As the recent Obama-targeted Greenpeace campaign points out, America (and not so lightly inferred, the world) honours not politicians, but social leaders. Who qualifies as a ‘social leader’? There have been many Presidents of India, but it is Ghandi who is renowned the world over as a hero of peaceful revolution. Of the many people to hold the post of Prime Minister in our country, only a select few are remembered at all, and even fewer of them are remembered fondly. Many people aspire to be remembered as social leaders, to have a place along side the likes of Abbie Hoffman, John Lennon or Bob Marley, who survived an assassination attempt and, despite his bullet wounds, played to a massive 80,000-member audience two days later. When asked about the incident he said only “the people who are trying to make this world worse aren’t taking a day off…how can I?” In our western culture, it is quite often musicians who garner the most acclaim, but what is it about music that so moves people? Who deserves the recognition for being a particularly outspoken artist, if anyone? Is music simple entertainment or a vehicle for social change?
Bono, ironically, would have you believe the latter. I say ironically because Bono is a perfect example of what music should not be…simple entertainment at the cost of all else. Surprised? Don’t be. Bono may talk the talk, and prostrate himself before the altar of public opinion as a would-be saviour of Africa/ The World, but look closer. Look, for starters, at U2’s latest tour. Carbonfootprint.com has estimated that the total CO2 emissions from U2’s upcoming 360* tour is roughly equal to the amount that would be produced should the four piece band travel the 34.125 million miles from Earth to Mars in a passenger plane. 34.123 Million. That’s a lot of miles, and that’s if they deigned to all take the same plane. They usually don’t do that. The four members of U2 generally travel in separate business jets, each with it’s own private bar and theatre. I mean, after all, why would you want to spend time with your fellow artists and (one would assume) friends when you can fly separately, and chat via video-conference whilst crossing the Atlantic for a lunch date in Paris. Madonna, an artist renowned for her over-the-top shows, pales in comparison to the grandeur of U2’s latest offering. And all of this from the guy who would have us believe that buying a red coffee mug from Starbucks is going to change the world, all thanks (and royalties) to him. Not very Catholic of you, boys.
But really, should we hold him and his ilk to such high standards? Should we really expect musicians to be morally infallible? After all, the 30 tractor-trailers required to transport U2’s massive 360* rotating stage from stadium to stadium is just the latest example of massive rock bands living up to massive rock band hype. Should we fault them for giving the people what we want? Well, considering that popular culture gave us the likes of Miley Cirus, Harry Potter and The Hills, the answer is yes, always, and especially when they stand on such ceremony and proclaim their holiness to all who’ll listen.
Bono’s message has always been that change must start with the individual…indeed, it says so five or six times on U2’s website. Obviously then, this concert tour is hypocritical in the extreme. Their website also includes (only) one page of links to the various charities and not-for-profits that the band supports…without a single reference to how they go about providing that support. Bono’s full of shit and he knows it. He’s a businessman, and his product is that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you do something good. Only the feeling he’s selling, just like his Product (Red) coffee cups and atrocious sunglasses, is mass-produced in a foreign, probably Asian, country for pennies a day.
Music is sacred; it’s power overwhelming. I wonder if Kurt Cobain would have pulled the trigger had he known the impact on thousands of young lives his death was to have. As I mentioned earlier, the Beatles influenced an entire generation and Bob Marley is to this day a hero to many more. Music has stirred people to action to protest war, it has spread the news about the dangers corporatism, and pushed the limits of acceptable discourse and dialogue since it’s beginning. Music is what pushed me, and thousands like me, to become a writer. Beethoven was a rogue, Joe Strummer was a punk and Neil Young is the epitome of a patriot. What they all have in common is that their love of music and penchant for controversy has lead to a great many things; although perhaps most notably the musical shift to romanticism, purple hair and the ability to make Canadians cry. Even so, the sums of their efforts have contributed more to society than anything U2 has produced recently. Bono on the other hand, is nothing but a charlatan street vendor, all glamour and panache, hawking his false promises while he robs us blind at the ticket booth. Change must start with you? How about you put your billions of dollars where you billions of words are and lead by example.
Until then, fuck stadium spectacle shows, fuck corporate rock and Fuck You Too, Bono.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Less Pop, More Punk...And I Don't Mean Music
I was sitting in my room this afternoon, having just arrived home from our latest ski trip (this time to Eastern Canadian Championships, in Ottawa) when one of my best friends signed in on msn. After the usual:
“hey”
“hey…whats up”
“oh, not too much…just got back from Ottawa”…..
she starts telling me about a facebook group one of the kids in her rez started a little while back. It’s called “I Hate Canada”. Apparently this guy, who is from a small rural community in Lebanon, decided to start a group about ‘how much Canada blows’.
Aside from the obvious questions about what he has against us Canuks, or why someone feels the need to vent his whiny, pre-teen worthy views on cold weather in such an offensive and very un-comical way, this really got me thinking. How is it possible for someone from such a war-torn and impoverished area of the world to suddenly be totally concerned with the mud that splatters on his newly purchased American Eagle pants? Doesn’t it seem a little odd that, coming directly from a situation that us lowly Canadians only hear about through that mouthpiece of Whitehouse spin-doctors, the corporate media, this guy’s primary concern is that he “always has to go outside in the cold for a smoke”? In a country where (presumably) his relatives still live, where suicide bombings and U.S. backed Israeli air strikes kill innocent people on a monthly if not weekly basis, there are uncountable real problems that go totally unnoticed by almost the entire western world. This one guy decides that instead of trying to raise awareness of the plight of his fellow countrymen and women, he is going to put time and energy into creating a web page for people to fume uselessly about the Canadian climate, our drinking laws, other people’s privacy and its inconveniences and his now ruined khakis.
Why?
Clearly I don’t know. I also can’t phone this guy and ask him, because my friend would not give me the link to his website. This was actually a very wise move on her part. Instead of risking an escalation which would probably have no effect anyway, she has devised a much more creative solution which I am not at liberty to discuss. The point is, I can’t contact this guy to ask what’s on his mind. What I can do is (after much pondering) try to draw my own conclusions. This is what I’ve come up with. Life is cushy here in Canada. Actually, that’s an understatement. Life is cushy in almost all of the G8 nations. This cushy life that our country affords us gives us a certain perspective, a certain view of the world. What’s the one thing that you dread most about tomorrow? Name one thing you will go to bed tonight hoping doesn’t happen to you tomorrow. What is it? You hope it won’t be cold any more? You hope you car won’t fail to start? Oh, I know! You hope you won’t be late for work/ school tomorrow. That one’s pretty common. Ok, now stop and think for a minute. Did you, even for one second, stop to pray that tomorrow you wouldn’t be killed? Maybe. But, was it a prayer that the lord above won’t send a cruise missile after you? ‘Cause one of those can ruin your whole day. Or that some poor misguided suicide bomber/ freedom fighter won’t send himself to heaven in a cloud of fire, smoke and TNT, and take you along for the ride? No, you didn’t think that. You worried about what are normal, every day things, things like your car starting or being late for work. Thanks to our soft cushy lives, the volume on everything else in the world gets turned down. We don’t worry about bombings, or cruise missiles, or rogue states and war, because we don’t think we need to. I can fully understand where this young Lebanese person is coming from, why he feels like making this website and cranking the volume for people who don’t like the cold. I know its cold. Right now its –32 outside my room. And I love a solid base line, or a face melting guitar riff as much as the next person. In our soft, cushy lives we need the volume cranked every once in a while to wake us up to what’s going on around us.
To use one last cliché, as an illustration for our young, anti- Canadian Climate man: Your being very much like the Nickleback. Your loud, boisterous and some people will listen to you; it may even make you popular. But it’s also just as useless. They write songs about things that don’t matter; you write blogs about things that don’t matter. If you have to rant, at least rant about issues that are important. Think less mass-produced, souless pop band, more politically relevant punk. And please, stop bitching about the cold already!
“hey”
“hey…whats up”
“oh, not too much…just got back from Ottawa”…..
she starts telling me about a facebook group one of the kids in her rez started a little while back. It’s called “I Hate Canada”. Apparently this guy, who is from a small rural community in Lebanon, decided to start a group about ‘how much Canada blows’.
Aside from the obvious questions about what he has against us Canuks, or why someone feels the need to vent his whiny, pre-teen worthy views on cold weather in such an offensive and very un-comical way, this really got me thinking. How is it possible for someone from such a war-torn and impoverished area of the world to suddenly be totally concerned with the mud that splatters on his newly purchased American Eagle pants? Doesn’t it seem a little odd that, coming directly from a situation that us lowly Canadians only hear about through that mouthpiece of Whitehouse spin-doctors, the corporate media, this guy’s primary concern is that he “always has to go outside in the cold for a smoke”? In a country where (presumably) his relatives still live, where suicide bombings and U.S. backed Israeli air strikes kill innocent people on a monthly if not weekly basis, there are uncountable real problems that go totally unnoticed by almost the entire western world. This one guy decides that instead of trying to raise awareness of the plight of his fellow countrymen and women, he is going to put time and energy into creating a web page for people to fume uselessly about the Canadian climate, our drinking laws, other people’s privacy and its inconveniences and his now ruined khakis.
Why?
Clearly I don’t know. I also can’t phone this guy and ask him, because my friend would not give me the link to his website. This was actually a very wise move on her part. Instead of risking an escalation which would probably have no effect anyway, she has devised a much more creative solution which I am not at liberty to discuss. The point is, I can’t contact this guy to ask what’s on his mind. What I can do is (after much pondering) try to draw my own conclusions. This is what I’ve come up with. Life is cushy here in Canada. Actually, that’s an understatement. Life is cushy in almost all of the G8 nations. This cushy life that our country affords us gives us a certain perspective, a certain view of the world. What’s the one thing that you dread most about tomorrow? Name one thing you will go to bed tonight hoping doesn’t happen to you tomorrow. What is it? You hope it won’t be cold any more? You hope you car won’t fail to start? Oh, I know! You hope you won’t be late for work/ school tomorrow. That one’s pretty common. Ok, now stop and think for a minute. Did you, even for one second, stop to pray that tomorrow you wouldn’t be killed? Maybe. But, was it a prayer that the lord above won’t send a cruise missile after you? ‘Cause one of those can ruin your whole day. Or that some poor misguided suicide bomber/ freedom fighter won’t send himself to heaven in a cloud of fire, smoke and TNT, and take you along for the ride? No, you didn’t think that. You worried about what are normal, every day things, things like your car starting or being late for work. Thanks to our soft cushy lives, the volume on everything else in the world gets turned down. We don’t worry about bombings, or cruise missiles, or rogue states and war, because we don’t think we need to. I can fully understand where this young Lebanese person is coming from, why he feels like making this website and cranking the volume for people who don’t like the cold. I know its cold. Right now its –32 outside my room. And I love a solid base line, or a face melting guitar riff as much as the next person. In our soft, cushy lives we need the volume cranked every once in a while to wake us up to what’s going on around us.
To use one last cliché, as an illustration for our young, anti- Canadian Climate man: Your being very much like the Nickleback. Your loud, boisterous and some people will listen to you; it may even make you popular. But it’s also just as useless. They write songs about things that don’t matter; you write blogs about things that don’t matter. If you have to rant, at least rant about issues that are important. Think less mass-produced, souless pop band, more politically relevant punk. And please, stop bitching about the cold already!
Diversion Tactics
Everyone loves an action flick. You know, the ones where the good guy (typically a fairly well off, good looking, charming white guy) is faced with terrible, evil bad guys (typically of differing ethnic or cultural background). There are lots of explosions, gunfights and impressive stunts. Stunning special effects. In the end, “truth, honesty and honour will win the day”, and the hot, white, gunslinger gets the girl. The End.
These movies are a great distraction from the stress and bothers of real day life. It’s a lot of fun, going to see the latest Bond movie. Americans love these movies so much they elected the king of them, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a state governor.
Here’s the problem: that’s exactly what the Iraq war is; a distraction from the real problems of our world. And a fun one at that. Certainly George Dubbya is loving it. It got him elected again after all. But seriously, the threat of terrorism is not a big problem. The administration couldn’t even come up with a creative name for this threat, so they stole Hitler’s. “The Axis of Evil”? Come on…I’ve heard better in comic books. When you look at the numbers of people killed yearly, terrorism is hardly a drop in the bucket. McDonalds is killing more people world wide than Osama Bin Laden’s organization. North Korea has claimed less lives than motorcycles. More people are killed each year by falling off of ladders than by all the terrorist attacks combined. To quote Canadian columnist Gwinn Dyre: “So where are the air strikes on the Harley Davidson plants? Why hasn’t Ronald been blown to bits by a cruise missile? Where is our War On Falling-Off-Ladderism?” What are we being distracted from?
We’re being distracted from that one degree warmer, on average, it is now than it was in the 90’s. We’re being distracted from the crazy weather in Europe, which forced the Canadian Junior ski team to come home early. We’re being distracted from the 3 metres of snow in upstate New York. The people at the top, those controlling the war and “leading the free world” do not want us to fully understand the gravity of our situation. If you were Dick Chaney, would you want the demand for oil to suddenly start to drop? Does it seem like smart business practice to show people that all your talk about “intensity targets” is really just a smoke screen to keep the green peace activists at bay? Of course not. Dick can’t afford his new bullet proof Escalade if Halliburton’s stock shares drop. Neither Bush nor Harper have the stones or the will to deal with the upset corporate campaign donators who would come knocking if real goals for lowering carbon emissions were put in place. So instead, we are given this grand spectacle to occupy us. “Sorry, this terrorist business is far to pressing for us to deal with the state of our planet right now.” When it’s all over, when the good guys have won, and the hero has the girl, then they’ll look at the environment thing. The catch is, if current policies are allowed to stand, it’s never going to be over. The "good guys" can’t win a war against an idea, and most of us can’t seem to get the girl anyway, even with out all the guns and hero bullshit. Every time the evening news chooses to show us death, bombs and killing in a tiny part of the world, we lose one more chance to start to fix the real problems on our planet.
The next time you hear someone arguing about the war, stop and ask them why they aren’t debating global warming. Drag them out of the theatre and back to the real world.
These movies are a great distraction from the stress and bothers of real day life. It’s a lot of fun, going to see the latest Bond movie. Americans love these movies so much they elected the king of them, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a state governor.
Here’s the problem: that’s exactly what the Iraq war is; a distraction from the real problems of our world. And a fun one at that. Certainly George Dubbya is loving it. It got him elected again after all. But seriously, the threat of terrorism is not a big problem. The administration couldn’t even come up with a creative name for this threat, so they stole Hitler’s. “The Axis of Evil”? Come on…I’ve heard better in comic books. When you look at the numbers of people killed yearly, terrorism is hardly a drop in the bucket. McDonalds is killing more people world wide than Osama Bin Laden’s organization. North Korea has claimed less lives than motorcycles. More people are killed each year by falling off of ladders than by all the terrorist attacks combined. To quote Canadian columnist Gwinn Dyre: “So where are the air strikes on the Harley Davidson plants? Why hasn’t Ronald been blown to bits by a cruise missile? Where is our War On Falling-Off-Ladderism?” What are we being distracted from?
We’re being distracted from that one degree warmer, on average, it is now than it was in the 90’s. We’re being distracted from the crazy weather in Europe, which forced the Canadian Junior ski team to come home early. We’re being distracted from the 3 metres of snow in upstate New York. The people at the top, those controlling the war and “leading the free world” do not want us to fully understand the gravity of our situation. If you were Dick Chaney, would you want the demand for oil to suddenly start to drop? Does it seem like smart business practice to show people that all your talk about “intensity targets” is really just a smoke screen to keep the green peace activists at bay? Of course not. Dick can’t afford his new bullet proof Escalade if Halliburton’s stock shares drop. Neither Bush nor Harper have the stones or the will to deal with the upset corporate campaign donators who would come knocking if real goals for lowering carbon emissions were put in place. So instead, we are given this grand spectacle to occupy us. “Sorry, this terrorist business is far to pressing for us to deal with the state of our planet right now.” When it’s all over, when the good guys have won, and the hero has the girl, then they’ll look at the environment thing. The catch is, if current policies are allowed to stand, it’s never going to be over. The "good guys" can’t win a war against an idea, and most of us can’t seem to get the girl anyway, even with out all the guns and hero bullshit. Every time the evening news chooses to show us death, bombs and killing in a tiny part of the world, we lose one more chance to start to fix the real problems on our planet.
The next time you hear someone arguing about the war, stop and ask them why they aren’t debating global warming. Drag them out of the theatre and back to the real world.
The Question of His Question
The [neo]Conservative Party is at it again. Many people have seen the recent TV adds directly attacking the Liberal Party on questionable grounds. They are disturbingly familiar to the current plethora of American political smear and propaganda campaigns, complete with spinning cut-out heads of Liberal Party leader Stephan Dion. This time however, the Tory’s have changed their approach slightly. Instead of blatantly attacking other political parties as a hole, Harper has singled out one member of the Liberal Party, and it isn’t a co-incidence that he happens to wear a turban.
In a story carried by the Vancouver Sun, Harper’s government attempted to link the Liberal Party’s stance on the extension of the current anti-terrorism laws with that party’s apparent objective of protecting the father in-law of Ontario MP Navdeep Singh Bains from questioning related to the Air India bombing. If the anti-terrorism laws [which are about to expire next week] were extended, the RCMP would have the authority to force Bains’ father in-law to testify against his will. By making it seem like the Liberals are protecting a possible terrorist, Harper’s government is attempting to brand the Liberals as ‘soft on terrorism’. The fact that MP Bains happens to look like what the media have labelled as a ‘typical terrorist’ makes it a whole lot easier.
In question period today, MP Navdeep Singh Bains stood up and politely asked Prime Minister Harper to at least justify the slandering remarks he made in the Sun article, and, should that not be possible [which it very clearly is not], would the Right Honourable Steven Harper please retract the offending comments. Harper dodged the question by simply replying "I'm not sure precisely what remarks he's referring to". MP Bains tried again, just as politely, amidst an uproar of anger from both sides of the floor. Again, Harper dodged the question. In the end, MP Bains was forced to resign himself to never hearing the apology he quite probably deserves, and Harper launched directly into his by now very rehearsed tirade about “protecting innocent Canadians” and “providing justice” for the 300+ Canadians who were killed in what was the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history. It was all very patriotic. I mean, its hard not to be moved to sympathize with the families of all those victims. But one point was quite obviously left out.
To date, these anti-terrorism laws have done nothing effective in preventing terrorism in our country. Oh, but you say there were all those terrorists arrested in Toronto in the summer? Not a single clause from the ant-terrorism amendments were used to make those arrests because they simply were not needed The only accomplishment that the Harper government can claim is that these laws were directly responsible for the deportation of numerous Canadian citizens, against their charter granted rights, with no trial, evidence or even charges for a crime. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total accomplishments of these laws. If [and can not emphasize the hypotheticalness of this next sentence] MP Navdeep Bains’ father in-law does know anything about the Air India bombing, and aside from the fact that as a rational, compassionate human being he would most likely come forward on his own, these laws are still not needed. There are entire law school courses dedicated to teaching would-be lawyers how to get testimony from a witness through entirely constitutional means [which these laws are not]. Apart from the US and Canada, no other G8 country has enacted laws that are contrary to its charter of rights, constitution or whatever document it uses as its stamp of democracy. They are simply not needed. The only reason they were enacted in the first place was because the country, indeed the entire world, was in shock of the 9/11 attacks. It was a knee jerk reaction, just as the carpet-bombing of nearly an entire country by the US was a knee jerk reaction. It was also just as useless. The problem now is that the government and law enforcement agencies have grown to like these new laws because it makes their jobs easier…but at the expense of the Canadian citizens rights. The Liberals [who enacted the laws back in 2001] have realized their mistake and are trying to fix things. Its just a shame that that would upset the US government…and that’s the one thing Harper fears most of all.
As for Harper, his shameful smear-tactics, and his obvious plagiarizing of Bush’s re-election strategy of ‘scare them into submission’, I sincerely hope that the public is not as dim witted as this scheme requires.
In a story carried by the Vancouver Sun, Harper’s government attempted to link the Liberal Party’s stance on the extension of the current anti-terrorism laws with that party’s apparent objective of protecting the father in-law of Ontario MP Navdeep Singh Bains from questioning related to the Air India bombing. If the anti-terrorism laws [which are about to expire next week] were extended, the RCMP would have the authority to force Bains’ father in-law to testify against his will. By making it seem like the Liberals are protecting a possible terrorist, Harper’s government is attempting to brand the Liberals as ‘soft on terrorism’. The fact that MP Bains happens to look like what the media have labelled as a ‘typical terrorist’ makes it a whole lot easier.
In question period today, MP Navdeep Singh Bains stood up and politely asked Prime Minister Harper to at least justify the slandering remarks he made in the Sun article, and, should that not be possible [which it very clearly is not], would the Right Honourable Steven Harper please retract the offending comments. Harper dodged the question by simply replying "I'm not sure precisely what remarks he's referring to". MP Bains tried again, just as politely, amidst an uproar of anger from both sides of the floor. Again, Harper dodged the question. In the end, MP Bains was forced to resign himself to never hearing the apology he quite probably deserves, and Harper launched directly into his by now very rehearsed tirade about “protecting innocent Canadians” and “providing justice” for the 300+ Canadians who were killed in what was the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history. It was all very patriotic. I mean, its hard not to be moved to sympathize with the families of all those victims. But one point was quite obviously left out.
To date, these anti-terrorism laws have done nothing effective in preventing terrorism in our country. Oh, but you say there were all those terrorists arrested in Toronto in the summer? Not a single clause from the ant-terrorism amendments were used to make those arrests because they simply were not needed The only accomplishment that the Harper government can claim is that these laws were directly responsible for the deportation of numerous Canadian citizens, against their charter granted rights, with no trial, evidence or even charges for a crime. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total accomplishments of these laws. If [and can not emphasize the hypotheticalness of this next sentence] MP Navdeep Bains’ father in-law does know anything about the Air India bombing, and aside from the fact that as a rational, compassionate human being he would most likely come forward on his own, these laws are still not needed. There are entire law school courses dedicated to teaching would-be lawyers how to get testimony from a witness through entirely constitutional means [which these laws are not]. Apart from the US and Canada, no other G8 country has enacted laws that are contrary to its charter of rights, constitution or whatever document it uses as its stamp of democracy. They are simply not needed. The only reason they were enacted in the first place was because the country, indeed the entire world, was in shock of the 9/11 attacks. It was a knee jerk reaction, just as the carpet-bombing of nearly an entire country by the US was a knee jerk reaction. It was also just as useless. The problem now is that the government and law enforcement agencies have grown to like these new laws because it makes their jobs easier…but at the expense of the Canadian citizens rights. The Liberals [who enacted the laws back in 2001] have realized their mistake and are trying to fix things. Its just a shame that that would upset the US government…and that’s the one thing Harper fears most of all.
As for Harper, his shameful smear-tactics, and his obvious plagiarizing of Bush’s re-election strategy of ‘scare them into submission’, I sincerely hope that the public is not as dim witted as this scheme requires.
Opportunity Might Soon Stop Knocking
If there were a grand prize for glad-handing, Steven Harper would win it. With the culmination of this, the most recent G8 summit meetings, Harper has once again shown his true colours. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Green Street Hooligans. The tough, older football firm leader, Pete Dunnham, speaking to the nervous, in-over-his-head american Matt Buckner as they approach a local pub, Pete's firm's main hangout.
"Look, we're sorta goin' into my place of business....keep your head down, shut up 'till you're spoken to and you might have a better run of things"
That is exactly what Harper and many other world leaders did. With such a huge chance to affect real change in the way we are managing (or rather, mis-managing) the growing climate crisis on our planet, all anyone did was let themselves be pushed around by the big business representatives....namely George W. Bush and Hu Jintao. Backed (or held at gunpoint by) the world's biggest corporations and leading the world's two largest economies, these two men managed yet again to forstall any headway being made towards reducing carbon emmissions. What does this mean for the average Joe? For the most part?....nothing at all. Nothing is going to change any time soon. Just as with the "intensity targets" that Bush and Harper have been so proud of recently, this new plan to "seriously consider lowing emmissions by 2050" is nothing more than a whole lot of talk about nothing. Personally, i find this very troubling. There seems to be a theme developping in this relatively new century. Individuality is becoming a paramount priority for the citizens of the western world, and with that individuality comes an odd sence of everything being "someone else's problem". I've noticed this especially recently, as i have become more involved with an awareness campaign for the plethora of problems in africa. One of my friends even questioned my motives for the admittedly small amount of work i've done with a few groups. "are you doing this because its important to you? or are you doing it for attention, or to further your eventual journalistic career?" The question forced me to stop and think about what my motives really are, but it also foced me to think about why someone would ask such a question in the first place. I am not accusing my friend of thinking this way himself, but his comments along with some that i had recieved from a few other people puzzled me. First of all, does it really matter what someone's motives are if the final outcome is beneficial? Why does it seem that all too often someone takes flak from society for 'stealing so and so's cause'? If an anti-capitalism protester is only at the G8 summit because they enjoy the adrenaline rush of fighting against an enormously overbearing power, so what? At the end of the day, that person is still making a contribution to a cause. What is even more troubling is how along with this sence of 'i can't be a protester, thats not MY thing...its someone elses' comes a false sence that that someone else will take care of everything for you, since it is their job as a protester, or MP or garbadge man or whatever. It seems that this trend is not restricted to individual people either. It can be seen playing out on the world stage, with this summit as a prime example. If our leaders continue to display the same fear of hard decision making, the same procrastination and what essentially amounts to spinelessness that we ourselves are displaying, they will only accomplish one thing. The choice will no longer be theirs, or ours or anyone's. If you wait long enough on a decision, it gets made for you...usually to your detriment. If you let the phone ring long enough, the person on the other line will eventually just hang up. Opportunity will eventually get frustrated and quite knocking on our collective door, and when that happens....i dont want to think about that, its someone else's job after all, isn't it?
"Look, we're sorta goin' into my place of business....keep your head down, shut up 'till you're spoken to and you might have a better run of things"
That is exactly what Harper and many other world leaders did. With such a huge chance to affect real change in the way we are managing (or rather, mis-managing) the growing climate crisis on our planet, all anyone did was let themselves be pushed around by the big business representatives....namely George W. Bush and Hu Jintao. Backed (or held at gunpoint by) the world's biggest corporations and leading the world's two largest economies, these two men managed yet again to forstall any headway being made towards reducing carbon emmissions. What does this mean for the average Joe? For the most part?....nothing at all. Nothing is going to change any time soon. Just as with the "intensity targets" that Bush and Harper have been so proud of recently, this new plan to "seriously consider lowing emmissions by 2050" is nothing more than a whole lot of talk about nothing. Personally, i find this very troubling. There seems to be a theme developping in this relatively new century. Individuality is becoming a paramount priority for the citizens of the western world, and with that individuality comes an odd sence of everything being "someone else's problem". I've noticed this especially recently, as i have become more involved with an awareness campaign for the plethora of problems in africa. One of my friends even questioned my motives for the admittedly small amount of work i've done with a few groups. "are you doing this because its important to you? or are you doing it for attention, or to further your eventual journalistic career?" The question forced me to stop and think about what my motives really are, but it also foced me to think about why someone would ask such a question in the first place. I am not accusing my friend of thinking this way himself, but his comments along with some that i had recieved from a few other people puzzled me. First of all, does it really matter what someone's motives are if the final outcome is beneficial? Why does it seem that all too often someone takes flak from society for 'stealing so and so's cause'? If an anti-capitalism protester is only at the G8 summit because they enjoy the adrenaline rush of fighting against an enormously overbearing power, so what? At the end of the day, that person is still making a contribution to a cause. What is even more troubling is how along with this sence of 'i can't be a protester, thats not MY thing...its someone elses' comes a false sence that that someone else will take care of everything for you, since it is their job as a protester, or MP or garbadge man or whatever. It seems that this trend is not restricted to individual people either. It can be seen playing out on the world stage, with this summit as a prime example. If our leaders continue to display the same fear of hard decision making, the same procrastination and what essentially amounts to spinelessness that we ourselves are displaying, they will only accomplish one thing. The choice will no longer be theirs, or ours or anyone's. If you wait long enough on a decision, it gets made for you...usually to your detriment. If you let the phone ring long enough, the person on the other line will eventually just hang up. Opportunity will eventually get frustrated and quite knocking on our collective door, and when that happens....i dont want to think about that, its someone else's job after all, isn't it?
National Security or Another Soap Opera
Perhaps George Orwell was right. Perhaps the State does have business in some people’s bedrooms. Maybe we should just accept Big Brother for all of us. One thing is for sure, and that is that any of those outcomes would be infinitely better than the one we’re dealing with now. Prime Minister Harper and his team are showing, yet again, their concern not for the average Canadian, but for the continued paychecks they receive as members of our government.
Obviously Mr. Bernier’s actions that caused this scandal are totally unacceptable. He resigned. Good. I would go so far as to contemplate criminal charges against him personally, but that isn’t really the issue here. The issue, as I see it, is the way our government is dealing with the fallout from the scandal, and the unsettling trend that this behavior points to. So far, neither Harper nor any of his inner circle have done anything to assuage the fears of Canadians that this kind of security breach has never happened before, and will never happen again. To the contrary, Harper has simply adopted his modus operandi of treating Canadians like we are children. The manner in which he consistently blows of questions with that ‘how dare you question me’ smirk on his face disgusts me. This is not some liberal scheme to discredit the government. This is not some loony-left journalist-with-a-vendetta asking these questions. This is Canada, asking exactly the same kind of serious questions that became the twisted pretext for war, only this time we mean it. For once, it is actually possible to turn on the news and see scary stories about the now almost clichéd ‘national security threat’ and its TRUE! The really unsettling part is that, despite what most Caucasian, fifty-something man in fancy suits leading the country would have us believe, the threat is not hiding in some mosque or compound. It is not vaguely sinister bearded men driving taxicabs. We’re not talking about religious extremists, to be sure, but we are talking about extremists of a different nature. This threat has come to us via a very different sect, whose holy ground is located in Ottawa. One that believes, honestly if fool-heartedly, that they actually deserve to run the country above criticism from the average person, that they are somehow better than the rest of us. Here we have a legitimate threat to our security, and the government blows it off as a liberal busybody scandal. I call bullshit.
First of all, given that our being in Afghanistan was first justified as a matter of national security, you would think that any other matter of national security would be treated with the same kind of import and urgency…unless of course the concept was simply a pretext all along. How, Mr. Harper, do you justify the deaths of over 80 Canadian men and women, not to mention the countless aid workers, construction workers and untold thousands of Afghanis in the name of national security now? Would you care to explain to the family of, say, Anthony Boneca or the rest of the Thunder Bay community, why you allowed Mr. Boneca to be explosively dismembered beyond recognition? Surely it wasn’t for national security, since we now clearly see how seriously you treat that matter. 80+ Canadian soldiers dead, and yet your government allows sensitive documents to fall into the hands of a known organized crime sympathizer, with no investigation of how it happened or why? What this requires is a full public inquiry, not a smirk, a sly sidestep and a wink to your friends in the White House. We’re fighting a war for national security, and if you want us to believe that this war is as important as you say it is, prove it.
As I mentioned earlier, this individual scandal, though very serious, is all the more unsettling because of the trend it points to. If you look at Mr. Harper’s behavior, and that of his team since he assumed the PMO, you will notice an obvious pattern. I first noticed it when I watched Peter Mansbridge interview Harper on the even of 2007. Ever single question Mansbridge asked was greeted with a subtly frustrated intake of breath, a slight tightening around the eyes and an obviously rehearsed “I’m not going to give you an answer” answer. Fast-forward to questions about Harper’s proposed ‘intensity target’ plan to reduce industrial pollution and you have the same response. In question period, his standard mo is to stand up, look very self important, and demand that someone be taken to task for questioning his authority.
As his reign progresses however, we see this trend worsening. Take for example, the situation in Vancouver and the debate over the safe injection site Insite. This, for me at least, marked the first time that the Harper government has directly employed what I will refer to as DC tactics (short for Dubya-Chaney). It is not a difficult argument to make that the American government makes free with the facts more often that it’s truthful about anything (and that truth is even then subject to interpretation). When questioned about the utility and continued support of Insight, Health Minister Tony Clement fired back with questions about the data recovered in studies conducted on the project. He questioned the legitimacy of the study and slandered the reputations of those involved in the program instead of debating the facts. He was flat out denying scientific evidence on the grounds that his truth is stronger than anyone else’s because he’s part of the government and the rest of us aren’t. Its more of the same “how dare you” attitude that says these people are more concerned with their stay in power than with the lives of the Canadians they supposedly govern for. Whether its big business lobby groups dictating our legislation (as is the case with a recent bill to legislate caloric values onto restaurant menus), or our faltering superpower neighbor demanding that we toe the line, what is for sure is that every action the Conservative Party government makes is exactly NOT in our best interest.
Personally, I’m fed up with this. I’m fed up with watching our country be run by ‘holier than thou’ corporatists against my, and an increasing number of Canadians, wishes. Perhaps what bothers me most of all is that we put them there. When will we realize that we also have the power to remove them?
Obviously Mr. Bernier’s actions that caused this scandal are totally unacceptable. He resigned. Good. I would go so far as to contemplate criminal charges against him personally, but that isn’t really the issue here. The issue, as I see it, is the way our government is dealing with the fallout from the scandal, and the unsettling trend that this behavior points to. So far, neither Harper nor any of his inner circle have done anything to assuage the fears of Canadians that this kind of security breach has never happened before, and will never happen again. To the contrary, Harper has simply adopted his modus operandi of treating Canadians like we are children. The manner in which he consistently blows of questions with that ‘how dare you question me’ smirk on his face disgusts me. This is not some liberal scheme to discredit the government. This is not some loony-left journalist-with-a-vendetta
First of all, given that our being in Afghanistan was first justified as a matter of national security, you would think that any other matter of national security would be treated with the same kind of import and urgency…unless of course the concept was simply a pretext all along. How, Mr. Harper, do you justify the deaths of over 80 Canadian men and women, not to mention the countless aid workers, construction workers and untold thousands of Afghanis in the name of national security now? Would you care to explain to the family of, say, Anthony Boneca or the rest of the Thunder Bay community, why you allowed Mr. Boneca to be explosively dismembered beyond recognition? Surely it wasn’t for national security, since we now clearly see how seriously you treat that matter. 80+ Canadian soldiers dead, and yet your government allows sensitive documents to fall into the hands of a known organized crime sympathizer, with no investigation of how it happened or why? What this requires is a full public inquiry, not a smirk, a sly sidestep and a wink to your friends in the White House. We’re fighting a war for national security, and if you want us to believe that this war is as important as you say it is, prove it.
As I mentioned earlier, this individual scandal, though very serious, is all the more unsettling because of the trend it points to. If you look at Mr. Harper’s behavior, and that of his team since he assumed the PMO, you will notice an obvious pattern. I first noticed it when I watched Peter Mansbridge interview Harper on the even of 2007. Ever single question Mansbridge asked was greeted with a subtly frustrated intake of breath, a slight tightening around the eyes and an obviously rehearsed “I’m not going to give you an answer” answer. Fast-forward to questions about Harper’s proposed ‘intensity target’ plan to reduce industrial pollution and you have the same response. In question period, his standard mo is to stand up, look very self important, and demand that someone be taken to task for questioning his authority.
As his reign progresses however, we see this trend worsening. Take for example, the situation in Vancouver and the debate over the safe injection site Insite. This, for me at least, marked the first time that the Harper government has directly employed what I will refer to as DC tactics (short for Dubya-Chaney). It is not a difficult argument to make that the American government makes free with the facts more often that it’s truthful about anything (and that truth is even then subject to interpretation). When questioned about the utility and continued support of Insight, Health Minister Tony Clement fired back with questions about the data recovered in studies conducted on the project. He questioned the legitimacy of the study and slandered the reputations of those involved in the program instead of debating the facts. He was flat out denying scientific evidence on the grounds that his truth is stronger than anyone else’s because he’s part of the government and the rest of us aren’t. Its more of the same “how dare you” attitude that says these people are more concerned with their stay in power than with the lives of the Canadians they supposedly govern for. Whether its big business lobby groups dictating our legislation (as is the case with a recent bill to legislate caloric values onto restaurant menus), or our faltering superpower neighbor demanding that we toe the line, what is for sure is that every action the Conservative Party government makes is exactly NOT in our best interest.
Personally, I’m fed up with this. I’m fed up with watching our country be run by ‘holier than thou’ corporatists against my, and an increasing number of Canadians, wishes. Perhaps what bothers me most of all is that we put them there. When will we realize that we also have the power to remove them?
Beijing As Warning
The Olympics. They are the biggest show on earth; a celebration of cultures coming together, of countries putting aside differences; proof that we can all coexist peacefully and fairly. We all know what the Olympics are, but do we all know what the Olympics mean? As a full time athlete with serious Olympic aspirations, it feels odd to be sitting here thinking about this topic in this light. I remember exactly where I was when I’d heard that Vancouver had been awarded the 2010 games. I knew at that moment that I wanted to be there. As I write this, it’s a long shot (very long depending on the lens you’re looking through) but the point is that my most important goal in life is to represent my country at the biggest show on earth. Why do I want to compete on the Olympic stage? There are a lot of reasons. I believe in what the Olympics are; I believe in their message. I believe they can be a force for change while simultaneously being a celebration of humanity’s triumphs, and I want to be part of that. Ok, I also want to win the biggest ski race in the world because it’d be indescribably fun. Lately however, I’ve been doing some serious thinking about my reasons for wanting to compete.
What will be the legacy of the Vancouver Games, which I so desperately want to be a part of? This is a chance for my country to showcase itself to the world, much like China is attempting to do right now. It goes without saying that many Canadians are counting on the Olympics to restore some of the luster to our name that has been lost in recent years. My grandpa tells of a time when Canadian travelers couldn’t pay for their own drinks in European bars, yet now we’re often lumped in with other more, um, profiteering western enterprises and treated as their lackeys. But Vancouver is a chance to show to the world that we still are the same honest, hard working, fun loving, and easy going nation that once stood for peace and fairness under a maple leaf and a blue beret. Our Olympics won’t be marred with the same conflicts and controversy that are currently giving the Communist Party so much grief, right? Well, maybe not.
Look up, right now, at the ceiling over your head. Seriously, just humor me. Ok, you see it, right? Well, you see the plaster, or concrete, or post-and-beam, or stucco or whatever, but do you see what the roof is? I don’t know what the weather is doing in your part of the world as you sit reading this, but chances are its doing something, and that ceiling is protecting you from it. Kind of a weird thought eh, imagining what the sky would look like from where you’re sitting. Chances are you’ve never tried to imagine what the sky looks like from your desk, or bedroom, or coffee table or where ever you go to read out-of-the-way blogs. Neither have I. That’s because we’ve never had to. You’ve never looked at the shelter over your head and seen a crumbling concrete shell, or a rotting tent fly, or the underbelly of some megalith highway overpass. But what if that was the last thing you saw when you closed your eyes at night? What if you’re home was an empty industrial building? Now, what if a cop showed up and said you had to leave the city because the Olympics are coming and you’re only shelter is being bulldozed to make way for yet another hockey rink? You try to explain that this is the only place you have to call home, and you’re arrested and given the ultimatum of going to jail or leaving town. Suddenly the Olympics don’t seem so fair do they? Thousands of people swept off the streets because they’re considered human waste, and wouldn’t look good in front of the cameras. Gosh darn it; those Communist Party officials are mean spirited aren’t they? Except it’s the City of Vancouver officials I’m talking about, and they are just as guilty. Homeless people are being shipped out of Vancouver like cargo, having their aid programs threatened or completely shut down because they’re considered an eyesore.
Ok, but at least Canada doesn’t have grievous human-rights problems like China does, right? Wrong. Here in Canada, there is a nearly invisible third world. There are whole communities where the leading cause of death is suicide, and children freeze to death in the winter because their parents can’t afford to keep them warm. Sounds harsh, right? Perhaps even a little over the top? Not in beautiful Canada, right? More than often, these communities exist at the pleasure of our government, and are subject to relocations and other half-hearted and equally unsuccessful attempts to ‘fix the native problem.’ Native leaders are repeatedly subjected to a legal system that is often in direct contradiction to the treaties that our government has promised to uphold. All too often, these legal battles end with the bankruptcy of the community and mining or forestry trucks revving their engines towards the next cash crop. In many cases, native leaders have been imprisoned despite that being a contravention not only of some outdated treaty, but also our own laws. How far of a stretch is it to imagine native protestors showing up in Callaghan Valley and demanding that we pay them the attention and respect they deserve?
Despite how this is beginning to sound, I really do love the Olympics. I began by saying that I believe the Olympics can be both a celebration and a powerful vehicle for change. I believe our Olympics can be anything we make them, so let’s make sure we choose to make them right. Beijing stands as one example of how to present a country to the world; sweeping things under the rug, making false promises and trying to cash in on a big party with the least amount of effort. Vancouver still stands as an important chance to make real change in this country. Let’s make sure we use it.
What will be the legacy of the Vancouver Games, which I so desperately want to be a part of? This is a chance for my country to showcase itself to the world, much like China is attempting to do right now. It goes without saying that many Canadians are counting on the Olympics to restore some of the luster to our name that has been lost in recent years. My grandpa tells of a time when Canadian travelers couldn’t pay for their own drinks in European bars, yet now we’re often lumped in with other more, um, profiteering western enterprises and treated as their lackeys. But Vancouver is a chance to show to the world that we still are the same honest, hard working, fun loving, and easy going nation that once stood for peace and fairness under a maple leaf and a blue beret. Our Olympics won’t be marred with the same conflicts and controversy that are currently giving the Communist Party so much grief, right? Well, maybe not.
Look up, right now, at the ceiling over your head. Seriously, just humor me. Ok, you see it, right? Well, you see the plaster, or concrete, or post-and-beam, or stucco or whatever, but do you see what the roof is? I don’t know what the weather is doing in your part of the world as you sit reading this, but chances are its doing something, and that ceiling is protecting you from it. Kind of a weird thought eh, imagining what the sky would look like from where you’re sitting. Chances are you’ve never tried to imagine what the sky looks like from your desk, or bedroom, or coffee table or where ever you go to read out-of-the-way blogs. Neither have I. That’s because we’ve never had to. You’ve never looked at the shelter over your head and seen a crumbling concrete shell, or a rotting tent fly, or the underbelly of some megalith highway overpass. But what if that was the last thing you saw when you closed your eyes at night? What if you’re home was an empty industrial building? Now, what if a cop showed up and said you had to leave the city because the Olympics are coming and you’re only shelter is being bulldozed to make way for yet another hockey rink? You try to explain that this is the only place you have to call home, and you’re arrested and given the ultimatum of going to jail or leaving town. Suddenly the Olympics don’t seem so fair do they? Thousands of people swept off the streets because they’re considered human waste, and wouldn’t look good in front of the cameras. Gosh darn it; those Communist Party officials are mean spirited aren’t they? Except it’s the City of Vancouver officials I’m talking about, and they are just as guilty. Homeless people are being shipped out of Vancouver like cargo, having their aid programs threatened or completely shut down because they’re considered an eyesore.
Ok, but at least Canada doesn’t have grievous human-rights problems like China does, right? Wrong. Here in Canada, there is a nearly invisible third world. There are whole communities where the leading cause of death is suicide, and children freeze to death in the winter because their parents can’t afford to keep them warm. Sounds harsh, right? Perhaps even a little over the top? Not in beautiful Canada, right? More than often, these communities exist at the pleasure of our government, and are subject to relocations and other half-hearted and equally unsuccessful attempts to ‘fix the native problem.’ Native leaders are repeatedly subjected to a legal system that is often in direct contradiction to the treaties that our government has promised to uphold. All too often, these legal battles end with the bankruptcy of the community and mining or forestry trucks revving their engines towards the next cash crop. In many cases, native leaders have been imprisoned despite that being a contravention not only of some outdated treaty, but also our own laws. How far of a stretch is it to imagine native protestors showing up in Callaghan Valley and demanding that we pay them the attention and respect they deserve?
Despite how this is beginning to sound, I really do love the Olympics. I began by saying that I believe the Olympics can be both a celebration and a powerful vehicle for change. I believe our Olympics can be anything we make them, so let’s make sure we choose to make them right. Beijing stands as one example of how to present a country to the world; sweeping things under the rug, making false promises and trying to cash in on a big party with the least amount of effort. Vancouver still stands as an important chance to make real change in this country. Let’s make sure we use it.
The Village's Values
A yellow tee-shirt with a clever phrase scrawled across the chest. I really should get some more shirts that aren’t black, but this one’s just a little too yellow. Blue shirt with the Canadian flag…a black sharpie and a little creativity could turn this into the perfect mix of acid social commentary and vintage chique. No, that’s a little too cliché. I continue pawing my way through the small/ medium rack at Value Village. Oh Baby…a white Blink-182 tour shirt, circa the “Dude Ranch” era (before they went all sappy). Perfect. I pull it from the rack and turn towards the change stalls. That’s when I notice him. The guy looks about my age. He’s eyeing the shirt as well; it’s obvious that we share a similar taste in used cotton garments, and his chagrin that I beat him to it isn’t hard to see. In fact, we don’t have similar tastes, we have the same taste. Aside from the fact that our ancestors were born on different continents, this guy could pretty much be me. Same canvas shoes, much worse for wear, same snug but not overly tight jeans. Same studded belt, chained wallet, seemingly random bracelets and a black Crass shirt. Rancid’s more my style, but that’s beside the point. I’m looking at this guy and realizing we probably have a lot in common, except for a moment that isn’t honestly my very first thought. Man, everyone really is prejudiced if they aren’t careful, even me. Annoyed at myself, I put the shirt down and step towards him. I’m gonna say hi, maybe try to strike up a conversation. Most of my team mates don’t seem to share the same enthusiasm for three overly distorted chords and a big helping of angst that me and this guy have, so I don’t get to debate the merits of Henry Rollins’ vocal ability all that often. Maybe this guy’s going to the Bad Religion show next week. Maybe I’ll meet him there, and he’ll introduce me to his friends, who happen to have a band and are looking for someone to play rhythm guitar, albeit poorly. Maybe this could be the start of a beautiful friendship build on the foundation of shared musical interests. He catches my eye for a split second, and obviously recognizes the similarities too. Just as I draw a breath to offer a friendly yet slightly awkward “you find anything good?”, he lowers his eyes to his toes and shuffles meekly out of my way. I am instantly ashamed, not for him but of myself. I can’t count the number of times I pulled this exact same maneuver in high school to avoid one of my ‘social betters’, a so-called “popular kid”. As I stand there grappling with this strange reversal of roles, I can’t help but think of the injustices that have lead to this situation. This guy’s family were expert stewards of this country long before it was a “country” at all. Centuries before my various ancestors decided that Ireland was too hungry and Wales too wet, this guy’s people were the masters of the place I’m naive enough to think of as mine, and yet he lacks the self-confidence to say hi, much like I was afraid to even talk to Mallory Whitehead, let alone ask her on a date. Funny that this should take place in a store who’s name is the English translation of the word Iroquois word Kanata. Thanks to a few generations of ignorant Europeans that spawned a few disgusting government policies, some only recently abolished, I’m now cast in the role of tormentor. My shame deepens. I know what it is to feel you’re the lowest rung on the social ladder, the one that everyone steps on, and yet I’ve been blind to all the others with this same misconception. All of a sudden I’m the person being avoided. It’s an odd feeling, and one that I really don’t like.
I’ve been sort of wandering around the store for a while now, mulling this stuff over, but as I put my hand on the exit door I suddenly remember the tee-shirt and glance back over my shoulder. It’s gone, but there’s an aboriginal kid with a Crass shirt, studded belt and converse shoes holding something white in the check-out line.
I’ve been sort of wandering around the store for a while now, mulling this stuff over, but as I put my hand on the exit door I suddenly remember the tee-shirt and glance back over my shoulder. It’s gone, but there’s an aboriginal kid with a Crass shirt, studded belt and converse shoes holding something white in the check-out line.
The Road We'll Travel
Shame on us, my fellow Canadians. Shame on us for failing to live up to our own much loved reputation as Canada the fair, Canada the helpful, Canada the global leader. Perhaps this election is telling us something of our selves. Perhaps we don’t want to be the globally minded, progressive country that we’ve so loudly touted ourselves as in the past. We treasure our so-called Canadian Identity dearly, yet when the time comes to make a decision about our future; we falter, frantically pat our pockets for our wallets, and throw our values to the wind in exchange for a short-term sense of comfort and familiarity (as if robots were somehow comforting). I’d challenge anyone to make the argument that Mr. Harper and his government will do anything other than break promises, slash programs and continue to toe the line drawn by our neighbors to the south (who, I will remind you, are the creators of our current financial mess). What troubles me the most about all this is not the result of the election its self, but the greater and worsening trend that it points to about the state of our collective moral center. When viewed as a litmus test of Canada’s prevailing principals, this election is an utter disaster.
First off we have the glaring and embarrassingly obvious prejudice towards a Francophone who is arguably more Canadian than many of us. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he fought valiantly and successfully to keep our country whole, even in the face of ostracization by his fellow Quebecers. He should be a hero for this, but instead many Canadians bought into the Tory attempt to paint Dion as a “geek who can’t speak English”. This kind of underhanded and slanderous behavior is reminiscent of past U.S. elections, and yet with the first ever African-American vying for the White House, not even they are willing to start slinging that kind of bird shit. Clearly however, many Canadians were willing to open up and swallow it without complaint.
Another trend the results of last Tuesday point to is that Canadians care more about their wallets than they do about the environment. There’s no question that the Tories are not and have never been the environment party. Until recently Mr. Harper was in outright denial of global warming, and even now only pays it enough lip service to keep his advisors happy. We were presented with a number of approaches to dealing with climate change, one in particular, which, despite its many critics, can only be hailed as incredibly brave. I am not arguing that I think Mr. Dion’s Green Shift is (or I guess was) perfect, but it did show quite clearly that his party is at least thinking in the right direction. We cannot continue with our current consumption habits, this is (to some people) abundantly clear. We need a shift in paradigm, in not only our actions but also our thinking. Every other party in this election put forth a plan do change things; the Tories promised to change nothing, and we rewarded them for it. Canada went from being on of the leading advocates of seriously combating climate change, to tossing the entire idea into the rubbish bin in favor of protecting our economy (not that it matters now anyway). I fear that, given the way we voted, this trend will only get worse.
This leads me to my last point; that Canadians also value their wallets above our other, more traditionally “Canadian” concerns. We have prided ourselves on being a globally active helper, a friend to lean on in times of crisis. Well, there is no shortage of crises at the moment, and we are ignoring all but one of them. Last spring, the global food shortage was making headlines across the world. The world reacted, promising $22 billion (U.S.) in food and other related aid. So far only $2.2 billion has actually been delivered (according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization). The same is true of money and actions promised in the Kyoto accord and other environmental agreements, in the fight against AIDS and to help countries left stricken in the wake of ever increasing natural disasters. Hardly any of these promises have been acted upon (and those that have constitute pretty paltry actions), and yet many trillions of dollars to bail out the financial system (that itself had a hand in these other crises) has not only been promised, but actually delivered, and literally overnight. OVERNIGHT! Just think of how many lives could be saved in Africa with even a tiny portion of that money. Think how much closer we could be to environmentally neutral cars and power, or how many of the starving millions could be fed for a fraction of the cost of propping up our broken financial system. That makes the West’s (and Canada’s) motives pretty clear. Canada itself promised to increase its funding for international aid by $50 million last year, but so far has done nothing of the sort, and with Harper now contemplating spending cuts to avoid the dreaded “D” word, international aid is one of the first items on the chopping blocks, followed closely by social support programs like the child welfare allowance, funding for sports, health care and many other things that Canadians often take for granted. Many other leaders of the G8, such as France’s Nichola Sarkozy, are calling for a complete re-writing of the financial order, saying that things will only get worse if we continue with unfettered, free market capitalism, yet we re-elected a man who holds the ideals of the free market most dear.
And so it is that I say shame on my fellow Canadians, both for a wasted election, and for the troubling road we seem to be heading down. If we keep this up, it won’t be long before Canada is no longer synonymous with good will, good friends and good times, but is instead seen not only south of the boarder but around the world as nothing more than the 51st State.
First off we have the glaring and embarrassingly obvious prejudice towards a Francophone who is arguably more Canadian than many of us. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he fought valiantly and successfully to keep our country whole, even in the face of ostracization by his fellow Quebecers. He should be a hero for this, but instead many Canadians bought into the Tory attempt to paint Dion as a “geek who can’t speak English”. This kind of underhanded and slanderous behavior is reminiscent of past U.S. elections, and yet with the first ever African-American vying for the White House, not even they are willing to start slinging that kind of bird shit. Clearly however, many Canadians were willing to open up and swallow it without complaint.
Another trend the results of last Tuesday point to is that Canadians care more about their wallets than they do about the environment. There’s no question that the Tories are not and have never been the environment party. Until recently Mr. Harper was in outright denial of global warming, and even now only pays it enough lip service to keep his advisors happy. We were presented with a number of approaches to dealing with climate change, one in particular, which, despite its many critics, can only be hailed as incredibly brave. I am not arguing that I think Mr. Dion’s Green Shift is (or I guess was) perfect, but it did show quite clearly that his party is at least thinking in the right direction. We cannot continue with our current consumption habits, this is (to some people) abundantly clear. We need a shift in paradigm, in not only our actions but also our thinking. Every other party in this election put forth a plan do change things; the Tories promised to change nothing, and we rewarded them for it. Canada went from being on of the leading advocates of seriously combating climate change, to tossing the entire idea into the rubbish bin in favor of protecting our economy (not that it matters now anyway). I fear that, given the way we voted, this trend will only get worse.
This leads me to my last point; that Canadians also value their wallets above our other, more traditionally “Canadian” concerns. We have prided ourselves on being a globally active helper, a friend to lean on in times of crisis. Well, there is no shortage of crises at the moment, and we are ignoring all but one of them. Last spring, the global food shortage was making headlines across the world. The world reacted, promising $22 billion (U.S.) in food and other related aid. So far only $2.2 billion has actually been delivered (according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization). The same is true of money and actions promised in the Kyoto accord and other environmental agreements, in the fight against AIDS and to help countries left stricken in the wake of ever increasing natural disasters. Hardly any of these promises have been acted upon (and those that have constitute pretty paltry actions), and yet many trillions of dollars to bail out the financial system (that itself had a hand in these other crises) has not only been promised, but actually delivered, and literally overnight. OVERNIGHT! Just think of how many lives could be saved in Africa with even a tiny portion of that money. Think how much closer we could be to environmentally neutral cars and power, or how many of the starving millions could be fed for a fraction of the cost of propping up our broken financial system. That makes the West’s (and Canada’s) motives pretty clear. Canada itself promised to increase its funding for international aid by $50 million last year, but so far has done nothing of the sort, and with Harper now contemplating spending cuts to avoid the dreaded “D” word, international aid is one of the first items on the chopping blocks, followed closely by social support programs like the child welfare allowance, funding for sports, health care and many other things that Canadians often take for granted. Many other leaders of the G8, such as France’s Nichola Sarkozy, are calling for a complete re-writing of the financial order, saying that things will only get worse if we continue with unfettered, free market capitalism, yet we re-elected a man who holds the ideals of the free market most dear.
And so it is that I say shame on my fellow Canadians, both for a wasted election, and for the troubling road we seem to be heading down. If we keep this up, it won’t be long before Canada is no longer synonymous with good will, good friends and good times, but is instead seen not only south of the boarder but around the world as nothing more than the 51st State.
Economy Over Ideology?
So Mr Harper has set aside his ideology. He’s filed away the manifesto (in his drawer, between the files “Latest cyborg processor updates” and “Plans for the 51st State”), and tossed away his modus operandi so he can better deal with the global financial crisis. Funny that his finance minister didn’t seem to get the memo. Tory plans to “review the corporate assets, the capital assets of the government of Canada to see whether they still perform a useful function for the Canadian people” as outlined my Jim Flaherty seem to, in fact, bear all the hallmarks of traditional conservatism. Maybe Flaherty is a little more concerned with upholding the election promise of avoiding a deficit than Harper. After all, Harper is not new to the idea of broken promises (The Accountability Act, backward changes to the Information Act, hoarding of power to the PMO). I think, however, that this is not just a matter of miscommunication within Harper’s Cabinet. As I have said many times, Harper views Canadians in a pretty derogatory manner, and this is another example of it. At the Conservative Party convention happening in Winnipeg right now, Harper is “urging party members to set aside ideology” and focus on getting Canada through tough economic times. And yet, the policy he announces amounts to a polar opposite. But, I am sure that if called out on this, Harper will point to his speech in Winnipeg as concrete proof that he’s dedicated to solving our economic problems, and not to his cherished ideology. Does Harper really believe he can pull off this two-faced, slight of hand trick and fool us, saying one thing and doing another? Unfortunately, he has every reason to think he can get away with it; he’s done it all before.
As to the matter of this particular policy, let’s look a bit closer. What do we stand to gain from this proposed slimming down of federal assets? Well, just as a drug addict benefits from pawning their mother’s wedding band; we will get an immediate increase in the government’s coffers. But is it worth it? The drug addict will be able to afford their next high, and so avoid the unpleasantness of withdrawal for the immediate future, but when that high wears off, they’ll be right back where they were and minus a precious belonging. Yes, if we sell off federal assets, we might avoid a deficit in this year and possibly next year as well (probably just in time for the next federal election). But when the money gained from the fire-sale runs out, we’ll be right back where we are now, but also missing some very precious parts of our country. As Flaherty is so fond of saying, Canada is not an island. We are in for tough economic times no matter what we do. Selling off parts of our country might artificially delay those tough times a bit, but it won’t provide a solution. The fact that we could be looking at coming out the other side of this recession to be met by a Canada where our most prised possessions are now in the hands of the corporate private sector that is largely responsible for our current mess in the first place makes me gag. The conservative party plan to sell off things like Atomic Energy Canada is the first step on a slippery slope that could end with the sale of things as intrinsically Canadian as the CBC (something held up as a symbol of journalistic integrity around the world and proof that government owned industry actually is good for the country’s health). That thought has been bandied about by the Tories far too much for it not be on their radar now, as they look around frantically for things to hawk. This reeks of the same kind of Chicago-Boys style, free market capitalism that put us waste deep in this financial shit-pile in the first place. Hacking off pieces of our country for short term financial gains is irresponsible, un-Canadian and EXACTLY in line with right-wing, conservative ideology. Wake up and smell the circuitry burning Canada, we’re being lead down the wrong road and the proof of where it leads is sitting just across the 49th parallel.
As to the matter of this particular policy, let’s look a bit closer. What do we stand to gain from this proposed slimming down of federal assets? Well, just as a drug addict benefits from pawning their mother’s wedding band; we will get an immediate increase in the government’s coffers. But is it worth it? The drug addict will be able to afford their next high, and so avoid the unpleasantness of withdrawal for the immediate future, but when that high wears off, they’ll be right back where they were and minus a precious belonging. Yes, if we sell off federal assets, we might avoid a deficit in this year and possibly next year as well (probably just in time for the next federal election). But when the money gained from the fire-sale runs out, we’ll be right back where we are now, but also missing some very precious parts of our country. As Flaherty is so fond of saying, Canada is not an island. We are in for tough economic times no matter what we do. Selling off parts of our country might artificially delay those tough times a bit, but it won’t provide a solution. The fact that we could be looking at coming out the other side of this recession to be met by a Canada where our most prised possessions are now in the hands of the corporate private sector that is largely responsible for our current mess in the first place makes me gag. The conservative party plan to sell off things like Atomic Energy Canada is the first step on a slippery slope that could end with the sale of things as intrinsically Canadian as the CBC (something held up as a symbol of journalistic integrity around the world and proof that government owned industry actually is good for the country’s health). That thought has been bandied about by the Tories far too much for it not be on their radar now, as they look around frantically for things to hawk. This reeks of the same kind of Chicago-Boys style, free market capitalism that put us waste deep in this financial shit-pile in the first place. Hacking off pieces of our country for short term financial gains is irresponsible, un-Canadian and EXACTLY in line with right-wing, conservative ideology. Wake up and smell the circuitry burning Canada, we’re being lead down the wrong road and the proof of where it leads is sitting just across the 49th parallel.
Bring Harper Down!
Paging Stephan Dion, Paging Stephan Dion. You’re supplemental spine has arrived in shipping and is awaiting pick-up.
At this point, the fact that Stephen Harper and his government is completely and irreversibly out of touch with what Canadian’s want is no longer in question. The pollsters at Harris-Decima research released poll results that showed nearly every respondent was very concerned about Canada’s economic climate. Clearly, Canadians have no appetite for the ‘wait and see’ approach offered yesterday by the government. While every other member of the G8 has already promised and delivered millions, and in some cases billions of dollars in stimulus packages, Harper and his Cheney-esque zealot Flaherty are doing nothing...now so obviously blinded by pure ideology they can no longer co-ordinate their own efforts, let alone act responsibly on the wishes of nearly every single Canadian. The proof of this can be seen in the already dramatic steps that the opposition parties have taken to laude their disapproval of the government’s financial plan from every rooftop available; indeed it has been many decades since the last serious possibility of a vote of no confidence, and here we are, looking down the barrel of a major political upheaval. Only one question remains: Will Stéphane Dion finally summon the courage, muster the necessary mettle, to actually make good on his threat this time?
Many pundits are quick to point out that one of the sticking points that is upsetting the opposition so much is that the government has included in its financial outline, a plan to remove the ability of parties to redeem government money for every vote they receive. Some say that this is the real reason behind the opposition’s push to topple the government, and that they are merely posturing, uttering empty threats and that they would never go so far as to actually bring down a government based on such self-interested an issue. Perhaps they are correct, and what happened in the House of Commons on thursday was nothing more than typical partisan bickering. What this theory fails to take into account is the conniving and underhanded nature of our current government. Could it be that, worse than a simple disconnect between the Tories and the rest of Canada, they are actually hijacking this economic crisis to pursue their own self-interested goals, and that this plan to do away with vote-based funding (which accounts for as much as 80% of some parties budget) is nothing but a clever trick to cut the legs out from under the opposition’s argument, and make it seem that they are simple whining about losing their money? Were this trick to succeed, Harper will have given himself the perfect leverage with which to push his neo-con plan through. Already he has conceded the issue of vote-based funding (an obvious clue that he was never serious about it in the first place), in a thinly-veiled attempt to placate the notoriously spineless Dion enough to keep him from voting with the other parties. On top of that, he has postponed the next opposition day till December 8th, removing the first chance for the Liberals to table their non-confidence motion, hoping that by then his propaganda machine will have had enough time to convince Canadians that this opposition plan is nothing more than a power grab. If he succeeds, he will have his Chicago-Boys style economic package, and be well on the road to rearranging Canada to better fit his vision of us as part of Pax-Americana, all the while saving face with Canadians until finally our economy is truly in tatters and it no longer matters. This is, as I have said many times, yet another example of Harper and his government attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. All of this hinges on one thing...whether Dion and the other leaders will make good on their promise. It’s ironically suiting that, even while facing the end of his leadership and possibly his political career, the gods of circumstance have granted Mr Dion one last chance to re-discover the courage with which he fought the separatist movement and do something meaningful for Canada. I’m even prepared to make a deal with Mr Dion. Stéphane Dion, I hereby promise that if you, as leader of the official opposition, make good on your threat and vote to show no-confidence in our current government, you will have redeemed yourself in my eyes and, I imagine, those of every other Canadian as well. We will forgive you’re trouble with the English language, you’re nerdy tendencies, and the fact that you named your dog Kyoto. If you actually mange to bring down the government, you will be remembered only as the people’s hero who, even when on his knees, faced a tyrant. All you have to do is walk down to receiving, collect your new spine, and bring Harper down.
At this point, the fact that Stephen Harper and his government is completely and irreversibly out of touch with what Canadian’s want is no longer in question. The pollsters at Harris-Decima research released poll results that showed nearly every respondent was very concerned about Canada’s economic climate. Clearly, Canadians have no appetite for the ‘wait and see’ approach offered yesterday by the government. While every other member of the G8 has already promised and delivered millions, and in some cases billions of dollars in stimulus packages, Harper and his Cheney-esque zealot Flaherty are doing nothing...now so obviously blinded by pure ideology they can no longer co-ordinate their own efforts, let alone act responsibly on the wishes of nearly every single Canadian. The proof of this can be seen in the already dramatic steps that the opposition parties have taken to laude their disapproval of the government’s financial plan from every rooftop available; indeed it has been many decades since the last serious possibility of a vote of no confidence, and here we are, looking down the barrel of a major political upheaval. Only one question remains: Will Stéphane Dion finally summon the courage, muster the necessary mettle, to actually make good on his threat this time?
Many pundits are quick to point out that one of the sticking points that is upsetting the opposition so much is that the government has included in its financial outline, a plan to remove the ability of parties to redeem government money for every vote they receive. Some say that this is the real reason behind the opposition’s push to topple the government, and that they are merely posturing, uttering empty threats and that they would never go so far as to actually bring down a government based on such self-interested an issue. Perhaps they are correct, and what happened in the House of Commons on thursday was nothing more than typical partisan bickering. What this theory fails to take into account is the conniving and underhanded nature of our current government. Could it be that, worse than a simple disconnect between the Tories and the rest of Canada, they are actually hijacking this economic crisis to pursue their own self-interested goals, and that this plan to do away with vote-based funding (which accounts for as much as 80% of some parties budget) is nothing but a clever trick to cut the legs out from under the opposition’s argument, and make it seem that they are simple whining about losing their money? Were this trick to succeed, Harper will have given himself the perfect leverage with which to push his neo-con plan through. Already he has conceded the issue of vote-based funding (an obvious clue that he was never serious about it in the first place), in a thinly-veiled attempt to placate the notoriously spineless Dion enough to keep him from voting with the other parties. On top of that, he has postponed the next opposition day till December 8th, removing the first chance for the Liberals to table their non-confidence motion, hoping that by then his propaganda machine will have had enough time to convince Canadians that this opposition plan is nothing more than a power grab. If he succeeds, he will have his Chicago-Boys style economic package, and be well on the road to rearranging Canada to better fit his vision of us as part of Pax-Americana, all the while saving face with Canadians until finally our economy is truly in tatters and it no longer matters. This is, as I have said many times, yet another example of Harper and his government attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. All of this hinges on one thing...whether Dion and the other leaders will make good on their promise. It’s ironically suiting that, even while facing the end of his leadership and possibly his political career, the gods of circumstance have granted Mr Dion one last chance to re-discover the courage with which he fought the separatist movement and do something meaningful for Canada. I’m even prepared to make a deal with Mr Dion. Stéphane Dion, I hereby promise that if you, as leader of the official opposition, make good on your threat and vote to show no-confidence in our current government, you will have redeemed yourself in my eyes and, I imagine, those of every other Canadian as well. We will forgive you’re trouble with the English language, you’re nerdy tendencies, and the fact that you named your dog Kyoto. If you actually mange to bring down the government, you will be remembered only as the people’s hero who, even when on his knees, faced a tyrant. All you have to do is walk down to receiving, collect your new spine, and bring Harper down.
The Media's Responsibilities
The following is a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail:
As an aspiring journalist myself, I was and continue to be deeply troubled by the way your paper, and much of the media in Canada, have been portraying the tragic events surrounding the death of Christopher Pauchay’s two young girls, and the question of how to deal with such a horrific situation. What troubles me most is the shallow, callous, and ill defined way in which the Canadian media provide the most basic of facts without the slightest background or context. Short, poorly written articles about the night of the children’s death, and subsequent court proceedings leave much to the imagination of readers and views. For example, simply stating that the courts have decided to grant Mr Pauchay’s wish for an aboriginal sentencing circle, while providing no explanation of what a sentencing circle is or how it would function makes it very easy for the layman to assume that Pauchay is ‘getting let off the hook’. Given Canada’s history when it comes to aboriginal people, this is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing.
A hugely disproportionate number of aboriginal people in this country live in abject poverty, dealing with living conditions that you’d only find paralleled in sub-Saharan Africa or the jungles of impoverished South American dictatorships. This third world exists along side a main stream Canadian society that has one of the highest standards of living in the world. That disturbing and shameful fact is closely linked to the Pauchay case, despite what many might argue. Generations ago, our Euro-Canadian forefathers set the foundation for one of the most abusive and destructive relationships to have existed between a colonizing empire and the original inhabitants. The norms established at the time blazed the trail for future misuses of power, and led ultimately to the now well-known strategy of assimilation; the reserves and residential school systems. This was such a powerful tool of manipulation and control that it was used as the basis for South Africa’s Apartheid system. The abuse suffered by aboriginal people and the damage to their culture was immense, and its aftershocks are still being felt today as evidenced by epidemics of substance abuse, suicide and other social problems that are the hallmarks of a broken society.
‘Stop right there,’ you say. ‘What does this have to do with a guy getting drunk and losing his daughters in a snowstorm?’ The answer is everything. Past generations of Euro-Canadians attempted to destroy a culture and a society. For that, they must shoulder an enormous shame, but this generation shares in that shame for its failure to make amends. Instead, we have simply let this severely damaged society struggle on along side our own, paying lip service to it but doing hardly anything else. We refuse aboriginal requests to negotiate meaningful self-government; we abuse the treaties that were signed and attempt to pressure them into giving up what little land they have so it can be taken advantage of by the forestry and mining sectors. And when they cry out for help as Christopher did, we shun them as second-class citizens. Instead of stepping up and accepting responsibility for the damage done, our politicians treat aboriginal people as though their situation were of their own making, neatly washing the government’s hands of any responsibility to help.
While the current government has done nothing but shirk its responsibilities, and avoid dealing with the plethora of issues facing aboriginal people, positive steps are being made. Negotiations are taking place to finally put into action the kind of self-government practices that aboriginal people have long pleaded for. Fostering this kind of independence and empowerment has the potential to undo some of the massive damage to aboriginal self esteem and confidence that was lost through the degradation of past injustices. Things like sentencing circles are a key part of that process. The problem is, the media is ignoring it. Many Canadians lack even the most basic knowledge of the problems facing aboriginal people, and therefore also of the possible solutions. When the average Canadian reads stories about foreign ideas like sentencing circles and self government, it is all to easy to fall back on old prejudices and cry foul. The media has a responsibility to do more than provide vague sketches of situations like those affecting Mr Pauchay. The media has a responsibility to help Canadians understand exactly what is at stake, and how we can all do something about it. Instead, your paper and many others seem content to provide the same shallow lip service that has sidelined aboriginal people for so long.
Mr Pauchay is not a criminal; he is a symptom of a broken symptom. He is also much more than that; he is a grieving father, a man struggling like so many others with the daemons of alcoholism, and he is a human being. If there is to be a bright future for Canada’s aboriginal citizens, the government needs to be taken to task and forced to live up to its commitments, especially those outlined in the Kelowna Accord. Mr Pauchay’s case provides exactly the kind of opportunity for public pressure that aboriginal movements in Canada desperately need, but that won’t happen until the media decide to put aside the flashy, five-minute stories about Parliamentary squabbles and gas prices and focus on real, meaningful journalism.
As an aspiring journalist myself, I was and continue to be deeply troubled by the way your paper, and much of the media in Canada, have been portraying the tragic events surrounding the death of Christopher Pauchay’s two young girls, and the question of how to deal with such a horrific situation. What troubles me most is the shallow, callous, and ill defined way in which the Canadian media provide the most basic of facts without the slightest background or context. Short, poorly written articles about the night of the children’s death, and subsequent court proceedings leave much to the imagination of readers and views. For example, simply stating that the courts have decided to grant Mr Pauchay’s wish for an aboriginal sentencing circle, while providing no explanation of what a sentencing circle is or how it would function makes it very easy for the layman to assume that Pauchay is ‘getting let off the hook’. Given Canada’s history when it comes to aboriginal people, this is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing.
A hugely disproportionate number of aboriginal people in this country live in abject poverty, dealing with living conditions that you’d only find paralleled in sub-Saharan Africa or the jungles of impoverished South American dictatorships. This third world exists along side a main stream Canadian society that has one of the highest standards of living in the world. That disturbing and shameful fact is closely linked to the Pauchay case, despite what many might argue. Generations ago, our Euro-Canadian forefathers set the foundation for one of the most abusive and destructive relationships to have existed between a colonizing empire and the original inhabitants. The norms established at the time blazed the trail for future misuses of power, and led ultimately to the now well-known strategy of assimilation; the reserves and residential school systems. This was such a powerful tool of manipulation and control that it was used as the basis for South Africa’s Apartheid system. The abuse suffered by aboriginal people and the damage to their culture was immense, and its aftershocks are still being felt today as evidenced by epidemics of substance abuse, suicide and other social problems that are the hallmarks of a broken society.
‘Stop right there,’ you say. ‘What does this have to do with a guy getting drunk and losing his daughters in a snowstorm?’ The answer is everything. Past generations of Euro-Canadians attempted to destroy a culture and a society. For that, they must shoulder an enormous shame, but this generation shares in that shame for its failure to make amends. Instead, we have simply let this severely damaged society struggle on along side our own, paying lip service to it but doing hardly anything else. We refuse aboriginal requests to negotiate meaningful self-government; we abuse the treaties that were signed and attempt to pressure them into giving up what little land they have so it can be taken advantage of by the forestry and mining sectors. And when they cry out for help as Christopher did, we shun them as second-class citizens. Instead of stepping up and accepting responsibility for the damage done, our politicians treat aboriginal people as though their situation were of their own making, neatly washing the government’s hands of any responsibility to help.
While the current government has done nothing but shirk its responsibilities, and avoid dealing with the plethora of issues facing aboriginal people, positive steps are being made. Negotiations are taking place to finally put into action the kind of self-government practices that aboriginal people have long pleaded for. Fostering this kind of independence and empowerment has the potential to undo some of the massive damage to aboriginal self esteem and confidence that was lost through the degradation of past injustices. Things like sentencing circles are a key part of that process. The problem is, the media is ignoring it. Many Canadians lack even the most basic knowledge of the problems facing aboriginal people, and therefore also of the possible solutions. When the average Canadian reads stories about foreign ideas like sentencing circles and self government, it is all to easy to fall back on old prejudices and cry foul. The media has a responsibility to do more than provide vague sketches of situations like those affecting Mr Pauchay. The media has a responsibility to help Canadians understand exactly what is at stake, and how we can all do something about it. Instead, your paper and many others seem content to provide the same shallow lip service that has sidelined aboriginal people for so long.
Mr Pauchay is not a criminal; he is a symptom of a broken symptom. He is also much more than that; he is a grieving father, a man struggling like so many others with the daemons of alcoholism, and he is a human being. If there is to be a bright future for Canada’s aboriginal citizens, the government needs to be taken to task and forced to live up to its commitments, especially those outlined in the Kelowna Accord. Mr Pauchay’s case provides exactly the kind of opportunity for public pressure that aboriginal movements in Canada desperately need, but that won’t happen until the media decide to put aside the flashy, five-minute stories about Parliamentary squabbles and gas prices and focus on real, meaningful journalism.
It's just highschool politics, you know
"it's still highschool politics you know. Nothing's changed, jerks and assholes still don't know shit about [anything]"
-Against Me!, Justin
Am I the only one who remembers high school? Certainly that cannot be the case. Think back to your own days in the crucible of early adult-hood, when the jeans you wore and the people you hung out with in the halls were more important than anything that actually took place in the classroom. Cliques were constantly forming, breaking up and reforming; popularity was the key to survival and often your own morals were the currency demanded. Of course you remember the bullies, everyone does; those kids who tried to hide their own troubles by creating ones for the rest of us? Remember that time in the change room after gym class, when Joey Sanders and Rob Brathwright started shoving you around in front of everyone, or the time they surrounded and humiliated you behind the school during the fire drill with everyone either laughing along or doing nothing to stop it, and worst of all in front of Sara McMillan, the girl you hadn’t the courage to so much as look at let alone talk to? All the anger and frustration, the jeers and the spitballs were almost too much to bare, right? Those kids who made your life seem so unfair and brutal, those kids who’s home lives were more screwed up than you could ever know, they tortured you and crippled your self-confidence. How many times did you feel like lashing out, like giving those assholes what they deserve? One day you almost did, and it nearly broke you. You were seconds away from doing something unspeakable, of validating your anger and making them pay. You thought you hated them so much, and that hammer on the bench in shop class began to look like the answer.
How many times have you heard scenarios like this, stories of kids pushed over the edge into horrendous violence? Columbine, Virginia Tech, schools across the continent where the system failed and people died. It doesn’t take much for the victims to be come the villains, for emotions to get the best of people, and retaliatory ideas to take over. The backlash is always worse than the torment that caused it, especially in light of the fact that it all could have been solved long before it escalated to that level. Take this scenario and blow it up, make it fit the scale where people are nations and spitballs are rockets. The broken families that were the root of Joey’s anti-social behaviour are now the shattered and marginalized societies that breed extremism and hatred, places where frustration and anger at home make people look for someone, anyone, to blame, to take it out on, be they deserving or otherwise. Is the metaphor becoming clear? This cycle of anger and violence that so clouded your judgements, and urged you to just lash out with all your might is the same thing now clouding the minds of Israel’s leaders and anyone who supports this unwarranted war. Israel has been pushed to the breaking point. They didn’t just pick up that shop class hammer, they brought Uncle Sam’s shotgun to school and now people are dying by the hundreds, and what do the rest of us do? Nothing, just as no one in high school would step in; they were all to caught up in their own struggle up the ultimately meaningless social ladder. Worse, our country, one that claims to support human rights, to be the unbiased voice of reason, is actually cheering this violence on. We did nothing to stop this before the fighting started, and that is a black mark we must wear. But worse, we’re doing nothing to stop it now. We’re allowing Israel to hide behind their anger, using it as an excuse to commit disgusting acts, acts that without the veil of retribution would be nothing short of war crimes. Yes, obviously Hamas bears much of the blame, but that doesn’t make this war allowable. How many times did Joey say ‘Come on man, just throw a damn punch! What are you, a pussy?’ Would the cops have listened when you tried to explain your six dead classmates by saying ‘they earned it’? And what about Mrs Smith, Shelly Johnson and the others who got caught in your cross fire? Is it enough to say ‘well, too bad, they were in the way’ or ‘Rob was hiding behind them’? Israel shelled a UN compound today…first a school and now the UNITED NATIONS’ GAZA HEADQUARTERS! Even if you believe that really were returning fire on extremists, what good can possibly come of this? Clearly Israel is blinded by rage to what they have become. They have lost control the way you almost lost control way back in high school shop class. They are now terrorists, using fear and violence as a solution to their problems just as Hamas is so adept at doing.
Whenever something like this involves the kind of emotional energy, the anger, loss and frustration that this necessarily does, to expect that the two sides can be objective enough be rational, to avoid seeking simple, bloody revenge is not only foolish, it is irresponsible in the extreme. What we need is for the world to demand in one voice that Israel stop this violence. The only thing they are accomplishing is unwarranted death and further radicalizing already sympathetic Palestinians. To continue to stand on the sidelines is to condemn more innocent people to death, just as the silence of your classmates so long ago contributed to your torment and eventual breakdown. Every country that abstained from voting on the UN resolution condemning Israel’s actions this week has Palestinian blood on its hands, and we, for voting against it are even more culpable. This madness has to stop, it has to stop now, and the only way that is going to happen is if world pressure forces Israel to see the monster it is becoming.
-Against Me!, Justin
Am I the only one who remembers high school? Certainly that cannot be the case. Think back to your own days in the crucible of early adult-hood, when the jeans you wore and the people you hung out with in the halls were more important than anything that actually took place in the classroom. Cliques were constantly forming, breaking up and reforming; popularity was the key to survival and often your own morals were the currency demanded. Of course you remember the bullies, everyone does; those kids who tried to hide their own troubles by creating ones for the rest of us? Remember that time in the change room after gym class, when Joey Sanders and Rob Brathwright started shoving you around in front of everyone, or the time they surrounded and humiliated you behind the school during the fire drill with everyone either laughing along or doing nothing to stop it, and worst of all in front of Sara McMillan, the girl you hadn’t the courage to so much as look at let alone talk to? All the anger and frustration, the jeers and the spitballs were almost too much to bare, right? Those kids who made your life seem so unfair and brutal, those kids who’s home lives were more screwed up than you could ever know, they tortured you and crippled your self-confidence. How many times did you feel like lashing out, like giving those assholes what they deserve? One day you almost did, and it nearly broke you. You were seconds away from doing something unspeakable, of validating your anger and making them pay. You thought you hated them so much, and that hammer on the bench in shop class began to look like the answer.
How many times have you heard scenarios like this, stories of kids pushed over the edge into horrendous violence? Columbine, Virginia Tech, schools across the continent where the system failed and people died. It doesn’t take much for the victims to be come the villains, for emotions to get the best of people, and retaliatory ideas to take over. The backlash is always worse than the torment that caused it, especially in light of the fact that it all could have been solved long before it escalated to that level. Take this scenario and blow it up, make it fit the scale where people are nations and spitballs are rockets. The broken families that were the root of Joey’s anti-social behaviour are now the shattered and marginalized societies that breed extremism and hatred, places where frustration and anger at home make people look for someone, anyone, to blame, to take it out on, be they deserving or otherwise. Is the metaphor becoming clear? This cycle of anger and violence that so clouded your judgements, and urged you to just lash out with all your might is the same thing now clouding the minds of Israel’s leaders and anyone who supports this unwarranted war. Israel has been pushed to the breaking point. They didn’t just pick up that shop class hammer, they brought Uncle Sam’s shotgun to school and now people are dying by the hundreds, and what do the rest of us do? Nothing, just as no one in high school would step in; they were all to caught up in their own struggle up the ultimately meaningless social ladder. Worse, our country, one that claims to support human rights, to be the unbiased voice of reason, is actually cheering this violence on. We did nothing to stop this before the fighting started, and that is a black mark we must wear. But worse, we’re doing nothing to stop it now. We’re allowing Israel to hide behind their anger, using it as an excuse to commit disgusting acts, acts that without the veil of retribution would be nothing short of war crimes. Yes, obviously Hamas bears much of the blame, but that doesn’t make this war allowable. How many times did Joey say ‘Come on man, just throw a damn punch! What are you, a pussy?’ Would the cops have listened when you tried to explain your six dead classmates by saying ‘they earned it’? And what about Mrs Smith, Shelly Johnson and the others who got caught in your cross fire? Is it enough to say ‘well, too bad, they were in the way’ or ‘Rob was hiding behind them’? Israel shelled a UN compound today…first a school and now the UNITED NATIONS’ GAZA HEADQUARTERS! Even if you believe that really were returning fire on extremists, what good can possibly come of this? Clearly Israel is blinded by rage to what they have become. They have lost control the way you almost lost control way back in high school shop class. They are now terrorists, using fear and violence as a solution to their problems just as Hamas is so adept at doing.
Whenever something like this involves the kind of emotional energy, the anger, loss and frustration that this necessarily does, to expect that the two sides can be objective enough be rational, to avoid seeking simple, bloody revenge is not only foolish, it is irresponsible in the extreme. What we need is for the world to demand in one voice that Israel stop this violence. The only thing they are accomplishing is unwarranted death and further radicalizing already sympathetic Palestinians. To continue to stand on the sidelines is to condemn more innocent people to death, just as the silence of your classmates so long ago contributed to your torment and eventual breakdown. Every country that abstained from voting on the UN resolution condemning Israel’s actions this week has Palestinian blood on its hands, and we, for voting against it are even more culpable. This madness has to stop, it has to stop now, and the only way that is going to happen is if world pressure forces Israel to see the monster it is becoming.
Dear Coaches Corner
Don Cherry: That was sickening last week, by the way,
Ron Mclane: What? What is going on with you?
DC: Ah, all that shi- what, we're hockey night in Canada, what are we doing talking about saving the world, and all this stuff, let's talk hockey
RM: Wha-Well that's the whole idea behind December 25th
DC: Ha, let's talk about some good guys
RM: Ok,
DC: Let's talk about the Troops
Dear Ron McLane. Dear Coach's Corner.
I'm writing in order for someone to explain
to my niece the distinction between
these mandatory pre-game group rites of submission
and the rallies at Nuremberg.
Specifically the function the ritual serves
in conjunction with what everybody knows is,
in the end, a kid's game.
I'm just appealing to your sense of fair play
when I say she's puzzled by this incessant pressure
for her to not defy collective will and yellow ribboned lapels,
as the soldiers inexplicably repel down from the arena rafters.
Which, if it not so insane,
they'll be grounds for screaming laughter.
Dear Ron McLane, I wouldn't bother with these questions
if I didn't sense some spiritual connection.
We may not be the same, but it's not like we're from different planets.
We both love this game so much we can hardly fucking stand it.
Alberta-born, and Prairie-raised.
It seems like there ain't a sheet of ice north of Fargo I ain't played.
From Penhold to the Gatinaeu, every fond memory of childhood
that I know is somehow connected to the culture of this game.
I just can't let it go.
I guess it comes down to what kind of world you want to live in.
And if diversity is disagreement, disagreement is treason.
Well, you'll be surprised if we find ourselves
reaping a strange and bitter fruit that that sad old man beside you
keeps feeding to young minds as virtue.
It takes a village to raise a child, but just a flag to raze the children
till they're nothing more than ballasts for fulfilling
a madman's dream of a paradise. Complexity reduced to black and white.
How do I protect her from this cult of death?
Ron Mclane: What? What is going on with you?
DC: Ah, all that shi- what, we're hockey night in Canada, what are we doing talking about saving the world, and all this stuff, let's talk hockey
RM: Wha-Well that's the whole idea behind December 25th
DC: Ha, let's talk about some good guys
RM: Ok,
DC: Let's talk about the Troops
Dear Ron McLane. Dear Coach's Corner.
I'm writing in order for someone to explain
to my niece the distinction between
these mandatory pre-game group rites of submission
and the rallies at Nuremberg.
Specifically the function the ritual serves
in conjunction with what everybody knows is,
in the end, a kid's game.
I'm just appealing to your sense of fair play
when I say she's puzzled by this incessant pressure
for her to not defy collective will and yellow ribboned lapels,
as the soldiers inexplicably repel down from the arena rafters.
Which, if it not so insane,
they'll be grounds for screaming laughter.
Dear Ron McLane, I wouldn't bother with these questions
if I didn't sense some spiritual connection.
We may not be the same, but it's not like we're from different planets.
We both love this game so much we can hardly fucking stand it.
Alberta-born, and Prairie-raised.
It seems like there ain't a sheet of ice north of Fargo I ain't played.
From Penhold to the Gatinaeu, every fond memory of childhood
that I know is somehow connected to the culture of this game.
I just can't let it go.
I guess it comes down to what kind of world you want to live in.
And if diversity is disagreement, disagreement is treason.
Well, you'll be surprised if we find ourselves
reaping a strange and bitter fruit that that sad old man beside you
keeps feeding to young minds as virtue.
It takes a village to raise a child, but just a flag to raze the children
till they're nothing more than ballasts for fulfilling
a madman's dream of a paradise. Complexity reduced to black and white.
How do I protect her from this cult of death?
Should Tiger Woods be an Olympian?
To answer that question, we first need to understand the broader question of what the Olympics are, and what they mean. As some of you might remember, I’ve argued this point before, and my opinion remains unchanged. The Olympics are, or at least should be, above all else an expression of freedom. They are one of the last remaining bastions of fairness, equality and ultimately of fun amidst an otherwise often bleak political landscape. With a warming planet, illegal wars, massive financial corruption, and a litany of other problems facing the world today (as if today were somehow different than any other day), the Olympics should stand as a place to forget all of it; a place where people can interact and compete without all the baggage that the rest of life brings with it, on a level playing field, the sole goal being the celebration of personal and thereby collective achievement. The very last thing that the Olympics should be about is TV ratings. Sadly however, that is exactly what the IOC seems so concerned with.
Yesterday’s ruling by Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon should not have come as a surprise. Whether they’d care to admit it or not, everyone involved with the women’s ski jumpers’ suit of VANOC on the grounds of sexist discrimination against their sport must have known that there was never any chance of a BC supreme court judge attempting to actually over-rule the IOC. That doesn’t mean that the suit was a failure, however. What Justice Fenlon surprisingly did accomplish with her ruling was the laying of blame for what she describes as a case of discrimination at the feet of the IOC, but probably not exactly as she intended.
Of her ruling, Justice Fenlon had this to say; “Many of the men the plaintiffs have trained with and competed against as peers will be Olympians; the plaintiffs will be denied this opportunity for no reason other than their sex,”
Her sentiments are right on the money, but she missed one key fact. These dedicated and courageous (have you ever so much as stood at the top of a ski jump, let alone contemplated hurling yourself off of one?) women are being denied a fair chance to represent their sport and their countries, but not based on their lack of a penis. They’re being denied this chance based on their current inability to draw a North American audience.
Despite the IOC’s claims to the contrary, this cannot possibly be about technical merit. Ski jumping is a sport with a longer pedigree, a richer history and a larger pool of athletes than many other sports that have been granted an Olympic berth. Take snowboard cross racing for example. Women’s ski jumping has 135 competitors from 16 nations. Women’s snowboard cross has only 30 women from just 10 nations. Ski jumping can be traced back to the 1800’s…snowboarding has only been around roughly as long as me. Ski jumping attracts spectators by the thousands. Snowboard cross attracts spectators by the thousands. Oh, wait…what’s the difference here? Ski jumping’s spectators are European, as are they’re primary sponsors and equipment suppliers. Snowboard cross spectators are North American, and the industry that makes their equipment is one of the fastest growing and most profitable on the continent. Hmm. Whatever they wish this controversy were about, the IOC has made it clear that their only concern when adding new sports is the ability to increase TV viewership and garner more advertising dollars for their massive corporate sponsors. If this example isn’t blatant enough for you, look at beach volleyball, one of the summer Games’ darling attractions. Perfectly toned, sculpted and oiled men and women throw themselves around a sandy beach, clad only in the skimpiest of (overpriced) swimwear and adorned with tacky (and hopefully temporary) corporate tattoos. The message is clear. Anything that sells (in this case it’s sex) is good with the IOC. Too bad female ski jumpers can’t simply start sporting bikinis; if the could, the debate would be moot.
So, should women’s ski jumping be an Olympic sport? Of course it should, I doubt there is any question of that in anyone’s mind, regardless of what side of the debate they’re on. What troubles me the most is that, given such a flagrant display of the IOC’s true values, when will Tiger be crowned an Olympic Champion?
Yesterday’s ruling by Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon should not have come as a surprise. Whether they’d care to admit it or not, everyone involved with the women’s ski jumpers’ suit of VANOC on the grounds of sexist discrimination against their sport must have known that there was never any chance of a BC supreme court judge attempting to actually over-rule the IOC. That doesn’t mean that the suit was a failure, however. What Justice Fenlon surprisingly did accomplish with her ruling was the laying of blame for what she describes as a case of discrimination at the feet of the IOC, but probably not exactly as she intended.
Of her ruling, Justice Fenlon had this to say; “Many of the men the plaintiffs have trained with and competed against as peers will be Olympians; the plaintiffs will be denied this opportunity for no reason other than their sex,”
Her sentiments are right on the money, but she missed one key fact. These dedicated and courageous (have you ever so much as stood at the top of a ski jump, let alone contemplated hurling yourself off of one?) women are being denied a fair chance to represent their sport and their countries, but not based on their lack of a penis. They’re being denied this chance based on their current inability to draw a North American audience.
Despite the IOC’s claims to the contrary, this cannot possibly be about technical merit. Ski jumping is a sport with a longer pedigree, a richer history and a larger pool of athletes than many other sports that have been granted an Olympic berth. Take snowboard cross racing for example. Women’s ski jumping has 135 competitors from 16 nations. Women’s snowboard cross has only 30 women from just 10 nations. Ski jumping can be traced back to the 1800’s…snowboarding has only been around roughly as long as me. Ski jumping attracts spectators by the thousands. Snowboard cross attracts spectators by the thousands. Oh, wait…what’s the difference here? Ski jumping’s spectators are European, as are they’re primary sponsors and equipment suppliers. Snowboard cross spectators are North American, and the industry that makes their equipment is one of the fastest growing and most profitable on the continent. Hmm. Whatever they wish this controversy were about, the IOC has made it clear that their only concern when adding new sports is the ability to increase TV viewership and garner more advertising dollars for their massive corporate sponsors. If this example isn’t blatant enough for you, look at beach volleyball, one of the summer Games’ darling attractions. Perfectly toned, sculpted and oiled men and women throw themselves around a sandy beach, clad only in the skimpiest of (overpriced) swimwear and adorned with tacky (and hopefully temporary) corporate tattoos. The message is clear. Anything that sells (in this case it’s sex) is good with the IOC. Too bad female ski jumpers can’t simply start sporting bikinis; if the could, the debate would be moot.
So, should women’s ski jumping be an Olympic sport? Of course it should, I doubt there is any question of that in anyone’s mind, regardless of what side of the debate they’re on. What troubles me the most is that, given such a flagrant display of the IOC’s true values, when will Tiger be crowned an Olympic Champion?
Morals
The Calgary Stampede: a celebration of a major element of Canadian culture, or simply a spectacle of cruelty and torment, supposedly rooted in culture and tradition? That’s certainly a loaded question, especially for Albertans. What’s more troubling is the lack of movement/action on the part of the Calgary Humane Society (CHS), and why they seem to be so afraid of answering it.
The radio ads outlining the potential physical and psychological trauma visited upon calves, horses, and steers at the Stampede are very well known, and there has been no shortage of media coverage of the protestors attempts to make their voices heard above the cacophony of ‘Yee-Haw!” and “Rope ‘Em Cowboy!” Animal rights activists from around the country, and in some cases, around the world, converged on Calgary for these past two weeks. The Vancouver Humane Society paid for the radio ads and made no secret of it. They also made no secret of their disgust that their fellow Calgary Humane Society remained largely silent throughout the Stampede, despite numerous attempts to draw them into the debate.
Whatever you’re opinion of the Stampede, you can’t deny the facts that. Four animals were killed this year alone, and many more injured physically. Including the deaths this year, and including animals that were put down as a result of injuries such as broken legs, torn musculature, and severe spinal chord damage, the toll of animals who have died because of the Stampede now stands at more than twenty. What is presented as a celebration of Alberta’s history, heritage and culture is, in reality, the profiteering brainchild of an American entrepreneur Guy Weadick, who saw the huge moneymaking potential of a city like Calgary and decided to exploit it. Activities that, if applied to animals other than livestock, would be considered appalling, are passed of as good, clean fun. How long would it take the CHS to condemn a circus if elephants were prodded with searing brands, had clinchers cinched tight around their testicles, and tormented into a rage, all to allow some Indian man in a funny hat a chance to hold on to the bucking and maddened beast for 8 seconds. Thankfully for the organization, however, elephant wrangling isn’t high on the list of events likely to be sponsored by the City of Calgary, or the enormous Alberta agriculture industry for that matter.
The more I look into the issue, the more troubling it becomes for me. But that, of course, is only my opinion. My opinion…something that I am free and entitled to express. Doesn’’t the same right exist for an organization like the CHS? Why have they been so silent on a matter than falls squarely within their moral jurisdiction? Perhaps because their right to express their opinion is superseded by their desire to remain in the good books of a city and corporate empire so infatuated with the Stampede?
An interesting aside: as I write this, my iPod, on shuffle, has produced a particularly ironic piece of music…Rise Against’s Ready To Fall. Now here is a group of people who, instead of shying away from controversy, choose to embrace it. They stand on rock solid ethics, guided by an unshakeable moral compass, even in the face of severe criticism. Many music fans have accused the band of selling out, of acquiescing to the whim of the corporations because they signed to a major record label. The fact is that they have remained one of the most outspoken and influential bands on issues of war, global warming, and animal and human rights. The proof of this was clear to me when I saw them in concert a month ago. They responded, as they always do, to growing accusations of selling out, of being corporate puppets, the only way they know how: by standing on stage and hammering the audience with frenetic instruments and unrestrained, passionate vocals. What’s more ironic is that the band is a huge supporter of, and campaigner for PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I wonder what they’re their thoughts on the CHS’s telling silence around the Stampede would be. Maybe the folks at the Calgary Humane Society could take a cue from Tim McIlrath and the guys in Rise Against. They could try standing up for their morals despite the consequences instead of backing down so shamefully and hiding from the big money that supports the Stampede.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgrwihpN_RE
The radio ads outlining the potential physical and psychological trauma visited upon calves, horses, and steers at the Stampede are very well known, and there has been no shortage of media coverage of the protestors attempts to make their voices heard above the cacophony of ‘Yee-Haw!” and “Rope ‘Em Cowboy!” Animal rights activists from around the country, and in some cases, around the world, converged on Calgary for these past two weeks. The Vancouver Humane Society paid for the radio ads and made no secret of it. They also made no secret of their disgust that their fellow Calgary Humane Society remained largely silent throughout the Stampede, despite numerous attempts to draw them into the debate.
Whatever you’re opinion of the Stampede, you can’t deny the facts that. Four animals were killed this year alone, and many more injured physically. Including the deaths this year, and including animals that were put down as a result of injuries such as broken legs, torn musculature, and severe spinal chord damage, the toll of animals who have died because of the Stampede now stands at more than twenty. What is presented as a celebration of Alberta’s history, heritage and culture is, in reality, the profiteering brainchild of an American entrepreneur Guy Weadick, who saw the huge moneymaking potential of a city like Calgary and decided to exploit it. Activities that, if applied to animals other than livestock, would be considered appalling, are passed of as good, clean fun. How long would it take the CHS to condemn a circus if elephants were prodded with searing brands, had clinchers cinched tight around their testicles, and tormented into a rage, all to allow some Indian man in a funny hat a chance to hold on to the bucking and maddened beast for 8 seconds. Thankfully for the organization, however, elephant wrangling isn’t high on the list of events likely to be sponsored by the City of Calgary, or the enormous Alberta agriculture industry for that matter.
The more I look into the issue, the more troubling it becomes for me. But that, of course, is only my opinion. My opinion…something that I am free and entitled to express. Doesn’’t the same right exist for an organization like the CHS? Why have they been so silent on a matter than falls squarely within their moral jurisdiction? Perhaps because their right to express their opinion is superseded by their desire to remain in the good books of a city and corporate empire so infatuated with the Stampede?
An interesting aside: as I write this, my iPod, on shuffle, has produced a particularly ironic piece of music…Rise Against’s Ready To Fall. Now here is a group of people who, instead of shying away from controversy, choose to embrace it. They stand on rock solid ethics, guided by an unshakeable moral compass, even in the face of severe criticism. Many music fans have accused the band of selling out, of acquiescing to the whim of the corporations because they signed to a major record label. The fact is that they have remained one of the most outspoken and influential bands on issues of war, global warming, and animal and human rights. The proof of this was clear to me when I saw them in concert a month ago. They responded, as they always do, to growing accusations of selling out, of being corporate puppets, the only way they know how: by standing on stage and hammering the audience with frenetic instruments and unrestrained, passionate vocals. What’s more ironic is that the band is a huge supporter of, and campaigner for PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I wonder what they’re their thoughts on the CHS’s telling silence around the Stampede would be. Maybe the folks at the Calgary Humane Society could take a cue from Tim McIlrath and the guys in Rise Against. They could try standing up for their morals despite the consequences instead of backing down so shamefully and hiding from the big money that supports the Stampede.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
