This
past week I participated in a 6-day Headlines Theatre, Theatre for Living
train-the-trainer workshop lead by David Diamond.
Founded in 1981, Vancouver's Headlines
Theatre, directed by David Diamond, uses THEATRE FOR LIVING to help living communities tell their
stories. THEATRE FOR LIVING has
evolved from Augusto Boal's "Theatre of the Oppressed". Since 1989
Headlines' work has slowly moved away from the binary language and model of
"oppressor/oppressed" and now approaches community-based cultural
work from a systems-based perspective; understanding that a community is a
complexly integrated, living organism.
I
took this training in preparation for the new Diversity Education project in
Abbotsford that will involve theater workshops with community groups to
encourage discussion around the struggles of diversity.
I did not enjoy this training. I entered the week-long workshop
exhausted from my previous full work week, I was missing out on a weekend surf
trip with my friends (that I helped to plan!!) in order to attend, the days
were long and we were never able to go home on time, heaps of energy was spent
every time I put myself on stage and the content we dealt with (our struggles
in the social justice arena) and techniques we practiced were grey,
uncomfortable, and overwhelming.
But now that I have had two days off and received a massage that has allowed
my shoulders to return to their place beneath my ears, I have been able to
reflect on the training and find some gold within it.
This workshop gave me a huge piece of meat to chew on, the binary of the
oppressor and the oppressed. Diamond constantly repeated in this workshop that
there is no oppressor or oppressed, there is only us. There is no “them”, there
is only us. We were forbidden to make plays about people outside the room. We
were only allowed to act based on direct experience or experience through close
friends or family. For example, I could not play a meth addict because I have
no experience directly or indirectly with meth addiction. But I could play a
person who faces discrimination based on class, appearance, sexual orientation,
or religion. I could also play the person who discriminates based on these
aspects of diversity because I understand the struggles on both sides. Diamond
emphasized that we were to put characters on stage as human beings, with as
much dignity as possible. We did work around discussing the fears and desires of
the characters on stage and it became apparent to me that the lines of
oppressor and oppressed are not a clear as I once thought. I can identify with both
sides. I can identify with the abuser and the abused because I have been both,
I am both. Every character embodies both. In the same way that the
oppressors/abusers are responsible for their choices so are the
oppressed/abused. This lens, this model, is incredibly empowering. It
highlights the fact that the “oppressed” are not powerless but have choice.
Since returning from Africa, I have labeled the church the oppressor and I have
distanced myself from them. The lens of “no them, only us” demands responsibility. If
there is no oppressor and no oppressed, only us, change can only take place by adjusting
our behaviour. My church will not change as I sit and complain about it from
the outside, as I talk about them, and as I use the word Christian pejoratively.
I must change my behavior.
I recently watched the new Batman movie and the final instalment in Christopher Nolan's trilogy. To be fair I was reasonably entertained through the 164 minutes... However, the more I have thought about the movie and the trilogy the more disappointed I am. First of all, I was not expecting the fairy tale ending that the final instalment delivers. Each storyline wraps up neatly and everyone is happy even the villain... While this feel good ending felt good as I watched it, I left the the theatre with a bad aftertaste in my mouth -very much like Inception where you want to believe something is real but you just don't quite buy it....
Lets just check in with everyone:
Batman - saves the day but dies.
Bruce Wayne - saved the day, got the girl, immortalized Batman and both dies and doesn't die...
Commissioner Gordon - also saved the day.
Selina Kyle - saves Batman, wipes her record, vacations with Bruce.
Alfred - Has a glass of sherry and sees Bruce has found a "life"
Miranda Tate- Dies. But dies believing she succeeded in destroying Gotham.
Bane - Dies. Ok not quite everyone is happy.
Let me recap the basic plot of the trilogy:
Batman Begins: "Its what you do that defines you." "as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting"
Bruce Wayne's parents are killed.
Bruce wants vengeance.
Rachel is disgusted.
Bruce leaves Gotham.
Bruce in trained by the League of Shadows.
The League of Shadows wants to destroy Gotham.
Bruce burns the League temple and tries/thinks he has killed Ra's al Ghul.
Bruce returns to Gotham.
Bruce becomes Batman with the help of Lucius Fox.
Batman saves Rachel.
Batman thwarts a plot to infect Gotham's water supply.
Ra's al Ghul shows up with a plan to vaporize Gotham's water.
The League of Shadows burns down Wayne Manor.
Batman saves Rachel.
Batman defeats Ra's el Ghul.
Batman saves the city.
Batman is a hero.
Bruce loses Rachel.
The Dark Knight: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" "Madness... is like gravity" "Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even when the plan is horrifying." "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough."
Gotham gets tough on organized crime.
Joker offers to kill Batman.
Joker begins a terror campaign to discover Batman's identity.
Harvey Dent claims to be Batman.
Harvey and Rachel are kidnapped.
Batman accidentally rescues Harvey and Rachel dies.
Harvey becomes Two Face.
Gotham Citizens refuse to kill each other to save themselves.
Batman defeats Joker.
Batman defeats Two Face.
Batman is blamed for Harvey's death.
Rachel was engaged to Harvey.
The Dark Knight Rises: "Maybe its time we stopped avoiding the truth and let it have its day." "Hope is really the key to torture" "The fear will find you"
Bruce/Batman are in hiding/isolation.
Bane has taken over the League of Shadow and is doing construction under the city.
Bruce bankrupted and loses control of Wayne enterprises.
Bruce gives Wayne Enterprises to Miranda Tate.
Bruce has sex with Miranda.
Selina Kyle leads Batman to Bane/gives Batman to Bane.
Bane defeats Batman breaking his back.
Batman/Bruce imprisoned.
Bane takes over Gotham.
Batman/Bruce escapes.
Batman is stabbed by Miranda Tate, Ra's el Ghul's daughter.
Selina saves Batman and kills Bane.
Miranda Tate is killed in car crash.
Batman saves Gotham by flying the reactor out into the bay but dies.
Bruce is 'buried'.
Alfred sees Bruce and Selina in Italy.
One of the things that was quite enjoyable in the first two movies was Christopher Nolan's commitment to realism/plausibility. This seemed to drop off significantly in the last movie, especially in the whole prison sequence. It also, I think, shows up in the plot. While in the first two movies when Bruce "wins" there is always a cost, a personal and painful cost, that calls Batman into question. However, in the final movie the cost of victory is "exile," the death of "Batman," the fake death of Bruce, (which also doesn't make sense/wasn't necessary, since it was Batman and not Bruce that died) BUT the whole movie has been spent setting up this move to be viewed positively. To end the tale of vigilante justice so cleanly is both disappointing and inconsistent to the trilogy. The real death of Bruce/Batman would have been far preferable and consistent. Perhaps Nolan was pressured by the studio???
In the first two films I was alway able to suspend my disbelief regarding Gotham. Perhaps someone could clarify this for me but I always imagined Gotham as kind of an "every city" and that while perhaps implicitly was located in the USA that it was never explicitly located in the USA. Anyway, that may be my mistake being not super familiar with the comics. Either way, I found saturation of America and New York to be overwhelming. Perhaps because I have been to New York since the second film came out I was more aware as I was watching this one... But I think that Nolan was significantly more brazen/patriotic in his use of iconic daytime New York shots. I found this to be distracting both visually and contextually.
One of the interesting themes that is explored in the trilogy is order vs chaos. The Joker in the second film describes himself as an agent of chaos. The police and politicians like Harvey Dent of course represent order. Batman/Bruce Wayne is and interesting and complicated combination, scarred by violence, trained by the League of Shadows, Batman beats chaos at its own game/defends order with the power of chaos, all the while with evangelical self righteousness regarding his refusal to use guns. One of the questions in the midst of these struggles is the nature of humanity. Especially in the second film the Joker is continually placing Gotham's citizens on trial. Will they make the moral decision or will they destroy each other to save themselves? Is life sacred? What is most fascinating and terrifying in the second film is, as pointed out by Slajov Zizek, that the conclusion suggests that lies are required to maintain order and for the good of society.
This was something I had on my mind as I watched Dark Knight Rises and was initially encouraged to see the lie, while perhaps to a certain degree effective was eating away at Gordon, had destroyed Bruce, and failed to created any lasting peace or order. Alfred's words, "Maybe its time we stopped avoiding the truth and let it have its day," were particularly poignant. Officer Blake's rebuke of commissioner Gordon was initially also a strong statement. However, any reconsidering or successful undermining of the idea of the necessary lie was demolished by the ending of the movie. The "non-working" autopilot which required the noble sacrifice and would mean that Bruce would have given everything to Gotham, turned out to be a fiction, which Bruce keeps a secret and in the most spectacular crisis imaginable, immanent nuclear explosion... he still keeps it a secret and then unfolds an impressively complex fake my own death plot, which has Alfred in tears. So regardless of how believable this sequence is (its not), it maintains the premise put forward by the second film that society needs a lie it can believe in for its own good. In the second film this was Harvey Dent in the final film it becomes Batman, as we see statue unveiled.
I also found myself more aware of Bruce's entanglement with the American military industrial complex. Wayne enterprises is built on military development and contracts. So while Bruce can get all upset about organized crime, Bane's reply to his breaking into the stock exchange and being told their was no money for him to take, "Then what are all you people doing here," was a great piece of critique. There was very clearly a rich vs. poor dynamic that was played out in the last film. Selina Kyle's character is interesting in that she repeatedly switches sides and indicates that her criminal activity is morally superior to the games played by super rich and corporations. All this put together makes it difficult for me see Bruce as a moral human being rather than an angry, super rich, defender of the status quo and thus his own fortune and privilege. The capitalist narrative of trickle down economic appears to be explicitly perpetuated in the film as Fox explains the boys home no longer receives support since Wayne Enterprises supports it out of profit and is no long turning one. The donation of Wayne Manor to be used as a boys home for orphans, further affirms the story's encouragement of the viewer to trust in our benevolent super rich overlords, who while getting rich by the blood of our children at war will ensure that orphans have homes so that we can raise up another generation to fight wars and thus make more money...
Others have commented on similar themes and echoes of the Occupy Movement, which, if accurate, is clearly vilified in this film as either actually anarcho-terrorists bent on total destruction or at least secretly motivated and organized by atomic levels of intended destruction. The message is clear: do not oppose the current system or in so doing you will aide terrorists and annihilate yourselves and everyone else. While I suppose I am not surprised to find these perspectives in the film, they remain, however, ultimately disappointing.
Batman presents us with our own world and we should be horrified. A world in which corruption is rampant, and the system has failed. However, we are told that "the system/city" is above all else to be defended, despite its massive flaws. The status quo must be maintained by whatever violence is necessary and whatever lies are necessary because there are only two options "the system/city" or "'total destruction" and we "must" choose life and submit to authority and wealth, which will maintain order... Obviously, I disagree with this and find its presentation disturbing.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. How about everyone else? Did you like it? Am I being overly sensitive? Are there other nuances I am missing?
After spending the past month reading copious news releases,
articles, and opinions as well as hearing the insider scoop here at the UN,
there are three things to watch for in the next year. Iran, North Korea, and
global food instability.
In the next month – Iran.
I do not want to be a Debby-Downer, but things are seriously
heated in the situation with Iran at the moment. The major factor – election
year in the US. As the world enters the last few months before the election, we
hold our collective breaths. No other country’s elections are watched with such
reverence, as no other country holds as many exceptionalist positions as the
US. (I guess we would also watch Chinese elections with similar anticipation,
that is, if they had polarized political parties that participated in
elections). Given the consistency and predictability of US elections other
countries can also manipulate the process.
Specifically relevant is how Israel is using the election
year to radicalize its language regarding Iran. There are murmurs, and more than
murmurs, of an Israeli first strike against Iran. This has progressed to the
point that there have been peace protests in Israel, stating that people are
not for this option. Beyond even that, some people are physically leaving
Israel because they fear an immanent war.
Iran on the other hand, continues its defiance of bending to
western-led international pressure. Specifically, the nuclear program is the
point of contention. What is little known is that Iran has a religious Fatwa
against nuclear weapons, deeming them immoral and illegal to own or use. One
might say this is only religious jargon, but in a state where religion and
politics are deeply enmeshed, this holds political sway. Western politics and
media, however, have disregarded this. If it were taken seriously one might
believe the Iranian position that they are pursuing a nuclear program for
electrical purposes only. The word coming out of Iran, through private conversations,
is that the only time nuclear weapons would be built is if Iran was
preemptively attacked. At that point, the political will to respond would
outweigh even the religious opinion within the theocracy, and nuclear weapons
would be developed as fast as possible. So that is EXACTLY what might occur
with Israel’s increasingly hostile position, and the ramped up discussion of a
preemptive military attack against Iran.
Israel can make such treats, and can back them up, because
the response from the US is too predictable. In an election year it would be
political suicide not to back up an Israeli attack. Israel does not have the
military means (without using its nuclear weapons) to maintain its occupation
of the Palestinian territories and make an all out offensive against Iran. Yet,
they remain assured of their security because of a guaranteed support by the
US. Both political parties in the US must bow to the will of the incredibly
rich and politically savvy Zionist lobbies. This has been seen throughout
Obama’s presidency as his pro-Palestinian-State opinions have slowly dissolved
and been reduced by the constant barrage of these lobbies and their important
voting blocks. If it was the first year of a four-year term someone might have
the guts to oppose backing Israel, thinking it would be forgotten the next time
an election came around, but with only months before the election to refuse to
support Israel militarily would destroy one’s political party as well as insure
Israel used its nuclear weapons, just like they threatened to do in the 1973
Yom Kippur war when the US dragged its heels in supporting Israel.
Next three months – North Korea.
Depending on what occurs with Iran, Israel, and the USA,
North Korea may once again become the focus of hostile American relations.
George Bush’s “axis of evil” continues to detrimentally shape US foreign
relations. So with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, tied up in some form or another,
the US is forced to re-visit North Korea. Since April’s satellite launch, the relations
have been strained so it will be an easy target to revisit.
Though there has been a positive sign on North Korea, Japanand North Korea have begun to talk again. Japan and US have good relations so this may slow further hostile relations.
However, this is far from preventing war, but it is a positive sign.
Again, a major factor is that the US cannot afford,
financially, to not be at war. The American economy is too enmeshed with the
Military Industrial Complex that Dweight D. Eisenhower warned of when he left
office. Budgets pass or fail in the US depending on whether the complex, that supports
“jobs” in so many of the counties across the US, is upheld.
By about February or March – Global instability over food
prices.
The drought occurring in the US at the moment ought not to
be ignored, as it will largely shape the world for the next year. In the
developed world we spend, on average, somewhere around 15% of income on food,
where as the developing world often spends 50-75% of income on food. Therefore,
when the price of food increases it has a disproportional affect on the poor.
For someone in North America, the unsustainable and carbon intense products
such as Pineapple and Bananas might rise in price slightly. Or maybe more
essentials like pasta and bread may see a jump in price, as the world feels the
affects of a shortfall in cereals (grains) production. But that really only
means one must wait an extra month, maybe two, to buy the latest technology
gadget. However, this expected cereals shortfall will have wide ranging
consequences across the globe.
This situation has been seen before. In 2008 the first major
jump in food prices occurred. The world really did not know how to respond.
Food aid was sent around the world, and it received mediocre media attention,
but was ultimately overshadowed by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and the
beginning of the economic downturn.
In 2008, maybe most notably, Kenya devolved in violence.
There were many factors to the violence, tribal conflict, economic disparity,
the spreading of hate messages via radio, and the rising price of food. Whether
food was the log that burned, the spark that lit it, or the gas that enraged
the fire, is up for debate, whatever the case it contributed to social instability.
What was learned from the Kenyan example? First, that it is
hard to prosecute perpetrators who initiate violence along social and economic
lines, especially when they are part to the political elite of the country.
Although the International Criminal Court is attempting to do so, this remains
difficult. Especially when those being charged and questioned are running for
president and parliament and the elections will take place in March, almost
simultaneous to the trial start date. Regarding food security, the world
witness how it can be a major factor in maintaining social order. 2008 brought
to the forefront conversation of sustainability, food security, financial
speculation on food markets that exacerbates already increasing prices, as well
as national food sovereignty programs. It marked a small shift in popular
international development thinking, one that began to question a globalized
food market.
2010 was also a bad year for food. After seeing a marked
drop in prices in 2009, 2010 arrived with a vengeance. Though it did not catch
the world by surprise, in the same way 2008 did, it reiterated the importance
of tackling speculation on food markets and the implementation of food security
programs and alternative agriculture.
As 2010 ended, food prices were rising. It was winter in the
north, and as local food supplies began to dwindle the true cost of imported
food began to create unrest. Some of this unrest was expressed in the Arab
Spring. Though it is pleasant to believe all the protests were about spreading
freedom and democracy that is a little a little too idealistic. Much of the
dissent expressed in the region was about tangible conditions of life, of which
the price of food certainly factored. So Egypt – a cereals exporter in Biblical
times, now a cereals importer – was a central example of the unrest
caused/initiated/propagated/influenced (choose the word you like) by an
increase in the global food price.
When to expect to see some of the ramifications of the
drought in the American mid-west? Around February or March. As the local food
supplies dry up, and the world begins to seriously play the buy-and-sell game
watch for civil unrest, changing political power plays, and tumultuous times as
we enter 2013 (provided the world does not end in 2012).
The world is enthralled by the Olympics right
now, as we are every two years or so. While I have watched the events as I’ve
been able, a lack of television in my house makes that difficult, I have read
about them online. As I track the results of my favourite sports and note the
number of times the royals are spotted in the stands, I’ve also read a lot
about women at these Olympics. Lots of history has been made this
summer. These are some of the things I’ve learned:
- This was the first year ever that every
participating country sent female athletes. The most talked-about was Saudi
Arabia; it went back and forth many times as to whether or not they would
actually allow women to compete for their county with official delegation. In
the end, they permitted two women to compete, one in judo and the other in the
800 m track event.
- For the first time ever, there were women’s
competitions in every sport on the Olympic programme. Boxing was the last
men’s-only Olympic sport; history was made when Elena Savelyeva of Russia
and Kim Hye-Song of North Korea entered the ring on Sunday.
- In at least two instances, sports analysts compared
a male and a female athlete performing the same sport and declared that the
female athlete’s performance was superior – this is extremely rare. The first
was when a 16-year-old Chinese swimmer named Ye Shiwen swam the final 50m of
her 400m individual medley in 28.93 seconds to win gold. Ryan Lochte of the US
won gold in the men’s version of the same race and swam his final 50m in 29.10
seconds. The second was when US gymnast McKayla Maroney nailed an
extremely difficult vault that was identical to one performed by a male gymnast
(I cannot for the life of me find his name). In the side by side analysis,
Maroney was shown to be approximately a foot and a half higher in the air
mid-vault than the male gymnast.
- The governing associations for women’s boxing and
women’s badminton faced harsh backlash by trying to mandate that the athletes
wear skirts as part of their competition uniforms. Both associations backed
down, with boxing making it optional for female fighters to wear skirts instead
of trunks.
- On
the other side of the issue, the governing association for women’s beach
volleyball change their uniform regulations, allowing female competitors to
choose to wear shorts and t-shirts, instead of bikinis.
I have opinions on each of these observations, but for now I’d like to hear
yours. What have you noticed about women in the Olympics this year?
Guest
post by Dana: a powerful woman, fellow bible college alumnus and avid
Smoke, Mirrors, and Cigarettes follower.
On August 6th, 2012 "An unidentified gunman killed six people at a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee on Sunday in a rampage that left terrified congregants hiding in closets and others texting friends outside for help. The suspect was killed outside the temple in a shootout with police officers. Police called the attack an act of domestic terrorism..."
The Guru Nanak temple in Surrey, BC held an open community vigil on Tuesday to honour the victims of this hate crime.
In diversity education work, my colleagues and I often encounter this idea that racism and discrimination do not exist, or that the incidents of such have decreased over time. A phrase I hear often is "sure there is racism and discrimination, but it's getting better right?"
Let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's stop pretending. Racism and discrimination and hate crime are rampant; everywhere.
But this can change. We can educate ourselves about the history of discrimination. We build relationships with those that are different than ourselves and breakdown stereotypes. We can acknowledge our power and privilege and use it to empower others rather than oppress them. It is time to take our blinders off and realize that we need to work for inclusion. Discrimination and hate crime will not end on their own or as society becomes more multicultural. We need to create the change. Let us mourn with one another for the victims and families of the temple shooting and let it move us to meaningful change.
A few weeks ago, I posted a podcast about how I want to be a
farmer. It discussed the validity and value of farming, both personally and communally. It also discussed some of the seemingly insurmountable barriers in the industry, and why it's still worth working around them.
I have to consciously work up the courage to share this
podcast with people. I feel exposed and
vulnerable when I tell people I want to farm.
I feel like there is a high probability I won't make it; that I'll give up, change my mind, or flat out fail. Who am I to think I can farm better (that is,
run an economically viable and ecologically sustainable operation) than those
who have given it their best shot and failed?
What is it that makes a new farmer successful, versus one that burns out or can’t pay the bills?
I’ve been interning on a small vegetable farm, owned by a
young gal who started the farm four years ago.
She works incredibly hard at what she does, and the farm is
thriving. I look at how hard she works
and how much she loves farming-- it's truly amazing. I wonder if I have enough of that drive and
willpower to be out from dawn ‘til dusk, to be out harvesting brussel sprouts
in the November rain, to give up summer vacations. Do I have the character to make it
happen? And not only character, but
assets? She’s had some unique
opportunities with access to land and mentors. I don't come from an agricultural background, which will make things more difficult.
My boss gave me advice about this. She said, “You know Kelsey, you just have to decide
you’re going to do it. Stop second-guessing
yourself and don’t worry about other people’s doubts. When you remove the option of copping out,
the chance of success are much higher.”
The tricky thing about the Doubt Monster is that my brain rationalizes the doubts and fears I hear from myself and other people, and I become convinced they are true. I struggle with finding a healthy realism among all the doubt, fear, and encouragement.
But when all is said and done, what does it matter if I do or do not end up farming? I don’t regret how I’m spending my time at the moment; I'm highly satisfied with my work. There is nothing like straightening
your back and looking at a freshly weeded bean field, or hauling two carts full of zucchini back to the cooler.
So maybe one day
I’ll have my own farm, or maybe I’ll work on someone else’s farm, or maybe I
won’t. But I can’t let the Doubt Monster get my goat before I’ve even tried.
As I was watching the Olympics I heard the commentators discussing the way that particularly the summer Olympics have sprawled to include such a large number of events, which require such a vast amount of infrastructure, that there is very significant burden placed on the host city. And sometimes, such as Athens 2004, Olympic venues become Olympic ruins as they have no use or value after the event. This is dumb.
A total number 26 different sports. In comparison, the winter Olympics has 7.
The summer Olympics has a total 302 events. In comparison the winter Olympics has 98.
I think perhaps that in attempting to increase the importance and social draw of the Olympics we have, mistakenly, as with so many things, increased the size, under the false assumption that bigger is better. The IOC is aware of this and have recently eliminated baseball and softball from the Olympics and also seem to have a guideline that Olympic additions require subtractions. This is positive but not enough.
I would like to propose some basic rules that would trim down excess Olympic sports and events.
Rule #1:
If there is already a a professional sports league in which top athletes earn over $1 000 000+ a year, it shouldn't be in the Olympics.
This definitly eliminates: basketball, soccer, rugby, golf, tennis and possibly boxing...
Rule #2:
Subjective sports that require panels of judges to score performance shouldn't be in the Olympics.
This eliminates: gymnastics, diving, synchronized swimming.
Rule #3:
Sports that rely on significant non human powered elements to accomplish tasks should not be in the olympics.
This eliminates: Sailing, Equestrian and shooting.
These 3 simple rules would, in my opinion, improve the Olympics and help eliminate sprawl. Furthermore, it would help democratize and globalize the sports and events more fairly by eliminating some of the most socio economically exclusive sports such as tennis, golf, sailing and equestrian, which reek of western white privilege.
These rules reduce the number of sports to 14.
While the above three rules are a good start, lets add a few more: Rule #4:
Olympic sports should regularly, commonly and conceivably occur outside.
This eliminates: ping pong. It also ensures bar sports like bowling, pool and darts will never become Olympic events.
Rule #5:
In the spirit of peace and common humanity, Olympic sports should not be violently adversarial.
This eliminates: fencing, judo, taekwondo, modern pentathlon and wrestling.
Rule #6:
Sports should have an "Olympic" quality.
This is my cop out to eliminate the other sports/events I want rid of: archery, badminton, field hockey, handball and probably volleyball...
MORE CUTS!
There are too many events so we need to make some more cuts.
Aquatic:
No relays. Swimming relays make no sense in the real world. Rule #4
Water Polo. Water polo, no matter how difficult, is ridiculous. Rule #6
Athletics:
The 2 walking events should be eliminated. Rule #6
Triple Jump should be eliminated. How was this even invented? Rule #6
Cycling:
Any races that involve points or pace bikes should be eliminated. Rule #6
Weightlifting:
Weightlifting should not have weight classes at the Olympic level. Otherwise we should start factoring in leg length in running competitions, height in high jumps, armspan in swimming etc.
As you can see I have hacked and slashed the Olympics into a perfect modern competition of strength and speed. Aquatic
Athletics (track & field)
Cycling Canoe/Kayak
Rowing
Triathlon
Weightlifting
As a result some of the flashiest most spectator friendly events have been dropped, perhaps to your disappointment. To this end I would like to also make a suggestion of some additions to the Olympics to make up for some of this:
Gymnastics:
#1: A parkour style obstacle course race which utilizes gymnastic skills in the pursuit of speed.
#2: A skills competition in which competitors compete with specific tricks. Each skill having to be completed to move on to the next one, similar to high jump. Rules can be set regarding what qualifies as successful completion. Perfect landing collect bonus points and can be used to break ties. Ties could also be broken by head to duels in which gymnasts must copy each other until someone fails like the basket ball game HORSE.
Skateboarding:
#1: Urban Racing - including stairs, rails and obstacles, with a simple time penalty for falls.
#2: Longboard street racing
Today was a day I will remember for a long time. It went
something like this: expecting not much -> meeting for two hours with the
Ambassador for the DPRK -> lunch with the editor of Global Scholarly
Publications = a crazy wonderful day.
A groggy nothing much morning, a missed bus, surprisingly
slow morning traffic, all to arrive at the office a little later than normal. Into
the morning routine of checking emails, reading the news, and almost about to
begin writing another article BUT the a reminder that THIS morning was the
meeting with the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea. A meeting that had
been briefly mentioned to me late yesterday. How could I have forgot!!!
This led to frenetic preparing as the director and I
realised we were out of sugar for the coffee! So off I ran to the corner store
– milk and sugar – and back I ran. After a power briefing on the topics we
hoped to cover, two articles read, and coffee made, everything was set with two
minutes to spare.
In walks Ambassador Rei (Permanent Representative to the UN)
and Mr. Moon his associate. Cordial greetings are exchanged, tea and coffee are
served in our cramped office, and off we go.
Highlights:
Having some of the most frank discussion with an ambassador
to date. He was very open to our ideas, paraphrased and took copious notes, and
enthusiastically jumped on ideas of cultural exchange (although saying now was
not going to work because of the heightened antagonism by the US since the
April launch of a satellite by DPRK. A Satellite launched in celebration of Kim
Il-Sung – on his 100th birthday. He died in 1994). The frank
discussion completely out did the briefing I had attended with the US Ambassador.
The US
was much less direct, much more elusive, much more hidden in their intentions.
Hearing an unfiltered Northern perspective on the ongoing,
wrongly named Korean War. The North was never at war with the South, but with
the US.
The ceasefire was with the US,
the South had no part in it. Therefore, when in 1994 the US attempted to shift the ceasefire relations
from a US
colonel to a South Korean, it was rejected because the South had never signed
anything. Also raising the question why a peace agreement was never pursued
after the ceasefire – as in every other international conflict.
He also told the North’s account of the recent (last 10
years) military flashes in the last 10 years. All of which occurred in the
disputed territory in the Western/Yellow Sea. The North holds to the 38th
parallel (the same line across the Korean
Peninsula), while the
South/US claim the ocean because of three Islands in it that were held onto by
US troops. So the North Claims the ocean even though they do not control the Islands. They warned the South/US not to do live
ammunition military drills, when they went ahead with the drills the North “had
no option but to respond”. (It would be like doing live military exercise in
the Straight of Juan de Fuca by Vancouver Island
and saying that is not a threat or infringement on Canadian/American
sovereignty.)
The ambassador also cited the Disney dancers that were
recently in Pyongyang.
After which he stated, “We are open, it is the US who is closed!” A refrain he
would return to on multiple occasions citing various examples where the North
Koreans have been open to dialogue and the US continually refuses.
Dr. Parviz joined us at this point, editor of Global
Scholarly Publications. His focus is the Globalization of Knowledge, increasing
east-west dialogue and communication without the influence of western media. Further
discussion occurred around opportunities for better relations with DPRK,
specifically the facilitation of academic interchanges.
Topics of an entirely free Korean
Peninsula are affirmed by all
involved, while acknowledging the hypocrisy of the US who places nukes in the South
and aboard the aircraft carriers floating just off shore. This combined on the US desire to remain militarily near to China,
without having to directly engage them. Thereby ensuring a proxy location for
war; remaining far beyond the continental USA.
Two hours pass. We say good-bye and thank you to the
Ambassador. Dr. Parviz is not done however. He and I briefly discuss the
article I am writing for his journal. Then he offers to take Doug, the
director, and me out to lunch to continue our discussion.
Off we trot to a wonderful Turkish restaurant. Dr. Parviz
orders this, and that, and then some more, then three appetizers, the some
wine. We feast. The topic for the meal is how to deal with the upcoming opening
of the General Assembly, specifically dialogue with Iran and Ahmadinejad. Can it be
done? How to avoid ruining families and careers by avoiding Zionist attention.
What people? Where could it be done? Is it even possible? What could one say? –
I am completely enthralled.
Then the spry Uncle Parviz (that is what he says people call
him), at the tender age of 78, questions an unassuming, beautiful, waitress,
“Are you old enough to be working here? It must be illegal you still look so
young!” There is a twinkle in this old Iranian’s eye and a smile on his face.
She blushes, and assures us she is 27. All of this is quite unexpected.He tells me to make sure I remember that one.
But honestly how could I forget! It is not everyday one witnesses a
professor/editor/diplomat/author cracking cheesy lines on waitresses in
up-class Turkish restaurant.
We are not done; desert is still on the menu. As I continue
to gorge of delicious food, we discuss asceticism, Islamic understandings of
hedonism, and the psychology of human pleasure. Concluding with “the pleasure
of the body if finite, but the pleasure of the mind is unlimited. We could sit
here forever and count irrational numbers!”
So stuffed to the gills, doggy bags in hand, we depart. A
wonderful lunch, a wonderful day, and wonderful conversation. It is one for the
personal record books. One I do not expect a repeat any time soon.
Other highlights of conversation:
Imagining the development of a new economic system between
Marxism and Capitalism based on post-Hegelian understandings of the world.
Thoughts on Syria,
where to go from here, what might the outlook be???
The self-destruction of America because of its demonization
of the “other”. One it cannot destroy, yet fails to embrace, will cause its
downfall. – A Machiavellian concept
“Imagine you are Obama, how many political options do you
truly have? He is bound by a capitalist system so entrenched and supported by
military expenditure that America
cannot financially afford not to be at war.”
