Dumping Hamas

The following is a copy of an email I wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada today on hearing that Canada was withdrawing support from the Palestinian Authority. I encourage you to write to your elected "leaders" often. For Canada email pm@pm.gc.ca--others shouldn't be hard to find. Remember to include your address so they know you're a citizen. You might even get a dismissive reply if you're lucky.

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

I must declare that I am disappointed in the Government of Canada's decision today to withdraw support for the Palestinian Authority. Electing Hamas was the choice of the Palestinian people. International observers monitored this election and have approved of the results, a rarity in the Middle East. Far from focusing on the unrealistic destruction of Israel, Hamas has pledged to root our the corruption and criminality that were the hallmarks of the outgoing Fatah government. In fact Hamas has been observing a cease-fire with Israel for approximately a year, despite provocative Israeli violence in the Occupied Territories.

Coming to power changes an party. Your party for instance was elected on a platform of ethics but then the David Emerson affair occurred and you changed. This is politics and Canadians and Palestinians have come to expect nothing more from their leaders. Given time, encouragement and support Hamas might well pull an Arafat and meet the Israelis on the White House lawn.

What message does Canada's unfortunate decision send to the Palestinian people? It treats them as children that cannot make the right choice so they will be punished. Next time they'll think twice--think again. This will only strengthen Hamas' hand and the deplorable conditions and starvation caused by border closings will make a return to violence a guarantee.

I urge you to reconsider this decision. Hamas and the Palestinians need to be treated as mature adults not disobedient children. They are the elected leaders of the Palestinian State. They should be treated as such.

Sincerely . . .

Up With Ken

It's refreshing to realize that all politicians don't think and act alike. The overwhelming majority are fairly bland and boring, with perfect hair, teeth and pretty, sleepy words for their adoring audiences. Our robotic prime minister is an extreme example of this species.

Then there's Ken Livingstone. The immensely popular Lord Mayor of London, England has made waves with two recent comments. On one occasion, he likened a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard and in the latest he referred to the US ambassador to the United Kingdom as a "chiselling little crook". In the former case, he has been formally censured and is appealing this decision and it is expected that the latter will be no different.

Livingstone has always been different. When the Labour Party rejected his pioneering temperament as mayor, he left the party, ran as an independent and won the contest comfortably over his rivals in the major parties. Freshly elected, Livingstone introduced a congestion charge on vehicles in London's zone 1. Now seen as a model for other cities dealing with traffic problems, at the time Livingstone was criticized for legislating outside the box. Recently Tony Blair begged Livingstone to return to the Labour Party, which he did on his own terms. If that weren't enough, Livingstone continues to berate his own party for the Iraq invasion given the chance.

His recent comments regarding the American ambassador regard the diplomat's decision to decline paying the congestion charge. Given all the Hummers the embassy no doubt maintains this would probably help the UK pay down its national debt. Judge for yourself whether the ambassador is a "crook", what cannot be doubted is that Ken Livingstone is a rarity in politics: a true leader.

One State: One Solution

First off I must encourage you to read this short article by Jimmy Carter, the only recent American president I admire, on the recent election of Hamas and Israel's plans for unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This term, unilateral withdrawal is the most ridiculous statement ever declared. How could Israel withdraw from Palestine? They are one and the same and since 1948 have become more and more intertwined. Israel is never leaving Palestine and vice versa.

Twenty percent of Israel's population is Arab (aka Palestinian). Hundreds of thousands of Israelis live inside fortified settlements in the West Bank and have their own roads and infrastructure. Israel "reluctantly" closed their settlements in the Gaza Strip (who would want to live in the world's largest refugee camp anyway). The real prize is the West Bank from a religious, economic and political point of view. Are you realizing yet just how intimate the relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians is?

And you can bet that when the Israelis finally withdraw, if they ever do, they will maintain control of the stillborn Palestine's borders, controlling what goes in and comes out. How could they not? Palestinians will be seething and will want asymmetrical weapons to challenge the IDF and possibly target the Israeli public. Israel cannot allow this. In claiming to keep out weapons, Israel will also block necessities such as food from entering Palestine. Which functional state doesn't have control of its borders?

Since the recent Palestinian election and the surprise victory of Hamas, Israel has put the screws to Gaza and displayed the total control that they have over that particular territory; they will never give up this control. Not only the Palestinians, but foreign governments, international NGOs, diplomats and others have complained about Israel's continued use of starvation as a weapon in Gaza. This is called collective punishment. You all voted for Hamas so you all will suffer for disobeying. When a suicide bomber blows him or herself up the border is closed and all Palestinians cannot go to work inside Israel and food cannot get into Palestine. Same old story over and over again--how biblical. The justification is security and, as we are learning in North America, security trumps all.

I'm going to say something shocking. Unilateral withdrawal is bullshit. The two state solution that everyone trumpets is bullshit. The destruction of Israel is bullshit. We need a one state solution. This new state would be called Israel-Palestine. Palestinians would get to participate in a mature democracy and have their rights protected (after a long, nonviolent battle against systemic discrimination). Israel would get all of Jerusalem as would the Palestinians. Palestinians would have the right of return to their ancestral homes currently inside Israel (though I doubt they would be still standing). Water resources would be shared. The border would be set as the pre-1948 border so there wouldn't be any issues and need to unilaterally declare borders.

Israel should formally annex the Occupied Territories and give Palestinians full citizenship. Compared with all the brutal dictatorial states of the Middle East, Israel is Eden. I remember reading a poll once that out of all the states of the Middle East, Palestinians most admired Israel for its governance.

The truth is I'm not sure that either side is ready to realize that the one state solution is the only solution. This conflict will fester long after Israel has unilaterally withdrawn (whatever that means) from the Palestinians, wall or no wall.

Tomorrow will be the Israeli election. God only knows where this whole tragedy is going. I just hope He or She is paying attention and can guide the sons of Isaac and Ishmael home.

Phoque This

Two interesting events coincided around this weekend--the launch of public trading in Tim Horton's shares and the annual harp seal hunt on Canada's east coast. Both these ugly events have revealed some unfortunate aspects of Canadian nationalism and our relationship with our neighbours to the south.

Politicians and appointed senators have been highly manipulative in communicating with Canadians on the seal hunt. Essentially the seal hunt has become an example of how Canadians are different from Americans (and to a lesser extent Europeans like Paul and Linda McCartney). Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette put her foot in it when writing back aggressively a week ago to Americans concerned about the morality of the seal hunt. She, like so many others, appealed to nationalism and criticized the American penal system (clearly inferior to ours) and American misadventures in Iraq (we stayed out). This rather childish, reactive response was probably lost on these concerned Americans who I expect march against war and racism as well as the seal hunt.

As Canadians are rallying around club-happy seal hunters and wrapping themselves in the maple leaf against the stars and stripes, they are also being manipulated by an American corporation, Wendy's International Inc. For years this American corporation has been developing advertising tying Tim Horton's with the maple leaf. Once Canadians traveling abroad would brandish the flag with pride but now it is partnered with the portable Tim Horton's mug. The result of this campaign, shares expected to sell at around $20 got up to $36.21 on the day of the public launch. Who's buying these Tim Horton's shares? Bet on loyal Canucks. And where's that money going? To an already wealthy foreign corporation.

Sadly I think this speaks volumes about Canadians. Instead of doing something because it seems to be right or patriotic, let's think about it for once. Why are we in Afghanistan? Are all Americans war-mongering racists? Should seals be clubbed to death just to sell their fur? Is all this coffee good for us? Why doesn't Tim Horton's sell fair trade coffee?

Alas thought is the antithesis of nationalism so I don't expect any changes soon. I can hope I suppose.

Give Me Some Credit

For a long time, I've realized that I've been behaving inconsistently. Personally I try to live my beliefs according to Gandhi's wise words: "We must be the change we wish to see in the world". What a simple but perfect statement! Yet whereas I behave in a certain way my meagre earnings do not. Each couple of weeks, they go to one of the big Canadian banks for "safe" keeping. However once handed over, my assets, such as they are, could very well be funding projects that I would not dare dream of supporting. Perhaps my assets supported the construction of highways like our very own Red Hill Creek Expressway, animal testing on cosmetic products, the marketing and sale of military hardware, genetically modified crops, the construction of nuclear power plants, clearcutting, hell, maybe even Canada's own seal hunt was funded through my bank and therefore my money. Banks like mine wouldn't dare utter the word ethics; charity sure, but never ethics.

So my inconsistency was troubling to me. But unlike others, I knew that my salvation lay in the coffers of our nation's credit unions. There I would be an owner and equal to any other member be they holding $100 or $100,000. Credit unions hold ethics high in their organizations because they know that their members would have it no other way; it's not all about profits for them. Inherently democratic, credit unions have active owners/members. Feel free to visit the website of a credit union; I guarantee you'll easily find their ethical policy featured prominently. Imagine how Canada would be revolutionized if we all took ownership of OUR money through credit unions. I encourage you to consider moving over to one.

So I approached Desjardins Credit Union to save me having researched them and their attractive account features. After explaining that I wanted to open an account, I was told that I would have to undergo a credit check. What? I give you all my money and have to undergo a credit check; shouldn't I be the one demanding a credit check of you? I'm not asking for a loan. I'm not asking for an overdraft. Strike one.

Strike two was a request for identification and my current address. I have no proof of my current address. I do not pay my own bills because I pay all inclusive rent. I find this an easier and much less stressful way to live. I have a pay-as-you-go mobile phone so no landline to reveal my roots. When I explained I had no driver's license I was met with a blank stare. What could I be thinking? How do I live? I enjoy being unconventional. I don't think I have enough identification to open this account. A friend often jokes with me that I "live off the grid". Nothing could be further from the truth but compared with my fellows perhaps it's close to the truth. I miss out on full participation in financial life (oxymoron?) due to my choice of lifestyle.

Strike three will happen when I return and ask to speak with the manager of the local branch I expect. He or she is unlikely to be sympathetic to my situation. Bureaucracy is nothing if not inflexible.

Perhaps this credit union has not lived up to my idealized vision and maybe none will. For now my money remains in the hands of a faceless corporation. Business continues as usual.

In Answer, Three Years On

The blowhole sphincter pulses,
Expelling steamy, hot breath,
Into the sultry desert air.
Blinding sunlight reflecting on sand.

Mirages dance before his eyes,
In this bleak but promising land.
How did he get here?
Chasing phantom seals again.

He hears squeaks from the blue and white ocean.
The pod, not far behind, lingers,
Not daring to follow their unelected leader,
But uncertain without their steady compass.

Gnats gather,
About his eyes and blowhole.
An unwelcome and ill-timed annoyance,
The insignificant rising up.

His black skin boils,
Drying out like spilled gasoline,
He imagines his bleached bones in the sun,
Flesh picked clean by carrion.

I came ashore in error, he thinks,
Now I understand at long last,
Why my predecessors,
Fled this parched land.

He thrashes his fluke in fear and arrogance,
Like Thor pounding cabbage,
The tide is going out,
On this misadventure.

My Sugar is Melting

The Brazilians are taking the lead on ethanol and damn are they proud of it. And I for one give them credit for their ingenuity. Instead of rotting your teeth you might as well use all that sugar for something useful. But our new energy saviour ethanol does raise a few questions.

After you think about this a bit ethanol doesn't seem to be that good an energy option. Surely converting all that sugar into ethanol requires a ton of chemical inputs and definitely a lot of energy which you have to get from somewhere. Where are you going to get it? Oil, nuclear and coal: sounds pretty dirty to me. It's illogical to make ethanol to be used to make ethanol.

And you also have to ask about the fields used to grow this sugarcane. Populations are so big around the world because we have been able to grow food with oil energy and oil-based fertilizers and pesticides. What do you think combine harvesters and tractors run on? When sugarcane for fuel replaces beans and wheat for eating that's less arable land feeding our burgeoning global population. Is it more important to cruise the streets or feed your family? I think it's pretty obvious but these days . . .

This is the problem with other panaceas like hydrogen. Where the heck is the promised hydrogen economy? Nowhere. You know why? Because if you want to run your car on hydrogen you have to get that precious hydrogen from somewhere. Hydrogen doesn't grow on trees. The best source of hydrogen is water but to make it you need a ton of energy, just the thing you're trying to make.

I'd love it if someone important (unlike myself) would admit that the party's over. I don't think it's the end of the world, just a post-party hangover and instant sobriety. Accepting that the days of cheap energy are over means that we'll have to become a more thoughtful species. Ironically I wonder if our capitalist society would embrace socialist planned economies. We'll have to prioritize our remaining energy (and there'll always be energy) to important societal goals: transit, trains, heating, communications and developing truly renewable technologies. We'll reject wasteful practices such as war-making, building SUVs for individuals' egos, excessive meat eating and trips to Florida.

Sounds pretty good to me. Are you interested?

Worth It

Yesterday I found myself walking through McMaster University's campus here in Hamilton. I was with a friend and as we passed the Medical Centre and Life Sciences building, we got on to the topic of animal testing on campus. In the United Kingdom this issue is big news, with doctors and researchers harassed and threatened by "animal rights activists". The message of these activists was largely discounted through their use of violence. But violence did get them coverage (think of the airtime given two occupied countries with fundamentally different national liberation struggles, Tibet and Palestine). Compared with the UK, animal testing barely registers as a concern for Canadians.

As far as I know McMaster still conducts research on animals, from mice to monkeys. Anecdotally when I worked for Physical Plant at McMaster I heard of one occasion when a driver took a radioactive cat to Toronto for some research purpose; God only knows the use of a glowing cat. As with all animal testing, McMaster's is kept hidden from public view. Animal labs are strictly off limits. Quite obviously this is done because if people knew how animals were being used they might very well protest. That most humans naturally oppose these tests gives me hope that these practices will end one day.

This practice raises a few questions for me. I like to think that I oppose animal testing from an ethical perspective and don't value my life any higher than any other being. However if I was to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow would I sing a different tune and demand the eviscerate of mice to find a cure to save my little life? Is my life worth more than a mouse's or a monkey's? The answer is yes according to our society. If all animals (including humans) were equal then not a single mouse would be dissected for science. Maybe instead of hanging on we should accept that our time has come and pass away.

Another interesting question is: how glorious is a cure that has caused the deaths of countless lab animals to reach it? Doesn't these animals' suffering negate the benefits of a cure? That would be my argument.

And a final question: will the norm of human rights invariably expand to include non-human beings as well? Slowly but surely, more and more groups have been given inalienable rights around the world. It started with non-royal landed gentry, expanded to include all white men of a certain class, then all men, then white women, then men of colour, then men of darker colour, then women of these minority groups, then homosexuals and transgendered people (admittedly this is a very Western discourse but doesn't the West's experience essentially form the foundation of human rights?). Will animals be next? Some great apes are being taught sign language. What if they use this new language to demand not to be harmed or exploited?

I would appreciate some comments because this discussion needs to take place in Canada and in all other developed and developing countries.

Prison Break

Yesterday the Israelis laid siege to a Palestinian prison in Jericho at the suggestion that the incoming government might pardon a hero of both Intifadas, Ahmed Saadat. Saadat has been jailed by the Palestinians since 2002 for arranging for the murder of the Israeli tourism minister. Saadat was the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine at the time. Going on four years without parole, it seems as though the Palestinian justice system was doing a pretty good job. By comparison, how much time do Israeli soldiers get for killing Palestinians in the Occupied Territories or for shooting Western peace workers?

At the risk of rambling on about the hypocrisy of the Holy Land, it should be said that the Israelis got their man and intact. Ahmed Saadat is now a guest of the Israeli state joining his fellow hero of the Intifadas, Marwan Barghouti behind bars. One wonders if all the entire Palestinian leadership will wind up dead or in Israeli jails before long.

Three points annoy me about this Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) version of Prison Break:

1) The fact that British and American prison observers withdrew just before the IDF attack demonstrates a deep level of collusion between these three states. George Bush and Tony Blair just blame the Palestinians for the attack but lasting damage has been done. For the Palestinians I just have one comment: What did you expect trusting the British and the Americans? Next time ask Brazil, India or China to send observers. Why choose America, Israel's biggest supporter?

2) What's going to happen to all the criminals released by the Israelis on that day? These men (probably no women but I'm not sure) have committed crimes and were serving sentences for these crimes. Where will they go? Unlike the United States, the Palestinians do not always have room in their dwindling budgets for more prisons. I expect that after passing through the Israeli screens around the prison these men were merely let go--ready to return to their lives of crime. If this is the case Israel should be condemned for contributing to lawlessness in the West Bank.

3) What's going to happen to the jail they destroyed? Tanks and bulldozers blasted and leveled this prison much like they did to Yasser Arafat's compound in 2002. Will the IDF tip into its bountiful coffers to cover the costs of rebuilding this prison? Don't bet on it.

Imagine that Canada invaded New York State and laid siege to a prison in Buffalo and partly destroyed it; then they seized a prisoner serving time there and returned to Canada with him. This is essentially what happened here--one state invaded another. Naturally the Americans would be livid with us. They would probably reduce our cities to ashes through a nuclear holocaust. The Palestinians have no such atomic means at their disposal but expect a bus explosion soon (that's asymmetrical warfare by the way). I can picture Ehud Olmert licking his chops at the prospect of a Hamas suicide attack as just the pretense to claim more of the West Bank.

Finally, a word on the tourism minister, Rahavam Zeevi apparently murdered on the orders of Saadat. This was a truly repulsive human being. He was famous for his plans to deport all the Palestinians from Israel and the Occupied Territories. "Let the Arabs go back to Mecca" was his familiar refrain and he often referred to the Palestinians as "lice" and "cancer". He was also never without his precious uzi submachine gun, a must for a tourism minister in the Holy Land. Dominating and threatening Palestinians was his specialty. Saadat, the man who ordered his assassination is declared a terrorist rightly; is it not fitting to apply the terrorist label to Zeevi as well.

Dear Mr President

Over a month ago, on learning that the Iranian government was going to sponsor a conference on the veracity of the Holocaust, I decided to email the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran to express my concerns. What!? You were going to email the President of Iran, you might be asking with incredulity? Amazingly, I had discovered while living in the United Kingdom in 2003, you could write to the President of Iran but not the great democrat, Tony Blair. Only now has Mr. Blair figured out how to set up his email account to the relief of his 60 million constituents. So yes, I could email the President of Iran at my leisure, in English no less (though a reply, like with my country’s politicians, was not likely to be forthcoming).

In choosing to email President Ahmadinejad, I was hoping to respectfully express my concerns about the proposed conference. There is little use denying the Holocaust. It happened. My grandfather saw some of the death camps when he fought in World War 2 and I’ve been told by my mother never to forget this tragedy. I never will.

I had hoped to pass on this personal message to the president. Most importantly I wanted to warn him not to directly or indirectly create an association between Iran and genocide, fascism and racism. The skinheads and neo-Nazis that will travel to this conference are not welcome company especially for a nation of brown people, like me. I anxiously await news that the first Iranian has been stamped into the ground by a gang of neo-Nazis in Tehran for daring to be himself around superior Aryans (ironically Iranians hold more of a claim to that title than Bavarians). This conference, if it ever happens, will be nothing short of ridiculous.

Ahmadinejad knows that Europe’s unprecedented and grotesque violence of the 1940s provided Israel with the manpower and moral power to crush the Arab armies that invaded British mandate Palestine to “drive the Jews into the sea”. His argument therefore should be with the Europeans, not their victims. Ultimately the victims turned victors would form one of the strongest states in the world. Israel continues to do very well out of the Holocaust, silencing criticism of itself with 6 million arguments called anti-Semitism. The president is attempting to undermine this infinite interest-free moral credit advanced by Europeans by challenging its solid foundation as opposed to its exploitation for political ends. He will convince no one by employing this tactic.

On the surface of this conference is the pretension of academic debate, though I doubt Holocaust-believing (strange term right?) scholars will be invited. There is to be no discussion, no sharing of perspectives; the outcome has already been decided. According to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, Iran had a right to "hear all opinions" on the Holocaust "and chose the best one". So I was discouraged from writing and haven't since I wrote this short piece. Maybe President Ahmadinejad will read my blog . . . I doubt it.

I am sympathetic to Iran’s arguments. If we in the West are allowed nuclear weapons and show no signs of disarming as we are obliged to do under international law, then all nations have rights to these worst of weapons and we should get on with scouring the earth of our hypocritical infection. Israel holds the Middle East hostage through its nuclear arsenal and must be disarmed. The Palestinians should have their state now. But to persist in promoting these falsehoods around the Holocaust is indefensible.

I long for the day Muslims reject the rotten doctrine of an eye for an eye and embrace the nonviolent side of their natures. That day Israelis, Europeans and North Americans will fall upon their knees before the true heirs of the Prophet Muhammad and Imams Ali and Hussein and beg forgiveness.

Buyer Beware

What’s the deal with all these ads on TV for drugs? They always begin: “Ask your doctor about Oxopharmacosis. It may be right for you. Side effects include anal leakage, heart attacks and blood clots. Pregnant and lactating women should not use Oxopharmacosis.” Then it ends with something like: “Embrace life, embrace Oxopharmacosis”. The ads invariably barely hint at what the product in question treats. Of course Oxopharmacosis is just a made up product. In fact, in retrospect, it sounds like a condition you might need a drug for.

I only really see these bizarre commercials on the US stations that we get up here in the Great White North. I guess it makes sense given the nature of medicine in the US. When you’re paying for it, you could ask your doctor for anything; as long as you can pay and he or she won’t get hit with a malpractice suit, pop those pills. He or she is essentially a distributor for the pharmaceutical companies after all. At least they don’t pretend about it like we do in Canada.

Another observation that just dawned on me is that in these ads the doctors are always referred to as males. “He will be able to advise you if Product A would be right for you”. “Tell him if you experience any side-effects while on Product A”. What gives? Admittedly, I have a male family doctor but all my med school friends are female. Oh pharmaceutical companies, when will you learn?

Anal leakage for all!

On Our Terms

This week 263 eminent doctors published a joint letter condemning the force feeding of Muslim detainees held in Guantanamo Bay in the renowned medical journal, the Lancet. They unanimously called on their colleagues in the US military to cease this practice and suggested that doctors that continue to perform this procedure should be censured by their accrediting bodies. Many prisoners have been held in Camp Delta for upwards of 5 years with no end in sight to their perpetual imprisonment. Left few legal options, these 'enemy combatants' have chosen drastic measures. Usually one has the right to choose to refuse food in order to protest one's situation or to demand change. Not so in the US's corner of Cuba.

US military doctors have carried out orders to force feed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They have these prisoners restrained and insert feeding tubes. In February, Lt Col Martin, chief military spokesman at the facility, said force-feeding was administered 'in a humane and compassionate manner' and only when necessary to keep prisoners alive (source). Military officers apparently have an ethical obligation to keep these prisoners alive.

Wouldn't it be more ethical to provide them with a fair trial and sentence, and therefore certainty, instead of leaving them adrift in this legal limbo? Is starvation worse than an uncertain future?

Why would the Americans want to behave in this way? To my mind the American military is attempting to demonstrate ultimate control over these 'terrorists' lives. You are no longer your own person; you and your miserable life belong to us. Either way these prisoners are probably going to die after their military tribunals (even though they aren't soldiers and are classed by the Bush Administration as 'enemy combatants'). It's all about controlling when they die and who pulls the switch or spikes the vein. The US military is declaring that you will die on their terms and not one moment before.

Also this says something about the right to protest post-911. Protest has obviously been deemed unpatriotic and many of us have fallen into line with this dictate. When you are held against your will, are monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have your movements and daily schedule set from above, you have very few avenues to protest your (mis)treatment. The hunger strike has always been the option of last resort in those outstanding cases when you can't file a complaint, appeal to a higher authority or see the light at the end of the tunnel. Obviously the state can take away your right to gather and your right to free expression but they can't take control of your body and your mind. But in this case they are and this should disgrace all of us who sit by and watch it happen.

What ever happened to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? That's right military doctors, just look in your trusty Bible and you'll find these words staring back at you. If Jesus disagrees with your commanding officer, what do you do?

Prophetic Film

On a completely different note, let's talk movies. You know what movie I want to see and what movie will never be made: a film about the life of the Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims. That this film hasn't happened is a gaping hole in our popular culture. I firmly believe that there is a great desire on the part of Canadians and other westerners to learn more about the religion and history of Islam. I know that's how I feel.

Unfortunately and detrimentally, most of our history lessons come from films and television. You can certainly pick up a monograph on Muhammad and the early Muslims but these events are sadly absent from moving pictures, to coin an old-fashioned expression. Something is missing. We have The Ten Commandments to cover Moses, The Passion of the Christ for Jesus, even Gandhi for the twentieth century's prophet. In the middle we should have the Prophet Muhammad and his absence is glaring.

Unfortunately I know the reason this movie will never be made. If Muslims were upset about the publication of those (admittedly distasteful) Danish cartoons, imagine how enraged they would be about a visual depiction of the Night of Power (when God first called the Prophet Muhammad to recite the Koran). Or any moral questioning of Muhammad's actions in forging the Umma (the Muslim community). If the Prophet Muhammad was a perfect man how could he make mistakes or be considered immoral? Surely any film would address his faults and humanity. Ultimately in Islam, there should be no depiction of Muhammad in the same way there should be no depiction of God. I'd hate to be the actor chosen to play Muhammad. And you thought Salman Rushdie had problems.

Now that I think of it, there haven't been many popular movies about George Washington and the American Founding Fathers. Perhaps Americans and Muslims share reverence for their founders in common. Imagine that.

Maybe what the lack of this film means is that we westerners need to learn to approach this prophet in a different way from all his predecessors (and antecessors--sorry Muslims, I don't agree that Muhammad was the last prophet). Muslims don't need flashy ad campaigns about their founder to sell Islam to new converts. Anyway they don't allow it. But they do take the time to converse about the Prophet Muhammad's life and the way of living he promoted. Opening up this conversation will eventually get us to the point where we may together consider making this movie. But maybe, by then, it won't be necessary. I could live with that.

Excess Underground

All this talk of subways to York University has gotten me thinking. You know there was a time when I was all for new subways in Toronto. One for Queen Street of course, Eglinton too. Filling in the missing pieces of the subway system. Heck, let's put one in Hamilton. Who wants to ride buses and streetcars when you can go underground, right?

Maybe I'm becoming a fiscal conservative in my advancing years but I now realize that this was a huge dream. Per kilometre subways cost the earth compared with light rail, buses or streetcars (a form of light rail). Instead of spending billions just to get this measly extension done think what kind of a system could be built. Dedicated bus lanes, light rail, more transit vehicles on the road/rails. Winning an election is not a good priority, building a complete transit system is.

Sadly subway construction belonged to a different time when, due to cheap and abundant energy, governments could literally do anything they wanted. Peak oil is making short work of this philosophy. I think the Skydome (AKA Rogers Centre) and the Sheppard Line were the last of these great monumentally wasteful projects. Let's not fool ourselves that Toronto is going to have a subway system like Paris or New York. Even those great cities are considering other options. Let's choose realistic goals and not waste our dwindling energy reserves on egotistical thinking.

Beloved Cola

One of my fondest childhood memories is eating McDonald's with my family at a neighbourhood park under the warm sun. That's pretty sad, right? Don't worry, I'm a happy, healthy vegan now. But these memories matter and say something about what's pleasurable to a child. Young kids don't have sex or masturbation to compete with cola. So a hit of cola or another soft drink will send them into ecstasy. I'm pretty sure that amongst the memories, I can remember the first hit of coca-cola surging through my veins like heroin.

Thereafter cola became my mealtime companion. Coke, Sprite and orange pop: all the colours of the rainbow. But cola was always my paramount desire. In high school, I used to drink a case of twenty four cans of cola every week. There were nights when I could actually see my tongue turn brown from this regular overdose.

Then at university I gave it all up. Not cold turkey but through deliberate weaning. I couldn't do it cold turkey anyway, the habit was too far gone; I got terrible headaches if I tried to stop drinking. So I bought a two litre bottle and took two shots a day for a week. Then one and a half shots for the next week. Then one. Then one every other day. Then one twice a week. Then one once a week. Then I stopped. It was over, I'd won. And I haven't fallen off the wagon ever since.

In high school I was a chubby boy. Double chin. Rolls. I wouldn't say I was obese because that word wasn't as popular as it is today but I was fat. When I gave up cola, I changed. I lost all that fat sagging on my sides and around my face. Unfortunately this was also the time I started being vegan so my conclusions cannot be taken as absolute. However, I have to surmise that cola consumption made me an obese child.

Now this week a series of new reports is declaring this link between soft drinks and obesity. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you ingest many thousands of calories above what you burn you're going to get fat. Soft drinks are energy powerhouses and that energy, when not used, has to be stored somewhere. And despite all this misery and rising rates of childhood onset diabetes, the soft drink companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Our waistlines expand while their bottom lines follow suit.

There are still times when I think fondly of my youth and crave the sweetness of the brown liquor that played such a comforting role. Is that not the definition of addiction? Tax or ban soft drinks now for the sake of the future.

Dream Job

Last October I was offered two jobs. Now this had never happened to me before so I struggled a bit to make a decision. Ultimately I went with the one that was offered me first. It paid slightly more and was more stable.

The one I turned down was an international job. I would have been flying to West Africa every month to help conduct trainings with police officers who would be supporting peace operations in the region. When I was a bit younger I would have jumped at such a job. Meeting people from other cultures, practicing my French, working for more peaceful societies, making use of my degree in Peace Studies, would have only been some of the many positives this job would have offered me. However I balked at the idea of living out of suitcases and at this time was starting to realize that flying everywhere was not a responsible practice.

The other job was a bit of a gamble. It was only a three month contract with the potential for extension; thankfully my contract has been extended since. My job is almost as hopeless as peacebuilding: convincing Hamiltonians to embrace sustainable transportation. Compared to the other job's reliance on air travel, I would be settled and be able to take public transit and ride my bike year round without feeling guilty. I would be working for a better city and maybe world given the relationship between transportation and climate change. And it would be a new experience working in the environmental field (though please don't label me an environmentalist).

Maybe there are no dream jobs. Some seem attractive on the surface but lose their lustre on closer inspection. I think what I've realized is that there's a hell of a lot of work to be done at home that is just as important as jetting around the world promoting peace.

Killer Cars

I don't have a good relationship with cars. For one thing, I'm convinced that they are going to kill me. And there are just so many ways to die. I shudder sometimes when cars pass me closely as I'm crossing the road. It's probably like the feeling one gets while swimming with sharks. I've been in a brutal car accident that killed someone last year, my ex-partner's mother was killed while driving, my dad was whacked by a chump running a red light when I was a little boy. Thank God for seatbelts.

And while freak accidents are one thing, cars also belch out a lovely mix of chemicals and fine particles that impacts our health more subtly; but the results are just as deadly. A medical researcher friend just reported to me that fine particulate matter in exhaust (especially diesel vehicles) passes directly through lungs and into the bloodstream, compromsing the cardiovascular system. According to the conclusion of a recent article on the subject, "These results suggest that inflammation as well as parts of the coagulation pathway may contribute to the association between particulate air pollution and coronary events". Coronary events, so euphemistic, should be read heart disease and other uncomfortable situations. What amazes me is that even with all this evidence, parents have no issues with planting their children beside a spewing tailpipe on a daily basis while depositing them at school.

And let's not forget the contribution that all that CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our engine exhaust makes to climate change. When our houses are underwater or hurricane seasons lasts all year we probably won't be thinking of our cars; well maybe with regret that we can't whisk out to the local WalMart for some cheap stuff to fill the void.

And to make matters worse cars are now weapons in asymetrical warfare around the world (I'll offer another post to explain and comment on this concept soon). As our beloved Canadian soldiers are learning in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan and the Iraqis well know, cars are scary. You never know what's inside the trunk. Though it didn't get much coverage beyond the Guardian, cars were banned on election day in Iraq last December. Isn't that amazing? Some Iraqi official (under the watchful eye of his American attache no doubt) shared my concerns about cars . . . for a day. Imagine if they banned cars during a Canadian or American election. What would we do? Walk to the polls with our families? Ride a bike? Not vote? Ah that's it, I knew the answer was clear.

So I've made the case against cars. I guess now you're expecting me to outline a vision for a world without cars. Forget it! Do you want to give up the convenience of your car to take the bus or walk? No. So how would I convince you? Convenience kills but who cares?