Union of Unions: is ‘labour’ organized a little ‘too well’?

This is just a tiny peek at Canadian ‘organized labour’ in particular, though I expect that the results will be similar for many of the ‘developed’ countries – and I am not naive enough not to understand that a supranatural organization of labour unions also exists.

This is only natural:  one just has to look at the nature of people who are drawn to ‘organized labour’ to start with!

These are usually people who are very, very good at ‘organizing’ things – and other people.  So, it is only natural that they would – well – organize themselves, too! And, there is nothing wrong with that:  freedom of association and all that.  Plus, many (perhaps most) of them are motivated by a belief that they are doing right by their members – also a commendable thing!

Where I DO have a problem is that in Canada (and many other places), this very freedom of association – something the labour unions had to fight bitter battles to win a legal right for – is now not respected BY the labour unions themselves…

As in, we have ‘closed shop‘ workplaces (or something practically indistinguishable from it), where every single employee is forced to belong to a specified labour union.  These ‘exclusively union-held’ workplaces are to be found in private industry and – perhaps this is the most troubling aspect – they have a monopoly on all levels of the civil service!  While I am very uncomfortable with all the aspects of this, that is not the topic of this rant.

Instead, I would like to demonstrate that this incredible skill at ‘organizing’, as practiced by labour unions, has – in a very real sense – led to a situation where just about every unionized employee in Canada effectively has to obey just one single boss

Unions arose because there was a need for balance:  as the industrial revolution transformed the ‘Western World’, the employer-employee relationship gave too much power to the employer and not enough to the employee.  Following the age-long adage ‘there is strength in numbers’, people refused to give in to oppression and did something to change it, both in law and in practice.  I suspect that were I living back then, I might well have been proud to be part of this movement!

But, the effects of human actions tend to act a little bit like a pendulum:  if you push hard to correct a wrong, chances are that a really successful ‘push’ will ‘swing the pendulum’ to the opposite extreme… and, with ‘organized labour’, I fear that that is exactly where we are now!  (At least, in the ‘Western world’!)

Now, we have a situation where an employer may not be allowed to hire the best people for a specific job (or, at least, the people the employer wishes to hire), but must have all their employment choices approved by a labour union.  In effect, the Unions in Canada (at the present time) form a layer of management which is NOT under the control of the employer, but whose very existence is predicated on ensuring that there is strife between the employer and the employee (as the ‘raison d’etre’ of the union is to mediate any disputes between the two, ensuring there is plenty of ‘stuff’ to mediate seems only prudent).

As in that story (sorry, I cannot find an online link, but it happened in the 1980s, so there may not be an online copy) where a lady owned a business and wanted to leave it to her grandson in her will.  To make sure that he really knew the business, from the bottom up, she wanted to hire him during his summer holidays in different departments of her company – working in the entry-level jobs of all the departments and getting to know them from the ‘bottom up’!

Frankly, I think this is commendable:  if you intend to leave a company in someone’s hands, it is only responsible that he know all the aspects of its workings!

However, not long before, this lady’s company became unionized.  AND, it was a ‘closed shop’…

And – since the labour union (I don’t know which one was involved) saw the hiring of the owner’s grandson as ‘nepotism’ and something to be opposed, they refused to grant him a memership in the union.  That meant that – whether paid or not – the grandson was not allowed to work at this company…except, perhaps, as the CEO…but he was denied the ability to ‘learn the business’ in order to become an effective manager!

The story ends sadly.  The confrontation between the owner and the labour union did not resolve the situation:  and, rather than be denied the right to hire whom she chose, the owned closed the company – putting everyone out of work.

Yes, it sounds like an urban legend:  still, at the time, it was a big story, covered by the major papers…

I guess what I am trying to say is that while 100+ years ago, the ‘strength’ was with the employers, that is no longer the case.  Now, the ‘strength’ lies with the unions who control BOTH the employer AND the employees, without any accountability to the former and with only a ‘lip-service’ level of accountability to the latter.

That, in my never-hmble-opinion, is a problem!

Because, like it or not – notice it or not – what has happened over the last 100 years (or so) is that individual workers have united to form unions, restoring balance to the ‘equation’:  but, they then went much, much further!  They created ‘unions of unions’ – until now, in Canada, there is one body – the Canadian Labour congress – which controls the vast majority of unionized employees in the land!

From their ‘about’ page:

‘The Canadian Labour Congress brings together Canada’s national and international unions, the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 136 district labour councils.’

‘With roots everywhere in Canada, the labour movement plays a key role…’

‘Active in every aspect of the economic, social and political life of Canadians…’

‘On Parliament Hill, in boardrooms, at international conferences, in media events, in demonstrations or on picket lines, the CLC supports and educates unionists in the fight for strong workplaces, pressures governments for change, builds coalitions with like-minded groups, and strengthens solidarity between workers in Canada and other countries.’

This really does seem to be an organization – perhaps with supranational strings attached – which controls a great deal of what goes on in the daily life of Canadians!

If the CLC were to decide that each one of its members (or the members of its minion organizations) were to go on strike, the whole country would come to a standstill! Industry, government, infrastructure, construction – even entertainment:  all these workers are subject to the whims of the CLC… either directly, or through the labour unions that they belong to – and which all answer to the CLC!

Is this not too much control in the hands of just one group of people – especially a group of people NOT ACCOUNTABLE to Canadians?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

The ‘Liberal Dimension’ – the McGuinty clan: background to the ‘influence-peddling’ trial of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor Larry’

The ‘influence-peddling’ trial of Ottawa’s Mayor Larry O’Brien may – at first look – seem like just another sleezy politician getting what he deserves.

There is a little more to it than that…

… and, in my never-humble opinion, it involves something more than just local issues.  To understand this, we will need to take a look at a local family with more-than-local influence.

The McGuinty family is also very, very influential in the Ottawa area.  The respect the ‘father’ (professor McGuinty) had earned in the community has been cashed in by his less scrupulous sons….  Even though there is no suggestion that the McGuintys were involved in any kind of influence peddling, no look at the political landscape in Ottawa would be complete if it did not include the McGuinty clan.

Here is a VERY BRIEF look at the McGuintys:

  • ‘The father’ – professor McGuinty – was an honest man.  He served the Ottawa community locally, until he was elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1987.  He died in 1990.
  • ‘The mother’ – Elizabeth was a nurse, devoted to her family and, by all reports, a wonderful lady:  being francophone, she helped mould her children’s image of a bilingual ideal for Canada.
  • Dalton McGunity
    • ‘inherited’ his father’s seat in the provincial legislature in 1990
    • ‘young Dalton’ – a lawyer, like Bob Chiarelli – had a bright future with the Liberal Party of Ontario (LPO)
    • in 1996, with Bob Chiarelli’s support, Dalton McGuinty became the leader of the ‘provincial Liberals’ and the leader of the official opposition in Ontario’s Provincial government.
    • in 2004, Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals won the Provincial election, making Dalton the Premier of Ontario
      • Following a string of broken election promises (some in writing), Dalton McGuinty was genuinely astonished that this was a problem.  Regardless of the exact phrase he used, the image of him saying innocently “I had to lie, or the Conservatives would have ‘got in’!” had become entrenched in the public mind, branding him a ‘liar’.
      • political commentators have suggested that policies – and their timing – of Premier McGuinty seriously damaged Paul Martin and his Liberals in the federal elections
    • Warren Kinsella (aka ‘Catsmeat Kinsella‘) (a Chretien spin-doctor who was ‘frequently named’ in the Ad-Scam enquiery) is credited with helping Dalton and ‘his’ Liberals win the next (2007) provincial election (Mr. Kinsella caused a scandal during the election when he showed his misogynist streak…)
  • David McGuinty
    • federal Member of Parliament, first elected in 2004, then re-elected in 2006 and 2008
    • not quite as well known as Dalton, this McGuinty brother has more clout than is generally recognized:  for example, he was considered a possible candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) in 2006, but declined
    • when first elected, David McGuinty was not ‘invited’ into the Cabinet by Paul Martin (who became Liberal Leader in November of 2003) – this was regarded by many as a ‘Martin snub’, but was not unexpected:  the party was deeply divided between the ‘Chretien Liberals’ and the ‘Martin Liberals’…and this rift is still very apparent today (Mr. Ignatieff would appear to have won the endorsment of many of the ‘Chretien Liberals’)
    • known as an ‘environmental lawyer’, he worked hard to promote the ACC agenda
    • Wikipedia also says:  ‘He also was chairman of the Liberal Party’s National Capital Region Caucus.’
  • Dylan McGuinty
  • Brendan McGuinty
    • Some commentators have described him as the ‘brightest’ of the McGuinty brothers
    • worked on the election campaigns of his father and both brothers
    • worked on the election campaign of Bob Chiarelli in 2003 – becoming Chiarelli’s Chief of Staff
    • fought charges of nepotism (1996) and conflict of interest (Ottawa Hydro, 2004)
    • was Chiarelli’s Chief of staff during the critical period prior to the 2004 Provincial Election when the Mayor (and his office) were negotiating with The Province about the Choo-Choo to Nowhere, aka The O-Train.
      • some ‘confidential materials’ about the negotiations were somehow leaked
      • the LPO used these materials against the Provincial Conservatives in general, and John Baird in particular

The McGuintys are decidedly an influential family in the Ottawa area – and they are very closely allied with Mr. Bob Chiarelli.

This close tie could only be deepened by their ‘independant’ rivalries with John Baird, the very popular Ottawa conservative politician whom they have sparred against in both the provincial and the federal arena:  Bob Chiarelli was even rumoured to consider running against John Baird federally.

Now that the Editorial Board of the Ottawa Citizen is – once again – endorsing Bob Chiarelli for Mayor of Ottawa in the next election, things should get interesting…

The ‘Liberal Dimension’ – Bob Chiarelli: background to the ‘influence-peddling’ trial of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor Larry’

Larry O’Brien, the hi-tech entrepreneur-turned-Mayor of Ottawa, is facing charges of ‘influence-peddling’ stemming from his alleged actions in the 2006 Ottawa Municipal Election.

I would like to stress the words ‘alleged actions’…

The trial started this week and the first day was spent on whether to allow ‘live blogging’ (yes – don’t make rulings you cannot enforce) and CBC broadcasting (no – they asked so late, it’s insulting) of the proceedings.

On the second day, Justice J. Douglas Cunningham – who is presiding – heard arguments from both the Crown and the Defense about the rules under which ‘hearsay evidence’ ought to be allowed (or not) – it would appear that ‘hearsay evidence’ forms the bulk of the Crown’s case!

Who would have thunk it, that a highly respected judge might have to spend a whole week pondering about the admissibility of ‘hearsay’ in his courtroom – in a country where ‘hearsay’ is specifically banned from use in any judicial proceedings – with the ‘special’ exemption only for the ‘Human Rights’ Commissions!

But, that is not what this post is about…

Rather, this whole ‘mess’ is taking place in the deep dark shadow cast by the ‘Liberal Machine’!

How?

I have touched on a little bit of the ‘deep background’ by looking at the issues that dominated the 2000 and the 2003 elections in Ottawa –  and I need to cover a lot more before the pieces of this puzzle begin to form a coherent picture.

Still, in order to show the significance of the events, issues and how it all all meshes together, I think it is important to look at some ‘people connections’.  And, in the Capital of Canada, so long dominated by Liberal governments (with only a few Conservative interruptions), many of these ‘people connections’ are made through the ‘Liberal Machine’…

We have already seen that there is a ‘cross-over’ between the ‘strategists’ who advise Federal and Provincial Liberal politicians, especially during elections.  One such ‘famous crossover’ is Mr. Warren Kinsella, who is often credited with…

…but, let me back up a bit!

THE ‘big fish’ on the Ottawa scene has, for quite a while, been Bob Chiarelli: tenacious, ambitious and tough as nails…as well as a savvy, well-connected and ‘slippery’ politician.  He has lots of ‘street smarts’, too…

HIGHLY abridged bio of Bob Chiarelli – just hitting some of the highlights, with respect to ‘connections’ – and a lot of my never-humble-opinions liberally sprinkled in:

  • Born into a wealthy and prominent family in Ottawa’s ‘Little Italy’, he opened his law practice in 1969.
  • From 1987 to 1997, he held the Ottawa West seat in Ontario Provincial Legislature as a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario (LPO).
    • when first elected in 1987, the Liberals won and David Peterson (brother of the Jim Peterson, who was a federal Liberal MP under Trudeau, Turner, Chretien and Martin until his retirement in 2007 – and a supporter of both Turner and Martin) the LPO leader, became the Premier of Ontario
      • Chiarelli did not get a cabinet post in the Peterson government (rumours of resentment….)
      • during the 1987 provincial election, the seat for Ottawa South was won by a certain Professor Dalton McGuinty, Sr.
      • since the death of professor McGuinty in 1990, the Ottawa South seat has been inherited held by his son, Dalton McGuinty Jr.
    • In 1995, Peterson’s Liberals were defeated in the provincial election by the Mike Harris Conservatives and their ‘common sense revolution‘.  This put Mr. Chiarelli on the ‘opposition side’ of the House…
    • In the subsequent Liberal leadership race (1996), Bob Chiarelli supported (and helped) Dalton McGuinty’s successful bid to replace Peterson as the leader of the LPO
  • In 1997, Bob Chiarelli’s family was struck with a tragedy – his wife fell ill with cancer and succumbed to the disease.  Bob Chiarelli resigned his seat in order to be there for their kids…
  • Later on in 1997, Bob Chiarelli successfully ran for the Chair of the Region of Ottawa-Carleton:  at this time, the ‘greater Ottawa area’ was made up of a number of small communities as well as an over-arching ‘regional’ government:  it is the top position (the ‘chair’) of this over-arching government that Bob Chiarelli was elected to hold in 2007
    • The Provincial Conservatives (under Mike Harris) were big on eliminating ‘redundancy’
    • Bob Chiarelli heavily lobbied the Harris government to amalgamate all the municipalities of the Ottawa-Carleton region – as well as the regional govenrment – into one entity, The City of Ottawa.
    • He succeeded:  all the small, flexible municipalities as well as the ‘more shadowy’ regional government were amalgamated into The City of Ottawa in 2000.
  • In 2000, Bob Chiarelli was elected as the first Mayor of the amalgamated City of Ottawa
  • Brendan McGuinty was Chiarelli’s election strategist (he also acted as election strategist for his father, as well as his brothers Dalton and David – with the support of his brother Dylan – a land developer real estate lawyer and the acknowledged ‘family strategist’) and served as Bob Chiarelli’s Chief of Staff.

This is a BRIEF look at Mr. Bob Chiarelli – until the time when my narrative picks up (the 2000 municipal election – with its ‘Shawn Little affair’).  Yes, there are MANY omissions … and I will try to fill in the gaps … next post!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

The ‘2003 election’: background to the ‘influence-peddling’ trial of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor Larry’

The highly publicized criminal trial of Ottawa’s Mayor Larry O’Brien is influenced by many ‘other factors’ – ones of ‘universal interest’.

However, there are many pieces to this puzzle… once I present them all, I will make the connections between them clear.

The first post in this ‘puzzle’ was ‘The Shawn Little affair’… which showed all those interested in watching just how easy it was to render an elected official ineffective – if they are charged with even a transparently ludicrous criminal charge…. In other words, it entrenched (in all the politicians frequenting Ottawa, Canada’s capital and the seat of its parliament) the perception that ‘lawfare’ will render ‘uncomfortable’ politicians much less effective than they would otherwise be.

Not only does it tarnish their reputation (even if they are cleared of all charges – and even if the charges are as ludicrous as ‘not declaring the ‘value’ of a borrowed toilet-bowl brush! – some of the ‘dirt’, or at least, perception of ‘dirt’, will ‘stick’), it forces them to focus their energies towards their legal defense….and to how in the world they can pay their legal bills!

That post also briefly  introduced a key person:  Bob Chiarelli…. a shrewd politician with deep connections within the Liberal ‘machines’ in both the provincial and federal government levels, as well as with a deep ‘network’ of his own….. and who had been elected as the first Mayor of the amalgamated City of Ottawa in 2000.

Now, let us jump forward one election, to 2003

There were a few ‘big’ issues:

  • The smoking ban:  treatment of our veterans
    • The City Council had recently passed a ban on smoking in public.  The law was not popular.
    • Many people were offended at the way this law was implemented
    • Even private clubs – especially the Legion Halls – were not permitted to have especially constructed, fully ventilated smoking rooms…
    • Ottawa’s citizens felt the council was sicking their ‘jack-booted’ ‘By-Law Enforcers’ at our veterans, ticketing them and forcing them to endure -40 degree temperatures outside if they wanted to light up
    • While many people opposed the law itself, just about everyone was angry about the way the Chiarelli regime implemented it and how they targeted our Veterans for particular persecution.
  • The O-Train: expansion of Ottawa’s public transit
    • This is a complex and complicated one
    • At this point, ‘the mess’ was in its beginning stages…but, many people thought Mayor Chiarelli’s priority was building a legacy project to himself, not the public good/interest/etc.
    • There were unsubstantiated (but frequent) allegations that this route (popularly nicknamed ‘The Streetcar to Nowhere’) was selected as a type of ‘favour’ by Bob Chiarelli as part of land speculation by certain land developers and/or associates of Mr. Chiarelli and/or his family.  These rumours were fuelled by the fact that the route would provide awesome access to some cow pastures south of the city, while the east and west transportation corridors – insufficient to handle current levels of traffic – would not be addressed in the least…
  • Official Bilingualism
    • Ottawa is the capital of Canada – a bilingual country…  One would be hard pressed to find many cities (at least, in North America) which are functionally more bilingual than Ottawa – and that is a great thing!
    • Mayor Chiarelli wanted to entrench an ‘official bilingualism policy’ for Ottawa into Provincial law (so no subsequent Ottawa City Council could reverse it – a rather curious move)
    • The form of ‘official bilingualism‘ which the Mayor was pushing was based NOT citizen focused…  Rather than a policy which would mandate that a citizen of Ottawa ought to be able to access services in either English or French (one which would have been acceptable to everyone), Mayor Chiarelli’s bilingualism policy mandated that any City employee could work in the language of their choice (English or French), and all the managers had to accommodate their employees choices.
    • In addition, all City employees would have to be certified ‘bilingual’ according to the ‘Federal Standards’:  ones which most people consider to be highly discriminatory against non-Francophones.   (I have personal experience that this is true – will relate it, if desired….of the difference in treatment I received while applying for a ‘federal jogb’ when I was considered to be an immigrant, and the contrast when later, I was mistaken for a Francophone…if I had not experienced it personally, I would find it hard to believe!)
  • Amalgamation
    • Or, rather, de-amalgamation, as a large portion of the population of the City of Ottawa was not at all pleased with the way the amalgamation had been implemented and how the city was being destroyed transformed.
    • In particular, the rural areas of Ottawa (as well as the Western community of Nepean) were very ‘uncomfortable’ with the way the ‘amalgamated’ City Council saw their role and went about doing ‘things’…

Since Mayor Chiarelli was so vigorously pushing trough many of these issues, much of the 2003 election became about the personna of the Mayor himself!

So, when an unknown – Terry Kilrea – stepped out of the unknown to be an unlikely opponent to Mr. Chiarelli’s bid for re-election as Ottawa’s mayor, many of the disenfrenchised voters flocked to Mr. Kilrea’s ‘camp…  The ‘race for Mayor’ became a race between support for  Mr. Chiarelli, and all who opposed him – on principle

The race was heated, and pretty close… and Mr. Chiarelli won.

‘The Shawn Little affair’: background to the ‘influence-peddling’ trial of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor Larry’

Today was the first day in the ‘influence peddling’ trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien. While this in itself may hold only limited interest, there are ‘other factors’ which are at play here: and these ‘other factors’ have implications way beyond the sleepy little town of Ottawa…

It is these ‘other factors’ which I would like to look at. Still, I ought to provide a little background of the events to date and their historical context….from my personal point of view.

  • In 2000/2001, the many municipalities of the Ottawa area and their over-arching regional government were all  amalgamated into one entity:  The City of Ottawa.
  • This created a geographically large city, with urban, sub-urban, and rural wards.
  • The former ‘Regional Chair’, Bob Chiarelli (acknowledged as a very skilled ‘political operator’), was elected to be the Mayor of the newly amalgamated city.

During that first amalgamated election (2000), an interesting thing happened…

‘The Shawn Little affair’

    • Shawn Little ran against Linda Davis, who had previously been on the Regional Council (headed by Bob Chiarelli, who was now running for Mayor)
    • The campaign got nasty.
    • Following the election, based on a complaint by Ms. Davis, Elections Ottawa investigated Mr. Little’s campaign spending.
    • The audit found that Mr. Little had not declared all of his campaign spending and made a list of the ‘undeclared items’, estimated their cost and incorporated this cost into Mr. Little’s account of the campaign spending.
    • This list included such items as a toilet-bowl brush for the campaign office washroom.  Mr. Little defended himself, saying this was not purchased but that a volunteer working in the office brought it in, and following the campaign, took it back home.  Still, the auditors said, the toilet-bowl brush had value, and he had not declared it:  this, in their eyes, was Mr. Little’s admission of guilt…
    • With the ‘estimated cost’ of the ‘omitted items’ incorporated into his spending, the auditor (after months of investigating) declared that Mr. Little had gone over his election spending cap by $2,600.00
    • Mr. Little was charged with violating the Municipal Elections Act
    • After a lengthy court battle Mr. Little was cleared of any legal wrongdoing
    • It took another legal battle for Mr. Little to get the City of Ottawa (who lost the case against him) to cover at least a part of his legal fees (he had almost lost his house…)
    • Throughout the affair, and for years following it, the press, led by The Ottawa Citizen, ran many unfavourable stories about Mr. Little.  (Perhaps these were deserved – it is true that while this was all going on, Mr. Little was not as effective a councilor as he ought to have been…)
    • An aside:  in the past, Shawn Little was a vociferous opponent of the ‘National Capital Commission’ (NCC) – a federal body which looks after ‘stuff’ in the nation’s capital region on behalf of the Federal Government.  At times, the NCC has been known to unilaterally (as in, they set the ‘market price’, no appeal process available) expropriate land – for the good of the ‘Capital Region’….only to flip the land in a few years for more than 50 times what they paid for it during the ‘expropriation’, making millions in the process…  This was not obvious during this affair, but… the majority of the directors of the board of the NCC at that time (MANY new appointments had been made, especially in 2007 – and I cannot seem to find the ‘historical snapshot’ from ealier – if anyone can find it, I will be happy to link to it here!!!  Let it suffice to say that during this era, the NCC BOD was heavily laden with ‘Chretien Liberal’ appointees…) were ‘land developers’ (or ‘urban planners’), many of them were rumoured to have had ‘ties’ with the ‘Chiarelli family’.
  • OK – this was DEEP background:  still, the important things here are:
    • ‘Lawfare’ (on this scale) was found to be a highly useful tool to render an elected councilor ineffective, both due to distraction (legal proceedings, financial issues, stress) and because it tarnished that politician’s public image.
    • ‘The Ottawa Citizen’ coverage of this election was – in my opinion – highly favourable to Mr. Bob Chiarelli.
    • Even years after this affair had been settled, ‘The Ottawa Citizen’ continued to run stories highly unfavourable of Mr. Little.

This is going really far – for ‘political memory’ of the average ‘voter’.  But, it is my never-humble opinion that ‘The Shawn Little’ affair has direct bearing on what is happening in the current trial of Larry O’Brien, Ottawa’s ‘Mayor Larry’.

If it is hard to see the connections – please, stay tuned.  I will first point out a few other ‘pieces of the puzzle’ (from my highly personal point of view), then and only then will I be able to explain just how they fit together….

My next post will look at (to be linked here, once posted) at the issues which dominated the next municipal election in 2003.

How vaccination works

One of the ways our society relies on to combat viral diseases is through vaccination.  But, how does that work?

First, let’s look at viruses:

http://medicineworld.org/images/blogs/11-2006/influenza-flu-virus-230.jpg

Diagram of an influenza virus from MedicineWorld.org

There are several important things to notice:

  • The coiled things on the inside, which look like springs or slinkies, are the genetic material of the virus.  Viruses only contain half the genetic material that a ‘normal’ living cell needs, so they cannot make more (reproduce) unless they invade another cell and hijack its reproductive system.
  • The wall of the virus (lipid envelope) is made up of two layers of lipid molecules.  This wall is an incredibly good barrier, preventing material from going through it.
  • The  yellow spikes and other bits that stick outside the wall are actually proteins which are embedded in the wall of the virus.  Because the double lipid wall is such a good barrier, these proteins are the ‘channels’ through which things can move across the wall.  All cells (not just viruses) have them:  they can move water and nutrients (and waste materials) through the bi-lipid cell wall, allowing a cell to ‘eat’, ‘breathe’ and communicate.

These proteins that ‘stick outside the wall’ are very important for another reason:  each type of virus (or other infecting cell) has a slightly different types of proteins sticking out, and they are arranged in slightly different ways.  Therefore, the ‘pattern’ and ‘shape’ of these proteins has become the easiest way to identify the virus.  (Scientists can also analyze the genetic structure of a virus, but this is not something our immune system can do!  So, our bodies recognize viruses by the ‘fingerprint’ of the proteins on their surface.)

An actual electron-microscope view of a virus looks like this:

http://blog.silive.com/health/2008/10/avian-flu-virus.jpg

Image on an avian influenza virus from Health&Fitness

As you can see, the proteins stick out on the outside of the wall of the virus, and they form a very specific pattern.  This is very important, because it is precisely by the specific proteins and the pattern they form that our immune system recognizes viruses (and other ‘pathogens‘, which cause infection).

Looking at the human immune system quickly will not be so easy, because it is much more complex than a simple virus is.  Let me give it a try…

When our body is infected by an ‘antigen‘ ( a pathogen which will cause our immune system to react and generate antibodies – as opposed to a poison, etc.), our immune system springs into action.  It follows a very specific chain of steps:

  • ‘General defense’:  the ‘generic’ cells which kill all kinds of ‘invaders’ are released by the immune system in hope of containing the infection within hours, before it can spread too far thoroughout one’s body.
  • If this does not work, the next line of defense begins:  this is when the body begins to defend itself against a ‘specific antigen’.
    • the body attempts to identify the infection by looking at the ‘fingerprint’ pattern of proteins on its skin/surface/cell membrane by comparing the current infection against its ‘memory database’ of past infections the body has successfully defeated
      • if it has no record of past infection that looks ‘like’ this one, it begins to ‘figure out’ the best way to fight it
        • once it figures out the best ‘antibody’ to produce, which would be most effective in fighting this specific infection, it will begin to produce it…but, figuring it out is a process of trial-and-error, and can take quite a while
      • if it finds a ‘match’ in its ‘memory database’ between the ‘fingerprint’ of the surface proteins – types and pattern – of this infection, it begins to produce the same antibodies which worked against it the last time
    • the body produces the antibodies which fight against this specific infection:  that is, it produces the very antibodies that it produced the last time it saw this pattern, and got better as a result
    • if these antibodies are strong enough to kill the infection faster than it can reproduce AND if the infection has not reached a critical level before the body can produce this antibody in sufficient amounts to conquer it, the person will survive the illness which is the result of the infection

So, how does vaccination fit the picture?

Vaccines are made up of either weakened viruses (viruses and bacteria are the most common forms of infection, and we have antibiotics to fight bacteria (viruses are too small/primitive to be killed by antibiotics)) or viruses that are dead and ‘ground up’.

When the the body ‘receives’ the vaccine, it perceives it as any other infection.  The vaccines are engineered to provoke the body to start manufacturing antibodies and the cells which recognize the’fingerprint pattern’ of the ‘antigen’ (weakened virus, or bits of the virus wall with the ‘fingerprint pattern’ of proteins on it which the body uses to recognize an infection).  In other words, the weak virus or bits of the wall of that virus will be fought – and catalogued for future use.

The theory is that if a virus (or another antigen) enters the body in the future, and the body will recognize it and produce antibodies which ‘recognize’ it and fight it.

By ‘recognizing’ the invader, the body can begin to produce the antibodies very quickly.  While some infections take a long time to overwhelm the body, other ones – the ones called ‘virulent‘ – can make one ill very, very quickly… faster than the body can find an antibody that would work!  (During the more virulent outbreaks of ‘black death‘, it was said that people could go to sleep feeling perfectly healthy, but die of the disease before the morning…)  This speed in the body’s ability to defend itself against an invading infection can mean the difference between life and death…or, at least, between a speedy recovery and an unpleasant illness.

Therefore, the philosophy behind vaccination is to introduce a non-lethat (not dangerous) form of a really bad pathogen to a body in order to get its immune system to figure out (without the danger of being ovewhelmed by the infecting disease) how to fight that specific germ, so that the body can store this information in its ‘pathogen database’.  Then, if it ever encounters the ‘full-strength’ germ, it will be able to ‘remember’ how to fight quickly – not giving the invading infection the time to become strong by spending valuable time trying to figure out how to fight it!

This is a beautiful theory!

And, like all such theories, it does actually work in many, many cases!  Unless a person has an atypical, stressed or diseased immune system, vaccination will be very effective in providing them with protection against a potential future infection.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

From Persia to Iran: a tutorial by CodeSlinger

Iran – and its colourful president Ahmadinejad – are in the news a quite lot these days…

But how many of us really know that much about how Iran became what it is today – a hard-line, fascist theocracy with a decidedly apocalyptic fetish?

While I do know a little bit of their history, my interest in the region kind of waned when they stopped building ziggurats, so I’m a little bit out of touch…  (Aside: soon, I’ll be putting up a video with instructions on how to build a model of a ziggurat, inspired by the Ziggurat of Ur – I’m in the process of preparing kits of it for a class-full of eager grade-5-ers!  Fun!)

In other words, I needed a bit of a tutorial on the more recent (say, 20th century) history of Iran.  CodeSlinger was happy to oblige!

Originally, he posted this as a part (!) of a comment to an earlier post of mine, in which he was answering several of my questions – including What is ‘Cultural Marxism’? (which became a post of its own).

With his permission, here is CodeSlinger’s tutorial on the 20th century events, through which Persia became the Iran of today:

Now that we have all that out of the way , we can see what I mean when I say that the manner in which the Pahlavi Shahs went about modernizing Iran subjected the country to the destructive effects of cultural Marxism.  I’m certainly not saying the Shah of Iran was a Marxist.  I’m pretty sure he was nominally Muslim, though he vigorously pursued the policy of secularization begun by his father, so what they really believed is hard to say.

But I don’t think either of them deliberately set out to harm their country, though the father was clearly the shrewder and more ruthless of the two.  The sense I get from reading about them is that they meant to rule well, if at all possible, but they meant to rule in any case.  The social reforms they introduced were being put into practice everywhere in the modern world at the time, but nowhere had they been in place long enough to allow the tree to be known by its fruit.

The father first appears on the stage of history as Reza Khan, commander of the Persian Cossack Brigade, which he used to seize control of Persia and put and end to the Qajar dynasty in 1923, upon which he became Reza Shah and took the surname Pahlavi.  Being broke, in danger of being swallowed by the Russians, and in danger of being overthrown by the Shiite Imams, Reza Shah implemented a strongly anti-communist police state and gave carte-blanche to the British.

To weaken the Shiites, he mandated European dress for men and supported the so-called Women’s Awakening, which included allowing women to work outside the home and banning the chador (!) in 1931.  Another move calculated to weaken the Imams was finalizing the release of the Jews from the ghettos and repealing restrictions on their entry into the professions.  Anyone in government who seriously opposed him was killed.  In the process, he became one of the richest men in Persia, became loved by the city dwellers but alienated the majority of the population, who were still country folk and devout Muslims, and got into a major confrontation with the Imams.

When he felt strong enough, he turned on the British and broke their stranglehold on the country’s infrastructure.  He cancelled the Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s concession, took control of the currency away from the British Imperial Bank, and nationalized the telegraph system.  He encouraged trade with Germany and Italy to further weaken British and Russian influence.  He also changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran, which means Land of the Aryans in Farsi.  Even so, he declared neutrality when World War II broke out, and allowed neither the Axis nor the Allies to operate on Iranian soil.

Not that it helped him.  In 1941, the British and the Russians, whom he had so far successfully played off against each other, joined forces and occupied Iran — ostensibly because they needed a route by which the Allies could supply war materiel to the Russians, but recouping losses was definitely part of the agenda.  The first thing the British did was force Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son, who, they correctly assumed, would be easier to handle.  So Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran at the age of 22.

In any case, Anglo-Persian Oil Company resumed operations under the new name of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and carried on until 1951, when Mohammed Mosaddeq got the Iranian parliament to vote him in as Prime Minister after engineering a coalition that nationalized the company.  In response, Anglo-Iranian pulled all of its people out of Iran and the British navy blockaded the Persian Gulf, which cut off oil revenues and turned Iran into a pressure cooker.

Mosaddeq assumed emergency powers, stripped the Shah of money and authority, and broke off diplomatic relations with Britain.  The Shah fled the country.  All kinds of factions emerged and before long, everybody was stabbing everybody else in the back.  Mosaddeq’s manoeuvrings became increasingly desperate and totalitarian, and this gave the British MI6 what they needed to convince the American CIA that Mosaddeq might get in bed with the communists in a last-ditch effort to keep himself in power.  The CIA mounted Operation Ajax in cooperation with MI6.

To make a long story short, the CIA threw a lot of money around, played everyone against everyone and engineered a coupe that deposed Mosaddeq and put the Shah back on the throne in 1953.  All the gory details of Operation Ajax can be found <a href=”http://web.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/” rel=”nofollow”>here</a>, if you’re interested.  In the end, Anglo-Iranian became British Petroleum, took the lead of a consortium of oil companies, and resumed production.  To consolidate his power, the Shah created a new secret police called SAVAK, whose agents were trained by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad (!) and beefed up the Iranian army, which was funded and equipped by the Americans.  Then he proceeded with his White Revolution in 1963, which we have already touched on.

All of this, of course created the perfect set-up for the backlash that dethroned the Shah for the second and last time in 1979 and put Khomeini firmly in control of Iran.  And for all the reputation that SAVAK had for brutality and torture, its replacement, called VEVAK, has a reputation for being a hundred times worse — of course, not much hard information is available outside Iran, since VEVAK operates without government supervision, but instead answers directly to the Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — in any case, the stories that are told are perfectly consistent with the methods known to be used by their friends and neighbours, the Taliban.

So, who are the good guys in this story?  I’ll be damned if I can find any.  If I had to pick anybody as the least bad, I guess it would have to be the Shah, but that isn’t saying much.  Not much at all.

However, it’s interesting to note the speculations that the CIA has backed every player in this game since the 1940’s, including Khomeini–!  Why would they do that?  Because it gives them leverage no matter how the balance comes out.  And in the present circumstances, that means leverage to manipulate the level of tension in the region to whatever level they need to set the price of oil where they want it, while justifying whatever level of military presence they deem necessary to keep control of Persian Gulf oil fields out of Russian and Chinese hands.  At the same time, it breeds terrorism, which they can use as a scourge of fear to justify increasingly repressive measures against their own population, back home in America.

As Baron Harkonnen said to Muad D’ib, “there are feints within feints within feints.”

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Holocaust Rememberance Day

Let us not forget:  never again!

We all have the responsibility – as individuals and as members of the human race – to never again let this happen!  It does not matter who the victims are:  if they are a specific race, or religion, or whatever!   Because, as my favourite philosopher says:

A person’s a person, no matter how small!

So, as we ponder and remember this horrible thing that happened – the Holocaust – we must not lie to ourselves about HOW something like that could possibly occur.

Some people are quick to point out that the Holocaust did not begin with actions – and they are right.  The Holocaust began with the BANNING OF FREE SPEECH!

Pre-Hitler Germany had very strong ‘hate-speech laws’ – ones which were eerily similar to the ‘hate-speech’ laws we, in Canada, much of the EU, and other ‘Western countries’, have now.  And, the Jewish community in Germany then was quite ‘satisfied’ with the way these laws were used to prosecute people who SPOKE anti-semitic sentiments.  Just as many Jewish groups say they are ‘satisfied’ with the ‘hate-speech’ laws here, now…

These very same ‘hate-speech’ laws were used in 1930’s Germany to muzzle anyone who spoke up against the ACTIONS and government policies which brought about the Holocaust!  Remember my first law of human dynamics:  if a law CAN be abused in any way – IT WILL.  Do people really not see the danger how laws which allow governments to silence people on topics of their choice can be abused?  Or that they are indeed being abused now…that the seeds of abuse of these very laws have already been sown in our society and are beginning to sprout?

Look around yourself now:  we are seeing more and more people becoming muzzled (even including lifetime bans to speak or communicate in any way on a whole topic!) for speaking up against certain government policies!!!

This is ONE lesson we MUST learn from history – because the Holocaust is something we must never allow to be repeated!

Never again!
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

White flowers for Aisha

The story of Aisha Ibrahim Duhuhulow – the child who was stoned for the crime of being raped – has really touched me.

The young girl grew up under one application of Sharia, where ‘justice’ meant that rapists are caught and punished.  However, her local Mosque had come under ‘new management’:  the ‘elders’ (Islamic scholars) who now controlled it applied Sharia very, very differently.   Admitting to having been raped was interpreted by them as admitting to having had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, which is punishable by stoning.  And, while stoning her, the cleric, Sheik Hayakallah, continued to praise ‘sister Aisha’ for ‘wanting Sharia and its punishment to apply’!

And THIS is why Sharia – even if it were fully compatible with ‘Western’ laws and principles (which it is not) – is UNACCEPTABLE !!!

This ‘Islamic Law’ and its applications are not consistent:  the local Islamic leader has the authority to interpret it in any way he deems to be correct!  (This does not even take into consideration that there is no consensus as to what training (if any) a person requires in order to be an Imam or an ‘Islamic scholar’.  Currently, any man who considers himself to be knowledgeable of the Koran and the Sunnah can declare himself to be  an Islamic scholar and act as an Imam.)

Thus, a simple change of Imams at a Mosque could completely change the rules under which are ‘the laws’ which govern every aspect of public and private behaviour in the local community.  And, the people might remain completely unaware how the changed interpretation of Sharia will be meted out:  unaware, that is, until someone like Aisha gets stoned for having been raped!

THAT, in my never-humble-opinion, is a big problem!

As for Aisha, not only was her story criminally mis-reported (at first), she herself has remained faceless:  no amount of Googling has revealed any pictures online of the unfortunate girl.  (If you find one – please, let me know!)

Since I could not find a picture of her, I decided to paint one…  this is my impression of ‘Aisha’:

Aisha

Then, someone posted this comment about Aisha:

WHITE FLOWERS FOR AISHA
I could not sleep for days after reading about Aisha’s tragedy. I would have wanted to bring flowers to her grave, but there was no grave to be reached. I felt so powerless!
But then I got the idea that we should all try and create a wave of sweetness and kindness in the love of Aisha, all over the world. May her death not have been in vain. Let us transform it into a stimulus to spread lovingkindness.
I decided to buy a bunch of white flowers and offer one of them, together with a 5 dollar bill and a piece of candy,to every homeless person I woud find at the railway station,
mentioning Aisha’s name and sending her a blessing every time.
I also made an offer to Amnesty international to honor her name.
Let us all do something, let us create a wave of white flowers and of kind actions so as to try and counterbalance the horror of her death. And let us pray for her, telling her we all love her.
Ilaria

Yes!  WHITE FLOWERS FOR AISHA!

What a beautiful idea:  the innocent blossom, plucked before her time!

White Flowers for Aisha

White Flowers for Aisha

This is my take on ‘White Flowers for Aisha‘!  What is yours?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

‘Marriage under Sharia’ permits child prostitution

My first law of human-dynamics is:  if a law can be abused, it will!

That is why every law must be examined very, very carefully; all the ways it can be perverted and abused must be considered and weighed.  This should – preferebly – be done before such a law is accepted and before it becomes the norm in a society.

Sharia is based on the Koran and the Sunnah (the ways of the Prophet Muhammad).  It governs every aspect of a person’s life.  Here is the definition of Sharia from the Islamic Dictionary:

“Way to the water.” The “way” of Islam in accord with the Qur’an and Sunna, ijma’ and qiyas. Sharia is the law of Islam. It is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunna, though there are many sources outside these two, such as Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, and the law of some conquered nations such as Roman and Jewish law. The Sharia extends beyond what Westerners consider law. It covers the totality of religious, political, social, including private life and makes no distinction between sin and law.

While there are several ‘schools’ of Sharia, they all have the same roots and tend to be considered complementary of each other, rather than in opposition to each other.  And, they are in agreement on many of the most fundamental rules of human behaviour and social organization.

One thing that is troubling about ‘Sharia Courts’ is that there is no formal differentiation between these various legal interpretations of the Islamic laws:  rather, it is the leadership of the local Mosque which determines what ‘school’ of Sharia applies to the congregation.  If a change occurs in the leadership (or ‘elders’) in the Mosque, the legal standards are automatically changed, without any notice being given to the populace.

It is my conviction that Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow was a victim of such a change.  She grew up under the interpretation of Sharia where rapists were caught and punished.  That is why, after this 13-year-old child was raped, she went to her local officials and ‘demanded that justice be done’.  Unbeknown to her, her town Mosque was recently taken over by officials who subscribed to the most extreme form of Sharia, where the rape victim is stoned to death for adultery.  That explains why she kept begging for her life and calling for help, while the officials who sentenced her to death praised her for ‘demanding that justice according to Sharia be done’…

Both courses of action are possible under different schools of Sharia!  How was the child to know that things could change THAT drastically?!?!?

Which brings me back to my original statement:  if a law can be abused, it will!

Now, I would like to ask you to consider  the rules which govern marriage under Sharia:  I have posted some of the major rules here and here. And, human nature being what it is, I would like you to consider the most twisted possible interpretation of these rules which will not be breaking the letter of the rules.  Because, sooner or later, that is exactly how every law will be applied.  (The background information is in my two earlier posts on this, linked at the beginning of this post).

The example of Muhammad, the Prophet:

  • Muslims emulate the behaviour of Prophet Muhammad, because Islam teaches that they are supposed to do that in order to lead good and pious lives.
  • Muhammad had married his ‘only virgin wife’, Aisha, when she was 6 years old (thought he waited until she was 8 (or 9 – the lunar year calculations are a little different from the solar ones)).  Therefore, that is the example that all Muslims are taught to emulate.
  • Therefore, most countries governed by Sharia allow – nay, encourage – marrying girls of  ‘Aisha’s age’.

‘Age of consent’ in the Koran:

  • Neither the Koran, nor the Sunnah, specify what is the minimum age for a person (male or female) to enter into marriage.  Therefore, there is no prohibition against very young people entering into marriage.
  • In order to ensure adequate protection of the ‘fair sex’, females – both children and adult women – have male guardians to look after them.  A girl/woman’s first guardian is her father, then her husband, her brother, and, eventually, her son.  As such, this guardian represents the girl/woman’s interests in all legal matters, such as management of property and conracts, like marriage and divorce.
  • The Koran has very specific laws about divorce.  IVery specific rules are set out in order to ensure that a husband retains control of any offspring sired – but not yet born – at the time of divorce.
  • Among these rules are ‘special cases’ for widdows, as well as for divorce from women who are no longer fertile because they have reached menopause or because they have not yet reached sexual maturity.
  • Putting these things together, the majority of Muslim scholars support the marriage of pre-pubescent girls, provided her father/guardian permits the marriage.  Some assert that ‘sexual enjoyment’ is permitted with females as young as one day old, though penetration is not ‘recommended’ (but not forbidden).
  • Following a divorce, the guardianship of the girl/woman reverts back to her father – or her closest male relative, who is free to (and encouraged to) arrange the next marriage for the girl/woman in question.

‘Bride Price’

  • Many Muslim scholars do not like the term ‘Bride Price’ – it is supposed to be a ‘nest-egg’ to support the wife in the case of divorce, until her guardian can arrange another marriage for her.  In practice, however, that is exactly what it is.
  • The size of this ‘present’ is usually set by the bride’s father or guardian, who arranges the marriage.

Hmmm…  is it really that difficult to see how this can be (and is) exploited for prostituting children?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank