michelleoliel

Bourque: "Anything like the sound of a rat"

2007-08-08T12:57:00.000-07:00

This morning I couldn’t help but notice Pierre Bourque’s post of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion dancing the Horah at the UJA Walk for Israel. Unlike most of Bourque’s posts, this one didn’t even have a story connected to it. The headline read: “Dion as Canada’s New Bobby Gimby”.

I realize what Bourque was trying to do -- paint Dion as an effeminate wimp by connecting this photo with the infamous photo of Robert Stanfield fumbling a football while campaigning in North Bay. Afterall, the Stanfield photo was taken by Brothers Lynn and Doug Ball. In 1967, Lynn also caught Centennial trumpeter Bobby Gimby (Caaa-naa-daa) making like the pied piper and leading kids around an Ottawa football field. Much like the tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, I'm sure that Stephane Dion can rid the town of its rats.

I get it Pierre, but making fun of someone who is taking part in a cultural dance, which has been danced for generations by Jews, is truly odious. I can’t help but wonder which Tory paid to get the photo on Bourque’s site.

Abbas A Partner for Peace?

2007-07-21T10:28:00.000-07:00

Recently, Bush prasied Mahmoud Abbas as "a reasonable voice among the extremists in the neighbourhood". I am not so sure about that. While Abbas concluded that the Palestinian reliance on violence [terrorism] was a tactical mistake, admission of a tactical error is not tantamount to denunciation. How easy it is to confuse Abbas the great pragmatist, as a moderate.

Setting aside his involvement in the 1972 Munich massace, support for terrorist organizations, and of course his gifted penmanship denying the Holocaust, let's take a closer look at the words of Abu Mazen, the moderate and great peace partner:

"We made clear to the American and Israeli sides several times that the Palestinian side is unable to make concessions on anything".
"I will cut off my hand if it signs an agreement in which even one centimeter of Palestinian territory conquered in 1967 is missing".
Abbas rejected billions of dollars in U.S. support and formal state recognition, saying "we rejected these [offers] and said that our rights are not for sale".
He stated, Camp David was "a trap, from beginning to end...We did not miss an opportunity at all, but rather survived a trap that was set for us".

Even if I were to accept the Abbas mythology, he lacks the necessary political clout to enforce the necessary compromises associated with any peace deal. So really, why all the hype?

It's Time to Privatize the LCBO

2007-07-19T00:25:00.000-07:00

Under the Tuscan sun the scent of lavender softly filled the air as hints of cherry and vanilla infused my palate. Falling in love had never been so easy. Who couldn't love the most perfect tannic experience of a super-Tuscan?

As the slightly spicy notes on the finish embraced my senses, I knew that I had found the one. I walked up to the counter to have a case of the wine shipped to my home in Toronto, but to no avail. The over-regulated Canadian environment, characterized by government monopolies, reared its ugly head. The only other place the winery could not ship to was Utah, but that's a whole other blog post.

In Canada, provincial liquor boards, with exception of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, have the sole authority to import, warehouse, and distribute wine through their various retail outlets. Imports of alcohol require prior authorization from the appropriate liquor commission before Customs will clear them -- a cumbersome process for a small winery in San Gimignano. An unfair trade barrier, n'est pas?

The justification for the government grip-hold of the liquor market is premised on public safety or the public interest -- the availability of alcohol under a private system is hypothesized to yield an increase consumption. Stastistics do not support this preposterous claim.

After scouring heaps of literature on the subject, I remain unconvinced of any compelling reason to believe that a government monopoly in liquor retailing protects the public interest more effectively than private ownership with a competitive retail market. In effect, all that is achieved by government monopolies, like the LCBO, is a restriction on consumer choice. But there is a beacon of hope -- Alberta.

Alberta's experience reads like a Harlequin romance novel to a wine enthusiast like myself (And of course, Fabio appears on the cover). In 1993, the Alberta Liquor Control Board exited the retail market. Privatization brought an increase in the number of retail stores, including new stores in communities unserved by the ALCB. Conversely, few communities once served by the ALCB did not gain a private retailer, signalling that the ALCB was operating inefficiently. Most importantly, Albertans now enjoy a wider variety of products than ever before.

Privatization is often wrongfully associated with the idea of revoking a governments ability to legislate and regulate. Alcoholic products will still be required to meet the standards of the federal Food and Drug Act and Ontario, much like Alberta, through the LLBO can continue to ensure legislative and regulatory compliance.

Even an expert panel appointed by the government recommended that the LCBO be privatized. John Lacey, chair of the panel said: "Following a six month review, our Panel has come to the unanimous conclusion that the Ontario government should withdraw from ownership and operation of wholesale and retail beverage alcohol business, and instead create a regulated but competitive marketplace."

So why don't we do it? Answer: the Ontario Liquor Boards Employees' Union (OLBEU/NUPGE) and of course, the government fears losing its cash cow. The propaganda which spews from the OLBEU is not even worth addressing.

It is a common misconception that Ontario will lose substantive revenues if it is to privatize the LCBO. Alberta was able to remedy this problem by affixing a a flat mark-up rate to the wholesale price of wine. Not to mention that a private retailer, like all retailers, would have to pay taxes on their profits.

If this is about the public interest, which I suspect it is not, why doesn’t the government also sell cigarettes in the public interest? Answer: the publc interest is a euphemism for: "because I said so". How dare anyone argue with the public interest.

Funding for Faith-based Education

2007-07-04T09:29:00.000-07:00

Jason Cherniak was right when he stated, "[p]rivate schools are not a Jewish issue" -- It's a multi-faith issue.

Jason went on to state:

Politicians should not be lobbied by Jewish groups to support private Jewish schools; they should be lobbied by Jewish groups to either fund all private religious schools or fund no private religious schools. As long as the organized Jewish Community continues to support funding of private religious schools to the exclusion of all other solutions to discriminatory education policy, the organized Jewish Community will be ignoring those Jews, like me, who prefer public education.

The organized Jewish community supports equitable and fair funding for all Ontario faith-based schools regardless of religious affiliation. In fact, the organized Jewish community plays an active role in the Multi-Faith Coalition for Equal Funding of Faith-Based Schools.

Jason also stated:

I believe that a fully public education system would be less discriminatory than a system that funds religious private schools [emphasis added].

Way to aim high, Jason. The issue is not about how to create less discrimination but how to eradicate it. As the only Western jurisdiction to fund one set of faith based schools to the exclusion of others, Ontario has been subject to much international criticism. In 1999 the UNHCR declared that Ontario's full funding of Catholic schools to the total exclusion of all others is discrimination and violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Supporting faith-based education is support for guaranteeing that cultural diversity may be retained and integrated within Ontario and Canadian society. This is the Canadian way. Jason is entitled to his opinion, but does not represent the Jewish voice within the Ontario Liberal Party. It's not about what you or I want, but rather about what communities need. Who are we to judge such needs?

Dalton, my Hero

2007-07-03T00:37:00.000-07:00

Dalton McGuinty and Sam the American Eagle

Brothers in Arms

2007-07-03T00:35:00.000-07:00

Andrew Telegdi...?

Canadian Politicians and Their Celebrity Lookalikes

2007-07-02T18:20:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or does Gordon O'Connor remind you of Skeletor?

"The power flows... Flows through me! Of what consequence are you now? This planet, these people. They are NOTHING to me! The universe is power! Real, unstoppable POWER! and I am that force!"

Conservative MP Sylvie Boucher and Alyson Hannigan, the band geek from the movie "American Pie", n'est pas?

Millhouse is Tony Clement's brotha-from-anotha-motha

Both Belinda and Paris are stunning.

Steven Owen bears a remarkable resemblance to DJ Qualls from the movie "Road Trip"

Oh Peter, you are the man I love...to hate.

The Enemy of Israel's Enemy is not her Friend

2007-06-20T12:56:00.000-07:00

I seldom agree with what Alan Dershowitz describes as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's "Distorted World". This time, the Nobel Peace Laureate hit the nail on the head with respect to the U.S.-Israel response to the escalating conflict amongst rivalling terrorist organizations, Hamas and Fatah.

For much too long Israel worked diligently to undermine the Palestine Authority. I, much like many wished to see the removal of Yasser Arafat. Israel undermined whom today we refer to a "moderates" to the point of establishing a vacuum in which Hamas successfully operated. Let me explain.

During the first Intifada, Hamas emerged as terrorist organization. The resulting bloodshed that ensued resulted in the loss of trust and confidence in Hamas' ability to deliver the Palestinian national narrative. But Hamas has always been pragmatic at its core, albeit racist and dogmatic. In a chameleon-like fashion they worked diligently to fill the social void of the deteriorating Palestinian condition and gained the trust of the people.

During the second Intifada Hamas went back to it's terrorist roots at a time when the prospect of peace had hit a glass ceiling. Israel, like many including myself, blamed Arafat for much of the bloodshed. After all, he did pay lip-service to the global community while supporting attacks on Israel from his own territory. This is not the point.

We were all convinced that Arafat needed to be removed. Perhaps he did but the issue was much greater than the personality of one man. Israel succeeded in it's quest to undermine the PA and Fatah. The result: Hamas.

I wrote a piece a week back about hindsight's failure with respect to the selection of Ehud Barak in the Labor Party primary. The same holds true for Israel and America's strategy in the current conflict.

The proposition is simple: Deepening the divide between Hamas and Fatah will lead to the inability of either group to provide services to the Palestinian people, creating once again a vacuum for the growth of even more radical factions. Al Qaeda? Perhaps. It can only get worse.

Like it or not, world opinion matters when it comes to Israel as she fights for her very existence. In the eyes of Israel's dissenters, she will bear the burden of blame for the Palestinian casualties at the hands of it's own brothers and sisters.

Intervention will only exacerbate the conflict and provide little, if any gain. Defending ones nation and intervening in an internal conflict of the other need not be spoken of in the same breath. It's time for pragmatism.

And The Muzzling Continues...

2007-06-19T18:23:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time in Tory-la-la-land, John Baird had nothing but praise for economist Mark Jaccard. Baird hailed Jaccard as one of "Canada's best economists outside of government" and made sure that Jaccard got a sole source contract to “provide the minister’s office with strategic advice on proposed environmental changes.”

But that's where this love story ends, because the trouble was that Jaccard didn’t tell Baird exactly what he wanted to hear—and that’s not something Baird takes kindly to.

What Harper’s EcoFraud lap dog neglected to consider was that an expert described by Baird’s office as “one of Canada’s pre-eminent policy advisors in the area of climate change” just might be able to see his environmental plan for what it truly was: toxic smoke and mirrors.

So, Baird acted swiftly and quickly to do what has become a fan favourite tactic of this government: muzzle the dissenters. After giving Jaccard an all expense paid trip to Ottawa from Vancouver in order to present his findings in front of the House of Commons’ Environment Committee, Baird made sure that he never got the chance to speak. Baird put petty politics in front of the taxpayer’s dollar.

Baird’s tangled web of muzzlry is typical of this government. To them, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a venerated academic in the public service or a Conservative MP just dying to bring the party’s hidden agenda out into the open -- If you disagree, you’ll never be heard from again.

A History Lesson for Oakland Ross

2007-06-15T00:42:00.000-07:00

The Toronto Star Middle East Bureau Oakland Ross is clearly in need of a history lesson. While writing on the recent selection of Shimon Peres as President of Israel, Ross states:

He has been its prime minister – on than three separate occasions – as well as its defence minister, and its foreign minister. He participated in the 1948 war that led to the establishment of the Jewish state, and he has been a fixture of the turbulent Middle Eastern scene during each twist, each turn, and each unnerving tumble the region has taken during the ensuing six decades [Emphasis added].

The facts: The war did not lead to the establishment of the State of Israel. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181 (II) on “the Future Government of Palestine”, commonly referred to as the Partition Plan. Under the Partition Plan, the land of former British Mandate of Palestine was to be partitioned into two states; one for the Arabs and one for the Jews. The leaders of the Jewish community agreed to implement the partition plan; however the Arabs rejected it. On May 15, 1948 shortly before the termination of the British Mandate, the Jews proclaimed the Independent State of Israel and seven Arab armies attacked the nascent State of Israel.