Aristotleded24

The Final Days

2006-10-22T22:34:00.000-05:00

Three days from now, residents of the Province of Manitoba will go to the polls to choose who will be their mayors, municipal councillors, and school board trustees for the next four years. As for making personal predictions, I have written elsewhere my general thoughts about the election, and implicitly how I expect the mayor's race to end up. Having said that, most people believe politicians are crooks and criminals anyways, and I find these revelations linked to a little amusing.

I've covered other elections over the lifespan of this blog, so now comes my customary "you-better-get-out-and-vote" lecture. Typically, turnout in municipal elections is lower than higher levels. Why is that? Hard to say. I think a contributing factor is the decline of media covering local events, but that's a different entry. Municipal government, however, is "where it's at." The decisions made at the municipal level affect residents most directly, and it's the services provided by municipal governments that most directly affect citizen's lives. I have provided links to the side so people can learn about candidates in Brandon, and I hope readers make use of the information available to them.

On Wednesday October 25, please vote.

A Sunny Day In The Park

2006-07-23T22:46:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I visited Curran Park for the first time since it was privatised some time ago. Curran Park was formerly owned and operated by the City of Brandon, and consists of a pool, campground, ball diamonds, miniature golf, and a host of other recreational activities. Issues of maintenance and continuous flooding caused the city to wash its hands of the park, and to sell it. Seeing it for the first time in several years, the first impression that struck me was how crowded the campgrounds were. There was literally a trailer or camper in almost every spot, and I do not remember ever seeing the park that busy before.

However, there is a cloud to this silver lining. Curran Park is a couple of kilmoetres west of 18th street in Brandon, and not readily accessible to anyone without a vehicle. It used to be that Curran Park could be accessed via passenger ferry from Queen Elizabeth Park, but this was discontinued after the park was sold. The ferry came into existence just before the City started expanding its recreational trail system for cyclists and pedestrians. Curran Park could have been a great part of that network. The problem was that the city viewed park management from a value for dollar perspective. From a financial standpoint, the park was not work holding onto. However, there is also the social good aspect. This doesn't measure value by dollars, but by intangible benefits it provides the city in enhancing its quality of life. From that standpoint, Curran Park, despite being a private campground, still provides that benefit for Brandon, regardless of the financial costs it takes to operate.

Brand New Image

2006-06-20T22:44:00.000-05:00

Recently, the Manitoba government unveiled its Spirited Energy campaign. It's an initiative involving television and billboard ads saying how great a place Manitoba is. Unfortunately, I think the money was not well spent at all.

The undertone of this idea is that everything is merely a commodity to be marketed. In other words, if someone doesn't want what you are trying to sell, it's because you haven't marketed it enough. The focus is on cosmetic appearances, without addressing any of the substance. People don't choose to live in places and form their opinions of them based on flashy ads and billboards. They do so based on such things as economic opportuinties, climate, social environment, and the list goes on. The proper thing to do to promote Manitoba would have been to address these issues and come up with solutions instead of running a PR campaign.

Canadian Terrorism?

2006-06-14T23:20:00.000-05:00

The major news story in Canada over the past couple of weeks is the arrest of 17 people accused of plotting a terrorist attack in Canada. I do not wish to comment at lenght on the merits of the case. I will say, however, that the main thing to remember is that these individuals, before the law, are considered innocent until proven guilty, which has yet to be determined. Nonetheless, if it does turn out that the accusations against these individuals are true, then it shows that our legal system worked in this case, and that we never were in any danger.

The main point isn't the arrests themselves, but the politics surrounding them. The government was quick to point to these arrests as a means of highlighting the terrorist threat and how important it is we strive to defeat it. It's the same method that has been used in other times and places to whip up fear, in order to justify intensified scrutiny of citizens. It's based on the idea that somehow "they" are different than "us," and the "us-versus-them" mentality is what leads us to problems getting along.

The main goal of "terrorism" is to change the behaviour of a group of people by terrorising them. I'm not for one minute suggesting that Canada is immune from the threat, however if we panic when things like these happen, the terrorist have accomplished their goals.

Net Threat

2006-06-08T22:23:00.000-05:00

In little over a decade, the Internet has changed life dramatically. This change has been noticed in several aspects of life, such as paying bills, communicating and sending e-mail, political organising, finding work and networking, and even dating and sex. So great is its impact that the changes it brought have been compared to the Industrial Revolution. The most notable aspect of the Internet, is the freedom of Net users to access a great deal of information from a variety of sources, and has provided people with greater means to spread their ideas. This fundamental foundation is under attack.

Currently, the basic idea behind the Internet is that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (telephone and cable companies) are not supposed to restrict consumer access to particular websites. It's called Net Neutrality. Right now in the United States, the ISPs are lobbying to change that. They want to charge websites a fee to load up more quickly on that browser. Naturally, this favours those with more money over those without, but the potential impacts are widespread, and go beyond that. Service providers would be able to discriminate against websites based on political views. For example, last year during the strike at Telus, the company blocked customers from viewing a webstie set up by the union. Other possible impacts range from ISPs charging to have certain search engines load faster on consumer's browsers than others, or selecting which online banking services consumers will have to choose from.

This is being proposed because the impact of the Internet in empowering citizens has not gone unnoticed. Examples of the Internet playing a major role in policital events include Howard Dean's campaign to become the 2004 Democratic candidate to run for the Presidency and exposing the truth about some documents upon which a story about George Bush's military service by Dan Rather were based. It's unsurprising that the powerful ISPs and the interests they represent wish to control, if not outright halt, this kind of discourse. The implications are so widespread that several diverse groups across the political spectrum, such as MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition, as well as citizen's groups and companies like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, have joined forces to protect Net Neutrality, and several Democrat and Republican legislators are onside on this issue. In Canada, Internet regulation falls under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Comission, and Bev Oda is the Minister whose portfolio covers this issue. Michael Geist has also written a great deal about the Canadian aspects of this issue.

The Internet is the last bastion of free expression, and it is important that this be preserved.

Have Your Say Wednesday

2006-05-21T23:28:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday May 24th 2006, at 7:00 PM, there is an information session about Brandon City Council (and I checked, the Oilers don't have a game that evening, so you can't use that excuse for not attending). The objective of this meeting is to give people an understanding of how municipal government works. Specifically, the forum will cover such topics as municipal budgeting, responsibilities of municipal government, how people can get in touch with the city government and which issues should be brought up where, and how anyone who's interested can run for the City Council or Mayoral elections coming up in October.

This is an initiative of the Municipal Government section of Brandon's Community Strategic Plan. (The other areas the Plan covers are Agriculture, Cultural Diversity, Economic Development, Education, Environment, Health, Recreation, Liesure, and Arts, and Youth.) It's a young project designed to solicit community feedback in the shaping of Brandon's direction. As such, anyone may become involved in any of the above-mentioned aspects that interest them, and due to the fluid nature of community development, may also become involved at any time. Each of those areas has set desirable "future statements" to be accomplished by the year 2010.

My first involvement with the CSP was when I was asked to attend a Youth Forum in October 2005. It was a 2-day forum, basically with one day devoted to youth 18+ and the other devoted to youth 18 and under. The forums consisted of discussion groups focusing on the other 8 of the above-named areas. After the YF, the participants were invited to participate in the aspects of the CSP that interested them, and I found my way into the Municipal Government section. Aside from what I have mentioned above, we have also discussed the idea of youth representation on council.

But can the CSP really have an impact? There is an expression that "when all's said and done, there is more said than done." Nonetheless, while that expression has proved itself true, the CSP is in its early stages, and I feel it shows a great deal of promise. It has been previously mentioned that specific targets that have been established, and these targets provide a benchmark against which to measure the Plan's success, and I believe with input and committment from local people the CSP can be successful and meat most of the targets that have been set.

Bridge Over Troubled Waters

2006-05-15T23:54:00.000-05:00

The 18th Street Bridge that crosses the Assiniboine River by Elanor Kidd Park (properly known as the Thompson Bridge) has been receiving a fair bit of attention. The 2-lane bridge has seen increasing traffic and congestion problems, as has the rest of 18th street. Manitoba Premier Gary Doer in addressing the Brandon Chamber of Commerce recently, mentioned, among other things, plans regarding the bridge. The fact that the headline drawing attention to the speech in the print version speaks for itself. A few days prior, another article asked what was happening with the bridge.

The main reason for the bridge attracting more traffic is the Corral Centre. It's a new shopping development that was built in the north end of Brandon, between the Assiniboine River and the North Hill, right across from the Riverbank Discovery Centre. The first major store to arrive was Home Depot in the summer of 2004 and it has continued to expand rapidly. It now houses stores like Safeway and Wal-Mart, and construction on it continues. A second set of traffic lights has been added near the base of the hill on 18th street. The developers were attracted to the open space, and some people living north of the Assiniboine were happy to have services available to them on their side of the river.

However, the Centre has caused problems. Even when it was first proposed, several people in the area were strongly opposed, citing such reasons as attracting too much traffic or the wisdom of placing a major mall right next to a nature area. As for the bridge? Not only will it be costly to expand whenever the political promises finally become reality, but on one side the land is owned by the government as a research farm, and a park on the other end. Where will the bridge expand to? Oh, but it will bring jobs, it's all worth it, the project's supporters will say. Brandon's economy is, in large measure, a service economy, and the Centre merely adds more of the same types of jobs Brandon already has, and as most of these are retail outlets, on balance they bring more dollars out of Brandon than they bring in. And it's not even known at this point if the Centre has had any negative impacts on business in surrounding rural communities.

What I just mentioned describes the problems with planning based on suburban sprawl. Aside from the environmental problems, there are also the public costs of providing infrastructure. Often this accompanys business closures and residential flight from core areas of a city, causing even more problems, as empty areas detract from a city and bring with them unpleasent elements. It's a planning model that is unsustainable, but careful planning and consideration can yield viable alternatives.

Meet The Chosen One

2006-05-01T22:38:00.000-05:00

Manitoba Progressive Conservatives have elected Hugh McFadyen to lead the party and Manitoba's Official Opposition. McFadyen won easily and convincingly on the first ballot, beating out MLA Ron Schuler and former Neepawa mayor Ken Waddell.

McFadyen is new to the legislature. Aside from being the youngest of the candidates, he was elected in a by-election to replace outgoing Industry Critic-turned-federal Liberal candidate John Loewen. Before becoming an elected official, he worked behind the scenes for former Premier Gary Filmon and Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz, but had little else in his personal history to distinguish him from the other candidates or set him apart. But what he lacks in that area, he made up in enthusiasm. To go from being the province's junior MLA to leader of the Official Opposition, and secure a good portion of the caucus behind him, speaks to his ability to generate momentum, and to play the part of a new, youthful figure eager to take on future challenges. And this election signals the direction the party feels it wishes to go. McFadyen and Schuler are the urban candidates in this race, and between them took a large chunk of the party vote. The message in all of this? The party has correctly realised that except for a few seats, the rural areas are staunchly Conservative, and there is little room for growth there. The key to success is winning swing ridings in Winnipeg and Brandon West.

Yet despite the momentum they feel they may have on their side, I don't see the Tories winning the next election. The NDP has consistently out-polled the Conservatives since 1999, and the Conservatives have the lowest seat count for their party in recent memory. The fact that the party chose to divide itself on a leadership campaign more than halfway into Doer's mandate suggested little confidence in the party winning under Murray, and they wanted to build themselves up. Not only does the party have to introduce the new leader to Manitobans, but he must also become credible to them before the next election call, a call which will likely come next year.

Speaking of credibility, there is one thing I believe would help the Conservatives in Manitoba. As I mentioned in November, I saw Murray's main issue as being tax cuts, despite the fact that tax cuts have continued under Doer. Since this has been going on since Filmon, the Conservatives would be wise to declare victory on the tax cut debate, and to congratulate the NDP for seeing the light on this issue. Not only that, but should the NDP return to the Opposition benches, they will find ways to criticise the Conservative tax cuts, just as the Conservatives are now doing with the NDP. With this issue out of the way, they should then focus on the other issues that people have to contend with, such as health care, education, and accountability in government. Will the momentum with McFadyen's victory continue?

Stay tuned.

"Good Riddance, Jesus Is Dead"-Meaning Of The Term "Good Friday"

2006-04-13T23:46:00.000-05:00

The term "Good Friday" seems to be confusing, considering that it marks the observance of Jesus' death. Intuitively, you would ask yourself, "what's good about someone dying?" It's my understanding that the term "good" has origins close to the word "holy," so in this context the proper name is "Holy Friday." To take another twist on this event, it seems that for many Christians, Good Friday means, "it's a good thing Jesus is dead, because now we don't have to listen to Him."

We live in a culture that worships the idols of material gain, power, popularity, comfort, and selfish ambition. This stands in contrast to the teachings of Jesus, which were to love one's neighbour, defend the powerless, care about the outcast, and self-sacrifice. Many Christians have bought into a theology that has been fitted to suit this very culture. The self-contradictory logic behind this theology is that we are all filthy sinners who all need salvation from God or else we go to Hell, we cannot clean this filth ourselves, yet God also loves us so much that He sent Jesus to die on a cross to wash away our sins, yet only those who believe this will be spared. The main thing is to accept Jesus as your Saviour, so that you'll spend an eternity in Heaven, which is the goal. This despite Jesus never having said, "accept me as your personal Saviour," or the fact that Jesus' primary concern was more life in this world than in the next. It keeps Jesus in the 3 places that these Christians like to keep Him: the manger, the cross, and the sky. From these places, Jesus doesn't speak to us, and His words don't have any impact on us at all. Placing Him there also allows people to ignore those aspects of His message that make them uncomfortable, they believe that they're all going to Heaven automatically anyways, and that their actions and how they live their lives are of little consequence.

What does the holiday ultimately mean? Good Friday marks Jesus' death, to remind us of those times when hope is absent, the darkness of the world having fallen to pieces, and when God seems absent from the world. Yet, this is not how the story ends. The story ends with the Resurrection of Jesus. This means that Jesus is alive, and that He continues to speak to people and be present in the world, and that in spite of the difficulties that come with it, it provides Christians with the strenght and courage to work towards the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus often talked about.

A Problem Of Epidemic Proportions

2006-04-03T19:48:00.000-05:00

There is an insidious disease making the rounds. Its incidence is on the rise, it kills millions of people around the world annually, and those who survive often have to live with devastating consequences. Chances are, if you don't suffer this disease in your own lifetime, you know people who have. What is this disease? Avian flu? SARS?

No. It's cancer.

April is considered by the Canadian Cancer Society to be "cancer month." The CCS spends much of this time giving lifestyle advice for preventing cancer, and fundraising to promote research into treatments, and finding a cure. Yet, despite these campaigns, cancer is now the leading cause of death in the United States, and rates of cancer continue to rise, even among children, which rules out the possibility that cancer rates are rising as a result of an aging population. The World Health Organisation estimates that 7 million people die each year from the disease. Some who die from the disease do so after a prolonged period of suffering either from the disease itself or the treatments, and those who survive the disease often have to live with serious consequences. And despite following the steps to a healthy lifestyle according to the CCS, Canadian journalist Wendy Mesley was still diagnosed with the disease. Uneasy not only with her own diagnosis but with the sheer numbers of people who contract the disease, she did an investigation, and was shocked by what she found.

She found that what Dr. Samuel Epstein called the "cancer establishment" was more focused on treating the disease than on prevention. As people contract the disease, they require several treatments which can be expensive, and are major business for drug manufacturers. Some drugs may not even be covered under provincial health plans. As for the prevention angle, chemicals introduced into the envrionment in the last few decades have been linked to cancer, and that probably doesn't even include complex interatcions between chemical A and chemical B that can't be simulated in a laboratory. These chemicals are in many things, such as household cleaning and personal care products, things we come into contact with on a daily basis. Sometimes these ingredients aren't even listed on the product packages.

Yet like anything else, prevention is the key. Aside from the benefits of being healthy, it also reduces stress on the health care system. It's better if we can remove those things from our environment that cause problems. In addition to choices individuals can make, there is also a role to play for more regulations in terms of labelling and restricting carcinogenic elements. For example, the City of Brandon banned cosmetic pesticide use within city limits. One less thing we have to be exposed to. Why not use the opportunity provided by cancer month to learn about environmental contaminants and to reduce their presence in our environment?

There's No Place Like The MTS Centre

2006-03-26T21:38:00.000-06:00

As of today, the Brandon Wheat Kings are tied with the Moose Jaw Warriors one game each in the playoff run. Yet because of the scheduling, I may not have a chance to see a playoff game here in Brandon at all.

That's because for about the next week, the Keystone Centre, which would host the Wheat Kings games normally, is booked solid for the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair. Because of this booking, the Wheats will have to play their "home" games at the MTS Centre in Winnipeg. Usually, this (at least the first 2 games, anyways) isn't an issue for Brandon fans at all. The first 2 playoff games for the league are usually played on the weekend just prior to the Fair starting. Since the Wheat Kings usually have home ice advantage in the first round, Brandon fans in other years have a chance to see those first 2 games. Not so in this case, as the Wheats finished 4th in the division this time around.

It's a scheduling issue that, despite not being apparent by Brandon's usual home ice advantage position, arises every year. It's well-known that every year, in the last week of March/1st week of April (depending on the alignment of the calendar) the Fair comes to Brandon, and that it interferes with the playoff schedules. I believe a simple solution could be found. Why doesn't the WHL, recognising the situation the Keystone finds itself in, simply schedule the first 2 games of the Wheat's first round in Brandon regardless of who has home ice advantage, and schedule the rest of the games to reflect the home ice advantage situation? There may still be a need to play a few games in Winnipeg, but at least this way Brandon fans have the chance to see playoff hockey during the first round in their own community.

That seems to me to be a workable arrangement.

They Freely Walk Among Us

2006-03-19T23:01:00.000-06:00

Just before the weekend, former Saskatchewan politician Colin Thatcher was granted unescorted passes to visit his family for 3 days. Thatcher was convicted in the early 80s for the murder of his ex-wife, JoAnn Wilson, although he has consistently maintained his innocence.

Unlike other cases, there is no noticable outcry over this. The issue of crime and punishment raises its head in Canada from time to time, often when crime is in the news and the system is perceived as being too lenient with criminals. During the last federal election, the major political parties emphasised tough-on-crime measures such as manditory minimum sentences and reverse-onus bail for gun crimes, while paying lip service to crime prevention. Last year, people were outraged over the release of Karla Homolka, even though she had served the full term of her 12 year sentence. And in the spring time, the nation was horrified at the killings of 4 Mounties in Alberta, and people became outraged after finding out that the suspect in the case, James Roszko, had a long history of charges and convictions.

There are several other cases where people feel the justice system failed to adequately deal with criminals. In many of those cases, like the last 2 I mentioned, those feelings are justified. But when you look at those cases, the people involved don't appear to be prominent in any other way, except that they are in the news because of the horrible crimes they committed. Stated differently, had they not committed their crimes, their names would probably not be nearly as well-known as they are. Thatcher, on the other hand, was a figure in the cabinet of the Devine government in Saskatchewan and son of former Premier Ross Thatcher. He was in a position of power and influence, even if for a brief period of time, and was known before the brutal murder of his ex-wife.

Could this explain the lack of outrage over his release? Has the passage of more than 20 years caused the impact to fade? Why is it that people accept allowing Thatcher some freedom, when they don't accept it in other cases?

Reflections From Kandahar

2006-03-12T22:23:00.000-06:00

As I write this, our Prime Minister is talking to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has made the news lately, because of a poll suggesting a majority of Canadians (and at least one military family) have questions about the mission (despite the Canadian media establishment being, by and large, supportive of the mission) and because a number of soldiers have been killed while over there. The Opposition has called for a debate, but Harper says it's not needed, suggesting that Canadians will support the mission once they better understand it, and that the debate has already happened. He must remember things differently than I do. I remember then-Prime Minister Chretien announcing Canada's involvement in Afghanistan when the US campaign to displace the Taliban began, with little, if any, debate. It would be nice if the current Prime Minister could say when this debate happened.

Why is the Prime Minister afraid of debate anyways? The media's response to this issue may give an indication. For example, the Brandon Sun recently wrote in full support of the mission (and in support of re-opening talks on ballistic missile defence). What's disturbing is that the newspaper used the "War on Terror" reasoning that in the US has been used to justify the war in Iraq, among other things. Another way the argument can be interpreted is to say, "shut up or else the terrorists are going to get us all." War, however, is a very serious issue. It's expensive, it's hard on the soldier's families while the soldiers are away, there are many civilian casualties, and those who decide to go to war often are sheltered from the worst consequences. All the more reason to debate the issue. Who's interests are the Canadian government serving by going to war and by having little debate on the issue? Why are they afraid of public opinion?

Happy Valentine's Day?

2006-02-12T22:18:00.000-06:00

Valentine's Day is 2 days away. While I've happily not noticed much of the fuss this year compared to the past, there are still several issues I have with the way the day is promoted.

"Show your sweetie how much you love them on Valentine's Day!" is the message that the advertisers promote. I'm not an relationship expert by any stretch, but I'd suggest that if you need a particular day of the year to say "I love you," something's not quite right. There are also tons of contests and prizes for "you and your sweetie," and if you're single, don't worry, we even have contests to pair you up with someone. The implicit message is that you need to be part of a couple, or something's wrong with you. This despite that I'm sure many of you know on the one hand good people who just can't find that right person, and on the other hand people who don't treat their partners with the most respect. It's a message that many people not in relationships dislike.

The holiday is also largely promoted in a heterosexist manner. In almost every case, the "sweetie" mentioned in the above paragraph has to be someone of the opposite sex, so the accepted positions in society with respect to romantic relationships is even more restrictive. It goes to show that in spite of homosexuals in Canada now having the legal right to marry that in many regards their relationships are at worst unacceptable and at best second class.

Valentine's Day is a big money maker in North America. Card companies, restaurants and hotels, the list goes on. Why not a day dedicated to celebrating single people? Oh, wait a minute, if people aren't made to feel inadequate about their personal situations, you can't make money off them. After all, if they're satisfied, they don't need much, and importantly, they don't buy much. Valentine's Day as currently practiced is part of a larger tactic of advertisers looking for ways to make people feel inadequate. Why do we buy into this and allow ourselves to be manipulated?

Bright Lights, Big City

2006-02-05T22:10:00.000-06:00

As the days grow longer, Brandon City Council is about to examine an idea that could make Brandon a little darker. Council is looking at preparing a bylaw that would not allow beacons such as the one at the Canad Inns to shine after 11 P.M., citing complaints from city residents. For some people, as seen by the submissions to the opinion page of the Brandon Sun in the past 2 weeks, the beacon really isn't a big thing to be concerned about.

One response, however, bothered me. Someone wrote to the paper saying, "Progress, hopefully, has hit Brandon. Let’s start growing with it and keep our sights on important things." The "progress" mantra is something I have difficulty with. Throughout history the argument of "progress" was used to dismiss any discussion of the consequences of our activities, such as the dismissal of the consequences in the areas where hydroelectric dams were built. I'm not saying that "progress" is inherently bad, but in each instance we should take a good look at what the costs will be, and then decide whether those costs are worth it.

Does the beacon at Canad Inns come without a cost? No. Light pollution is a major issue throughout the world. And as problematic as it is already, most street lighting, unlike the beacon, is aimed towards the ground and serves a practical purpose for people in the city. Researchers have documented impacts on ecosystems. It consumes a large amount of electricity that could be better used for other purposes. It also spoils a major attraction of the Prairie region. One thing people love about the Prairies is being able to look up on a clear night and see the stars. Urban lighting interferes with this. And it's not as if Brandon would be the first place to pass such a law. As one of the councillors in favour of this bylaw pointed out, other municipalities of differing sizes have bylaws on the books dealing with exterior lighting. Although I personally would prefer to keep the skies dark at night, turning out the lights at 11 is a compromise I can live with, so it's not like the the hotel can't shine its beacon at all. I don't think it's too much to ask to either address the problem or, if possible, to prevent it from happening.

What Happens Now?

2006-01-22T23:19:00.000-06:00

In less than 24 hours, we will know how Canadians have decided to shape their government. There are the main issues to consider as voters cast their ballots. Who will protect universal health care? Who stands for an independent foreign policy? Who stands for improving environmental protection? Who will improve access to post-secondary education? Who will work with the provinces to ensure adequate funding and standards are met for various social programs, as many of them fall under provincial jurisdiction? Who will stand up for First Nations and ensure that they can shape their own future? This list is far from comprehensive, and I could easily think of more questions if I was so inclined.

However, the important aspect which comes into play on the 24th is often unstated. By now, the campaign signs are down, the Prime Minister prepares to contemplate his or her vision for the upcoming session of Parliament, and the party leaders, workers, and volunteers get to sleep for the first time in weeks. Is that it? Will the parties and politicians pack everything away, waiting for next time?

There are several reasons, as mentioned in previous posts, why people feel cynical about politics. For many, the only time they hear from politicians is during an election campaign, and we've been conditioned to think of democracy primarily as voting every few years. It's pretty easy to not feel inspired by marking an X on a piece of paper. Yet democracy is about more than that. It's about the idea of citizens having a role in shaping policies affecting their lives. To that extent, politicians and partisans have an opportunity to play an important role. They have the opportunity to educate people about issues, to communicate to people what is happening and what the government plans to do, and to advocate for the issues the people feel are important. It's a call to making connections and building communities, and above all, showing people how their involvement in the process makes a difference at the end of the day. It's an ongoing process that must happen continuously, during both election and non-election periods.

Air Service Takes Off-Surprised?

2006-01-15T23:18:00.000-06:00

Some time ago, Air Transat announced its intention to provide air service to Brandon. Flights between Fort McMurray, Alberta and Mexico, and it was intended to be a trial run over the winter months. The local business community was happy. They have been lobbying to bring air service to Brandon for some time, and I've heard many people talk about how great air service would be so that people wouldn't have to drive in and out of Winnipeg to fly.

Things didn't turn out as they sould have. Recently, Air Transat announced that they intend to cancel that service because of low numbers. This doesn't surprise me, but local opinions about air service in Brandon have me baffled. It seems odd for so many people to want air service, yet not enough use it to make it viable. But there are other things to consider as well. Brandon isn't a large community, and bringing air service to Brandon won't encourage more flights in and out of Brandon. Aside from the airlines not making more money by coming here, coming here would also drive their expenses up, as they'd have to pay airport landing fees at 2 airports instead of one. "Oh, but it's inconvenient to have to drive 2 hours to the Winnipeg airport," people say. Many large cities, however, take a long time to drive across anyways. When it comes down to it, airlines are businesses, and they are out to make money, and it's quite evident that they wouldn't make money by flying into Brandon. After all this, I still have a hard time understanding why some people keep lobbying for air service in Brandon, when it clearly is not viable.

2006: Year Of Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

2006-01-01T23:37:00.000-06:00

The blogging break is over. Before posting on this week's topic, I would like to wish those readers going by the Gregorian Calendar a Happy New Year.

The end of the year is a time to reflect on the past. One major thing that came up this year was weather stories. Hurricane Katrina was obviously notable and was part of a record Atlantic hurricane season, but there are major weather stories happening now. Environment Canada released its top weather stories of 2005, and flooding in Manitoba was second from the top, behind flooding in Alberta. There are also current weather anomolies happening as I write. Brandon is basking in a heatwave lasting more than a week that has sent temperatures close to the freezing mark. Wildfires are causing problems in Oklahoma and Texas, and flooding is a problem in northern California.

These events point to a longstanding trend that has seen global temperatures rise dramatically as a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, drafted in 1997 in the Japanese city of Kyoto, came into effect this year when Russia ratified. The agreement calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 5% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. Even though more is needed to be done than called for under Kyoto, Kyoto at least sets a benchmark against which to measure progress and from which to make future plans.

But there is something that any reader of this blog can also do. The link to the Hunger Site on the right hand side of the page provides links to other websites whereby a simple click goes towawrds such things as rainforest and habitat protection. What better way to start off a new year and make a difference by taking just a few seconds each day?

Transit System Unfare

2005-12-12T23:26:00.000-06:00

Brandon leaders are certainly not in a charitable mood this festive season. The City recently proposed a rate hike for users of the Handi-Transit service, which provides people in wheelchairs with transportation around Brandon. The justification? It boils down to the decision being necessary because of costs and sustainability.

See, the problem is that his hits the transit users very hard. People in wheelchairs rely on this service to move around to jobs, appointments, going out and having fun, bascially the same things many other people take for granted. Not only do the increases mean restrictions as to what these people can do, but some may also be forced to quit their jobs. Others may be unable to work and have to rely on social assistance, which isn't that much. They are in wheelchairs because of circumstances beyond their control, and this is merely kicking someone who is already down. It also runs contrary to the idea of moving towards being a community that is accomodating to and inclusive of people with physical challenges.

The people who proposed this have been very shortsighted. They merely looked at the financial aspect, without trying to consider how it feels to have your movements heavily restricted. They aren't the ones who will have to see their transportation expenses go up. Someone suggested that city officials confine themselves to a wheelchair for a week and move around that way. Good idea, let's hear them justify the rate hike after having done that!

If any readers wish to contact the mayor or other councillors on this issue, such information is provided through the link to the City of Brandon website on the right hand side of this page.

On Your Mark, Get Set, Campaign!

2005-12-05T23:48:00.000-06:00

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin lost a confidence vote in Parliament, forcing the country into an election campaign, with a date set for January 23, 2006.

Even though my own mind is made up, I refuse to explicitly state who I intend to vote for, however those familiar with Canadian politics should be able to guess with reasonable confidence based both on my prior comments and the links on the righthand side.

However, I believe I can make a meaningful contribution to the election with this campaign. There is a new section of links dealing with the federal election, which will be removed upon the end of the campaign. Media links from CTV, CanwestGlobal, and LaPresse will provide a wide range of options for campaign information, and is a great addition to election information readers can already get through the CBC and Radio-Canada. I have posted a list of all registered political parties to present readers with all the options. Since I live in Brandon, I have also posted links to local candidates, although this portion will need to be updated throughout the campaign. Elections Canada will also come in handy, and if you're a first-time voter, recently moved, won't be in your riding on election day, don't know where your riding is or which candidates are running, or need general information, this is a good site to sort through. I have also added a permanent link to Fair Vote Canada, where you can receive information detailing how our electoral system distorts the vote and about lobbying to change that.

People tend to cover their ears when they hear about politics these days, and I don't blame them. The reasons are many, whether it's that politicians all the same, or their vote doesn't count. Why will voting change anything? Yet, I believe it's important to be involved in political processes, for the simple reason that not being involved concedes ground to those people abusing the political system for their own gain. And now, more than ever, individual votes matter. Last spring, the smallest party, the NDP, managed to pass a budget through Parliament, a budget that still would not have passed without the support of BC Independant Chuck Cadman. This was during a Parliamentary session where the balance of power was so delicate that a change in one seat changed the dynamics completely, and it's still unclear how the balance of power will work out. When you consider that there are many close races throughout Canada, this leaves open many possibilities, and Canadians have a real role in shaping the next government. I encourage all Canadian readers to play that role.

Public or Private Care: Debate Close to Home

2005-11-28T19:29:00.000-06:00

Health care is a big issue for people. People get sick and they want reliable services when that happens. Yet, for some time health services have been strained. So, along comes the Maples Surgical Centre in Winnipeg. The Centre's solution? Allow people to pay out of pocket (up to $700) to receive MRIs in less than 2 days. This shortens the lineups for people waiting for tests. Problem solved, right?

In the first place, I don't feel people should have to be asked to pay for health services. We pay taxes for that, so they shouldn't have to pay twice. As for shortening wait times? The main culprit in wait times is lack of medical professionals available. How does the MSC coming in provide more medical professionals. The article also states that MSC has hired some staff away from the public hospital Health Sciences Centre, and while we cannot say with certainty that it will have any impact on wait times, there is that possibility. This doesn't leave many options for people with limited means to pay, and whether it's an out-of-pocket expense or covered through insurance, it is one more expense people have to contend with. Allowing people to pay to receive services faster, therefore, seems to be merely shuffling around existing resources without attacking the root of the problem.

The Gift That Keeps From Giving

2005-11-21T23:52:00.000-06:00

Yikes! Where has time gone? Christmas is 39 days away, and time grows short. Many people will still go another 38 days without shopping for Christmas. Why can't we just go without shopping for Christmas entirely?

That's the point of Buy Nothing Day. This event was started up by the consumer group adbusters. Happening every November 25th in Canada, the goal is to raise issues surrounding consumerism and the impact it has on our lives. We stress ourselves out to buy that perfect item for our loved ones, not really knowing what they like and knowing deep down in our hearts that whatever we buy them will likely make it into the dumpster within a few months. The rush of the season also has an impact on those who work in the retail outlets, who may not have much time to spend with their families over the holidays because of their work. By January, we've also come to realise that maybe we should get around to paying off that pesky credit-card, a debt which may have gone towards financing tropical vacations for retail executives.

There are alternatives to the shop-till-you-drop approach to celebrating Christmas with your loved ones. A group of Canadian Christians a while back started up something called Buy Nothing Christmas. Aside from discouraging the mad rush to the malls that accompanies the Christmas season, BNC provides alternatives for people to celebrate Christmas with their loved ones. They include such things as crafts and recipie books, but also crucial is that they remind people about Christmas being the birth of Christ, and what that represents (which deserves its own topic and isn't something I plan to take on right now). This also raises the question about our values. Do we value collecting and distributing material items for the sake of collecting and distributing material items, or do we value simply spending time with and cherishing our firends and family?

Take Me To Your Leader

2005-11-14T23:51:00.000-06:00

Recent events have shown luck to be against Conservative political parties in 2 instances.

The first instance relates to Manitoba. Manitoba Conservative Party Leader Stuart Murray announced that he doesn't intend to stay on. This after a convention where he received 55% of the vote, a vote that had been called for by some party members unhappy with his leadership. He had enough to stay on, but had hoped for a stronger showing, so he called a leadership convention. It's too early to start guessing who will replace him, but his departure should help the party, even though their chances of winning the next provincial election after having spent their energy on choosing a new leader are slim. Murray became the leader shortly after Filmon's government was defeated. Listening to him speak, the issue that I saw as being foremost on his mind was tax cuts. People won't say no to a chance to keep more money if you give them one, yet they also have other concerns. Will I have health care when I need it? Can I afford to go to university this year? How are my elderly parents going to be looked after? In addition, the Doer government has implemented tax cuts in most, if not all of its provincial budgets. So Murray's main issue is that the government should be doing what it's already doing? But back to the leadership. If the Conservatives can find a leader who can speak to the concerns of the people of Manitoba, they will once again be a credible force in Manitoba politics.

Now I'll shift gears to the federal scene. Picture this. You're the opposition leader. You are opposing a minority government, it's been in power for over a decade, this government has failed to capture the imagination of the public, and is now the subject of a corruption inquiry, the report having just been released. Naturally, you'd be laughing your way to forming the government, right?

Not if your name is Stephen Harper. A recent poll places the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives, despite the recent release of the Gomery report. An earlier post-Gomery poll had the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals, but the Liberals rebounded so quickly it's almost as if the Conservatives hadn't led. This isn't the first time the Liberals rebounded in a poll: they rebounded last spring, and they rebounded in the last federal election. It's a long-standing pattern of every time the Conservatives tie or overtake the Liberals in public opinion, their support plummets very shortly. Some supporters believe this to be a rejection by Ontario voters of Alberta politics, and can't understand why Ontarians condone corruption.

The issue isn't a matter of Alberta against Ontario. And the support for the Liberals is not support for the corruption we've seen either. The issue is that many Canadians, although not enthusiastic about the Liberals, have a deep fear about what a Conservative government would mean for Canada, and it's this fear that causes Canadians to support the Liberals over the Conservatives. Lesser of 2 evils is how many people see it. And when the Conservatives hammer the corruption issue, the response many have is, "yeah, well all politicians are corrupt." Asking someone to vote for you because the other person is bad is negative campaigning and cynical. The problem is not the Canadian (or Ontarian, for that matter) voting public, it's the Conservative Party, and some self-reflection would be in order if the Conservatives wish to move out of perpetual opposition.

Remember The Fallen

2005-11-06T22:32:00.000-06:00

On November 11, 1918, the main players in WWI signed a treaty to end the conflict. Officially known as Armistice Day, it is observed in many parts of the world not only to commemorate the end of the war but to reflect on the lives lost due to war and the need to prevent it from happening again.

I cannot imagine what it must have been like for those young soldiers to sign up for a war, knowing that they may never make it back alive or might make it back severely wounded. Even those soldiers who survived unwounded had deep emotional scars left, and were never the same afterwards. Yet, I have always struggled with the idea that the soldiers went to war to "fight for our freedom." Were the nation's leaders of the time really concerned with freedom and human dignity? Did they wrap up their ambitious causes in the cloak of freedom as a means of getting people to support them? How many of the leaders who made the decisions to delcare war had any firsthand experience with it or were connected to the effects it had on average citizens? What makes the tragedy of German civilian lives ruined in Allied bombings or German soldiers coming back with their baggage any less so than a Canadian, American, or British soldier?

This year has been a major year for veterans in many respects. It is the Year of the Veteran, the 60th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, and the death of Smokey Smith. Remembrance Day is an important event for me. Yet, for me, it's not so much about remembering a fight for freedom, a thought that goes unchallenged each year during Remembrance Day, as it is to reflect on war, its root causes, and the destruction and hardship it causes everyone. With the exception of WWII, were any of the wars fought in the past 150 years really necessary, or were they part of a sick game on the part of the nation's leaders to enrich themselves and their friends at everyone else's expense? Yet, amid the destruction, there is also hope. The hope of all humanity that one day "they will beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."

I'd like to close by mentioning the song "It Could Happen Again," by Collin Raye. The song takes place in the trenches of WWI. It's Christmas, and the soldiers have been given a few days leave. During this time, German and British soldiers who had been busy shooting at one another, put aside the conflict and joined to celebrate Christmas. Amid all the death and destruction happening around them, they put aside their differences and shared the common bonds that make us human. I think that is the best way to honour the fallen soldiers.

Oui ou non? La question: il y a 10 ans.

2005-10-30T21:56:00.000-06:00

"Mes amis, C'est raté, mais pas de beaucoup."

It was with these words 10 years ago today that Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau conceded defeat in the Quebec City sovereignty referendum. Parizeau had won the 1994 provincial election and promised to hold a referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The referendum was held on October 30, 1995, and I remember Canada being on edge wondering what a Yes vote would mean. In the end, the No side barely won. One of the first major impacts was Parizeau's concession speach, where he blamed the defeat on "money and the ethinc vote." It exposed a dark underside to Quebec nationalism and shocked many. After that, sovereignty declined as a critical issue. Even though the sovereigntist Parti Québecois had been re-elected in 1998, no referendum followed. Federalist Jean Charest defeated the sovereigntists in 2003, and the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois lost seats consistently in federal elections following.

Yet sovereignty has become an issue. Last year allegations came to the front of unethical Liberal ad spending, much of it with the purpose of selling the federal government to Quebeckers following the referendum. Quebeckers were more angry than Canadians in other provinces; they felt they had been bought off. During last year's election, the Bloc rose to 54 seats, the most they'd ever won. The spending is now the subject of an inquiry by Justice John Gomery (the first part of which, ironically, is due to be released later this week).

I remember campaigns on the part of Canadians outside of Quebec to convince Quebeckers that they were an important part of Canada and that they should stay. I don't see that passion any more. I've talked to people who although they'd like to see Quebec stay, they believe, "if they want to go, let them go." We've had a long time now to think about and adjust to the possibility of an independent Quebec.

Back to the issue of Gomery, why did it happen? For years the federal government had played an active role in people's lives through the provision of services. In the name of cutting the deficit, Ottawa slashed funding to the provinces in the 90s, leaving them unable to fund their services essentially. Without this role in people's lives, the federal government had to resort to spending on logos that promoted federalism. That's why Quebeckers were outraged.

So what's Canada to do? On one encouraging note, the referendum was a yes/no question, but many Quebeckers don't see it that way, and the issues are more complicated than that. The federal government has a chance to take leadership on issues that affect people's lives wherever they live, leadership that is lacking at the moment. Prime Minister Martin had promised to call an election after the Gomery report is issued (the second of which is expected next year), so this election will present an opportunity to debate the future of this country and to forge a national vision with which to take Canada forward, to make it the great country it can be.

Vive le Canada!

The Fairness Of Hallowe'en

2005-10-23T20:28:00.000-05:00

Eight days from now, many will stock up on goodies to hand out to the kids as they walk up and down the streets tirck-or-treating. Some people will accompany the kids as they do this. But what if the candy you buy was made in factories that exploit kids and their parents?

If those issues concern you and your buying patterns reflect those concerns, you don't have to boycott the holiday at all. You can buy treats from companies that pay their workers fairly and treat them with respect. In addition, these products are also certified organic and do not have genetically modified organisms. Global Exchange is an American company that does work in this area and has assembled packages that people can buy. Here in Brandon, fair trade items are available at the Marquis Project (which also has an online store). You can aslo tell Nestle to stop sourcing their products from suppliers who exploit their workers.

I like these types of campaigns, because it shows that activists are for something positive and that they have goals beyond protesting the next big conference. As people become more aware of how the choices we make affect economic policies which in turn affect the people who produce these items, the Fair Trade movement will grow. It's a continuation of a current trend, as sales in Fair Trade products grew 53% in 2003 and 20% in 2004. The movement has also been supported by former American President Jimmy Carter, who has spent much of his post-presidency working towards the promotion of human rights. Earlier this month, the Fair Trade Futures Conference drew 750 people from across North America to Chicago, ans was a success. The goal was for those in the Fair Trade community to network and to encourage further growth of the Fair Trade movement. I hope that this replaces the current system which exploits workers, the environment, and consumers for the benefit of the shareholders.

Should we be made to serve the economic order, or should the economic order be made to serve us?

End World Hunger Now

2005-10-16T21:38:00.000-05:00

October 16 has been designated as World Food Day Day by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. This is a day designated to promote awareness of global food issues.

This is an important issue. Hunger is on the rise, both in the developed world and here in Canada. Food bank usage is growing, but there isn't always enough to meet demand. Hunger has also persisted despite advances in genetic engineering, which ironically was supposed to be an important aspect in combatting hunger. There is enough food to feed every person in the world (much less every Canadian, and Canada is one of the richest countries in the world) , so something is wrong with the distribution. This little pamphlet from Oxfam does a good job explaining why food is inacessable to poor people. It describes how entrenched institutional structures like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund allow hunger to persist and how they benefit from so doing. It also touches on the prices farmers are paid for their produce, which is particularly pertinent here, as one of the major economic issues in southwestern Manitoba is farmers struggling and in many cases being driven off their land.

So, should we just give food go hungry people? No. The problem doesn't revolve around whether or not people have food, it's about their means to either produce or acquire it. Sure, you can give money to people or donate to foodbanks, but neither action changes the fact that whoever benefits from your generosity will still need help tomorrow. The entrenched systems need to be changed to allow small communities more direct influence over their own affairs as it comes to food. More on how that's done can be found here.

What this issue boils down to is values. As a global community, do we value the right of a few people to be well off while many are not, or do we value the right of everyone to have the basic essentials of life?

Canada Unlocked

2005-10-09T23:18:00.000-05:00

In the past few days, issues surrounding lockouts have been receiving much atention in Canada. The NHL, having lost a whole season because of a lockout, started its regular season last week. CBC workes go to work in a few days after having voted to end a lockout that began last August.

Hockey Night in Canada on CBC is a decades-old tradition here in Canada, long predating our current multi-channel universe. People from across the country would tune in to watch the likes of Richard, Orr, and Gretzky. There was something distinctly Canadian about this tradition.

Yet the NHL and the CBC are in an unfortunate state of affaris today. Gary Bettman has been NHL commissioner for 12 years. He's credited with expanding the number of teams in the league in this time and for the expanded coverage the league now receives in the US. While this took place, fans in traditional hockey cities like Winnipeg, Hartford, Quebec, and Minneapolis/Saint Paul had to watch their teams leave for financial reasons and head for cities in the southern US where hockey isn't so much a tradition. Most of the franchises are now posting losses. The direction the NHL took under Bettman was major marketing. In ventruing into new markets, the league turned its back on those places were hockey trives naturally, and it may not have worked. While the lockout was a major topic of choice in Canada, Americans outside of those areas where hockey is a strong tradition by and large didn't miss the game. And the NHL is the only professional sports league in North America to lose an entire season due to a labour stoppage. For what? Bring the game back to people who appreciate it. Winnipeg never overcame the loss of the Jets, and anxiously awaits their return, although it's impossible to say what will happen at this point.

As for the CBC? It has been under attack for at least a decade. The right wing in Canada would like to see the CBC privatised, even though this would make Canada the only industrialised country without a public broadcaster. CBC's funding has been cut, and although it still produces valuable programming not available in any other major Canadian media outlet, it has been managed as a commercial network as opposed to a public boradcaster. During the NHL lockout, when the CBC would have broadcast NHL games it instead broadcast movies. Nothing wrong with that, except that the movies broadcast were already known American movies that aren't that hard to find if one wants to. Why didn't the CBC during that time do more to actively promote Canadian films and productions, especially given that most commercial movie theatres in Canada don't show Canadian movies? The CBC is not a commercial broadcaster, so intsead of trying to "compete" it should focus on telling Canadians about the world and each other, and it has the capability to do a wonderful job at it given that it shouldn't have to worry about how profitable its programming is.

University Blues

2005-10-02T21:25:00.000-05:00

There's tension in the air at Brandon University. The Faculty Association has been without a collective agreement since March of this year, and has been attempting to negotiate a new contract with the University. Over the weekend, conciliation talks failed and both parties agreed to move towards mediation. The sticking ponits are wages (wow, that really surprises me), workloads, and "academic freedom." It's too early to predict how this one ends up, but BUFA has been openly talking about holding a strike vote sometime soon.

The University claims to be running short of money. They blamed the tution freeze imposed on Manitoba universities since the NDP was elected in 1999. They insist that the only way to meet their financial obligations is to charge students more, even though the University is continuing to see the increasing enrollment that has been happening for the past few years. I don't really follow that line of logic: more students paying tuition fees equals less money for the University. And of course there will be those who try to pit the students and the faculty against one another. Students have to accept high tuition in order to attract good profs, and profs have to be "reasonable" in their requests so students can afford to eat. Fortunately the faculty and the students union have long resisted that trap.

What is really missing from this issue is discussion over the role the Administration plays in this. Earlier this spring, BUSU sponsored a motion that would have seen the Administration take a 15% pay cut (and I'm sure I don't have to tell you how that went over). Yet this is what irritates me. The Administration claims to be short of money. They have asked students to chip in by paying more in tuition or ancilliary fees, they have asked the faculty to chip in by having allowed the negotiations to get to the point where a strike vote could still be on the table, and they have asked the taxpayers to chip in with direct funding to the University. Yet, what has the Administration done to chip in? Why do they insist on asking everyone else to make sacrifices when there is little to suggest they have done so personally? This, while staff positions go unfilled and courses go unoffered. I've met students who are willing to pay higher tuition if it means they get a better quality education, and many do believe "you get what you pay for." Yet, I'm sceptical of that logic. As mentioned earlier, more students are going to school, so that should be making the University more money. Furthermore, if tuition actually rose, is there any guarantee that it would actually go towards solving the problems, or would the problems be used as a means to justify increasing tuition?

Is there even a financial problem at the University? When was the last time Brandon University had its books audited? I think that's a question we should be asking our MLAs. If we know what the true financial picture of the University is, that makes it easier for BUFA to negotiate a fair deal for its members.

(I will edit this page to privide more links ASAP. I am unable to do so right now because certain essential websites are down.)

One Two Three Four! Bring Them Home And End This War!

2005-09-26T21:31:00.000-05:00

This past weekend has been an important one for the anti-war activists who want an end to the Iraq war. On September 24th, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in Washington D.C. and cities throughout the United States. Similar demonstrations took place in Canada and other parts of the world. Other events have been planned throughout the weekend, but the message to the British and American governments is clear: end the war now.

Americans, by and large, are now opposed to the war, and that isn't going to change any time soon (with the possible exception of them becoming even more opposed). The Sheehan campaign has had an impact on this. She wanted Bush to tell her to her face why her son had to die in Iraq. She's not the only grieving relative, but her campaign has put a human face on the tragedy in a way people can relate to.

Yet despite the support she's receiving, some political advisors think that there's something laughable about a woman who wants to know the truth about why her son was killed. I think the fact that she was arrested shows the fear the Bush Administration has of her. She's clearly struck a chord. Add to that the fact that the pundits who have been criticising her for not supporting the War on Terror. Personally, I question whether or not the pundits are serious about winning the War on Terror, as they could be much more effective by enlisting to go and fight instead of talking into a TV camera.

This weekend, the anti-war movement sent Bush and Blair an important message: we're here to stay.

25 Years Later, And Still Running

2005-09-18T22:46:00.000-05:00

Today many people from across Canada and around the world participated in the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope run for cancer reasearch. This is a run held every year in late September in commemeration of Terry Fox. Fox was diagnosed with bone cancer at the age of 18, and lost his right knee because of it. While in the cancer ward of the hospital, he was struck by the suffering of the children that he witnessed, and decided to run across Canada to collect donations for cancer research. He started his run on April 12, 1980 in St. John's, Newfoundland. Aside from raising the profile of the need for cancer research, he was also an inspiration; someone people could believe in. Unfortunately, he never made it. On September 1st of that year, outside of Thunder Bay, Ontario, he learned that the cancer had spread to his lungs, and despite the treatment, the cancer took his life on June 28 1981, at the age of 22. Yet, every year, in late September, people still take to the streets to raise money for cancer research.

Last Fall, the CBC held the Greatest Canadian contest, in which Terry Fox came in second. Fox, however, was my top choice. He was a man who had big dreams, and many obstacles placed in his path. Yet, he went out to fulfill his dreams, and never allowed the obstacles to stop him. This is especially remarkable because of the obstacles placed in front of him and the numbers of people who allow themselves to be held back. Even though he never completed the run he had hoped, he was a good example of perseverance through adversity, a legacy which still lives on after 25 years.

Four Years Later: Are We Safe?

2005-09-11T23:11:00.000-05:00

My answer: no.

Most people reading this can tell you exactly what they were doing when they heard about the planes that slammed the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on this date four years ago. We can still remember the shock and the horror of having such an event happen on this side of the Atlantic, and we felt deep sympathy for the attack's victims. People did what they could, including such things as donating blood, giving to charities, and attending rallies in support of the victims.

Naturally, people felt a great sense of confusion, vulnerability, and fear. Yet unfortunately instead of showing leadership, the American government manipulated those emotions in a sick game to increase their power. Linking dissent with sympathy for the terrorists, Bush ploughed forward with his own agenda. This resulted in the American government violating the rights of its citizens (and the citizens of other countries) and starting a war against Iraq, even though Iraq posed no threat and the weapons of mass destruction to this date have not been found Bush promised that this was going to keep everyone safe from the terrorists.

Yet, a few weeks ago the United States was confronted with another disaster. Hurricane Katrina slammed the south coast of the Gulf of Mexico, causing much destruction of property, chaos, and conditions that resemble that of a Third World country. While the hurricane was a natural disaster, the aftermath did not have to happen. The Houston Chronicle in 2001 stated that damage to Nouvelle Orléans after a major hurricane ranked in the top three of catastrophes that could hit the US, the other two being an earthquake in San Fransisco and a terrorist attack in New York City. Yet, the money that was supposed to be used to build up the levees to better prepare the city, and the National Guard whose job it is to respond do such disasters, were sent over to Iraq.

Hurricane Katrina clearly shows where the priority of the Bush Administration isn't: keeping Americans safe. Bush will talk about the importance of capturing those dangerous terrorists, even though the US has gone four years without such an attack, where people in other parts of the world are happy when they can go four days without that happening. Throughout history, rulers have held onto power and justified their abuses of it by claiming that it was necessary to keep the people safe from an enemy. Unfortunately, unlike a terrorist attack, Bush can't try to sound tough by saying he'll round up those responsible. But don't worry, we'll just pray for the victims, and all will be fine. (Has he read James 2:14-24?)

This tragedy and its aftermath speaks for itself to the hollowness of any claims that Bush is looking out for the American people.

Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Leisure: Happy Labour Day

2005-09-04T23:58:00.000-05:00

What happened last week in Nouvelle Orléans was a severe tragedy. My sympathies to the victims of the tragedy, and I salute the efforts of the professionals and volunteers who have been working to help those affected. If you wish to help, you can do so here or here. Now, as for this week's entry:

The Labour Day weekend traditionally marks the unofficial end of summer. School starts up, as do many activities that were suspended over the summer. In an odd way, it's as if the Long Weekend is a kind of demarcation point between the time for vacation, and the time for work, which ties into the origins of Labour Day in a roundabout way.

Labour Day is a day to recognise the struggles of the Labour movement, the gains that have been made, and the challenges still ahead, and these are important issues. Despite the crap that comprises the best-selling career advice books, many, if not most people, dislike their jobs. For them, work is necessary in order to eat. Yet, people also have other interests. These interests include such things as family, recreation, hobbies, education, community involvement, and vacations, and they are very important. However, pursuing interests outside of work can be difficult in this day and age. Many people work 2 jobs in order to survive, and we are now working longer. This not only reduces the time for off-work activities, but increases our stress levels.

Much of it indicates a change in mentality. Going back to what I said about Labour Day being a demarcation point, that springs from a mentality that there is a time to work and a time not to. The traditional full-time job leaves you free in the evenings, weekends, and holidays to do as you wish, and our culture once respected that. Today, everything revolves around convenience; the so-what-if-it's-2-am-you-get-that-product-delivered-to-me-by-8-am mentality. We feel we have a divine right to have all of our desires gratified this instant, and get angry when we find that the stores are opened limited hours (if at all) on holidays. What effect does that have on the people who have to work to bring us what we want, not to mention our own health levels? I accept that emergencys creep up at all times of the day and must be dealt with promptly, but why does it seem that nothing can wait until Monday morning after the weekend to be dealt with? Are we that impatient?

We had to fight for such things as weekends and vacations, where we can just relax and enjoy oursleves with the people we love, and it's important not to take that for granted. With that in mind, Happy Labour Day!

They're Coming!

2005-08-14T17:44:00.000-05:00

The issues of poverty and crime have received much attention this past week. On Monday night Youth For Christ asked Brandon City Council to grant them land. YFC wanted the land to build units that provide people aged 18-29 with affordable housing and support for things such as drug addictions. Some area residents had concerns, so Council asked YFC to hold consultations. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it's an opportunity for residents and YFC to communicate with one another, and hopefully they can resolve any differences that arise.

Yet there has been much sensationalism surrounding the issue. One resident who opposed the project wrote that "Our neighbours are being stabbed, robbed, raped and beaten. Children are being offered drugs as sex offenders lurk in our parks and watch our children as they enjoy a day at the spray park." Most cases of violent crime happen between people who know each other; domestic disputes and ex-partners is a large factor. Children are often introduced to drugs by friends, and cases of sexual molestation usually happen at the hands of close family members and friends. None of these problems are confined to downtown. In addition, police services of all sizes across the country give advice on protecting children and they advise people to always be with someone when they go out, especially if it's dark. Most of the "vagrants" who would benefit from the project already live downtown anyways, so the project wouldn't draw a swarm of people downtown. Fortunately, some Brandon residents understand the issues surrounding such projects.

There is also the "revelation" that the Indian Posse has established itself here. This coincides with some highly publicised beatings, one of which happened in broad daylight. Street gangs in one form or another have been active in Winnipeg and northern Manitoba for a long time. Brandon is the largest city in Manitoba after Winnipeg, so to think that gangs haven't been in Brandon for that same length of time seems quite naive.

The coverage of these issues is terrible. The editorial staff of the Brandon Sun had the audacity to imply that YFC is a sort of shady "mysterious group." Regardless of one's religious outlook, YFC is well respected in the community for providing services to Brandon youth, among them a drop in centre. The Sun also praised a local judge's decision to order a few convicted criminals to leave Brandon, but curiously enough remarked that " the judge may be exporting our problems to another nearby community. It would be terrible if any gang members who might get kicked out of Brandon set up shop in neighbouring towns where they could terrorize people there." That's exactly what's happening! Dangerous people belong in jail, not on an already long list of individuals the police have to look out for.

Enter Into History The Atomic Bomb

2005-08-07T12:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday marked the 60th anniversary that the world changed forever. As you all know, on August 6, 1945 the United States army dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, killing thousands and leaving behind radiation that made many people sick long after. 3 days later on August 9th, the city of Nagasaki was also bombed in the same fashion, leaving behind the same results.

There was coverage of the ceremonies around the world and profiles of survivors, but few Western media outlets openly denounced those acts for what they were; war crimes. Japan was on the side of the Nazis, and was thus enemies with the Allies, but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki themselves did nothing to warrant the destruction of their entire cities with the lethal effects to boot. They were a civilian population, and there was no excuse for targeting them in that fashion. Many people believe that dropping the atomic bomb wasn't even necessary, and many scientists who worked on the bomb project had second thoughts once they saw the destructive potential. That's just the tip of the iceberg, as there's practically no discussion whatsoever of atrocities committed on German and Japanese civilians (minus brief mention of the suspensions of the civil liberties of Japanese Canadians while the war was on) at the hands of Allied soldiers.

Some are going to accuse me of being either anti-American or a Nazi sympathiser. In the first place, what's relevant is not who dropped the atomic bombs, but the fact that the bombs were dropped at all. In the second place, Hitler's crimes were atrotious, and even people who have pacifist leanings believe that WWII was necessary to stop Hitler. It's frightening to think about what would have happened had Hitler won, but let's be honest about something. The reason we are taught historically that Britain, France, and Canada (and 2 years later the US) were white knights out to rid the world of the evil Hitlerian menace and that the Nazi war criminals were quickly brought to justice is because our side won that struggle. Funny, few people realise that before the war, the business community on this side of the Atlantic admired Hitler and wanted us to go in that direction. Few people also realise that Canada, the United States, and many European countries turned their backs on Jewish refugees trying to escape from Hitler.

What's despicable about Hitler is that he manipulated his own citizens to keep his grip on power; those who disagreed with him risked abbreviated life expectancies. Yet, out leaders also manipulated us in that conflict. People shot at one another and bombed cities because that's what they were told to do, and it left behind massive devastation, death, and brokenness throughout Europe and Southeast Asia. Wars have thoughout history been started not by citizens but by elites looking to advance their own power without regard to the costs on others.

That leads into another problem caused by the dropping of the atomic bombs. Since that time, military technology has advanced, and weapons far more lethar are being researched. What's the point? 100 years ago, if you wanted to kill someone in a war, you had to do so up close and witness the brutality of it. Now bombs land on cities and cause their destruction out of sight of the pilot who dropped them, and you don't even have to set foot inside of a major city in order to destroy it completely. Again, what's the point?

West Nile Hype

2005-08-01T23:21:00.000-05:00

So, the Long Weekend is over, and many are coming back from their holidays at the lake or wherever. They did a variety of things, but they noticed that all those mosquitoes are going to bite them and give them West Nile! Oh no, we have to fog to keep those mosquitoes away!

Here's a reality check, people. West Nile is not a big scourge. Manitoba has not recorded a death from West Nile in 2 years, and the number of cases run in the thousands. This is in a province with a million people, so your odds there are good. Very few people are left with permanent effects from West Nile. Take any medium-sized Manitoba community, and I bet there are as many, if not more, people in each community afflicted with asthma as there are annual cases of West Nile. Aside from fatalities, asthma cases are quite chronic, and they cause many problems when people have to be rushed by ambulance to a hospital when they have an attack. Yet, take a look at any Manitoba media outlet, and you'll find far more about West Nile than asthma.

The chemicals people want to fog with are also contentious. Since they're designed to kill, the general effects are not good. When the City of Winnipeg fogs, residents can normally ask for a buffer zone the City won't spray if they don't want their property to be fogged, but if Manitoba Health declares a West Nile emergency, the City is ordered to spray and to ignore those buffer zones. Several environmental and medical groups have expressed concerns about the impact of fogging, both on the environment in such manifestations as concentrations of toxins in organisms, and on health in such manifestations as cancers. Are we wrong about some of the impacts? Possibly. Do we know all of the impacts of fogging? No. The chemical processes involved with chemical fogging and the fogging products breaking down and moving through the environment are complex. Now, since we don't know much about the impacts of fogging, and West Nile isn't as bad compared to other problems even though West Nile receives more than its fair share of coverage, is it worth it to force chemicals on people who want to be left alone in order to placate people who can't stand any sort of discomfort?

I don't think so.