Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Inheritance Wars

A great article on inheritance wills & estates battles between Depression era generation & their kids, Baby Boomers. These baby boomers, depending on which social class they are in, are patiently, or rather very impatiently, waiting for some windfall, so they can wipe off their debts & finally be able to live the good life.
 
But as the article suggests, most baby boomers are in the social class in which they won't be able to receive much money, if at all, & hence, they won't ever achieve their dream life. All their waiting won't get them much.
 
All these inheritance wars are big money-makers for lawyers, of course. No family is perfect & all the family past grudges rise up to the surface when wills are on the line. Then, kids, especially the ones who feel left out, fight back & lawyers cash in.
 
To avoid all this problem in Islam, God laid out the whole inheritance plan for Muslims in Quran (Chapter 4). God didn't even leave it for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to show to Muslims, because, as we can see today, Muslims are divided on the life & teachings of Prophet Muhammad.
 
Islam regarded this inheritance issue so critically that God said in Quran that even if a Muslim is very pious & lives his/her whole life to the letter & spirit of Islam, if he/she makes the wrong will (e.g. favouring one child over another), his/her whole life's prayers & piety will come to nothing. That's why, Muslims are encouraged to make a will in their lifetimes & divide their properties / assets as per what the Quran entails.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surveys suggest nearly half of Baby Boomers are expecting some sort of inheritance, & that many have a grossly inflated idea of how much they’re about to receive. (On average, Canadians overestimate how much they’ll inherit by about 50%.)
 
Undeniably, there is money at hand: According to the BMO Wealth Institute, as much as $1 trillion in family wealth is in the process of being passed down from the so-called “Greatest Generation,” raised during the Depression & the Second World War, over the next couple of decades. Even when adjusted for inflation, that’s an unprecedented migration of assets, with seniors’ Boomer-aged children as presumptive beneficiaries.
 
But for many Boomers, the money can’t come soon enough. Half of homeowners in their 50s still have mortgage debt. One in two Canadians say they expect to retire before they’ve paid off their homes.
 
Figures compiled by credit monitor Equifax, meanwhile, suggest the average person aged 56-65 is carrying $27,000 in consumer debt, such as credit cards & car loans. They’re going to need cash to maintain their standard of living, say experts, & their desperation is starting to show. Court files are replete with challenges to wills involving claimants nearing retirement age, while the sheer nastiness of family battles is on the rise. “There is a degree of entitlement there,” says Megan Connolly, a Toronto wills & estates specialist. “It’s this attitude that mom’s or dad’s savings are communal family property, that what’s my mom’s is mine.”

There’s no guarantee, alas, that the inter-generational asset transfer will benefit those feeling the most pressure. Wealth is more concentrated within the top economic classes of Canada than it has been since the Depression, notes Robin Boadway, a retired Queen’s University economist who has studied wealth & inheritance, & inheritance will help to ensure it stays that way. “If you have high wealth inequality,” he says, “then automatically, you’re going to have those inequalities transferred to the next generation.”

All of which suggests that our anticipation for the trillion-dollar wealth transfer may be blinding us to unforeseen costs, from economic tensions between generations to ruptures within families. Will all this money solve as many problems as it creates?
 
Les Kotzer has stories, many stories, & one of his favourites involves a posh-looking couple in their late 50s who arrived at his law office north of Toronto. The woman’s fur coat & the man’s bespoke clothing led Kotzer to think he’d be dealing in big numbers. But he soon learned otherwise. “She was working as a substitute teacher, & they were renting a house,” he recalls. “I asked her husband what he did, & the woman says, ‘Harry’s not going to tell you this, but he’s a waiter.’ ” Kotzer asked what restaurant the man worked at. (“I’m thinking the tips must be amazing!”) Once again, the woman answered: “Oh, Harry’s not that kind of waiter. He’s waiting for his inheritance.”

To Kotzer, a wills & estates lawyer, the parable encapsulates a gulf in values between free-spending Boomers & their thrifty parents—people who, as he puts it, “saved up their yogurt containers.” The “waiters” have become a punchline he uses to break the social taboo against discussing wills & estates—a reticence he believes has never been more misplaced. Along with his partner, Barry Fish, Kotzer has written 3 books that recount the family battles he has witnessed ... & that counsel readers on how to avoid these clashes.
 
His latest book with Fish, "The Wills Lawyers," features numerous examples of greed & betrayal rooted in that tension between the Greatest Generation & their children, pitting sibling against sibling &, in some cases, parent against child. ...
 
Much as he thrives on the attention, Kotzer says the human fallout is all too real. He recounts in one of his books the tale of an elderly couple whose adult son moved to a remote mining town in northern Ontario & falsely claimed to be unemployed so his parents would keep sending cash. They finally uncovered their son’s lies when they paid him a surprise visit. It turned out he had a well-paying office job as a geologist at the local mine; they arrived to find he’d flown off to Puerto Rico for a 10-day cruise with his wife. “He obviously couldn’t wait for us to die,” the mother, who needed a walker to get around, told Kotzer. “He wanted his inheritance early, so he lied to us.”

Such cases illustrate the hazards of banking on a loved one’s estate, say experts: Family spats become more likely when a senior senses that his offspring are prematurely sizing up his assets. Deepening those tensions is the fact that people are living longer than ever, meaning the money relatives are counting on coming their way may instead be needed to support the person to whom it actually belongs. “When an elderly parent who has living expenses & health costs & so on is spending the money,” says Connolly, the Toronto inheritance lawyer, “the younger generation can start to see it almost as money from their own pockets.”

It all has the potential to turn very ugly, very fast. Connolly has seen instances of adult heirs pressuring their parents for advances on their inheritance, or outright control of their assets. Lawyers call it power-of-attorney abuse, but it’s not always driven by larcenous intent. “They start thinking, ‘Well, this money’s coming to me anyway, Mom is 90 & in a long-term care home, so why not start taking it now?’ ” explains Connolly. “A lot of times, it’s behaviour people feel they can justify.”

The growing phenomenon of second, third & non-traditional families has further complicated the picture. In 1996, B.C. passed a law allowing second spouses & half-siblings to contest wills on the basis that they’re not adequately provided for. The result has been a spike in fractious disputes in that province—many stemming from wills that weren’t updated after the dead person remarried or had more children.
 
It’s the sort of thing that goes on whenever large amounts of money are at stake &, viewed in aggregate, the sums awaiting Boomer-aged heirs look irresistible. Environics Analytics, a Toronto-based marketing consultancy, has calculated the average liquid assets of Canadians 65 & over at $440,561 per household—& that doesn’t include fixed assets, such as houses & cars. To Peter Miron, a senior research associate with the firm, that mountain of wealth symbolizes the difference in values between seniors & their Baby Boom kids. “The generation who lived through the Depression & the war were mindful of what they went through,” he says. “During the boom times of the 1950s, ’60s & ’70s, they had the opportunity to save, & they took advantage of it because they knew things would not always be this good.”

By comparison, the average Boomer household has $252,674 in liquid assets (cash, stocks, term deposits & the like), & considerably more debt. According to Equifax, average non-mortgage debt within the 56-65 age bracket has climbed more than 40% since early 2008, & is still rising. Nearly half of Boomers tell pollsters they’ve saved less than $100,000 for retirement, depending instead on the rising value of their homes. “If the real estate market goes soft, or if interest rates on debt go up dramatically,” warns Miron, “a lot of people are going to be in trouble.”

Piling blame on Boomers is easy, of course. And to suggest money hunger is something new requires one to ignore a couple of millennia of human history. Through nearly two decades of low interest rates & ballooning real estate prices, after all, Baby Boomers have had little incentive to save & every reason to mortgage up. At no point has their economic environment looked like that of their parents.
 
And the truth is that many won’t ever see the sort of windfall the averages suggest. Perhaps the most sobering figure produced by Environics Analytics is a breakdown of total liquid assets according to economic class, showing that the most affluent 17% of seniors in the country—people whose liquid savings average nearly $2 million per household—are sitting on an astounding third of the nation’s wealth. That’s more than 3 times the amount held by the remaining 83% of seniors combined .
 
In short, rich Boomers are about to get richer, thanks to bequests from their affluent parents. Those retiring in dire financial straits, meanwhile, will remain on the ropes, forced to live off private & public pensions.
 
The scale of concentration is great enough that there have been rumblings in favour of a wealth tax in Canada, inspired in part by French economist Thomas Piketty’s landmark research showing the inexorable rise in wealth inequality in market economies. Left-wing think tanks like the Broadbent Institute have called for an examination of the matter, while Boadway, the Queen’s economist, favours an inheritance tax imposed on those receiving the most money. “It would be based on the idea that high inequality of wealth is largely a result of luck,” he says. “There’s definitely an argument to be made for it.”

It won’t be an easy sell. In the 1950s, Ottawa turned over inheritance taxes to the provinces, who raced each other to phase them out. By 1980, they were gone, & today they remain deeply unpopular. While the average inheritance of $100,000 might pale next to the rich bequests of the affluent 17%, it’s still a lot of money to most Canadians, after all. To them, even discussing an inheritance tax on the fattest estates fuels concern that the government is reaching into their pockets.
 
Those living comfortably, it goes without saying, are no less possessive toward what they see as family money.
 
... Old grudges die hard &, until the will has been read & closed, the estate of an aging parent is of no more use than Monopoly money. Waiting, it turns out, doesn’t always pay.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

"US Race Relations" by Jimmy Margulies

"US Race Relations" - Jimmy Margulies, NYC, NY, US

The evil genius of airlines

A very interesting article, indeed. Not surprising for someone who knows how corrupted CEOs' minds are & how companies are operated nowadays. Rich keep getting richer ... by squeezing ever more so ... the poor. On the other hand, more fees & uncomfortable travelling may translate into people travelling less, which in turn, might be beneficial for the environment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last fall, Air Canada & WestJet followed Toronto’s Porter Airlines & most US carriers by charging economy-class passengers on domestic flights $25 to check a single suitcase (a charge to check a second piece of luggage had already been in place for several years). The move amounted to a doubling-down on the industry’s new fee-based business model, which, at times, appears designed to make parts of the travel experience so uncomfortable that passengers will pay to avoid them. A term has even been coined to reflect what airlines are inflicting on their customers: calculated misery. Want to sit with your family? Pay extra for advance seat selection. Uncomfortable in your economy-class seat? Pay to upgrade to a larger one that was only squeezed in because your original seat was shrunk.
 
But nowhere has the strategy been as lucrative for airlines’ bottom lines as the decision to charge for checking bags. In addition to asking passengers to pay for a formerly free service, the new fees have helped spawn a whole new family of optional charges related to advance boarding privileges—all the better to beat the rush of passengers lugging swollen carry-on luggage into the cabin & tying up precious overhead bin space.
 
Of course, all of these new fees & strategies to separate passengers from their money come at a time when the airlines are already benefiting tremendously from falling oil prices. And they’re not planning on passing on the savings if they can help it. “Our plan is not to pass any of it on,” WestJet’s CEO Gregg Saretsky said during a recent conference call to discuss the airline’s record fourth-quarter profit, in 2014, of $90 million. Likewise Air Canada’s CEO Calin Rovinescu—on the heels of recording his airline’s best financial performance in 77 years, with $531 million in profit in 2014—told investors: “We’ll use whatever tools we have at our disposal to drive profitability.”

While the new business model appears to offer the salvation that cash-strapped airlines have been seeking for years—baggage & other fees contributed to nearly US$50 billion in so-called “ancillary” revenues globally in 2014—it also risks unleashing a whole other dimension of hurt down the road, as flying becomes more miserable & cumbersome. In particular, the carry-on crisis spawned by checked-bag fees has bogged down already snail-like boarding times, tied up security screening lines at airports & forced unwilling employees to play the role of reluctant bag police. Even aircraft manufacturers have been dragged into the mess as they rush to redesign their planes to accommodate extra carry-on cargo. Meanwhile, all those kilometres of airport conveyor belts—financed by airport improvement fees, & designed to get planes on their way as fast as possible—threaten to go underutilized. All of these things add hidden costs—both monetary & psychological—to the already trying experience of modern air travel. And, as always, it’s passengers who will ultimately pay the price.
 
US air carriers now rake in about US$3.5 billion annually from bag fees, based on figures compiled by the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics. That makes it the largest source of ancillary revenue for US airlines ... . In Canada, meanwhile, airlines aren’t required to disclose how much the fees add to their annual sales, but analysts have estimated it’s in the neighbourhood of $50 million to $75 million a year each for WestJet & Air Canada. More important, that cash goes straight to the bottom line since, with the exception of Alaska Airlines & Porter, which now both promise guaranteed bag-delivery times upon arrival, there are no additional services being added.
 
At the same time, checked-bag fees have reduced the number of bags per passenger, helping airlines save on fuel & manpower. Though it’s difficult to find statistics on the overall impact on luggage volumes, a 2010 US government study suggested that US airlines saw a 50% drop in the amount of luggage being checked through onto their planes after the fees were introduced. (Air Canada says there’s only been a slight decrease in the number of checked bags after implementing the charge on domestic flights, “certainly much less than when we first introduced the policy on [flights to the U.S.] in 2011.”) At Toronto’s Pearson, domestic passengers checked an average of 1.2 bags each 5 years ago; now that figure is just one. “There’s certainly a cost savings by carrying fewer bags,” says Jay Sorensen, the president of Wisconsin-based airline consulting firm IdeaWorks. “When you apply a price to a good, economic theory says people will use less of it.”

The notion of putting limits on passengers’ luggage isn’t necessarily a bad one in principle. Sorensen, for one, recalls a trip taken in the era before baggage fees with his brother, who insisted on dragging around two giant suitcases for a week spent in a well-appointed hotel. Why? Because that was how much the airline permitted. ... Airport baggage employees, meanwhile, had their own horror stories—quite literally—from when passengers more or less had a free pass on checked luggage. ...
 
But while charging for a second checked suitcase helped clamp down on the worst abusers, expanding fees to all checked luggage seems to have created more problems than it solved. Air travellers, predictably, rushed to buy the biggest rolling suitcases permitted in airplane cabins, only to find insufficient room in the overhead bins. To make matters worse, the extra baggage showed up in the cabin just as airlines were in the process of cramming more seats into their planes in a bid to boost profits on busy routes. Air Canada, for example, has squeezed in 109 extra passengers on some of its Boeing 777s by adopting narrower seats that are just 43 cm across, rather than the usual 46 cm. WestJet, meanwhile, has also moved seats closer together to make room for its premium economy section. With more passengers hauling more luggage into cabins than ever before, Air Canada implemented a trial program at Pearson last fall aimed at cracking down on those passengers with oversized carry-ons, but the backlash was swift. Airline employees reportedly complained about angry & abusive passengers & demanded they not be forced to enforce the rules.
 
The net result is the already painful process of herding passengers onto their planes has slowed even further, continuing a trend under way for more than 40 years. A 1998 study by Boeing found that the rate at which passengers board a commercial jet has fallen steadily since 1970, thanks in part to more carry-on luggage & “airline service strategies.” In other words, the way airlines now board planes—business class, frequent fliers, back-to-front—makes little sense from an efficiency perspective (some studies have shown that just letting passengers board at random ends up being faster). But airlines are reluctant to change their practices because it allows them to sell early-boarding options. Air Canada’s new zoned boarding system gives priority to business class customers & certain “Elite” Aeroplan members, followed by those with lesser Aeroplan status & certain credit card holders. Then come families with young children & mere ticket holders. WestJet has a similar boarding system that gives priority to its premium economy ticket holders & frequent fliers. Those who are unable to find a place to stow their bag once they’re finally on the aircraft may be forced to check it at the gate, creating more work for staff &, apparently, the opportunity for mistakes. That’s what happened to an Edmonton groom on his way to his wedding in India recently. Vishal Shah told CBC News this week that Air Canada lost track of his carry-on & the $2,000 worth of valuables inside it. Air Canada responded by noting that passengers on international flights are permitted at least one free checked bag, & that “baggage fees are an industry reality worldwide.”

It’s not only passengers who are complaining. Shortly after US airlines began enforcing fees for all checked luggage, former US secretary of homeland security Janet Napolitano pleaded with them to reverse course because all the extra carry-on bags were slowing down screening times at US airports, adding an estimated $260 million a year in extra security costs. Mathieu Larocque, a spokesperson for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) said the crown agency doesn’t share statistics on how much luggage its workers screen, but nevertheless said its workers handled 54 million passengers last year, including about 4.6 million passengers during the month of March, a particularly busy travel period because of March break. “We expect that number to be higher this year as passenger volumes continue to grow,” Larocque says.
 
At times it appears the different arms of the industry are working against each other. Airports have invested heavily in new technologies to speed up their luggage handling so planes can get away faster, only to watch airlines slow down the process with their unwieldy boarding schemes & all the extra carry-on baggage. Airplane manufacturers, meanwhile, are spending millions to re-engineer ingenious overhead bins to carry more bags, even though there’s a massive cargo hold directly under passengers’ feet. The largest version of the venerable Boeing 737, for example, will soon be able to accommodate 194 standard-sized carry-on bags, more than double the capacity of the same plane in 1998. The new “Space Bins” are deeper & wider, each capable of holding 6 bags placed on their sides. But there are limits to plane manufacturers’ ability to build their way out of the problem. Brent Walton, the manager of 737 interiors for Boeing, says adding any more weight overhead threatens to compromise the structural integrity of the fuselage. “I think this could be the limit,” he says of the latest upgrade. With the industry rapidly approaching peak carry-on, something will inevitably have to give.
 
For passengers, the mounting inconvenience of it all is supposed to be offset by the promise of lower airfares. In a Sept. 15 blog post, Bob Cummings, WestJet’s executive vice-president of sales & marketing, explained the rationale behind charging for a first checked bag as follows: “Not everyone travels with a checked bag—yet effectively, everyone is paying for one. The purpose of a first-bag fee is to offer you another choice. Rather than hiding the fee, this allows you to personalize how you want to fly by paying only for what you want or need.” Yet, while there is some evidence to suggest average air fares have gone down in Canada since the new checked bag fees came into force last fall, it’s not clear whether that’s because airlines are passing the purported savings along to customers (who don’t check bags) or because fuel prices have plummeted alongside the price of oil. Ben Cherniavsky, an analyst at Raymond James, says the bottom line is that it’s difficult to measure the overall impact of the policy without more financial disclosure from the airlines themselves.
 
What is clear is that, by charging for checked luggage, airlines are hoping to fundamentally redefine air travel as we know it. Implicit in the new checked-bag policies is the assumption that the average passenger should now resemble George Clooney’s character in the 2009 movie Up in the Air—an unattached, well-organized businessman, suit jacket draped over the shoulder, who only flies with the bare essentials in his Travelpro carry-on. Most real-world families, by contrast, tend to travel more like minor league hockey teams, with giant bags stuffed full of diapers, folding playpens & all manner of toys & other convenient distractions.
 
Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time that airline policies seemed capricious or unfair ... . But what makes the industry’s sudden infatuation with checked-bag fees troubling is that it’s not altogether clear whether airlines are any further ahead by inconveniencing their customers. Some U.S. studies have suggested that charging passengers for a first checked bag may actually be costing airlines money because of the additional time needed to “turn” planes at the gate. That’s because planes are giant, depreciating assets that only earn money when they’re flying. The potential hit to on-time performance—& therefore profitability—is among the reasons cited by Southwest Airlines for sticking with its “bags fly free” policy even as all of its peers adopt checked-bag fees. After all, the Texas-based airline pioneered the idea of quick airport turns in a bid to squeeze a few extra daily flights out of each of its planes. “You can definitely experience delays with excess carry-on bags,” spokesperson Brian Parrish says.
 
Air Canada, for its part, says charging for checked luggage has had no impact on its on-time performance, with a spokesperson citing a top-five ranking in last year’s FlightStats awards for the 79.6% of its flights that arrived on time. Southwest, by contrast, barely made the top 10 with a 74.3% on-time performance. But there’s an important caveat. On-time performance is judged against an airline’s own schedule, which can easily be padded to take into account factors like airport congestion & boarding times. And the main reason Southwest saw its industry-leading on-time performance briefly sag (it’s now back around 79%) is because it tried to squeeze 16 extra flights into its schedule in 2013 without adding new aircraft. In other words, Southwest made a misstep by trying to do more with less, not charging more for the same.
 
In some respects, the industry’s current fee-based business model threatens to unravel the ultra-efficient focus that Southwest & other low-cost carriers ushered in during the 1990s & early 2000s. It also resurrects memories of the hated & arbitrary roadblocks airlines used to foist on their customers—Saturday-night stay requirements, round-trip fares priced more competitively than one-way flights—in a bid to extract more money from them. What remains to be seen is whether the current approach continues to generate unwanted side effects, or eventually becomes the new normal with passengers falling in line. That’s what ultimately happened in Europe, according to Nick Gates, a portfolio director at European airline IT consulting firm SITA. “Slowly you will get to a point where the initial effect of the introduction of the baggage fees wears off,” he says. “The average number of bags checked in per passenger will start to creep up again. Everyone gets used to the idea of paying for it.”

If they don’t, airlines still have the nuclear option: charging for carry-on bags, too. The ultra low-cost US carrier Spirit Airlines infamously charges $26 to bring a carry-on bag when booking online (as much as $100 at the gate) & the result, experts say, is one of the smoothest boarding processes in the North American industry. On the other hand, Spirit Airlines also ranks down near Tajik Air & Turkmenistan Airlines when it comes to customer satisfaction scores, which may be a step too far for most North American carriers—even those that staunchly believe making their customers uncomfortable is a winning strategy.

The weak & uninspiring case against the niqab

A great opinion piece on Muslim women & their rights to wear niqab / veil in Canada.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

... the case for banning the niqab from citizenship ceremonies is weak & uninspiring.
 
... there are various questions. On what basis can the niqab be said to be anti-women? Is the niqab somehow different in this regard from other religiously inspired forms of dress? A small survey of niqab-wearing Canadian women that was published in 2013 suggested various personal reasons for the choice. Is it not possible for a woman to wear a niqab without somehow submitting to oppression or some kind of anti-women sentiment?
 
... it is probably still for the Prime Minister to explain why popular sentiment should decide the legitimacy of a claim to religious freedom.
 
... what sort of necessity or principle is being claimed here?
 
As a practical matter, there would seem to be other options for either confirming someone’s identity (by asking a woman to unveil in private) or ensuring she has said the oath (by positioning a niqab-wearing woman within earshot of a citizenship judge). To expand on a hypothetical raised by Justice Boswell in his ruling, the government would seem to make special allowances for deaf-mute applicants, including the hiring of an interpreter.
 
On the topic of religious freedom & the law, Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony has also been invoked as evidence that “religious freedom is not absolute.” Fair enough. But that ruling also notes the presence of a “pressing & substantial goal.” What precisely would the pressing & substantial goal here be?
 
(I suspect the Supreme Court’s ruling on testifying in court while wearing a niqab might also be of relevance.)
 
In his interview with Maclean’s this week, Jason Kenney, the minister who directed the ban on the niqab, asserted the principle “that a public citizenship ceremony has to be performed publicly.” “Publicly” in this case would seem to be defined not simply as existing in public, but having to show one’s nose & mouth in public. (Fun question for your next dinner party: Is a woman in a niqab behaving publicly when she walks down the street?) The regulations for citizenship ceremonies do allow for a private swearing of oath in certain situations, “such as terminally ill candidates unable to travel or other urgent or extenuating circumstances,” I’m told by a government official. But regardless, we are being asked to put a philosophical or symbolic standard at the forefront.
 
If identity can otherwise be confirmed & the reciting of the oath can be otherwise heard, the value of unveiling during the communal recitation of the oath is entirely symbolic. And while there is something to be said for symbolism in the life of a nation, it is problematic, as with public opinion, to put that ahead of a claim to religious freedom.
 
It is on other symbolic grounds that the niqab is otherwise objected to: that it is a symbol of oppression, perhaps even wrong-headedly adopted. You are surely free to make that argument, but you are turning your own argument on its head if you then suggest that society should dictate a woman’s attire without a pressing reason for doing so.
 
That’s “not the way we do things here“? What does that even mean? We don’t make allowances for religious freedom? We don’t tolerate almost all choices of personal dress or undress? We reserve the right to readily impose our understanding of equality on a woman’s discretion? We set aside religious freedom for symbolic reasons?
 
It most certainly is the way we do things here insofar as we allow women, seemingly with some exceptions made for the purposes of confirming identity, to go about their time in this country wearing a niqab if they so desire.
 
If there are no practical or procedural grounds to justify demanding the niqab be lifted during the saying of the oath then a ban might be doomed in law. But even if it is entirely down to symbolic meaning & even if a desire for symbolic value shouldn’t be sufficient to limit religious freedom, we might still debate the symbolism.
 
If we are to officially accept the wearing of the niqab during the oath, as we seem to have done before Kenney decided we shouldn’t, what might that symbolize? We could say it symbolizes some public concession to oppression or segregation.

To segregate one group of Canadians or allow them to hide their faces, to hide their identity from us precisely when they are joining our community is contrary to Canada’s proud commitment to openness and to social cohesion,” Kenney said 3 years ago. But in this case that openness & cohesion would impose a limit on religious freedom, & a seemingly unnecessary one at that.
 
We could then say that allowing the niqab at the moment of the oath demonstrates tolerance & freedom—a willingness to accept that in this country you are basically free to dress & express yourself as you see fit so long as it does not threaten the general good or inherent rights of others.

Freedom in a broad sense embraces both the absence of coercion & constraint, & the right to manifest beliefs & practices,” Justice Brian Dickson once wrote. “Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights & freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.”

We could say that the wearing of the niqab when an individual chooses to become a citizen of Canada does not threaten the safety, order, health or morals of this country. That so long as those things are maintained, we should make some attempt to accommodate each other. That we are secure enough to accept that some might choose to wear it. That we are stronger not for demanding the niqab’s removal, but for accepting that we must allow someone the choice to wear it.

Criminal Minds, S1E6 (quote)

One Possible Translation: For every particular thing there will be different conditions. So the irrationality of a thing does not imply it doesn't exist, but rather implies one of its conditions. There could be several different conditions of it. In other words, everything for which there is no evident proof does not mean it does not exist at all. It means you are looking at it in an irrational perspective.
 
Good quote to use when atheists say it's irrational to believe in a supernatural being or climate change deniers saying that there's no such thing as climate change or when people say that religion is the source of all problems / strife in the world or when oil & gas companies try to prove that fracking isn't causing any environmental & health problems or .......... .

 

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Fracking wastewater in California full of harmful chemicals

Now, imagine what will or, perhaps, currently happening to public's health when they are directly or indirectly drinking this chemical-laden water or food grown through the use of this water.
 
If you are thinking that municipalities all over North America have very efficient & effective filtration systems & water agencies to clean all this water for drinking purposes, then you are sorely mistaken. Those water agencies / filtration plants were never built to clean thousands of new chemicals ground water is currently filled with.
 
Coupling this article with the BBC article about chemicals in our food & consumer products adversely affecting our hormones, you can imagine how many chemicals we are constantly ingesting on a daily basis. In a 2012 documentary, "Last Call at the Oasis," it was told that about 80,000 different kinds of chemicals go into our water system, through ground water, aquifers, pesticides, fertilizers, drugs & pills flushed in our toilets, industrial & domestic chemical products flushed from our industries & homes etc.
 
Now, if you say that well, let's all start drinking bottled water, then it raises 1 very important question:
 
What will happen to the poor of our society?

As clean, drinking water keep increasing in demand, its price will also increase. Rich won't have any problem buying those clean spring water but what will happen to the poor of our society.
 
I put up a picture with the Andy Garcia's line from the movie, "A Dark Truth," a few weeks back on this blog that today we are selling water & tomorrow we will be selling air. Where will poor go? Eventually, they will rebel against the society. Right now, their health is deteriorating much faster than rich folks, due to both their food & water being contaminated, & it's costing billions to our healthcare systems, besides the unnecessary strain it puts on the system. Eventually, governments will give up, since their coffers are empty, & hand it over to private healthcare systems to take care of all these people. They obviously won't, since it's not their mandate or objective. End result: a very serious social upheaval.
 
Another revelation was made in the documentary I mentioned above that almost 50% of bottled water being sold in the market is actually mere tap water.
 
On top of that, bottled water causes a lot of environmental damage with plastic bottles in our environment & making that plastic bottle itself requires a lot of water, too.
 
Further to all these problems, another 2011 documentary, "Pink Ribbons, Inc." explored the marketing of breast cancer. Experts & doctors continuously said in the documentary that we are still "slashing & burning" (surgery & chemotherapy) the breast cancer, like we used to do decades ago. Billions have been donated to this cause over the decades, but still no "eureka" moment where we'd know why breast cancer, or, in fact, any type of cancer, happen. Documentary did point out one research about one pesticide but I'd say all these cancers (there are so many of them) are happening because of all these contaminants in our food & water.
It seems like that the developed world is slowly, but surely, regressing back to that "uncivilized" & "barbaric" developing world. Bottled water is a big thing in Pakistan & India, for instance. I have seen in Pakistan, with my own eyes, how poor is drinking the dirty water, whereas, the rich is buying Nestle's water bottles by the gallons.


One last point to make here is that which is more dangerous to an American; a terrorist threatening to kill a few hundred Americans, at most, or millions of Americans, all over US, slowly killing themselves by ingesting harmful, cancerous chemicals, on a daily basis? Which death is more painful & agonizing, not only for the individual but also for the whole family & the community; getting killed by a terrorist in an instant or suffering from cancers for years?

So, why spend billions on wars, on foreign lands, which also has its own long-term, adverse consequences, when millions of American lives are in grave danger from their food & water? Wouldn't those billion $$$ help tremendously, at home, by reducing the effects of poverty or subsidizing organic foods for the poor? Billions in healthcare costs will be saved, too. As an added bonus, it will also greatly help in reducing radicalization of the populace of those foreign lands & them threatening to kill Americans.


It's like resolving multiple problems, instantly. Heck, it may even make US a utopian society where people have jobs in a thriving green economy, where, everyone is healthy & government is saving billions, too. Ironically, this dream is not so far-fetched or even figment of an active imagination. It is definitely achievable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosures in California revealed this week that a bevy of toxic, cancer-linked chemicals in fracking wastewater are routinely injected back into the ground. State regulators of the oil & gas industry, meanwhile, admitted to substandard oversight.
 
More than a year after California’s unprecedented law requiring transparency over contents of hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- wastewater, a new report by the Environmental Working Group showed that the state has allowed a variety of carcinogenic chemicals to be pumped back into the ground after use, thereby freeing oil & gas deposits.
 
The group said that “more than a dozen hazardous chemicals & metals as well as radiation were detected in the wastewater, some at average levels that are hundreds or thousands of times higher than the state’s drinking water standards or public health goals.”

The report – ‘Toxic Stew: What’s in Fracking Wastewater’ – stemmed from the state’s 2013 disclosure law which mandates the comprehensive testing & public release of the chemicals in drilling wastewater. The oil & gas industry has fought hard – with cover from government regulators like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) & California’s own Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources – to obfuscate & conceal what it injects into the Earth.

Petroleum chemicals, heavy metals & radioactive elements, plus high levels of dissolved solids, are among the pollutants found in fracking wastewater samples tested under the new disclosure program,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.

They include benzene, chromium-6, lead & arsenic – all listed under California’s Proposition 65 as causes of cancer or reproductive harm. Nearly every one of the 293 samples tested contained benzene at levels ranging from twice to more than 7,000 times the state drinking water standard. The wastewater also carried, on average, thousands of times more radioactive radium than the state’s public health goals consider safe, as well as elevated levels of potentially harmful ions such as nitrate & chloride.”

State officials have said there is “no evidence to date that California aquifers currently used for drinking water have been contaminated by fracking chemicals,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
 
Yet, in October, the state found that the oil & gas industry had illegally injected about 3 billion gallons of fracking wastewater into central California drinking water & farm irrigation aquifers.
 
Last week, the state ordered a halt to drilling at 12 wastewater injection wells in California’s Central Valley "out of an abundance of caution for public health,” said Steve Bohlen, head of the state Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources. The state has shut down 23 of the hundreds of injection wells located in aquifers that are not approved for wastewater, the Los Angeles Times reported.
 
To unleash oil or natural gas from shale or other areas, the fracking process requires blasting large volumes of highly pressurized water, sand, & other chemicals into layers of rock.
 
Once used, toxic fracking wastewater is then either stored in deep underground wells, disposed of in open pits for evaporation, sprayed into waste fields, or used over again.
 
Fracking has been linked to groundwater contamination, heightened earthquake activity, exacerbation of drought conditions, & a variety of health concerns for humans & the local environment.
 
Oil & gas companies are under increasingly intense pressure nationwide to respond over increased transparency of chemicals used in the fracking process. As RT has reported, industry has avoided divulging -- often under the cover of official regulatory agencies -- just what chemicals are involved in their toxic injection fluids. Yet drillers insist the chemicals do not endanger human health, contradicting findings by scientists & environmentalists.
 
Critics -- including the US Government Accountability Office -- have long contended that the EPA has been soft on the industry because they believe the agency is reluctant to stand in the way of what has quickly become a very profitable business model amid the oil & gas boom in North America.
 
"There has been a serious imbalance between the role regulating the oil & gas industry & the role of protecting the public," said Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, according to the Los Angeles Times.
 
Officials from the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) admitted that the agency had for years allowed for the breaking of federal law when companies injected fracking & other wastewater into hundreds of disposal wells within protected aquifers.
 
The DOGGR officials blamed past errors on inconsistent record-keeping & outdated data collection.
 
In its new report, the Environmental Working Group noted that “the mandated [fracking chemical] disclosure data on the state’s website is still incomplete & confusing,” & that California allows drillers to request permission to keep the exact recipe of their fracking fluid off the publicly accessible website.”

Last month, it was reported that California officials permitted oil & gas companies to dispose of waste & other fluids into aquifers containing drinking & irrigation water more than 2,500 times. Significantly, 46% of these permits were authorized within the last 4 years – the same timeframe during which the EPA warned California that regulators were not sufficiently protecting underground water reserves in the drought-stricken state.
 
State regulators subsequently offered the EPA a new plan that detailed how California would change its permit approval process. The plan also addresses how the state would confront contamination risks. Steve Bohlen, the head of DOGGR, said last month that 140 of the affected injection sites were actively pumping waste into aquifers holding good quality water.
 
Despite popular support, a moratorium on fracking in the state was killed in the California Senate last May. The oil industry spent nearly US $1.5 million in 3 months fighting the bill.
 
California is the third-largest oil producing state in the US, but it’s also in its fourth year of a severe drought, highlighting the need to keep its water reserves safe.

Souvenir Ultrasound scans should be banned for first 10 weeks of pregnancy

In this modern race of narcissism & ego-boasting, a selfie stick may not harm you or your loved ones as much as collecting souvenir pregnancy ultrasound scans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Souvenir scans of the unborn baby should not be carried out in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, say doctors.
 
Such keepsake images are shown off by proud parents-to-be, who can buy special wallets & photo frames to mark every stage of pregnancy.
 
But new advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists rules against the growing trend when there is no medical reason for doing an early-stage scan.
 
A new scientific review says ultrasound – which uses high-frequency sound waves to provide images of the foetus – could expose it to unknown risks.
 
Although there is no evidence of harm, the ‘precautionary principle’ should apply, it says.
 
Dr. Christoph Lees, Reader in Obstetrics & Fetal Medicine at Imperial College London & lead author of the paper said the review looked specifically at the first 10 weeks in the womb.
 
Normally a scan would be ordered only for a potential problem identified by a clinician & in those circumstances it was perfectly safe, he said.
 
But an increasing number of clinics were offering keepsake images from as early as 6 weeks, he said.
 
He said: ‘Ultrasound scanning in the embryonic period is an invaluable resource in several important scenarios where the embryo is at possible risk.

There are presently no grounds for questioning the safety of diagnostic ultrasound in this context.

However, ultrasound imaging is increasingly being used without obvious medical justification & we have to be aware of the possibility of subtle long-term adverse effects, particularly in the first weeks of gestation when the embryo is potentially the most vulnerable.’

The review was produced by the Scientific Advisory Committee at the RCOG to provide doctors with up-to-date information about the issue.
 
The US Food & Drug Administration issued similar advice in December, saying excess ultrasound at any stage in pregnancy should be avoided.
 
Dr. Lees said one of the possible harms might come from the slight heating effect produced by ultrasound which was more easily dissipated by the placenta after 10 weeks of pregnancy.
 
He said the safest period for taking souvenir scans was 20 weeks of pregnancy & beyond.
 
The review highlights the various types of ultrasound, including B-mode – the most commonly used form of ultrasound in obstetrics – colour & pulse wave Doppler.
 
Colour & pulsed wave Doppler involve greater average intensity & power outputs than B-mode & are not recommended at all during the first 10 weeks.
 
Additionally, there has been a move to perform 3D & 4D ultrasound scans earlier in pregnancy, states the paper.
 
4D ultrasound is ‘real time’ scanning & involves higher power outputs as the scanning time is longer, typically by several minutes, & should not be the sole purpose of souvenir images or video recordings in early pregnancy.
 
Dr. Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami, chair of the RCOG’s Scientific Advisory Committee, said ‘B-mode ultrasound used for clinical reasons from conception to 10 weeks of gestation is safe & the benefits outweigh any theoretical risks.

We are adopting a precautionary approach & are highlighting the small but possible risks to women so that they can make informed choices.

Muslim groups accuse UK government of criminalizing Islam

If we replace Britain, in this news story, with Canada, we will still get the same story that government is trying to pander for votes by criminalizing Islam. Since, Canadian government also has nothing to show on improving economy & jobs, passing security bills like Bill C-51 & Muslim women's veils have been made the focal point of this year's election.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More than 60 imams & leaders of Muslim organisations have signed an open letter to the government accusing it of criminalising Islam.
 
They said that the "terror threat" was being exploited for political capital ahead of the general election.
 
Signatories include journalist Yvonne Ridley, former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg & members of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
 
The 61 signatories criticised the "demonisation of Muslims in Britain.... despite their disavowal of violence & never having supported terrorist acts".
 
The letter accused the government of trying to deflect attention from crises in the economy & health service, while trying to silence criticism of foreign policy.
 
It condemned the exploitation of the "terror threat" for political capital as "the big parties inevitably try to outdo each other in their nastiness", in the run up to May's election by playing on public fears about security & immigration.
 
The letter cited the targeting of Muslims through anti-terror legislation: "The latest Act of Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism & Security Act, threatens to create a 'McCarthyite' witch-hunt against Muslims, with nursery workers, schoolteachers & Universities expected to look out for signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of 'radicalisation'".
 
"Such a narrative will only further damage social cohesion as it incites suspicion & ill feeling in the broader community.
 
"The use of undefined & politically charged words like 'radicalisation' & 'extremism' is unacceptable as it criminalises legitimate political discourse & criticism of successive governments," the letter said.
 

Hormone-disrupting chemicals 'cost billions'

Although, I agree with the scientists' statements that these findings are "informed speculation", I still firmly believe that all these chemicals in our food & consumer products are adversely affecting our health in the developed world.
 
At least, the agriculture in the developing world is still done the old way, so the concept of "organic" food is still prevalent in the developing world. The hormone-disrupting chemicals / steroids given to animals flow through into our bodies & disrupt our hormones, causing several kinds of diseases, for which researchers haven't been able to find the root causes because it'd due to what we are putting in our mouths.
 
Now, people will say, well, then buy organic. There are several problems with that, too. Some "organic" food is not organic at all. The rise of the organics industry has also given rise to people who are passing off non-organics as organics. On top of that, organic food is expensive (unlike, in developing world), & thanks to the free trade deals, economy, class segregation etc etc in the society, it's usually the poor who relies on non-organics & consequently, suffers from its long-term consequences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The data suggests the high economic impact of chemicals in pesticides, plastics & flame retardants.
 
The team, led by New York University, said the estimates were conservative.
 
However, experts cautioned the findings were "informed speculation" & called for more detailed research.
 
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can be physically similar to the hormones that naturally control our body's physiology so mimic their function. They can also block the function of hormones.
 
They have been linked with declining sperm counts, some cancers, impaired intelligence, obesity & diabetes. The main concern surrounds their impact during early development.
 
The authors of the study argued that limiting exposure would have significant benefits.
 
Many of the conditions linked to EDCs are also influenced by a wide range of other environmental influences. And some scientists contest the levels in the environment are not high enough to influence health.
 
The international research team acknowledge "there is uncertainty" & adapted techniques used by the International Panel on Climate Change to balance the uncertainty with the potential scale of the impact.
 
Their mathematical models suggested that across the 27 members of the EU, the most likely cost was €157bn ($173bn; £113.6bn) a year, but could be much higher. That equates to 1.2% of Europe's GDP.
 
This included healthcare costs as well as lost economic potential.
 
Their calculations said it was more than 99% certain that at least one of the chemicals was indeed having an impact on health.
 
The major economic impact was from pesticides (€120bn; $132.3bn; £86.8bn), followed by chemicals found in plastics (€26bn; $28.7bn; £18.8bn) & flame retardants (€9bn; $9.9bn; £6.5bn).
 
Dr Leonardo Trasande, a paediatrician at the New York University school of medicine, told the BBC: "These results suggest that regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals could produce substantial economic benefit that would be less than the cost of implementing safer alternatives & produce net economic benefits."
 
The studies looked at less than 5% of suspected EDCs & did not look at conditions such as cancer & female reproductive diseases. Hence the scientific team argue that these are conservative estimates.
******************************************************
The team's conclusions:

• Male reproductive disorders cost €4bn ($4.4bn; £2.9bn) per year
• Premature deaths, including through cardiovascular disease, cost €6bn ($6.6bn; £4.3bn) per year
• Obesity & diabetes cost €15bn ($16.5bn; £10.9bn per year)
• Neurological impact, including reduced intelligence, cost €132bn (£145.6bn; £95.5bn) per year
******************************************************

"Justice in America" by Randy Bish

"Justice in America" - Randy Bish, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh, PA, US

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Knife Fight (quote)

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

ISIS generating $1 Billion USD from drugs trafficking

What a coincidence:
1. US & its allies invade Afghanistan. Poppy production increase several folds.
2. US & UK invade Iraq. ISIS comes into being.

But, hey, apparently, both these invasions were a resounding success for US & its allies.
 

* Who cares if those 2 countries were turned into rubble? 
* Who cares if Afghanis & Iraqis are displaced, internally & externally, as refugees?
* Who cares if their neighbouring countries (Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan etc) are housing those refugees, at their own costs?
* Who cares if all these drugs are financing terrorists?
* Who cares if all these drugs are destroying the lives of Europeans & North Americans? ... perhaps, it's karma for destroying those 2 countries.

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Drug money is a massive source of profit for ISIS, who makes up to $1 billion annually from sales throughout its conquered lands, according to the Russian Federal Drug Control Service (FSKN).
 
"The area of poppy plantations is growing. This year, I think, we’ll hear news about a record-high poppy harvest, therefore a high yield of opium & heroin. So this issue should be raised not only in Moscow, but also in the UN in general, because this is a threat not only to our country, but also European security. Over the past 5 years the Balkan route has been split - heroin traffic now also goes through Iraqi territory," TASS quotes FSKN head Viktor Ivanov as saying.
 
"According to our estimates, IS makes up to $1 billion annually on Afghan heroin trafficked through its territory," he added. The FSKN in November said that the sale of Afghan heroin in Europe could generate upwards of $50 billion for the militants.
What’s more, over half of Europe’s heroin now comes from the IS, according to Ivanov.
 
Indeed, drug money has been high on the IS’s list of profit generators, together with oil & conquest.
 
A recent report by the Financial Action Task Force talked of how the IS has been branching out into all manner of finance-generating activities, though it is the reliance on oil that makes them a truly unique terrorist group, unlike others before it.
 

Anatomy of a tragedy

A great opinion piece on the topic of Turkey's denial of Armenian genocide back in 1915 & how Turkey is being derided for it all over the Western world, from Armenia to Britain to North America.
 
Yes, just like Germany embracing its past, Turkey should, too, but then all these other countries, who harp about such noble values as fairness, justice, equality etc should also embrace not only their pasts but also what are they doing right now?
 
Would Belgium embrace how it used & destroyed the country of Congo? or how about France occupying the North African & Middle Eastern regions & colluding with the great imperial power of the past, UK, to break up the whole region & install dictators? How about UK, itself, when it occupied lands, from east to west, & killed & oppressed millions of Natives in North America & Australia, & native populations of South Asia & several African countries?
 
That's where the hypocrisy of the Western world is apparent. Countries, like Germany, Japan, China & Russia are scorned for what they did in their past or current world but when somebody points Western countries their own faults, the answer is, "forget about the past, & let's look to the future."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide approaching (April 24), this seems to be open season on Turkey. This week, an angry Ankara summoned the Vatican ambassador & recalled its own to register its protest after Pope Francis uttered the ‘G’ word to describe the Armenian tragedy.

The first genocide of the 20th century struck Armenian people,” said the pontiff during a mass in St Peter’s Basilica to mark the centenary of the tragedy in which a million Armenians are said to have perished at the hands of the Ottoman army of course.
 
Turkey, however, rejects the charge arguing that thousands of Turks died as well in civil strife when Armenians rose up against the Ottoman rulers & sided with the Russian & Western forces. Thousands of Muslim besides Armenians were killed in conflicts that engulfed the eastern Ottoman Empire during World War I.
 
Some 20 nations however recognise the 1915 killings as genocide. In 2008 Barack Obama condemned them as such ... .
 
... The two sides need to move on & it cannot happen without Turkey acknowledging its past. As independent accounts suggest, excesses may indeed have been committed by a dying empire, desperately trying to hold on to its fast slipping dominions. Confronted with the Russian aggression & combined onslaught of European powers, the Ottomans were fighting for their survival.
 
... it’s about time modern Turkey acknowledged them. There’s no point in living in denial.
 
But while what happened in Armenia was truly horrific, was it a coldblooded & calculated genocide along the lines of Jewish Holocaust at the hands of Nazis or the ethnic cleansing of Balkan Muslims in 1990s?
 
The Armenians may have borne the Ottoman wrath for siding with the invaders but were they picked & eliminated for what they were & believed in as had been the case with Jews & Muslims in the Balkans?
 
War crimes & crimes against humanity are among the gravest crimes in international law & they are to be dealt with as such no matter who the victims & their tormentors are. Martin Luther King rightly argued that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. More often than not though it’s not genuine humanitarian concerns but realpolitik & hypocrisy that dictate such denunciations. We are selective in our outrage & choosing our victims, as has been the case with the Armenian tragedy. It has become an annual ritual for Western politicians & media to beat Ankara with this big stick.
 
To be fair to Turkey, in the past few years it has gone out of its way to reach out to its neighbours, including Armenia & Greece, in an attempt to heal the past. Erdogan surprised everyone ... in 2009 when he acknowledged Turkey’s troubled past: “Those with different ethnic identities were expelled from our country. This indeed was the consequence of a fascist approach.”

On the other hand, those rushing to condemn & burn Turkey at the stake hardly come across smelling of roses. Who can feign ignorance of Europe’s own illustrious past? Almost every single European power once boasted & exploited vast, rich colonies in Africa, Asia & Americas. Besides denuding Africa of its fabled riches, they stole its most precious resource, enslaving millions of its people. How Americas were won for the West, nearly wiping out their indigenous populations, is hardly a secret. Thousands were hanged in India when it rose in revolt against the empire in 1857.
 
Millions died in the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam & Cambodia, as a result of colonial wars. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed & millions driven from their homes after their country was gifted away to European Jews.
 
We have seen more than a million perish in Iraq & Afghanistan in the last decade alone, not to mention the chaos unleashed across the region. Who will account for these crimes? How would the European Parliament describe what some of its member states visited on their former colonies?
 
The Pope is right in cautioning humanity against forgetting the ‘senseless slaughter’ of Armenians. But while doing so, let’s spare a thought for the victims of imperial wars too. Selective memory, like selective justice, does more harm than good. Without acknowledgement, there is no reconciliation.