Space shuttle

Whoopee, another space shuttle launch.

Pardon the lackadaisical response, but I don't think it's what we need now. I'll admit, when I was a kid, outer space was fascinating. The idea of discovery of new world thrilled me. Star Trek series, particularly TNG, have fed that.

However, my feeling is that we should get our shit together on this planet before worrying about outer space. We've got a long way to go too. Extreme economic inequalities, rampant wars, famines, epidemics and growing environmental crises all demand the undivided attention of our leaders.

Hopefully someday, we will significantly expand our knowledge of the universe. However, let's get our own house in order first.

Chomsky on the Gaza pullout

From now on, posts of other authors' writings will only be posted here if they say something that is not being said by and large, and needs to be said. I'm going to start with this tidbit from Noam Chomsky's blog.

Any sane Israeli government would want to remove Israeli settlements from Gaza, where about 8000 settlers take a large part of the land and resources, and have to be protected by huge army contingents.

Far more rational, now that the occupation has turned Gaza into a hell-hole, is to get out and leave it as a prison in which the population can rot. The “Gaza disengagement plan” is, in fact, a US-Israeli West Bank expansion plan, designed to incorporate valuable land and resources of the West Bank into Israel, and leave Palestinians in a few unviable Bantustans which the US and Israel can call a “state”—rather as South Africa called the Bantustans “independent states.”

There is great agonizing now in Israel about the tragedy of the settlers who were handsomely subsidized to settle illegally in Gaza, where they have tortured and terrorized the population and stolen their land and resources, and now will be handsomely subsidized by the same generous fairy godmother (you and your friends) to settle somewhere else. People are wearing orange, etc. As the better Israeli journalists have eloquently described, it is a shame and disgrace. The same is true of the “trauma” of Jews evicting Jews. If Sharon wants to remove the settlers quietly, nothing is easier. Simply announce that the IDF will be withdrawn on date X, and a few weeks earlier the settlers will be gone.

It’s mostly cynical show to justify the US-Israel West Bank expansion programs.

The Gaza pullout is a rouse by the Israeli government to appear to do something without doing anything, or, as Chomsky suggests, to increase their power.

Welcome to Reality

Number of people in London killed pre-emptively by "the terrorists" in the last 48 hours: 0.
Number of people in London killed pre-emptively by the police in the last 48 hours: 1.

A headline I saw today: "World unites against fear". Yeah right.

The British police has apparently asked for special measure which they can use to investiage and apprehend people. Furthermore, they have adopted a shoot to kill policy when it comes to people they think might be suicide bombers.

This, as well as the shooting today, is making Muslims in London very nervous. And this is how Britain is supposed to be made safe? By antagonizing an already marginalized group?

It's ridiculous. How many people die every year by homicide? Suicide? Car accident? Disease? And how many by terrorist attack? You get my point, I hope. Let's put the paranoia aside and deal with reality.

Let's not turn Canada into a police state. Ever. That is something which I would protest tooth and nail. As has been pointed out many times by conservatives, We can thank for the freedoms we enjoy the soldiers who fought in the "Great Wars." Right. Well, what would they think of suspending our rights due to an unrealistic state of paranoia?

There is a certain level of risk that comes with any aspect of life. I would rather take the remote risk of a terrorist attack and continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms I enjoy as a Canadian, than maintain a perpetual state of fear of attack, be it from terrorists orthe police.

I refuse to live in fear. That means I refuse to live my life in constant paranoia regarding people who might look "suspicious" when the likelihood is 99.9999% likely that it is nothing.

this is my one blog

From now on, I will post all my ramblings, personal or political, on this blog. I will keep my other blog up for the archives and the links

all we have is this very moment

I got my haircut today. Everytime I get my haricut, I seem to spot a few more grey hairs. doesn't really bother me, but I am beginning to accept it as a sign of aging, and that I will never have a fully auburn head of hair again. Thus the march toward middle age continues.

I don't feel middle aged. I believe that youth is a state of mind, and I see myself as a big kid. I hope I'll always see myself that way. I hope I'll always be hip to what's going on -- new social and political ideas, new music that rocks, etc. I just gotta be me, and hopefully this will always be a part of my makeup.

I look back on my younger years with fondness. I look at all the things I did, and also all the things I could have done with the time I had. Still, as Paula Cole sang, all we have is this very moment. I'm still young, and there is still so much I want to do. Motivation is the thing.

RIP Chuck Cadman

Rest in peace, Chuck. I may not have agreed with you on everything, but you had honesty and integrity, a rarity in politics. Condolescences to the Cadman family.

Love and Fear (reprint)

After 9/11, we didn't get it. Now, hopefully we will. We will understand that the cycle of violence must end, and that responding in kind to violence will only get us more of the same in return.

We as a species need to develop a new way of relating to one another, and fast. We need to recognize the humanity in each other, and stop letting the fundamentalists play on our fears. It is vitally important that we stop succumbing to their agenda.

I observed in my previous post that thousands uneccessarily with no attention in Africa everday. It is disturbing that so much attention is paid to tragedies that occur in the West, to the exclusion of likewise attention to the rest of the world.

That said, I believe an opportunity presents itself here for the world to united against violence. Violence is wrong, regardless of whom the target is, and in the immortal words of chief Seattle, we are all connected, and that which hurts one of us hurts us all in some way. Love isn't a choice here folks. Our world continues to become more and more violent, and if we're going to rescue ourselves, we will have to see that in the battle between love and fear, we must let love prevail.

On that note, I am now going to reprint an essay on Love and Fear I wrote over a year ago:

There are two primary motivations, two primary sources for action. One is love, and the other is fear. Mahatma Gandhi was motivated by love. So were Martin Luther King, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and other great humanitarians. Adolph Hitler was motivated by fear. So was Mussolini, Joe McCarthy, Ernst Zundal, Richard Nixon, and others, as are currently, George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden.

Any solution to the world's problems must be motivated by love. Fear is the source of reaction. We react, lash out wild-eyed and defensively at the Other, without knowing exactly where we are lashing or where it will lead. It is not a productive or efficient use of energy.

Love is the source of proaction. We recognize not only what the Other is doing to us, but also how we are feeling, and the humanity in the Other. Love is purposeful, thoughtful, and compassionate. A response to an injustice based on love holds the Other to account, and presses for a fair resolution of the injustice, but does so nonviolently and while recognizing the humanity in the Other.

An action that lashes out in defensiveness and resorts to lavelling of the Other is based on fear. An action,or lack thereof, to appease or avoid confrontation is also based on fear. An action that nonviolently and humanely challenges an injustice is based on love.

We all should have no air of superiority when it comes to moral quality. We all have within us the capacity for good and evil. Obviously, one of these qualities becomes more manifest that the other in most of us. There are extreme examples at both ends, such as Gandhi and Hitler. In fact, near the end of his life, after gaining independence for India, Gandhi said that the only the only devils we must conquer are those running around in our own hearts. We must always be vigilant to ensure that it is the good in us that triumphs.

I also think that it is humbling to be ever mindful of the duality of out moral nature. This duality belies those, including those currently in power in the US, who would attempt to simplify matters by attaching easy labels, such as "evil", to the Other, as opposed to acknowledging the moral complexity of a situation. If we have this duality in mind, so much easier will it be to see the humanity in those who serve injustice upon us, and to answer injustices with acts motivated by love. The Other says, "I loathe you," or "I want to hurt you." We say, "those feelings are part of the human experience, but there must be a better, more constructive way of relating to me. I know, I have felt those emotions before, as we all have, but we must not let them win. We must not let fear rule our lives. What are you afraid of? Maybe I can help.

The emotion of anger does not itself possess a moral quality. It can come from fear, or it can come from love. The moral quality is contained in the response inspired by the anger, which will be influenced by the motivation i.e. love or fear. Motivated by fear, anger will lash out defensively, indifferent to its effect on the Other. Inspired by love, anger will be constructively channelled into nonviolent opposition to the inustice which is triggering the anger.

I believe that a further word is required about fear. Sometimes, fear is natural and inevitable. If someone points a loaded gun at me, it would be natural to be afraid. Or, if I encounter a mountain lion while hiking in the woods, fear should instigate a flight response. This is related to the avoidant response I mentioned earlier. There are situations, such as interactions with other animal species, where it is the only sensible response. If you are faced with a choice between avoidance and certain death i.e. becoming someone's dinner, choose the former. Nevertheless, anytime there is a hostile encounter with another human, we must overcome the fear in our hearts, and let love triumph.

Another form of fear occurs when faced with harm or death, due to some illness or bodily injuries. It is natual to experience fear, and it is psychologically important to acknowlege that. However, it is also an opportunity to love oneself and others as never before. It is a time to reflect on one's life, and to make the most of its remainder. This is proaction -recognizing the purpose of one's existence, and working to fulfill that purpose - and it is based on love.

It has been said before that the opposite of love is greed, or selfishness. While not a desirable quality, I don't believe that greed is at the core of the problem. I think it goes deeper than that. I have used the phrase "the fear in your heart." In the phrase, substitute "greed" for "fear." The greed in your heart." It doesn't work. What is in your heart is honest, pure, unadulterated. Fear is honest, it is real, it isw what is at the core of reaction. Greed is often dishonest, required to be so by its self-consumed pursuits. Greed is a negative approach to social relations. However, if we strip away the surface, the pretenses, the show, the facades of greed, what do we find, purely there, the basest instinct, without having been given any time to think or scheme. I believe it is fear.

The kind of world we see in the future will depend on which human motivation dominates. Will fear continue to divide us according to race, religion, gender, etc? Or, will love bring us together; will the love we have for our fellow human beings overpower our fear? That is the question of the time.

London

This morning London time four bombs, three in the Underground, and one on a tour bus went off, killing at least 37 and injuring over 700. A European offshot of Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility. I was listening to CBC radio during the day as reports came in from eyewitnesses and politicians. Several things went through my mind. The first was shock. Senseless violence (how's that for a redundancy) always shocks me. My heart goes out to all those families and the citizens of London who have been affected by this tragedy.

The people who undertook this endeavour are not heroes of any kind. They are murderers and powermongers, and I very much hope that they will be brought to justice through legal means. They have killed innocent people, and probably only served to aggravate the cycle of violence. They have drawn attention away from the G8 Summit which thanks to Live 8 had the attention of the world focussed on it.

The temptation among some may be to respond in kind. Some would be tempted to do so out of self interest, such as the militaristic regime in the US. However, many will want to out of anger. I would strongly advise against that action. That is exactly what the terrorists want. They don't want us to stop, as Bush and Blair suggest. They want us to respond in kind and bring us one step closer to an all out war. In fact I would speculate that they are counting on it because of the nature of the Bush regime.

What I would like to is for people to stand up and take a stand against violence. Take a stand against extremism, against fundamentalism, against fascism, regardless of it's country of origin, regardless of it's motivation.

I want to quote something my net pal Andrea Valois from Hamilton said about the ethics of violence, a thought which I have been thinking myself for many years:

...to fight violence with violence is to condone the first act of violence because you are playing by the same rules. did that make sense? if someone is violent to you and you respond by being violent back to them, essentially you are confirming that violence is an appropriate course of action and you give the green light for further violence. and in the end, you lose because you end up playing by the same rules as the person who harmed you in the first place. but to engage in the 'moral jiu jitzu' of nonviolence is to change the rules entirely, thereby giving you the upperhand and the advantage in the conflict. violence is undoubtedly a cycle and eventually, someone needs to be the bigger person and put an end to it.

When are we as a species going to learn that violence begets violence, and that it only takes one to stop?

Though the terrorist acts in London today are unustifyable, at the same time I believe it is important to understand root causes. Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum. Conservatives may dismiss that viewpoint as coddling terrorists, but I believe it's actually much more realistic than playing global cowboy.

While I'm at it, I would also send my heart out to the thousands who will die of starvation in Africa today, and the estimated 100,000 who have been killed in Iraq, and furthermore to all who die unecesarily due to violence, whether it be physical or economic.

Live 8

Live 8 is happening in several cities around the world this weekend, and i hope the kids have a great time. I also hope that while they are partying, they don't forget what it's all about i.e. addressing the problem of extreme poverty in Africa. That said, I wonder how much a difference the event will really have. I really hope a huge one but I'm not so sure. There have been varying criticisms of the event, from the left as well as the right. The criticism from the right goes along the lines of: don't give to corrupt governments. I went to see Joseph Stiglitz talk the other day, and he explained how Western governments are complicit in corruption in the developing world.

Bitterly sarcastic comment of the day: I think we should do absoutely nothing to help folks trapped in poverty because of a government which is corrupt through no fault of their own. That'll show them.

Anyway, there are criticisms from the left as well, which for me are much harder to dismiss. I don't think Live 8 does enough to address the structural problems which are at the root of poverty in Africa. The .7% spending proposal is important and i hope it is agreed to by the parties to the G8, but much more fundamental are unfair trade policies, high-interest loans, and "structural adjustment programs" which put pressure on developing countries to make certain right-wing economic reforms, such as privatization and deregulation. A recent example of this is the recent agreemtn on debt relief. It would have been better to wait for a better deal, which should be a no-brainer, than one which forced such reforms on these countries.

I hope it's a great event. I hope the music is great, and that millions appreciate it. And I hope the people there remember why it's happening in the first place.

make the most of it

To follow up on my last post, the only answer that I can come up with is the same one I keep arriving at. There are no guarantees in life, or in afterlife. Yes memories are important, but the best thing that we can do for ourselves in this moment is to make the most of it, to know our purpose, and to live it in our day-to-day lives. That that leads to the creation of memories is incidental.

dear readers

I am going to start spending more time on my political blog, as I am going to follow the Downing stree Memo to its conclusion, which will hopefully result in Bush going down. I will be updating this, my personal blog, as well when I feel like it.

Memories and immortality

Life is fleeting. Before you know it, it is gone. The thing that obsesses me the most, the thing that frightens me the most, is the reality of our impermanence. We're here, and then we're not. Nothing. Once second, alive to dead. Is there an afterlife in which our soul will rise? Do we even have a soul? I don't know. As far as I can tell, that's impossible to know. That brings me to my point. The only kind of immortality we can be sure of having are through the memories we leave behind. My dear great Uncle Bob is remembered through the memories he left with those he loved, friends and family. I will be remembered through the memories I leave with those I touch.

However, who will remember all the lonely people out there, homeless people, and so forth? I find that incredibly sad that our society can be so wrapped up in materialism, and in the here and now, that we don't consider all of the negative ways this effects those who fall through the cracks.

Who will remember them when they are gone?

I will try to.

----

Time it was and what a time it was it was,
A time of innocence a time of confidences.

Long ago it must be, I have a photograph
Preserve your memories, they're all that's left you.

-Paul Simon, 1967.

check this out

Please see my other blog for a new post.

Sarah Mclachlan, Vancouver, June 12

I finally, for the first time in my life, got to see the extremely creative and talented Sarah Mclachaln perform at GM Place. I have been a huge fan of hers since Fumbling. She did not disappoint. She did all of her songs from Afterglow. Train Wreck was really awesome,as was Time, featuring Sarah on acoustic guitar. She also did four songs from Surfacing and five from Fumbling Toward Ecstacy, though nothing from Touch or Solace. One surpirse for me was an excellent rendition of the Peter Gabriel song Solsbury Hill. It was an emotional concert as it was her last concert of the tour, and in her hometown. Here's a Vancouver Sun article on the concert.

Sarah, fans soar on happy homecoming vibe
Last stop of the tour has McLachlan 'feeling love, feeling awesome' as the crowd hangs on every word from the sentimental star

Kerry Gold
Vancouver Sun


Monday, June 13, 2005

With an enchanted forest backdrop behind her, carrying a guitar, wearing clunky boots and a flowing skirt, a relaxed-looking Sarah McLachlan traipsed onto the stage at GM Place Sunday night and settled into one of her newest songs, World on Fire.

The concert was the last of the tour, and McLachlan radiated excitement to be wrapping up in her home base, with family and friends present and a free summer ahead. Outside on one of the tour buses someone had hung a sign that said, "Home Sweet Home." Jason Priestley could be spotted picking up tickets at will call. And about 11,000 fans filled seats to witness the adult contemporary star's home coming.

McLachlan had suffered a setback earlier in the year when she contracted sinusitis and laryngitis and was forced to postpone a few tour dates. Logistically, it made sense to end in Vancouver, which made the singer happy.

"It's really fortuitous that I got sick near the end of the tour because otherwise I wouldn't have finished in Vancouver," she said, to many cheers, following a breezy version of Building a Mystery, the hit off 1997's Surfacing.

The lovely Adia, also from that album, was the first song of the evening to get the reserved crowd revved up. The momentum hit an occasional wall, however, by the less successful new material such as Perfect Girl and Drifting, pleasing enough but meandering, overly subtle songs, nonetheless.

McLachlan dedicated love song Push to husband and percussionist Ash Sood, jokingly introducing the song as an apology for the months of postpartum crying jags he had to endure following the birth of their daughter three years ago. McLachlan is a more communicative performer than she was in her Lilith Fair years, talking frequently and intimately with her audience (as intimate as one can get in front of 11,000 people).

She reiterated self-deprecating anecdotes she'd given in recent interviews involving her own control-freak tendencies, rolling her eyes when she mistakenly referred to herself as a "young mother," and changing it to "young-ish mother."

It went over big with the fans, particularly one mom who consistently shrieked for long, almost disturbing intervals. Everyone else erupted for the emotionally charged, sweeping songs for which McLachlan is idolized, including Push, I Will Remember You, Arms of an Angel, Sweet Surrender, Possession, Ice Cream. McLachlan's voice remains a powerful instrument, the star of the show.

"If I had to choose a song off my newest record this is probably my favourite," she said, introducing piano ballad Answer, a quiet, hymn-like song that brought McLachlan around to her piano, accompanied only by three seated bandmates singing back up. McLachlan's note-perfect delivery inspired the audience to start applauding halfway through, and it was around this point that the audience loosened up enough to start screaming the "I love you's."

By the time she sang an acoustic version of Arms of an Angel, she had the room on its feet. An earlier highlight was McLachlan's stellar cover of Blackbird (from the I Am Sam soundtrack), a folksy version of a classic that was given new life by signature McLachlan's vocal style.

The show had an air of something special to it, being the last stop. At the end of the set, fake leaves fell from the ceiling and littered the stage as McLachlan and her seven-piece band took their bows in the din of applause. Her roadies sang Carol Burnett's "It's so nice we had this time together" theme song from the side of the stage as part of the encore.

"I'm having such an amazing time tonight," McLachlan told her equally polite crowd. "We are all feeling love here. We are feeling awesome. It's so nice to end at home," she said. "Thank you so much."

Change from the bottom up

Any meaningful change has to be instigated by a grassroots movement. How can a movement like that really develop momentum? Education? I think so, but what form does the education take? Communication. Other forms of media, books, music, I think can all be powerful forces in instigating positive change.

As much as I think the idea of celebrity is a bit absurd, Matthew Good, as well as others, have a certain level of fame. Bono, Sting, Geldof, Bruce Cockburn, etc.
He reaches a lot of people not only with his music, but with his blog as well. As distasteful as it may be, I think that maybe humanitarianism and social activism has to be seen as "cool."

It was John Lennon I think who started it. In 1969 he said, "We're all Christ and we're all Hitler. We are trying to make Christ's message contemporary. We want Christ to win. What would he have done if he had advertisements, T.V., records, films and newspapers? The miracle today is communication. So let's use it."

I don't know. There's got to be more to it than that. I think it's more basic than that. What is communicaton? It's any interaction between two or more people where information is sent back and forth. Could be verbal or nonverbal. You could include other animals as well, but for the purpose of this discussion, let's focus on people. This humanitarian education can be as simple as taking the form of a conversation between friends or family members, or even your neighbour.

Leading by example I also think is important. I get involved with Amnesty International. I don't broadcast it, but friends, family, and some acquaintances know about it. Then, it's at least on the brain for them.

Demographics are important too. Let's break them down. Youn'g folks nowadays are particuarly disenfranchised. Many of them don't vote, because the feel they have nothing to vote for. How can they see that there are ways for them to change their world? I don't know. I'm asking.

Simultaneously, though, let's not forget the other generations. Once folks get a little older and start having families, their harder to reach, though. Their time is consumed with diaper changes, driving kids to soccer practice, and so forth. How can they see that creating a better world is important for their kids, and their kid's kids futures?

The seniors are very important too. As folks get older, I do think they tend to become more conservative. How can they see through manipulation from right-wing sources.

Anyway, a few thoughts.

John Ralston Saul

Went to see John Ralston Saul talk tonight. He is on a tour promoting his new book "The Collapse of Globalism." I didn't copiously take notes, but toward the end of the talk I pulled out my calendar and scribbled a couple of points that stood out for me from the talk:

The current economic system we have been undersince the early 1970s actually has nothing to do capitalism, and is instead a re-invention of 17th century mercantilism.

Internationalism in itself is not bad. Globalism, though, is a narrow subset of internationalism in which, foolishly, all political decision making is based on economics. This, incidently, runs counter to traditional economic wisdom. Karl Marx and Adam Smith, contrary to popular conception, both eschewed this thinking, and Smith in the end actually argued precisely the opposite.

According to Saul, globalism is actually dead now. It was alive from about 1971 to 1995. He cited numerous examples, and said he could have cited thousands more, where politicians have violated the principles of globalism by raising a tariff or something similar when one's own interest is threatened. The example that stands out for me was raising tariffs on Chinese exports when it was predected that it would flood Western markets with cheap exports. Why become protectionist: to protest slave wages? That was a factor in the exports being cheap, but not why the attention from Wstern markets. There was no hue and cry in response to Sri Lanka or Bangledesh in that regard.

Speed is a hallmark not of civilization, but of war and barbarism. Napoleon got things done very quickly. Civilizations, on the other, require time and patience to ensure that everything, not just economics, is considered.

There are two kinds of nationalism, positive nationalism and negative nationalism. Negative nationalism is often based on religion and always based on fear, whether it's of the erosion of one's culture, or of the unkown, or whatever. He criticized Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" as a book that, intentionally or not, promoted fear and racism.

Positive nationalism, on the other hand, is using the nation state to make a positive contribution to world affairs. Forgiving the debts of thrid world countries is an example of that, and n fact, recent and soon forthcoming announcements in that regard could usher in a new, more positive era of internationalism.

He concluded his talk by saying that it is key that young people from NGOs get involved in electoral politics. While maintaining considerable respect for them and recognition of their importance,he seemed to be suggesting that the real difference can be made in the electoral realm (I actually disagree with him on that).

untitled

A goose by the door walked down the naked street to ensure a fair restitution for his brethren regarding the incident at Wembley.

readers, meet Charlie

I would like to introduce you to my alter ego, Charlie. I could have used other names, but Charlie prefers to be called by his real name. Charlie is the calming ego within me. Though, I am generally pretty easy going,I can get really worked up sometimes about things I care about. Charlie is the one who brings me to consider the sensitivities of those who arouse my animosity and receive my wrath, whther they no it or remain ignorant. He is a brief example:

Stephen: What an idiot! That guy cut me off.

Charlie: Stephen! That's not nice! How can you talk like that.

Pop

The soundtrack in my head these days is playing Pop by U2, especially "Mofo," a very dark, end-of-the-world song. The CD has taken years to grow on me. I thought it was just OK, even after a little while. However, while I really to appreciate there return to early form over the last couple of years, it has also made me more greatly appreciate Pop. It's still not as good as Achtung Baby, the first of their three experimental efforts in the nineties, but it's clearly better than Zooropa in my opinion, and has a great sound.

By the way, Achtung Baby in my opinion is one of the best recordings ever by anyone, and would highly recommend it for listening.

liz, the vet, and the flea collar

i whispered quietly as the dog scratched his ear. it looked infected so i said let's go to the doctor; he might have something to say. liz said no, he needs to see a vet silly; she's a dog. so we went to the vet and the vet said I like what you've done with your hair today, liz. then the vet said it's just fleas, here's a flea collar