because what support they did have was concentrated in the greater Montreal area, with urban voters more used to, and tolerant of, differences than many in other parts of the province where the NDP had its support. Harper also probably overegged the pudding when he went on to describe setting up a snitch line for reporting "barbaric cultural practices". Perhaps this generated a revulsion among Canadians at large who didn't like the idea of the government trying to police cultural standards. I can see why many Canadians from ethnic backgrounds would have been seriously turned off of the Conservatives by this action, not to mention those among what Harper had called "old stock Canadians" of a more liberal and tolerant nature.
So much for the post mortem. What about the future? In jest I have been saying that the Liberals should create a Ministry for the Repeal of Odious Legislation of the Harper Government. There would certainly be enough to keep them busy for a good long while. They could start with the Fair Elections Act, which was anything but. While at that task they could consider alternative electoral systems. My favourite, which would not require too radical a change, is to consider preferential ballots in the way they do in Australia. Apparently this system has been used in Canada before - it was used in BC until being abolished by WAC Bennett, in the sixties. An interesting aside on this system is that it was proposed by the Victorian-era Oxford mathematician Charles Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll.
Other targets for the Ministry for Repeal would include the bills, passed by the Harper government, as it liked to be called, which loosened environmental standards; muzzled Government scientists; and the vindicative criminal justice bills including those involving mandatory sentencing.
A further bill outlawing the practice of hiding legislation in thousand page budget bills should be passed. Perhaps a first task would be to read through all these pages of verbiage and find out what is actually in them!
Such an act prohibiting omnibus legislation wouldn't normally be necessary with honourable people running the show, but this deceptive practice became common under the secretive and paranoid Conservative government.
When it comes to external affairs Trudeau has already begun to move. Apparently he has told Obama that Canada will cease participating in the bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Also cancellation of the F35 fighter jets is on the cards. He wants to improve relations with Iran, presumably with a reopening of embassies.
Of course a big issue for the new government is climate change policy. It is perhaps too soon for Trudeau to announce a new policy at the upcoming meeting in Paris, but he could at least announce an ambition to do at least as much, or more than, whatever the US offers.
There is a lot to do! Certainly much bad stuff that Harper brought in needs to be rolled back. Justin Trudeau promised a lot in general terms on election night. Let's hope he is able to translate those good intentions into practical policy.
PS. One good result of the election was that several of the more obnoxious Conservative members lost their seats, and we won't have to see them on TV any more. Specifically: PM Spokesman Paul Calendra; Minister for Immigration Alexander; Finance Minister Joe Oliver (he was more insufferable in his previous role as Natural Resources Minister). Its too bad that the champion of contemptuous bad manners, Pierre Pollievre retained his seat, along with the parliamentary thug, Peter van Loan. Also gone (to jail) is Dean del Mastro.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Foul! You're Bombing our Jihadis!
The hypocrisy of the US and NATO criticism of Russian bombing in Syria is stunning.
"They are not bombing ISIL. They are recklessly killing civilians!"
As if NATO bombing were somehow insulated from inflicting death and destruction on non-combatants.
And as if the targets of the Russian attacks were not Islamic jihadis, intent on destroying anyone and anything who disagree with their Wahabbi inspired brand of Islam.
The Nusra Front, which so far seems to be the main target of the Russian bombs, started life as the Syrian branch of ISIS (ISIL, Daesh). After internal disagreements (probably power struggles for control) they broke away and adopted the name al-Nusra. Fighting with Nusra are fighters who still call themselves al-Qaeda, still nominally commanded by bin Laden's colleague, Ayman al-Zawahiri. These groups are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime, and replace it with some kind of fundamentalist mediaeval Islamic state.
But because they are fighting Assad, they somehow became acceptable to the US, whose priority in Syria is to remove Assad. There are Wikileaks documents showing US plans for such a regime change going back to 2007. So on the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' somehow the non-ISIS jihadi opposition became "moderate" jihadis, ones who we could support.
Russia has no such illusions, and is clear that it wants to support the Assad regime. So it is fighting all of Assad's enemies. So far they seem not to have done much against ISIS, but no doubt that will happen when they have inflicted sufficient damage on the Nusra crowd, for the Syrian army to recapture territory lost to them.
And when they do turn their bombs on ISIS I am sure that they will be far more effective than NATO has ever been. We have had over a year of NATO bombing and during that time ISIS has got stronger capturing new territory, including Palmyra and its World Heritage Roman ruins. The most technologically advanced military in the world couldn't even hit a convoy of unprotected ISIS white Toyotas crossing the desert on their way to take Ramadi.
Is this because the NATO airforces are incompetent? Or because they have inadequate intelligence? Or because somehow ISIS is too canny to be caught?
Of course it is not. It is because NATO doesn't want to destroy ISIS all the time that Assad is in power. I am confident that the thinking in Washington is that they will deal with ISIS after Assad has gone.
The removal of the Assad regime has always been the US number one priority. But they could not sell another regime-change war to the American public. So they provided weapons, financing and expertise to an assorted bunch of groups fighting Assad, including a lot of extreme jihadis. The few non-extremist opponents of Assad have for the most part been destroyed or taken over by one or other of the jihadi groups. Many of the weapons and foot soldiers ended up with ISIS. But after ISIS's barbaric public executions of foreigners including Americans, something had to be done, so a bombing campaign was initiated. But it has always been a half-hearted affair. Enough to convince the public back home that they were fighting the evils of extremist terrorism ('we fight it over there so we don't have to fight it over here'), but not enough to inflict real damage on ISIS.
But that is about to change. I am prepared to wager that Russia, allied with Syrian Army and Kurdish troops, will do more damage to ISIS in a few weeks than the US with its various allies has done in nearly two years.
What happens then is another question. Hopefully the US will give up on its regime-change obsession and peace talks can begin. The Syrian people have suffered too much and much of the suffering can be put at the doors of outside agents. I suspect a lasting peace, maintaining Syria's territorial integrity, can only be reached if there is an agreement between the outside actors to support a strong central government. Unfortunately that still seems a long way off.
"They are not bombing ISIL. They are recklessly killing civilians!"
As if NATO bombing were somehow insulated from inflicting death and destruction on non-combatants.
And as if the targets of the Russian attacks were not Islamic jihadis, intent on destroying anyone and anything who disagree with their Wahabbi inspired brand of Islam.
The Nusra Front, which so far seems to be the main target of the Russian bombs, started life as the Syrian branch of ISIS (ISIL, Daesh). After internal disagreements (probably power struggles for control) they broke away and adopted the name al-Nusra. Fighting with Nusra are fighters who still call themselves al-Qaeda, still nominally commanded by bin Laden's colleague, Ayman al-Zawahiri. These groups are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime, and replace it with some kind of fundamentalist mediaeval Islamic state.
But because they are fighting Assad, they somehow became acceptable to the US, whose priority in Syria is to remove Assad. There are Wikileaks documents showing US plans for such a regime change going back to 2007. So on the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' somehow the non-ISIS jihadi opposition became "moderate" jihadis, ones who we could support.
Russia has no such illusions, and is clear that it wants to support the Assad regime. So it is fighting all of Assad's enemies. So far they seem not to have done much against ISIS, but no doubt that will happen when they have inflicted sufficient damage on the Nusra crowd, for the Syrian army to recapture territory lost to them.
And when they do turn their bombs on ISIS I am sure that they will be far more effective than NATO has ever been. We have had over a year of NATO bombing and during that time ISIS has got stronger capturing new territory, including Palmyra and its World Heritage Roman ruins. The most technologically advanced military in the world couldn't even hit a convoy of unprotected ISIS white Toyotas crossing the desert on their way to take Ramadi.
Is this because the NATO airforces are incompetent? Or because they have inadequate intelligence? Or because somehow ISIS is too canny to be caught?
Of course it is not. It is because NATO doesn't want to destroy ISIS all the time that Assad is in power. I am confident that the thinking in Washington is that they will deal with ISIS after Assad has gone.
The removal of the Assad regime has always been the US number one priority. But they could not sell another regime-change war to the American public. So they provided weapons, financing and expertise to an assorted bunch of groups fighting Assad, including a lot of extreme jihadis. The few non-extremist opponents of Assad have for the most part been destroyed or taken over by one or other of the jihadi groups. Many of the weapons and foot soldiers ended up with ISIS. But after ISIS's barbaric public executions of foreigners including Americans, something had to be done, so a bombing campaign was initiated. But it has always been a half-hearted affair. Enough to convince the public back home that they were fighting the evils of extremist terrorism ('we fight it over there so we don't have to fight it over here'), but not enough to inflict real damage on ISIS.
But that is about to change. I am prepared to wager that Russia, allied with Syrian Army and Kurdish troops, will do more damage to ISIS in a few weeks than the US with its various allies has done in nearly two years.
What happens then is another question. Hopefully the US will give up on its regime-change obsession and peace talks can begin. The Syrian people have suffered too much and much of the suffering can be put at the doors of outside agents. I suspect a lasting peace, maintaining Syria's territorial integrity, can only be reached if there is an agreement between the outside actors to support a strong central government. Unfortunately that still seems a long way off.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Vladimir Putin's Address to UN.
No doubt Vladimir Putin is not a very nice person. Nor Bashar el Assad. Just to survive, yet alone rise to (or stay at) the top, in the worlds they inhabit, one doubtless needs to be very ruthless.
But Putin is not Hitler, intent on world domination, and it would make sense to pay attention to what he has to say. In his speech to the UN Security Council he made some sharp and uncomfortable observations. Of particular importance I think was of the need for all countries to respect the sovereignty of others - a principle laid down with the Peace of Westphalia over 350 years ago, but seemingly violated at will since the end of the Cold War.
He admits to Soviet misdeeds in this realm and goes on to castigate the US and NATO for destroying states in North Africa and the Middle East - Libya, Iraq and, although he doesn't mention it by name, Syria. Another example carried out by the Saudis, with US complicity, is Yemen “Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross after visiting Yemen.
He admits to Soviet misdeeds in this realm and goes on to castigate the US and NATO for destroying states in North Africa and the Middle East - Libya, Iraq and, although he doesn't mention it by name, Syria. Another example carried out by the Saudis, with US complicity, is Yemen “Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross after visiting Yemen.
He could also have mentioned how the US has developed the art of illicit de-stabilization and regime change since the Second World War. During the Cold War these operations were predominantly carried out in Latin America, their so-called "backyard" - Guatemala (1954), Dominican Republic (1961), Chile (1973), Cuba (unsuccessfully, 1959), Nicaragua (1980s) but there were also other operations closer to the Soviet Union for example in Iran (1953). Since the ending of the Cold War it has got completely out of hand - Iraq, Libya, Syria and ongoing covert operations against the government of Iran, not to mention US involvement in Ukraine and the destabilization of Venezuela.
And the results of these so-called "democracy-promoting" exercises? Well as Putin says, “An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster."
He describes how ISIS emerged from the ruins of Iraq - many former Iraqi army soldiers, who no longer had a position, but still had weapons, joined Al Qaeda in Iraq; then fighters from Libya started finding their way to Syria along with weapons from Qadaffi's arsenals funnelled by the CIA; and units trained by the US and Gulf State allies, as the so-called "moderate opposition", started defecting. And so ISIS was born.
Another thing Putin warns against is using terrorist groups to achieve political ends. It seems now common practice in the ME. But while the US and the West fulminate against terrorism, they have been as bad as anyone in using jihadi groups for their own ends, going back at least to the US use of mujahadeen in Afghanistan, out of which emerged Al Qaeda. Probably the CIA are currently supporting some of the imagined "more moderate" jihadi groups in Syria.
All in all it is not a pretty picture. And not one which is clearly accepted in most of the western media. It is easier to divide the world into 'goodies' and 'baddies'. Of course our side are the 'goodies' in the white hats. Putin is portrayed as wearing a black hat, but clearly he understands what is going on. Maybe he doesn't wear a white hat. But he points out that our side doesn't either. And he pleads for a better way of conducting international relations.
And the results of these so-called "democracy-promoting" exercises? Well as Putin says, “An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster."
He describes how ISIS emerged from the ruins of Iraq - many former Iraqi army soldiers, who no longer had a position, but still had weapons, joined Al Qaeda in Iraq; then fighters from Libya started finding their way to Syria along with weapons from Qadaffi's arsenals funnelled by the CIA; and units trained by the US and Gulf State allies, as the so-called "moderate opposition", started defecting. And so ISIS was born.
Another thing Putin warns against is using terrorist groups to achieve political ends. It seems now common practice in the ME. But while the US and the West fulminate against terrorism, they have been as bad as anyone in using jihadi groups for their own ends, going back at least to the US use of mujahadeen in Afghanistan, out of which emerged Al Qaeda. Probably the CIA are currently supporting some of the imagined "more moderate" jihadi groups in Syria.
All in all it is not a pretty picture. And not one which is clearly accepted in most of the western media. It is easier to divide the world into 'goodies' and 'baddies'. Of course our side are the 'goodies' in the white hats. Putin is portrayed as wearing a black hat, but clearly he understands what is going on. Maybe he doesn't wear a white hat. But he points out that our side doesn't either. And he pleads for a better way of conducting international relations.
The text of Putin's speech can be found here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/vladimir-putins-speech-to-the-united-nations-security-council/5479334
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Citizenship, C24 and the Election.
It was no surprise that the Conservative government chose to revoke the citizenship of several dual-citizen Canadians in the middle of the election campaign - indeed a day or two before the leaders' debate on foreign policy. I have no doubt that they had this in mind when they passed the Bill C24 back in June.
Similarly I have no doubt that it played well with a big part of the electorate and that the Conservatives picked up quite a few votes over the issue. From Harper's point of view both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair played exactly the role he had crafted for them - that is being forced to defend the rights of convicted terror plotters in front of a national audience.
The rights and wrongs of the issue can be debated. Certainly I can see the point of view that those convicted of plotting or conducting terrorist crimes don't deserve to keep their Canadian citizenship. There are of course arguments on the other side, namely that it creates two types of citizenship (those who have had it since birth and those who have gained it later in life) and that by revoking a dual citizen's Canadian status one is essentially exporting a problem to another country, that of the dual citizen's other nationality.
These are issues open to debate and I could be persuaded either way.
However there is one very big objection I have to C24 and it is one I think that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair would have done well to emphasize in the televised debate.
This objection is that the decision to revoke lies solely with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (or in reality with the Prime Minister, since the Minister serves only at the PM's pleasure).
To me this seems to bypass a fundamental principle that decisions affecting basic liberties and rights are made not by the government of the day, but by the courts with due process being followed. C24 as it stands gives far too much power to the government of the day and I fully expect that it will be overturned as unconstitutional when the first challenge to it reaches the Supreme Court.
As an example of how it could be abused consider the case of Mohammed Fahmy, a dual Egyptian-Canadian citizen convicted in Egypt on charges of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which since a military coup overthrew the elected Brotherhood government, has been a banned terrorist organization in that country. Fahmy was alleged to have supported the Brotherhood through his journalism for Al Jazeera.
As is well-known he was eventually released following a pardon. But he is now in a position where his Canadian citizenship could be revoked at the stroke of a pen by the current Minister. Nobody of course expects this to happen. But suppose Fahmy had been a less sympathetic figure. Suppose for example that he was a radical Marxist and had been a strident critic of Canada's involvement in the bombing of Libya and Syria. Suppose he had publicly questioned the official narrative on 911, or that he had, in his journalistic career, exposed some wrongdoing by a member of the government. Suppose he was someone like George Galloway in the UK.
The temptation to get rid of him might be too hard for a minister to resist, especially if he had little support among the public at large.
Such power is not compatible with a truly democratic society where the rule of law is paramount. As they say everybody deserves his day in court.
Bill C24 could be amended by requiring any revocation of citizenship to occur after a Government application to a citizenship court. Or perhaps even simpler to allow a judge in sentencing someone convicted of treason or terrorism, to include in the sentence the revocation of Canadian citizenship.
As I say, I fully expect the law as it stands, will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Stephen Harper probably expects that as well. But for him it doesn't matter. It has provided him with a wedge issue during the election campaign, by which he can make his opponents look soft on terrorism. Unfortunately he seems to have had some measure of success in this.
Similarly I have no doubt that it played well with a big part of the electorate and that the Conservatives picked up quite a few votes over the issue. From Harper's point of view both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair played exactly the role he had crafted for them - that is being forced to defend the rights of convicted terror plotters in front of a national audience.
The rights and wrongs of the issue can be debated. Certainly I can see the point of view that those convicted of plotting or conducting terrorist crimes don't deserve to keep their Canadian citizenship. There are of course arguments on the other side, namely that it creates two types of citizenship (those who have had it since birth and those who have gained it later in life) and that by revoking a dual citizen's Canadian status one is essentially exporting a problem to another country, that of the dual citizen's other nationality.
These are issues open to debate and I could be persuaded either way.
However there is one very big objection I have to C24 and it is one I think that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair would have done well to emphasize in the televised debate.
This objection is that the decision to revoke lies solely with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (or in reality with the Prime Minister, since the Minister serves only at the PM's pleasure).
To me this seems to bypass a fundamental principle that decisions affecting basic liberties and rights are made not by the government of the day, but by the courts with due process being followed. C24 as it stands gives far too much power to the government of the day and I fully expect that it will be overturned as unconstitutional when the first challenge to it reaches the Supreme Court.
As an example of how it could be abused consider the case of Mohammed Fahmy, a dual Egyptian-Canadian citizen convicted in Egypt on charges of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which since a military coup overthrew the elected Brotherhood government, has been a banned terrorist organization in that country. Fahmy was alleged to have supported the Brotherhood through his journalism for Al Jazeera.
As is well-known he was eventually released following a pardon. But he is now in a position where his Canadian citizenship could be revoked at the stroke of a pen by the current Minister. Nobody of course expects this to happen. But suppose Fahmy had been a less sympathetic figure. Suppose for example that he was a radical Marxist and had been a strident critic of Canada's involvement in the bombing of Libya and Syria. Suppose he had publicly questioned the official narrative on 911, or that he had, in his journalistic career, exposed some wrongdoing by a member of the government. Suppose he was someone like George Galloway in the UK.
The temptation to get rid of him might be too hard for a minister to resist, especially if he had little support among the public at large.
Such power is not compatible with a truly democratic society where the rule of law is paramount. As they say everybody deserves his day in court.
Bill C24 could be amended by requiring any revocation of citizenship to occur after a Government application to a citizenship court. Or perhaps even simpler to allow a judge in sentencing someone convicted of treason or terrorism, to include in the sentence the revocation of Canadian citizenship.
As I say, I fully expect the law as it stands, will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Stephen Harper probably expects that as well. But for him it doesn't matter. It has provided him with a wedge issue during the election campaign, by which he can make his opponents look soft on terrorism. Unfortunately he seems to have had some measure of success in this.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
The New York Times and Vladimir Putin.
On Sundays I have the New York Times delivered - between five and ten pounds (the record is 12lb.) of paper in eight to ten sections, a large chunk of it advertising. I read some of it in bed - after having separated the sections which don't interest me.
Today there were two longish articles on Vladimir Putin, and I was struck by the tone adopted in both of them. The first, by Stephen Lee Myers, entitled "Never Let Them See You Sweat" attempts a sort of psychological profile of Putin, drawing on his background as a practitioner of judo and as a KGB agent in East Germany at the time of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. Putin, it is claimed, disdains weakness. A commentator at the Carnegie Moscow Centre is quoted as saying that Putin's tactics are strong but that he lacks a strategy. Putin's action in increasing his involvement in Syria is partly explained away as a move to distract attention from "Russia’s disastrous intervention in eastern Ukraine".
The head of the Center for the Analysis of Middle East Conflicts, in Moscow, is quoted as saying “He has to leave Russia to demonstrate that he is not isolated, that he is a respected member of the international community gathering in New York.” As the Myers article says "Putin will swagger through New York seeking to regain the spot on the world stage he believes he has been unjustly denied by his rivals in the West."
It is an interesting argument and one with which I tend to agree (see my previous blog Another Thirty Years War?). But its merits are not discussed. It couldn't possibly have any merit, because it was uttered by Putin.
Today there were two longish articles on Vladimir Putin, and I was struck by the tone adopted in both of them. The first, by Stephen Lee Myers, entitled "Never Let Them See You Sweat" attempts a sort of psychological profile of Putin, drawing on his background as a practitioner of judo and as a KGB agent in East Germany at the time of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. Putin, it is claimed, disdains weakness. A commentator at the Carnegie Moscow Centre is quoted as saying that Putin's tactics are strong but that he lacks a strategy. Putin's action in increasing his involvement in Syria is partly explained away as a move to distract attention from "Russia’s disastrous intervention in eastern Ukraine".
The second article by Neil MacFarquar is entitled "On Syria, Putin is Catering to an Audience at Home". As the title suggests Russia's growing involvement in the Syrian tragedy is mainly an effort to boost his popularity at home, ignoring the fact that he currently enjoys approval ratings in Russia that any Western leader would die for. His recent diplomatic activity in meetings with the leaders of Turkey, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are dismissed as an attempt to attract more attention to Putin himself, and as a way of leveraging a meeting with President Obama.
The head of the Center for the Analysis of Middle East Conflicts, in Moscow, is quoted as saying “He has to leave Russia to demonstrate that he is not isolated, that he is a respected member of the international community gathering in New York.” As the Myers article says "Putin will swagger through New York seeking to regain the spot on the world stage he believes he has been unjustly denied by his rivals in the West."
The thing that struck me in both pieces was the way in which Russia's actions were described as being the consequence of the vanity and ambition of one man. There was little acknowledgement that Russia might have a genuine interest in the Middle East, even that nations other than the United States might have the right to pursue their own foreign policies. Anything which deviates from what Washington wants is dismissed implicitly as the result of the perverted ambition of one man, who (of course we all agree) is "bad" and power hungry.
It would be entertaining to see in the mainstream media a scrutiny of US foreign policy carried out with the same underlying premises about the motives of the leaders and without the axiomatic belief that US always acts for good in the world.
While (cf the Myers article) one could hardly say that Obama's tactics are strong, one could certainly say that he lacks a strategy. Unless the strategy is one of creating failed states and chaos throughout the Middle East, in which case it would be one of unimaginable evil.
In the MacFarquar article it says "Mr. Putin has claimed repeatedly in recent years that the chaotic state of the world, particularly the level of violence in the Middle East, is because the United States is the solitary power. The underlying idea is that things were better off when the Soviet Union was around to check American might."
Instead it is explained as a Putin tactic - a way he might frame his speech at the UN with a pitch about "establishing a new pillar so that power in the world is more balanced.”
So this is the way the NYT shapes opinion among its readers. And much of the mainstream media are much, much worse.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Paleo Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives.
I have been surprised on several occasions in the last year to find that I am in agreement with the writings of so-called "Paleo-Conservatives" - in particular Pat Buchanan and Scott McConnell, both I believe founding members of The American Conservative.
Their take on international affairs is orthogonal to that of the neoconservatives. For example back in July, Buchanan expressed sensible views on the nuclear weapons deal which had just been hammered out with Iran, and the potential cost to the US and the Republican party if it was rejected. And McConnell had an interesting article entitled "Why is America Addicted to War" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42399.htm) in which he questioned the dangerous US policy in Ukraine.
Today I came across Buchanan's article "Putin: Friend or Foe" (http://buchanan.org/blog/putin-friend-or-foe-in-syria-124083) in which he discusses Russian policy in Syria.
Rather than follow the mainstream press line that whatever Putin does must necessarily be bad and therefore opposed by the West, he asks the sensible question of what is the motive for Putin's action. He quotes Winston Churchill:
“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
He then analyzes Putin's policy and finds it far more rational than that being pursued by Washington. Defeating Assad, he points out, would likely lead to an ISIS or similarly minded government in Damascus, something that Russia wants to avoid at all costs. The policy the US is pursuing would likely lead to that very outcome. Is that what they really want?
Their take on international affairs is orthogonal to that of the neoconservatives. For example back in July, Buchanan expressed sensible views on the nuclear weapons deal which had just been hammered out with Iran, and the potential cost to the US and the Republican party if it was rejected. And McConnell had an interesting article entitled "Why is America Addicted to War" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42399.htm) in which he questioned the dangerous US policy in Ukraine.
Today I came across Buchanan's article "Putin: Friend or Foe" (http://buchanan.org/blog/putin-friend-or-foe-in-syria-124083) in which he discusses Russian policy in Syria.
Rather than follow the mainstream press line that whatever Putin does must necessarily be bad and therefore opposed by the West, he asks the sensible question of what is the motive for Putin's action. He quotes Winston Churchill:
“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
He then analyzes Putin's policy and finds it far more rational than that being pursued by Washington. Defeating Assad, he points out, would likely lead to an ISIS or similarly minded government in Damascus, something that Russia wants to avoid at all costs. The policy the US is pursuing would likely lead to that very outcome. Is that what they really want?
Again the "Cock-Up vs. Conspiracy" dichotomy comes to the fore. Are policy makers in Washington so stupid as to not realize the consequences of Assad's defeat? Or is that what they really want - a radical Islamic state with territory extending from the borders of Lebanon to the edges of Bagdad with ethnic murder on the scale not seen since WW2? As Buchanan points out this would inevitably lead to calls for a full-scale US invasion and a war which would probably define a generation.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Answers to the Art Quiz.
For all of you who looked at the Art Quiz posted last Saturday (12 Sept.) here are the answers.
Please blow your own trumpet if you did well and let the world know. The best score on pub night was 32/40. But this was a table of five or six advanced VISA students.
LIFE HISTORIES.
21. Name the French artist whose first and preferred language was Peruvian Spanish.
Ans. Paul Gaugin.
22. Name the artist who was born in Edinburgh and who has lived in England, Canada and Trinidad.
Ans. Peter Doig.
23. Name the French painter born in the Danish West Indies (St. Thomas) of a creole mother and a father of Portuguese Jewish descent.
Ans. Camille Pissarro.
24. What American artist was born in a town in the Russian Empire (now in Latvia), where he attended a Talmudic school, emigrated to USA at age 10 and attended high school in Portland, Oregon?
Ans. Mark Rothko.
25. Which French painter was heavily involved in the French Revolution as a Jacobin and as a friend of Marat and Robespierre, but who, unlike them, survived and lived in exile in Brussels after the Bourbon Restoration.
Ans. Jacques-Louis David.
Please blow your own trumpet if you did well and let the world know. The best score on pub night was 32/40. But this was a table of five or six advanced VISA students.
VISA PUB NIGHT QUIZ.
SIGNATURES.
How painters signed their art.
1. How did Marcel Duchamp sign the urinal (Fountain) submitted to Society of Independent Artists exhibition in 1917?
Ans. R.Mutt
2. How did Vincent Van Gogh sign paintings he considered ready for sale?
Ans. Vincent
3. How did Claude Monet sign his paintings?
Ans. Claude Monet + date.
4. How did Leonardo da Vinci sign his work?
Ans. He didn't
5. Which painter only signed works at point of sale?.
Ans. Picasso
QUOTES.
Which artist or artists said or wrote the following?
6. "Art is never finished, only abandoned".
Ans. da Vinci.
7. "If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint', then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced".
Ans. Van Gogh.
8. "Pablo. Oh Pablo, he used to be a good painter now he is just a genius."
Ans. Georges Braque.
9. "I can't tell you if genius is hereditary, because heaven has granted me no offspring."
Ans. James McNeil Whistler
SIGNATURES.
How painters signed their art.
1. How did Marcel Duchamp sign the urinal (Fountain) submitted to Society of Independent Artists exhibition in 1917?
Ans. R.Mutt
2. How did Vincent Van Gogh sign paintings he considered ready for sale?
Ans. Vincent
3. How did Claude Monet sign his paintings?
Ans. Claude Monet + date.
4. How did Leonardo da Vinci sign his work?
Ans. He didn't
5. Which painter only signed works at point of sale?.
Ans. Picasso
QUOTES.
Which artist or artists said or wrote the following?
6. "Art is never finished, only abandoned".
Ans. da Vinci.
7. "If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint', then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced".
Ans. Van Gogh.
8. "Pablo. Oh Pablo, he used to be a good painter now he is just a genius."
Ans. Georges Braque.
9. "I can't tell you if genius is hereditary, because heaven has granted me no offspring."
Ans. James McNeil Whistler
10. "Gordon's gin makes us very very drunk".
Ans. Gilbert and George.
CANADIAN ARTISTS.
11. Which Canadian artist, because of shortage of funds for materials, sometimes used gasoline to thin oil paint, thereby creating a nightmare for future curators?
Ans Emily Carr.
12. Which Canadian painter met his end at Canoe Lake in suspicious circumstances, possibly murder?
Ans. Tom Tomson.
13. Against a regiment I oppose a brain
And a dark horse against an armoured train.
For which Canadian painter were these words by poet Roy Fuller, the inspiration for one of his most famous works?
Ans. Alex Colville.
14. Which Canadian artist was mentored and championed by the New York critic Clement Greenberg and became a famous Color Field and Abstract Expressionist painter.
Ans. Jack Bush.
15. Which Canadian artist drove a Rolls Royce and owned several aeroplanes and threatened to publicly burn over a thousand of his prints in a dispute with Revenue Canada. Ans. Tony Only
Ans. Gilbert and George.
CANADIAN ARTISTS.
11. Which Canadian artist, because of shortage of funds for materials, sometimes used gasoline to thin oil paint, thereby creating a nightmare for future curators?
Ans Emily Carr.
12. Which Canadian painter met his end at Canoe Lake in suspicious circumstances, possibly murder?
Ans. Tom Tomson.
13. Against a regiment I oppose a brain
And a dark horse against an armoured train.
For which Canadian painter were these words by poet Roy Fuller, the inspiration for one of his most famous works?
Ans. Alex Colville.
14. Which Canadian artist was mentored and championed by the New York critic Clement Greenberg and became a famous Color Field and Abstract Expressionist painter.
Ans. Jack Bush.
15. Which Canadian artist drove a Rolls Royce and owned several aeroplanes and threatened to publicly burn over a thousand of his prints in a dispute with Revenue Canada. Ans. Tony Only
ANAGRAMS.
16. HOV GANG. Surname - two words. Ans . Van Gogh.
17. SCANT LOBE. Surname - one word. Ans. Constable.
18. LAME OIL CHANGE. Surname - one word. Ans. Michaelangelo.
19. YEN YON LOT. First and surname- two words. Ans. Tony Onley
20. AN JOY SACK. initials and surname by which artist is known. Ans. A.Y.
Jackson.
LIFE HISTORIES.
21. Name the French artist whose first and preferred language was Peruvian Spanish.
Ans. Paul Gaugin.
22. Name the artist who was born in Edinburgh and who has lived in England, Canada and Trinidad.
Ans. Peter Doig.
23. Name the French painter born in the Danish West Indies (St. Thomas) of a creole mother and a father of Portuguese Jewish descent.
Ans. Camille Pissarro.
24. What American artist was born in a town in the Russian Empire (now in Latvia), where he attended a Talmudic school, emigrated to USA at age 10 and attended high school in Portland, Oregon?
Ans. Mark Rothko.
25. Which French painter was heavily involved in the French Revolution as a Jacobin and as a friend of Marat and Robespierre, but who, unlike them, survived and lived in exile in Brussels after the Bourbon Restoration.
Ans. Jacques-Louis David.
FAMOUS PAINTINGS.
26. What work of art exists in four versions - two pastel (1893 and 1895) and two oil paintings (1893 and 1910) with the 1893 version being stolen in 1994 and the 1910 version stolen in 2004?
Ans. The Scream by Edward Munch.
27. This famous square painting executed in 1908 - 09 is composed of oil paint with applied layers of gold leaf.
Ans. The Kiss by G. Klimt.
28. This famous painting of the Spanish Golden Age, depicts the Royal Family and includes the painter working at an easel. Who is the painter? Or what is the name of the painting?
Ans. D. Velasquez. Las Meninas.
29. Of what painting did its creator stipulate that it should not be exhibited in Spain until a republic was established there (later amended to the establishment of liberty and democracy).
Ans. Guernica by Picasso.
30. What is the name, given by Giorgio Vasari, the Renaissance art historian, to a portrait of the wife of Francesco del Giocondo - a name by which the painting is now known?
Ans. TheMonaLisa.
ODD FACTS ABOUT FAMOUS ARTISTS
31. A famous modern artist's full name comprises twenty words, but he is best known by his mother's family name. Who is he?
Ans. Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso.
32. This satirical artist was born in Berlin in 1893 and died there in 1959. Bitterly anti-Nazi he left Germany in 1933 for the USA. After his arrival in there
26. What work of art exists in four versions - two pastel (1893 and 1895) and two oil paintings (1893 and 1910) with the 1893 version being stolen in 1994 and the 1910 version stolen in 2004?
Ans. The Scream by Edward Munch.
27. This famous square painting executed in 1908 - 09 is composed of oil paint with applied layers of gold leaf.
Ans. The Kiss by G. Klimt.
28. This famous painting of the Spanish Golden Age, depicts the Royal Family and includes the painter working at an easel. Who is the painter? Or what is the name of the painting?
Ans. D. Velasquez. Las Meninas.
29. Of what painting did its creator stipulate that it should not be exhibited in Spain until a republic was established there (later amended to the establishment of liberty and democracy).
Ans. Guernica by Picasso.
30. What is the name, given by Giorgio Vasari, the Renaissance art historian, to a portrait of the wife of Francesco del Giocondo - a name by which the painting is now known?
Ans. TheMonaLisa.
ODD FACTS ABOUT FAMOUS ARTISTS
31. A famous modern artist's full name comprises twenty words, but he is best known by his mother's family name. Who is he?
Ans. Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso.
32. This satirical artist was born in Berlin in 1893 and died there in 1959. Bitterly anti-Nazi he left Germany in 1933 for the USA. After his arrival in there
he changed his style completely. He returned to live permanently in Berlin in
1958 , but died within 6 weeks of his return after falling downstairs following a
night of drinking.
Ans. George Grosz.
33. This American artist was a Ruthenian Catholic (Byzantine Catholic). He suffered from St. Vitus' Dance as a child and Robert Hughes said of him 'He was one of the stupidest people I'd ever met in my life. He had nothing to say'.
Ans. Andy Warhol.
34. What pair of famous artists were married to each other twice?
Ans. Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo.
35. This artist was known by over thirty names and he became famous after his work "Thirty Six Views of Mt. Fuji" appeared.
Ans. Katsushika Hokusai
GENRES.
For each question three artists will be given. Identify the genre or movement with which they are associated.
36. Georges Braque, Pablo Picasso and Juan Gris.
Ans. Cubism.
37. Edward Burne-Jones, Dante Gabriel Rossetti and John Everett Millais.
Ans. Pre-Raphaelite movement.
38. Rene Magritte, Hans Arp and Max Ernst.
Ans. Surrealism
Ans. George Grosz.
33. This American artist was a Ruthenian Catholic (Byzantine Catholic). He suffered from St. Vitus' Dance as a child and Robert Hughes said of him 'He was one of the stupidest people I'd ever met in my life. He had nothing to say'.
Ans. Andy Warhol.
34. What pair of famous artists were married to each other twice?
Ans. Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo.
35. This artist was known by over thirty names and he became famous after his work "Thirty Six Views of Mt. Fuji" appeared.
Ans. Katsushika Hokusai
GENRES.
For each question three artists will be given. Identify the genre or movement with which they are associated.
36. Georges Braque, Pablo Picasso and Juan Gris.
Ans. Cubism.
37. Edward Burne-Jones, Dante Gabriel Rossetti and John Everett Millais.
Ans. Pre-Raphaelite movement.
38. Rene Magritte, Hans Arp and Max Ernst.
Ans. Surrealism
39. Emil Nolde, Max Beckmann and Otto Dix.
Ans. German Expressionism.
40. C. Pissarro, C. Monet and E. Manet.
Ans. French Impressionism.
TIE-BREAKER QUESTIONS.
101. The Australian painter Sidney Nolan painted a series of paintings about an Australian outlaw and folk hero. What was the series called?
Ans. The Ned Kelly Series.
102. This bisexual Art Deco painter was born in Warsaw and was part of the Paris Bohemian art scene in the 20s. When she died in Mexico she was a baroness. Ans. Tamara Lempicka
103. Name as many as you can of the top five richest artists in the worl.d.
NB There is not universal agreement on the list. So name up to five and earn a point for each one in the top ten.
Ans. 1. Damien Hirst 2. Jeff Koons 3. Jasper Johns. 4. David Choe
5. Andre Vicari. 6. Takashi Murakami. 7. Anish Kapoor 8. Anthony Gormley 9. Gerhard Richter. 10. David Hockney.
Source complex.com and design museum
Ans. German Expressionism.
40. C. Pissarro, C. Monet and E. Manet.
Ans. French Impressionism.
TIE-BREAKER QUESTIONS.
101. The Australian painter Sidney Nolan painted a series of paintings about an Australian outlaw and folk hero. What was the series called?
Ans. The Ned Kelly Series.
102. This bisexual Art Deco painter was born in Warsaw and was part of the Paris Bohemian art scene in the 20s. When she died in Mexico she was a baroness. Ans. Tamara Lempicka
103. Name as many as you can of the top five richest artists in the worl.d.
NB There is not universal agreement on the list. So name up to five and earn a point for each one in the top ten.
Ans. 1. Damien Hirst 2. Jeff Koons 3. Jasper Johns. 4. David Choe
5. Andre Vicari. 6. Takashi Murakami. 7. Anish Kapoor 8. Anthony Gormley 9. Gerhard Richter. 10. David Hockney.
Source complex.com and design museum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)