This Website Has Been Moved to www.mmayer.ca.

This website has been moved to www.mmayer.ca. Just follow the link.

Peaceful Protest in Al-Walaja

Al-Walaja, population 2,000 is located just south of Jerusalem and west of Bethlehem. After the 1967 Six Day War, half the town was annexed to Israel and included the Jerusalem municipal area. The citizens though did not receive Israeli citizenship or residency, thus they are considered illegal within their own homes.

The Wall has come to Al-Walaja and when completed it will completely isolate the residents from everyone, including Jerusalem, Bethlehem and their land. Israel has confiscated half of the land planning to utilize it to build Har Gilo and Gilo settlements. Their fruit orchards have been cut down, their homes demolished and the areas to south and west have been closed off. When the wall is complete it will separate 3,200 Dunams (1 dunam = 1000 square metres) of which 3,000 are olive groves, the only recreational forest, a monastery and winery from the town.

The citizens of Al-Walaja, international activists and other human rights organizations have been demonstrating peacefully against this outrage. In one day alone, they stopped the bulldozers from proceeding leading to several arrests. In the end, the IDF successfully managed to drag the protesters out of the way and allowing the construction to proceed.

When is it legal to arrest citizens protecting their land from the construction of an illegal wall on an illegally occupied land? Where are the citizens of Al-Walaja, whose homes have been demolished to go? This barrier wall, allegedly constructed to ensure Israel's security, will cut off these people from the entire world. Who really needs security, the all powerful Israeli armed to the teeth or the citizens of Al-Walaja whose only crime is to peacefully protest the contraction of an illegal wall?

Does Israel Really Want Peace? - Comparison between 1982 Lebanon War and 2009 Gaza

Déjà vu? The similarity between Israel’s war on Lebanon of 1982 and the 2008-2009 Gaza war is uncanny. Coincidence? Is it Groundhog Day again?

If one looks back to 1977, the PLO formally agreed to negotiate a two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders and declared their willingness to take part in the peace process. The PLO agreed to a ceasefire which was maintained for almost a year. The Arab League with the “Fayyad Peace Plan” which also was based on a two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders was on board. With the PLO’s willingness and the “international recognition and legitimacy” growing, “coupled with a declining inclination to resort to force, even when intensely provoked by Israel,”¹ made the possibility of a peaceful solution even greater than a military threat to Israel. Israel knowingly knew that if they resisted a two-state solution they would be subject diplomatic pressures. Israel needed to manipulate the PLA in order to sabotage the two-state settlement. Prior to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, a ceasefire with the PLO was maintained for more than a year, ”but after murderous Israeli provocations, the last of which left as many as 200 civilians dead (including 60 occupants of a Palestinian children’s hospital), the PLO finally retaliated, causing a single Israeli casualty.”² Israel embarked on punitive military raids “deliberately out of proportion” against “Palestinian and Lebanese civilians” in order to weaken “PLO moderates,” strengthen the hand of Arafat’s “radical rivals,” and guarantees the PLO’s “inflexibility.”³ Avner Yanif, former Israeli Military Analyst “who was highly supportive of his government policies, wrote “To escape this trap without running the risk that a political settlement in what the PLO would entail, Israel could only do one thing - go to war"⁴. He went on to say “raison d’être of the entire operation” was “destroying the PLO as a political force capable of claiming a Palestinian state on the West Bank”.⁵

What happened with Gaza follows the above script so exacting all the news report needed to do was changed the name of the players and the year of the conflict. April 5, 2006 Hamas is willing to negotiate peace in a two state settlement based on the 1967 borders. More so, Israel is completely aware that once a two-state settlement is agreed upon, Hamas’s original ideology will have to change. “A former Mossad head, Ephraim Halevy recently observed “they have recognized this ideological goal is not attainable, and will not be in the foreseeable future. Instead, they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. They are aware this means they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" - and towards a long-term peace based on compromise. The rejectionists on both sides - from Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh to Bibi Netanyahu - would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace - but it is the Israeli government who refused to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."⁶

Israel was bound to a ceasefire and needed to goad the Palestinians into action. Israel killed six Hamas militants on the premise that they were excavating a tunnel in order to abduct IDF soldiers. This conveniently occurred while the United States and most of the world were fixed on the polls from the American Election. The IDF knew full well Hamas would retaliate. In mid November, Haaretz reported that the tunnel “was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm’s way. Hamas predictably resumed its rocket attacks “in retaliation” (Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) and Israel could embark on yet another murderous invasion in order to foil yet another Palestinian peace offensive”.⁷

A reasonable enemy? This is always the problem for Israel. Whenever peace seems within its’ reach, Israel undermine it. They cannot have an agreeable Hamas or PLO; they need the wild, unreasonable terrorist, not someone willing to negotiate a two-state solution. This way, Israel can always throw up their arms, and say they cannot negotiate with these crazy terrorists. It’s starting to sound all too familiar.

1 Yanif, Avner, Dilemnas of Security: Politics, Strategy and the Israeli Experience in Lebanon, New York, Oxford University Press, 1987

2 Finkelstein, Norman, Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the bloodbath in Gaza, http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/docs/PalestinianPeaceOffensive.doc., New York, 2009

3 Finkelstein, Norman, Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the bloodbath in Gaza, http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/docs/PalestinianPeaceOffensive.doc., New York, 2009

4 Yanif, Avner, Dilemnas of Security: Politics, Strategy and the Israeli Experience in Lebanon, New York, Oxford University Press, 1987

5 . Rubenberg , Cheryl A., Review, American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp 186, JSTOR, 1988

6 Hari, Johann, “The True Story Behind This War is Not the One Israel is Telling”, Huffington Post, December 2008, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-true-story-behind-thi_b_153825.html

7 Finkelstein, Norman, Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the bloodbath in Gaza, http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/docs/PalestinianPeaceOffensive.doc., New York, 2009

INDULGING ISRAEL?

The demand by AIPAC "to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State" regarding the Obama Administration's recent statements in light of Israel's announcement of construction of 1600 settlement homes is over the top.  Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, stated the announcement was insulting as it was made during the Vice-Presidential visit to Israel. AIPAC also advised the Administration it "should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel". Further, they "urge the Administration to work closely and privately with our partner Israel, in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address any issues between the two governments".

I find AIPAC's statements insulting to the American public and the International community. Since military aid in the amount of almost 3 billion dollars per year (7 million per day) is given to Israel from the taxpayer’s purse, the Administration should definitely heed public demands. AIPAC’s request to disregard to the public voice is undemocratic. Should the Obama, like the Bush Administration be governed by a well healed lobby group?

It certainly takes chutzpah to plan construction of another 1600 illegal homes in an illegally occupied land. The timing of Israel’s announcement is a minor infraction and deserves the US response it received. This only demonstrates the Israeli government’s complete distain for their rich Uncle Sam, along with their contempt and disregard for International Law, the United Nations, and the global community.

The enormity of Israel’s malfeasance, aside from the criminality of the existence of settlement homes themselves, is the contravention of Israel’s own moratorium on additional construction of settlement homes for ten months. This leads one to believe that Israel had no intention of honouring their guarantee and deliberately misrepresented their intentions. How can one trust Israel’s stated proclamation for a peace solution?

The AIPAC lobby is the overindulging parents of this petulant child. Rather than admonishing the United States for this well deserved rebuke, they should be reminding Israel of the risk of souring the relationship with their benefactor.

ARE WE ALL BIGOTS?

Recently I was having a difficult time falling asleep and decided to see what was on You Tube. To my delight, I found an old debate between Alan Deshowitz and Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now! which was taped right after Deshowitz's book "A Case For Israel" was first released. It appears that Democracy Now! had asked Finkelstein to come on the air to debate the veracity of the Deshowitz's claims made in his book.

In the introduction,  one of the first words out of Mr. Finkelstein's mouth were "...and only one conclusion one could reach having read the book,  and this is a scholarly judgement, not an adhominum attack, Mr. Deshowitz has concocted a fraud". I knew Deshowitz was in trouble within the first few minutes when Mr. Finkelstein was asked for evidence of plagarism and he responded with exacting precision "I started to read your book,  Mr. Dershowitz and came to Chapter One, footnote 10, footnote 11...."  To make a long story short, Deshowitz didn't follow any rule of debate, interjected when Finkelstein was making his case, wouldn't respond to any of Finkelstein's points, was invasive, etc. It was almost embarassing to watch Mr. Dershowitz flail around like a fish on a hook. By the second half of the debate, it had turned into the Dershowitz show with Norman Finkelstein just sitting there with a small smile of complete contempt on his face. Dershowitz's antics, avoidance, back-pedaling and complete disrespect for the rules of debate had given me a headache and I decided to email him my complete disgust with his performance and to let him know what I thought of his "work of scholarship".

This is how it went:

1.  Email from me to him:
-----Original Message-----
From: mmmcknigh836@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:33:53
To: xxxx.harvard.edu>;
Subject: Inquiry or Comment

I have watched you in several debates over the Israel Palestine Conflict. It was actually painful to watch. You are disrespectful of the other party's time, do not answer any question directly and actually appear to be the stereotype of the manipulating lawyer. You challenge anyone to find any any distortion of proven fact, yet when are proven wrong, you claim typographical errors. You also obviously do not realize that if the error helps or hinders your cause has no effect on the what the challenge was. If it was not a true fact or a misquotation, you are still wrong. What makes it worse, it that you actually refer to this as scholarship. Your work reflects the same amount of serious scholarship as the tabloids have. You refer to Chomsky planet, I think you are way out in space by yourself on this one. It is almost like watching Bush when he is trying to make a speech. Painful, painful, painful!

I certainly did not expect any response and once I had emailed it off, I received a standard message basically telling me that Mr. Dershowitz is thankful for any comments, but cannot reply himself...blah, blah, blah, his assistants handle his email. To my amazement:   

2.  Email from him to me:

from xxxx@law.harvard.edu reply-to xxxxx@law.harvard.edu to mmmcknigh836@gmail.com date Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:52 AM subject Re: Inquiry or Comment mailed-by law.harvard.edu

Your bigotry is showing
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Now, I had to certainly respond back as I do not understand what in my comments made him call me a bigot.  I didn't refer to the Israel Palestine conflict nor did I express who I felt was right or who I felt was in the wrong.  I basically just told him was:

1. he was a poor debater
2. he was a poor sport
3. his book was not a work of scholarship 

3.  My reply to him (unanswered as yet)

to xxxx@law.harvard.edu

bcc: xxxx@xxxx.xx

Mr.Dershowitz:

The logic of your response to my comments evades me. I must say though that I do appreciate your response and certainly did not expect one.

How does my voiced opinion of your scholarship (or non scholarship) and my assessment of your lack of decorum and debating skills in any way characterize me as a bigot?  A statement of my perception of your painful performance did not in anyway support or favour the position of either side.  It simply was a statement reflecting my evaluation of your performance.

So is it fair for me to say, that in your opinion, anyone who found your performance on Democracy Now lacking in credibility or serious scholarship is a bigot?

The ironic part is that Mr. Deshowitz, "defender of the constitution", "Harvard Professor", "lawyer to celebrity criminals" and "friend to both Mr.Clinton and the State of Israel" actually has time to answer me at 7:52 a.m. via email to respond to my criticism of his book and debating skills.  Even funnier, I googled him with regards some inane statement he had made and found myself on this website "We Hold The Truths - Strait Gate Ministries" also referring to Mr. Dershowitz's response to them via (every superhero's # 1 tool) his blackberry.  On their website, they write:

"A question we now ask is, why did Alan Dershowitz answer We Hold These Truths on his BlackBerry?  What nerve did we strike?" (http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=2862)"

If you have some time and need a good laugh, watch it on You Tube (video feature up top). I already respected Norman Finkelstein before watching this, but my estimation of him certainly went way up, as he was cool and collected listening to this ridiculous, little man.












 

DOESN'T THIS SOUND A LOT LIKE GENOCIDE?????

Visiting scholar at Harvard’s Weatherhead Center , Dr. Martin Kramer, is proposing to solve the Palestine refugee problem by "stopping pro-natal subsidies to Palestinians with refugee status." In his very own words found on his blog (http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2010/02/superfluous-young-men/), he states:

"Aging populations reject radical agendas, and the Middle East is no different. Now eventually, this will happen among the Palestinians too, but it will happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status. Those subsidies are one reason why, in the ten years from 1997 to 2007, Gaza’s population grew by an astonishing 40 percent. At that rate, Gaza’s population will double by 2030, to three million. Israel’s present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim—undermine the Hamas regime—but if they also break Gaza’s runaway population growth—and there is some evidence that they have—that might begin to crack the culture of martyrdom which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men. That is rising to the real challenge of radical indoctrination, and treating it at its root."

Kramer is actually proposing to curb the Palestinian population in order to prevent "superfluous young men" growing into radicals (aka terrorists)through methods of preventing birth of such males or having them fail to survive. Rather than considering the possibility that terrorists may be borne of oppression or through the US support of Israel's illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, he claims that Islamic radicalism is intrinsic to the middle eastern population.

Genocide, defined by the UN in the post Holocaust era, includes the intention to prevent births within a "specific national, racial or ethic or religious group". His statements definitely support genocide as a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I, as a human being, find his statements extremely offensive. This also does not address why Palestinian refugees exist. They exist as a result of an illegal occupation of their homeland by the Israel military. Isn't driving Palestinians from their homes analogous to the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust?

Dr. Kramer's solution to the Middle East conflict is to cull the Muslim population by "rising to the real challenge of radical indoctrination, and treating it at its root" rather than understanding the "obvious effects of policies of displacement, subjugation, ethnic cleansing and continuous, traumatizing violence have on its victims". Dr. Kramer and his supporters will continue to utilize hysteria and preposterous logic to rationalize and further his ethnological agenda.

BEWARE OF A WOLF DRESSED IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING - THE BARACH ADMINISTRATION

Need for change, transparency, accountability, checks and balances were a fresh breath of air leading up to the race for the presidency in 2008.  Sadly, the Obama presidency is just as secretive and sneaky as the former Bush administration.

Extension to three parts of the Patriot Act which were to expire on February 28^th was pushed through the House as part of the Senate amendment to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act.  The extension was introduced as only an amendment to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform act, not a stand-alone bill.   The House Democratic leadership camouflaged the extension averting any debate or any roll call vote.  This allows Congress to hide their vote on this (as no roll call vote is taken) and avoid the anger of their constituents. 

What is most surprised is that more Democrats voted for the extension than Republicans and the majority of Congress were voted favour (22% against, 4% no vote, 74% for) of this extension without any change or reform to the Patriot Act.  Whatever happened to the draft reforms of the judicial committees of the Senate and the House?  It seems although Decision 2008 led to a party change in the United States Government, obviously the players are still the same. 

With the Bush administration it didn’t take long for one to see what was behind their subterfuge, the emperor was quickly seen as having no clothes.  The Obama government is considerably more dangerous than the Bush administration as it cloaks itself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing utilizing the prodigious oratorical skills of Barach Obama.  .  The Obama campaign promises “I will make our government open, and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s  business”  and “when a bill lands up on my desk, you, the public,  will have five days to view it online” are diametric, polar opposites on how the extension of the Patriot Act was handled. 

After the Bush administration was exposed as misleading, stirring the pot and downright lying to the American public, the Obama government, which ran on a platform of change, accountability and transparency, is guilty of concealing the true intentions and actions of the Obama government.  This should be a wake-up call to the American public as they are witnessing just more of the same.

JOHN YOO, JOHN WHO? ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR CRIMES

The Justice Department of the United States has found that the Bush administration lawyers, notably John Yoo, are not guilty of professional disbarment over their involvement writing legal opinions (aka the torture memos) concerning enhanced interrogation techniques. John Yoo should not only face disbarment for role in assisting the Bush administration to subvert not only the constitution, but also International and Military Law, he should also be held criminally and civically liable.

Is it the Office of Legal Counsel’s role to twist domestic, international and military law to serve the President and his Administration’s illegal agenda, or is it to uphold the law? According to the White House website, the Department of Justice mission is “to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. “[1] The OLC holds a responsibility to counsel the President on the legality of an issue, not to find legal maneuvering and distortion of language to assist implementing criminal action which is exactly what Mr. Yoo did.

Under the Command of Responsibility, the doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of war crimes established under the Hague Convention (1907) makes John Yoo criminally responsible in his complicity in crimes against humanity, namely torture which is deemed illegal under domestic, military and international law. International Law also commands that any person involved in ordering, allowing and even insufficiently preventing and prosecuting war crimes is criminally liable under the command responsibility doctrine.

In 2006, a complaint against John Yoo and thirteen others under command responsibility was filed with German Federal Attorney by Wolfgang Kaleck on half of eleven detainees and 30 human rights groups. Scott Horton, a human rights activist and lawyer stated “the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves”[2]. As to General Mukasey’s refusal to investigate or prosecute anyone involved with these legal opinions, Jordan Paust of the University of Houston’s Legal Centre stated “it is legally and morally impossible for any member of the executive branch to be acting lawfully or within the scope of his or her authority while following OLC opinions that are manifestly inconsistent with or violative of the law. General Mukasey, just following orders is no defense”[3]

The most disturbing aspects of John Yoo’s actions are reflected in his debate with University of Notre Dame’s law professor, Doug Cassel. Yoo was asked a hypothetical “"If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", John Yoo replied "No treaty." The amount of gall and complete disrespect to all law, domestic, military and international, shown here is frightening as this was stated by a man who was advising the President of the United States on how to avoid accountability regarding subversion of the law.

Obama’s recent defense of John Yoo and the Justice Department’s legal team stating they "had used flawed legal reasoning but were not guilty of professional misconduct"[4] is shameful. I distinctly recall hearing “we are the change we are waiting for” and “change you can believe during Obama’s campaign, but have not seen any evidence by this administration.

Obama has now granted immunity to the CIA officials who relied on the “torture memos” to justify their actions. Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stated that Obama’s grant of immunity is most likely a breach of international law. Obama’s mantra of not dwelling on the past, but move onto the future ideology is a slap in the face to the human rights movement. Where would the world be if we had moved to the future and not tried, convicted and punished the perpetrators of the Holocaust? I guess if Obama wants to play amnesia, we can all imagine a United States not sown in the fabric of democracy and no longer a nation of human rights and civil freedoms and liberties. 

---

[1] The White House, the Executive Branch, http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch (February 20, 2010).

[2] Balkanization, The Return of Carl Schmitt, http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/return-of-carl-schmitt.html

[3] Just Following Orders? DOJ Opinions and War Crimes Liability by Jordan Paust, Jurist, February 18, 2008

[4] Obama Justice Department Ruling: A Day to Live in Infamy, www.politicalcortex.com/story/2010/2/20/141214/688

A QUESTION OF COMPLACENCY - THE CASE OF MAHER ARAR

We as Canadian citizens feel safe and far removed from America's War on Terrorism, detention and torture in Guatonamo's Cuban prison and the American new policies on the judicial process.  We all feel that this basically does not impact us and as long as we aren't doing anything wrong, we will be safe. How many of us actually have heard of Maher Arar, a Canadian software engineer who was falsely accused of having ties to Al Queda.  He was deported from the United States in September of 2002 to Syria and held for 10 months and 10 days before being moved to a "better cell" in a different prison only to be tortured  which resulted in a false confession. After relentless campaigning and pressure by his wife,  he was finally released after almost one year.

By pressure borne on the Candian government by its citizens and Human Rights Organizations the Canadian Commision of Inquiry was established to investigate the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar.  On September 18, 2006, the Canadian Commission of Inquiry issued its report to the public.  Their findings cleared Maher of links to terrorism and believed that he was a victim of torture during his incarceration in Syria.  Syria also acknowleged that Mr. Arar has no links to terrorists or terrorism.  

Even after Mr. Arar was cleared, the United States continued to to make state that Mr Arar was "affiliated with members of organizations they describe as terrorist"[1]    Mr. "Arar's name remains on watch lists that forbid his entry into the United States".^[2]  As at October 18, 2007, the Bush administration still hadn't apologized to Mr. Arar even though they were called on by lawmakers from both political parties to so.

To add insult to injury, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case after Mr. Arar's suit against the United States, naming former Attorney General John Ashcroft as defendant; was dismissed first in 2006, reheard in 2008 and affirmed in 2009.  It concluded "that Arar could not sue the officials involved in his rendition, namely former Attorney General John Ashcroft"^[3]  Mr. Arar has now petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal.

When I look suffering Mr. Arar underwent through America's illegal actions, Canada's failure to protect and demand his release to Canada and the torture he experience at the hand of the Syrians,  I am appalled.  These violations include the lack of due process as afforded by the US Constitution, torture contrary to International law provided by the Geneva convention and the compliance of the Canadian government and providing false information to the United States officials by the RCMP.  I wonder why we as Canadian citizens are not in a complete uproar.  To allow the deportation of Mr. Arar to Syria, of which he holds dual citizenship, is such a gross violation of what we as Canadian's stand for.  By not fighting Mr. Arar's deportation to Syria, a country which is known for its "systematic torture and ill-treatment"[4], we are co-conspirators along with the broken and corrupt American government and justice systems.  Naively, I believed in  my country and its imageput forth as the champion of protecting and defending of human rights not only of Canadian citizens, but also of all humankind.  I guess I was wrong.



1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
2 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458003/
3 http://rollback.typepad.com/campaign/2009/11/protect-the-victim-not-the-aggressor.html
3 http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/62S6.htm

THE END OF AMERICA

This is an amazing, enlightening documentary about George W. Bush's post 9/11 policy changes which threaten the civil liberties of American citizens.  It is a comparison between Hitler's Nazi Germany uprising and what is presently occurring in the United States and Ms. Wolf is very effective in proving her case. 

Based on the ten conditions required under which an open society becomes a closed society through subversion of the constitution, this documentary backs up its claim with factual news coverage. Even if you do not buy into the basic premise of the film, it leaves you wondering where is America going.  Considering the initial false premise of war on Iraq, this film paints very disturbing picture of political America and leaves one question the motives and methods of the War Against Terror.

As a Canadian,this disturbs me greatly as America is our greatest ally and we have supported their efforts in the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan.  Since 9/11, the public has learned that Iraq has no ties to Al Queda making the War on Iraq questionable, if not illegal.  What surprises me the most, is that it seems that most Americans do not seem to question why they were directly lied to by their government.  I do not think that American public is complacent, I believe the news media is not reporting the true discontent of the American public as they did with the reporting of the 9/11 events themselves.  I also truly believe that the news media is influenced by those in power and it is difficult for the American public to protest something they are not aware of.

Those who independently pursue the truth behind the 9/11 terror attacks in the mildest manner, not suggesting any involvement by the government in the attacks, but only attempting to reconcile the differences between the official story and the physical evidence, are immediately referred to as "kooks' and "conspiracy theorists".When we live in a world where mainstream news media is represented by Bill O'Reilly and Shepard Smith,  we have to wonder how much influence they have on the views of the America public and who the "kooks" actually are.

A public opinion study, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, questioned Americans on their belief of statements made which have been proven false.  Not surprisingly,  a significant number of viewers of the Fox News Network as their primary news source believed these falsehoods and held a great number of misconceptions regarding the War on Iraq.  Stephen Kull, director of Program on International Policy (PIPA), concluded  “While we cannot assert that these misconceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”^[1]

To watch this film is certainly a worthwhile effort.  I recommend it to all.


1 http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102

OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICES - SLOW AS MOLASSES

I had to go to the Superior Courthouse today to pick up a photocopy of my custody order.  I decided to leave work a little early (3:00 pm) to arrive well before the closing time at 4:30 pm.  After being thoroughly searched upon my arrival (my laptop bag, purse, coat pockets) I was told to ask at the second door on the left on where to go.  I went there, stated my request and was told to pull a number outside, have a seat and wait until my number was called.  It didn't look too busy, just a handful of people were seated waiting their turn. 

I asked the man who was seated next to me (he was number 36) how long he had was and was told 1 1/2 hours.  After about ten minutes, he was called in.  I still was optimistic though.  A lady then came out and asked who was single filing and she would take them to move along the process.  Most of the people between 36 and my number 45 had left, so I figured I would be up soon.  At 4:20 pm the same civil servant came out and said that they would only take people up to 5:00 pm.  I was sure that I would be called soon, but to make sure I was in the right place told her I was not filing anything, only getting a copy of my custody order.

The same civil servant came out at 4:40 pm to tell us we may not get served.  I explained that I had left work to do this.  I called prior to coming to do this and was not told that it would take forever to get a photocopy.  She suggested that I come back tomorrow as there was still a number prior to mine being called and they would be next.  I probably would not be served as they lock the office at 5:00 pm.


I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how inefficient this is.  Why would you put people with simple requests, such as a copy of something with people who are filing court cases which might be time consuming.  Even if I had wanted to ask a simple question, I would be out there waiting prior to being able to ask someone my question.

Now I have to go back tomorrow and do this again.  I will lose time from work again.  At least, I will be smarter this time and go in prior to work.  I figure that I will be served before 5:00 pm if I show up at 8:30 am.

SEMESTERING IN ONTARIO'S SECONDARY SCHOOLS

After an extremely frustrating experience attempting to help my child complete her math homework, I decided to research block scheduling or more commonly referred to as semestering. I was not semestered in high school and was able to take up to 8 subjects throughout the school year. The choice for most schools to move towards semestering, where students take four, 75 minutes blocks for the first semester followed by another four, 75 minutes blocks by the second semester, was implement in 1986.

The move to the semestered secondary school model worries my greatly. My greatest subject concern lies with Mathematics. I feel that the Ontario Curriculum is already watered down significantly with Ontario’s move have to four secondary school years opposed to the previous OAC five secondary school structure.

Supporters of Block Scheduling claim that students get better grades, there are fewer failures, less time lost between classes, less discipline problems, less stress and variety in extended classrooms. The opposite of this is actually the reality.

Students get better grades

“GPA’s are not a reliable indicator of achievement since each school or individual teacher controls the outcome of any given test.”¹ It has been proven that semestered students consistently fare poorer in standardized testing that students participating in a traditionally all-year model.

Lower Student Failure Rate

In the block scheduling model, students should be covering twice as much material as they do in one semester in the traditional, full year model. If this is the case, the students should be assigned twice as much homework each day than the year-long student. If they are not doing twice as much homework (of which I am pretty certain of), either the standards are being lowered or work which was traditionally assigned to do at home is being completed during class time. Either way, the students are not getting the full curriculum they received in full-year scheduling.

Less lost time between classes

Students need a break from class time to refresh. They no longer get this with 75 minute courses. Any benefit gained from loss class time is loss due to inattention, boredom, etc.

Less discipline problems

This may hold true, but are we willing to sell our children’s education over decreased discipline. Students who misbehave, will misbehave and students who don’t, won’t. Also students do need a certain amount of socialization which is already limited.

Less Stress

Also may be true, but are you willing to trade stress for academic cost?

The biggest problem I find with Block Scheduling is one of retention. Since a student can take mathematics in first semester of one grade, he/she may not take this subject again until the second semester of the next year. Thus, it may be a full year since the student has been exposed to mathematics. I firmly believe that math has to be continually practiced in order to become proficient and gain a full understanding of the material. Since students do forget some of what was covered in the past math course taken, review is necessary. Therefore, my high school freshmen daughter will receive review of the last material covered leaving less time in the semester to move onto new subject material. Dr. David J Bateson’s, (University of British Columba) study of 30,000 grade 10 students implies “first semester students had forgotten a significant amount of class material by the time they took the test at the end of the year, contrary to the popular myth that retention is not a problem.”²

I also feel that math needs time to take hold in order to gain full understanding of a mathematical concept. Remember the light bulb turning on feeling of understanding and successfully solving a mathematical problem. Math needs to be taught in small increments with time to practice each step between. “The students just do not have the same kind of gestation period to let things percolate and let them sort of fit together on their own. It is much more forced and I think they believe on faith much more than because they know it to be true.”3

The Raphael study of Mathematics appeared in the Canadian Journal of Education, 1986 authored by Drs. Dennis Raphael, Merlin W. Wahlstrom and L.D. Mclean. The article “Debunking the Semestering Myth” showed that students participating in the year-long class system scored higher on average than the students who were semestered. They found that “academic achievement was significantly lower under block scheduling and found either adverse effects or no benefit in students' attitudes about mathematics (contrary to the common claim that block scheduling improves attitudinal scores). Further, he states “block scheduling detrimental to student achievement⁴.

This same study also supported the belief that students enrolled in full-year math courses scored higher than their counterparts. “Students were tested on several different mathematical areas: number systems, algebraic computation and skills, equations and inequalities, analytical geometry, trigonometry, function, probability and statistics. In every area, the year-long class average scores are higher than the semester-long class average scores, whether math is there are of specialization or not.” ⁵

I believe that we as parents or educators have a duty to express our concerns to the Ontario Ministry of Education, the School Boards and the schools themselves. Our students deserve better.

---

¹ Bennett, Karen J. “BLOCK SCHEDULING: With a Mathematics Perspective”, CTER Program at University of Illinois (online), http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/bennett/block_scheduling.htm

² Bateson, David J. “Science Achievement in Semester and All-year Courses,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3): 233-240 (1990)].

³ Lyngard, Lynn. “Research in Ontario Secondary Schools, Scheduling and the New Ontario Curriculum: Teachers’ Perceptions”, Vol.9, No.2, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/field-centres/TVC/RossReports/vol9no2.htm, [2005]

⁴ Raphael, Dennis, Wahlstrom, Merlin W., McLean, L.D., “Debunking the Semestering Myth”, Canadian Journal of Education, 11(1): 36 – 52, [1986].

⁵ Bennett, Karen J. “BLOCK SCHEDULING: With a Mathematics Perspective”, CTER Program at University of Illinois (online), http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/bennett/block_scheduling.htm