Norway: land of peace and plenty

Not only is Norway one of the world's most prosperous nations, it has now been ranked the world's most peaceful by the Global Peace Index. The index, compiled by The Economist with a team of international experts, ranked 121 countries on the basis of 24 indicators which measured ongoing national and international conflicts, national safety and security, and militarization.

New Zealand and Denmark came second and third. Canada ranked eighth -- not bad. Rock bottom, not surprisingly, was reserved for Iraq. Our wayward neighbour to the south, instrument of Iraq's woes, managed to break the top 100, but barely, at 96th.

So kudos to Norway. What with its vigorous economy (its petroleum-based heritage fund is now worth over $300-billion), it sounds like a very nice place to be indeed.

The catch-22 of Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr is the young Canadian who was captured by the Americans in their war in Afghanistan. He fought heroically. The last survivor of a five-hour battle, he was subdued only after being seriously wounded (he is now blind in one eye). Before succumbing to his injuries, he threw a grenade that killed one GI and wounded others.

Omar can hardly be blamed for his actions. He was only fifteen at the time, a victim of brain-washing in extremist Islam since his birth. He was sent to Afghanistan by his father. And he was, after all, fighting in a war. Nonetheless, the Americans intend to try him for murder.

But how, you might well ask, can he be tried for murder for killing an enemy soldier during a war? Well, the Americans answer, he isn't a prisoner of war, he is an "unlawful combatant," a term invented by the U.S. administration to circumvent the Geneva Convention.

Now, the Americans have declared that if he is acquitted of the charges, they can hold him indefinitely anyway. Why? Well, they say because the war on terror isn't over and convention allows them to hold captives until a war ends. But if he was captured in a war on terror (their words), and he is held indefinitely because the war continues, mustn't he be by definition a prisoner of war?

So this is Omar's predicament. He can be tried for murder because he isn't a prisoner of war. If he's convicted, he could be sentenced to life in prison. But if he's acquitted, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely because he is a prisoner of war. Catch-22.

How sad that Joseph Heller isn't still with us. He would have appreciated yet another example of his famous phrase in action.

Why are subsidizing these counterfeit Canadian TV networks?

The two private Canadian TV networks, CTV and CanWest, recently went on a huge buying spree in the U.S., continuing their trend to spend more on American shows than on Canadian. CanWest alone bought 13 new U.S. dramas. They did announce one Canadian production -- set in Boston.

In 2006, private broadcasters spent $478.6 million on drama, a 15 per cent annual increase, for American shows, and just $70.9 million, a 16 per cent decrease, for Canadian shows. That's seven times as much. As for overall programing, they spent $686 million on foreign programs in 2006, $619 million on Canadian programs.

Every penny the networks receive, they receive from Canadians. Their revenue depends entirely on advertising and of course the source of all advertising revenue is us, the buying public. Every time we buy something, we pay for the cost of advertising the product, and therefore, whether we like it or not, we pay for the mass media (and yes, that includes the daily press). We have no choice, at least not if we want to buy food, clothing, gas for our car, and all those other mundane things. Unfortunately, this coercive subsidizing of corporate media we can do nothing about.

Government handouts to media we can do something about. Canada's broadcasters receive over $200 million a year in public support from the Canadian Television Fund, Telefilm Canada, and several provincial tax supported programs. Considering that we already subsidize all their expenses via advertising, handing out another $200 million ventures beyond generosity into foolishness. That money should be spent on programming for the one truly Canadian network, the CBC.

Is fighting global warming a lost cause?

Yet another article in my daily paper has me wondering if exercising environmental responsibility, and fighting global warming in particular, isn't delusional.

The article in question had to do with house size in the United States. As the average number of people per household declines, now down to 2.6, the houses they live in get bigger. The fastest growing house type in the country is those with five or more bedrooms. The average new house is now 2,434 square feet. That's almost 1,000 square feet per person -- what are those 2.6 people doing in all that space? Do they ever run into each other? And why do they each need two bedrooms?

So as I truck down to the recycling bin with my little collection of newspapers, cans and bottles, am I kidding myself? Are my efforts for the year undone with the building of just one more monster house?

Maybe the only sensible thing to do is get in on the hedonism. Drive the big SUV, buy the big house, fill it up with stuff, and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. Life is short, you only live once, let the future take care of itself, etc., etc. Or maybe I just got out of the wrong side of bed this morning.

First the Cloverdale Rodeo, next the Calgary Stampede?

To its credit, the Cloverdale Rodeo in suburban Vancouver has dropped four events from its program. Calf roping, team roping, steer wrestling and the cow-milking race will no longer be part of the "fun." Finally, somebody in this questionable business has recognized that tormenting animals for pleasure is not perhaps the most humane thing to do. Other events will continue, but this is at least a start.

Debra Probert, executive director of the Vancouver Humane Society, has this to say about rodeo: "They're exploiting the reaction of animals to pain, fear and stress. They harass them. They kick them. They goad them. ... they harass them into acting like wild animals." All true, of course.

As a Calgarian, I am embarrassed each July when our internationally famous Stampede, "the greatest outdoor show on Earth," features the torment of innocent animals as prime entertainment. And it appears I will continue to be embarrassed. A spokesman for the Calgary Stampede & Exhibition stated they don't anticipate eliminating any events, claiming, "The Calgary Stampede is passionate about the proper treatment of animals."

So the cruelty will continue. Ya-hoo!

The Manitoba voter -- an analysis

The Manitoba NDP won a convincing victory on Tuesday, capturing their third term in a row while winning more seats each each time out. The results depended on some interesting demographics, as revealed by a Winnipeg Free Press/Global TV survey conducted just prior to the election.

Not surprisingly, women were much stronger NDP supporters than men. Forty-eight per cent intended to vote NDP with only 34 per cent supporting the Conservative opposition. Men were much more evenly split at 41 per cent NDP, 40 per cent Conservative.

Voters over 55 showed majority support for the NDP (51 per cent) compared to 34 per cent for the Conservatives. Youth on the other hand, those between 18 and 34, narrowly went the other way, 41 per cent Conservative, 37 per cent NDP. Those in-between sided with their elders, 47 per cent NDP, 37 per cent Conservative.

Interestingly, income made little difference with all groups from rich to poor favouring the NDP at a ratio roughly 1.2 to 1. University-educated voters, on the other hand, showed a strong preference for the NDP, 48 per cent to 33 per cent, while those with less than university education split about evenly between the two parties.

Town and country made a major difference. Winnipeg voters, particularly in the inner city, strongly preferred the NDP, 51 per cent to 29 per cent. In the rural areas, the picture reversed with the Conservatives topping the NDP 49 per cent to 34 per cent. Liberal support varied little, 17 per cent in Winnipeg and 15 per cent in the countryside.

So that's the picture. NDP voters are more likely to be women, over 30, university educated, and urban. And, of course, they are more likely to vote for the winning party.

Is George Bush fulfilling Osama's dream?

According to Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower, a history of the events leading up to 9/11, Osama bin Laden's master plan was to do a Soviet Union on the U.S. He would provoke the Americans into invading Afghanistan where they would be humiliated by the mujahedeen. The collapse of the United States would quickly follow. That, after all, was what happened to the Soviets.

But he spectacularly miscalculated. He drew the Americans into Afghanistan all right, but instead of being humiliated, they nearly destroyed al Qaeda. And if they had pressed on, they probably would have. But of course they didn't. Inexplicably, they eased off and threw their efforts into Iraq instead.

The result, of course, has been the fulfillment of bin Laden's plan. So far, at least. The Americans are being humiliated while Islamic extremists grow in numbers and expertise. But will the final phase of his plan come about -- the collapse of the United States? The war has bitterly divided Americans, but collapse? Of course not. Nonetheless, things could get very much worse.

Bush and his neocon advisers have not only precipitated bloody chaos in Iraq, they are destabilizing the region. Forty to fifty thousand refugees are fleeing Iraq every month, mainly to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and these countries simply cannot sustain such a migration. Just feeding them and providing shelter is a huge burden. The refugees often face tough restrictions that prevent them from finding work or gaining access to health care and other public services. As they become increasingly angry and bitter, they will increasingly threaten the stability of their host nations.

No, the US. will not collapse, but Iraq has and much of the rest of the Middle East could follow. The stage is being set, by the United States no less, for a triumphant surge of militant Islam in the Middle East. Osama must be smiling in his cave.

Paul Wolfowitz -- neocon to the end

So they didn't have to drag Paul Wolfowitz kicking and screaming out the front door of the World Bank after all. I would say he had the decency to resign; unfortunately he didn't resign decently. Admitting to no sins, offering no apologies, he had, according to The Globe and Mail, "only praise for himself."

He exhibited the same arrogance, the same self-righteousness, the same contempt for the opinions of any who had the temerity to disagree with him, that was characteristic of the neocons who led the United States into the Iraq debacle, of which he was a chief architect.

The damage he has done to the Bank is serious but should be easily reparable. Not so reparable is the damage done to the influence of the United States on the Bank's affairs. The disenchantment of the Europeans is manifest, and already the right of the Americans to appoint the president is being challenged.

This is symptomatic of what the neocons have done to their country. They have not just created immediate problems but have done deep damage to their country's interests. The next administration will have a big repair job on its hands.

NATO - the new arm of empire?

NATO's Director of Policy Planning Jamie Shea has announced his organization is considering deploying sea-borne rapid-reaction forces to help private oil firms. So far, NATO has been in discussions with Shell and BP. "We are looking very actively at using our maritime resources ... to see how we can link up with oil companies," Shea said. This could mean sending forces to Africa, Asia and the Middle East to protect oil company facilities. NATO has also approached Qatar about securing its liquified natural gas facilities and may approach Saudi Arabia. All this, of course, is in the name of energy security.

First the North Atlantic, then the world.

Holding the bully's coat

The Bush administration is doing it again. They will persist in picking fights. And we apparently are, to borrow Linda McQuaig's phrase, prepared to hold the bully's coat.

As host of next month's annual summit meeting of the G8 industrial powers, Germany has prepared a strong declaration on climate change which includes pledges to limit global temperature rises to 2C this century and reduce world greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below their 1990 levels by 2050. A modest goal, yet according to Reuters news service, the United States has "rejected any mention of targets and timetables, don't want the UN to get more involved and refuse to endorse carbon trading because it must by definition involve targets." Yup, sounds like the Bush administration. And apparently our benighted government intends to support the U.S. position.

In addition to pushing for an ambitious plan to combat global warming following a European Union deal earlier this year, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also made a sincere attempt to improve Germany's relations with the United States. With their opposition to her initiative on global warming, the Bush people could undermine that budding relationship before it blossoms. This administration seems bent on alienating its friends.

Nothing is more important than dealing with global warming, and the United States produces more greenhouse gases than any other country. This is an opportunity for Americans to show some responsibility and support Chancellor Merkel's proposal. They could even show some leadership and propose even tighter targets than the Germans. But no, they refuse even to follow, never mind lead.

And, sadly, we will tag along behind. Holding their coats.

Gouged at the pumps: good or bad?

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has issued a report claiming oil companies are overcharging us to fill up our gas tanks. Even if they are right, I admit to ambivalence.

Of course I don't want to see consumers ripped off. Nor do I believe corporations should profit through oligopoly rather than through honest competition. But I also recognize the higher gas prices go, the less gas people will use, and isn't reducing consumption the best way to reduce greenhouse gas production?

I also recognize the price of gas deceives us about the real cost of driving a car. If we had to pay directly for all the associated costs, including tax subsidies to the oil industry, the full cost of transportation infrastructure, the cost of policing roads, and the vast range of environmental, health and social costs created by environmental degradation and urban sprawl, the price of a litre of gas would be many times the current pump price.

So if the price of gas is artificially high because of the oil oligopoly, drivers are still getting a free lunch, and a hearty one at that. If environmental damage and urban sprawl are mitigated even a little, the higher price certainly isn't all bad. Making progress requires picking the right battles. I'm not sure the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives chose well in this case.

Alberta's cowboy caucus: Rent problem? What rent problem?

Despite a government task force report advocating controls on Alberta's overheated rental market, Premier Ed Stelmach is digging in his heels. "Rent controls will only make the situation worse," the premier insists, without explanation.

Meanwhile, renters in Calgary suffer from increases up to 200 per cent. Fred Bisschop, who suffers from a heart and lung condition, lives on $1,212 per month in government assistance. He will see his rent increase by 50 per cent to $1,110. "This is going to wipe me out," he said.

The position of Stelmach's government is not surprising. Even though Calgary and Edmonton make up over half the population of Alberta, his cabinet is dominated by rural MLAs. But it is in Calgary and Edmonton, particularly in Calgary, where the rental crisis is most severe, and rural MLAs are not known for their sympathies for the problems of big cities. At least one urban Tory, Calgary-Nose Hill MLA Neil Brown, has openly broken ranks and voiced support for controls.

Stelmach's government is essentially a rural government, but the big problems of the current rampant economic growth are suffered predominantly in the cities. If this government can barely understand the challenges facing Alberta, how can it be expected to deal with them?

Sarkozy and the work ethic

The election of Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France will no doubt be welcomed by capitalists and their supporters everywhere. Certainly his decision to spend the first few days after his victory on a luxury yacht belonging to one of the richest men in France does not suggest otherwise.

The French are constantly criticized for a relaxed attitude toward work, epitomized by their introduction of the 35-hour week. Editorials in the corporate press -- The Globe and Mail serves as a good example -- are amusing in their frustration with the French. They find French workers' approach to life and work incomprehensible. Why, they seem to plaintively cry, would people want more time with their families, more time to engage in politics and community life, more time to simply enjoy themselves, when they could be producing and consuming ever more stuff? Isn't producing and consuming stuff the purpose of life? These French, the editorial writers conclude, must be mad.

But what, a person less sympathetic to corporate obsession and more sympathetic with the French view might ask, is the point of decades of extraordinary technological advance and globalization, if it only means we must work harder, we must submit to the soul destroying mantra "we must compete in the global marketplace," we must serve the economy rather than have it serve us, if the only measure of progress is rising GDP?

After all, the corporate sector and its political puppets promised us globalization would improve the lives of all of us. Working harder than ever in some kind of mindless competition would hardly seem much of an improvement. But then to the corporate mind, progress is more production, more consumption, more growth, more profit, more market share, more GDP. And GDP doesn't measure happiness, pleasure, healthy family life, responsible citizenship or respect for the environment that sustains us.

Sarkozy sides with the corporate crowd. He will serve them well. For those of us who believe modern technology should be freeing us to make more choices about how we live our lives rather than submitting us even more to economic servitude, his election is bad news indeed.

Alberta public schools and the lies they tell

In the beginning, only water lay beneath the sky. There being no solid place to dwell upon, the first people lived in the heavens. One day the chief’s daughter fell ill and he could find no cure. An elder told the people to dig up a tree and lay the girl beside it. As the people dug, the tree suddenly fell through the hole and dragged the chief’s daughter with it. Two swans, swimming on the water below, heard a clap of thunder and looked up to see the sky open and the tree and the girl fall into the water. The swans swam to the girl and supported her, and took her to the Great Turtle, master of all the animals. The Great Turtle called a council. He told the animals that Woman Fallen from the Sky presaged good fortune. He commanded them to find the tree that had fallen and bring up earth from its roots so that they could build an island on his back for the woman to live upon. The swans led the animals to the place the tree had fallen and Otter, then Muskrat and then Beaver dived into the depths. But the dive was so deep they returned to the surface utterly exhausted, and rolled over and died. Many others tried but they too succumbed. Finally old lady Toad took her turn. She was gone so long everyone thought she was lost forever when suddenly she emerged and before she too died she spat a mouthful of earth onto the back of the Great Turtle. The earth was magical and began to grow. When it was large enough, the animals set the girl down upon it. Still it grew, until it became the great earth island we live upon today.

This charming myth, this delightful bit of nonsense, was once an ancient truth to the Iroquois people of eastern North America. It was their theory of how the earth was formed and how people came to dwell upon it -- their creation myth. This myth will not, however, be taught as truth in Mitford Middle School, a public school in Cochrane, Alberta. The Christian creation myth of Genesis will.

It, too, is charming, a delightful bit of nonsense, but it will be taught as scientific fact at Mitford. The Rocky View School Division is instituting a Christian program at Mitford, supplementing one it already has in place in a school in Chestermere and adding to similar programs in Elk Island, Pembina Hills and Red Deer public school districts.

Mitford's principal, Bill Bell, says Christian beliefs will be woven through every subject in the program. Regarding teaching the Christian creation myth as science, he added, "The first teaching will be from a Christian point of view and then there will be an acknowledgment that there is another theory."

Another theory? If he's referring to evolution, that life evolves is a fact not just "another theory" -- at least as much as we can know a fact. He may be thinking of Darwin's theory of evolution, i.e. natural selection, which is the mechanism of evolution, the way it works, not evolution itself. And a sound theory it is, having withstood any serious challenge for nearly 150 years.

As to Genesis, it is one creation myth among hundreds, even thousands. All peoples had one at one time, at least until science came along. To teach a creation myth as science is to insult science, education and, indeed, Mitford public school. To say nothing of betraying children to lies. And to do it at public expense is outrageous.

Public money spent on education should not be used to indoctrinate children in theology -- that's the questionable business of home and church -- and it should certainly not be spent on programs that exclude children because of religious belief. The "Christian" program at Mitford doesn't just exclude atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups, it even excludes most Christians. It isn't so much Christian as fundamentalist Christian. Most Christians after all, including the Catholic Church, have come to terms with the fact of evolution.

If we are going to exploit public education to substitute fairy tales for facts, then in all fairness we should give the Great Turtle his due as well.

Why are we tight with these Saudi misogynists?

While we send soldiers to Afghanistan to do battle with the Taliban, ostensibly to promote human rights in that country, particularly for women, we remain cozy with the most misogynistic country on the planet, Saudi Arabia. Even when they shove their misogyny in our face.

Just last week, at an education fair in that benighted country, the religious police shut down a Canadian embassy booth, as well as a booth run by LaSalle College, because they were staffed by women. According to George Chrysomilides, president of the Canadian Education Network, "... the religious police were very rude. They shouted at them in a way that was disrespectful ..." The women were then run off the grounds.

The Canadian embassy claims it had prior permission for the women to be there, but this cut no ice with the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Because the women were staffing these booths alone, Canadian organizers had even gone to the trouble of separating them from the main pavilion to show respect for Saudi sensibilities. Even that humiliating act of deference apparently wasn't enough.

So why do we defer to these barbarians? Well, in this case it may have something to do with the fact they send hundreds of very rich students to Canadian universities and colleges. One wonders if the Taliban were flush with oil wealth, and were willing to send a little our way, we might be willing to overlook their idiosyncrasies.

Brit general supports Iraqi insurgents

Retired British General Sir Michael Rose, who has in the past called for the impeachment of Tony Blair for going to war on false pretenses, now says Iraqi insurgents are justified in opposing the occupation of their country. He says the U.S. and its allies should admit defeat and depart. As to the dire consequences some predict, he insists they won't happen, observing, "The British admitted defeat in North America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened. The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."

As for the insurgents, he compares them to George Washington and his rebels during the American revolutionary war and quotes 17th century British politician William Pitt, the elder, who famously said: "if I was an American ... as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms". "The Iraqi insurgents," Rose says, "feel exactly the same way."

Now here's a general who learns from his history.

Toronto, city of the future -- Calgary, not so much

After nine months of research, Britain's Foreign Direct Investment magazine has released the results of its North American Cities of the Future competition. The competition included four categories: major cities (over 2,000,000 population), large cities (500,000 to 2,000,000), small cities (100,000 to 500,000) and "micro" cities (up to 100,000). The rankings were based on seven criteria: economic potential, cost effectiveness, human resources, quality of life, infrastructure, business friendliness, and development and investment promotion.

As a Calgarian, living in a city topsy-turvy with insanely rapid growth, I suspected we would rate tops in our category. Not so. We weren't even in the top 10. Worse, Edmonton was number four. Humiliating.

Other Canadian cities did very well, Toronto coming second only to Chicago in the major cities category, and Windsor ranking first among small cities.

It must be said that some of the choices were questionable. Juarez, Mexico, was ranked first among large cities, for example. I ask you -- Juarez?

But enough of the sour grapes. Kudos to Toronto and Windsor, and as for my home town ... well, maybe growth isn't everything

Progress in strange packages

Sometimes progress is illustrated by dark statistics, but it is progress nonetheless. This is how I felt reading that the world's execution rate was down in 2006. According to Amnesty International's annual report on the death penalty, at least 1,591 people were executed last year, down from 2,148 in 2005, a quite significant decline.

The Islamic world cannot be proud of the fact that the only four countries bucking the trend -- Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan -- were all Muslim. China led the field as usual, killing 1,101 of its citizens. This, however, could be a gross underestimate as China does not reveal official statistics. Amnesty suggests the toll may be as high as 8,000.

The Philippines became the 99th country to abolish the death penalty for ordinary crimes. In 1977, only 16 countries were abolitionist.

Amnesty International is calling for a universal moratorium on execution. "The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment," said Secretary General Irene Khan. "It must be abolished and a universal moratorium will be an important step forward."

Premier Charest -- a ladies' man in the best possible way

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has not had one of his better years. With his Liberals managing only to squeeze out a minority victory in the March election, he as leader must carry the can for what went wrong. But now he has got something very, very right indeed.

He has appointed a new cabinet and ... wait for it ... half the members are women. And they are not, as women often are, tucked away in the weaker portfolios. Monique Jerome-Forget is Treasury Board President and also holds the most important position in cabinet -- Finance Minister. Nathalie Normandeau becomes Municipal Affairs Minister and deputy-premier, with the job of rebuilding party support in predominantly francophone areas. Line Beauchamp becomes the first woman appointed to the increasingly important position of Environment Minister. Women also head Education and Transportation.

Women are now truly holding up half the sky in Quebec, and Premier Charest deserves full credit for recognizing that's how the world should work. Time for a few more premiers to step up.

Is the poodle slipping the leash?

If what Hilary Benn, Britain's international development secretary, is saying in Washington this week is any indication, the Blair government is starting to drift significantly from its cozy relationship with the Bush administration. Consider:

• While Bush continues to refer to "the war on terror," Benn insists Britain has rejected the phrase as counter-productive. He claims it only encourages terrorists by inflating their sense of importance. Furthermore, he says, it will take much more than military means to overcome the problem and, in any case, there is no clear enemy with an organized set of objectives.
• He also insisted achieving global peace and prosperity requires give and take, implying criticism of the Bush administration's tendency to rely on military force and economic sanctions.
• He reaffirmed his country's support of the International Criminal Court, an institution the Americans have attempted to sabotage.
• He repeated Britain's call to close Guantanamo.
• And as for World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, who Bush continues to support, Benn observed, "what's happened is very, very damaging to the bank .. and it simply can't continue."

All this is enough to make one wonder if the poodle isn't slipping the leash.

The Charter yields to blood sacrifice

Today is the 25th anniversary of the patriation of our constitution and the birth of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a day one might think worthy of special note, a day to celebrate becoming masters in our own house. Yet there is a deafening silence. The media have little to say and our federal government shamefully makes no special plans to commemorate the event.

One cannot help but compare it to the recent hoopla over the battle of Vimy Ridge. Thousands visited the site, the Prime Minister and the Queen made speeches and the media ran page after tedious page covering in excruciating detail every aspect of the affair. Over what? A massive slaughter so that our boys could stand on top of the hill rather than their boys? We used to play top of the hill when we were children but eventually grew up and went on to other pursuits. There was no more purpose at Vimy Ridge because there was no more purpose in the First World War; it was an exercise in bloody-minded European hubris, nothing more, a bunch of tired old empires taking a pointless whack at each other to the cost of millions of lives.

And yet it is often thrown up as the defining moment in Canadian history. The reason is simple, ancient and primitive. We continue to believe as we have for thousands of years that a people must be defined by blood sacrifice. Nothing else will do. Certainly not a peaceful, constructive act like patriating a constitution and establishing a charter of rights.

We have all the trappings of a highly-advanced species -- centrally-heated homes, cars, computers, etc., etc, -- yet we are in our souls much the same brutes we were when all we had was stone tools. We still need tribal myths to unite us, especially the myth of the immaculate warrior, the killing of our tribal enemies as the purest and highest attainment of manhood.

So of course the Charter yields to Vimy. It may be a far greater achievement but it involved no blood, no human sacrifice. It was, in other words, a far greater achievement for a fully civilized species, but for us ... it is second tier.

How funny is this?

How would you like to run a couple of wars? The job could be yours. President George W. Bush is trying to find what the media is calling a "war tsar" to manage the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but so far hasn't found any takers. Now there's a surprise.

To date, he has asked three retired four-star generals and all have not so politely declined. General John J. Sheehan, shown in the accompanying picture, remarked, "The very fundamental issue is they don't know where the hell they're going." Sheehan mentioned Dick Cheney as an obstacle to taking the job.

So, if this sounds like your kind of thing, get your resume in. If, for example, you have experience running a peanut stand, you just may be a shoo-in. You certainly can't do any worse than Bush and Cheney.

Meddling in Iraq

The Americans, it seems, are mightily annoyed at what they refer to as Iran's "meddling" in Iraq. Iran, they claim, is providing Shia, and possibly Sunni, militias with equipment and training.

Let's get this straight. The U.S. has precipitated a state of bloody chaos in Iraq that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, and leaves most Iraqis living in a state of constant fear -- and they accuse the Iranians of meddling?

Whose backyard is this anyway? The Americans are fighting wars on Iran's eastern and western borders, and they expect the Iranians to sit idly by and observe? Of course they won't. This is their turf and they will defend their interests, just as the U.S. has always done in the Americas. In Latin and South America, the Americans' backyard, they have persistently interfered in the affairs of other nations, even going so far as to overthrow democratic governments and replace them with more amenable dictatorships, a step well beyond anything Iran has ever done. This does not, of course, justify Iran interfering in the affairs of other states in the Middle East, but Iran's involvement in the Levant and Iraq is largely a response to aggression by Israel, the United States and other Western powers. Meddling as a response to meddling, one might say -- no Monroe Doctrine here. If the Americans can extend their reach to the other side of the world and wage bloody war, they are not on very solid ground to criticize Iran for supporting its local allies.

The Americans have made their hostility to Iran abundantly clear for a long time. The Iranians will quite reasonably do what is in their limited power to alleviate this threat and send the American meddlers home.

Biofuels and the destruction of the rain forest

Fidel Castro, apparently not dead yet by a long shot, has been ranting of late about agricultural land being used for the production of ethanol rather than for food. Not the first to suggest that human beings will ultimately starve themselves in order to feed their machines, he claims that billions could face starvation as productive land in poor countries is taken over to produce fuel for rich countries. "By offering financing to poor countries to produce ethanol from corn or any other kind of food," he states, "no tree will be left to defend humanity from climate change."

He may or not be right about the corn, but the old revolutionary certainly has a point about the trees. Predictions are that within 15 years, 98% of the rain forests of Indonesia and Malaysia will be gone, taking with them some of the world's most important wildlife species, largely for palm oil plantations to produce biofuel.

Over 80% of the world's palm oil is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia, up until recently for food. With the European Union aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, to be achieved partly by requiring that 10% of vehicles use biofuels, a huge surge in palm oil demand for use as energy is being created. The rain forests will pay the price.

Ironically, much of it is a scam. Lumber companies, who have already stripped much of the region's forests, are accused of taking out palm oil leases just so they can harvest the timber.

And if that isn't irony enough, clearing the forests may in itself send vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Up to half the new plantation area will be created from peat-land which contains large amounts of carbon. As the land is drained, the peat dries and releases the carbon. Even worse, it is often burned, adding even more CO2 to the massive forest fires that plague south-east Asia.

The ultimate irony, of course, lies in destroying the Earth in order to save it.

Vimy: heroes or fools?

"I think they'll come back with a heightened sense of respect for our soldiers and also a heightened sense of pride in our accomplishments."
- Mitchell Bubulj, history teacher

"It put Canadians on the map. It showed we could actually do stuff."
- Jeffery Bertrand, high school student

As quoted in The Globe and Mail, referring to the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge in the First World War, on the occasion of a school trip to Europe which included a visit to the battlefield.

And what were these "accomplishments," this "stuff" we showed we could do? Well, killing people, actually. We showed we could kill Germans as well or better than the French and the British. And we could die as well, too. I have always been intrigued at the way people persist in saying they hate war and yet commemorate it like no other historical events. Nothing else we accomplish as a nation, no other stuff we do, seems to touch the emotional depths war does. If we hate war, we certainly love warriors, and you can't have one without the other.

Not that killing people can't contribute to a worthy accomplishment -- good stuff so to speak. In a noble cause, like ridding the world of an Adolf Hitler, for example, it is an unfortunate yet honourable goal. But there was nothing worthy about the First World War. It was little more than an exercise in bloody-minded European hubris. Its causes, whatever they were, were not Canada's business and we were fools to get involved. And what were the causes of the war? Why did they fight? Was it imperialism? arms races? outdated alliances and defence agreements? trade barriers? ethnic and political rivalries? all of the above? Take your pick. A century later and still no great cause emerges. Twenty million dead for no good reason. Not much of an accomplishment here. Not much stuff to be proud of.

Some historians argue that at least something good came out of it. It was Canada's coming of age, they say. But on what evidence? We entered the war as British subjects and we exited as British subjects, and British subjects we remained until the Citizenship Act became law on January 1st, 1947, when for the first time we were legally Canadians -- a better date for coming of age. Or perhaps the appropriate date was April 17th, 1982, when we patriated our constitution and for the first time truly became masters in our own house. But coming of age because we proved we were good at killing and dying for an empty cause? I hope not. We could have better proven we had come of age by refusing to join the madness. Now that would have been an act of maturity.

Hanging Chads, the movie

Hollywood, it seems, is going to immortalize the infamous hanging, swinging and dimpled chads scandal from the 2000 U.S. presidential election. This was the hilarious episode in which 175,000 Floridians had their votes discounted while George W. Bush, with a little help from the Supreme Court, squeaked out a victory over Al Gore by 537 votes.

Home Box Office is now making a movie about the debacle. The film, entitled "Recount" and directed by Oscar-winner Sydney Pollack, is to be released next year. No word on whether or not it will be a comedy.

The 2004 presidential election should provide ample material for a sequel.

Iran and the 15 captives: let's have a sense of proportion

Great umbrage is being taken by Western politicians and media toward Iran's arrest of 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf. The umbrage may be justified; however, it should not cause us to lose sight of the fact that the event is trivial relative to the larger events taking place in the vicinity. Not trivial, certainly, to the 15 captives and their loved ones, but trivial to the victims of that same British military and its American accomplice waging an illegal war against Iran's neighbour. Trivial to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and their loved ones, to the millions of refugees, and to all those Iraqis who see their country being utterly destroyed. While Western politicians demand UN Security Council action against Iran, they are mute about action against Britain and the U.S. for its vastly more aggressive behaviour in Iraq. They lack any sense of proportion.

Iranians have suffered over a hundred years of bullying by the British, so it isn't surprising they are deeply apprehensive about British troops on their doorstep. This history includes an invasion in 1941, the imposition of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as shah, the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in the 1950s, and support for Saddam Hussein in his 1980-88 war of aggression. The British claim their personnel were still 1.7 nautical miles outside Iranian waters when they were taken -- lots of room for the Brits, too damn close for the Iranians.

The Iranians see the British everywhere they look: fighting a war on their eastern border, fighting a war on their western border, prowling ominously in the Persian Gulf. They must wonder if the sun will ever set on the British Empire.

Saudi king lashes U.S.

A critic the Americans don't need -- King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

In his opening speech at the Arab League summit, Abdullah condemned the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation” and went on to say that aid to the Palestinians should resume. When one of America's closest friends and allies in the Middle East strongly condemns two of its major policies in the region, the Bush administration has got to feel the ground shifting under its feet.

Abdullah's distancing himself from the U.S. is due partly to the ground shifting under his feet. Seeing the growth of Shia power in the region, particularly the increasing influence of Iran, and dealing with growing Islamic extremism in his own country, he recognizes the need for Arab unity, particularly the need to defuse the increasingly violent confrontations between Shia and Sunni. He sees the Palestine problem and the war in Iraq as inflaming Muslim radicals while enhancing the influence of the Arabs' Persian neighbour. These sources of hostility and conflict have been aggravated, even caused, by American interference, and therefore that interference has become a threat he can no longer tolerate.

The Sauds are, in themselves, misogynist dictators the world would be better off without. Nonetheless, if they can make a contribution to peace between Shia and Sunni, between Iran and the Arabs, and between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as they genuinely seem to be trying to do, they will at least have made themselves useful.

As for the Americans, this is not a friend they can afford to alienate. It has, after all, the world's largest reserves of oil.

Hell freezes over

The Quebec election reflects the real Canadian division

The Quebec election illustrates the real dividing line in this country, not the only one -- we have many -- but the principle one in electoral politics. It isn't East vs. West, or even Quebec vs. the rest, it's town vs. country. In the case of Quebec, as Lysianne Gagnon wrote in The Globe, the election represents rural revenge against the "city slickers from Montreal."

Despite the Parti Qubecois' declared allegiance to the customs and values and heritage of old Quebec, in reality it has always been the preserve of urbane Montreal intellectuals. Did they actually believe rural and small town Quebecois would rally behind a gay cocaine-smoker? To social conservatism, the dominant ethos in the hinterlands, Andre Boisclair is the devil personified.

The PQ have never really connected with this ethos, but they were the only nationalist show in town so they captured the rural vote anyway. Now Mario Dumont comes along, a man who really shares those down home values, and rural voters flock to him like the electoral messiah he is. Finally, a guy who "gets" them.

We see this across the country. In Saskatchewan, for example, almost all the rural seats go to the Saskatchewan (conservative) Party while almost all the urban seats go to the NDP. And of course federally, Dumont appeals to the same voters as Harper and for similar reasons.

A century ago ago, we were a rural country, 80% of us lived on farms and villages. Now we are an urban country, 80% of us live in towns and cities. In the last century, we didn't so much urbanize as suburbanize. In this century, many of the inner suburbs are becoming increasingly urban as growing towns circle the outer suburbs. It's a fluid dynamic, but one thing seems certain. We can expect the rural populace, with its social conservatism and ethnic homogeneity, to continue to decline -- and to continue to resent that decline. On Monday, they struck back.

Could this be as big as Nixon in China?

Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China, signaling the normalization of relations between the two powers, was considered one of the great diplomatic breakthroughs of the last century. Is it remotely possible that the Bush administration's new approach to the Palestine problem will lead to a similar breakthrough?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced yesterday the intention of the United States to enter into negotiations for a Palestinian state even as Israel continues to boycott talks with the Palestinian Authority. Rarely does the U.S. act independently of Israel. The Americans' unequivocal support for Israel, combined with their insensitivity to Arab grievances, particularly those of the Palestinians, has made settlement of the Palestine problem difficult, if not impossible.

The administration's new approach is no doubt a result partly of desperation as the Middle East situation grows steadily worse for the United States. As Nixon approached China in order to circumscribe the influence of the Soviet Union in Asia, the Americans desperately seek ways to circumscribe the growing influence of Iran in the Middle East. But their motivation is irrelevant if it leads to a solution to perhaps the most toxic problem in the world of international relations.

This is only a small gesture, and may lead nowhere. Hope waxes and wanes in the Levant like the seasons. But if it results in a stable Palestinian state, George Bush could go out on at least one high note on what has been the most miserable presidency in living memory.

Forget productivity, the challenge is distribution

In an article in the March issue of the CCPA Monitor, editor Ed Finn illustrates that from 1970 to 2005 Canada's GDP per capita almost precisely doubled, in constant dollars. As someone old enough to remember 1970, I can vouch for the fact we were quite capable at that time of providing a comfortable standard of living for each and every Canadian. Now that we are twice as rich, we are capable of providing a comfortable standard of living for each and every Canadian at least twice over.

Yet all we hear from business and the daily press (perhaps I should say business including the daily press) are concerns about a lack of productivity. Never enough wealth, it seems. But to what end? Just to fill our homes with ever more stuff? We can appreciate the business focus on making money, it's what business is all about -- the more sales, the more profit, the more market share, the more successful the business -- but this hardly seems sufficient measure of success for a healthy society. I suspect that for most progressives a fair distribution of wealth is at least as important as producing more, certainly at least when we have at least twice as much as we need to provide the material comforts.

Canadians, it seems, would agree. A recent survey commissioned by The Globe and Mail and CTV indicated over 2 1/2 times as many of us would prefer to see the federal government increase its spending on social programs as would like to see it reduce taxes.

The challenge of creating enough wealth for this country's material welfare was met and dealt with long ago. On the other hand, we still have a lot of work to do to create a relatively equitable society with a comfortable standard of living for all Canadians. Our poverty levels remain much higher than those in most northern European countries. Our native people are particularly badly off, shamefully so in a nation as rich as ours. And then of course there's the Third World, a universe of problems so big they seem overwhelming but which we can be instrumental in helping solve if we are prepared to commit the resources.

Both the magnitude and the ever-increasing nature of our GDP tell us the challenge is no longer how to create wealth but how to share it. This isn't a bad thing to keep in mind at a time when government budgets are so much in the pubic mind.

Pakistan's military disappear the "poet of Guantanamo"

On February 27th, I posted a piece mentioning the Afghan writer Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost, "the poet of Guantanamo." Dost recently published a book entitled The Broken Shackles of Guantanamo about his three years in the notorious prison. The book has become a hit. Too much so for the Pakistani army which it roundly criticizes for illegally turned Dost over to the Americans in 2002. Only weeks after publishing the book, he was abducted by police as he returned from his local mosque. The courts have demanded the military produce him but they have not replied.

What began with operations to pick up al Qaeda suspects after 9/11 has become an all-out campaign against dissent. Hundreds of Pakistanis have been disappeared, none ever appearing before a court. Pakistan's military intelligence agencies have been greatly aided in their iniquitous activities by equipment, expertise and money provided by the Americans in return for co-operation against al Qaeda.

Collaboration with military thugs has backfired on the United States so often you think they might learn. And they don't pay the price alone. Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost has paid it twice over.

Canadians stick together

Conservative icon Margaret Thatcher once famously said there was no such thing as society. Canadians, it seems, disagree. The pages of The Globe and Mail were brightened this morning by news of a poll that showed 50% of us want the federal government to increase spending on social services while only 19% want reduced taxes.

Add this to the support we offered governments for cutting back in the 1990s to balance their budgets and you have an indelible picture of a people who see themselves as a society, as a community. In lean times, we should all make sacrifices, and in good times, we should all share the wealth. Above all, we should take care of each other.

This is rather surprising considering the corporate press constantly indoctrinates us in the mantra of lower taxes. The lie that taxes must be lower to maximize our economic performance has been utterly disproven by northern Europtean countries which are both high tax regimes and the world's most competitive economies. Nonetheless, the corporate press persists in its propaganda. Canadians, however, aren't buying it. This may be frustrating for Thatcherites, but satisfying indeed to those who believe there is such a thing as society after all. And it is alive and well.

Irena Sendlerowa, reluctant hero

It is rare indeed that even a slender ray of sunshine emerges from the greatest atrocity in history, the Holocaust of the Jews and Roma by the Nazis, yet occasionally one does. Such is the case with the recent honouring as a national hero by the Polish parliament of 97-year old Irena Sendlerowa.

Irena, a social worker with permission to enter the Warsaw ghetto, organized a small group that smuggled out Jewish children, changed their identities, and placed them with Polish families. In 1942 and 1943, they saved 2,500 babies and children by hiding them in ambulances, taking them out through passages that led out of the ghetto, and wheeling them out on trolleys in suitcases and boxes.

Irena did not forget their heritage. She recorded their names on slips of paper which she sealed in glass bottles and buried in a friend's garden. After the war, the bottles were dug up and the lists handed to Jewish representatives so the children could be reunited with their families. Tragically, most of their relatives had perished in the camps. The children, at least, had survived.

Arrested by the Gestapo, Irena was beaten, her legs and feet broken so severely she has walked on crutches ever since. She rejects the title of "hero," saying she still feels guilty for "doing so little." She is a hero, nonetheless, a humble, but truly remarkable hero, and she has quite rightly been nominated for this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Lawyers of the world, unite!

General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, is facing a serious revolt. What, one wonders, has happened. Have the peasants risen up? Are the workers barricading the streets? Well ... no. Actually, the lawyers are running amok.

Last Friday, Musharraf called the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, into his office at army headquarters and asked for his resignation. The judge, who has frequently confronted the government and generally been a thorn in the general's side, refused. Musharraf continues to seek the judge's resignation and the judge continues to refuse. The case is now going, where else, to court. Meanwhile, the legal community has rallied behind Justice Chaudhry, with lawyers demonstrating in the streets, burning Musharraf in effigy, and battling police.

The judge, who has staunchly supported those persecuted by the regime, has become a national hero. "He took a lot of strong decisions to free victims of this government. He is very good," commented a local barber. The revolt probably won't get far -- it's hard to defeat a half-million strong military armed only with brief cases -- but it is spreading as other groups opposed to the dictator call their supporters into the streets.

Lawyers leading the revolution. Who would have thought?

Canadian War Museum: for promoting truth or tribal myths?

Two stories about war and history have caught the public eye recently. One is Japan's difficulty in coming to terms with the use of sex slaves, euphemistically referred to as "comfort women," by its military during WWII. The other is a panel of text in the Canadian War Museum that describes the bombing of German cities during WWII as controversial. Both prompt questions about both war and the use of history.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appears unable to make up his mind about the comfort women, first seeming remorseful, then denying coercion was used. Meanwhile, Japanese legislators have had all references to the infamous incident removed from junior high school textbooks. Other nations are deeply unhappy with Japan's historical revisionism. The South Korean Foreign Ministry referred to it as an attempt to "gloss over historical truth." I suspect most Canadians would agree.

We, however, have our own quarrel about our behaviour in WWII. One panel in an exhibit in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa claims the allied bombing of German civilians is controversial. The accuracy of the text is not in question and considering the air raids killed 600,000 Germans, left five million homeless, and included fire-bombings that were nothing less than mass terrorism, claiming the attacks were controversial would seem to be eminently reasonable. Nonetheless, the Royal Canadian Legion insists the text is "insensitive" and is calling for a boycott of the museum.

All this prompts the question of the value of history. Do we learn from it, or do we simply use it to create tribal myths. If it is the former, then teaching history has real value, if the latter, then teaching it becomes downright dangerous. Certainly, we can learn from it. For example, from the allied fire bombings of Germany (and more so from the atom bombings of Japan) we can learn that terrorism is used by good guys as well as bad guys. Furthermore, we can learn that in war, not only the enemy does evil. That we may have to do, or at least believe we have to do, terrible things in order to win is a vital lesson of war. After all, war isn't wrong so much because other people do bad things, but because we do bad things.

But if war history is used -- not learned from but used -- simply to honour our warriors and create tribal myths, it becomes a menace. What better way to enamour young men of war than to instruct them that yes it is dangerous but nonetheless leads to glory for our righteous warriors? Young men love risk and to endure risk in a noble cause -- how attractive, how romantic. And this, I submit, has been the major use of military history down through the ages. We have long been taught that Canada "came of age" during the First World War, a highly arbitrary idea arising from the exploitation of military history for myth-making.

So far, the War Museum is standing firm and leaving the panel in the exhibit. Let's hope it, if you'll pardon the expression, stands by its guns and insists on placing truth over myth.

Afghanistan: the poppy prevails

Afghanistan's continued economic dependence on illegal opium continues to confound those who would save the country from itself.

One of the more constructive solutions suggested is purchasing Afghanistan's production for medical use. This, unfortunately presents a variety of problems:

• It would have to be produced in a tightly controlled environment to prevent it being diverted to the black market, and Afghanistan officials are far too corrupt to do that.
  
• There is no shortage of medical morphine in the world, and Afghanistan's crop would flood the market, driving legitimate growers in other countries into bankruptcy.
  
• And, finally, illicit opium fetches five times the price of medical opium.
  

No silver bullet here.

The American solution is to spray the poppies with pesticides and offer the farmers alternative crops. This is the preferred approach to the production of cocaine in Colombia, producer of 90% of the North American supply. Unfortunately, it isn't working. The U.S. just completed a 7-year, $4.7-billion (U.S.) anti-drug program in Colombia, of which aerial spraying was a major part. Some of the results are as follows:

• The purity of the product has risen while the price has fallen dramatically.
• More land is planted in coca now than when the program began. Over 60% of the sprayed fields have been replanted, and new plots constantly appear.
• The spraying often kills staple food crops, thus encouraging, if not forcing, farmers to replant coca in order to buy food.
  
• In one typical village, peasants have had their crops sprayed at least five times, yet virtually every family still grows coca.
  

The Americans claim their program has reduced crime and destroyed large farms run by drug lords, so some good may have been done. But the coca plant remains triumphant. For Afghanistan and the poppy, there doesn't seem to be a silver bullet here either.

Is it official? Is the cold war hot again?

Well, we blew it folks. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had the best chance since WWII to achieve global peace, at least among the major powers. But it didn't happen. Now it looks like the cold war is heating up again.

Russia's security council has declared that global terrorism is no longer the country's biggest threat. The Western powers are, particularly in the form of NATO. The new policy coincides with Russian fury at American plans to place missile interceptor and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Senior Russian military officials are reportedly infuriated by NATO's "relentless expansion" into "post-Soviet space." We can assume that Russia, flush with massive oil and gas revenues, will expand its armaments accordingly.

China has been expanding its military budget with percentage increases in the double digits for some time, by 18 % this year alone, and recently sent a shiver up a few backbones when it shot a satellite out of the sky with a ground-based missile. It now spends over $50-billion officially on defence, probably much more unofficially. All this has caused U.S. Vice-president Dick Cheney to fret about China's military build-up as "not consistent with Beijing's stated goal of a peaceful rise."

And that hypocritical statement gets at the probable core of the matter -- the massive expansion of the U.S. military. While China's defence spending has risen from 1.32% of GDP in 2000 to 1.35% in 2006, American spending has increased from 3.07% to 4.23% of GDP in the same period. The U.S. now accounts for almost half of the world's expenditures on arms. And of course the Americans, along with the other nuclear powers, continue to enhance their missile and nuclear weapons capabilities.

The United States, as the only remaining great power, had a responsibility to lead the world toward meaningful disarmament. It declined. Now Russia appears eager to regain its status as a great power and China, too, is muscling up. Not surprisingly, smaller nations that want a say in their region's affairs, Iran being a prime example, follow the example set by their big brothers -- might is right.

Perhaps the perceived threat of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons isn't a bad thing after all. Maybe it will make the world, particularly the nuclear powers, wake up to the insanity of endless military expansion. And maybe pigs will fly.

MPs vote to elect upper chamber

Unfortunately, not our MPs and not our upper chamber.

In what House leader Jack Straw termed a "historic step forward," the British House of Commons voted 337 to 227 today for a fully elected House of Lords. They voted earlier, an overwhelming 416 to 163, to keep an upper chamber of some sort, then considered a series of options, culminating in the vote to fully democratize the place. Tony Blair's choice, a 50/50 split between elected and appointed members, was resoundingly defeated.

The vote is only advisory but does give a clear impression of what the MPs feel about the upper chamber. It will now be up to the government to decide whether of not to propose a Lords reform bill to Parliament. Such a bill might propose a change in the name of the chamber and probably propose election by proportional representation.

This is an item worth keeping an eye on, possibly precedent-setting for dealing with our own antiquated upper chamber.