The Inner Voice of the CrazyComposer

A Christmas Gift for You

2011-12-24T19:12:00.000-05:00

My gift to you: a Christmas story, with a twist. This story was originally posted a few years ago, but I wanted to repost it, with a few small edits, as a Christmas gift to everyone. There is also a surprise gift at the end of the story in the guise of links to some full-length samples from my debut album, “Music from the Inner Voice”, which is available on iTunes and Amazon. 10% of all the sales from this album are being donated to Amnesty International. The inspiration for this story does not relate to any particular person or event, though it was written after seeing the report about an IED explosion which had killed some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2007. After seeing the footage of the carnage I couldn’t help but think about the families, back here in Canada, and how they have to keep on living when a part of their family has been violently ripped from their lives on the other side of the world. The story’s dedication is at the end of the text. Please note, this is not a political statement about the war, it is a story about the human cost of war.

I hope you enjoy the story. Have a Merry Chanukah; a Joyous Christmas, and a Happy, Happy New Year.

Department Store Santa

Every year since he had turned fifty, and his long beard had turned white, he had worked as the department store Santa in one of the large shopping malls in the centre of town. Hundreds of children would come to sit on his lap every day in the weeks leading up to Christmas, but as the years passed by and he grew older the old man began to feel more than a small amount of resentment towards the ever growing commercialisation of Christmas. As much as he tried to hide those feelings of bitterness behind his bushy beard and smiling eyes they ultimately filtered down towards the children and their parents. Playing Santa used to be fun, now it was only a job.

Christmas wasn’t what it used to be, he thought to himself with a heavy sigh, as yet another child recited yet another list of expensive computer games and electronic devices that they not only wanted but already knew they would be getting for Christmas. It was even getting to the point, he sadly realized, where he was finding it increasingly difficult to smile for the photographs that his “elf” would take with the children while they sat on his lap; all he wanted to do was leave this shattered Yuletide fantasy of commercialised fraud and seek refuge with his wife, safe in their home where they had created a lifetime of memories of Christmas’ past. Living in the past had become something of an obsession of late, especially now as Christmas approached.

“Today’s your last day,” his wife had said as she gently squeezed his hand. They had just finished breakfast in their comfortable breakfast nook and he was preparing to leave for work. The words had managed to cheer him up considerably as he left their house near the Canal and walked to the mall with an added bounce in his step. A faint smile crept over his face for the first time in a long while as he approached the employee’s entrance and made his way to the locker room. He kept thinking about the conversation that he had with his wife over breakfast about retiring completely, and the more he thought about it the more he liked the idea. He had been able to retire early from his consulting job and had taken on this job as Santa seventeen years ago just for fun, not at all expecting to do it for such a long time. Of course, if he was perfectly honest with himself, and his wife, he would have admitted that his heart just was not into being around so many people any more, not after what had happened to their son, Kevin.

As he entered the locker room and put on his Santa suit for the last time this year, and perhaps for good, there was something a little different in his attitude; it seemed as though a weight had been removed, perhaps because he had decided to retire. This day, he thought, would be different, if only for the fact that it was the last day that he would ever have to wear this pathetic costume and sit in the stupid throne while wisecracking teens laugh at him all day. Santa suits, he thought, as he walked towards his “Kingdom” for the last time, should come with pockets where you could conceal water guns and other projectile toys.

Throughout the day and the endless, anonymous children, all seeming to want the same mp3 playing robot that could do all kinds of cool things … (he really was getting too old for this, he thought to himself, not for the first time this season), he still managed to keep smiling, reminding himself of the Christmas Eve dinner awaiting him at home that his wife would have been working on all day; and he remembered to laugh at the appropriate places for the children, to smile for the photos and to give each of the little urchins one of the obligatory candy canes for having had the pleasure of screaming in his ear (no wonder he was nearly deaf in his left ear). Since this was Christmas Eve it was busier than usual with last-minute shoppers desperate to find that elusive, perfect gift. This did not prevent the old man from letting his mind wander to what his wife would be doing at home.

His wife came from a family that celebrated Christmas Eve with what could only be described as gusto; the family was not particularly religious, they were just enthusiastic. When it came to the meal no expense was spared: they made a roasted ham, a turkey with all the trimmings, potatoes of several varieties, salads enough to sink a ship and more than enough side dishes to feed dozens of people. It was a feast worthy of royalty, and it was a tradition that the family tried to continue, as much as possible.

Unlike other Christmas Eve dinners, this would be a meal only for the two of them; their only son had been killed only five months earlier in the year while serving with his unit in Afghanistan, but knowing his wife there would be more than enough food for a small army; or at least a battalion. This would be their first Christmas without their son, without their Kevin, he thought to himself with a note of sadness as the last of the children was admitted through the gates to see Santa; his assistant pointed to the “closed” sign, signalling to him that the gates to “Santa’s Kingdom” were now locked for the season. Thank God, he thought to himself.

As the boy approached there seemed to be something odd about him that immediately caught the old man’s attention. He was only about seven years old, but there was something about his eyes that made him look much older, far more mature than his years. When he was close enough to speak, he said, in no uncertain terms, “look: we both know that I’m too old for this, right? I’m only here for my mother — it’s been a rough year for …” but he couldn’t continue as a tear began to roll down his freckled cheek.

“Come here, my boy,” the old man said, his voice kinder and gentler than it had been since the Chaplain had arrived with the news of his own son’s death, five months before. “What is it that you want for Christmas?”

The boy looked up at the old man and, seeing his own grief reflected back in his eyes, replied, “I want my father to come home from Afghanistan so we can be a real family again, but he already came back,” his voice cracked, “… in a coffin.” The boy buried his face in the deep plush of the Santa costume and he cried for several minutes while his mother came to get him, visibly embarrassed by the situation. But the old man didn’t mind the tears, for they were his as well, and those of his wife. They were tears that seemed to flow unceasingly, from eyes that saw ghosts in every corner of their house; they were tears that never seemed to run out, that never seemed to lose their sting.
When the boy stopped crying and his mother introduced herself to the old man he took her offered hand and asked, his voice thick with emotion, “would you and your lovely son do my wife and I the honour of joining us for dinner this evening? You see,” he continued, gently squeezing her hand, “this will be our first Christmas without our son as well. He was also killed in Afghanistan,” these final words were barely whispered, but the mother and son had no difficulty hearing.
All she could do was nod her head and do her best to smile, something she had not done very much of since the Chaplain had arrived at their house two months ago. As the three of them left the mall the old man was still dressed in his Santa Claus suit and for the first time in a long, long time, he was feeling every bit the part.

Dedicated to the Canadian Servicemen and women who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, and all other Peace Keeping Missions, and to their families; Merry Christmas. Peter Amsel, Ottawa.

Previews from the debut album of Peter Amsel - "Music from the Inner Voice"

Ambience 3: Arab Spring This piece is dedicated to those who died in the struggle for the changes in their nations - and to those who continue in the struggle.

Lost Innocence: In Memory, Oslo, 22-07-2011 This piece was composed in memory of the tragedy this summer in Oslo and is dedicated to the survivors and those who were murdered.

"46664" The Number of a Man A piece based on the number given to Nelson Mandela when he was imprisoned on Robben Island (video).

The album includes works for small ensembles and chamber orchestra, including my "Chamber Symphony No. I - Momento Mori" - which is dedicated to the survivors of the Japanese earthquake of 2011. The music was performed by a virtual chamber ensemble, featuring the Garritan Personal Orchestra. Some tracks were performed by the composer, using a program called "Reason" (the orchestral and chamber pieces were composed in Finale). For more information about the album, and to hear samples of every track, please visit here
" target="_blank">

Malcolm Forsyth: In Memoriam

2011-07-06T15:17:00.004-04:00

When I first met Malcolm Forsyth at a concert of the Ottawa International Chamber Music Festival, several years ago, my first impression was that he was an exceedingly charming man, something that was immediately apparent when you listened to his music. That charm was something that persisted through to his last premiered work, A Ballad of Canada, a joint commission with the NACO and the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, which was premiered at the National Arts Centre of Canada in June, and which I had the distinct honour of reviewing for this blog. At the time of that premiere, on the 9th and 10th of June it was not expected that Malcolm would be able to attend due to his the fact that he had already been battling pancreatic cancer for almost a year, but he beat the odds and, much to the delight of the audience, was on hand to accept the standing ovation at the end of a well prepared, extremely well crafted composition that will definitely become a treasure of the Canadian repertoire for chorus and orchestra.

The sad news that Malcolm Forsyth lost his battle with cancer on Tuesday, July 5th, at the age of 74 was announced yesterday. He died in the Royal Alexandra Hospital at 2:30am, only five months short of his 75th birthday. A Ballad of Canada will receive its second premiere on November 11th and 12th by the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra with the Richard Eaton Singers, but A Ballad of Canada is not Malcolm Forsyth’s last work, though it certainly is his final major composition. According to his daughter Amanda, an accomplished musician in her own right who serves as the principal ‘cellist of the National Arts Centre Orchestra, Malcolm composed an encore piece for her and her violinist-conductor husband, Pinchas Zukerman, the director of the NAC orchestra. The piece, entitled Bliss for Brahms, was written to be played at the end of Double Concerto for Violin and Violoncello by Johannes Brahms, which Forsyth and Zukerman will be performing in Israel at the end of July at which time they will premiere the Forsyth encore.

We often give the last words of a dying man more weight than what someone might say under normal circumstances, but what of composers who have defied death itself to continue to create, to strive against the impending darkness to continue to seek the elusive beauty that we endeavour to set down so future generations can enjoy the ideas that seemed so fugitive only moments before? For the brief moment that an idea exists in our minds, composers capture, collate, synthesize, and combine them into what will ultimately be transformed into something that others will want to listen to and perform; something that is called music. It is often said that composers do not retire, and nothing truer can be said about those who pursue this craft: how can you retire from something that consumes you, that defines you as an individual? How can you retire from your life? Malcolm Forsyth demonstrated this by living through his music, and by composing music that continues to live on long after his body has passed from this world. His enduring legacy will continue on through the decades he spent as a teacher of composition at the University of Alberta: composers cannot help but be influenced by the composers with whom they studied. Every work written by those who worked with Malcolm Forsyth will be, declared or not, a tribute to the man who has given so much through his music.

Even as this is being written my mind recalls various parts of the performance of A Ballad of Canada, especially the extremely evocative “Toll of the Bells” section, the second section of the second movement, which was simply breathtakingly beautiful, and the dramatic setting of “Flanders Fields” which will hopefully become something that is heard at every Remembrance Day service of the future. Unfortunately, nobody who is unable to attend the performances of A Ballad of Canada in Edmonton in November will be able to hear A Ballad of Canada, unless the CBC decides it is worthwhile to record the piece and broadcast it, sharing this great work with the rest of the country; something they did not believe was the case during the Ottawa premiere back in June.

Memories are wonderful, but not always faithful; having an opportunity to hear A Ballad of Canada performed again would be a treasured experience, one well worth having in honour of such a treasured Canadian icon. Having dedicated the last 42 years of his life to the Canadian music scene it is easy to say that Malcolm Forsyth was truly one of Canada’s great composers: he will be missed.

Malcolm Forsyth: a life in brief
Born on December 8, 1936 in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Received his BMus in Composition in 1963 from the University of Cape Town.
Received his MMus (Cape Town) 1966.
Emigrated to Canada in 1968.
Received his DMus (Cape Town) 1972.
Taught at University of Edmonton, Faculty of Music for 34 years.
Performed in the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra as a trombonist for 11 years.
Won 3 Juno Awards, his third one in 1998 for Electra Rising: Concerto for Violoncello and Chamber Orchestra, which was composed for and performed by his daughter, Amanda Forsyth.
Named “Composer of the Year” by the Canadian Music Council in 1988.
In 2003 he received the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal and was invested as a member of the Order of Canada.

With information from the Edmonton Journal and The Canadian Encyclopedia.

A Ballad for Canada from a Canadian Treasure

2011-06-12T13:23:00.005-04:00

Concert Review: NAC Orchestra, June 10, 2010, Southam Hall

Pinchas Zukerman, conductor
Ottawa Choral Society, Matthew Larkin, director
Cantata Singers of Ottawa, Michael Zaugg, director
Ottawa Festival Chorus, Laurence Ewashko, directors
Ottawa Regional Youth Choir, Kevin Reeves, director
Arianna Zukerman, soprano
Heather Johnson, mezzo-soprano
David Pomeroy, tenor
Christopher Temporelli, bass
Duain Wolfe, chorusmaster,
Laurence Ewashko, associate chorusmasters

by Peter Amsel

There are many reasons for a composer to write a new piece; some are inspired by love, some by the thought of a new season, others by a work of art, and then there is the commissioned work. When a work is commissioned it only means that the composer is getting paid upfront for the composition of the work and, even more importantly, especially to the composer, the work will be performed – usually before the death of the composer. That is the most important thing about the new work that was recently performed at the National Arts Centre of Canada for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the composer in question, Malcolm Forsyth, who will be celebrating his 75^th birthday on December 8 of this year, is in the final stage of an heroic battle with pancreatic cancer. He is dying, but his music, most definitely, is not; it is vibrantly alive and was enjoyed by two virtually sold out performances with the NAC Orchestra on Thursday and Friday, June 9 and 10, under the baton of Maestro Pinchas Zukerman, with four combined choirs of about 185 members under the direction of Grammy Award winning chorus master Duain Wolfe and associate chorus master Laurence Ewashko.

Malcolm Forsyth emigrated from his birth country of South Africa in 1968, relocating to his adopted home of Canada where he began a career teaching at the University of Edmonton. Last year, after spending decades as a fixture of Canadian music, the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra and the National Arts Centre Orchestra presented him with a joint commission with the challenge to compose an “iconically Canadian work” which, Forsyth recognized, was a strange request to make “from an immigrant”, but it was not, not really. Not when you consider the nature of Canadian music and the effects that outside influences have had on its development. There should be no cognitive dissonance at the thought of an immigrant to this nation composing an iconic Canadian work; after all, our national anthem was composed by a man who spent most of his professional life living in the United States. Calixa Lavallée, the composer of O Canada, died in Boston in 1891 where he had worked for several years. Malcolm Forsyth, Canada’s “Composer of the Year” in 1989, is more than qualified to compose a work representing Canada. The question is, is Canada willing to accept such a work?

While the central portion of A Ballad of Canada is entitled “Canada in Time of Trial”, when Forsyth got to the writing of the final movement it could well have been called “Composer in Time of Trial”. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer: this could well be the last piece he composed. The battle was on. Composing became a salve, a form of therapy, and a reason to fight to survive, and he did just that: he survived. It is not always obvious what a composer is feeling based on how their music sounds: a composer that is feeling depressed does not necessarily write maudlin, dark sounding or turgid music. A Ballad of Canada is not morbid music, nor is it music that sounds as though its creator is prepared to give up the ghost. This is music that reflects a vital spirit; a questing, curious mind that still has a great deal to explore and experience through the sounds that there are to lay down on the page. Malcolm Forsyth is not prepared to go quietly into the night, not with A Ballad of Canada.

It would seem, as evidenced by Forsyth’s work, that being Canadian is more than about birth; it is about pride of place, and about a genuine love of the land. These things were abundantly present in his new work for choir and orchestra, which features the poetry of four poets in its five sections, which are divided into three movements. The first movement of the piece and the final movement each contain one section, based on poems by Ralph Gustafson (1909-1995) and E.J. Pratt (1882-1964). These outer movements represent “The Land” of Canada, with the first representing the Yukon through Gustafson’s evocative text and the fifth representing Newfoundland in one of the most interesting texts of the piece.

The central portion of the composition is entitled “Canada in Time of Trial” and focuses on Canada during war. The first of the three sections takes on one of the truly iconic poems of Canadian history, “In Flanders Fields” by John McCrae (1872-1918). Every schoolchild grows up learning this poem, and learning that McCrae died shortly after having set it down on paper, so choosing to set such a well known text was truly a bold move, but it was a risk worth taking: the composition demanded a strong text. The first emotional climaxes, if the rousing setting of “In Flanders Fields” was not enough for the audience, truly comes in the third part of the piece, or the second section of the second movement: “The Toll of the Bells” by E.J. Pratt. While this is the shortest of the movements, it is stunningly beautiful and was truly one of the highlights of the night. One of the poems used in the composition was written especially for the work, by poet Carl Hare (b.1932 - ). His poem, “On the Waverly Road Bridge” portrays the emotional confrontation between two mothers during the funeral procession along higway 401.

As a composition there is much to laud in A Ballad of Canada, especially the evocative “Toll of the Bells” and Forsyth’s truly exceptional setting of the almost over-known “In Flanders Fields”. When a text is as well known as “Flanders” it is difficult to do something that does not sound contrived or cliché, but Forsyth’s handling of that section is anything but – it is the consummation of a career as a composer that shows a man who, though declining physically, retains the faculties that makes him one of Canada’s living treasures. Unfortunately the concert was not recorded by CBC Radio for broadcast to the nation so there will not be a chance for the public to hear a work that should become part of the Canadian repertoire. It is truly sad when the cost of a production is put ahead of the value of the preservation of our cultural treasures, particularly when one is as influential as Malcolm Forsyth. Hopefully the CBC will realize that A Ballad of Canada is something that Canada deserves to hear and they will record the Edmonton premiere in November.

One of the reasons that concerts have been declared obsolete by some is the fact that with recordings it is possible to create your own listening experience, whenever you desire, including the ability to listen to a composition over again if you want to hear something more than once. Unfortunately, when you take the live performance out of the equation you lose the opportunity to see certain things, things like over 180 choir members standing on risers at the back of the stage, or an expanded NAC orchestra assembled for the performance of the Forsyth, and the Beethoven in the second half of the concert. You would also miss the opportunity to see the composer receive acknowledgement for their work when the performance was concluded, as it was on Friday when the crowd rose to its feet for several minutes of a prolonged standing ovation for Malcolm Forsyth who waved repeatedly to the orchestra, choir and the audience from the Royal Box in which he had been seated.

If the measure of a piece of music is whether or not you want to hear it again then A Ballad of Canada is, indeed, a piece of music that may be great. At the intermission of the concert the first thing that went through my mind was that I wanted to hear certain parts of the piece again, especially the evocative “Toll of the Bells”, but, in truth, the entire piece is well worth exploring for the richness of Forsyth’s orchestral palette and his deft use of colour throughout the piece. Forsyth was definitely not out of his element in his use of the choir. Unfortunately, there were times when the choirs were slightly out of their element in the performance of the Forsyth.

The greatest issue of the evening, and the issue that struck at the performance of Beethoven’s iconic Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125, seemed to be an issue of size. There is a perverse assumption in music that “size matters”, and that “bigger is better”, but this is not necessarily the case, not when it comes to assembling large amounts of singers for large choral events. A Ballad of Canada is sung in English but, at times, you would hardly recognize this fact given the diction of the massed voices. This is not the fault of the setting of the text, something that I can say with assurance for having seen the score: the text is well set, with opportunities for it to be declared clearly. So, who is to blame? Since Forsyth used an expanded orchestration it was decided to expand the rest of the orchestra: the string sections were bolstered with extra members which gave them a much fuller, warmer sound. The choirs, however, were another story. Perhaps it was just that there were too many choristers, or that a few were off the mark, but there were too many places where the clarity of the enunciation was such that the text was simply obliterated. Were it not for the printed text in the programme, it would have been difficult to follow the progression of the piece.

This was especially evident in the choral finale to the Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony. For most people all one need do is say, “Ode to Joy” and the famous melodic motif that Beethoven immortalized in his work will be heard, hummed and whistled by those who profess to “not know anything” about classical music. It is a piece of music that has entered the collective consciousness of our civilization. It has been performed by choruses of thousands, with diction that would put the Vienna Boys Choir to shame, so why so much trouble for 180-or-so odd singers? Why indeed. Quite simply, size does matter. Too many singers, when there are too many amateurs who are not fully up to the task of what Beethoven wrote, add up to a performance that sounds like a professional orchestra married to an amateur chorus. It does not sound like a concert at the National Arts Centre; it sounds like the National Arts Centre Orchestra that suddenly brings on a choir of enthusiastic people who, knowing how the music goes, volunteer to sing the finale because they happen to have the right outfits for the concert.

In actual fact the finale was not as bad as that may sound, though there were some truly dreadful moments in the choral singing, there were some very nice “toneful” moments as well, when the tone of the amassed singers was quite lovely, though it was virtually impossible to make out any text other than the word “Freude” and “Elysium”. Granted, singing in German is never an easy thing to do for English speakers, it is something that singers do on a regular basis; it is part of the craft of singing. Making excuses that “the language is difficult” is simply not acceptable when the piece on the program is in German. Singing in a choir often requires one to sing in foreign languages, it is part of the challenge of choral singing so that excuse is not at all acceptable.

What the finale may have lacked in diction, it made up for with its enthusiasm, from the orchestra and vocal soloists, to a fairly entertaining performance by Maestro Zukerman who seemed to have lost all inhibition in the epic battle between Beethoven’s sonic world and the temporal, in which he stood, waving his arms about like an off-kilter windmill being assaulted by a demented Don riding a burro. It was, in effect, with apologies to Dickens, the best of movements and the worst of movements. The first movement, with its ethereal opening over the sustained pedal, was a bit harried and unfocused in its direction. There was such a long pause between the first and second movement that the opening of the rousing scherzo, which begins with a driving dotted-quarter note, eighth note, quarter note motif, lost all of the dramatic impact that the beginning of the movement can have, if it begins immediately after the end of the first. As a result, it fell flat, seeming to be totally without context to what had just come before. Truly however, one of the highlights of the performance was the orchestra’s rendering of the theme and variations in the third movement, which Pinchas Zukerman conducted with as little interference as possible, allowing the orchestra to play as they had been rehearsed, with confidence and clarity of vision. Throughout this movement the individual voices of the orchestra could be heard at their finest, making the listener long for opportunities to hear these performers in similar situations. The principal players were each brilliantly represented as Beethoven wove his web of variations and the strings of the orchestra, with the extra players, provided a lush sound that one could easily get used to hearing from the stage at the NAC.

Unfortunately, that was the end of most of the cohesiveness for the evening. It was a sign of musical laziness that brought things to a crashing halt at this point. When Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony is performed there is often the question as to what to do with the soloists and the choir. It is obviously too much of a distraction to have over one hundred voices march onto the stage after about 50 minutes of music, to join the final 20 minutes of the piece, right? But what about the quartet of vocal soloists who sit at the front of the stage? Should they be made to sit there through the entire orchestral work, waiting for their short time in the spotlight? After hearing the long break that takes place when the four singers in Friday’s performance came onto the stage it is without reservation that this reviewer’s opinion is that yes, the quartet should be onstage for the entire performance. They are performers; it is part of their job. To take such a break between the sublime slow movement and the beginning of the finale is, in a word, idiotic. Unless there is a compelling reason that would prevent one of the singers from sitting still for 50 minutes, it seem incongruous that the soloists should not be able to tolerate such an ordeal. In consideration to the fact that 50 minutes may be too long for some people to sit on the stage, it would have been much less disruptive to the performance for the soloists to come out onto the stage after the scherzo movement. Sitting through the third movement, which is not overly long, would have greatly aided the flow of the performance.

The soloists of the evening made for an interesting group; led by Christopher Temporelli, who presented the opening bass recitative with confidence and panache, his voice filling Southam Hall at the NAC with an ease that one rarely hears with the lower voices. The same, unfortunately, could not be said for tenor David Pomeroy, who suffered from an insensitive accompanist in the form of Maestro Zukerman who ran over him with the orchestra and choruses. Pomeroy’s sweet voice, heard at the opening of his “Froh, wie seine Sonnen ...” (Happy as the sun flying ...), was quickly drowned out by the crescendo of the orchestra and choir, which is really unfortunate. Some singers love to sing Beethoven, while others hate him, and the reason for this is simple: Beethoven composed for the voice as though he was composing for any other orchestral instrument, which means the voice is not necessarily treated in a very characteristic manner. Beethoven’s vocal music does not fall into the category of what is commonly called the “Bel Canto” style that was so beloved among lovers of the opera of the day. The “beautiful singing” for which the “Bel Canto” is not something that Beethoven was concerned with when he composed for the voice; when Beethoven wrote he was only interested in having the voices perform just as if they were any other instrument in the orchestral force at his disposal. As a result, Beethoven’s vocal music is not always very easy to sing, especially when it comes to the community choirs that are invariably called upon for performances of the Choral Symphony. Performing this music takes a great deal of technical accomplishment and dedication from the singers; it is both challenging technically and musically.

Soprano Arianna Zukerman and mezzo-soprano Heather Johnson made the best of a difficult situation by rising above the assembled forces without sounding overly harassed. Heather Johnson’s tone was especially fine in the quartet portions of the finale. The final choral sections of finale was especially rousing, with the orchestral forces and the choirs coming together in time to find their way to a rousing finish that did not fail to satisfy any of those in attendance at the concert. Was this a performance that would withstand the fine scrutiny of multiple listenings? That is a question for the individual audience member, but it is not one which I would choose to replace any of the recordings that presently inhabit my Mp3 player. The audience at the NAC was, however, more than appreciative and for the second time that evening offered a standing ovation to the orchestra, chorus, and their leaders.

All music lovers should have an opportunity to hear a performance of Beethoven’s infamous and historic Choral Symphony at least once in their lives. It is the type of piece that fights the boundaries of a recording device, it defies the limits of a disc, whatever its dimensions. Seeing hundreds of musicians gathered together with a single purpose, particularly in the spectacular finale, you cannot help but be moved, and this performance, even with its imperfections, did just that. It may not have been the ideal performance, it may not have been a gem that will be cherished forever, but it will be the one that is dreamt about for it is the only one that is real.

The Edmonton premiere of A Ballad of Canada will take place under the baton of William Eddins on November 12, 2011, with the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra.
Peter Amsel is an Ottawa based composer and writer.

Let Alvaro Stay in Canada

2011-05-27T11:41:00.005-04:00

The following comment was inspired by a petition posted at the Change.org site. A young man, Alvaro Orozco, fled his home in Nicaragua when he was 12 years old to escape the beatings from his father. His father was beating Alvaro for a simple reason: the boy was gay. He came to Canada where he has become a very accomplished artist, as well as a gay activist. In 2007 his refugee claim was denied when it was declared that Orozco did not look "gay enough" (the adjudicator was in Calgary, conducting the interview via video conference).

You can read the details about the case and sign the petition here, but please read my comment below.

I would like to call on Minister Kenney to immediately rule in favour of the Humanitarian and Compassionate application made by Alvaro Orozco. The fact that he potentially faces death by the hands of his own father in Nicaragua is only compounded by the grossly insensitive treatment that he received by a government official who, interviewing him via a television screen, rejected his application on the bases that Orozco did not, according to the adjudicator, look "gay enough" to fulfill the requirements for a Calgarian's assessment. The fact that Alvaro Orozco had been working extensively in the gay community and had left his native Nicaragua to escape severe physical abhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifuse from his father who had threatened to kill "any child of his that was homosexual" was apparently not proof enough.

It is illegal, in Canada, to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexuality, and that is precisely what has been done here, but in such a perverted manner, it is mind boggling. Someone has come to this country seeking our help, seeking safety from persecution, and a Canadian official has cavalierly judged them based on their looks, declaring their sexuality to be not what they declare it to be simply because of the adjudicator's prejudices and preconceptions. This is something that must be redressed as quickly as possible, before Orozco is deported to Nicaragua where he faces the very real possibility of losing his life.

Minister Kenney: it's time to right this wrong before it's too late.

Orozco Arrested, May 13
Story from Gays without Borders

Composing from A to Z

2011-05-18T13:14:00.000-04:00

Note of Introduction:

The point of this essay is to discuss the development of a musical idea from its inception through to the realization of the completed composition. There is, however, no technical instruction relating to the composition of new music within this essay. While this essay is not about how to be a composer of contemporary classical music, the author invites composers (especially those in training) to read this article in the hopes that they might benefit from an alternative point of view in regards to the approach to composition. For the sake of the essay it is assumed that a composer will already be well versed in the literature of music, possessing a fundamental knowledge of both theory, counterpoint, and harmony (though these will not necessarily be required to understand the concepts presented within the essay).

From Seed ... to Flower

Anything can inspire a composer to create a new work: a beautiful spring day, a reef seen while diving underwater, a painting in a museum, the face of a loved one smiling enigmatically ... or countless other things that stir our hearts as we live our lives. Composers, first and foremost, are humans and, as such, are inexorably tied to the thoughts and feelings that affect our every waking moment. The main difference between a composer or artist and someone who does not regularly express their feelings through something as permanent as music is that creatives focus on distilling their feelings down to something that is far more condensed and, essentially, purified than that which is encountered under normal circumstances.

Rather than declaring “I love you” to the woman they love a poet will write a poem – sometimes a rather long declaration of their undying devotion to the woman in question. When depressed about the death of his child Gustav Mahler composed one of the iconic works the repertoire, Kindertotenlieder.

At the same time, since it often takes extended periods of time to create large scale works, composers and other creatives must deal with the issue of creative continuity – or consistency – when returning to the same piece over a period of months or, perhaps, even years. The reason is quite simple: as time continues its relentless march we all change; it is inevitable, irrevocable, and something that we would not want to prevent regardless – without change we would stagnate and die. At the same time, artistic change is something that can render a composition musically unsatisfying for the simple reason that the composer that began the work is not the same one that completed the piece. The inconsistencies cry out like a sore thumb.

Maintaining the cohesiveness of thought from the beginning of a long project through to its end is one of the great challenges that composers face when composing large scale works, but it is something that is incredibly important if we are to maintain a sense of musical context and integrity throughout the work. There are several things that can assist in maintaining cohesion through a project that takes an extended period of time to create, some of which may be helpful to some while other composers will find other strategies are of use; the important thing is to aim for consistency in what is being composed, otherwise we risk producing work that sounds unbalanced and, perhaps, unprepared.

The biggest mistake that young composers make (though this is an issue that can certainly be applicable to mature composers as well) – that most creatives make when starting a project – is that they do not imagine what the final version, the outcome of the work, is going to look – or sound like when all has been said and done. This is, perhaps, one of the most important things that we can do as creative artists: envision the final form of the work before it has been completed. If we can “see” (or “hear”) how the composition is supposed to turn out we then have a much better idea of what we are pursuing in the work that we are doing. It is also a critical step in the development of the strategies that will get us to that point: how are we going to accomplish this goal? What must be done to get from the opening of a work to the final notes of the piece? Once those questions are answered (in our minds) we are in a much better position to begin the work on the piece than we had been only moments before.

Yet, the question remains: if we all change, even over short periods of time, how are we to prevent this from adversely affecting the quality of our music?

The compositional process is not something that can be described in terms of a specific form that works for everyone: as each individual approaches their own ideas, the methods for the development of compositions will similarly be expressed in as unique a fashion as reflected by the individual undertaking the work being done. The evidence of this is heard in the variety of music that is composed by composers around the world: after studying a curriculum of “classical” foundations the “rules” of music are used to produce a myriad of different outcomes – many of which still have not been heard.

It is not the process itself that we are overly concerned with, however, but the manner in which that process is approached: it is the consistency with which a composer faces the task of composing a work that will ultimately determine whether or not a composition sounds coherent or fragmented. Fortunately, there are several strategies that composers can use that will help maintain the “frame of mind” in which a composition was composed.

Using the horticultural metaphor of the seed, let us continue with the idea that an idea, once it has been turning over in our heads for awhile, has begun to “germinate” ... in essence, it begins to sprout. The obvious first step is to compose: discipline, on the other hand, leads to greater planning and, in the case of a large scale work, sketching out the ideas that will make up the entire work. As mentioned before, for as many composers as there are there are different approaches to composition, so if you are not the type of composer that works from a detailed plan, do not be discouraged: this can still help you a great deal.

There is a big difference between a detailed plan for a work and sketching, the greatest being that in sketching we are less concerned with the individual elements such as rhythm, thematic development, and specific instrumentation, which would be indicated in a detailed plan. A detailed plan for a work, in essence, may be considered to be somewhere close to one step below the first draft of a piece (again, some composers do not compose drafts – that’s fine as well); it is something that will be immensely valuable to the composer who prepares it for the reason that it presents the majority of the musical materials to be used within the composition (both melodic, harmonic and contrapuntal).

In lieu of a detailed plan, for those composers who find such a thing to be too onerous, the use of the sketch is highly recommended to capture the essence of the germinating idea in an effort to maintain coherence throughout the composition. Since a sketch pad is the constant companion of the author, this happens to be the preferred method, though detailed plans have also been prepared, they have often been constructed during the compositional process, in an effort to re-spark the creative flow if there happens to be a lull in the creativity.

Sketching is, essentially, jotting down any musical idea that comes to mind when we do not have an opportunity to write them down in a composition. Beethoven was always carrying his sketchpads around with him, composing notes for future works out in nature or wherever he happened to be; it is a great way for composers to make sure they do not lose anything important that happens to come to mind. In the case of sketching out an idea that has begun to sprout to the point that it is almost ready to become a fully fledged composition, the sketch is something that need not be overly detailed, but should contain enough material so that the composer can use the material to return to the state of mind that they were in when they began the process of composing that particular piece.

Due to the fact that we are constantly changing as individuals, and especially as creative artists, the person that began the composition of a multi-movement work in January is not the same person that completes it ... whenever it happens to be finished. This is where the idea of the frame of mind, or state of mind, becomes so important to both composer and composition. If we are writing a deeply emotional work that draws upon passionate feelings it is of paramount importance that the composer is able to touch those feelings within themselves, otherwise the music will be devoid of the one thing the music cries out for: passion. When the composer returns to their work, of course, it is necessary to return to that state of mind – to that emotional state – so that the music being composed at that moment is of the same emotional intensity as that which was already composed.

Sometimes it is necessary to leave a work for a day or more before returning to it, in which case the idea of returning to the same state of mind we were in when last working on it is not such a difficult idea to embrace, but what happens if there is one month – or longer – between the time working on a piece? How can we return to a state of mind that existed 30 days or more before? While referring to the sketch, or detailed plan, will refresh the musical memory it may not be able to fully transport us to the emotional “place” where we had been at that time; in order to do that it may be necessary to try something else, to try something that is as easy as breathing, but takes a little more thought: meditation.

When speaking of using meditation in order to re-focus our mind for the purpose of composition it is important to note that we are not speaking of that which is normally associated with “Eastern mysticism”, or having anything to do with the New Age. Meditation is, quite simply, a quiet contemplation; it is a tool through which the mind is able to focus itself and, depending on the techniques used, access a particular emotional state – even if it is a state from quite a while ago. For the purposes of composition, the simplest way to meditate is, perhaps, the most effective, and it all begins with the breath. Just as many musical instruments rely on the breath of the player to provide their sound, we rely on our breath for everything that we do, but, as we go through our lives we usually pay very little attention to the vital importance of the breath and breathing in general. Ultimately, however, when we focus on our breath – when we focus on the actual mechanics of what we are doing – it becomes possible to influence the entire organism.

It all begins with one breath. You take a deep breath in through your nose and, very slowly, fill your lungs. The important thing here is that as you are breathing in, visualize your lungs being filled as though you were pouring water into a large container: it fills from the bottom first and then the water rises to the top. Imagine your lungs filling up slowly, filling from the bottom to the top until you have filled them like two large barrels, filled to the brim. Hold the breath for a few beats ... and then exhale, slowly, through your mouth.

In through the nose, slowly, filling the lungs from the bottom to the top ... holding for a few beats ... exhale through the mouth. Slowly. This is not a race, nobody wins a point for finishing first. Now, when you have taken a few cleansing breaths, close your eyes and picture in your mind how you felt when you were composing the piece you are working on – hear it in your mind’s ear – feel the music as you take in each new breath – allow the music you have composed to meld with that which has not yet been written until you are sure that your present state of mind is sufficient to continue the work on the piece without changing the style or continuity of the piece. After you have tried this a few times you will realize, quite quickly, when you have attained that state of mind that you have been seeking. If, on the other hand, it takes more to enter this state, it may be necessary to use more advanced self-hypnosis techniques (essentially the same as meditation, but more intense).

The individual practising self-hypnosis, or the modified form as described here is merely, for all intents and purposes, meditating at a deeper level. The only real difference being that with practice, it is possible to introduce triggers or “suggestions” to yourself that will assist when it comes to the fulfilment of a specific goal. People have used self-hypnosis for many years as a means of helping with weight loss, smoking cessation, and all types of other issues, but many musicians are introduced to it in order to help cope with performance anxiety, otherwise known as stage fright. It is one of the most widely used non-medical options for dealing with some situations that may also be treated with medication.

Rather than taking a Beta Blocker, which is a common type of medication prescribed to assist with performance anxiety, or even a low dose of an anxiolytic drug such as those found among the benzodiazepine group of medications, it is possible to cope with this increased level of stress with self-hypnosis. All one has to do is, again, breathe ... and, in this case, follow a script specific to the situation being addressed. A typical self-hypnosis session will begin with the deep breathing exercise as previously described and then the script will gradually shift to having the individual become more and more aware of how their body is feeling. This is not about how you are feeling physically, per se, but rather how the body is feeling, in the physical space that it is taking up at that moment.

There are many methods to achieve self-hypnosis, with a full examination of even one method being far beyond the scope of this essay. It shall suffice, for now, that the use of self-hypnosis can be very effective in achieving the aforementioned goal of realizing a state of mind that had existed at a previous time. With practise it is also possible to use the deep relaxation techniques to such an extent that a state of near self-hypnosis is achieved; it is merely a matter of putting your mind to it and allowing a “script”, internalized or recorded, to run through your head as you are performing the exercise. As with all things, the more you try it, the better at it you will become.

By getting the mind to concentrate so intently on the present, on the “here and now”, it becomes possible to access those feelings that we experienced – or were experiencing – at other times, and that is the key to recovering that mental state you were in when you last worked on the composition. By doing this it makes the act of composition something that some might describe as a near spiritual experience, but do not fear, we are merely focusing on the oldest impetus there is within humanity: the desire to create.

Once we have achieved the appropriate state of mind, the real task – the real fun – begins. Now, we’re composing. Taking an idea from its inception to the final form is not always an easy task. Some pieces, it would seem, “compose themselves”, requiring very little intervention on our part ... at least, from the perspective of the composer, that is how it sometimes feels. You start with a blank page and an idea and the next thing you know the page is full of music and the only thing you know is that the coffee in your cup is cold and the sun has shifted in the sky. Save for the passage of time it is almost as though someone else has composed the music in front of you – that you were only a conduit to what is now on the page ... and that is how it is, sometimes.

At other times the notes seem to be struck with a timidity that makes them hide from you, making it difficult to hear how things are supposed to be going. Rather than having things flowing into place, this time it is more like dragging a log up a hill rather than having the flower blossom, as though by magic, right before your eyes. So, what can be done when the music is not flowing so easily? Do we surrender to a lack of inspiration and only work when in this “mystical” state? Of course not. Composers are very much like writers of literature: we are using our own language – the language of music to express our ideas; sometimes, with writers, things come out with great fluidity, very easily, as though it was writing itself but, at other times a writer must sit there and work at their craft – and it is a craft, just as composing is a craft.

Composers must never become complacent about the ease with which a musical idea or composition might come to them for things have a tendency of changing, even for the most prolific of composers. We must understand, however, that when we do “work” on our craft there is nothing that will be gained by banging our heads against a stone wall. If things are not working out and we are unable to figure out where a piece is supposed to be going, then it is time to take a break. Sometimes it is necessary to take more than a small break from a composition in order to regain our perspective, something which can easily be lost when we are too close to the piece.

When we have regained our sense of perspective, after a few days – or even weeks – then, when we return to the composition it will be with a renewed energy, a renewed desire to complete that which was previously started. Above all else, we must not become discouraged when a composition is not completed at a particular time. Composing is a process, it goes from one point to the next and will ultimately arrive at the end when it is ready to, not a moment sooner. When a work is completed it is as long as it needs to be, or as short as needed to convey the musical idea that the composer had at that time.

One of the methods that has worked particularly well for me personally when composing anything with more than 3 parts is what may be called the “Layer System” ... or, the Onion. While composing a piece for multiple instruments the first thing that will be done will be deciding where the active voice for that section is: what instrument is the most important. Once that part has been composed (either an entire section or several measures at a time, it all depends on the context of the composition) the next step is to start “filling in the blanks” in the score – composing out the remaining parts, one instrument at a time.

It is generally advisable to establish the harmonic content of any measures first as that (the harmonies and implied harmonies therein) will help determine the choice of the other notes used in the section. At this point it does not matter whether or not you are composing tonal or atonal music: your “harmony” will be based on your own musical choice, be it post-tonal or tonal, so long as the choices are well made and musically logical. As each layer is completed it is possible to begin to see the growth of the blooming flower – or whatever it is meant to be. At some point in this process you will come to the realization that you could add more notes, but you don’t have to for the section to be complete. Follow your instincts. It is very easy to “over compose” while using the layering method, but do not be afraid of allowing your instruments to rest if necessary.

It is always dangerous when writing for a large ensemble to use the Tutti for prolonged periods of time without relief. While we do not want to have instruments sitting on stage for too long without playing a single note, it must also be acknowledged that Tuttis can be potentially very tiring when heard over extended periods of time. If you are composing for a large ensemble consider the number of pairings, of trios, quartets, etc. within the ensemble that might be exploited for the colourful effects and musical challenges they may offer. By varying the ensemble it becomes possible for the composer to vary the musical material by simply re-scoring it rather than recomposing something. It is, in essence, one of the simplest forms of musical variation: restating a musical idea in an alternative scoring.

What do we do with musical ideas that do not fit? Fragmented ideas that are too good to toss out, but not right for what we are working on at the time? These are called “Fragments of a Dream”, or FOADs for short. There will be times when an idea emerges, but it just does not fit into what is being written: what should be done? There are two things that work very well, the first being the aforementioned sketchpads and the second being the use of a second document in Finale, (or whatever program the composition is being composed in, if it is being written on a computer). When writing a piece entirely on paper it is sometimes less obvious when new material does not fit, which is one of the advantages of using a software package like Finale or Sibelius as they have the ability to provide an instant playback of what has already been written, giving the composer a much better idea as to how the music may sound when realized by live performers.

Whichever way you compose, the most important thing that you must be aware of is the importance of being able to edit a composition without feeling as though you are cutting off part of your own body. When we write something we are so close to it that making any changes, or hearing a criticism, can be exceedingly difficult; we are too emotionally invested when the project is only just completed in order to be able to approach it with a detached perspective, with the emotional clarity that is needed to be able to make the difficult decisions regarding how to make it a better piece. Self-editing is, without doubt, one of the most difficult things any creative individual can ever do for the simple reason that it feels as though we are attack our own work, until we come to the realization that there is nothing personal about what is being done: the goal is to produce the best quality piece in the end. If that means cutting a little bit here, fixing something there, then so be it: it is all part of the process.

While it is helpful for composers to take advantage of the features of these compositional tools it must be stressed that they are just that, they are tools; neither Finale nor Sibelius, nor any other music program will take the place of the experience garnered over many years of study and applying what has been learned to the craft. Composing music is much more than following a formula or filling in some blanks on a page, it is about creativity, it is about making something where there was nothing but silence before; composing music is a form of communication that is codified on paper, as a language to be transmitted for a future generation to discover.

The tools of composition will not make up for the skills, or lack thereof, that any particular individual may or may not have. When someone approaches a composition software package like Finale or Sibelius they not only have to learn how to use the program (the learning curve on Finale is quite high, it is a fairly difficult program to master, but a very powerful program, used by many professional publishing houses and professional composers), they have to know what it is they are trying to input into the program: Finale will not accept improperly formatted music, it has to be entered correctly or it “won’t fit” into the template. Technology is only an aid to contemporary composers: it does not replace the tools we need in order to write something down on paper.

Ultimately, what a composer is able to do with an idea will not be determined by the program they are using or any of the peripheral things associated with the piece; it will come down to the musical ideas that they are able to generate themselves: how well are you able to manipulate the seed from which the original idea was born? If the seed is not yielding what you had been hoping it would do not get upset; take a step back and regain your perspective before trying again. If it still does not work, plant another seed.

Do not be afraid to have a piece with multiple “seeds” as the foundation; having a piece that stems from only one idea, quite frankly, would be the exception, not the rule, though you could derive a second theme from an idea relating to the initial idea, which could also lead to a third theme, and so on. Most importantly is that the secondary ideas (the second “seed”) should flow together in a natural, organic manner, that compliments the other ideas in the composition. When the music is forced it loses the sense of freedom that it could otherwise have, a feeling that is difficult to articulate, but is often easily recognizable when heard.

How do we know when the composition is completed? If you have been using the “onion” or layered approach to the compositional process then there are times when you may think the piece is finished, but you return to it to add something else here and there, little things to touch it up. When composing a large work for chamber orchestra it was especially difficult to come to that final ending without constantly revisiting certain parts over and over again. What it finally comes down to is the discipline to be able to look at the piece and make the decision that “it is finished”, even if more could be added, it does not have to be added.

In this instance using Finale to compose is an advantage as it can provide a reasonably decent playback of what has been written, providing an excellent idea of how the piece will sound for the composer. With that assistance it is possible for a composer to know, with much better certainty than when composing on paper alone, how a piece of music will sound during a performance; it is also possible to make renderings of these pieces to be shared as sound files, so composers can share their music not only as scores but as audio files as well.

By accessing the technology available today it is possible for a composer to hear their music without using live musicians, though that is, of course, the goal for any composer who wants to see their music come to life on stage. With the use of technologies such as Finale and a third-party instrumental add on, however, a composer may easily create a recording that can rival that of some professional players ... or, at least, they can create a recording that will reproduce everything that the composer puts in the score. The music heard from a rendering by Finale will be limited to what the composer has designated in the score; if there are no indications for dynamics, the piece will sound accordingly. If no phrasing is indicated, none will be played. Live players can only be emulated when enough information is given that the performance will sound as though someone is making musical choices during a performance.

A composition is completed when you have entered enough information on the score so that the only question that has to be asked about the performance is: where would you like to sit? A score is a road map for the performers; do not be afraid to provide them with enough road signs and markers to give them everything they need in order to produce the performance you want. The less there is on the score means that much more for the performer to decide upon during the preparation of the piece. That may work for a solo work, or a piece for two players, but when dealing with a work for several players or larger ensemble the idea of leaving things up to the performers will lead to confusion, unless the work is conducted and the conductor makes the decisions for all the players.

Some composers have indicated that putting too many indications on the score is “over controlling”, but this is only the case when taken to the extremes of certain composers. We are not talking about having an articulation or dynamic marking over every single note, such as has been done by some composers in the 20th century: that is definitely on the excessive side of things and could well be seen as over controlling. However, indicating where a player should be playing a crescendo or decrescendo, and the specific dynamics in different sections, that is definitely not over controlling the score, it is directing how you see – how you hear – your piece. It is part of the language of music, it is part of the process. After all, it is what we do. When that is done, when you can look at a piece and say, “they will know how it goes” when they look at the score, the job is done.

The following video is of a piece I composed called “46664: The Number of a Man” - a work based on the number given to Nelson Mandela when he arrived at Robben Island in 1964.

To listen to some of my other compositions please visit my SoundCloud page.

100 Years of International Women's Day – What's the Big Deal?

2011-03-08T10:18:00.004-05:00

For 100 years women have been celebrating International Women's Day, a day that started before women had the right to vote in most countries, or the right of personhood.

A line from the song “Bread & Roses”, with words by James Oppenheim, which was sung at the now famous 1912 strike against the American Woolen Company in Lawrence Massachusetts sums up the struggle of the entire “woman's movement” and all that it stands for: “The rising of the women means the rising of the race”. The line speaks an ultimate truth about humanity that is impossible to deny: when a portion of society has their rights oppressed all of society suffers, making it impossible for it to blossom into its full potential. We cannot claim to be free unless each and every one of us enjoys the same freedoms enjoyed by all, which is why the pursuit of women's rights seems so inexorably tied to the battle for all civil rights.

The rights of women are fundamental and must be guaranteed for a very simple reason: if we live in a society that is unwilling to recognize the absolute unquestionable equality of women how can we expect that same society to extend those rights and freedoms to the rest of society, to those members who have been traditionally excluded as a result of their sexuality, or even because of what they believe? A simple example of how this is glaringly true can be found in present day Uganda, where their parliament is considering a “kill the gays bill” which would make homosexuality an act punishable by death. They contend that gays are gay by choice – that someone who is living a “gay lifestyle” can simply choose to live a “straight lifestyle”. Of course, that assertion has been debunked on numerous occasions, one of which can be found in a compelling interview that Rachel Maddow conducted on her show last year. The debate over the bill has been getting coverage around the world, which has helped reveal some of the thinly repressed feelings that some people harbour about homosexuality in their community.

If homosexuality is treated as something that will send people to their deaths in Uganda, how are women treated? Is this a nation that values their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, and their grandmothers, or is it a paternalistic society that wants to have absolute control over every aspect of production, including procreation? Well, the facts speak for themselves: while there are women in positions of authority, and working in professions, just as in the West, in Uganda the “tradition” is for women to be subordinate to men. A tradition of subordination prevents the existence of equality for the simple reason that it is diametrically opposed to it by its very nature.

In the 1990's many Ugandans recognized and followed several female religious leaders who led revolts, overthrowing the paternalistic political system, and in some areas women were able to own land and fully participate in the political process, but on the whole, there was still a well defined role that women in Uganda were expected to live by, including being subordinate to their husbands. If you consider the state of women's rights in a nation like Uganda it is not difficult to imagine how or why their lawmakers could be so moved to craft legislation with the ultimate end being the execution of homosexuals. The legislation of hatred, the attempted codification of morality through the abuse of the legislative process, is merely a reflection of how that society feels about the issue of rights for anyone other than the dominant class in that society: that being the heterosexual (married) male in Uganda.

Oddly enough we seem to encounter a similar phenomenon here in North America, minus the “kill the gays bill”, yet replete with all of the institutionally entrenched denials of rights – all of the things that serve to, in one way or another, prevent the largest portion of the population from having the same opportunities as the rest of the population. It is repression, be it passive or active, it is a form of repression, and it must be ended: when women battle inequality they are fighting for all of us, be they, women, children, gays or men – or rights as individuals and our status as humans can only be fully realized when each and every one of us is treated with the equality and dignity that they deserve, regardless of their sex, age, colour. The use of contrived excuses to demarcate where one person has every right under the law while others are denied only serves to prove the desperate state that these individuals are in as they attempt to rationalize the oppression of any selected group.

The celebration of International Women's Day is an opportunity to remind the world that the struggle for equality has not yet been realized. In 1995 the International Labour Organization, an agency administered by the United Nations, estimated that women would make up at least half of the global workforce by the turn of the century. In 2008 the number of women in the workforce was estimated at 40.5%, but that does not include the number of women who work long, unpaid hours, in their homes. With around 1.2 billion women in the workforce women are responsible for upwards of 80% of the food production in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as more than half of the world's total food production.

At the same time, the issue of pay equity continues to be a topic that serves to actively repress women: by forcing women to work for less than the men who work beside them, or at equivalent jobs, women are forced into poverty. Poverty causes women to do desperate things in order to survive, including remaining in abusive relationships in order to maintain their means of support. Poverty also leads women into degrading situations where they are forced to sell the one commodity that they should have complete power over: their own bodies, though this is another thing that is often taken from them through the acts of violent men, seeking to subjugate women both sexually and emotionally. When someone is unable to control what happens to their own body how can they claim to be free?

On this International Women's Day let us not forget that there are still places in the world where the sexual mutilation of young girls is accepted as a routine part of daily life. Female genital mutilation, or FGM as it is referred to by the World Health Organization, is practised in many western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, as well as in some countries in Asia and the Middle East. Female genital mutilation is also practised among various immigrant communities in North America and Europe, making it something that potentially threatens a young girl that you or one of your children know. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women are estimated to have endured these barbaric procedures that have absolutely no health benefits: their only purpose is to prevent a woman from feeling pleasure during the sexual act in the warped belief that this will keep a young woman from seeking out a sexual partner before she is married. The fact that the spread of HIV/Aids amongst heterosexual couples in Africa demonstrates that it is spreading as a result of the promiscuity of married men. The “purity” of the young girls isn't the problem, the fact that there are so many men who seem incapable of thinking about anything beyond their gonads – that's a problem.

Another form of mutilation that women are enduring is called “breast ironing”, and is meant do serve a similar purpose as FGM, though not quite in the same manner. Rather than having the women mutilated to the point where she is unable to feel pleasure from having sex, breast ironing destroys the breast tissue as it is developing, scaring and disfiguring the child. The desired outcome being that the girl will not want to pursue men and, as a result, stay “pure” until marriage. The practise of this form of mutilation is mostly carried out in the nation of Cameroon, but is practised in other nations as well.

It is time for society to come to grips with the fact that women are far more than the traditional roles they have been groomed for since birth. The idea that a young girl must have a portion of her anatomy mutilated because of how a man might react to her shifts the responsibility of our actions away from the perpetrator of the aggressive act onto the individuals being victimized. As long as we continue to view women as the “weaker” or “fairer” sex we continue to subjugate them in our minds, weakening them before even engaging them in a dialogue. How can we advance as a society if our very mode of thought prevents us from viewing women as equals to men? Is that equality possible when our language serves to weaken them, implying that they need the strong hand of a man to aid them in their times of trouble?

After the mutilation of women's bodies in order to control their sexual lives and sexuality comes the recent attempts in the United States by the GOP at completely controlling every aspect of women's reproductive rights, down to their ability to control whether or not they will be able to receive counselling for family planning through one of the most trusted organizations in existence. Planned Parenthood has come under the same type of attack in the Congress of the United States that resulted in the defunding of ACORN, an organization that was wrongfully accused of wrongdoing through a “sting operation” that turned out to be less of a “sting” and more of an “operation”, being sponsored by a neo-conservative entity on the Blogesphere who likens himself to a journalist (no link is provided to the ACORN videos for the simple reason that I refuse to direct attention to that individual; it is easy enough to find if you are interested).

The GOP attacks on women and their essential rights, unlike the attacks on ACORN, seem to be driven by their desperate attempt at discrediting anything and everything that President Obama stands for and what his administration represents. The 112th Congress of the United States consists of a total of 541 elected officials from 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia, divided into the 100 member Senate and the 435 member House of Representatives, which has 6 non-voting delegates. Of these 541 elected officials only 88 are women. With this disparity of representation it is hardly a surprise that the agenda of the GOP has been allowed to become one aimed at overtly oppressing the rights of women, by denying them access to health care and services that are uniquely designed for their particular health issues.

Contrary to the myths being perpetuated by the noise machine of the right wing, Planned Parenthood does much more than merely providing for women's preventative health care than anything else, providing a wide variety of services, including mammograms and screenings for cervical cancer as well as numerous other services making it one of the most trusted health care providers in America. At least one in five women has used Planned Parenthood once in their lives as a means of maintaining their health, and the majority of the work done by Planned Parenthood is aimed at preventative health care, working towards the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. If the GOP, which claims to be “pro-life” is really as anti-abortion as they say they are, what they should be doing is increasing the funding to an organization like Planned Parenthood for the simple reason that they actually prevent the overall number of abortions by providing women with choices before they become pregnant.

The myth is that Planned Parenthood uses abortion as a form of birth control. This is an ugly, obscene fallacy that is being used by those on the right to hack away at the funding of women's health. This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at placing another element of control over the reproductive cycle, from conception through to the end. It goes hand in hand with the attempts, by some legislators, to redefine the access that women have to abortions in certain instances so that victims of incest or date-rape would not be forced to carry any children resulting from these brutal acts to term.

No woman should be forced to make that terrible choice, but it is their choice to make, guaranteed under the law. The Republicans have no right to act as the “moral guardians” when they were not given a mandate for this act. The 2010 election were about jobs, not reproductive rights; it's time to get the agenda back on course and stop trying to oppress women just because that's the traditional role of the GOP.

There can be no denial, not then, nor now: “The rising of the women means the rising of the race”. One hundred years after it began International Women's Day is as important a symbol for women across this planet as it was when it was first started. For women living in risk of mutilation, at risk of contracting HIV/Aids from husbands or boyfriends who view them as sexually inferior, believing that promiscuity is acceptable for males, for women who work for less than men: International Women's Day is a symbol of hope that must never be forgotten until every right has been won. It is true that after 100 years much has changed, for the better, but there is so much more that needs to be done; regardless of the gains that may have been made, the struggle has not ended ... and the battle has been joined.

Raping with Words – the Attack on Lara Logan

2011-02-17T00:27:00.007-05:00

After watching events unfold in Egypt, and particularly in Tahrir Square – “Liberation Square” – the world rejoiced as the people of Egypt were given what they had been demanding for 18 days. This was a revolution unlike any that had been seen before, and certainly unlike any of the revolutions that we know of from our textbooks. The American & French revolutions were bloody affairs, as was the Russian revolution of 1917 and many other historical revolutions. There was some violence in Egypt, to be sure, and some people did die, but most of the violence was perpetrated by the government, by supporters of the harassed and confused “President” Hosni Mubarak. This was an historical event not only for the reason that the people of Egypt drove out their despotic dictator, but for the fact that they did it without resorting to violence.

The brutality that everyone was expecting to come out of the Egyptian revolution, from those expecting such things, did not manifest itself, and this must have been a terrible disappointment for those who constantly bang on the drum that Islam is the Seed of the Devil and will destroy us all, and that all “Islamists” are “terrorists” and seeking to be martyrs in one way or another. Which is why, I am certain, so many pundits, right-wing bloggers, and, quite frankly, unhinged individuals, have taken some sort of perverse pleasure from the attack on Lara Logan. It is understandable that some people do not like others, particularly because of disagreements along partisan lines, but at the same time, there is no need to leave civility behind. This issue was addressed by President Obama in the speech he delivered in Tucson after the tragic assassination attempt of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

Image © by Ben Heine
When President Obama spoke in Tucson part of his concluding comments included these words: “I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here - they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.”

The fact that we may not believe the same thing that our neighbour has never been the issue; the issue is that they are our neighbour and we must live next to them, in peace. The idea that we should be revelling in the suffering of others is, in a word, perverse. There is nothing positive about it, and it is indefensible. There is even a word in German for taking pleasure from the misfortune of others; they call it “Schadenfreude”. The people that have taken pleasure from the attack on Lara Logan have revealed far more about themselves than they can possibly imagine: by mocking a woman who has been brutalized and raped they demonstrate just how they view women, and what value they place on women in society.

At the same time that the new Congress has decided to focus their energies on making access to legal abortion, for any reason, the highest thing on their agenda, you have to wonder, why do these people hate women so much ... especially when some of them ARE women? Anyone who would mock the brutal assault & rape of Lara Logan is likely the same type of individual that supports the political “redefining” of rape, & denying women access to life-saving medical procedures.

Some of the most vitriolic comments came from an individual named Debbie Schlussel (I'm not going to link to her site as I doubt she would return the favour). She boasts of her appearances on the Bill O'Reilly Show, and a claim to having single handedly caused Starbuck's Coffee to have one or their best quarters ever as a result of what she said at one point. Obviously, Debbie Schlussel has a solid connection with reality. Ms Schlussel, in her comments on the attack on Lara Logan, makes the point of accusing Muslims specifically of the attack, using the attack as an opportunity to vilify all Muslims, claiming that “This.Is.Islam.[sic]”. She referred to the demonstrators in Tahrir Square as “animals”, essentially stating that Ms Logan had called this attack upon herself for going back to Egypt so soon after the departure of President Mubarak.

While there's nothing funny about an assault on anyone, especially a rape, using a sexual assault to promote a political agenda is especially heinous. The idea that this was an attack perpetuated by “Muslims” is pure and absolute conjecture: news services showed that Tahrir Square was filled by Egyptians of both the Islamic and Christian faith (and quite a few non-believers I would imagine given the age of the demonstrators). The fact that Muslims surrounded Christians so they could pray without fear of attack, after the Christians had surrounded the Muslims, the day before, demonstrates that people from both religions were cooperating in this revolution. It was NOT an “Islamist” revolution, as people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, it was a revolution of the Egyptian people, and that's what Lara Logan was there to report on.

Saying that this crime was an act committed by a specific group is not only a gross generalization, it is overtly racist and exemplifies the worst in what has become an increasing “Islamophobic” attitude in the west that climaxed during the second term of George W. Bush. The fact that George W. Bush contrived the story we were given that propelled the United States into a war against a nation that had not attacked them in any way whatsoever is lost on those who call all Muslims their enemy; they have decided that Islam owes them a level of civility that the west is not provided them with. These critics of Islam want Muslims to go off and hide, pretending that they don't exist, but they forget that so-called “Christians” have acted as badly, or worse, than Muslims through the course of the past two thousand years.

Rape is only one small example of the crimes that have been used as a weapon against women in countries where men claim to be “Christians”. Rape is a crime that has been well practised in the west, a predominantly “Christian” area, it could well be argued that the attackers of Ms Logan were, in fact, not followers of the Muslim faith but Christians (not very good ones, one should point out, but that's another point as well).

Saying that Lara Logan was raped by Muslims assumes facts that can only be known by one who was on the scene, with the perpetrators of the act. Facts and evidence, that's what's important here, not the wild conjecture and overt prejudices of people who hate Muslims, regardless of what they have done. Facts and evidence are the two things that are lacking by those who want to vilify “Islam” as the all-consuming evil that it must be in order to validate their place at the apex of civilization. But, that hasn't stopped the pundits before. As the saying goes, “never let the facts interfere with your arguments”. After all, if you allow facts to enter the fray you just might find yourself persuaded by your opponent's argument ... the one using the facts.

All the while they ignore the facts that are known. Facts that do not need any special skills to discern, they are right out in front of us. The 1st fact: Lara Logan was brutally assaulted and raped; that's the first FACT that we have. The 2nd fact: She was saved by a group of Muslim women & about 20 members of the Egyptian Army; that's the Second FACT that we have. There has been absolutely NOTHING released on the nature of the criminals who attacked her; nothing about their identities, or their religion.

Image © by Ben Heine
So, why do the attackers have to be Muslim? Do Americans, people claiming to be “Christians” never commit the crime of rape? Have not American soldiers, while on active duty in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and probably Afghanistan been accused of, charged of and convicted of raping and murdering civilians? If you want to condemn all of Islam for the attack on Lara Logan, then you must do the same to all of Christianity for the crimes perpetuated by those who have slaughtered “in the Name of the Lord” over the last thousand years, or Jews who have killed in the name of “HaShem”.

Ultimately we must remember that rape is not about sex; it isn't about love: it is about the domination and complete control of a victim. Rape victims are not only women or girls; men are raped often in prison and boys are often the victim of sexual assault. Unfortunately, due to the stigma surrounding the reporting of sexual assaults, many of these events go unreported or under-reported, making accurate reporting on numbers difficult to come by. What rape is about is an intellectually impotent male who is so sexually frustrated he feels his only choice is to take control over someone that they are able to physically and/or emotionally dominate. There is nothing romantic about rape, nor is there anything “sexy” about it; it is the ultimate degradation of humanity, removing any possible element of beauty from the sexual act. Mocking a victim of this type of crime serves to continue the victimization, creating an atmosphere of hate that foments more and more hatred until some unseen line is crossed, moving toward some “critical mass” of hatred that will eventually lead to all out war. At least, that would be the ideal for the Islamophobes; their “worst case” must include an Islamic war with the west, a war with Christianity (as though “Christianity” is an organized “force” which will do battle).

I'd also like to remind those who disagree with me - and I know that people disagree - American soldiers - "Christians" - in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and MANY other fields of battle committed acts of rape and barbarism - if you want to condemn all of Islam for the attack on Lara Logan after this attack, then do the same to all of Christianity for the crimes perpetuated by those who have slaughtered "in the Name of the Lord", or Jews who have killed in the name of "HaShem".

Freedom Defined

2010-12-08T15:50:00.003-05:00

The word “Freedom” is tossed about in contemporary political rhetoric quite often and yet it is poorly understood. It is heavily loaded with both partisan and sentimental value for those who use the word, and it cannot be easily defined for it not only represents the foundation of what the United States was ostensibly founded upon, but it is the watchword for all “democratic” nations. “Freedom” is our aspiration; in its absence we are enslaved, in its presence we are jubilant ... but what does “freedom” really mean?

Understanding the concept of “freedom” is easier when you can comprehend what it means to live without freedom: to appreciate the lack of something permits us to better appreciate what it is like when it is made manifest in our presence. A perfect example of this can be found in 20th century history in the nation of South Africa and the tumultuous times of the Apartheid regime that imprisoned Nelson Mandela for 27 years. Nelson Mandela was only one of the political prisoners who lost his personal freedom in the battle for freedom for his people; that was the sacrifice that he made in order to see the hateful Apartheid system end, and for a nonracial system of government to come into being. The fruits of his freedom were manifested through the first “one-person-one-vote” elections in 1994, which marked the true end of apartheid. The subsequent establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was emblematic of this freedom as well. It was convened for the sake of creating a public record about what took place under the apartheid regime, to rehabilitate the nation after living through the ravages of the racist apartheid regime and, more importantly, to compensate those who had been abused under the old apartheid system rather than meting out revenge against those who had perpetrated the offences.

According to Nelson Mandela, freedom can only exist when everyone is free. In other words, freedom in not a personal issue, it pertains to the collective state of the people. Inequality is a great hindrance to true freedom as it creates distinct divisions (or classes) amongst the population that transcends traditional class structures. Having any class system in society, either according to job classification or based on religious belief, you will find that the issue of freedom is stunted by the idea that there is anything that differentiates one individual, or group of individuals, from others. One of the things that you discover by studying the situation that took place in South Africa, and the story of Nelson Mandela, is that freedom and racism are integrally related. When a man can have 3 decades of his life stolen from him because the state opposes the way he thinks, or his dream to live in a free state that does not treat him and his people like 2nd class citizens, that is when you know there is no freedom to be had. Freedom in South Africa, before the end of Apartheid, was an illusion for the simple reason that it was something that only white citizens were able to partake of, so long as they adhered to the barbaric laws of the apartheid regime.

When Nelson Mandela walked out of prison after 27 years he was a free man, but he would not know true freedom until he had the opportunity to cast his vote in the first “one-person-one-vote” election in South Africa on April 26, 1994. Over the days that the polls were open nearly 20 million South Africans of all colours cast their votes for who would represent them in the first non-white-only government. The African National Congress won the majority of support with 62.6% of the vote and, on May 9, 1994, Nelson Mandela was unanimously elected President by the National Assembly. The days of the elections were so important to the people of South Africa that the 27th of April was declared a public holiday: Freedom Day.

As the president of the “new” South Africa it is likely that Nelson Mandela did not, at that point, feel very much like a free man for the simple reason that his time was not his own, something that every head of state would likely agree with were they asked the question of their own situation. In his book “Long Walk to Freedom” Nelson Mandela wrote that “a leader often sacrifices personal freedom in order for a leader to serve the needs of his people” (paraphrased). It is a variation of the idea that personal sacrifices must be made in order to help others. That is the essence of being a truly great leader, of being a truly great human: someone must be willing to give of themselves for the betterment of others. In answering the question, “am I my brother's keeper”, the response is “yes”, without hesitation, even if that costs something on a personal level.

True freedom, after this model, comes from the expression of an individual's interpretation of a rather esoteric ideal, an expression that is almost impossible to define in traditional terms as it encompasses so many definitions. People ultimately cobble together their own interpretation of the word, regardless of whether or not it is close to being an accurate definition. When it comes to an individual's idea concerning freedom there really is no “right answer”, and the truth is an altogether different and irrelevant point to those who believe that “freedom” is a “God-given right”, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States (for those living in the United States ... Canadians have the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”).

Alas, this is where the idea of “true freedom” enters the concept of relativistic or situational definitions. Some might argue that true freedom is an absolute that cannot be measured against perceived rights and “freedoms” that are conferred upon an individual by the state. At the same time, true freedom cannot be represented by anything that the state can confer upon a citizen for the simple reason that rights and freedoms conferred by the state can be taken away just as easily as they were granted; that does not make the idea of freedom very concrete if it is something that can be removed by a court decision or governmental decision, it makes it sound more like a vague concept that is “open to interpretation” rather than an entrenched right. Take, for example, the right of “Habeas Corpus”, which has been an important part of common law since before the Magna Carta (1215). This “right” was taken away from people in the United States, with the stroke of a pen, after President George W. Bush decided that terrorists did not deserve the same rights as those guaranteed under the constitution to all other defendants.

One of the main problems encountered by people attempting to formulate a concrete definition of the idea behind “freedom” comes when an individual's expression of their freedom impinges upon another person's ability to enjoy their life. The problem with individual freedom is that, for the most part, people do not live their lives in such isolated situations that make it possible to do anything they want without having to be concerned with the ramifications of their actions. True freedom does not necessarily mean doing anything you want, whenever you want; it means that you are free to make choices to do the right thing, those things being things that do not interfere with the lives and livelihoods of others. What is truly important is that we are given the ability to make the proper choices when it comes to the exercise of this freedom which is why education is one of the most important things in a “free” society. Without an educated population it is impossible to have a citizenry who understand what their responsibilities as citizens are and, subsequently, what their freedom represents.

Education is the cornerstone of a free society insomuch as it serves to provide a level playing field for every citizen, regardless of their position in society. Where there is an educational system that treats its students with dignity and respect you will find a citizenry that appreciates their freedoms without seeking to violate the rights of others; civility is as much an element of cultural decontamination as it is a part of the permissive nature of the society from which an individual is from. When people believe they are allowed to do anything because it is their “right” to do so, that they are exercising their freedom, the violation of the rights of others will take place more and more frequently for the simple reason that they will not care whether or not their actions have ramifications outside of the immediate moment in which they are operating. This is the great conundrum of freedom that may never be fully satisfied: is one individual's freedom more important than the freedom of all? What happens when your freedom interferes with another person's life? Is the pursuit of the one supposed to supersede the other or, are you to alter your plans to accommodate the society of which you are a member? Perhaps the definition of freedom has to include the word “sacrifice”.

The very concept of freedom, from the beginning of modern history, is fluid as can be seen through the history of the United States and its Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence there are the famous words declaring that we are all endowed with the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. One may infer that “freedom” was on the tip of the tongue of the writers of the Declaration, even if it was not actually written down: the words chosen are all synonymous to freedom. However, it must also be remembered that the Declaration of Independence was aimed at a particular crowd: white, male landowners. Women and people who were not white were not considered in the same category as the landowners, nor were they given the right to vote or speak in government. Freedom was not for all; not then, or now.

The very idea behind the “pursuit of Happiness”, for example, can cause contention amongst those who do not share similar views of what that pursuit may actually entail. While one person may feel the pursuit of happiness includes the playing of drums in the middle of the night, their neighbours would likely feel somewhat differently about that expression of freedom and ask the drummer to change their schedule for the sake of community harmony. By playing their drums at another, more appropriate time of the day, it is possible for the drummer to have his pursuit of happiness – to have his expression of freedom – without having his neighbours want to burn down his house in the process.

Freedom is something that will be debated for generations, but the true definition is really not that difficult to find as it relates to the entire human condition; it must be seen as a relativistic term in regards to how we all live, or it holds little personal meaning: if one person thinks themselves to be free while their brothers or sisters are not, what is the value of their freedom? Unless we are all free, unless we are all endowed with the same rights and privileges that every citizen is entitled to enjoy, freedom will remain nothing but a concept to be discussed in university classes and high school civics classes.

When Nelson Mandela spoke to 120,000 supporters in the First National Bank Stadium in Soweto, South Africa, he addressed the fact that there had been problems with crime in the township. Crime had to end, Mandela pleaded, for “Freedom without civility, freedom without the ability to live in peace, was not true freedom at all.” In the end, freedom is more about the things we decide not to do than what we decide to do; it means we are free to live our lives in harmony with each other, regardless of colour or creed, in peace, because that is the way we should be living. It isn't about doing things that risk the lives of others so that we can have a fleeting thrill. Irresponsibility is not an expression of freedom, it is an expression of immaturity. Freedom is something that, after 27 years in prison for political beliefs, Nelson Mandela could say he understood by virtue of the fact that he could have a meal when he pleased and sleep when he wanted. The little things become precious when you have had everything stolen from you.

Ultimately freedom is what you make of it, it is the lifeblood of our democratic system: we are free to vote, to choose those who will represent us in government and ultimately shape the course that our nation takes in national and international affairs. Our greatest task as freedom loving citizens begins at the ballot box whenever there is an election: if we fail to vote we fail our nations. We abdicate the responsibility that our government expects from its citizens. If we do not vote, if we do not use our freedom to express our opinions at the polls, how can we be surprised when a reactionary political entity is elected that wants to curtail those personal rights and freedoms? Any right conferred by the state can be taken away: we must never allow this to happen. The only way to prevent it is by speaking through our votes. If we do not vote, if we allow apathy to overtake our love for freedom, the damage will have been done. Just remember, if you do not vote, you are entrusting your freedom to the people who do.

On The Inside Looking Out

2010-10-06T21:02:00.004-04:00

As I sat in the crowd at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to hear a special announcement there was an air of expectation from those gathered to hear the guests who were there to speak for this auspicious event. While Canada tends to not get as caught up with the idea of the “First Family” as they do in the United States, it is still something of a big deal to have the wife of a former Prime Minister attend an event, particularly when that former PM is none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and the wife is none other than Margaret Trudeau, a women who has become a strong advocate for mental health while waging her own battle with bipolar disorder in a somewhat public ordeal that culminated with a public confession of her condition several years ago, after having to enter the Royal Ottawa for help after the very public loss of her son in a tragic accident. What Margaret Trudeau could not hide from the public she has turned into a vehicle for dialogue to battle the stigma associated with mental illness. She has used her own pain to heal the wounds of others.

It was that help that Margaret Trudeau spoke of when she addressed those assembled on Monday, September 28. Hearing about her past, however, was not the reason we had gathered together; everyone was there to hear about the newly christened room next to where we were all assembled: a resource centre that was named in honour of the woman that had made it possible, Ottawa philanthropist Shirley E. Greenberg. Thanks to the single largest donation (to date) to the Royal Ottawa, a donation of $1.5 Million, the hospital has been able to create a much needed resource centre specifically aimed at the unique needs of women as they face the challenges of mental illnesses from the perspective of the female physiology. The Shirley E. Greenberg Resource Centre for Women will be the focal point for new programs aimed specifically at women seeking help, women seeking the tools to deal with their illnesses and to find resources that they may not be able to find under a traditional setting.

The entire point of the event was, of course, the announcement of the donation by Shirley E. Greenberg, and her short speech was well worth hearing, but that was not what caught my attention. Then again, I am somewhat crazy. From the perspective of one sitting on the inside, looking out, as one who is referred to as a “consumer” of the “services” provided by the hospital, there was a speaker at the ceremony that struck me as having a message that was quite interesting, if more for what she did not say than for what she did say. I am referring to the Honourable Laurel Broten, Minister Responsible for Women's Issues and the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister Broten made the usual political “boxed” speech about how wonderful it was to be a part of such a tremendous event, but then she turned down a different route: she decided that it would be a good idea to use Shirley Greenberg as an example.

While there is an absolute incontrovertible need for the Resource Centre for Women, and for research to be aimed specifically at the way mental illnesses effect women, what Minister Broten said that made me take notice was her assertion that this donation from Shirley Greenberg was an example of how well the private sector could work with the public sector in providing the services we commonly call Health Care in Ontario. She remarked that this gift was similar to that which was being given by Bell Canada, which had provided $1 Million to the Royal Ottawa for the tele-psychiatry program. Minister Broten expressed her opinion that this was a wonderful example of how well the partnership between the private sector and the public sector was working; we had this new building, and now we had these new funds to look forward to as well. The only problem is that this only serves to provide the government with the false impression that they do not need to maintain their current level of funding, that they can continue to cut the amount that they have been spending on mental health care with the false belief that “someone else” will pick up the slack.

With all due respect, the Honourable Minister is wrong. Philanthropy is not the answer to the health care crises facing this country and believing that it can be is, to quote a phrase, magical thinking.

Mental illness has been steadily increasing as an issue, yet the level of spending has not kept up with the need. In 2008 only one Canadian province had a lower percentage of annual spending on mental health than Ontario: Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan designated 3.5% of its health care budget, or $146/person, while Ontario designated 4.3%, or $185/person. As a nation Canada also falls behind in spending when it comes to mental health as a part of the total budget. Falling short is really an understatement: when it comes to the allocation of spending on mental health Canada came in last, tied with Italy, spending nearly $6.6 Billion on this important matter, but that only represented 4.8% of our total health care budget or $197/person. On the other side of the spectrum, the nations that spent the most, as a portion of their total health care budget, were Britain (12.1%), Germany (10%), the Netherlands & Denmark (8%), the United States (7.5%), Ireland (6.8%) and Australia (6.7%).

The amount of money spent on a problem is obviously not the only determining factor as to the success of the programs in a nation; if it were the United States would not be experiencing the problems that they have in this area, but that has as much to do with the misallocation of funds and poor management rather than the actual available funds. In Canada, where our health care system is inexorably tied to the public money used to provide health care for everyone on an equal basis (in theory), there is an increasing inequity when it comes to the treatment and funding of mental illnesses. This inequity effects our society on two levels: first it has a direct bearing on the patients receiving treatment, making it increasingly difficult to gain access to the necessary services to maintain their health. On the second level it effects society directly as it must pay for the ramifications of a poorly maintained system that continues to allow individuals with potentially serious and, at times, life-threatening illnesses “fall through the cracks”. These individuals sometimes end up living on the streets, in a battle with more than their mental health issues, often with addictions to alcohol or illicit substances as well. The lack of appropriate primary mental health facilities – in other words, the lack of enough beds and staff that are equipped to deal with long term cases – has forced these individuals to rely on secondary health care providers such as over-extended clinics that are not prepared for transient psychiatric clients, family practitioners (if available) and emergency services when their health ultimately fails or their mental status requires a medical intervention of some sort.

The cost of mental illness to our society continues to increase yet the funding has not been keeping pace, putting a greater strain on the service providers of our society who are being forced to make due with less resources while provincial governments seek out ways to cut corners and save money by cutting funding to the mental health programs and abdicating their traditional responsibilities by partnering with businesses in order to “maximize” the profitability of the system. The problem with this mentality is that for as long as health care is considered a business, something through which profits can be generated, the people at the heart of the system – the patients – will be treated like “consumers” rather than individuals with specific needs that need to be addressed. “Consumers” purchase things; “patients” are treated for illnesses.

According to the Canadian Mental Health Association the cost of treating mental illness in Canada in 1993 was $7.331 billion. That figure rose to $7.9 billion in 1998, breaking down to $4.7 billion in actual health care costs and $3.2 billion for the cost of disability and early death. There was an additional cost of $6.3 billion spent on services that are not covered by medical insurance and for time off work for distress or depression (or other mental illnesses) that were not treated within the health care system. There are many reasons why someone would not seek treatment for mental illness, not the least of which being the stigma associated with these illnesses. Some people would rather suffer in silence rather than risk having someone know that they are suffering from something that can be treated ... unfortunately, this fear of discovery can lead to tragic endings that may be worse than anything that some stigma might bring.

In February of this year it was revealed that the Royal Ottawa was facing a $2 million shortfall in its operating fund thanks to cuts in the Ontario Provincial Budget. The brand new building that the new Shirley E. Greenberg Resource Centre for Women is in is running on less than it requires to provide the essential services needed by the patients in this community, but Minister Broten is of the impression that all is well in the battle against a group of diseases that, according to the World Health Organization, is going to cost more to the economy than cancer and HIV/AIDS combined. Psychiatry was praised for how much it helped Margaret Trudeau, but what was not mentioned was that the program that had the best tools for individuals battling affective disorders – the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Program – has been cancelled due to cutbacks. Praising that which your government is working actively at destroying is an obscenity.

While I join in thanking Shirley E. Greenberg for her generous gift to the Royal Ottawa, a gift that I am sure will help many women in desperate need of help, I must also question the climate that has necessitated such generosity. The first step in true health care reform, something that our system is unquestionably in need of, must include ending the profit-driven paradigm of our current health-care delivery system and turning instead toward a system that is truly patientcentric. We must stop thinking of those being treated for mental illnesses as “consumers” of a product but rather in realistic terms; we must return the dignity to the healing process and to individuals receiving care for illnesses as “patients” who are part of a healing process in which they play an active, informed role. When this is done we can begin to see positive change in the way mental illnesses are perceived and in so doing battle against the stigma associated with these illnesses. There is nothing wrong with the word “patient”, it is the attitude associated with the care being provided to them and with the person on the receiving end of that care that truly counts. The Shirley E. Greenberg Resource Centre for Women will go a long way in making it possible for many women to become empowered patients on the long road to recovery from mental illness. It is too bad the finances may not be there for everyone else in need in the community.

First Amendment: Flynt v Falwell. No Heroes Here

2010-09-07T14:06:00.001-04:00

In a discussion last night it was asserted by @AlejoEC that Larry Flynt, the long-time publisher of “Hustler” magazine, was a hero of the 1st Amendment as a result of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States (opinion rendered by Chief Justice Rehnquist) for having ruled in his favour against the ‘reverend’ Jerry Falwell. My feelings regarding the character of Jerry Falwell aside, I must state that the Court erred in their decision: the application of the First Amendment was never intended to trump the rights of the individual, regardless of whether or not that person is perceived as being a ‘public’ figure or not.

In the case Flynt v. Falwell the case is more complex than merely discussing the idea of a parody of an advertisement in a “men’s magazine”, it goes to the very nature of what our society views as acceptable satire and, more to the point, why we are willing to accept certain things as being acceptable forms of satire while other things are not acceptable. The First Amendment has long been heralded as an absolute conference of “free speech” but, in reality, that is not the case. There have been – and are – several instances in American law where the “freedom” to speak one’s mind is curtailed by the law. People simply are not aware of the restrictions that have been attached to their ‘liberties’ because nobody is challenging them. There is, for example, no freedom to openly libel people (though this is done regularly, it is illegal), and yet, what is the difference between the Flynt v. Falwell decision and openly libelling someone?

While it may go unnoticed, there are regular lawsuits filed against publications that publish false stories about celebrities (‘The Enquirer’ & ‘The Star’ being the most common offenders). Rather than publishing the lurid details of the stories what usually happens is that one or two lines are printed saying that a ‘settlement had been reached, for an undisclosed amount’, with the parties agreeing not to disclose the details. This is the fruit of “free speech” in America – or is it? This is the curtailing of intentional lies, when someone stands up for THEIR right not to have someone spread lies about them. Of course, the luxury of defending your personal honour is only possible when you can afford the legal actions necessary to prosecute the offender. Otherwise, the people printing and spreading the libelous rumors can rest comfortably in the knowledge that nobody will challenge them.

But it’s all in good fun, isn’t it? The papers would say that they were printing their stories just to ‘entertain’ people; nobody takes that stuff seriously, right? Wrong, and whether or not something is taken seriously is completely irrelevant. Is impugning the reputation of an individual NOT libel? What is libel? One definition of libel is “A false publication, such as might be found in writing, print, pictures, or signs, that may be damaging to an individual’s reputation” – which could be argued, and was argued by Flynt’s attorneys, was the same thing as ‘parody’ or ‘satire’ in their advertisement. Innocent fun? It’s all in innocent fun to have a laugh at the expense of someone else, right? That’s what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment, isn’t it?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Well, let’s see, the part about ‘free speech’ is not a separate clause, it is connected to the part just before – the part having to do with religion. It is then connected, afterward, with the ‘freedom of the press’, but the abridgement of free speech (or a free press) is composed in dignified terms, not out of tawdry intent. The framers were not looking to open a floodgate of satirical attacks against people that capitalized on weaknesses, disabilities, and any other perceived things that the satirist viewed as being ‘open’ to attack.

This as much goes to the nature of what we view – or accept – as being funny to what satirists desire to lampoon. The question becomes, is it a situation of censorship or sensibility? Whether or not the First Amendment covers a parody of Jerry Falwell in Larry Flynt’s magazine, one must ask themselves the question as to whether society really benefits from the publication of the magazine in the first place. Without examining the monthly publication history of the magazine from its inception it is with some level of confidence that I can say that I don’t expect the world would be devastated by the loss of a magazine filled with porn. If Americans believe that their free speech is represented by a magazine that strips the dignity of women, exploiting them based on what their bodies look like, and taking cheap shots at public figures through satirical ‘parodies’ that lack both originality and humour, then it isn’t a ‘right’ worth a damn. It is, in itself, a parody.

A right that exists solely as a result of the suffering of others is not a right, it is an illusion. You may have the right to express yourself, but if in doing so you hurt someone else, how is that a freedom? You may be ‘free’ to do so, but is it a ‘good’ thing to do? Is it the ‘right’ thing to do? You may be within your legal right to do something, but are you within your moral right to? Rights and freedoms are more complex than what appear on the page, they affect real people, real feelings, real lives, and the exercise of those rights have ramifications that extend far beyond the printed word.

Within the First Amendment, with this ‘right’ to parody the sexual life of Jerry Falwell, for example, sits the absolute right of freedom of religion. Having that as the First Amendment one would think there would be absolutely no issue with staunch conservatives in regards to the building of an Islamic Community Center anywhere, let alone near (within a few blocks) the former site of the World Trade Center. Of course, that is not how this has played out. The ‘right’ has come out virally against the ‘Mosque’ at Ground Zero because it ‘insults’ the victims, and yet, it is the constitutional RIGHT of anyone – of any religion – to worship, without interference. The government cannot stop them.

At the same time, if you deliberately speak lies – libel someone – your ‘right’ to do so shall be curtailed by the law. In essence, what this means is that your ‘right’ to free speech is NOT as absolute as you may think it is. It is an illusion. The courts have ruled on this in the past and it has been upheld (see Gooding v. Wilson 405 U.S. 518 (1972) in which the use of epithets or personal abuse is not considered proper communication or a sharing of opinion under the protection of the Constitution and is punishable as a criminal act under that instrument.).

It is alright to disagree with someone and it is alright to joke about them, but to denigrate an individual solely for the purpose of getting a laugh? Why? What is funny about causing another person pain (aside from the German ideal of ‘schadenfreude’ in which we derive pleasure from watching the misfortunes of someone else, though it is not really meant as the observance of something as banal as the parodies discussed herein). The idea that another person’s suffering is something that we should be deriving joy from is, at its base, something that we should be outgrowing as a species. Even children learn that this type of humour is inappropriate, particularly when it is directed toward them. Cruelty is not funny, it is just that – it denigrates and tears people down when we should be doing things to build each other up and encourage individuals.

Free speech, if it is such a precious commodity, should be revered rather than used by a purveyor of smut to make a fortune by denigrating women and stamping on their rights. When does one right trump another? If you have the right to free speech does that over-rule the rights of women to not be portrayed as nothing more than sex objects? How are women to be seen as fully equal (something guaranteed them under the 14th Amendment) if the exercise of the 1st Amendment subjugates them and portrays them purely as sexual objects to be used and tossed away when they no longer have anything to offer.

An argument used by some to defend Larry Flynt and his victory over the use of indecent parody has to do with the ‘right’ to be expressive in their writing. As a writer living in Canada, one who does not have ‘First Amendment’ protection I do not have the luxuries of living with such broad freedoms; in Canada there are lines that cannot be crossed in the world of publication, as protected by our Charter of Rights, and they are lines that have been emplaced to protect others. We cannot write things that foment hatred against others, nor can we disparage other ethnic or religious groups, and there are some other things that are not relevant to this discussion. Suffice it to say, the ‘freedoms’ that may seem curtailed – to someone with ‘First Amendment’ protections are, in reality, truly protections against mindless attacks by people who are unable to make a reasoned argument and must therefore resort to personal attacks rather than facing specific issues.

I have written several times in defense of the Islamic Community Center in New York, not because I am a Muslim – I am not – I am a Christian. My motive has been purely out of the existence of the First Amendment and a hatred of hypocrisy. My feelings about Islam have been formed out of having taken a course (an “Introduction to Islam”) while I was a student in university that introduced us to the precepts of the religion. Not Islamic extremism, not fundamentalist Islam – the Islam that is practiced by nearly one Billion Muslims around the world and which stands as one of the three monotheistic religions of the world.

One can study Islam in one of two ways, either with the benefit of a teacher who understands the religion and loves it or through the tainted gaze of the press, practicing their ‘freedom of speech’ in an attempt to formulate their own agenda, replete with graphics, pundits, and diverse experts opining about the dangers posed by the ‘devilish’ religion.

Free speech is only free when the rights of others are not impinged. If your free speech violates the rights of someone else, how is that freedom? The idea that ‘no man is an island’ exemplifies the idea as we see one person’s ‘rights’ cause suffering in someone else. This is not freedom, it is abusive.

If people want truly free speech they should first learn something about the respect of others and the dignity of humanity. We need an understanding of what equality means and that denigrating someone for your own monetary gain is being a mercenary, not an expresser of free speech.

As I said before, with all due respect to the Supreme Court, in the case of Flynt v. Falwell, they got the decision wrong. Flynt is not a hero of the First Amendment, he is just a sorry old purveyor of porn who should do the right thing and stop treating women like trash. Exploitation has nothing to do with freedom – it is antithetical to the ideal and stands in opposition to everything that freedom stands for. It is decidedly NOT free speech.

Composers in Discussion: #ccubed

2010-09-06T13:42:00.006-04:00

On September 11th the first '#ccubed' discussion will take place on Twitter for the purpose of sharing ideas and information relating to the composition of contemporary classical music. The idea for this came about as a result of a request from Twitter follower @DTclarinet asking me if I would be interested in hosting a discussion on the topic of composition. This was a fortuitous request as I had only recently begun working with a young composer over the Internet and had become quite interested with the idea of sharing what I know about music through this electronic medium.

First, what does '#ccubed' stand for? On Twitter the use of the ‘#’ creates a searchable topic. The idea for 'ccubed' came from ‘Consortium of Contemporary Composers’. You don’t have to join a group or club to participate, but if you are a composer – if you create new music – you are already part of a very select group of individuals, a group that has chosen their own path (or, some would argue, that the path has chosen them). So, for the sake of the discussion taking place on September 11th, at 2pm Eastern Standard Time (6pm Greenwich Mean Time), all you have to do is follow the '#ccubed' (in regular Twitter enter that – with the ‘#’ – into the ‘search’ panel on the right column. In Hootsuite you can set up a new tab or simply add '#ccubed' as a new stream. On your BlackBerry use the ‘search’ function. Alas, I don’t know how to access these things in any other Twitter program).

What will we be doing in these “Consortium” discussions? Well, that all depends ... what do YOU want to discuss? My background is as a composer of contemporary classical music for diverse instruments, both as solo, duet, chamber and orchestra. What I would really love to see is an integration of the use of the services of SoundCloud, which allows composers to post their music for absolutely NO cost, so that we could audition pieces and discuss them in the group. Here’s how I see this working: '#ccubed' will be running all the time – if you want to have your piece critiqued for an upcoming group it will have to be posted to SoundCloud (or another publically available forum – no pay/download sites). Once I have a chance to listen to the piece I will let you know whether or not it is appropriate for the purposes of the discussion (it would be even better if a score were also available – I use Finale 2010). A piece might be rejected if I feel I have nothing constructive to say about it or if it is not in a genre that fits the group (a synthesized looped pad will not tell me anything about your technical ability or grasp of musical concepts).

People could also post ideas through #twitlonger with '#ccubed' at the beginning with idea proposals – or questions that they’d like answered/discussed. Again, given reasonable time, I would be open to this as well.

More than anything else, I want this to be an open, organic discussion about the composition of contemporary classical music. If that falls into the aesthetics of contemporary music – great – I could talk about that for days! If we talk about the techniques surrounding a particular instrument – well, that will be great to – but – there IS going to be a special discussion at some point on “All Things Clarinet” – specifically by request of @DTclarinet.

Above all else, participation is of paramount importance. While I’m sure that it would be possible for me to sit and tweet – non-stop – for one hour about one particular topic, that is not how this was conceived. It is meant to be a ‘call and response’ – an interactive DISCUSSION. So, PLEASE – when 2pm rolls around, don’t be afraid to throw your hat in the ring and have fun talking – tweeting – about the most expressive of the arts: composition.

After this discussion @DTclarinet will be hosting a discussion on a new breathing technique called ‘Flow Breathing and Suspension Support’. Find his discussion by following '#floB' at 3pm on Sept. 11th.

Future discussions on '#ccubed' will be ongoing, but I would like to host these
special groups on every 2nd Saturday of the month: Once a month, on the Second Saturday. So, the NEXT discussion, after September 11, will be on October 9, and then on November 13.

Follow '#ccubed' for updates, scheduling changes, and ongoing discussions relating to composition and the creation of new music.

Please follow the link in the sidebar to hear some of my pieces at my Soundcloud account.

Taxation with Representation

2010-08-12T14:34:00.006-04:00

One of the blogs I follow with some regularity is maintained by my father; the blog, 'Desertpeace', presents a variety of articles about the situation regarding the plight of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis. It is an anti-Zionist website that often presents political cartoons by associate bloggers, as well as other articles by journalists who regularly post to the site in an effort to share their views with as large an audience as possible. In a post that appeared on the 8th of August, a post that was a cartoon entitled the 'Boycott Toon of the Day' a comment was posted regarding the conviction of Sherry Jackson for failure to pay her taxes. While I read a few articles pertaining to the Jackson case, that is not what this post is about, nor am I claiming to be familiar with the particulars of the case. What compelled me to write this was a comment suggesting that no law exists in the United States compelling its citizens to pay taxes.

Many times people question the legality of taxation in the United States without realizing that there are, in fact, laws stipulating that it is legal – lawful – for the government to collect taxes from the citizens of the nation. First, ratified in 1913 is the 16th Amendment of the Constitution – an obscure, often unused document that is usually only used when Americans want to protect their ‘right’ to carry a firearm (without having to serve in a militia).

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” If that isn’t explicit enough, there’s more … but it will only upset you (it isn’t from the 16th …).

Title 26 of the US Code is also known as the Internal Revenue Code and contains the statutory tax laws of the land, including the tax rates according to level of income (which demonstrates that Americans are being taxed at the lowest rate since long before Ronnie Ray-Guns).

So, yes Virginia, it is lawful for Americans to ‘pay their fair share’, it is part of the law of the land to dig into your pocket and help pay for the roads others use and pay for the health care that someone else consumes – why – because that’s what makes a country great – that’s what allows a country to continue.

The fact that the country’s taxes are also spent, unfortunately, on the machines of war is something that must be addressed by the influence of the public through the ballots they cast and the pressure they put on those who represent them in Washington. As soon as you say ‘nothing we do will make a difference’ you are right: nothing YOU do WILL make a difference with that attitude. Just remember, a ‘community organizer’ with ‘no experience’ managed to galvanize enough people when he shouldn’t have (according to the ‘experts’) and did what ‘shouldn’t’ have been possible.

As it was said at the beginning of the movie ‘Armageddon’: It happened before, it will happen again.

Americans have to come to the realization that they have been lied to by people too lazy to read the law: Taxation, with representation, is the law of the land. What must be addressed is the representation part – the taxes are necessary to make the nation function. Would you rather not have things like fire departments, schools, and other things funded with public monies? Who are you going to call if your house is burning or someone has had a heart attack and you need to access the 9-1-1 service? This is one of the great positions of Libertarians – it’s great to believe we can ‘do for ourselves’ and ‘stand on our own’, until you can’t – until you need the help of someone because you are in a position that requires assistance. That is the way of humanity. It is why we live in communities with other people – note the word ‘community’ – the root word being ‘commune’, people coming to live together for the ‘common good’ – sort of like ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’.

One of the functions of Government is to make the ‘community’ in which we live run smoothly, focusing on the needs of the people rather than the profits of a few select organizations. That is what we need to address. Stop the obscene spending on military expeditions that are unnecessary and inherently racist and focus on the needs of the people. But, if your income fits into one of the taxable brackets established in the tax code, pay your damn taxes – and raise the rates for the highest bracket to an appropriate level that is more in line with what is fair and proportional to what they are able to pay. That way there will be enough for everyone, especially if those with the most pay their fair share. If everyone would pay according to what they could afford it would be possible for everyone to have what they needed to live.

The Christian 'Right' Isn't

2010-07-21T01:29:00.004-04:00

Let's get something straight, once and for all: the 'Christian Right' isn't. They are neither Christian, or right. Let me explain.

First of all, before going any further, it should be 'Religious Right' not 'Christian Right'; they are motivated by a warped legalistic adherence to Christianity as a religion rather than applying the principals taught by Jesus to the political sphere in which they function. Is Christianity reconcilable with a 'right-wing' agenda? No, not at all. Jesus taught love and reconciliation, not condemnation and judgment. He dismissed and condemned the use of the death penalty in His day, and demonstrated that violence is never the answer to our problems. Taking these as only a small sample of the ideals espoused by the founder of our faith it seems incongruous to have a group calling itself 'Christian' that supports things like the death penalty, is opposed to programs that support the poor, the sick, the indigent, and supports wars against two nations that never committed an act of violence against the United States. How does that reflect a Christian ideal by any stretch of the imagination?

The recent roadblock by the GOP in the Senate against allowing for the provision of the benefits for the unemployed provides a crystal clear example of the perversion of this brand of 'Christianity' and how it has been warped beyond anything that resembles the truth presented by in the Gospels. Rather than doing something for the people that have lost their jobs, rather than stepping up and working for their constituents, the GOP Senators decided to vilify those individuals who had lost their jobs, blaming them for their misfortune and claiming that these benefits would encourage them to stay unemployed (rather than encouraging them to pay their bills and feed their families which is what most of the unemployed are looking forward to doing).

Regardless of the evidence that for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits more than $1.60 is returned to the economy (this money is NOT saved, it is SPENT - it STIMULATES the economy - always), the GOP would rather focus on Tax Cuts that ADD to the deficit. Interestingly enough, even Jesus understood that this was Voodoo economics: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Jesus understood the principal that taxation was NECESSARY and that it was a lawful and good thing for a citizen to pay their taxes.

It's time for those on the 'right' to stop pretending to follow the teachings of Jesus when they know they have nothing in common with the seditious Jew that was sent to his death for posing a threat to the government of the day. Jesus - and His followers - were radicals - they taught that we have a power to change the world, that we are not to be conformed to the world, and that the world is enmity to the one to whom we owe our lives. We are also taught that true Christians are persecuted because they pose a threat to the status quo - how does that work for the 'Christian Right' - the were in power, weren't they? That doesn't exactly sound like a 'persecuted' class of believers, does it?

No, there is nothing 'Christian' about the 'Christian Right' - neither is there anything 'right' about them. Religious - absolutely - dogmatically so, but Christian? I'm afraid not, at least, not the Jesus I know. Just ask yourself the question as you look at the image of the two men depicted here: which do you imagine to be the Lord? Many will naturally select the 'well groomed' image that typifies western depictions of the Lord, but the reality of the matter was that Jesus - Yeshua (or Y'shua) would have not looked like a European, well coiffed, gentleman if he was born in Palestine around 3 BCE. The image of the darker skinned man with the kinky hair - the guy most white conservatives would walk past without giving a second look (the guy who would be pulled over in Arizona for looking 'foreign') is much closer to what the real Jesus probably looked like, and his features can still be found amongst the faces of those living in the war-torn land of His birth today.

Let that be the final word on the matter ... for now.

CrazyComposer - aka Peter Amsel
Peter Amsel has been a Christian for 21 years and an ordained minister for 11.

Much Ado about Helen

2010-06-07T13:57:00.004-04:00

A tremendous amount has been made over the words uttered by Helen Thomas recently, words spoken on May 27th, interestingly enough four days before the attack by the Israeli Defence Forces against a flotilla of unarmed civilians bringing humanitarian aid to besieged refugees in Gaza. Nine innocent and unarmed civilians were slaughtered by the defenders of the Zionist state, but it’s not okay to criticize them, is that what we are hearing? I listened to what Helen Thomas said and listened carefully; she understands history and is more than capable of reporting her stories without bias.

When asked if she had anything to say about Israel she said, ‘tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.’ When asked if she had ‘anything better’ to say, Thomas continued, ‘remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land; it’s not German [sic], it’s not Poland.’ Having heard this answer Rabbi Nesenoff, the man conducting and filming the interview, proceeded to ask a loaded question that indicated he fully understood that Thomas was discussing contemporary immigrants, not Jews who had been born Israel.

When asked, ‘where should they [the Jews] go’, Thomas replied, ‘go home, Poland, Germany, and America, and everywhere else.’

This answer lies at the crux of the controversy causing many to label Helen Thomas as an Anti-Semite who is insensitive to history; even her colleague and co-author, Craig Crawford, has announced that he will no longer be working on future book projects with Thomas as a result of this comment, but is that an over-reaction? Was Helen wrong? Was she taken out of context?

Under the ‘Right of Return’ law Jews are allowed to become citizens of Israel by virtue of being Jewish, even if they were born in America. Someone born in the ‘Holy Land’ who is not of Jewish descent, on the other hand, is not allowed to live in the home of their ancestors as it has been stolen and turned into a ‘settlement’, all so the ‘Jewish State’ can reclaim its Biblical borders.

Thomas’ reply was not insensitive to history, it was correct in every way to the political realities of the warped ‘Right of Return’ law and how it discriminates against non-Jews living in the Holy Land. When asked, ‘where should they go’, she replied, ‘go home, Poland, Germany, and America, and everywhere else.’ She did not say they should be killed or expelled, which is something that Israel routinely does to the Palestinians living within the borders of the state, but that can be dismissed as an ‘inconvenient truth’ that nobody wants to discuss.

As a result of this honest answer the website that interviewed her, ‘Rabbilive’ asked the pointed question as to whether or not Helen Thomas could be trusted. They posted, at the end of her ‘interview’ that six million Jews ‘were killed at home … In Germany and Poland. Does Helen know that Jews have lived in Israel way before the Holocaust?’

Yes, I’m sure Helen knows this fact, however, does that mitigate the fact that Israel has been carrying on a war against their neighbours? That they have been using criminally devious tactics, including the use of White Phosphorus artillery shells, against civilians living in Gaza while stealing land in order to continue with the development of the settlements that have been condemned by many civilized nations on this planet?

The most outrageous part of this ridiculous episode has come from, of all places, the Administration of the United States President. Press Secretary Gibbs should have made no comment about Helen Thomas’ comment for the simple reason that she is NOT part of the Administration. Of course her comments are not a reflection of the official policy of the government; even after Israel murdered nine innocent civilians the government has sat on its hands as though it were afraid to say anything nasty, as though it might offend the mighty Jewish State and send them into a whirlwind of retaliation against the United States.

Excuse me, but when did the State of Israel become more powerful than the United States of America? I’m sorry, but I just don’t ascribe to that crap about the Jews controlling that much power: they control as much as you allow them to control. If you stop listening to the AIPAC lobby they have no power. AIPAC can only influence people when they are listened to; otherwise they are a Zionist tool that should be expelled for sedition. They serve the interests of a foreign state, not the United States.

President Obama may stand up and say that Israel should stop building settlements and that Jerusalem should be a city for all, but the truth of the matter is that the Zionist State of Israel is a nation guided by a policy of institutional racism. Anyone who has lived through the Civil Rights Movement in the United States or has studied the fall of Apartheid in South Africa, or has any inkling of the history behind the Holocaust should be able to see this as clearly as the rising of the sun in the morning and the rising of the moon at night.

What we must also understand is that it is NOT Anti-Semitism to criticize the policies of the State of Israel. To be against the ideals of Zionism is not to be against the Jew just as being a Democrat in the United States does not make you ‘unpatriotic’. The idea that this is so is one of the lies perpetuated by the Zionists to defend the indefensible; they know their policies lead to the deaths of innocent people so they hide behind the label of ‘Anti-Semitism’, knowing that anyone labeled with it will be stigmatized and will have to shrink away.

I am a Jew. My mother is a Jew and my father is a Jew … and my father lives in Jerusalem. Branches of my family went to the death camps during the Holocaust. Go ahead, call me an Anti-Semite; you won’t be the first.

As for Helen Thomas, BRAVA! It’s about time people in the press started speaking out against the atrocities being committed by the State of Israel … and just in case you missed it, her comments were made on May 27th; Israel attacked a flotilla carrying aid to Gaza on May 31, killing 9 unarmed civilians.

A Legend Passes: Lena Horne, Dead at 92

2010-05-10T10:44:00.007-04:00

Only a handful of artists can claim that they have influenced generations of performers, as well as having fought in the Civil Rights movement, and fighting to break down the barriers of racism against black artists in America even before that movement started: Lena Horne is one of those artists. She died on Sunday in New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

An obituary of Lena Horne can be found here.

Lena Horne biography from IMDB, the International Movie Database.

Lena Horne in the Encyclopedia of World Biography.

In Honour of International Women's Day

2010-03-08T16:28:00.003-05:00

March 8 is the day we celebrate International Women’s Day, a day to honour and acknowledge the importance of the women in our lives and to reflect on the importance of those who, thanks to their selfless contributions, have made the world a much better place in which to live. This year the celebration falls on the first day of the work week, but that does not confer a day off for all of the working women of the world, it merely provides the day upon which the occasion is to be observed; alas, International Women’s Day does not – as of yet – command the same level of celebratory spirit as Thanksgiving Day or Memorial Day, though it is surely at least as important, particularly when you consider the significance of what is being celebrated.

If the importance of an event is tied to its historical background and what it commemorates then International Women’s Day should be held as one of the major observances on the calendar; it is a day that celebrates only a small sample of what women have strived to accomplish since its inception in the last century in their quest to preserve the species which could not exist without the pains of their labours. It is only through the anguish of women’s labour and the pains that they have endured throughout the ages that has allowed for the development of our modern society and continues to allow for the very existence of our lives today.
Without the struggles that women have endured, often at the risk of their very lives, we would be living in a society where civil rights was far from being the fulfilled dream that it has become in many parts of the world, and the struggle continues. Without the struggles of women, without the constant vigil that they keep at the eternal flame of hope for generations yet unborn, the chance of our civilization escaping the turmoil that has become its constant threat would be, at best, minimal. Women fight for civil and human rights for the simple reason that they understand that true equality only exists when everyone is treated with dignity and respect and are truly equal: anything less is the equivalent to the continued enslavement of all humanity, regardless of race, colour or creed. Without full equality for all men and women, without ensuring that all peoples are provided the opportunity to be self-determinate in the selection of who they shall be governed by, and without the right to access quality health care and education, the work of women and the symbol of what International Women’s Day is all about will continue to stand as a beacon of hope for the future.

The day shall come when the things these brave women struggle for becomes the cause of everyman for we shall realize that their struggle is our struggle; we shall recognize that what we call women’s issues are not that, they are things that men fought for in their unions at the turn of the twentieth century, but memories of labour solidarity are often precariously short, particularly when it is in the best interest of those in power to cultivate an atmosphere of amnesia. When the labour unions fought for their right to exist and to negotiate their first contracts they had to face the ‘scabs’ and strike-breakers who were sent in by management to break their will, to drive them back to work for less than what they had been making before they became ‘organized’, but that was not acceptable. By sticking together – by struggling for their rights as exploited employees – the unionized employees of the United States and Canada won such dramatic concessions from their bosses as the ‘right’ to have a forty-hour work week, the ‘right’ to have an un-paid coffee break (sometimes two) of fifteen minutes, the ‘right’ to have an unpaid lunch of thirty minutes, and sometimes the ‘right’ to even have a pension after working for twenty-five years or more.

In tribute to International Women’s Day I could easily create a list of a number of women whom I look up to and admire for their contributions to various fields of study, the arts, politics, and life in general, but such a list would fall pathetically short of fully expressing the breadth of the respect and appreciation that I feel for a group of people that I consider to be amongst the greatest to have lived. It is a list that, were I to produce it, would include several dead notables, not the least of whom would be Rosa Parks for the role she played as a young women in the civil rights movement in Montgomery, Alabama. No list would be complete without the inclusion of such extraordinary women as Clara Schumann, George Sands, and Marie Curie.

Of course, there is no way that this tribute could end without acknowledging the most important woman in the world: she is the woman from whose life mine own began. My mother marched on Washington with Martin Luther King, Jr., and was active in the civil rights movement in the United States before moving to Canada in 1967, the year before I was born. Her struggles for the advancement of ‘the cause’ did not end after marriage or becoming a mother; if anything, having a child made her all the more cognizant of the need for change. After the United Nations declared 1975 the International Year of the Woman my mother was a member of a grass-roots group called ‘Women Helping Women’ that took the ‘struggle’ to the street and sought out practical solutions to the issues facing women during bleak economic times.
The times have changed, thus the struggle continues.

Killing G.I. Joe

2010-02-18T12:05:00.006-05:00

There is a movement afoot; a coordinated effort to convince Hasbro to kill G.I. Joe. This time I'm in favour of the killing for this is no mere soldier we are talking about: G.I. Joe is a tool to shape the minds of children as they practice the 'games' of war with the additional components that Joe has access to thanks to the clever folks at Hasbro. They provide more than a clear picture as to what Joe is going to be doing: this soldier is NOT going to Haiti do distribute humanitarian aid, this soldier is going to war. He's gonna' get some.

Is that really what children need to be playing with in a time when violence is only getting worse? In a time when there are real wars going on is it not reasonable to think that children should be engaged in activities of peace - activities that do not have anything to do with maiming and destroying the lives of others - if only as a 'game' or 'for pretend'. War is not 'for pretend', it is perhaps the most real experience that any individual will experience, if they are lucky enough to survive. We glorify the actions of 'war heroes' and veterans, but often fail to remind everyone - especially the youngest - that war is NOT glamerous: it violates the dignity of person and right of all, and condemns those involved to a nightmare that may never end. War is as real as it gets: there is no 'pretend' about it. G.I. Joe has no place as a toy for children.

It is not difficult to imagine that we become as adults what we practice as children. Those who spend their time with a violin in their hand or sitting patiently at a piano will often find themselves in a career in music or otherwise engaged in creative activities while some of the kids who were athletically inclined are now being watched by the world as they perform at the Vancouver Olympic Games, where the best of the winter athletes have gathered together for what is supposed to be the greatest peaceful exhibition of winter sports.

How difficult is it to imagine that there is a great deal to say here about the 'nurturing' environment and how it influences what happens to children involved in activities that aim the energies of the child into a more destructive direction? Can it be so hard to accept that the kids who grow up playing the violent games, particularly the video games that flood their consciousness with thousands of violent images every time they play their 'game' and 'role playing' games, where they pretend to be characters in the action, can often result in these children growing up to become anti-social adults who have difficulty relating to the rest of the world? Violence begets violence as surely as eating nothing but McDonald's will leave your body diseased and on the road to an early death (as demonstrated in the documentary by Morgan Spurlock).

If the saying 'you are what you eat' is true how much more the expression 'you are what you play'? Can you imagine what Gandhi did as a child? I can't believe that he played with guns and pretended to stage small wars with his toys. What about Nelson Mandela? While imprisoned for his desire to live as a free man in the nation he was born in he did not spend his time growing bitter or being consumed with hate; he read poetry, studied to improve himself, and - most importantly - perfected his ability to forgive and preach and teach his inspirational message of the importance of reconciliation for the future of South Africa. That doesn't sound like the type of guy who grew up playing with a G.I. Joe.

Children may want a toy because a friend of theirs has one or they have seen it on television, but parents have to realize that getting a child everything that they want is not necessarily the best way to make their child happy - and it certainly isn't the best thing for the child. Rather than succumbing to the pressures (from children and advertising) to purchase violent toys parents can take the first step by offering alternate venues for their children to exercise their playtime in creative, peaceful ways.

If enough people stop buying the G.I. Joe doll because it becomes something that no longer fits into the vision of what should be marketed to children then one thing will surely happen: Joe will not return from his last mission. He will be declared KIA and be pulled from the shelves. That day cannot come soon enough.

Stealing Babies for Jesus

2010-02-01T11:26:00.004-05:00

Image © by Ben Heine
The tragedy of the January 12th earthquake in Haiti is still producing heart wrenching stories that challenge our very abilities to comprehend the most elemental components of human behaviour. The most recent story to raise the hackles of those who vigilant enough to care is that of a group ten Southern Baptists from Idaho who have been detained in Haiti after attempting to take 33 children into the Dominican Republic as ‘orphans’. The only problem was that the Americans not only didn’t have papers for any of the children, some of the children were not orphans; some being old enough to explicitly state for themselves that they were not in fact orphans, something that some might call a minor issue and which others might call the ‘illegal trafficking of children’.

Read the entire story here.

The thing that frightens me the most about this story is the casual disregard that these individuals have shown for the law of a land in turmoil. Rather than trying to work within the system – to use their talents and abilities to help rebuild the demolished Haitian system – they instead chose to circumvent it, believing that the easy route was the best route, without questioning the legality or the morality of their choice. They certainly weren’t concerned about the fact that some of the children that they assumed needed to be ‘rescued’ were, in essence, being kidnapped. If this is the state of contemporary Christian missionary work, God help those who are being ministered to; do they now have to be concerned about where their children are while the missionaries take them to school?

In Memory: Irena Sendler

2009-12-03T17:08:00.007-05:00

It has been brought to my attention that there are factual errors in the section about Irena Sendler. These were posted inadvertently, as the result of having received a 'viral' email from a well meaning friend. I have corrected those errors and encourage all readers to visit the link provided for Irena Sendler, as well as the link to the documentary film made about her, provided in the comments section (comment no. 1). CrazyComposer.

Seventy years after the beginning of the Second World War, the second ‘war to end all wars’, the rhetoric regarding historical facts seems to be something that becomes more and more ‘up for debate’ with the passage of each day. At the same time, if one takes the time to look around it is still possible to see living examples of the uncommon heroes that resisted the tyrannical fascist machine as it attempted to devour Europe and all those who did not fit into the paradigm of the master race. The truth, as horrific as it may be, should not be allowed to be silenced even when it contradicts the sensibilities of those who are incapable of believing that an act so inconceivably evil was carried out against not only the Jewish people of Europe, but against the other perceived enemies of the Third Reich. The list of untermenschen (sub-humans) that the Nazis deigned unworthy of living, aside from der Juden (the Jews) under their rule included homosexuals, individuals with various disabilities, including mental illnesses and mental retardation, Magyars, Communists and other political activists, ethnic Poles and Slavs, and numerous religious individuals who would not bow to the regime of the crooked cross. While the pursuit of the truth, particularly in areas where the truth has been difficult to perceive in the past, is never something that should be discouraged, the increasingly common trend amongst those claiming to be scholars seems to demonstrate that there is something of a variable nature when considering historical facts. Many of these contemporary scholars have not been conducting research into issues surrounding the Second World War at all, preferring to indulge in their own ‘search’ for the truth. This has not involved research insomuch as it has served as an opportunity for these ‘researchers’ to codify their own warped opinions regarding what really happened during the Holocaust, placing their unsupportable assumptions alongside other conspiracy theories that are not founded in truth but rather in poorly crafted propaganda aimed at supporting the racist agendas that lead them down the road of historical revisionism, where changing facts rather than displaying any interest in the discovery or preservation of the truth becomes the priority.

The active distortion of history has become the vocation – perhaps something of an obsession – for several organizations operating with the singular purpose of distorting the history of the past in order to suit the ideological slant of their personal agendas. These overtly racist agendas that deny the attempted genocide of several peoples, not only the Jews, during one of the darkest periods in the history of humanity, can be found in many publications and across many websites that proclaim to preach the ‘truth’ about the ‘history’ of what happened during the war, only to proclaim insidious lies, distortions, and perversions of the truth that cannot be substantiated except with manufactured evidence and the fanatical ravings of neo-fascist evangelists who imagine the possibility of an eventual emergence of a Fourth Reich. These distortions and lies could not make up for the fact that the overwhelming historical evidence could not be dismissed so easily. The evidence of things that had not only been documented by first-hand observers and by those who escaped the horrors of the holocaust, bringing with them the testimony of their own survival may not be convincing enough for some, but when you pair that with the records kept by the very perpetrators of the acts themselves who, in their manic pursuit of creating a purified race, kept concise records regarding the numbers of innocent lives exterminated in the name of ethnic cleansing. Having had an opportunity to examine a great deal of this evidence as it has been well documented and verified by witnesses (proud Nazis who unrepentantly told of their exploits as members of the Einsatzgruppen), and having had the honour to meet some of the individuals who survived the holocaust, there is nothing that could shake my view of the historical facts that many try so desperately to invalidate with their ‘revised’ versions of history.

I grew up learning about the Holocaust from my family and from survivors that I met when visiting relatives in New York. There was never any doubt in my mind as to the horrors that had been inflicted upon humanity by the unchallenged evil that had been allowed to ravage Europe in the hopes that the Nazis would destroy the Soviets and still be brought under control when it became necessary. With the political foot-dragging by the United States the Nazi war machine was able to develop into the nearly unstoppable beast that it was, which ultimately nearly defeated the combined allied forces allayed against it; alas, this allowed for the extermination of many more innocent lives than if there had been a concerted effort to stop the genocidal acts of the Nazis from the beginning of their aggression in 1939. After everything that I had thought that I'd known about the atrocities of the Holocaust, and the stories of heroism that had come out of the unspeakable horrors, it surprised me to discover the existence of a woman who, like Oskar Schindler, saved the lives of thousands of Jews (in the case of Sendler 2,500 Jewish children).

Over a week ago I received an email from a friend telling me about the death of this hero about whom I had never heard, and yet I was deeply saddened to hear of her death, even at the age of 98. I could not help feel a sense of loss at not having had an opportunity to find out something about this remarkable woman before she died. Who was Irena Sendler? How had she managed to find herself in a situation where she could save the lives of 2,500 infants and children, smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto in her plumbing toolbox? The story seems completely unbelievable ... and it is: that is what I received in an email, but it turns out that Irena was not a plumber at all, she worked as a senior administrator in the Warsaw Social Welfare Department, which operated canteens throughout the city, before the establishment of the Warsaw Ghetto. These canteens had provided meals as well as financial aid, clothing, medicine and money for the Jews who were registered under fictitious Christian names. In order to prevent inspections by the Nazis, Jewish families were reported as having highly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and typhus.

Having read what little I have about Irena Sendler I feel deeply enriched for having discovered the story of her life, a story that I am now be able to share in some small part in order to battle those who attempt to perpetuate lies about the Holocaust which they maintain 'did not happen'.

The Warsaw Ghetto was established in 1942: a 16 block area in which hundreds of thousands of Jews were sealed behind walls, their dignity and hope stolen by the Nazis as everything they had was taken in exchange for the smallest advantage they could eek out in order to survive. When Irena Sendler saw the conditions of the Ghetto she decided to join the Zegota, the Council for Aid to Jews, which was organized by the Polish underground resistance movement and which carried out numerous operations throughout the occupation of Poland by the Nazis. Sendler was one of their first recruits and directed the rescue of Jewish children.

In order to enter the Warsaw Ghetto legitimately, Irena was issued a pass from the Epidemic Control Department (what would be considered a branch of the Public Health Department), which allowed her to visit the Ghetto on a daily basis. It was during this time that Irena Sendler, with the help of many others, including the assistance of the Polish church, that almost 2,500 children were saved from the clutches of the Nazis. The children were given a chance at the one thing the did not have in the Ghetto: life.

During the war Irena kept a record of the names of each of the children that she managed to smuggle out of the Warsaw Ghetto, hiding them in a glass jar under a tree in her backyard. At the end of the war it was her hope to reunite as many families as possible, but most of the parents had gone to the gas chambers and the majority of the children went into foster homes and were adopted.

For the acts of bravery that she committed, and for the danger that this put her in, Irena Sendler not only saved the lives of thousands, she paid a terrible price: she was captured by the Nazis and thrown into the Pawiak Prison where the Gestapo broke her feet and legs. If anyone deserved the honour, Irena Sandler was a woman who truly deserved to be ranked amongst the Righteous Among the Nations the Holocaust Memorial in Israel that includes Oskar Schindler and thousands of other non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save the lives of Jews from the Nazis.

In May of 2007 Irena Sendler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for her life saving actions during the Holocaust. The prize was awarded to former United States Vice-President Al Gore for his work on climate change. Irena Sendler passed away on May 12th, 2008. Her legacy lives on in the lives of each individual she saved and the families that they became.

(A documentary has been produced about Irena Sendler, 'In the Name of Their Mothers: The Story of Irena Sendler'. The url for this is in the first comment.)

Oprah Winfrey: False Prophetess for the New Age

2009-10-21T14:17:00.007-04:00

The secret of eternal youth for women may have been discovered; it very well may be tied to daily injections of oestrogen into the vagina. Interested in trying? If you are a regular follower of the High Priestess of Daytime Television, the Prophetess of the New Age Oprah Winfrey, the likelihood is that you will have already encountered information such as this from many of the eclectic quests gracing the stage of the show that has become an institution. You may also have unwittingly been exposed to information that could kill you if you took it to heart too seriously, for this is a show that, in its ongoing attempts to entertain, presents points of views from seemingly every spectrum available, without bothering to check whether those views may or may not be potentially harmful to anyone attempting the advice being promoted on the show or in one of the many books recommended by the hostess.

It all begins and ends with Oprah, or so it would seem. As various guests parade across the stage of the show that has become the personal soap-box for whatever new philosophy happens to have intrigued Oprah Winfrey few people are aware of the real dangers that may be facing the audiences that willingly expose themselves to Oprah and the guru-du-jour who has come to peddle their wares, dangers that are as real as death itself. While Suzanne Somers and her vaginal oestrogen therapy may never become the ‘next big thing’ there are some things that should not be dismissed so quickly, particularly when they result in the loss of human life. That is exactly what happened when two people who had decided to pursue the vision of one of the ‘gurus’ appearing on Winfrey’s show died while participating in a ‘spiritual cleansing’ modeled after Native American ‘sweat lodge’.

The coverage of the tragic deaths, and their connection to Oprah Winfrey, has surprisingly gained very little coverage in the mains stream media. The article in the Ottawa Citizen was found in the third section, the ‘Arts & Life’ section, on page six (Oct. 20). Adding insult to injury, as it were, the Citizen, truncated the original article, as it had originally run in the Sunday London Times, leaving out more than two full paragraphs of the article. While it is important to point out that Oprah Winfrey had absolutely nothing to do with the retreat attended by the two men who died, it also seems significant that the man who organized the ‘spiritual warrior’ retreat, James Arthur Ray, had appeared on Winfrey’s show at least twice in order to promote his ‘spiritual cleansing’. The deaths are currently being investigated as possible homicides, but you can be sure that Oprah Winfrey will not be charged with contributory negligence for having promoted the means by which two men died and at least 19 others were taken to hospital as a result of their participation in the ‘cleansing’ in the ‘sweat lodge’. Being a billionaire, after all, does have its perks.

For Oprah Winfrey there is a different kind of justice apparently; a justice that need not be concerned with the veracity of that which is being promoted on your show. Why should the truth matter, people may ask; after all, Oprah is not in the news business, just as Fox Noise was released from the terrible constraints of telling the truth when faced with the moral dilemma of broadcasting a story about Bovine Growth Hormone in milk manufactured by Monsanto in Florida. News and truth do not go hand in hand, according to the courts, why should Oprah be concerned about what appears on her show? Perhaps because of the decency of morality, or because she might just care about the people that have made her obscenely wealthy through years of faithful watching; that element of naïveté may sound admirable, but it is hardly practical in a business that lives by the adage ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. Sensationalism sells, period. We all recognize this when we look at anything on that most watched piece of terrain in our possession. Television has, for the past several years, used sensationalism to greater extents, all to attract larger and larger audiences. But when people start to die as a result of the advice being peddled on television shows, that imaginary line that exists in the sand is crossed, and all bets are off.

For the faithful viewer of the Oprah Winfrey show there is the implied message of endorsement when a guest appears. When she presents the latest New Age guru who either has a new book or a spiritual ‘process’ that they have ‘discovered’ and which, when employed by those who need to ‘reconnect’ with their ‘unfulfilled’ lives, will work miracles, the message that is received is that ‘you need to do this’. If being on the Oprah Winfrey show is not an endorsement of one’s product or philosophy, it is difficult to imagine a show that has had a lesser influence on the careers of its guests after their appearances. The Oprah ‘Book Club’ is only one example of how Winfrey exerts her personal taste changes the fortunes of writers over night; of course, when some of the books she endorses turn out to be frauds it does not seem to bother Oprah Winfrey one iota. It makes for an excuse to have the writer on the show for another interview.

When the bestselling memoir by James Frey was shown to be a fake, Winfrey was embarrassed, but not enough to stop recommending books that had not been fully checked for facts. Further embarrassment came from her love for a fictional account of a holocaust survival story. Writers that incorrectly labeled their works as non-fiction is one thing, however, death is something altogether different. People do not usually die after reading a book (not even a bad book, though you may want to die). Giving someone an opportunity to spread their ideas when you have no idea as to whether or not they may be dangerous is, in a word, reckless. It demonstrates that Oprah does not care about her audience, only the bottom line; she is only concerned with what she can get from having those bodies in the seats and the advertisers filling the minutes when she isn’t spreading the idiocy being spouted by her guests.

This is not only something limited to the spiritual pursuits of those who sought the cleansing in Sedona where the two deaths took place, earlier in October. Oprah Winfrey has made a habit of presenting questionable medical advice on her show, an issue that was investigated in a Newsweek magazine story this year. Does it matter that an organization with no less clout than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared that there is no proximal connection between the MMR (Mumps, Measles and Rubella) vaccine and autism. No, that doesn’t matter because Jenny McCarthy believes the MMR vaccine caused her son’s autism, therefore it must be true. After all, a former Playboy model turned actress must be smarter than a bunch of scientists who work for the government at the CDC, right? But, faithful fans of Oprah are now ‘well versed’ in the causes of autism; or not.

The fact that there has not been any peer-reviewed study to connect autism to the MMR vaccine has done nothing to convince Oprah Winfrey that one of the guests she holds in such high esteem may be wrong; perish the thought. Apparently infallibility is one of the things conferred to guests of the Oprah show; infallibility and book sales. Not to mention clients lining up to get into their quasi-Native American ‘Sweat Lodges’ so they can have their ‘spiritual cleansings’, all for the bargain basement price of $11,000. So, for $22,000 two people died; anyone for refunds?

Review: Aviat A-1A Husky - What you Need to Know about this Aircraft

2009-09-13T12:39:00.007-04:00

It is sometimes difficult to convey the ideal type of aircraft that X-Plane is suited for as every response is likely to inspire a debate unto itself regarding the virtues of various aircraft and the abilities of X-Plane to emulate certain aspects of each aircraft. No debate on this topic, however, can dismiss the fact that X-Plane is, perhaps better than anything else, ideally suited for the replication of 'bush flying' in that it provides excellent scenery, with even better available through third party add-ons such as the 'Inside Passage' and 'Final Frontier' for Western Canada and Alaska, which replicate much of the terrain that the bush pilots had to navigate in their rugged aircraft so long ago, and even today.

One such aircraft is the Aviat A-1A Husky, called the successor of the Piper Cub, it is faithfully replicated for the X-Plane community by Shade Tree Micro Aviation (STMA) with data taken from a Type Certificate Data Sheet, from an actual Husky Owner's Handbook, as well as from the invaluable experience of pilots who have flown the Husky in real life. Anyone who has sat in the cockpit of the PA18-150 Super Cub will not feel out of place in the Husky, in fact, they will find everything expected, as well as a few unexpected extras that make this an aircraft well worth investigating.

As far as bush planes go, the Husky lives up to its name quite admirably; with the tenacity of the dogs that dragged cargo across the north, the Husky — with its 180 hp Lycoming engine the Husky may be more akin to a sleigh being pulled by reindeer, but it more than manages to conquer the skies with the power that it has been given. With a cruising speed of 122 knots, or 140 mph, the Husky is by no means the fastest aircraft to fly, but it may be one of the most enjoyable.

Once you enter the flight model of STMA’s Husky you are immediately aware of a few things: this is not your ordinary X-Plane aircraft. The 3D cockpit is comprised of only one object which results in a seamless architecture that I have only encountered, thus far, in other aircraft created by STMA (their PA18-150 Super Cub and Dhc2 Beaver being two prime examples).

The second thing that you notice is that everything you expect to be in the cockpit, including a GPS unit that can be removed if you do not need it, is there; waiting for you in your office. This is not a cockpit so much as it is a pilot’s office: a place where a pilot will be spending many hours, working in a relatively small area, but as well organized as possible.

An exquisite 3D cockpit that seems perfect in almost every way is not enough of a reason, however, to purchase this plane: there must be more. Don’t worry, there is: STMA is not run by a bunch of stingy people, of that we can be certain. When you purchase the Husky you do not just get one aircraft, you get FIVE different models. The aircraft also comes with two plug-ins from STMA that are extraordinarily valuable on their own: Chase View Deluxe and HangerOps. Chase View Deluxe will change the way you use X-Plane; Period.

The five models of the Husky are: the bush model (with the thicker tundra tires); the regular tire version; a floats version (with wheels); a tire version with retractable skis, perfect for glacial exploration; and a gussied up version with ‘pants’ on the wheels, for ‘high fashion’ flights – or, perhaps – for racing. With the brilliant animations of the opening doors, the opening engine cowling and all the moving parts, it is almost as beautiful to watch this plane as it is to fly, but this plane was made for flying and that is what it does best.

Once you are inside the cockpit and you hear the sound of the Husky’s engine running there is one thing that you can be certain of: this Husky has a growl that will scare away any roving bear. The sound of the Husky’s Lycoming engine is extremely throaty, with rich, deep harmonic overtones that add to the overall sensation of aural authenticity to this acf. In a brief interview that I had regarding this particular issue with Jim ‘Papamac’ McNeill, one of the names behind STMA, Papamac indicated that a pilot who owned a Husky had remarked that this Husky’s sounds ‘were very impressive’. Well, if this is what ‘impressive’ sounds like, I would find ‘astounding’ or, ‘the real thing’ to be quite difficult to imagine, if not downright disturbing.

Slight adjustments to the Mixture caused the Husky’s Lycoming engine to not only change pitch, but the volume of the engine’s sound changed – as did the quality of the sound being produced by the simulated engine. The leaner the mixture became, the tighter the sound grew, as though you were choking off this splendid beast, preventing it from breathing. As soon as I pressed in the mixture to full the throaty growl of the engine returned with a roar (I am reminded of the fact that dogs don’t roar … but, so it doesn’t really matter). Similar adjustments could be made by altering the prop’s RPM, the lowering of which caused the engine to deepen in pitch while the addition of power, or RPMs caused the sound to ‘ramp up’ in pitch as the engine growled to its full potential.

Some of you might be thinking ‘what’s the big deal, of course it effected the sound of the engine’, well, the truth of the matter is that many of the aircraft that I have listened to in X-Plane do not differentiate all that much when it comes to changing the pitch of the engines when the engines are changing (lower prop RPM, just as an example). There is often very little differentiation in the sound modulation of many engines when there are subtle changes that should have a direct bearing on the ‘tuning’ of that sound while in the Husky, after only a few flights, it would seem that breathing heavily near the throttle causes the engine to hum louder for a few seconds. Of course, I may be a bit overly sensitive to issues relating to acoustics and engine sounds considering my musical background. When listening to the engine of the Husky in flight it is easy to hear the engine as a musical device; it hums with delight as it pulls the fuselage aloft, barely complaining when you ask it to do things that it is unused to doing, such as rolls, loops and spins.

One of the things that STMA has done is develop the ability to move the stick of the aircraft with the mouse and then hold that position – it locks in place – so that you can attend to other things in the cockpit without having your Husky careen into a mountain (Personally, I don’t mind the hands-off approach, but my passengers tend to complain when we begin to go inverted). It is small things like this that only adds to the brilliance behind the model. Essentially, if you took away all of the animations, all of the plug-ins and things that are new to X-Plane, this would still be one of the best general aviation propeller aircraft you could hope to find. With everything added, it is simply in a class by itself.

Shade Tree Micro Aviation has proven that they are the masters of the bush plane. Once and for all, they are the best.

Now for the nitty-gritty of it all: the regular price of the Aviat A-1A Husky is $24.95, but the aircraft is currently being sold for the value price of $19.95. Bear in mind, this price includes the Chase View Deluxe, which was used to take all of the exterior screen shots that appear below, and the HangerOps plug-in, which allows you to open hanger doors and pull your aircraft around (remote control provided inside aircraft!). That price, again, is for all five aircraft, not just one.

The Husky can be purchased directly from the Shade Tree website or from the Org store from the download manager.

The following screenshots represent the Aviat A-1A Husky as it appears on my system. With half-filled fuel tanks the plane was nimble enough to perform full three-sixty loops, power dives and other thrilling aerobatic moves that, quite frankly, surprised me in many ways, not the least of which being the abrupt crash I experienced when I stalled at 40 ft after trying to do a rudder-roll … unsuccessfully … and nosed-over with the sudden loss of momentum. Fortunately, as speculated earlier when I wrote about the virtues of X-Plane, the one thing that X-Plane will always be perfect for, regardless of what aircraft you are flying, is the forgiveness of stupid mistakes.

A few words about Chase View Deluxe: CVD is a plug-in included with many of the new STMA aircraft, as well as individually for a nominal price from the website (see above link). What does Chase View Deluxe do? In a word, it blows your world apart; literally. Chase view is the most common way to ‘look’ at your aircraft, either as you are flying or during the replay of a flight – or portion of flight (either pressing ‘a’ or ‘,’ respectively, without the quotation marks). What you experience with Chase View Deluxe is an entirely different situation. Rather than merely ‘chasing’ your plane, CVD provides you with the point of view of a cinematic camera, a tool that can be used for making videos in X-Plane; with CVD you can move about the sky freely, like a disembodied eye that sees everything. The best part of Chase View Deluxe, depending on your point of view, is the discrete – and easily deactivated – heads-up display that appears on the screen when in CVD mode. This HUD provides you with the basic flight information to keep you flying while watching your aircraft from the comfort of the director’s seat, or you can turn off the HUD during the playback of a recorded flight and snap some screenshots while moving around your aircraft in ways you never imagined possible. In short, Chase View Deluxe is well worth the $3.99 that is asked for when purchased on its own; when it comes as a part of the Aviat A-1A Husky? Priceless. Enjoy the screenshots and, I hope, many hours exploring ‘low and (not that) slow’ in this wonderfully crafted Husky; a true gem from Shade Tree Micro Aviation.

Hold onto the Dream

2009-08-29T11:05:00.007-04:00

Yesterday was the 46th anniversary of the now infamous 'I have a dream' speech, delivered by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. at the March on Washington. While I was not born until 1968, both of my parents - strangers to each other in 1963 - traveled to Washington to hear Dr King speak. [As an aside, my mother traveled on a bus with my grandmother and, when they arrived in Washington D.C., from New York, my grandmother broke her ankle when she stepped off of a curb and miscalculated its height ... but, she stayed for the event.]

This post came to being as a response to an article posted by DesertPeace, on his blog. He was at the rally as well and, yes, he is my father (though I have wondered on occasion if there could be a mistake, then I see my hairline and these thoughts are immediately dismissed ... not to mention the 'duck waddle' ... there is a predisposition in our family to 'walk like ducks' ... but I digress. Suffice it to say, I have not questioned issues of paternity for a long time).

As a result of his article I posted the following reply, but I decided to turn it into a post of its own, with some minor changes.

You may see a video of the speech here (it will open in a new window).

There are many people who are convinced that the dream espoused by Dr King is dead. As dead as King himself. There may be cause to believe this; at times the United States gives one the impression that it is going to implode upon itself, finally reaching a critical mass that cannot exist for one more minute and which must destroy itself lest it destroy everything in the surrounding area. The alternative is to allow this seemingly ever-increasing organism to continue to lash out at other nations as they try to get their way in political matters. This path has led the United States, over the past eight years, to travel down a path of war against a nation that had nothing to do with attacking them, torturing political prisoners for questionable information about potential attacks that could not be verified by other sources, and a litany of other offenses that make the term 'civil rights' appear to be an umbrella phrase for the types of things that the government is going to limit or take away, all in the name of 'security' and the 'protection of freedom'.

The protection of freedom, however, can only exist when all people share the freedom. There cannot be freedom for a portion of society when another portion languishes in any form of inequality. This is as true today as it was during the time of slavery, or back when the Catholics expelled the Jews from Portugal in 1492. Freedom cannot discriminate, it must be universal in order to exist. So long as there are people in the United States who are oppressed as a result of their economic standing or because they are perceived as being lesser than the rest of the group to which they are being compared, freedom will only be an ideal to which people aspire but which is not achieved. The simple reason that this is that the nation is unable to confer the same rights and freedoms to all when it knows that this involves something more basic than any legislation could deliver or any march could confer, it requires the education of the public.

Once the population of America learns that they are EACH afforded the same rights and opportunities, guaranteed by LAW (something that you can only learn if you stay in school, which the ultra right count on not happening to those who they want to keep down), what can stop people from actively pursuing a future that does not have anything to do with the perpetuation of the stereotypes that have kept them locked into poverty since the end of the Civil War?

Image Copyright by Ben Heine
The Dream must not be allowed to die, it is far too important, far too vital, and far too essential to the future of America. The Dream must be revitalized, taken to its extreme, and it can be, if only people would stand up and demand from their elected officials the things that they asked for during the election campaign. A president will only do what they believe the people want, if the electorate seems to be turning away from the core message, what does that tell the administration? Many from the Civil Rights 'movement' voted for Barack Obama - seeing him as a direct result of the dream. Now is the time to continue with that vision; now that he is in office, continue to write to him and encourage him to maintain his focus, to not abandon his agenda and to fight for the rights of those that elected him. A silent majority is, quite frankly, useless.

Dreams can only die when the dreams are allowed to be forgotten. Just imagine what would have happened if everyone who was at that march went back home and became a genuine agent for change. Rather than just talking about 'having been there' and reminiscing about how wonderful it was they could have used the event as a rallying cry to galvanize their cause, to collectively join together - both black and white, Jew and Gentile, to create the America that was dying to be born.

After the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. the dream didn't die, the man did; the dream, however, became something of a hallowed fantasy that was more spoken of in whispers of awe rather than in the tones of something that could actually be accomplished. Even with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after the assassination of JFK, a bill that was brought to fruition with the help of a junior senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, there was not as much support as there should have been for the simple reason that the 'movement' found it difficult to separate their hatred of Lyndon Johnston and his involvement in Vietnam.

Once Martin Luther King, Jr. was out of the way the civil rights movement was right where the south wanted it; instead of having a galvanizing force to keep the blacks, whites, Jews, and other colours of the rainbow working together for a single cause there was now a myriad of agendas competing to be heard. This allowed the southern states to react to the new laws without worrying about pesky 'leftists' from the north as they were seemingly less interested in risking their lives now that their guiding light had been removed from the picture.

Perhaps that sounded cynical; good, it was supposed to sound cynical. There is nothing worse than taking something like the messages delivered by Dr King and dismissing them, saying they have not been achieved, or will not be achieved, without asking the very serious question: why not. What is the cause of the failure? Where there not enough people invested in the cause that this should not have succeeded with flying colours? Of course, the answer is that it should have been an overwhelming success; there is no reason on earth for the cause of civil rights to have been stalled in the United States, unless there is an inherently racist nature in a certain part of the nation that is resistant to the entire prospect of civil rights and liberties. In fact, one might actually begin to believe that there is a portion of America that would be perfectly happy to re-institute the old lynching laws where it was legal to hang 'colored' folks from trees if'n there was a witness to the wrong doin', especially if one of them dared to look at a white girl askance, or was uppity enough not to step off of the sidewalk when white folk were approaching from the other direction.

God forbid these colored folk learned their letters. You know what they says about 'educated Negroes', don't you? Well, actually, I can't recall, but it can't be good, can it?

Give me a break. The end of the Jim Crow laws was the best thing to happen to America since the end of the Civil War, until the rise of the Civil Rights Movement - but when that movement did not, en masse, renew itself and turn out to support the initiatives that came out - the Civil Rights Act and the Voter Rights Act - they lost their vision, they lost their teeth, they lost their cause.

Certainly, there was great merit to the Civil Rights Movement morphing into the 'Peace' movement, and the 'Anti-War' movement - but, unfortunately, the organizers were very narrow minded in the focus and could not see the forest for the trees. They did not understand that there was a marked difference between the domestic policies of a government and their foreign policies. Was Johnson involved in an outrageous, unlawful war in Vietnam? Certainly - it was horrible and should not have been allowed to continue. However, what he was trying to do on the 'home front' was an entirely different matter and that, regardless of the war, deserved the support of those who had been fighting for the rights of others; those pieces of legislation proved to be fundamental for the future of the advancement of Civil Rights in America, regardless of whether or not 'the movement' was there to support those who created the legislative language. They simply missed the boat.

History is often a recounting of the stories telling us about lost opportunities or seemingly unique occurrences that led to a totally unlikely outcome. In the history of the Civil Rights Movement the name of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. will never be easily forgotten, but the acts of his many followers - after his death - will go down as one of the greatest losses of potential political power the United States has ever known.

It reminds me, very much, of what happened when a 'community organizer' rallied the support of grass-roots individuals, using the Internet and anything else at his disposal to create an irresistible atmosphere that countered anything his opponents could muster. People have been intent on trashing his presidency without giving him a chance to do his job, but it is always easier to judge than to allow someone the opportunity to do what they have promised. After all, before he was elected, did the previous president include the spending on the war in the numbers on the debt? No. Why? Because it looked bad; on the other hand, this guy has - but it looks bad - yes, it does, but it is truth. Now he gets blamed for it; how sad. Short memories make things like George W. Bush possible.

It also makes the passing of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. even sadder for we forget how often the dream is invoked, and then forgotten. Why forget? Pick it up and carry that dream; it encompasses all that America has not yet achieved, all that it can be, all that it should be, all the promise that has not yet been fulfilled by those words, 'We the people,' - a declaration that rings hollow if it does not represent all of America, not only a select part of the nation.

That is a tragedy from which there may be no recovery.

Edited: October 21, 2009.

American Hysteria: Righting the Wrongs of Democracy

2009-07-07T15:24:00.006-04:00

Intro: I came across a website this morning that inspired me to leave a comment on their site; having written the comment it occurred to me that this was worthy of being posted here as a post of its own, with a brief introduction. While I'd rather not promote the original website, it would hardly be fair to post my reaction to their material without presenting their point of view … so, if you want to see what ‘inspired’ me, click here – the link will open in a new window. In a nutshell (no pun intended – really) the site is called the ‘American Grand Jury’ and aims at the passing of legislation requiring future candidates seeking the office of president to be required to demonstrate their eligibility to seek said office through the presentation of a valid birth certificate proving that they meet the requirements of Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Illustration Copyright by Ben HeineIt is astounding to read the number of invocations calling for the ‘taking back of America’ and how the ‘impostor’ president must be removed. What I must question, however, is the number of others who disagreed with this view and, in November of 2008, decided that Barack Obama was their choice to be the 44th president of the United States.

There are several reasons for which there were hearings regarding the status of John McCain and not Obama - not the least of which being that the powers that be (REPUBLICANS at the time) decided that there was no compelling reason to question the status of Obama’s birth while McCain’s birth in the region of Panama was questionable as Panama was a protectorate, not a state.

This is a situation of pure and simple racism masquerading as political action: people who cannot accept that someone named Barack Hussein Obama can, in fact, be a Christian rather than a Muslim - despite the fact that he attended a school that was Islamic. There is also resistance to the idea that a black man can be qualified to sit in the White House. How dare they pretend to be qualified when there are so many deserving white folk ready to slip into that seat in the Oval Office. Bunk, pure and simple bunk.

The idea of passing legislation to enforce something that is already accounted for in the Constitution is, quite frankly, a waste of the time of the House and Senate - it is a waste of taxpayer’s money to even consider such nonsense. Obama’s BC is on record and was accepted by a right-wing publication before the election - of course, that obviously wasn’t enough for the most ardently right-wing racists who cannot accept that democracy sometimes means the votes of others mean that your opinion is not the prevailing opinion for the next four (or eight) years.

Perhaps you should be looking inward rather than outward to discover why your views have become so anachronistic and ‘out of date’ with the rest of America. How can change come when minds are closed? when spirits are locked in opposition to anything that looks different to what you are familiar with or used to seeing?

Remember, taking care of your fellow man and for the weaker amongst you does not have to be related to communism or socialism, nor does the ’sharing of wealth’ have to be similarly associated: it can be more appropriately related to something called Christianity where we minister to the weak and the sick and the community shares its resources, ensuring that no one goes without anything (Acts).

Obama is not some foreigner trying to make the United States a socialist nation - he is an American Christian who is walking the walk, trying to make the nation move back towards the true vision of Christianity that could be possible if only the people of the nation would wake up, shake of the greed, consumerism, and lust for personal ‘everything’ and be willing to re-evaluate their lives so that all Americans could share in the true American dream: a nation where everyone is guaranteed the opportunity to live without having to mortgage their lives in the event they require health care, an America that does not allow people to die if they have a ‘pre-existing condition’.

Unfortunately, the right-wing would rather eat their young and squabble about meaningless things like birth certificates rather than making the country a better place. No wonder politicians have to keep asking God to bless America - it certainly isn’t something He would do of His own accord.

The above paragraph is where my comment ended: I would add, however, that it seems incongruous to have so many people proclaiming that the United States is a nation founded upon Christian principles, yet it seems completely opposed to living up to the high calling of that label. People do not seem to have any idea as to what it means to be a true Christian, or what Jesus asked His followers to do after He left them, charging them to continue with His ministry. The first Christians did not consider profit to be more important than the life of one of their fellow brothers or sisters in the Lord; they made sacrifices for the ‘body of Christ’ – otherwise known as ‘the Church’. Remember, in the Book of Acts (the ‘Acts of the Apostles’) believers brought wealth to the ‘Church’ and shared their wealth. This was not socialism – it IS Christianity.

2:44 ‘And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. (46) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:44-47, emphasis added)

For the first time in recent history the people of the United States have elected a man to the office of president who actually seems to believe what the founding fathers promised with their fancy words so long ago. Of course, when the Constitution was written, this same man would have likely been consigned to the roll of a slave, not permitted to even learn to read; a true expression of the Christian ethic that the founding fathers embraced. It is time to allow the president to do his job; criticize him for not acting fast enough or for not fulfilling all of his campaign promises, but when it comes to hysterical claims that are as fallacious as the Nigerian e-mail scams, it’s time to put them to rest.

Palin(dromics)

2009-07-04T15:20:00.001-04:00

The recent announcement by Governor Sarah Palin that she is going to step down from office in a few weeks has come as a complete surprise to everyone, especially those in the Republican party who were likely looking for an impending resignation from a governor from a state a bit more to the south and to the east of Alaska. While the trials and tribulations of Gov. Sanford were only pushed from the headlines by the sudden deaths of Farrah Fawcet and Michael Jackson (remember Farrah?), he still managed to galvanize the political pundits with his antics and talk of ‘soul mates’ … and then there’s Sarah.

That seems to be the entire summation of Sarah Palin’s political career: and then, there’s Sarah. One begins to wonder why someone would decide to even enter the political scene in the United States, knowing that it means every aspect of your life becomes fodder for the media, when you want to be a ‘private’ individual. The fact that Governor Palin wrote e-mails that vehemently defended her husband’s non-membership in a political party that advocates secession from the Union, for example, demonstrates the lack of connection that she has with that precious thing we call reality. Todd Palin is actually on record as being a member of the AIP for seven years – that is something quite a bit different from accidentally checking the ‘independent’ box on their voter registration forms. Fine, I can understand missing mixing up ‘Independent’ for ‘Alaskan Independent’, but, as this article shows, the registration forms actually say ‘Alaskan Independence Party’, not ‘Alaska Independent’. One must wonder about the level of literacy if this is the excuse that the candidate for VP really wanted people to accept (yes, my husband is an idiot, but I love him).

From the moment Sarah Palin was picked by Senator John McCain to be his running mate for the 2008 presidential election I watched very carefully. While I am not an American citizen it is of great interest to me as a Canadian how the American political system plays out for the simple reason that the American system has a massive influence on our Canadian system, as demonstrated by the recent economic moves made as a coordinated effort by both of our governments. In that light I have taken more than a small interest in the political races, particularly the presidential races, and watch with no small amount of concern as candidates try to convince the most amount of people that they should be entrusted with the running of the nation.

From the first time I heard her speak I was convinced that there was a serious problem with Sarah Palin: it was as though I was listening to someone who had read the dust jacket of a book but had not bothered reading the actual book itself. Her comments were a combination of slogans and platitudes, cheers spoken slowly – hardly anything with any sort of well reasoned political insight. Not to mention the fact that there was hardly ever an issue that was broached – both she and McCain preferred to attack their opposition rather than propose any substantive alternative platform to that offered by Obama – they only wanted to attack, offer connections to ‘terrorists’ and pray that they could cause enough ‘level headed’ people to fear the ramifications of voting in a Democrat after eight years of the ‘safety’ provided by the Republican … well, seven years – there was that unfortunate incident on 9/11 after all. But, fear mongering failed and the people of America saw through the lies of the Republicans, and Sarah Palin.

The Governor that had the highest approval rating suddenly saw things going terribly wrong: she was found guilty of abusing her power, her daughter’s ‘beau’ dumped her – and there were drug charges filed against the mother of said beau … and, on top of that, Governor Palin could not resist the temptation of continuing to talk to the press … something that had never really worked out all that well for her during the campaign (unless it was an ‘interview’ on Fixed News or Fox Noise – one of the ‘friendly’ channels).

Perhaps, then, it is true that Governor Palin has decided to leave the office of Governor simply because she feels there is more that she can do to effect change outside of the constraints of the political office to which she is currently tied. With 18 months remaining in her term, however, it seems odd that she would leave her office and expect to land as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential election. After all, the last election campaign was about as long as one could imagine – and as a sitting president it is not likely that President Obama is going to begin his re-election in 2010, the job is simply too demanding (though, as I understand it, the process for re-election never really ends once elected – but the candidate himself doesn’t exactly get too invested in the process while in office).

What Palin’s plans are is anyone’s guess: there were even whisperings to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that this announcement from Governor Palin marked her permanent departure from politics. If that is the case perhaps there is probably much more to this story than we have been given, more that will be revealed over the next few days, weeks and even months. Investigations, after all, continue whether or not that individual remains in office. If there have been any wrong doings by the Governor that need to be addressed, perhaps this resignation came as a ‘pre-emptive’ act in the hopes of mitigating any potential future acts.

We will have to await the results of the autopsy.

Happy Independence Day … and a belated Happy Canada Day!

Proper Criticism vs Anti-Semitism

2009-04-21T14:04:00.000-04:00

During the first day of an anti-racism summit at the United Nations a number of nations walked out during the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he called the State of Israel a “cruel and repressive racist regime” to a conference on race. Now, before we get carried away by the rants of the Iranian President, who may need a medication adjustment, take one moment to consider this: the United States decided to not attend this conference when some nations proposed that “Zionism” be considered as a form of racism. Canada joined several other nations who were too cowardly to consider this truth, including Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands ... oh, and Israel.

The important thing here is that Ahmadinejad made his comments, prompting about forty of the delegates – mostly from western European nations – to leave their seats in protest, but his message was still heard by many and reported to the world. Unfortunately, the reporting of this event is coloured by President Ahmadinejad's past comments in which he has denied facts about the holocaust. The walkout was prompted by Ahmadinejad's description of the relationship between the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, “They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering.”

Another thing that was said seemed to be just about as concise an observation of the situation taking place in the State of Israel as anything else that has been said in the past sixty years: “... [I]n compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.” Not unexpectedly, the United States condemned the comments as being “vile and hateful” while the Vatican, an organization with 2,000 of human rights atrocities as their gift to humanity called the speech “extremist and unacceptable.”

But is that all there is to this? Should we dismiss the comments of Ahmadinejad simply because we want to think of him as some crazy Islamic fanatic? No, that is not how it ends; it cannot end here. The problem is, Ahmadinejad is right. No, the Holocaust happened, of that let there be no doubt, but the idea that the State of Israel is supposed to be the representation of God's promised land to His people, that is a myth that must be dispelled, along with the idea that the Zionist agenda is anything less than a form of racism with the genocide of the Palestinian people as the ultimate goal in order for the Zionists to ultimately cleanse their “Holy Land” of all non-Jews.

Before going any further into this discussion and allowing any confusion to set in, lets establish something of a foundation as to the difference between being critical and voicing that opinion and being hateful towards something or someone. Ask yourself this question: can you be critical of something or someone without hating them? Be honest, now, can you look at someone you love and tell them that you disagree with them and then explain why? What if one of your friends, or a relative, committed some heinous crime, would you encourage them to turn themselves in – to do 'the right thing', even if it felt like a difficult thing to do? These are difficult things to ask, but they go to the moral core of who we are as people. As moral beings we learn from the mistakes we make through life and from the critiques and criticisms that we receive from the teachers and others around us who care enough to point out what we can do to improve ourselves, to make us better members of society and better citizens.

Could you imagine for one second that when your mother or father corrected you, dare I say criticized you, as a child, did that diminish their love for you? Of course not – in fact, people usually only take the time of criticizing things that they really care about, otherwise they wouldn't bother taking the time to do so. If you were critical of the United States during the Bush administration (or any presidency) does that make you an anti-American or are you merely in opposition to certain policies of the government of the nation? Personally, I am a Canadian and I have been in disagreement with the policies of the Canadian government on many issues over the past several decades, but that does not change my love for this country, nor would I want to live anyplace else; it merely means that I want this country to be better than it currently is, I want Canada to live up to the promise that could be, if only the politicians would stop their partisan bickering and started putting the people first rather than the special interests that put them into power.

If you are honest and are able to say that you are at odds with a particular government and not the people then you are well equipped to judge between authentic anti-Semitism and the vile rhetoric used by many to protect inherently evil positions. It is important to understand that this is the true foundation of democracy; knowing that you are allowed the right to voice your ideas and opinions about the laws, leaders and the operation of the government without fear of reprisal for having an opinion that may be contrary to the official beliefs of the government, and that you, as an individual citizen, have a voice in the choosing of that government through your vote. Any nation that cannot suffer the indignity of facing criticism or being examined for its domestic policy, a policy that includes apartheid-like activities, active military oppression of a civilian population living within their borders, and multiple incidences of civilian “collateral damage” taking place during “defensive” operations, should seriously consider the century in which they live and the actions which they have been taking for the past several decades. There is no place in this wired world in which we live for the type of secrecy that allowed tyrants like Hitler and Stalin to carry out their malicious acts under a curtain of silence. It is no longer possible to control the flow of information as was done during the time of the Second World War and the cold war when people transmit news to websites and blogs at the speed of “twitter”, virtually as quickly as it happens. Propaganda has become something that once was called “spin”, often pathetic attempts by “official spokespeople” to put the “cat back in the bag” after the world has already seen the live images from several sources. It does not work.

If the State of Israel, and those who profess to be Zionists (or their supporters), had their way in regards to the flow of information at the U.N. conference in Geneva, Ahmadinejad would have been stopped in his tracks: the uttering of anything that could even be remotely interpreted as being “anti-Israel” would automatically be classified as being racist and, as such, would not permitted in a U.N. conference, let alone a conference on the elimination of racism. However, the glaring truth of the matter is that Zionism IS, in fact, a form of racism in several ways and, particularly in light of the recent events in Gaza, it has been demonstrated as an ideology devoid of anything but self-interest in their agenda coupled with a near manic defense of their “right” to protect their homeland from the people from whom they stole that land.

There is a serious problem when you begin to examine the Zionist position of “defense” of their land as a justification to use violence against the Palestinian people. It seems difficult to argue against the desire to retaliate when someone has launched a rocket into your settlement and it lands in your backyard or crashes into a school. These are terrible, tragic events that must be stopped; innocent lives lost are never things that seem justified, and they can never be compensated, nor can any act repay the loss that the survivors may be feeling. While some may desire revenge that can only lead to more acts of aggression and that, in the end, only leaves more innocent lives ruined, more people mourning, and more people seeking some sort of retaliation. Ultimately, if you follow the saying “an eye for an eye,” the entire world is left blind. It is time to restore the sight to the blind.

The idea that Israel is carrying out the violence against Palestinians to defend their land is laughable on several levels, especially if you have seen any of the photos or videos that were taken from the most recent Gaza conflict. What weaponry did the Palestinians have to threaten the Israeli Army and Air Force with? With what could they have hoped to shoot down an IAF F-16 or F-15, planes that can fly faster than the speed of sound, drop laser guided munitions (stand-off weapons – the plane does not even have to be near the target to drop the bomb), and other “smart” weapons that land within a few metres of their targets? An AK-47? Even if there were thousands armed with the ubiquitous AK, they could not scratch the air force; unlike the movies, it is not possible to shoot down a jet with a machine gun (unless the bird is flying about 500 feet off the ground and you are the luckiest shot in the world).

Let's face it, if you are critical of the ACTS of the Israeli government that does not make you someone that hates Jews. An anti-Semite is, by definition, someone that hates Semites. Semites are people of Semitic descent: Arabs and Jews. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Semite is defined as 1a “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b: a descendant of these peoples 2: a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.” [Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic, and Hebrew] Now, if you hate Arabs for whatever reason, you are an anti-Semite (don't say, “but, I have an Arab friend ...”). You cannot hate some and like one as a token. Hatred is hatred, it is insidious, entering our being until it controls our every thought and action, guiding our lives until we our its slave. This is the root of Zionism: hatred of the Palestinian people.

The lessons of the Holocaust came at such a terrible price, the highest that could be paid, but what value are those lessons if they are squandered by those who have inherited that which came out of the ashes? The idea of creating a place – a safe place – for those Jews who wanted to leave Europe after the Holocaust seems now like an idea that may not have been the best conceived idea. One must ask, why would people who had just escaped extermination merely for being who they were not want to live in peace with their new neighbours? Why would they choose to adopt national policies that seemed more related to what they had just escaped rather than aiming at developing a true democracy in which every person living in the State was granted equal rights under the law, all the rights granted to a Jew: anything less is something called institutional racism and, quite frankly, is disgusting as it mirrors what was done in Nazi Germany after the Purification Laws were passed. Jews were denied all basic rights as German citizens, even if their families had been living in Germany for generations and had served in the military during the First World War. With the stroke of a pen, and a crooked cross, they were all disenfranchised. They became un-people.

This is the case, today, in the State of Israel. As a result of the placement of the settlements throughout the land that was promised to the Palestinians it is virtually impossible for these un-people to travel freely without being harassed by the countless Israeli checkpoints. They cannot travel to their jobs, to school, and there have been several cases where patients have died because they were denied access to essential medical care. Does this sound like the actions of a modern democratic nation or like some monstrous, “cruel and repressive racist regime.”

Image 'copyleft' by Carlos Latuff
Ultimately, the criticisms of Israel must not be dismissed under the flag of racism by labeling them anti-Semitic. There happen to be many Jews out there who do not agree with the actions of the State of Israel, we are not being anti-Semites ... I do not hate myself. As for President Ahmadinejad and his remarks, we must be careful; he was correct in what he said, but he is also someone who plays to the extremist movement in his country and is running for re-election in June and has been receiving criticism for the floundering Iranian economy. All of the anti-Western and anti-Israel rhetoric is fine for the press coverage, but it hasn't done a thing for the global isolation of Iran, resulting in high inflation and unemployment. For Ahmadinejad to earn the votes of the most radical voters in Iran he must continue to spew his invective and racist brand of anti-Semitism, if only to show that he is a leader that should not be underestimated. Unfortunately it only turns him into a caricature.

More than that, because a world leader mixes legitimate criticism of Israel with such highly charged language and denial of such historical things as the holocaust it makes the job of criticizing Israel all the more difficult for the rest of the world. We must show that our criticism is based on facts, not emotional reactions to things. Calling people names does not accomplish anything, save for demonstrating the level of maturity that is not present at the time.

Now we must find a way to clearly communicate to the world that the message is not about the Jews, nor is it about Israel, the message is about the way the government of the State of Israel is handling (or mishandling) the situation with the Palestinian people. Why are Palestinians not allowed the right of return when they have lived there for generations? Why are their homes seized and destroyed, without appeal, to make room for illegal settlements? Why to so many questions ... and so few answers. Ultimately, the answer is: things must change. They must. Not, “yes, we can”, but, “we must change, we must”.

Ultimately, there comes a point in time where something either change its ways and adapts to a new way of life which allows it to move on and survive, or it fails to adapt to change and it subsequently dies. We must change, we must.

Department Store Santa

2008-12-23T14:05:00.000-05:00

Something different for a slight change of pace: a Christmas story, with a bit of a twist. This blog has focused on political issues for quite some time, and I’ve been trying to work on a post-election article on the president-elect, but am not sure which direction to take … so I decided to present a present of sorts, a story for you to enjoy at this festive time of the year. I wrote this last year and re-wrote it this week (edited, changed, altered, and etcetera). The story was inspired by … nothing – this does not relate to any actual person; it was written, however, after seeing the results of an IED explosion which had killed some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2007. After seeing the footage of the carnage I couldn’t help but think about the families, back here in Canada, and how they have to keep on living when a part of their family has been violently ripped from their lives on the other side of the world. The story’s dedication is at the end of the text.

I hope you enjoy the story. Have a Merry Chanukah; a Joyous Christmas, and a Happy, Happy New Year (or don’t, I don’t care … really, I don’t … I’ve got my own issues … really, I do … honest).

Department Store Santa

Every year since he had turned fifty, and his long beard had turned white, he had worked as the department store Santa in one of the large shopping malls in the centre of town. Hundreds of children would come to sit on his lap every day in the weeks leading up to Christmas, but as the years passed by and he grew older the old man began to feel more than a small amount of resentment towards the ever growing commercialisation of Christmas. As much as he tried to hide those feelings of bitterness behind his bushy beard and smiling eyes they ultimately filtered down towards the children and their parents. Playing Santa used to be fun, now it was only a job.

Christmas wasn’t what it used to be, he thought to himself with a heavy sigh, as yet another child recited yet another list of expensive computer games and electronic devices that they not only wanted but already knew they would be getting for Christmas. It was even getting to the point, he sadly realized, where he was finding it increasingly difficult to smile for the photographs that his “elf” would take with the children while they sat on his lap; all he wanted to do was leave this shattered Yuletide fantasy of commercialised fraud and seek refuge with his wife, safe in their home where they had created a lifetime of memories of Christmas’ past. Living in the past had become something of an obsession of late, especially now as Christmas approached.

“Today’s your last day,” his wife had said as she gently squeezed his hand. They had just finished breakfast in their comfortable breakfast nook and he was preparing to leave for work. The words had managed to cheer him up considerably as he left their house near the Canal and walked to the mall with an added bounce to his step. A faint smile crept over his face for the first time in a long while as he approached the employee’s entrance and made his way to the locker room. He kept thinking about the conversation that he had with his wife over breakfast about retiring completely and the more he thought about it the more he liked the idea. He had been able to retire early from his consulting job and had taken on this job as Santa seventeen years ago just for fun, not at all expecting to do it for such a long time. Of course, if he was perfectly honest with himself, and his wife, he would have admitted that his heart just was not into being around so many people anymore, not after what had happened to their son Kevin.

As he entered the locker room and put on his Santa suit for the last time this year, and perhaps for good, there was something a little different in his attitude; it seemed as though a weight had been removed, perhaps because he had decided to retire. This day, he thought, would be different, if only for the fact that it was the last day that he would ever have to wear this pathetic costume and sit in the stupid throne while wisecracking teens laugh at you all day. Santa suits, he thought as he walked towards his “Kingdom” for the last time, should come with pockets where you could conceal water guns and other projectile toys.

Throughout the day and the endless, anonymous children, all seeming to want the same mp3 playing robot that could do all kinds of cool things … (he really was getting too old for this, he thought to himself, not for the first time this season), he still managed to keep smiling, reminding himself of the Christmas Eve dinner awaiting him at home that his wife would have been working on all day; and he remembered to laugh at the appropriate places for the children, to smile for the photos and to give each of the little urchins one of the obligatory candy canes for having had the pleasure of screaming in his ear (no wonder he was nearly deaf in his left ear). Since this was Christmas Eve it was busier than usual with last-minute shoppers desperate to find that elusive, perfect gift. This did not prevent the old man from letting his mind wander to what his wife would be doing at home.

His wife came from a family that celebrated Christmas Eve with what could only be described as gusto; the family was not particularly religious, they were just enthusiastic. When it came to the meal no expense was spared: they made a roasted ham, a turkey with all the trimmings, potatoes of several varieties, salads enough to sink a ship and more than enough side dishes to feed dozens of people. It was a feast worthy of royalty, and it was a tradition that the family tried to continue, as much as possible.

Unlike other Christmas Eve dinners, this would be a meal only for the two of them; their only son had been killed earlier in the year while serving with his unit in Afghanistan, but knowing his wife there would be more than enough food for a small army; or at least a battalion. This would be their first Christmas without their son, without their Kevin, he thought to himself with a note of sadness as the last of the children was admitted through the gates to see Santa; his assistant pointed to the “closed” sign, signalling to him that the gates to “Santa’s Kingdom” were now locked for the season. Thank God, he thought to himself.

As the boy approached there seemed to be something odd about him that immediately caught the old man’s attention. He was only about seven years old, but there was something about his eyes made him look much older, far more mature than his years. When he was close enough to speak, he said, in no uncertain terms, “look: we both know that I’m too old for this, right? I’m only here for my mother — it’s been a rough year for …” but he couldn’t continue as a tear began to roll down his freckled cheek.

“Come here, my boy,” the old man said, his voice kinder and gentler than it had been since the Chaplain had arrived with the news of his own son’s death, four months before. “What is it that you want for Christmas?”

The boy looked up at the old man and, seeing his own grief reflected back in his eyes, replied, “I want my father to come home from Afghanistan so we can be a real family again, but he already came back,” his voice cracked, “… in a coffin.” The boy buried his face in the deep plush of the Santa costume and he cried for several minutes while his mother came to get him, visibly embarrassed by the situation. But the old man didn’t mind the tears, for they were his as well, and those of his wife. They were tears that seemed to flow unceasingly, from eyes that saw ghosts in every corner of their house; they were tears that never seemed to run out, that never seemed to lose their sting.

When the boy stopped crying and his mother introduced herself to the old man he took her offered hand and asked, his voice thick with emotion, “would you and your lovely son do my wife and I the honour of joining us for dinner this evening? You see,” he continued, gently squeezing her hand, “this will be our first Christmas without our son as well. He was also killed in Afghanistan,” these final words were barely whispered, but the mother and son had no difficulty hearing them.

All she could do was nod her head and do her best to smile, something she had not done very much of since the Chaplain had arrived at their house two months ago. As the three of them left the mall the old man was still dressed in his Santa Claus suit and for the first time in a long, long time he was feeling every bit the part.

Dedicated to the Canadian Servicemen and women who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, and all other Peace Keeping Missions, and to their families; Merry Christmas. Peter Amsel, Ottawa.

In Memoriam: Studs Terkel (1912-2008)

2008-11-01T20:50:00.000-04:00

America has lost a giant of a man, a man who had spent the majority of his life dedicated to preserving the voice of the real America through his celebrated writings and the interviews on his radio shows. Louis “Studs” Terkel, the Pulitzer Prize winning author, oral historian and political activist died on Friday, October 31; he was 96 years old and died at home, next to a copy of “P.S. Further Thoughts From a Lifetime of Listening”, his latest book which is scheduled to be released later this month. His obituary from the Chicago Tribune paints a poignant picture of a true American treasure.

One of the many things that I can thank my grandfather for, aside from all of the powerful lessons about life and social justice which he taught me, was an introduction to Studs Terkel one summer when I was visiting him at his office in Manhattan. As a child of only about twelve years I probably did not fully appreciate what it meant to meet a “living legend”, nor is it likely that I appreciated the looks of awe and respect that others were giving to my grandfather, “Ben”, for being in the company of such a renowned New Yorker; but the impressions still remain, even after twenty-eight years.

When asked what his epitaph should read Studs replied, quite appropriately, “Curiosity did not kill this cat.” His works, in print, on film and recordings shall ensure that future generations can continue to reap of the harvest of wisdom laid out for them by this true American hero, a treasure that need not be lost nor forgotten, but rather celebrated and remembered through his work.

Studs Terkel may be dead, but his work shall live on for ages.

Happy Days for America?

2008-10-29T10:58:00.000-04:00

Another election video - this time featuring some blasts from the past.

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

America Can Change

2008-10-21T07:48:00.000-04:00

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video must be worth one million. While this video is a song in a language you may not speak, the message speaks volumes and should not be missed by anyone who still has not made up their mind about the upcoming November election, or who feels conflicted by all of the racial rhetoric that has been flung into the political arena by certain candidates.

This song, along with the video, Si Se Puede Cambiar was made by Andreas Useche and is, in my opinion as a composer, not only a brilliantly beautiful ballad, it is an effective political piece that will hopefully reach the hearts and minds of many undecided voters.

Enjoy.

Si Se Puede. Yes We Can.

Shifting Paradigms in American Politics: Observations on Political Obfuscation and the Presidential Elections

2008-10-16T15:50:00.000-04:00

Elections may be a time of fascination for anyone remotely interested in the world of politics and the wild scheming that accompanies this great game, perhaps one of the greatest of all human past-times. What we are observing is the modern expression of the ideal of the democratic process that the founding fathers of the Republic of the United States bestowed upon their fledgling nation with the establishment of their constitution. While the initial intent of the founders may have been subverted by the passage of time and the changing moral standards of the people, the great experiment that became America continues despite the greatest attempts by those who would see the Republic crumble under the weight of corruption and tyranny.

Illustration © by Ben Heine
So long as we remind ourselves of the difference between the idea of democracy today and the initial vision offered by the founding fathers it will be very easy to appreciate the importance of exercising that most sacred right of a citizen on the 4th of November: today it is the right of all citizens to vote, regardless of the colour of their skin, their sex, or even who they happen to worship while the original “democracy” was intended for white men; privileged land owners who controlled the laws of the land and the lives of those who were not considered to be fully on-par with whites by virtue of their skin colour. How much more can democracy have traveled in that the current front-runner in the campaign is a black man, a man who would not have even been counted as a “whole person” at the beginning of American history? Senator Barack Obama is not, however, a significant candidate solely because he is the first “black candidate”, or “African American” – he is not, the Communist Party of the United States nominated an African-American women named Angela Davis in 1980 as their candidate for Vice-President; Obama’s significance as a candidate stems from his deep understanding of the issues at play and the remarkable poise with which he has faced this marathon campaign.

While many people find politics to be something fascinating and rather like a spectator sport there are times when it seems to devolve into something more akin to a high-school popularity contest mated with a three-ring circus; the primary difference being the amount of money being spent by those involved and, ultimately, the prize awarded at the end of the contest. The invective comments that have been spewed of late by certain candidates demonstrates that the closer you get to the actual election the worse the rhetoric becomes as the desperation level is elevated to new heights.

Since there is no incumbent running in this election – for some odd reason Vice-President Dick Cheney did not decide to seek the position of President after his eight years in office – Senator John McCain finds himself in the unenviable position of inheriting the legacy of what many political analysts and historians have already described as being the worst president tenure of the 20th century, if not American history. McCain has no choice but to run on the record of the incumbent president, but cutting all ties with the Republican Party would be political suicide – even more so than tying himself to the record of George W. Bush. Sine the record of the present Republican administration has done such a stellar job, embroiling the nation in a war without a foreseeable end, a crushingly high unemployment rate, record job losses, a mortgage fiasco that may cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars with nary a chance of recovery and still result in a recession the likes of which has not been seen since the dark days following the market collapse of 1929, it only makes sense that John McCain would now – more than ever – want to show that he really is not completely aligned with President Bush and his policies. The truth, however, is much easier to see: after supporting the policies of President Bush – proudly – over 90% of the time during the past eight years McCain has demonstrated that he is much less of a Maverick and much more of one of the “good old boys” that he pretends to rail against when ranting about the ills of “the system”. This is the system that his top economic advisor, former Senator Phil Gramm, had a very large part in engineering. Is it any wonder that the Republicans would rather attack their opponents rather than face them on the issues? Senator McCain made the conscious choice of attacking Senator Obama on the most trivial of matters in the a desperate attempt to divert the public’s attention from the true issues at hand: the failure of the government of the past eight years – the Republican Presidency of George W. Bush – to effectively protect the American taxpayer from the unregulated greed of Wall Street and their lobbyists.

Once it became obvious that the call for “change” being heralded from the Obama camp was being taken up across the nation the McCain camp decided to recast their message to show that their candidate was the one that represented real change. Rather than facing the issues, rather than addressing things of substance, they worked on a slogan – a slogan that had already been in use by the other side. These are tactics to turn the attention of the people away from the fact that this is the same man who has been trying to distance himself from the record of President Bush while at the same time, during speeches to partisan crowds, McCain spoke proudly of his voting record over the two terms of President Bush; having voted for the things that have caused the problems currently plaguing the United States of America, including the mortgage scandal. John McCain has clearly demonstrated one thing about his abilities as a perspective leader and decision maker: he lacks the insight into issues that an American President requires in order to fully execute their responsibilities. He is also unable to consider an issue past the partisan politics that it may represent and the ways in which it will effect his own political future, despite his claims of “reaching across the aisle”; he also shows that he is not above overtly lying about what he, and others, have done in order to make it look as thought things “aren't as they seem”.

While the presence of rhetoric, particularly during a presidential election, will never be lacking, this present campaign seems to have been endowed with an extra-large and potent dose. Unfortunately, the quantity of the words being spouted does not necessarily equate to the quality of what is being said; or, for that matter, does it have anything to do with the veracity of the statements. As though any examples were needed, it only took the announcement of the running-mate by Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, to raise the level of rhetoric past the point of manic hysteria. The sudden injection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin into this political equation has, in effect, turned everything on its head. Could anyone have imagined that the selection of a running-mate after having only known her for a short period of time and having had a single thirty-minute meeting would have generated such a sense unease for so many and an upsurge in the lack of confidence of the Senator's choice and in his decision making abilities, not to mention his judgment?

This first executive decision, which McCain says he made with more than enough information to ensure that Governor Palin was the right choice for the job and is not only qualified to serve as the Vice-President, but is also more than prepared to serve as President should something happen to him during his term as president demonstrates a clear disconnection with reality. He is completely confident in his choice, confident that Governor Palin is capable of running the nation, and yet the nation has barely had a chance to hear her speak outside of the campaign trail save for a few interviews. Since her acceptance of the nomination it hardly seems odd that even with the support of Senator McCain and several other Republicans Governor Palin has been under a state of constant attack from certain elements of the media; could this be explained, in part, because of the McCain campaigns extreme restrictions on what the Governor can say, and to whom she can speak? Having the press take pictures while the candidate sits with foreign dignitaries but refuses to answer questions just does not generate a great deal of trust; we cannot read her mind, we need to hear what she has to say on the important issues.

Of course, once the public has an opportunity to properly investigate Governor Palin through the same process that Senators McCain, Obama, and Biden have been through – scores of print, radio and television interviews – the citizens will have had the opportunity to judge her in the same light that the other three have been judged, based on their own words, measured against what they say and what their records reflect. When you have an opportunity to truly see where a politician stands on every aspect of their platform it is much easier to decide whether or not you will support them or not; this has not been possible with Governor Palin, especially with the way the “Straight Talk Express” has been handling her every move since the convention. When the campaign has permitted interviews they have been turned into catastrophic events due entirely to the candidate herself; not knowing the “Bush Doctrine” and having an opinion on whether or not she supported it, misrepresenting the amount of energy that the State of Alaska produces – on numerous occasions, not knowing the names of foreign leaders, and not being able to cite a single United States Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees (aside from Roe v. Wade) does very little to help build one’s image in the eyes of the electorate. There is a difference between someone who is “plain-spoken” but knows what they are talking about and someone who is down-right “ignorant” and aspires to appeal to the “average Joe six-pack”; based on her interviews Governor Palin has been coming across as someone who simply does not know what she is talking about. She sounds more like someone repeating a carefully crafted script of party-line answers to standard issues without having a thorough understanding of the fundamental issue being discussed.

The McCain campaign’s answer to these missteps: It was the interviewer’s fault; they should not have asked such difficult questions. Now, it must be said – in defense of Governor Palin – that she may not be completely to blame here: after all, it has been reported that she is being coached by some of the same people that coached George W. Bush before his debates with Al Gore. Considering the past eight years of having George W. Bush as the model for America's children (and, apparently, some of her adults as well), the idea that mediocrity should be something to be attained rather than surpassed seems to have entered the consciousness of the American psyche to the extent that there are many people who actually aspire to achieve as little as possible, believing that they will ultimately succeed in life simply because they are “good” people and therefore “deserve” to be rewarded out of the general benevolence of the world in which they live. In reality, this is merely a contemporary bastardization of the old idea that “ignorance is bliss”, whereas now we have many individuals who are, in effect, “blissfully ignorant”.

Without regard for what is being reported and believing that the main stream media is entirely biased against the Republican message and, therefore, must not be trusted, those in support of the Republican ticket seem to be turning to “alternative” news sources, without bothering to listen to anything that has substance behind it or any basis in fact. They look at the “news” as something that is barely a step above a reality show being broadcast on television, the only difference being that the news directors are unable to create the most violent acts ... at least, not yet. The most sensational stories capture the imaginations – and attentions – of those tuning in, and the same goes with the coverage of the political sphere; does it matter what the truth is behind the story or is the “sound bite”, usually taken out of context, more important? In an election year where the McCain-Palin ticket has complained about impartial media coverage it is interesting to survey the viewing on the Fox network. One could well call it the Republican National Network without much of a stretch of the imagination. Rupert K. Murdoch is not apologetic for his support of right-wing candidates and issues, but to then call his news channel “Fair and Balanced” is, in a word, ridiculous. True, there are dissenting views represented on the Fox network, but they are made to be caricatures of their ideals by their own colleagues, ridiculed for adhering to views that are so “un-American”.

The primary theme of the McCain-Palin campaign, rather than focusing on any of the issues facing the nation, or the economic crisis that could paralyze the country, or the war in Iraq, has been a string of lies and personal attacks on the character of Senator Barack Obama. At the beginning of the campaign his faith was questioned, if not by the candidates themselves then by the friendly – and helpful – folks at Fox Noise, repeatedly referring to him as a Muslim, even when there is more than ample proof to demonstrate that he is a true believer and a devout Christian. One might ask of Senator McCain, would a true Christian attack another, or allow attacks on another, knowing them to be false, accusing them of being a Muslim ... no, I didn't think so either. Obama and his wife were accused, by commentators on Fox News, of being a part of some sort of underground Muslim group because of the “fist” greeting they shared onstage at some event; proof that if a commentator has nothing relevant to say at Fox they will not be deterred, they will spew out anything they can in order to assist their candidate on his quest for the White House. This “innocent” comment aroused heated debate regarding Senator Obama’s patriotism, his fitness for office, and many other irrelevant issues that all served to distract from the true issues of the campaign.

Now, thanks to the level of the invective rhetoric and outright misinformation that has been spread by the opposition campaigns there have been calls for the killing of Obama at McCain-Palin rallies while others shout out that the “real Obama” is a “terrorist” because of the fact that he served on a public housing board in Chicago – with both Republicans and Democrats – and William Ayres, who had committed acts of domestic terrorism back in the 1960’s ... when Obama was EIGHT years old. As a result of the fear-mongering that Senator McCain has fomented he was forced to tell one of his own rallies that they “had nothing to fear” from an Obama presidency and that “Obama was a decent man”. McCain was booed by his own supporters for these comments, the people just did not want to hear that they should not distrust this black man with the odd-sounding name – after all, it does sound an awful lot like “Osama” ... it was even printed that way (by mistake) on 300 advance poll ballots in the State of New York. Barack Hussein Osama – Obama. Having a Sherriff, in uniform, introducing Governor Palin at an event where he used Senator Obama's full name – including the middle name, Hussein, was clearly inflammatory, and the result was clearly effective: many of those entering a McCain rally, when asked, indicated that they believe that Barack Obama was “a Muslim” and could not be trusted – or that he was a “traitor”.

He has been described as a “Manchurian” candidate by some, though one would think that supporters of McCain would want to avoid that inference given the fact that it was their guy who spent five years in Hanoi with the North Vietnamese; if anyone is a “Manchurian” candidate his name is Senator John McCain. It is a well known historical fact that he decided to pursue his career in politics after his father died – being the son of a full Admiral was apparently a burden for the war hero and his true ambitions, but surely his desire to serve his nation in any capacity would have been acceptable to Admiral McCain ... unless the North Vietnamese were using him to get information while he remained in the military. Once his usefulness was over (once access to the Admiral was gone) there was no need to remain where he was and his political path began. [You see – that is how easy it is to manufacture this fiction – forty-five seconds and there you have it, the Manchurian background to Senator McCain ... if anyone is interested I will provide an appropriate background from the prison – the making of the candidate – leave a request in the comments.]

The manipulation of what his opponent has said and the outright lying whenever it is convenient seems to have become standard policy for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rather than projecting an image of respectability and true honour they have stooped to the level of those who have no discernable moral compass. It is certainly not the image that one would expect to find from people professing to be Christians, individuals seeking the trust of their fellow citizens as they seek the highest offices of the land: their actions speak much louder than their words. When Senator Obama commented on the McCain economic plan and said that it was like “putting lipstick on a pig”, the title of a book by a Republican strategist and a phrase used by McCain himself, the McCain campaign took those words and turned them around, claiming that Obama had made the comment about Governor Palin. Even after demonstrating that this was false (something that should not have been necessary given the original context of the comment and the speech in which the comment was made), the ad ran showing that McCain and the Republican party have, in fact, not changed from the old style dirty tricks and smear tactics that have been present in their arsenal for generations of elections. The truth for the Republicans, alas, is only an optional concept; winning is all that matters.

When there are so many people that have virtually instant access to this thing called the Internet it takes a very brave individual to go onstage and lie in front of television cameras; for this reason alone we can have no doubt about the fortitude of John McCain. During one of his speeches where he introduced Governor Palin as his new running mate McCain stated that Palin had put the Governor's jet on EBay and sold it for a profit. Well, that is only part of the story: this airplane was purchased with taxpayer's money so they deserve to hear the truth. The jet was listed on EBay – listed – not sold. Palin actually sold the jet through a private broker; there is nothing wrong with using a private broker to sell something, but it is not the same as selling on EBay and McCain should know better, not to mention the fact that Governor Palin has had numerous opportunities to correct her running mate but has not done so once. Rather than attempting to set the record straight she has allowed the lie to be repeated over and over, as well as the myth of the profits that were generated by this sale: rather than the mythical profit made through the EBay sale the jet was actually sold at a loss of several million dollars, not the glamour sale you will likely hear about from McCain-Palin though; in this case fiction makes for much better press, they do not want anyone to hear about their failures, only things that make them look good – regardless of the veracity of the story. On top of that little lie, her subsequent travel expenses have cost the Alaskan taxpayers over $400,000 (in only 20 months!), since she travels with the entire family ... that private jet (taking back the millions lost) is looking much better now, especially if you consider getting back that $400,000 for commercial travel and the millions lost in the sale of the jet. The operational cost of the private jet, being used as it had been initially intended, would likely have seemed far more economical when measured against such wasteful uses of taxpayer dollars, something that Governor Palin has said she is very much against. Not quite the same success story as before, is it, nor will you likely hear it coming from the McCain campaign.

When issues such as these untruths are raised, or issues surrounding the qualifications of Governor Palin to serve as Vice-President – or President should McCain die in office – are mentioned in the main stream media the reaction of the McCain-Palin ticket is quick and too the point, usually supported by their surrogate press-agency, Fox Noise: “the main stream media is controlled by the liberals and is biased against us” - and “we aren't getting fair coverage in this election”. When you consider that the McCain camp has virtually kept their VP nominee under lock and key since naming her, only allowing her to speak to a select group of interviewers under very controlled conditions, it is difficult to take these claims with anything less than a massive grain of salt: having observed the political coverage on several of the main stream media channels it is very easy to see that the Republican ticket is receiving its fair share of coverage. Is Senator Obama being mentioned more times than Senator McCain? I am not about to count the number of times that the two names are invoked at any particular time, but consider this: if a politician has something to say that is worth reporting there is a greater likelihood that this will be reported rather than having a long report about a stop in X-ville where the candidates delivered the same old stump speech for the umpteenth time; the news does not like “reruns”, it does not make for interesting reporting.

While complaining that the media is being unfair to them it would seem odd that Senator McCain would want to shoot himself in the foot with a cannon, but that is precisely what he did when he called up David Letterman and blatantly lied to him about his reasons for not being able to appear on his popular television show. The Late Show is taped in the early afternoon and Senator McCain was scheduled to appear but called Letterman to tell him that he had to return to Washington that very afternoon to help fix the economic crises. This was, in fact, another lie. While the show was being taped they found out that Senator McCain was in another CBS studio, taping an interview with Katie Couric; while some would argue that he wanted to avoid an appearance on a comedy show during an economic crisis, remember this, McCain appeared on the Conan O'Brien Show right after hurricane Katrina, and David Letterman has done serious interviews with people in the past when called for by the situation. Letterman was visibly annoyed with the fact that he had been lied to, particularly after McCain had used his program to launch his campaign – taking advantage of the 6 million regular viewers that tune in every night. As for the return to Washington, a one hour flight from New York, McCain was still in New York that night – speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative, and he was there the next day.

When he finally returned to Washington he dropped in at the end of the meeting with Secretary Paulson, said a few words about his own proposal (having indicated in an interview of a few days prior that he had not read Sec. Paulson's proposal) and then leaving. He then went to another campaign stop (during his now suspended campaign) and told them how important it was for him to get back to Washington so he could help fix the economic mess that he was now accusing Barack Obama and his “cronies” of causing. “Cronies”: McCain referring to Obama and “his” cronies. Now I am wondering if I have tuned into an episode of the Twilight Zone, or, even worse, if a psychotic episode is in the near future … I cannot imagine what could make someone who has spent the first part of this campaign taking aim at the “lack of experience” that Barack Obama has and his “lack of readiness” to serve as president has morphed their message into him suddenly having had enough experience to have “cronies” all of his own; this coming from a man who has spent the past twenty-five years in Washington calling himself a “deregulator” with great pride. When the proposal by Secretary Paulson contained no oversight it was, by the way, the Democrats that fought to ensure there would be an apparatus in place to help protect the taxpayer's money. The deregulations that Senator McCain is so proud of are a very key part to what led to the atmosphere that contributed to the economic crises facing the U.S. government, much to the chagrin of Senator McCain who is now being forced to face economic issues in this campaign for the first time.

If these actions sound like those of an honest, trustworthy politician, Senator McCain is your man, otherwise, you might want to find out some more about his opponent. There is no shame in being undecided when there is so much at stake for the nation and the people – especially the people. If you think that more of the fiscal management that has resulted in the country tottering on the brink of economic collapse is something that you want to see more of, there is a clear choice for you: the Republican ticket represents a continuation of that which has brought America and its economy to its knees. Accepting the idea that the Republican ticket represents real change must be seriously examined in light of the record of the past eight years and the nature of those involved. Governor Palin represents the extreme conservatism that the Republican base did not see in Senator McCain or the person who had been very prominent in his campaign before the selection of Governor Palin, Senator Joseph Liebermann. Governor Palin embodies the most extremist views of the Republicans, including those which the majority of women would find repugnant. The very idea that she was chosen to lure disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters away from Senator Obama, merely because they will have an opportunity to vote for a woman and thereby shatter the proverbial “glass ceiling”, clearly demonstrates the dim view the Republican strategists have of women: do they really believe that women are so shallow that they will choose to vote for an extreme conservative simply because they are female rather than supporting a candidate that shares their fundamental views, regardless of their sex or colour, who has not only been endorsed by their candidate of choice but by their own words and actions can be seen to be more concerned with women's issues than the female Republican Party’s candidate for Vice-President? The idea is, quite frankly, an insult to all women with even the slightest amount of intelligence and a modicum of personal integrity.

Accepting everything that is being said by any of these politicians is, in a word, silly; they each have their own agendas and their own desire to sit in the Oval Office, but we must still ask ourselves whether the words being spoken carry a hint of desperation and more than a little hysteria as one side seems to change their script from day to day. A political campaign should not mean that those involved cannot pursue their goals through honorable means; it simply means we must be careful as we listen to them, making sure that we are especially careful to discern the truth from the sweetened condiments added to make the messages more appealing for those who have not yet made their decisions. Election campaigns are not for the members of an individual party; those people will take very little convincing to vote for “their” candidate. Campaigns are for the much-coveted “undecided” voter and the “fence-sitter”, those who can still be swayed even up to the day of the election. These individuals will be watching everything from the way the candidate talks about their opponent to the way they tie their ties or wear their hair.

Ultimately, the decision that someone makes on November 4th will be guided by a set of priorities that each individual will have to assess on the basis of their own conscience. If honesty enters into the equation, however, and people force themselves to examine each candidate on the merits of their individual platform, without the filter of lies and obfuscations that the opposition uses to distract people from the real issues they may just discover something significant, perhaps the truth about the tax-plans from either candidate ... or the health-care platforms. In the first two Presidential Debates Senator McCain blatantly misrepresented Senator Obama's tax-plan and health-care plan, but he made the tactical error of doing so in an arena where his opponent was there to rebut his assertions. This left him standing there looking like an angry old man, impotent with rage at the realization that his attack had been foiled yet again by this young upstart; but that, Senator McCain must be reminding himself more and more these days, is the name of this game called politics.

For those of us less inclined to call politics a game, to those who see the ramifications of such elections extending far beyond the borders of the United States, Senator McCain’s actions indeed leave the impression of an angry old man shouting at the children who have wandered into his yard, but also of one who has altogether lost the plot and is stumbling around, unable to find his way in the dark.

Recount: The Rape of Democracy in America

2008-06-28T09:08:00.000-04:00

Illustrations © by Ben Heine

Preface:

This should, perhaps, serve as a warning to perspective readers of this essay as it contains material that may be disturbing to some individuals who have difficulty with, or are incapable of, adjusting their views according to new ideas, fact-based evidence, and reasoned argument. Rather than relying on mere histrionics I have endeavored to present an historical and political perspective in this essay in an effort to present a new perspective of an infamous event using, amongst other things, the Constitution of the United States and the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. Readers Beware: By their own words they have convicted themselves; the truth is available to anyone interested enough to go looking for it, what you do with it once you know about it is where the real test begins. The truth does not change by virtue of its being ignored, it continues and persists, lurking in the darkness of forgotten silence, waiting for the light of revelation; but it is there to be found, desperate to pass on its lessons before the crimes of the past are repeated.

Recount: The Rape of Democracy

A few weeks ago HBO presented a movie that will, without doubt, become one of the “must sees” on the list of all who have been seeking the truth behind what really happened in the November 2000 presidential election; how Governor George W. Bush, an astonishingly “plain spoken” individual who had barely managed to eek out “C's” while attending class still managed to graduate from university, and now had achieved the ultimate American dream: he had ascended to the office of the President of the United States of America. A lofty ambition to be sure, those who seek the office of president are traditionally cut from the finest cloth that the nation has to offer, individuals who have been tested in ways that belies their age or the other traditional means of assessing an individual’s experience.

When looking at the list of American Presidents there are a number that stand out for their extraordinary dedication to the office and their service to the nation, even unto death, and that is surely a story unto itself: this is no mere job, it is a calling to serve at the highest level, and the price of that service could be the very life of the individual. Thus the confusion at the choice of George W. Bush for the position: his selection as the Commander in Chief seemed uniquely incongruous when considering the criteria that would traditionally be used to assess the qualifications of a candidate for the office of the Chief Executive of the United States of America. His attempts at eluding his military service alone should have foreshadowed the short-sightedness that this man espoused years before the decision was made to commit thousands of American troops to their deaths in an illegal and immoral war, contrived out of the flames of a national tragedy. But, as the saying goes, vox populi, the people spoke: what the voters wanted they got.

Or did they?

The movie Recount was advertised as a docudrama exploring the tumultuous events surrounding the 2000 Presidential election and the voting irregularities in the State of Florida. Not surprisingly, however, it explored a great deal more and raised many more questions than were ultimately answered by the film-makers. With the benefit of eight years hindsight it is now possible to begin looking at the events that took place in the Sunshine State in 2000 with a far more critical eye than has ever been done before and, at the same time, we can also look at the entire electoral process that is once again staring the American people in the face as they undertake the daunting task of choosing the successor of George W. Bush.

With the historical prospect of an African-American candidate vying for the position of Commander-in-Chief in this presidential race it promises to be the most divisive contest since the issue of civil liberties and JFK's Catholicism were brought to bear in the 1960 campaign, a race that polarized Americans around many issues, the age and charisma of the candidates not being the least of them. Perhaps without even intending to do so, the movie Recount provides an object lesson about many of the things that are so very wrong with partisan politics, pointing out many of the weaknesses inherent with the American version of democracy; it also demonstrates – with chilling clarity – just how easy it can be for someone to conspire (knowingly or through their agents) to steal the presidency of the United States. A dangling question that we are left with asks whether this was done in the past, and whether the act will be duplicated in the future.

There are some questions that may never be answered – for practical reasons – but should be asked nonetheless: we need to at least articulate the ideas, lest they remain in the shadows forever. On the day of the General Election in 2000 over twenty-thousand registered voters in the State of Florida discovered that they were on a specially prepared “exclusion” list, disenfranchising them for the simple reason that their names were found to be similar in form to someone who was legitimately found to be excluded from the list (felons, etc.). The issue of these excluded voters was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, and it was found that their exclusion was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States (14^th Amendment, Sec. 2); in their wisdom the court also decided that there was not enough time to remedy the injustice committed against these citizens.

The questions that we must ask, therefore, include the following: what would have happened if these 20,000 excluded voters – most of whom lived in precincts that voted along predominantly Democratic lines – had been allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to vote rather than being excluded because their names were similar to those of actual felons who had been legitimately excluded from the list of qualified voters; what would have happened if Pat Buchanan's name had been aligned on the infamous “butterfly ballot” with Governor Bush’s rather than with Vice President Al Gore, or with Ralph Nader; what would have happened if a full recount of the ballots, by hand, had taken place, a recount that included all “excluded” ballots because they had ‘dimpled’ chad [sic] and were considered “undervotes”? These questions can only be answered with suppositions, well, perhaps all but for the undervotes, but we can still give fairly well educated guesses for the others. Gore won the popular vote of the nation; would this have given him Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes? would it have made up the less than 2,000 vote difference that separated the two candidates?

It would seem easy to answer the question by saying, with some small confidence, that Gore would have been declared the winner, but is that enough of an answer? Is it really? When the United States Supreme Court (USSC) ruled, in Bush v. Gore, on December 12^th, 2000, that there had in fact been violations under the Equal Protections clause of the 14^th Amendment but, that violation notwithstanding, there was not enough time to remedy the situation, they essentially said that the Constitution of the United States was not worth the paper it was printed on and the rights of the citizens of the United States were as meaningless as their Constitution. When the situation exists where at least 20,000 people are robbed of their constitutional right to vote in a presidential election something is terribly wrong. There can be no doubt that there was criminal intent involved in this act, and that intent stemmed directly from the offices of the Secretary of State; is it difficult to imagine that this individual, the co-chair of the Florida team to elect Governor Bush to the position of president, would not have been capable of directing the preparation of the voter-exclusion list that would be used to prevent a specific group of people from exercising their right? The right to vote, however, was deemed something that the USSC felt was not worthy of protecting; they somehow forgot that this was a right that had been earned by the shedding of blood, a right that the United States Supreme Court decided was not important enough too demand that immediate actions be taken to remedy the situation.

The justices of the Supreme Court should have known that their failure to act in this case might receive some notice, though it went surprisingly unnoticed by the mainstream media and even the Gore camp seemed quick to drop the idea; the reason? Quite simply, the idea of delaying the inauguration of the next president, in and of itself, would have seemed to have more negative connotations than the search for the true winner of the election, regardless of who that individual was; rather than pressing the matter, rather than fighting the “war” and seeking the truth that the American voter deserved, Al Gore decided that it would be better for the nation to allow for the “peaceful” transition of power – demonstrating to the world that the United States was, truly, a democracy that could overcome all adversities thrown its way. Or so it would seem; the facts, as we can discern with the help of history, demonstrates otherwise.

Unfortunately, as we now see with the benefit of hindsight, this was not the “best choice” for the nation, nor was it the best choice for the world. The Bush administration has been an unmitigated disaster that has, since its first days in office, obfuscated and lied about its obfuscations in order to further its warped agenda – without considering the human costs. That is also exactly how they won the election; without considering how many people they were hurting, without considering the ramifications of their actions.

The Supreme Court should not have been so quick in dismissing the violation of the Equal Protection Clause; their reflection that their was not enough time to resolve the issue belies the importance of the right to vote, a right that they took pains to protect in other rulings: In 1966 the United States Supreme Court heard an appeal relating to the right to vote and the paying of poll taxes in Virginia. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections dealt with numerous issues, but there is one very relevant section that bears directly to the 2000 presidential election in Florida: while much of that case deals with the issues surrounding the infamous “poll tax”, something devised to prevent the poor (and usually non-white) from voting, the conclusions of the Justices are no less relevant to what occurred forty-four years later. The following is from Mr. Justice Douglas who wrote the opinion of the Court:

“[W]e must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race ... are traditionally disfavored.”

In his comments Justice Douglas referenced an earlier judgment by the Court, Reynolds v. Sims (1964), in which he cites:

“Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.”

Justice Douglas continues:

“A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitutions Equal Protection Clause. This is an essential part of the concept of a government of laws and not men. This is at the heart of Lincoln’s vision of 'government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.' The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.” United States Supreme Court, Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

It is difficult to challenge the wisdom of these words today, and impossible to deny that their relevance carries over after four decades, or that they shall ring as true in another four decades. The right to vote must be inviolable: it is a right far too precious to be so casually stripped away in the name of expediency. At the same time, the election of 2000 was over, what could be done? A single day is appointed for the election of the president and vice-president, there is nothing that provides for another day of voting after the general election has taken place; it would have been practically impossible to redress this situation with any truly reasonable solution with the election concluded, or so it would seem.

One of the things that the United States seems to pride itself on is its ability to grow through its adversity; to adapt itself to the difficult situations as they arise, to overcome them, and come out the better for it in the end. This situation could very well have been one of those times in their history: had they addressed the violations of the rights of those 20,000 voters who had been prevented from expressing their Constitutional right to vote, the United States would have taken a mighty step towards the dream spoken of by Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. But they did not; they took the coward’s way out and decided to stop the recount altogether. Instead of seeking to preserve the integrity of the democratic process the USSC turned around and, lifting their robes as one, collectively mooned the electorate, and everyone else interested in justice. Rather than taking a step towards the fulfillment of the dream, America slipped into a political nightmare from which it has yet to awaken.

Some might be asking exactly what the USSC could have done in order to remedy this situation given the fact that the election had taken place. Given the importance of the presidential election, as emphasized in the concurring opinion given by Chief Justice Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, and the closeness of the race in the State of Florida, the Supreme Court would have been well within their authority to have authorized the Florida Electoral Commission to have convened special polls to allow for those disenfranchised voters the opportunity to vote. This would have not been, in fact, an extra election day since these individuals had arrived at the polls on the day of the General Election and had been turned away because their names appeared on a list that was prepared with the intent of preventing them from exercising their right to vote. Voting after this date would have fulfilled the process that began the day of the General Election and which was circumvented by those in authority in the State of Florida.

With those votes counted, and the rest of the recounted votes taken into consideration, it would have been possible to have a much clearer picture as to who was the legitimate winner of the State and who deserved the coveted votes from the Electoral College. If, however, the results were still “too close to call” why could they not have simply split the Electoral College vote from Florida, awarding 13 of the 25 votes to the candidate with the most votes and 12 of the 25 to the second candidate? There are two States in the Union today that currently split their Electoral Votes, but there is nothing in the Constitution to stop other States from doing this and it has been done in the past on numerous occasions, reflecting the varied political landscape and the desires of the voters from different parts of the nation. The Constitution does not address the manner in which the votes are to be cast; there are no directives stating that all of the votes from a delegation are to go to a particular candidate or even that all of the votes available to the State will be cast, which would seem to indicate that the exact opposite was the intention of the Framers of the Constitution.

Before the 25 Electoral College votes were taken into consideration on Election Night of 2000 the results were 246 for Bush and 266 for Gore. A division of the “too close to call” State’s 25 votes, as proposed, would have left Gore with (at +12) a win at 278; the thirteen votes would not have been enough for Bush. Thus my question of the urgency in the minds of the United States Supreme Court in shutting down the acts surrounding the actual counting of the votes and attempting to address the Constitutional violation of the rights of voters; something that nations have had revolutions over, have shed blood for, have overturned corrupt governments for. Unless there was an underlying agenda at play here, there truly was no urgency on the 12^th of December, unless the USSC had an ulterior motive; the Supreme Court understood that the only way to install their man was to circumvent what shadow of democracy existed, preventing the precious voices of the disenfranchised from being heard. Time would demonstrate that the Constitution was no match for the Supreme Court.

Another question that must be broached as a result of the movie and its portrayal of the electoral system is of the true importance of the actual votes cast in a presidential election. If it sounds as though I am asking whether your vote really counts, that is exactly what is being asked. “How important is the actual vote for the president (and vice-president)?” Yes, some of you may be screaming right now, “how can you dare suggest that the vote of the people is anything less than sacrosanct, an act of paramount importance to the democratic process?” After all, you rightly argue, the vote decides the outcome of the election. Or does it? That is not the message that we are given by the producers of Recount and by the historical facts as they speak for themselves.

One of the most common perceptions regarding the functions of a democracy is that the process of electing the government involves the counting of every vote cast in an election. The subsequent outcome is that the person who receives the most votes wins. That seems rather obvious and almost naïve in its simplicity, but it works in many nations around the globe and has been the foundation of the democratic system since the inception of the process, or so one would think. Should anyone be willing to take a moment to examine the history of the U.S. electoral system it will quickly becomes apparent that this model of democracy is not what has been adopted by the United States Constitution, nor is it even remotely similar. The framers of the Constitution, in fact, seemed to believe that giving the citizens of the United States the right to choose their president was something with which they could not be trusted; thus the creation of the Electoral College and the usurping of the democratic process.

Defenders of the Electoral College will argue that it has only failed on three occasions; only three times has an unelected body decided to deny the people their popular choice for president, but why should that bother anyone? Would it be a surprise to anyone that in each of these cases the political party being favored was the Republican Party? Surely this must merely be a purely coincidental situation. Regardless of how much you deny the truth, it is an irrefutable fact: on three separate occasions the will of the people was not heard and the candidate that received the most votes was not, in fact, elected president. In 1876 the Republican Hayes received 4,036,298 votes to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden’s 4,300,590, but it was Rutherford B. Hayes that was sworn in as president. In 1888 Benjamin Harrison received 100,456 less votes than the candidate for the Democratic Party, Mr. Grover Cleveland. Harrison, the Republican candidate, was elected; and then there was the election of 2000.

If these examples seem insignificant compared to the grand scheme of American history, bear in mind that this is the same nation that has appointed itself the exporters of democracy to any nation seeking (or not) to throw off the chains of oppressive regimes, or any nation that may have made the mistake of electing someone that was not aligned with the ideologies of the United States. America has not only failed to deliver the promises so dearly cherished in the documents founding their nation, they have passed these injustices onto other nations with the installment of rogue despots and dictators in favour of democratically elected leaders.

The number of votes that a candidate may receive in the November election has precious little to do with whether or not they are awarded what is truly important, what unlocks the door to the White House: the crucial Electoral College vote. The fact of the matter is that the person who becomes the president of the United States is not actually elected by the voting public at all, they are selected by a group of people that are unseen by the population, chosen out of patronage, and completely unaccountable to anyone other than themselves. Only after the results of the November elections have been tabulated and certified by the individual States are the results sent to the Congress with the State's duly appointed representatives who have been chosen solely for this task. It falls to these “electors” to cast their votes for the president and vice-president.

As an examination of past Electoral College results demonstrates, or an examination of the United States Constitution, there is nothing that compels these individuals to follow any particular script. Nor, for that matter, is it required for a State to cast all of their votes for a single candidate (or, conversely, to even cast all of their votes at all), as is routinely assumed these days; in the past there have been numerous occasions in which a state’s electoral vote was split between more than one presidential candidate, more closely reflecting the choices of the voter’s wishes at the State level. This would seem, upon reflection, to be a remarkably equitable solution to what has truly become an anachronistic system that should simply be dismantled in favour of a more truly democratic process. Sadly, however, America is likely not ready for something that radical. The simple fact regarding the Electoral College is that it does not work and does more to obstruct the democratic process rather than serve it. Once the people have spoken through their votes in the general election the “electors” should be forced to heed their voices, but they are not; they are not compelled by any constitutional requirement to cast their votes according to the outcome of that election, nor are they constrained to cast their votes according to the tabulated and certified results in their State.

As if another example of the mess that the Electoral College has driven the United States to is even necessary, the election of 1800 led to a crisis that resulted in a Constitutional Amendment: In 1800 the House of Representatives rather than the Electoral College chose Andrew Jackson as president over his running mate Aaron Burr, both of whom had received 73 votes from the college. If that sounds odd there is a reason; it was not until the 1804 presidential election that the candidates for president and vice-president were each awarded separate Electoral College votes, thus eliminating the embarrassing possibility of someone deciding that the bottom portion of the ticket would look better on top. In 1800, however, that was not how the game was played, and, as a result the constitutional remedy had to be invoked: Thomas Jefferson was ultimately elected president by the House of Representatives after every candidate failed to receive a majority vote from the Electors, a process that took until the 17^th of February, 1801, after the House of Representatives had voted over thirty-five times to resolve their deadlock.

The result of this debacle was the 12^th Amendment, which provided for distinct ballots for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The framers of the Constitution were not unwise in their decisions regarding the electoral system emplaced over the United States, on the contrary, the system well reflects the level of trust that they held for the citizenry of the newly formed “Union”. The truth, alas, is that their opinion of the general population was not one that went well with the bombs bursting in air attitude of patriotism and all of the wonderful feelings that corresponded with the emerging Republic. There was, in fact, a great deal of distrust abounding between the framers of the Constitution and the general public, particularly since there had not been any established political parties and political regionalism made it possible for a populist candidate to be extremely well known (and well liked) in one small area while remaining totally unheard of in the rest of the nation. It fell upon the framers to formulate a plan to find a way to prevent the people from electing some backwards hick to the most important position in the land ... and there was.

If the real truth were to be known the results could have been disastrous for the young Republic and those in positions of authority; they might just find themselves at the receiving end of another uprising of the citizenry as they rebelled to claim what was justifiably theirs: the right to choose their leaders by their vote. That is precisely what the Electoral College was designed to keep away from them, as evidenced by the words of Senator Benton. As radical as it may sound, the Electoral College was designed by the Founding Fathers to protect the United States from democracy, and themselves; yes, protect them from democracy. The Electoral College was created by the Framers of the Constitution, quite literally, to serve as a safeguard against the difficult decisions of choosing a Chief Executive from having to fall upon an ill-informed electorate in the guise of the citizenry of the United States who could not possibly understand the intricacies involved in picking the Commander in Chief of the nation.

The Electoral College was devised in order to compensate for the regionalist issues facing the early States with the hopes that the individuals chosen as Electors would be “... free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.” [USC Art.II Electoral College annotations pg 2] The true intent of the Electoral College was revealed by Senator Thomas Hart Benton when he admitted, in 1826, that the Framers had intended electors to have “'superior discernment, virtue, and information,” who would select the President “according to their own will” and without reference to the immediate wishes of the people.

“That this invention has failed of its objective in every election is a fact of such universal notoriety, that no one can dispute it. That it ought to have failed is equally uncontestable; for such independence in the electors was wholly incompatible with the safety of the people. [It] was, in fact, a chimerical and impractical idea in any community.” Senator Thomas Hart Benton, 19^th Congress, 1^st Session, 1826.

Something seems to have gone terribly wrong here: at once we had the intent of a democracy, with Liberty and Justice for All, while at the same time those designing it were intent on stealing away the choice of their leader from the people ... why? Did they forget the other document that had seemed to be of such importance, the Declaration of the thirteen United States of America?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)

The government of the land, a land that had absorbed the blood of its own for the very sake of its way of life, had heard the words before, spoken upon the battlefield of Gettysburg in 1863: “... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Words that are no truer today than at any other time in the history the nation, and yet, we must ask ourselves whether it is at all possible, or is it just another dream that will be squandered like so many other noble visions that have been cast into the winds of history, all to be forgotten and forsaken by the scorching passage of time?

If the theory of democracy that we have come to cherish so much truly stems from the idea that every vote cast in an election is as important as any other then it all seems rather incongruous that it has been superseded by a system that is so willing to dismiss the desires of the people in favour of that which seems politically expedient. It is a holdover of old times, kept on for the sake of tradition, not for the elegance of its function. The very idea that it is easier to usurp a political process and rely on the decisions of a few rather than the voices of the voters smacks of fascism and all that America stands against rather than a truly democratic system. Waiting for lawyers and judges to decide the outcome of an election when there are piles of ballots waiting to be counted seems, in the least, to be exactly the type of thing that the United States has sent diplomatic observers to watch for in foreign nations, calling these “voting irregularities” excuses to not recognize the results of foreign elections. If this is done in the hopes of preventing overt electoral corruption from taking place in some backwards third world country as they struggled to shrug off the oppressive weight of a dictatorship in favour of a burgeoning democracy, why is it not good enough for the citizens of the United States?

What could be the big deal regarding the counting of every individual vote, and why is there such an out roar over the situation? How could this insanity have happened in America? Even before the United States Supreme Court made its landmark ruling, a ruling that set a legal precedent (according to what we are told in Recount) in that it stood only for Bush v. Gore, the Florida legislature had decided that they should move forward with the awarding of the State’s 25 Electoral College votes to Governor Bush. The perceived deadline for this action had to be before the meeting of the Electoral College representatives which is set to take place on the first Monday after the second Tuesday in December. The fact that the results of the election had not yet been certified, however, did not seem to be an impediment to this democratic institution as they went ahead with their business; they decided to cast their votes without the benefit of hearing the final word from any authority other than their own, and they could not even be bothered to wait for the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Democracy had been sidestepped, stumbled over, and trampled upon, all for the sake of expedience.

Throughout the docudrama the issue of urgency was emphasized constantly, but even that argument has turned out to be a myth that does not stand up to the test of the authority of the Constitution of the United States. Consider this fact: the elections are held in November but the president-elect is not sworn in until January, a date set by the Constitution. This again brings us to the question as to why the United States Supreme Court felt that it was not possible to remedy the violation of rights as guaranteed under the Equal Protection clause of the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution. Knowing that there was political precedence for having a delay in the inauguration thanks to Jackson's delay, and that the inclusion of a State’s electors being counted in the Electoral College vote could be excluded altogether, the USSC could very well have instituted remedies for the violations that included the completion of the recount of the votes in the State of Florida. One would think it would have been the least that they could have done for the protection of democracy.

With the issues of past elections notwithstanding there is an altogether different issue that comes into play here that should be seriously examined as it bears directly upon this issue and would have been an appropriate legal remedy for the potential constitutional crises that an uncertified Florida vote may have triggered. There was a tremendous amount of pressure on Secretary of State Harris to certify the Florida vote by the 12^th of December “deadline”, but the Electoral College could have met and voted without there having been a complete result. How is this possible? Stephen Gillers addressed the issues in an article that appeared in the New York Times on December 2, 2000. The most amazing facts that Gillers points out relates to the constitutionality of there being a “qualified” president-elect on inauguration day.

There is the perception that every four years a new person will be sworn into the office of president (or someone will be sworn in for their second term), but is this really what is supposed to happen? Well, yes … and no. Yes, but only if there is someone who “qualifies” to be the president. Without that there is a remedy provided for by the constitution, and there were qualified individuals available to fulfill the constitutional requirements of the law until a qualified president-elect was found. The critical portion of the constitution is the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

When taking this into the context of what happened in Florida in 2000, how does the 20^th Amendment relate? As with most issues of constitutional law this is one of those things that comes down to interpretation, and it all hinges on the word “qualified”, and what it means to be “qualified” to be president. Without entering into issues of intellectual capacity (we shall not, for now, resort to an ad hominem argument whilst there are so many other valid paths with which we may resort) the idea of qualification can be viewed, primarily, in the case of the amendment, as someone who has received the requisite number of Electoral College votes ... or, perhaps one could argue (justifiably), the candidate that has (or had) received the largest portion of the popular vote. The counting of the Electoral College votes on the 6^th of January is a date that, ultimately, decides the presidency of the United States, if the results of the election are known. In the case of the State of Florida there is ample reason to say that it would have been justified in delaying the certification of the official results until a complete recount had taken place and all of the irregularities enumerated by the U.S. Supreme Court were fully addressed.

Besides, the United States Constitution provided a remedy to the situation by providing a “pre-qualified” individual to continue in the position for as long as was necessary in order to clear up the issues related to the election of the new president. As the incumbent, president Clinton could have remained past the January inauguration date, should that have been necessary, in order to provide sufficient time for the State of Florida to correctly resolve the problems with their votes (pursuant to a USSC directive to do so), until the issue of who the rightful winner of the state was settled. The idea of a recount should not have been so alien when considering the history of the nation; when the United States began to vote for their leaders they only had hand-counting of ballots and there were none of the electronic networks we have today in order to transmit the results after the election. When the polls closed it took as long as it took for them to figure out who had won; that sometimes meant days. The idea that the results of the election in Florida had to be certified by a particular day was arbitrary and could have been changed given the highly unusual situation taking place. Given the closeness of the results of the initial vote and the fact that the initially ordered “recount” was merely a re-tabulation of the memory cards by many of the precincts, rather than a manual check of the ballots, there is evidence of an intent to commit an electoral fraud against the people; the election was a farce, democracy was ravaged.

According to the Federal Election Commission a total of 105,405,100 votes were cast in the 2000 presidential election: of those votes 50,456,002 were cast for Gov. Bush and 50,999,897 were cast for Vice-President Gore. According to these numbers Bush received 47.87% of the popular vote while Gore received 48.38%. The difference between the two comes out to only 543,895 votes, or 0.00516%, a statistically insignificant figure (unless you are deciding the direction of the most powerful nation of the free world, in which case it is the largest number in the world). To gain a bit of perspective on these numbers, consider the election of 1960, JFK v. RMN. We all know that Kennedy was the “wunderkind” president, wildly popular, and mourned by the nation after his death, but how much did he win the election by?

In actual fact, JFK did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote. 68,334,888 votes were cast for Kennedy and Nixon (the other candidates are not included in this calculation). Kennedy received 34,226,731 while Nixon received 34,108,157; a difference of only 118,574 votes. Kennedy failed to capture more than 50% of the popular vote, but he won the election with 303 Electoral Votes compared to Nixon's 219. So why was 1960 so different than 2000? The answer is obvious: even though Kennedy did not win more than 50% of the popular vote across the nation he did win enough of the individual State votes to capture a substantive Electoral College victory, eliminating any question for a challenge based on the number of votes received by either candidate.

Even if this had only been the election to decide the Reeve of some small, off-the-map hamlet, the idea of not counting all of the votes involved would have still been abhorrent and unthinkable, but we all know that this was not the case; this was no ordinary election, and when we take into consideration that this was the race for the highest office in the land, perhaps the most powerful position in the world, the idea that the wholesale disenfranchisement of at least 20,000 eligible voters alone should have been enough to trigger a judicial inquiry into the obviously illegal practices – and blatant partisan interferences – being practiced by the chief bureaucrats of the state, including the Secretary of State and the Chief Electoral Officer. An inquiry into the very real possibilities of corruption at the highest levels of the State, including the office of Governor, would have definitely been indicated after such irregularities, and the lack of such clearly indicates that the levels of corruption existing throughout the government in the United States is, in a word, transcendent.

One merely needs to consider the amount of time, energy, and money spent on the investigation and subsequent attempt at impeachment of Governor Bush’s predecessor for his dalliance with Ms Lewinsky while in the Oval Office, an event that had nothing to do with the manner in which he attained the office of president. Over sixty million dollars was spent on the subsequent investigation: is this American justice? Perhaps if Governor George W. Bush had been caught in an awkward position with James Baker ....

By allowing the recount of the votes to be suspended the Florida government allowed for the dismissal of democracy with the same ease with which a parent might scold a disobedient child. How is democracy served by not ensuring that every vote cast is counted, that every registered voter is allowed full access to the polling stations? When the United States Supreme Court made its ruling on the 12^th of December it indicated that the violation of a voter’s rights is, in essence, acceptable, so long as you do not leave enough time to redress the situation after the fact.

Perhaps the ultimate message from the 2000 elections came four years later, four years after the people of the world had heard the lies and obfuscations streaming out of the White House as they danced around the issues in support of their illegal, immoral, unsupportable war of terror. The Bush people took the lessons of 2000 and learned very well; they did not make the same mistakes in 2004 and Bush won by a much more comfortable margin (including the 27 EC votes from Florida). The Bush team did so well, in fact, that it looks as though they actually believe they have created a Teflon candidate in the guise of John McCain for Bush’s “third” term. Why else would they decide to run a man who will not be able to serve two terms in office (he is already older than Reagan at his second term) who is already having “senior moments”? As much as they may be trying to show that McCain is different from Bush and has his own agenda (when he can remember it) the facts of the matter are far more sobering: if nothing is done to stop those who stole the last elections another will be stolen from the voters and democracy will once again be raped and left to lie on the road like a cheap whore that has been used, abused, and then discarded.

If Recount teaches one lesson it is that the great myth of American democracy is firmly entrenched in the minds of most Americans, even some of the most powerful in the nation. Believing that he was acting in the best interests of the nation, that it would be better to settle rather than fight a war he “couldn't win” Al Gore decided to not appeal the decision of the Supreme Court. The idea that it is better to accept defeat graciously in the face of an unjust loss seems like an act of hubris in retrospect, even considering the dramatic success that Gore has enjoyed and the dismal failure that Bush has proved to be as the Chief Executive of the nation. Recount answers the question posed at the end of the script when Kevin Spacey, playing the role of Ron Klain, asks James Baker (played by Tom Wilkinson) the sobering question: “did the best man win?”

Yes, the best man won the election, unfortunately he was not the one sworn in on inauguration day.

Is America Ready?

2008-06-13T14:19:00.001-04:00

For the past week I have been preparing a special post for this blog that is almost finished, but before posting that I must post this, inspired by something that I found at BlondeSense. Of course, I should not be at all surprised by what is contained within the short video, but it is nonetheless disheartening to hear so many examples of neo-conservative thinking that simply defies logic. But I am getting ahead of myself … you don’t know what I am talking about if you have not watched the video that is just below this paragraph. Go ahead … I’ll be patient for the few minutes it will take … it is worth your time to watch the video, and you will not regret taking the time. You may need to lean close to your monitor to read all of the quotations.

There you go ... pretty horrible, right? Well, welcome back.

Before this presidential race began, so many months ago, the question as to whether America was “ready” for a woman president or an African-American president seemed to be on the lips of everyone and their dog. The arguments were impassioned, vexatious, and mostly spurious; an individuals qualification for political office has nothing to do with the colour of their skin or of whether they sit down or stand up while going to the washroom. What qualifies someone is their mind, their ideas and ideals, and whether there are enough other like-minded people around who are willing to support them in their run for that office. That is the ultimate qualification for the job, not their colour or sex.

Of course, many elements in the media did not get that memo. While the leering eye of Chris Matthews is sadly pathetic, as are his comments from the debate regarding how important cosmetics will be, the comments from the representatives of “Fixed Noise”, which is also known to some as “Fox News” seemed to have a stranglehold on the best of the worst comments, something that is best represented by their flagship personalities: Bill O’Reilly, Hannity & Colmes.

That the United States is 68^th in the WORLD when it comes to female political representation should not surprise; in a nation that allowed 20,000 Florida voters to be disenfranchised (in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment AND the 15^th Amendment of the United States Constitution) there should be no surprise when the majority of the population receives the least amount of representation from their government, nor that they are routinely treated as second-class citizens.

The “downside” of having a woman in the White House? one “man” is asked: “… the PMS and mood swings?” How much more of a cheap, gutless attack could you make at someone? This is the heart of the ad hominem attack, a device used by people in an argument who have reached a point where they are unable to come up with anything relevant with which to support their point thus forcing them to rely on personal attacks and fictionalising. It is a sign of desperation and usually indicates that the individual has conceded the argument insofar as their ability to continue shall only last for as long as they are able to invent more lies and unrelated mudslinging.

How is being a woman any less of a disadvantage to being a male senior citizen (one who has, by the way, been demonstrating some serious cognitive impairments while delivering his prepared remarks … something that would seriously concern me if I was a supporter of said septuagenarian)? Arguing that the voice of the candidate reminds men of their wives, that it makes one fear for their privates (that was Hannity of FN), that everything she wears is calculated for effect, all perpetuates the myths that men are so easily ensnared – that she is something of a Jezebel seeking “our power”.

Hilary Clinton did not become a Senator because her husband had an affair. She became a Senator because she wanted to [eventually] run for the office of the president of the United States. For Chris Matthews to suggest otherwise is not only pathetic, it belies his political astuteness that is, quite honestly, something that I ordinarily have a great amount of respect for. One does not make a run for the office of the nation’s Chief Executive without having first been proven in another branch of the government; after all, her husband had been the Governor of some hick state, no? The reason Hillary chose to run for the New York Senate seat should be well known to Matthews: Daniel Patrick Moynihan had announced his retirement in 1998 after serving as the Senator from NY from 1977 (his term ended in 2001). Many prominent figures in the Democratic Party urged the former First Lady to enter the race, so the Clintons purchased a home in Chappaqua, New York, in 1999, establishing her legal residence requirement to run for office.

To imply anything else diminishes the entire Senate as an institution, not to mention Chris Matthews and his network’s credibility for allowing such libelous ideas to be broadcast without being taken to task.

This is not journalism, it is the blatant smearing of women, not just Hillary Clinton; it is violence against women, all women. This is the worst sort of male chauvinism and only serves to remind us that, more than anything else, America is in desperate need of real change; not just of its political leadership, but of its fundamental attitudes.

America, we have seen what you really believe in your heart, we have heard your opinions and have been exposed to the vitriol and the fear you harbour at losing control, of losing power, and it is an ugliness that defies comprehension; an ugliness that defies definition, and yet it defines so many who call themselves “American”.

Is America ready for change after the end of George W. Bush’s second term as president? Judging by the comments in that video, they deserve whatever change they get, but that is not really what I wanted to say; my first response had been … and, alas, still is, that (after watching the miserable excuses of men that could not keep their idiocy to themselves) I feel ashamed to be a man. If that is the perception of how “real men” think, then yes, I am ashamed; ashamed that more people do not have an opportunity to hear real, enlightened opinions on these matters, ashamed that the only voices that seem to get heard are the most asinine rather than the reasonable and responsible.

I feel ashamed because it becomes too easy to sit back and let others carry the banners while these frauds continue to spread their lies without any opposition. But, now that I have shared this, that shame is somewhat mitigated and I feel slightly more proud to say that I am a man and that real men would not speak that way about women.

Real men would not show such disrespect to women, after all, our mothers are women and to disrespect your mother is an act too despicable to contemplate. When men disrespect women they demonstrate that they are small-minded, impotent, weak-willed creatures that are incapable of carrying out healthy, loving relationships. Their lack of respect is emblematic of the psychological scars that prevent them from developing normal relationships with women and, subsequently, they lash out at them either verbally or worse, with violence.

It is time for all the real men to take a stand and say they are not afraid of standing up against the sexism being perpetrated against women in the media. These misogynistic acts must be stopped and they can be, if enough viewers demand that the stations broadcasting this trash change their broadcast standards. This is not about censorship; it is about the freedom to be who you were born to be, it is about the freedom to be a man or a woman and to celebrate the differences. Is America ready for that?

To Honour Israel

2008-05-28T17:34:00.001-04:00

This is an important year for the State of Israel and the people living in that land. As they celebrate their 60^th anniversary as a nation another people are observing another anniversary, one with less cheers to be sure, but a sober observance nonetheless. Those who have not been deemed worthy of being granted the “right of return”, something all Jews enjoy, mourn their disenfranchisement from land that had been in their families for generations and the systematic destruction of their people. Resettlement camps, refugee camps, security 'fences'; terms that sound like they refer to an age gone by, but no, they refer to the “modern” State of Israel; the modern Apartheid State, the Genocide State. In seeking a way to honour a land that I am entitled to become a citizen of by virtue of my birthright – something that my brother is denied by virtue of his – seemed like a necessary thing to do, and yet I struggled with the task; how can I, I asked myself, honour a nation that routinely murders innocent civilians through the use of military tactics and weapons that are designed to maximize collateral damage? Would that not be like endorsing their activities? Perhaps it boils down to what is actually said and the tenor of the message; it should not be doubted at this stage that these comments are being provided by someone even remotely sympathetic to the Zionist agenda. Having said that I will add that I am vehemently opposed to all violent approaches to settling the “Middles East situation”, save for the one where everyone who does not want to live together in peace is sent to a deserted island where they are allowed to starve to death ... unless they can cooperate and work out a way to get off the island. There is no excuse for violence; Period.

Thus, I have decided that the only appropriate homage to the State of Israel/Nakba of Palestine is through poetry. There are three poems below: the first is a simple Haiku, the second, entitled 'Being' is an exploration of an existential/metaphysical struggle, while the third, 'Hatikva', deals with the issues of promises. I hope you enjoy them. All poems are ©2008 by Peter Amsel, and the illustrations are © by Ben Heine.

Eretz Yisroel
Sixty years of promises
Krystalnacht again.

~fin~

Being

Being disappears, slowly at first
but inexorably with each passing moment
as our lives are crushed by the weight of others
bearing down upon us
like jackals to their prey,
seeking out the weakest
the youngest
the most vulnerable.

With teeth bared in a flash of anger it ends in an instant
the flash of blood and a muffled scream
the only reminders for the witnesses for what they have seen
once again
as death has its way
unfettered by any restraining forces
prowling with the voracious appetites of
unfulfilled lust ...
for blood and fear ...
for the sake of pure terror ...
for no reason at all.

Being dissolves – begins to fade
the memory a sun-washed derelict of days gone by
requiring much more repair than any will invest ....

Being rusts, it crumbles and rots ...
and disappears.

~fin~

Hatikva

The first lie is the hardest one to tell;
once told, you tell yourself,
it is only one ... and you have also learned to rationalize.
When you make up the excuses for what you know is wrong
for what you know is wrong ... and yet ...

You did it anyway;
there is no other way, you say, sometimes to yourself,
at other times out loud (hoping someone might hear)
praying someone will hear.
That becomes the second lie:
there is no other way,
there is no other way,
there is no other way ...

What there isn't always is the will to see
that other way;
the will to do something that is more difficult
just because it is the right thing to do.

There is always another way.
We won't see it with our eyes closed,
nor with hardened hearts and stiff necks,
our sympathies closed off to the pain of others,
to the suffering they feel, and
the tears they shed.

We won't hear the lies that are told, in our names,
when we cannot see that their stories
are our stories,
just as real;
their sufferings are ours,
their blood flows just as red.

So long ago in places with such terrible names;
names like Auschwitz and Sobibor,
Westerbork and Buchenwald ...
sobering names, to this day,
places where the ground will cry out
with the horrors of what took place
until the end of time,
just as it does for those who have been
dispossessed of their homes,
in modern pogroms and purges,
cleansing the land.

“My homeland, my homeland”, they cry,
calling upon the
Name of the Lord while driving others
from their homes.

Evicting them,
just as they had been driven out,
forced to live in Ghettos,
awaiting their resettlements,
awaiting their deaths;
knowing that the promises they were told
were worthless ...
worth less than the dignity they were being treated with ....

There was no astonishment;
they had been lied to, were being slaughtered,
and are now doing the same;
stealing with impunity,
leaving shattered lives amongst the broken promises ...
broken by both sides,
neither trusting the other, some would say
with cause, 'justifiably', with reason ...
There is no other way,
there is no other way, (They say)
the truth becomes just another casualty to a war that has
yet to begin tallying the total cost of its folly;
and why should they worry ...
another lie, after all, comes so easily now.

We have all mastered the art,
turning away when things are
too difficult to face,
too “hard” to watch,
or just something that we find distasteful.

After all, if you can survive without a home for sixty years,
why should we worry about another decade ... or two,
or four?

All we have to do (lies coming as easily as a waterfall) is
offer the palest promise of “peace”,
of reconciliation,
a promise of settling the issues,
once and for all ...
until it's time for the next bombs to fall.

~fin~

There is no alternative to peace; peace is not the result of war, nor is it the product of a “strong” security policy. Peace is a way of life that can only come through true dedication and desire; without that there is no hope.

Let the truth lie: Re: Too much time on our hands

2008-05-23T16:48:00.001-04:00

This is an unusual post in that it is an open response to a comment to the previous post, “Bushwacked: Bushisms [with some added Insight]”. Thanks to What Really Happened there have been literally thousands of visitors to the post, something that is not only very encouraging, it is quite humbling to know that so many people have taken the time to read what I have written. Having said that it would seem that at least one reader has taken umbrage at the idea that there are some individuals who seem unable to swallow the “official” story that the government has tried (on a number of occasions) to shove down our throats regarding the series of events leading up to and following the 9/11 events.

An anonymous poster left the following comment: “I think we all have too much time on our hands - 911 has been proven in many scientific studies to be as it was first reported e.g. Seffen at Cambridge. Truthers should be imprisoned so we - the free and the brave- can go on with our lives.

“I think you will find - like the U of Madison study (Psychological similarities in mass hysteria, 2006 - Prof. B. Baker) that most truthers are closer to UFO sighters and abductees. Locking them up would be fair to us and them.”

Now, without turning this into something that will approach the depth of the 9/11 Commission’s report, which failed miserably to answer many of the key questions regarding the attack and could not satisfactorily account for the collapse of WTC 7, which was only the third EVER steel structure to collapse from a fire, and it was not even struck by one of the aircraft. Of course, that is only one of the small issues. For a very interesting examination of the history of the report I invite you to visit this link and watch this documentary entitled “9/11: Press for Truth”. It follows the struggle of several of the wives and family members of survivors to push for the creation of the 9/11 Commission and, once it was created, for keeping the commission on course (keep note of who was first appointed as head of the commission and the subsequent head).

Further to that I would add that there is much more to the “truth” than people even begin to consider; the main problem, however, is that the government has been using the tactics of fear to maintain control over the population while the carry out their plans. Why, for example, was Osama bin Laden allowed to escape from Tora Bora? Why did the U.S. forces in Afghanistan only surround this asset on THREE sides, leaving open one of the known exit routes to Pakistan. Why did the U.S. not seek to prosecute the connections between the Pakistani ISI rather than the tenuous connections between the terrorists and Iraq, a connection that, to this day, can still not be made without invoking the mantra of “Al Qaeda in Iraq”.

For an exceptional piece of research on the Complete 9/11 Timeline, a work that clearly demonstrates that not only was there ample warnings before the attacks, there was an abundance of proof after the attacks that were totally ignored by the government. The Bush administration wanted a war and it did not matter how the start of it was accomplished, but it was not a reaction to evidence of terrorism. Complicity for the attacks rests with officials in the highest places who, in their arrogance, refused to heed the warnings (in the best-case scenarios) of those who offered intelligence indicating impending danger.

No, it is not a question of too much time on our hands. “Truthers should be imprisoned so we - the free and the brave- can go on with our lives.” This is what “Anonymous” so bravely states. How interesting; a nation that purports that it would die for the freedom of speech has as its defenders people who are too cowardly to post something to a blog under their real name advocating the suppression of people searching for the truth behind the greatest attack to have taken place against the United States since the attack on Pearl Harbor. I had no idea that to be someone who was interested in the truth was such an offensive thing, that it was such a terrible affront to Americans who had suffered so much at the hands of terrorists. One would have thought that they, amongst all others, would want to see the truth told, regardless of what that may actually represent.

To dismiss the idea of those who do not accept the 9/11 storyline as the Gospel as sharing some sort of collective delusion or mass hysteria is quite convenient, but, alas, rather unsatisfactory … sort of like the explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 (and the subsequent explanations for the molten pools of metal in the basements of each building several DAYS after the fires were extinguished … molten pools that were hotter than burning jet fuel … but I digress). Collective delusions are easily dismissed for simple reasons, not the least of which being that many people who doubt the “story” of 9/11 are not hard-core conspiracy theorists, they are from all walks of life and share a curiosity for the truth and a disdain for the obfuscations that are spouted by the government and their talking heads.

I have only one more thing to say: let the evidence speak for itself; honour the dead with the truth and honour the soldiers by bringing them home from an unjust war.