A look forward - What is trending? What can one make of it?

 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).

For a further look at how geopolitics might be shifting have a read: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201281123554276263.html

If his hypothesis is true, there may be less US military aggression in upcoming years, and the battle for supremacy will be waged on other terms.

Olympic Observations - By Dana

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.  

A Time for Mourning and a Call to Action

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. 

Olympic Sprawl

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.

Currently this is the list of summer Sports:

Aquatic, Archery, Athletics(track&field), Badminton, Basketball, Boxing, Cycling, Canoe/Kayak, Equestrian, Fencing, Field Hockey, Football(Soccer), Golf, Gymnastics, Handball, Judo, Modern, Pentathlon, Rowing, Rugby, Sailing, Shooting, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Tennis, Triathlon, Volleyball, Weightlifting, Wrestling

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

Climbing:
#1: Time Trials
#2: Bouldering

Well, thats all I've got. What do you think?

Missing the Point

If you haven't been following Christy Clark and her band-wagon style attempt at recovering her ever dwindling support in the polls, you should be. More often than not, political drama enthralls me; but this just irks me in a whole new way.

Recently, Clark and the BC Liberals announced 5 demands that must be meet before they consider giving the go ahead to Enbridge's infamous Northern Gateway Pipeline. If you're not from BC - or if you've been living under a rock for the past couple of years - the Northern Gateway Pipeline is a proposed pipeline that would carry bitumen oil from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat BC. From Kitimat, it will then be loaded on to super tankers and shipped down BC's precious, fragile, and perilous coast. The pipeline has faced a great deal of opposition from BC residents for a number reasons: a fear of the pipeline bursting and destroying the world's largest intact temperate rainforest, increased tanker traffic along BC's coast and the ensuing damage to the precious ecosystems along the way, and increased development of the tar sands and the environmental and economic concerns surrounding that. Furthermore, a staggering number of First Nations communities along the pipeline's proposed route have stated their adamant opposition to the entire project- while pointing to their exclusion from talks between Enbridge and the Government.

While other political parties have come out and declared their support for or against Enbridge's pipeline, Clark has remained fairly quiet on the issue - that is until recently. As previously mentioned, the Liberals have announced 5 demands that must be meet before they approve this project. They include a full environmental review, a detailed plan for oil spill response, another detailed plan for oil spill prevention, a recognition of first nations legal rights and their inclusion in the economic benefits from the pipeline, and greater compensation to the BC Government for the economic and fiscal benefits Enbridge will receive.

Although I applaud our premier for finally taking a stance on an issue she's avoided for quite sometime now, I wonder if her demands go far enough. An environmental review is a great place to start, but doing an environmental review does not ensure that Enbridge and the BC Government will follow through with the recommendations of the review. Furthermore, having plans for oil spill recovery and prevention does not excuse the number of spills Enbridge is already responsible for. Even further - and despite conflicting reports - Enbridge claims to already have support from 60% of the First Nations communities along the pipeline's proposed route. All 60% have supposedly signed agreements with Enbridge. These claims go against what First Nations leaders have been stating in the media calling Enbridge's claim a sham.

There is one demand, however, that Christy Clark seems to be focusing on; Clark would like to see a bigger share of the profit - that will presumably flow from this pipeline - in the province's hands.
While BC is expected to receive $6.7 billion in revenue over 30 years, Clark argues that this is not enough compared to the $32 billion Alberta would receive and the $36 billion Ottawa would receive. The whole obsession on this point has sparked a political drama between BC's premier, Clark, and Alberta's premier, Alison Redford. Clark has gone as far as walking out of meetings at the gathering of premiers in Halifax, during the Council of the Federation.

Clark's tantrums and verbal spats are silly and ultimately a distraction. I would like to argue that no amount of fiscal compensation and no amount of emergency spill planning and preparation is enough to gamble with BC's wilderness and the lives of the people who live there. No amount of money is worth forgoing the rights and sovereignty of the First Nations people who inhabit the areas along the pipelines proposed route. We have the largest intact temperate rainforest, the Great Bear Rainforest, and one of the most beautiful coastlines that is home to such amazing sea life, including humpback whales and orcas. No amount of demands, no matter how high the standard, is worth gambling away these precious ecosystems.

I pray that you don't get distracted by such silly political dramas.

Branding Police - Corporate Facism

As a follow up to my last post: Branding - this news item caught my eye...

Once you have created a brand and you have trademarked it and own it... You must now defend it and destroy all who would seek to infringe upon it for personal benefit.

The London 2012 Olympic committee has organized their own enforcement army, clothed in purple, which is in the midst of investigating, fining, prosecuting or intimidating into submission the likes of 81 year old grandmothers, local florists and butchers, long established English businesses have been forced to change their names or face fine up to $60 000.

French fries have been banned at over 800 retailers at the behest of McDonalds who hold exclusive rights.

The the imperial (based on their purple uniforms) international corporate olympic army and are not only attacking local business but are investigating the British 'Royal family'... Kate Middleton's parents business, an online retailer is selling unofficial olympic themed merchandise that has caused concern.

Here is the list of banned/controlled words/symbols:

The Olympic Symbol (the five interlocking rings)
The Olympic Motto (Citius Altius Fortius' / 'Faster Higher Stronger'
Olympic (s)
Olympiad (s)
Olympian (s)
The Paralympic Symbol (the three 'agitos')
The Paralympic Motto ('Spirit in Motion')
Paralympic (s)
Paralympiad (s)
Paralympian (s)
London
Games
Summer
Two thousand and twelve
2012
Twenty Twelve
Medals
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Sponsors

One clever owner has avoided prosecution and is being hailed as a hero for this clever work around:

The Olympics was once a celebration of human achievement, international peace and camaraderie... The games were reborn from ancient Greece, as an idea for social reform in Victorian Britain...

It has become the most blatant example of corporate harlotry and fascism: thus perfectly reflecting our narcissistic consumer culture. In perfect unity with the prevision of goodwill and clean sports to corporate profit, the mascots of the games are two giant one eyed monsters...

That's right penises.

Apparently that mascots charge 1000 British pounds to attend school events... but somehow marketing  these abominations for bachelorette parties seems more profitable.

Why the nearly bankrupt country of Greece has not sued the IOC for usurping their moral and historical ownership of the Olympics or at least the name Olympics is beyond me... If it is possible to own single words certainly Greece should have a claim on that one.

Woe to you daughters of England! For the language you birthed in your youth has been sold into slavery in Egypt, it has been exiled to whore in the palaces of Babylon and bleeds for the pleasure of Rome. As you find your tongue and your pen bound and silenced, only your sword will stand between you and the corporate apocalypse. 

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/london-olympics-branding-police-subverted-devilish-formalwear-shop-173007466--oly.html

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/07/23/olympic-brand-police-out-in-full-force/

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/middletons-receive-royal-treatment-olympic-faux-pas-195222485--oly.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151907/London-2012-Olympics-What-Much-Wenlock-teach-todays-greedy-control-freaks.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-flooded-with-brand-police-to-protect-sponsors-7945436.html

Three Paragraphs from the News

"Tehran is the main regional ally of Assad's regime, advocating dialogue between the government and opposition.

According to IRNA, Salehi called for "an immediate end ... to foreign interference and arms shipments ... to Syria and the support of some regional and international parties for terrorist action".

"The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns all violence and destructive action and believes that dialogue is the only solution to end the Syrian crisis," the minister said.

Meanwhile, the White House said Wednesday that President Bashar al-Assad was losing control of Syria, after a deadly attack on his inner circle, and that the United States was working urgently with international partners to push for a political transition there."

From: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/2012718141115371857.html

I thought they were very interesting. Who is advocating for dialogue, who is for arms, who is for violence? It once again made me ponder my ethnocentric perspective.

Means Vs. Ends

I am sure that everyone has now seen this:

It has been all over Facebook for the past day.

What are your thoughts? Is it a bandwagon worth jumping aboard? How are we (as Christians) supposed to interact with movements like this? Specifically, those of us who profess to be "pacifist" and see nonviolence as a large portion of the Christian call. What are your thoughts on supporting military missions such as this?

Personally, I continue to be torn. Invisible Children is an organization I have supported in the past. I think their goals are noble and worth supporting, but the means they sometimes use to reach their goals I question. So I pose the question (feel free to challenge the binary I set up): what is worse? To use means I do not fully support to accomplish a good goal OR to sit and do nothing (because I am currently not doing anything or coming up with any "third way" options).

I encourage you to watch the video, if you have not done so already. As for me, I am going to write a few e-mails tonight, and pray that they do a little bit of good.

Selling Your Birthright

I have been watching #OccupyWallStreet be evicted and their camp destroyed. I feel the hope that this camp represented for me drain from my body. I remember the fear and discomfort I felt as we tried navigate New York under lock down on New Years last year. The Occupy movement has inhabited insistently the limits of freedom in our society and as they are evicted and their camp and property destroyed and so with it the illusion of freedom we thought we had, we thought we believed in, we thought was at the core of our identity. It turns out inconvenient freedom has been sold perhaps for as little as a bowl of soup. The NYPD has sold out freedom for a paycheque. I have been increasingly frustrated over the past few week to the point of miserable apathy at the quickness that Vancouver also has quickly and easily sold our birthright of freedom, we have been intimidated by tragedy and fear into sacrificing freedom. We do not seem to understand precedents are laid or broken based on this. We do not understand that silencing the voice of Occupy is effectively cutting out our own vocal chords in any and all future occasions. It is devastating to me the degree to which we have bought into the power systems and structures of our countries and are happily prepared to sell the freedoms of others for our own comfort. I am sad that I am so apathetic of our power systems and political structures I have failed to energize either myself or others to fight our slow slide toward totalitarianism. We have sold ourselves for soup. I am embarrassed. I am terrified. There is something very Machiavellian about the way that our Governments have dealt with Occupy. Our law has become complex enough and our freedoms expendable enough and loopholes large and plentiful enough that it is relatively simple to enforce and not enforce law as convenient by those in power in order to gain whatever result is desired. Its also helpful when you have a police force to violently enforce whatever you order without any immediate accountability.

Recently I have heard a lot of disturbing thing about a crime bill that Harper is trying to push through. Can anyone tell me more about it?

Canada Needs Economic Reform Too!

'We are the 99 per cent," the protesters chant, eyes aflame with reformist zeal. It's a compelling slogan, well-suited to the times and to the social-media soup in which we are increasingly immersed.

The wrinkle: It's not true. North America and Europe, geographic epicentres of the Occupy Wall Street movement, are the fattest of fat cats, globally speaking. For any North American, least of all a Canadian, to claim economic kinship with the globally disadvantaged is silly. - 'We are the 99 per cent' is just not true

After reading this article in the Vancouver Sun and glossing over a few more anti-occupy articles, I have some push back of my own to offer.

Firstly I want to point out that the #OccupyVancouver statement of unity is a working document, meaning that it is subject to change as the movement evolves.

This Vancouver Sun article in particular points out the fact that we (Vancouverites) are richer than other nations and therefore have nothing to complain about.

I want to point out that our working statement of unity also includes the sentence "injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere".

This movement is speaks out against the growing global disparity of wealth. Simply because there is a smaller gap between the average Vancouverite adult and the top 1% than the average African adult and the top 1% does not mean we are disqualified from protesting. We have noticed this trend in disparity and do not like it. We want something different to be done for all people!

To be clear, there is a growing disparity of wealth in Canada. So while it is true we are in the top 10% globally, 90% of even North Americans do still qualify as part of the 99%. The idea that since we have it pretty good, we should therefore shut up is unbelievable bullshit. The critique that our complaint must also address our complicit behaviour in exploiting the world is absolutely fair.

I once visited a doctor at a walk-in clinic to talk about anti-depressant medication. This doctor asked me if I was suicidal? If I was ready to jump off a bridge at any moment. He asked if I was imagining things like ants crawling across walls or if I constantly felt like I was being chased. With my negative response he proceeded to tell me that all I need to do is think more positively. He then compared my situation to that of people across the globe who were suffering from natural disasters, drought and war. In my headstrong state I responded fiercely.

"How dare you diminish my suffering based on your incorrect conception of others who have suffered more than I?" "How dare you inflict your prejudice judgement on me!" I was offended to the core. Based on being born and raised in Canada this doctor immediately wrote of all of my life experiences without knowing me or taking the time to inquire and listen and decided that I had not suffered enough to possibly be close to depression.

This is the source of my push back. Simply because we have more of the world's wealth than Africa does not mean that there is not a growing disparity that needs to be addressed here. Yes the disparity is larger elsewhere but that in no way negates the local reality or the validity of complaint. The global reality reinforces rather than undermines the message of #Occupy. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere! How will this globe change if change is never instigated or supported? We can not leave it up to someone else. We can not leave it up to the other nations.

We have been affected and we need to speak up!

Occupy Vancouver has Found Love

Along with Silas and Duncan, I was also able to visit Occupy Vancouver last weekend and would agree that it was the most hopeful and active congregation that I have witnessed in a long time. We made it in time for the general assembly which I too thought was both beautiful and frustrating. One of the moments I enjoyed most was the reading of the working statement of unity using the human mic.

Occupy Vancouver - A Non Violent Movement for Social, Economic and Political Change

We, the Ninety-Nine Percent, come together with our diverse experiences to transform the unequal, unfair, and growing disparity in the distribution of power and wealth in our city and around the globe. We challenge corporate greed, corruption, and the collusion between corporate power and government. We oppose systemic inequality, militarization, environmental destruction, and the erosion of civil liberties and human rights. We seek economic security, genuine equality, and the protection of the environment for all.

We are inspired and in solidarity with global movements including those across the Middle East, Europe, and the Occupy Wall Street / Occupy Together movement in over 1000 cities in North America. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

We humbly acknowledge that Occupy Vancouver is taking place on unceded Coast Salish territories.

We are committed to an inclusive and welcoming space, to addressing issues of oppression and discrimination, and to creating an environment where all the 99% can be heard and can meaningfully participate. We are also committed to safeguarding our collective well-being – including safety from interpersonal violence and any potential police violence.

Reading this statement aloud reminded me not only of a liturgical church service but also of the statement of diversity which I have argeed to abide by upon accepting a new position of employment.

We are children, youth, adults and seniors.

We are of all races, all religions, 
all cultures, all abilities,
 all sexual orientation, and all economic levels.

We speak many languages.

We value diversity.
We endeavour to reflect this diversity in our volunteers, board and staff. We respect all our neighbours and clients 
and extend our respect to them in all that we do.
Therefore, we will act to promote
 inclusion of all in our agency and in our community.

Something I find interesting about these two statements is that they center on the value of all people.

One of my good friends wrote his protest sign on the back of his jacket; it reads “People before Profit”.

During the general assembly I can recall at least two people calling out to the crowd through the human mic “I love you all”.

Currently, my favourite song is “We Found Love” by Rihanna. Aside from one other verse, the song repeats the words “we found love in a hopeless place” to a sweet techno beat. At the next general assembly I might suggest that we adopt this as the Occupy Vancouver theme song because the protestors are creating love in a hopeless place by committing to inclusion, practicing consensus and hearing all voices. They have me amped!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djHm2ljLYbY&feature=related

#OccupyVancouver - On the ground

Ok so I have attended two general assemblies, went on the march on Saturday and just hung out a bit. On the first day there was 3-5000 people who showed up. Which was both amazing and I think overwhelming. We had great weather and a great march and the village was established. People are learning on the ground why democracy is slow and not everyone is excited. But there was another significant turnout on Sunday as the group continues to work to nail down a consensus process. Part of this process involved breakout groups which allow crowd discussion and ideas to happen and move to the mic. This was the best part of the day. People worked hard at actually communicating - speaking and listening - it was respectful, empowering and effective. There was also an interesting win for free speech when a participant was able to disagree with the movement's non violent position from the microphone reasonably articulately.

I had the opportunity to talk about #OccupyVancouver last night to a friend and failed miserably to communicate the fascinating and inspiring and moral nature of this movement. While in some respects so far it has been a protester convention, everyone with their own pet project and priorities, protesting is not the primary focus of what the group is trying to do. #OccupyVancouver is literally recreating society in microcosm, from scratch. While they are united in discontent, the movement is incredibly proactive. I say movement because occupy camps now exist in 900+ cities globally. By looking at the created microcosm societies in New York and Vancouver (the only two I have significant information on) it is easy to see what they/we want.

Consensus participatory direct democracy is the format in which the community thinks through and decides things. What does this say? I believe it is a critique of partisan politics and Canadian elected dictatorships, which is effectively what a majority government is. Furthermore, it is the demand for greater direct access, control or voice in our communities and countries. I think there is a sense that the ballot once every few years has become an ineffective way of voicing political opinions or communal desires. I think that the successful overturning of the HST is a clear indication that citizens want clear accurate information and a voice and will not have things foisted on them any longer. Regardless of your opinion on the HST, the results demonstrate the power of direct democracy, people's willingness to participate and their distrust of government. Furthermore, the consensus model emphasizes the desire for unity and the good of everyone AND a belief that this is possible. It fairly questions the idea a 51% majority in the house of commons should have the right to make decisions for everyone. Interestingly, the other places where consensus models of governance and decision making exist are the Orthodox Church, a number of First Nations tribes and the Quakers (Please add more that you know of in the comments). There is the political question at stake: Do we just want stuff to happen or do we want the right stuff to happen? And also how do we know or find out what the right stuff is? I think the financial, and environmental crisis highlight the increased perception that taking the time to really make good decisions that really represent everyone and the good of the planet are what is needed, rather than efficient political structures that exempt personal voice or responsibility, encourage passivity and apathy and are influenced by corporate voices more than community voices. Furthermore, the democratic ideals are founded on the belief that together we can make better decisions - if you think that the majority of people are stupid and shouldn't have a voice then go live in China because that's how they run things over there.

To the end of creating a community that is safe and inclusive and takes care of everyone, #OccupyVancouver provides free food - everyone is fed, everyone is kept warm, everyone has a voice, everyone participates. They claim they are the 99% and they offer a vision of what society could look like if the 99% re-evaluated their goals of wealth and luxury, continually chasing that 1%. #OccupyVancouver, minus some prayers and songs, looks more like the Acts 2 church than any church I know of...

The #Occupy movement has successfully imagined the possibility of imagining a better society with economic and social justice. They are actively working to not just offer ideas and suggestions, which there are lots of, but to also actually create it on the ground. This is exciting and inspiring I encourage you to find out more and get involved.

#OccupyWallStreet - "the right to peaceful assembly"

As I am intending on going to the art gallery tomorrow to visit/participate in #OccupyVancouver I thought I should check into some of the legal issues at stake in protesting. As Canadians we have the right to peacefully assemble. Note that we do not have the right to assemble as such, only peacefully assemble. In fact even the right to peaceful assembly may limited with "good reasons." The way all this is written up in both the charter and related legal documentation results in the reality that the police have HUGE amounts of discretion in both their interpretation of the laws regarding protests as well as the physical situational realities.

Laws regulating protests in Canada give the police a lot of discretion in deciding, first, what assemblies are peaceful, and second, when peaceful protests are not allowed. Police discretion contradicts the values of accessibility and precision that gave rise to the s. 1 requirement that limits on Charter rights be prescribed by law. The idea is that citizens should have a “reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited” (Peter W. Hogg,Constitutional Law of Canada, Student Ed. 2007 at p. 798)—that’s accessibility of law, and that officials must not engage in discriminatory and arbitrary breaches of rights—that’s precision of law.

But in R. v. Hufsky and R. v. Ladouceur, the Supreme Court held that as long as police discretion comes from law, it meets the s. 1 standard of “prescribed by law,” even if the discretion is unfettered. - lawiscool.com

Does anyone else find this disconcerting? Throughout the related legal documents the ambiguous terms like peace, reasonable, justified, tumultuous, are used repeatedly. The result of Canada's failure to more specifically define words like peace and tumultuous is that the police have all the power in protest situations because it is at their personal and corporate discretion whether your actions and language are peaceful... The bottom line is that they can effectively disperse a protest or assembly whenever they want because they are granted enough discretion under the law to be able to act first and explain later. The result is that they may be influenced significantly by personal or government or even corporate influence rather than the public or social good or opinion. When in doubt the police enforce "peace" not freedom but peace without freedom is no peace at all, it is soulless mandatory order. Real peace, the peace that we want and need, must be more than a lack of physical violence.

The final analysis by lawiscool.com:

Canada is not a police state—far from it. Our ideal is the rule of law and protection of civil liberties. But just like with ideals, we shouldn’t take our eyes off frightening possibilities. In a police state, armed agents of the state are free to limit freedoms and rights as they please. Their discretion is completely unfettered, almost like the discretion our laws grant to the police in dealing with street protests.

Our police forces are professional, highly trained, and generally honest. But it is not their job to determine the content of the Charter freedom of peaceful assembly. Provincial legislatures and the federal parliament must step in and give clear guidance to the police when they can break up street protests. The police can make mistakes and may have its own institutional interests that are not necessarily the same as the public interest. The people have a right to clear notice of what is lawful, and we all have a fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly. Our legislators must set out with much greater precision what the police powers are in regulating street protests.

All of this is particularly interesting due to recent Vancouver riots and the Toronto G20 fiasco... Tomorrow will be interesting. I'll be out there in the morning, Silas and Danielle are hopefully driving in after work, let us know if you will be there. Get your church involved.

#OccupyWallStreet - An Issue of Choice

Complex, malleable, uncertain, passionate, misunderstood, confused. These are all words that come to mind as I ponder the "occupy" movement. I have many thoughts about what is going on in New York and around the US (and now Canada). With regards to those thoughts, what stands out to me is how much my thoughts have changed and morphed day-by-day as this protest continues to unfold. My emotional responses have ranged from cynicism to self-righteousness to support. I have yet to settle into one opinion. I think I am just as amorphous as the movement itself, I am unable to pick a side. Picking a side, well one can hardly do that with a movement like this because it does not have the same sides of the debate we have grown accustom to in our civic dialogue.

There are no sides. As I read a number of articles tonight and pondered what is occurring in the world around me I began to dwell on the concept of choice. As a result of my pondering, I am proposing that the heart of the issue is the desire to choose. I believe we were created for choice, it is innate within us to want to choose. Whether we are good at choice or not is beside the point, we all choose. This desire to choose, for a long time, has been satiated by the binary mode of thought we have grown accustom to in the west. We choose to be liberal or conservative, white collar or blue collar, religious or non-religious, we are products of the either/or. But we are entering, and have been entering for a long time, an era where the choices are less well defined, a movement into the both/and. We are in a time of challenge. A time where our post-modern outlook on life challenges the binary choices. When this occurs we often discover the choices we have been making are not really choices at all, or at best have been limited choices. We are forced to consider that the limited choice offered by both/and is just that, limited. One chooses democrats or republicans only to find they are more similar than they are different. One chooses Mac or PC, but they are both computers. One chooses to buy x or y only to find there is no choice in the system. Both/and is beginning to feel like a non-choice when we consider things such as economics, or a financial reserve that is beyond choice, or a capitalism that has become empire as it exhibits the trait of totality. We feel like we have lost choice.

It is my opinion that at the heart of the occupy movement people are desiring true choice. As a result, we are confronted by an amorphous protest that appears to be incoherent and unable to articulate what it wants. I suggest this is precisely because it is attempting to redefine the parameters of choice in the macro structures and ideology that govern our time.

I am not sure what the end result will look like, but I do know I am in favour of being along for the ride that takes our society to its redefinition.

#OccupyWallStreet - Zizek

So far to my knowledge, Cornel West, Slajov Zizek and Shane Claiborne among others have all given speeches at Occupy Wall Street. They are like three of my favourite people!

Here is the transcript of part of Zizek's speech:


…2008 financial crash more hard earned private property was destroyed than if all of us here were to be destroying it night and day for weeks. They tell you we are dreamers. The true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers. We are awakening from a dream which is tuning into a nightmare. We are not destroying anything. We are only witnessing how the system is destroying itself. We all know the classic scenes from cartoons. The cart reaches a precipice. But it goes on walking. Ignoring the fact that there is nothing beneath. Only when it looks down and notices it, it falls down. This is what we are doing here. We are telling the guys there on Wall Street – Hey, look down! (cheering).
In April 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV and films and in novels all stories that contain alternate reality or time travel. This is a good sign for China. It means that people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dream. Here we don’t think of prohibition. Because the ruling system has even suppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism. So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful old joke from communist times.
A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors. So he told his friends: Let’s establish a code. If the letter you get from me is written in blue ink ,it is true what I said. If it is written in red ink, it is false. After a month his friends get a first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food. Movie theaters show good films from the West. Apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.
This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want. But what we are missing is red ink. The language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom war and terrorism and so on falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here: You are giving all of us red ink.
There is a danger. Don’t fall in love with yourselves. We have a nice time here. But remember: carnivals come cheap. What matters is the day after. When we will have to return to normal life. Will there be any changes then. I don’t want you to remember these days, you know, like - oh, we were young, it was beautiful. Remember that our basic message is: We are allowed to think about alternatives. The rule is broken. We do not live in the best possible world. But there is a long road ahead. There are truly difficult questions that confront us. We know what we do not want. But what do we want? What social organization can replace capitalism? What type of new leaders do we want?
Remember: the problem is not corruption or greed. The problem is the system that pushes you to give up. Beware not only of the enemies. But also of false friends who are already working to dilute this process. In the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice cream without fat. They will try to make this into a harmless moral protest. They think (??? unintelligible). But the reason we are here is that we have enough of the world where to recycle coke cans…

Part Two

….Starbucks cappuccino. Where 1% goes to the world’s starving children. It is enough to make us feel good. After outsourcing work and torture. After the marriage agencies are now outsourcing even our love life, daily.
Mic check
We can see that for a long time we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back. We are not communists. If communism means the system which collapsed in 1990, remember that today those communists are the most efficient ruthless capitalists. In China today we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over.
The change is possible. So, what do we consider today possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand in technology and sexuality everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon. You can become immortal by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the fields of society and economy. There almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible, we lose competitivitiy. You want more money for healthcare: they tell you impossible, this means a totalitarian state. There is something wrong in the world where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for health care. Maybe that ??? set our priorities straight here. We don’t want higher standards of living. We want better standards of living. The only sense in which we are communists is that we care for the commons. The commons of nature. The commons of what is privatized by intellectual property. The commons of biogenetics. For this and only for this we should fight.
Communism failed absolutely. But the problems of the commons are here. They are telling you we are not Americans here. But the conservative fundamentalists who claim they are really American have to be reminded of something. What is Christianity? It’s the Holy Spirit. What’s the Holy Spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other. And who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense the Holy Spirit is here now. And down there on Wall Street there are pagans who are worshipping blasphemous idols. So all we need is patience. The only thing I’m afraid of is that we will someday just go home and then we will meet once a year, drinking beer, and nostalgically remembering what a nice time we had here. Promise ourselves that this will not be the case.
We know that people often desire something but do not really want it. Don’t be afraid to really want what you desire. Thank you very much!

Reposted from: http://www.occupywallst.org/article/today-liberty-plaza-had-visit-slavoj-zizek/

#OccupyVancouver ?

Hopefully you are aware that there has now been close to a month long protest in wall street...

http://occupywallst.org/

What is more is that this ambiguous and amorphous protest of a variety of things is spreading across the continent...

The first general assembly for Occupy Vancouver is tomorrow:
W2 Media Cafe - 111 W. Hastings St. Saturday, October 8 - 1:00pm

http://occupyvancouver.com

They intend on staging their occupation beginning on Oct 15th in front of the art gallery...(not in protest of art but based on space and proximity to Howe)

Garret Menges posted the following quote from adBusters in a satus update:

The rat-bastard Capitalist scum who are telling you to "reach out and touch someone" with a telephone or "be there!"--these lovecrafty suckers are trying to turn you into a scrunched-up, blood-drained, pathetic, crippled little cog in the death-machine of the human soul. Fight them--by meeting with friends, not to consume or produce, but to enjoy friendship--and you will have triumphed over the most pernicious conspiracy in EuroAmerican society today--the conspiracy to turn you into a living corpse galvanized by prosthesis and the terror of scarcity--to turn you into a spook haunting your own brain.

I posted this Oscar Wilde quote a while ago:

It is immoral to use private property to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property.

There is clearly a growing discontent and critique of of our post modern consumer capitalism and the inevitability of its failure...

There has certainly been significant anti-empire language used on this blog... 

I feel like, maybe, we are standing on the precipice of something big...

So is Occupying Vancouver fighting the empire?

Can we please define empire before its too late?

Are we going to participate?

How is global economic failure going to effect society?

I think that our generation has been raised on stories of glories of the protests of sixties over Vietnam and civil rights...

I think that we have been raised watching Star Wars and know instinctively to fight those who would dominate the world with fear and violence...

The generation that fought in WWI remembered glamourized war. The generation that fought in WWII idealized war.  Vietnam destroyed moral superiority. The cold war killed idealism. The war on terror is ending fear? Every generation forgets, every generation believes, every generation remakes the world, is this that moment? The moment of revolution... A revolution of what and to what?

According to Occupy Vancouver:

It is time to come together and educate each other. We will stand in solidarity with these other movements and we will create a platform for people to speak and provide an audience that will listen.
Let them gawk, let them ask questions, let them wake up. 

We realize that our social, economic, and political structures are broken. This is more than just a protest "against" something. It is about coming together as people, acknowledging things are broken, and working together to fix them.

If you are thinking that that very ambiguous you are correct.

"This protest cannot be boiled down to a simple soundbite because this protest is ambitiously seeking a complex, fundamental, philosophical change in the social, political, and economic infrastructure of our country... The strength of Occupy... lies in the ambiguity of its mission. There is no laundry list of specific, unreasonable, and untenable demands. There is only the demand for change. Change of, by, and for the people, enacted by our elected officials. If the powers-that-be respond with absolutely nothing, then it is clear that they will never, ever be interested in effecting substantial change of our financial system, no matter how strong public support may be."
- Edward Murray, Huffington Post

Silas articulated via something he heard that the ambiguity is positive in that it does not allow itself to be co opted to single agendas or groups - the ambiguity forces conversation and dialogue as a starting place. 

Clearly the ambiguity has allowed for a unity in discontent. 

However, there is an emptiness to the demand for change that offers no plan, no solution and continues to look for the "powers" to satiate their thirst for change...

Zizek has suggested that the lack of actual coherent voice in the protests across the world, from greece to london to New York to Vancouver, other than complaint is the breeding ground for support for totalitarianism. That the blind support for change is liable to support a dictator who offers salvation... that between the financial crisis and the social unrest we are writing a story that is starting to sound like 1930's Germany...

Here is an article by Zizek on the London riots:

Shop Lifters of the World Unite

Clearly the Occupy movement is different but is it different enough?

Based on the immanence of this we are going to spend this week exclusively writing, thinking and researching this and will probably show up on the 15th to have some conversations...

Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? Rhetoric? Propaganda? Hope? Alternatives?

"Is monogamy making us miserable?"

This article caused me to think. If it does the same for you, please write your thoughts and responses in the comments section below. 

Is monogamy making us miserable?

Columnist suggests maybe we're just not cut out for staying together

By John Preston, Sunday Telegraph September 17, 2011

Earlier this year, an Algerian pork butcher called Lies Hebbadj was revealed to have been dividing his time between his wife and three mistresses. This prompted the French Interior Minister to declare that he should be stripped of his French citizenship. Greatly affronted, the all-too-aptlynamed Lies hit back saying that keeping mistresses was a French tradition, and if he was stripped of his citizenship then millions of other Frenchmen should hang up their passports too.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the married New York Congressman, Anthony Weiner, was busy emailing photos of his groin to a bemused stranger in Seattle. In between the politician and the pork-butcher came a lengthy procession of men - it is, I fear, almost always men - who have found the chains of monogamy all too easy to break.

Tiger Woods, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Arnold Schwarzenegger, various actors and footballers hunkered down behind their super injunctions; each year brings forth its rich harvest of adulterers who have vaulted out of the marriage bed and scooted off - leaving heartbreak and lawyers' bills in their wake. Across age, race and class, it's the same story. And each year people scratch their heads in puzzlement and wonder where it all went wrong.

'A KIND OF MARRIAGE'

Only this year something different happened. Maybe, suggested America's leading relationships columnist, Dan Savage, it's time we looked more closely at monogamy and asked if we're really cut out for it as a species.

After all, Roget's Thesaurus defines monogamy as "a kind of marriage." In other words, there are other kinds, and perhaps one of these might suit us a little better.

Savage's suggestion was a novel one. Heterosexuals, he reckoned, should learn to behave more like homosexuals - and gay males in particular. What this means is that they should re-examine their ideas about fidelity. Savage, who's gay himself, insists he's faithful to his partner, and vice versa.

"My partner's fidelity to me is as important as anyone who's in a monogamous relationship with someone else; we just don't define sexual exclusivity as the be-all and end-all of commitment. In other words, we're faithful to each other, but sometimes we have sex with other people.

"However, that in no way violates our commitment to each other."

Savage insists he wasn't trying to ignite a huge moral blaze - yet that's exactly what happened. "I couldn't believe how worked up people got," he tells me. "It was like they were this bunch of children and I'd just told them that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

"What made the greatest impression on me was just how vulnerable the idea of monogamy must be. Otherwise, why would anyone who just clears their throat and points out that monogamy might not be for everyone, be accused of ruining it for everyone else?"

If, as Savage suggests, we're not cut out for monogamy as a species, we're not alone here. Quite the reverse. We now know that swans do not - as once thought - repine in a pitiful, floppy-necked way after the death of their partner. Rather they swallow their grief, plump out their feathers and find another one.

And then of course there's the red-tailed blackbird, longbelieved to mate for life. In a recent effort to reduce population numbers, a large number of male blackbirds were sterilized, which, in theory, should have knocked the birthrate on the head. However, to the surprise of biologists, the females continued to lay eggs which hatched. The conclusion: when those female blackbirds couldn't get what they wanted, they simply went elsewhere.

'THE DIVORCE GENE'
But we are not red-tailed blackbirds, you cry indignantly. We are humans and what's natural for them isn't necessarily natural for us. But what exactly is natural? As the humorist Ogden Nash once observed, "Smallpox is natural - vaccine ain't." Monogamy may be no more natural for us than it is for anyone - or anything - else.

Recent research at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden suggests that the way in which men bond to their partners may, in part, be dictated by a specific gene variant - christened the "divorce gene." The more of it you have in your genetic makeup, the more likely you are to stray. If you're a man, that is.

If biology isn't on the side of monogamy, then nor is history. The idea that romantic love should play any part in marriage is a comparatively recent one. Before the 18th century, it would have been considered the height of folly - mainly because it gave women the right not to enter a loveless marriage, and paved the way to their getting divorced if they did. Marriage and sex simply didn't go together - at least not as far as men were concerned. Women, it hardly needs adding, were expected to remain models of constancy and fidelity.

Then along came romanticism, bringing ballads, soppy sentiments and a host of unfulfillable expectations with it. A very bad move, reckons Savage. All at once the "monogamous expectation" was imposed on men. "Prior to that, they were never expected to be monogamous. They had access to concubines, mistresses, prostitutes and all the rest of it."

Skip forward to the feminist revolution of the '60s. "Rather than extending to women the same latitude that men always enjoyed, we extended to men the confines women have always endured. And it's been a disaster for marriage."

So what should we do? Savage has coined a handy acronym for how he thinks couples should behave - "GGG," which stands for good, giving and game. If couples can't fulfil one another's desires, then maybe the best thing is to venture outside the marriage for a while.

"I'm absolutely not saying that people should be free to sleep with whoever they want. I'm just saying that if you're married to someone for 50 years and you cheat on them once or twice, that doesn't mean you're bad at monogamy.

"In fact, I'd say you were pretty good at it. All I'm arguing for is a little latitude, a little forgiveness, a little realism."

HONESTY THE BEST POLICY?
Forgiveness. Here we come to perhaps the trickiest question of all to do with infidelity. If you do happen to stray, should you tell your husband or wife?

Traditional wisdom holds that honesty is always the best policy. Might it not be more practical to argue for something better suited to our human frailties?

Here I refer to a flagrantly unscientific survey of some male friends of mine which I conducted.

Honesty, say my friends, is for losers. There's nothing to be gained from telling. Far from being an act of admirable honesty, it's actually one of supreme selfishness. This is what we might call the Great Paradox of Extra-Marital Affairs: not telling the truth is both the kinder and more honourable thing to do.

After all, they ask, who benefits from such reckless candour? Far better to keep schtum and carry on. There are plenty of cultures which take a more relaxed attitude to fidelity than we do. Inuit men, for example, have long had "temporary wives" which they take with them on otherwise lonely treks across the tundra, leaving their more permanent wives at home. Countries like France and Italy have practically enshrined infidelity in their national identity.

No way around betrayal

So is it time to draw down the curtain on monogamy, to acknowledge that it simply doesn't work for us? Perhaps - but before we do, let us pause for a moment and refer back to my panel of friends. All have succumbed to temptation. All cling feverishly to the idea that they've done nothing that bad. Yet there's something else they have in common: all are divorced and all are steeped in record levels of confusion, misery and self-pity.

Surely this alone should give one pause for thought. To be unfaithful is a betrayal - there's no way around this.

Nor is infidelity a shallow pool into which you can dip your toe every so often. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will be caught.

When that happens you will be heaping humiliation upon the person that - in theory at least - you care most about.

Once broken, the bond of trust between two people frequently proves impossible to repair.

Andrew Marshall, author of How Can I Ever Trust You Again? From Infidelity to Recovery in Seven Steps, believes there are strong practical and moral arguments in favour of monogamy. For a start, he says, he's never met a heterosexual couple who have made licensed infidelity work.

"The only couple I've counselled who tried to do that fell at the first hurdle. They tried to be honest with one another, but the amount of jealousy and upset was extraordinary.

"And if people aren't being honest then I suspect it's even worse. You may think you're having uncomplicated sex, only there's no such thing.

"You're playing with fire and you'll almost certainly get burned." And, of course, it's not just you and your partner - any children you may have are almost certain to suffer too.

Here's yet another reason why, Dan Savage's many critics point out, it's absurd to suggest that heterosexual couples should behave more like homosexuals. In Marshall's experience, infidelity doesn't necessarily work for gay couples, either. "What tends to happen is that they have a don't ask/don't tell policy, but someone invariably ends up getting jealous. Or else they have sex with everyone apart from each other and drift into a sibling relationship."

Humans, Marshall believes, "are always at our best when we aim to be as good as we possibly can. I think we have to aim high. But I also think we should try to be a little more charitable and try to solve the underlying causes that lie behind infidelity. If people put the same energy they expend on an affair into their marriage or relationship, it's quite possible they could solve their problems."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/monogamy+making+miserable/5418722/story.html#ixzz1YVvQ3lzu

Extremist Religion

Norway attacks suspect admits responsibility - Europe - Al Jazeera English

This is so disconcerting I had to share it. Many who know me well know that I disdain right-wing fundamentalism, but usually the conversation leads to the south, addressing my American neighbors. Sometimes the topic is nearer to home where there is a growing right-wing extremism in Canada, especially in some of the evangelical churches that are drifting into fundamentalism. A year ago I was confronted by extremism on two fronts, both of which where while I was in East Africa. As many may remember Al-Shabab (Somali Islamic extremist group) bombed a world cup party in Uganda, which was rather "close to home" as I was in neighboring Tanzania at a very similar world cup party. There was also the grenade attacks in Nairobi while I was a few blocks away. That was a double sided attack. The rally was for what I would consider extremist right wing Christians, and soon after the grenades went off fingers were being pointed at extremist Islamic groups as well. The disconcerting part for me is not the dissimilarity between the two "religions" but the similarity that both choose to become highly intolerant. The similarity that both become driven in a right-wing direction. The similarities are endless, but they stop being religions and end up becoming radicalized groups with religious rhetoric. I find myself shocked today because the one place on earth I continued to hold as the Mecca for free and open discourse appears to be crumbling. I guess I had chosen to not read the signs, to blissfully ignore the trends of a growing extremism, to live in a fairy tale that the nations that stood for social discourse and tolerance were being infiltrated from the inside by right-wing extremism. The reason I find this nearly unimaginable is that I am forced to question my belief in whether or not there can be an apolitical state that allows for tolerance and civil discourse. It is moments like this where I have an incredible affinity to people such as Christopher Hitchens, who view religion as the problem and humanism as the solution...moments like this one make me ponder whether people such as this are correct.

Nationalism as Individualism

Inspired by Duncan's thought provoking post on "Canada Day Cynicism" describing what I would call "the trends the youth of Canada are seeing". I agree that Canada is evermore becoming that which it so long defined itself as not being, the USA. The hints that lead me to seeing this downward slide into nationalism are: a growing anti-intellectualism, a belief that we are seeing the blessings of God, and increase in intolerance and failure to dialogue with others, not to mention the increased patriotism, the awful attack adds in elections, the demise of the Liberal Party of Canada which was the effective loss of a truly centralist party, a move to increasingly partisan national dialogue. So have we finally mimicked the Giant to the south. We seem to be living up the role of little brother to the big brother.

So now what to say, is our increased nationalism fallen in line with the great adversary to the good news of the Bible. In my reading of the great meta-narrative the nations function as the adversary and the counter to the great work of God. Israel itself falls into the trap of Nationhood, and as that nationhood takes on a life of its own under David and Solomon we are privy to watch the destruction of the nation as we turn the pages, until there is nothing but a remnant left, a remnant that does not look much like the "nation" of its former self. Yet we make the same mistakes over and over. Ezra grapples with nationhood and how to go about it. Ezra' method I would venture is much more like the Canada of the past, with less flag waving, more hard work. Although he goes a little over the top with the divorcing all the non-jews, whereas from a standpoint of reading the story for thousands of years, we no longer need to be ruled by that fear based understanding, and instead Canada recognized diversity as our strength. But now I echo Duncan, the flag waving and dangerous patriotism are on the rise. I see us entering the time of Nehemiah, where propaganda and fear driven construction reign supreme. I think these stories mirror each other for a reason. As we often go from organic-> institution. In this shift a loss occurs a loss of what was at the core, this has been seen time and time again.

This is where I wanted to arrive. As we move from chaos to perceived order, have we actually gained anything? Or as we leave the more chaotic Canada behind, a Canada defined apophatically, that is by what it is not. We move to a defining of what is. This defining by what is, is disconcerting as it is the underlying heresy of modernism and individualism. As we define our nation in this way we forget its definition deduced by it relationality as and entity. To borrow a Bruggemann idea of othering (I'm sorry Danielle I had to), to be defined is to relate, to relate is to engage and interact with the other. It is this othering that gives meaning, actuality or validity to the entity. Thus, Canada ceases to be an entity worth discussing when it attempts to define itself. The more nationalism and patriotism the less meaning there is behind it, it becomes a veneer held up by the continued propaganda. It is as if I continue to tell you I am a counsellor, and you may believe it, but unless I actually relate to others and give counsel it becomes a facade. This is the same for the nation of Canada, it used to be defined by peacemaking, hockey, and incredible ability to make fun of itself, the beaver, foreign aid, and cultural diversity and plurality. These were relational definitions that I believe we are loosing, in favour of flag waving, chanting, self congratulations. An empty facade, a veneer of no worth.

Canada you were better than this, but if we continue down the road we appear to be choosing, I see us fully becoming the Empire we used to distain. We will claim to be blessed by God because of economic exploits, failing to comprehend the root of our gain as the exploitation of others. We will further distance ourselves from a true understanding of blessing by God, blessing defined by the relational othering we do. So Canada, your nationalism is the lie of individualism, do not deceive yourself. Return while you still can, before we banish ourselves fully into the exile of individualism of nations. "Return to me declares the Lord" Joel 2:12