Leap In The Dark

O.K. that’s it. I have sat patiently through it all, but now I feel it’s my turn. I’m going to talk about Canadian politics. Almost every web site I go to, blog or otherwise, harps on about people and incidents I have never heard of and don’t care about. So now it’s your turn.

But as a service I’ll offer this quick primer in Canadian civics for you out there who may not know anything about our system of government. Skip ahead if this information is redundant because it’s going to be really basic stuff.

First things first. Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. This means that the Queen, or as in our case the Governor General, is considered titular head of state, but in fact has no power. We have a federal system of government which involves parties fielding a slate of candidates across the country competing for seats in The House of Commons. Any party that wins an outright majority of seats runs the country for the next four or five years, they have to call an election in their fifth year of office. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister then appoints his cabinet from fellow members of his caucus, in other words people who were elected to the house of commons, not just his buddies. He doesn’t need to worry about anybody’s approval, except for bruised egos within his own party.

The folks who lost the election are called the Loyal Opposition. In the case of a majority government they have little or no effect on what happens in the country. Pretty much everything they do is posturing for the next election in the hopes of impressing somebody somewhere to switch their vote next time around.

Things only get interesting when there is a minority government and the guys with the most seats have to curry favour from a smaller party to stay in power. Since we currently have four political parties and three independent Members of Parliament (M.P.s) the current situation has made for the best House watching in ages.

But I’m getting ahead of myself, you still need to know about the parties. The ruling party of about the last dozen years are the Liberals. This has nothing to do with liberalism, although I’m sure most conservative observers in the U.S. dismiss Canada as akin to socialist, these guys have spent the last ten years cutting the heart out of our social programs in an attempt to balance the budget.

Until recently they were pretty much indistinguishable from the party calling itself The Conservative Party of Canada. (They used to be called the Progressive Conservatives which will give you an indication of the change) I think most people would easily recognise them as Republican clones. They are a new feature on the Canadian Political landscape as we have never had any real polarization in politics before.(except for the French English thing) The problem for this party is that a majority of people in Canada don’t like the politics of polarization. It’s just not polite.

The newest party is also one of the most contentious. The Bloc Quebecois are a separatist party through and through. They only run candidates in Quebec, and are there to represent the interests of their constituents alone and don’t give a hoot for the rest of Canada.

The last party to have sitting members are the New Democratic Party(N.D.P.) They are what passes for Canada’s only socialist party. Advocates of social programs like day care, health, education, equal rights and the environment they maintain a small core of seats which can sometimes swell dependant on the mood of the country. Their long association with unions took a hit when union memberships became affluent enough to worry more about taxes then jobs and wages.

As I had previously implied Canada currently has a minority Liberal government. When combined with the N.D.P. they are one or two votes short of a majority in the House of Commons. Given the fact that if a government is defeated and an election called on what is known as a vote of confidence(any piece of important legislation like the budget would do) the tension around Parliament Hill has been palpable enough to cut with a knife.

Just last month the excitement reached fever pitch, at least for those reporting on it, as the vote on the budget approached. Steven Harper leader of the opposition Conservative party announced that he had allied with the Bloc Quebecois in an attempt to defeat the government over the budget. Since Mr. Harper has been heard to refer to the Bloc as traitors this was largely seen as a marriage of convenience.

(Background note: There is currently a scandal of some significance being played out in Quebec about the shenanigans of the Liberal party’s fundraisers and kickbacks and illegal slush funds. As their popularity dropped like a rock both the Conservatives and the Bloc saw an opportunity to increase their standings in the house if an election were called immediately.)

To off set this alliance Paul Martin, Prime Minister, struck a deal with the N.D.P. Instead of having a $4.5 billion tax cut for businesses in the budget that money would be earmarked for health care, education and the environment, more specifically to help Canada meet it’s Kyoto accord targets. He also guaranteed he would call an election as soon as the inquiry into the scandal had released it’s final report.

Everything was still up in the air until two days before the vote and in a twist out of some weird novel, a prominent female member of the Conservative party changed sides to become a Liberal. What made this even more titillating is the fact that she had run against Mr. Harper in the last leadership convention, was considered a moderate sheep among the wolves, and was dating the deputy leader of the party. Not only did she leave her party but she left her man over politics!

Vote day rolled around with still nothing clear. It would all come down to how the three independents voted. Pretty much everyone knew how two of them would go, one each way, but it was the third who was important. Making it all the more poignant was the man literally had to crawl out of his sick bed to attend the vote as he is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments.

I don’t know how votes are conducted in the American Senate, but here the procedure is as follows. The Speaker of the House(sort of a hall monitor and rule enforcer who does his best to maintain a semblance of order) reads out the bill in question. He then asks that all in favour of the bill stand, and they do one after another through the party ranks, and then the opposed. The votes are then tallied.

It was a tie. Somehow or other it ended up a tie. In that case the speaker must cast the deciding vote. Since he is a member of the ruling party, who normally is not allowed to vote, that meant that the motion was carried.(It also explains how with an odd number of seats a tie is possible because one member doesn’t normally vote. The speaker is an M.P. just like everybody else)

The government survived to fight another day. The political fallout has been that Steven Harper and the Conservative party came off looking opportunistic and so desperate for power that they would do anything with anybody in a chance to get an election called. Since the majority of Canadians had no desire to have another election so soon, his popularity along with that of his party’s has plummeted from leading in the polls a month before the vote, to trailing the Liberals by as much as 5%

Even more significantly was the fact that his personal popularity, which is just as important here as for American politicians, dropped even further then the party’s did. In the month since that fateful day he has done nothing to improve upon his fortunes with his actions and speeches.

First of all it was decided that they had to do a political makeover on him to make him more friendly and accessible to the public. To that end they have organized a series of “barbecues with Steven” events for the summer months in an attempt to show him as just a regular guy. The reaction to this announcement has been greeted with contempt and cynicism from both the press and the public. The unintentional but implied condescension in the plan has not been lost on anyone.

Then there has been the tenor of his speeches. Recently they are beginning to sound like those of a bad loser whining because he didn’t get his way. How else could you explain his lashing out at the Liberals as making a deal with devil for receiving the support of the Bloc Quebecois in both a recent vote and the upcoming vote on same sex marriage. Are they only a devil when they vote against you Steve, or what would you call your actions of a month ago where you and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc appeared in a joint press conference announcing your intent to defeat the government. People’s memories aren’t that short.

The Conservative party of Canada has enough problems as it is with voter credibility without their leader sounding like a hypocrite. For too many people in Canada they represent a type of social conservatism based on religion that does not play well here at all. Even their opposition to gay marriage has been worded in such a manner as to bother people who might otherwise have supported their stand.

In the month leading up to the vote on the budget, anticipating a victory and an election, the Conservatives were intent on finding candidates for as many ridings as possible. While this it itself was understandable the nature of the candidates gave people pause for thought. More and more of them were self identified members of fundamentalist churches.

As a large majority of Canadians are uncomfortable with church and state associations this has them concerned about the direction the party would take if they ever gained power. Although I try to avoid generalities, Canada does have a history of being more liberal socially then the United States and the majority want to maintain that status.

If only from a misguided sense of superiority the power of the religious, and what is considered here the extreme right, in America is looked down upon. One only need compare the more liberal attitude towards same sex marriage, medical marijuana and abortion as represented by court decisions and the public’s lack of outrage over those decisions to see how large a gap exists between the two countries.

With ninety seats in the House of Commons the Conservatives seem to have some basis of support, but in actuality it is rather tenuous. The majority of that vote was more dissatisfaction with the a party that had been in power for twelve years. More along the lines of a warning to not take the people of the country for granted then anything else, the results of the last election should not be read as an endorsement of Conservative policies.

Unless some miracle happens, and what that could be is unfathomable, and the Conservatives manage to convince the people of Canada that they are not a threat to the status quo of fiscally responsible social programs that provide a decent safety net for everybody, they stand little chance of ever gaining power. Unlike there predecessors the Progressive Conservatives their appeal is too focused and their power base too narrow. The moderate conservatives who were the bedrock of the old party have little or nothing in common with this new party.

Well there your go. I’ve had my turn. Now we return you to your regular programming of the American political wars. I hope you enjoyed the break.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:06 AM | Permalink

One of the more amazing breakthroughs in science is also becoming one of the more controversial. The further we delve into the mystery of who we are and what makes us that way through the study of genetics and D.N.A. results in answers being postulated to questions of racial characteristics that are making people uncomfortable.

From the earliest days of evolutionary theory people have tried to pervert scientific fact in order to prove the supremacy of one people over another. The social Darwinists of the early twentieth century extrapolated that rich, poor, and other social status indications were the result of natural selection; a survival of the fittest played out in society’s hierarchy.

Of course they and subsequent subscribers to supremacist theories, including the Nazis, only used supportive arguments, and discounted any facts that countered their theories. The Nazi myth of the pure Aryan bloodline arose from tales of Teutonic knights. (Interestingly enough new anthropological research has shown that Aryan’s were native to India not a people passing through from Europe and back again. see forward to Ashok Banker’s Ramayana series for more details)

Geneticists fear a similar recurrence of events with the new information they are uncovering. Until very recently it was thought that as little as only .1% of genetic code was pertinent to racial traits. That under the skin we were pretty much all the same. Not only have scientists started to rethink that original ratio and increase it up to .2% with the potential for it being as high as a full 1%, they are coming to realize the amount of influence that .1-.2% has is far greater then was first presumed.

By examining the D.N.A. of a particular person they are able to establish their exact racial breakdown based on previous definitions of country of origin. For example a sample can show that a person is made up of a mixture of German, West African and Native American racial types. They can even pinpoint the exact percentages of each strain.

While it’s tempting to see this as a breakthrough for crime detection, it has been pointed out that these figures do not definitively translate into physical characteristics. Even if a person has predominant West African genes it does not mean they will have the physical characteristics of an African American.

As an example of genetic quirks and throwbacks I would cite the example of a family of Mohawk Indians I know. While the parents are both dark skinned and black haired, along with one son, the other son has flaming red hair, green eyes and is as pale skinned as any European. Both sons are the birth children of the same parents, but one carries a regressive gene from some earlier generation. So although their D.N.A. samples would have a similar complexion(no pun intended) the two sons share few obvious physical traits.

But where this issue starts to get both serious and exciting is the topic of race specific traits. For example one anthropologist has postulated that Ashkenazi Jews(ones of European decent)have a gene which passes along traits of higher intelligence then other Europeans. They claim that over a thousand years of laws that pushed them into business forbidden Christians caused a type of natural selection that had those fittest to thrive in an intellectual capacity prevailed.

By stating the possibility that intelligence could be a genetic trait, and that different races could have different genetic potential for achieving higher intelligent quotient the racial supremacy can of worms is opened. As more scientist delve into the genetic map in an effort to discover hints to how certain deceases are passed from one generation to another, more racially specific data is being uncovered.

While the merits for discovering how and why certain deceases are passed and whether or not a certain race’s immunity can be replicated are obvious. What need is there for us to figure out why one type of people can run faster then another? What common good is being filled by that information?

Furthermore when you consider how young the human race is( the oldest being around 120,000 years old), the amount of time passed for any significant distinctions to have developed through genetic mutations is limited. The difference between the human genetic code and a gorilla’s is only 1%. So how much real differences can have developed between humans in our limited time on earth. There is more genetic variation between two frogs sitting side by side in a swamp then two humans.

Solely studying genetics discounts far too many factors. Even in the example cited of the Ashkenazi Jews the role of environment and social conditions was cited as being the reason that the “smart gene” developed. This does not mean that other races given the same situation would not respond in the same manner. If it had been people of African decent would not the same thing have happened?

But instead of looking at it from this angle the scientists said let’s see why Jews are so smart. Instead of developing a general hypothesis which would have said what effects does this type of environment have upon the evolutionary process in humans, they deliberately limited the study to one racial group based upon a generalized stereotype.

Until they are able to reproduce identical environmental conditions for all genetic possibilities to react too, how can anybody postulate one group is smarter, or faster, or anything better or worse then anybody else. It is irresponsible to make statements like this without qualifying them in some manner.

This type of information is too important to be dealt with in a trivial manner. It is reprehensible that scientists are utilizing racial stereotypes as a basis for research. To claim that Ashkenazi are genetically smarter,(If you ever met my mother’s family that argument would fall apart in front of your eyes) or that Kenyan Blacks are inherently faster based on information from a still inexact science falls into the province of trying figure out how many angels one can fit on the head of a pin. One seriously has to wonder what motivated this research in the first place.

scientific information was taken from articles in the Globe and Mail dated Sat. June 18th and June 25th/05 written by Carolyn Abraham. They are the first of two articles dealing with race and genetics that are being run in the paper for the next couple of weeks. If you are able to access the paper either on line or in hard copy they are well worth reading. gypsyman

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:37 PM | Permalink

When Moses brought down the word telling the Israelites how to lead exemplary lives one of the top ten was to stop the worship of graven images. NO MORE IDOLS for the masses. In those days that was an edict fairly easy to execute because the golden calf didn’t have a publicist and there were no hoards of reporters ready to report on their every hanging participle.

“Methinks she doth protest too much” said one of Shakespeare’s characters concerning the another’s protestations of denial. It has been suggested that perhaps the same could be said for our newest idols. That those individuals who decry the intrusion in their lives the loudest by the masses of paparazzi are those most desirous of said attention.

How many of us get paid fifteen million dollars for six to eight weeks work of being ourselves? How many of us have a publicist who issues statements about whether or not we have a girlfriend? Do you honestly believe that people who consider it necessary to hire someone to issue statements about their personal lives are not courting the attention they claim to despise?

The argument could be made that the press have made such accoutrements essential. That in order to maintain some vestige of control these people are forced into the position of having their lives filtered through press releases. By giving out tidbits they are able to keep the feeding frenzy to a minimum and maintain some semblance of privacy in otherwise public lives.

But there’s where the dichotomy starts to rear it’s ugly little head. Haven’t these “idols” by their very seeking to obtain that status come to a tacit agreement that their lives are for public consumption? When people like a Mr. Cruise and a Ms. Diaz protest, both who have recently made headlines for their complaints about the media, who are they appealing to for sympathy?

Having carefully constructed careers conditional upon public adoration: the more that people lay out shekels to worship their image the higher the wattage of their star power, what did they expect? That they could shut off what they had created? With the worship comes the heightened expectations and demands.

They couldn’t have been blind to past history. One only need to look at the lengths people have gone to obtaining relics from previous stars. Those who buy sweat stained pieces of Elvis’ scarves with all the devotion shown to a shard of the true cross surely must have prepared you for what was in store?

The shocked protestations that accompany ringing denouncements of the popular press are as hollow as the smiles they flash during their promotional tours. How can we be expected to take them seriously when a person books himself into the couches and chairs of the public confessionals that are talk shows in order to publicize their private life?

With those actions they generate the expectation that we are privy to their innermost secrets. Their efforts to increase popularity and polish their shine only serve to generate the insatiable appetite the public has for information. Demanding that people pay attention to you, and then giving them reason to, unsurprisingly enough results in them doing so.

Why are there certain of these people who seem to attract more attention then others? There are those who are continually on the covers of the mass circulation media, or being featured in stories. Could there be a correlation to the number of times that their faces appear staring out at you from photos of parties, openings, and charity events?

Occasionally there will be attempts made to drag a name that stays out of the light into the glare of revelation. But, because that person has not cultivated an idol identity, they never stay there for long. The mass attention span being what it is, if there is not continual reinforcement, interest quickly wanes and the public eye moves on.

One can choose to make a career out of being an actor, a musician, or any type of performer, or you can choose to be a star. In the case of the former they do their work, and then go home at the end of the day. They may not be making the same amount of money as the star, or have the same name recognition, but they have a life.

The star makes a conscious decision to pursue the course they have taken. If they didn’t like what the results were they could stop playing the game. They set out to become a caricature of a human being: everything about them blown up larger then life, and they have succeeded.

In Rudyard Kipling’s short story The Man Who Would Be King he tells the tale of two ex British soldiers in the Indian army who set out to find a small country to rule. When a tribe mistake them for gods instead of men they are quickly elevated to exalted positions. But when their humanity is revealed the tribe turns on them and leaves them for dead.

By setting themselves up as idols for the masses today’s stars strip themselves of their humanity. Unknowingly or not that is still the result. They have intentionally strived for and elevated themselves to a level of wealth and power that few of us could ever hope to obtain. Like Kipling’s soldiers signs of humanity could bring about their downfall.

The pact they have entered into with press ensures that they are kept larger then life. Their trysts, their flings, their parties, and their marriages are reported down to the last detail. Their faces loom down on us from billboards tens of times larger then life, and stare back at us when we line up for groceries. They are omnipresent because they want to be.

The golden calf that Moses prohibited was built by men to be worshiped as a God. Today’s idols are still built by men(and women)but by those desiring to be worshiped. Since they demand the attention they so decry, protestations ring hollow. They know perfectly well that the old saying of “ Any publicity being good publicity” is essential to the maintenance of their status.

The fact remains that the only thing keeping them in the public eye is their desire to be there. Like an addict who has grown dependant on their drug, they need the attention to survive. They could step down off the pedestal they’ve placed underneath them at any time. But they like the view from up high and aren’t about to surrender. Otherwise they would have done so long ago.

Spare your sympathy for those who truly deserve it. Not for those who complain about achieving their goals.

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:47 AM | Permalink

There’s a picture that hangs just beside my bed. It’s a reproduction of a photo that was taken of me when I was eighteen. I keep it up there for a couple of reasons. First it’s a remarkable portrait. It was taken early one morning at the Shelburne Ontario Fiddle Festival. It features my head and shoulders: my hair is long and covered in a floppy hat that has Tim Curry’s signature scrawled across it and my hands are cupping a harmonica which I was trying to learn how and play(without any success).

I’m bleary eyed from lack of sleep and over indulgence but it really captures who I was at that time in my life. But aesthetic qualities aside its value is increased because it is the only memento I have of a friend who was killed nearly twenty years ago. As long as I have this picture I can not forget him and the reasons for his death.

His death was the only time that world affairs and political decisions have ever directly impacted on my life. I have never lived in a war zone, seen people killed under fire, or had to survive any of the traumas too many people in this world deal with as a daily existence. But the blame for the death of my friend can be laid directly at the feet of the men in Washington D.C. who decided to break the laws of their country and illegally supply arms to the terrorists trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua.

The irony of his death was that he had actually come under fire from the “contras” while serving in a school house building brigade in Nicaragua . In the 1980’s a variety of groups in Canada, mainly church and other Non Government
Organizations(N.G.O.’s)would send down groups to help outlying communities build things like schools, or irrigation systems. Do the little things that would help improve their standard of living. Help them help themselves.

These farming communities were usually targets of the brave contra’s, especially the one’s bordering Guatemala where the American run bases were. They would sneak across the border and rain mortar and machine gun fire down on these villages, killing anything they could and then run away before the army could show up. These were the people Ronald RayGuns compared to founding father’s of America.

He managed to survive those times in the bush. I never had the opportunity to talk with him about it to see how it felt. But I imagine he was pretty cool under fire. Not much ever seemed to faze him. The last time I saw him turned out to be shortly before his death. He was just finishing up his journalism degree and was preparing to go back to Nicaragua and start covering the story on the ground.

He had no pretence of being unbiased, all of our group had been fervent supporters of the Sandanistas and their attempts to pull the country out of its poverty. They had a long hard road to travel and he wanted to walk with them and record it. I’m sure he would have had no problems with access to information because of his previous work as a brigade worker, and as an English language reporter from North America willing to tell things from the Sandinista point of view would only have increased his value to them.

My friend was killed shortly thereafter in Managua, Nicaragua’s capital city. He had just stepped off the curb when a truck came out of nowhere and ran him down and vanished. If someone wants you dead there is no easier way then a traffic accident if done by professionals. Maybe he wasn’t important enough to warrant that kind of attention and I’m just a paranoid

But at the time of his death the American government were really cranking up the propaganda war against the Ortega government. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to believe that the C.I.A. or the contras could have a hand in silencing someone who had the potential to speak against them. My friend’s contacts in Canada did include people in mass circulation newspapers and that could have been seen as a potential threat.

Even if that was not the case, the fact remains that he would not have been on that street corner if it weren’t for the policies of the American government at that time. If they could have followed the practice implemented by the previous Jimmy Carter administration of non intervention in popular uprisings and the withdrawal of American influence from Central America, his death would not have happened.

The United States has a long and tawdry history with South/Central America and the Caribbean. Since the Monroe doctrine of 1810 extolling their right of “Manifest Destiny” over the whole of the western Hemisphere they have treated these areas as their personal fiefdoms. Politicians make derisive comments about “tin pot banana republics” when it has been their own policies that have created most of those regimes.

Putting the interests of American fruit growers and sugar manufactures above the local population was seen as the major prerequisite for a politician to gain the backing of the U. S. The slightest indication of independent thought would be rewarded with a quick change to a government deemed more suitable. Not surprisingly this has led to a fair amount of resentment and mistrust on the part of the majority of peoples from these parts of the world.

Grinding poverty and death squads looking to quash opposition and preserve the land holdings of the chosen few were facts of life in countries endorsed by the U.S. But that is a legacy that can be overcome. What may not be as easily overcome were the years of single crop growth. Who knows what permanent damage has been done to agricultural land where all that has been grown have been bananas and sugar cane? Will these countries ever be able produce sufficient diversity in crops to reduce their reliance on exports for survival?

What happens when a people have no hope? Well look at Columbia as an example of how an alternative crop stepped in to fill the void. With the coffee plantations owned by so few individuals, and the market so variable, people chose something that offered a guaranteed return: Cocaine. I’m not saying that the morality was right, but to them it must have made economic sense.

The irony of it all is that because of their policies in the first place it was the American government that provided the impetus for the growth of the drug cartels and their wide sphere of influence. No one has offered the poor farmers an alternative crop to this day from the one that they can sell to the drug lords.

In 1976 Jimmy Carter started to reverse over a hundred years of interference. With such symbolic steps as signing over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians he was beginning the long process of rebuilding diplomatic rather then autocratic relationships with his southern neighbours. Unfortunately the overthrowing of another American puppet, The Shah of Iran, opened the door for Ronald Regan and a return to the old patterns.

Countless people have needlessly died since the 1980’s, including American nationals, because of these policies. Each of these people have friends or family somewhere who keep a treasured keepsake as a memento of a person who won’t ever come home again. I remember when Ronald Regan died and tributes poured in from all over him. For me his true legacy is a picture that hangs beside my bed and the memories of a life ended too early.

Perhaps if more politicians had a photo like that beside their bed the world would be a little safer and saner. I’d like to think so.

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 07:10 AM | Permalink

One of my favourite commentators on social issues is Rick Salutin who writes a weekly column for the Globe and Mail newspaper in Canada. Unabashedly left wing he nevertheless is unafraid of criticizing the tactics and policies of the political left. Unlike a lot of writers on the left he doesn’t get hung up in intellectualizing over issues. He manages to keep both of his feet firmly on the ground.

His career has included stints as a playwright and novelist. He was one of the people involved in the early 1970’s in helping develop professional Canadian theatre. His contributions and support helped to establish the small alternative theatres that have since seen Toronto grow to one of the larger live theatre centres in North America, second only to Los Angeles and New York in per capita attendance and facilities.

His columns are often thought provoking, and he is never afraid of poking his pen into issues that others may have felt best left alone. This weeks article is no exception as it raises the spectre of racism in the United State.*

Forty one years ago Edgar Ray Killen, a former Klansman was involved in the murders of three civil rights workers. He has been recently sentenced to sixty years in prison, which he will have to serve in isolation due to fear of retaliation from other prisoners.

"It's kind of a race issue," said a state official, "in that our [prison] population is 70 per cent black." This is what I find perplexing about the "race issue" in the United States. They seem to deal with it impressively. And they don't seem to deal with it at all.

Mr. Salutin’s comment on the state official’s statement serves as an introduction to an outline of the contradictions on the lives of black people in the States. He points out the amazing advances that have happened in the last forty years: a black Secretary of State, (Colin Powell) followed by a female black as Secretary of State(Ms. Rice)Such things he says would not have been believed possible forty years ago.

He cites a book written by a Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal which stated that for the United State to achieve its full potential it would need to come up with a solution to racism. He went on to add that for that to happen major fundamental changes in the fabric of the society would have to occur.

Mr. Salutin points out that on the surface America has managed to do the one without the other. The only societal change that has occurred has been the treatment of individuals by other individuals. In other words personal overt racism is no longer the norm as it was forth years ago. All other aspects of the consumer driven society have stayed relatively the same.

Yet, however much the United States has changed, it remains fervently capitalist, globally interventionist and busily religious in a traditional or fundamentalist way. It has, in other words, managed to accommodate a lot of racial change without seeing its basics profoundly undermined.

What does that say about racism? Does it mean that it was never as deeply entrenched in the American psyche as was first suspected, or have all these changes only been on the surface, or only for a select few?

Mr. Salutin adds one more detail to the mix that seems to emphasise the latter view over the former. One of the basic structures of American society is the disparity between the two races economically and socially. There are still a disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated, without access to health insurance, and living in poverty compared to their white compatriots.

How can a society deal so widely, successfully and, I'd argue, fairly earnestly with race -- yet still not have dealt with so much of it?

The great thing about Rick Salutin’s pieces is that he leaves you hanging. Like a modern day Socrates( the Greek guy not the Brazilian soccer player) he poses questions to get you thinking about the issues he considers important. Having survived this long treading like a fool(definitely not an angel) I will venture to continue where he left off.

Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea I’d like to say in advance that I’m not one of those sanctimonious Canadians who when it comes to issues of race believe they are better then Americans. I’ve seen too many “Paki” bashings, and heard too many racist comments that are firmly believed and ingrained, to know better then to swallow the line that somehow Canadians are less racist then Americans. We’ve shown that given the opportunity and means we’re every bit as bigoted as the next person. Nothing to boast about but true.

The question for both of our countries is why, even though overt racism has disappeared, have certain ethnic groups not been able to break out of the cycle of poverty, violence and crime? While one could say that the poverty and lack of opportunities that accompanies those living conditions are sufficient reason themselves.

Take government cutbacks to funding for education and public health as an example. Poorer neighbourhoods do not have the ability to have the community pick up the financial slack as would a more affluent centre. This leaves a growing gap in the quality of services. But economic environmental issues while important, do not tell the whole story.

Our society remains a competitive environment based upon a first past the pole winner take all attitude. When there is an established head start for a certain group in that atmosphere, and another group had to fight for hundreds of years just to be allowed into the race, who do you think will have the advantage? Even if two people are of equal skill and character if you have a lap head start your going to cross the finish line first. For the most part you only need to be half as smart as your opponent under those conditions to leave him choking in your dust.

Then there is the issue of trust. How long, how many generations, does it take for a formally subjected race to trust and be trusted by the former oppressors. Even though a significant number of European heritage people live in similar conditions it’s hard not to perceive your situation as being enforced on you when your parents’ generation were not able to receive service with people of the same economic status because of skin colour. What would that do to your ability to trust in the equality of a system?

For those on the other side of the fence wouldn’t you always have the slightest feeling of worry that these people who maybe your parents prevented from voting might just like revenge. Isn’t there a little voice inside your head that says well if I had had my land stolen, and been treated like dirt I know I would, and doesn’t that colour your dealings with them?

Be honest now, even though lynching is a thing of the past, if you were a black man would you be comfortable being pulled over by the police in a major metropolitan city? As a white person don’t a group of young black inner city men make you nervous?

In Kingston Ontario where I live there was an ongoing argument about whether or not a disproportionate number of black males were being routinely stopped by the police. The chief of police very bravely had his officers keep records of the race of the people they stopped to try and pinpoint any sort of pattern. These records, admittedly gathered over a short period of time so of some limited accuracy, produced numbers that verified the original assumption.

Interestingly enough because of these efforts on the part of the police force relations between the black community and the police have improved. The police were willing and brave enough to question their own behaviour which served to increase the bonds of trust. Even though the figures backed up a presumption of racism the effort was seen as a positive step towards dealing with a problem.

Instead of denial and increased tension a step was taken towards some semblance of reconciliation and understanding. It will be interesting to see what occurs in the wake of this experiment. It will take steps like these, ones which admit that all is not rosy in our integrated world to break down the barriers of mistrust.

When I hear comments coming out of supposedly liberal people like “Oh this is a wonderful community, only 1% black” when talking about potential housing in the States(my in laws) I can’t help but agree with Mr. Myrdal when he says that it will take a fundamental change in the fabric of our society for racism to be eliminated.

As long as we perpetuate a system that places value upon material wealth while simultaneously depriving a good portion of our people with even the opportunity to compete for the prizes, resentment, mistrust, and fear will be our constant companions. Neither Canada or America, or any country for that matter, will ever realize it’s full potential as long as divisions remain between any of it’s peoples because of real or perceived discrimination.

Colin Powell, Ms. Rice, and other people of colour or a visible minority group, in a position of power will continue to have the taint of tokenism attached to them, no matter their political stripe, as long as the balance of power is so heavily tilted in one direction. After we as a society have accomplished so much more then any one could have anticipated in the times since the Freedom Riders went down to Mississippi forty odd years ago, are we not doing a disservice to the memory of those who died by leaving what they started unfinished?

This will only be accomplished by admitting the problem still exists and to stop sweeping it under the carpet. The American satirist Lenny Bruce once said that until the day comes when a child doesn’t run home from school crying because someone called them a “nigger” we can not stop fighting for equality. We need to change our objective to being until the day comes that we don’t think in terms of skin colour at all we can not stop our fight for equality.

*Rick Salutin, Toronto Globe and Mail, Friday June 24th/05. Due to the subscription nature of www.globeandmail.com I’m unable to provide a link to this article.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 04:14 PM | Permalink

With the Live 8 weekend fast approaching I thought that in the spirit of public interest I would publish this little primer for the uninitiated. Since most of you will probably just be attending/watching the concerts there may not be much interest, but for those who have yet to get there feet wet, and are looking for some tips I thought I could finally put my years of activist activity to good use.

Did you ever Demo? You know, Demo. As in I demo, you demo, we demoed, let’s go demo at, and what are they demoing about over there? I’ll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with demographics. Give up?

Demo, short for demonstration, as in protest or other organized(so to speak) gathering of folks who vaguely have a common goal in mind. Whether pro choice, pro life, anti war, pro war, for nuclear power or against it a demo was and maybe still is the thing to do when you want to go out into public and make a noise.

Demos come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from small groups huddled nervously together in a clump, to large marches parading through the streets. They can be loose affiliations of disparate groups coming together for a common cause, or simply individuals with a bone to pick. Quite often they end up being a mixture of the two which leads to what’s known as a general strike.

Each generation seems to spawn its own issue for demo purposes. Almost if they all have a need to let off steam about something or other. Sometimes a theme like peace, or freedom is repeated, but the object of attention changes.

Demos can be parties celebrating life and the joy of being out with people of common mind. They can also degenerate into wild conflicts between baton wielding, pepper spraying police officers and rock hurling, epithet tossing demonstrators. Unfortunately it’s hard to know at the onset how any particular demonstration will turn out.

The experienced demo participant is aware of this and takes the following precautions: Always have someone standing by with bail money in case of arrest; always bring with you a good sized handkerchief or scarf that can be used to cover the mouth and eyes in case of gas; if possible wear kidney pads so if you have to turtle under a baton attack you won’t end up pissing blood(if no pads available protect your kidneys with arms leaving your head exposed, your less likely to take a hit to the head as bloody skulls don’t look good on camera and most police forces care about their images now); and finally unless your prepared too withstand most of the above mentioned abuse stay away from any fellow demo attendees whose attire includes gas masks, ski masks and goggles, or who smell strongly of gasoline.

Of course the above advice also depends on your motivation for attending a particular demo. If you are genuine in your desire to peacefully protest then those are good rules of thumb. But, as is the case for many males aged 19-24, you are there to attract demo groupies(yes they exist) it’s best to at least appear ready to either inflict or take some damage. Nothing guarantees a little post demo lust fulfillment then the smell of kerosene or the a trickle of blood(Not just crazed marine chopper pilots love the smell of napalm)

But if you can’t get a lucky injury don’t despair because the post demo dance/concert is always a good opportunity to get to know that cute somebody who caught your eye earlier. Something about a woman and a placard in camouflage....

Never, ever, ever, put your name down on paper. I don’t care what the petition is or who is handing it around. It’s not worth it no matter what the enticement.(or who) Any or all of those groups handing around petitions is infiltrated somewhere along the line, and all those names will be recorded. Those guys taking pictures are not from the press. Do not let anyone take your picture or see you clearly if they do, unless you want a permanent file somewhere up in Washington or Ottawa.

Does that sound a little paranoid? Well remember you are dealing with people who make my paranoia look mild. The F.B.I. have recently said that the biggest domestic terrorist threat facing the U.S. are environmental and animal rights groups. If that’s not paranoia I don’t know what is.(It also makes me question their priorities and wonder what ever happened to guy named Bin Laden who was responsible for having some planes crashed into buildings)

The last time I demoed was in 1997. We here in Ontario were suffering through a government who were determined to roll back as many social programs and gut as much of the education and health care budgets as possible. In response demos were organized as a means of protest. The irony of course, which was lost on most participants, was that the unions responsible for co-ordinating the proceedings had only their memberships to thank for the election of this government.

They had had no problems when the government had promised them substantial tax cuts and so voted them into power, but when it turned out that you couldn’t balance the books only by gutting programs for the poor, the middle class unions like the teachers, nurses, and public service workers all of sudden woke up to find their nice sinecures threatened.

Having just had my miniscule monthly stipend cut by 21% I was hard pressed to listen to their complaints about pension benefits with sympathy. I found myself marching with people who hadn’t given a damn for people like me and my wife. It wasn’t a demo, rather a gathering of special interest groups looking out for number one.

It made me reflect on past experiences and wonder about a demo’s validity. At there best a demo was a coming together of people with common cause. A place where one felt genuine kinship with those around you. In the fractured world of leftist political activism as I knew it these moments were few and far between. One learned to savour the breaks from infighting.

The old adage that the if the left could stop fighting amongst itself they might be able to accomplish something was never born out more then in the peace movement in Toronto in the early 1980’s. At that time the central focus was on trying to stop the testing of Cruise missiles over the Canadian west. Our government and the American’s had signed an agreement allowing them to fly over our territory as the landscape so resembled potential targets in the then Soviet Union.(These were the evil empire days of Ronald RayGuns)

Toronto was a focal point for demos because the guidance system for the Cruise was being built just outside the city limits in the Lyton Systems factory in Rexdale Ontario. After a slow start with only a few of us protesting in front of the American consulate(having our pictures taken by the nice men with the cameras)proceedings escalated until the penultimate demonstration of around 50,000 people. For a city the size of Toronto in the early eighties that was huge.

Things started to get ugly after that. When a bomb went off at Lyton Systems killing a security guard it turned a lot of people off from the supposed peaceful protesting. At that time I was a even more stupid then I am now, and didn’t know enough to get out when I should have. The show of unity that had been put on for the assembled masses quickly crumbled in the face of adversity.

Infighting broke out between traditional rivals. There were the moderates who wanted to keep on with peaceful protests, the Direct Action types who viewed the peace movement as part of the revolutionary process and to confuse the mix there were the representatives of all the different factions of the Communist party.

There were the Marxist Leninists, the Trotskyites, the Maoists, and the good old fashioned Communist Party Of Canada. It seemed the former were made up of dissatisfied members of the latter, who either couldn’t get their own way so quite to form a “real” communist party, or had been booted out for dangerous behaviour. Of these the most dangerous were the Marxist Leninists because there philosophy was to try and provoke the police to attack them to generate sympathy and cause the workers to rise up in righteous anger. Since most workers had no idea they existed and they wouldn’t have recognized a worker if they tripped over them, well you get the idea.

By the end of the summer of 1983 it was pretty much over. The bomb makers had been arrested, and every thing else just devolved away. As endings went it pretty much was a whimper.

But it hadn’t ended without leaving me with some lasting mementos. During the aftermath of the bombing my home developed a series of strange hic-ups causing my father to ask if it was possible that it was tapped(he had worked extensively as a drug prosecutor for the federal government and so was familiar with the sounds a phone would make from listening to a variety of taped conversations)When I broached the subject of the whether we could know the bombers with my then housemate, he said friends of friends.

It wasn’t until 1988 that the full implications of that time were realized. That summer was seeing the first G 8 conference held in Canada. The call went out to temporary agencies for a variety of low level clerical jobs to be filled. As I was in need of work and fully qualified I applied for a job as a media clerk. The interview went well and everything looked good until one day I received an embarrassed phone call from the employment agency.

I wasn’t going to be given security clearance so they would not be able to hire me. Initially I was flabbergasted, but then I thought back to a few years previous and it sort of made sense. At first it was funny, but as the years have past it has caused me to wonder about how much this could have potentially affected my future.

In hindsight it’s easy to say that it was a mistake to get involved with something that adversely affected me down the road. But since I have never had any real interest in pursuing a career that would involve security clearance I don’t see that as a consideration. If the opportunity somehow arose that I could go back in time and relive moments I would probably not change a thing. As to whether or not I’d ever demo again, I’d have to say no, I can accomplish more through my writing.

Do I think they are a waste of time and energy. That depends on circumstances and subject. It, like most things do, comes down to personal choice. If it’s something you feel strongly about and a demo seems to be the way to express that emotion then go for it. There really is nothing to compare with the sensation of being part of something that is bigger then you, surrounded by people who share a common intent. Savour and enjoy those moments for what they are, but don’t let them blind you to the realities of the situation.

Marching in a demo is a far cry from committing yourself to a course of action that could have consequences you are not even aware exist. Think carefully before letting the emotions of the event carry you further then you want. Remember your purpose for being there and don’t deviate. You have the right to free speech and to demonstrate but use it wisely so that it can’t be taken away from you.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 04:51 AM | Permalink

What started off as a whim turned into an experience. There are not too many concert movies that are successful at evoking a time and place. Modern ones especially are geared towards packaging a “star’s” songs for digestion of the home crowd. Aside from the obligatory adulating crowd shots, tight shirted girls predominant, little is offered to genuinely recreate the concert feel.

It was with a fair amount of trepidation that I inserted the disc that I had just taken out from my library into my player. Could this stand up to the test of time? Woodstock was another place and time and who knew whether or not it could stand up to almost thirty year old memories of watching it in second run movie palaces. I haven’t even smoked a joint in eleven years for Christ’s sake.

Now I was too young to have been there, in all senses of the word. In 1969 I would have been eight years old, and by the time I first saw the movie it was eight years after the fact. Some of the performers were dead, or their careers were over or even worse they continued to perform but the bloom had worn off and they just sounded like caricatures of what they had once been. But I was young and idealistic and thought the whole sixties culture wonderful.

In 1977 Toronto, where I lived, was stuck in terminal musical blandness. Corporate rock, and disco predominated. Punk was still a year or two in the future(Toronto was always a couple of years behind New York and London)so the only hope of escape was into the past. With a brother four years older I had been listening to the music of the era since the mid sixties.(Some of the few decent memories I have of childhood revolve around music: my aunt giving my brother Jimi Hendrix’s Are You Experienced and Bob Dylan’s Greatest Hits Vol.1 in the summer of 1967, watching the Beatle’s Help and A Hard Day’s Night on T.V. and seeing Yellow Submarine in the theatres, and buying my first record Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band)

My brother owned the sound track to Woodstock so I had heard a majority of the music and memorized most of the stage announcements(how could you forget the warnings about the brown acid)but nothing could have prepared me for my first watching of the movie. Although the music was wonderful and some of the performances spectacular(and some ridiculous: John Sebastian still makes me cringe and Sha Na Na in their gold lame looked too much like fore runners of the Village People, which on second thought after re watching it and remembering they were from San Francisco you gotta’ wonder)that weren’t what had made the memories indelible.

First was the feeling of “happening” that was so adeptly captured by the movie makers. You could tell from the opening comments of the local farmer to the last notes of Jimi Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner that this had been more then just a concert. There was the impression that people had come to express a commitment to something beyond the music. Sure there will always be those who are just there for the party, but the majority had come to express solidarity for an alternative way of life to that of their parents.

One could be cynical and say it was only because the majority of these people were the children of the well off middle class that the very values they were protesting had given them the privileges to be able to reject them. But that could be said of any group of people seeking to change what they don’t like about their world. Were not Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others high ranking officers in the British Army and even at the onset of the revolutionary war still toasting the King of England in the officer’s mess?

Part of the joy and charm of watching the movie again was the naiveté, the sincere belief that they would be able to change the world for the better. To eyes jaded by years of media manipulation, abuse of power, and the politics of greed the proponents of a better world being possible simply through the power of love may seem may seem hopelessly romantic. But as Elvis Costello said years latter “What’s So Funny About Peace, Love and Understanding”. Sometimes simple is not simplistic.

As a sixteen year old who didn’t fit into any discernable clique at high school, nothing was so attractive as feeling here was a place you would be accepted. It was irrelevant that the era had long since been swallowed up by the market place, that Woodstock actually had been the beginning of the end. With the revelation that popular music was reaching so many people, and the “counter culture” was so popular, those willing to exploit it for profit weren’t far behind.

But sitting in a dingy second run theatre with pot smoke swirling around my head it was all a revelation. I didn’t have to try and fit in. Here were at least 300,000 examples of people who didn’t seem to care. From the skinny dippers, to the extravagantly dressed gypsy hippies they exuded a freedom of spirit seemingly absent from the grey world around me.

And the music. Ah the music was glorious. People who I had only heard on record made real in larger then life form. The intensity of Ritchie Havens; Joe Cocker passionately rasping out Little Help From My Friends; a laid back Country Joe MacDonald leading the Fish cheer(give me an F....)and getting the throng to sing along with the I Feel Like I’m Fixing To Die Rag; the street thug energy of The Who; Crosby, Stills, and Nash when their voices still were sweet; and it all ending with the pyrotechnic guitar crying of Jimi Hendrix’s now iconic Star Spangled Banner.

So would this stand up to my nostalgic memories, or like so many other past joys would it just end up leaving me disgruntled and upset? No, emphatically no! This one slim two sided shining disc brought it all back. From the first chord played to the last piece of garbage picked up I was enthralled all over again.

Partially, I’m sure, it was the fascination to see everybody so young again and at the height of their capabilities. But that was tinged with sadness. Looking closely you could see the beginnings of the end for some, the signs of drug and alcohol abuse just starting to show, and having the benefit of knowing what’s in store you mourn the loss of what was so vital.

There were some added treasures. This being an extended director’s cut there were performances that didn’t make into the theatrical release. I literally gasped in surprise to see Grace Slick and Jefferson Airplane perform. Of all the bands from that time period they were one of the few who I had never had a chance to see play.(I know they performed at Altamont, and are in the film, but I’ve never had the heart to watch that movie for a lot of reasons) They performed a heart rending edition of Saturday Afternoon and to listen to the interplay of Slick’s, Paul Kantner, and Marty Bolan’s vocals was to fully appreciate harmonies again. Their voices soared and spiralled around each other like birds in flight.

In the midst of all the anger about issues and conflicts that are expressed from all points on the political spectrum it was uplifting to see such uncomplicated optimism. To hear ideas expressed that were untainted by hidden agendas, to see people at least trying to show that it is possible to live with compassion and in harmony was like a balm for the spirit. After all these years and everything that has happened this movie of an event I didn’t even attend still has the power to move me beyond anything I have come across since.

Peace and Love everybody.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 08:00 AM | Permalink

It’s a beautiful morning and your sitting around the kitchen table with your wife and children. Each of you is preparing for the day ahead; the kids school, you work, and the wife what ever it is she’s going to be doing, when there is a knock at the door. You give the wife the “who can that be at this time of day” look, and motion her to keep her seat and get up give who ever it is the bum’s rush.

When you get to the door your greeted by the sight of a smiling man in a suit carrying a clipboard.
“Mr. Jones” he says with a faint note of inquiry to his voice?
There is something in his manner which pre-empts your initial plan so you reply with what you hope is a firm “Yes”.
“Ah good” He looks down to his clipboard with just a slight glance of his eyes, double checking it seems. “You have two children, a boy and girl, aged 8 and 10, is that right?
“Yes, hey listen...” is a far as you get.
“I’m with the government, I work for the child welfare office. It has been decided that you and all people like you are unfit parents so we are going to remove your children from your care. We will ensure that they are brought up in a manner more appropriate to how we want your people to be.”
You step back stunned. This must be a joke. But then you look up over his shoulder and out into the street.

There’s an old school bus and a truck parked in the middle of the block. Soldiers with weapons are standing around both vehicles with that bored guarded stance taken when they know they may have to do something, but don’t feel under any particular threat. Already there are blank faced children being led from doorways up and down the street. An unearthly silence is punctuated by the occasional muted sob as parents stand stricken in their doorways.

You stand there helplessly slack jawed staring at the bland smiling face in front of you, hearing the muted sounds from behind the kitchen door of you family... two of whom you may never see after today.

“Is there a problem Mr. Jones? I can show you the paper work if you want and you’ll see that this is signed by the proper authorities. There’s no need to worry about the children. They will be well taken care of where they are going. We will provide them with a better future then you could hope to.”

His eyes track over your shoulders and you hear a slight noise behind you, a sign of movement.

“Ah good Mrs. Jones and the children. No need to pack anything for them. All will be provided. At the government’s expense of course. You won’t be expected to pay a cent for this privilege. Go along out to the bus now children and you’ll be given your new names when you get on board.”

“New names” your wife’s voice is faint as the children file by down the front walk. She clutches your arm. You will always remember the feel of her nails digging into the crook of your elbow. It will serve as the constant reminder of the day your heart was torn out.

There is a rustle of paper as the man with the clipboard slides a sheet out from the bottom of the pile stacked there, and hands it to you. You stare at it blankly. The typed words sprawled across the paper are the iconography depicting your soul’s destruction. The word receipt is meaningless in your ears as it falls like ashes from his lips to your ear.

You make one final attempt at communication. “Where...?” is as far as you get.

“I’m afraid we can’t tell you that. It’s been shown that limiting their exposure to unsuitable influences provides the best results for the children. It’s all for the best.”
One final tight smile, a nod, and he turns and walks away. Carefully avoiding stepping on the newly sod front lawn he turns at the sidewalk to the neighbour’s next door walk way.

He’s tired he realizes as he approaches the next door on his list. They’ve been at this since yesterday with very little break time. Still all in all it’s gone much better then he has anticipated. Maybe he’ll be able to get home to the wife and kids a day earlier then planned. With that happy thought he knocks on the door with a slightly wider smile on his face then he’s worn for a while.

*

From the beginnings of our conquest of North America various methods were used in attempts to either destroy or assimilate the indigenous populations that we found here. Decimating their food supply, investing blankets with small pox, removal from ancestral territories, outright slaughter and cultural genocide.

Since so many native tribes proved able to withstand the attempts to eliminate them as a race physically, by the end of the 19century it was decided that new tactics were needed to bring them to heel. The governments of both Canada and the United States decided to attempt mass cultural genocide through the eradication of language and beliefs.

To achieve this goal they established, with the aid of various Christian denominations, a series of residential and boarding schools across both countries. Children were forcibly removed from their parent’s homes and shipped hundred’s of miles away from family and friends.

The first stage was the removal of all aspects of their cultural heritage and identity. Each child was renamed, their hair was shorn off, and their personal possessions and clothes destroyed. All communication in any language but English was forbidden as was any worship of anything but Christianity.

They were taught that their parents were evil and that their way of life backwards and savage. They were told that they were less then human and that their only recourse was to renounce all traces of who and what they had been. Although they could never of course be mistaken for white people, they could always hope to find something useful to do for their betters.

They were all given vocational training in the most servile of positions. The girls were forced to do laundry, scullery, and other housekeeping jobs to prepare them for lives as servants, while the boys received equally menial training with the view to providing cheap manual labour for the future. They were given to understand that they would not be suited for anything else.

The great lie perpetrated was that their so called preparation for life in the civilized world only ensured that when they were released into the world and moved to the cities they would be the poorest of the poor. Unlike immigrants from other countries who brought their culture and community with them for support, these immigrants from the schools had no such solace.

Too many of them bore the scars of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as their only heritage. Unable to speak the language of their parents the option of returning to the reserve was equally bleak. Empty shells of people, plenty of them drifted into the destitute lives of alcohol and substance abuse in search of some solace.

As recently as the 1970’s child welfare agents had the authority to remove children from Indian homes if they thought them unsuitable. These children were then placed into white foster homes where abuse and neglect were the norm not the exception. Only recently have the various nations been able to enact efforts to start healing the gapping hole that had been torn in their chain of generations.

Unlike European faiths there is no single specific “Indian” culture. This is a misconception that has been perpetrated by new age wannabes looking to sell themselves off as shamans or medicine people. Each nation had it’s own traditions and beliefs, some as different from others as Christians, Jews, and Muslims are dsitinct.

As a predominantly oral culture the destruction of language is the hardest obstacle to overcome. With it’s destruction comes the end of the means to tell the stories that defined a people. Already hundreds of nations have vanished and many more language groups are verging on extinction. Even among nations that are strong like the Haudenosaunee(People of the Extended House: Iroquois) its an up hill battle. One of the six nations who make up the confederacy, The Tuscarora, were down to only six people who could speak the language fluently five years ago.

What is needed mainly is the time and the resources to accomplish this task. In Canada while there has been some movement by the governments to aid in this reconstruction, including court enforced settlements of hundreds of years old land claims, it is too little too slow. Far too many people appease themselves with demeaning comments about welfare bums and drunken drains on society then admit to a societal complicity concerning the situation.

They look at tax exempt casinos, status cards, and free health care and say what more do they want? These sops to our conscience are little compensation for the damage inflicted by years of neglect and abuse. Restitution, restoration, and reconciliation are what is needed to begin paying back the debt owed to those we have supplanted.

Australia has begun a program of reconciliation which culminated a few years ago in a cross country march of over a million people showing a commitment on all levels to rebuilding the relationship between the original peoples and the newcomers. That is the example we in North and South America should be emulating.

There was a cynical joke making the rounds a while ago where the infamous thanksgiving at Plymouth Rock was referred to as the first welfare line. Some thanks we’ve shown. Maybe it’s time we repaid the favour.

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:53 AM | Permalink

George Orwell wrote that nationalism was one of the worst enemies of peace. He defined nationalism as the feeling that your way of life, country, or ethnic group were superior to others. These types of feelings lead a group to attempt to impose their morality on any given situation. When those standards were not met, more often then not, war would result.

In contrast he stated that patriotism was the feeling of admiration for a way of life etc. and the willingness to defend it against attack. The obvious difference between the two is that while patriotism is a passive attitude, nationalism is aggressive by nature.

Orwell was writing this during the years just prior to World War Two when nationalism in Europe was running rampant. Not only was Hitler stoking the fires in Germany, but Mussolini was taming the savages of Ethiopia, and Stalin had just finished Russiafying the Ukraine and was contemplating “reclaiming” Finland.

Since the end of World War Two nationalism has escalated beyond what Orwell’s worst nightmares could have visualised. The first wave began with the dissolution of the colonial empires through out the developing world. As they retreated they left behind cesspools of ethnic tensions.

In some countries it had been official policy to play the race card as a means of keeping unrest in check. By creating conditions where it seemed one group was favoured over another, especially a minority over a majority, resentments were built up to the boiling point. As far as the colonial masters were concerned as long as they were fighting each other they won’t come after us.

From one country to the next as independence was achieved nationalistic violence was the rule rather then exception. In India Hindu leaders like Ghandi who pleaded for restraint were murdered by extremists of their own faith. In Israel terrorist groups from both sides set bombs and attacked civilians in order to solidify their claims to territory.

But it was with the big two that most of drama became centred upon. The U.S.S.R. under Stalin did a quick land grab after the end of the war simply by refusing to leave the countries that they had “liberated” from the Germans. On their side the United States began their policy of propping up a variety of dictatorships under the guise of preventing the spread of communism.

It’s debateable whether these initial actions were driven more by “real politick” then nationalism, one side trying to limit the other sides power and influence more then an expansion and imposition of a way of life. But in the end the justifications for actions began to take on the sound of nationalistic fervour whatever the original intent.

American governments began wrapping themselves in the flag of protectors of freedom and democracy under more and more spurious circumstances. Meanwhile the Soviets claims of liberation from the chains of capitalism and oppression became harder to swallow during the post Stalin revelations of mass murders and famine.

Nationalism has a history in both countries as far back as their beginnings. Under the Tsars the Russian empire was just as expansionistic as the Soviets stretching their sphere of influence from the Balkans to the near east. In the U. S. it was first implemented as policy in 1810 with the Monroe Doctrine, which lay claim to the whole western hemisphere as being under American influence.

In both countries these policies continue unabated till this day. Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and Cuba for the U.S. and Chechnya and Afghanistan for the Russians are all recent examples of hemispheric control exerted by both nations. Of course with the collapse of communism the influence of Russia has waned and that of America has increased.

The fall of communism combined with the death of Marshall Tito gave the world another fine example of nationalism in action. As Yugoslavia fell back into it’s divergent states majority ethic groups began to “cleanse” their territories of minority presences. Once again proving that nationalism knows no boundaries or is exclusive to any one race the cities and country sides of the former Yugoslavia became killing fields. Serbian killed Croatian, Croatian killed Muslim, Muslim killed Croatians and Serbians, Albanians and Macedonians killed each other and so on in a viscous circle of hate.

To claim moral superiority or believe that one way of life is superior to another is to pay disservice to the notion of diversity. How can one genuinely respect another’s beliefs if you feel inherently better then they are just because of an accident of birth? It’s one thing to take pride in who you are and what you believe in. It’s another altogether to think that yours is the only way.

This attitude has led to the extermination of whole nations of indigenous peoples throughout the world. Vibrant and living cultures that could have contributed thinkers and ideas were cut off because “they were not like us”. Through literal and cultural genocide our world is being homogenised to a point that will soon reach no return if we are not careful.

Look at Orwell’s definitions of nationalism and patriotism again. Think about the differences. Which do you think would contribute to a better world?

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:01 PM | Permalink

Memories are a funny thing. They can be triggered by the least amount of stimuli. A smell, a noise, or even a colour can bring something back to your mind that has been long forgotten. In the regular course of a day we see, hear, taste, and experience countless sensations that our brain’s processes.

Some are trivial, others important. But all of them are stored away in our memory to help form the picture of what happened to us that day. We may not remember specific details, even immediately after their occurrence, but somewhere down the line any one of them could be the trigger that enables us to recall an event.

Although we may censor feelings and sensations during the moment of experiencing on a conscious level, our brains take in everything. There’s no way we could cope with the amount of information inputted otherwise. Take a moment and think about the information that you are recording right now.

Aside from reading this article what else are you experiencing? There is the chair your sitting in and how it feels, the sound of your computer’s fan, the taste of your coffee or what ever your drinking, eating, or smoking at the time. This is all aside from any mood that you may have brought to the computer with you when your sat down to read. If your focus is on what your reading then that will be what you remember of this situation.

But what if your partner came into the room and you have a fight? Or your child hurts themselves and you have to tend to them? Either one of those events will quickly supersede reading and retaining the information in this article. As incidents become more personal, ones with greater emotional investment, they become more important to hold on to, and or make a stronger impression on our awareness.

Therefore if you were to look back on the events of sitting reading this article, you’ll remember being at the computer, maybe that you were reading something, probably not the content, won’t remember how the chair felt on your butt, or what the computer’s fan sounded like. Even though all that information was available you will think of it as the time you and your partner had a fight, or your child skinned her knee.

Of course as with any good theory there are exceptions. As a means of protecting itself the brain is able to shut off receptors so that it doesn’t overload, so that we don’t get over stimulated. In times of extreme stress we will go into a state of shock which will enable us to block out primary sensations. Although our physical memories may remain, the pain of injury for example, the events surrounding the cause will be either eliminated or buried so deeply that we have no recollection of them happening for years.

Sometimes a person will live out their life with the memory never reviving. Often it takes a shock equal in magnitude to the initial trauma to revive what had been suppressed. In other instances they will be reflected in our unconscious mind in the form of nightmares. A person may go for years in this manner never understanding the cause of their night time disturbances, until some event or instance triggers the memory.

Using the earlier incident of reading this article and the argument with a partner as an example, lets say that this had developed into something traumatic. The partner became abusive, either emotionally or physically, and in the aftermath the incident was repressed.

Some years pass and you’ve started to have peculiar nightmares, violent or disturbing, that make no sense. Then one day your sitting at the computer and something about the way the seat feels, or the fan of the computer sounds, or what your reading on the screen triggers the release of that memory.

Those minor details that we didn’t even realize were occurring were part of the picture our mind formed of that event. Stored in our brains along with countless other impressions formed over the years they serve as the stimuli for remembering a specific incident. When the incident has already started to work it’s way back into your conscious mind via the nightmares it doesn’t take much for their relationship to the larger memory to be established.

There’s a saying that runs along these lines: “Your never given more then you can cope with”. In other words some part of you knows when you are going to be able to come to terms with past traumas and begins to gradually release them from where they were buried. On an unconscious level you are able to figure out when enough time has passed or you have gained the strength that the hurt will be minimal in contrast to the immediate aftermath of the incident.

When people develop Alzheimer’s decease the initial signs are the inability to remember things from their daily routine. Then as it progresses they lose track of themselves and the present day world. More often or not they begin to associate people and events with memories of their past. Perhaps it has something to do with the earlier memories are formed the more potent they are, or that there is so much information in their brains the old stuff can no longer stay in storage and is forced to the surface.

What ever the reason they have definitely travelled back in time mentally. I think we can probably devise some clues from their behaviour at this time as to what type of childhood or youth they had. So many people have been shocked to see their sweet talking aunts or mothers develop into angry, swearing, and close to violent creatures. Until recently it was just assumed that this was a natural state of the disease. They were forgetting the moral code dictating behaviour.

But now it’s believed there might be more to it. In the incidences where people have taken the time, and had the patience, to sit with these people and listen to them for extended periods it has become clear that they all had experienced some sort of abuse at one time or another. In most of the cases it was sexual abuse at the hands of a family member.

Due to the mores of the time they had repressed these memories so successfully that they have laid dormant until Alzheimer’s had broken through the walls they had built around their childhood. They were never given the chance to deal with the anger and grief in a constructive way and so now they are lashing out. With these memories being the only mementos they have of their lives is it any wonder they are so angry?

In the movie The Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Eye the two main characters erase the memories they have of each other and their relationship. They hope to obtain happiness by forgetting those memories that caused them pain. But it ends up not being that simple for either one of them. The bad had been accompanied by a lot of good which neither of them want to lose in the end.

We all have times in our lives which we would prefer to forget. But most everything that happens to us has gone into making us the person we are today. The ability to remember mistakes we have made allows us the chance to never repeat them, by learning from the consequences of our actions. We could never achieve any growth without memory.

It’s amazing the lengths people will go to in the quest to erase memories. Alcohol and drug abuse are two of the more common solutions. But that’s only finding temporary solace at best. They end up being just as unhappy for other reasons. Repressed memories have a way of coming out in some manner at some time. Wilfully suppressing them only makes things worse in the long run.

We have the ability to retain information for a reason. Whether to help us perform tasks, interact socially, learn from experience, or to relive pleasure. Sometimes a memory will be unpleasant and complicate our life, but we have the ability to resolve these situations. It is better to have good and bad memories then no memory at all.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:54 AM | Permalink

In Canada more people miss work due to chronic pain then almost any other reason. It’s probably safe to assume that this phenomenon is not isolated but spread through out North America. Back problems, migraine headaches and other pain related distresses can be so debilitating as to cause permanent job loss.

Remarkably, given it’s impact on our economies, it remains one of the more unrecognised and untreated ailments in our society. More often then not most doctors are unable, or in some cases unwilling, to alleviate their client’s suffering. Although there is a public impression that doctors seem willing to hand out pain relief agents at the drop of the hat, in reality there is still resistance to providing adequate levels of analgesic to effectively give relief of suffering.

There are still sufficient taboos associated with narcotics(Morphine and Demerol)that some doctors who have attempted to prescribe large enough doses have had their practices suspended or been censored to the extent that they have closed their doors. The latter case occurred in my home city of Kingston Ontario where a local doctor was forced to relocate because of his willingness to supply his chronic pain patients with Morphine.

In spite of the fact that his patients were able to re-establish their lives, some even to the extent of being able to return to work, this doctor was still considered a pariah for his actions. He has since relocated his practice to the United States. I don’t know what the attitudes are like there, but one can only hope for a more enlightened perspective then the one shown here. In a series of interviews given by his former patients they all expressed concern about what they were going to do in the future.

Pain is considered a subjective illness. This means that doctors have no ready way in which to gauge a subjects suffering except through a patient’s self report. Many chronic pain conditions have no discernable physical cause. It is very difficult to obtain x-ray evidence of any type that could offer proof. The high incidence of nerve damage renders even Magnetic Imaging and Nuclear Scans ineffectual for attempting to pin point a cause.

In order for a physician to give an accurate assessment a patient’s condition she is limited by her knowledge of and trust in her client. Without an awareness of the patient’s history what doctor is going to feel comfortable prescribing large amounts of narcotics? Only after eliminating other potential interventions do most doctors begin the process of developing a pain control regime with their patients.

In the mean time the patient is suffering and the longer it takes for the doctor to reach a decision the harder it will be to combat the pain. Pain is like interest owed to a loan shark. It compounds on a daily level. The longer you take in “paying off the debt” the more you end up owing. As pain weakens your defences by depriving your body of rest, your resistance to it’s effects decreases. The pain increases until a point of no return is reached.

The brain recognises pain using the same synapses and nerves that it utilizes for memory. This is part of our learning mechanism. It’s what teaches us not to do things like puting our hand on the hot burner of the stove more then once. We store up reminders of the effects of pain in our memory. The problem, when the pain is persistent, is that a point is reached when overload occurs and the nerve endings can not shut off the message no matter what drugs are used. We “remember” the pain even if there are moments when it has abated. The pain an amputee feels, referred to as phantom limb pain, is an example of that scenario.

There is no consistent rule of thumb governing when this point is reached. There are too many variables at play. The intensity, the amount of area the pain covers, where the pain is located and each individual’s system all play a role in when overload is reached. This makes the case for early intervention even more urgent. After this point is reached it requires radical treatment, such as intravenous application of analgesics or pain blocks, to alleviate the suffering. ( A pain block is an attempt to anaesthetize the affected nerve by injecting it with an anaesthetic, thus blocking the signal being sent to the receptor. While it can be effective, it is only temporary with its effects wearing off in as little as a week’s time. Depending on which nerves are involved there is also a risk of paralysis if the injection goes awry.)

Only recently has research been undertaken to try and find more permanent solutions for these debilitating conditions. One method that has been formulated are Trigger Point Injections. This involves the injection of a mixture of steroid and anaesthetic into the specific pressure points in the body where the pain is located in an attempt to disburse contracted tissue that could be causing the disturbance.

There has been some success treating cases of migraines, back pain, and other muscular associated situations with this procedure. If they are able to isolate the centres that are the focal points of the pain then a series of treatments are started. In theory as the treatment progresses the nerves are released from the pressure that is causing the continual transmission of the pain signal to the memory centre of the brain. This in turn should allow the brain to forget the pain.

At this time these procedures are not readily available in North America for two main reasons. In the United States when the procedure was reviewed for purposes of Insurance coverage by the government, those doing the reviewing did not recognise it’s validity. So a person wanting this treatment has to have sufficient financial resources to pay what ever cost the private clinics offering the service want to charge. It also means that the procedure is unregulated so you have no guarantee of any standard being maintained.

Although the procedure is covered by provincial health programs in Canada it can only be done by anaesthesiologists in a hospital situation. Since not all doctors in that field even perform this procedure, the wait time to get into a pain clinic can be as high as sixteen months.

Only recently has there been awareness of the seriousness of non lethal chronic pain as an illness. Even now too many people are living with untreated pain because of the stigma attached to admitting being in pain. Far too many doctors and other medical professionals have dismissed pain related suffering in the past for people to feel comfortable in approaching their physicians “just because something hurts”.

The perception that pain is not a real illness, that one should just buck up and get on with it, is hard to overcome. It is reflected in the attitudes of government’s refusal to fund significant research into the causes of and cures for a condition that in most cases is treatable. Our hang ups about the use of narcotics as painkillers(morphine is not addictive if used to fight pain)remains a stumbling block for the early intervention required to limit the consequences of a chronic pain condition. Until these issues are overcome too many people will needlessly suffer and our economies will continue to be impacted by the loss of work hours.

On a personal note: I have had a chronic pain condition since 1992, in 2001 it became persistent. The information in the article is based on personal experience and readings I have done to help me better understand the things that are happening to my body. I have been uses as a guinea pig for numerous drug combinations in attempts to control the situation and have been undergoing Trigger Point Therapy since early winter 2003 with little or no success.

I’m incredibly fortunate that I’m under the care of two compassionate doctors whose primary goal is my comfort and well being. Both my G.P. and my pain specialist have allowed me the freedom to have complete control over the process of my treatment. Due to the rarity of my condition my pain doctor is continually researching and experimenting on his own time with methods and ways to provide relief. I can only that others in my situation are fortunate enough to receive the same care. Unfortunately I seriously doubt it.
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:40 AM | Permalink

After years of struggle, being jailed, reviled, and threatened Dr. Henry Morgentaler is finely getting some degree of public honour. The University of Western Ontario became the first mainstream public institution to recognise the significant contribution he has made in advancing the rights of women.

As a survivor of the Nazi death camps he could have been forgiven for taking an easy route through life. One that would avoid controversy and risk. Instead his became the face most identified with the fight for a women’s right to safe accessible abortions.

He first gained prominence when he challenged the laws of Quebec prohibiting abortion. He offered his female clients an alternative to the back street, dangerous methods that were the norm for that time, in the process saving many lives. For his troubles he was sent to jail. During his time in jail he went on a hunger strike to protest the law which had seen him incarcerated.

As someone who spent his early years imprisoned you’d think he would have tried to avoid the experience. But he spent most of the 1970’s in and of jail in one jurisdiction or another. Where provinces were limiting the rights of women to obtain abortions you were sure to find Henry setting up practice. Defying the laws and receiving more jail time in his attempts break down the barriers stopping women from access to the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

But the fight did not stop with the legalization of abortions. The next step was to ensure easy and equal access for all women. To qualify for coverage from provincial health insurance policies women were forced to comply with a variety of complexities and difficulties.

Only a very few hospitals in each province actually performed the procedure which would entail extensive travel and increased financial strain for women in outlying communities. In Ontario they were required to under go psychological profiling to ensure that they were “emotionally sound enough” to make the decision and get referrals from three doctors before they were even allowed to book an appointment.

It wasn’t until the Supreme Court of Canada declared that any law restricting the right of access to an abortion a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the1980s that it appeared Dr. Morgentaler’s battle was over. But the overturning of legal roadblocks was just the beginning.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the activities of the anti abortion forces had been limited to the occasional picket outside a hospital, protest at a court house, or lobbying of their Member of Parliament. But with the legalization of easy and accessible abortions they hit the streets in full force.

Attempting to challenge provincial restrictions on where a woman could obtain abortions Dr. Morgentaler had established free standing abortion clinics. Once the court’s decision came down these became a focal point for protest. Not being content with picketing the protesters began harassing patients as they arrived for the procedure.

Having lived near one clinic in Toronto I was able to witness women running gauntlets of abuse, swearing and threats as they attempted to gain admittance to the clinics. Restraining orders and police officers kept demonstrators off the grounds themselves, but they were no defence for getting onto the property unscarred.

Watching a scared, tearful woman being chased down the street by two large intimidating men shouting and waving placards in her face caused me to lose any respect I may have had for those opposing abortion. It is one thing to decide that something is not right for you, and peacefully protest. But I can’t believe they expected to elicit sympathy through that type of action. Therefore I can only conclude that they were simply attempting to intimidate women from obtaining abortions in contravention of the court’s ruling prohibiting any such action.

Shortly after that restraining orders prohibiting demonstrators from coming any nearer then across the street from the clinics, or any facility performing abortions, were issued for that very reason. Because demonstrations are not allowed to disrupt business or the flow of traffic on a sidewalk the result was the end of the pickets in front of the clinics.

It was shortly after that the book store next to the clinic in my neighbourhood was firebombed. Thankfully the attack took place at night and nobody was injured, and the clinic was undamaged. Whether they had got the wrong address, or were trying to circumvent the security of the clinic by exploding it’s neighbour in an attempt to do it damage is still not known.

In spite of this, and maybe even because of it, and ensuing death threats against him and associates, Dr. Morgentaler continued to perform and advocate for a woman’s right of choice. A determined and driven man he has risked his health, livelihood, reputation, and his life for a principle.

At 82 years of age he is finally getting the recognition deserving of his struggle. But as he would be the first to point out the struggle continues. Canada has not had an abortion law on the books since 1985. No government has wanted to bring the matter up for public debate fearing the sort of backlash, in any direction, that could be generated.

People need to be aware that the potential for this debate increases as the years go by. Even though the Court decision is a matter of record, there is no guarantee that attempts to circumvent it will not be attempted. If and when this debate takes place I can only hope that we can emulate Dr. Morgentaler and stand up for what we believe in, on both sides of the issue, with pride and dignity.

I personally think of abortion as a necessary evil for a sexually immature society. Until men are ready to admit that a woman has the right to decide her own fate in all matters, abortions whether legal or not will be a fact of life. It is their means of last resort for controlling what happens to their bodies.

For his work in ensuring the availability of this means Dr. Morgentaler deserves any and all honours bestowed upon him. I hope that the honorary degree presented by The University of Western Ontario represents only the beginning of a process of long overdue acknowledgement for a life dedicated to ensuring a woman’s right to control over her body and her choices.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:09 PM | Permalink

In Canada where I live we have some of the most stringent anti hate legislation on the books. It is forbidden to do or say anything that promotes hatred against anyone for reasons of race, creed, colour, or sexuality. This is further supported by The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equality for all under the law. Any action that deliberately goes against the spirit of the Charter or advocates activities contrary to it’s nature can be subject to prosecution.

This includes speeches that advocate lesser status, or access to fewer services, for any members of society who have not lost their rights due to criminal behaviour. Even then there are provisions for people incarcerated ensuring that they continue to participate in society to some extent.

While the majority of Canadians accepted these provisions without a qualm there has been a vocal minority persistently complaining that these laws are an infringement of both free speech and the right to religious freedom. Some of these can dismissed as the usual neo-nazi nut cases who are finally being rounded up for holocaust denial and other racist drivel.

Conservative Christians are opposed to this legislation on the grounds that it infringes on their freedom to preach their beliefs. They want private religious schools exempted from the legislation so that teachers may be free to get up in class and speak out against homosexuality. According to them the bible says it is a sin. This gives them the authority to preach against both the granting of rights to and homosexuals themselves in their classrooms.

This became even more of an issue when the Superior Courts in province after province ruled that denying homosexuals the right to marriage was a contravening of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Technically speaking, therefore, anyone speaking out against gay marriage in overtly inflammatory language ran the risk of contravening our hate crime laws.

In fact a Bishop in Alberta is currently under investigation by that province’s Human Rights board for comments he published in an open letter to his parishioners arguing against same sex unions. In the letter he advocated the Federal government make use of it’s coercive powers to reduce the rights of gays and lesbians, even to go so far as make homosexuality illegal again.

As a writer with particularly strong opinions the issue of censorship is never without relevance. Obviously I want to be free to say what ever I choose to say whenever I choose to say it. If you don’t like what I’m saying your free to disagree with me, or not read my writings.

But before I wrap myself in the flag of defender of free speech no matter what the cost, I wonder if those who are advocating for the right to condemn homosexuality as a matter of principal, free speech and freedom of religion, would do the same? Judging by their recent behaviour it’s hardly likely.

Over the last ten years we have seen more of an increase in attempts to influence what the public sees and reads in a democratic society then in any other period in contemporary history. The embedding of reporters allows for greater control by authorities of what news and information reachs the public ear. Then there are the “public” interest groups who pressure T.V. and movie producers to change their content by threatening boycotts of sponsor’s products

One only need look at the fallout from “nipplegate” to see how effective these pressure tactics have become. The F.C.C. reported thousands of phoned complaints which resulted in an investigation and a heavy fine for the offending network. Even though it was an accident that they were in no way responsible for, and the incident was over and done with in a nano second, the “public outcry” was too great to be ignored.

Lacking the means to produce the amount of T.V. and movies that are created in America that is not such an issue here. Instead we are faced with individual boards of education being forced to remove books from their curriculum and libraries.

But invariably those who deem themselves the guardians of morality and are most desirous to censor what we see and read are the same people crying fowl when the government chooses apply those rules to them. Their cries of infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of religion ring pretty hollow considering their own actions. Unfortunately for them they are asking for the freedom to do what the courts and the government of this country has defined as hateful.

Getting up in front of a classroom full of students and preaching that one segment of the population, for what ever reason, is less deserving of rights and freedoms can not be justified for any reason. To claim that denying you the right to do so is an infringement of your freedom of speech is like saying that not being able to steal someone’s car is an infringement on your right to mobility.

Censorship is real issue in today’s society. But do not let that confuse the issue when it comes to people demanding the right to speak against a specific group of people. Hatred and intolerance are learned behaviours. Preventing people from teaching it in schools and churches is not censorship or infringing on religious freedom, it’s taking steps to make a better more tolerant world.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 07:08 AM | Permalink

Another Hallmark Moment

Growing up there were three holidays around my house that were referred to as the ones invented by the greeting card companies. Valentine's Day, Mother's Day and Father's Day. I still joke that my mother considers Mother's day a capitalist plot to guilt people into spending their money on needless consumer products.

All joking aside though I find both Mother's and Father's Day ridiculous. What's the point anyway? To recognize our parents for a job well done? Give me a break. As if one day a year is going to make a difference for ignoring them for a year. Buying a woman flowers on a Sunday in May is not much compensation if she's been slaving for the other 364 without notice.

Then there's fathers. Our whole bloody society rotates around men anyway. It's not called patriarchal for nothing. Father Knows Best. Wait 'Till Your Father Gets Home. Father Of The Bride. Our Father Who Art In Heaven.

What about the people who's relationship with either one of their parents suck. How's this going to make you feel seeing all these ads with happy families. Like crap because your not like everyone else that's how.

Then there are the people without children. Especially for women the pressure on them to fulfill their wifely duty to procreate is ridiculous. You've got a womb use it seems to be the attitude that's propagated by this holiday. If you don't have the maternal instinct your seen as some kind of freak. There are more ways in this world that a woman can create then by giving birth to a child, but no one seems to recognize this fact.

I know a young man who barely knows his father. Any time he has attempted to establish contact he has been rebuffed. How does a day like today make him feel?

There's this damn illusion that was created by American television in the sixties about the ideal family. This has been latched on to by social conservatives as the traditional family of their family values shtick. Ironically this model has only existed since post world war two which was the first time wives were actually turned into house slaves. What about the other traditions of family? Did they get obliterated with the passage of time?

Maybe I'm just a bitter fart about the whole issue because my dad was a total shit. The only things I have to thank him for are a series substance abuse problem which lasted for twenty years, on again off again therapy for the past twelve years, and a permanent chronic pain condition caused by being forcibly anal raped for eight years as a child. Probably not the best frame of mind to be objective about things like father's day.

But here's the thing. All these proponents of sentimental holidays that celebrate something that may or may not exist never think about reality. I'm sure there are plenty of happy families in this world, but if they are truly happy why would they need something as silly to celebrate their love for each other as a single day in the year when they buy a present?

The only purpose these holidays serve as far as I can tell are to make those of us not party to them feel miserable.

cheers gypsyman --------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 12:52 PM | Permalink

For a period of about five years during the mid to late eighties a phenomenon occurred. The use of euphemisms in obituaries. Causes of death were obscured as were the nature of relationships. As the majority of deceased were young men the obfuscating objective usually failed. Spelling out A.I.D. s in bold type wouldn’t have made it any less obvious what had happened.

Predominantly this type of diversionary tactic was practised by the victims blood family. In the days when it was still considered mainly a homosexual illness shame outweighed the truth for too many people. Whether it was the cause of death or the sexuality that people were trying to hide is irrelevant. What mattered was that this attitude was merely a reflection of how society wanted to deal with the whole issued of A.I.D. s.

Homosexuality, promiscuity and the decease were irrevocably linked in people’s minds. The popular press, politicians and preachers of social conservatism(which was just then getting a foothold in the public eye) latched onto the idea that this was some sort of retribution for the life style. Beyond the gay community there was little or no interest in finding a cure let alone talking about the manners in which the decease could be checked.

Even the first cases of heterosexuals contracting the A. I. D.s were dismissed as being the result of deviant behaviour. Intravenous drug users and prostitutes are not about to garner the sympathy of the general public. It wasn’t until the first victims of tainted blood transfusion’s began appearing, and politicians realized there were political points to be made, that any action was taken to check the spread of the infection.

By the time the “innocent victim” stage was reached it was too late. A.I.D. s had gained a significant foothold and was widespread enough to no longer be isolated and confined. The apathy, bigotry, and shame that had condemned it’s first victims, had come back to haunt society. If a concentrated effort had been made in the early stages of the decease to at least take preventative steps there is the possibility that the spread could have been controlled.

Hindsight is twenty – twenty. But look at the methods of treating any sort of infectious decease, or containing viruses, and it does make one wonder what could have been done. In a recent study on the spread of the virus in North America statistics show that the group with the highest rate of increase currently are heterosexual young women. That’s a far cry from it being the decease of only gays, whores, and drug addicts.

Even more worrying, because of the implications, are the signs that history is repeating itself less then thirty years latter. Africa is in the midst of a horrendous A.I.D. s epidemic. Already one of the poorest and most devastated parts of the world where medical resources are insufficient to meet the majority of basic needs the continent’s ability to cope with an outbreak of this nature is non-existent.

Until very recently the response of the developed world(supposedly that’s us)has been apathetic. How we can fall back on the “it’s not us so it doesn’t matter” attitude again when we’ve seen the outcome of inaction first hand is astounding. From a strictly humanitarian point of view it’s disgusting, but to be naive enough to still believe that is unfathomable.

There’s much being made of this new deal for Africa that Tony Blair prime minister of Briton is using to carve out a place in history for himself. Forgiving the debts of some of the countries sounds on the surface like a positive step. But what’s being proposed goes neither far enough nor does anything to help the continent dig itself out from under it’s post colonial burdens.

When Africa was carved up between the Europeans they utilized tribal animosity to ensure their own power base. The inheritance is still being played out in country after country in ethnic conflicts that have resulted in the horrors of Rawanda and now Dafur. They further exasperated the situation by creating artificial boundaries that ignored traditional territories.

By forcing close proximity of ancient enemies they created a tinder box that exploded with their withdrawal. Cynical leaders manipulated old feuds to generate a power base, and the resulting civil wars have devastated the economies, populations, and the land itself. With acres of agricultural land now sown with land mines food production is reduced drastically.

One of the things that Africa is rich in are natural resources. For them to obtain any sort of economic recovery they need to be able to have markets to sell their products to and control over their development. Like Canada they are resource rich but manufacturing poor. Unlike Canada though very few of the countries see little or any return on their asset. Since so many of the companies doing business in Africa are foreign owned few have any interest beyond how a big a profit they can score.

This new debt relief package comes with plenty of strings attached. While on the surface some may sound sensible on closer examination they don’t stand up to scrutiny. In order to qualify for this program a government has to spend the money on health, education, and infrastructure, not be what we consider corrupt(who is going to decide this and how), and make a variety of concessions on trade. There’s more but these ones are the big three.

Most of the countries involved have been unable to spend money on their own people because they have been making massive payments on their debt to the International Monetary Fund(I.M.F)The irony is that the only way they were able to secure loans from the I.M.F. was to guarantee that they would reduce spending on social programs such as health, infrastructure and education. So not only did they not have the money to put towards things that would have helped their economy by having an healthy, educated population with proper sewers, and roads, because they were using it for debt payments. The very conditions of the loan prohibited the spending of money on them.

So now they are told, you don’t have to pay back that loan anymore, but any monies you save from that you have to spend on the very things we wouldn’t let you spend the loan money on. But now the cost of investing in social projects will be so high after years of neglect that without an infusion of cash just catching up to where they were before the cut backs may be impossible.

It’s all very well for the G 8 to demand that the complying countries open their borders to trade, but are they willing to do the same? Will the U.S., Canada, Japan and the European Union lift their prohibitive tariffs on raw materials to provide them with markets? Or is this going to continue to be a one way street which will allow the flooding of Africa with manufactured goods from outside? Does this also include relaxing rules that countries have against foreign ownership which will allow multinationals the opportunity to scoop up more of the natural resource money available in Africa?

By itself this debt forgiveness package will accomplish little except to salve a few consciences. Without the infusion of real money to allow for the rebuilding of individual countries it amounts to no real gain. The grinding poverty and the conditions causing it will not be eradicated. The spread of decease, civil war, and famine will continue unchecked.

In this day and age we can no longer pretend that anyone is isolated. Borders and oceans are no defence against anything any longer. Forests in North America are devastated by beetles traveling in container ships from overseas. What’s to prevent the A.I.D. s virus or anything similar from spreading in the same manner?

Until we get over our apathy towards helping our fellow people we are placing the whole world in jeopardy. If we are truly genuine in our desire to assist Africa we must do more then forgive a few loans. What has been destroyed through the actions of the developed world must now be rebuilt. The real debt that is owed has still to be paid. The one that is owed the people of Africa.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 08:10 AM | Permalink

There’s been a couple of times recently that I’ve waded into the political debate. Each time has left me feeling a little bit diminished. Sure there are issues that are important, and there is nothing wrong with giving voice to ones opinion. But the manner in which it’s done ends up leaving me with a taste in my mouth.

After the momentary glow of satisfaction of having scored a point in the endless debate has faded there’s nothing left. Normally the completion of something is accompanied by a feeling of accomplishment. But in these cases even that is absent.

Righteousness is a balm to many a bruised ego. It seems, myself included, that most political analysis is an attempt to trumpet ones own horn at the expense of another. None of us are able to pass up a dig at the opponent when the opportunity presents itself. The path to self validation lies through the diminishing of others.

If we were to judge our opinions based on those type of arguments we would be forced to admit that our beliefs lack the vitality to withstand debate. It’s one thing to argue against a position, but to cast aspersions on the person holding that view reflects a lack of faith in one’s own espousal. Do we so doubt ourselves that we to deflate others so as to appear worthy?

As a person and a writer I have opinions and views that I want to express. They form part of the basis for my inspiration and desire to write. But they were not the only reasons that I set out to write. When I forget my aesthetic sensibilities for the sake of argument, or when I ignore my heart’s desire for pleasure, I feel like I have betrayed something.

“Every artists strictly illimitable country is himself, and the artistwho has played that country false has committed suicide”... e. e. cummings.

George Orwell once said about James Joyce that as an author he doesn’t consider himself above politics, rather they are beneath him. It’s a fine distinction but an important one. Instead of Joyce believing himself superior and not deigning to dirty his hands by writing political work, politics as a topic or a subject for his pen was not worthy or appropriate. His writing had transcended to another level.

When one sets goals as lofty as that anything less feels like cheating. As the quote from cummings says we define who or what we are for ourselves and it is up to us to live up to that or face the consequences. Perhaps in the naiveté of youth when I dreamed those dreams of artistic expression I set the bar too high. But the time for regrets, and the ability to do anything about it, has passed.

Politics and issues are important to me. One can’t just ignore the world around you and hope it leaves you alone. There’s too much at stake with the battle lines that have been drawn. I’m not about to surrender and leave the field with my banner furled.

"Rid yourself of the feeling that art has nothing to do with reality and is not sturdy enough to face it on its own”....Erwin Piscator.

So I will continue to take the lance of my pen in hand(O.K. I sit at a keyboard but you try to think of a good romantic image for that)and strike the pedestals of the over inflated to try and bring them down a notch or two. I’ve always marched to the beat of a different drummer, so now it’s just of matter of remembering to keep in step with myself. --------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:56 AM | Permalink

There was an interesting question posed in today’s Toronto Globe and Mail by their Television critic John Doyle. In his analysis of the media coverage of the Michael Jackson trial he said that the real story had been missed. The fans behind the man.

He posed two questions. First, why are people are so obsessed with him to the point of treating him like the leader of a cult? He described some of their behaviour during the announcement of the verdicts and it was disturbing. The woman who released a white dove for each non-guilty being the most extreme of the “We love you Michael” placard carrying crowd.

Secondly he asked are they versions of us? He recounted attending a premier for a Hollywood movie and being more fascinated with the onlookers then the stars. Waving signs avowing undying devotion to people who they are never likely to meet or know beyond the second hand reports of the tabloid press or carefully worded statements issued by their publicists.

The phenomenon of impersonal adoration stretches far and wide through contemporary life. Sports figures, rock stars, film and television personalities, and other public figures are all idolized to various degrees. Notoriety, instead of deterring, seems to only add to the fascination, one only need to look at Madonna and Dennis Rodman to see mild examples of that.

These people are set apart from us through their associations with things that we consider glamorous or their ability to do something better then the normal person. Professional athletes play the same games that most of us have at some point in our lives, but at a level far beyond our abilities. Because they are “better” then us we award them respect and honour their achievements by putting them on pedestals.

When I was an actor I remember working with a director who commented that Bruce Springstein, and by implication all stars, was the modern equivalent of a shaman. He could walk into any room anywhere and immediately become the centre of attention. In a stadium full of 60,000 people he only has to walk on stage and he is the focal point for all that energy.

I believe this is not a reflection of talent but rather power given to these people by us through their being a point of attraction. We have invested certain positions in society with power. Actors, rock stars, television personalities, business leaders and politicians are designated as important through our acquiescence. If we did not respond they would have no actual impact.

These tendencies are exploited by all concerned. From advertising agencies to political advisors there are those whose sole function is to constantly remind us of how important these positions are. These label promoters have seen their importance increase ten fold in our world where style has supplanted substance. When judgements are made on appearances those who fall into familiar categories come out ahead every time.

In pre Christian times most civilizations had a wide pantheon of Gods and Goddesses to draw upon. Each one of them reflected an emotion or an aspect of life. The human attributes of the deities provided the material for plays and stories that entertained the masses. In our monotheistic society, with no other idols to worship, we have created secular icons.

They are larger then life but still human and have been reduced down to one dimensional representations symbolic of an emotion of sentiment. Saddam Hussein is evil. Pamela Anderson is lustful. They are used to make moral points and to exemplify what is good and bad in society. The actual veracity of the point or opinion is irrelevant, because the symbol has it’s own meaning.

When an idol’s shine dims there are two possible reactions that can occur. Commonly the person completely disappears from the firmament. But there are the rarities who will hang around after the lustre is gone. Sometimes enough pity has been generated by the means of their downfall to elicit a type of sympathy vote, but I think the real reason is something else.

When there is a large investment of emotional energy into someone the prospect of turning your back on them is nest to impossible. Having deluded themselves into believing in their objects infallibility rejection would be tantamount to rejecting themselves. Just as bad, if not worse, their turnaround would make them look so foolish that the ridicule faced from loyalty would be minor when compared to the lose of face in admitting your were mistaken.

Although there may be a little of the former in Michael Jackson’s case I believe the majority of those who are hanging on fall into the latter camp. If they denied him now they would be denying themselves. I do not believe that any person who’s character allowed them to identify that deeply with someone for what they do has the strength of will to admit their own fallibility.

It is not so much a matter of whether or not these people are us, as Mr. Doyle asked in his article, because there is no denying that they are an accurate reflection of a pattern of behaviour that is prevalent in our world. What we need to ask is to what extent are we like them. I am not surprised in the least that the media would ignore the story of Mr. Jackson’s fans. To go there would force them to analysis there own role in the creation of and sustenance of the star system. They are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 07:05 AM | Permalink

Sometime ago there was a cruel joke making the rounds: “Only in America could a poor young black man grow up to be a white woman.” Michael Jackson has always been an easy target for people with viscous senses of humour. What motivates our fascination, bordering on obsession with him? Simultaneously an object of ridicule, disgust, and adoration he is an extreme example of our “star” obsessed society.

In the early part of the twentieth century Nathaniel West wrote The Day of the Locusts, a novel that dealt with this very fascination. The book ended with the lead character being swamped in a mob scene at a Hollywood premier; crushed as people swarmed to catch a glimpse of their current hero or heroine. So no matter how much we like to talk about the good old days, the mob and the press have always been with us. It is our growing demand for gossip that fuels the engine that we pretend to despise.

The obvious answers are his undeniably immense talent, and the above mentioned excesses of eccentricity. Not since Howard Hughes has America had a stranger celebrity millionaire. Unlike Hughes though Jackson continues to be in the public eye, allowing everyone from the media to the masses the opportunity to sit in judgement on his every move. But is it Jackson(or any celebrity for that matter)that should be under the microscope or is it the public spectacle that surrounds these people that needs to be examined.

As a society we have been taught to worship those who are prettier, wealthier, and more successful. But there is a twist of envy imbedded. They have all the rewards offered by our society without apparently having had to do the work. While 90% of us struggle they seemingly sit back and bathe in the glow of our worship.

Is it any wonder that when the cracks show though the facade that the wolves circle in for the kill? When the idol becomes human the hurry to smash the pedestal we built is our means of exacting revenge for the perceived failing of living up to the unreasonable expectations we demand as the price for their fame. As ideal representations of the American Dream fulfilled any tarnishing of the lustre is unforgivable.

Michael Jackson began living the dream at an early age. Poor black kids from the inner city who form a singing group and make a success. The American dream come true. Fame, fortune, and international recognition. From his earliest incarnation as the young boy fronting his brothers in the Jackson Five, on to his burgeoning solo career, his talent carried him to heights undreamed of by most of us.

But like Elvis before him, his fame seems to have done nothing for his own peace of mind and self esteem. While Elvis turned to junk food and diet pills, Michael Jackson’s dissatisfaction with himself led to self mutilation in the form of extensive plastic surgery in order to become what he deemed more acceptable.

When James Joyce wrote: “Ireland is a sow that feeds on it’s own offal” he was referring to how the internal political strife of the country swallowed it’s people whole. In the case of North America our definition of the ideal existence amounts to the same thing. How many people have been devoured by the maw of image, success and stardom? How many have climbed to the top of the ladder only to discover there is no top only increased expectations? One’s fingers may clutch the brass ring but if you have no place to put your feet what good is it?

Insubstantial goals of fame and fortune; a life dedicated to satisfying the demands of strangers; and self esteem measured by popularity are the end results of some people’s American Dream. While it’s true nobody made them follow this path, that they could have opted out at any time, because no matter what anybody says, we always have the choice to say no. It’s also true that from an early age onward we are told that to be a star is the be all and end all.

From Survivor, to American Idol all these “reality” T.V. shows emphasise the glory in being famous. They don’t just say you can be a star, they are saying you should want to be a star. As if stardom were a career not a reward for labours well done. The implications being that anything less is a failure.

Look at Michael Jackson within this context and you begin to see how he is a creature of our own creation. He has divested himself of any distinctive physical characteristics in an attempt to be what he perceives as more acceptable to a wider audience. He has made himself totally dependant on others reception of him for his happiness. All of his life he has been defined by the success or failure of his music, not by who he is as a person.

That he has become a person of no substance is reflected in his failed interpersonal relationships, his estrangement from family members, and his retreat into a fantasy world of his own creation where he can’t grow old. Having always lived by the artificial standards of “stardom” he knows no other way of being.

The sadness of Michael Jackson is that the star has eclipsed the talent. Almost forgotten in the amusement parks and the accusations is the fact that man was and maybe still is, a breathtaking performer. How often does this scenario need to be repeated before we realize there is something inherently wrong with a society the emphasise style over substance? Until then we will continue to produce misguided and unhappy people like Mr. Jackson to feed our own insatiable appetites.

cheers
gypsyman

By the way if you follow this line it will take you to a master Michael Jackson at Blogcritics.com.
A lot of my posts end up there and other interesting people write there as well, so check it out.
<http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/29/183031.php>

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:46 AM | Permalink

Suppose that the Ghost Dance actually worked. That back in the late 1880s just before the last of the tribes were rounded up and put on reservations that their last ditch effort at salvation worked. That the white people would leave, the buffalo and other game would come back, and the Indians could have their land back again. But suppose that the effects of the Ghost Dance weren’t felt until modern times. That the ancestors whose presence were beseeched over a hundred years ago are just now showing up to exact revenge and justice.

Indian Killer by Sherman Alexie is a number of things in the guise of a murder mystery. Against the backdrop of the mysterious killings and kidnapping of white people(two men killed and a boy taken and returned by the assailant) which have been attributed to an Indian, Mr. Alexie takes us on a journey through the dark heart of contemporary Native American life. From Seattle’s skid row, to the Spokane reservation; from university students to construction workers and to the local Indian Bar where Hank Williams is considered one of them, it’s a life as far removed from New Age Self Help books as the earth from the stars.

Substance abuse and self hatred combined with an ironic pride in being native are a volatile mixture awaiting a match to be set to it’s long simmering fuse. Through the characters in the book we come to understand the fuel that will ignite the fire. Whether European or Native their lives reflect the sourness of the relationship between a conquered people and their conquerors.

John Smith was taken from his mother on the delivery table and adopted out to a white couple who were desperately searching for a baby. Now a grown man working as a construction worker he is full of an anger he doesn’t understand. Alienated from his peers by the colour of his skin all the way through his school days and raised by people who meant well, he has no idea about what it means to be an Indian except from the books his mother found to read, notions picked up from documentaries and movies extolling the virtues of the noble savage, and that most white people don’t want their daughters to date one.

At a protest powwow at the University of Washington John meets Marie Polatikin a Spokane Indian who spends her energy fighting injustice when ever and how ever she can. This includes antagonizing Dr. Clarence Mather her Professor in a Native American literature class who knows more about being Indian then Indians do, and the featured write on the syllabus, Jack Wilson, a former cop now mystery writer, claiming native heritage in a bid for distinction.

As Marie and John go about their days in Seattle, her going to classes and delivering sandwiches to the homeless, he working on the last sky scrapper being built, tensions between the native and white communities are beginning to rise. With the finding of the first body decorated with owl feathers and the disappearance of a young white collage student from the parking lot of an Indian casino it doesn’t take much for violence to break out.

Encouraged by the volatile words of a local conservative radio host, a group of young men head out to start beating up the Indian homeless that populate Seattle’s downtown core. In retaliation Marie’s cousin Reggie and two of his friends torture a young white hitchhiker, in a manner similar to what Reggie experienced at the hands of his white step-father. A former Bureau of Indian Affairs officer he tried to beat the “bad” Indian out of Reggie by making him recite historical events and dates that were important in the conquest of the Indians. When he was wrong he was beaten and asked if he really wanted to be a drunk like all the other useless Indians.

Seattle, it’s environs and inhabitants, as presented in Indian Killer are representative of a widespread problem. The manner is which our occupying people treat the original inhabitants. We have created three definitions to fit Indians into: The Drunk, The Nobel Savage, or The Good Indian which is one who is so assimilated we say “Oh I didn’t even know you were...” As long as an Indian plays within those guidelines there’s no problem.

But let them say one word about land claims, or stolen culture or anything else that sounds remotely like threatening the status quo they are immediately labelled a malcontent, or radical. This is the world of contradictions that Sherman Alexie’s Indians live in. They are supposed to be happy with what ever bones they are thrown, thrilled that white people want to appropriate the interesting bits of their culture without having to live the humiliation that is their daily life.

Indian Killer tells this story without preaching or yelling. We follow characters we genuinely care about, whether white or native, because nothing is black and white even the so called enemies are interesting and human. Even the thugs who are beating up the vagrants are shown as more then just three dimensional bigots. In the end this just makes their actions all the more disturbing

“If Crazy Horse, or Geronimo, or Sitting Bull came back...They would start a war....They’d listen to some dumb-shit Disney song and feel like hurting somebody....if the Ghost Dance worked ...All you white people would disappear. All of you. If those dead Indians came back to life...They’d kill you. They’d gut you and eat you heart.”

When Marie tells Dr. Mather why she thinks the murders are as a result of the Ghost Dance, Sherman Alexie is forcing us to examine our perceptions of Indians and think about the potential consequences for way they have been treated for the last five hundred years. He is asking us what is it going to take for a redress to happen. Is the threat of violence the only way of making people take notice of the crimes against humanity that have been, and are still being, carried out in our names by our governments?

Indian Killer’s harsh reality, depictions of violence, and casual displays of racism both overt and subtle make for tough reading. It’s a sign of the elegance of Mr. Alexie’s abilities that I felt compelled to read the book through to the end. I’m sure that many people will say upon reading this book, well that is history, it has nothing to do with me. But the author makes it clear that in this case the “Good German” does not exist as far as he’s concerned. Silence alone makes people culpable in the face of such ongoing injustice.

This is a well written book whose story and plot move along easily and quickly. The characters, while some may veer into the cliché on occasion, are on the whole believable. There will be those who find the author’s point of view objectionable and they would be well off not bothering to read this book at all. But if you have any interest in the people’s whose land this was before our families immigrated here, beyond how they are depicted in the popular press, the media, and New Age “spirit guide” books this novel is an eye opener.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 12:08 PM | Permalink

...One may may be passionate and also practice detachment. It is central to the work of the artist, for example, that the self, and the desire for rewards of various kinds, are set aside, at least temporarily, in pursuit of an elusive excellence...John Burnside. Introduction to Iris Murdoch's The Sea The Sea

The number of times I have had people say to me that you have to detach, or separate yourself from feelings, or other things human, over the years has been staggering. What's never been clear to me is why I would want to do that. The claim of spiritual enlightenment sounds spurious to me, and how separating myself from the world and living like a hermit devoted to prayer and inner contemplation could be anything but selfish is beyond me. Yes there have been great mystics and other minds who have retreated to contemplate mysteries, but they have had purpose beyond personal solace: it had just been one stage on their journey towards helping others.

I was listening to an interview with the younger brother of the Dali Lama on the Canadian Broadcasting corporation's(C.B.C)radio show The Roundup last fall where he broached this very subject. He has not been a monk since he was fifteen(he referred to going the monastery at the age of five as being "kidnapped" in a half joking tone) and firmly believes that far too many people retreat to monasteries for the wrong reasons. He said many are too lazy to try and live in the real world and live a spiritual life at the same time. It was his belief that by living outside the walls of the monastery one attains the same levels of enlightenment while simultaneously living out our paths to the fullest.

We are human beings and this world in the state that it is in is our responsibility. We have created the circumstances so we must deal with them. Cutting oneself off will accomplish nothing and is a sign of surrender. The same could be said for detachment from ones feelings; it is a refusal to deal with our personal world's circumstances. If we deny the anger, grief, or joy that is our potential to feel and express we are denying those very elements that makes us humans. We are losing the opportunity to live life to the fullest.

There is a native American expression that has oft been misinterpreted: "It is a good day to die" Usually used in Hollywood movies by stoic nobel savages heading into battle it's implications are far beyond mere warrior bravado. Simply put it mean life each day as if it was your last and that you will have no regrets if you have to leave. Every day should be a "good day to die", fulfilling and complete. How could you accomplish this goal by denying yourself feelings and experiences?

Many people have turned to eastern spiritual practices to fill a void in their caused by their perception that there can be no fulfillment in our consumer driven society. Because they equate materialism with spiritual blankness they have latched onto the word detachment as a means of salvation. If I can only detach myself from all the distractions of this society then I'll be saved. Thus detachment has come to be equated with removal. What they have missed is that true detachment would give them a means to live within any society anywhere.

The quote at the beginning of the article talks about an artist and detachment, that the work itself becomes the be all and end all. There is no room for worry about how it will be received, or any other of the mundane things that distract and upset us. Detachment is the ability to remove expectations of all kinds from your life. When you give your seat up to a pregnant woman on the bus are you expecting something in return? Do you do it for the recognition or do you do it because it feels like a good thing to do? What this does is make the moment of doing the important thing, the sacred thing if you like.

The next time someone tell you to detach yourself from your feelings ask them why? There's nothing wrong with feeling. In fact those people who recommend detachment have completely missed the point because they have not detached themselves from expectations of a result. They are expecting spiritual enlightenment from their behaviour as a reward from cutting themselves off from pleasure and pain. Instead they are just cheating themselves out of living their lives to the fullest. Detachment should help you appreciate moments for being what they are, not remove you from experiencing them.

cheers gypsyman --------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:53 AM | Permalink

I've been doing a lot of blog cruising these days for the main reason that I'm getting increasingly house bound and it's something amusing to do. While the majority of stuff is harmless and fun, and some of it is quite interesting there is a disturbing trend that I'm noticing. Now there is nothing wrong with stating opinions, I think that is the best think about blogs and I find it highly refreshing, but what is disturbing is the absence of real debate on issues. The majority of what I see from all sides of the political spectrum seems to degenerate into name calling and finger pointing.

From the right side we continue to get disparaging remarks about the character of a variety of people, some of which could be construed as slander, while the left isn't far better. While I'm not hesitant about speaking out against behaviour I find off pointing, beliefs that upset me, and am not above finger pointing at times I try not to take anything personally. While I may say things which are critical about the behaviour and actions of a person or an institution I try to show respect for the fact they are still human beings.

I have been harshly critical of the Catholic church, fundamentalist Christians, and right wing ideologes and have had harsh things to say about individuals who maintain or prostetlyse from those positions, but I hope that I have never been dismissive of their right to have those beliefs. Just because I don't agree with what they are saying does not make them evil or bad. I'm sure they disagree with me as much as I disagree with them.

We are never going to be able to resolve anything or bring about any sort of reconciliation as long as we maintain a school yard attitude towards each other. In Canada people are always astounded by the lack of decorum in our House of Commons. Politicians from various parties shouting at each other, calling out shame shame and generally acting like the worst examples of spoiled brats who can't get their own way. They were doing this even before the proceedings were televised so that tells you something right there.

I guess I had held out hopes that debate on the net would be a little more mature, or at least people would try and construct arguments properly. But on the whole everyone just wants to sound like their favorite shouting pundit. Very few blogs do more then re hash what has already been said to the point where they begin to sound like shills for whatever politics they are supporting.

I realize that no one will think I'm talking about them, so the ones who this is really addressed to will ignore these comments. But for the rest of your out there wading through the reams of words play this game: count the number of webs where there is no reference to somebody or other and the person writing is talking about an idea. See how many rely on emotional triggers not on reasoned arguments. Then you might get a clue as to how little room there is for debate anymore.

despondently yours
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:32 AM | Permalink

Culture: Not just in yogurt

Once upon a time in land far away and across the ocean it was considered a viable career opportunity for a young person to apprenticed to an artist in the same way he or she would be sent to any other tradesperson to learn the how's and wherefores of the craft so that they may might make a business for themselves. Painters, musicians, performers, sculptors, metal workers and glass blowers were recognized as equal in societal importance as anything else; a viable career choice and an integral part of a societies structure. The wealthy would compete with governments and religious leaders to sponsor artists to create works so that they could be recognized as contributing to the quality of life of their fellow citizens, or for the more self centred reasons of self agrandisment.

How the times have changed. Sure there are still corporations willing to lend their names to large venues or festivals and governments have token programs responsible for funding a portion of the creative endeavour, but the idea of someone wanting to grow up and work as an artist is looked upon as the height of foolishness. I'm sure anyone who has attempted this path has at some point had someone draw them aside and tell them that they should have something "real" they can fall back on as a career. The arts are all very well as something to dabble in when young but what are you going to do when you grow up and have responsibilities etc. etc. ad nauseum.

On one hand people bemoan the loss of quality in what passes for entertainment these days, whether it be on television, in the movies or any of the other portals for mass entertainment, but on the other they are loath to support anything that would encourage the development of the aesthetic sensibilities that are needed to ensure a higher standard. Arts education, or even exposure to anything artistic at a young age, is considered a frill at best, something for only the monied classes with leisure time, or a waste of time and money. Governments, instead of encouraging educational systems to broaden the horizons of their wards, are forcing them through policy to produce cogs for the system. Tools to be utilized in a goal oriented, results driven society.

The arts offer no immediate tangible rewards that can be instantly charted on a graph. Process driven and subjective the evolution of an artist is a drawn out affair that shows no immediate return on the investment. It involves a faith in the future that no one seems to be willing to commit to any more. In these days of so called fiscal responsibility governments seem only able to pay lip service to the arts, investing in the sure fire hit for its immediate economic impact rather then the development of the potential producers and audience for that same project.

Given this atmosphere it is a miracle that there are people still willing to pursue a career in the arts. It says something for the innate desire within humans to create that we have any actor, painters, musicians etc at all these days. To persevere in the face of so much apathy, to be willing to suffer deprivations of the body in order to produce works of spirit, only serves to make one wonder what could be done if there was the least nurturing of artistic energy in it's earliest stages.

One of the few disciplines which is able to foster talent at an early stage dance has proven that point on countless occasions. Like the National Ballet in Canada most major companies have a school affiliation which provides them with a core of dancers to draw upon so that they have a continuous supply of trained performers. Like athletes who begin their careers as young children an artist's training needs to begin in the earliest stages of their development so that they can grow into their skills as they mature as a person.

The chances of a young person growing up to be a professional athlete are even slimmer then that of a person growing up to make use of their artistic skills, yet we seem to have no problem recognizing their need to start at an early age. When one considers the ancillary benefits that accompany artistic training and how the skills learned can be applicable to all manner of professions outside of the arts it makes our priorities seem even more strange.

There has developed over the years the idea that the arts are somehow not quite "normal". This seems to be a hangover from our Puritan fore fathers who rejected the concept of entertainment and fun as being synonymous with sin. With the forbidding of artistic representations of religious figures a whole field of expression dried up along with a source of revenue for artists. I find it no coincidence that artistic expression has flourished in predominately Catholic countries where there have never been any societal restrictions on who or what to paint or codes of conduct surrounding entertainments. The so called "Protestant Work Ethic" that set store in while ideal for driving the wheels of industry does little for the nourishment of the emotional soul.

In a society where showing emotion is perceived as a kind of weakness what kind of reception would the arts, which is all about emotional expression, receive? When your God expects you to toil and strive and suffer to earn your place in heaven what room is there for an aesthetic sensibility? Where anything that does not return an immediate gain materially is considered a waste of time, how can anything that needs the slow nurturing like artistic talent grow? One need look no further to the policies of the social conservative parties for proof of this to be borne out. While simultaneously advocating returns to a more "traditional"way of life(read fundamentalist Christian)they also demand fiscal "responsibility". This inevitably includes calls for a more "realistic" approach to education based on results with funding for career, money making, programs at the fore front, whilst the arts based programs are left to wither and die.

The arts are doomed to remain an after thought in any society which treats them with suspicion like the one we presently live in. It will take more then government white papers, appeals by celebrity artists, and articles like this one to change that. If we are serious about wanting to develop culture and create the atmosphere that would allow the development of artistic appreciation and thought the chains of our own history need to be thrown off. Until then we can only hope that we keep throwing up individuals who are strong enough to succeed in spite of the obstacles we throw in front of them. It better be enough.

cheers
gypsyman
--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:22 AM | Permalink

What are they so afraid of?

Almost every time a conservative pundit, politician, publicist or whatever opens his or her mouth your certain to hear some sort of reference concerning "too much government" Whether it's the wasting of tax payers money, cutting through red tape or even worse interfering in the lives of people the inference is that most of the problems in today's society are caused by the presence of this monolithic being called big government.

The thing is that it really is only very specific areas of government that they are complaining about. What seems to gall them is anything to do with social programs. They seem to believe that the government should have no role in directly ensuring the quality of life for a countries citizens. Whether its Health and Welfare, equal rights, gun control, affordable housing, the rights of tenants, day care, or the environment doesn't matter, the less involved the government is the better. Of course when it comes to issues that matter to them, abortion, and termination of life support they are all for intervention into highly personal choices.

What's truly interesting is that most of these same people who run down the idea of government are all also proponents of the "My Country Right Or Wrong " attitude. Which leads me to wonder how they define their country if not by their government. Doesn't that saying imply blind support for a certain way of life, and by extendtion a system of government that would ensure the continuance of the same. Was not that what the Cold War was about for these same people, the triumph of our style of government over someone else's? Sure we are the so called free enterprise folk while they were the communists, but we still have a government.

I have never understood what is bad about having ones elected officials, the ones the people voted for, help to protect the less fortunate, or stand up for the rights of minorities or to ensure that as many people as possible have their basic needs for survival met. Why is it so horrible that the people we trust to make decisions about going to war are the same ones we trust with our health care system? Why shouldn't we all contribute something towards ensuring the well being of our compatriots? What is there to be afraid of in a system that shows compassion?

To me the cry for less big government is the cry of those who are scared of losing their privileges to dominate over the rest of us. Less government actually curtails the right of individuals more then anything by putting more power in the hands of people who have direct effect on our lives. Who has a more direct effect on how much money you make? The person you work for or the government. If there are no regulations dictating how a worker has to be treated an employer is not bound by anything when it comes to guaranteeing salaries, job security, pensions or anything else that makes your life a little more bearable. One only has to look at the behaviour of such upstanding corperate citizens like Wal Mart who at the first sign of union organization close stores and put people out of work rather then risk giving any rights to the individuals that work for them.

Big government is a danger to people who put profit before everything because it guarantees the rights of those who would normally be ignored. It could guarantee that everybody gets affordable medical care, affordable auto insurance, the right to freedom of religion, income in times of illness and hardship, and a pension when your no longer able to work. In the ideal world big government would speak for all of us not just its corporate sponsors. As it stands too much credence is given to the conserns and complaints of the business community. It is hard to have faith in people who on one hand say they are our only hope for a strong economy if we only gave them carte blanche, but given the first opportunity would move their factories and all their jobs to a country desperate enough to sell its people into indentured slavery under the guise of employment.

It is no longer fashionable or possible to single out a particular group to blame for the woes of the nation. So instead of taking direct aim the new technique is blame by inference. When conservatives talk about the special interest groups who revel in big government the nod and wink is pretty damn obvious. It's amazing how poor urban people can compete for a politician's attention with the big monnied lobbyist from the insurance companies and the oil industry, but that must be the case. If there is less government then there's less chance that the rights of those worse off then us will be represented.

When someone champions the cause of reducing government what they are really fighting for is a reduction in the rights of individuals. If the power of the government to regulate industry is reduced disaster invariably follows. One only need look at what happened to the airline industry in the United States following deregulation. The number of accidents and near misses increased, airport security became lax(if the government controlled airport security not private rent a cops do you really think people could have gotten weapons onto the planes on 9/11 one only need look at Europe and Israel to see what good state run security can accomplish)and the industry went down the toilet.

Democratic countries have constitutions which control the actions of their governments, dictating what they are allowed to do, and what they can't do. That's what they are there for. A government's job is to work within the framework of that constitution to provide for the happiness and security of it's people. What's good for the country is government that lives up to that standard.

cheers gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 03:55 AM | Permalink

Aint it funny how common sense don't make no sense no more. John Prine

I'm not sure what John was referring to when he wrote those words all that time ago, but I get the feeling he must find the current usage of common sense highly ironic if not down right pathetic. The man who gave us lyrics such as: they don't know how lucky they are/they could have been hit by a car/ struck by lightening/run into a tree/or raped by a minority/and they don't know how lucky they are, must be sitting somewhere shaking his head as he hears conservatives rattle on about how their policies are only common sense.

Common sense. What exactly does that mean anyway, or what does it imply is more to the point I guess. Meanings aren't relevant in this day and age, what's more important is the emotional reaction evoked. I've noticed that the expression is usually evoked in tandem with words like traditional, family, etc. etc. I'll create an example for you. "A mother, a father, and kids, now common sense tells us that is a family, they'd have you believe that two fathers, or two mothers and children make a family but that's not biologically or physically possible is it? Where's the sense in that?" They use the phrase to imply that there can be no alternative to their opinion. That right thinking people couldn't possibly see it any other way.

Funk and Wagnals Standard dictionary defines common sense as sound reasoning, practical judgment. Although when you break it down into it's components it would read more like: common: widespread general; frequent or usual; unexceptional; the norm; something shared jointly(in common)and sense: a feeling accompanied by rational thought; normal power of mind or understanding; signification, import or meaning; Sound reason or judgment, wisdom. I would more inclined to define the saying in our usage as general wisdom, the usual judgment, or even looser as simply practical.

In the past the attribute of having common sense was linked to individual behaviour: looking both ways before crossing the road is common sense. Simple practical guides that help us from making mistakes in judgment when it came to issues of personal health and safety or other black and white issues where the answer can be based on behaviour patterns or other observed actions.

What conservatives are doing with utilizing this phrase for everything from finances to gay rights to justifying war is a process of over simplification so as to reduce debate on issues down to emotional reactions based on so called traditional behaviour. For some issues, like marriage and families it's the we have always done it this way so it's right argument that makes it common sense. For others like welfare, medical insurance, and cuts to social programs, they use it as a catch all justification for their actions without the words having any meaning. "Instead of spending the money on day care or hospitals it's only common sense to take that money and put it back in the hands of the tax payer so they can spend it and stimulate the economy and create more jobs. It's only common sense to let people make their own decisons on how they want to spend their hard earned cash." That sounds pretty good doesn't it, until your come to the reality that the only people who really benefit from this are the ones who didn't need any sort of tax break to begin with. Since the "money in your pocket" only works out to be around $200.00 it comes no where near covering the cost of the day care you find you need when both parents have to work so as to be able to afford medical insurance and pay for prescriptions. Where's the common sense in that.

Common Sense is fast becoming one of the new catch phrases of the right which on closer examination is a way of legitimizing their actions without actually explaining how it will work or what the long term effects will be while at the same time casting aspersions on any point of view that may differ. We are the normal people they are saying, all those others are out to corrupt your children, destroy our wholesome way of life, and sell the world out to dangerous lunatics.

John Prine had it wrong sort of, it aint funny how little sense common sense makes, it's dangerous and it's sad. The next time you hear anyone justify anything with that phrase listen closely to what she or he are promising and if you have any doubts or questions call them on it. Now that would be common sense.

cheers gypsyman --------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 08:03 AM | Permalink

In the late seventies early eighties there was a British band called TRB, short for The Tom Robinson Band. They were best known for writing catchy tune with lyrics that were nothing short of deliberate attempts to raise the ire of the right. For example their most popular song was a catch little tune whose chorus ran:

Sing if your glad to be gay, sing if your happy that way Sing if your glad to be gay, sing if your happy that way

Nothing is more noticeable then a bunch of people standing around singing that I'll tell you. But the lines that stick out for me most right now are from a song whose title escapes me, but whose relevance is even more pertinent today. He talks about the conservative penchant for demanding freedom, and he then lists off the things they want to be free to do: discriminate, beat up fags, reduce immigration, preach hatred, not pay taxes, exploit the environment, well you know the list.

In the more then twenty years since this song was published what amazes me is how little that refrain has changed, if anything it has even got more virulent. Their desecration of the concept of freedom has degenerated to the point that they see any attempt to grant privileges to any one not of their mindset as an assault upon their freedom. Canada recently passed some very strict anti hate laws which would prohibit anybody from speaking out against somebody for reason of race, creed, colour, or sexuality.

To my mind this is freedom. Freedom from the fear of persecution and the uttering of hateful propaganda against one's self. This is the sort of guarantee that all decent societies should be giving their citizens. But the conservatives see it differently. They see it as an infringement on their right to free speech. Why? Well because this will prevent teachers in fundamentalist Christian schools from standing up in front of the class and telling their students that homosexuality is a sin and an evil. I guess they are worried that if people don't know that information they may be willing to accept homosexuals as equals, and we wouldn't want that would we. That is such an infringement on our right to hate people we don't understand.

Their protests which are flimsy to begin with even sound hollower when you look at their record on free speech. How many of these people support the detaining of people without trial on suspicion of anything resembling terrorism and denying these same people the right to defend themselves? How many of these people are quick to try and organise boycotts of any product which advertises on T.V. shows that they consider inappropriate? How many of them conspired to ensure that theatre managers refused to play Michael Moore's 9/11 on the grounds it was unpatriotic? Whither went free speech in those cases?

For the conservative freedom is defined as something that supports their agenda, or works to perpetuate the status quo. Affirmative action is an assault upon the rights of white people, an infringement on their ability to obtain employment. What was two hundred years of slavery and then another hundred odd of segregation, job skills training? When African Americans, women and other minorities stop hearing how affirmative action is bigotry then maybe it will no longer be needed.

They demand freedom from government regulation so that they can "get on with business" But at the first sign of competition from a foreign company in the same line of work they demand the same government step in and interfere in the free market with tariffs. Their claim of preserving jobs in North America is so spurious that I don't see how they can even say it with a straight face, for at the first sign of opportunity they will ship those same jobs to a developing country that is desperate enough to sell its people into serfdom.

They want the freedom to make as much money as possible, but when the people who work for them ask for the same freedom, and some security in the form of health and pension benefits, they are accused of breaking the back of industry. Unions that have not been co-opted into supporting industry are labeled as trouble makers, rabble rousers, whose intentions are to upset the apple cart. In other words eat into the profits of the share holders by protecting the jobs of the workers(see above paragraph)

Like I said the list is endless and nauseating in it cynicism. By flying the freedom standard they hope to convince people that they are the last bastion against the anarchic hoards out to overthrow our reasonable society. They are not espousing liberty, but the rule of the few over the many. All conservatives care about is conserving the world as they see it, their place in it, their lifestyle, and their beliefs at all costs. The next time you read an article from one of their pens espousing freedom, try and figure out what exactly they are trying to protect. Look beyond the emotional trigger of the word and see the actuality of the thought.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 08:16 AM | Permalink

Merchant Of Venice

As a some what classically trained actor(two years of an academic theatre school) I have always had a thing for Shakespeare. I love his work and have never had the fear that so many people seem to have for the language. Sure some of the allusions and idioms are obscure or their meanings are only relevant to Elizabethan scholars, but a good actor lets the emotion of the words in context convey what is needed for the audience to comprehend the meaning of the words.

Underneath the glamour and the trappings that accompany most productions there are universal truths that speak to all of us. Remember Shakespeare was a popular writer who depended on pleasing his audiences for making a living. An audience who if anything were even less educated then today's, made up of primarily illiterates who would need the stimuli of strong emotion to provide enjoyment. His plays are sexual, violent, full of bawdy humour and plots were dictated by the strong moral code of the time. The tragedies conformed to the tight rule of a hero whose tragic flaw brings about his downfall, the histories to extolling the virtues of the current head under the crown, and the romantic comedies all worked out right in the end.

What has always elevated Shakespeare head and shoulders above the rest was his ability to raise his content above the limitations of the style. Unlike today's sit-com writers who work within a similar format who let stereotypes and manipulation stand in for genuine characters and emotion, his ear for poetry and truth combined to entertain and enlighten the masses whilst never stooping to a lowest common denominator. Royal to peasant were equally comfortable with his work.

Our tendency to view Shakespeare's plays as museum pieces instead of living is the thing that does them the most disservice. We suffered through a long period of staid costume dramas masquerading as performance with only a few notable exceptions. Not until Kenneth Branagh first began producing plays and filming did new life get blown back into Shakespeare for the first time since Peter Brooks interpretations in the early seventies. Aside from Mr. Branagh own productions we have seen a spurt of attempts at Shakespeare, some good, some bad, but at least people were attempting to use film and his plays for more then faithful reproductions of stage shows.

What this has all been leading up to is the recent production of Merchant of Venice starring Al Pachino, Jeremy Iron, Joseph Fiennes and Lynn Collins. The Merchant has moved in and out of fashion over the last forty years because of the potential for stirring up a pot that most people would rather leave alone. Anti Semitism. With the specter of Mel Gibson's wildly anti Semitic Passion hanging over everyone's heads it takes an especially brave group of people to mount a production of Merchant.

We as a society would like to pretend that anti semitism does not exist at the same level that it has in previous generations. But with the rise of fundamentalist Christians and the poverty of Eastern Europe we have seen an upswing in anti Jewish sentiment. Although neither Jew nor Muslim will appreciate this comment it must also be remembered that Arabs are Semitic as well so the Muslim world has become a legitimate outlet for most people's anti- Semitic feelings. Jews and Muslims are particularly sensitive now to anything that is seen as promoting hatred towards their people, justifiably I believe since any promotion of hatred under what ever the guise is putrid.

In one of the interviews included with the D.V.D. of Merchant of Venice Al Pacino mentions that he had been approached many times before about playing the role of Shylock, and that he had always refused for that very reason. He never felt comfortable with the character's depiction as a villain because of its perpetuating of a stereotype. There have been many apologists for this play, defending it on the grounds that it was just an accurate reflection of the time period of Shakespeare. While this may or may not be true, it did not necessitate some of the extremes taken in the depiction of Shylock villainy or the saintliness of Antonio and Bassino.

When one examines the structures that Shakespeare so rigerlously adhered to in the construction of his script, this interpretation makes no sense. Who is the tragic hero in this tragedy, whose downfall are we asked to witness. Not the two gentiles, but the Jew. In all of Shakespeare's tragedy's we are given motivation and plot for the actions of the flawed character, from Hamlet to Othello circumstances have combined with their character's shortcomings to bring about their downfall. We invaribly are led to some sort of sympathy for these heroes no matter what they end up doing, or what results from their actions. Why then has this never been the result of Merchant of Venice. Why have we always been led to the position of rejoicing at the downfall of Shylock, instead of commiserating with a person who has had his daughter, his possessions and his religion stripped from him? Like so many of us he had been pushed too far by circumstances and events until something finally snapped. Whose to say how you and I would react under the constant pressure of day in and day out persecution and assaults on our dignity.

I belief that until now no has wanted to perform the play as it was meant to be produced. Who would pay to see gentile society depicted as the villain of the piece and Shylock as the flawed hero driven by desperation into a place of madness; where reason has fled to be replaced by the all consuming need for vengeance against the people who "spit upon his thin body". It is far easier to dismiss the anti semitism as historically accurate then to put the mirror up our own society's bigotry.

Michael Radford has finally provided us with a Merchant worth watching. He follows the path of most resistance by depicting Shylock as the tragic hero brought down by his flaws. Through establishing the anti semitism of the times and the characters he makes the ensuing actions of Shylock understandable and believable. It's not because he's a money grubbing Jew that he demands his pound of flesh, it's because he is a man who has been pushed to his limit and beyond. He's beyond reason to the point where he will not even accept twice the amount of money he is owed as replacement of his bond. That is not the behaviour of a man governed by greed, but one who is controlled by other forces.

As we see and hear his plans collapsing around him, as we watch him deflate and hear the vindictive reveling of the gentiles our hearts can not help but go out to him, one more person destroyed by the moral majority for attempting to stand up for himself against overwhelming odds. The self righteous have again conquered and left the outsider lost.

It goes without saying that the performances in this movie are universally brilliant. The British cast of lesser parts are universally more comfortable with the language of Shakespeare then any production I have seen in many a year. The leads, well the leads are nothing short of magnificent. The performances of Jeremy Irons and Joseph Fiennes are just what I would expect from them, perceptive, intelligent with never a wrong note sounded. But in truth it is the two Americans who are the revelation. Pacino has never been this good before. It is if he has been waiting for this part his whole career and saving up bits of talent so that it could all be invested, he holds nothing back and presents what I think should be the Shylock that everyone remembers, on a par with Oliver's Hamlet it will become a byword for performances for future actors to emulate. I have never seen or heard of Lynn Collins before, but she is the real thing when it comes to Shakespeare. Her command of the language and its nuances was equal to that of her more renouned male co-stars, and her presence and poise enlivened and energies any scene she participated in.

But in the end it all comes down to Michael Radford's direction and adaptation. It's his eye that takes us through 16th century Venice. From the opulence of the gentile areas, to the gated and confining prison of the ghetto we are witness to the disparate worlds of the two people's who make up the films population. Venice is a cesspool of hypocrisy: wearing the face of morality by day, but dallying with prostitutes by night, preaching tolerance, but only for those like us, asking Shylock to consider mercy for Antonio during the court scene, but then baying for his blood when events turn against him. In this Venice if we are willing to look closely enough we can see ourselves and what our society has done to those on the outside. Shylock is every poor desperete Muslim manipulated by events and his leaders into a place of no return, we are the ones who plead with him to desist, but when we get the chance we defile and spit on him with glee.

This is a wonderful movie that finally provides justice for a play that has too long been subject to the whims of fashion and bias. Definitely a Merchant worth seeing.

cheers gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 04:38 AM | Permalink

Clip Clop Clip Clop. Yes that's the sound of me getting back up on my high horse riding off in the pursuit of truth honesty justice and the non-American way. This time its the hypocrisy of people who tell you that residential schools should be taken in their historical context not looked at from our modern perspective. That's like saying the concentration camps of Nazi Germany should be placed in a historical context so we can understand them better and not judge than harshly.

In attempting to destroy the indigenous peoples of North America the governments of Canada and The United States both devised the system of residential schools. Using the white man's burden excuse, it is our job to uplift the savages and turn them into viable human beings, they came up with the idea of forcibly removing all school age children from their families and villages and placing them in schools far removed from their homes. Here all vestiges of their culture were stripped from them. Hair was cut off, clothing and fetishes destroyed, and their languages were forbidden.

On a daily basis they were told that the beliefs of their parents were evil and subjected to classes in things they didn't understand. In the guise of teaching them trades the young girls were put to work in laundry facilities, kitchens and other domestic trades working in sweat shop conditions so as to prepare them for lives of menial servitude. The young boys were educated in similar situations. They were continually told that this is what they were worth of, life at the lower rung of white society.

These schools were a deliberate attempt at cultural genocide. Knowing full well that they were dealing with societies dependent on oral instruction they could not help understanding the impact this would have on the survival of these peoples as distinct societies. The results fo this mass deportation are still being dealt with on reserves across North America. Cut off from being able to communicate with their own families, not having the skills to earn any decent money and having been at best conditioned to belief they were evil or at worst sexually abused they could not function in either the white or native world.

Since the policy of residential schools and separating children from their parents only ended in the seventies the after effects will be felt for generations. The alcohol and substance abuse, the physical violence, the grinding poverty, and the dependence on government handouts for survival are all as a result of this policy. What things would be like on the reserves if the schools hadn't been in force is hard to say, but it is no stretch to believe that things would have better off without them.

I find it reprehensible that any people can actually argue against compensation for any and all people who were forced to endure incarceration at one of these institutions. Residential schools are one of the many things that we as a society have to answer for when it comes to our treatment of fellow humans. That they existed is not a subject for discussion, and neither should the matter of recompence. It's time pay the piper when it comes to this issue and continue on with the settling up of all the other items on the bill. The list is long and we have a long way to go before it's done.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 04:20 AM | Permalink

They were here first

It's far too early in the morning to be awake and writing but here I am anyway, and as I was sitting here browsing the newspaper, looking for things to write about, an answer came through my window. From out in the dark I hear a low chirping sound, which is not a bird given the time, and for a second I wonder, then I realize it's those masked bandits Racoons.

I'd guess I have to blame Stirling North for my love affair with raccoons. Ever since I read Rascal as a kid I've thought them to be the most fascinating of critters. Brave with distinct characters and very intelligent. They get a bad reputation for their habit of stealing garbage and living in people's garages, but to me that just exemplifies their adaptibility: how many other wild animals have been able to live so readily in cities? They've got a survivor instinct that makes that T.V. show look like the joke it is.

How many of us could withstand the mass destruction of our habitat and deep on living through the radical change? Or overcome hysteria induced attempts at extermination based on the premise that rumored cases of "racoon rabies " was making it's way up from Northern New York into South Eastern Ontario via racoons catching lifts underneath transport trucks? This so called rabies scare being a case of mistaken identity (racoons get a type of illness that seems to mimic some rabies symptoms) didn't seem to phase the red neck lunk heads who would look for any excuse to blast away at an animal.

Racoons aren't the only four legeds who share the cities with us, just the most prevalent. Aside from the usual suspects of small rodents, there have been reports of Coyotes in Toronto, (more likely wild dogs, or coydogs a blending of coyote and dog) and I have seen in Kingston skunks, foxes, and the occasional deer that wanders in from the outskirts. The latter is happening less and less with the increased build up of the suburbs acting as barrier keeping the wild life at bay. Most people think of this as inconvenience not as a pleasure (I'd admit to some trepidation about sharing housing with a skunk: its their poor vision that makes them dangerous, they don't see anything until their right on top of it, and then they get startled, and well you know the result) but I love to be able to look out in my backyard and see a mamma raccoon and her kids washing their food in my bird bath.

Of course there is the variety of bird life in the skies over Kingston as well. For those people willing to lift their noses from the grindstone occasionally they can be treated to the sight of a variety of hawks soaring, turkey vultures swooping, and the occasional eagle or owl. There was one memorable occasion I remember witnessing a beautiful Snowy Owl perching on a downtown building, it's brilliant plumage a stark contrast to the dull brick surrounding it. I have had some birds take the concept of bird feeder a little too far, with sharpshin hawks grabbing a quick snack from amongst the feeding sparrows, but this has also led to the sight of a massive Coopers Hawk dissecting a bird of some sort in my backyard.

But as usual I find myself in a minority when it comes to expressing this opinion. Most people view any sort of animal life as a pest, an intrusion into their carefully ordered world not as a gift to be cherished. I'm sure if they could they'd sit out back with a shot gun to put a bullet into the raccoon rummaging through their garbage or the skunk waddling around the neighbourhood. To those of you of that mind set I'd like to offer this little reminder. They were here first. We are the intruders.

Not that I'd expect anyone to pay attention to that, we still don't recognize the rights of the people who were here before us, so what's the likelihood of us doing it for the others who came first. It is interesting that the people who we refuse to recognize treated their fellow citizens with a respect that we can't even find in ourselves to treat members of our species who we live side by side with. Rudeness and selfishness seem to be our lifestyle choices more and more, so any sort of compassion for others is probably too much to ask for.

cheers gypsyman --------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 03:37 AM | Permalink

I've been doing some weblog surfing recently and have come across a revealing phenomenon. I'm speaking of the pity seeking formula employed by the conservative webloggers. If some of their content wasn't so disturbing it would be funny. What contributes to the irony of the whole situation is the obvious slickness of their sites. For a bunch of set upon defenders of a besieged moral position they sure seem to have huge amounts of resources available to them.

No prefabed templates like the one I use. Their blogs are all high quality, graphic intense, bells and whistles full, multi link, and highly scripted. Judging by the number of feeds monitored and the amount of information posted these sites are more then just the work of an individual, who posts once a day with his or her ruminations. They have to be full time endeavors run by a group or group of peoples. Their concerned individual titles aside there is no way that one person could have the resources and the energy to expand to create and maintain these sites.

I'm assuming that libel and slander laws are somehow not an issue for these people considering the inflammatory comments I've seen posted on some sites. Accusations of wife abuse laid at the feet of Michael Shiavo(leave it alone folks the woman's dead and you lost that battle) or rehashings of Clinton stuff that took place close to ten years ago. It amazes me that conservatives could ever accuse people on the left of whining when I read the stuff that they are passing off as information.

What I truly find amazing is their passing themselves off as victems of a vast and nefarious plot perpatrated against them by the media. Oh poor them the horrible left wing press is out to get them. Good lord don't they ever get tired of singing that false note. They don't even do it that well anymore. It almost make you miss the rantings of Spiro T. Agnew: "Natering Nabobs of Negativity" nobody can even come close to that for absolute nonsense.

The massively funny thing is the fact that the majority of the main stream press is owned by the very people who support them. Did you know that most of the media outlets in the United States are owned by three corporations. Yep three. Here's an example of the mean spirited press that's out to get the good old defenders of the crown, I mean state. During the Gulf War one of these Media moguls set up a series of pro war demonstrations, proceeded to report on the same through a nation wide affiliation of radio stations, and then offer them up as proof of the wide ranging support for government policy. Yep it sure is horrible to have the press against you.

But they no perfectly well that there's no more effective tool then painting yourself as the victim of something or other. Whether its the double dealing judges upholding the constitution in defiance of the paragons of decency that make up congress.(Do they not even understand their own system of checks and balances that was implemented by their founding fathers, the President kept in check by the congress, and the congress kept in check by the judiciary all to ensure that the constitution is upheld) Or then there's the interfering bastards over at the American Civil Liberties Union who keep preventing God fearing folk form carrying out their right to discriminate, kill at will, or just treat everyone badly. But don't worry about them, their martyrs to the cause.

You could laugh at them for being pathetic weeinies if their wasn't the problem of how many people believe them. I mean how else did George Bush get elected if people don't actually believe that shit. So you can't just ignore them and hope they go away, because they're not and two because they have lots of money with which to get there message out to people who believe them. Before you dismiss their intended audience as just a bunch of red neck jerks I should introduce you to my mother in law who is wealthy and sort of intelligent, but who swallows everything like that hook line and sinker.

They use the emotional bullshit to manipulate the results they want from people so reasoned arguments don't work. I recommend that you who are fighting them start stooping to their level. Don't be shy. Wrap yourselves in what ever apple pie issue you can find and start coming across like the defenders of the constitution your are. Stop just attacking their stupidity but start manipulating the situation so that you are the patriots not them.

Point out the connections between Bush and the Bin Ladins in the language of the tabloids like your opponents do, use catch headlines, slogans and Hallmark sentiments. Its time to fight holier then thou with holier then thou. Don't let the conservatives stake out the victim territory. There is nothing more nauseating then seeing millionaire, and billionaire fasicits who exploit thousands of people on a daily basis painting themselves as hard done by.

Free political advice for the Democrats provided by

gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 03:21 PM | Permalink

Welcome, O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.

I first read those words when I was nineteen, in my last term of high school. In those days I still dreamed of being an actor so they had little effect on me. It wasn't until six years latter, when I was beginning to realize my true nature, and calling that they began to speak to me with their full force. The absoluteness of those words: the responsibility implied for those of us seeking to create with words is overwhelming, but oh what a dreadful wonderful exaltation of emotion when that voyage is embarked upon.

As a young man in my mid twenties those were some of the most thrilling words to come across. If I had needed any further motivation to switch from acting to writing this provided the final push. For some reason those words had not had significant impact on me in the years since I had first read Portrait of An Artist by Joyce. Then one fateful spring afternoon in Montreal Quebec, an unseasonably warm week in April provided as a gift from the gods, with black hash and red wine floating in my brain, I was sitting down by the water in the Old City. I had brought along a battered copy of Portrait to read through whilst on vacation(I like to read a book in the atmosphere it was written in, when I went to Paris I carried the tome of Joyce's Ulysses with me, to try and catch something of the flavour that may have inspired the author. Montreal is the closest thing to a European city you can get in Canada)

The second I read these words that closed the chapter of Joyce's life that was youth I felt truly that this is, was, and always will be the way for me. The obligation, the need to examine and mine the experience of beings like myself and write about them. To become an observer of the human soul, a critic of our behaviour, a chronicler of our stories. I'm sure the combination of sun, wine and hash had a lot to do with my epiphany, but over the years the fire lit on that spring day has not diminished.

Although it took me another five years to fully relinquish my theatrical ambitions, from this point onward my path was irrevocably changed. The ensuing years have seen many changes, and I've gone periods of years without setting pen to paper or finger to keyboard, but I always knew if I was patient the time would come when I would be ready to realize the dream of forging words into meanings.

Now here I am, half way through the first draft of what I think is a pretty good work of fiction, two small books of poetry for sale in my storefront at Lulu.com, and writing everyday with passion here at Leap In The Dark. Even if I never sell a word, or I never finish another piece of writing, it doesn't matter. You see I'm finally writing from place of truth inside of me. Everything is an extension or an expression of my self as honestly as possible. The biggest truth I've discovered about writing is if one is not prepared to be honest with oneself then the everything sounds false. Not a single note rings true.

every artist's strictly illimitable country is himself and the artist who has played that country false has committed suicide. e.e.cummings

Before you can be true to yourself though you have to know yourself. That doesn't mean just the nice light stuff, but also the nasty dark stuff that you've kept hidden under that rock for years. Until you have the courage to expose that place in your soul , and accept it as being part of yourself, your writing will lack honesty and integrity. If we ignore the dark potential of ourselves, how can we claim to understand human nature enough to write about it with conviction.

There is also a certain amount of moral strength that is required to enable one to stay true to one's original intent. You may set out to write great literature or what ever it is you want to create, but as the years pass and recognition or success elude you, or things get in the way of your "doing", it would be easy to dilute or abandon standards. Even easier would be to surrender to the soft blandishments of security and so called social responsibilities. Maintaining focus in an increasingly distracting world, there's always some excuse not to work, is beyond most people's capabilities.

If poetry is your goal, you've got to forget all about punishments and all about rewards and all about self-styled obligations and duties and responsibilities etcetera ad infinitum and remember one thing only: that it's you-- nobody else--who determine your destiny and decide your fate e.e.cummings

There have been times when I have been sorely tempted, when I've felt like what's the point of all this anyway. Nobody cares what I've got to say, nobody even reads this god dammed web log, let alone is going to buy a single poem that you write. Who care what some guy up in Kingston Ontario Canada is writing about. Or, what makes you think you can call this crap art, shit look at all those people who have been published at half your age, making big money, or somebody's done it better already they you could ever hope to do.

A poem bit, or a fragment of a sentence, a piece of a paragraph, float around in your head and you know that somehow that they have to be used but where and how. You can't figure it out because we your such an idiot, a damn failure, and you call yourself an artist, or a writer, or what ever it is you've labeled yourself this week asshole. It can take me weeks to drag my skinny butt out of that tail spin. But then's the morning you finish the chapter, and the pages just fly out of your fingers, and every word is bright and shiny with wit and intellagence. Even your processor chugging away sounds perkier as you sit at the terminal.

But I've learned to be wary of those days too , because they just set me up for a better belly flop the next times the well runs down to a trickle. I know my emotions will get the best of me, and even if there's nothing I can do about it, at least I can be prepared. One of the last roles I performed as an actor was a character in an e. e. cummings play called Him. Him is a playwrite and in a continual struggle with his muse. I'd like to leave you with these lines from a speech of his where he attempts to describe what it is he does.

I am an Artisit, I am a Man, I am a Failure. An Artist, a Man and a Failure must proceed. e. e. cummings

cheers gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:14 AM | Permalink