Judgment at Nuremberg

This morning I caught the last 45 minutes or so of the court room drama Judgment at Nuremberg. At the Teach With Movies web site it gives the following description of the film:

This movie is a fictionalized account of the war crimes trial of judges and prosecutors who served the Nazis.

"Judgment at Nuremberg" depicts a watershed event: the first trials, based on principles of justice and international law, of the leaders of a country that waged aggressive war and committed crimes against humanity. The film is a gripping, searching and provocative look at the moral issues surrounding both the actions of the accused and the process of bringing them to justice. The film also explores the issue of whether ordinary Germans bore responsibility for the Holocaust.

I have seen this movie many times before, however, while watching the movie this morning, I was struck with how relevant the film's themes are today as we contend with our "War on Terror" and are living with the abomination of such things as America's Patriot Act, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, horrors at Abu Ghraib Prison and Canada's compliance with "no-fly" lists.

Burt Lancaster plays the character Ernst Janning a German judge who is on trial for condemning innocent people during the Nazi regime. Janning is pretty stoic throughout the proceedings but as he watches the court room events unfold, he is compelled to give an explanation for his actions. In one of the most stirring moments on the film, Janning rises in court to give his statement:

"There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.'

It was the old, old story of the sacrificial lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later.

The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world! We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies.

Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said 'go ahead, take it, take it! Take Sudetenland, take the Rhineland - re militarize it - take all of Austria, take it! And then one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual began in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become the way of life.

Your honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name, until I realized that in order to save it, he would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it - he has done it here in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the sixteen year old girl, after all. Once more it is being done for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation."

Here is Lancaster's brilliant performance:



Spencer Tracy played the head of the tribunal, Judge Dan Haywood. Throughout the movie as he interacts with the German people and in particular in his interactions with the widow of an executed German officer, played by Marlene Dietrich, you can see his struggle to understand the evidence of the atrocities presented in court in light of the warmth and nature of the Germans he meets. He can't seem to grasp how a people with such love of life and song could allow such things to happen and claim they didn't even know they were happening. I see Janning's statement as the point where this juxtaposition becomes clear to him and this chilling realization is reflected in his comments at the trial's verdict:

"Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part.

Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs - these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes.

But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs... The murder of children... How easily that can happen!

There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what we stand for: justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!"

The verdict is indeed chilling and Tracy delivers it with the aplomb and skill of a seasoned actor:



But while the performances of all of the actors in this film were stellar, it is the themes of the film from which we can draw meaning and which rung a bell for me today.

In a post-911 world we too live in a "Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves." We too have leaders who would tell us, "There are devils among us. Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed."

In our fear to be thought of as less patriotic, in our fear of once again being targeted by those who hate us, many sit in silence and say, "What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later."

But this way of thinking only perpetuates the very evil from which we seek to protect ourselves. In our paralytic fear we've allowed the very principles upon which our democracy was founded to become corrupted. I think these last few word's of Judge Haywood's verdict should be not only etched in our hearts and minds but retained to galvanize us to rededicate ourselves to the principles we have held so dear:

"A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment that the grasp of the enemy is at its throat, then is seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way, only the answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult!"

Time and colour blindness

Last year, in my blog post Speak your mind even if your voice shakes, I wrote about an incident that happened at Pride where the emcee made a comment in reference to a Black performer about "not seeing colour". I received a couple negative comments in response to that post and couldn't help but think of that incident and the responses I received here when I heard an interview of Nigerian writer, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, on this morning's The Current on CBC radio.

Towards the end of the interview she speaks about her experience of coming to study in the US. When asked if she was surprised by the evidence of institutional racism in the US she said it was eye-opening for her. She said that she didn't know she was Black until she moved to the US and that living in the US means knowing that one is Black and that Blackness comes with so much baggage. She goes on to say that she believes that America's approach to race and class isn't honest, that there is a myth that everything is alright. She says that the myth that we live in a colour-blind society is a lie and that we shouldn't pretend that race doesn't matter. Hmm, looks like I'm not the only person who feels that way. You can listen to her interview by clicking here. You will need Real Player installed on your computer to listen to that file.

******

Today, October 24th, is Take Back Your Time Day. Take Back Your Time Day is a project organized by an alliance of academics called the Simplicity Forum and members of Cornell University's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy.

From the website at www.timeday.org:

TAKE BACK YOUR TIME is a major U.S./Canadian initiative to challenge the epidemic of overwork, over-scheduling and time famine that now threatens our health, our families and relationships, our communities and our environment.

Some of their mottos are - More time, less stuff. Time is a Family Value and Medieval peasants worked less than you do.

Childrens do learn...

U.S. "Education President" George Bush, in looking for continuance of his No Child Left Behind legislation ensured the American people that "Childrens do learn."

I'm so happy to hear that but perhaps it was little Georgie Bush who got left behind?

Why is is that every time I see that man on TV I'm reminded of the dead character in the movie Weekend at Bernie's?

Religious school funding

I admit, I attended Catholic schools right up until high school. When we lived in New York, my mom paid tuition but when we moved to Ontario mom had the choice of sending us to the public school or the Catholic school as both were funded by tax dollars.

This funding of Catholic schools and creation of a separate school system dates back to the 1800s yet Ontario is the only province in Canada which still funds Catholic schools. In November 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found Canada in violation of the equality provisions of that Covenant by virtue of Ontario's discriminatory school system. So in this upcoming election the Tories say they will fund "faith-based" schools.

See, I've got a problem with that. I don't believe the education I got was any better than my playmates who attended public school. Apart from the catechism classes, we all learned our alphabet, how to count to 10, tie our shoes and break the graham crackers on the line. I don't believe we need more than one publicly funded school system.

Of course I think that parents should be able to choose what type of education their children will receive so if they want their kids to get "religious instruction" with their ABC's, then send them to a private school - not one publicly funded. I'm for giving parents who wish to send their kids to a "faith-based" school some sort of tax credit to help off-set the additional cost.

What's sort of hypocritical about the Catholic schools these days is that you don't necessarily have to be Catholic to attend one. If the numbers of Catholic children enrolled in these separate schools declines to a point where keeping the school open is in question, they will allow non-Catholics to attend in order to boost their enrollment numbers up to the level to qualify for government funding. I have friends who teach in the separate school system and tell me that in some schools the non-Catholics outnumber the Catholics. So tell me, what's the point in having and paying for two different school boards? In my mind religion has no place within a publicly funded education system.

What was the big deal?

Sure, our numbers may be growing but out of a population of 33 million there are only a little more that 7,000 married same-sex couples in Canada. So what's the big deal? Did the sky fall or something?

According to Statistics Canada's latest census results, gays and lesbians are marrying more than straight people are. The number of common law, single parent and same-sex couples are surpassing the "traditional family" here in Canada. Stats Canada says that more straight folks are choosing to "shack up" rather than get married. Hmm, makes you wonder who holds the moral ground here eh?

Referendum Ontario

October 10th is election day in my province and I'm happy to see that we're having a referendum on electoral reform. I've written about this before (Electoral Dysfunction) and proportional representation is something I wished for Canada so I'm glad that it's finally going to make it to a ballot in one of the provinces.

The Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform has a video explaining how they came up with their recommendation for this referendum. It's only 7 minutes long and worth the time to view.

Softwood

Well, it looks like Canada has made a deal with the US on the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. We're going to get $4 billion of the $5 billion they illegally took from us. I don't trust them and I don't trust our current government to do well by us. It looks like I'm not alone in my concerns.

Opposition parties want to review this "deal" before it is inked. I don't blame them for their concern. From what I understand of the agreement, either party can 'opt out' by just giving 12 month's notice and it says that all current litigation on this issue is stopped. We've already gone to the courts five times and won this dispute. Despite this, the US has refused to honour its obligations under the Free Trade Agreement. I don't know about you but I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't keep their word.

Here's a little primer on the softwood lumber issue:

Blame the mother

You know it was Pride Week in Toronto when the media starts resurrecting stories postulating the causes of homosexuality. This past week's CBC story, Younger brothers more likely to be gay, basically says that a man is more likely to be gay if he has older brothers. They think that some sort of in utero autoimmune response may be at play but, of course, they are not sure.

There have been a lot of theories put forward over the years beginning with the “overbearing-mother-absent-or-distant-father” theory. Since then we have been told various hypothesis. One points to an excess of male hormones in the womb affecting sexual orientation. Another, which focuses on twins, speaks of childhood gender nonconformity to explain why one brother plays with GI Joes while the other likes to play with Barbies. How the hypothalamus region of the brain is stimulated by body odors is another area of study to explain the difference between straight and gay. The oddest study I've come across, apart from the one citing the length of ones ring finger, particularly in women (curiously known as the "Finger Papers" - no shit) as a possible indication of sexual orientation, is the one linking differences in the function of the inner ear to the sexual preference of women.

Ok, is it just me but doesn't it sometimes seem like people are trying to find the “cause” of homosexuality much in the same way they look for cures for cancer? Am I the only one besides Timothy Murphy who questions the rationale or ethics behind these types of studies?

What would happen if they were to find out that “gayness” is caused by a gene, or pregnant women smoking pot or death rays from Mars? Living in a world that presumes heterosexuality, I can only venture to guess that the next step would be to find a cure or way to prevent homosexuality.

My problem with studies like these is that they work from the assumption that heterosexuality is “normal” ergo, any other sexual orientation is not. That's like saying being Christian is “normal” while any other spiritual belief is not. Or being white is “normal” while being a member of the world majority is not. Awfully presumptuous don't you think?

Personally, I find my life more interesting when I presume that everyone I meet is gay. That way I can feign sympathy when they disclose they are not and secretly blame their mothers.

Here's some food for thought:

21 Questions for Heterosexuals

1. What do you think has caused you to be heterosexual?

2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of people of the same sex?

4. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?

5. Isn't it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?

6. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

7. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?

8. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

9. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex? Why are they so promiscuous?

10. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

11. If you were to have children, would you want them to be heterosexual knowing the problems they'd face?

12. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

13. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

14. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

15. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusively heterosexual lifestyle, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your homosexual potential?

16. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role playing?

17. Even with all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you, considering the menace of overpopulation?

19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that could help you change if you really wanted to. Have you considered trying psychotherapy or even aversion therapy?

21. Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist/counselor to be objective and unbiased? Don't you fear he/she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his/her own preferences?

What's Wrong

When I was a little girl I believed I lived in a world of moral absolutes. There was right and there was wrong. There were Catholics and Protestants. Cops and robbers. The Freeworld and Commie bastards. I was taught to respect authority and trust in the principles of a good government that would always do the right thing. I had a child's confidence that life's decisions were simple. You picked good or evil and if you always picked good, everything would turn out fine.

As I grew and experienced a world beyond the swing set in my chain-linked backyard, I learned that things were not always as simple. The world was not a place of moral absolutes and sometimes what we thought was right, later proved to be quite wrong and the trust we had placed in our government and leaders was sometimes misplaced.

Take for example the Avro Arrow. Most Canadians know of this story of pride and betrayal. During the height of the Cold War Canada had developed the world's fastest interceptor but on the verge of success, the project was scrapped throwing thousands out of work. Some say the Arrow project could have been completed for the cost of the project's cancellation fees.

As a teen the Vietnam War was served up in clips and sound bites each evening on the nightly news. Like most Canadians I felt a certain smugness that we harboured draft dodgers in opposition to the war. Later we learned how Canada was not only complicit in the bombing of North Vietnam but that our own government had endeavoured to hide this information from us. Canada's secret war: Vietnam

Earlier this week the Supreme Court of Canada heard the government's arguement about the necessity of maintaining security certificates to protect national security. These procedings come on the heels of the American news reports of the suicide of three Guantanamo Bay detainees.

All of this brings to mind the 2004 movie Strip Search which examines this issue of individual rights versus national security through the story of two individuals and two governments. The very thought that you could be snatched up off the street for the suspicion of being a threat and imprisoned for years without ever knowing what evidence was being held against you is frightening. In Canada they say they can only do this to foreign nationals and not Canadian citizens but when the basic premise of due process is being trampled, that's small consolation.

If we, in the West, are supposed to be the beacons of democracy and freedom is it not hypocracy to abandon these principles when it becomes inconvenient?

These days we are told that we live in a different world. A more complicated world. A world where we often must choose the lesser of two evils. Perhaps this is simply an excuse. Perhaps we are too lazy, too greedy, too scared or too self-righteous to take the time to really figure out what's wrong.

The Big Lie

The mornings my boss is in town on the way to the office, he picks up a coffee for me and we shoot the shit for a few minutes before he starts his day. One day last week he came in and told me about a web site his friend told him about. The site examines the official report on the 9/11 tragedy and says that the report is false.

Well, ya know, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy so I had to check it out.

In David Ray Griffin's essay, The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, he examines the official story that the impact from the planes and the resulting fires caused the structural damage which caused the collapse of the towers. Through this examination he argues that the collapse could not have happened the way the authorities say but that the collapse was more like a controlled demolition. His theory is basically that the buildings were pre-wired with explosives and that the US government had sanctioned this tragedy.

Mr. Griffin is not alone in his thinking. Judy Wood, in her study, The Case for Controlled Demolition, gives a compelling argument for controlled demolition as opposed to the official “pancake collapse” theory. Perhaps Steven Jones' essay Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse, explains why, when I first saw the towers fall I thought it looked a lot like the felling of the Sands hotel in Vegas. If you have a high-speed internet connection, you can watch Barry Zwicker's video titled, The Great Conspiracy which postulates that the attack on the WTC was staged to enflame the American people to the point that they would willingly go to war.

Can this possibly be true?

Well, I just had to read the official reports. Now I haven't read all 585 pages of the 9-11 Commission's report but I have read Section 9 and the Executive Summary. I've also read Chapter 2 of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performace Study and their Executive Summary. These portions of each report deal specifically with the collapse of the towers.

In reading through all of this, I am reminded of The Big Lie.

If you are not already aware, this phrase refers to a propaganda technique that functions on the premise that people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. Basically, if you tell a big enough whopper, people will believe it because they won't believe you'd have the audacity to tell such a whopper. That's probably why I always seem to get away with telling everyone that I am Diana Ross' love child. (grin)

I feel certain that somebody is lying about this 9/11 thing but who is lying and more importantly, why?

As James H. Fetzer says in Thinking About Conspiracy Theories, “But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories". It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of two "conspiracy theories" is more defensible?”

I'm told that one of the methods law enforcement uses to unravel the intricacies of organized crime is to follow the money. I think it's even simpler – who benefits? Who has benefited as a result of this heinous attack? Think about it then ask yourself, which is the big lie?

China Rises

The CBC recently aired a documentary titled, China Rises. I don't know if anyone outside of Canada saw this 4 part documentary but it had me enthralled and a little bit frightened.

The documentary examines China's politics, economy, environment and society through the lives of various Chinese individuals. I had so many thoughts and feelings while watching their stories but the feeling that sticks with me the most is amazement.

China's economic growth is nothing short of amazing. To see the sprawling factories, the rags-to-riches stories and the sheer enormity of their industrial complex is staggering. Anything that can be made by the hand of man is manufactured in China. In a land where you can pay a worker 60 cents an hour for a 12 hour day, it's no wonder North America is loosing all of its manufacturing jobs - how can we possibly compete?

This economic boom comes at a heavy price though. As big (geographically speaking) as China is, it doesn't have very much arable land. A good proportion of what it does have is being expropriated to industrial and residential development. The documentary took a look at the city of Shanghai. The skyline looks like something out of a Buck Rogers serial! Thousands of skyscrapers, glowing in neon conceal those unfortunate enough to be displaced in the development boom. Never was the difference between the "haves" and "have-nots" made more apparent.

Beyond the cities, fishermen can no longer earn a living because the rivers which had sustained them for generations are so polluted there are no more fish. Farmers irrigate their fields with waters laiden with chromium and other toxic by-products of the factories. Most of the produce is so tainted that it wouldn't pass the safety standards of Europe or North America. Not only are the crops contaminated but China's water supply is disappearing to the point that desert is encroaching on once-fertile land.

That the Chinese are eating poisoned food and are loosing their reserves of water is not the frightening thing. What's so frightening is that many of those who would be in a position to do something about it simply shrug off the environmental destruction as a cost of prosperity. What I understood from the interview of one woman in the documentary was that she seemed to think that the harm to the environment was a small price to pay and once the country had grown sufficiently, they could then address environmental concerns. Sound familiar?

Am I afraid that China or any other country for that matter, will destroy the earth? Nah. We can't destroy the earth. We can though, make it uninhabitable for humans. The earth will endure. Whether or not we do is another story.

Canadians too "hedonistic"

In the news today I read an article about American head of the Free Congress Foundation comment's regarding our recent election of a minority Conservative government.
Canadians too "hedonistic"

I had never heard of this guy, Paul Weyrich, so I looked him up. Earlier this week on the Free congress Foundation he wrote the following piece:
Conservative Canadian Prime Minister-elect Espouses Positive Change

In his opinion Canadians need "to correct some premises of Cultural Marxism, which Canadians have espoused, such as same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand". He says that after he personally investigated the situation he found:
"The people of Canada have become so liberal and hedonistic that the public ethic in the Country immediately could not reversed". Gee, he makes it sound like we've got the clap or something.

When I hear the word hedonistic or hedonism I envision scantily-clad people cavorting on some desert isle, sleeping late, engaged in frivolous play and coveting every petty indulgence or luxury. Hmm, almost sounds like a TV show...

Just so I would understand exactly what hedonism meant, I looked it up. The Living Webster Dictionary defines hedonism as: The doctrine that the chief good and man's primary moral duty lie in the pursuit of pleasure.

Pursuit of pleasure? Hmm, where have I heard a similar phrase? Oh yes, it's all coming back to me...

Second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, writen almost 230 years ago says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Ok, the Declaration actually says happiness and not pleasure but I always thought the two words were closely related so once again, I looked it up.

My Gage Canadian Thesaurus lists the following synonyms for happiness: beatitude, blessedness, bliss, cheer, cheerfulness, cheeriness, chirpiness, contentment, delight, ecstasy, eletion, enjoyment, euphoria, exuberance, felicity, gaiety, gladness, high spirits, joy, joyfulness, jubulation, light-heartedness, merriment, pleasure, satisfaction, well-being.

I don't know about you but some of these states don't sound so awful bad to me. However since I found this list in a Canadian reference book and some may think it biased, (especially as it used the word "gaiety" as a synonym), I looked up happiness on an on-line reference and found similar results.

In light of this research, I take no offense to Mr. Weyrich's characterization of Canadians as hedonistic. We can't help it - we are fun-loving folk. That may be as a result of our "cultural Marxism" but I like to think it's because we have stronger beer.

Electoral Dysfunction

As I left the polling station today in the village of Colchester, I had a hot flash. At first I dismissed it as yet another menopausal hormone rush but as the beads of perspiration cooled in my sagging cleavage, I began to realize that since I had just voted for a party with no hope of forming a government, I suffered from a more powerful malady - electoral dysfunction.

Sadly, there is little chance that I will learn at the end of the day that my riding will send someone to Ottawa who shares my political beliefs or vision for Canada. I may have the right to vote but with the current election system, my vote counts for little (if anything). No wonder only 60% of eligible voters even bother.

No wonder the 9th question in the Frequently Asked Questions of the Registration and Voting section of Elections Canada's web site is: "Is someone allowed to eat a ballot?"
Canadians are starving for a change in our voting system.

So, as I sit in the comfort of my Lakeside Lair, washing down my calcium supplements with a creamy soy beverage, watching the election coverage I know that tonight I, like many other Canadians will go to bed hungry.

It's the end of the world as we know it

I'm reading an article titled, The American Empire Meets Peak Oil, in the latest issue of Canadian Dimensions magazine and I'm getting depressed.

The article explains how the British Empire's economic expansion, and I would imagine the Industrial Revolution, was fueled by coal. Much of the teeth of the British Empire was lost with the shift from coal to oil. Since the US had its own source of oil, after the Second World War, America really began to build its economic empire.

Today, just about everything in our economy depends on oil – manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, electricity, agriculture, transportation etc. Here's a quote from the article: “Our vehicles, our roads, our cities, our power plants, our entire social organization has evolved on the promise of an endless supply of cheap oil.” Without oil, everything will eventually come to a grinding halt.

We've all heard that the world's supply of oil is shrinking, but what most people don't realize is that it is estimated that the world's oil production will peak within the next ten years. If we intend to continue to live the standard of life we have been living, something's gotta give.

Just today I was forwarded another article titled, 2006: The Year of Oil Collapse? which predicts the demise of the American economy. The writer explains that the reason for the recent housing boom is an attempt to strive for normality in an environment of increasing insecurity. He says despite these efforts, “fundamental comforts were what many Americans actually stand to lose in a reality-based future.” It is this, the inevitable loss of our fundamental comforts, which I find most distressing. Not just for myself, but for my children and their children.

I am reminded of a PBS program, Affluenza, which aired in 1998. The program describes Affluenza as:
1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to keep up with the Jones. 2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by dogged pursuit of the American Dream. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth. 4. A television program that could change your life.

In essence, the show traces the history of consumerism in America and our obsession with having bigger, better and more. It cites the oil embrago of 1973-74 as a “wake-up call” for consumers and the genesis of the environmental movement. While we saw how the embargo of the 70s caused much economic turmoil, we tended to snicker at the environmentalists calling them “tree huggers” and branding them as anti-establishment throw backs to the days of incense and peppermint hippies.

For the past thirty years we have treated environmentalists with the same disdain as Chicken Little, dismissing their warnings as nothing more than, at best, hysteria and at worst an attempt to subvert the global economic agenda. Perhaps this explains why governments have not begun a vast endeavour to reduce consumer consumption, conserve oil and gas and develop viable and cost effective alternatives.

I don't know about you, but I am scared. What will be our next “wake-up call” and what if we've already received it but have been hitting the “snooze” button for the last thirty years? As I see it, the sky IS falling.

Elsie's Back

Retired Conservative member or Parliament Elsie Wayne has been named Atlantic chairwoman of the right wing Vote Marriage Canada lobby group. See news item here.

Vote Marriage Canada would like to overturn the decision to alter the traditional definition of marriage which has allowed same-sex couples to marry.

Elsie says that the reason George Bush doesn't want to do business with Canada is because same-sex marriage offends his moral sensibilities. Well I don't know about Bush but corporate America doesn't seem to have any problems doing business with us. Canada and the US are the world's largest bilateral trade partners. Two-way trade between us is approximately 2 billion dollars per day! All Elsie has to do is take a drive down Huron Church Road in Windsor to see that offended moral sensibilites or not, the US is still doing business with us.

See what I don't understand is how my marriage in any way diminishes anyone else's marriage. Look at us. We're happy. We have jobs. We pay taxes. We have children who have not grown up to be thieves, axe murderers or pedophiles. We watch Commander in Chief. We watch our cholesterol. We've got a mortgage and car payments. We like to BBQ even in the winter. How does us living our mundane life as a married couple take anything away from any other heterosexual married couple? Do straight people feel any less married because gay people can get married? If anyone can give me a rational and compelling reason to divorce Lise and return to “living in sin”, please let me know.

Swing yer pardner...

Well the Supreme Court of Canada today declared that swing clubs were legal. My, my Canada sure is getting progressive.

The decision hinges on the interpretation of indecency. In the past community standards were used as the benchmark for determining what was and what wasn't indecent. Today the court rule was based on the concept of harm - "Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society". (see news item here)

I don't know about you but I really don't need, or want to know what other consenting adults choose to do sexually. I really don't care as it has no impact on my day-to-day life.

What is disconcerting is that some would say that decisions like this should be debated in Parliament and not be left to the Supreme Court. Oh please. I think this country has more important things for our politicians to debate than whether or not grown people should be allowed to have sex in whatever way floats their boat.

The Retarded Cousin

I read a news report yesterday that an American pundit described Canada as its "retarded cousin". (see article here).

Well, ok, so the Prime Minister shouldn't have criticised the US on its commitment to reduce greenhouse gases (especially when Canada hasn't done very well on that score) but Canada does have a legitimate bone to pick with the US around the softwood lumber issue.

Just because Canada wants the US to honour its agreement and return to Canada the $5 billion it took in illegal terrifs doesn't make Canada a retard.

Comments like the ones Carlson et. al. have made (see here) only serve to illustrate the solipsism and ignorance of non-Americans so rife in the USA.

The Right to Marry

These are my friends Hedy and Colleen and their handsome son Andrew. If is wasn't for these women and six other couples (see court ruling here), stories like the one I wrote in 1993 would continue today. Thanks to them, a story like Sarah and Alex's, in Canada today, can remain fiction. Let's hope that one day our cousins to the south can one day (perhaps in our lifetime) enjoy the same right.






Furthermore, thanks to the efforts and commitment of Hedy and Colleen and the other couples, I was able to legally marry the love of my life and have a chance, just like anyone else, to live happily ever after!

So thanks gals!