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

Swine flu: arm yourself with information

The best way to combat things – in my never-humble-opinion – is to arm yourself with information.

So, without further ado, here is a YouTube video – just released – by Thunderf00t (I have found him to be an accurate and reliable source of information on scientific topics in the past):

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

The problem with vaccines….

As the reports about the ‘swine flu’ are spreading like wildfire, people are wondering how to protect themselves.  This brings up more and more talk about ‘vaccines’:  how large are our supplies, how easily we can create more, and so on.

Frankly, we have a problem with vaccines…

No, I don’t mean the ‘accidents’ that can happen in the manufacture and distribution of vaccines.  These are real problems, because ‘human error’ is, well, something we, humans do.  But, we do learn from our mistakes (I hope!) – plus, depriving oneself of a useful defense against disease just because someone might have made a mistake somewhere along the way is a little extreme…  We ‘ought to’ worry about this in the sense that we demand good oversight and testing and all that – but there comes a point when we must trust our government institutions to do their job!

Nor am I talking about the laughable ease with which terrorists could use ‘live vaccines’ to inject multiple live viruses into willing persons, in the hope that the viruses simultaneously attacking the same cells will produce a ‘super-virus’ in at least one of them (this is called ‘reassortment‘), then using our mass transport system to spread them.  That is just a little paranoid… and worries like this are best left to our law-enforcement agencies!

The real problem we all have with ‘vaccination’ is much deeper and much more serious.

The real problem lies in the unrealistic expectations we place in vaccination!

The fault  for this lies – to a great degree – with the medical community.  (To a lesser degree, the fault lies with the mainstream media (MSM) for accepting the medical community’s word without digging deep enough to get the facts, and with each and every one of us who lets the medical and journalistic communities get away with doing such a poor job.)

Please, don’t get me wrong:  I am not ‘anti-vaccine’.

It’s just that I cannot stand it when people are given ‘partial information’ when they are expecting ‘the whole truth’ and when people are generally misled about ‘stuff’ – especially about ‘stuff’ which involves science!

And, when it comes to vaccines, we are often told by our MDs and other ‘health workers’ only part of the truth:  only the information which will manipulate us into doing what they think  is best for us, instead of letting us make the choice ourselves.  They may mean ‘best’ for us – but, by not telling us all we need to know, they are depriving us of the ability to make an informed choice for ourselves.

I am not joking – or making this up.  Physicians are taught (according to an MD in Ontario) in their medical ethics class that their responsibility is to the ‘greater community’, not individual patients.  Therefore, it is their ethical responsibility to only give their patients positive information on vaccination so that they will build a ‘greater herd immunity’ (his words, not mine) – even if this will harm a percentage of their patients.  This ‘will lead to overall benefit to society’, so ‘the end justifies the means’…

So, please, take a moment to consider for yourselves whether or not we have a problem ‘with vaccinations’:

  1. Every medical procedure has risks associated with it – even vaccination. We need accurate information on the risk to each one of us – as an individual, so we will have the ability to make informed choices for ourselves. Yet, we are told no more than vaccinations are ‘safe’.
  2. No vaccine is 100% effective. Some people will have no protection against a virus, even though they have been vaccinated against it.  Yet, before we are given a vaccine, we are not shown any figures which show what the efficacy of this vaccine is, and how likely someone within our ‘demographic’ is to benefit form it! (Most doctors who administer the vaccines do not have these figures – I have asked, many times!)  Yes, there are various methods of measuring the efficacy of a vaccine, but some of the vaccines we are currently offered are known to have less than 50% (some less than 20%) in ‘field application’ (meaning in ‘trials outside the lab’ – like when administered to ‘general population’). Yet, we are told that vaccinations WILL protect us against infectious diseases!
  3. Believing that they have 100% protection because they’ve been vaccinated, people are not likely to take other precautions. Of course, this will raise the danger of exposure to the very danger they think they are safe from. And THIS is the REAL problem…

Nothing we do in life is without a risk associated with it!

This does not mean we ought to ‘stop living’….  But it does mean that as responsible people, we must make choices about what we do, and how we do it.  Therefore, we MUST be given accurate information about just how effective the various actions we take to protect ourselves from infectious diseases truly are!

Vaccinations are likely a key weapon which we can (and should) use to combat the spread of infectious diseases.  But to use any weapon effectively, we need to know its strengths as well as its weaknesses.

When it comes to vaccinations, we know we are not being told the whole truth. That is dangerous!

And THAT is the problem with vaccinations…

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

Aspergers: ‘price’ and ‘punishment’

People with Asperger’s syndrome (Aspies) process information a little differently than most other people.  Some of us (well, OK, ‘we the Aspies’) would say that we process information much more logically!

This is a gift – but is also is a curse:  very often, we will arrive at a completely logical (and rather obvious) conclusion which is not only obvious to ‘us’, but somehow completely inaccessible to ‘others’.  Perhaps this is due to their social programming – I do not know:  I’m still trying to figure out the unpredictable reactions of ‘neurotypicals’ (NTs).

Let me give an example which demonstrates this most clearly and understandably.

Please, consider the way we (as a society) ‘forbid’ things.

We have a list of behaviours which are socially forbidden: from horrible things like murder to little things like ‘talking in class’. Oh, we do not treat each transgression equally (though SOME Aspies thing that might have made more sense) – our society considers some much more serious than others.  Yet, the fact remains, these various behaviours are all ‘forbidden’.

Aspies can deal with that:  IF, that is, we are given a very accurate explanation as to which behaviours are forbidden (often, explaining ‘why’ will help us figure out ‘what’ these prohibited behaviours are), and IF we are willing to accept the prohibition (which is most of the time), we WILL  respect it absolutely.

KNOWING that respecting the prohibition is part of the social contract we have with our fellow humans is enough.

However, our society does NOT stop at the prohibition itself!  Perhaps this is some misguided attempt at ‘labeling’ different ‘seriousness’ of transgressions, but the fact remains:  our society ascribes very specific ‘punishments’ to particular transgressions.

Of course, once a ‘punishment’ is assigned to a specific ‘transgression’, it removes that ‘transgression’ from the list of ‘forbidden’ behaviours:  it has become a ‘permitted behaviour with a price’!

I am not sure if I am doing a good job of explaining this to non-Aspies.  I have a hard time putting myself into their position with regard to this and seeing it the way I (and many, many Aspies do).  Perhaps an example would be useful:

This is a true story:  starring none other than my husband!

When my husband was in grade 7, he had a Math teacher who had a rule:  if you got caught talking in class, you had to ‘write lines’ (a full page of:  ‘I will not talk during class.’).

Of course, this made ‘not talking in class’ a thing which was not forbidden – rather, it was a thing which was ‘purchased’ with a page of ‘lines’.  And, liking to talk in class, he knew he would have to pay the price for it at one point or another.  Therefore, being the intelligent and foresightful person that he is, he would not indulge in an ‘expensive’ behaviour without having the ‘means to pay for it’, so to speak…

Thus, when the teacher ‘caught him’ talking in class and ordered him to write a page of ‘lines’, my husband (well, he was not my husband then, he was in grade 7 – but, you know what I mean) pulled a page of ‘lines’ from his knapsack and handed it over to the teacher!

For some weird reason, many teachers think this type of a thing is a ‘provocation’ of some type:  the reason for this escapes me (after all, the price was pre-set by the teacher), but I have come to understand that many NTs think that many very straigt-forward and logical reactions are somehow ‘provocations’.  Perhaps it is that they do not like to be reminded of the fact that they skipped a logical step along the way…

Whatever the reason, the teacher said something to the effects:  ‘Ah, so you think you are so clever, having your ‘lines’ all pre-done!  Well, in this instance, the punishment is TWO pages of ‘lines’!’

To which my husband responded – logically, I think – by producing a second sheet of ‘lines’ and handing them in  to the teacher!

THAT seemed to end things…

Again, I am not sure if I am explaining things in an ‘understandable’ way:  what I am trying to say is that, once an action has a specifically defined punishment associated with it, it is not really forbidden any longer:  to the contrary!  It is permitted, provided YOU are WILLING to PAY the pre-efined PRICE!

Therefore, it is not ‘advisable’ to have a ‘specific’ penalty assigned to a ‘misbehaviour’, when it comes to Aspies!

Now, I DO understand that for most NTs, knowing the ‘punishment’ is a part of the whole ‘consequences of actions’ bit – and therefore, it is a ‘good’ thing to define the exact punishment for various ‘forbidden’ behaviours.  Yet, I ALSO expect NTs to take a look at the logical conclusion:  once you put a ‘price’ on something, it is no longer ‘prohibited’, just ‘expensive’…

The moral of this post…

If something is ‘prohibited’, keep it ‘prohibited’ and do NOT make it merely ‘expensive’ by putting a ‘price’ on it!!!

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