Tough Call

This past weekend there were a series of nationwide demonstrations calling for a withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers have been in Afghanistan since the American-led invasion temporarily toppled the Taliban government in 2001. Billions have been spent on policing, training Afghani security forces and militarily resisting the, seemingly, inevitable return of the Taliban. Some funds have also been earmarked to get Afghanistan going again economically and socially after years of war and neglect by the West.

Obviously not enough is being done. Canada is neither investing enough to rebuild the country nor is it putting enough, as the Americans would say, boots on the ground to maintain a negative peace. Despite all our enthusiastic prime minister's words of support for our troops and denunciations of "cowards" and "peaceniks", he's still not delivering. The poor in Afghanistan know very clearly that some have gotten rich since the invasion but by and large they are not being touched by the promised "development". Thus they make easy supporters of the Taliban.

I find myself caught between Harper and the various peace and justice groups that held their day of action on October 28. I am firmly committed to nonviolence and think that war and violence should be the ultimate last resort. I also don't like to see Canadian soldiers killing Afghanis in their own country. Yet, as an alternative, I'm concerned that leaving Afghanistan immediately will have no positive effect on the lives of the people there. Ultimately my first concern is for their wellbeing.

The problem is that if we leave this will be another example of the West abandoning Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, amongst others, defeated the Soviet Union for Ronald Regan. What did they get for their troubles? Abandonment and isolation. If we do so again then we are only perpetuating the cycle of hatred and resentment that Afghanis and Muslims rightly feel toward the hypocritical West.

This is not an easy subject. I don't have any answers to offer. I just know that we can't leave Afghanistan at the roadside again like an unwanted candy wrapper.

If you want a reason to keep Canada working for a new Afghanistan (hopefully without the use of force) watch a movie called Osama. It will break your heart. We cannot allow that nightmare to happen again.

Tend to Disagree

It's no secret that the stated division between church and state barely functions in the United States of America. Pastor Russell Johnson knows that he has an important job in the next election: to maintain Republican control over the House of Representatives and the Senate. No he's not a campaign strategist with the Republican Party, just a preacher doing his job. He's go two more sermons to convince his congregation to give the Republicans another chance. His latest communique declared: "If there are al-Qaida sleeper cells here in Ohio I can tell you they are not voting for Mike DeWine (the Republican Senate candidate)".

I tend to disagree with your analysis Pastor Johnson. An al-Qaida member would clearly vote for the Republican party; hell, they probably will come November. For one thing, despite what you might think, you share the same values. These being, increasing the presence of religion in public life; the strict interpretation of scripture; the destruction of dangerous minority groups including heretics and the LGBTQ community; and promoting your chosen religion as the exclusive word of God.

And most of all you are both wholly committed to violence, against the core precepts of your chosen religions. You support wars in far away lands Pastor Johnson. Al-Qaida fights their own wars where they choose. You both target civilians, despite your best intentions. You both have recognized that violence is the best way to influence the world and get people's attention. By accepting an eye for an eye you reinforce each other at every turn.

Al-Qaida knows what to expect from the Republicans. They know that you'll feed their movement by invading Muslim lands and persecuting Muslims at home and abroad. This will swell their ranks and allow them to continue the fight for generations. One day, the US and al-Qaida won't even know what they're fighting for anymore. Fighting will be all you have.

Too bad people don't like to think for themselves. It's so much easier when someone tells you what to do, who to vote for, who to marry or what to wear. Keep up the good work Pastor Johnson.

Rat Lessons

Today a study was published into the effectiveness of stem cells to essentially cure Parkinson's disease in humans. The report stated that the experiments on rats were looking promising with many rats recovering from Parkinson-like symptoms after receiving stem cell treatment. However after the rats were euthanized and dissected, it was discovered that an unwelcome guest had entered the equation, cancer cells. In all the rats, cells had begun to divide at a regular, steady pace which the researchers recognized as the beginnings of a tumour.

This report is symbolic of our continual faith in technology to save us from ourselves, warts and all. We always think we've found a cure, a miracle product or a miraculous source of energy only to discover that it comes with an unintended side effect. We then set about dealing with the side effect, putting our faith in technology to get us out of the next jam. All the while we continue to dig ourselves deeper into our hole.

One example from my work is compact fluorescent light bulbs. We peddle these bulbs as the solution to our energy problems. And they surely are that offering major energy and cost savings. But wait, we forgot to mention that you have to dispose of them properly as they contain deadly mercury gas. They are toxic once they've spent their fuel. Another ill which started out as a good.

Maybe technology won't save us after all. It'll just present us with a new set of problems. And at this point can we afford another chemical released into our ecosystems or another environmentally-based disease to afflict us? When do we decide that enough is enough? Can we collectively make that decision?

Maybe it's time to recognize that when you're old your body is going to start breaking down. And if you lead a reckless life you'll probably also end up creaking, no matter your age. And if you are exposed, as we all are, to many toxins and harsh chemicals, don't expect a long productive life. These are harsh comments, especially if you have a relative that is suffering through a wasting disease, but don't they have an element of truth to them? Maybe this is natural; deteriorating is natural.

If I was an early human walking around in the grasslands of east Africa, I wouldn't live to see 40 unless I was a magnificent specimen of humanity. Whereas those younger, stronger and faster members of my community could outclimb a leopard, I would be caught so they could live; similarly if I had a genetic disorder like Parkinson's I wouldn't last long. I sometimes wonder if we should look to the past like this to put ourselves in perspective. When I get cancer or Parkinson's, I'll hopefully have the same perspective I have today. Hopefully.

Shutout

The Liberal leadership campaign has raised the dreaded spectre of Quebec's status within Canada yet again and may reopen constitutional debates and the possibility of another referendum. While most leadership candidates are cool to the idea of changing Quebec's relationship with Canada, Michael Ignatieff has championed the idea of calling Quebec a nation within a state; he is now backed up by the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party. This builds on Stephen Harper's recent moves to give Quebec a bigger role on the world stage. Both the Liberals and Conservatives are vying for precious Quebec votes in the next federal election.

Is Quebec just another province or does its particular history and different language make Quebec something different. Quebec is something of an anomaly in North America. No other state has a numerically significant, geographically centralized, linguistic and cultural sub-group like the Quebeckers. Other such groups have melted away in the face of nationalism or in the case of most First Nations, genocide. Quebec has hung on and few can doubt that having Quebec as part of Canada is certainly a great benefit to our country.

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with recognizing that Quebec is a nation within a larger, predominantly English speaking Canada. In the United Kingdom, there are four nations that make up the country, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. This system can work. Of course if it was that easy it would have happened years ago. I wish all the parties luck in enshrining this relationship in law and making Quebeckers feel a respected part of Canada.

Why has this not happened if it is really so straightforward? Is this really about keeping Quebec in Canada or is this really about keeping all those incredible Quebec goalies strapping on the pads for Canada? In the United Kingdom, each separate nation mentioned above competes in international sporting events like the World Cup. But Canadians react strongly to any suggestion that Quebec compete separately. I think that ultimately this is what it comes down to. We wouldn't stand a chance without Martin Brodeur and Roberto Luongo in net. For that reason don't expect a serious effort to readjust Canada's relationship with Quebec.

Mirror, mirror

Do you have a book that you read over and over again and can't put down as much as you try? Dune by Frank Herbert fills that role for me. I'm not sure if you've ever read it but it's one of the greatest novels I've ever had the pleasure to read. Having said that, I've never met a woman that told me she loved Dune; it's perhaps very much a male tale. Why is sci-fi that way? I don't think anyone of any gender can deny that it is a brilliantly conceived universe with complex characters and a subtle, nuanced plot.

I've been thinking lately just how much the themes of Dune mirror those our current world. I'll pick a few of the larger themes to expand upon slightly:

1) Oil

Dune's universe revolves, much like our own, around a single substance. This substance known as the spice allows almost instantaneous travel over long, interplanetary distances. Without it there could be no trade or contact between human beings on distant planets. Empires and great houses could not be maintained, nor could power be projected across vast distances. Things would fall apart.

The spice is also totally addictive much like oil. I often wonder if Herbert was taking a shot at the post-war suburban American dream. There's little use denying that our society is addicted to oil. Are you ready to give up your car? Are you ready to live in a world without plastic? Do you look forward to the idea of a cold house all winter; how about losing your entitlement to wear a t-shirt all winter? Better enter rehab now because we're all in for a major shock.

Arguably humans are headed for a point when we will slowly but surely lose access to our most precious of resources. This is phenomenon known as peak oil. How will we react? What withdrawal symptoms will we undergo? Can we get off the sauce before it's too late?

2) Climate change

Dune is also a novel about climate change. More precisely about dream of changing a planet from a barren, desert world into a green paradise. While the protagonists in Dune are slowly improving their planet, here on earth we are setting about ruining the paradise we had the good fortune to be blessed with. Whereas they are mindfully, slowly improving their planet (though I doubt human induced climate change on Dune would be as benign as Herbert suggests), we are blindly racing toward a point that we might not be able to return from. All because we are addicted to oil and other fossil fuels.

Perhaps we will be forced to learn to live the harsh life of the Fremen, the people of Dune, on our precious earth if we don't take climate change seriously. This would be a great tragedy. Unlike the Fremen we won't be able to build our paradise. The universe already gave us that, we just didn't recognize it.

3) Politicized religion

Dune is also deeply about the manipulation of religion to serve political ends. Characters, especially the protagonists, find their justification in holy books and link their destinies to legends to win popular support. Most, if not all, of our leaders today appeal to higher powers and wrap themselves in the cloak of faith or legend to distort and enhance their prestige with the people. Ultimately the Islamists and evangelicals, fundamentalists and settlers, that face off against one another in this world are doing so for political and economic reasons. Religion is but a tool which we should never forget can be used for good just as much as it can be used for evil.

I could have chosen a dozen other topics to expand on including atomic weapons, genetic selection, artificial intelligence, genocide and many more. This fact demonstrates the wonderful complexity of the novel and the sharp mind of its author. I wonder sometimes if Herbert had a vision of the future that inspired him to write Dune in the 1960s. Surely he could not have realized his book would have resonated so well with events and trends at the start of the 21st century.

If you want a thoughtful window into our world, you should take a copy of Dune out of your local library.

Find Your Soulmate . . . on the Bus

Have you noticed the latest advertising push by companies such as Auto Trader? There are new television, radio and billboard advertisements springing up everywhere. In Hamilton, I've also noticed billboard ads that offer to help people with bad credit own a vehicle. I'm going to offer some thoughts as to why this might be happening now.

Perhaps buyers and sellers are finding new, cost effective ways of getting in touch with one another that don't require taking out an ad in the Auto Trader; this could be a product of the growth in popularity of online, largely free auto sales. So the Auto Trader and others are fighting back to hold onto that lucrative business. This would be the initial, cursory view of the situation.

However I think this advertising blitz is revealing in another way. I want to argue that less and less Canadians have the means to purchase motor vehicles; this is in line with the dismal global trend of certain people's wealth increasing while another much larger group's incomes are dropping. The latter group is composed of consumers who would be inclined to purchase a used car through Auto Trader.

We always hear that Canada's economy is producing thousands of new jobs every month. While the cheer goes up from the masses and economists, reality sets in that these are predominantly low paying, part-time positions, the kinds of jobs that mean you and your family barely have enough to get by, let alone own a motor vehicle.

At the same time there are also more and more Canadians boarding buses and trains to get around. One of Statistics Canada's recent bulletins says transit passenger volume increased by 2.7% in July over the levels in the previous July. These are substantial increases and demonstrate that more and more people are leaving the car at home. But an unanswered question is: do these people even have the income and security to own a car?

Ultimately we should all be happy that fewer people are purchasing cars and are taking transit instead. This is a great contribution to sustainability and the survival of our planet. But these people are not actively choosing to do so and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth; how many current transit users would, in an instant, trade in their bus pass for a car? And the elites, whose incomes never cease to grow, still purchase Hummers and other gas guzzlers to make up for the loss of a few fuel efficient Honda Civics sold on Auto Trader.

Isn't it hideous that while more and more people struggle to get by elites choose to be wasteful and get away with it? Anyone for a revolution?

Iggy Pops

Michael Ignatieff has spent the last few days defending comments he made not long ago asserting that Israel had committed war crimes during their summer invasion of Lebanon. Apparently Ignatieff doesn't realize that any criticism of Israel is off-limits for the two major Canadian political parties. If he actually hopes to lead the Liberals in the next election he'd better figure this lesson out quickly or he'll be washed out at the leadership convention.

Michael, there's the truth and then there's the truth.

The truth is that Israel committed war crimes against Lebanese civilians (as did Hizbullah against Israeli civilians). You know it and I know it and, hell, Israel and Jewish communities around the world know it. You can't destroy occupied villages and target businesses and infrastructure needlessly without knowing it's a war crime. And then there are all the unexploded cluster bombs, most of them launched in the dying days of the fighting, waiting for Lebanese civilians to stumble across them just in time to blow off a leg. These are crimes that should be condemned loudly.

But you can't be the one to do it Michael. You see the other truth is politics. Israel, despite its small population and land area, is a powerful place. Israel has many allies in Canada that don't really care at all about the truth. They'll make your life hell if you don't do as Stephen Harper has done and call Israeli war crimes measured or at the very least foolishly occupy the middle ground in a deeply asymmetrical conflict.

Why is Ignatieff's comment even an issue? He's not being racist or anti-Semitic, is he? That's another truth he should learn quickly; for better or worse, anti-Israel equals anti-Semitic.

(If you want to learn more about Mr, I mean Dr, Ignatieff, you should read this interesting account. Did you know that his grandfather, Count Ignatieff, was the Minister of Education under the last czar in Russia? Royalty no less.)

Welcome To The Club

So another country has tested a nuclear weapon and joined the big club. How many more newcomers will join in the next decade? I expect quite a number given the inevitable switch from oil to nuclear power.

As North Korea has demonstrated, having nuclear weapons gets you noticed and keeps you safe. Obviously North Korea cannot level American cities but now they have the ability to detonate a warhead over US troops stationed in Japan or South Korea. That by itself will stay the Bush administrations hand (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan). Bush will push for sanctions today but what use are sanctions against a country that imposes them on their own population?

Last night, just after the announcement of the test, I foolishly tuned into CNN. Kim Jong-il's evil credentials were on fine display including his bad haircut, his platform shoes and his high school harem. Imagine if I'd watched Fox News.

Yet again, what was not on display was any sort of analysis of the background to the current test. Who are these journalists? The truth is that the US has made this test inevitable by cutting off all aid to the north and stalling the six nations' talks and, worst of all, refusing to speak directly with North Korea; the latter being the most condemnable. Inevitably North Korea would do something to get the Americans' attention, unfortunately it was detonating a nuclear device in an abandoned mine.

Will the Americans change their approach now and talk to North Korea? Doubtful--that would mean Kim Jong-il had won. What effect will this test have on the mid-term elections this November? I expect the Republicans will act tough and win re-election comfortably; how easy is it to demonize the freaky Kim Jong-il? Will the US and other nuclear weapons' states abandon their own nuclear programs, the huge elephant in the room? Never--how could they protect American lives without 100 billion megatons of explosive power? Nice paradox.

Who's Pushing it?

For a long time I've wondered where all the people are coming from who are eating up our greenbelt around Hamilton with new subdivisions. Where is the demand for new housing coming from? Our city's, let alone our country's, population isn't growing rapidly enough to justify 4,000 acres of new housing here and 3,000 acres there.

Granted this is partly caused by developers and their connections in city hall. To put it bluntly, if you pay you get your way. Why else won't our municipal candidates admit where their campaign money is coming from?

The urban boundary expansion is also a product of the dream of owning an untouched new home. The developers have done a great job convincing people that new houses with their cheap construction materials are the way to go. Personally I'd take a solid 100 year old home in downtown Hamilton over a 2006 vintage any day.

And that's the problem. I shouldn't own a home if I'm the only person that's going to live in it. Homes were designed for families or at least more than one person. How much square feet do you occupy? I have a few friends that personally own a home in Hamilton just for themselves. These people have three bedrooms and three floors just for themselves.

Therefore I think that we're all implicated in expanding the urban boundary, even those of us that actively decry its expansion and call for intensification. If we have the right to live in a house by ourselves so do others and they have to live somewhere, even on top of precious farmland.

We speak out against single occupancy vehicle trips but aren't at the stage when we'll speak out against what could be called excessive single occupancy living. Like single occupancy vehicle trips this is the least efficient form of living.

If we don't practice intensification ourselves how can we expect others to do so. As Gandhi said, "We must be the change we wish to see in the world". In the absence of this philosophy the urban boundary grows every year. I don't know what the solution to this problem is but perhaps living in a small community isn't as bad as it seems. Share your house. You'll be doing the world, the greenbelt and Hamilton a great favour.

Happy Birthday

Today is Gandhi's birthday. I wish that we could honour his birthday as much as we honour other prophets' days. I know that Islam says that Mohammed was the seal of the prophets but surely Mahatma Gandhi was another prophet. Couldn't God change his/her mind? Where would humanity and our beloved planet be had we followed this humble man's example?

Here are some wonderful quotes I found in All Men Are Brothers:

"It is better to allow our lives to speak for us than our words. God did not bear the Cross only 1,900 years ago, but He bears it today, and He dies and is resurrected from day to day. It would be poor comfort to the world if it had to depend upon a historical God who died 2,000 years ago. Do not then preach the God of history, but show him as He lives today through you."

"It is a bad habit to day that another man's thoughts are bad and ours only are good and that those holding different views from ours are the enemies of the country."

"Let us honour our opponents for the same honesty and purpose and patriotic motives that we claim for ourselves."

"What is true of individuals is true of nations. One cannot forgive too much. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."

"It is open to the world . . . to laugh at my dispossessing myself of all property. For me the dispossession has been a positive gain. I would like people to compete with me in my contentment. It is the richest treasure I own. Hence it is perhaps right to say that though I preach poverty, I am a rich man!"

A Word from Our Sponsors

On the weekend, I had the good/ill fortune to find myself in front of a television on Sunday morning. As a boy, I can still remember my father watching This Week with David Brinkley religiously every Sunday. I would on occasion watch with him, barely understanding the American politics under discussion. So I gladly sat down again to watch these discussions as an adult; they don't seem as complex any more. But it sure beats the brief and pathetic analysis without criticism on Wolf Blitzer Reports on CNN or Fox News.

Sunday morning, while the majority of Americans are sitting in pews hearing about armageddon and the sins of modernity, some gather in front of their televisions to hear from pundits and journalists on the hot political topics of the day. I'm tempted to call them the educated class or the political class but just because you go to church and miss this Sunday morning political discussion, doesn't mean you're not thoughtful. And just because you engage in political discussion, doesn't mean you're a moral, ethical person. Still those Americans that tune in on Sunday mornings hunger for something resembling the truth.

Yet the discussion Sunday mornings rarely pushes the envelop. When I was in Britain, politicians shit their pants facing off against Jeremy Paxman. In America you get politeness and mild criticism at best. What's going on here? Aren't Americans tough? Not on their politicians it seems.

Even this limited muckraking only goes so far. Like all television, Sunday morning is subject to commercial breaks and words from our sponsors. And what sponsors would you expect to hear from every 12 minutes between Iraq and the November elections? Here's what I saw and I encourage you to see for yourself:

1) Oil companies (Esso)
2) Pharmaceutical companies (Merck)
3) Coal producer associations
4) Aerospace and defense contractors (Boeing)

So the real news comes in the sleepy times between the punditry. All these companies advertise to confuse and mystify this hungry political class who might turn against them. They aren't selling anything but their (dubious) innocence. What climate change? What war? What rushed drug trials? They have no need to advertise in prime time because no one who views Everybody Loves Raymond or Friends during prime time is any threat to them. But Sunday morning, that could be revolutionary.