Once in a lifetime

I haven't written in a while.

Not that I haven't wanted to, but I guess I just never bothered to take the time.

On Saturday I begin, what for me, will be the trip of a lifetime. A four week tour through south east Asia that will take me to Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

My first stop is Hanoi, Vietnam. There are many things to see and do in the capital of Vietnam, the most important for me is Ha Long Bay.



Considered by many to be one of the most beautiful places on earth, I've therefore secured an overnight stay on one of Ha Long Bay's many islands. A two day, one night stay that will see me touring the bay on a private junk, kayaking, visiting a floating village, and exploring many of the caves that dot the area.

Next on my list of visits is Cambodia. I'll stay in both Phnom Penh and Siem Riep. My stay in Phnom Penh will be a short one but while I'm there I'll be visiting the Killing Fields of Cheoung Ek and the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. A tragic piece of human history. My stay in Siem Riep will be longer as I want to explore the Angkor Archeological Park.



My next stop will be Luang Prabang, Laos. I think that one of the best things about my stop here will simply be to take some time and relax and watch Laos. Laos is becoming more popular with tourists but its not the tourist mecca that my other stops will be.

After the relaxing and slower pace of Laos I'm heading off to Chiang Mai, Thailand. The highlight of this stop will be a two day, one night stay at the Elephant Nature Park. Its here that I'll get a chance to feed and bathe elephants and see them in action. Definitely something you can't do in Canada.

My final stay will be Bangkok. I've heard different things about Bangkok; some good, some bad. I guess that that is the point of travel, to see the world for one's self. One of the highlights of my stay in Bangkok will be a day trip out the smaller town of Kanchanaburi. Many would know this site from the movie Bridge on the River Kwai. While the movie is mostly fictitious, the historical reality of the Death Railway is real and something of interest for me.

Twenty-eight days.

Four weeks of traveling through SE Asia is something that I would not have dreamed possible even a few short years ago.

It becomes a reality starting Saturday.

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.