Sudan, specifically Darfur, is a situation which needs to be dealt with and much talk and publicity has been circulated. Another issue which I would love to have as much time, care and devotion spent on in the media is Congo. Don’t forget Sudan, but remember Congo.

Since 1998 more than 5 million people have died as a result of the conflict. This is the highest death toll for any on-going conflict since WWII. (note: the Wikipedia entry only covers the “official war” and not the on-going conflict.) This is a rate of 45,000 per month.

A peace deal for the Eastern Congo has been signed between 20 militias and the government. But the question remains (as does the pessimism), will this last?

Doubts exist for a number of reasons. A large one exists because the issues do not necessarily regard ideological differences. Rather it is mostly about resources. Greed and not grievance. While the latter might feed into the former, that is not primarily the case.

Another reason is because the on-going conflict was propelled by Western corporations.

If you watched “Blood Diamonds” or understand the issue of blood diamonds, and you feel that it is wrong to wear diamonds from war-torn areas then maybe you should feel the same way about technology as you do about jewelry. Why? Because Congo had the greatest riches in resources out of all African countries. Diamonds, copper, coffee, cobalt, crude oil, gold, chromium and so on. Much of these are used everyday. Copper, cobalt, gold and chromium are used in electronics. Something from Congo likely is in your computer right now.

For example, North American companies have been mining coltan in Congo (I should add allegedly, because they deny it). “Coltan is the colloquial African name for columbite-tantalite, a metallic ore used to produce the elements niobium and tantalum.” (wiki-pedia). And is used in capacitors.

UPDATE: Tantalum is another resource found in Congo and used in capacitors. Tantalum capacitors are a key component for cell phones. 80% of tantalum is found in Africa and a majority of that is found in Congo.

Maybe it is time for people to stop thinking about the false economy of diamonds and look to issues which their daily choices control. Many will say they need their computer, I understand that. But the choices which are out of your hands are the ones you need to get your hands on.

Maybe the peace in Congo will last a day, maybe a week, maybe a hundred years, maybe it won’t. 45,000 were dying every month and over half were under 5 years old. They need medication. They need water. They need peace.

UPDATE 2: A link for those who might be more curious – MakeItFair.org

Conflicts with a larger death toll than the Second Congo War.

• World War II (1939-1945)
• An Shi Rebellion (756-763)
• Mongol Conquests (1207-1279)
• Manchu conquest of the Ming Dynasty (1616-1662)
• World War I. (1914-1918)
• Conquests of Timur (1369-1405)
• Russian Civil War (1917-1921)

Not only does everyone need water, but everyone needs clean water. Everyone should have access to water. No one should be denied water.

But what do we do with water in the West? We bottle it up and sell it in future litter and landfill filler. But even that does not bother me so much as does this.

What the hell? I enjoy going to the water slide as much as anyone could. But I don’t believe that $7 million dollars of public money should be spent on this so that a private owner can make money from it. The tax-payer waste aside, it is ridiculous that this is how we treat something as precious as water.

No matter how much the kids will piss in the pool, the water will be cleaner than that which much of the world enjoys. And it will likely have tighter restrictions and regulations than does bottled water.

This is a waste, a water park in Winnipeg funded by $7 million public dollars when there are problems funding the already existing capital projects? When there are other programs which could actually benefit the people of Winnipeg, specifically the poor? When a water-slide only provides an escape rather than a solution.

I am curious where this will be placed. I doubt it will be the North End or the West End. How about West Broadway, Burrows, or Spence? My guess it will be someplace like South Dale or South St. Vital. But no matter where it ends up, I bet it won’t really provide anything of meaning or consequence. It’s not like Winnipeg would become known as “Water World.”

My argument was simple, or so I thought.

Long ago, a group of people (it does not matter which group) had a particular set of ideas or knowledge or wisdom which they wanted to transmit to their descendants. Often this would take the form of a story or a metaphor. The reason for this was to convey a larger image using symbols and ideas which would encapsulate more information than the story itself. The metaphor then grew and became something more than just a story, it became a truth. It became a pataphor. That was my argument concerning religion.

My other argument was that science is religion. Maybe this statement clouded the vision for some readers. Maybe I should have softened it somewhat by saying that science has become a religion. Maybe. When I suggest that science is (becoming) a religion I do not mean it as an attack on either science or religion.

Maybe those stuck on hard definitions need to soften their definitions somewhat. Or, rather, they need to realize that definitions do not capture complex ideas properly. Distilling a complex idea, such as religion, into a single word or definition is not easy. To broaden it too much is to consider everything as religion. To narrow it will exclude things known to be religions. No single definition of “religion,” or “game,” or “nation” will capture the ideas of these things which, when we see them, we know what they are. But we may not be as inclusive as we possibly should be. Or maybe we are too inclusive? Think about nation for a while – Israel, Palestine, Metis, Canada, Athens, Greece, or Frisia. Just a thought.

* * * * *

Orange juice is the juice from oranges. Except some orange juice is from concentrate. Other orange juice is better described as an orange beverage because it is not really the juice from oranges. But whatever we call it, it tastes like oranges. But what about Orange Kool-Aid? It does not really taste like oranges. And Tang, what is Tang anyway? Tang is a failed idea which was given life by astronauts who wanted to cover up the bad taste of the polluted water on their spacecraft. They did not drink it for the nutritional value nor for its orange flavour, but for its ability to make something taste less awful. But drinking Tang is not the same as drinking orange juice. It is drinking Tang. But you can call it orange juice if you want to.

There was this guy who insists everyone call him Bob. His real name is Carl Greenblatt but he wanted to be known as Bob. Bob works in a bank, as the security guard. His name tag says “Karl” but he tells everyone to call him Bob because they misspelled his name. And everyone does. Except for Patricia. She calls him Ted because she likes it better. Patricia and Carl dated several years ago but Carl broke it off. Now whenever Patricia sees Carl and calls him Ted, Carl cringes because the name reminds him of his biggest mistake ever. And now he will never get his high-school ring back again. Patricia pawned it for a pair of leg-warmers.

* * * * *

Religion is concerned with more than just dictating morality. If this were the case then it would be necessary to know who is dictating, because it is those people or that person who has the power over the religious adherents. Morality stems from a particular view of the world. What is right and what is wrong is not determined by an elite group of people. Even if this were the case, which it is not, this group would necessarily have to be able to tie in the moral issue with the worldview of the people or else it would not be acceptable.

This is where I would suggest that science does mingle with moral issues. Science affects the worldview of people. This is obvious. A change in worldview must have some implication on attitudes and actions or else it is meaningless. Science does get tangled with moral issues, especially concerning those concerned with life – abortion, cloning, stem-cells, even animal treatment. Environmentalist also use science to back up their definition of right and wrong as it relates to the earth.

I understand that this is not science dictating morality. But this is science used to backup a worldview and that worldview states what is right and what is wrong. Or, what is not wrong (which would, I guess, make it right).

Scientific ideas are complex and, often, hard to understand, and it is impossible to know all of them. What happens is that the ideas become encapsulated inside a word or phrase. The theory of relativity conjures up an image. Shrodinger’s Cat evokes another. Evolution and the Big Bang are others. One does not need to know what the particulars are to understand the general idea.

The reason I say science is (becoming) a religion is because science is involved in defining morality, providing pathways within philosophical dialogue, and developing a mythology (another word both the religious and scientific despise). Another reason is that there are those who would want people turned off of religion in favour of science. Evangelists for science.

Maybe the keyword is “becoming.” Maybe. But for me the evidence points towards my conclusion.

* * * * *

Orange juice is the juice from oranges.

* * * * *

[flashvideo filename=http://www.archive.org/download/FolgersCoffe_2/FolgersCoffe_2.flv /]

Maybe it is true. Maybe I taste like fresh percolated. Because I am.

Rarely has there been an era in human history when war has not existed. The class war has always existed and usually ignored. It is time now, my brothers and sisters, to unite the working class. It is time that the class war erupt and explode, and it is time for us to meet on neutral ground. Outside of church, home, work place, and union hall, there are few neutral places where the working class can meet comfortably.

Our brothers and sisters who went before us helped blaze a trail for us and it is time now for us to heed their call. It is time to stop disgracing their blood, sweat and toil. It is time to stop pussy-footing around the issues and time for us to carry the torch. The gold crown belongs to all of us, and it is time for us to claim what is rightfully ours.

The gold crown is ours, and it is time for us to find someplace comfortable where we can meet, strategize and form a team. In the sixties our brothers and sisters worked hard to help provide just such an atmosphere.

[flashvideo filename=http://www.archive.org/download/GoldenYe1960/GoldenYe1960.flv /]

Maybe 2008 can be a year where real, perceivable change can actually occur or maybe it will a continuation of the imagined, pseudo changes of which every politician likes to say they are a contributing member.

There is a problem today, my dear readers, in the state of Television Programming. Some may say this has to do with corporate interests in what we watch. Some may say there is a left-wing or a right-wing bias. Neither of these holds any water. The problem with television is that it does not prepare anyone for the future or the present. The information provided is merely reactionary hog-wash.

What we need on TV today is to provide people with a means by which to understand the world we live in. The cartoons of yesteryear helped children understand the world and what was important. From Popeye battling the “Japs” (“Japs” as the title of the film I refer to labels them) to newer Sesame Street episodes which are now available on DVD (with the warning that these are not intended for children, or something similar).

The big questions of life are no longer addressed in children’s cartoons. Seventy years ago children were entertained and educated, and these two concepts were inseparable. The idea of edutainment is said to be relatively new, but it is at least as old as the colour cartoon. Without the educational value of children’s cartoons, how would they know what brand of car they would buy when they grew up? Watch the video, see how it is done, and then let’s lobby the television industry for more product placement in children’s cartoons due to its educational value.

[flashvideo filename='http://www.archive.org/download/PegLegPe1938/PegLegPe1938.flv /]

Rhonda Byrne’s book “The Secret” has been a smash hit thanks to Oprah. The problem with the book is that the author is trying to propose new ideas about success when the real “secrets” have been revealed long ago. The secret to success is not imagining, believing, and receiving. Oh No.

In 1956 the American Petroleum Institute revealed the real secrets to achieving goals and happiness for for everyone. The secret is Oil and Competition. All of the world’s problems can be solved by these to things. Happiness is found in the products. Security because oil helps run the military hardware to protect the skies and shores. Competition means more and better products. There are no perceivable problems.

This should be true for everyone. Oil in the Middle East should help make life better for everyone. Competition, possibly even over land in the Middle East, is always a good thing.

The big secret is, of course, oil which has brought a better life to all the people in the U.S.A! But the key to making oil work for everyone is competition!
. . .
Yes, the real secret is not only a great source of energy but also the freedom to make it work for everybody. And if you have both of these things any goal is possible. It’s “Destination Unlimited!”

[flashvideo filename=http://www.archive.org/download/Destinat1956/Destinat1956.flv /]
Oil; greasing the gears of capitalism.
Competition; ensuring your happiness as the earth is raped and pillaged.

Cities are supposed to be dynamic; growing, changing, shifting, and adapting. Out with the old; In with the new. Old buildings, ones with character elements, are not just old, they are obsolete. Bring them down, build new modern buildings. Modern by today’s standards. Obsolete by tomorrow’s. Bigger, better, newer, and shinier. Unless shiny is no longer in style.

In the two videos linked below are parts I & II of “The Dynamic American City” from the United States Chamber of Commerce. Praise, heaps and heaps of praise, for urban sprawl and historic building demolition. Hallelujah for stainless steal, aluminum, and big box stores everywhere.

Horse and buggies may have help shape architecture and city planning in the past, but now it is cars. Hurray for the automobile! Now we have a reason to tear down and, from the ashes and concrete debris, re-build. And parking garages . . . where to begin? Praise be to Ford!

Tired of your city looking quaint and historic? Sick to death of looking at buildings which inspire? The wrecking ball may not be able to tear the building down with one thrust, but the sexual tension built up over years of looking at romantic, picturesque, and impressive buildings will be relieved by the repetitious motion of the ball and crane.

From now on we shall be seeing much demolition. The first step to making our cities better places to work, better places to live. It will take great effort, and real leadership, but as people we can do the jobs. And, as we see here the rubble at the feet of Columbus, let us remember that the continent is still before us.

[flashvideo filename=http://www.archive.org/download/DynamicA1956/DynamicA1956.flv /][flashvideo filename=http://www.archive.org/download/DynamicA1956_2/DynamicA1956_2.flv /]
Cities were designed for horses and carriages; re-designed for automobiles; and now I am left scratching my head wondering “Where is the Segway Scooter?” Progress, you move too slow.

I am Left-Wing. I am a Socialist. I am also a Christian.

I am dogged by resentment towards Atheist Left-wingers, and the reason is simple. Many, but not all, flaunt their disbelief in God and their commitment to humankind, and present these two things as being inextricably and necessarily interwoven. Their battle cry is “There is no God” and there is no “but.” Their goal, in presenting their (dis)beliefs is to convince their audience of the truth they have found.

This same group of people, even while foraging for converts, despise the idea of missionaries of various religious faiths and their proselytizing either at home or abroad. Any person who has read Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and promotes it as truth is actively supporting this same sense of religious zealotry which they criticize those who subscribe to a religion which has an actual name.

Atheism may not be properly defined as a religion, but when it takes the form of Dawkins, or when it partakes in activities such as seeking to convert others, then it may just as well open a church for itself.

Christians take sanctuary in churches; Muslims in Mosques; Jews in Synagogues; and Atheists in Laboratories.

The common link between all these groups (and others such as Mormons, JWs, Buddhists, Hindus and so on) is that they all have a system by which they interpret the world around them. These systems, whether in conflict or agreement with other viewpoints, give meaning to the world.

The problem with all ideologies (a carefully chosen word to include even those systems of thought which are not properly defined as religions) is not that they are right or wrong. The problem is that some adherents believe so strongly in their “rightness” that they demand that all others must subscribe as well. The problem is exponentially elevated when all other viewpoints are demonized.

Atheists who demand that the idea of God be eradicated from the lips of others are not proposing a solution. They are adding to the problem.

This is where my resentment takes root. The only way there can be peace in the world is through what many Christian groups (possibly other groups as well) call “bridge building.” The only way two opposing viewpoints can comfortably exist is for the two groups to meet and discuss their commonalities. If their discussion or interaction is based on their differences then there will be tension. If it is based on trying to see eye-to-eye then it is hard to consider the idea of an eye-for-an-eye.

Atheists prefer to see the differences between themselves and those of a religious persuasion. In fact, it is almost the only thing they can see.

The Atheist solution to the issue in the middle-east is to remove religion. This will never be the case. The only way this is possible is to try and have the groups realize their common history.

Atheism is not a solution to anything. In fact, Atheism is simply the new kid on the block who is stirring up trouble to make a name for itself.

[Maybe at some point I will discuss Mennonite history and relate it to the middle east problems.]

Decadence, some may say, is a vice. I would argue that it is the grandest of virtues. Capitalists rely on decadence to keep the economy moving. An increase in spending may mean a shift towards poverty for some and enslavement to mortgage brokers for others. This is not necessarily the case for everyone. Even if this were true for everyone, the worst case scenario is that everyone lives a happy life, even though it is centered around the bank rather than society, community and family. Happiness is achieved, even if it is a faux-happiness. Happiness is, by definition, happiness.

The critique of Capitalism that it disenfranchises the poor, creates more poor, and harms everyone except the top five percent is unfounded. If Capitalism increases the so-called gap between the rich and the poor by creating more poor then (even though this is entirely false) it is doing a tremendous service to all of humankind. Tragedy, poverty, and death bring friends and family together. This creates community and binds people together. And other people, people that would be otherwise overlooked, are brought into the picture and completing it. People such as the local Loans Officer and the community Collections Personnel. These are, as Sesame Street aptly would define them, people in your neighbourhood.

Socialists want to devour this picture and demonize those within it. Socialists want to eradicate the cycles of supply and demand; of wage-earning and property-ownership. Socialists glorify and idolize the poor all the while vilifying and demonizing the rich. At the same time as they are worshipping the poor they are demanding that we all be rich together. To be rich, much like the very few they loath and despise.

Socialists state that Capitalism will crush under its own weight and then Socialism will fill the void. They, however, insist on preempting this process, which they declare is inevitable, by bringing out the imminent prematurely. Karl Marx believed in progress and process. Step-by-step we will achieve our goals, and society will achieve its goals. You Socialists must wait.

In the Interim, Socialist of every stripe should declare decadence for yourselves and for everyone for at least three reasons. Firstly, this would appease your Capitalist enemies and lull them into a false sense of security. Secondly, this would expedite the crush of Capitalism and make it a much grander and diabolical spectacle for everyone with a Hammer and Sickle branded on their backside. And lastly, this would make the journey to your utopian world that much more enjoyable.

“Climate Change” is a much discussed feature of decadence and is something which almost everyone can subscribe to. This, for everyone, is not a tragedy but the greatest achievement of humankind in all of history. Millions of people will die. Land and property will be destroyed. The world will erupt in warfare and many more will be lost. Economies will crumble. Empires will be eradicated. Through all of this all of humankind will be united as one force; United by a common misery and a common goal. The global community will, for once, actually act as a community.

The environment, once destroyed and on life-support, will be a masochist’s wet-dream, yet the remaining humans will rebuild and start anew. The problems of war and poverty will be removed due to their new-found commonalities. The world’s ecosystem will begin to repair itself and, as the world becomes stable once again, the people of earth will repopulate.

This is a call for everyone, everywhere, to purchase more goods, become a greater consumer and an even greater polluter. Use but don’t reuse. Reduce your recycling. And recirculate your income as quickly and fully as possible. No matter how things play out happiness is assured; the Capitalists are happy that the economy is moving; the Socialists are happy when they will see the cracks begin to appear; and the environment will erase all of our mistakes in one massive, impressive and very broad stroke, thereby ensuring future happiness.

This is a call for Decadence; the earth will not destroy itself, and Capitalism needs help reaching critical mass.

Year of Numbers

It is now twenty-oh-eight. I spell it out because that is how we have said the years prior to twenty-nought-nought. (i.e. nineteen ninety-nine). The number of the year is 5%.

I am referring, of course, to the GST. More precisely, I am referring to the amount that the GST tax cut will actually help the average Canadian. 5% of the help Canadians actually need is so close to zero percent that it does not actually do anything. 1-2% decrease in a sales tax helps nothing, unless you can afford to buy something worth $1,000,000 and thereby save between $10,000 and $20,000.

A Decrease in GST of 1%

If you spend $1 you will save $0.01
If you spend $10 you will save $0.10
If you spend $100 you will save $1
If you spend $1,000 you will save $10
If you spend $10,000 you will save $100
If you spend $100,000 you will save $1,000
If you spend $1,000,000 you will save $10,000

Child Poverty in Canada

Eight years after the deadline is significantly late. Child Poverty in Canada was to be eliminated 9 New Year’s days ago.

Do the math — 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.

Why don’t we just re-write the page of definitions again, so that the history books will praise us and our generosity? Liberals and Conservatives alike are to blame for dropping the ball and letting everyone down.

Looking for the Root Cause.

I would suggest that the problem is largely systemic and the fact that the problem exists at all reflects on our society as a whole. Violence is should not be attributed to one cause or another cause, but to the linkages of societal patterns which manifest themselves down through generations. (Societal Linkages: Consider the fact that North Americans abhor the idea of raising a family in an apartment whereas this is not an issue for many Europeans.) Why is it that Montreal had no murders last year and Winnipeg has had two already this year? (I really want an answer for this one, especially from a Conservative.)

Physical violence makes the news and is sexy but when violence utilizes the sword of poverty people are appalled until commercial break. Then the fascination of the market place overwhelms.

Lowering tax rates for low income earners will not fix the problem. They do not have enough money to make the difference significant. And this goes throughout the provinces too. The NDP in Manitoba is not a socialist party, they are a Social-Democracy. (Whereas I would be a Democratic-Socialist.)

My Suggestion

Eliminate taxes for everyone who falls below the poverty line. Someone not able to afford adequate food, shelter, clothing and other essentials does not need to be taxed. The Basic Personal Amount should equal or exceed the poverty threshold.