"Is Canada suffering from a failure to discriminate against visible minorities?" More than an odd way to phrase a question, it is an inversion of decency. This is exactly what the Globe and Mail's Marina Jimenez did in her October 6th piece on her maliciously erroneous interpretation of a recent Statistics Canada release. The article entitled Immigrants Face Growing Economic Mobility Gap and continued under the subtitle Discrimination Against Blacks Tied to Income Disparity posits that the second and third generation of minority children suffer an income gap when compared to whites. However, the statistics do not support this intrepretation at all. In fact, they clearly point to the progress of integration in Canada showing that hard working Chinese and Japanese citizen even far outstrip those of European heritage. Most other groups proportionally show significantly greater generational improvement than do whites. Only blacks show as little generational stagnation as do whites.
As the statistics themselves suggest, in every case, surely culture, not discrimination is the limiting factor. Indeed, if there is one group which has to struggle under legal discrimination of affirmative action it is the whites who do lag almost every other group.
Jiminez was correct to observe, “The old vertical mosaic with whites from Britain and Europe at the top and visible minorities underneath is no longer valid." She should have left it at that.
Avg anl earnings of university grads 25-44, full time employed. Statistics Canada
---------------Gen----‘000s------Gen----‘000s
Chinese---------1-------55---------3--------79
Japanese--------1------ 58---------3--------75
White-----------1-------68---------3--------67
Arab------------1-------55---------2--------63
S.Asian----------1-------54---------3--------62
W.Asian---------1-------53---------2--------53
Carrib/Afr Bl----1-------51---------2--------50
Filipinos---------1-------41---------2--------51
Monday, October 20, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Col. Tibbets Requiem
Thought you might appreciate a recent article on a personal hero of mine-Paul Tibbets.
He did the right thing in 1945, then the right thing in all the years that followed. Unlike the common horde, he did not bend to misplaced guilt and the political correctness that had grown out of it. It's interesting to look back and see how far we've "progressed".
REPRINTED
Paul Tibbets, Enola Gay pilot, 92
JULIE CARR SMYTH
Associated Press
November 1, 2007 at 12:16 PM EDT
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Paul Tibbets, who piloted the B-29 bomber Enola Gay when it dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, died Thursday. He was 92 and insisted almost to his dying day that he had no regrets about the mission and slept just fine at night.
Mr. Tibbets died at his Columbus home, said Gerry Newhouse, a long-time friend. He suffered from a variety of health problems and had been in decline for two months.
Mr. Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, lest it provide his detractors with a place to protest, (What A Shame) Mr. Newhouse said
.
Mr. Tibbets's historic mission in the plane named for his mother marked the beginning of the end of the Second World War and eliminated the need for what military planners feared would have been an extraordinarily bloody invasion of Japan. It was the first use of a nuclear weapon in wartime.
The plane and its crew of 14 dropped the five-ton “Little Boy” bomb on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. The blast killed 70,000 to 100,000 people and injured countless others.
Three days later, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb – codenamed 'Fat Man' on Japan, killing an estimated 40,000 people in Nagasaki. Mr. Tibbets did not fly in that mission. The Japanese surrendered a few days later, ending the war.
“I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing,” Mr. Tibbets told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published on the 60th anniversary of the bombing. “We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible.”
Mr. Tibbets, at the time a 30-year-old colonel in the U.S. Army Air Forces, never expressed regret over his role. He said it was his patriotic duty and the right thing to do.
“I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did,” he said in a 1975 interview.
“You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal.”
He added: “I sleep clearly every night.”
Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. was born Feb. 23, 1915, in Quincy, Ill., and spent most of his boyhood in Miami.
He was a student at the University of Cincinnati's medical school when he decided to
Tibbets and The Enola Gay, the aircraft which carried the bomb and which he named after his
mother.
REPRINTED
Paul Tibbets, Enola Gay pilot, 92
JULIE CARR SMYTH
Associated Press
November 1, 2007 at 12:16 PM EDT
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Paul Tibbets, who piloted the B-29 bomber Enola Gay when it dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, died Thursday. He was 92 and insisted almost to his dying day that he had no regrets about the mission and slept just fine at night.
Mr. Tibbets died at his Columbus home, said Gerry Newhouse, a long-time friend. He suffered from a variety of health problems and had been in decline for two months.
Mr. Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, lest it provide his detractors with a place to protest, (What A Shame) Mr. Newhouse said
.
Mr. Tibbets's historic mission in the plane named for his mother marked the beginning of the end of the Second World War and eliminated the need for what military planners feared would have been an extraordinarily bloody invasion of Japan. It was the first use of a nuclear weapon in wartime.
The plane and its crew of 14 dropped the five-ton “Little Boy” bomb on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. The blast killed 70,000 to 100,000 people and injured countless others.
Three days later, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb – codenamed 'Fat Man' on Japan, killing an estimated 40,000 people in Nagasaki. Mr. Tibbets did not fly in that mission. The Japanese surrendered a few days later, ending the war.
“I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing,” Mr. Tibbets told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published on the 60th anniversary of the bombing. “We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible.”
Mr. Tibbets, at the time a 30-year-old colonel in the U.S. Army Air Forces, never expressed regret over his role. He said it was his patriotic duty and the right thing to do.
“I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did,” he said in a 1975 interview.
“You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal.”
He added: “I sleep clearly every night.”
Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. was born Feb. 23, 1915, in Quincy, Ill., and spent most of his boyhood in Miami.
He was a student at the University of Cincinnati's medical school when he decided to
Tibbets and The Enola Gay, the aircraft which carried the bomb and which he named after his
mother. You gotta love this guy for his clear thinking, morality and loyalty to mother and country.
After the war, Mr. Tibbets said in 2005, he was dogged by rumours that he was in prison or had committed suicide.
“They said I was crazy, said I was a drunkard, in and out of institutions,” he said. “At the time, I was running the National Crisis Center at the Pentagon.”
Mr. Tibbets retired from the U.S. Air Force in 1966 as a brigadier-general. He later moved to Columbus, where he ran an air taxi service until he retired in 1985.
But his role in the bombing brought him fame – and infamy – throughout his life.
In 1976, he was criticized for re-enacting the bombing during an appearance at a Harlingen, Tex., air show. As he flew a B-29 Superfortress over the show, a bomb set off on the runway below created a mushroom cloud.
He said the display “was not intended to insult anybody,” but the Japanese were enraged. The U.S. government later issued a formal apology.
Mr. Tibbets again defended the bombing in 1995, when an outcry erupted over a planned 50th anniversary exhibit of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution.
The museum had planned to mount an exhibit that would have examined the context of the bombing, including the discussion within the administration of Harry S Truman of whether to use the bomb, the rejection of a demonstration bombing and the selection of the target.
Veterans groups objected, saying the proposed display paid too much attention to Japan's suffering and too little to Japan's brutality during and before the war, and that it underestimated the number of Americans who would have perished in an invasion.
They said the bombing of Japan was an unmitigated blessing for the United States and the exhibit should say so.
Mr. Tibbets denounced the planned exhibit as “a damn big insult.”
The museum changed its plan and agreed to display the fuselage of the Enola Gay without commentary, context or analysis.
He told the Dispatch in 2005 that he wanted his ashes scattered over the English Channel, where he loved to fly during the war.
Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Tibbets's friend, confirmed that Mr. Tibbets wanted to be cremated, but he said relatives had not yet determined how he would be laid to rest.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Serving Narrow Interests
The newly formed Canadian International Council (CIC) heralded by it's Chair, Jim Balsille, as offering Canadians and their children "better lives" bears closer examination. Should Canadian's "look behind the headlines" as Balsille's new organization purports to do, they will find the new organization, just another conservative think tank dominated by the corporate scions of the nation --you name 'em the're there-- while seeking moral authentication through its nominal public membership.
The CIC is a privately funded arm of our corporate state, although any Canadian may become a fellow for $100,000. Benefactor status will require a cool million. Mr. Balsille declares that the CIC is "unrestrained by the competing ideological framework of our political parties". While objective on the surface, in a democracy that may be a dangerous thing.
In an ironic side note the CIC was formed through an assimilation of the Canadian Intstitute of International Affairs and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. Both of these organizations were formed originally in the hope that public rather than strictly government, not to mention corporate, input were essential for wise foreign policy.
Should Canadians depend upon the CIC to provide an independant and objective view of foreign policy they will be ill served. Authentic objectivity can only provided by truly independent Canadian scholars.
The CIC is a privately funded arm of our corporate state, although any Canadian may become a fellow for $100,000. Benefactor status will require a cool million. Mr. Balsille declares that the CIC is "unrestrained by the competing ideological framework of our political parties". While objective on the surface, in a democracy that may be a dangerous thing.
In an ironic side note the CIC was formed through an assimilation of the Canadian Intstitute of International Affairs and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. Both of these organizations were formed originally in the hope that public rather than strictly government, not to mention corporate, input were essential for wise foreign policy.
Should Canadians depend upon the CIC to provide an independant and objective view of foreign policy they will be ill served. Authentic objectivity can only provided by truly independent Canadian scholars.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Indian Land Claims
A Rare Setback for Indian Land Claims
The Supreme Court of Canada made a surprising, unanimous and historic decision in rejecting the $2,500,000,000 land claim by the self-styled, Papaschase First Nation. In a brave decision during today’s climate of acquiescence, the court ruled according to the statute of limitations declaring that the statute seeks to strike a balance between the plaintiff’s interest and the defendant’s right, after a judicious period of time, to organize his affairs without fearing a lawsuit. No mere “legal technicality” as Papaschase Chief Rose Lameman charged, the interests of all Canadians is at stake in the matter which confronts the dismemberment of the nation.
Although underplayed by the national media in Canada, of the historic ruling the Supreme Court also declared that, "This policy applies as much to aboriginal claims as to other claims". It is interesting to note that Justice Alan MacInnes of the Manitoba Court similarly ruled that there was no evidence to support any of the Metis arguments in the even more ambitious bid of the Manitoba Metis Federation to require billions in compensation. Supporting the view that the Supreme Court must take a stand was the disappointment with the ruling of the Manitoba court by David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Metis Federation. Chartrand reminded us that lower courts typically reject aboriginal claims, but are routinely overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. He expects the same outcome in the Manitoba in spite of the fact that the Metis case like the Papaschase First Nation's rests on tenuous contentions. Whereas the Papaschase had dwindled to just three individuals in number during the nineteenth century and the Manitoba Metis had largely left Manitoba for the Northwest Territories in the 1860’s; both groups base current claims on supposed populations that include individuals of questionable aboriginal status. For example, of the now 5,000 purported members of the Papaschase spread throughout Western Canada, included are members of the other Indian bands, non-status Indians, Metis as well as people of Caucasian and Asian descent; nearly all, who have come forward since the band began regrouping (signing-up new weakly established members) asserted Lameman.
Canadians whom have been largely mum, if at all aware of the enormity posed by the land claims crisis threatening to devour their country; have allowed misplaced guilt and sympathy toward native plight to yield a string of unwise settlements awarded by politicians crassly chasing votes. For this reason the Supreme Court’s landmark decision is particularly heroic and a landmark vital for the continued existence of the nation, which has come none too soon.
The Supreme Court of Canada made a surprising, unanimous and historic decision in rejecting the $2,500,000,000 land claim by the self-styled, Papaschase First Nation. In a brave decision during today’s climate of acquiescence, the court ruled according to the statute of limitations declaring that the statute seeks to strike a balance between the plaintiff’s interest and the defendant’s right, after a judicious period of time, to organize his affairs without fearing a lawsuit. No mere “legal technicality” as Papaschase Chief Rose Lameman charged, the interests of all Canadians is at stake in the matter which confronts the dismemberment of the nation.
Although underplayed by the national media in Canada, of the historic ruling the Supreme Court also declared that, "This policy applies as much to aboriginal claims as to other claims". It is interesting to note that Justice Alan MacInnes of the Manitoba Court similarly ruled that there was no evidence to support any of the Metis arguments in the even more ambitious bid of the Manitoba Metis Federation to require billions in compensation. Supporting the view that the Supreme Court must take a stand was the disappointment with the ruling of the Manitoba court by David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Metis Federation. Chartrand reminded us that lower courts typically reject aboriginal claims, but are routinely overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. He expects the same outcome in the Manitoba in spite of the fact that the Metis case like the Papaschase First Nation's rests on tenuous contentions. Whereas the Papaschase had dwindled to just three individuals in number during the nineteenth century and the Manitoba Metis had largely left Manitoba for the Northwest Territories in the 1860’s; both groups base current claims on supposed populations that include individuals of questionable aboriginal status. For example, of the now 5,000 purported members of the Papaschase spread throughout Western Canada, included are members of the other Indian bands, non-status Indians, Metis as well as people of Caucasian and Asian descent; nearly all, who have come forward since the band began regrouping (signing-up new weakly established members) asserted Lameman.
Canadians whom have been largely mum, if at all aware of the enormity posed by the land claims crisis threatening to devour their country; have allowed misplaced guilt and sympathy toward native plight to yield a string of unwise settlements awarded by politicians crassly chasing votes. For this reason the Supreme Court’s landmark decision is particularly heroic and a landmark vital for the continued existence of the nation, which has come none too soon.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Man for All Seasons
Here Indeed Was A Man For All Seasons
We note the regretable passing of that greatest of actors, Paul Schofield, who recently succumbed to leukemia at age 86. He is due the greatest personal admiration not so much for his incomparable acting ability, but for his even more prodigious personal qualities. Having learned his trade in the classic manner he worked primarily in the theatre. As Audrey Woods
(Associated Press) pointed out, Schofield made few films even after the Oscar for his 1966 portrayal of Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More. Although a stage actor by inclination, training and gifts; it was film that gave him his greatest fame. Of his several films his most memorable and juxtaposing roles range from the soul imbued, Saint Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons and the souless heart of human evil as Judge Danforth in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, that timely and powerful critique of McCarthyism in 1953.True to his humble, yet noble origins, as the son of a country schoolmaster, Schofield preferred throughout his life the sweetness of close rural family life to the glamour of the limelight, having turned down many parts offered to him over the many years.In a fit of “Schofieldian” humility, Richard Burton scoffed at the notion that he should be regarded as the natural heir to Olivier or Gieglud, deferring the honour to Schofield. “Of the ten greatest moments in the theater,” Burton generously remarked, “eight are Schofield’s”.True to his democratic roots he declined the inevitable offer of a knighthood, explaining, “It is just not an aspect of life that I would want. If you want a title, what's wrong with Mr.?" How utterly “uncommon” (sic.); how utterly unlike our Lord Black today, for example, and all those so many hinds who make it their life’s work to chase the tail of the dog. He did graciously accept many other honours including Tonys, Emmys and of course the British Companion of Honour in 2001. There is little doubt that in Schofield's view, as his life so clearly proclaimed, the greatest honours were the wife and family who survive and continue to love him.
We note the regretable passing of that greatest of actors, Paul Schofield, who recently succumbed to leukemia at age 86. He is due the greatest personal admiration not so much for his incomparable acting ability, but for his even more prodigious personal qualities. Having learned his trade in the classic manner he worked primarily in the theatre. As Audrey Woods
(Associated Press) pointed out, Schofield made few films even after the Oscar for his 1966 portrayal of Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More. Although a stage actor by inclination, training and gifts; it was film that gave him his greatest fame. Of his several films his most memorable and juxtaposing roles range from the soul imbued, Saint Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons and the souless heart of human evil as Judge Danforth in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, that timely and powerful critique of McCarthyism in 1953.True to his humble, yet noble origins, as the son of a country schoolmaster, Schofield preferred throughout his life the sweetness of close rural family life to the glamour of the limelight, having turned down many parts offered to him over the many years.In a fit of “Schofieldian” humility, Richard Burton scoffed at the notion that he should be regarded as the natural heir to Olivier or Gieglud, deferring the honour to Schofield. “Of the ten greatest moments in the theater,” Burton generously remarked, “eight are Schofield’s”.True to his democratic roots he declined the inevitable offer of a knighthood, explaining, “It is just not an aspect of life that I would want. If you want a title, what's wrong with Mr.?" How utterly “uncommon” (sic.); how utterly unlike our Lord Black today, for example, and all those so many hinds who make it their life’s work to chase the tail of the dog. He did graciously accept many other honours including Tonys, Emmys and of course the British Companion of Honour in 2001. There is little doubt that in Schofield's view, as his life so clearly proclaimed, the greatest honours were the wife and family who survive and continue to love him.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Prometheus
The title of this publication, Prometheus, was selected for its powerful allusion to human nature and the human political condition. It represents, as the ancient Greek's knew so well, the eternal human quest to seek freedom and understanding in all its multifarious forms and break the bondage of authoritarian political control that permeates the ages. The Promethean myth is the most human of epics: that of a "man" following the quest of liberation from the whims of Kings and their Gods. For it was Prometheus who not only gave man fire, by Aescaleus’ account, but also the noblest arts of civilization (writing, mathematics, agriculture, medicine, and science): in short, freedom of though and action. It was Prometheus who was bound and punished eternally by pitiless Lord Zeus’ vulture: which would savour the hero’s liver for all time, were it not for his intrepid rescue by Hercules; whereupon, once again the Greeks defied the gods.
We refer to Aescaleus later version of Prometheus an inversion of Hesoid’s traditional hieratic account of the myth, which affirms Zeus’ role as a Solonic ruler of the rightly ordered cosmos. Aescaleus who comes much later during the Golden Age of Hellenic democracy and thought, casts Prometheus as a indominable benefactor of mankind, ever questing for knowledge, independence and human dignity.
It reminds us of Byron’s Prometheus, 1816
Amighty lesson we inherit;
Thou art a symbol and a sign
To mortal … fate and force;
Like thee, Man is part divine,
Triumphant where it dares defy,
And making Death a Victory.
We refer to Aescaleus later version of Prometheus an inversion of Hesoid’s traditional hieratic account of the myth, which affirms Zeus’ role as a Solonic ruler of the rightly ordered cosmos. Aescaleus who comes much later during the Golden Age of Hellenic democracy and thought, casts Prometheus as a indominable benefactor of mankind, ever questing for knowledge, independence and human dignity.
It reminds us of Byron’s Prometheus, 1816
Amighty lesson we inherit;
Thou art a symbol and a sign
To mortal … fate and force;
Like thee, Man is part divine,
Triumphant where it dares defy,
And making Death a Victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)