Leap In The Dark

I admit it. They make me nervous when I see them walking down the street. Their swagger, the expression on their face, their heavy jaws, and the lolling tongue all conspire to inspire less than confidence in their nature. Confused?

I'm talking about what is commonly referred to as a Pit Bull This stocky, low slung dog, has developed a fearsome reputation in recent years and has been blamed for many attacks on humans. Ironically the American Kennel Club is still recommending the breed as an ideal family dog due to their gentle nature and easy going temperament.

In fact the American Temperament Test Society Inc. gave the breed an 83.4% passing rate as opposed to the 81% assigned to dogs in general. What happened? How has this easily trained, friendly animal become such a vicious killer that the provincial government of Ontario Canada has banned it?

As of Monday August 29th it will be illegal to purchase, breed or import any animal considered falling into the category of a pit bull. There is a grandfather clause exempting animals already owned, as long as they are sterilised, muzzled and controlled in public. Any pups born before November 27th of this year are also exempted from the ban.

This has raised fears among those who run shelters that current owners will just start either abandoning their pets or dumping them on humane societies. In a Canadian Pressarticle John Roushorne, general manager of the Windsor-Essex Humane Society says that all he can do is put them down.

"We can't take dogs we identify as being pit or mixed pit as anything other than a euthanasia…We have no place to put them, I'd have them stacked on top of each other if I wasn't euthanizing them." John Roushorne, Canadian Press article.

Prior to the ban many municipalities had already put restrictive by-laws in place concerning the control and ownership of pit bulls. Windsor has had a ban in effect for a year now. Mr. Roushorne estimates that since that time he has seen a minimum of twenty animals a week turned into the shelter. He calls this a significant increase in the numbers from before the ban was enforced.

Across the province the worry is that this activity will be repeated in shelter after shelter. It is feared that people will simply get rid of their animals rather than be bothered with complying with the stringent measures required by the law for owning a pit bull. It's when you hear about behaviour like this by owners, that the real problem starts to be revealed.

All dogs, no matter their size or breed, are extremely territorial when it comes to their home space, food, or those it considers its pack or family. Knock on the door of any home that has a dog in residence and more often or not it will begin to bark. Walk by a yard where a dog is tethered and he or she will let you know that this is their territory and you'd better not come in without permission.

Any dog has to be properly trained by its owner to ensure of its compliance with your wishes. The trouble is very few people seem to want to make that effort. For whatever the reason, either laziness or some misguided belief that training is bad, the result is the same: an uncontrollable animal.

How many times have you been threatened by some teeny tot of a dog? Everyone laughs and says how cute. But that means the owner hasn't trained it. Translate that mentality to a large dog like a pit bull and what happens? What was cute in the Yorkshire terrier is potentially fatal in a pit bull.

How many times have you or someone you known been nipped by your pet? Dogs bite people all the time, but it hardly ever develops into an issue and the breed isn't labelled a "killer" or a danger. Compare the jaws of the majority of breeds and a pit bulls. What would be passed off as a nip when performed by any other animal develops into a serious injury when delivered by a pit bull.

Their jaws are designed to lock in place when they clamp down. These are the descendants of animals that were used in that delightful old pastime of bear baiting. They were genetically bred for the ability to get a tenacious grip upon an animal more than twice it's size and not let go under any circumstances.

For every responsible dog owner, there is an equal number, if not greater, of irresponsible ones who cannot be bothered to properly train their animals. They think that their duty to the animal ends with feeding and maybe taking it for a walk once in a while. Of course there are the owners who pretty much ignore their animal and leave it tied up outside all the time.

I'm sure every neighbourhood has one of these unfortunate creatures whose howls and cries can be heard at most times of day or night. Dogs are social creatures and need company or they get lonely and miserable. A dog left outside is an unhappy dog; an unhappy dog can easily turn into a dangerous animal.

When talking about pit bulls most people tend to make sweeping generalizations: the breed is inherently dangerous, they have been bred to be vicious, and they are unpredictable and will attack without provocation. While it is true that the animal was used for "sports" like bear baiting, and is still in demand for dog fights, this had more to do with their physical characteristics than any psychological condition they have inherited.

There may be instances when a particular dog comes from an inbred line that causes it to behave erratically, but that can be true of any breed. Most behaviour on the part of an animal is learned behaviour. Pavlov's famous experiment with dogs and conditioning is the most obvious example of this, but one only needs to think about the differences between an animal that reacts on an instinctual level as compared to one that is rational to see how this is true.

In the wild its mother teaches an animal how to survive. In the case of predators, like dogs, this includes how to use the weapons at their disposal to quickly and easily bring down prey. She also keeps them in line through the use of punishment and rewards that are often commonly used by humans when training an animal.

A young wolf or coyote pup that gets out of line will either receive a cuff to the head or a quick nip to correct its behaviour. It quickly learns to associate pain with things it shouldn't do and stops doing them. Instead explaining things in terms of why and why not as a human mother could do with her children, a wild mother has to quickly prepare her offspring to survive without her. Training by conditioning is the most efficient tool for that process.

This holds true for the human animal interaction; a dog will learn how to behave based on how it is treated by its human companion. This susceptibility to suggestion is what makes all animals a potential threat if they are not treated well or even simply ignored.

I realize that this is somewhat of a generalization, but have you noticed the predominance of young males who own pit bulls? Or how many of these owners take some sort of perverse pride in their pet's potential violence? Its as if the owners see the dogs as some sort of proof of their masculinity. What impact is that having on the dog's mentality and conditioning?

The problem is not with pit bulls. The problem is with dog owners who don't want to take responsibility for ensuring that their animal is properly socialized. There are always going to be people who are going to buy a dog for the wrong reason, or who are not going to be bothered to take care of them.

I worry about a pattern developing. Another breed will be discovered that is violent and unpredictable. There will be emotional appeals made to the government to ban the animal, and we will go through the same process again.

The true solution is in implementing better legislation concerning the owning of pets. If you buy a pet, with the exception of a licensed breeder, you should have it sterilized within its first year. With an animal like a dog it must be properly trained to at least obey basic commands that allow the owner to restrain it orally.

We are the supposed rational creatures, shouldn't we be held responsible for our pet's behaviour? Everybody is quick to blame the animal in the case of an attack, but maybe we should be looking at the animal at the other end of the leash.

There have been some horrible attacks on children and others in unprovoked circumstances by pit bulls. Instead of dealing with the specific dogs in question, as would happen in any other breed, it has been concluded that these animals are too dangerous to exist in our society. That in of itself is a joke when you consider our society and our casual attitude towards human life. How many violent assaults occur on a daily basis and we still haven't banned humans.

Let's stop blaming those who are not the problem. The politicians have taken the easy way out on this one by banning pit bulls. Its probably too late to save them from extermination, and that will be what happens eventually. When everyone bans them, where are they going to go but under six feet of dirt?

But maybe when the next violent breed of dog appears we can exercise our rational minds and figure out a better solution. I hope so.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:15 AM | Permalink

"I'd never be a member of any club that would have me as a member"

Those immortal words of the most famous of the Marx philosophers have guided most of my major life decisions. Well, not really, but it could explain my antipathy to things like co-ops and communal living. Or maybe it's I just don't like people?

Whatever the reason I've been more than reluctant to join anything that involves more than one other person. That's probably why I've never had a problem with monogamy and adjusted to married life without a problem. But ever since those early report cards saying I didn't play will with others the story hasn't changed much.

Which makes it all the more surprising that I've joined two groups on the net. All right one of them is mandatory and I don't have to really chat with anyone. But the other is on a strictly volunteer basis. What's fascinating about this group is that they are talking from a completely different cultural perspective than the one I'm familiar with.

Instead of hearing thoughts shaped by the Western Judeo Christian ethos that developed my thinking process, I am privileged to listen, and occasionally comment, to a group composed primarily of people with Asian and Indian heritage.

As it is primarily a literary discussion group, the majority of the time I've never even heard of the book, or series of books under discussion. But since most of the titles talked about deal with lessons on how to live a good life, or other philosophical notions, I'm not totally left out of the loop.

I've long been opposed to the practice of what I call culture dipping. That is, taking an aspect of someone else's belief system and applying it out of context in your own culture. Not only is it usually inappropriate, but it's also insulting to the people whose ideas you are appropriating.

On the other hand learning another person's perspective is one of the things that allows for the discovery of common ground between cultures. If we continually look on other cultures and beliefs as "different" instead of trying to focus on similarities, we will continue to be a planet of strangers.

When the moments of synchronicity do occur it feels like a ray of sunlight has broken through a cloudbank. All of a sudden something that had made no sense a second before is a concept that you have always espoused and valued. Such a moment occurred during a recent discussion about the difference between needs and wants.

For the western mind the problem usually is learning how to separate the two. Most of us here in North America have no idea that there is even a difference. Take a look at our obsession with material wealth and that's not to great a leap of logic is it.

But as far as I can tell from experience, and that's all I have to go by, what it really comes down to is gratitude for the gifts we have. Once we learn to be grateful, our wants requirement is lessened.

Needs/wants tend to spring from some sort of dissatisfaction with our lot in life. When I find myself needing something I closely examine my real motivations for that item. For example I recently fixated on getting myself a laptop for writing. It would not have been the end of the world if I couldn't get one, but the reality was that it would make my wife's and my life easier.

She uses our desktop for graphic design, and right now is currently recording a CD of her music on it. We were starting to run into conflicts; with me needing to write and her needing to do her thing. My wanting of the laptop was to fulfill the need to satisfy both of our desires to be creative.

It is not the same as shelter or food or health, which are basic needs, but as the old union song says, "give us bread and give us roses too". There is more to life than just survival, quality of life must enter into the equation somehow.

Where the real problem lies is a definition of quality of life. Accumulation of material goods of any sort does nothing to improve the quality of anybody's life; it just adds clutter.

In order to live a want free life one must have the awareness to understand where ones own personal fulfillment lies. For me it was having the means to write whenever I needed to. For my wife it was having the means to work on her artwork and music as required. The $100 Canadian I spent on the laptop was a cheap price to fulfill all of that.

With that one purchase we are each able to do what is needed, and in the process find we want for less. Both of us had gone through periods in our life when we would buy things in an attempt to fill some hole or other in our lives. All that usually resulted from that was guilt over spending money we really couldn't afford.

Now this is a discussion that could occur quite easily between two western people. What made this unique for me was how it came up. Instead of simply being about the relative merits of material wealth it began with a concept alien to my way of considering things.

As I understood it the topic was responsibility to ones choices and ambitions. If we have striven for years to accomplish something, whether professionally or personally, it becomes our duty to fulfill that attempt. In that fulfillment all of our needs will end up being met.

I think of myself in this context and I realise the truth of that statement. Since a very young age I have always wanted to write. For a variety of reasons, I have never been able to commit myself to it in a serious manner until this year.

In the years leading up to now I have always experienced a level of dissatisfaction no matter what it was I was doing. Even when I thought that I was following my dreams, working as an actor, and the theatre, I was heavily addicted to alcohol and drugs. Suggesting a certain level of unhappiness.

It wouldn't matter whether or not I had the means to buy anything I wanted, or was stone broke, both of which I have experienced at various points in time. I could never eliminate that empty feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Despite living in circumstances that most people would consider unfortunate: I have a chronic pain condition requiring heavy medication and painful treatments, and which limits my physical activity to short walks; around the same time that I became disabled my wife's life was affected in a similar manner through a recurring condition of her own; we are now living on a provincial disability pension which barely meets our needs, let alone cover our debt payments from before we both took sick; I'm more content with my lot in life than ever before.

It is the rare occasion now when I find myself wanting something, that isn't needed. It's not like I spend my whole day writing either, so it's not as if I don't have time to brood upon things. It really is a matter of getting fulfillment from fulfilling my duty to myself

When I read that last sentence I can see how people might interpret that as very selfish behaviour. What about the needs of others, and your responsibilities to them and society as a whole? What about working for a living and all those things that have to be done whether we like it or not?

But how many of those responsibilities are dictated by wants instead of needs. If we desire to accumulate stuff, than we need the money to pay for it, than we require the means of obtaining money. Since that does seem to be the prime motivation in our society, than things like getting ahead and working yourself into an early grave become a responsibility.

This is where it is important to learn to differentiate between needs and wants. If raising a family is what you need to fulfill yourself than you do what you can to achieve that end. Since everything you are doing is helping you achieve that goal, than no matter what you are doing will be satisfying because it pertains to the primary need.

It's the difference between being forced to get a job and give up your dreams to raise an accidental family, or one that was not planned, and setting out with that goal in mind where the distinction is made clear. In the former everything is a responsibility and a burden, in the latter, you are doing what you want to do.

We've been raised in a society where we are told it is our duty to go forth and work to make money and raise a family. When you look at it dispassionately it's a pretty joyless existence. For a society of so-called individuals there is very little true individual freedom. We are born, go to school, work for x number of years, and than die. Maybe along the way we raise a family.

Is it any wonder that artists are looked upon with suspicion? They are one exception to the Protestant work ethic that dictates how we live our days. They are doing what they want to do and appear to be turning their back on responsibility. In truth they are being just as responsible as the next person, but instead of the dictates of our society, they are being responsible to themselves.

Who do you think is leading a more truly fulfilling life; the artist living in his garret painting, or the banker sitting in his office forty hours a week for forty years? Who's truly getting their needs met?

I made certain choices a long time ago, choices, which a lot of my friends and immediate family didn't and probably still, don't understand. I chose the path less traveled in our society of working as an artist, with all the risks and economic insecurity that accompanied it.

The thing is though, that because of that choice all those years ago, I'm sitting here today doing what I want to be doing and feeling like I'm not lacking for anything.

Different cultures have different views and attitudes towards the same subjects. These views are often reflected in the makeup of their society and how it operates. As the world continues to shrink and contact between cultures continues to grow, we need to take advantage of any opportunities to explain ourselves to each other.

The more we know about each other the less chance there will be for misunderstanding and uncertainty. I don't know if I completely grasped the topic that was under discussion in the group that day, or if I've even been able to explain it clearly, but every little piece of information I collect helps piece the puzzle that is our world together a little more each day.

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:47 AM | Permalink

I'm going to wade into territory that I would probably be better off staying out off, but since I don't know when to keep my mouth shut here goes nothing. The whole issue of team mascots being given pseudo Native American nicknames has always left a taste in my mouth, and not a good one. Now that the NCAA has finally gotten around to doing something about it, everybody is in an uproar over it.

It seems that this is an issue that won't go away. From the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins in professional sports through the college ranks with the Florida Seminoles and the Central Michigan Chippewa's to name just a few.

For the majority of these teams the mascots or nicknames have been a part of their identities for decades. In those innocent days before political correctness no one thought twice about the significance of either impersonating another race, or utilizing a nation's name as a signifier of a characteristic. In all of these cases the name was chosen in the belief that it represented a positive attribute that could be associated with the team.

Fierceness in battle, bravery, etc. were all characteristics that any sports team would love to embody. I mean what sounds better to you: The Cleveland Indians or the Cleveland Accountants.

The motivation behind the names is obvious. The intent was never negative; in fact some would even say they were positive because of the qualities that were emphasised. Why than, all the uproar about something as innocuous as a nickname or a mascot?

A stereotype even when construed as positive by those utilizing it, still only generates a one dimensional view of a people. It reduces the complexity of human nature down to a series of characteristics imposed on a people by outside forces. Instead of treating a race of people like individuals they are lumped together into a singular category.

All black people have rhythm and are good athletes, Jewish people are good with money, and Asians are studious are observations and commentary made by others. It becomes up to them to prove that they are capable of doing something other than what is considered normal for a person of their type.

Have you ever heard of "white" males ever be defined in that manner. Can you name any specific trait that they are assigned in the same manner as described above? Not in our society. Perhaps if we were to live where our culture wasn't predominating we would learn what it's like to be on the receiving end of that kind of treatment.

When a race of people, or any grouping of individuals; religion for example, are defined by attributes decided upon by others, there is the risk of dehumanization. That is the breeding ground for ideas of racial superiority, and ultimately things like ethnic cleansing.

In our not too distant past many people believed that some races were superior to others. As recently as the 1990's people were making claims such as Asians are smarter than whites who are smarter than blacks. The majority of us have outgrown such sentiments, in regards to the majority of ethnic groups, but remnants of cultural bias still remain in our society.

"I watched the movies and saw the kind of Indian I was supposed to be. A cinematic Indian is supposed to climb mountains. I am afraid of heights. A cinematic Indian is supposed to wade into streams and sing songs. I don't know how to swim. A cinematic Indian is supposed to be a warrior. I haven't been in a fistfight since sixth grade and she beat the crap out of me. I mean, I knew I could never be as brave, as strong, as wiser as visionary, as white as the Indians in the movies." Sherman Alexie: "I hated Tonto(still do)". Los Angeles Times 1998.

Sherman Alexie is Spokane/Coeur d'Alene Indian poet, author, screenwriter and director. In books like Reservation Blues and Indian Killer he illustrates the ways in which the stereotype of the noble savage is perpetuated. The stone-faced, stoical, mystic warrior never appears on the pages of his books except in the imagination of non-natives.

There are urban Indians going to school, getting drunk, being lawyers and living lives just like their white counterparts. There are reservation Indians living life of desperate poverty, and there are the ones who have fallen so far that they will never get back up again from their seat on skid row. But not a one amongst them is a fierce warrior, any more than you or me.

If all of a sudden Indians were integrated into our society: taught in our schools, argued cases in our courts, just generally became part of our accepted landscape, how long would those nicknames persevere? These harmless nicknames and mascots are a symbol of the marginalized nature of their existence.

With the exception of Notre Dame's Irish how many sports teams make use of anything pertaining to ethnicity aside from those employing Native American mascots and nicknames? Why is less acceptable to call a team The Washington Blackskins than the Washington Redskins? Why is it okay for the University of Illinois to have a white person put on red make up and pretend to be native and not to put on black face and pretend to be black?
If it is considered offensive to display one race as a one-dimensional character why is it allowed for another? Any school with the nickname of "Coons" and using a Minstrel Show mascot, who tried to defend their actions on the grounds of tradition would be dismissed as racist and backward.

The issue of mascots and nicknames is not as grey as some people would like you to think. Just because an injustice has been ongoing for years and years is not justification for it continuation. The segregation of schools and buses was a tradition that was abolished, as was slavery. Obviously these were more overt forms of racisms and oppression than what is being discussed here, but in there own way mascots are equally harmful.

In fact their seeming innocuousness makes them even more difficult to combat. It's very easy to say: "Oh what's the harm?" or "Lighten up, it's just a little harmless fun" But every generation who performs the Tomahawk Chop, or sees another white man dressed up like an Indian waving a tomahawk and clapping his hand over his mouth making whooping noises, is another who's view of Indians is limited to a one dimensional cartoon.

I'm not native, but I have dark skin and long dark hair and am often mistaken for one. With reactions ranging from people actually saying "How" or calling me "Chief" it only tells me that we have a long way to go before acceptance as equals is possible.

To those of you who say lighten up it's only a mascot I say your right. If it's only a mascot you can change it. What's a mascot or a nickname as compared to basic human dignity? Nothing. It's time for people to grow up and remember there are more important things than games.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 07:17 AM | Permalink

The Proclaimers are back! Instead of having to wait four or even seven years between releases, as fans have in the past, Restless Soul reaches stores only two years following its predecessor. Already available in the British Isles the disc will be released in North America on September 6th.

On first listen things sound pretty much the same: great harmonies, ringing acoustic guitars, gritty, realistic lyrics, and a driving beat. But from the first track on there is a noticeable difference. First, the production values are more sophisticated than one has come to expect from a Proclaimer's disc.

Strings make sporadic appearances filling out the sound and adding previously absent texture. Previously known for an almost in your face approach to their presentation, it feels like they've taken a step back from their microphones in an attempt to make a more intimate album.

In keeping with this the tracks on the disc have a more introspective theme. "When Love Struck You Down", "Turning Away", and the title track "Restless Soul" have the brothers turning a microscope on the inner workings of love and motivation. In fact as a whole the album seems preoccupied with the nature of relationships.

From the simple joy of a shared post coatis moment in "That's Better Now" and the pleasure of re discovering the reasons behind love in" What I Saw In You" one gets the feeling that they have set out to write pop love songs for adults. Instead of typical juvenile teenage infatuations, this is a celebration of the joys of a lasting love.

Of course not all love can be idyllic. "He Just Can't" is about the denial a man goes through when he realizes he has crossed the line of no return by beating his wife. "He just can't face the fact," repeats the refrain over and over again. Simple words that convey complex emotion and one simple fact: abusers just don't get it.

Examination of love wouldn't be complete without one good obsessive, bordering on stalking, love song. "Bound For Your Love" is not about stalking, but it shows how we can get so wrapped up in a person that we can't be apart from them and tend to make fools of ourselves in the process.

Of course not all love is between people. "I'm Gone" is a tongue in cheek peon to the simple pleasure of drinking just one too many on occasion. While lyrics such as "All of my fear and most of my pain ran hand in hand to catch the last train…" are a clear indication of the escapist quality of drinking to excess, the song is also a healthy contrast to the puritanical attitude that having more than two drinks makes you an alcoholic.

For those of you looking for the anthem like songs of the Proclaimers, past "D .I. Y." will fit the bill. D. I. Y. is the British acronym for do it yourself. Here the Reid brothers are instructing all those who either manufacture weapons or send people off to war to just show us how it's done and kill themselves.

" Warmongers kill yourselves, Demonstrate the power of the product that your trying to sell. Gun wavers shoot yourselves, make a big hole in your head with a shiny shell". "D. I. Y." Restless Soul, The Proclaimers

Not since Bob Dylan's "Master's of War" have I heard such a ringing condemnation of both the armament industry and those old people who have no trouble sending people half their age off to die in battle. The sentiment of, maybe there would be less war in the world if those who did the ordering and building actually experienced it is an old one, but one that bears repetition.

The disc ends with two songs dealing with death and mortality. "Now and Then" is about the brothers' father who died a couple of years ago. It talks about how once the rawness of new grief wears off one still has moments of regret.

"If I cry, you just smile and sigh, I never said goodbye, I never will" Those three lines sum up the spirit of the song; not wanting to forget somebody is one thing, but holding on to grief serves no purpose. It's also indicative of the nature of the whole album, simple, real emotions served up in a matter of fact manner; as opposed to the melodrama of most pop music.

"One more down" is about not knowing what comes after we're done on earth. Everyone has his or her ideas of course, but we will only find out the truth of the matter when we die.

"One more down, some more to go. Then I'll know or I won't know. If all the songs I hear you sing are everything or anything." "One More Down", Restless Soul, The Proclaimers.

The Proclaimers have always been different from the norm in the world of pop music. In style and substance they have managed to separate themselves from the pack by their unique blend of acoustic music and punk in your face attitude. In North America, at least, they are a refreshing alternative to the generic sounds that predominate on rock and pop charts.

Restless Soul is no exception. If it's slightly more introspective than previous releases, that's only to be expected. When musicians who sing with passion and from the heart, as the Reid brothers do, change and grow as people, so does their music. Restless Soul is pop music sung by adults for adults.

Restless Soul will hit the shelves of music stores in North America on September 6th and the Reid brothers will be hitting our shores two days latter to start their North American tour in Hamilton Ontario. The first part of their tour will see them travelling down the eastern seaboard, across the mid west in both Canada and the U. S., and ending up in the House of Blues in Los Angeles on October 11th. For a full listing of tour dates check out the gig section of their web site.

Look for an interview with one of the Reid brothers at this web site in the near future.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:35 AM | Permalink

"Walk softly and carry a big stick" Teddy Roosevelt is quoted as saying in reference to foreign policy. In some ways it could also be the new motto for environmental groups. As human presence on the planet continues to grow, means of curtailing our impact on the natural world become even more pressing.

The primary means of doing this should be through education on how everyone can decrease the effect they have on living here, and punishing those who step over the line. There is already a means for measuring our "Footprint's" depth based on the amount of resources used and waste created by individuals and cities.

When the data is assembled calculations can be made estimating the number of "earths" it would take to sustain a family or city to continue living their current lifestyle. Factors such as what type of foods are eaten, how many cars are driven (and used by how many people) are considered to try and generate an assessment of the drain on non sustainable resources and waste generation.

At present this system is nothing more than a rough gauge against which we can judge our behaviour patterns in an effort to live in a more sustainable manner. Serious adjustments would need to be made to incorporate enough factors to make this an accurate standard by which we could judge the impact a business has on the environment.

There are two major concerns that are not taken into consideration in the "Footprint" measurement. One is the consumption and use of both fresh and salt water; the other is the speed at which sustainable goods are spent.

The real problem facing the world is not, as most people think, the depletion of non- sustainable goods, but the speed at which we go through sustainable ones. Although the earth is able to replenish itself, it is not able to keep up with our demands. This is the cause of famines, droughts, and any other shortages experienced on a regular basis throughout the world.

Water consumption is of major importance as it is such a vital component of life. It is imperative in any impact study that the effects on the water table as well as on any bodies of water in the vicinity are considered. Omitting that is the equivalent of not considering the health of a human's blood in the search for an illness.

Currently we have a piecemeal system in place. Individual statistics are gathered on an industry's CO2 emissions, or the water's near by a plant are checked for pollutants on a complaint only basis. It's unfair to both industry and the planet in its methodology and effectiveness.

By only being able to catch or discover cases of pollution after the fact the damage has been done, and in some cases is irreversible. A Footprint based system would allow an agency like the Environmental Protection Agency (E. P. A.) to set standards that would be easy to enforce and follow.
As the Footprint also measures resource usage, it could serve as a means for a company to increase efficiency in methods of production, there by saving them money. Perhaps they are a plastics company, which manufactures patio furniture using pre-cut forms and moulds. There would be an amount of waste material left over which would be discarded.

If the company began an internal recycling program, they could turn the waste back into raw material to be poured into new moulds. Not only would they save on material costs they would decrease the size of their ecological footprint. Even if only a percentage of recycled material could be reused in each new product, it would still represent a savings on all fronts.

According to Native American belief the world is one huge interconnected web: pull on one string it affects the whole, cut one string the whole is irrevocably damaged. The Footprint measurement allows us a way of measuring how hard each of our endeavours plucks a string in the web.

I will also serve as an instruction manual for being able to take steps to rectify problems. If we are willing to make a little effort the return would be inestimable. Not only would sustainable business practices improve the environment, they will also improve the bottom line.

If you were wondering what happened to the big stick, well that's what would have to be used on any transgressors. If clear guidelines are set forth on how business is to be conducted there can be no excuses for failure to comply. Anyone straying outside their parameters would have to be punished severely enough to act as a deterrent for others.

We have only the one planet, and there is only so much that it can provide before it is used up. Without proper management and care we won't have any resources left to use in the future. What type of profits anyone expects to be able to make from prospects like those is beyond me.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:32 AM | Permalink

Oil. It makes the world's economy go round. It's the rumoured cause of the wars in Iraq. It's also what emerging economic powers like China and India need most to ensure they keep up with the developed world.

Which all explains both countries recent interest in acquiring control of Canadian owned PetroKazakhstan(PetroKaz) "China National Petroleum Corp", China's largest oil and gas company, has recently out bid India's state owned oil company, "Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd." in a bidding war for rights to control the oil fields of Kazakhstan.

The location of these lucrative fields would be a natural fit for either country given each's proximity to the country of origin. Having a ready supply of local oil will improve their trade balance, and cut costs even further for two already low overhead economies. China's coming out on top of this deal can only increase the impact their economy is having on global markets.

All though China and India have just announced an agreement, which will see their countries combining efforts to bid on energy assets, they are still pursuing their own targets as well. They are not limiting themselves to just oil fields either, anything connected to the petrochemical field is considered essential; plastics are of special importance.

At present, everyone's favourite market place for doing natural resource deals seems to be those old hewers of wood and carriers of water people Canada. According to the "Globe and Mail" there are a number of factors contributing to Canada's appeal as a place to buy your very own petroleum company.

First is the fact that there is plenty available to pick and choose from, second we are not a war zone, or even near by to one, and finally our dollar is still low enough to make purchases relatively cheap. It's not only oil that's being bought up, nor is it only China and India doing the buying. Both French and Swiss companies have bought up interests in mining operations in recent purchases and are looking to buy more. Even that old stalwart of Canadian industry, Inco, could be on the market.

The real money is still over in the oil business. The Chinese are paying way above share value for the companies that they are buying, thus making them hard offers to refuse. Some market analysts are putting this down to inexperience in the world market place, or the fact that they are subsidised by the state so don't have to worry about profit and loss margins and stock holders.

On the other hand, I wonder if its not deliberate policy. Knowing how dependant they are on Oil for the continuation of their economic growth, does it not make good sense to secure self-sufficiency? Even if the initial out lay seems a little steep, it's better than finding yourself at the mercy of others a little further down the road.

Look at the situation that both America and Canada are in right now. Fuel prices at the pump are going through the roof for the average motorist. Small, insignificant military powers like Venezuela can threaten the U. S. by threatening to turn off the taps and cut off access to a cheap supply of oil.

You would think that Canada would be in a better situation, having Alberta's resources to draw upon, but the division of powers and rights in Canada gives provinces control over their own natural assets. They are under no obligation to supply any more than negotiated, to the rest of Canada. It all comes down to where they feel they can get the best price. (The quagmire that is inter-provincial relationships is a subject best left for another time and place. Sufficient to say that oil and gas have always been a bone of contention between Alberta and the federal government in Ottawa)

The biggest puzzle for me is why the United States has never made similar moves to those that China and India are making. They could have locked up oil assets years ago by purchasing controlling interest in companies north of the border. Instead of frittering away lives and money in trying to control unstable markets in the Middle East they could have laid out cash and bought in to a stable oil market close to home.

Is there some sort of provision in The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that prevents our countries from purchasing each other's natural resource assets? Even if that were the case there is nothing preventing them from signing agreements to be supplied by any number of companies with oil. The west coast of America already receives the majority of its electrical power from British Columbia Hydro Electric.

Now of course it would be too late. Both China and India seem to be willing to make these acquisitions in a no matter what the cost manner. This leaves little or no room for other corporations to manoeuvre.

Together China and India make up close to a third of the world's population. Only in India has the use of personal motor vehicles caught on, and even than, it is nowhere near as wide spread as it is in Europe and miles apart from North America. The majority of their oil usage is directly related to their industry.

If both India and China can develop their own consistent supplies of oil, and keep the demand limited to what is required for industry, their ascension as world economic powers is assured. Our obsession with the war on terror has left us blind to the fact that our economy is in deadly peril of falling into a pit that it may never climb out of.

If things stay on the course they're running now, it's soon going to be us wandering around the world with hat in hand looking for help. I hope they offer better interest rates than we did.

Cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:29 AM | Permalink

"Some of us are illegal, and some are not wanted. Our work contracts out and we have to move on. Six hundred miles to that Mexican border, They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like thieves." Deportees Woody Guthrie.

When Woody Guthrie wrote the lyrics to this song he was commenting on the plight of the migrant workers hired to pick fruit and vegetables along the American/Mexican border. The workers were not limited to only one geographical destination. They would be hired to work as far north as The Holland Marsh growing fields just outside of Toronto Canada.

The practice of hiring "temporary labourers" on low paying contracts continued on into the 1960's until the United Farm Workers managed to organize the pickers and pressure the growers into providing living wages. Although this has alleviated the problems faced by the migrant workers, it has done nothing to relieve the illegal immigrant problem faced across North America.

While both Canada and the United States have laws that clearly define who is allowed to work in each country, it seems more and more people are looking for ways to circumvent the legislation in both countries. Whether it's individuals or corporations, or the immigrant them-self lying about their status, they are all complicate in the commission of this crime.

For the employer there is the obvious advantage of not having to pay any benefits, or even comply with any local labour laws when it comes to hiring an illegal. The employee gets a much-needed job to keep them-self alive. The practice of hiring illegal workers has led to a thriving black market economy based on the smuggling of people across borders.

They get shipped to Canada as either stow-a-ways in container bins or in the cargo hold, than are smuggled off the ships. From there they either disappear into the cities to work as slave labour for a number of years, or continue on down to the States via one of the various smuggling routes across the border.

Although this practice is bad enough on its own to be condemned, it has the unfortunate effect of tarring legitimate immigrants with the brush of illegality. For reasons that escape me, there has always been a degree of resentment in North America against immigrants. These cases of illegal immigration are fuel for people who position themselves against immigration.

Their arguments are aimed to appeal to our selfish and emotional aspects: they steal jobs from us, they are a drain on the public purse, and, the newest one, they may be terrorists. It leaves me wondering if any of these people have ever picked up a history book in their lives. Where would Canada and the United States be if it weren't for immigration?

Four hundred years ago, in 1605, who actually lived here? Not us. It doesn't matter if you can trace your family back to Champlain or the Mayflower; you are the descendant of immigrants. Talk about leaches on society. If it hadn't been for the Indians, neither the early French settlers, or those folks who landed at Plymouth Rock, would have survived their first winters here.

Every person living in North America, even some Native Nations, is an immigrant from another country. Compared to civilizations around the world in fact, we are all recent arrivals. All of our families, no matter the ethnic background, face a period of adjustment lasting up to a generation in length if not sometimes longer.

Each new wave has received government support and sustenance of some sort or another. Whether homesteaders being give free acres of land and a couple head of cattle, or a refugee from some war torn country receiving the benefits of our social system, it all amounts to equivalent support. Times change and so do the means of supporting immigrants.

Canada and the United States have long declared themselves beacons of hope and freedom for the oppressed of the world.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

These words engraved upon the base of the Statue of Liberty emblanise the sentimants that our forebearers presented as our face to the world. A haven and a refuge for those looking to begin a new life.

Wave upon wave of hopeful faces filled Ellis Island and the port of Halifax waiting to begin their new lives. Now Ellis Island stands empty and Halifax is unloading only goods. Today's refugee's land in our airports to be processed in antiseptic waiting rooms by uniformed guards who check that their paper work is all in order.

Automatically treated with suspision now instead of welcome, the difficult task of aclimatizing for a new comer has been compounded by our attitudes. What has caused us to be so selfish that we don't want to share those gifts that we're given our families? When and why did we start closing the door?

The first indications that circumstances were changing came as early as the 1930's when Jews fleeing Adolf Hittler's Germany were being refused entry by the governments of both Canada and the United States. While no proof exists to support the theory, unfortunately nothing else makes sence, rampent anti semitism among the elite of both countries has long been blamed for this travesty of justice.

Sadly this was only the onset of North American xeonophobia. Each new wave of immigration (going back to the 19th centurey head tax on Chinese immigrants) has been greeted with hostility. Either through government edict like the Chinese and Jews or from individual's bigotry against something different.

One of the nastier examples of this in recent memory was in the 1970's in Toronto Ontario. Idi Amin Dada, dictator of Uganda, had decided to purge his country of all non Africans. The result was that all people of Asian and Indian decent were forced to flee for their lives.

A sizeable chunk of these people ended up in Toronto. The majority of these people had been professionals back in their native Uganda, doctors, lawyers, etc., but here were forced to make menial jobs just to make ends meet. Typically the cry went up from the bigots that they were taking jobs away from Canadians.

The logic behind that arguement has always defeated me. If these jobs are available for someone to do, that means that no one else wants them. How many white anglo saxons do you find in kitchens washing dishes and scrubbing the grease pits in a major metropolitan centre? Usually it's some guy with a degree in nuculer physics whose has too much pride to go on welfare.

In Canada what strikes me as funny about the people who do most of the complaining, is the fact that most of them haven't held a job in ages. But these same people would never dream of doing anything like washing dishes, even though they aren't qualified for much more. It's a typical case of finding a scrapegoat instead of accepting responsibility for your own situation.

When one travels across Canada out to the western provinces, it's interesting to notice the makeup of various farming communities. There are whole towns that are of Ukrainion or other eastern European country, descent. Family groups and villages from the old country would come over here and be transported directly to the place we needed people to live the most.

It didn't hurt that these people were from a similar climate as the praries, but it still serves as an example of how immigration has assisted in the development of our country. Without them Canada would never have achieved its goal of streching from sea to sea. There is no reason why this sort of directed immigration policy can't be established again.

In Canada we are land rich and people poor. Currently we are desperate need of population growth outside of the southern Ontaro and western Quebec corridor along the St. Lawrence river. Why not set up simillar programs as we had then to encourage populating our sparse landscape?

If we stopped treating immigration as a problem and a threat, and examined our own not too distant histories to see how it has benefited us in the past, I'm certain we could find a way to open our doors again. Once we did that it would certainly cut back on the illegal immigrant problem.

If we are serious about dealing with illegal immigration, than we need to make it as unprofitable as possible for companies who participate in the employment of those not eligable to work in our respective countries. Any corporation with any connection to the use of illegals, no matter how removed they claim to be, should be fined heavily and their excutives responsible for personal decisicons jailed.

Take for example the case of Walmart who were accused of hiring illegals as cleaning staff. They defended themselves by claiming it was the contracter they used who was responsible. But since Walmart awarded the contract, probably based on the cheapest bid, it is still they who are responsible for the who is working in their stores. They should be held accountable for their failure to do due dillagence in the awarding of the contract.

Governments must lead the way in creating the means of ensuring the demise of traffic in humans. Offer amnesty to any illegal who is willing to give evidence against smuggelers of human cargo. Local police forces need to strengthen their ties with immigrant communities so that they are treated as allies in the fight against this new form of slavery, not the enemy.

In the past few years we in North America have learned just how precarious a place the world can be. One would have hoped that it would have increased our compassion for those fleeing strife torn lands and desperate situations. Instead we have given into our fears, whose flames have been fanned by the media and our politicians, and selfishly deny the succour given our families not so long ago.

What would have happened if the first nations people had let the settlers starve four hundred years ago? Would more settlements have been attempted, or would the whole thing been abandonded? Obviously we can only guess at the answers, but I would think if there had not been such a freindly welcome, neither country would have developed at the same rate of speed or in the same manner.

By allowing fear to dictate our lives and change the values that created these two great countries, we have lost the war on terror before it even got started. We only play into the hands of terrorists when we react in a bigoted and close minded manner. We're better than that. Let's prove it by opening our borders and our hearts to those who wish to escape terror and start their lives anew.

To paraphrase John F. Kenedey: " The light from their endevours will illuminate the our place in the world"

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 07:59 AM | Permalink

"A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But here, in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn't easy. You may ask 'Why do we stay up there if it's so dangerous?' Well, we stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: tradition!" Tevye: Opening lines of Fiddler on the Roof. Directed by Norman Jewison. Script: Sholom Aleichem. Music: Joseph Stein.

Tradition. I can't hear that word without superimposing a Russian/Jewish accent on to it. Indelibly carved into my brain is the image of the actor Topol standing, legs apart, arms spread, extending that word in song for what seems like an eternity.

Tradition. The movie, and I assume the play as well, Fiddler On The Roofhas as one of its themes, the intrusion of modern life into a small Jewish farming village, or shetle as they were known in Yiddish, in pre communist Russia. With these intrusions come conflicts between what has always been done, tradition, and increasingly liberal attitudes.

Tradition we are told from the beginning, via the song of the same name, is the glue that keeps the fabric of the community together. It is our instruction manual and blueprint for leading the good life. The song asks without traditions where would we be?

Tradition tells us who we can marry, what we can eat, how to treat our neighbours, and how to pray. From the moment we are born, our feet follow in the steps of our fore parents, without deviation. With tradition as our guide, we can't go wrong.

What happens when tradition and want come into conflict? When is the time for tradition to bend and be flexible? When does tradition stop being the beautiful tapestry of our past, illustrating life, and become the shackles that tie is into backwardness and bigotry?

Tevye is faced with increasing demands upon his willingness to bend with the times, until he is no longer able to and snaps. His tests come in the form of his daughters and their choices of husbands. In the case of his eldest, it is simply her desire to marry for love instead of following the dictates of the matchmaker. Although it means surrendering his dreams of wealth, he is able to bend with grace and allow her to follow her heart.

It's the youngest two daughters that bring things to a head. The middle child falls for a secular Jewish communist. He cannot abide the thought of his daughter marrying a non-believer. He only reconciles with her when, after her husband is arrested, she must move away to be close to where he is imprisoned.

The third daughter does the unforgivable and marries a Russian soldier. She is disowned and never spoken of again. Not until the whole village is forced to pack up and leave for the New World, and she and her husband join them, is there any sign of reconciliation. Tevye sees that his beloved traditions have not held back the other great tradition that buffets Jews. Their welcome wears out, and they have to move on.

Traditions are handed down from generation to generation. They are transmitted in forms ranging from the oral stories told by tribal people that import survival and moral lessons; to texts like the Old and New Testaments, and The Qur'an, (Koran); and epic poetry like Homer's Odyssey, Virgil's Aenied, and Valmiki's Ramayana.

The problem with writing things down is that it gives them the power beyond their words. Once something is on paper, it is equivalent to being carved into stone for all its flexibility. Relevancy becomes an issue. In the thousands of years since some of these stories have been written the world has changed.

We have learned more about the nature of why and how things happen and came into being then were known by our fore bearers. An occurrence that were once explained away as magical or an act of God is now known to have logical explanations. Ideas that were once universally accepted, like the earth being flat and the sun and planets revolving around the earth, have been refuted.

Does it not follow logically than that the stories we use as guidance for living should not also be adapted to our current world. Don't they need to change with our understanding of the world in the same way we no longer believe we will sail off the edge of the world?

Stories that are teachings need to be relevant to the people reading them. Native American writers like Thomas King continues to use traditional characters like Coyote from their past, but incorporate them into present day native realities. This type of integration keeps a culture from stagnating.

If we continue to be hind bound by the past, we end up retaining elements that may have been appropriate to another age, or may never have been appropriate at all. Attitudes towards women have changed in society, yet certain traditions continue to oppress them and treat them like less than chattel. That's not something we should encourage, so we need to adapt our stories to reflect changing attitudes.

It seems like segments of Christianity and Islam (Not meaning to pick on those two, but they are the obvious example) are very resistant to this concept. Adherence to traditions that are out of step with the realities of today's world is the cause of some of our worse conflicts.

Without archaic beliefs to fortify them, do you think we would have the proliferation of suicide bombers that we see today? How much better off would the world be if proper birth control and protection against Sexually Transmitted Diseases were available in the developing world. With both Muslim and Christian backed governments imposing their beliefs through aid packages conditional upon non-involvement in anything resembling family planning, the likely hood of that happening soon is slim.

Tevye discovers that tradition can be a comfort, but it also can be a curse. We need to learn that lesson. We need to stop letting traditions pull is into the past, but start bringing them forward with us, into the future.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:50 AM | Permalink

This is the second part of a two part interview I conducted via email with Indian author Ashok Banker. Ashok is best known currently for his adaptation of the classic Indian epic The Ramayana. In this part of the interview he discusses some of what motivates him, reactions to his work, future plans, and a little about the culture of India. Part one can be read here

You've mentioned in comments we've exchanged and in some of your postings that you want to reclaim Indian history for Indians. Can you elaborate on that and explain how your version of The Ramayana fits into that motivation.

Would Americans be willing to have Vietnamese, or Burmese, or Germans, or Russians, write their history, their textbooks, govern them, and force their language, script, customs, religion, system of governance, legal system, etc, etc, upon them for four hundred years, and then expect them to continue those traditions unquestioned?

Would any country or culture, for that matter, accept another culture that invades and occupies them by force, be the only judge and narrator of their cultural myths and traditions and legends? Yes, of course, I wish to reclaim Indian history. Not only for Indians, but for all to read.

Wouldn't you rather know how an Indian writer perceives the Ramayana, or the Mahabharata, or various tales of Indian legend and history? Rather than, say, an English writer, or a French author? Or even a Canadian? Besides, I don't deny those people the right. I'm merely staking my claim to a right which has unjustly been denied me and other Indians ever since the East India Company banned the translation of Sanskrit and other edicts and scriptures into English two hundred years ago. (And surreptiously permitted only translations which erroneously showed Western superiority in everything from timelines to civilization development. Read the work of John Keay and many other British and Indian historians to learn more about this.)

I'm stating what should be an obvious right, and yet, I am the first Indian to tell the Ramayana in its full form, in an original individual voice ever since the original Sanskrit poem was composed, some four thousand years ago! Isn't that incredible? And what does that tell you about how much we were oppressed and suppressed, both culturally and politically?

In North America we have had our view of life in India formed by media images of poverty and overcrowding, Hari Krishna temples, Hollywood clich's, and the Beatles.
The Ramayana deals with a variety of real concepts, but in particular dharma. Can you elaborate on that concept and explain why it is so important?

Oh, let's not pretend those are false. They're not. We certainly do have poverty, overcrowding, Hare Krishnas, and all the clich's are indeed true. But the clich's are simply realities portrayed in a negative light, or for humorous, or worse, melodramatic effect. The reality of India is probably too complex for the western mind to comprehend easily and quickly. That's why those westerners who visit here, invariably stay on, fascinated and 'hooked' to the difference of our cultural milieu.

The first thing to understand is that India is a multiplicity, not a singularity. That is to say, everyone worships and believes in One God, because Hinduism is monotheistic, but the forms or avatars of that One God can be as many as there are worshippers.

It's an uniquely individualistic self-willed faith and culture. So dharma too is left to each person to decide. The Buddhist concept of Dhamma (spelt differently too) is quite different from the Hindu concept. And even among Hindus - not just sects, but individuals - dharma can mean many things. But mostly it is 'what is right'. And judging 'what is right' is left entirely to you.

Dharma is that precept that tells us that Bush is not just wrong, he is evil. And so is any nation that wages war upon others, with or without cause. Dharma is not always pleasant or nice, as in the Mahabharata, where it is used as Lord Krishna's justification for waging war upon one's family, or for committing murder. But it is 'what is right'.

It is the cornerstone of Indian life, not just Hindu, but Muslim, Parsi, Catholic, Sikh, everyone. It is in the water, air, our blood.

Dharma is the reason why Indians have never ventured out of this subcontinent and invaded another nation in ten thousand years of unbroken civilization. Or built armada or sent armies to explore and conquer other lands. At best, wars have been waged against invaders, or amongst neighbours.

As you know, humans are unique from other creatures in one respect: We are the only species that control the males. (We have company as warmongers, since ants also wage war on each other.) In India, the males are controlled not by the females or other males, but by Dharma itself. That is why we do not hesitate to bow or prostrate ourselves on the ground, flat out, and kiss the feet of a living priest or sacred person. Whereas in western society, people hesitate to bow the head let alone kneel to anybody short of God Himself.

Also, while western society has the tradition of killing their saints and saviors, India is exceptional to that as well. We are quick to believe, and slow to lose faith. This is dharma, greater than religion, community, nationality, sex.

What has the reaction in India been to the release of The Ramayana? How about countries abroad? Have some countries been more open than others to "foreign ideas"?

Fantastic. At first, things were up in the air as nobody really knew what to make of it, it being the first of its kind. Also, some sections of the media arrogantly dismissed the series outright, with an otherwise well-respected magazine Outlook claiming that it was a "sexed-up" fantasy. You've read it and you know just how much sex there is, if at all! None!

Other English media were quite scathing and bitchy, praising the books and the writing to the skies, using words like "milestone," "historic achievement," "epic labour of love", and so on, while taking potshots at me. The irony is that nobody had ever written anything based on Hindu mythology before and made a critical and commercial success of it before, but once I did, I was instantly criticized for having done it to make money! But even through all the bitchiness and carping, they were still praising the books to the skies.

You have to remember that in the Indian media's version of the caste system, writers are at the bottom of the ladder. Films stars are way at the top, because the media depends on them for regular interviews and features to keep selling their publications, while writers don't really command any circulation, so it's easy to take potshots at them.

Then there's the fact that most Indian journalists are wannabe writers and so they're hugely jealous of any successful author. Lastly, I've been a successful journalist and columnist, and I've crossed over to high profile success as a novelist, so that increases their envy tenfold.

But readers have been overwhelming. You have to remember that I was writing the first English-language Ramayana ever attempted. Most English-speaking Indians don't want to read the Ramayana because it's like reading the Bible, or the Koran. But once people started reading the books, they loved them! And word of mouth spread so fast, that the books quickly became bestsellers.

In fact, there's so much talk of US being a big market for books. But India is just as big a market, provided you have the right book. My Ramayana was evidently that kind of book, because my royalty statements clearly show the books selling out their first editions on publication.

Worldwide too, the response has been tremendous. People clearly love the books, as you can see from reader's responses on my website and critics have praised them highly too.

There's been some nastiness from bigots and racists in the US in particular, where I've been criticized for absurd things like using Indian words and not altering the books to suit American tastes, whatever those are.

On some forums like sffworld.com they seem to enjoy making up nasty little lies about me and the books, and claiming ridiculous things based on no evidence at all. But despite these American bigots, the series has caught on in the US and these days the most new 'converts' I hear from are US-based.

Overall, my audience seems to be pretty wide, from Germany to Japan, France to Malaysia, Canada to Israel, you name it.But there's also no question that the majority are Indians or people of Indian origin. As even my UK and US publishers Time Warner realized when they had to change the covers of the books to make them appear more "Indian" rather than typical "fantasy".

In the overseas edition you've included a glossary of Sanskrit words and their meanings within the context the particular usage in the book. What is the status of Sanskrit as a language? Like Latin and ancient Greek, something scholars learn to read old texts, a language of religion like Hebrew used to be, or is it still in common use?

Actually, that was at the request of my UK and UK publishers. I disagreed with the inclusion of a glossary, and that's why you won't find it in the Indian editions, even though most Indians are as unfamiliar with Sanskrit as readers anywhere else.

Sanskrit, in case you didn't know this, is a dead language, even in India. It's used by brahmin pundits (ritual priests) for ceremonies and rituals, but not generally spoken, written, or heard.

However, most Indian languages, Tamil in particular, are derived from Sanskrit and bear a close affinity. Sanskrit was never a language of religion, like Pali which became the medium for Buddhists, or Awadhi which was common speak for many North Indian Hindus.

This is a general question about Indian writing. Do you think there is such a thing as a distinctive voice in Indian writing? Would it depend on the language the story is written in?

This is a question best answered by readers rather than writers. I think yes, there is such a thing as a distinctive Indian voice, and it's heard most often in the ethnic Indian languages.

But in English? I don't know about others but speaking for myself, I don't think I write Queen's English, and certainly not Anglo-Saxon as the Americans like it written. One of the major criticisms I've had from American critics and readers was my 'voice' and my style.

One critic in Locus magazine complained that I even used an Indian word 'dhobi' when I could simply have used 'washer man' instead. In fact, I couldn't have used 'washer man' for the same reason that you can't generalize policemen, fire officers, army personnel, nurses, etc, all as 'uniformed people'.

In India we use a specific kind of language, a combination of Indian words and English, what we call Hinglish or Indian English (the title of my blog), and frankly, we're quite proud of it. It's the same 'style' that Salman Rushdie famously took from us and which made him so unique

You've assembled quite a list of projects that you want to tackle in your attempts to retell the history of India from an Indian perspective. I doubt there are many people who have heard of the majority of titles on the list, excluding the Ramayana could you offer a brief summery for each:
The Mahabharata - nine books The Krishna Coriolis - three books The Ganesa Palindrome - six books Tales of Devi - at least three books Epic India - over 20 volumes Indus Saga - five books related titles - five or six books

I'd rather write the books and let people find out about them in due course when they're published, than talk about them now. The best way to know what's next on my plate is to keep in touch with my blog

You have a film project in the works as well. I believe the title is Beautiful Ugly and is based on your childhood. Can you tell me how you came up with the title and its significance? Can we assume this will not be filled with Bollywood type musical numbers?

This is actually a book named Beautiful Ugly. But as usual, the media has focussed only on my plan to also produce a docu-feature based on the events described in the book. The documentary is a personal comment on the events and an attempt to place them in their social context and is really more of an audiovisual essay rather than a film. I plan to release copies of the documentary with the book when it's published.

No, this will definitely not be filled with musical or dance numbers - I'm sorry but to associate any Indian film with Bollywood musical dance numbers is one of the saddest developments of recent times. I particularly dislike Bollywood and those musical dance numbers as many other Indians do. It's like asking a Canadian author whether the film based on his book will have Mounties in it!

One final question before I let you go, what do you hope the average non Indian reader will get from reading these books? How about Indian readers?

If I could be frank, I'd say "nothing". That is, I wouldn't really advise the average non-Indian reader to read my books at all. That's harsh I know, but my books, the Ramayana series in particular, does require some understanding of Indian culture, if not a whole-hearted willingness to immerse yourself in a culture that predates Christianity, western culture and history, and even western mythology to some extent!

On the other hand, intelligent non-Indian readers who are eager to know more about Indian culture and the roots of world civilization in general, would certainly enjoy my books as entertaining and sometimes insightful glimpses into a great ancient culture.

Of course, I strongly recommend my books to Asian readers, because the whole continent shares affinities in myth and culture.

Well that concludes the interview. As usual, when dealing with the Internet, and technology nothing went as planed. We had hoped to be able to do this as a direct "conversation" exchange of emails. But due to server problems and real life on both sides of the world plans changed.

Ashok ended up receiving two emails containing the final six questions. He in turn sent me back answers in bulk form, which allowed me to cobble this interview together. I have done nothing to change or edit the sequence in which the questions were asked, and hopefully, there is some kind of flow.

I had a great time preparing for this interview, our emails in the run-up to setting a time were a wonder, as I tried to figure out when Thursday would be for both of us. By leaving it his hands we were able to pull this off. My deepest thanks go out to Ashok Banker for making his time available to me to conduct this interview.

Posted by Richard Marcus at 03:55 AM | Permalink

I never believed the hype about how the Internet would be able to bring people from different points around the world together. Well it's really nice to report on how wrong I was.

About six months ago I was wandering through a book store, and picked up a book on a whim: Prince Of Ayodhya book one or Ashok Banker's modern adaptation of the 3,000 year old Indian epic the Ramayana. I was immediately hooked. Thankfully for me the next two volumes had already been published so I was able to read volume two Siege Of Mithilaand three, Demons of Chitrkut without delay.

Having never heard of the writer I decided to do a quick Google search and found that not only did Mr. Banker have a web site but also a blog. (By the way, if you were ever looking to blame anyone for my presence in the blog universe you could lay it at Mr. Banker's feet. It was through his blog that I discovered Blogger's free spaces). The truly amazing thing about Mr. Banker was that he took the time to answer people's letters at his web site.
It was in this manner that I began communicating with him. When the fourth volume of the Ramayana was published, Armies of Hanuman, I sent him a copy of a review I had written for my blog and Blogcritics.org. Since that time we have exchanged thoughts through the comment section of his blog, and the web discussion group he founded, Epic India, dedicated to talking about the stories of India and related material.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that I thought of the idea of suggesting an interview with him. I knew he had been reading my work at blogcritis.org and had liked it, so I thought he might be open to the suggestion. Unfortunately, my timing couldn't have been worse.

Ashok lives in Bombay, and if you have been following the news they have had the worse monsoon season there in years, with horrendous flooding and mudslides claiming over a hundred lives. Things still aren't back to normal there as they now face the problems of combating water borne diseases. Last reports have over a hundred people already having died.

In spite of all this,and having to swim for a couple of hours in six feet of water, when I suggested the idea of the interview, he responded with enthusiasm. We decided that the best solution to the problems of distance and time differences was to pick a time when we could just email questions and answers back and forth from our computers. Since I wake at an obscenely early time in the morning, this seemed like the ideal plan.

So what you will be reading are his unedited email responses to my questions. Enjoy.

(This is part one of a two part interview. Look for part two tomorrow

There are few people in North America who know anything about you. Could you fill you in some of your biographical details, where you are from, why you write. You are pretty open about your less than ideal childhood, could you tell us how that influenced your writing

I was born and brought up in Bombay, now Mumbai, lived here all my life. My mother was an Anglo-Indian (please don't use the term "East Indian") and her mother, my grandmother, was Dutch-Irish-Scots. My grandma, in addition to being of foreign descent, was brought up by nuns in a convent school in Sri Lanka, and came to India in her twenties, first staying at Chennai (then called Madras) and later Mumbai (Bombay). She met and married a Goan Catholic, and had three kids in Byculla, a very central area of the city then, a kind of Brooklyn with a very mixed immigrant population of over 300,000 Jews who came here escaping the Nazis during WWII, Muslims, Parsis, American Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, and of course, Goan Catholics, Chinese immigrants, and a few Hindus too.

My mother grew up there and was a very precocious girl, quitting school, rebelling, modeling, (quite successfully) and generally being a much talked-about young woman of the time. She met my biological father, a US-and-Canada returned Gujarati Hindu who drove a Jaguar (brought back from the US) and the son of rich parents, and they married three months later, when she was still only 16. It was a disaster, they split up, and she came back to Byculla to live with her mother, where she had me.

My mother's life was ruined after the divorce, and she as well as my grandmother largely brought me up, mostly in Byculla as well as a number of homes in and around Bombay. I went to nine different schools, was sexually abused at a boarding school, and had a number of 'adventures' as a young boy, none of them pleasant, mostly violent, and involving family members engaged in drugs, alcohol, and petty crimes. I read a lot, wrote a lot, and descended into writing as a means of survival, not escape. I wanted to record what I was going through because I never thought I would make it out alive.

When I was 12, my mother was drugged and gang-raped at a party, and fell apart completely thereafter. From there on, she became my responsibility. Her second husband, my foster-father, dumped us, the family turned against us, and it was basically me and my mom from there on. So, with a sick psychotic and alcoholic mother to support, I had to drop out of college at 16, and started working. My dreams of becoming a novelist (I'd already written three novels and published several poems and articles by then, and was already gaining a name, was interviewed on national TV, radio and had a self-published book of poems represent India at a book fair in Paris) went on hold, and I took a job as an advertising copywriter.

My mother died in 1990, when I was 26, and I immediately quit my ad job and went back to writing full-time. By then, I was married with one kid (I had a second child later in 93) and with my childhood sweetheart whom I met at 16 and who's still with me, my wife Bithika.

From the very outset, I was hugely ambitious. I wanted not to change the world or win the Nobel Prize but to connect with as many people as possible emotionally, to write great sweeping epic sagas about Indian myth and legend - like the sagas and novels I read about western myth and legend - and to show the world what great ideas and stories we had to tell.

I meandered for a long time, struggling to deal with the detritus of my childhood, my mother's demolished life, my father's abandonment of us, my foster-father and my mother's family's neglect of us, and generally life was hard as hell. Financially, I was in a huge hole and in a sense, have barely climbed out of that hole and begun to walk on my own feet financially. But finally I'm writing what I want to write, and reaching out to some people and telling some of those stories that have been in me for so long.

Vertigo was your first novel that received recognition throughout India. In it you write about a young man supporting his mother in similar circumstances as your own. Was that part of the chronicling as a means of survival, or was it more of a purging. Can you tell us a little about that novel and what it meant to you?

Actually, my first books to get attention were three short crime novels - The Iron Bra, Murder & Champagne, and Ten Dead Admen - also hailed as 'the first crime novels in English' by an Indian author. Vertigo was written first and sold first, but published fourth. The crime novels got a fair bit of nationwide attention and gave me a label that was tough to shrug off later. Even Vertigo was mistaken for a crime novel, and as recently as 2003, journalists were still assuming that my Ramayana series was some kind of a modern-day thriller reworking of the epic!

Frankly, Vertigo was a novel. The fact that it was autobiographical in parts, and intensely so - the title refers to the sensation that reading the novel evokes in the reader, by the way - is incidental. There's as much fiction as fact in it, and even my Ramayana books are very autobiographical, although only I know where and how. To me, it was my first successful attempt at capturing the kind of realistic detailed quasi-journalistic style that I regard as the most important literary effect of late 20th century literature. Is that too pompous?

Sorry, but I'm just trying to tell you that I take my clues from journalism and non-fiction, and to me, something is fiction or non-fiction only in terms of labels. In reading terms, it simply is what it is, a story. The fact that it's based on truth, or not, is irrelevant to me.

For instance, I could be a fictional construct you made up and posed questions to for this interview, and then answered yourself. What does it matter that I'm a real person? It doesn't to me.

Bizarre as it sounds, it's at heart of my philosophy of writing. To blur the lines between reality and fiction.

You started out as a journalist, do you want to describe what that was like. You have some pretty strong opinions on the state of journalism in India right now, did that play a part in your deciding to focus more on novel writing? Or was the timing just right?

I started out writing everything, poetry, essays, fiction, but it was the poetry and essays that found publication first. Also, I realized early on that while journalism didn't pay much, there was a great need for writers who could comment on contemporary issues - or report on them. And I loved reporting, much more than commenting. To me, even fiction is reporting - except that one is reporting on things taking place in an imaginary place inside oneself, not out there in the real world.

I think that journalism in India right now, like elsewhere, is reduced to entertainment. There's more trash in the media today than in the bins of Bombay's streets. What we call the Page 3 culture here - party news, pics, gossip - and film and show biz celebrity coverage has taken over real journalism completely. The emphasis is on what makes the most interesting news.

I don't believe this is reader driven; it's a conscious decision by publishers to appeal to a certain section of readership - the most illiterate and least-intelligent section. In India at least, there are as many intellectually alive, educated, well-read people to sustain a newspaper, and the massive circulation of a Delhi newspaper like Hindustan Times, proves this point. It's entirely a choice here to publish (or to write or report on) party lifestyles and the rich and famous rather than report honestly and comment incisively, and that's the saddest thing: that it's not even a business necessity.

For instance, Times of India's Bombay edition is entirely a Page 3 rag, yet Hindustan Times, which came in only a month ago, is already hitting almost as much circulation as Times, while following a much more sensible kind of journalism.

In my opinion, blogging is the future. With individuals across the world reporting directly on things they've seen and heard first-hand, reporting one-on-one to people everywhere. Cut out the systems, the politicking, the petty rivalries of newspaper and media groups and professionals, the self-conceited journalists and editors. I can report, you can too. Let's do it. I think sites like blogcritics.org are doing a great service and very soon we'll see blogs being read for news and features and even comment much more than traditional news vendors in print or TV. And I'm all for that.

I'd like to follow up on something from a previous answer, the meeting of truth and fiction. When you start a project do you set out with an intent to make some point or other, or is the story the intent and points about life and society come out as it progresses. Rama's occasional comments on the caste system for example, the story is not about the caste system but since they are Indian that's a fact of life so they comment on it.

I write from within a story, that is, I don't plan externally or even know what I'm doing overall. I simply 'see' a point of view, Rama's for instance, and am transported there to that moment in time and space, in that very room (or forest or wherever) and see and smell and hear etc every detail. In fact, it's then a challenge to me how much I can describe and what to leave out, and to try to convey to the reader everything I'm 'experiencing'. In fact, to come back to the journalism connection, I consider writing fiction to be reportage too. Except that I'm reporting from 'another world', or 'another time', and so on.

About things like politics, caste system, prejudices, etc, I'd like to believe I'm so broad-minded I can tolerate anything--except intolerance. The caste system is a reality even today in India, but back then it was a fairly benign and transferable form of division of labour. You're quite right in saying that I simply write about it because it was there in that time period. To leave it out would be to lie. And how can I lie when I "see" and "hear" everything so vividly?

The same goes for present-day biases and ugliness, like war, which I am dead against. I will not stand by and watch warmongers like Bush and his administration (and the people of USA who support them, which is most of the population) wreak terror on the world. For instance, we speak so much about Islamic terrorism, but what about the people who really invented terrorism, the Christians? Have we forgotten Ireland? Bosnia? Lebanon? The Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The aggressors in all those cases were Christians--which actually defies the very definition of Christianity itself!
Continued at Part Two

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:30 PM | Permalink

It's actually quite amazing how much religions have in common in spite of their avowed claims to being the one true faith and all others non-believers. While they may have differences of opinion when it comes to the articles of their faith, they sure seem to keep similar practices.

This seems especially true of those who claim to be most orthodox. Perhaps the more devout you are, the less room you have in your mind for dissenting opinions. Could it be that devotion and tolerance are mutually self-exclusive?

From Vatican City to the mosques of Teheran and the television studios of Pat Robertson type Protestantism, the reaction to the issues of choice, equality for homosexuals, and dissenting opinions are pretty much the same. Thanks to their work, efforts to implement any degree of safe sex and family planning in the countries hardest hit by AIDs are routinely thwarted. On the issue of same sex marriage, they have been united in their condemnation and attempts to interfere in the governance of countries.

However, that's just small potatoes when it comes to the matter of dissenting opinions. You'd think that Protestants would be more tolerant, as they were born out of dissent, and to be fair the more moderate denominations usually are, but perhaps that's why they fear it so much. What happened once could happen again and they are worried about losing their power.

They each use whatever tools they have at their disposal to ensure that the minds of true believers are kept pure and untainted by thoughts that challenge the status quo. Muslims have the Fatwah, which, although not universally binding, imposes the will of a particular cleric upon his followers. The Christian Right of the United States have the organization and skills necessary to manipulate public opinion through pressure campaigns to have books removed from libraries and television shows cancelled.

The Catholic Church are old hands at this having had close to two thousand years to refine their skills. As it is no longer acceptable to burn people at the stake, and torture, although making a comeback in some circles, is still mainly frowned upon, they've had to discard some of the tried and true methods of the Inquisition.

This still leaves them with three fairly effective weapons: The persona of the pope as the voice of Christ on earth, the list of proscribed books, and excommunication. The Catholic Church has long justified the power of the pope by claiming that Jesus said to Peter: "You and all those who follow shall be like my voice on earth". Something along those lines anyway. Whatever the exact words are, it comes down to that when the pope says jump Catholics are supposed to say how high.

So when the current pope said that Harry Potter was not a good book for children to be reading, a lot of us may dismiss a statement like that as hooey, but for millions of people around the world that carries a great deal of weight and is pretty much an order not to read those books. Fortunately for Ms. Rowling, or perhaps unfortunately because sometimes proscriptions like these have the opposite effect, her work was not considered blasphemous enough to join Joyce's Ulysses, Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ and others on the Proscribed list of books.

These are the books that the Vatican has considered over the centuries to be ones subversive enough that the faithful should never be allowed to read them. It is interesting to note that the two books mentioned above are both considered masterpieces of modern literature. I probably never would not have heard of or read The Last Temptation of Christ as early as I did, if not for the fact of its being proscribed. As they say, any publicity is good publicity.

The option of excommunication is reserved for those people who have so far transgressed the laws of the church that they need to be removed from the community. Theoretically, it is an option of last resort to hold over those who transgress the word of Christ. Considering the number of priests who have been found guilty of sexually abusing children and never been excommunicated it's hard to believe other factors don't play an important role in the decision making process.

What brought all this to mind today has been the furor over Dan Brown's De Vinci Code. First it was the novel itself that raised hackles throughout the Catholic hierarchy, accusing them of covering up the truth surrounding a theoretical marriage of Christ to Mary Magdalene. Now the whole mess is starting up again, thanks to filming having begun on the screen adaptation of the novel.

Today's "Globe and Mail" features an article detailing how various churches across Britain are reacting to requests for permission to film scenes on their premises. Reactions to requests have ranged from outright refusal, guarded acceptance, and welcomes with open arms.

" Although it is a fine page-turner, we cannot commend or endorse the contentious and wayward religious and historic suggestions made in the book nor its views of Christianity and the New Testament." statement released by Westminster Abbey.

"It has clearly touched the public imagination, and the church needs to open up a debate about it rather than throw one's hands up and walk away from it." Very Rev. Alec Knight, Dean of Lincoln Cathedral on why he agreed to let his church stand in for Westminster in today's Globe and Mail
"There's nothing Rosslyn is concerned about," he added. "Perhaps the church needs to grow a thicker skin." Director Stuart Beattie of Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland from the same article.

How much economics has played in any of these decisions is hard to say, but the $180,000 US that Lincoln Cathedral is being paid for providing the location, must have helped alleviate any misgivings about heresy the trustees could have had. The producers seem to have enough wisdom to not try and approach any Catholic churches, which is just as well, because their position on the book does not seem to have changed an iota.

On that note, it's interesting to see the complete lack of comment from either Buckingham Palace or Canterbury Cathedral concerning this matter. With the Queen being the head of the Church of England (Anglican) and the archbishop of Canterbury holding similar status as the pope, silence speaks volumes.

Where the Catholic Church goes wrong is that the best thing to do in situations like these is to ignore them. First of all, telling people what they can and cannot read, watch or think is sure fire way of getting their backs up. Have a little faith in your congregation's ability to think for themselves.

Secondly, it makes people wonder about where your priorities lie when you obsess about a piece of fiction and there are so many other problems facing the world. The Church is facing one of its biggest crises in years with the whole child abuse scandal in America yet it saves its public outrage for novels. How do you think that makes parishioners who are having doubts feel?

I have always found it amazing that the leaders of organizations that proclaim the benefits of faith have so little of it themselves when it comes to their followers. If they believe that what they are preaching is so susceptible to being undermined by works of fiction, what does that say about their faith?

I have never read The De Vinci Code and I probably never will. From what I have gathered from reviews and other people's comments is that it is a good read, but woefully inaccurate. It doesn't preach hatred against anyone, or make claims about the Catholic Church that haven't been made before. Maybe they should do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek. Surely their faith is strong enough for that.

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:58 AM | Permalink

For over a thousand years Jewish people throughout the world have commemorated their escape from Egypt and the pharaohs with the observation of the Passover holiday. The name's origins lie in God's orders to the Jews when he sent down the angel of death to smite all the first sons in Egypt. If they put lambs blood on their doorframes, the angel would pass over their houses.

The first two nights of the seven-day festival are highlighted by the ritual meal, The Seder. (I have always contended there are two Seders to ensure family peace; couples go to one set of parents one night, the other the second) Throughout the evening the story of the exile is read and foods symbolizing aspects of the journey are eaten: unleavened bread called Matzoth represents they were in such a hurry there was no time to wait for the bread to rise, salt water for the tears shed on leaving their homes, and bitter herbs for the bitterness of the journey.

After these and other foods are eaten and the story is told, there comes the final ritual event of the evening. All those assembled stand, facing east, raise a glass of wine, and proclaim "Next Year in Jerusalem". For Jewish people scattered across the continents of the world this statement epitomized their longing to return home out of exile. Like Moses and the Israelites, they saw themselves as wandering the desert searching for their promised land.

One can only imagine the poignancy of these words for people walled up in the ghettos of Europe in the middle ages and the renaissance; or even worse those people trapped in the camps of Nazi Germany or the soulnessness of Stalinist Russia. How empty they must have sounded echoing off the walls of Auschwitz and Belsen.

The creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was supposedly the answer to the years of exile. When the creation of the Israel was first being discussed the first geographical location that was considered was actually where modern day Uganda is located. However, it was obvious that any Jewish homeland would have to include Jerusalem, as it is the heart and soul of their faith.

There was a slight problem. There happened to be people living there already. Some of them were Jews who had continued to live there through the years of conquerors dating back to the Romans, and others were Arab who had lived there since the time of Mohammad and before.

Both groups of people, along with Christians, consider Jerusalem their holiest cities. For the Jews the Wailing Wall is the last remaining piece of the great Temple. For the Muslims, The Dome of the Rock is the holiest Mosque in the world, because it's here that Mohammad is said to have ascended into heaven.

The months leading up to the declaration of state hood were marked by acts of terror aimed against both Arabs and Jews. The Stern and Irgun gangs of Zionist terrorists blew up a major hotel in Jerusalem and wiped out a whole village of Arabs, which would have been within the boundaries of the new state of Israel. Whether it was true or not, Arabs, justifiably, inferred from these attacks that they would not be welcomed in Israel.

When the first war of survival was won by Israel, the Muslim population became the displaced. When they left Israel looking for succour in the arms of their fellow Arabs they were turned away by all except Jordan. They were allowed to set up camps in the territory bordering the new state.

It was not until 1967 and the six-day war that the present day boundaries of Israel were created. In what was called a pre-emptive strike to prevent war, the Israeli armies occupied the territories now known as the West Bank and The Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem. These incursions created the massive amounts of refugees that flooded the camps in Lebanon and Jordan.

The Gaza Strip, which is the territory being ceded to the Palestinian Authority, was part of the original cease fire agreement between Israel and the Arab nations in 1950. Home to the Palestinians who fled Israel after its creation in 1949 it remained under Egyptian rule until 1967.

Since the war of 1967, Israeli settlers have been forming armed enclaves in the Gaza Strip. Sometimes in opposition to government policy, other times with their tacit support. The current prime minister of Israel, Arial Sharron, was a proponent of the settlements, but has since changed his tune.

Although it is not often reported in our press the majority of Israelis support the withdrawal of the settlers from the Gaza Strip They have long been seen as provocateurs that make life more difficult for those living in the rest of the country. Arial Sharron has finally bowed to the demands of the majority of his people and world pressure to finalize complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, settlers and military, paving the way for Palestinians autonomy.

Israeli soldier and police have spent the last few days delivering eviction notices to all of the settlements in Gaza. Thousands of settlers and their supporters have tried to thwart them through a variety of means such as tire fires and physically obstructing them with human blockades.

Like many other person of Jewish descent, I have often struggled with the costs involved with the creation and maintenance of Israel. How can our people justify treating any other people in a manner similar to that, which motivated the creation of Israel? Our continued ghettoing of Palestinians is reprehensible and irresponsible.

Just over sixty years ago, the majority of the world turned a deaf ear to the cries for help issuing from Europe as millions of our family members were exterminated in the camps. How can we turn a deaf ear to the cries for assistances from our neighbours, especially when we were responsible for their plight.

The suicide bombers and the Hamas rocket attacks are not going to stop no matter how security conscience Israel gets. Instead of continually meting out retribution against innocents why not isolate the terrorists from the rest of society by acting in a manner which in no way can be construed as coercive.

Ridding the Gaza Strip of all illegal squatters is a first step. Pressure must be kept up on Israeli governments to continue to treat its new neighbours with respect. We need to take the words "Never Forget" and start applying them to others as well as ourselves. We insult the dream of "Next Year In Jerusalem" if can't carry out that simple task.

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:19 AM | Permalink

Of the various topics that cause concern for individuals trying to raise the status of women internationally, vaginal circumcision and ritual mutilation has long been considered a crime of horrendous proportions. Unlike male circumcisions, which is primarily health related, and performed early in life, female genital rites are done as the girl approaches puberty and lacks the justification of health issues.

While within the medical community male circumcision, except in the case of religion, goes in and out of style, no obstetrician would even consider the procedure for a girl. Vaginal circumcision is an act of unnecessary violence used to mark a woman as property, and reduce the amount of pleasure she can receive from sex.

Since her purpose is to provide babies to any prospective husband, enjoyment is not considered a prerequisite for procreation. The theory is that denial of pleasure will keep her from wandering, and of course the physical marks will let any other man know she is somebody else's property.

In North America, we are far too sophisticated to allow that sort of practice to occur. Our enlightened society would never allow women to be so mal treated, at least, not without their permission. Now comes the news that the latest fad in plastic surgery is vaginal modifications.

Once your lips are right, your hips are fine, and your breasts just perky enough, the final touch up required is that little nip and tuck to give you the perfect vagina. The Globe and Mail reports that Dr. David Matlock of Los Angeles has pioneered this latest "advancement" in the field of cosmetic surgery.

The techniques have long been known to obstetricians from their work in repairing new mother's episiotomies. While a surgeon may have added an extra stitch to tighten the vaginal wall ( called the "stitch for the husband") on their own, actual deliberate vaginal modification was unheard of until now.

Women come to Dr. Matlock clutching pictures of how they"d like their vaginas to look. Airbrushed pictures out of porn magazines tend to be the usual references, leading one to wonder who planted the idea in their heads in the first place. Why would a woman be checking out the shape and size of another woman"s vagina?

The more likely scenario is their significant other, (not ruling out same sex partner here because sexual politics is sexual politics) has let it slip "casually" that they think so and so's vagina looks perfect. If you are like me, you are probably still wondering how you bring this topic of conversation up casually.

Over breakfast with the morning coffee do you idly turn to your wife and say: "By the by dear, I was looking through Hustler last night and I really like Miss April's vagina, what's your opinion?" Unless Hustler has changed dramatically in style, as I remember you used to be able to see up into a woman's throat with their manner of presentation, it would make an ideal visual aid for this type of comparison study.

How much more damage are we going to inflict upon a women's self esteem? What new standards are we going to invent for them to measure up to? Isn't it bad enough that we parade anorexic models as the ideal form, while at the same time demanding large breasts and perfectly symmetrical hips?

Have you seen the clothes they sell in the fashionable shops? How many women do you know that can fit in them? (One day my wife, who is quite small, was wandering through one of these shops and lifted a small strapless number off the rack. While staring at in wonder a perky little shop assistant bounded over to her and said: "Isn't that just the cutest?" Looking her straight in the eye my wife replied: "Not if your forty with sagging tits") More to the point why would they want to?

While there is a genuine need for this type of surgery to aid women who suffer from inconstancy, the benefits as a means of improving ones sex life are open to debate. Dr. Matlock claimed in his first ad that it was "the first sexual advance of the new millennium" and featured a bikini-clad woman with the caption "You won't believe how good sex can be".

Gynaecologist experts warn, however, about significant contradictions to these procedures, and say that there is no proof that they will actually have the benefits advertised. Aside from normal post surgical complications like infection and haemorrhaging, there is also the risk of nerve damage, loss of sensation, formation of scar tissue, and over tightening of the muscles.

Not only does Dr. Matlock promise an increase sexual satisfaction but, he bills himself as an artist. He creates, claims his web site, a "youthful and aesthetically appealing vulva". This can involve the trimming of the labia, fat transplants to plump up the outer labia, or tightening the vagina by decreasing the vaginal opening through drawing the muscle and other support tissue together with an absorbable stitch. He also builds up the perineum between the anus and vagina to offer more support.

"Does anybody wake up in the morning and say, I just really, really, really need to have my genitals reshaped because I just really want to do that because it's going to feel better'?" Professor Michael Atkinson the Globe and Mail

Doctor Atkinson is a Professor of Sociology at McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario. He, along with others, wonders what really is driving women to have this procedure and who is really receiving its benefits. When it used to be referred to as the "husband's stitch" the implications were the benefits would be felt by the husband. The tighter the vagina the greater the stimulation and arousal felt by the man.

When all these satisfied women are claiming an increase in sexual pleasure, are they talking about their own, or their ability to satisfy their partner? Again, raising the question of who or what brought the subject up in the first place.

Equally, if not more disturbing, is the fact that Dr. Matlock's demographic is expanding to include teenage girls as young as fifteen. His claim of them being physically mature as justification for performing the operation is nauseating.

What good reason is there for a person who is not even legally sexually active to have this procedure done? What kind of mindset is being developed in the young women who believe they need to modify their genitalia? As these people have not reached age of consent, they require their parent's permission to have the surgery. What are these people thinking?

We find the ritual abuse of young women's genitalia in other countries appalling. Yet, women of all ages in our society are having the equivalent done on a daily basis under the guise of body enhancement.

There is no evidence (Dr. Matlock refuses to submit studies for publication in medical journals because he does not want anyone stealing his techniques) supporting any of the claims made of increased sexual pleasure. There has been no study done on what the possible repercussions of this procedure could be, or if the effects are permanent.

Even if this were completely risk free what does it say about our view of woman? Do not these type of demands for physical perfection placed on women further reduce them in stature to mere objects modifiable for men's pleasure?

Before we start pointing fingers at other cultures and how backward they are, we need to take a good long look at our own. Until we get over the notion that women only exist to please men, we have no right to take any sort of moral high ground on any issue. The stones we are throwing are will soon start bringing our own house down around our ears.

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:34 AM | Permalink

The rain has finally stopped falling in Bombay India. One of the country’s most heavily populated cities endured a record worst monsoon season this year that saw almost a litre of rainfall within one day. The flooding and subsequent mudslides wrecked havoc upon all who live in the city. However, as is often the case, the poor were hardest hit.

Impermanent structures of tin and tar paper, that dominate the landscapes of shanty towns through out the developing world, offer little shelter at times like these. Floodwaters swept through improvised street systems, uprooting the equivalent of city blocks worth of population.

According to the “Asia Times Online” the city of Mumbai’s (Bobmbay) misfortunes are more than just a freak of nature. Coastal cities around the whole of South Asia are a disaster waiting to happen. They cite antiquated storm drainage systems, population density, and the profusion of private vehicular traffic as the major culprits.

When the rains hit Mumbai this year, their drainage system was over a hundred years old. Ill equipped to properly handle the demands placed on it by the 15 million who live in the surrounding area, let alone the massive rains unleashed by this year’s monsoon. The sewers themselves are routinely choked with debris from construction sites and garbage, causing water to back up on the streets.

With the cities continuing to be the last refuge of people trying to escape rural poverty, the shantytowns are overflowing. Garbage and other human refuse piles up and accumulates. Streets and avenues built hundreds of years ago were not meant to handle the number of people now flooding them, making it impossible to handle the quick removal of populations from afflicted areas.

Contributing to this congestion has been the proliferation of privately owned cars. Two years ago 380 new cars were being registered with the police on a daily basis. Little or no thought has been given on how to upgrade cities’ infrastructures to cope with this traffic increase. This of course has aggravated the potential for trapping thousand of people in a disaster area: either with no way out, or no access to aid.

Of course, everyone seems to be suffering from a surfeit of twenty-twenty hindsight. Business leaders, and municipal officials alike have said they’ve seen this coming. But as is usual they have the ability to complain but not to act. Passing the buck seems to be as much official policy in India as elsewhere.

Requests for funding have been submitted to the central government to rebuild infrastructure is the response from the city. Business leaders, quick to point fingers, have done nothing to alleviate problems by utilizing technological advancements to decrease commuter traffic.

India has become one of the leading players in the technology service industry. There is no reason why people can’t do a majority of this work from their own houses. With computers, mobile phones and other high tech devices, banks of office phone workers could be a thing of the past.

The saving grace for Mumbai seems to have been her people. All accounts speak of how they have lived up to their reputation of compassionate and selfless. Major hotels opened their doors to those made homeless by the floods, particularly the street children. Multinational banks sheltered school kids unable to get home and kept parents informed of their whereabouts. People stayed up all through the night standing on street corners handing out food and bottled water to commuters struggling to get home; and others took complete strangers into their houses, especially the elderly to keep them safe.

In a recent message I received from Indian author Ashok Banker, he described the people of Bombay and their reaction to any such calamity.

“Here, In Bombay, when we have a power outage or floods, or any calamity, people will actually come out and help you, no matter what trouble you're in, risking their own lives (and often dying while doing so, something that happens routinely and is reported in the press often). Not only are things like looting of stores or mugging unheard of at such times, even criminals turn into helpers and relief workers, working alongside police. It's the most unique thing on earth and I wouldn't exchange it for all the avenues of America and luxuries of the west.”

How often do we in the West read about disasters of a similar nature? Floods, typhoons, earthquakes, or tidal waves cause havoc and destruction, killing thousand and uprooting thousands more. We are so quick to respond to cries for aid and succor, but is that what’s really needed?

We need to be working with people to lessen the impact of these events. Help with infrastructures problems by supplying equipment and technology should be a priority. Countries with overwhelming populations have fewer resources and are too often caught in crises management to be able to implement long-term projects.

We must encourage family planning and other forms of education for poorer people the world over. The millions of people fleeing the destitution of the countryside seeking the supposed wealth of the cities only increase the likelihood of these incidences being repeated over and over again.

These countries have been around for centuries longer then us, yet many of our supposed aid programs treat them like we would treat a child: “ If your good you can have an ice cream and go to the movie.” That attitude is as offensive as the whole white man’s burden idea was a hundred years ago. We are quite happy to have them work in sweatshops making our designer clothes for us, but not treat like them equals on the world stage.

Unless Europe and North America learn to respect the most populated areas in the world, what we are experiencing now with terror attacks will seem like nothing. The citizens of Mumbai and all of India deserve better treatment from us: in good times and bad.

After the rain and the flooding comes the disease, already over a hundred people have died from drinking bad water. Thousands more crowd the hospital emergency rooms on a daily basis waiting for treatment. How many times does this cycle have to play out before we can all work together to ensure the well being of all members of our species? What is it going to take for us to emulate the people of Bombay and stay up all night offering aid to those in need?

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:49 AM | Permalink

“Hey buddy, want to buy a sword?”

It was early evening, one of those nights you know are going to be really dark. Not even the stars are going to be shining. I was about to enter what passed for the inn in this small village in the middle of nothing and was stopped by an insistent voice. It repeated itself.

“A sword, do you want to buy a sword?”

Now as I figured he couldn’t see the one strapped to my waist, because of the aforementioned dark, he wasn’t so imbecilic to not deserve a reply.

“Yeah I know you’ve already got one, but this one’s special. As soon as you pull it out of the scabbard you can see clearly, no matter what the environment, your hit points increase by a magnitude of ten, and it comes with curse protection from wizards who are level ten or under.”

I was stunned. Those types of weapons didn’t just fall off trees. But I was also suspicious, they didn’t usually end up for sale in back alleys either. Normally you had to kill someone to get one of those babies. I figured I’d play along with the guy; see what he wanted for it and who he was. Who knows, maybe he was just some hero down on his luck. It can happen to the best of us.

I turned to face him, and took a couple of steps in his direction. That was when I noticed he was wearing some sort of weird outfit. It was like a cloak with sleeves and made out of some white coloured material. In one hand he was clutching the magnificent sword in question, and the other was wrapped around a small black box.

There was a strange device emblazoned over where his heart should be. (You never want to assume a vital organ’s location; a sure way of guaranteeing a quick death) A big red S followed by a smaller O and E. The words spelt out underneath meant nothing to me, but that’s no surprise. Wizard’s cults are springing up like anthills near spilled honey these days. Sony Online Entertainment just must be one I hadn’t come across yet.

Roll Playing Games (R. P. G.s) have sure come a long way since the days when I played Dungeons and Dragons. (In fact, they now go by the moniker of multiplayer on-line roll-playing games or MMORPGs, pronounced as more pigs) What used to be a group of guys (I never remember any women being remotely interested in these games) getting together in someone’s basement to create fantasy worlds of violence and greed, has turned into individuals hunched over computer terminals for up to forty hours a week.

Games such as EverQuest ll and Project Entropia are as far removed from those pen and paper afternoon Dungeon and Dragons days as today’s computers are from an abacus. Virtual worlds that once only lived in our heads are now available for gamers to walk through for the price of software and a subscription fee.

Once online they go through the same process of creating characters and developing them just like any of the old RPGs. Then they’re ready for their adventures to begin. The more treasure and experience they gain, the more their character develops; power, wealth, and prestige. Just like the old games, the early stages are the ones with the highest fatality rate.

Characters are most susceptible to damage when first created. Their creation having been decided by random chance, they are just as liable to be pathetic as heroic. Survival is a matter of luck as much as anything else in the early going.

Just as in the real world though, it seems that in the virtual world money is beginning to matter. A booming side business to the games has sprung up which sees the selling of anything from weaponry, fully developed characters to the most recent acquisition of a piece of virtual real estate for $26,000. David Souter who paid that purchase price for an island in the game Project Entropia talks like a mix of real estate developer and small time despot when his purchase is described in the Globe and Mail.

“The island has two forms of income: One is estate sales, which is where the big money is in terms of one-off income,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “When you look at the price for each estate ($450 to $550) and multiply it by 60, you can see that it easily meets the initial price of the island. Even if they don't all sell at such a price, taxation will make up the difference, and is also the source of ongoing income beyond the estates.”

Of course, this has raised the ire of gamers who can’t afford to make these sort of massive purchases. Claiming purity as their motivation, they say it defeats the purpose of the whole gaming experience when you can just buy your way to the top. Well I hate to tell them, but they must have really been living in a fantasy world if they couldn’t see this coming.

What did they think was going to stop their virtual world from becoming like the real world? People have been buying their way to the top since the days when the nobility used to buy ranks in the armed forces as a sign of prestige. At least in the gaming world they’re not endangering real lives with their lack of skill.

As the gaming market has boomed, so have the external sales in items and characters. With MMORPG’s being impossible to pirate, because servers won’t recognise anything but the legitimate software, they are one of the few products that can be sold safely in the east. The Globe and Mail article linked to above says that World of Warcraft signed up 1.5 million players in China on release, and currently has 3.5 million subscribers worldwide.

Companies such as New York based Internet Gaming Enterprises employ up to 200 people acting as on line brokers. Factories in countries like Romania and Mexico where people are desperate for employment have workers playing games all day long to develop marketable characters and equipment. This is than sold on line to the highest bidder.

Up until now, the gaming companies have been mysteriously quiet about this technically illegal practice. Since games come with an end user agreement stating that all technology and its resulting creations are the property of the developer, there is a definite case to be made for copy write infringement. But unlike the record companies they seem to be taking an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” attitude to the proceedings.

Sony Online Entertainment has officially entered into the market place with the opening of a new site called Station Exchange. They don’t actually sell the characters and such, but act as the intermediary and take a cut. This way they are creating a safe market place for their consumers and getting their share of the revenue.

For the past couple of months I’ve been working my way through Tad Williams’Otherland series of books. He has postulated, like so many others have before, that in the not so distant future we will be able to transmit ourselves onto to the net. According to our means, we will be able to create simulated bodies with which we will be able to travel to virtual stores and other experiences on line. The more expensive the equipment the more sensory perception that’s included, thus the more complete the experience.

Instead of creating the hoped for ideal world where technology plays the great equalizer, virtual reality has become an imitation of the real world. Money and power cross all boundaries virtual or otherwise. Why people are so shocked that this has occurred in similar situations that we have created is beyond me.

What is shocking to me is the fact that no one questions the fact that people will spend up to forty hours a week immersing themselves in off line realities. It’s one thing to play a game occasionally on a weekend with buddies, it’s another thing entirely to live a whole separate life in an unreal environment.

What does that say about our society that millions of people feel the need to withdraw from the world in order to have a life? What kinds of social skills are they learning while on line? How to chop someone’s head off if you disagree with them?

Tim Leary, before he died, was talking about the Internet in the same tone he used to talk about L. S. D. Turn on, tune in, and drop out. Instead of conscience expansion people are focusing on how to make themselves more effective killing machines in the struggle to get to the top of the heap.

Personally, I can see no benefit to society from any addictive behaviour. An addictive behaviour that encourages the depersonalization of violence on this level is even worse. Now participants are being actively encouraged to purchase bigger and better selves to use on the net. How long do you think it will be before we start reading about people knocking over liquors stores so they can get that upgrade they so desperately need?

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:29 AM | Permalink

Kingston, Ontario Canada is a small town at the convergence of three major waterways; Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River, and the Cateroqui River. (This becomes the Rideau Canal, connecting Lake Ontario to Ottawa Ontario) Ideally situated at the half way points between Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto, one would assume that it would play some significant role in life along the St. Lawrence seaboard.

Ever since it was striped of its title of capital of Canada in the 1850’s, there has been a steady downward progression to its fortunes. (After the War of 1812, and with continuing war like sounds emanating from the America’s, the forty-five miles from the border to Kingston was considered too close for comfort and the capital was switched to Ottawa.) With no deep water port to attract the shipping that wended it’s way down the river, Kingston could only sit and watch the big lake boats sail past with the opening of The St. Lawrence Seaway.

In fact, the only traffic that came to Kingston through the St. Lawrence were the poor Irish immigrants imported to dig the canal to Ottawa. Those that were dropped in Kingston were either dead or dying of Typhoid. The survivors and their descendants have formed the nucleus of Kingston’s labour pool up until present day.

Up until their arrival, Kingston had been primarily a garrison town. First settled by the French who called it Fort Frontenac, upon New France’s conquest in 1759 it was turned over to the British. In the period directly following the American revolutionary war, the population was increased by an influx of “Loyalist” soldiers and their families.

Anyone who served the crown during that period was rewarded with the gift of land in and around the St Lawrence River. This served the dual purpose of paying people back for their loyalty and quickly populating a precarious border. These people would form the backbone of British North American resistance in the War of 1812.

The United Empire Loyalist, as these people came to be known, had sixty years to settle and establish themselves before the poor Irish turned up. Prosperous, protestant, professionals do not mix well with Irish Catholic unskilled labour. Social and religious class distinctions from the Old World made a much more successful immigration than most of the poorer refugees.

Contemporary Kingston maintains those divisions. In fact, if anything, the social economic split of the city has increased with the passage of years. As the need for unskilled labour decreased, and Kingston has increased its dependence on service industry jobs, employment opportunities for the descendants of the canal diggers have evaporated.

In 1990, I migrated to Kingston with the two-fold purpose of escaping the big city madness of Toronto and opening a theatre company. One of the first things I became aware of was the almost tangible border that separated the two halves of the city. North and South of Princess St. was a designation of social standing.

The same house, one block either direction away from Princess St., represented about a $50,000 swing in property value. North from Princess to the highway was the home of the hardscrabble poor. Welfare moms, addicts, ex-cons, and the working poor predominated. Southwards, the homes of the professional classes and old money grow steadily larger and more ornate as they approach the waterfront.

It’s on the south side that you’ll find all the historical plaques commemorating places the first Prime Minister of Canada slept, drank, or had an office. You can’t walk a block without seeing the name of Sir John A. MacDonald engraved on a wall or a door way.

When I had travelled down to visit with my business partner prior to moving, I had not been to Kingston for more then twenty years. As a kid on a school trip, all I had seen were historical sights. Needless to say, I was full of questions about what I was seeing. I was especially fascinated by what looked to be a version of Walt Disney World’s Magic Kingdom castle that dominated the western skyline.

Collins Bay Penitentiary, or the Magic Castle as its known by its inhabitants, may not have the nefarious reputation as the two other maximum-security prisons in the Kingston area (Millhaven and The Kingston Pen.) but it is still a nasty place. Did I mention that Kingston was a service industry town? Well part of its charm is whom it serves.

There are seven federal penitentiaries within a half hours drive of Kingston. Ranging from the minimum security Frontenac where prisoners are on their last stage before release to Kingston Penitentiary where notorious killers like Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo idle away the rest of their lives. There are probably more people involved in corrections work, directly or indirectly, per capita in Kingston than anywhere else in the world.

In contrast to life behind bars, Kingston also has one of the larger armed forces bases in Canada, The Royal Military Collage(R. M. C.) (officer training), Queens University, and St. Lawrence Collage. (In Ontario, with the exception of R. M. C. all collages are community collages) These four institutions plus the prisons most likely combine to form the backbone of the cities economy. One way or another nearly every business in town depends on them for their survival.

When we had entertained the idea of forming a theatre company in Kingston, we had realized that in order for it to be successful we needed to establish a direct connection to the people. We had the lofty idea of being a manifestation of Kingston theatrically. To do this we would have to discover what was behind the facade of gentility that Kingston presented to the world.

Out of these ruminations was born a concept for producing a genuinely populist form of theatre. It was important to us that this play could be accessible to anybody who lived in the city. We wanted to provide an accurate depiction of life in Kingston, without judging, and with the warts intact.

From previous experience my business partner and I both knew that the most important thing was to ensure the development of a good script. Although many people advocate a workshop type creative process where the actors improvise to create scenes from raw material, we both felt playwrights were required for this project. We approached two local men who happened to be established playwrights. One a professor at in the Queens University dram program and the other had just returned form a cultural exchange in Japan.

The means we had decided upon for the collection of information was to find a cross range of people who, as near as possible, reflected the diversity of Kingston’s population. We would ask each person to complete a simple questionnaire, and than write out their impressions of life in Kingston.

Once this material was gathered we gave copies of it to the actors and the playwrights. One of the things we realised that would be important was to try and find a story line that we could hang the images and impressions on. We didn’t just want to present a disjointed collection of scenes. Here we struck gold in the form of a lifer in Collins Bay Penitentiary.

Ironically he wasn’t from Kingston, and had yet to step foot in the city, but it was his recounting of his twelve years behind bars which provided the most complete story. With his wife, acting as intermediary (they had met at a co-ed university prison school, and were married when they were both still serving time by an inmate who had become an ordained minister during his sentence) one of the playwrights focused on scripting his information.

When we had the first rough script in shape, we invited the community participants to attend an initial staged reading to get their responses to the material. If they felt that their view was being misrepresented, or had been misunderstood, corrections would have to made. It was important to remember at all times that we were simply the vehicle that enabled their story to be told.

I’m sure I’ve made the process sound easy. In actuality, it was long and drawn out course of interviewing and re interviewing people. Rehearsals would go long into the night as we tried to figure out if we were superimposing ourselves over the information we had been given.

Finally, we had a script that was both satisfactory to our community representatives, and make for a good performance. The manner in which the stories were told, the artistic quality of the work, was equally as important as the material. If it sucked as a play, the accuracy of our information would be irrelevant.

One of the wonderful things about theatre is that you never quite realize the enormity of what you are taking on when you begin a project. At some point in the process it takes on a life of its own and threatens to grow beyond your control. Thankfully, there is the built in infrastructure of playwrights and directors to keep everything in check. Without them, the whole thing would inevitably collapse in on itself.

In a collaborative effort such as this one, it is even more important someone has the authority to say no. Theatre, like any art form, requires incredible discipline. The energies of vastly disparate people have to be focused in one direction. Without a common goal the work becomes pointless.

Somebody once said that an artist should hold up a mirror for society to look into, to see their reflection, the good and the bad. Our goal as a company was to be that mirror for our community. Kingston Ontario is not unique in its circumstances. I’m sure there are many cities of similar sizes with equally interesting stories.

If theatre is to remain a viable alternative to other forms of entertainment, than it needs to find a way to be relevant to its audience. It is the responsibility of those who have the authority, directors and playwrights mainly, to reach out to their communities and restore the historical connection between the theatre and the public.

A project like the one described in this article represents a tentative first step in that direction. More initiatives like it are needed if theatre wishes to survive as more than just the province of a small minority of society. At one time theatre was the way in which we told ourselves the stories that mattered. Maybe it’s time we returned to those roots, and acted out the stories that matter to our communities.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:37 AM | Permalink

The category is geography: what city meets at the convergence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers? The answer is Cairo Illinois (pronounced by locals as Karo ) The follow up question: what makes Cairo memorable? Well according to Stace(rhymes with ace) England, in his new release Greetings From Cairo Illinois there’s lots about Cairo to remember.

Greetings From Cairo Illinois is the history of a city that started out with such promise and has been in slow decline since the end of the Civil War. Straddling the North/South culture line it would have been an ideal way station in the shipment of goods across the country. Somehow, it was bypassed in favour of Chicago and Portland and it’s been one long struggle to survive ever since.

Stace England has created a musical portrait of this sad town. From it’s early days as a supply depot for farmers until its present state of decay he has either found or created a song for the high, or low, points in the citiy’s history. The songs reveal more about the soul of Cairo than any history book.

From the anticipatory pleasure of the farmers preparing to travel to the big town, in the traditional “Going Down To Cairo”, the acoustic blues of Henry Spaulding’s 1929 “Cairo Blues”, and the disc’s first original cut “Grant Slept Here”, a picture of an exciting, perhaps dangerous town is painted.

Ulysses S. Grant spent five months of the Civil War based out of Cairo, making successful forays into Kentucky and Missouri. In 1880, after he was done with the presidency, he came down to Cairo for a party in his honour given by a local businessman and buddy.

But the city seemed intent on shooting itself in the foot. Instead of polishing the image of “friend of Presidents”, they managed to tarnish themselves with one of the worst examples of mob rule ever seen in the United States. “Equal Opportunity Lynch Mob” tells the story of the double lynching of Will James, a black man and white Henry Salzner.

Both men were hauled from jail while awaiting trial and hung. When the rope hanging James broke, he was shot, burnt, and then decapitated. His head was stuck on a pole for public display. To commemorate the event the good citizens of Cairo had picture postcards made.

Racial strife has played a huge role in the downfall of Cairo. “The North Starts Here”, tells how Cairo was the demarcation point for crossing over into a place where the colour barrier ceased to exist. Once buses travelling up from the south arrived, they were able to remove the curtains that separated the coloured seating from the white. Cairo’s white population, however, weren’t in tune with the laws of their state.

“Far From The Tree”, “White Hats”, and “Jesse’s Coming To Town” try and depict the atmosphere of racial intolerance that was so prevalent in the 1960’s. Cairo never recovered from its white population’s refusal to integrate. Black boycotts of white only businesses closed most of them down by the end of 1973. The empty storefronts on Commercial Street are mute testimony to the city’s failure ever to recover from its self-inflicted wounds.

Of the final three tracks on the disc, “Buy My Votes” and “Prosperity Train” show that Cairo both has a long way to go yet in its attempt to recover, and the reality of their current situation. “Buy My Votes” is about buying votes in a circuit clerk race in 2000 for cigarettes, whisky, and three dollars.

Small time corruption like this does nothing to enhance the reputation of any city, but when you have the history that Cairo does it just serves to drag you a little deeper into the muck. The irony of “Prosperity Train” is that people are bemoaning the good old days, and realizing that they’re gone, but as usual are blind to how aspects of the way things used to be, were the cause of how things are today.

Echoing Rodney King, Stace’s final song on the disc is a plea. “Can’t We All Get Along” is an open call to the people of Cairo to work together to build something out of the ruins of a great city. His genuine affection and frustration for the city and its inhabitants comes through loud and clear in the lyrics of this song. He offers them hope, but only if they are willing to get it together:

“The glory days are gone, leaving only a trace.
But each time another building falls down, a
garden could grow in its place.
Hold on, hold on, and open up your heart
We can build together
Or keep watching things fall apart.”
Stace England, “Can’t We All Get Along” Greetings From Cairo Illinois

Stace England’s music on this album is a perfect fit for the part of the world he is singing about. Blues, southern rock, country rock, and gospel are all part of the heritage of this area. The over fifty musicians he has assembled contribute everything from horns to slick guitar work.

He has engineered a project that both tells the story he wants told, and is musically entertaining at the same time. Lyrically he never preaches, he just narrates. The boastful voice of a white supremacist contrasts with the hope of black migrants searching for the promised land of integration, while a “some of my best friends are” type liberal rationalizes segregation.

Somehow or other Stace manages to keep us from hating these people. His genuine affection for the place, and his sincere hope that it could be better, shines through even when he’s singing about Cairo’s more sordid past. He is not an outside observer looking in; he is an oral historian recounting his people’s history.

Stace England’s Greetings From Cairo Illinois not only provides a portrait of the city in question, it succeeds in being a fine album musically. While the picture he paints of Cairo’s history may not be the most attractive, I don’t think the city could have asked for a better ambassador. If they had any brains, the town council and the chamber of commerce would make it their business to promote this disc.

Stace makes Cairo sound like a fascinating place to visit. I’m sure those who listen to it are going to be attracted, even if just from morbid curiosity, by his depiction. It would be the ultimate of ironies that this disc detailing its problems becomes responsible for Cairo’s revival. Who knows, maybe this long moribund city will finally live up to its potential because of one person’s affection and compassion.

Greetings From Cairo Illinois will made a great addition to anyone’s collection: for the music and for the story.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:26 AM | Permalink

There’s a new kid on the block in award shows. Another red carpet, spotlight swirling, dressed to the nines event. Sounds just like the rest doesn’t it? Ah, its what’s being honoured that makes this show different.

The Quill Awards are for books. Yes, that’s right, dusty, sitting on library shelves, books. The Quill Literary Foundation has created the first literary awards whose results will be decided by the book buying public. Readers will get to choose from five pre selected titles in nineteen categories, ranging from Romance to History.

How was the list of ninety-five finalists set, and how are they judged? Well according to the Quill Foundation web site the initial qualification and selection was done in two stages.

The first requirement was that the book was published in North America and marketed in the United States between Aug. 1/2004 and July 31/2005. Secondly, it had to meet one of the following criteria:

1.) Starred reviews in Publishers Weekly 2.) Barnes and Noble Discover Great New Writers Program 3.) BookSense Picks 4.) Borders© Original Voices 5.) Bestseller lists from Publishers Weekly, Book Sence, Barnes & Noble, and Borders

Once they had this list together, the Quill Nominating Board, a group of 6,000 librarians and booksellers, established, somehow or other, the short list of five books for each category. The last stage begins on Aug.15th/2005 when voting is opened up to the public. You’ll be able to walk into your local Barnes and Nobel and Borders book stores to cast a ballot, or on line at the Quills’ web site.

Once voting wraps up on September 15th/2005 it will be another month until the award ceremony. On October the 22nd N.B.C. television will broadcast an hour long special with highlights from the award show announcing the winners.

As they are trying to recreate the glitz and excitement of a Hollywood style event, I’m sure there will lots of red carpet and fancy gowns. The problems that I can see already are authors are nowhere near as photogenic as movie stars and two, horror of horrors, have been known to shun overt publicity. I’m sure the organizers considered these factors while making their plans.

Just who is behind all of this anyway? In response to an email query concerning this, Gerry Byrne, Chairman of the Quills Literary Foundation replied:

I was asked by Reed Business Information (I was publisher of Variety for a dozen years) to look at the opportunity to create an awards program. Appreciating there are many in the space, I looked at creating a pre-qualified "Reader's Choice" awards that would have nominations coming from within the industry (booksellers & librarians) on a national basis... I walked around the idea to the community, created an Executive Council of folks I have a relationship with, took the idea to NBC and thus was born the Quill Awards. Process took nearly two years. Reed has generously put up the financing to get it going and has helped create The Quills Literacy Foundation which will support literacy programs as well as develop many of its own.”

According to their web site Reed Business Information is a subsidiary of Reed Eslevier Group PLS the world leading publisher and information provider. Reed Business Information publishes business-to-business communication and information channels: magazines, web sites, directories, online services, and marketing services, across five continents.

The executive council that Mr. Byrne has created reads like a who’s who of industry heavyweights in the American publishing, film and television production, and advertising worlds. Rounding it out are one writer, a couple of lawyers, some Internet media types, and the current publisher of Variety, Peter Bart.

Aside from producing the awards show, the foundation will also be responsible for selecting an annual Distinguished Service Award for the person or group they feel have made a significant contribution to the advancement of American publishing.

With N. B. C. signed on as their media sponsor and broadcast partner they seem all set to deliver an awards program that will bring sparkle and glitz to the previously staid world of publishing. With the integration of popular opinion into the process, they hope to generate renewed enthusiasm for the written word.

While it cannot be denied that there is the appearance of self-serving behind these awards, to be fair there are very few awards which are not industry generated. Why shouldn’t the book industry celebrate itself in the same manner as other mainstays of entertainment?

While some may decry this as simply a popularity contest without any basis on literary merit that argument weakens in the face of the selection process before voting begins. Besides, what’s wrong with having an award for books based on popular opinion? There are sufficient book awards already that are supposedly based on merit, for those authors whose work is gifted but not bestseller material, to be appreciated.

The concept of having separate awards for distinct genres of writing also eliminates concerns that a more popular style of writing will overshadow offerings from writers in fields less well known. To me, the Quills seem to offer a more egalitarian approach to author recognition than say the Booker Awards, or other major “literary” prizes. Unlike its older relatives, it will also generate increased awareness of the variety of work available.

The Canadian Broadcast Corporation (C. B. C.) ran a similar contest called “Canada Reads” where they had individual authors promote their favourite books by reading excerpts. The radio audience than voted for a weekly winner, and the weekly winners were entered into a final “read off” to select the book most Canadians would like to read.

Aside from being able to vote for books within individual categories, readers will also be able to choose one book from the nominees as an overall best book of the year. Just like the Oscars, the winners will be receiving a physical rather than a monetary award. Each category winner will receive an award specially designed by Nick Fasciano.

Contests and award show like this are beneficial in creating interest and excitement in reading. No matter what reservations that anybody may have about the Quills, they seem to be doing their best to achieve that goal. All you need do to participate is vote.

To see the titles of the selected books in each category go here. As of August 15/2005 if you want to vote you can go here or here to find the address of a Borders store to vote in. Ballots should also be available in all book and music stores across the United States (Voting is limited to those residing in the United States)

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 07:29 AM | Permalink

Senegal sticks out into the Atlantic Ocean on the tip of the round curve of Western Africa. For as long as people have lived there, it has been a stop on the trading and migration roots. With the coming of the European nations, it became an instrumental port in the slave trade.

When the last colonial rulers, the French, banned slavery in 1857, the country reverted to its traditional role of safe haven for political refugees and centre for trade. The majority of nations in North West Africa and Arabia relied on Senegal for salt. This intermingling of cultures and nations has played a major role in the development of Senegalese music.

In Senegal, like other West African nations, there exists a type of cast system. Though not as rigid as others, it still can dictate a person’s choice of career. Musicians, especially singers, are drawn from those who are members of a griot family.

More then just a singer, a griot serves as the repository of local history, knowing the stories of all the local families and able to recount their deeds in poems or song. They have been advisors to kings, teachers who instruct people in the right way to live, and what role they play in society as they grow up.

To aspire to be a singer when not from a griot family is to dream the unthinkable. To actually succeed in that dream is the sign of a unique individual. Not only do they have to be a person of singular talent, but display some characteristic that allows them to transcend traditional cultural boundaries.

Baaba Maal is one such man. Born the son of a fisherman, and destined, at best, for the professional class, he developed a love of singing at an early age. Discouraged by his parents and the griot form pursuing this hopeless dream, he nevertheless did not give up hope. His faith was rewarded when he began to receive assistance from the son of his family’s griot.

Mansour Seck has since become Baaba Maal’s closest friend and musical companion. Without him, he would have never learned learn the different styles of music and singing that are practiced throughout West Africa.

“...if a griot didn’t want Baaba Maal to sing...the music of the griots, they couldn’t say no to Mansour Seck, because Mansour Seck was from one of the best families of the griots...” Baaba Maal talking about learning music

Palm World Voices’ third collection in their series of world music focuses on this remarkable man from Senegal. Simply titled Baaba Maal we are told the story of his rise from the son of a fisherman to that of an international music star who now shares the stage with the likes of Peter Gabriel and Sting.

The story of his music is also the story of Senegal. For music is the lifeblood of Senegalese society. From the griot’s songs of history and learning to the calling of the faithful to prayer in the mosques, music permeates all aspects of their culture.
Like Africa and Vedic Path before it, Baaba Maal contains a CD of music, a documentary DVD, an illustrated information booklet, and a detailed National Geographic map. Each component enhances our appreciation of the man and the musician. Just as importantly, they place his music into the cultural context of Senegal.

The music is magnificent. He lives up to his billing as being one of the most exciting musical talents in Africa. Not only does he integrate traditional Senegalese instruments with contemporary, the music seamlessly combines elements from all over the world. Pop, jazz, and reggae meld with African rhythms and sounds to create a true world music.

Baaba Maal may sing in his native tongue, but the listener loses little of the emotional impact. His voice is one more musical instrument being played in harmony with the rest of the band. Soaring from the bottom of the scale to its heights, he takes one on a roller coaster ride not easily forgotten.

The DVD is split into two parts. The first is a documentary that recreates Baaba Maal’s story. Acting as our guide, he retraces the path he took from his fisherman roots to his current position of international performer. Combined with the information booklet, this section of the disc gives the viewer insight into the cultural world of Senegal.

The concert footage included in the DVD allows one a tantalizing glimpse of Baaba Maal’s incredible power on stage. From frenetic up-tempo dance numbers to a slow ballad we see his complete range as a performer. African dance parties can continue for hours on end, some of that energy and exuberance are captured in these performance clips.

Baaba Maal is Palm World Voice’s third release in their initial six part series of explorations into World Music. Once again, they have created a package that takes one beneath the surface of the music to show the heart beating behind the exterior. These box sets are a wonderful addition to any music lover’s library.

Baaba Maal will be in stores everywhere on August 9th 2005.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 07:55 AM | Permalink

What runs for three weeks, is guaranteed to piss people off, laugh, think, and features thousands of performers from around the world? The Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Originally conceived as an alternate theatre festival, it now includes representatives from all areas of the performance arts. This year’s festival is composed of around 50% theatre, with the balance made up from, comics, dance, and music.

In 1947, the Edinburgh Festival was established as a means of reuniting Europe through culture. With hopes of cashing in on the attendant publicity and press, six Scottish and two English theatre companies showed up uninvited. Thus the alternate festival was born on the “fringes” of the official event.

Now fifty-eight years old, it’s no longer as fly by night, but performances still happen in the unlikeliest of places. Bars, church basements, high school auditoriums, the street and, even the occasional theatre have all hosted Fringe events. Sometimes content and location meet in a jarring fashion forcing a quick rescheduling of venues; Lady Chatterley’s Lover was considered a little too risqué for the basement of a Catholic Church.

Until 1968, all scripts to be performed had to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain’s office, to assure these outsiders did not cross the boundaries of moral decency. Even this protective measure hasn’t prevented attempts by outside agencies to ban productions. From the police, to trade unions, and church groups, they have all had a go at stopping shows. As is the case, the most effective means of censorship is staying away from a performance.

I’m sure that a lot of you are wondering, what exactly is “fringe’ theatre? What seems like a straightforward question has a fair number of answers. If it is considered to be on the outskirts of what is considered “normal” theatre, than it obviously changes with the times. Less then two hundred years ago Opera as we know it today was considered revolutionary and fringe, with performances being banned because they caused riots or incited dissension.

Content that would have been found offensive, or subversive twenty to thirty years ago is now perfectly acceptable, but the “fringe” movement maintains its momentum and continues to expand. What then keeps audiences and performers attending and creating for Fringe Festivals around the world? What makes it so unique?

Having been involved with the operation of a short lived fringe theatre festival, and from working on the fringes of Canadian theatre for ten years, I have formulated a couple of opinions about its ongoing attraction to audiences and performers.

Theatre, like film, is an art form dependant on audiences for their survival. If no one comes to a your shows the company won’t be around for very long. Theatres are constrained by their interpretation of audience expectations. For the most part, they believe they have to stay within certain boundaries or risk alienating customers.

If a company finds a formula that works to attract an audience, they will stick with it, even long past the point of it going stale. A summer stock theatre would never dream of performing anything more challenging than light musical comedies because history has shown them that’s what people want.

Even not for profit companies, which are supposedly the home of new and alternate theatre, who receive government funding still depend on their box office for a healthy percentage of their revenues. They can only be as innovative as their audience will allow them to be.

Fringe performances have no such restraints. Either because they are one off companies put together for that show alone, or small enough that overhead is not a consideration, their box office receipts are of less consequence. Most companies simply hope to cover the costs of being at the festival, and the travelling to get there.

It’s amazing what can be created when theatre people are given their heads. Like thoroughbred horses let loose on the backstretch, the explosion of energy is a wonder. Playwrights try out new works, performers push themselves past previous limits, and experimentation is the norm not the exception. Artistic and societal boundaries are not just pushed but end up broken in pieces on the floor.

Half of the fun of a fringe festival is not knowing anything about the work you are going to see. Even the most horrendous flop is redeemed by the fact it was a failed effort at something new and different. The sheer numbers of performances guarantees that you’ll see as many magnificent failures as successful experiments.

Theatre depends heavily on its relationship with the audience. For a performance to be able to take on a life beyond the proscenium arch, through what is known as the fourth wall of the stage, a connection must be made between actors and audience. Without that bond, it just becomes a hollow exercise of one group of people watching another, smaller, group of people doing something.

With the ever-increasing size of houses, the dependence on spectacle, and the need to, “play it safe”, the joining of actor and audience has become a rare occurrence. The immediacy that differentiates theatre from film is disappearing. A fringe festival is an opportunity to recapture that feeling.

With venues so small that actors could be almost sitting in the audience’s lap, separation would be impossible even if desired. In fact, the majority of the material is created with this relationship in mind. There is more direct interaction with an audience at one fringe show, than is usually on offer for a whole season at most theatres. Both the audience and the performers feel they have participated equally in the event.

Theatre at a fringe festival is no longer the “show” it has become today. It is a return to the roots of theatre. Travelling caravans of actors setting up in the village square to enact the tales that everybody loved and knew would bring life to a stand still. That’s the atmosphere that is created at a good festival. The fair has come to town and the rides will take your breath away.

The Edinburgh Fringe Festival is the granddaddy of fringe festivals. It has gotten so large that it even has spawned a Fringe, fringe festival of its own. Monty Python, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, Emma Thompson, and Rowan Atkinson all began their careers here. Robin Williams, Jude Law, and Hugh Grant have all performed at the Fringe.

There are now fringe festivals around the world. From major theatre centres to small towns, the attraction of inexpensive accessible theatre is almost impossible to resist. It’s theatre far removed from the glitz and glory of Broadway and Phantom of the Opera. Immediate and in your face, a fringe festival is a forceful reminder of theatre’s great potential to communicate ideas and emotions.

The Edinburgh’s Fringe Festival opening on August 7th this year marks the beginning of the fringe season. If you are lucky enough to have a festival in your town, or to have one in the vicinity, do yourself a favour and take a chance. Go and see theatre as it’s meant to be performed.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:03 AM | Permalink

Some days you just get tired of talking about politics, world issues, and other stressful ideas. You need a break from the constant drone of bickering that seems to drown out all that’s good in the world. But even when you find a story that gives you hope, that makes you smile, it somehow can’t avoid being tainted by today’s realities.

Canadian Press reported this story about a Muslim cabbie in New York City, an Orthodox Jewish Diamond dealer from Montreal, and a briefcase full of diamonds. A typical tale of the harried businessman rushing to catch a flight and forgetting a piece of his luggage; except that it wasn’t because of who the two men were.

“In a situation like that, you don’t think. What is he, Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim? He’s just a human being working hard for his money.” cabby Hossam Abdalla

While his passenger’s religion may not have mattered to Mr. Abdalla, it certainly mattered to the press who reported on the matter, and to readers like me whose eye was caught by the headline for the story. Muslim and Jew in the same heading are sure to catch the eye of most readers. With the parties involved acting like decent human beings towards each other it becomes even more riveting.

I was interested to watch my own reactions to the story. From the initial, oh isn’t that nice, something that’s not about hatred or people killing each other, to, it’s a sad commentary on today’s world that this is news. At some point between those points, my writer instincts kicked in and imagined a possible relationship developing between the two men.

What kind of pitfalls did a friendship between an Orthodox Jew and a Muslim face? How would they fit into each other’s worlds? Not only do they have the barrier of creed to overcome, but also social class. Would the wealth of the one become a matter of resentment for the other? When it began to sound like the treatment for a movie destined for the Sundance festival, I let the idle speculation grind to a halt for the moment.
There is no reason why, in an ideal world, this story should have made the papers. Its only reason for existing is that it concerned a Muslim and a Jew. How sad is it that two people treating each other with respect becomes news? The briefcase full of diamonds, which should have been the major focus of the story, is secondary to the religion of the two men.

We live in a world where people’s actions and behaviours are judged against our preconceived notions on how they should interact. These pre judgements, unfortunately, have an amount of validity and are based on experience and observation. The truth of the matter is, that cordial relations across religious and ethnic lines are more strained now then they have been in quite some time.

Polarization is of epidemic proportions and there is no cure or vaccine in sight. Fear of violence has caused the spectre of xenophobia to rear its ugly head in more than one society. The familiar is safe, while something new or different is a potential threat. While this reaction is understandable from the population at large, facing the realities of the bus and subway everyday, from our politicians it’s reprehensible.

Obligatory statements of inclusion have become so tainted by actions contradicting expressed sentiments, that they have no meaning anymore. Now when I listen to these speeches I can almost see them winking at their audience: “I don’t really mean this, but I have to say it anyway”.

It seems the only time we stick our heads or hands out of our turtle shells is to lash out at someone else. In Israel, they’re building a physical wall between themselves and their neighbours. Most other countries, groups, and individuals have thrown up the equivalent in one form or another.

Even, if by some miracle, all of the strife were to end tomorrow, these walls would remain. Trust, once discarded, cannot be put back on again like a shirt. Have we moved so far away from each other, that we have reached a point of no return? Perhaps, it will be on an individual basis, person to person, that we will be able to rebuild bridges between us.

Thierry Bellisha and Hossam Abdalla are newsworthy not for what they have done, but for the potential they represent: individuals getting to know each other across social, religious, and ethnic barriers. Each one of us is able to do the same things they have done. Nothing special, nothing earth shattering, just treating each other with dignity and respect.

There has probably always been polarization within the human race. You’d think as we evolved culturally that it would dissipate not increase. To me this only shows how far we still have to go before we mature. We’ll know when we get there, because then all that will mater will be the brief case of diamonds.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:01 AM | Permalink

Canadians have never gone in for the flag waving patriotism of their friends to the South; it’s just not our way. (Except at hockey games, but that’s a religious cult) However that does not mean we are not proud of our country. Unfortunately, the things that I used to take most pride in seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.

Canada was once known for its compassion, its sense of justice, and the ability to assist those in need without passing judgement. By no means an ideal country, but at least one that made an effort when it came to ensuring the well being of its citizens. Now, it’s hard to recognize it as the same country.

For the past twenty years, there has been a steady erosion of the safety net. School boards are declaring bankruptcy, hospitals are being closed, homelessness is on the increase, and the prisons are filling. How did this happen?

In the mid 1990’s, it became popular in certain political circles to tell people they were paying too many taxes. These same pundits also predicted doom and gloom because governments were spending far too much money. Vote for us they said, and we will lower your taxes and eliminate deficits.

Now there’s nothing like talk about taxes to inspire passion among voting public. None of us like paying them. Canadians were still trying to adjust to a new federally imposed sales tax, The Goods and Services Tax (G. S. T.) that had recently been implemented.

The problem, we were told, is that too much money is being spent on needless government programs. Too much duplication of services, many of the things that government now did could be handled by private business equally well and not cost the taxpayers a dime.

Of course, there are also those people who are leeches on society. Money that could be in your pocket is ending up in theirs because they are just too shiftless to go out and get a job. Welfare recipients, single moms, the disabled, and other unfortunates were singled out for blame.

In an interesting bit of sleight of hand, they turned the whole of society on its head. Those who had been the victims became the villains, while those who had been villains became victims. Cuts in spending on social benefits to allow for cuts in taxes to societies largest earners were now justifiable.

Health care was their biggest concern. It was sick they said and needed fixing. It needed to become more efficient in the delivery of its services. To this end half the hospitals in Ontario were closed; a thousand nurses were laid off; non-essential health care procedures like annual pap smears for women were no longer covered by public health insurance; and duplication of services offered were rationalized (if two hospitals performed the same cardiac procedure, one of them stopped)

Instead of publicly run laboratories, which did such needless procedures as devising tests for diseases; private testing only units were established. Why waist money on developing tests for something that may or may not happen? (That two of the tests under development that were shelved by this could have been used to detect S. A. R. S. and West Nile is only a small part of this policy’s legacy)

One of the sneakier ways of eliminating costs from your budget is to pass the buck down to a lower level of government. It was decided that this should be done with water purity testing for all municipalities. Instead of having a standard for across province testing, each town and city, no matter what their resources, would now have to monitor and maintain their own water supply.

The flaws in this system became apparent when the people of Walkerton Ontario started dieing from E-coli bacteria poisoning. Run off from a farmers field had polluted one of the town’s wells, and, through a series of human errors, was never caught. The simple fact of the matter was that the people who were responsible had no idea how to do the job.

After nine years of complaining about this kind of government, the people of Ontario finally voted them out of office. However, they had no one to blame but themselves. There had never been any effort to hide what was going to happen. It had been spelt out in black and white for everybody to read. Still they voted for this type of government twice.

Governments are still addicted to the whole idea of slashing budgets. Like some sort of demented economic mantra, “balanced budget” and “zero deficits” are repeated as an endless loop. Maybe they hope that by repeating it often enough someone, somewhere is going to believe it.

Supposedly, governments are here to serve us, the people. I know that at different points in the political spectrum, people have different ideas on the role of government. One thing we all have in common is that we would like them to be more responsive to how we feel. The other thing we have in common is that we all complain about the way they do their job.

In nine years of government cut backs that were supposed to save us all on our tax bill, the only physical evidence most of us saw was one $200.00 tax rebate check. For this we gave them our permission to gut the hospitals, ravage the schools, and turn thousands of poor people out into the streets.

We stood by as they dumped on welfare recipients, nurses and teachers, unions, environmentalists, and the sick. We allowed those either less fortunate then ourselves, or those who stick up for the rights of others, to be scapegoats for all the ills of society. It’s embarrassing to think how cheaply we sold ourselves.

Isn’t about time we all stopped complaining and looking for someone else to blame for our troubles. A government is a reflection of its people. Tell them you don’t like what you see in the mirror.

Tell them you think public health care is more important than corporate tax cuts. That everybody should be able to afford a post-secondary education if they want it; the poor don’t deserve to be punished, but need to be helped instead; and that you don’t want to worry whether your water’s safe to drink and your air to is safe to breathe.

They say that if we spend money we are stealing itfrom the future. If we don’t spend money, we are stealing the future period. If we don’t start to reinvest in our society what kind of dividends will it pay out in twenty years time?

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:12 AM | Permalink

I admit it. I’m one of those who jumped on the bandwagon years after the craze started. I didn’t read Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone until 2002. (Before going any further something needs to be clarified: In the United States the book was changed to Sorcerer’s Stone for reasons I have yet to understand. They have also changed the text to be “American”. All British turns of phrase and idioms have been changed to American. I guess Scholastic figured that their audience wasn’t sophisticated enough to want to read it the way it was written)

I had just gotten out of the hospital after a four week stint (one week for surgery, three for post surgical infection) and my brother gave me a copy of Philosopher’s Stone. He said: “I loved it, and the rest, so I’m sure you’ll like them too.” He’s four years older then me, and knows me pretty well, so I thought I’d try it.

I think those books nearly saved my life. I spent the next year coming to grips with the fact that I was going to spend the rest of my life suffering from a chronic pain condition. At the same time, my wife developed a severe panic disorder. We were not in the greatest of shape.

When my mother came down for a visit a week or so after my brother she had gotten the message about what would make me happy and came with Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban. After two months, I must have read the three books at least three times each.

I consider myself fortunate in that, unlike others, I was able to read the first four books as a unit. It wasn’t until awaiting publication of the fifth book Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix that I became as obsessively impatient as, what seemed to be, the rest of the English speaking world. I even decided to extend my torment by a week, by ordering a copy from England’s Bloomsbury Publishing, instead of a local outlet.

When I received my copy a week later than others, I was glad that I did. They still know how to publish books so that they will endure. The paper quality is superior, the bindings stronger, and does not exude the mass produced quality that pervades so many other new editions today.

How well I remember checking out information sites about Harry Potter in the weeks and months leading up to Phoenix’s publication. Searching for any clue as to what may or may not happen. So I was interested to note a change in myself after placing my order for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince last January.

I felt no compunction to read the numerous speculative articles that people began writing from the moment publication was announced. I was no less excited at the prospect of getting my hands on the latest chapter in Harry’s life, than the previous time, but something had changed. For both Harry and me.
Harry became orphaned at the age of one, and for the next ten years might has well have stayed one for all the familial support he received. It wasn’t until he came to Hogwarts that he began to feel like he belonged anywhere.

With the death of his godfather Sirius Black, and the revelations contained in the prophecy, he found himself alone again. As the scar on his forehead has distinguished him from others physically, he is now separated emotionally and mentally from his contemporaries. How many of us, at the age of fifteen, have ever had to deal with the type of burden he found himself facing?

It’s amazing how when you are dealing with some sort of issue in your life everyone knows what’s best for you. Friends, acquaintances, and family all have opinions on how you should be living your life. All based on what is best for them.

Having been the recipient of much idle speculation myself, and knowing how much I despised it, I made the conscious choice to stay as far away from any of that concerning the Half Blood Prince as possible. It may sound weird, but I wanted to give Harry some space.

It is testament to J. K. Rowling’s abilities as an author that one could actually care this much for a fictional character. Not just the character, but also the whole world she has created for our pleasure and education. The lessons Harry learns are ones that more of us need to comprehend. As Rowling makes clear in Half Blood Prince, no matter what is going on in our lives, it is important to remember that we still have a life, and to live and experience it to the best of our abilities.

I have heard and read a lot of people complaining about the amount of time spent in this book on teenage romances. These are fifteen and sixteen year olds. Try to remember what your hormones were doing to you back then. Harry is a human being, who happens to be a wizard. Why should he act any different from other boys his age?

I think Rowling has included the sub plot of romance just to stress that point. It doesn’t matter if your marked like Harry is for an uncertain future. Live in the moment and experience your life. As Hagrid said at the end of Goblet of Fire “No good sittin’ worryin’ abou’ it...What’s comin’ wil come, an’ we’ll meet it when it does.”

What continues to make these books special is the fact that they are more than just an adventure story. Even as the action gets more intense and dangerous, Rowling deliberately diverts us back to the character’s somewhat normal school life. Intentionally or not, (she says she’s known from day one what each book will be about and it’s story) she’s provided us with a parallel to our own security-obsessed world.

From the Ministry of Magic’s rather useless proclamations, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley’s obsessive behaviour, and Albus Dumbledor’s calm reminders and requests, the majority of adult figures in the book continue to stress the dangers people are in. These are not idle threats either, as Harry, Ron, and Hermione find out. Twice they are able to intercede to save a person’s life.

Nevertheless, life doesn’t, and shouldn’t, stop because of these incidences. Harry is now Quidditch Captain and has to deal with selecting an all-new team. There are lessons to attend and two new teachers to break in. (yes two, and I’m not going to give anything away) On top of all that is a raging outbreak of Hormones.

Of course, like us, their world is played out against a backdrop of mystery and intrigue. What’s Draco Malfoy up to? Is Severus Snape a double double agent? Will Hagrid forgive them for not taking Care of Magical Creatures? Where exactly does Dumbledore disappear to for great stretches at a time? Who exactly is the Half Blood Prince?

Harry discovers the answers to all of these riddles, he thinks, as the book progresses. At the same time, he is growing within himself as a person, and coming to realizations about who he is, and what that entails. There are choices he will have to make, and then live with the consequences.

In his last year before he officially comes of age, we watch Harry become an adult. While still impulsive and headstrong, he’s come to realize that he is answerable for all of his actions. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is about growing up, that last little bit of adolescent energy being curtailed by the responsibilities of adulthood.

It shows us people in transition, moving beyond their childhood dreams and fantasies into the realities of adulthood. Played out against a background of tumultuous times, Rowling has given us an accurate portrayal of children and teenagers reaching their maturity. It is the right book for this point in the series.

We know that Book Seven will be an end no matter what. How it will end we still don’t know, but the stage for the final showdown is now set. Harry will be seventeen when we next see him, an adult according to the wizard’s world. Will his first year as an adult be his last?

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:54 AM | Permalink

Haitian born Michaelle Jean will make history on September 27th 2005. On that day, she will be invested as the first black Governor-General of Canada. The forty eight year old former TV journalist is the second immigrant in a row named to be Canada’s titular head of state. Her predecessor, Adrian Clarkson, also a journalist, was of Japanese heritage.

Ms. Jean’s selection continues the practice of alternating between Governor-Generals selected from English speaking Canada and Quebec. Her selection continues the trend started with Ms. Clarkson’s appointment of choosing a person from outside of the traditional corridors of power.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Canadian system of government, it is what’s known as a constitutional monarchy. The sovereign, in this case the King or Queen of England, is a figurehead, while parliament and its leader run the country. In Canada, the Governor-General represents the Queen.

Until 1952, the representative of the British crown was appointed by the Queen and sent over from England. The first Canadians selected to the position were from, what would be considered, Canada’s version of elite families, people with connections politically and socially.

It wasn’t until the seventies, with the selection of Edward Schreyer, former premier of Manitoba, that the Governor-General began to reflect society. The back-to-back appointment of two immigrant women shows just how much our society has changed in the past thirty years.

What makes Ms. Jean’s selection even more unique is that for the first time a non-European francophone has been placed in a position of significant power. Canada is proving to be multicultural in both of its official languages. It will be interesting to see how Quebec nationalists respond to this change.

In a previous sovereignty referendum, Jacque Parizeau, leader of the nationalist Parti Quebecois, blamed what he called, the immigrant vote for the rejection of Quebec independence. This was widely seen as an attack upon racial minorities like Haitians who had settled in Quebec because it was francophone, but considered themselves Canadians first and Quebecois second.

Subsequent nationalist leaders have never aired this view in public since, but it must still be a matter of concern. As Quebec evolves into a multicultural francophone society, what effects will that have on the sovereignty movement? Will non-Quebec born people, or even second-generation immigrants, share their compatriot’s ambition for independence?

According to today’s Globe and Mail the political finger pointing began at yesterday’s press conference announcing Ms. Jean’s appointment.

Responding to speculation that her appointment may have been a political manoeuvre designed to rally Liberal support in Quebec, Ms. Jean said. "I've never been a token, sir, and I never will be.”

Twenty-five years ago, it would have been unthinkable for a woman of colour to be selected as Governor-General of Canada, let alone one whose husband had been previously married and is white. As the face of Canadian society changes, so should the symbols that are its representatives.

The office of Governor-General has always been symbolic, of the monarchy and our association with England and the Commonwealth. Now it reflects the face of the society it represents.

Michealle Jean’s appointment as Governor-General of Canada shows the world that Canada’s belief in equality is more than just words. The country still has a long way to go, but it is starting to walk its talk. In these days of unrest and fear, most countries seem to be pulling back form change. It’s nice to see one country at least make an effort in the opposite direction.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:22 AM | Permalink

When Palm World Voices, headed up by former Island Records head honcho Chris Blackwell, announced a series of boxed sets celebrating World Music, I have to admit my reaction was rather muted. Although the premise of mixing music, visuals, and cultural information was promising, I had my doubts about their abilities to deliver.

Well, if the second release, AFRICA is anything to judge the rest of the series by then you may want to mortgage the house if needs be. No matter what they cost this series is going to be indispensable for those with any interest in World Music. The only problem I’m having is trying to figure out what to lavish praise on first.

Aside from a few minor quibbles, AFRICA is a spectacular release from packaging to content. What you get is a compilation CD of a wide representation of African musical styles, a DVD that places the songs against a culturally representative backdrop, a beautifully illustrated information booklet, and a National Geographic map that provides historical and geographical references.

A collection like this will only be as good as it’s choices of music. Luckily for them, and us, they have the whole Universal Music Enterprises’ back catalogue to draw upon. Some names, like King Sunny Ade of Nigeria and Baaba Maal of Senegal, will be recognised by a wider audience, but others may be less familiar. African Fiesta’s 1968 recording of “Paquita” and Pepe Kalle’s “Maya” are two songs and artists completely new to me.

One thing that becomes abundantly clear on listening to this disc is there is no such thing as “African” music. Listen to the music, the instruments and styles differ radically from country to country, the same as they would in any continent. Would you lump Quebecois music in the same category as Mexican? This CD makes it clear that it’s equally ridiculous to lump Senegalese and South African music together.

Spread out the included National Geographic map and see the different musical instruments that have come from each nation. From the Mbira (thumb piano) of Zimbabwe, the Hoddu (a small three to five stringed precursor of the banjo from Senegal), to the more widely known Djembe drums of West Africa, instruments are as varied as the peoples.

Of course, none of the artists have escaped the influence of other forms of music. While our pop musicians have borrowed freely from Africa, the influences of reggae, latin, the blues, and even country can be discerned in the music of the newer performers. It’s this cross-pollination, more than anything else that turns regional songs into World Music.

The producers have compiled archival film footage from a variety of sources to create a visual montage for the accompanying DVD. Daily life, festivals, breathtaking scenery, and even a coronation provide a context for the music. From the lush tea fields of Kenya to the sub Sahara of Ethiopia each region is as distinct as its music.

The DVD is not encumbered by dialogue. The music and the visuals combine to establish a link between the viewer and the environment. Watching Kenyan fishermen on Lake Victoria utilizing the methods of their fathers to net a day’s catch, or craftsmen using improvised tools to complete a project illustrates the harsh realities of people’s lives in Africa. Here, you realize, survival is not taken for granted and gratitude for simple pleasures is genuine.

As the music plays behind these scenes one begins to understand its importance to the people of this harsh world. Although some of the rhythms and melodies may have tribal origins, and others pop culture, what is important is that the music speaks to the people in terms they can all appreciate.

The booklet included with the collection, includes a quote from Nelson Mandela that defines the relationship between Africans and their musicians:

"Artists reach areas far beyond the reach of politicians. Art, especially entertainment and music, is understood by everybody, and it lifts the spirits and the morale of those who hear it.”

Combined with the National Geographic map, the information in this booklet manages to cover topics as diverse as the political situations in various countries, a who’s who of western musicians who have been involved in African music, and the key players from the continent.

The one area that this collection is slightly lacking is information about the individual songs. All that is given is the title, artist name, and year of publication. Although some backgrounds can be found in other places in the booklet or on the map, there is no central listing supplying biographical details of all the artists.

Aside from this minor quibble Africa, the second release in Palm World Voices’ six part series on World Music, is a remarkable achievement. Their objective was to try and create as complete an experience as possible for the purchaser. In Africa they have an unmitigated success.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 05:29 AM | Permalink

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory is calling on his political counterparts to join him in a crackdown on illegal guns and those who use them in response to this weekend's six shootings in Toronto, three of which were fatal.

Mr. Tory said Monday that provincial and city leaders must come together to convince the federal government that stricter security at borders and tougher minimum sentences could be part of the solution.

"It's time for Ontario and Canada to close the border to illegal guns," he said.

This lead from Tuesday’s August 2nd Globe and Mail article focusing on the proliferation of illegal weaponry in Canada, specifically Ontario, shows how much Canada and the United States differ on the issue of guns. How many conservative leaders in the United States would say? “That means too many guns in the hands of too many people.”

To be perfectly fair I will add that this also highlights the differences among conservatives in Canada. Although the federal Conservative Party of Canada makes the claim to be strong on law and order, they have long been opposed to the government’s gun registry program. (All privately owned guns have to be registered by their owners with the government.) They claim it is an unnecessary infringement on individual rights.

That right there is the crux of the matter. The primary argument used in America against gun control revolves around a clause in their constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms. Whatever the original meaning of that clause may have been, the fact remains that the sentiment has become firmly entrenched in the American psyche.

Until 1981, Canada did not even have a document equivalent to the American Bill of Rights. Nothing existed, at least, not one that could create the same lasting impression, and imbue opinion with such passion. It’s hard to get excited about something called The British North American Act. (The B. N. A.)

In my opinion, all major differences between the two countries can be traced back to the means of their formation. While the United States was born out of revolution, Canada was created by an act of British Parliament.

The founding fathers of America wrote a brand new Constitution and Bill of Rights for their new country. In 1867 when the country was created, it was agreed that Canada would continue on being governed by the B. N. A., which had been written around the same time as the American Constitution by the British Parliament.

The primary purpose of the B. N. A. was to guarantee the rights of French speaking Quebec (than called Lower Canada) and to ensure there would be no repeat of the unpleasant business south of the 49th parallel. It placed far more emphasise on good government and keeping the peace than individual rights and freedoms. As Canada and the United States have matured this distinction can be seen in their different approaches to everything from health care and social programming to gun control.

Canadian governments have traditionally taken a direct approach to ensure the well being of their population at large, the common good before individual need. The American philosophy has been almost the complete opposite: nurture individual rights, sometimes at the expense of the common good, thus allowing everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.

While there is a minority within each country that express dissatisfaction with their respective approaches to governance, the majority are content. Even when governments change, the most anybody does is tinker within the established framework. Any attempt to deviate from the norm is met with fierce public opposition.

It is only since the repatriation of the constitution in the early eighties and the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as its companion document, that Canadians have begun to rethink their philosophy. It will be interesting to see what kind of long term effects this has on the societal values that provide the basis for policy.

Gun control has always been a “law and order” issue in Canada. There is no emotional or historical bond between the Canadian people and weapons. They have no meaning beyond function.

In America, guns are more than just objects. They have come to symbolize the struggle for freedom and the rights of the individual. The archetype of the lone cowboy standing up for justice against a band of outlaws is a powerful image, and one dear to the hearts of a great many Americans.

Even the most liberal of American politicians would think long and hard before saying something even approximating Mr. Tory’s pronouncement of “Too many guns in the hands of too many people”. It would be interpreted as an attempt to curtail freedoms.

With two countries that have so much in common, language, cultural heritage, and religion, you would expect to find similar values and ideals. Yet, while it is true there are areas of common ground, they just serve to highlight the differences. It is in their responses to social issues like gun control that each countries character is revealed.

It is one of the great wonders of humanity that two nations, side by side, can evolve in such different ways. I know that there are people on both sides of the border who look and see greener grass over the fence, or, perceive in the other some kind of threat.

We would all be much further ahead if we could learn to just celebrate the fact that two countries with such diverse views on life have managed to set an example to the rest of the world. Since the creation of Canada in 1867, there has never been a dispute between the two nations that has not been resolved peacefully. How many countries in the world sharing a common border can make that claim?

Before leaping to conclusions about either country based on their response to the issue of gun control, critics should keep in mind what has gone into that decision. You don’t have to agree with, or even like, their reaction, but at least you can show it some respect. Friends don’t always have to agree with each other, but a little understanding goes a long way.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 08:49 AM | Permalink

No Money Down Real Estate! Make Money Fast! Sure Fire Money Earner! They were everywhere in eighties. Anytime you would turn the television on after 11pm at night or first thing Sunday morning there they were extolling the virtues of their sure fire money making system. Real estate dealt, mail order sales, investment schemes, whatever. They all had a guaranteed way for you to make money.

Than there were the motivational speakers. The ones who could tell you how to feel good about yourself? It turned out that was all that stood between you and success, feeling good about yourself. Of course since I never bought one of the tapes or books I don’t quite know what that means or how to go about doing it. That could explain why I’m not living in a mansion yet.

You could almost find these guys funny. They were oh so serious and sincere. My favourite was a small Korean guy who was always surrounded by tall bikini clad women. Look, he was saying, what money can give you. If a short funny looking guy like me can score why can’t you. Didn’t say much for his opinion of North American women though.

Now book stores have a section specific to this type, Self Help. A whole new genre of writing was borne out of greed. These books range in topics from losing weight, getting more and better sex, perfecting your relationships, recovering from your last relationship, and withdrawal from Oprah.(okay I made the last one up)Shelve upon shelve oozing advice and blame.

How dare you be such a mess when there’s all this help available. You only have yourself to blame if you can’t actualize some sort of positive realization to affect re-evaluation. Huh? They may not even understand what they’re saying themselves, but they don’t need to, all they have to do is explain it with catchy chapter titles. “The Real You Beneath The Fake You” sort of thing.

Most of these are pretty harmless. If someone wants to take them seriously they probably won’t get to badly hurt by them. But there’s a newer trend that makes me slightly more nervous. The combining of spiritual growth and material gain.

I’ve yet to figure out what one has to do with the other. But the new buzzword is abundance. You can pray for it, wish for it, and offer it to others. There’s even a guardian angel for each of you so you can achieve abundance. But you have to be positive and not think any negative thoughts, or it will pass you by.

Yep you’ve nobody else to blame but yourself for your current lot in life. Just stop thinking those negative thoughts and watch the money start rolling in. Use the force Luke to ensure that you can live in a palace with your every need catered too.

I’m not a Christian but I still think that Jesus Christ had the right idea when he tossed the money lenders out of the temple. Maybe I misunderstood the meaning behind that action, but it seems to me an indication that commerce has no place in spirituality. I can understand how some physical churches need funding for their programming etc. But that’s not the same thing.

The whole idea that one needs material wealth to be happy runs against the teachings of all the great spiritual leaders of all faiths. Jesus, The Buddha, and others have all taught that what is important is intangible. Faith for the sake of faith not for any reward on this plane.

In fact don’t most teachings advocate a ridding oneself of worldly possessions so as to gain a greater appreciation for the divine presence. What kind of spirituality advocates the selfish practice of praying for goodies?

What ever happened to being grateful for the gifts we have instead of wanting more? Maybe I’m just conservative and old fashioned, but I find the whole idea of striving to be more spiritual for the goal of obtaining material wealth nauseating.

I may not follow one of the major religions but that doesn’t prevent me from respecting and appreciating what each one of them has to offer. Comfort and solace in time of need, direction and guidance in times of personal crises, and a credo to form a basis for important decisions seem to me the things most people look for in their spiritual practice.

The path I’ve chosen for myself, although different form the norm, fulfills those requirements for me. In none of my readings on any of the faiths, or studies with any of my teachers has the subject of obtaining material gain from practices ever come up. Spiritual matters should be concerned with the nurturing of the soul and the heart, not the bank book.

What’s scariest for me is the number of people who I have thought to be sensible who actually talk about “obtaining abundance” While claiming to be devoting themselves to a spiritual life they spend their days obsessing about money to an extent that would make a corporate stockholder embarrassed.(apologies to any corporate stockholders, it was the only analogy I could come up with)

It’s a sad reflection on our society that a.) there are people who write books encouraging people to behave like this and b.) that there is a sufficient audience for these types of books that they quickly become bestsellers.

Prayer and belief no longer seem to be enough of a reward on their own. Instead people are demanding a return on their investment. How much more selfish can we get?

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:01 AM | Permalink

Sixtieth anniversaries are few and far between. Not many people are still around for them for one thing. Those who are, usually don’t have much more time to spend with us. These events need to be honoured and cherished by all who have any connection, no matter how slim, to the circumstances.

August 6th 2005 will mark the 60th anniversary of the dropping of an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Just four days latter Nagasaki was devastated by a second blast. Although many people point to the allied fire bombing of Dresden in Germany as the most devastating in terms of civilian casualties, that doesn’t take into account the post blast consequences.

The long term effects of the radiation left behind by the two bombs continued to show up in post blast generations. Birth defects, sterility, and other symptoms associated with exposure to high levels of radiation were common place for years after.

I’d like to think that in our naiveté at the time our leaders didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were doing. That they were not just dropping an incredibly high powered bomb would never occur to them. I would hate to think of anybody consciously deciding to use a weapon that they knew would devastate generations to come no matter what the circumstances.

When I’ve talked to people of my parent’s generation about the bombing they have, in most instances, said there initial reaction was that of relief that the war would be over. For people like my father who were a year away from entering the army it meant that they would not have to take part in an invasion of Japan. Given the previous tenacity shown in their defence of outlying territories they had previously occupied, it was reasonably expected that casualties in a land war would be astronomical for both sides.

What we know now is that Japan’s war machine was coming down to it’s last legs. They had always had very low reserves of the oil and natural resources necessary for arming themselves, and the four years of war fare had just about exhausted their supplies. Any invasion would have been bitterly contested, but without proper equipment they could not have held out for long.

Hindsight has always been said to be twenty-twenty so judgement in that area is probably unfair. If I had been alive at the time I doubt I would have reacted any differently than others of that generation. It would have been such a relief for the war to be finally over.

That being said it’s one thing to understand the reasons behind an action, but it’s another thing all together to forget the results of the same action. According to survivors it seems that less and less people want to know or hear about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Weapons continue to proliferate at an alarming rate and the chances of one being used again increase proportionately with increased availability.

When the Cold War sputtered to a stop in 1987 it was hoped that this would see the end for the “need” of countries to have the capability of blowing the world up countless times over. For a while it looked like this hope was being borne out, as the testing of nuclear weapons had ceased by 2000. But since September 11 2001 the United States have held eight bomb tests and the Russians one.

I don’t know how either country figures that testing weapons, or event their availability will, help them in their wars against terrorists. Unless their plan is to turn huge swathes of land into parking lots nuclear bombs are of know use against terrorists. In fact their continued existence poses the biggest potential threat possible.

What if it had been a nuclear device set off in London last week? What use would Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles been? The old policies of deterrent and détente are no longer applicable. When dealing with primarily a stateless enemy, in other words they represent a concept not a nation, retaliation on a large scale is fruitless. If the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan haven’t stopped attacks will turning either Syria or Iran into a smoking hole offer any better result?

The attitude of “just nuke the bastards” won’t accomplish anything in this day’s world. Instead of testing eight nuclear bombs since 2001 wouldn’t the Bush administration have been better served by spending that money on beefing up security against the potential for an attack by those they consider “rogue” states who are looking to gain nuclear capabilities.(Iran and North Korea) Being able to knock one out of the sky seems more important right now than developing newer and stronger ones.

Five years ago at the review of the United Nations nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty the U.S. had agreed with long term goal of eliminating all atomic weapons. Just last spring the most current review fell apart because of their refusal to co-operate on disarmament issues. This is the same administration who continually expresses dismay over the possibility of Iran and North Korea obtaining the same weapons.

Any moral authority they had for protesting about those countries evaporates in the face of their own interagency when it comes to the same issue. There is no way a country like North Korea should be permitted to arm itself with weapons capable of mass destruction, but who has the right to say that only I am allowed to play with those toys?

Hiroshima survivors are finding it harder and harder to get anyone to listen to their stories. Even though some of them still bear scars that reflect the awful damage of the bomb the last four years has seen an alarming shift away from compassion to downright hostility. Bookings to speak at schools in America are cancelled at the last moment.

All of a sudden they are being labelled as opponents of the administration. They are beginning to fear that people are forgetting the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s not just in America that they run into the problem of indifference. Japan is gradually phasing out peace education components in school curriculum, and with the survivor generation dying out there are few reminders of the horror left.

Prior to September 11 2001 the words ground zero were used in reference to the impact site of a nuclear bomb. Their mention would evoke images of a mushroom cloud and scenes of mass destruction. People’s shadows left on buildings as the flash obliterated them but burned their image indelibly into stone, skin bubbling of the bone from the intense heat, and other graphic images culled from news clips were brought to mind by those two words.

Far too many people will no longer know what those words initially meant. We are facing the danger of becoming the victims of tunnel vision. Obsessing on one thing only without remembering the potential for other acts of horror. I’ll probably get in trouble for this but in my mind not remembering the atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is akin to forgetting other acts of horror from the 20th century like the genocides of the Holocaust, the mass extermination of Armenians, and the ethnic violence of Rawanda and the Balkans.

When we ignore the lessons of history we run the danger of repeating our past mistakes. In these days of strife and turmoil it becomes more not less important that we stay aware of those reminders of how dangerous as a species we can be. This Saturday August 6th wherever you are, what ever you are doing, spare a seconds thought for those who died at the original ground zero.

cheers
gypsyman

--------

Posted by Richard Marcus at 06:39 AM | Permalink