ODS

I understand Ms. Maddow's point but I find it somewhat hollow and here's why.

One of the pillars of Ms. Maddow's defence of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (NPP) win is a comparison to a series of people who had won the award over the previous century who hadn't 'achieved' success in their stated aims. While true its a misleading comparison. . However I think that if one is honest they will recognize that those individuals had been striving towards those aims for longer than three weeks.

First there is Desmond Tutu. Bishop Tutu began his public opposition to apartheid in South Africa during the Soweto Riots of 1976. Bishop Tutu struggled and fought against the racist and oppresive policies of the South African government for 8 years by the time he was awarded the NPP in 1984. True, apartheid had not been abolished at the time Bishop Tutu's recognition by the Nobel committee, but he had put forth much time and energy in his struggle prior to his win. The same can not be said about Obama.

Next there was mention of former US President Woodrow Wilson who had been awarded the NPP in 1919. President Wilson won the award in recognition of his work in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles that put an official end to World War One as well as being a key player in the creation of the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations). Ms. Maddow is correct that neither the League or the Treaty ensured lasting peace in Europe as Hitler's rise to power was only 13 years away and World War Two was only 20 years distant. However when President Wilson won the NPP he had accomplished to great tasks that strove in concrete ways for world peace. The same can't be said for Obama.

Ms. Maddow also made mention to another US President; Jimmy Carter. Carter was a one term President who served from 1977 through 1981. During those four short years he helped to negotiate the Camp David Accords, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II that saw the reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the US and their cold-war adversary the USSR, the Torrijos-Carter Treaties that ensured that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal and reduce the influence of America in the Latin world, as well as removing nuclear weapons from South Korea, he put human rights at the forefront of American foreign policy, and he formalized diplomatic relations with China. He didn't win the NPP until 2002 and Ms. Maddow is correct that peace remained and remains elusive in the mid-east despite the efforts of President Carter. Such a simplistic reductionist attitude towards the efforts of President Carter does his efforts a supreme disservice and yet Obama can't claim to have accomplished even this 'failure'.

The fourth person that Ms. Maddow mentions in comparison to President Obama is Carl von Ossietzky who won the NPP in 1936. Once again Ms. Maddow brings for a blatantly and almost flippant reductionist attitude to the efforts of Mr. von Ossietzky. This was a man who during the turbulent period of the Weimar Republic was a staunch supporter of democracy and pluralistic society. He was charged and convicted of treason in 1931 for making public information on how the German government was violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding its air force and training its pilots in the USSR. He was a leading figure in the German Peace Society and was an opponent of Hitler's rise to power. He was arrested on 28 February 1933 after the Reichstag Fire and put in Spandau Prison due to his speaking out against the Nazi Party. He would die on 4 May 1938 as a result of abuse suffered during his time in concentration camps and of tuberculosis. Ms. Maddow is correct though that Mr. vo Ossetzky's efforts did not end the Nazi regime but he struggled long and hard for peace in Europe and in Germany prior to winning the NPP. Obama can't say the same.

I personally find Ms. Maddow's characterization of these people demeaning and insulting in the extreme. It is doubly so given that she is comparing the real and concrete actions of these people with what are essentially a series of campaign speeches by a campaigning politician.

Another of the pillars in Ms. Maddow's defence of President Obama's winning of the NPP is the notion of convincing the 'most powerful nation on the planet' as being a significant matter. However, that is a bit of stretch as Obama received what 55% of the vote in the election? So 55% of the 70% of the electorate that voted, which is only 60% of the population. That works out to approximately 70 million people (Obama's official vote total was 69,456,897 nearly ten million more than his opponent John McCain) in a nation of 300+ million. So really he convinced 23% of the people in America. That is better ratings than American Idol though.

In the end I think that Ms. Maddow should have come up with a better argument for justifying Obama's victory given that the mandate for the Nobel Peace Prize is recognize the person/people who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

No doubt Obama deserves recognition for his stance on nuclear weapons but he is not alone in this regard so does everyone who holds a similar stance deserve the Nobel? What about the American presidents who actually signed into law nuclear reduction treaties?

What Obama has said isn't unique, but what differentiates Obama from the other Nobel winners who 'achieved nothing' is that those people had concrete actions supporting their ongoing efforts prior to winning the award. Whereas it appears that President Obama won the award based on what people HOPE he will accomplish in the future. The question that has to be asked and answered is what has he ACCOMPLISHED or at the very least been working on over the past several years that would be worthy of such a prestigious honor?

Barack Obama was inaugurated President on January 20th. The deadline for NPP nominations was February 1st. That leaves 11 days of his presidency to be considered.

Obama has done a lot of things but if you look at the first 11 days of his presidency there are three things of international note. One is the declaration of the closing of Guantanamo within a year. Two is the phone calls and pressers to foreign nations. Three is the attack by US forces by drone aircraft on Pakistan.

Other than that things were domestic in nature and had little bearing on 'world peace'.

Given that much of what Obama had to have been nominated for (I don't know when or who nominated him) must surely have been for things prior to taking office. That being the (most likely) case then Rachel Maddow was equating political stump speeches by a political candidate with the real actions of the people she mentioned.

Being President isn't enough to earn you that award. There needs to be something more and Obama hasn't met that standard. Yet (at least I hope its yet).

The support that was offered in the piece for Obama's win has nothing to do with Obama as each of those people had done something of note in the field before winning the award. Sure the win can be seen as a voice of support for continued action but to equate Obama's campaign speeches with the work of these people is an insult to these people and the efforts they put forth against tyranny and injustice.

When Obama actually closes Guantanamo, reduces nuclear arms and ends the two wars that he is a part of (one of which he is escalating) then, in my opinion, he will be deserving. Till then some will continue to wonder why he won while others will simply bask in the fact that he did.

From the cradle to the cradle

In my previous post I talked about my evolving political thought process and how I've come from a naive apparent conservative to an unknown via a flirtatious dalliance with liberalism.

Thinking back to some conversations I've had over the years with friends one of the things that I think has been consistent in my thinking is the notion that governments should supply services. Services such as roads, national defence, health care, fire departments, justice and the like.

The thing that has changed over that time is the amount of control that I think a government should have over the individual. It doesn't matter what level of government, be it local, provincial or federal, the government should do things for the people not dictate to the people needlessly.

Now of course as people come together to form a society there are certain things that get codified; most obvious are laws. Things such as killing, theft, rape and assault are proscribed within a society. However it is important to notice that these things aren't proscribed by a government, but rather the government is there to enforce proscriptions deemed appropriate by society. Humans have been living in societies of varying sizes for millenia and there are certain constants, such as murder being wrong.

The thing that I now can't seem to wrap my head around is why do people want their governments dictating to them what they can and can't do on ever increasingly minuscule levels of daily life?

An example from when I was younger.

I remember when I was a young teenager moving to a new home that my parents had purchased. It was a house built around the turn of the 20th century and was one of many of that style in the neighborhood. At some point though the Historical Society in the town had managed to convince the elected public officials that an entire portion of the town should be deemed historical. They then used this designation to push through by-laws that prohibited people from modifying their homes if they resided within this historical zone and were of a certain age or older. So when my father wanted to enclose the front porch he had to fight for nearly two years to gain the necessary permits.

I can understand people wanting their governments to set such a thing as a building code to ensure the public safety, but beyond this notion of public safety what business does the government have in dictating to a private property owner what he/she can or can't do with his/her private possession?

Too often giving a government more control over your life is a slippery slope. Now not all governments fall into chaos or genocide but that does not mean that they don't work to strip liberties from the individual.

A more recent example.

Smoking is a terrible vice. It not only impacts the individual but it also affects those around them through second hand smoke. Smoking was a vice that I indulged in for far too long and was lucky enough to quit 17 years ago. In Ontario restrictions on smoking have gone further and further over the years. It started with warnings on the cigarette packages themselves then moved on to smoking bans in government buildings. Soon you weren't allowed to even see a cigarette package in a store or smoke within 9 metres (roughly 28 feet for any imperial lovers out there) of a public doorway.

A couple years ago I noticed a petition at work. Following the same logic of trying to protect the individual or the helpless, the petition asked people to put their name behind a ban on smoking in cars that contained a child. If a person was found violating this ban they were to face monetary fines.

It struck me reading this petition that people were insane for wanting to grant government further powers to restrict the rights of the individual. Where would such powers be used next?

So over time I've come to the notion that governments are service providers, there to do the will of the people. They are not there to dictate to the people or restrict people so long as people are not harming others. Which is why the following news stories piqued my interest.

The first concerns a young girl of 13 who wished to sail around the world. If this was a hundred years ago nothing would have been said. Nobody probably would have known about it, but this is the 21st century and everything is everywhere.

From the article we learn that:

The social workers have argued that Dekker is too young to understand the dangers of the journey and some psychologists believe the two years of isolation could be damaging for her during an important period of her development.

As a result of these complaints "The Utrecht District Court ordered state child care authorities to take responsibility of Dekker Friday for two months while she undergoes an assessment by a child psychologist."

The girl who lives with her father has the support of both her father and mother, and they have abided by the ruling and believe that the voyage will be able to commence once the court issues its rulling in late October. "It supports the idea that "you are not a bad parent if you try to help your child fulfil her dream," said her father.

Now one may be thinking that what 13 year old in their right mind would think up such or thing or be capable of such a thing. However young Ms. Dekker is not your normal 13 year old:

Born on a yacht in New Zealand while her parents were on a round-the-world sailing trip, Dekker spent her first four years at sea. She started sailing solo at six and starting dreaming at age 10 of a solo trip around the world.

"I asked my parents if I could — please — start now," Dekker recently said on a Dutch children's television show.

"In the beginning, they asked if I was sure I really wanted to do it," she said. "They have sailed around the world so they know what could happen and that it's not always fun, but I realize that, too. But I really wanted to do it so my parents said, 'Good, we'll help you.'"

On the surface this looks like the government agency did the right thing doesn't it? Should the government be there to protect children from unneccesary risk and potential neglect? I of course want to know is who gets to decide what is too risky or too neglectful.

Once we begin allowing government agencies staffed by people unaccountable to the people but carrying the power and force of government such invasive powers over individuals and families do you think it likely that they will pull back in their exercise of power or do you think that they will ensure that they are 'demonstrably useful' in order to defend their budgets?

Then comes another example of what I believe to be unnecessary government interference in the lives and rights of the individual.

People in England and Wales who commit crimes or behave anti-socially while drunk could now face a Drinking Banning Order - or "booze Asbo".Under powers coming into force on Monday, police and councils can seek an order on anyone aged 16 and over.Magistrates can then ban them from pubs, bars, off-licences and certain areas for up to two years. Anyone who breaches the order faces a £2,500 fine.

The thing that I like in law is the that "anti-social" behavior is now punishable by law in England and Wales. Of course this is once again done in the interests of public safety but gives government powers an ambiguous mandate.

In my opinion this is an example of what I talked about previously concerning the false assumption that education is 'magic bullet' answer to social ills, however it isn't far behind.

Jeremy Beadles, the chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association which represents companies in the industry, said "tough enforcement" against offenders is "critical if we are to change the culture around problem drinking".

And

John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, said he was "not happy that it will work". He added: "We are not satisfied that these will work as effectively as perhaps some of the Asbos have. Clearly the issue is about tackling why it is these people have an alcohol dependency.Some offenders may be referred to a course to address their drinking, and if successfully completed, could see the length of the order reduced.The participant, not the government, is expected to cover the costs of the Positive Behaviour Intervention Courses, from £120 to £250.

Note though that it says that "some offenders may be referred to a course" not that it will be part and parcel of the punative fines and restrictions on their liberty.

I bring up these to recent examples knowing full well that they both occur in Europe. What bearing does that have on anything in Canada one might ask. Fair enough, but if one talks with many Canadians, reads what is written in Canada it is clear that Canadians are more apt to look to Europe as a model for how Canadian society should be or what it should move towards.

To me this is a scary prospect.

*****

Update: I had written this post several days ago and had forgotten to post it. Since that time the girls mother has come out opposed to the voyage:

Dekker's German mother, who lives in the Netherlands, divorced the girl's Dutch father, Dick, when Laura was six years old. The girl lives full time with her father.Until Saturday, it had appeared that both parents supported the girl's ambitions, but Muller said that is not the case.

Why?

Babs Muller told the Dutch daily newspaper Volkskrant that she had kept quiet on the issue until now because her daughter, Laura Dekker, had threatened not to see her again if she tried to foil the trip.

Now this is a thing for the courts to settle.

I have no knowlege of Dutch custody laws and what rights the mother has over the child given that the child lives full time with father. If, however, the mother has no legal right to stop the voyage thenI don't think that the state has any right to either.

The liberal NWO

Over the past several years I've been undergoing periodic shifts in my political views. For instance, I can remember hearing the verdict delivered by the US Supreme Court in 2001 handing that controversial election to George W. Bush and being thankful. I can remember telling a friend that I didn't believe that the US government would lie to the world about WMDs or the like being in Iraq so therefore they must be there.

Yes, I was naive.

But since that time I've become much more politically aware and informed. By no means is my political education complete but I have learned much in the six years since that conversation with my friend.

At one time I was a member of the Reform Party in Canada. Then there was a time when I voted for the NDP in several elections. Not an insignificant shift in viewpoint. I remember talking with a friend and telling him that I was once a "card carrying member of the Reform Party." At first he thought I was joking. When I assured him that I wasn't he was flabbergasted by the notion. I remember numerous discussions with a libertarian friend during which I defended the notion of wealth re-distribution and empowered national governments.

Another positional change that has occurred during this time is my stance on the role of the United Nations. During the same period I was speaking naively about the American motives and actions concerning Iraq, I was arguing that the UN should have the power to directly intervene in international conflicts. Of course this position was taken for humane reasons, arguing that it would benefit millions around the globe, especially in places such as Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia and the Balkans. Now I loathe the concept.

Over the past decade I have gone from a rather unthinking conservative to a questioning quasi-liberal to what I like to think of as a form of anarchism.

The idea of the individual is a rather modern notion whose roots I believe begin in the Protestant Reformation begun by Martin Luther. Until that point the idea that one person was as important or perhaps more important than the community was rare if not unknown. Now certainly it was a developing idea that took time to come to be clearly articulated, but I see its roots in the Reformation (I could go on further with this subject, talking about its perceived effects on society and comparing modern western individualistic culture with the more traditional but changing Confucius based culture of SE Asia and Korea in particular where I presently live but that is not the focus of this missive). Through this concept we have gained many things as individuals and it is the basis for many of the rights that many in the west now enjoy.

Despite this I think that for many there is a disconnect between the notions of political liberalism/conservatism and social liberalism/conservatism. I obviously can't speak for everyone or even that many, but of those that I have spoken to over the years social issues seem to be the main determining factor in choosing who to vote for. When people would ask me who they should vote for my advice is to identify what in their opinion is the top 3-5 issues facing them or society and then see how each of the political parties address those issues. Once you've done the research base your vote on the party that addresses those issues the best in their opinion. Those issues will change for each individual but in the end I think that many people vote based on social issues more so than political or international issues.

One of the issues in recent memory that has bypassed this idea has been the Iraq war. This was an international issue that motivated millions to cast their votes one way or the other; and not only in the US either. People in Canada, Britain, Spain, Australia, etc. voted based on their desire to see their countries involved or not in this war.

Another motivating issue over the past decade, and one that is growing in scope and influence is the idea of global warming. Now for many this is seen as a mixture of social and political issues. Many look to the social impact of such a notion as the basis for political action. In Canada this has seen an increase in support for the Green Party (not enough to gain a seat in the House of Commons but that is due more to our antiquated and dysfunctional electoral system than actual support for the party or its policies but again that is not the focus of this post).

Ever since Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth came out, global warming has been a mainstay of the 24 hour news cycle. A very simplistic and narrow summary of the stance is that human activity through mass farming and industrial activity has exponentially raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a warming of the global climate that could/will have tremendously negative impacts upon the planet and humanity. These impacts are a runaway greenhouse gas effect that would melt off the polar ice caps and raise sea levels world wide destroying the habitat for hundreds of millions of people world wide. The ultimate doomsday scenario in this scheme is that we end up like our sister planet in the cosmos, Venus, whose climate is controlled by a runaway greenhouse effect resulting in air temperatures of 800C. Obviously this would have a detrimental impact on humanity and ultimately the earth.

Al Gore brought this issue to the fore of public consciousness in 2006 where it has remained ever since. In fact I would argue that it is the considered to be the foremost issue in the minds of people worldwide; well if you listened to the media anyways. Recently a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll, conducted Jan. 7-11, 2009 sees global warming as being ranked 20th out of 20 by Americans.

The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities. Between January 2001 and January 2002, the proportion rating environmental protection as a top priority fell by a similar amount (from 63% to 44%); a number of domestic priorities declined in importance following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By January 2003, just 39% called environmental protection a top priority – comparable to today’s 41% – before resurging as a priority from 2006 to 2008, only to fall again this year.

However what is not talked about much or at least with much seriousness is the idea that there really is no scientific consensus concerning the theory of global climate change or more specifically that such a change is caused by humanity. It seems that whenever someone stands up to question what is presented in the media (and lets be honest the media is virtually the only window into what is going on in the world for a significant portion of the world's population) they are usually shouted down as crackpots. In fact such influential public personalities as David Suzuki (recently voted as the most trusted person in Canada in a Reader's Digest poll) claim that:

And so, even though the scientific proof for human-caused global warming is undeniable, we have the coal and oil industries funding massive campaigns to cast doubt on the science and we have politicians implying that the world’s scientists are involved in some sinister plot – all so we can continue to rely on diminishing supplies of polluting fuels instead of creating jobs and wealth through a greener economy that may save us from catastrophe.

Now Mr. Suzuki is a well respected and very informed person, especially concerning environmental matters. However I can't help but notice how he too couches the criticism of human caused global warming terms of money grubbing conspiracies rather than accepting that there are scientists out there that question what the public is being told. People are being scared into the notion of environmental armageddon in our lifetime (or at least the lifetime of our children and grandchildren) and being told that if drastic steps aren't taken NOW that all is lost.

However the question still remains, is it truly undeniable?

One person who questions the notion of undeniability is author Ian Wishart who wrote the bestselling book Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming. One of the questions that Mr. Wishart asks in his book is who benefits from these global scare tactics? One would think that the obvious answer is: humanity. That may truly be the answer if in fact global warming is an undeniable reality. If it isn't as more and more people are beginning to believe one still has to ask who benefits from all this global political action? In line of Woodward and Bernstein one should follow the money.

One of the proposed measures to mitigate the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the idea of carbon trading schemes, which are to be discussed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference. In a recent interview Wishart aks:

If you look at the economic prize at stake, consider this. We currently have gold markets, but you are not forced to buy and sell gold and only a tiny percentage of the community are active in the gold markets. The financial markets are larger, but even then most of us are not forced to buy and sell shares or trade forex, and only a minority of us actually do so. But if carbon trading becomes compulsory worldwide, effectively every single one of us will be forced to buy and sell through this scheme. No one will be able to go through their daily lives without being represented directly or indirectly in the carbon markets. Those who control the carbon markets will effectively control the world.

If we are going to cede that kind of control, and money, for a claimed crisis of planetary proportions, shouldn’t we first be absolutely certain that the crisis is real?

The magazine Investigate goes a few steps further in following the money and the potential consequences and realities of such a scenario. In their July 13, 2009 article "Global Governance on Climate Agenda" they discuss the roll of the UN as an emergent world governing body in some rather stark terms:

By now you should be beginning to appreciate how the new world order will work. The UN Security Council will become stacked with members undoubtedly approved by Socialist International, and the USA will lose its power of veto, substantially or even entirely. Because of new funding streams from carbon taxes and a global financial transaction tax, the UN will have its own revenue and be capable of putting its own “peacekeeping” military force into action. Meanwhile, the new Sustainable Development Council will have the same draconian powers to direct how the world economy should develop and how resources should be collected and spent. Countries wishing to dispute would get a hearing in the UN General Assembly, but if they didn’t have the political support they could be ordered to tow the line or face increasingly harsh sanctions from the UN community.

Voting rights on the new Sustainability Council would be based on “three main criteria: a country’s share in world population, GDP and contributions to the UN global goods budget.”

In other words, the more you contribute to the UN, the more say you have in governing the affairs of other countries.

This is where things come back to my previous comments on individualism and social issue voting motivations. Many look to the US for leadership on international issues and many were devastated and bewildered by the America's refusal to sign the Kyoto Accord. Even Barack Obama voted against it when he had the opportunity to do so as a Illinois state Senator. Now the US is facing immense pressure to sign on to these new carbon trading schemes being proposed. If the US signs many others will follow suit. Obama is now POTUS and was elected on numerous social issues and putting an end to the war in Iraq. Now he has the opportunity to accept or decline the protocols being presented and it looks like he will sign. The conference is still a few months away so we will have to wait to see if he does so, but if the US signs then other nations who might be questioning their stance will fall into line knowing that they won't have the US to back them and as such they are too weak to stand alone; unlike the US.

If this comes to pass then the rights of the individual will be more severely trampled than many can imagine. If we look to history for what happens when governments gain more and more power we see an alarming trend. In the 20th century the most obvious examples of overly powerful governments are the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Kampuchea (better known as the Khmer Rouge led Cambodia under Pol Pot in the late 1970s), and the Government Junta of Chile led by Augusto Pinochet to name but a few. The end result of each of these was not pretty and a direct result of the people giving up power to growing minority of people.

So what makes anyone think that placing power over themselves in the hands of foreign peoples or governments is a good idea?

I have no problem with greener energy technologies or conservation but I loathe the idea of people being scared into something as drastic as what is being called for by world leaders.

I can't say definitively that global warming is happening or not; human caused or not.

What I can say is that each of us owes it to ourselves to investigate the issue to the best of our ability. Discuss it with others and not only those with those who agree with us. We should not be afraid to hear a dissenting opinion. Then when we have a handle on the facts and can speak about the issue with some intelligence we can seek action.

Just as people shouldn't have been scared and manipulated into a war in Iraq, we should not be scared and manipulated into potentially stripping ourselves of our rights and freedoms.

Fighting against a conservative New World Order only to walk into a liberal New World Order will only end in the subservience of the individual.

Do the research.

Make up your own mind.

I leave you with a brief tidbit from Ian Wishart:

In the world? Of the world?

Living in South Korea for the past year, certain things have occured in my home town in Canada that I was unaware of. One is a contentious issue involving parishoners of a local church. An internal matter within the church has become very public when one parishoner chose to seek resolution through a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRT).

As I've already stated I was not present for the situation in question, nor was I a member of the church in question (my grandmother was but I was not). So what right do I have in commenting on something outside of my personal experience or participation? My primary concern and the reason for my comment is the chosen course of resolution taken by the apparently wronged party; the Human Rights Tribunal.

Now from what I understand the situation began when a group of congregants took issue with the Parish's new Priest over economic matters. It seems that this group of congregants were unable to reach satisfaction within the diocese concerning this matter and, according to the complaintant in the HRT case, chose to change tactics in their persecution of the Priest by attacking members of the Parish that supported the Priest. This led to the complaintant being asked to step down from his voluntary position as Altar Server by the Bishop.

In his description of the events leading up to his filing of his complaint with the HRT, the complaintant argues that the group of perishoners "felt that they were more qualified to run the church than the pastor, and ultimately more qualified to run the diocese than the Bishop. That is not the Catholic model." Now I have to assume that the Catholic model to which he is speaking is the one where the Church hierarchy is involved and the perishoners accept graciously the decision of the Church whether it agrees or disagrees with them. This however does not seem to be what happened as "in January, the Bishop decided to address the tactics of these parishioners in a letter to all parishioners that accompanied our year end financial report. The Bishop called upon this group to stop their malicious attack of Father Hood. The group was not persuaded by the Bishop's letter and they continued their campaign of slander and libel against Father Hood."

It does appear that despite the decision of the diocese against the group's actions against the Priest, the diocese did agree with the group in the matter of a homosexual person serving as an Altar Server. We are told that not only was the local Bishop involved but so too were the Arch-Bishop and the Papal Nuncio. It was after this that the complaintant was asked to step down from his voluntary position within the church.

The actions of the group against the Priest did not stop but expanded from involving 12 people to include 45 people. The Bishop was once again involved and told the party to cease and desisit from their actions against the Parish Priest as "the Bishop did respond with a very strongly worded letter to the 45, he told them that their accusations were unfounded, their actions were un-Christian, and their claims about the liturgy were not worthy of a response. His letter essentially ordered these people to stop attacking Father Hood and gave them the option of attending another church if they weren't happy."

It was at this point that the complaintant involved a lawyer and told that he "two options. One was to sue the 2 ringleaders of the group, the other was to file a human rights complaint. I opted for the human rights complaint. In my complaint, I have argued that this group of 12, by threatening the Bishop, have recklessly trampled on my rights as a human being, and my right to respond to my calling in the church. As such I have asked for the Bishop to reinstate me, and to preach a sermon on the ills of spreading rumour and innuendo. I have also asked each of the 12 parishioners to make a donation of $20,000 to a charity of my choosing. Finally, I have asked the diocese to cover my legal expenses, up to a maximum of $25,000."

This is my issue with this ongoing situation: the involvement of the secular authority (HRT) in the operation of the Church.

Now in Canada we don't have a clearly deliniated statement of the seperation of Church and State as our American neighbors do. However, it is accepted that the Church has no place to dictate to the State how it must operate just as the State has no right to dictate to the Church how it must operate. The actions of the complaintant work to end this and place the Church, its doctrines and actions under the control of the government. This is wrong.

Some might see this as a good thing. They might see this as a way of forcing the Church to 'evolve' so that it more clearly matches the current social positions of society. The function of the Church is not to mirror society. The function of the Church is speak truth to the world. It is able to do this because the Church is not of the world, it is of God. As Christ Jesus says: "I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it." (John 17:14-16)

The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 that "if any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers."

In my opinion (for what that matters) the complaintant should have followed his own advice and followed the Catholic way in Church matters. He can try and wrap his complaint in the notion of defending the Parish Priest but the fact is that his complaint before the HRT is solely about himself and not the Priest. He goes against his own counsel and his Church (his situation went as high as the Papal Nuncio) by not only refusing to accept the counsel and admonition of the Church but by taking the un-Catholic way and presenting an internal Church matter before the State. Something that both Christ and the Apostle Paul said we were not to do. The inclusion of money in the matter only serves to cheapen it.

Too often people argue that the Church should change in order to meet our perception of what the Church should be. Just as people argue that God should be what we want Him to be. Who are we to tell God who He should be? Who are we to tell the 2000 year old Church to blow with the wind of change in society? If that were the case the Church would be built on shifting sands and not on the rock upon which Christ Jesus founded it.

Rubbing Obama's belly

Given the past week or so of violence and protest in Iran following a rather questionable election pressure is mounting on Obama to step up and put the Iranian leadership in its place by openly supporting the protesters in Iran.

I can sympathize with this position to a certain extent. A people are standing up against oppression and one would like to support that but on the other hand is it any of our business?

Would we listen in Canada if Iran's leader stood up and told us what we should do?

People are looking to Obama to lead and that's fine, but I can't help but get the sense that there are a large group of people out there that think Obama is some miracle worker with the answers to all of life's and the world's problems. It's a rather absurd notion to be sure.

First why should anyone listen to the US?

Really.

Why?

The obvious argument is that the US has discredited itself through the unilateral invasion of Iraq, the unlawful detention of foreign citizens in Guantanamo Bay, the use of torture on same prisoners and the questionable legal practices used to strip civil rights away from their own citizens. So why should anyone listen to the US when they speak of truth, justice and the American way?

The counter arguement to this is now: Obama! Like his name alone will ward off the encroaching darkness. All of what was previously argued happened under the hated W, but now Obama is in power and that creates a clear line of demarcation between what the US has done and what they will do.

I guess that that is plausible except for the fact that Guantanamo is still in operation. People are still being held by American authorities without charge or representation. Obama went to Egypt, itself a repressive regime and said nothing. He says nothing about the situation in Darfur or Somalia. Continues to do business with repressive regimes such as China and Pakistan.

Usually when such stuff is brought up people argue that it isn't POTUS's responsibility to police the world but rather to look after his own people. And in this they are correct, except when it suits their own sense of inflated ego, then the world should snap to and listen to what comes from the the White House podium and do as they are told. They want their cake and eat it to.

Clinton lost a lot of respect when he said nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. He had gone into Somalia and left with his tail between his legs. Then refused to send US troops into harms way to help end the genocide in Kosovo, utilizing only air power. Then Rwanda came about and it was argued that the US had no right to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations.

Well what has changed?

Nothing. America still acts when and where it wants and refuses to act where and when it wants. I guess that that is their right. Unless of course they taking advantage of or invading a foreign people, but some of the time that simply doesn't matter.

So I'm left with the question of why should Iran or anyone else for that matter listen to what the US has to say about their internal policies or actions?

Well Obama has played this situation rather circumspectly, issuing statments but not giving them himself. Not lending his teleprompter presence to the words. He's not getting directly involved and trying to be seen as not meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. Which of course would be a foolish thing to do after his Cairo speach.

The thing I have to wonder about Obama is that he seems to believe that it is the responsibility of the POTUS to defend Islam to the world and that the notions of free speach and assembly are inaliable rights given to all mankind. I have no idea where he came up with such ludicrous notions but he seems to believe them.

***

On a more facetious note if we want all these problems to go away (Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, China, North Korea, etc.) we need only send in the Scientologists.

Don't believe me?

Ask Tom Cruise.

Video.

Cultural imperialism

When I first came to Korea I was readily aware of the fact that I was a stranger and visitor to a foreign culture and society. As a westerner living in a non-western country I was very aware of my culture's history of cultural imperialism. As a good westerner I knew that our way isn't the only way, that there are a varied multitude of ways to live life and to order society and that it was not my right or place to try to change the cultural values and practices of my new home.

The the thing I find ironic is that this modern western mentality is prevalent when we talk about foreign cultures or about nice neat things at home, but they don't extend to those things that our western ideas deem to be less than ideal.

So while its not my place to tell Koreans to not eat dogs (based on the notion that simply because westerners place a different set of values on dogs does not mean that that is the value set that everyone, everywhere must hold to; just like I eat beef despite cows being sacred in India) it is apparently the modern westerner's place to tell the Inuit what they can and can't do with seals. This despite the fact that the Inuit were hunting and eating seals long before Europeans came to the New World.

As such I have nothing but praise for the recent actions of Michelle Jean, Governor General of Canada.

From the CBC:

Earlier this week in the central Nunavut community of Rankin Inlet, Jean used a traditional Inuit knife to cut into the flesh of a seal and slice off a part of its heart. She then swallowed it raw. Jean said she was informed the heart is the most coveted part of the meal.

The incident sparked national headlines and protests from animal welfare groups, but also earned her praise from sealers, Canadian Inuit leaders and politicians like Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who described Jean as "Canada's new Braveheart."

"The heart is a delicacy," Jean said. "It is the best you can offer to your guest. It is the best that is offered to the elders.

"So, do you say no to that? You engage, and at the same time you are learning about a way of life, a civilization, a tradition."

I have a hard time seeing people opposed to this aspect of Inuit life as little more than sanctimonious pricks.

Is education meaningless?

A few months ago I wrote about the Pope's comments concerning Aids and condom usage. In it I talked about how the prevalent belief that education and condom availability was the answer to stemming the spread of AIDS simply wasn't working. As evidence for this I pointed to a study conducted in Washington D.C. that showed that despite these two hallmarks of modernist AIDS prevention, AIDS infection rates were well above epidemic levels amongst many segments of Washington's population.

Well another piece of evidence has come out that once again proves the old maxim, that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

A recent study has shown that despite the efforts of educational programs people in America are on average in poorer health today than they were 18 years ago when the focus on healthy lifestyle education began.

From the BBC:

During those 18 years, the percentage of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 rose from 28% to 36%.

The number of people exercising three times a week or more fell from 53% to 43%, while the number of people eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day fell by nearly 40%.

At the same time, smoking levels remained the same and moderate drinking slightly increased.

Overall, researchers found, the number of people adhering to all five "healthy habits" - including maintaining a healthy weight and stopping smoking - decreased from 15% to 8%.

Of course it should come as no surprise to anyone that the answer to this problem is, wait for it, more education.

"Together we can help Americans understand the severity of obesity, the efforts being made to address it, and how to maintain a healthy weight and live a healthy lifestyle."

Isn't this what you've been doing for the past 18 years to no effect?

Intellectual awareness is most often not enough of a motivational factor. Just think about how many times in your own life you've been aware that an action or habit is hardly beneficial yet continued in it. You knew intellectually that what you were doing wasn't for the best but we, you and I, still do it.

I of course am the last one that can speak to what is the most effective motivational lever.

Star Trash

People had been waiting since 2002 for the return of Star Trek. There had been a few times that it appeared that the last entry in the franchise, Nemesis (which scored a 36% at Rotten Tomatoes and a 50% at Metacritic), would be its last. It was a bad movie that performed poorly at the box office and seemed to show that this franchise had become tired and stale.

Flash forward 5 years and the buzz surrounding Star Trek was building. There really was no way that Paramount was going to let this franchise die without one last kick at the can. So they brought on [I]Lost[/I] creator JJ Abrams to reboot the series ala Batman Begins.

Two years later I and many waited with bated breath for the first glimpse of the revamped Star Trek. That first glimpse was a trailer filled with splashy special effects, big explosions and cheesy dialogue. I wasn't a good start in my opinion. I reserved judgment. It was merely the first trailer and there was time to show that this movie was going to be more than [I]Independence Day[/I] set in space. As the trailers came and the buzz built my expectations for the film fell. I had hoped for more from JJ Abrams than what was being shown in the trailers, but the real test would be the movie.

So when the movie hit last week, I and several friends descended on the local movie theater for take in the revamped Star Trek. My fears from the trailers were exceeded and I left the theater bitterly disappointed.

Why?

First, is the idea that Star Trek was and should be a story about ideas rather than an action vehicle. It was Utopian fiction that enabled its creators to look to what was good in humanity, construct a future that would show us a better path and allow them to comment on our present in the best fashion of Utopian fiction.

Star Wars was the series about action and thin stories. Which is why both were able to survive for years along side one another and succeed. They filled different niches within the market and did so quite well. It was when these differing franchises delved into the sphere of the other that they typically failed.

This new Star Trek is simply a vehicle for a big special effects budget that races from one pointless explosion to the next with little left in between for something that might be considered a plot or character development.

This brings me to my second complaint: character development. Star Trek was always a show of layered characters. Kirk was always the lead with Spock his faithful number two. Below these were Scotty and Bones, followed by Chekov, Uhura and Sulu. Its much the same in this new movie, with some elevation of Sulu and Uhura. However there is nothing in the character of Kirk (the stories driving force) that denotes depth of character. He is a living breathing cliche.

Our first glimpse of Kirk is as a young boy who shows no concern for others. He is a selfish petulant child driven by ego. Our second glimpse of Kirk is him as bad boy ladies man with a chip on his shoulder against the organization that cost him his father. Our third glimpse of Kirk takes place at Star Fleet Academy where both of these elements of his character blend to give us a man who the night before cheating on a test is macking on the gratuitous green skinned girl. There is nothing in these scenes prior to the string of events that would ludicrously lead to his promotion to captain that would lead us to believe that he has the depth of character required to become a Star Fleet captain, or a character which I should give a shit about.

My third complaint concerns the plot. The purpose of the movie is to reboot the franchise and in so doing free it from much if not all of the canon that came before it. So in best Star Trek fashion time travel and alternate realities are bent to the will of Abrams and we are given a scenario where a mining ship is the most powerful vessel in the galaxy, time traveling black holes and the uber convenient presence of the elder Spock.

A hard working, everyday Romulan witnesses the destruction of Romulus despite the best efforts of Ambasador Spock, in a mind blowing consequence of a black hole forming as a result of the detonation of red matter, this Romulan's mining ship is transported more than a century into the past. Our appropriately named antagonist, Nero, vows vengeance on Spock and the Federation who brought about the end of Romulus.

Of course we are to let go of the fact that black holes don't allow for time travel. We see black holes three times in the movie. The first is when Nero destroys Vulcan, the second is in the mind meld that details Nero's motivations and machinations, and the third is in the movies climactic confrontation between Nero and Kirk. In two of these cases a black hole functions properly. The one that enables the reality altering ramifications for the lives of our Star Trek crew (and enables the franchise reboot) is a flawed use of a black hole.

A black hole is not a hole. It is an object of sufficiently dense mass and gravitational force that even light can't escape it. This gives us the the term 'event horizon', that point at which light is able to escape the gravitational force of the black hole.

So when we see a black hole created at the heart of Vulcan and we see all matter being sucked into it, this would be a realistic use of a black hole. The planet would be destroyed by the gravitational force of the black hole.

When we see Nero's ship being destroyed by a black hole it is a poor utilization of the black hole. In our first instance we see a planet being torn asunder in seconds. This time we see Nero's ship slowly coming under the devastating effects of the black hole. Why did it work so quickly in the first instance and not in the second? Oh right so that you can have this stupid little scene on the bridge of the Enterprise showing the bonding of Kirk and Spock and of course to give a chance for a light show as Kirk destroys Nero. Of course its bisected by a black hole, the thing that destroys planets, so this is merely a self gratifying circle jerk on the part of the Enterprise crew.

We then see the Enterprise on the threshold of the event horizon and being sucked into the black hole. Of course the black hole gets its name from the absence of light and yet we can see light behind the Enterprise so it should be safe, especially for a ship that can travel 3 times the speed of light. Merely another gratuitous action point.

The third time a black hole is used (second in the movie, first in chronological order) it is an actual hole that allows for time travel. Patently absurd.

Enough digression concerning black holes and get back to the plot. So a petulant, womanizing ego driven Kirk is being brought up on charges of academic malfeasance. A charge that should cost him is career in Star Fleet but lucky for us it is at this very moment that Nero launches his attack on Vulcan saving us from a fate without Kirk in Star Trek.

Of course he's on academic suspension and isn't allowed to go, so Bones breaks about 15 different regulations and smuggles Kirk on board the Enterprise leading to what are supposed to be comic moments of Kirk falling unconscious, a numb tongue and inflated hands. Of course it is this very illegal action that saves humanity from destruction. All hail Kirk!

So Kirk is able to convince Captain Pike that they are heading into a trap and in yet another moment of absurdity Kirk is made 1st officer upon Pike's departure from Enterprise.

This leads to the butting of heads between Spock and Kirk, leading to the expulsion of Kirk from Enterprise in time to meet up with Ambassador Spock who is there to try and fill in as many plot holes as possible.

From here things get simply atrocious.

What this movie really is is one long series of action sequences strung together loosely.

First scene in the movie, action sequence. Next scene, action sequence. Next scene, action sequence. Next scene we break it up with a little human on alien sex scene. Then comes a faux action sequence. Then an instance of intrigue. Then an action sequence. It goes on this way for nearly two hours.

Anyways, I've even tired of this critique, but I'll mention a few other moments in the movie that I found particularly absurd and insulting.

1. The promotion of Kirk: At the end of the movie we are treated to a scene where Kirk is promoted from cadet on academic suspension facing expulsion from Starfleet to captain. He jumps six officer grades and is promoted straight to captain because of one days work. Imagine if you will a cadet at Annapolis facing expulsion being thrust into action and after one battle being promoted from flawed cadet to ship captain. Never happen right? Right, but in this absurd version of Star Trek we are to applaud it.

2. Kirk: As I mentioned previously Kirk is a cliche of no depth. As the movie's titular protagonist there is supposed to be something there that draws us towards him and root for him. Personally Kirk was a two dimensional character who I'd like to see flushed out an air lock as sit in the captain's chair.

3. Formulaic: The movie follows the action movie formula to a tee, even if it means adding in rather unnecessary and even absurd action sequences in order to meet its 1:10 ratio of action sequences to script pages. As with other movies that follow this formula, action is used as a crutch to prop up a poorly written film and to distract the audience from the poor plot, plot holes, poor acting and general shitty nature of the film.

Thanks for the idea Mr. Cafferty

Each morning before school I check out the latest headlines on CNN. Why CNN specifically, well it’s because it’s the only English language news station on the dial. Besides I don’t feel like watching the remnants of Korean soft core porn still airing at 7am.

Beginning at 7am on CNN is The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. For the most part they talk about how good a job Obama is doing and toss in a few other headlines. A regular segment of the program is The Cafferty file with Jack Cafferty. In case you’re not familiar with him, he comes on for a two minute segment, mentions a headline, offers up his own brief opinion and then poses a poll question that people are encouraged to take part in on their website.

Today Mr. Cafferty mentioned the Pope’s recent comments on condom usage in Africa. He began his segment by stating that “it’s time for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st century; or at least try to drag itself out of the 13th.” I always find this sort of statement puzzling. I guess consistency is a problem in the modern world. Wouldn’t you want an organization that bills itself as being the representatives of God on earth to strive for consistency in its message, rather than simply going with the flow? I know I do, but then again I’m not Catholic. Should they come out and say that God is wrong, or perhaps one would prefer that they claim that they finally received divine instruction regarding condoms?

Mr. Cafferty went on to say “in his first public comments on condom use, the pope told reporters that AIDS “is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.” Huh?

I’m fairly confident that Mr. Cafferty disagrees with the Pope. The Vatican’s stance on the issue should come as no surprise to anyone; they “encourage[e] sexual abstinence as the way to stop the disease from spreading.” Well obviously that wouldn’t work or at the very least one thinks that it is impractical. I don’t think that anyone would seriously argue that sexual abstinence would not be a major force for stopping the spread of HIV, so it seems that Mr. Cafferty and perhaps billions of others feel that it is simply impractical.

Not an uncommon stance in our over sexed western culture, where sex is used to sell shoes to ten year old girls and video games to ten year old boys. Despite the wishes of the Vatican, western societies focus on education as the main force for combating HIV. It is argued that if people are educated on the subject and condoms are made available then the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (along with unwanted pregnancies) would be halted.

Well this doesn’t seem to work either. In the end people are rather stupid creatures despite our collective protestations to such a sentiment. As an example one can look at smoking. Despite intensive and somewhat intrusive educational campaigns concerning the dangers of smoking people continue to smoke and in fact everyday new people start smoking. The same appears to hold true for sexual safety.

Despite decades of sexual education in the classroom, and condoms being made available for free to people who need them, HIV infection rates have hit epidemic proportions in Washington D.C. “A new report shows three percent of Washington D.C.’s residents have HIV or AIDS. That translates to almost 3,000 people for every 100,000 population. That figure represents a “severe epidemic.” One health official says Washington’s rates are higher than parts of West Africa — and “on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.”

One would think that this is an impossibility given our modern cultural attitude towards education being the panacea to all that ails us. In fact it looks like the 3% figure being bandied about may not be the accurate number. “"When they've tested large groups of the District population it looks like the prevalence is actually about 5%, which is higher than the 3% but a lot of the people haven't been tested yet," said Dr Raymond Martins.” In fact there are infection rates higher than 5% amongst those aged 40 – 49 (7.2%) as well as amongst Black men (6.5%).

Many people look down on the Pope and his comments as being antiquated or perhaps even malicious, but in the end they ring with truth. Abstinence is the only thing that will halt the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV. Condom usage promotes an air of invincibility that even condom manufacturers won’t attest to, as condoms are not 100% effective. Yet a culture that focuses on sex, hedonism and the notion that it can have it all now can lead to a lifestyle of promiscuous sex (not for everyone obviously) which given basic human nature increases the odds of mistakes happening. Unfortunately in this ‘game’ the consequences of mistakes are death, but who wants to think about that when their feeling horny?

A whirlwind

Five years ago it was February 2004 and I was knee deep in history books and literary works. It was my third year of University, I was working weekends at a homeless shelter and the idea of living in Asia was about as realistic as winning the lottery.

Five years later and here I sit in Seoul, South Korea about to document my time in Beijing, China. It is truly amazing what life can bring and what God has blessed me with.

The trip to Incheon on Saturday was uneventful but tiring. Spending 5 plus hours on a train, only to spend another hour on the subway is not the most exciting time, but at least I got a good deal of reading done. I also had a decent conversation with a yound woman who was on her way to Seoul for winter vacation.

I rose early on Sunday morning for my flight to Beijing. The flight was pleasant enough. The plane was only about half full so I had a whole row to myself. Two hours after take off I was in Beijing.

A view of the new Terminal 3 from my airplane

The trip into the city was rather agravating (Tip: take the airport express train; it cost 25 yuan but it is worth it). I chose to save a few yuan and take the shuttle bus. For 16 yuan it was supposed to take me to the railway station. Instead it dropped me off on a random street corner next to a gathered group of ricshaw drivers who were more than willing to try and fleece you from as much money as possible (Story: a couple friends of mine took a ricshaw and after negotiating a 3 yuan fare were dropped off at their destination only find out that the driver was demanding 300 yuan). Luckily enough I found a subway entrance and one of the attendants was very helpful in directing me to the subway stop nearest my hotel.

A short subway ride later (Tip: use the subway; for 2 yuan you can go all over the city; the base cab fare is 10 yuan) I tired, sore and irritated. All I wanted was to find my hotel. Unfortunately I got turned around and after a 15 minute walk decided I was going the wrong way. After dragging my suitcase through the city for about 45 minutes I finally arrived at my hotel.

From there it was all good.

After a quick shower to freshen up I got on the subway and headed off to the Olympic park. The Birds Nest stadium is a sight to behold. The whole area is really impressive and was filled with families out for an afternoon stroll and celebrating the New Year holiday.

Birdsnest Stadium

I spent the evening strolling the streets of Beijing and made my way to Tian'anmen Square and the entry gate to the Forbidden City. There were people everywhere, everything was lit up but to my disappointment Tian'anmen was closed off.

Tian'anmen Square at night

Monday morning I arose early with the intent of visting the Temple of Heaven. Instead of reading the clearly labeled signs in the subway station, I decided to simply head out the nearest exit and ended up walking a couple kilometers the wrong way before getting back on the subway, riding it back to the stop where I had gotten off and being smart about things.

The Temple of Heaven was amazing. For 30 yuan you get to see virtually everything. Entering the park from the East Gate I was witness to groups of people dancing and playing hacky-sac. The Temple itself was breathtaking and luckily there weren't too many people there. If you ever go to Beijing I highly recommend visitin the Temple.

A view of the Temple from the south

Later that afternoon I met up with some friends from Mokpo and we headed off to the Summer Palace. We got there too late to get a full access entry ticket but in the end it mattered little. The palace itself was beautiful, but its the trek up to the Tower of Buddhist Incence was worth the trip. The unfortunate thing about being at the Palace was that it showed how polluted the air in Beijing is.

Hazy in the Beijing smog

Monday night was the last night of the Lunar New Year holiday. My friends and I wandered down to the Tian'anmen Square area after a nice Chinese dinner. The night was alive with the sights and sounds of fireworks. They were all around and lasted long into the night.

Tuesday began with an early start; waking before six AM. I met my friends in Tian'anmen Square to witness the ceremonial flag raising that takes place there every day. I was surprised by the crowds. I kept forgetting how many people there are in China and how many of them have probably never been to Beijing or Tian'anmen before.

Of course the square was under strict security, the entire square has been fenced off and is closed to the public during the evening and night (this year will mark the 20th anniversary of the Tian'anmen Square protests in 1989 [a forbidden topic within China] that brought to prominence the brave unkown man who stared down a line of tanks). Everyone entering the square had to pass their bags through an x-ray scanner (much like in an airport - the same is true for the Beijing subway system), while individuals were patted down by a security guard with a metal detecting wand. I, assuming it is because I was a foreigner, was simply waved through the search process. I couldn't believe that I was standing in Tian'anmen Square. I simply stopped and stood for a moment trying to take it all in.

The flag raising ceremony was somewhat underwhelming. I don't know exactly what I was expecting but it was something much grander than what I witnessed.

After the flag raising, we toured the Square and then headed in to see the famous mausoleum of Chairman Mao. Being only a few feet from a mass murderer who is revered as a hero was somewhat chilling. I was told by some Chinese people that I met that Mao "taught the Chinese people to stand up." I found it hard to really discuss or understand the level of historical revisionism at play in China.

The exit of Mao's mausoleum

After the Square we went across the street to the Forbidden City (Tian'anmen Square and the Forbidden City form the heart of Beijing, with the south gate for the Forbidden City bordering the north side of Tian'anmen Square). I had heard that this place wasn't all that impressive; that much of it was closed off to the public and as such that there wasn't much to see. That is not the case. The place is immense, filled with giant squares, meandering alleyways and numerous courtyards. We spent nearly five hours touring the grounds leaving us foot weary and hungry.

Interior Courtyard of the Forbidden City

We made an attempt to visit the Lama Temple after our tour of the Forbidden City but got there too late, so we decided that a little rest would do us good. Back at the hotel I watched some basketball and wrote postcards for friends and family back home. Then walked down to meet my friends for dinner. We had decided on going for Peking Duck. It was my first time having duck and it was quite delicious. I was again underwhelmed by the dinner. For some reason I thought Peking Duck would be some grand dinner experience. It was cheap though, costing us about $20 each. We were even given a certificate for our duck claiming that it was the 424,349th (or some such number) that the restaurant had served since its founding in the mid to late 1800s.

Wednesday was another early day. I met my friends at their hostel for our tour to the Great Wall of China. From Beijing there are three sections of the Wall open to tourists. Badaling is the most popular with tourists and is usually quite busy. Simatai is further afield and is a major hike. We settled on the middle ground of Mutianyu. I was pleased with this choice as it only took 2 hours to get there and while there were people there, they wouldn't be considered crowds. Add in that it was a beautiful day and it was a great experience.

The Great Wall of China

The views were amazing and the hike was middling. For the most part it was like walking on a rolling hill but there were a few parts that were decent hike up the mountain. This was another place where I simply had to stop for a moment and let it soak in that I was really standing on China's Great Wall (despite what you may have heard, the Great Wall is not visible from space or the moon. Seeing the GW from the moon would be like seeing a single human hair from two miles away). The trip up the mountain was a decent hike of a bout a kilometre but the decent was much more fun. They have a metal slide that you can ride down for the approximate cost of $8. You sit on carts that have wheels and a friction brake. You could really build up some great speeds going down the moutain. It was a lot of fun.

When we signed up for the tour we were told that we would leave at 8am and return by 5pm. So we figured that this would leave us about 5 hours (10am - 3pm) to tour the wall. When we arrived at the Wall though we were told that we would be leaving at 1pm. At first we were disappointed but it turned out to be a blessing. It gave us plenty of time to tour the Wall and additionally gave us the time needed to visit the Lama Temple that we missed out on the day before.

The Lama Temple is one of the largest and most important Tibetan Buddhist temples in the world. As we were walking there we passed numerous shops that were selling incense. Not a little bit of incense, but a lot of incense. Store front after store front was full of it. At that point I didn't understand why, but I soon found out.

A bell in the inner courtyard

Inside the Temple people were worshipping. Part of that worship was the burning of incense. People would kneel in front of a statue of either Buddha or other Buddhist icon and hold three lit sticks of incense to their forhead as they bowed repeatedly towards the statue. Inside the temple there were dozens of such statues and each of them there were large braziers for the lit incence. Burning incense inside the buildings was not allowed so some would prefer to go inside the buildings and perform the process with unlit incense. They would then leave the incense in front of the statue. Monks came by at the end of the day and put the unlit incense in the braziers so that they too, in the end, were lit.

The temple was beautiful and the statues that it contained were amazing. The Lama Temple contains an 18m tall statue of the Maitreya Buddha carved from a single piece of sandalwood. Despite this I didn't take many pictures. At first I acted like I had at the Forbidden Palace or Great Wall, but I quickly realized that this was an active place of worship and my gawking after all of it like a tourist was disrespectful. As such I simply toured the temple and tried to see as much as possible but tried to keep my picture taking respectful.

That night we met some friends who were also in China but were on their way to Xi'an to see the famous Terracotta Army. Our plans for dinner didn't work out and so we settled on a diner which had a very extensive menu (over 200 items). It was a good way to end my time in Beijing.

The following morning it was threatening rain. After making sure that I had everything ready to go I went for a short stroll and mailed some postcards before heading to the airport via the subway. The flight back to Seoul was uneventful, as was the trip into the city by subway. When I emerged from the subway in Insadong it was raining lightly so I settled on a quick bite to eat and an early night.

I woke up Friday morning to find it pouring down rain and my desire for walking waning. After a couple hours of nothingness I decided to visit the War Museum next door to the American Military base. It was an interesting place and I was able to learn some things about the Korean war, which I enjoyed.

When I left it had stopped raining so I walked to Itaewan and strolled through the area before grabbing a sub at Subway and headed on back to my hotel. A little later I returned to Itaewan to visit the Hollywood Grill where they air rugby games in hopes that they would be airing some Super 14 matches but they weren't. I had a good conversation with an English teacher working in Seoul and about midnight left for my hotel.

On Saturday morning I decided to head to the Seoul Art Gallery. I had seen an advertisement the day before on TV for a showing of works by Gustav Klimt, my favorite painter. The exhibition was both amazing and disappointing. I learned about Klimt and got to see a great many of his study drawings but I had hoped to see some of his more famous works such as his Pallas Athene, the Tree of Life or The Kiss (2), but they weren't there. They did have a recreation of his Beethoven Frieze though, which was very impressive.

After the art gallery I met up with a friend who came to meet up with me from Ulsan and we went to the Yongsan Electronics Market in search of a new external hard drive. This was followed up by another tour of Itaewan, dinner at an Outback Steakhouse and some drinks at the Hollywood Grill where we were able to watch a bit of the Six Nations match between France and Scotland.

Sunday was an easy day of touring through Insadong in the morning followed by a bus ride back to Suncheon in the afternoon.

After 8 days I was back home and exhausted.

It was a wonderful trip.

I can't wait for next year's.

Advocacy?

NBC has reversed its recent decision to air the following commercial. As such it has been taken from the air waves during the Superbowl as NBC has decided that advocacy has no place in the spectacle that is the NFL championship.

My question is, doesn't showing a Budweiser ad advocate drinking beer?

Doesn't showing a Pepsi ad advocate drinking Pepsi?

So consumerist advocacy is obviously okay as they are in it to make money.

All bow at the alter of all mighty money.

The singularity

Just to make sure that we are all on the same page from the start, this is not a Star Trek reference, nor is it a general science fiction reference.

I recently watched the movie Surfer Dude and was pleasently surprised at the depth of character portrayed in Steve Addington (Matthew McConaughey). Yes, I understand that this seems like a contradiction and on the surface I would agree. It would be simple to sit back and view this movie as nothing more than a stoner surfer flick, depth not required. I however managed to see it in a different light.

I'm not exactly sure why I ended up watching the movie in this manner but I did. Perhaps I accepted the notion that this was a meaningless movie from the get go and as such rather than focusing on the story as a whole, I focused my attention on the person of Addington. It was long before I began to see this movie in a much different light and by the end I couldn't help but see it as a deeply philosopical treatise on modern life.

Yes, you read that last sentence correctly.

In focusing in on 'Add' (as Addington is refered to throughout the movie) I seen a character who led a very simple and focused life. His passion was surfing and his friends. Everything beyond this small circle was extraneous and therefore unable to influence his happiness or joy with life. Life was simple. Many or perhaps most of the things that cause too many of us grief in life were irrelevant to Add. When something came along necessitating a choice, his actions were dictated by ensuring that he stayed in harmony with his life's focus.

I found this very spiritually enlightening.

I'm not too sure why this example seemed so clear to me. Perhaps it had more to do with where I was at rather than the message being presented (not to disparage the message). 

Christians are called to be just as focused in their life as Add was in his. The focus of our attention (I've taken to calling this 'your singularity') is obviously different but the ideas I believe are transferable. 

Christians are called to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22;37-39). Add's was quite different and yet quite similar. While surfing was his 'god' he did love his friends as he loved himself. 

I also found Add's actions to be a good example of the precept to be 'in the world but not of the world'. Meaning that as children of God, the redeemed of Christ, we may live in the world but we are not to be of the world. Add had little to call his own but that mattered little. He lived is life in pursuit of his passion in harmony with his 'singularity'. When the call to sell out for money came, he didn't even consider it. He recognized it for what it was and rejected it. While forces worked against him to force him to bend to their will, Add remained focused and resolute, never giving in, never violating his principles. Add's ability to be successful in this endeavor stemmed from his lifestyle which was simple and austere. He had a simple home in which to live, and few worldly possessions. He had which he cherished and allowed him to live according to his 'singularity'. All else was extraneous and therefore powerless against him. Those fighting against Add were left with little with which to fight him. Money, possessions, celebrity meant nothing.

Christians are faced with the same dilemas, asked to focus their attention on things of this world rather than on God. To give in to the seduction of materialism, consumerism, hedonism and secularism. We are cajoled to seek our satisfaction, happiness, joy and contentment in the things of this world. When we give in to these temptations, when we buy the lie, we give them power over us. There are those that work to see us bend to their will, but as God's children we are called to resist. To stand apart just as we have been set apart by Christ. 

I knew this once but I lost my way. I started to seek my happiness and contentment in the things of this world. Not that they were wrong, but they weren't the source of true happiness, of true contenment. Things are incapable of providing us with lasting joy. They may provide temporary flashes of joy but they are fleeting, leaving us just as quickly as they came, often leaving us feeling worse than before. 

Add served as a wake up call. I can only hope to live my life for God as Add lived his life for surfing.

The sad awful truth

Well I guess that there is no longer any sense in denying it. The shameful truth has been laid bare for all to witness.

I am not a real man, but merely a poseur, a boy playing at being a man.

The fatal proof

***

I am however not the type of person who would think of Spam when it came time to giving a gift. Yes you read right, Spam. That decades old concoction of various meats(?) squeezed into a can and foisted on to the lunch trays of thousands of hapless school children.

Spam as a gift?

Yes indeed, a gift.

The ever popular Spam gift pack for that special someone

By the way, did you ever wonder what Spam was for? Well if you can read the case you'll find out that Spam is actually ... (wait for it) "for your smile."

Bang, bang, bang

The thing that I have noticed most about Korea is the economy of space. Everything is thought out in such a manner as to conserve space, even cash registers take up less room here than back home. So with so many people living in a small geographical space, further limited by its naturally mountainous makeup, its not surprising that there are a lot, and I mean a lot of apartment buildings in Korea or that said apartment buildings hardly offer what we in the West would consider spacious living quarters.

I live in what I consider to be a somewhat typical, if on the low end of the spectrum, when it comes to apartments. My apartment runs the full width of the building but is at most ten feet wide, while being about forty feet long. This provides me with a makeshift bedroom (formerly a changing room that I managed to fit my bed into - and only my bed), a bathroom, kitchen area, living room and balcony. For a single person it is adequate but I'd sure love to have more counter space in the kitchen (currently it is zero). I have no idea how entire families live in these apartments, but they do.

Given this lack of space, not only geographically but also in regards to their living arrangements its not surprising that Koreans don't all have home computers, home entertainment centers and the like. They simply take up too much space.

How do they get around it? Simple, they have something called a 'bang'. 

Bang (pronounced closer to bong) means 'room' and is preceded by any number of terms. For instance there are PC Bangs; places where you can pay 1000W per hour to use a computer. I have a friend here who does that (she didn't bring a laptop with her). There are DVD-Bangs, where you and a friend (usually a couple looking to escape the eyes of watchful elders) can sit in comfort and watch the latest DVD on a large screen in privacy. There are Nore-Bangs, which is karaoke with a twist. In North America one would go to a bar to sing Karaoke, but here in Korea they have private rooms of varying sizes that you and your friends can rent out and sing to your hearts content (these are an amazing idea and should come to Canada). There are many others, such as Da-Bangs (coffee rooms where you get some special attention from a woman), Daeddal-Bangs (private massage parlor type rooms), adult PC-Bangs (imagine a private room for your pornographic desires) and other types.

However the best one that I've been to (so far I've only been to a DVD-Bang and a Norae-Bang - honest) is what we've taken to calling a Wii-Bang, as in the Nintendo Wii. 

We went for the first time last night and it was a lot of fun. Imagine a room where there are eight areas for playing a Wii. Each come with a myriad of games and controlers that only costs you 1500W per hour! Thats roughly $1.45 an hour back home. You play on large LCD TVs with leather couches for relaxation. In addition there are 18 PS3s to be used with the same TVs and couches. 

The overhead for such a place must be staggering. Even if you figure that bought low end TVs your still looking at a conservative $1000 per TV, totalling $26,000. Add in 8 Wii consoles at $250, and you have another two grand. Add on top of that the 18 PS3's at $350 each for another $6300 and you have $35k tied up in just hardware. Not to mention the numerous games that sell for anywhere between $40 and $75 a piece, furniture, utilities and the like. Its an expensive venture to be sure. 

But they only charge 1500W an hour!

It was a lot of fun. A group of ten of us went last night. We had three Wii consoles playing various games and a PS3 console going with Guitar Hero. We were there for close to three hours and i only cost 3600W each. 

Next time I go I'll take some pictures to give one a sense of what I'm talking about.