other voices

Yesterday's Globe And Mail mused on "Why the global rage hasn't engulfed Canada". Some Canadian Muslim leaders weighed in.

Why haven't Muslims in Canada taken to the streets in large numbers to protest against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed? It's not because everyone in Canada is so nice to each other, say Canadian Muslim leaders and Islamic scholars. It's because Canada's multiculturalism is complex.

They say Muslim immigration into Canada has been different. So has Muslim integration into Canadian society. And so has the political action of Canadian Muslim organizations around the highly sensitive issue of Islamic religious fundamentalism.

The difference is illustrated by events in France in 2004 and Canada in 2005, said Tarek Fatah, a leader of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

In France, few if any representative voices within the French Muslim community were heard in the news media speaking in favour of a law banning conspicuous religious symbols, such as the traditional Muslim head scarf, in public schools.

This was the case even though a significant percentage of French Muslims had no problem accepting the law within the cultural context of French secular society.

The powerful Muslim opposition that was heard, Mr. Fatah said, came from "the mosque structure" but "the mobilization of moderate Muslim voices never happened."

In contrast, in Canada in 2005, the news media pointedly reported that the most vociferous opposition to an Ontario law permitting Islamic religious tribunals to arbitrate family and marital disputes came from Muslim organizations themselves.

In Mr. Fatah's view, the mainstream Muslim community in Canada has recognized the need to take what he calls "ownership of the word Muslim." It has become actively involved in Canadian political life and not marginalized as is the case in many Western countries.

"It's a shift, for Canadian Muslims, that has not happened anywhere else."

Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said violent demonstrations simply aren't a fit with the Canadian Muslim community -- which, because of Canada's immigration requirements, he said, is the most highly educated Muslim community in the world.

"They would find legal and peaceful means of protest far more productive," said the imam and professor at the University of Waterloo. "With demonstrations, you cannot have full control over who does what."

His organization, the largest Muslim umbrella group in Canada, has actively discouraged demonstrations over the cartoons and has spoken publicly against the violent protests -- as has the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Earle Waugh, a University of Alberta Islamic scholar, said most Muslim immigrants to Canada do not feel sidelined, a factor significantly fuelling the protests in European countries.

"There is no sympathy within the Canadian Muslim community for a radical approach," he said. "No sympathy for the fundamentalists."

Canada has had no legacy of Muslim colonies like that of the British and French, and no history of migrant Muslim guest workers like that of Germany.

Interesting stuff, and it makes sense to me. Any thoughts?

Radical Muslim protests in the US, of course, are out of question. No one wants to be swept up, jailed and deported.

what i'm watching: the emperor penguins

Speaking of nature, has everyone here seen March Of The Penguins? We watched it last night, and it was as spectacular as I had heard. The movie itself left me with some questions, but the story is so mind-boggling, the landscape and animals so magnificent, that it hardly matters. This must be nature at its most beautiful and most mysterious.

The filmmaking itself is an outsized creative feat. The DVD contains a long "making of" movie called Of Penguins And Men. It was a little overdone for our tastes, but it answers a lot of questions that you find yourself asking. (How did they get the underwater shots? How close did the penguins allow them?)

At one point the filmmakers stay out too late and are caught in a winter storm: it takes them six hours to travel one kilometer. Even with all the high-tech deep-cold equipment - the Goretex, the special eyewear, the GPS technology - an emergency rescue team is required. They sustain severe frostbite and injuries, and clearly would have perished. Humans think they rule this planet, but we are always humbled by nature.

protection

Two million hectares - almost five million acres - of coastal rainforest in British Columbia will be protected from most logging and development. (The area is being called "three times the size of Prince Edward Island" or "twice the size of Yellowstone National Park," in Canadian and US media, respectively.)

The move is hailed as a groundbreaking example of how competing land interests can be balanced. It ends a decade-long battle among environmentalists, industry, First Nations people and government.

From the CBC story:

[The protected areas] cover 1.2 million hectares, where habitat conservation, maintaining biodiversity, and the preservation of special landscape, recreation and cultural heritage features are a priority. That brings the total protected to 1.8 million hectares.

The new areas include one of the largest intact temperate rainforests in the world, home to the Kermode or Spirit Bear, a black bear with white fur.

"The agreement reached on these areas represents an unprecedented collaboration between First Nations, industry, environmentalists, local governments and many other stakeholders in how we manage the vast richness of B.C.'s coast," [B.C. Premier Gordon] Campbell said in a statement.

The protected areas are part of the 6.4-million-hectare region of B.C.'s central and north coast, where the province on Tuesday outlined zoning plans for land and resource management.

The deal covers a vast area of B.C.'s central coastal forest that environmentalists have dubbed the Great Bear Rainforest, and the north coast forest.

In some smaller areas, called biodiversity areas, limited economic development is allowed.

In the largest sections, dubbed ecosystem-based management operating areas, environmentally sensitive economic development that benefits local communities will be allowed. These areas, where there could be work like helicopter logging, account for about two-thirds of the total 6.4 million hectares.

This is exciting and encouraging news.

Here's a press release about the agreement from environmental action groups, via Common Dreams.

appeal

US war resister Jeremy Hinzman will be in Federal court today, appealing the Canadian Immigration Board's decision to deny him refugee status.

Hinzman is one of about 20 American soldiers whose objections to the invasion of Iraq brought them to Canada. (Hinzman's attorney, Jeffry House, says that another 150-180 people are watching the outcome of this case before they act.) The Immigration Board ruled that Hinzman does not qualify for political asylum, because he is not a conscientious objector or a pacifist - he objects to a specific war, not all war. In addition, they ruled that US is a democratic country and would provide Hinzman with a fair trial. Hinzman faces a court martial and five years in prison if he returns to the US.

It's pretty clear that Canadian refugee law, although very generous, doesn't include a provision for Hinzman's circumstances. Naturally I wish it did. When I blogged about Hinzman back in March, a Toronto Star columnist had a good idea for how Canada could help Hinzman, and it would have applied to me, too.

Hinzman's website is here, although it appears not to be updated frequently. Brandon Hughey, another US war resister, has a good website, too.

I admire and respect these men, for their choices and their moral courage. I'm glad they were able to live here during their application and hearing process. I just wish there was something more Canada could do.

day job

I'll be downtown Toronto today, registering with the two big legal staffing agencies. One agency found Allan's job, the other kept him temping until that happened. They're competitors, so they'll both be working hard to find me something good. (Hooray for capitalism.)

Thank you to everyone who has emailed me with writing ideas. I really appreciate it. Please don't interpret my not going for these opportunities as lack of interest or gratitude. Although I welcome opportunities to expand my little writing niche, many things are just too far out of my line.

I chose a long time ago to separate my principal means of income from my writing goals, rather than write about anything just to make a living. This isn't because I'm so laden with integrity. I just can't motivate myself to write if I'm not really into it. I have to be really passionate about my subjects, really excited by and challenged by them, or I just can't bother. If it's "only" for money, I'd just as soon do something easier.

So, until moving here, I always had a day-job of some sort. It gave me the freedom to write what I wanted and pursue projects on my own, without worrying about income. Most of the projects that interest me can't pay well, or there aren't enough of them to live on. (The children's encyclopedias were a rare exception, because the publisher's parent company was a giant media monster. And we see how that turned out.)

Over the years, as my writing career picked up, and as my income-earning potential increased on the day-job front, I was able to cut back on the other income and spend more time writing. (For the curious, a little history here.) But my goal was never to drop the day-job entirely.

The tough part - for both me and Allan, because he has lived this way, too - is that our income-earning potential is much lower here than it was in New York. This was one of the less pleasant realities we faced leaving New York City: we knew we'd never earn as much anywhere else.

We weren't going to stay in the US just to keep our day-jobs - that's completely backwards. The jobs are supposed to enable your life, not control it. Besides, jobs can end. I could easily see the firm I used to work for hiring a new personnel director (who wasn't already attached to me), then firing me, and hiring someone for half my salary.

So we had to pursue our goals despite this. But the fact remains: it will take 40 hours a week in Toronto to earn what I did in 24 hours a week in New York. Damn.

The most important thing for me is to find something with nontraditional hours - evenings or weekends - so I can still have a writing life. Until then, I'll temp.

Now I have to make myself look halfway professional, which is the most I can manage.

what i'm watching: adapt to survive

Life is change. We are, all of us, in a constant state of flux, no matter how stable our lives appear to be.

It often seems to me that the people who are most successful at living are those who are most adaptable. By successful, I don't mean materially, or even recognition in a chosen field. I mean, rock-bottom success. People making the most of their circumstances, whatever they are, shaping what's there and creating a new reality. For some people, success might mean nothing less than survival itself.

I recently (within the past few weeks) saw two movies that illustrated this dramatically. The subjects were polar opposites, but I found a common theme.

"Nobody Knows" is a Japanese film about four children, siblings, who are abandoned by their mother in a tiny Tokyo apartment. The children adapt to their new circumstances, then adapt again and again, as their world becomes increasingly desperate. It's a sad movie, but totally unsentimental, with a patient, everyday quality, more quietly sad than brutal.

The acting is extraordinary, especially Yuya Yagira and Ayu Kitaura as the two oldest children. It's written and directed by Hirokazu Koreeda.

The second movie couldn't be more different in subject matter: "Carandiru", written and directed by Hector Babenco, based on a book by Drauzio Varella. Carandiru was the nickname of a huge, overcrowded prison in Brazil, Latin America's largest detention center, the scene of an infamous massacre (by police). The story is told through the eyes of a doctor doing prison AIDS prevention work; the book is Varella's own story.

The men incarcerated in Carandiru also adapt to seemingly impossible circumstances. They form a community with its own set of morals, rules, comforts and punishments. It's a very violent world, but it's also built on fierce bonds of friendship, loyalty and love.

"Carandiru" is a very good movie, although if you're highly sensitive to violence, it's probably not for you. Most of the violence happens off-camera, but is clearly suggested, except for the final, climactic scene, which is graphic.

The connection between these disparate movies was instantly apparent to me: adapt and survive.

I spend much of my writing life listening to, and telling stories about, people who have adapted to - and transcended - circumstance to form new realities. In 15 years of writing about disability issues, this is the greatest lesson I've learned. Many able-bodied people look at disability and see tragedy - and any disability may have been started out as tragedy. But every one of us has only the hand that's dealt us (to use an apt cliche), plus our own brains, creativity and flexibility, with which to shape it into a life.

xl

Mick Jagger, world's hottest 62-year-old.

Every Stones performance I see, I scrutinize Mick for signs of aging. I saw some last night. Apparently he's human.

If you watched yesterday's half time show, you know it was also notable for what you didn't hear: the full lyrics. After last year's Shocking Breast Incident, who would dare expose tender American ears to the word "come".

I see the BBC (above) used a photo that makes Mick look old and tired indeed. He looks a little better here.

But Mick's presence isn't captured best in photos. You have to see him move. Keith and Ronnie looked like they were having fun, too.

Well, it was an enjoyable 12 minutes, not the Stones' best performance (which would be tough to manage in 12 minutes), nor their worst. More importantly, football is over, and I can watch subversive cartoons on Sunday nights again.

immortality

Tonight Leonard Cohen will be inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame. (The other inductees, both people and songs, are listed here.) k.d. lang will sing Cohen's "Hallelujah," and Cohen himself, known to shun the spotlight, will be there to accept his award.

The CBC has been running a "where are they now" segment about the woman who - at least in name - inspired Cohen's most famous song, "Suzanne". It asks, "Why the split between artist and muse?" Seems kind of silly to me. Cohen wrote "Suzanne" in 1966; most relationships don't last 40 years. Also, a song is a work of art, not an autobiography. Songs may contain glimpses of a writer's life, but they're not diaries. It doesn't really matter who Suzanne was when Cohen wrote the song. What matters is whatever each of us thinks of when we hear it. Oh well, I guess it was a slow news day.

Cohen is a great songwriter, his troubles well documented, so I hope this helps him out.

will: shakespeare is shakespeare

An Ottawa man has spent almost 20 years and more than $1 million trying to determine if an oil painting his family owns is the only portrait of William Shakespeare painted in the playwright's lifetime.

There's a long story in yesterday's Globe And Mail about five paintings of Shakespeare, and the claims for their respective dates. I think it's fascinating how this work is done.

Two works have been discredited in advance of the show. Last April, Cooper [an expert on 16th- and early 17th-century English portraiture], announced that one of the most recognizable Shakespeare images, the so-called "Flower portrait," was, in fact, a fake.

The painting, named after the Stratford brewing dynasty that donated the work to the Royal Shakespeare Company in the 19th century, carries a date of 1609 on its upper-left corner. But after four months of testing, the NPG experts determined it was painted between 1814 and 1840, on top of a 16th-century image of the Virgin Mary and the baby Jesus with St. John. The giveaway? Traces of chrome-yellow paint embedded deep in the portrait, a pigment that was first manufactured in the early 19th century.

In March, the National Portrait Gallery in London (UK) will open a Shakespeare-themed exhibition, "Searching for Shakespeare", followed by a conference on Shakespeare portraiture. The same exhibit is running now in the US, at the Yale Center for British Art in New Haven, Connecticut.

Experts don't hold out a lot of hope that the painting in Ottawa is authentic. But the owner, Lloyd Sullivan, says he has proof:

Eventually -- he won't say when -- he'll publish "a tell-all book, a conclusive book" that verifies the authenticity of the Sanders portrait with evidence from "other documents that nobody has seen."

If it is authentic, the painting will be worth up to $20 million. Seems to me that if Sullivan has conclusive proof, he'd show it now.

Meanwhile, Sullivan says it's unlikely his portrait will ever again be stored in the upstairs cupboard of his Ottawa home where it was kept until 2001. In fact, his family would like the AGO to own the portrait. "Preferably, we'd have somebody buy it and then donate it."

The Globe And Mail story is here; registration required.

i hate football

There is one great thing about Super Bowl: Spring Training is right around the corner!

This year, I actually have to tape the damn game, to see the half-time show.

another passing

Friedan was a pioneer, carrying on the work of pioneers before her. Her groundbreaking The Feminine Mystique brought feminism into the modern era. She was brilliant, radical, hilarious, and a sharp, incisive writer. She died today, on her 85th birthday.

Here's her entry in the National Women's Hall of Fame.

This has been a bad week for great women, eh? Wendy Wasserstein, Coretta Scott King and Betty Friedan, all leaving this earth in the same week. They each left us so much.

outrage

Of all the hypocrisy and lies perpetrated by the US government, for me the worst, the absolute lowest, is the shameful treatment of the armed forces. Lie to these people, betray their trust, cut off their options so the military is one of the only ways to get an education, use them for propaganda - then spit them out. Cut funding for the ongoing medical treatment they'll need long after their dues have been paid, give their families only partial benefits because they were reservists, deny them even proper protection in combat - it's a long list.

Within that context, what could be worse than this? Redsock just sent me this.

Rape is very common in war. In all wars, in every era, it's been used as a weapon against "the enemy". But how about against one's fellow soldiers?

I'm too upset to say much more.

Military Hides Cause of Women Soldiers' Deaths
By Marjorie Cohn
Monday 30 January 2006

In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior U.S. military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.

Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.

The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night," Karpinski told retired U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview.

It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn't drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to urinate at night. They didn't get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.

Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition's joint task force said in a briefing that "women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep."

"And rather than make everybody aware of that -- because that's shocking, and as a leader if that's not shocking to you, then you're not much of a leader -- what they told the surgeon to do is don't brief those details anymore. And don't say specifically that they're women. You can provide that in a written report, but don't brief it in the open anymore."

For example, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez's top deputy in Iraq, saw "dehydration" listed as the cause of death on the death certificate of a female master sergeant in September 2003. Under orders from Sanchez, he directed that the cause of death no longer be listed, Karpinski stated. The official explanation for this was to protect the women's privacy rights.

Sanchez's attitude was: "The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory," Karpinski quoted him as saying. Karpinski told me that Sanchez, who was her boss, was very sensitive to the political ramifications of everything he did. She thinks it likely that when the information about the cause of these women's deaths was passed to the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld ordered that the details not be released. "That's how Rumsfeld works," she said.

"It was out of control," Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October. There was an 800 number women could use to report sexual assaults. But no one had a phone, she added. And no one answered that number, which was based in the United States. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording. Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message.

"There were countless such situations all over the theater of operations -- Iraq and Kuwait -- because female soldiers didn't have a voice, individually or collectively," Karpinski told Hackworth. "Even as a general, I didn't have a voice with Sanchez, so I know what the soldiers were facing. Sanchez did not want to hear about female soldier requirements and/or issues."

Karpinski was the highest officer reprimanded for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, although the details of interrogations were carefully hidden from her. Demoted from brigadier general to colonel, Karpinski feels she was chosen as a scapegoat because she was a female.

Sexual assault in the U.S. military has become a hot topic in the last few years, "not just because of the high number of rapes and other assaults, but also because of the tendency to cover up assaults and to harass or retaliate against women who report assaults," according to Kathy Gilberd, co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild's Military Law Task Force. This problem has become so acute that the Army has set up its own sexual assault web site.

In February 2004, Rumsfeld directed the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness to undertake a 90-day review of sexual assault policies. "Sexual assault will not be tolerated in the Department of Defense," Rumsfeld declared.

The 99-page report was issued in April 2004. It affirmed, "The chain of command is responsible for ensuring that policies and practices regarding crime prevention and security are in place for the safety of service members." The rates of reported alleged sexual assault were 69.1 and 70.0 per 100,000 uniformed service members in 2002 and 2003. Yet those rates were not directly comparable to rates reported by the Department of Justice, due to substantial differences in the definition of sexual assault.

Notably, the report found that low sociocultural power (i.e., age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status) and low organizational power (i.e., pay grade and years of active duty service) were associated with an increased likelihood of both sexual assault and sexual harassment.

The Department of Defense announced a new policy on sexual assault prevention and response on Jan. 3, 2005. It was a reaction to media reports and public outrage about sexual assaults against women in the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ongoing sexual assaults and cover-ups at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, Gilberd said. As a result, Congress demanded that the military review the problem, and the Defense Authorization Act of 2005 required a new policy be put in place by January 1.

The policy is a series of very brief "directive-type memoranda" for the secretaries of the military services from the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. "Overall, the policy emphasizes that sexual assault harms military readiness, that education about sexual assault policy needs to be increased and repeated, and that improvements in response to sexual assaults are necessary to make victims more willing to report assaults," Gilberd notes. "Unfortunately," she added, "analysis of the issues is shallow, and the plans for addressing them are limited."

Commands can reject the complaints if they decide they aren't credible, and there is limited protection against retaliation against the women who come forward, according to Gilberd. "People who report assaults still face command disbelief, illegal efforts to protect the assaulters, informal harassment from assaulters, their friends or the command itself," she said.

But most shameful is Sanchez's cover-up of the dehydration deaths of women that occurred in Iraq. Sanchez is no stranger to outrageous military orders. He was heavily involved in the torture scandal that surfaced at Abu Ghraib. Sanchez approved the use of unmuzzled dogs and the insertion of prisoners head first into sleeping bags, after which they were tied with an electrical cord, and their mouths were covered. At least one person died as the result of the sleeping bag technique. Karpinski charges that Sanchez attempted to hide the torture after the hideous photographs became public.

Sanchez reportedly plans to retire soon, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune earlier this month. But Rumsfeld recently considered elevating the three-star general to a four-star. The Tribune also reported that Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, the Army's chief spokesman, said in an email message, "The Army leaders do have confidence in LTG Sanchez."

-------
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, President-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. She writes a weekly column for truthout.

listen

Wmtc friend and reader M@ posted (in comments) a link to a CBC radio interview with Kurt Vonnegut. I highly recommend it.

The great Mr Vonnegut describes the United States as I know it. His view is dark, but it's hard to argue with it.

Click here and scroll down to "Part 3". (Psst... G, there's something special in it for you.)

Many thanks to M@.

art

The National Gallery of Canada is holding a retrospective of the work of Norval Morrisseau.

It's the Gallery's first solo show by a First Nations artist. Art created by aboriginal people is often exhibited in museums, as artifact or craft, but many Western eyes still have trouble viewing it as art.

Morrisseau himself is disabled with Parkinson's disease. I'm glad this show was done in his lifetime. I'm wondering if we can get to Ottawa to see it. Ottawa is on my list of places to visit, but I doubt we can do it before the show closes on April 30.

To see some of Morrisseau's work online, try here, here or here. This page is especially good. This page from the CBC website has good annotations accompanying the photos.

overheard

I need to vent.

I overheard two women talking in the locker room at the Y yesterday. They were far away, not in my area, but everyone could hear them loud and clear.

One woman was talking about her Caribbean vacation. I'll call her Vacation. The other woman - let's call her Listener - was agreeing with Vacation and asking questions. It was mostly mundane small-talk, and although I could hear every word, I wasn't paying much attention.

After a while, Listener asked, "Where else have you been down there?" Vacation named a few islands, including Aruba.

Listener: "They never did find that girl down there, did they?" Here my ears perk up.

Vacation: "No, they didn't. She was sold. Kidnapped and sold into prostitution. I saw her parents on Dr Phil. They said she was a good girl and wouldn't ask for trouble. But you know, when you go on vacation in a strange country, you don't just wander off by yourself, it's not safe." Now I'm listening intently.

Listener: "Well, no one could expect something like that to happen."

Vacation: "No, but it's just common sense. Her friends asked her to come along, and she said no, and she went off by herself. That's putting yourself in a position for something to happen. I won't say it's asking for it, but come on."

Listener: "Well, like my sister-in-law says, no means no." [Wow, her sister-in-law's a genius. I guess this was Listener's attempt to shift blame away from the victim.]

Vacation: It's just stupid. You do stupid things, you're going to get hurt.

Listener: Yeah, I suppose.

Vacation: Plus, you know, they're all dark people down there. They like blondes.

They say their goodbyes and head off.

At this point, I'm seething. They're dark people down there. They like blondes. How many myths and stereotypes can we fit into one sentence?

If the women had been nearby, I would have said something. But they were in another cubicle, hidden from me by rows of lockers. And I've matured to the point where I know better than to charge over to someone else's conversation (although it took several decades!). So I just continued getting ready, quietly seething, and left the gym.

In my head, I know why people say things like that. It's very simple, really: it makes them feel safer. She did that, that's why she was raped/abducted/assaulted. I would never do that, therefore it won't happen to me. No one wants to believe they are vulnerable. No one wants to believe the truth, that violence can be totally random and can happen to anybody. I know this in my head. But when I hear it out loud, it still hurts in my heart.

Folks, if you ever find yourself talking about one of the many personal tragedies that becomes public fodder, please watch what you say. Chances are very good - statistically speaking - that someone listening is a survivor of violence of some kind. She or he has probably believed, at least for a time, that they "did something stupid" to cause their misfortune - and may even believe it still. So, please. Think.

As for myths about skin and hair colour, I offer no excuse for that trash. They have no basis in reality.

support our troops, maple leaf edition

I want to talk about something I've never mentioned here, something that's increasingly on my mind: Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Canada supported the US's foray into Afghanistan after 9/11, ostensibly to overthrow the Taliban and secure the country while a semi-secular Afghan government was set up. There were always other issues there for the US - the Central Asian pipeline, for one - but from all reports, it sounds like Canada was there to help thwart terrorism and to loosen the grip of the loathesome Taliban.

More than four years later, Canadian troops are still there. I understand that a continued military presence is often essential to prevent an extremely repressive regime from filling a power vacuum, or from the total lawlessness and extreme violence of, for example, Rwanda, Somalia, or Sierra Leone.

But is that what's actually going on over there? What kind of government is being supported? And is Canada's presence in Afghanistan assisting the US occupation of Iraq, by propping up an overextended US military?

When a Canadian diplomat was killed in Afghanistan two weeks ago, Canada's role there was highlighted. The public was warned that Canadian casualties there may become a more common occurrence, and that Canadian troops will increasingly take the offensive. In other words, Canada will make war to keep the peace.

I found this interesting analysis of the Central Asian situation by Tom Porteus on TomPaine.com. I'm quoting it here as food for thought.

Two scourges of western civilization - terrorism and heroin - were wheeled out again in London this week to justify increased U.S. and European military and economic engagement in Afghanistan. The occasion was the unveiling of a new Afghan Compact: yet another "blueprint" for rebuilding the country.

Afghan and western leaders used the London conference to deliver a stark message to the world: If you don't help fix Afghanistan, you will be overwhelmed by a mountain of Afghan narcotics and hordes of kohl-eyed graduates from Al Qaeda's Afghan terrorist academies.

The analysis is familiar, and a common theme runs through it: Afghanistan is a "failed state," and in order to address the global threats that emanate from it, the west needs to address the problem of state failure.

There are three difficulties with this presentation of the problems of Afghanistan. Together they help to explain the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the West's policies there since the overthrow of the mad mullah/Taliban regime in the aftermath of 9/11.

The writer presents what he sees as the three problems with the west's approach to Afghanistan: first, that it's been proven repeatedly not to work, second, that other western policies encourage the very failed state that the west is supposedly trying to fix, and third, that the focus on terrorism and drugs is simplistic and reductionist, that it doesn't take into account the rest of Afghanistan's reality. He concludes:

The assessment of the political grandees at the London conference was that the west and its Afghan partners are on the right track in Afghanistan but need to go further. The reality is different.

Whatever pious statements may come out of international gatherings like the London conference, the west's strategic interests in Afghanistan and in the wider region will continue to pull in different, often contradictory and unpredictable directions - not all of them beneficial to Afghanistan. In short, the Great Game, which has so often undermined Afghanistan's prospects of peace and stability in the past, goes on. [Full story here.]

* * * *

Feel-good pride in the military is very common in Canada now, a bit of quiet (because it's Canadian) chest-thumping that the military is no longer a predictable punchline. Canadians are very proud of their country's frequent role as international peacekeeper, which I can appreciate.

But that pride can easily morph into a blanket support-our-troops kind of cheerleading. Citizens can easily confuse support for the people in the military and empathy for their dangerous jobs with uncritical support for whatever mission their government sends them on. And that's dangerous.

I have no conclusion about this, only questions. How do you all feel about Canada's continued presence in Afghanistan?

time to temp

Ah well. All good things come to an end. Writing full-time was incredible, and now the bubble has burst.

Remember Ancient Civs? I was writing a volume for a Junior Encyclopedia series, to be published by Disney Worldwide Publishing. I wrote my first book in the project shortly before we moved, and that income allowed us to not work for six weeks when we first got here. Brilliant.

I was immediately offered a second book, and was supposed to start work in early September. September turned to October, and then November. In November, they asked for the first step, instant turnaround, so it could be approved before the holidays. (Yeah, right.)

In December they said January. Throughout January they said "hopefully soon".

Last week my editor - who is also a freelancer - said, "Disney has turned into a black hole of information. If you're offered other work, don't turn it down." Hmm.

Today, she said goodbye, at least for now.

From the email I just received from the project coordinator:

With the recent restructuring at Disney, the Encyclopedia project has been suspended.

This means that the projects 'in progress', are now 'on stand-by', with the obvious fear that it may become permanent.

We are keeping our fingers crossed that the Encyclopedia project will one day continue in some form, for everyone has worked so hard on such a wonderful concept.

This means the volumes we already completed may never be published, and a big chunk of my projected income just disappeared. What a drag.

On the other hand... It was enormously challenging and rewarding work, I learned a lot, added a great credit to my writing resume, alleviated tons of stress and pressure from our first weeks in Canada, and learned what it's like to be a full-time writer. In addition, the editor and I really enjoyed working together, and she'll likely call me for future work. There's a lot to be happy about.

Now it's time to earn some money. My Kids On Wheels work is fun and interesting, but not well paid.

Readers in the GTA with connections to copyediting, proofreading or word processing are invited to email. Next week: temp agencies.

what i'm reading: pierre berton

I just finished The Last Spike, the second of Pierre Berton's books about the building of the Canadian transcontinental railway. (I read both books in succession.)

If you love history, as I do, this was a fantastic book. The story of building the railroad across Canada is a heroic tale, or many heroic tales wrapped into one - stories of tremendous daring and nerve, and great cruelty and deprivation.

Berton paints the full picture. It's the story of the men whose back-breaking labour literally, physically, built the railroads, of the native peoples whose way of life was taken from them, and of the pioneers who tamed the land. And it's also the story of rich, powerful men who raised impossible sums of money, took impossible risks, and insisted on doing what seemed utterly impossible.

The Canadian railway was immensely expensive to build because of the insistence that it stay completely on Canadian land, and not go through the US. This meant somehow building on the Canadian shield and two completely unexplored mountain ranges - and makes for one eye-popping scene after the next.

In those days, bankruptcy was common in railway building, and most railroad owners would profit hugely off it. But with the Canadian Pacific Railway on the brink of financial collapse, the two men who had the most invested - emotionally, psychologically and financially - put their own personal fortunes into the pot, saying if the railway fails, they cannot be left with one dollar. Not your typical robber baron stuff.

Thanks to Pierre Berton, I learned a tremendous amount about the early Canada. Before the railway, Canada was more idea than nation. The railway story is the story of the birth of a nation, and a portrait of a country in its infancy.

Now I'm fully glutted on history, and my brain needs a rest. (I like to alternate between reading nonfiction and novels.) I have a small stack of novels waiting for me, beginning with Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. If I run across anything really great, I'll be sure and post.

unfriendly neighbours

As you all know, yesterday US troops in Iraq fired on a vehicle carrying Canadian diplomats. We'll never know what the Americans were thinking as they shot live bullets directly into a clearly marked diplomatic car with no warning. Thank goodness no one was killed or hurt.

It was strange to see Stephen Harper addressing it at a press conference! It's still hard to believe he's now the face of Canada.

On the other hand, it wasn't so strange - merely ridiculous - to see Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon spokespeople parrot the usual lines: warning, didn't stop, investigation, blah blah blah.

I don't know who would believe anything the Pentagon says, ever. (Outside of a few million idiots in the US, that is.) A long time ago, discussing some 9/11-related incident, I remember Allan saying, "At this point, I wouldn't believe the FAA if they said the sky was blue." I figure that's a good rule of thumb for the US government in general.

You know, the last time I referred to Bush supporters as idiots, I got several scolding comments and emails - from liberal readers. They said I was being divisive, that it was our responsibility to respect differing views.

Too bad. At this point, anyone who defends or supports the lying, murderous, anti-democratic regime in Washington is either profiting from it himself or an idiot. Or both.

black history month

February is Black History Month.


Thanks to my former Congressperson, Charlie Rangel. And thanks to Andrea for sending me this!

More serious suggestions for exploring Black history are Toni Morrison's masterpiece, Beloved, the great PBS miniseries Eyes On The Prize, and Voices Of Freedom: An Oral History of the Civil Rights Movement from the 1950s Through the 1980s.