Thoughts

Ghandi believed that there existed 7 deadly sins.

Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice, and
Politics without principle.

First, let's look at the first words in each one of these propositions:

Wealth.
Pleasure.
Knowledge.
Commerce.
Science.
Worship.
Politics.

The above words represent things that various individuals crave--some of which depend on an individual's preferences, others of which are universal. Individuals might obtain gratification from obtaining large amounts of any one of these things. An individual may dedicate his entire life to pursuing wealth, pleasure, knowledge, commerce, science, worship, or politics, simply for the personal gratification that these activities allow him or her to enjoy, often supported by one's personal understanding of the world. Each one of these pursuits are, therefore, SELFISH.

It is just as selfish to pursue science for the sake of science, simply for the personal gratification of obtaining knowledge, even if that knowledge has the potential to physically or emotionally harm large amounts of people (such as a deadly weapons technology or genetic information that might put into question the equality, in some respect, of a particular national group), than it is to pursue as much monetary wealth as possible, despite what horrible, disgusting things that individual had to do to get the money (i.e. or killing individuals, or threatening to do so, for the sake of obtaining a ransom, or tossing millions of workers into unemployment in a particular area in pursuit of a cheaper location).

Now, lets look at the third words in each proposition:

Work.
Conscience.
Character.
Morality.
Humanity.
Sacrifice.
Principle.

These are things that any individual could, at his or her primal level, do without. People don't want to work--they want to be as rich as possible by doing as little work as possible. Many people would love to have as much fun as they wanted without thinking about how they may be harming themselves by having fun in that manner (i.e. taking a particular hallucinogen to obtain a particular effect, thinking only about how fun it might be, and not of how that drug might harm one's body), simply pursuing information without having no substance, no spirit, zest or flamboyancy whatsoever, thereby dehumanizing an individual to the level of mere biological machinery, making as much money in any way possible without thinking about how one's pursuits might be negatively affecting others, pursuing scientific knowledge without actually considering the positive or negative human implications of that science, worshipping a particular religious deity to ask for forgiveness for each and every crime committed without actually making an effort to prevent oneself from committing these moral crimes, and pursuing political power without having any principles to propagate--or thus any reason to lead a population other than the will for power itself.

The above words represent things that are SELFLESS. Individuals do not necessarily obtain any personal gain from doing these things, but they add MEANING to things that the individual does. The human race needs a moral basis for its activities. This moral basis is what separates barbarism and civilization. Individuals cannot do things without considering how these things might be negatively effecting themselves or society around them. Simply pursuing things without considering why they might be good or bad in a respect other than self-gratification turns us all into pigs and whores in a free-fall of unsustainability. Without principles, we will be extinct, both physically and existentially. A human race without principles at its base is a race based on indulgence, not a race based on humanity.

Something for you all to consider..........

"Da-DA-Da-Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" No More????

I used to be a huuge hockey fan, and a pretty big sports fan in general. These days I'm not as engrossed in sports as I used to be because I've discovered other things. However, there are certain things that define your childhood, and the experience of growing up in Canada, and one of them happens to be the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. For 40 years, generations have turned on the television on Saturday night at 7 p.m. to hear the legendary jingle before the evening's games began. The classic Canadian saturday night can never be complete without Hockey Night in Canada, and Hockey Night in Canada can never be complete without that legendary jingle. Some have gone so far as to call the song "Canada's second national anthem"--an important unifying institution in a country fraught with regionalism and divided nationalistic sympathies.

The song was originally composed in 1968 by Vancouver-native Dolores Claman, an alma mater of the University of British Columbia who received a graduate scholarship to the famed Julliard School of Music. Since CBC bought the right to use the tune as the theme song for Hockey Night in Canada, it has been played, in various different forms, from jazz to rock, prior to the commencement of their saturday night hockey series. Over the years, Canadians have fallen in love with the tune. It has been known to have a great emotional affect on Canadians at home and abroad, with a myriad of anecdotal tales describing the importance this melody has had in inspiring nationalism and encouragement into Canadians across the globe. When the sheet music was released in 2000, it sold more copies than the year's top-of-the-chart albums.

Recently, after the expiry of the copyright agreement between its owners and the CBC, the CBC announced that it might not be renewed, and Canadians may have very well heard the last of "Da-DA-Da Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" with the conclusion of the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. The copyright holders announced that they hoped the crown corporation would have a change of heart, and it is known that the composer is having a particularly hard time with the news of this possibility. The CBC said that, if a deal cannot be reached under any circumstances, a nationwide contest would be held to select a new theme. Somehow, however, I think that if a national contest was held, everyone would send in the same theme song as before :P It has become such an important part of national life in this country that getting rid of it is as foolish as getting rid of the Maple Leaf. Even some politicians, such as Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and NDP national leader Jack Layton, have expressed their anger and disbelief with this attitude on the part of the CBC.

So far, Canadians that have been confronted with the news on the street have responded with shock, anger, and disbelief. I hope the CBC's bureaucracy is proud of what it is stealing from our national experience. It should be reminded that it is part of the CBC's mandate to "contribute to shared national consciousness and identity" (part iv), and failing to renew the copyright for this jingle would be contrary to this. The royalty is $500, and I think that is measly in comparison to the amount of revenue they make from the program. I truly hope the CBC and the jingle's copyright holders can come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, if not for anything else but the benefit of this nation's heritage, traditions, and future generations.

Considering its mandate, the CBC should not give up at the negotiating table as easily as it seems to be, as indicated by comments such as "oh, we thought the deadline was tomorrow!". Comments such as this indicate to me that they are actually trying to get away with not renewing the theme, for reasons that are beyond my comprehension and definitely not in their, or this nation's, best interest. If the CBC does indeed decide to do away with the classic HNIC theme, it will have made, in my eyes, an anti-Canadian decision.

Associated Links:

thestar.com, "Hockey Theme Not Dead Yet"
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/437636

Hockey Night in Canada Theme Website
http://www.hockeytheme.com

CBC/Radio Canada Mandate
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml

"Israel" - Not Just a "Dirty Word" or a "Promised Land"

No other country (except, perhaps, the United States of America) has been the source of so much fascination and scrutiny in the Islamic World than the State of Israel.  Time and time again, I've heard right-wing muslims refer to the citizens of that country as "zionist filth".  They decry the zionist state as a "racist colonialist entity", and have declared a jihad against the Israeli State and its Western supporters. 

These Islamists need to consider that the Israeli state, although having deep-ceded problems, is a vibrant democracy with an open society struggling to reconcile a Jewish identity with a democratic one.  Most Arab countries are not open societies, and citizens (especially women) are subjected to the harshness and brutality of sharia law.  All arab citizens of the state have constitutionally-protected rights, such as the right to vote, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Many Israeli Arabs have enjoyed high positions in the public service.  

Despite these commendable points, It is also no secret that Israeli Arab citizens have had to deal with widespread racism and religious-based discrimination.  It is also no secret that the IDF runs an illegal and repressive military occupation in the West Bank, and maintains an uncompromising forcefield around the Gaza Strip.  Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do not have the same rights as Israeli citizens, and have to deal with a day-to-day life of constant and perpetual harassment.  It is no secret that many members of religious militia are not members because they are fiercely ideological, but are members because they wish to defend their country from illegal occupation.  

However, these Islamist pressure groups and terrorist networks have religious motivations. They wish to cleanse the "dar-ul-islam" (land of Islam, loosely Arabia) of a state with a majority kaffir (non-muslim) presence, and wish to recruit Palestinians frustrated with occupation to their cause.  While Israel humiliates Palestinians in their day-to-day occupation, the Islamic world uses them as pawns in their politically-motivated jihad against the West.

Most pro-Israel activists are American and European jews who have, at best, visited the state on occasion, but hold strong, deep-ceded views that they believe represent the best interests of the state.  Such individuals need to keep in mind, just as the majority of Islamist activists do, that Israel is a politically diverse country, with individuals holding all sorts of viewpoints, from those who believe that all arab citizens of Israel should be expelled from Jewish territory, to those who believe that the state should not even exist.  Individuals holding the latter view are not only citizens from the Arab Israeli community, but also born-and-bred Jewish Israelis, such as the famed academics Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein.  And also, just as pro-zionist Jews exist, so do anti-zionist jews who do not believe the state of Israel should exist.  If Israelis and Jews disagree so widely on the fate of the Israeli state, how can pro-Israel activists claim to represent its best interests?

Consider an example.  It is a common belief among those in the pro-Israel camp that the best interests of Israel represent the best interests of the United States.  John Mearsheimer, a well-known American political scientist, makes the argument that Israel is actually becoming a strategic liability to the US, outliving its cold war usefulness and is receiving more financial aid than any third-world country.  He argues that America's support for the country is due primarily to the strength of the Israel Lobby.  His opponents decry him and his co-author Walt as "anti-semitic" (Mearsheimer is Jewish).  Bernard Avishai, who argues that global enterprise and secular democracy is the formula that will bring peace to the Israeli state, has been publicly accused of "liberal theology".  As can be seen, no single one of these intellectuals and activists can be said to represent a consensus opinion. 

Another important thing to keep in mind is that the "Islamic World" is a very complicated entity.  I use the term in reference not only to countries in which Islam is the majority faith, but to the global body of muslims, including all the various different sects of the religion.  There exists a wide variety of theological views and opinions in the Islamic world, and it is a grave mistake to regard the collective body of muslims as a monolith.  Even viewing the shia-sunni dichotomy as the only division in Islam is an extremely incorrect statement to make.  There exists many sub-groups of muslims such as the Ismailis, Bohoras, Seveners, the "reformists" such as Irshad Manji and their "moderate" opponents, the militant jihadis of Al Qaeda, the forward-thinking Spanish Muslims who issued a ruling against Osama Bin Laden, the friendly, simple villagers and nomads of Arabian and North African deserts, and the Iranian youth movement rebelling against an anti-democratic mullahcracy.  Some of these individuals aren't even regard members of other muslim sects as being true muslims.

Bearing all this in mind, it should be remembered that when you are speaking to a muslim, it is incorrect to automatically believe that he is opposed to Israel or the West, and that he holds expansionist views.  His/her views might be even more reformist and secularist than you, or they might be so ridiculously extreme that even Osama would shudder at the thoughts.  

It is true that more muslims than not have to recognize that Israel is much more complicated than a dirty word, and pro-Israel activists need to recognize that they may very well be helping to dig the grave of the country they have dedicated their lives to defending.

Associated Links:

John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

Ilan Pappe, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe

Norman Finkelstein Official Site

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/

Not In Our Name - Jews Opposed To Zionism

http://www.nion.ca/

Arabs for Israel

http://www.arabsforisrael.com/

Arab Citizens of Israel, From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

First Nations--Think They Have It Good??

People often think that Canada's First Nations have been given too many privileges.  Tax breaks, preference in university applications, affirmative action--"they don't deserve all that special treatment!"

If you actually think they have it good, keep in mind that a disproportionate number of them live under the poverty line and in third-world conditions, on reserves with despicable infrastructure.  Often, these reserves are chemically toxic, causing severe health problems and birth defects.  

For those of you that believe that they should leave their communities and integrate into the Canadian majority "for their own good", consider that they suffered a ruthless attack on their culture, identity, and human dignity throughout the 20th century at the hands of major religious institutions such as the United Church of Canada and the Roman Catholic Church. This was all done under the premise of "civilizing" and "christianizing" a culture that these bloodthirsty colonizers scarcely understood.  Also consider that the Canadian government & its citizens were totally complicit in all these activities.

In church-run Residential Schools, indigenous children were physically tortured for expressing their culture, speaking their traditional language, and even in showing emotions such as love, happiness, and brotherhood.  Students infected with smallpox were deliberately forced to play with healthy students so as to spread infection and kill off as many aboriginal youth as possible.  RCMP motorboats went to aboriginal communities and forced parents to sign off custody of their children to the government, in effect allowing them to do whatever they wanted to these innocent children.  Why should Canada's aboriginal peoples' have to bow to a society that tried to destroy them?

A colonizing majority must take full responsibility for the crimes of its past and assume the financial burden for infrastructure development on First Nations' reserves.  It is the only righteous thing for a settler majority to do.

Associated Links:

"Unrepentant: Kevin Annett & Canada's Genocide" (Documentary)

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6637396204037343133&q=Unrepentant&ei=3Gs4SJf6OIua-wHhor3kAw&hl=en)

Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement

http://ipsm.nativeweb.org/en/home.html

Assembly of First Nations

http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=3

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Canada's National Inuit Organization

http://www.itk.ca/