Laurie's Blog



This page provides comments and opinions on current events, as well as topics not related to other sections of this website. Entries are in reverse chronological order (most recent at the top). Note that these brief commentaries have now also been added and linked from the Contents page on this site.

Imperialism 2025

Posted February 14, 2025

Preface

I must begin by reiterating that I am not anti-American, so far as it's people are concerned. I have met and interacted with a great number of American citizens throughout my personal and professional life, and I can't think of one of those whom I really disliked. I also have a much-loved family, some of whom are Americans. But I do have a strong dislike for the federal government of the US, and most especially the current leadership of that government. My dislike is not total; being in some ways a social conservative, I actually approve of some of their social policies, especially as they pertain to religious freedom and abortion (though not on issues like public health care and humanitarian issues). I have always, at least since the days of former president Jimmy Carter, strongly disagreed with American governments on defence issues, and considered their "Department of War" to be a pack of warmongers. The US seems always to be at war. Compare that to the record of the Chinese for instance, and you will see something completely different. But I digress.

The issue

Ever since World War II, national borders have pretty much been considered to be inviolable. History shows that war was a frequent outcome when borders were not respected. Even in cases of external intervention in civil strife, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, and many others, many thoughtful people considered these to be wrong. The attack on Iraq for fabricated reasons was especially condemned, as many nations (including Canada) refused to participate in that war. This respect for international borders contrasted sharply with prior decades and centuries, when colonial takeovers and rule were commonplace, such as were done by the Dutch, French, British, Germans and many others. In those times, many "western" countries considered imperialism to be a normal and justifiable activity for great powers. It appears that some people, especially in the US federal government, are reverting to those middle-ages beliefs that "might is right," and great powers are entitled to the wealth and territory of lesser states, either through outright takeovers, or my making them vassals as was done against India and China by the British, and against many African and South American countries by a host of western powers. Is Canada finding itself in a similar position? Is the "elephant next door" mentioned by Justin Trudeau's father Pierre really as much of a threat as he implied? Many will say I'm jumping to conclusions, and I hope they're right. But perhaps we need to consider the evidence before arriving at a final decision.

The US case against Canada

American President Donald Trump has claimed that Canada is guilty of allowing both illegal immigration and deadly street drugs (mainly fentanyl) to enter the US through an inadequately-guarded international border. At least this was the initial, primary claim, and he continues to use it to this day. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria admits that there is absolutely no justification for picking on Canada. From US statistics, fewer than 10% of border infractions take place along the long Canada-US border, and just 0.2% of fentanyl seizures happen along our border. It's not zero, but about as close as you could hope to get. Although I don't want to demonise Mexico on this matter, these problems really do pertain mostly to the southern border of the US.

Trump and his US administration have also claimed that the US is subsidising Canada to the tune of at least US$63.3 billion per year. This cannot continue, Trump said. Soon after he went on to claim the trade deficit was really $98 billion (which must have included services, as well as goods). He then added that the deficit with Canada really comprises a $200 billion subsidy, when the cost of providing for Canada’s defence is taken into account. “We basically protect Canada,” he said. I might add that this protection is invisible to me and unwanted by most Canadians. Seriously, we have few enemies. But in any event trade deficits are not the same thing as subsidies. And the only country Canada needs protection from at the moment is the US. The USA has a much larger population than Canada, and therefore it could be expected that they would import more than Canada does. Canada actually runs a smaller surplus in goods with the US (US$63.3 billion), than Vietnam does ($123.5 billion), or China ($295.4 billion). This is from US-derived statistics for 2024. In fact, if you exclude the crude oil that the US buys from Canada, it sells more to our country than it buys. This includes all the lumber, steel, aluminum, and other natural resources that Canada sells to the US. The problem is that Trump and his associates are treating these sales to the US not as "goods procured," but strictly as a "trade deficit." They take no account of the fact they are indeed receiving something of value for these US dollars. It's not like aid money is just being transferred to Canadians. But that is how Trump is making it sound to Americans.

Historical context

Unfortunately there is a rich history of taking over foreign lands for their natural resources. It is not much spoken of in the US, but in retaliation for the enormous value of tariffs the US has been placing against China's goods, and especially for the blocking of American technology from being exported to China, that country is now retaliating by blocking export of most of its rare earth minerals to the US. These include lithium, lutetium, dysprosium, terbium, yttrium, cerium, neodymium, praseodymium, germanium and gallium. Apparently by God's own choice, China owns 70% of these minerals currently being extracted, and at least half of all global reserves. Other countries with significant reserves include Russia, Brazil, and Australia. Last year the US itself extracted only 0.07% of these very necessary rare earth minerals. And rare earth minerals are critical in the manufacture of much of the hi-tech equipment which people use today, from computers and smart phones to electric vehicles and engineering equipment. They are especially essential for military equipment and missiles. Lack of these minerals will stall US production of both consumer goods and military hardware.

With China getting its revenge, Russia being America's Enemy #1, and Brazil being a founding nation of the rapidly-growing BRICS economic alliance, the problem is obvious. It's also clear why Australia is being exempted from Trump's current round of tariffs, which many people can't understand. Australia has significant amounts of these minerals. But Canada also has a decent share. Why is Trump's policy against us different? The only rational explanation I have heard is that Trump plans to take over Canada one way or another, at which time all our resources will belong to the US and there will be no royalties to pay. Also, extraction, which often does great harm to the land, will all be done on Canadian soil. It's really a win-win for America. And Trump has freely admitted that while he will not invade Canada, he will "bring us to our knees through economic means". These are fighting words, not words said to a friend.

It should be noted that Greenland has the eighth-largest reserves of known rare earth minerals in the world. So that pretty much explains why he says it's essential that the US take over this Danish territory as well. It is not just to keep tabs on Russian ships, which, except for submarines, can be easily monitored from space. Trump is now also demanding Ukraine's rare earth minerals to help pay for the enormous military costs of this war, which his nation had a major part in inciting. The problem is that Ukraine has few known reserves of these minerals, so no-one knows exactly what he's getting at, beyond some kind of vague demand to get money from Ukraine in exchange for past military support.

“Many people in Canada will LOVE being the 51st State,” Trump goaded on his "Truth Social" account. And “Here’s what I think, said Joe Rogan, one of the most influential and most-watched podcast providers in the world: "I think we take Canada and then we go right into Mexico.” Yes, of course I know he doesn't speak for the government - but rather jests about things his watchers - many of them Trump supporters - would like to see. Also, on Fox News on January 8 2025, Conservative political commentator and Trump devotee Jesse Waters expressed a desire for a military invasion of Canada amidst the backdrop of Trump's comments about turning Canada into America's 51st state. He stated: "Canada...the fact that they don’t want us to take them over makes me want to invade. I want to quench my imperialist thirst". During an interview with Ontario premier Doug Ford, Watters also said, "if I were a citizen of another country and I was a neighbour of the United States, I would consider it a privilege to be taken over by the United States of America. That’s what everybody else in the world wants — American citizenship. For some reason, that’s repellant to you Canadians, and I find that personally offensive". I know these weren't words from Donald Trump himself or the US Federal government. But they were words by well-known and influential people that Trump's rhetoric is spawning amongst his followers. Formerly, such ideas would have been thought to be completely disgusting to almost all Americans. Their authors would have been forsaken by audiences. But now there is little in the way of objection, and their ratings don't appear to be suffering at all. This is not the America of the past.

Threatened action against Canada

According to an article from the New Republic, admittedly an anti-Trump publisher, at Mar-a-Lago they witnessed something rarely seen in our modern times: the ritual, public emasculation of a nation of 40 million people. In a rambling, venom-tinged Tuesday press conference at his Mar-a-Lago compound, President Trump reportedly threatened to bring Canada to its knees; to subject it to blunt economic force until it submits to his desires. "Canada and the United States, that would really be something,” he then mused. “You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like.” This has been widely repeated by a significant number of other sources, and the point that Trump never denied saying this lends credibility to the report. This is not what one hopes to hear from someone who is leader of one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world, and is also your neighbour. We couldn't help thinking of what Ukrainians were thinking when Russia was threatening to take them over.

Trump's background rationale

I recently heard an American commentator, apparently in the "know," say he can't remember any other US president who has been as anti-Canadian as Donald Trump. A few reasons for this were clearly expressed by Trump and his negotiators at the North American Free Trade negotiations during his previous presidency. Primary complaints were regarding the fact that Canadians get medical and pharmaceutical coverage at much lower individual cost than Americans to. This he seemed to blame on Canada, rather than on American government policy or medical/pharmaceutical company actions. Another major gripe regarded the guaranteed minimum prices offered to farmers on several agricultural products, most notably eggs, dairy, and some grains. My wife formerly worked at the Canadian Wheat Board which helped enforce these policies, and has only good things to say about it. While some Canadians have complained a bit over the slightly higher prices at the supermarket resulting from these efforts, the majority of us have agreed that the added security for food producers makes it worthwhile. It also reduces the number of bankruptcies after crop failures which inevitably result in large agricultural conglomerates picking up family farms at bargain prices after they are forced to sell. Insurance costs are also less under our system, since all Canadians to some extent "cover" the costs resulting from challenges from weather and health problems that periodically affect food production. The big advantage to Canadians from this is that farming families have more stability and security, and there is also an element of stability for prices to the consumers. Similar policies are in effect in many European countries...and not only in Scandinavian ones. But this "socialism" is of course much hated by Trump and right-wing politicians. From what we've heard Trump say in the past, these are likely the two greatest reasons he dislikes Canada, in addition to the newer one where he realises we have many of the rare earth minerals which the US now so desperately needs, though most Americans are not yet aware of this unfolding crisis.

Canada's response

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau travelled down to Mar-a-Lago, "to bend the knee" according to some American pundits. He asked the US president what he wanted, and apparently $1.3 billion dollars worth of additional border security was agreed upon. This included use of American-made, Canadian-bought military Black Hawk helicopters which are already patrolling the border at our expense. We live close to the border and have heard one at our house a couple of times, and my wife pointed out "they make the house shake." These are the noisiest aircraft I have ever heard at our house, far exceeding what we heard from Concorde jets in the past. How they are going to catch any smugglers is beyond me; they can be heard coming from miles away. But that's not the point. The point is that Canada is being made to do something about this largely fictitious perceived threat, and making our own RCMP police do the dirty work is just rubbing our noses in it. But the Black Hawks exude American power, and that's what Trump wants us to see (and hear). For a moment it felt like we were in a war zone. Thankfully we haven't heard one for a couple of days now, so hopefully they will be kept out of built-up areas in the future.

In any event these efforts by Canada are proving to be fruitless, as Trump is going ahead with his tariffs anyway. He backed off from them for one month, not in response to any objections from Canada but from a marked decline in world stock markets on the day the tariffs were to be imposed. This may be the one arrow in Canada's quiver that could deter him from trying to make Canada "not a country," which Trump states we would be without the "huge American subsidies."

Canada is also now busily finding alternative trading partners, something which observers note we should have been doing long ago. Letting 70-80% of our exports (depending on how you calculate them) be sent to one country was a fundamental blunder. Of course we never expected someone like Trump would come along, so our trust in the USA ran far too deep. Apparently rapid strides are now being made to secure or enhance trade agreements with the U.K., the European Union, and Australia, all of whom are themselves looking for new trading partners in case Trump turns on them too. And surprisingly, Canada is even starting to mend its relationship with China. This had previously been a very strong friendship, due to the much-appreciated work of Canadian physician Norman Bethune - whose humanitarian work in China endeared generations of Chinese people to Canada. The arrest of Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in December 2018, at the USA's demand, brought an abrupt end to this friendly relationship. But apparently Canada is now in late-stage negotiations with China to provide Canadian crude oil and hydrocarbon products to the People's Republic, using a nearly-completed (and previously highly controversial) pipeline from Alberta to the west coast. Contracts are also being signed, and infrastructure development accelerated to facilitate transfer of liquid natural gas (LNG) from Nova Scotia to the European Union. While some still believe that Trump is just bullying other countries with his "fourth most favourite word - tariff", Canada along with other nations are doing the best that they can to survive the turbulent four years that lie ahead.

Other responses

The number of alliances that are being abandoned by the US today is remarkable. In some ways, Trump seems to be adding more tariffs to allies than to his declared foes. Consider that Canada and Mexico received 25% across-the-board tariffs, and similar tariffs are "under consideration" against the European Union. Meanwhile China's tariff, which admittedly were already very high, was only increased a further 10%. Others have commented on the strangeness of this. I note that Panama is another former ally that is being threatened, again because they have something that Trump wants: free access to the Panama Canal.

As the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen recently said about this, the world is changing. At the recent World Artificial Intelligence (AI) workshop just held in Paris, and co-hosted by France and India, the US refused to sign the joint communique on the way forward in AI. The U.K. also refused to sign, though they could give no reason. It is obvious that after abandoning the EU through BREXIT, they are now desperate for trade deals with the US (which they have so far failed to get), and are fearful of offending Trump. So is all this strife and disagreement just an act, and a forerunner of future negotiations? No-one knows.

Conclusions

To those who say this is just the bluster of a bully, and Trump and his supporters are just trolling, I ask whether this is something that should be assumed, when he not only has the power to carry out his threats, but is already beginning to do so. I'm not necessarily comparing Trump to Hitler (despite his henchman Elon Musk's apparent fondness of right wing extremists), but these are similar to the comments of disbelief uttered by hopeful western peoples as Hitler began to act on his threats at the beginning of World War II. And as American commentator Fareed Zakaria recently said, "citizens freely debating laws in America are being replaced by supplicants begging a king." Also as a Canadian commentator said, "I have never seen Canadian nationalism so high thanks to Trump. There is now talk of building more oil pipelines from Alberta to Quebec so that we can sell more oil to Europe, now that the US no longer wants our oil."

It is undeniably true that there are some in the US who believe an invasion of Canada would be worth the anger that this would engender in many parts of the world. I know Trump has said he will only use "economic force," and I do believe him...at this point anyway. But Trump must realize that it would be much easier for him to take over Canada militarily, than it is for Russia to take over Ukraine, especially with the latter's huge supply of NATO-supplied weapons. Canada would have no similar support. Neither Russia nor China would get involved in such a conflict, and Europe's response would likely also be weak. And there are many similarities between Russia-Ukraine and between the US-Canada. Both are populated with similar peoples - Slavs in Russia and Ukraine, and still mostly Caucasians in the US and Canada. This has not prevented the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Both share long, previously-undefended borders. Both have (or had) major trade happening in both directions, and intermarriages were common in both cases. So would the anger of the "western world" be something he might be willing to deal with in return for the substantial benefits such a take-over would provide to the US? I doubt very much that this is going to happen, but I'm also quite certain that Trump has been weighing the pros and cons. He probably feels that the US should get something more tangible in return for its enormous outlay on military equipment. Canada would be a push-over in comparison to Ukraine.

Trump says Canada would benefit from lower taxes, but we would lose all federal funds from our natural resources, and not “just” the so-called 200 billion dollar annual “rip-off” we supposedly hit the US with each year. We would also lose our national health care, social services, and several government pension plans, the sum of which are the envy of many nations around the world. He knows very well that Canadians are firmly opposed, but he's having his followers claim that this is really what Canadians want. And some Americans are buying into this lie.

"Imperialism" was a much-used word in the 1960's, as a vigorous anti-war movement surfaced in Canada regarding the Vietnam War. Little did anyone then dream that the same imperial power, and neighbour, then waging war in far-off Asia would someday threaten to take us over and make Canada a US state...or more likely an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico, since giving us voting rights would end the Republican Party's chances of winning another election. Canadians do not take well to this challenge and threat to the very existence of our home and native land, however it might be accomplished. Perhaps you can see why Canadians are worried, and more united than at any time I can remember. It's an existential threat to us.

BUT, from a Christian perspective, what does this mean? What are we Christians to do? The Bible clearly teaches that earthly political battles are not ours to fight. This was one of the reasons why Christ Jesus was crucified: he refused to lead his nation in revolt against Caesar. He taught that we must "give unto Caesar (earthly powers) what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Clearly I need to adjust my perspective to important things. Earthly empires ebb and flow...they come and go. We have the promise of an eternal kingdom that will never end, and a role to play in that kingdom. So, lesson to self: in the big picture, "Caesar" is not important, and he is not our problem.

White House Prayer Breakfast of February 6, 2025

Posted February 11, 2025, updated February 15, 2025

US President Trump spoke at a Prayer Breakfast last week. The event is held early each year at the White House, and it presented the president with a great opportunity to address many of those in his support base. It is wonderful that this tradition is still respected in the United States. I listened with interest, since although Trump depends greatly on support from Evangelical white Christians for his electoral success, his behaviour is often very far from that prescribed by Jesus Christ to his followers in the New Testament. Anyway you can view a video of the whole event here.

The good

There were a lot of commendable words spoken by Trump. Perhaps the best was his hope to be remembered as a “peace maker”. Maybe he really is trying to be that, at least on the military front - though peace is definitely not something he's bringing on the international economic front. But he assured his audience that he supports freedom of religion - and I have seen no evidence to the contrary...despite having serious misgivings regarding his choice as head of the newly established "White House Faith Office." Anyway that is a very good thing. His stresses on meritocracy and getting rid of "wokeism" were also welcome words.

Trump also spoke of his support for the words "In God we trust" on US currency, and “One nation under God” . He said "faith makes nations great," and "all things are possible." These are all things that are really good to hear from the US president. And if his claim that “it was God who saved me” from the assassin's bullet are truly what he believes, that is wonderful too.

Finally, he spoke of the faith of the nation's founders. And from the words quoted above, it may be true that he shares this faith in God too. He actually said "I am a believer," and it may be true. But sometimes actions speak louder than words. Anyway, what I think is of no consequence; God is judge of all. On the political side (this talk was mostly political), he did mention "crushing fascism," which was obviously a result of people around the world expressing concern about Elon Musk's Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration, with several world leaders speaking of concerns about American fascism.

The bad

Trump used this event primarily to tout his political actions and plans. And while he didn't hesitate to mention God, one wonders how much this was in deference to his audience rather than due to his own convictions. He certainly didn't say anything about seeking God's guidance or direction in carrying out his difficult job.

One of the issues was about him still claiming he won the 2020 election, which he actually lost by more than 7 million votes. And even this time in 2024, he didn't win by a "massive amount" as he claimed, as he still got only around 50% of the national vote...though certainly more than enough to win by a good margin using the American "electoral college" method of tallying.

But the most egregious of his claims was that "Americans are ordained by God to be the freest and most exceptional nation ever to exist on the face of the earth." Really? Not Israel? This kind of thinking is why the "Complete Jewish Bible" was written - to dispel the notion that Christians have REPLACED Israel as God's chosen people, rather than Gentile Christians having been "grafted in" as a branch to the Jewish people. Trump's assessment, common among evangelical Christians in the US, is completely contrary to God's word, and is arrogant and food for extremism.

As the event moved along, I came to wonder if this was what a White House Prayer Breakfast was. It was all about the aspirations of a man, and what he and the nation would do. There was nothing there about what God might do, or that prayer was needed. Further regarding America being "the most exceptional nation," you should note what former president Jimmy Carter had to say. In another White House Prayer Breakfast (which actually had a biblical sermon and seemed very much more like a religious event than a political one), Carter said

I was intrigued by Bishop Sheen's reference to the ‘immaculate conception’ complex of Americans. It is difficult for us as Americans to think that we might be sinful, that we might be in some ways inferior, that we might have some elements of our life not yet realized, that we might have standards that have been prescribed for us which we have not met. And there’s a natural, human inclination to lower those standards to accommodate the very low achievements of our own life,” he said.
It was wonderful to see the friendship and mutual respect of the two ministers at the event - one a Roman Catholic, and one a Protestant (Baptist). And I especially noted the call at Carter's prayer breakfast to help other nations:
..And for our national sins, whatever they be, for example, for not sufficiently helping other nations of the world, not being sufficiently dedicated to life (pro-life in its early expression), and being so much concerned with nuclear armaments … May the Lord forgive us all these sins.”
America used to be quite good at this helping of other nations. But it is the complete opposite of Trump's mantra to Make America Great Again - America first. As in many church services today, there was no admission of any sin or shortcomings in Trump's talk, there was no sermon, and in reality no biblical teachings at all. So, was this really a "prayer" breakfast?

I highly recommend you read the full account of Carter at HIS prayer breakfast here. You'll see how different it was from this one with President Trump, with all the pride and arrogance that seem to please people today.

Trump spent considerable time defending his appointments of the rich and powerful to his government postings on the basis of their success and wealth. We know he frequently derides "losers." Did Christ teach anything like this? Did he pick the rich and powerful to be his disciples? Trump also spoke of unyielding faith in America's mission. National missions are not what we're supposed to have faith in.

Trump bragged about army recruitment figures, which was a very different emphasis from what Jesus spoke about."We" are going to make our country great again. If this is a "prayer breakfast," shouldn't the Lord be asked for that to happen? And the statement “When I left four years ago we had no wars” was obviously a lie. The war in Afghanistan, which Biden made a disaster of when he finally took America out, was still very much in progress.

There's no-one so clean as those whom I have pardoned, Trump said. This was a particularly odd (and wrong) thing to say at a prayer breakfast. All Christians know that it is only Christ’s blood which cleanses us. He also said to an Israeli hostage victim in the audience that he was “lucky” that Trump won the election (perhaps it had something to do with God, but of course Trump always takes the credit - even at a prayer event). He also assured the survivor we will be keeping you in our prayers.” Does Trump actually pray? He has declared he has done nothing wrong (despite being convicted on 39 counts including sexual predation), but he has nothing to repent of. Any true Christian would be more than willing to forgive him, if he showed remorse for his misdeeds.

While Trump's claim that "hundreds of thousands of casualties have happened to both sides in the Russia-Ukrainian war is true, his assertion that more Russians have died than Ukrainians is just not true. Ukraine never announces casualty numbers, but no independent observer would make that claim. The opposite is obviously true, though the magnitude of the difference is uncertain. But his claim at this political/prayer breakfast was clearly just pure propaganda. I guess he doesn't want anyone to realize that Ukraine is actually in the late stages of losing the war.

Finally, is placing a tariff on all oil imported from Canada really going to drive the price down for Americans? All tariffs end up being paid by the citizens of the country enforcing them. He said that "The golden age of America has just begun." It would be nice if it has, but hopefully not at the cost of making both Canada and Greenland officially parts of the US (without voting rights, of course - like Puerto Rico). I have seen maps drawn up by his supporters that show the US, Canada and Greenland all covered in stars and stripes.

Getting back on topic, it was noteworthy that Trump himself didn’t pray at this prayer breakfast. In fact there wasn't much praying at all, until the end. I don't know if it's customary for the president to pray, but I'm willing to bet that Jimmy Carter prayed at these events when he was president.

Conclusions

As the event moved along I wondered if this is what a White House Prayer Breakfast is normally like. There was nothing mentioned about what God might do or want, or that prayer was needed for anything. So that's why I decided to go back, as mentioned above, to see what a prayer breakfast really was like when an undeniably Christian president occupied the oval office. Despite the nation being in much better condition overall in Carter's day than today, there was no claim of exceptionalism at Carter's event, or focus on human pride and successes. God was the centre of attention, not man. What would the people in attendance last week say if Jesus was present (one hopes that he was), and brought their attention to their misplaced pride, arrogance, and self-determination? Would they humbly bow the knee, acknowledged their sins, and plead for mercy and forgiveness? Or would they be like the religious Jews in Jesus' day, focused on earthly authority and dominance? For many, I expect it would be the latter.

Despite the shortage of actual prayer that I just noted, there were a couple of excellent prayers given at the end. Considering Trump's character, it took some courage to pray that we not have "false political pride," and to quote Jesus saying “blessed are the meek.” Meekness is most definitely not something that Donald Trump sees as a virtue (unless it is showing meekness toward him). The recitation of the Lord's Prayer at least made for a great ending.

Now if only I could trust Trump regarding the good things he said.

One last thought, provided by a family member, pertains to how President Trump's identification with Christians affects the world's view of our Lord and saviour. How can true Christians so laud a man whose character and actions are so contrary to Christ's teachings by almost every metric one could apply? Some have said the Statue of Liberty should be torn down, because it's words regarding care for the needy and immigrants in particular are so out of step with current US policy. And many Christians, myself included, have felt bad on some occasions that our words or deeds did not properly represent and honour Jesus' teachings. But it's really bad if non-believers see Trump as an example of a Christian. We're all sinners, but this man doesn't even acknowledge his sinfulness.

Sadly, in summary, I'd say this was a prayer breakfast in name only. The prayers at the end seemed to occur mainly to justify its advertised purpose. The real purpose of the event was apparently to extol the Commander in Chief. The contrasts between this Prayer Breakfast and the one in President Carter's day are shocking. At least God was freely acknowledged in last week's event, along with his Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Chinese Church

Posted July 14, 2024

My Absence
It has been almost a year since I posted anything on this website. This has been a result of a combination of factors including health, other priorities, and a wish not to offend those whom I love. In particular I didn't want to enhance my reputation as an anti-American, anti-West communist sympathiser. Nevertheless a religious perspective of the current geopolitical situation has arisen and I choose not to ignore it. Please bear in mind that my "anti-Americanism, and "anti-West" positions apply only to current governments, and most definitely not to most of the people living within these countries.

Geopolitical changes in the past half century
Back in 2014 you may remember that the "West" was highly critical of Russia and considering boycotting the Sochi Olympic games because of the host country's lack of support for the LGBTQ+ community. This was before the invasion of Ukraine, and even before the Crimean takeover, so it had nothing to do with global politics other than a strong, consistent anti-Russia stance. It was interesting to me that the position which Russia took on gay rights was biblical, while that of the west strongly opposed historical Christian teachings. Of course with the actual invasion of Ukraine 2 years ago (carried out by Russia but incited by American support of the Ukrainian coup of 2014), opposition has greatly increased, with the imposition of more than 16,000 individual sanctions now being levied against Russia since that time. Despite this, Russia's economy will grow faster than that of any western G7 country in 2024. How can this be?

On another front, as China has risen as a global economic and military power, we've seen them also being aggressively sanctioned by the West (think Huawei, electric vehicles, renewable energy among many other industries). And now the US is trying to get NATO (a military union, the North Atlantic ?? Treaty Organization), to refocus on military intervention in the western Pacific. But despite all this "western" opposition, China will soon be the dominant economic and military power in the world (if it isn't already). How can this be?

Religious changes in the past half century
While China has risen dramatically, and Russia has strengthened against all odds, simultaneous changes have occurred on the religions front. Westerners still see the Chinese government as restricting religious freedom to a large extent. While this is partially true, it is in large part due to the westernisation of some Christian groups who have imported anti-government positions regarding democracy and civil rights from the West. Well-meaning western Christian missionaries have had an unfortunate habit of opposing many cultural and social standards of other nations which really had no relevance to Christian faith. To some extent this has happened in China too, bringing about official opposition. I watched one Chinese pastor of a home church explicitly say "we love our country and support our government. We oppose only those things which directly go against what is taught in the Bible. Otherwise we obey the government." The Chinese government mainly wants to observe and control all groups whom they fear might threaten national unity. This policy is by no means limited to Christian or other religious groups.

But whereas the Chinese government could be said to be somewhat oppressive to the Christian community, this has by no means hampered the growth of Christ's church in that country. It is believed that China now has more true Christian believers than any other country, and if not, then it most certainly will by 2030 if current trends continue. The underground church, or "house churches" have taken over from the megachurches which had become prevalent in the previous decade.

As for Russia, it remains a pro-family and largely pro-Christian though multi-cultural country, with strong political and cultural support for Christian churches by President Putin. Western naysayers say this is hypocritical, and merely to "breed more soldiers to sacrifice on the battlefield." But this is nonsense. It may be nationalistic in its origin, but Putin loves his country and doesn't want to sacrifice any of them for political gain. At the present time he has been forced into this Russia-NATO conflict, but it was certainly not something he wanted to do.

The "Inside China Business" YouTube Channel
For some time I've been watching a YouTube business channel because it seems to accurately reflect developments which are not spoken of in western media reports. Though it is written by an American businessman working in China, Kevin Walmsley, I didn't want to mention it because I feared it would enhance my anti-West reputation. However in watching some of these regular episodes, I noticed that they almost always went on 15 - 30 seconds after the "Be good" farewell, with some muttering happening in the background. I initially thought this was simply a result of poor editing, but finally reasoned that it was a strange occurrence for this otherwise excellent production. So I carefully turned up the volume (way up), and realized that it contained a spoken, Christian prayer. So, this guy is a Christian.

Up to this time I had just watched a few, selected blogs that caught my attention. But now I figured I should subscribe to his channel. And two of his videos say a lot about the current state of the Christian church (not buildings) in China. His correlation with the rise and fall of nations to the Christian faith of their people is remarkable. Is it a coincidence? If not, it says a lot about future events in this world.
I highly recommend you find the time to watch at least these two episodes of "Inside China Business":
Why China is winning
The biggest Christian country in the world is...China?

Conclusion
Through the past 2 millennia, beginning with the Roman Empire, Christian nations have for the most part led the world economically and militarily (the Ottoman Empire comes to mind as a notable exception). This does NOT imply that they did so in a proper, Godly fashion, but it remains a fact nevertheless. The promise in Deuteronomy 28 was obviously initially intended for Israel, but since Christ, all believers in Christ - both Jews and Gentiles, are the "chosen" ones, gifted with this blessing.
Food for thought? Your comments are welcome.

Leadership in the Christian Church

Posted July 23, 2023

The Anglican Experience and Historical Precedence
The 2SLGBTQ+ controversy has split many Christian denominations in recent years. Many in the church have accepted social consensus that those who oppose two spirited, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, transgender, queer, and other personal identities are "haters," and are therefore evil people. Of course many Christians oppose these things because they are clearly contrary to teachings in the Bible (and many other holy books). While there are exceptions, most Bible-believing Christians don't hate these people, but they do hate beliefs and ideas which are contrary to God's word, which they try to live by. They are especially concerned when these new ideas of sexual identity are forced down the throats of our vulnerable children and grandchildren.

One consequence of this movement, in the "Global West" especially, is that many congregations have lost their buildings, which were built and paid for by congregants, not the church hierarchy. St. John's Anglican Church, the largest Anglican congregation in Canada and one which I have frequently attended, is only one example. In the US, the Episcopal Church has similarly expropriated church buildings where priests and ministers weren't willing to abandon biblical teachings and bless gay unions. Although a building is not the church, buildings built and paid for by the congregations for the purpose of furthering the gospel are in reality Christ's property (as are all things). This action by religious leaders constitutes theft from our sovereign God.

This experience has reinforced my belief that the top-down control of Christian congregations by corruptible men (and women) is not what Christ intended. As with many examples, Christ's statement to Peter that he would be the "rock" upon which he would build his church was corrupted by the Church's assumption that all Peter's successors through millennia (popes) would similarly have the "keys to the kingdom" which were given to the Apostle Peter. Catholicism in general has adopted this concept of top-down authority from its early days, and other denominations, perhaps most notably Anglicans, have followed suit. We now have ample evidence of how sinful and ambitious men should not be able to take control of Christ's "one church." Too often they directly contradict scriptural directives, as pointed out by Martin Luther and many other notable Christians through history. Fortunately in many cases, Bible-believing Christians have pulled out of their denominations (support at St. John's was about 98% of the congregation), but consequences to parishes and priests were substantial (lost properties and pensions). At least this forced the affected Christians to make hard decisions on whether their loyalty lay with the Bible, or with rapidly-changing societal norms.

I have more recently been attending a church of a different denomination, though not especially because of disagreement with the top-down leadership model. Saying that, I must qualify this statement with the caveat that I sometimes wonder if ecclesiastical hierarchy was what was referred to in the book of Revelation as the Nicolaitans ("not laity"). Contrary to this approach, the Bible teaches that we are ALL priests (1 Peter 2:9). At any rate Anglicans have found alternative solutions in new, Bible-based denominations they have created: The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA in the US). However they stick with a priestly order similar to that of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile many Protestant denominations favour a bottom-up approach that appears to have been prevelent in the earliest days of the church (first century). But is it really the best solution for church leadership?

The Bottom-up Alternative and Consequences

The denomination I have been attending follows the "bottom-up" formula; the church is governed by a "board" of elders...called deacons in some denominations. Unfortunately in my experience this has not proven to be a solution to the doctrinal differences that have plagued the church any more than the top-down method. In my present church the lead pastor was recently fired, apparently while he was away on summer vacation. (He may have been told before he left, but that remains unclear to me). I thought the way it was done was somewhat distasteful, though perfectly within the rights of the elders according to church structure. After the youth pastor finished his sermon, one of the elders went to the platform and announced the dismissal of the lead pastor. While I thought that perhaps issues within his family had been involved, the elder admitted that recently-discussed disagreements about the role of women in the church were partially responsible for the Board's decision. Presumably the pastor favoured a more inclusive policy towards women. Although a bit of a digression, I will dwell a little on this issue of female participation in the church, in part to demonstrate that neither the top-down nor the bottom-up approach can guarantee church unity. Sadly, the pastor had just moved to Tsawwassen from the US near the beginning of the pandemic to take his new job here. Following the announcement, there was complete silence in the congregation for a good part of a minute. Eventually there was some whispering, and a few people got up and shuffled off (including me). I had always missed the old Anglican benediction and blessing (as well as musical postlude), and the termination of this service in particular would have benefitted from this re-focus on God.

The church elders in this case have insisted that in following the Apostle Paul's teachings, women will not be allowed pastoral roles in the church. They take this even further, barring them from the board of elders. This goes beyond biblical teaching, and is presumably a policy stemming from fear that if women were to achieve a majority amongst the elders, they could actually hire a female lead pastor. Prior to that congregational debate, I had provided unsolicited advice to one of the elders, based on the experience on this same matter which my father had dealt with some 60 years ago, as a pastor in a very conservative Pentecostal church. He solved the problem to the satisfaction of all, in response to the Apostle Paul's admonition, by maintaining a male-only approach for the senior pastor...but on a limited basis. It would apply only to the Sunday morning service. Women, including my mother, were provided many opportunities to share their biblical wisdom at Sunday evening and weeknight services, which were well attended in those days.

Former President Jimmy Carter is the only US president in my lifetime who is unquestionably a devout follower of Christ. Of course he's not perfect, and I disagree with some of his policies. But he was always well-known for supporting the rights of women, including in churches. In fact he, along with his church, ended up leaving the Southern Baptist Convention over their refusal to allow female pastors. Although I tend to favour my father's approach, some of Carter's thoughts on the matter are worth considering.

1. Gen. 1:26,27: Reference is made to God creating man and woman at (relatively) the same time…on the sixth day. “In the image of God he created them, male and female.” Gen. 2: God later created the woman, as a separate creation. They become "one flesh" upon marital union. Many Christians today ignore the Gen. 1 description for their preferred (“expanded”) version in Gen. 2, and also hold the woman solely responsible for original sin (the tempter was different, but the sin was the same - Satan tempted Eve, and Eve tempted Adam). This helps them justify different privileges for men and women in the church.
2. Jesus seems to have treated women as equals, contrary to the prevailing customs of the time. Jesus never condoned sexual discrimination.
3. Jesus accepted the support of women, both physically and spiritually, in his ministry. His closest confident may have been Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who he often visited in Bethany. Some theologians have said that she was one of the few people who understood, in advance, that he would be crucified and resurrected.
4. Mary Magdalene was the first visitor to Christ’s empty tomb, and it was she who spoke to his other disciples about his resurrection.
5. Some of Paul’s letters to the churches where he directs the silence of women may very well have been made to address specific problems in those churches, and not as non-expiring, all-encompassing instructions for the entire church body (like the directive to Peter, the rock upon which Christ would build his church didn't include later popes). Also, regarding Paul’s assertion that he “permits no woman to teach or have authority over a man,” the Greek word for "teach or have authority" is authentie (I may have the spelling wrong..my father was the Greek scholar, not me). That word has alternative meanings such as killing, originating, dominating, or authoring. As in many theological debates, translation is subjective and could be incorrect (there are other examples of this). It is noted that others of Paul’s directives are conveniently ignored nowadays, as being relics of his time. A prime example is for women to use head coverings, and men not to, “when praying or prophesying.” This also proves that such activities were indeed permitted by women in general, adding substance to the argument that the prevention of speaking was directed for specific cases in specific churches, to reconcile disputes in those particular churches.
6. Paul’s close friend Priscilla was credited for having instructed Apollos, one of the great preachers of that day, so that he could more accurately reveal who Jesus really was.
7. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Paul says “but now that faith has come...in Christ Jesus you are ALL children of God through faith. There is no longer Jew or Greek. There is no longer slave or free. There is no longer male or female. For all of you are one in Christ.
8. In the book of Romans, at least 10 of the 28 leaders who Paul commended were women. They included Phoebe (a deacon), Prisca, Mary, Julia (prominent among the apostles), another Julia, and others. As Jimmy Carter says, “it is inconceivable to me that Paul would encourage and congratulate inspired women, who were successful deacons, apostles, ministers and saints, whilst excluding them from accepting God’s call to serve others in the name of Christ. Devout Christians can find scriptures to justify either side in this debate. The question is whether we want to focus on the way Christ treated women in reconciling this question.” It is certainly not a question of intellectual capability. What we need to ask ourselves is whether it is clearly a demand in scripture in our times.

I apologise for this long digression into the "role of women" within the church. To me this is just another contentious issue that has caused divisions within our faith. In many such matters, people take firm stands one way or the other, without accepting the reality that their interpretation of specific scriptures may be flawed, or taken out of context. It may also be because of “herd instincts” (same reason many anti-abortionists are also climate-change deniers and firearms promoters…unrelated issues). Jesus referred to humanity as sheep for a reason. And although there are some key doctrines which Bible-believing Christians should not compromise on, areas with inconsistence which suggest we may not have the complete picture lead to a need for willingness to consider alternative meanings.

My recommendation to the elder had been that as in all things, the Board should seek our Lord’s will in the matter, and not just follow their personal wishes. Every effort should be made to retain the oneness which Christ said would mark Christians in the eyes of the world. As I have said hundreds of times in reciting the Nicene Creed, “I believe..in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” There will be no denominations in heaven, but we are directed to subjugate our differences for the furtherance of the gospel. We should be known for being one…”just as the Father and I are one.” So my advice was to prayerfully consider a compromise solution. Christians have become averse to compromise…in some cases necessary (e.g. the acceptance of stated sins), but in many cases the rigidity is unnecessary and unacceptable. As in politics, extreme positions and inflexibility seem to have become the norm.

A parting comment I made to the elder was that at least we don’t insist that women remain COMPLETELY silent in church any more. I'm not sure that went over particularly well.

Biblical Directives and their Interpretations
I find it unfortunate that such extreme confidence in theological positions is so prevalent. In the example of women's roles in the church, the context of Paul's letters to the churches remains unknown, yet an assumption has been made that it is directed to all churches, in all times. The matter of Peter's authority extending to all future popes is similar. Meanwhile, Christ's explicit statement that "The Father is greater than I " is predictably assumed to apply only to his time on earth, allowing for the present-day Trinitarian doctrine which took 6 centuries to fully solidify into "orthodoxy." It's all based on "Systematic Theology," but that falls seriously short when assumptions are made based on incomplete understanding or mistaken foundational principles.

Conclusions: The Curse of Extremism in Religion and Politics
To summarise, whether it be in politics, where there is no longer meaningful middle ground and the other side is evil on all counts, or religion, everyone seems to be sure they're "right." The word "Pharisee" immediately came to mind when I heard a US Congressman brag about his party's policy being on the side of "right" (righteousness would be the equivalent old-English term). Mankind's arrogance seems to be our primary characteristic (remember the Titanic). I am sure that on most differing beliefs with biblical justification, God cares more about how we interact with those with whom we disagree than about who is actually correct. In any event I have to give the Christians at my Alliance church full credit for tolerating my many dissenting views with Christian love. On this most important point, I'm sure God is pleased. And regarding the question of leadership in the Christian church, in prayerful meditation we need to rely solely on God's word, and also admit that on many matters ("knowing" God comes to mind), there is much that God does not make clear at this time. We need to accept this instead of making guesses and then insisting we have all the answers.

Christ is the only head of his Church.

Looming global crises

Posted May 10, 2022

For better or for worse, I have always been a global newshound. Long ago, as a teenager, I would stay up 'til dawn with my ears glued to the shortwave radio, listening to news and culture from dozens of countries. For many of my working years I was too busy to do this. But now that I have time, I again find myself spending time "travelling the world" to try to understand how and what people think in lands I will never visit.

Today I see more potential global crises than I ever have before. It is almost remarkable that the Middle East isn't really one of them at this moment. But I can't escape the realization that the coming year(s) is going to be catastrophic for many millions (if not billions) of people. National media doesn't seem to be talking much about these things, but perhaps we should consider some of the inevitabilities, likelihoods, and possibilities that lie before us in the coming years.

A good starting point might be the certainty of global famine beginning this fall. Even if the Ukraine/Russia war ended tomorrow, no crops would get into the fields of Ukraine this year. And 25% of the world's wheat is grown in this "breadbasket of Europe." Many of the poorer nations of the world, and especially Africa and ...notably... China rely heavily on this source of food. Production in some of Russia's fertile southern prairie lands will also be reduced, as their farmers are away fighting in a "special military operation" instead of growing food for the world (and Russia). We know this is going to happen. The only uncertainty is its scope and severity. And while I hear lots of complaints about the price of gas (because it's hurting westerners now), I don't hear a word about something much more important...the availability of food. For us, the best case scenario is that adequate food will still be available, but it will be very expensive. This will hurt the poor the most, and will also limit the other things we can afford to purchase. This latter may not be a problem though, if sanctions are extended against China. There may not be much to buy. More about this a little later.

Now on to something that is certainly a possibility, though I am beginning to question whether it should be moved to the "likelihoods" bin. And that is an upcoming war with China over Taiwan. The general western assumption seems to be that China will have seen how well the "West" has gotten its act together and sanctioned Russia so harshly, so it would never risk the same consequences. Besides, China is not known for starting wars (unlike many other countries). As well, China is known to be "patient" - things don't have to be completed before the next general election to ensure success. But I am coming to question this widely-held assumption.

Let's divert for a moment to the current Russia/Ukraine conflict. Some people feel that the war is at least partly a consequence of NATO's ever-encroaching moves to the east, with the only target of this growing, strictly-military alliance being Russia. Even some knowledgeable American military experts have agreed, "off the record," that the US is not blameless in this regard. Like him or hate him (most people fit in the latter category), Putin is not the kind of xenophobic sociopath that Hitler was. His goal was not to exterminate the Ukrainian people. Rather it was to assimilate them...and prevent them from joining NATO. Please don't misunderstand - I am in no way excusing Putin for the the war crimes occurring in Ukraine today. But what I am speaking of is the trigger for that war. Would Russian President Vladimir Putin have embarked on this war if NATO had not constantly expanded towards Russia? It is undeniable that if Russia set up an alliance with Canada and Mexico, and established military bases here, that the US would become "concerned." We think that since NATO doesn't plan to attack Russia, then they should know this too. There is some serious inconsistency in that argument. I'm not saying it's right or its wrong. Its just that from the Russian perspective, a thoughtful individual could become justifiably concerned.

Now back to China and Taiwan...there is unfortunately some equivalency developing in the situation there. If you are interested in some recent details, I encourage you to listen to at least the first segment of today's newscast from WION (WorldIsONe - the link is at the bottom of this article). As is often the case, it's leading story is about China. You have to remember there is bias there...China and India have had border skirmishes for decades, and WION, like India itself, is definitely biased against China. Likewise it should be noted that they lean more towards favouring Russia, though since the Ukraine invasion they could be considered "neutral." But the news of Chinese military exercises, and the change in stance of the US towards Taiwan, is all hugely important, I think. Might the Chinese use this time while the West is preoccupied with Ukraine to make its move on Taiwan? Ever since those two autocracies began more friendly relations...in response to US actions, I have been getting increasingly nervous. And just as I blogged 6 years ago, on this page, that American moves in Ukraine might bode poorly for that country, I now have similar concerns about Taiwan...though it might not take 6 more years for things to unfold. Anyway the WION broadcast explains much more clearly than I could why China is getting concerned about US-Taiwan relations.

Of course the West would attempt widespread sanctions against China, as it has with Russia, and again, hopefully, avoid outright war. But the unfortunate truth is that sanctions against Russia are hurting the West just as much as they are hurting Russia. Consider the price of hyrocarbons - fueling your vehicle or heating your house. And it's wishful thinking that this is going to end anytime soon. Yes, sanctions against this "crumbling state rapidly descending to a second-tier country" according to the US (same ranking as Canada) are having devastating effects in the West, the results of which we are just starting to feel and the scope of which we have not yet imagined (oil, gas, nickel, uranium, rare earth metals, food). Just transporting goods is going to become very difficult, and very expensive. Think now what would happen if in addition to Russia and its allies, the West also sanctioned goods from China and its allies. We'd lose half the world's electronics and most everything at WalMart...just for a start. We think there's a shortage of computer chips to put in cars now? Hah, this would literally put an end to the computer age as we know it. I'm sure the military would source the rare earth minerals from somewhere (there are small amounts to be found even in the US), but with insufficient quantities available, research and development in universities and major western corporations would virtually cease. The tables would have been turned. Huawei and Chinese electronics firms would quickly become dominant in pretty much all high-tech endeavours. And I'm very sure the Chinese government has been thinking about these issues.

So, could there be a China/Taiwan war triggered by the US? If today's news regarding US moves toward Taiwan are accurate, then I think it's analogous to the situation with NATO threatening Russia, and my estimate regarding occurrence goes from a "possibility" to a "likelihood."

Today's WION newscast also dredged up, from the depths of my memory, one of the few themes I can remember from a university course in Geography that I took in my youth. It was more "Social Geography" than "Physical Geography." Our professor was convinced that civilization was more likely to end not by nuclear war (which was never far from our minds in the 1960's), but through a disintegration of "order;" that is, governmental and regulatory enforcement would become impossible and anarchy would ensue. All high-tech industries would be destroyed and much of the knowledge we now take pride in having will be destroyed. His teachings came back to me in a flashback as the latest news of India's neighbour Sri Lanka was referenced. People there are being deprived of the necessities of life. Either these essential goods are not available, or they are priced at a level such that most people cannot afford them. This is the essence of the societal collapse spoken about by my university professor, so long ago. And as Palmi Sharma correctly pointed out, there are many other countries which are now "on the edge," and could spiral into anarchy as a result of the aforementioned conditions which will be arising in the coming year or years.

A final, and definitely not "politically correct" thought occasionally makes it into my cranium: perhaps Ukraine should not be fighting this war. Is it worth fighting? Putting aside for the moment the geopolitical factors, if Ukraine had done as Putin had expected, then a new, Russia-friendly government would now be functioning in Kyiv. It might even be led by previously-elected Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced out of office after the the Maidan Revolution, which was essentially a coup, since Yanukovych had been elected in a procedure which was judged free and fair by international observers. The upshot of this is almost definitely that Ukraine would now essentially be a "province" of Russia, its citizens would have a greatly limited amount of personal freedoms, but they would all be alive, physically well, and in their previous employment. I have often considered the world which Christ came into, ruled by the greatest empire up to that time. I think that the general "Pax Romana" (Roman Peace) which was in place at that time was God's timing for the arrival of his son in that Bethlehem manger. But it was a peace which was most definitely maintained at the end of a sword. He never advocated democracies. He did say that there would be wars, and rumours of wars, and still the end was not yet. But I strongly suspect that Christ's advice would have been to turn the other cheek. And Putin is correct about at least one thing, when he rails against the "moral decay" so evident everywhere in the West. That said, perhaps it's just the pacifist in me surfacing again. It's tough to keep that guy out of my brain!

These days on our "western" news services we see much that is in reality just trivia. Lately it's been a lot about game show winners, the latest COVID numbers, fighting about the Deas Island crossing of the Fraser River (ongoing for a decade), meaningless sports, and petty political infighting. Globally, some rather radical events are taking place. For at least a quick look at the "rest of the world" (India is the most populous country in the world, after all), I do recommend today's WION newscast which is probably close to India's official viewpoint. The bias is there, but there is also so much we never hear about, much of which I find thought provoking.

As I said, I'm a newshound. And I don't find most of this particularly depressing, with the exception of some of the video coming out of Ukraine. If I wasn't a Christian, I would find it to be a VERY depressing world. Today's newscast from WION is at this link.

Who should buy an EV?

Posted May 1, 2022

I've been amazed that electric vehicles didn't become mainstream long ago. Experiences with electric forklifts with day-long endurance showed me that "good enough" technology existed even back in the late 1960's. So what stopped progress? The obvious answer is the petro-chemical industry, which had a very great deal to lose in any general move away from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles (as they say, just "follow the dollars"). General Motors produced an inspired EV two decades ago, but as could be expected from that corporation, they dropped the ball and had all their great electrical cars sent to a crusher and disposal unit despite cries and anger from the drivers who loved them. What it took was the combination of a climate crisis and the actions of an inspired man, Elon Musk, to get things rolling again. And today we have a rapidly growing EV industry, though North America...as with rail transportation...has been typically slow to respond. So the question becomes -- who should buy an electric car today, and who should not. Below, I will attempt to answer that in as concise a fashion as I can.

Who should buy an EV?

Who should NOT buy an EV?

Additional thoughts

The fact that EVs are more reliable and cheaper to maintain than ICE-powered cars is practically incontestable. Though the "only one moving part" argument is nonsense, there is in fact much less to wear out on an EV than on an ICE car. Braking, in particular, provides a huge saving because break pads and disks seem to last forever, since speed is reduced by means of the motor converting velocity to power which is stored in the battery, rather than to brake dust. This is one of the greatest advantages of electric vehicles.

Government incentives can play a major role in obtaining "value" from EVs. For example, the Mini Cooper EV is priced just a little over $30K, but federal and provincial (or state) incentives can knock $10K or more off that price in some places. This is HUGE, as it wipes out the main objection to purchase of a new car: high depreciation the moment it is driven off the dealer's lot. Unfortunately, Teslas are now so common that they are generally not eligible for any incentives at all. For example, the Tesla Model 3 with the long range battery will cost just a little under $80K in Canada, after dealer's markups and charges as well as 15% tax. So the "cheap" Tesla is anything but affordable for most people. Even so, the demand is so large that here in BC, the wait time for delivery of a new Tesla vehicle is over 2 months.

Another factor is insurance costs. Since I'm not really "in the market" (though I have put some thought to acquiring an EV), I'm not sure what the cost would be. But I do know that Teslas and many Chinese EVs, which will be flooding the market soon, are manufactured in something approximating "uni-body" construction. Requiring far fewer individual parts, this allows for precision manufacturing and fewer manufacturing delays, but results in much high repair costs following even a fender-bender. How does the damage get repaired? It would be cost-prohibitive to replace the entire shell of the car. So I expect insurance and repair costs for such vehicles to be extremely high. On the other hand, similar manufacturing techniques will undoubtedly become commonplace in ICE vehicles too, as efforts are made to compete with electric vehicles. Already in China, some manufacturers are offering identical cars in EV and ICE versions at equal cost.

I must at least mention build quality. Tesla has certainly set the standards in drive-train manufacturing of EVs, and the bar they have provided is very high. Everything from their automatic system updates (as with cellphones and computers), to activation of select features whenever purchased, to motors and batteries, are "leading edge," innovative and quite reliable. Though the updates can be problematic as the vehicles become more complex, all-in-all it works. Tesla's human-machine interface, with most functionality accessed on an iPad-like screen to the side of the driver, is not everyone's cup of tea. But it too works well, and acceptance is simply a matter of personal preferences. On the down-side though, the vast number of Teslas on the road today have revealed a considerable number of bothersome quality control problems: interior panels that fall off, squeaks, leaks, and issues with the few manual switches and controls that exist on the car. The basic electronics seem to be great, but the quality of interior fit and finish is definitely not what one might expect in this price-class of car.

Finally, the competition is coming on strong. Except in North America, all car manufacturers are switching quickly to EVs. Vehicles coming from China (BYD, Tesla, Polestar, and at least 27 others), some of which have liaisons with foreign carmakers (Volvo, VW, GM) are poised to be just as successful as the Japanese "invasion" was in the early 1970's. And they are being rapidly joined by German, Italian, Japanese and British automakers. American companies are even getting into the fray, though very belatedly (except for Tesla of course). Many of these cars, especially from South Korea such as Hyundai and Kia, seem to be a step ahead of even Tesla in terms of quality of product. In fact, Hyundai has already had to stop taking orders for its excellent Ionic 5 here in Vancouver; even the waiting lists are full. So at present, though being advertised, these vehicles are at present "vapour-ware." The only thing holding them back, except the need for building them faster, will be the quality and availability of recharging systems, which urgently need to be improved and simplified. But I am sure that innovation will successfully meet demand and it will soon be just as easy to "power up" as it now is to "gas up."

One last problem with the EV marketplace is the cost of "fuel." Prices can be set individually by owners of the chargers, and are often not advertised prominently as with the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. Sometimes the purchaser doesn't know what they are really paying until the purchase is done. Sellers can get away with this because the cost is so low compared to what drivers are used to paying for petro-chemical products at the pumps. But the cost of purchased electrical power at a rapid-charger is often twice as high as what one would pay if they were charging their vehicle at home in their garage or driveway. It's a real rip-off, and to date, I haven't heard any complaints about it. Of course, it's not an issue if you do most of your vehicle charging at home.

Unfortunately, despite having a long-time love for things electrical (I remembering "hot-rodding" around the warehouse on a Hyster forklift in the late '60's while earning money for university -- much to my employer's displeasure), in my present retired state I now fit firmly in the "don't drive much," and "need ability to drive long distances on some occasions" categories. Also, I need roof-top carrying ability for my kayak, which further reduces my options. So it looks like unless some new revelation suddenly dawns on me, I won't personally be in the EV market anytime soon. Besides, the sounds of an inline 6-cylinder BMW engine revving past 5000 RPM remains a pleasant sound in my ears. If only they still came in a non-turbocharged version...and were available at half the price!

The war in Ukraine

Posted April 30, 2022

This war has been on-going now for more than two months. The cause is clear -- Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to reclaim non-NATO remnants of the old USSR for Russia, and Ukraine is the largest and most important component of that former empire (perhaps rivalled by East Germany - but that's a NATO power). Major beneficiaries of the war are easily identified -- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the west's Military Industrial Complex which former U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower so presciently warned us about back in 1961 (in fact he "coined" the term). Like it or not, NATO's continuous and apparently (at the time) needless expansion eastward over the past decades is a major factor which contributed to Putin's paranoia, and to this war. It might have occurred even without that expansion -- God only knows. But the outcome could hardly be worse from Ukraine's perspective. Meanwhile, the victims of the conflict are equally obvious...the citizens of Ukraine.

Regarding the cause, clearly there is absolutely no justification for what this evil Russian leader is doing. He may have deceived himself into thinking that Ukrainians would welcome his forces as liberators, but not pulling back when his error became obvious was completely inexcusable. His continued total disregard for the civilians in Ukrainian cities and towns, not to speak of his callous disregard for the welfare of his own military, guarantees him tough times if he is ever arraigned in a war crimes trial. Of course he goes further, threatening the world with his nuclear weapons; is it just "sabre rattling," or a genuine threat? No-one can be sure.

NATO's complicity in this conflict is clear to all except the most egregiously indoctrinated. As an American former NATO leader, now retired, clearly said, "We never failed to poke at the "bear" whenever we got the chance." Yes, Russia has been America's enemy ever since the end of World War II, even when they appeared to be getting along during the rule of Boris Yeltsin. At least until Russia's occupation of Crimea in 2014, it was always NATO which continued to expand eastward toward Russia. This took place even in the years when Russia clearly posed no threat to the West, and no-one imagined it ever would. And it occurred despite a clearly-implied commitment that NATO would expand no further eastward than West Germany. NATO is a military conglomeration of like-minded militants who almost lost their raison d'être after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. And profits from the manufacture of war materials must now be "through the roof" - a circumstance never even whispered in the mainline news media.

Further to this point, and especially related to U.S. complicity, you may wish to go back to my February 2015 commentary on my fears regarding involvement...encouragement even (see link below or go directly to this link), of protests at Maidan in Kiev. I worried in that blog 7 years ago that Ukraine might become the next Vietnam as a result of western interference in a national debate which outside countries had no business interfering with.

Regarding the victims, as just stated above I had long feared that Ukrainians would become the new Vietnamese in this latest war of the great powers, and my fears have come true. Only it is worse, because this time, absolutely no-one is risking life or limb to help the victims. Yes, there are the aforementioned contributions of military goods, to the great benefit of the manufacturers. But unlike in WW II, no-one is actually offering to fight alongside the Ukrainians (the word "cowards" was mentioned by my wife...there is validity to this thought). Putin's nuclear threat appears to have the rest of the world in total fear and trepidation. Perhaps this fear is warranted...Revelation speaks of 1/3 of the world dying...but is staying out of the conflict the right thing to do?

The current status of the war is not reassuring. Certainly the world was amazed, impressed and encouraged by Ukraine's solidarity, strength and determination in the early weeks of the war. Putin's assumed belief that it would be a brief and easy affair were quickly put to rest, along with the respect many military analysts previously had for the Russian war machine. But just because the war did not quickly end with a Russian victory does not mean that it will not eventually end that way. The main difference is that rather than a subjugated population which still has a functioning society and jobs to go to (as was the case in South Vietnam), their country is being reduced to ruins. And despite the bravado of Ukrainian leaders and soldiers, one really just needs to look at a map of the world, and some military numbers, to realize that this is not going to end well for Ukraine unless large numbers of allies actually come to fight in their defence. And because Ukraine is not a member of the club, together with the fear of what Putin might do, that is not likely to happen. So the deaths will continue amongst civilian Ukrainians and the militaries of both sides.

The Russian strategy has now shifted, with the realization that most Ukrainians do not wish to be "liberated" from their Jewish, "Nazi" president. They will fight person-to-person in Donbas, where there is considerable local pro-Russian sympathy (though now greatly reduced by Russian actions), and leave the conquest of the rest of the country to random missile strikes until the Ukrainians cry "uncle" (or are just killed off). This is a brutal, criminal strategy, but given the Russian military infrastructure, I don't expect it to fail. The only things which I see being show-stoppers for Putin's initiative to "reclaim" Ukraine would be his own death or loss of control, AND the willingness of a subsequent leader to back down from the war and admit to a massive defeat. I don't expect either outcome, and most especially I don't expect the second one.

One possible good sign is that Israel, after years of neutrality regarding things Russian, may finally have agreed to provide its "Iron Dome" anti-missile system to Ukraine. This should be a God-send to Kiev especially, and other critical military and civilian sites which are especially vulnerable to Russian missile attack. In defence against terrorist attacks, Israel claims that this anti-missile system shoots down 90% of incoming missiles. It is unclear whether it will be as effective against Russia's much more sophisticated weapons. It may also provide Russia with an opportunity to test it against its new hypersonic missiles. Many more of these will likely get through the defence to reach their targets. However the missiles are so expensive that they generally cost more than the value of the destruction they create. They were actually designed to carry nuclear warheads, which is their only practical use. Hopefully Russia won't resort to this extreme, as one nuke could destroy most of a large city, killing the majority of the population living there. Anyway, I await more credible news about this new Israeli decision. My news source for this information is not known to me so it has limited trustworthiness.

That leaves us with a terrible dilemma: should Ukraine fight on, or should they surrender? If they surrender, then several other European states which are not members of NATO will be at risk of Russian invasion. In decreasing order of likelihood, these would be Moldova, Finland, Malta and Sweden. Austria is another possibility, though it seems unlikely that a newly aggressive and empowered Germany would stand aside and let that happen even if Austria is not a member of NATO. The argument, repeated many times by Ukraine, is that they are only the first of the nations to be attacked as a result of Putin's planned reconstruction of the Warsaw Pact alliance.

I have no answer, though I do feel that leaving Ukraine to fight this "proxy war" for the West is extremely unjust. In particular I feel so sad for its people. This is especially true given the provocation which NATO and pro-western advocates have provided ahead of this conflict. More neutral nations, such as India and South Africa, understand this situation better than we in the global "West." In no way is this a justification of the war crimes committed by Putin and his Russian soldiers. But we are reminded of Christ's words, that "He who fights with the sword dies by the sword." I think that at this stage we have two choices: advise Ukraine to surrender on Putin's terms, solely for the sake of their people (perhaps they would be able to maintain a regional government under the Ukrainian name)...or to leave caution to the wind (abandoning cowardice...as warmongers as well as more rational people would say), and fight Russia on a personal basis. More lives would be lost including Americans and Canadians, there would be a big risk of nuclear war, and of World War III if China joined in (I'm not sure they would), but I see it as the only other viable option. I just don't think the current plans will be successful. My thoughts may change. My reality is that all I can do now is include Ukraine in my nightly prayer for "God's will to be done," and to shed an occasional tear for the citizens and brave defenders of Ukraine.

On the brink of another global conflict

Posted March 7, 2022

During the past 10 days I have seen things I'd hoped never to see. Yes, undoubtedly similar things happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this hits closer to home in many ways. Outside of Ukraine, Canada has the second largest number of people with Ukrainian ancestry in the world, after Russia itself. The lady who served as a mentor and comfortor to me after my mother's early death was Ukrainian. And of course my own wife's ancestors emigrated from Ukraine. Tragically, I watched as a missile strike killed a family of four in the middle of a street, as they tried to flee an attack. I'd never actually witnessed that kind of event on TV before. The human tragedy is enormous, as estimates of refugee numbers now exceed 1.5 million. These people have left their homes and their old lives, with no assurance of seeing loved ones ever again in this life, as the men have stayed behind to fight. It's really, really hard to watch.

As I see it, and I hope I'm wrong, we are now at the brink of another global war. And there have been many predictions that the next world war will (again) involve nuclear weapons. Already we have seen the largest nuclear power plant in Europe seriously threatened. The last time we've been in this kind of nuclear standoff was during the Cuban missile crisis, when sane minds prevailed. But in some ways, this is much worse. In the Cuban crisis, human tragedy was averted. Now the faces of those affected in the tragedy are hard to forget.

My opinion that Putin was forced into challenging NATO as it kept advancing might have been valid if his actions had been limited to bluffing, or even, perhaps, if just limited to "freeing" the people in the Donbas region where he would have faced little opposition. This full-scale attack against the entire nation now makes it pretty obvious that the Russian president wants to re-construct as much of the old Soviet Union as possible. The things he has said about the Ukrainian people are untrue and hateful. On the one hand he considers they are "just Russians," so Ukraine shouldn't even exist. This is true only in the sense that they share "East Slavic" bloodlines, just as many Canadians share British bloodlines. Of course this does not mean that Ukraine, or Canada, should not exist as a separate country. The same could also be applied to China and Taiwan, for that matter. But if he does consider them as generally related, how can he go in and slaughter so many, and completely upend the lives of pretty much everyone else in the country? I have changed my perspective, and now believe Putin is determined to reverse what he calls "the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century"...rather than WWII which killed 20 million Russians, 6 million Jews, and millions of other people as well. It is strange and very troubling logic.

Poland seems to have had as much as it can take, and a deal has apparently been worked out that the US will "cover" for Poland...a NATO member country unlike Ukraine, if it sends its own fighter planes to confront the Russians over Ukraine. These Polish planes will undoubtedly be viewed as NATO forces by Russia, and will challenge Russian airspace dominance over Ukraine. These could be a game changer. However if Russia retaliates against Poland itself, the war will expand. And all 30 NATO countries...including Canada, have promised an attack against one member of NATO will be treated as an attack on all. That becomes a global war, the first in my lifetime.

I most definitely hope this scenario does not happen. But there's a good chance we're headed in that direction. And it is just so wrong that Ukraine should just be left to suffer and disappear because we have this artificial construct called "NATO," and they're not members of this in crowd. I am trying to help in my own, very small way. But these are indeed very perilous times...and a time for prayer.

Geopolitical history during my lifetime

Posted February 25, 2022

During my brief years, the world has changed a great deal. Yet even over this time, I see history being forgotten, ignored, and revised. For what it's been worth, for the past 60 years I have been a watcher as events unfolded, and think it might be useful to present a short summary of what I have seen. Of course it's a biased view; everyone sees the world through "tinted" glasses. My tint has been dominated by my Christian worldview in general, and more specifically with a preference for pacifism.

Although I'm certainly no historian, what informs my conclusions is a lifelong interest in history and geopolitics. Long before the advent of the internet, I spent long hours, often late at night, as a teenager listening to news, views, and culture from a couple of dozen countries by means of shortwave radio. Our home could have been easily identified by the long radio aerial strung out over the yard. And although focusing on science and math in university, I also took two university courses on the history of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and have found it useful to apply lessons from that era to my current understanding. The nature of mankind has not changed.

Ok, enough of my history. This blog is somewhat lengthy, though it only covers happenings during the time of my life...in other words, since the Korean War. And of course it is not comprehensive; out of necessity, a very great number of important details have been left out. Almost half of this time was the era of the "Cold War" between the USA and the USSR. This also was the time when the nuclear bomb as well as intercontinental ballistic missiles were developed and "perfected," and the world came to terms with the possibility of the global annihilation of humanity. This blog focuses mainly on the manoeuvrings of the superpowers of the era.

My pre-teen years were lived in a truly golden age. In this early time after WW II the economy was booming, technology was bringing absolutely amazing advances on a regular basis (we got natural gas furnaces, transistor radios, black and white TVs and electric, "wringer" washing machines among other things). Oh yes...and we got cars - every family had one. And we still lived in a "Christian" era, when crime was low and most people attended church on most Sundays. At least on the surface, most people believed and observed the Christian "commandments," and life was good. No-one worried about their kids being abducted, and we were left to play outdoors happy and worry-free except for the existence of the inevitable few bullies. But to get back on topic...there were the occasional nuclear drills, where we used to clamour under our desks for "protection" from the feared nuclear bomb...much as kids do today regarding earthquakes. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, otherwise known as the Soviet Union or USSR, was the "global enemy of the free," and the fact that more Russians had died fighting Hitler in the recent war than any other nationality was rapidly banished from our consciousness.

This is not to imply that communism in the USSR was not a great threat. The USA and USSR were the two "superpowers" that emerged after the war, and the contrast between them was stark. What especially made these nations fearsome was their possession of the ultimate weapon: the atomic bomb. The only nation to have actually used this weapon is the USA. Even though the war was clearly drawing to an end, in the allies' favour, the "bomb" was used to "save Americans lives'...at the expense of Japanese civilians' lives, of course. Even though the bombs were dropped partly in ignorance of the many consequences, this event certainly coloured my perception of warfare in general, and nuclear war in particular.

Back now we go to the USSR, which was a great example of socialism-gone-wrong. Even well before the formal creation of the state of Israel just 3 years prior to my birth, communes, or kibbutzim were being experimented with by Jewish people in Palestine. Members of these cooperatives shared everything amongst themselves, and there was no (or limited) ownership of private property. Of course members were free to leave, though these communes were generally quite stable in terms of size and participation. What the Russians had done subsequent to the Russian Revolution was to attempt to apply the same concept but combined it with total control and radical limitations to freedom. These actions were carried out courtesy of such notorious leaders as Stalin and Lenin, and study of their legacy is beyond the content of this blog. Needless to say, they have left a rather dark legacy, despite having been a critical help in the battle against Hitler's tyranny in the last world war.

The Christian's biggest worry about the USSR was it's official position of atheism, based on the teachings of Carl Marx. The State had to come first - there was no room for religion where people might have to answer to a higher authority. Religious people of all kinds who wanted to keep their faith had to worship in complete secrecy. Even then, many were caught, incarcerated, and murdered for their faith. It was indeed a dark time for the "faithful" in the USSR. But freedoms of all kinds for the citizens of the USSR, which was a combination of Russia along with a large number of vassal states, was very limited. During an extremely pleasant but informative trip I made to Czechoslovakia as a representative of Environment Canada in 1989, I learned that the charming young ladies who were our helpers and guides, and spoke perfect British English, were actually very limited in terms of their freedom to travel. They obtained their language fluency by being schooled in England, but upon attaining the age of 15 they were brought back to Czechoslovakia to complete their education, because they were deemed to be old enough to "defect," and live on their own...not returning to their homeland. So the invitation issued by the leading American representative on this meteorological team, to visit America, had to be declined. This was typical in the USSR: you needed a very good reason to travel at all, and only selected, trusted individuals had the privilege of leaving the Republic. So dislike and anger against communism were well justified.

For the record, the USSR consisted of the countries of Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. But that was not the only communist threat of those times. The general opinion in the "West" (roughly speaking, those countries of the ancient Roman Empire, and their offshoots), was that communism was poised to take over the world. This was the source of great dread, a remnant of which persists to this day. Even now, in the USA it is common to label anyone who is not politically "liked" as a communist, irregardless of their economic or political leanings. But true communism was truly threatening for a time, with China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Yemen, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Somalia, Congo, Guinea Bissau and Zimbabwe adopting communism at least for a while...in addition to the USSR of course.

In everyone's memory in my early years was the communist victory over the USA in North Korea. That war had ended after about three years, in 1953. But a second great war was starting in late 1955...unbeknownst to me of course. This "Second Indochina War," about which I became familiar in the mid 1960's, occurred as the USA focussed on fighting communist North Vietnam, which was battling the non-communist southern part of the country. Notably, the north was supported materially and significantly by China. By the time I became actively listening to reports from Voice of America, the BBC's World Service (most honest of the lot, in those days), Radio Moscow, Radio Havana, Radio Hanoi and others, the war had begun to go horribly wrong for the USA. Support was collapsing in North America, with large numbers of "draft dodgers" fleeing to Canada (yes, there was a compulsory draft in the US). As a side note, the popular music group Heart (I was and still am a bit of a fan of the Wilson sisters), fled to Vancouver for a time so their partners could avoid going to war in Asia. But more importantly, support for the war was evaporating in South Vietnam as well, due in part to drugs, loss of livelihood, witnessing the atrocities of war including the burning of children with Napalm (reference "Napalm Girl: The Photo that Changed the World"), and acts of increasing desperation like the My Lai Massacre in 1968 which saw 350 to 500 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians killed by US Army soldiers. Victims included men, women, children and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated, as were children as young as 12. I heard the Voice of America deny this event for over half a year, whilst it was acknowledged within days by the British BBC...and of course all the communist countries. This was later considered "the most shocking episode of the Vietnam War," and 26 soldiers were eventually charged with criminal offences. Military trials being what they are, only one platoon leader was ever convicted, given a life sentence, but served only three-and-a-half years under house arrest before his sentence was commuted by US President Richard (tricky-Dick) Nixon...infamous for the Watergate scandal and "freeing" the US currency from the burden of being encumbered to gold, another story to be sure. Anyway, the human cost of the war was enormous: fatalities were estimated at between 1-3 million Vietnamese, 300,000 Cambodians, 50,000 Laotians, and 58,330 U.S. military and support personnel. My generation was provided with a real lesson on the military, and military "justice," and it is easy to understand the widespread dislike for that war.

Another noteworthy war was the USSR war against Afghanistan in the 1980s. The USSR was opposed during that nine year war by a variety of opponents, funded largely by the United States, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and...notably China, which was in opposition to the USSR. It was a Cold War proxy conflict, killing between 562,000 and 2 million Afghans and millions more fled the country as refugees. Between 6.5% and 11.5% of Afghans are estimated to have perished in the conflict. It is also credited by many scholars as a contributing factor to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet the American legacy in Afghanistan is scarcely better...another, later story.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union was really not a sudden affair, yet its abruptness was still surprising. There had been uprisings against communism, most notably perhaps in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia's "Prague Spring" in 1968, and in Poland with Lech Walesa's Solidarity Movement in 1980-1981. Rumours abounded about economic troubles in the USSR, with stories of sailors not being able to replace burned-out light bulbs on Soviet nuclear powered submarines due to financial difficulties. So it transpired under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, on December 25, 1991, that the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin and replaced by the flag of Russia. Gorbachev announced his resignation. But the USSR's government had been completely dysfunctional for some weeks, with rumours of coups afoot. Most notably, a certain Vladimir Putin was a KGB operative in East Germany at this time, when revolution in East Germany was resulting in the Berlin Wall being breached. His calls to superiors in Moscow for advice and authorization went unanswered, an abandonment of duty that Putin has never forgiven them for. Putin considers the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the greatest disaster of the 20th century, surpassing the disaster of the more than 20 million Russian casualties in the Second World War. That is a mindset that we should not forget about, as Putin is now firmly dominating events on the world stage with the invasion of Ukraine.

Subsequent to the collapse of the USSR, vassal states generally claimed independence, and everyone was thankful that the world had survived the Cold War without a nuclear catastrophe. So to many, including myself, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, no longer had a purpose. They should disband, just as the Soviets' Warsaw Pact military alliance had. However NATO insiders saw it differently: dissolution would mean unemployment, not only to themselves but also for much of the vast military-industrial complex, and their thirst for armaments. And the US government saw NATO as a great excuse for maintenance of many of their over 800 military bases worldwide, many of them in NATO countries. So rather than closing shop, they proceeded to gradually, over the years, acquire more former Soviet states, and adding military pressure against Russia, the Great Enemy...even though it was no longer Communist. It was not even considered a superpower any more by many people...a very big mistake in retrospect. Not only did most of the USSR's admittedly declining conventional military might go back to Russia itself, all of their nuclear weapons did as well.

The advancement of NATO over the years since the collapse of the USSR has gone largely unnoticed...in the West, but is of great importance. It should be noted that NATO was set up in 1949 specifically to militarily oppose the USSR. Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against any one of the member states, it shall be considered an attack against all members, and all members shall assist the attacked member with armed forces as necessary. The alliance started out with 12 countries:

In 1952, Greece and Turkey also became members, joined later by West Germany in 1955 and Spain in 1982. So the total members had become 16.
In 1990, with the reunification of Germany, East Germany was added to the alliance, with the proviso that no NATO troops would be stationed to the east of West Germany. Germany has insisted that this agreement be kept, and to this day there are no NATO troops in East Germany. Of course it was never imagined that the alliance could ever spread further east than that, so the negotiators assumed that West Germany would constitute the farthest-east NATO deployment. But the agreement was only "verbal," so NATO now claims they have no legal need to abide by it. That limitation of eastward expansion is now the crux of Moscow's insistence that NATO's expansion must be stopped...starting with Ukraine. And Ukraine along with NATO members have c=refused to agree to that, insisting that any and every country has a right to join their military alliance.

Anyway, back to the subsequent expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In 1997, despite the dissolution of the USSR, NATO's raison d'être, three former Warsaw Pact countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland were invited to join NATO. After this fourth enlargement of the military alliance in 1999, seven East European countries including the Baltic states joined in the fifth enlargement in 2004. The Adriatic states of Albania and Croatia joined in the sixth enlargement in 2009, and Montenegro joined in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020. So it now has a total of 30 members, and the sole purpose of the alliance is military opposition to Russia. An attack on any one of these states could, and likely would, result in a world war. And of 6.2 million military personnel committed to the alliance, 2.2 million come from the USA. Of every 1000 American people, 6.8 are committed to serving NATO. In terms of expenses, the USA spends more on the alliance than all other members combined. Of the total annual NATO budget of $1,036,077,000,000 (US$1.04 billion dollars), the US spends an amazing $730,149 million annually. And we wonder about their budget deficit? To add insult to injury, according to Pew Research polling 2016, the USA and Canada are the only countries in the alliance where at least 50% of the populations agreed they should be committed to this agreement. So one wonders, for all its cost, does the alliance really provide guarantees, where the countries are democracies and responsible to the changing "will of the people?" ( see here for reference source).

Meanwhile, China embarked on the road to communism through a revolution against an arrogant and oppressive Great Britain, which actually forced the Chinese to grow opium, to their own people's great harm. Non-compliance by this nation for which firearms were a novel weapon resulted in seizure of numerous cities, including Hong Kong. The communist revolution was mostly a success, with the leader of the opposition fleeing to Taiwan; hence we see this non-communist state of Chinese people in the offshore island to this day. I will omit the disastrous consequences of Mao's Cultural Revolution, since many books have been written about this debacle which killed millions of Chinese people and devastated the lives of millions more. The Chinese road to global dominance that we see today (or near-dominance to those who refuse to consider the citizens' purchasing power as a measure of wealth), occurred mainly under the radar, so to speak, as the western world was focused on Russia. To most, China was a great way to get "stuff" manufactured cheaply. Today, amongst the stuff are our mobile phones, electric cars and most of the items for sale at Walmart. China is clearly an autocratic nation, headed by leader-for-life Xi Jinping, and though he heads the Chinese Communist Party which governs China, the economic system is more mixed capitalist-socialist (like Scandinavian countries) than communist. Where his system differs with the aforementioned, of course, is in the autocracy and absolute power wielded by the CCP, which is indeed still structured in the typical communist manner.

Today, pure communism is considered by most countries and people as an oppressive system based on an unsuccessful economic model, even though Israel had actually proven a "free" communist approach could work. Socialism in fact can be thought of as a free and watered-down form of communism, in the economic sense only, similar to the type practised in the communes of Israel as well as numerous Scandinavian countries and to some extent, even in Canada. Finally, it should be noted that today the number of communist countries is much lower: China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, and Cuba, though communist "parties" still vie for power in many other countries. And many employ "mixed" capitalist and socialist approaches and are autocratic to varying degrees. Also, most modern communist countries offer much greater freedom to their citizens than did the old USSR - with the notable and unfortunate exception of North Korea. Religious freedom is also allowed in some communist states, though it is often seriously limited.

So here we are in 2022 witnessing a new war, with the Russians being the usual aggressors. Still authoritarian and autocratic, Russia is definitely no longer "communist," though that now seems to mean little to the western world. The BIG QUESTION is if NATO had been disbanded, rather than growing steadily in steps this century to include most of Europe and North America, would Vladimir Putin still be attacking Ukraine this day. I have my doubts; from 1998 through 2014 he was a member of the select G7/8 club, but was kicked out in 2015 after the annexation of Crimea. Are his actions today really reactions to watching NATO steadily expand, at Russia's expense, for the past 20 years, and refuse even to back off - as US President Kennedy wisely did during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962...even when Ukraine's existence was being directly challenged? If there had been no challenge, if he had been allowed to still be a member of the "club," would NATO really be necessary? On the other hand, without NATO, would Putin have aggressively re-conquered the countries of the former Soviet Union? Was the continued strengthening of NATO for the better, or for the worse? I know what most Americans would say, and they might be correct. But Putin himself may not know the answer to this question, since he's never been in a situation without a threatening military alliance against him. I recall the words of Jesus, that "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." But God only knows, I think. What we do know is that the decision to "grow NATO" shapes the world today, and may, quite possibly, be directly implicated in the current conflict in Ukraine.

I've told it like I've seen it. Please do not take offence to my opinions where you don't agree with them. Of course I'm not correct about everything, but the "facts" I've noted here are well accepted by many others besides myself. The "conclusions" may not be so obviously correct.

National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

Posted September 30, 2021

Today marks the day of a new federal holiday in Canada, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. All federal offices were closed, and several Canadian provinces also closed for the day. Even in provinces which have not yet adopted it, many cities, municipalities and businesses shut down operations for part or all of the day, in recognition of the appropriateness of the day. The intention, much publicized by the government, was more to make it a day of contemplation, rather than a holiday. The fact that our prime minister jetted off from Ottawa to Tofino for a holiday with his family on this day does, I fear, reveal the hypocrisy of his views on native rights. In this, his former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Reybould is once again proven correct. Nonetheless it is a day which I, and I am sure many other Canadians, spent some time thinking about what we were never taught in school: the indigenous peoples of this land were treated with total contempt, as savages, which in the minds of the European settlers helped to justify the theft of their lands and livelihoods. The U.S. (and Great Britain) stole the black Africans from their lands and made slaves out of them, while Canadians stole the lands from the native peoples and rounded them up into open-air prisons...called "reservations."

But some of the words of an Inuit elder which I heard today led me to once again consider the role the Christian Church had to do in this disgraceful episode. The lady rather eloquently explained the meaning of the facial and body tattoos on women, which were part of the Inuit culture. The markings were intricately "sewn in" to their body and each mark had a meaning. The marks revealed the family from which they came, social or cultural accomplishments they may have attained, and hereditary aspects of their lives which were so important to them. The "church," which in this case was the Roman Catholic Church, claimed these tattoos were evil, and women who had them were shamed. The reason for this was nothing more than that the tattoos did not conform to European norms, which good Christians of course adopted. A good Christian, and therefore a good person, could not have such markings on their body. It was just one of many ways which Christian missionaries, often unintentionally but undeniably arrogantly, diminished "others" while representing themselves as superior.

This act of racial dominance had terrible and sad effects on the native peoples. As this lady's daughter said, she was stripped of the moral grounding which had served the Inuit so well for so many long centuries. When she was struggling to bring up her son, she could think of no way to bring back this moral fibre...a "reason" for goodness, and an understanding of one's place in life. Her solution was the re-discovery of this body tattooing, and the means implicit in every mark. It brought back continuity. It kind of hit me hard. The Christian missionaries had been trying to convert the natives, but rather than showing them the love of Christ, they stripped away cultural values which were harmless and could have been adapted into Christianity without conflict. Not only were they left without their native culture, but very clearly Christ's "water of life" was never understood, as all the rules and regulations...and wrong-doings...of the people had to be dealt with first. This same kind of culture-killing approach has greatly harmed the testimony of Christian witnesses throughout the world for many generations. And I have to regretfully add that this had a lot to do with the "grace plus" theology inherent in Roman Catholicism. The Christian has to work for his salvation, and Christ's sacrifice on our behalf was not "sufficient." But we know that Christ's grace is at the core of salvation.

The program brought me back yet again to that old saying What would Christ do?. Jesus was famously concerned about people's souls, not their outward appearance. He would certainly have understood (and agreed with) their respect for elders, their love for the nature that he himself had created, and the people-focused society that they had. I'm very sure that he would have demonstrated his love for them in culturally-relevant ways. Instead, many Christians came in and focused on the cultural aspects of the society which they could not understand and did not like, and sadly neglected to show Christ's love in their place. The theft of the children and lack of care for their welfare, now clearly demonstrated to all Canadians to our horror, is ample proof of their lack of Christian love. Yes, this was mostly done by the Roman Catholic church, but not entirely. Not only did other, Protestant denominations play a part in this, but so did the government. It is revealing how this whole sordid affair was kept a complete secret to my generation. I was attending elementary school at the time the RCMP was rounding up native children, often at night when they could not run and hide, and taken to be "cured" of their native culture.

I have seen enough stories to know this is true. These witnesses to what happened to their parents, and sometimes themselves, are not liars. They became "numbers" rather than names to those who usurped responsibility for them. They were forbidden from speaking with siblings, a crime for which a severe beating was an inevitable consequence. The government and the church could not agree who should have to pay to send the bodies of deceased children back to their families, so instead they were just dumped in unmarked graves, and no-one even bothered to notify the parents that their children were dead. They just never came home. In many ways Canada's early culture was so much better in those days than it is today. But this was just a total disgrace, pure and simple.

Before completing what seems to be another rant, I would just like to add that the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Not only have the lives of these people been severely harmed for several generations, with no understanding of loving, family upbringings, but our forebears just walked in and took their lands. The natives who formerly "possessed" it received nothing in return, and were not allowed even to remain on it. I find it difficult to think of how that change affected these people. Not only were they confronted with the cultural shock of strangers with guns and whisky, destruction from diseases for which they had no immunity (COVID-19 pales in comparison to what smallpox did to the native populations of the Americas), but they were forced, at gunpoint, off their own land. That land, their communities, and their livelihoods were all taken from them. They were indeed treated exactly like poorly-treated slaves.

So I think it is good to spend some time thinking about what "we immigrants" have done to these peoples. It is high time that the truth came out about this, and that we do our best to reconcile ourselves with these peoples. It is relatively easy here in Tsawwassen, since the Tsawwassen First Nation is relatively well-off and we might say "cultured." It is much more difficult when we see the societal destruction in some other native communities...the one at Mount Currie near Pemberton B.C. comes quickly to mind.

Unfortunately the same, cultural damage has been done in many other societies in the name of Christ. And it has not been only by one denomination of the Christian church. I only hope that through prayer, understanding, and yes..reconciliation, today's generation can undo some of the harm we have done to these people. And this doesn not mean discarding our Christian faith, but rather using Christ's teachings to show them that salvation comes by acceptance and faith, and not by abandonment of ancient cultural activities which are consistent with Christ's teachings.

What would Jesus do if he had come to the Inuit? He would have taught them who the "Creator" really was), and agreed with their respect for what he had created. I am sure that they would have worked this new knowledge into their tattoos, totem poles, and other cultural expressions of the world they knew and loved.

COVID-19 update

Posted August 12, 2021

More than 7 weeks have passed since my post on COVID-19, and it appears to be time for an update. Much has changed.

As mentioned previously, I planned to go for my second vaccination after 3 months, which I did. Surprisingly, the side effects were much less this time. Particularly, the soreness of my arm was much less pronounced. I think my heart rate while I sleep is again slightly elevated, but not as much as last time, usually near or slightly above 60 bpm. So, nothing to complain about this time.

What has changed is the all-important risk/benefit ratio. As most people in the "developed" world have now been vaccinated, and with very few serious side effects, the risk factor of vaccination has clearly decreased. Where the known complications show up, symptoms are now well understood and appropriate measures taken. After a few well-documented tragedies, deaths and permanent disabilities from the vaccines now seldom occur, at least wherever proper medical care is available. On the other hand, the Delta variant of the virus has shown itself to be far more serious than first thought. Today I learned that Chinese doctors have found the "viral load" of those seriously ill with the variant to be more than 1000 times greater than with the initial SARS-CoV-2 virus. At first I didn't believe it, but have found that it has been substantiated by other research that found even higher values. Clearly this makes the disease much more contagious, and also makes patients much more likely to become seriously ill. It explains how the variant has "taken over" wherever it is found.

Researchers have also discovered that it reproduces in the body about 33% faster than earlier variants. At first that doesn't sound that bad...until you think about it for a moment. Previously symptoms showed up about 6 days after becoming infected. With the Delta variant, that time span has been reduced to 4 days. We know this is a new, or "novel" virus that our bodies have no prior knowledge of. This gives the disease a big advantage, a head start so to speak, before the body figures it out and responds. Vaccines, which don't actually kill the virus but "teach" the body about the existence of this new invader, of course provide a great deal of help in ramping up defences in a hurry. The problem is that with the Delta variant the virus is "supercharged," as one researcher put it. The reduction of 1/3 of the time to become sick after infection gives the body significantly less time to begin fighting it. So in some cases, even fully vaccinated individuals get sick, though generally symptoms are much less serious.

The speedier attack of the Delta variant also explains why much younger people are now getting seriously ill from the disease. The "relatively" slow replication of earlier variants gave the body more time to respond. This was especially helpful for the faster and more robust defences of younger people, and especially children. Now with the Delta variant, that advantage is lost. This is why Children's Hospitals are now filling up with COVID-19 patients, especially in areas where vaccinations have been unavailable or not embraced.

So I find it necessary to amend the strategy I recommended in my previous post. With a lower risk, and a higher benefit against a much more serious illness, I have to say I would recommend immunizing children according to recommendations from health professionals. In fact, I'd also recommend that younger adults get vaccinated without delay. Again, the benefits far outweigh the risks from the Delta variant. One must also remember that it takes 2 - 3 weeks for immunity to be fully established. Also, with autumn fast approaching and the likelihood of increased social interaction indoors, I would get the second shot no later than 3 months after the first, and perhaps as soon as after 3 weeks. Again, there is a delay of 2 to 3 weeks for resistance to the disease to be maximized, during which time one must be especially careful not to lower defences against the virus. That means it takes a minimum of 6 weeks after initial vaccination to get full protection. And I still believe in the "Swiss Cheese" approach to wellness. Use as many tools as are available to stay safe...and this, of course, includes vaccination.

We often hear people complaining that vaccination does not really protect a person from the Delta variant. While it is true that one can get sick even after being fully vaccinated, the great advantage is that the "heads-up" provided by the vaccine allows a faster response to the disease, resulting in far better outcomes. In fact, only a few percent of people in hospital with COVID-19 have been fully vaccinated, and most of those also suffer other serious health issues which complicate recovery. So yes, one can still catch COVID-19, but the likelihood of actually ending up in the hospital with the disease (or worse), is much, much less if you have been vaccinated. What U.S. President Biden said, that "COVID-19 is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated," is actually very true. And the last I heard, even those who have had COVID-19 are advised to get at least one jab for additional protection.

So the bottom line is that as we face the onset of the "fourth wave" of the virus, we should follow the advice of those most qualified to give it, and especially ignore what politicians have to say when they oppose that guidance. Fortunately in Canada, at least in all the non-Conservative led provinces, premiers are supporting the advice of our Chief Medical Health Adviser Dr. Theresa Tam, and other provincial medical authorities, and at this point anyway...the results look promising compared to many other countries.

COVID-19 and vaccines

Posted June 21, 2021

I had intended to avoid the subject of the coronavirus, but ignoring COVID-19 seems a bit pointless, as it has been the dominant external event for more than a year now. In a longer-than-normal blog, I intend to reveal a summary of my knowledge in terms of 1. History, 2. Virus and variants, 3. Vaccines, and 4. Conclusions.

History of the pandemic

As a retiree, I have been actively following this health event, and though I have no medical expertise I have tried my best to use common sense to discriminate between the good information and the copious volumes of misinformation that are available on-line. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, originated no later than March 2019, having been detected in a University of Barcelona study based on data from March 12. It was detected in a frozen sample of sewage in a community where Chinese workers were periodically visiting, so it is believed that the virus did originate in China. Fortunately, it did not spread among the Spanish or to other Europeans at that time. However the implication that it was already present in China at this early date, and was not responded to, is rather damning for the Chinese. However such denial has in no means been isolated to the Chinese; similar reactions, or should I say inaction, has been common through almost all countries during this pandemic.

So this virus spread quietly in Wuhan, China for more than a half year, evidently "under the radar" of health authorities. The similarity of symptoms to those of the common flu likely masked its identity, and it was not until late in the year that the scale of the emergency became evident in China. Even then, the typical human characteristic of denying and then hiding the emergency has been clearly evidenced. So this was how it started. Having politicians running the country rather than people with medical knowledge was clearly the root cause, along with a lack of respect for the medical experts who were signalling the evidence. Of course exactly the same thing happened over much of the world during the following months.

The charge that the virus was somehow enhanced by man in a medical lab remains a possibility. The fact that such accusations largely come from politically-motivated sources make them highly questionable. Some claim that eventually the truth will come out. That is doubtful, since even if it was from the nationally-sponsored lab in Wuhan, there was close collaboration between that lab and similar labs in the U.S.A. Revelations of this collaboration are not likely to be widely admitted or advertised in the West. Still, I think it highly probable that this was a natural mutation, or migration from other mammal species to humans, at the somewhat questionable "wet market" in Wuhan. Nevertheless the origin of the disease is irrelevant at this point. Similar pandemics have occurred through the ages, so this one was not unusual. The previous one, the so-called "Spanish Flu," would have been called the "American flu" if former president Donald Trump's nomenclature was applied, since it is believed to have started in an army camp in the southern U.S.

I will not elaborate further on the spread of the virus, and the World Health Organization's declaration of it being a pandemic. Suffice to say that it rapidly spread world-wide in early 2020, more rapidly in areas with large amounts of international travel, and less so in more isolated and island nations.

The virus and variants

The original, or "native" SARS-CoV-2 virus spread rapidly within Wuhan in December of 2019. Wuhan is the capital of Hubei province of the People's Republic of China, and the most populous city in central China with a population of more than 11 million...fertile breeding grounds for an organism living off human victims. Once identified by Chinese researchers, and officially "accepted," China's response to the virus was exemplary. It was a very good example of the benefits of a society which puts societal interests ahead of personal gain, and the claim that the relatively positive results were strictly a result of the authoritarian government there are without merit. Yes, that system did, eventually, work well, but the general culture of societal responsibility for others played a major role. So-called "Christian" nations, given Christ's teachings of responsibility for others, might wish to think about this.

Unfortunately, the nature of viruses is that they spread and mutate. In a great example of Darwinian evolution, it was a matter of "survival of the fittest." In this case, the fittest were the viruses best able to replicate and spread. With each viral replication, there is a very tiny likelihood of mutation. Of the mutations, there is a very, very small probability that they will be beneficial to the viral organism. But with many thousands of viruses replicating in each human victim, and millions of host organisms over many countries, it is easy to see how the variants arose. The more sickness there is, the higher the likelihood of the development of yet more contagious and sickening specimens. And so we have seen at least a dozen "successful" variants arise from the Wuhan original or "native" strain, which have become dominant locally over the past year. At first they were identified by where they originated, then later with an alphanumeric scheme, and now by the Greek alphabet. Hence we had at least two "U.K." variants, most notably the one initially identified as B.11.7 and now known as the Alpha variant, the "South African" variant (now known as the Beta variant), the Japanese variant known as P.1 and now called the Gamma variant, a "Brazilian" variant, at least two "California" variants, and most recently and notably at least two Indian variants, the more serious of which, originally called the B.1.617.2 strain, is now known as the Delta variant. Each variant has had reproductive advantages over the former, the British Alpha strain being 1.4 times as contagious as the original and only slightly more dangerous, and the latest Indian or Delta strain being twice as communicable as the original...and despite what you hear some experts say, in many cases makes people more sick than the earlier editions.

The effects and symptoms of previous variants have generally been similar. This is, after all, a virus that primarily causes respiratory illness, as its name SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) implies. As an aside, the original SARS-CoV-1 which arose in 2003 and was contained in 2004 and eliminated in 2005 had a death rate of almost 10%, except 50% for those over 65 years of age. So it too most severely affected the elderly. The only Canadian city affected in a significant way was Toronto. Symptoms of most cases of COVID-19 include headache, cough, fever, fatigue, and most notably loss of taste and sense of smell in many patients. This latest Delta variant is significantly different, presenting much more as a regular cold with headache, runny nose, sore throat, and fever, with a notable absence of smell and taste effects. It is thought to be twice as transmissible as the original virus, and significantly more potent for serious illness. Most troublesome, vaccines are being found to be only around 33% (AstraZeneca) to 50-80% (Pfizer, Moderna) effective in preventing disease, though vaccinated people, even if they do get sick, generally avoid hospitalization if in otherwise good health.

Unfortunately the human body doesn't have any natural resistance to this new virus, though resistance develops quite quickly in healthy individuals who have no pre-existing conditions. This is especially true for young people. Pre-existing conditions which greatly reduce the body's ability to fight the virus include age (primarily), obesity, diabetes, hypertension, use of immunosuppresive drugs (such as with cancer survivors or transplant recipients), lack of vitamin D (possibly) and other general respiratory illnesses such as serious asthma. And although with most cases the duration of illness is only 1 - 2 weeks and the symptoms typical of the flu, for more seriously affected people there can be complications. These include cytokine storms where the body over-reacts to the virus causing dangerous inflammation especially in the lungs and heart, and other organ damage as well. Blood clots are another noted symptom, sometimes occurring even when the patient feels well on the way to recovery. Consequently COVID-19 has been considered by some to be a disease that causes thrombosis like Ebola causes widespread hemorrhages. The inflammation of many organs in the body is also a serious complication, most especially of blood vessels (related to the blood clots), and myocarditis which is inflammation of the heart. It must be emphasized that these are complications that only effect a minority of patients, most commonly though not exclusively those who become seriously ill with the virus (i.e. hospitalized and ICU patients).

Vaccines

Development of vaccines against this virus have occurred at record-breaking speed, a feat which causes great concern amongst many, and especially among the so-called antivaxxers. Indeed, the "standard" medical practice would be widespread testing for 5 - 6 years before allowing global administration of a new drug or vaccine. All current COVID-19 vaccines have been approved on an "Emergency" basis, along with the stipulation that the manufacturers (pharmaceutical companies) will be protected from legal repercussions if their drugs prove ineffective or otherwise harmful. Such concerns are likely the reason why about 15 % of the population is resisting vaccination. Another 15% are avoiding vaccination essentially because of fear mongering: some people, often with very little scientific or medical knowledge and deep phobias about the drug companies, cause worries amongst the undecided regarding unlikely problems or irrelevant issues. One good example of this comes from a pair of evolutionary biologists who should know better (the "Darkhorse podcast"). They correctly point out that some of the nanoparticles from the vaccines lodge permanently in the body's bone marrow and other locations. While any possible adverse results of this action are unknown, this is also the mechanism by which the body gains "memory" of the disease and can form antibodies and other defensive cells against it in the future. Also not mentioned is the fact that the COVID-19 disease itself, if contracted, will do this very same thing, only to a much larger degree. So avoiding this result of the vaccines creates a much greater risk of getting the exact same symptoms from the virus. But they don't say this. They just say that the vaccines have these unknown consequences...which is true. But so does contracting the virus itself. In fact most of the serious side effects of the vaccines, most notably blood clots and myocarditis, are much more likely to occur as a result of getting the virus than from the vaccine. So...what is the point of avoiding the vaccine IF YOU MAY BE AT MORE RISK OF GETTING THE VIRUS ITSELF?

So the question of whether to get vaccinated or not all comes down to those last key words. It turns out that the worst side effects typically occur in younger middle-aged people. Specifically, pre-menopausal women appear particularly susceptible to blot clots, a well known danger especially with traditional vaccines such as AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Sinovac, Sputnik 5 and others. And young men are most likely to suffer form inflammation of the myocardium around the heart muscle from the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. This tells a lot about who should get which vaccine.

I have an interesting tale to tell about this latter side effect myself. For the past 6 years or so, ever since getting my first Apple Watch, I have been monitoring my sleep with it. That includes readings of pulse. I typically have a very slow resting heart rate, in the range of 48 to 60 beats per minute. In fact the watch has on occasion "notified" me of the slow pulse, suggesting a doctor visit. My wife has mentioned to me that as a result I may someday be a candidate for a heart pacemaker, a helpful device which assisted one of my uncles have 25 years of healthy living...before it failed, and killed him. Going back to the story, almost a month after getting my first COVID-19 vaccination..Moderna instead of AstraZeneca which I had preferred, my heart rate while sleeping began edging upwards, on average about 1 bpm per night. At first I ignored it, but after a week or so I took notice, as the "average" rate had increased from about 56 to 68 bpm. There was no pain or discomfort, nor was there any noticeable limitation to my energy level. If not for the watch, I would have been completely oblivious. Wondering if it could be a result of the vaccine, but thinking likely not, since it had occurred almost a month later, I did some internet exploring, courtesy of Mr. Google. To my surprise, I found an article that stated that after mRNA vaccination about 50 % of the users of "Whoosh" devices, which I'd never heard of but which some athletes use to monitor cardiovascular function, as well as many Apple Watch and Fitbit users were reporting elevated resting heart rates as well as lengthened "recovery times" of heart rates coming back to normal after exercise. The latter is a well know indicator of cardiovascular fitness. Israeli studies showwed that symptoms of heart inflammation were often seen as much as a month after vaccination. In none of these cases were other complications found - no chest pain, shortness of breath, weakness or nausea. As in my case, they would have been completely unaware of these symptoms were it not for their measuring devices. And we're talking about objective measurements here - hard data, unaffected by emotion or worry. Something is causing the aberrations. Is it inflammation of the heart, too minor to cause physical discomfort?. That would be a good guess. Is it consequential, if no physical effects are felt? I'd guess the answer is "no," and it's just a cost to the body of building up resistance to the disease. But it is a real thing, and something that makes one think a little more about risks in taking a Pfizer or Moderna vaccination.

So, in considering who should be vaccinated, it's back to risks and benefits. Because of my personal observations and what we've learned about other potentially serious side effects, I'd have to conclude the risk factor has increased. However it's still low, and I consider it a no-brainer for seniors to get vaccinated, by any of the available vaccines. The risk from the disease itself if far greater for the elderly.

For kids it is also clear to me that they should NOT be vaccinated. Admittedly this will lengthen the time it will take to eradicate the disease (assuming it can be done), and I don't discount the positive societal impacts of full vaccination. Researchers are pretty sure that the dangerous side effects are caused by the spike proteins that exist in both the virus and the vaccinations, but we do not yet know if they do damage, and what ill effects..if any..may occur from them with children. It is clear that these spike proteins are not some evil product of a backroom chemistry lab, and occur naturally in the virus. But that still raises the question of whether we should be injecting these substances willfully into children with potentially long lives ahead, and with incomplete understanding of processes.

For middle agers, the question is much more difficult. One must carefully balance risk factors, such as outstanding health issues, as well as likelihood of acquiring the virus. If one must work amongst the public, and especially indoors, the risk is of course much higher than if one lives on an island somewhere with a low number of sick people in the area. I also like the "Swiss cheese" model of prevention, whereby one uses as many "layers" of protection as possible: 2 metre separation (though that is less relevant now that we know the virus spreads mostly in aerosol form), wearing masks, washing hands, and avoiding needless touching of surfaces as much as possible. Avoidance of indoor crowds, such as in shopping centres, is especially important I think. I like to go shopping first thing in the morning before any asymptomatic clients have arrived, and indeed avoid indoor crowds completely as much as possible. In general, the importance of good ventilation is greatly under-rated. One school district in Abbotsford had the audacity to nail classroom windows shut after teachers wisely opened them to increase ventilation. Ignorance kills (or at least can make one sick).

It's time to conclude this ramble. So what does this all mean? Will I get my second Moderna vaccination, despite the heart rate increase..which has almost returned to normal? Indeed I will, though I will delay it to 3 months (middle of July), since studies have shown that increased times between vaccinations increase efficacy of the vaccines, especially against the variants which are so troublesome at present. And anyone who has suffered from COVID-19 should, in my opinion, still take medical advice and get a single dose of the vaccination. These opinions are reinforced by what is happening with the latest variant from India, the so-called Delta variant. We were (as usual) far too late in closing down travel into Canada from affected regions, and it is rapidly becoming the dominant variant in all countries where it is present. The U.K. has had to delay its "opening" of virus restrictions yet again, as case numbers are increasing rapidly. Thankfully, because of widespread vaccinations, fewer people are ending up in hospital, or worse, but it is still a concern. Models predict a resurgence of infections in North America because of this variant. I hope they are wrong, but am quite sure they are correct.

Finally, I advise everyone to avoid as best they can all the fear mongering about the vaccines that is out there. While it is true that news of some side effects is being suppressed in order to prevent fear of vaccination, authorized medical sources remain the best place to go for factual information. In terms of on-line chatter, the internet is FULL of fear and false rumours. For factual and honest information from a guy who really knows what he's talking about, I go to another retiree, Dr. John Campbell, who does almost-daily 20 minute-or-so global updates on COVID-19. Just go to YouTube and Search for his channel. I think you'll find it's a great source of information.

As a footnote, I should mention that Ivermectin, a drug to counter infections caused by roundworms and a known antiviral medication (contrary to what the FDA says), is showing some promise to help those recovering from COVID-19. Given only under medical supervision, and in the correct dose (that's the important part), the drug is relatively safe. The WHO has endorsed it, but for unknown reasons the U.S. FDA, perhaps under drug company pressure (it is no longer subject to "royalties") opposes it. However studies on its efficacy are now underway, and under medical supervision it would seem to me to be worth trying as an early treatment, if not preventative tool.

The good news is that with proper medical care, the VAST majority of those coming down with COVID-19 recover just fine, though it's important not to over-stress the body for a time after recovery since inflamation may still be present, particularly in the heart. Unfortunately prospects for those with pre-existing conditions which make them more vulnerable to the virus, the prognosis is not as positive. And the same is true for poor countries with weak healthcare systems.

Lessons of life - The value of simplicity and minimalism

Posted May 23, 2021

As described elsewhere, my philosophy of life is necessarily based on my theology; it answers questions of existence and is therefore the foundation of my belief system. But next in line, on a non-theological level, I have come to appreciate the importance of keeping it simple. I would have to say that minimalism is a close cousin of simplicity. I have not always followed this maxim, and still don't to the extent that I feel I should. But a life-time of experiences, some of which have entailed feeling owned by possessions, have led me to this opinion. Even my computer setup is too complicated for my own good. But I digress.

My progenitors got by with relatively little "stuff." Admittedly they were not wealthy...decidedly middle class, if that. But I still remember my grandparents' house; small, with "nice" furniture, neatly kept...but certainly nothing fancy. They had a small garden, and seldom travelled out-of-province. I think that lifestyle suits me well. As one ages, I think the importance and beauty of the "little things" we tend to take for granted begin to predominate, including, of course, family. The need to "do something" about the sad state of the world is clearly a totally different question, and is certainly not irrelevant. But it is not addressed in this blog.

So, how does one live simply? Well, the situation will vary according to individuals' life situations. But for me, a senior with the kids long gone, it seems to be reverting back somewhat to the views of my paternal grandparents. Spiritual, physical and emotional health seem to be most important. Going down the scale a bit, cultivating God's creation in a garden is wonderful. The stuff I have accumulated tends to be much less important than it once was. Gratitude for what we do have is of course natural and good, but sometimes simple things do as well as complicated ones. I have not reverted to a quill pen quite yet, though I do admittedly use fountain pens. But the Russian solution for efficient writing seems a perfect example: in space, they use pencils rather than special, million-dollar pens which will work without gravity. Now that is minimalism!

Another good example of the utility of simplicity comes from my computer experience. Back in the dawn of personal computers, a wonderful program called Framework emerged. It contained "frames" for writing documents, creating spreadsheets, and if memory serves, it even included databases. (I don't think it did presentations like PowerPoint, but this was three decades ago). Framework was essentially a precursor of what Microsoft Office came to provide a few years later. My peers and I used Framework for everything. During a recent file clean-up and purge exercise (I do those occasionally), I came across several ".FW2" files that looked very interesting. Try as I might, I could not come up with a readable version of those files. Framework the program is long gone, so those files, whatever they were, are gone. Now I see that Microsoft is doing the same thing; old Word and Excel files have to be "upgraded" before they can be read. So I'm reverting to plain text files as much as possible, and "free and open source software" (FOSS) like LibreOffice. If my kids want to read some of my files some day, they will always be able to get hold of this free, non-commercial software that runs on all computer operating systems and is maintained for free by and for people, rather than by corporations for profit."

In regard to the importance of simplicity and minimalism, perfectionism is a related troublemaker. While we should always do the best we can, and should be able to be proud of our handiwork, to be perfect escapes most of us most of the time anyway. Here, the importance of time also comes into play. This greatly under-rated commodity is something we all run out of, in terms of our relatively brief existence in this life is concerned at any rate.

My desire for simplicity and minimalism is a major reason why I have not opted for another sailboat in my retirement years. Both our kids would have loved having the opportunity to sail again, and my wife even gave her "ok." But past experience, and numerous sailing videos now accessible on YouTube, clearly reveal that sailors spend far more time maintaining and repairing their boats than sailing them. Even simple dinghies, without motors, require attention to sails, lines and rigging. While I was tempted on account of family interest and happy memories, I made the personal decision to "keep it simple" and not embark again on this activity. Instead, I'm hoping to acquire a kayak (or two), which is almost as simple and minimalist as you can get (no moorage rentals, haul-out fees, or equipment to repair). Any future time I have with a boat will hopefully be spent enjoying God's wonderful world, rather than doing repairs and worrying about finances.

I suppose the bottom line is "What do we need to be happy. I see true happiness in parts of the world where people struggle even for their basic needs. And I see envy, anger and fear even amongst the wealthiest of individuals. Certainly happiness does not come from the things we have, including money in our bank accounts. To me, decent health and the love of family and friends in this life, and the hope for eternal life with my maker in the next (God's love) are "simply" what I need for happiness.

Typical capitalist investor's emotions

Posted May 20, 2021

I saw this description on a typical chart of stock market performance today on Kitco News, and got a kick out of it. It seems quite realistic.
Accompanying the graph, the stages of emotion of market investors are...

  1. Disbelief: this rally will fail like the others
  2. Hope: a recovery is possible
  3. Optimism: this rally is real
  4. Belief: time to get fully invested
  5. Thrilled: I'll buy more on margin. I've gotta tell everyone to buy!
  6. Euphoria: I am a genius. We're all going to be rich!!
  7. Complacency: we just need to cool off for the next rally
  8. Anxiety: why am I getting margin calls? This dip is taking longer than expected
  9. Denial: my investments are with great companies, they will come back
  10. Panic: everyone is selling, I need to get out!
  11. Capitulation: I'm getting 100 percent out of the market. I can't afford to lose more
  12. Anger: who shorted the market? Why did the government allow this to happen??
  13. Disbelief: this was a sucker's rally
  14. Depression: my retirement savings are lost. How are we going to pay for all this new stuff? I am an idiot.
Yup, capitalism at its best :o)

Cryptocurrencies

Posted May 17, 2021

One of the things I am quite sure about is the lack of long-term value of cryptocurrencies. Well, perhaps I should qualify that statement in a proper, forecaster's fashion: I'm 99% sure of their lack of value. Perhaps it's my age, but putting one's hard-earned savings into a man-made, virtual object is beyond my comprehension. To me, the headline graphic advertising bitcoin that I saw the other day said it all: "In Bitcoin we trust." As with most tokens of "money" that mankind has made over the ages, so-called "fiat" currencies which have no intrinsic or "use" value other than a government-issued assurance of worth, cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Their "worth" goes up because investors (gamblers) see the opportunity to profit, and climb on the band wagon, so to speak. There isn't even a government standing behind cryptocurrencies, which is one reason their values are so volatile. I'm fond of calling the stuff "fools gold", though I'm certainly not calling those who invest in, and use the stuff fools, per se. Many of its users are much smarter than I; Elon Musk comes to mind (he is also much, much, much richer).

A brief digression on intrinsic value might be worthwhile at this point, especially considering the way governments are "increasing the money supply" at this current time, simply by printing it up...or, more frequently, adding zeros to numbers on a spreadsheet. Similar actions have been taken by many governments over the centuries, and always ended badly. In fact, the ancient world did it by chipping the edges off of coins, so they could melt down the chips to make new coins, all the while claiming that the original, smaller coins still had their original value. The new "Modern Monetary Theory", or MMT, claims that this can be done in order to meet mankind's many unmet societal needs. Indeed it has been used for a couple of decades by the USA to finance their military spending, though at a much slower pace that what is now measured at over 1 trillion dollars of "monopoly money" that is being "printed" in a year. Coming back to Mr. Musk again...in his characteristic, Asperger Syndrome way he effectively gave an example of how this money printing "works." Carry things to the extreme, he suggested. Giving every citizen 1 million dollars would be very popular, and would surely result in a "second term." Every person would now be encouraged to go out and buy his or her own Lamborghini Italian sports car, since they could certainly afford it. But perhaps not. It might take the car company a century to make that many cars, since they are partly hand-made. So, almost immediately the car lots would be empty of Lamborghinis, and people fortunate enough to own one already would come to realize the enormous profit they could make by selling their vehicle on the used market. Prices for both the few new and used cars would skyrocket, because of the false "wealth" thought to be contained in the rapidly deflating currency. Soon not only sports cars, but everything else would be rapidly increasing in price because people's demands would expand in according to what they perceived their bank accounts to hold. But soon that million dollars would only purchase a very small economoy car. Because of the oversupply of the "currency," its "current" value diminished rapidly in a process known as hyperinflation. This is in fact what may be about to happen in our western countries as we print out vast amounts of fiat currency to keep our economies afloat.

The reason I digressed into the topic of our fiat currency supply is to debunk the claim by Bitcoin owners that this can't happen with their currency, because there is a set amount of Bitcoin available, and no more can be made. In that way they claim that it can't be deflated by manufacturing more of it, and that it is like gold in that regard. But this is a grand fallacy. While there may be a fixed amount of Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies are being invented all the time. The current list includes Ethereum, Binance Coin, Cardano, Dogecoin, Tether, XRP, Polkadot, Internet Computer, Uniswap, Litecoin, Chainlink, Stellar, USD Coin, Solana, VeChain, Ethereum Classic, Theta...the list goes on. And to make the point completely clear, people are currently selling their Bitcoin - the value went down 15% yesterday, and buying other coins which are now appreciating at astonishing rates. As much cryptocurrency can be made as people want, and in fact governments will soon be making it too. It's potential "quantity" is just as large as the potential quantity of US dollars or Canadian loonies. There will be as much of the stuff as the makers want to make. And like the devaluation of traditional fiat currency (which, as the name implies only has value because people are made to imagine that it does), the same will happen with cryptocurrencies.

Since cryptocurrencies have no inherent value, and are therefore really only fiat currencies, they have no fixed value...as their daily volatility constantly reminds us. Also, there is no "central bank" trying its best to prop up their value. So what is driving the price increases of this virtual (non-real) commodity? There is only one answer: human emotion. One definition for "virtual" in the computer sense is temporarily simulated or extended by computer software. I hope you noticed one word in particular: temporarily. This is not what you want your wealth to be, at least in the timescale of your life. Clearly cryptocurrencies are nothing more than a giant, grand casino object, lacking even the limited reality of a piece of paper. The "value" is contained within nothing more than a series of zeros and ones in a machine's memory.

As mentioned, cryptocurrency evangelists liken Bitcoin and associated virtual currencies to gold. That may be partly true if the metal is held in the form of ETFs, which are essentially only investment fund promissory notes. It is widely speculated that there is far more "paper gold" floating around in the stock markets than there is real gold to back it up. So, if there is a "run" on gold, so to speak, many will find that their ETFs are worthless. Holding real, physical precious metals is a completely different matter though. Assuming you can keep it in a safe place, and it is not stolen, it will hold its value at least comparably to other real objects (made by God); real estate (the land part) comes to mind. So, the comparison of cryptocurrencies with gold, silver and other precious metals is completely in-valid.

Something else that advocates of cryptocurrencies like to overlook is the risks associated with putting their "money" into these assets. Edward Snowden, a man of substantial computer knowledge and foresight, has for years warned of the dangers inherent in the technology. His critics counter that while he may know a thing or two about government secrecy and computer communications, he is out of his depth with regard to cryptocurrencies. Somehow, I have my doubts about that. And the crypto-folk further argue that fixing the potential vulnerabilities of blockchain and cryptocurrencies is "too hard," and that no-one will figure out how to exploit them in any event. Well, if they do the pain is going to be enormous; entire fortunes will vanish from the virtual world. Finally, who would you rather believe: Edward Snowden, or profiteers and hucksters who make their money by convincing others to contribute to their schemes? The answer is pretty easy for me to answer.

Finally, speaking of risks, useful computers have only been around for about 80 years, and the internet upon which this technology depends, about half that time. The technology has a very short history. But we have seen what electrical storms can do to even crude electrical systems, causing fires within teletype systems. Also, this has happened relatively recently, within the past 100 years or so. No-one knowledgeable about computer networks, satellite communication, and microelectronics in general doubts the widespread devastation that will occur the next time such an event happens. And it is definitely...I repeat definitely only a matter of time until a solar flare aims directly at earth and causes its havoc. Depending on its intensity, computer systems and the internet will be down for days, week, or months. No-one knows how long it would take. That is why the Swedish government advises its population to keep a significant amount of physical cash in their homes, for just such an emergency. When such an event happens, virtual funds will be completely inaccessible for significant periods of time, which will extend considerably longer even than it takes to get machines up and running again. Backups will have to be restored, which have hopefully not themselves been corrupted by the solar storm. Note also that a nuclear war could have similar effects.

The Bible speaks of such catastrophic events, and the death of a third of the world's population. Only a very small number of the "users" of cryptocurrencies have the foggiest idea of how to restore the computer technology underpinning this virtual money. At least with banks, there are physical backups saved on in-house computer disks, and in many instances even a paper trail of financial records and bank accounts. These do not exist with cryptocurrencies. The contents of users' thumb drives will be unverifiable via blockchain technology, which requires a fully functional internet. People should ask themselves: where, physically, is my "wealth?" Is there any chance that I can ever get the "earthly portion" of it back in the case of a collapse of internet service?

I repeat, I am not accusing anyone of being a fool. I am not denying that fortunes will continue to be made in cryptocurrencies, in the short term. But these virtual currencies could be significantly impacted even my much less catastrophic events than have been described. I am convinced that the vast majority of cryptocurrency "investors" are going to be losers. This stuff has no more intrinsic value than Monopoly money.

Website status since October 2019

Posted May 11, 2021

Some of you may recall that in early October of 2019 I received notice from Eastlink, my Internet Service Provider (ISP), that they would be terminating websites of their clients as of the end of that month. That 3 week notice did not provide much reaction time, especially given the time of year, and my protest letter did no good. I suspect there were only a handful of us utilizing their meager 20 MBytes of website space in any event. Though it cost them practically nothing to maintain this service, it was a "non-performing asset" for Eastlink (they probably considered it a liability), so after acquiring our local Delta Cable Communications (dccnet) in a corporate takeover, they eventually got around to cancelling it. At least my ISP has remained in Canadian hands.

So the challenge became one of finding a replacement for the lost webserver service. Being the proud owner of several Raspberry Pi single board computers, I knew that one of these could serve my needs quite capably. Indeed it could, and all was good until I tried to provide access to outside my home network. Once again, Eastlink proved to be the issue; they were essentially a cable company which took up internet opportunistically when it came along, but as with all cable companies, they were "set up" for much more data download (e.g. TV channels) than internet. In fact they expressly forbid users to host websites in their homes. With such a limited number of "clients" to my website, I had thought I might get around this, considering it to be little more than a fancied-up email system. But Eastlink's modem essentially put an end to my hopes, since I was not able to gain sufficient access to open up the required ports. So there ended my Pi dreams.

At that point I knew I'd have to find another way to get my website back online. In my later years with Environment Canada (EC), I had located and purchased web services that were outside our EC firewall to provide access to external, non-government users (like fishermen). We provided them with real-time Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data images from Canada's and Europe's SAR satellites. This involved provision of large graphical datasets quickly and in real time to users throughout the country and on both coasts. My needs are now much more humble. But still, the service provider was based in Vancouver, was quite reliable, and I hoped...reasonably priced (of course I had not personally had to pay for EC's use of their services). It turns out that the service is, for the time being anyway, exactly what I hoped it would be. Familiarity made it easy to employ, and being Canadian meant that my uploads of content would not be subject to foreign 'bot' snooping.

So you may well ask, why did it take a year and a half to get my website back on line? That's a very good question, and results from lingering hopes of finding a way to use my Raspberry Pi single-board computer instead of paying for commercial services, and then issues involving apparently accelerated passage of time (and perhaps lack of efficiency) associated with the "senior years." Anyway, (very) long story shortened - I'm back! It feels good.

That said, so much has happened during the past year and a half, it's almost unbelievable. Among other things, 4 old friends have passed away, something my late Aunt had warned me would happen. But at the least it's probably not entirely a bad thing that you've been spared my thoughts on the US election, and COVID-19. I'm going to leave those largely untouched, and move on from here.

So, especially since I'm not a Facebook or Twitter user and cannot communicate that way, I do appreciate you spending some moments having a look at my content, at least where it matches with your interests. And please do get back to me with comments, questions, or criticism. We old-timers have generally acquired thick enough skins, and no personal offence will be taken regarding disagreements. You might say I am a product of "another age," when people used to disagree in a friendly manner, and I certainly don't expect your opinions to match up with mine on the many, oft-time controversial topics I touch upon.

A lament for socialism

Posted June 20, 2019

Ever since I began thinking about politics, I considered myself a socialist. Part of it may have been a simple dislike for what I considered the Americans' irrational hatred for communism - though I was by no means a communist myself. I listened on shortwave radio to what happened in the Vietnam War from before the beginning right to the end, and was certainly sympathetic to the anti-war protesters - some of whom were socialists. But my understanding of my Christian faith, in which I put special emphasis on what Christ taught, also led me towards pacifism and socialism. Care for the poor and disadvantaged was evidenced by policies which the socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) leader Tommy Douglas pushed for, and eventually succeeded in getting adopted on a national scale. Nothing about capitalism seemed compatible with Christ's teachings, unless you chose such weak evidence as his encouragement of investment (the servant who buried his master's wealth instead of investing it did not meet approval). But that was hardly evidence of support for capitalism as we have it today. The election of a very good New Democratic (NDP) premier of Manitoba (where I was residing) by the name of Edward Schreyer in 1969 confirmed my leanings toward the left of the political spectrum...though Schreyer himself was a pretty moderate socialist. But he did bring in things like provincial government-run automobile insurance which greatly reduced premiums, eliminated provincial medicare premiums, introduced Pharmacare, and brought about home care for the elderly. He also guided Manitoba Hydro, which was a government-run (i.e. socialist) corporation away from coal and gas power generation and into clean, renewable hydro generation. In those days, support for same-sex marriage wasn't a prerequisite for being a member of the NDP; consistent with his Roman Catholic beliefs, he had previously referred to homosexuality as being an "affliction," though he did nothing to oppose gay rights during his time in power. He was knowledgeable about economics, as his second Masters degree was from that faculty at the University of Manitoba, and he served capably as his own Minister of Finance for several years.

So the socialism of the likes of Tommy Douglas and Edward Schreyer is the kind of socialism I admired...and still do. In the international sphere, the Scandinavian countries were already thriving under a similar kind of socialism, with lots of state-owned enterprises doing well alongside small businesses and larger corporations. There are some things that private enterprise can do much better, in particular leading-edge technological research and development, which thrives on competition and responsiveness. But basic services such as insurance, medical services, education, and yes - power generation if it is managed with intelligence and prudence (unlike what happened with the Ontario NDP government of Kathleen Wynne) are areas in which socialism is the better way. I advocate a mixed economy, with lots of controls on both the socialist and corporate aspects of it.

But we may ask, "where is socialism today?" The NDP in Canada has mostly abandoned socialist principles. This was perhaps made necessary by the incessant brainwashing of generations of Canadians by US propaganda. Socialism was falsely conflated with communism in almost all news reports and opinion pieces in popular media. But what is worst is that "the left" has been completely taken over by special-interest groups promoting abandonment of the Judaeo-Christian beliefs and ethics which were fundamental in the creation of our country. The main interest of most so-called "left-leaning parties" in many countries (Greens possibly excepted), is now LGBTQ rights. In Sweden today, their Lutheran church, which is the largest Christian denomination in the country, describes Jesus Christ as "queer", who "broke the norm", and "did not defend the traditional family". Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church still maintains that homosexual acts are a "great depravity" and that "homosexual persons are called to chastity". Here again we see what is becoming more common today - the Roman Catholics adhering more closely to biblical scripture while an increasing number of protestant denominations drift away.

A social media site a few years ago referred to people who are socially conservative and politically/economically left-wing as the worst possible combination. That defines me pretty accurately. Sadly, it's difficult to find many like-minded people around any more. But I'd like to think that Christ represented exactly these beliefs: being socially conservative and economically socialist. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that fallen man has chosen to take the wrong path both economically and socially.

Analysis of a near-collision between Russian and US warships in the western Pacific

Posted June 9, 2019

A very close call occurred in the Philippine Sea (or East China Sea depending on source) this past week. Russian and US warships of approximately the same size came within 50 metres of colliding. Both sides are blaming the other, and since the event was video recorded and made public courtesy of the US Navy, I figured it shouldn't be too difficult to determine which side was telling the truth and which was not. Most world news services seem to have abrogated their responsibility to assess the evidence and are just parroting the politically-aligned views of their respective governments. The assumption on the American side seems to have been that since their own military distributed video of the event, they of course were correct in their assertion that the Russians were to blame. No need for an analysis.

Prior to providing my own analysis, I will point out the relevant rule of navigation at sea. When two vessels of approximately the same size and similar propulsion systems approach each other on a collision course, the vessel approached from the starboard (right) side must yield to the other vessel. There are no exceptions.

Navigation Question on Mariners' Exam

Answer: Official answer on Mariners' Exam In this case the Russian destroyer, the Admiral Vinogradov, was in location "y" on the starboard side of the American guided missile cruiser, the USS Chancellorsville which was in location "x." Rotate the diagram about 135 degrees clockwise to put the situation in a perspective aligned with the photo, below (Chancellorsville on the right, Vinogradov on the left in this photo taken by the US Navy helicopter at the scene). Aerial photo of the near-collision

At first glance, the photo makes it look like the Chancellorsville is being "challenged" by the Vinogradov which is coming in from the left (their right, or starboard side). This was presumably what the US military thinks Americans will conclude, and sadly they were correct. Assuming the ships were travelling at approximately the same speed (maximum speed is about 35 kts), the Vinogradov would have been well "ahead" of the Chancellorsville, and clearly in their sight but on a collision course in the minutes preceding the critical event (draw some x-t diagrams if you don't understand their relative positions leading up to the event). Since the Vinogradov was off the Chancellorsville's starboard (right) side, the American ship was required to yield (change course) to let the Russian vessel pass ahead of it (or behind). The Russian ship was therefore not required to change course or alter speed. Yacht racers employ this rule many times in every race, and every operator of vessels larger than canoes and kayaks is also supposed to know this. Most certainly the American commander knew he was supposed to give way to the Russian vessel on his starboard side, and as much as acknowledged the fact when the Navy used the excuse that they could not change course because they were in the process of conducting helicopter exercises. However that excuse is clearly bogus: there are no exceptions to these rules, and helicopters are very capable of adjusting to course changes of their landing platforms. Obviously the Russians expected the American ship would follow these rules, and when it did not, they had to make an emergency course correction at the last moment, veering to starboard just in the nick of time as seen in the video and photos. The reason the Vinogradov seems to be going faster than the Chancellorsville in the videos is that the latter had put its engines in full reverse in a panic response. This had the effect of making the Russian ship look more like the aggressor, as it was passing the slowing Chancellorsville which had essentially applied maximum brakes. It would also likely have resulted in catastrophe if the Russians, upon realizing the Americans had no intention of obeying the maritime rules, had put hard to port in an effort to cross behind the American ship. If the latter had been slowing, that attempt might not have been successful.

News reports from Russia Today tell the story quite clearly, with even a little humour thrown in. The evidence, provided by the US Navy, supports their version of the story. But Check out what the US Media had to say about it (other American sources had similar analyses). The Russians were apparently "playing chicken." Putin is "clearly challenging the United States of America." And Russia is "poking at the US." (The incident they mentioned regarding the spy plane - referred to in the newscast as a "reconnaissance aircraft," involved the Russians trying to keep it away from their own military base in Syria; America would have done the same if Russian spy planes flew near any of its many foreign military bases). US Col. Chris Gibson's claim on the Fox News broadcast, that the US was being "transparent" while the Russians were distributing misleading "propaganda" about the incident with the warships was completely opposite to the truth. And the US military, in its report of this incident, was clearly emulating its Commander in Chief, who seems incapable of speaking truth for more than about 30 seconds. The claim by US Navy Captain Carl Schuster in the Wikipedia entry for Admiral Vinogradov, that the Russian ship's wake shows that it didn't adhere to either the rules of the road or the incidents at sea agreement, is patently false - and he knows it. It is truly shocking that none of the mariners in America, who are just as much aware as these seafaring rules as I, seem to have spoken out about errors of their country's version of the event. Where are the voices of the skippers of the Americas' Cup yachts? Are all Americans afraid that speaking out against their country's military is "unpatriotic?" If so, America...and the whole world, is in deep trouble.

By stoking fear, loathing and hatred of Russia among the American people, the American media is acting in the service of their military-industrial masters. Drumming up support for war is a very dangerous thing, as the 1930's clearly demonstrated in Europe (I am presently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). Unfortunately, American propaganda is just as active and just as pervasive today as it was during the days of the Vietnam War.

I hope you enjoyed my analysis. If you have questions, I'd be happy to address them.

Have right-wing extremists taken over the Protestant church in North America?

Posted April 17, 2019

This week's fire at the Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris was a sad spectacle to behold. This World Heritage site is, along with the Eiffel Tower, one of the great symbols of Paris and the French nation. Though in a state of some disrepair, it has remained a premier example of Gothic architecture, on a grand scale, with history dating all the way back to the 12th century. The pipe organ is considered by many to be one of the greatest musical instruments in existence today. The sculptures and artwork, rich in religious symbolism, are outstanding. The framework of lumber that held up the now-destroyed roof was comprised of 13,000 beams, each cut from a single oak tree that would have sprouted in the 8th and 9th centuries. In fact the roof sub-structure was known as the forest (and was the reason the fire burned so fiercely - it was quite literally a forest fire). Twenty-one hectares of an old-growth oak forest had been cleared to provide the required timber. Each tree would have been 300 to 400 years old. No such old-growth oak forests exist now in France, and one wonders if they exist anywhere in the world. The lead roof that the timbers held up...now melted, weighed 210 tons. Although I have not seen the place, I have seen its namesake in Montreal, and in general greatly appreciate this style of architecture. So yes, it saddened me to witness, in real time, this structure being damaged so badly.

You may have noticed that none of the sadness related above pertained to the fact that this is a Christian church building. But Christ's church consists of people, not buildings, so to me this physical structure is a secondary concern. I do however feel for the congregation of believers for whom this was their home church building. I am sure that many good Christians are lamenting the loss of their place of worship, especially in this holy season. However my sadness in this regard is tempered by the knowledge of the extraordinarily corrupt church organization which built this edifice. The Roman Catholic Church at that time was an abomination, and an enemy of Christ, for example burning at the stake those who would dare to translate the Bible into the common languages. Their deviations from, and additions to the tenets of the faith as established in scripture were too numerous to mention here. And with regard to the French cathedral, by the time construction began the church had started undertaking the deplorable practice of offering indulgences whereby, for a price, gullible Christians were assured that they could "buy" their deceased loved ones out of purgatory and into heaven. Those contributions would undoubtedly have helped pay for the initial construction of the cathedral. But who could blame the poor laity for falling for these lies, as they were denied direct access to God's word in the Bible.

So by now you will be wondering what any of this has to do with the title of this blog. I have been appalled by what I have seen online by those claiming to represent "Christian" views pertaining to this event. First, someone patched in an audio track of an Islamic call to worship into a video purporting to have been taken just prior to the outbreak of the fire. This fiction spread quickly over social media, and although it appears to have now (two days later) been mostly purged from online sources (I have not been able to locate it), it was widely viewed. But what I have seen is horrible in itself. I have seen "Christian" commentators linking the attack on the Twin Towers of New York to the two towers of the cathedral. They were saying that the fire could not be an accident, but the Muslim connection would likely be hidden by the government. One program claimed that French President Macron had taken the Mark of the Beast, though it seemed the commentators didn't really know what that meant. Another program held that the posting of the fire on Wikipedia in real time was proof that it had all been planned in advance, including the write-up. There was talk of involvement of the Deep State, and one crazy posting claimed the huge Fort McMurray fire had also been "staged." Another bluntly stated that Europe is burning and this is God's judgement. Even the main Christian Broadcasting Network in the US, CBN, while mentioning at the top of their newscast that the fire appeared to be accidental, proceeded to follow up with stories about numerous acts of vandalism, including setting of fires, against Christian churches throughout France and Europe. While these accusations are true, speaking about them right after the main story about the cathedral fire was unfortunate, and suggested they were originally preparing to support the idea that this was an act of terrorism, but then realized that this was not proven and would likely be unwise. But the vitriol and anti-Muslim sentiment has been widely propagated online by those claiming to be speaking from a Christian viewpoint, and this came from Canadian websites as well as American ones. In contrast, the responses from the main, secular news services in western countries have for the most part been rational and shown concern and empathy for the French people, and even the affected Christians.

So in answer to the question in the title, no, of course the North American Protestant church has not been "taken over" by right-wing extremists. But there is no shortage of these ultra-right wing people out there, and sadly, a substantial number are linking themselves to Christianity and Christian causes. In fact I see little on-line to counter these haters by anyone claiming a Christian world-view. So non-believers can certainly be excused for thinking that those who profess to be Christians are a bunch of conspiracy theorists and haters - as well as total idiots. The ease of getting materials online, both in written and video formats, is facilitating propagation of the hatred. One doesn't have to be particularly smart to assert a presence on the internet these days. Christians are supposed to be the salt of the earth. We are supposed to be known by the love we show, and to turn the other cheek to our enemies. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the image being portrayed online these days, and this fire in France really shows the depths to which some in the Christian church have fallen. Christians need to completely disavow and condemn right-wing extremism and everything it represents (including xenophobia and antisemitism), purge it from our midst, and return again to the teachings of Christ our Lord. And while Christians should be free to speak up regarding their religious convictions, I believe it might be wise for us to just stay away from politics as far as practically possible. I'm thinking that I should probably take my own advice, too.

Photo of children feeding hummingbirds in front of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris

Christ's teachings

Posted March 12, 2019

Christ's teachings should be of some concern for right-wingers, some of whom profess to be his disciples. This is from one protester's sign:

For I was hungry, and you said "Drug test those who would ask for food."
I was thirsty and you said "Oil for us is more important than water for them."
I was a stranger and you said "He could be a terrorist, don't let him in."
I was sick and you said "Take away her health insurance."
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did to one of the least of these, you did to me."

The United States vs. Huawei

Posted March 9, 2019

I have never seen economic warfare exerted on such a scale as we now see with the U.S. - and more to the point of this blog, the American attack on the largest telecommunications company in the world, China's Huawei. Clearly the U.S. feels threatened by Huawei. But entrapment of a company executive, as in the case of Deputy Chairwoman and Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, is taking the strategy one step beyond what is normally done.

Of course we have seen U.S. embargoes and economic blockades utilized for many decades. It has been applied against Cuba since the 1950's, most especially after military attempts to overthrow the government there failed. Though American efforts have kept that country poor, in my mind it has been to Cuba's advantage: their oceans are uniquely pristine in the Caribbean due to the lack of commercial development, and their people's contamination by American commercialism and "Hollywood" morals has been greatly reduced. American crime syndicates were planning to transform Cuba into what is now Las Vegas; Cubans have good reason to be thankful to Fidel and Company for their successful efforts in defence of their national sovereignty. More recently, the U.S. has been waging economic warfare against Russia, North Korea (again, after military intervention had previously failed), Iran, and China. Turkey, and several countries of the European Union including Germany and France are soon to be added. Some of these countries have been traditional allies. But I digress.

Going back to the case against Huawei, we recall that in the U.S. the government famously demanded back-door access from Apple in order to access users' personal data. The FBI was preparing to take Apple to court over this, until a hacker they hired was able to break into the pertinent iPhone for them, rendering the lawsuit unnecessary. So where does the U.S. find its moral authority to accuse Huawei of allowing the same thing it demands of its own, national tech companies? Furthermore, the alleged spying the U.S. accuses Huawei of conducting on behalf of the Chinese government has never been substantiated. The infamous microchip implants the Chinese were accused of placing in electronics last year turned out to be a big lie. There is no doubt that the new 5G wireless technology will provide possible new avenues for attack by unscrupulous individuals and governments, but many technical advancements do that. There is no stopping the implementation of 5G technology, and as usual, ways of mitigating the dangers will be found. Governments and corporations will continue to employ "white hat hackers" to sniff out and block identified vulnerabilities.

Huawei is the undisputed leader in 5G communications technology - by a significant amount (invalidating American claims that Chinese firms just "steal" western technology), and if the U.S. and its allies resist adoption of this technology, they will simply be left in the dust. The technology is actually a requirement for implementation of self-driving cars and computerized driving-assist, as well as advancements in the so-called internet of things (IoT). We can already see Asian countries advancing rapidly ahead of North America in many areas - think high-speed trains, renewable energy, and computer technology using 7 nanometre microchips by companies such as Huawei and Taiwan's Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD), one of Fortune 500's most admired companies. (And remember that Apple's vaunted implementation of ARM technology in its phones and iPads is actually manufactured in Asia. Apple's attempts at manufacturing in the U.S. under Steve Jobs were a monumental failure). The German government is leaning towards working with Huawei, and there is a growing consensus that much of Europe will choose to ignore U.S. rhetoric. German analysis has found "no basis for U.S. claims about security; the alarms are not accurate." Similarly Australia and New Zealand, part of the so-called 5 Eyes American spy network of which Canada (regrettably) is a part, and who previously agreed to block Huawei from their countries, are now saying they can work with them. Of course the U.S. will continue to apply all the pressure it can against Huawei everywhere it can. Hopefully Canada will not succumb to this pressure (having already arrested Huawei's CFO for them), and will continue to adopt Huawei technology. The company has invested millions of dollars in several Canadian universities to develop and underpin 5G technology, money that has benefited our country not only in terms of technology development but also employment and education. Telus and Bell have stated it will cost each of them millions of dollars of investment, and significantly impact and delay technology development and implementation in Canada, if they are prevented from utilizing Huawei's communications equipment. I'm sure their shareholders are going to love that!

Finally, many voices even in the U.S. are saying their government is acting inappropriately against a private company; Huawei is no more a part of the Chinese government than Apple is of the American government. Americans frequently jump from government and military jobs to employment in the private sector, just as Huawei's CEO zen Zhengfei has done. Hopefully the U.S. will begin to ratchet down its global economic warfare, as manifested by President Trump's many trade wars and tariffs. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon, and sometimes even question whether things will get much better after his departure from the White House. Clearly America will not see its leadership in technology taken over by China without a fight.

Venezuela, revisited

Posted March 8, 2019

What is going on currently in Venezuela is catastrophic to the people of that country. One of the first blogs I wrote (see near bottom of blog page) was entitled Kick 'em while they're down, and that is exactly what the U.S. has done to Venezuela. They have now virtually destroyed the country, blaming socialism (of course), when it was really the collapse of oil prices...combined with economic attacks by the USA (now that country's preferred method of warfare) which has resulted in the disaster we see today. Even Canada, and most notably Alberta, has suffered economically from the low oil prices. Fortunately we have a diversified economy, which Venezuela does not have. I'm definitely not a fan of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro - he should have stepped down long ago because of his obvious inability to manage the struggling economy. But he and his predecessor Hugo Chavez were only trying to help the poor, using the petroleum revenue that was available to them. Venezuela sits on what are likely the largest oil reserves in the world, greater even than Saudi Arabia's. From what we have seen in the Middle East, we know that the US demands access to these oil reserves for its petrochemical companies, and this is really what is behind what is happening to Venezuela.

Hyperinflation and economic collapse are not related to the economic system a country uses. In fact most episodes of hyperinflation have occurred in capitalist countries; we got pretty close to it in North America with interest rates in the high teens during the early 1980's. And if socialism was truly the cause of the Venezuelan economic collapse, we would surely have the only land-locked country of South America, and historically one of the poorest, seeing hyper-inflation and economic collapse as well. But Evo Morales, the socialist president of Bolivia - and first indigenous leader of that country since the Spanish conquistadors came - and left, seems to be doing quite well...and so is his country. Morales had the courage to say what few world leaders have been able to say to America at the United Nations, during a session when President Trump was in the audience. This is what Morales said:

“The United States could not care less about human rights or justice,’’ Morales said. “If this were the case, it would have signed the international conventions and treaties that have protected human rights. It would not have threatened the investigation mechanism of the International Criminal Court, nor would it promote the use of torture, nor would it have walked away from the Human Rights Council. And nor would it have separated migrant children from their families, nor put them in cages.’’
The worst enemy of humanity is capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neo-liberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that the national states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated.

And now for the US to be demanding regime change in Venezuela because of what they have caused is outrageous. Venezuelans do need a new leader, but without interference and pressure from foreign powers set to gain from the instalment of puppet rulers - as happened in Ukraine. And blaming socialism when the true cause of Venezuela's troubles was the dramatic decline in world oil prices - exacerbated greatly by US sanctions, is totally disingenuous.

The China debacle, continued

Posted March 5, 2019

Further to my post of February 4, Sino-Canadian relations continue to deteriorate as a result of the ill-advised abduction of Huawei's Chief Financial Officer in Vancouver last December. I have been predicting that this will not end well for Canada, and now the consequences have begun. Beyond the "hostage diplomacy" defence that China is staging against Canada, economic retribution for Canadian fealty to the US in the Huawei affair has now begun. You may recall that prior to US sanctions against China, US exports of soybeans amounted to US$15B per year. Then China largely blocked soybean imports from the US last year, after Trump began his trade war. Trump, fearing that his base might become disgruntled about this - many of them are from mid-western farming states, implemented a compensation program that is costing US taxpayers billions. No matter, this will scarcely be noticed within the US$1.2T annual deficit. Anyway, Canada was among several nations which initially benefited from the trade war. Canada's export of soybeans to China increased greatly. But Canada also sells a lot of canola oil to China - roughly CAD$2.5B last year. China is now (as of today) blocking all imports of Canadian canola oil to their country. It appears that Ottawa is going to have to bail out farmers here just the way Trump has been in the US; two and a half billion dollars - on top of the loss of the windfall soybean exports, is no small matter for prairie farmers. The BRICS-aligned nation of Brazil is going to be a really big winner in all of this, as their exports to China have been rapidly increasing, and more can be expected.

In additional news this week, we learned that Canadian border agents, acting at the behest of US authorities, interrogated Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou at YVR Airport for three hours before arresting her and advising her of her rights. This was obviously unconstitutional under Canadian law, and I cannot imagine how Meng's lawyers will not win her release in court on this alone. Meng is also suing the Canadian Government, the RCMP as well as the Canadian Border Service for unlawful arrest, and considering her net worth, and keeping her "off the job" so to speak as Huawei's CFO for all this time, I expect Canadian taxpayers will be providing substantial compensation to the Huawei executive.

Huawei is the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world, and kidnapping its Chief Financial Officer is not, as I previously suggested, like taking a pawn in a chess game. Essentially, Canada has captured China's queen. As Brock University professor Charles Burton, a former Canadian diplomat who served two postings in China, has recently said, "China is not going to take this lying down - one shudders to think what the consequences could be."

Chief Executive Officers' Pay

Posted February 27, 2019

I came across some interesting statistics in a recent issue of "Corporate Knights: The Magazine for Clean Capitalism" (I'm not sure that such a thing exists, but that's beside the point). Being well aware of the insane remuneration currently provided to CEOs as compared to their staff, I read this information with interest. Among a hundred or so leading corporations, 16 have a ratio of CEO / Average worker pay of less than 30:1. Of these, 7 (44% of the 16) were from Scandinavian countries. The rest were mainly from Europe and Asia. On the other end of the ledger, of 8 corporations with ratios greater than 200:1, 6 of these were in the United States of America. So three quarters of these companies, which pay their CEO at least 200 times the salary of their average worker, are from the US. A seventh in the group of companies was Canadian, so 88% of the worst offenders are from these two countries!

And people question why Scandinavians tend to be happier, despite their higher taxes, climate and dark winters!

Bono's daughter-father interview

Posted February 16, 2019

A couple of years ago I watched a father-daughter talk between Bono, lead singer of the band U2, and his eldest daughter Jordan Hewson. I recently stumbled across it again and thought it would be worth some commentary. Bono has always been difficult to characterize in terms of his religious beliefs, philosophy and motivations. While certainly expressing Christian values in his songs and actions, many Christians have been perplexed by his non-conformity with accepted Christian norms - a primary example of which is his use of bad language - sometimes in live concerts and even on television. I've always thought that actions speak louder than words, and in any event we're supposed to leave the judgement to God.

In this particular daughter-father interview I learned quite a bit about Bono (his real name is Paul David Hewson), including his early life (it was hard), and his thoughts on celebrity, inequality, and social responsibility. One of his statements that sticks out is that celebrity upends God's values. He says that if celebrity can have any value, it is to help put a spotlight on issues and people whose voices are not heard. He feels the most important thing he can do is to try to fight the causes of poverty, which he rightly considers to be structural, and not simple.

One thing I respect Bono and his wife Ali for is their faithfulness to one another. Although divorce is an epidemic in all western cultures, it seems especially to be the case amongst celebrities. Bono does not appear to have suffered from bloated ego syndrome that seems to affect nearly all famous personalities these days and which almost always results in marital breakdown. He and Ali have been married almost 37 years and their relationship appears still to be going strong.

The two videos I watched are still available on YouTube, so if you like you can see the father-daughter interview here, and also a cute portrayal of Ali and Bono Hewson's relationship here.

The transmogrification of America

Posted February 15, 2019

Here at our sea-washed sunset gates shall stand a mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon hand glows world-wide welcome: 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 tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

America?

The China debacle: A tale of four nations

Posted February 4, 2019

Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou was arrested at YVR on 1 December 2018 while on her way to Mexico, based on an extradition warrant issued by the US. She has previously been a temporary resident of Canada, and has committed no crime in this country. China has called her arrest an extremely odious action, and many wonder if Canadian relations with China will ever recover.

Picture of Meng Wanzhou
The arrest has triggered a diplomatic crisis which has already resulted in the firing of Canada's ambassador to China because he was too favourable to the Chinese perspective, and the arrest of two Canadians in China in what has been called hostage diplomacy. The roots of the dispute are not only US - China rivalry, but ultimately go back to Iran. These are the facts as I see them (as well as a little background):

Which brings us to the US, and a great example of American-Canadian collaboration and friendship: Finally, we come to the present situation between Canada and China:

Sadly, this squabble will replace Chinese memories of the selfless work of Canadian physician Norman Bethune - whose humanitarian work in China has endeared generations of Chinese to Canada, with this "hostage taking" of a leading Chinese businessperson who has been likened by some to "Chinese royalty." Indeed Fox News claims her stature in Chinese culture can be compared to American tech titans such as Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. But Macleans magazine has stated that to the Americans she may be considered "the world's most wanted woman." Clearly the US is taking action against the Chinese over their advances in technology which compete with American companies, just as they took action (and continue to take action), both economically and militarily, against countries which act contrary to interests of the American petrochemical giants. Canada is indeed in a tough spot. We have more to lose in trade with the US than with China, but what is the ethical decision? Trump has shown his government has little loyalty to Canada or any other "ally" in terms of trade and international relations - he virtually excluded Canada from NAFTA trade negotiations, and is imposing tariffs against Canadian steel and aluminum "for national security reasons." This, against the country that fought most wars of the last century alongside American soldiers (Vietnam was a notable and proud exception), rescued American diplomats from Iran, and welcomed thousands of Americans stranded when their flights were grounded by the 9-11 attacks. Of course we must not forget that Trump will soon be out of office and things will likely change. But his interference with Canada's right to develop international trading partnerships independent of American interference, and the subversion of our Canadian legal system to foreign (American) advantage, are just as despicable as denying China the right to trade with whom they please. If only the Canadian government had exhibited the foresight to privately warn Meng not to come here - they had four days advance knowledge. Then Canada would not be in the predicament it now finds itself.

As a final caveat, just as I don't claim to know the mind of God relating to the concentration camp that is Gaza (though I despise what is being done there), likewise I acknowledge that the unsavoury economic warfare the US is conducting against modern-day Persia may all be part of God's plan. The Islamic Republic of Iran definitely does pose an existential threat to Israel, and God may indeed be working through American dominance to hold Iran in check. Republicans from the so-called "Christian Right" would certainly agree with this supposition. So while from my earthly, personal perspective American actions relating to the control of Iran, including their "use" of Canada and domination of China appear to be dastardly deeds, from a heavenly perspective things may be different. God only knows.

Companies supporting gender choice

Posted January 21, 2019

Readers familiar with this blog will know I'm not a big fan of US President Donald Trump. But there are a number of positions he has taken that I strongly support. One of these is taking a stand for conservative values against the notion that people have the right to "choose" their gender. This concept is particularly damnable when permitted or encouraged in young or adolescent children whose hormones have not yet kicked in and who have not yet had a chance to mature into their natural, genetic sexual identity. There is no shortage of women who will admit to having been tom-boys in their youth, and likewise men who did not feel particularly masculine when in their teens, who have developed very naturally into well-adjusted women and men in accordance with their God-given sex. Their lives would have been essentially ruined if they had taken the opportunity, as now seems to be readily available, to "choose" an alternate sex.

A significant number of companies have spoken out strongly against Trump's stand on human sexuality and in support of the transgender movement. I much appreciated that they chose to make their identities public, as I have already used this information to inform, what for me at least, are fairly significant financial decisions. Some companies are difficult to avoid in this day and age, but it's great to know who not to deal with when choices are available!

Companies officially protesting President Donald Trump's conservative position identifying gender as "what we're born with", and supporting "choice" in gender selection, are listed below.
Accenture, Adobe Systems Inc., Airbnb, Altria Group, Amalgamated Bank, Amazon, American Airlines, Apple, Automatic Data Processing Inc. (ADP), Bank of America, Ben & Jerry's Homemade, BNY Mellon, Cargill, Cisco Systems Inc., Citi, Clifford Chance, Corning Incorporated, Corteva Agriscience, Deutsche Bank, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Facebook, Fastly Inc., Google, Hogan Lovells International LLP, HSBC, IBM Corporation, Intel Corporation, Intuit Inc., Iron Mountain, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Levi Strauss & Co., LinkedIn, Lush Handmade Cosmetics, Lyft, Marriott International, MassMutual, MGM Resorts International, Microsoft Corp., Nike Inc., PepsiCo, Replacements, Ltd., Ropes & Gray, Royal Bank of Canada, S&P Global, Salesforce, Sheppard Mullin, Sodexo Inc., Splunk, State Street Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, The Dow Chemical Company, TiVo Corporation, Trillium Asset Management, Twitter Inc., Uber and Warby Parker.

How God speaks to us

Posted January 20, 2019

People sometimes wonder about Christians who claim that God speaks to them. How, exactly, could that be? Do they hear voices? Are they "touched" or "guided" in some physical way? Aside from the general guidance we read in the Bible, I believe that God speaks specifically to us through nature, and also through events which he allows or facilitates in our lives. Many would call these events coincidences, but I believe that God brings these coincidences to bear on our consciousness, if we are open to his messages. I will relate a couple of examples which I have experienced in recent times.

During a visit to my neighbourhood Canadian Tire store, I recall being deeply offended at being totally ignored by a couple of clerks in the hardware section. I came to their service desk, and they were talking to one another and did not acknowledge my presence. I accepted the need to wait - their discussion was work-related. After considerable time the phone rang, and one of the ladies answered. To my astonishment, the other just walked past me and left. I wondered if it was because of my appearance - I looked like a biker and was wearing my Harley toque. At any rate that did it for me. I must have been there waiting for at least 2 or 3 minutes, with nary an acknowledgement. So I abruptly left and made my enquiry and purchase at another store. The next day at church the sermon was on pride, and the need to humble ourselves before God (Daniel 5:22). The pastor pointedly said that if you feel offended that someone ignores you or treats you with disrespect, you are proud. Furthermore, God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). First on the list of things God HATES is "haughty eyes" (Proverbs 6:16). Was this a mere coincidence, happening the day after my frustrating visit to Canadian Tire? Or was it a message? Based on the remarkable timing, I took it as the latter.

The second coincidence came about after recent ruminations about bullying. Having been bullied on several occasions during my school years, and having this subject matter a frequent current topic of debate on newscasts and social media, I sometimes question my parents' instruction to turn the other cheek. It hadn't seemed to work very well for me as a kid, and I'd often wished the guidance had been more down the line of never fomenting or precipitating a fight, but being willing and able to defend oneself when need be. As a somewhat geeky kid with glasses, I wished, for instance, that I'd been allowed to pursue some training in the martial arts. It would certainly have made life easier for me, and it was with these memories that I, along with my wife encouraged our son to take instruction in karate. That training had benefits relating to self discipline and self confidence as well as fighting ability, but was I right in encouraging it? Just after pondering these things for what seemed like the umpteenth time, a song I hadn't heard for a long time popped up on my iTunes playlist. It was from John Michael Talbot's "The Inner Room" album, and the song title was The Light of the World (a highly recommended song and album). The lyrics include these words:

"You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say turn the other cheek and to your enemies do good. These are the teachings of Jesus and we must follow his way."
Well, that's right to the point - Jesus definitely was a revolutionary (Luke 6:27-36). Was it an answer to my questioning regarding this perplexing issue? Perhaps it was - I like to think so. I'm not judgements of those who think differently, but I now believe my parents' approach was the correct one. I did survive after all, and this upbringing probably contributed to my leanings toward pacifism which I think are consistent with biblical teaching. (I do not think, however, that we need to be doormats to be trodden down and abused by others; there are effective means of passive resistance which can be undertaken as we have seen with Rev. Martin Luther King).

So in conclusion, I believe that some of the "coincidences" that happen in the lives of those who believe in Jesus Christ are more than what they seem.

End of Roman Republic

Posted January 16, 2019

As in interesting historical note, on this date 2046 years ago the Roman Republic came to an end. The Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian as Augustus in 27 BC – which effectively made him the first Roman emperor, officially ended the Republic. The Republic had its beginning in 509 BC, when the overthrow of the old Roman Kingdom occurred. That kingdom is thought to have originated with the city of Rome's founding circa 750 BC, though no written records from the era of the kingdom are known to exist today.

During the time of the republic there were regular elections for senate positions, magistracies and consuls. However the Roman Republic was never really a democracy but an oligarchy, as it was run by groups of influential and wealthy families and individuals. Many western nations today are also essentially oligarchies, as it is unusual for anyone from the middle class to reach positions of true power in government due to the promotional costs and implicit bribery required to attain success.

Snow persons

Posted January 15, 2019

A former colleague recently sent me this amusing narrative. It's pretty funny but is also a sad commentary on the present age.

It Snowed Last Night..
8:00 am: I made a snowman.
8:10 - A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn't make a snow woman.
8:15 - So, I made a snow woman.
8:17 - My feminist neighbour complained about the snow woman's voluptuous chest saying it objectified snow women everywhere.
8:20 - The gay couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it could have been two snow men instead.
8:22 - The transgender man..women...person asked why I didn't just make one snow person with detachable parts.
8:25 - The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and not to decorate snow figures with.
8:28 - I was being called a racist because the snow couple is white.
8:30 - I used food colouring to make one of the snow couple a different colour and be more racially inclusive.
8:37 - Accused of using black face on the snowman...snowpersons.
8:39 - The middle eastern gent across the road demanded the snow woman be covered up.
8:40 - The police arrived saying someone had been offended.
8:42 - The feminist neighbour complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needed to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role.
8:43 - The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction.
8:45 - TV news crew from ABC showed up. I was asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I replied "Snowballs" and am now called a sexist.
9:00 - I was on the news as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobe, and sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather.
9:10 - I was asked if I have any accomplices. My children were taken by social services.
9:29 - Far left protesters offended by everything marched down the street demanding for me to be arrested.
9:45 - The boss called and fired me because of the negative association with work that had been all over social media.
10:00 - I cry into my drink because all I wanted to do was build a snowman...
Moral: There is no moral to this story. It is what this world has become because of a bunch of snowflakes.

Propaganda

Posted January 12, 2019

The word propaganda has interesting, Italian roots. Back in the middle ages it was a reference to a group responsible for carrying out foreign missions: spreading the Christian gospel. Perhaps it was the way in which the Roman Catholic church carried out this mission that tarnished its meaning. But it was not until the 20th century that it took on its current, darker meaning - information, especially of biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

From a relatively early age I was fascinated by the way propaganda was used to control populations - both in democratic countries and autocratic ones. I think I developed a pretty good sense of picking out the deceptions in these political messages. As a teenager (long before the age of the internet), I used to listen to foreign, English-language shortwave radio broadcasts from both communist countries and western democratic countries. I noticed the lies were not confined to the communist side. Perhaps because the Americans were clearly losing the war in Vietnam, the US had a more pressing need to mislead, and Voice of America seemed almost as corrupt and truth-aversive in those days as was the communist side.

Fast-forward to the 21st century and I see little has changed. Even ignoring the current US president's propensity for telling blatant lies, the propaganda machines grind on. Certainly I see highly biased reports on today's equivalent of Radio Moscow - Russia Today (or RT). The denial of Russian involvement in the poisoning of former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter was especially appalling and now obviously untruthful, but for a time it left me undecided about who was behind this attempted murder (see my previous blog from April 19). But it's usually more a matter of choosing what to focus on, and putting a spin on world events, than it is outright lies. Of course outright lies can be influential, and we recall Adolf Hitler's assertion that if the lie is large enough, everyone will believe it (Donald Trump is a practitioner of this concept). But I don't necessarily think it's that simple; only those inclined to believe will accept lies. But for general propaganda as defined here...the spin, or biased focus in news is probably more influential than blatant lies in the long run.

This brings me to a couple of recent news items that seemed to really bring out the West's political bias in propaganda. One originated today on the BBC World Service (Europe), a source which back in the twentieth century had a stellar record of unbiased reporting. The article was originally titled Russia’s only space telescope (Spektr-R) breaks down, but I notice it was later corrected to more truthfully read that it is 'not responding.' (It should be noted that its actually a radio telescope, not an optical one like the Hubble). BBC jumped on this the day after the failure happened (Jan. 11). The headline, which is all a lot of people read these days, was very misleading. First, this satellite was launched into space in 2011, with a 5 year life expectancy - and has exceeded that life expectancy by almost 3 years. How exactly is this a failure? And a replacement satellite has already been scheduled for launch later this year. Second, it is still transmitting useful science data, just not responding to new commands. Third, scientists have not yet given up hope on restoring communications. Having been involved with satellites for most of my career, I have to wonder why the end-of-life failure of so many American, European and Canadian satellites have seldom made the news in this fashion. All satellites die eventually. An impartial assessment could only conclude that the wording of this news item is a good example of western propaganda intended to make the Russian space science program look weak.

This also brought back to memory an extremely biased report in Canada's Globe and Mail last October. The author was UBC's Michael Byers, who is also Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law. It's was titled “Soyuz rocket failure: Russia has lost its reputation as a space leader.” The article failed to point out that the Soyuz rocket is one of the most reliable boosters in the world, and that many nations - including the US - have been relying on it for most of the last decade for most of the important launches to the International Space Station and all manned launches. It has had a stellar record for safety and reliability. This one failure, which was promptly investigated and figured out, somehow negated all the successes of the Russian space program in Dr. Byers' view. By saying Russia is no longer amongst the leading nations in space implies it no longer has credibility in space activities. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Of course the news of the Chinese lunar lander is the big story now. And even as I read a report that China may become an important part of earth's exploration of space I wondered - isn't it clear they already are? China wants to join the ISS consortium and has Europe's support. But the US still blocks their participation, and no Chinese nationals have ever been aboard. This is extremely short-sighted as the ISS will have to be de-orbited within the next decade, which will likely leave China with the only permanently-occupied station orbiting our planet. A project (a component of China's Project 921) to achieve this is already in progress, and Russia, Italy and Germany are likely to collaborate on this new station. If things don't change, I'd be really surprised to see an American ever set foot in that station. Of course western media has few positive things to say about Chinese space efforts (except for their current exploits with their moon lander - which are difficult to ignore). The main news about their previous, prototype space station were headlines like "China's out-of-control space station to crash to Earth". The words "out of control" were clearly inserted in the headline for political purposes as most satellites are out of control just before they begin re-entry to earth's atmosphere.

It seems that few nations (and few political organizations) can resist utilizing spin and propaganda. It's a form of war, and is certainly better than physical warfare. But unfortunately it can also lead to physical warfare, as well as to anarchy in civil society.

Telephone fraudsters

Posted January 9, 2019

Most Canadians are all-too-familiar with telephone fraudsters claiming to be from the Canadian Revenue Agency informing us that our taxes are overdue and we will go to jail if we don't pay up immediately - like immediately. Or that there is a problem with our credit card payments which we need to set right or lose our good credit card rating. The new tack is to congratulate us for our excellent credit performance and offer to provide us with zero percent interest on our credit cards, if we sign up for this right away. Of course it is because of such calls that we never answer our phones unless caller id reveals the identity of the caller to be someone we know.

Anyway I just received such a call commending me on my credit rating and I thought I'd follow through and talk to an actual perpetrator of this thievery. The call was actually spoofed to look like it was from a local number, but not, of course, from a number in my personal contact list. Anyway I "pressed 1" as instructed and was forwarded to a young fellow with a thick accent that I could not easily understand, who was obviously reading from a script. So I thought I'd throw him some curve balls to test his responses. I also asked him how he could bring himself to conduct this fraudulent activity, to which he claimed it was not fraudulent. Notwithstanding my response that both he and I ... and most of the world know this is a scam, he proceeded to ask me for my credit card information. I dragged the conversation on as long as I could, and came to quite enjoy the experience. Eventually, after 2 or 3 minutes I'd guess, the line went dead followed by a dial tone. Hopefully I took up enough of his time to save some other poor soul from falling prey to this evil scheme. I think with practice I could increase the time wasted by these criminals to 5 or 6 minutes.

I must say I'd never play such a game with internet spam or email messages. I wouldn't want to risk providing any information about my computer ip address. But they already, obviously have my phone number, so I figured there's zero risk in playing this game. And it was such fun!

U.S. federal government shutdown

Posted January 8, 2019

The shutdown of all "non-essential" U.S. government offices and services is truly unconscionable. And those whose work is deemed essential are being forced to work for no pay (though it is assumed they will eventually receive remuneration as back-pay). How can this not be illegal? President Trump, who says he is "proud" to be responsible for this shutdown, and says it might last for years, is using his employees as pawns in his political wars. As a former Canadian government worker (meteorologist), I can only imagine the hardship this is causing many hundreds of thousands of families in the US. To add insult to injury, he has also cancelled the 2 percent annual wage increase they were supposed to receive on January 1, which barely keeps up with increases in the cost of living. And we Canadian government workers thought we had it tough under former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper! Meanwhile US lawmakers are apparently getting a 10 percent raise, which sounds very much like the kind of shenanigans that occurred in the days of decline of the Roman empire. History repeats.

Of course this is having an impact on a great number of government services. Canadians are being told to arrive at airports at least 3 hours early if they are intending to travel to the US, as American border security agents begin to respond to the injustice they are being subjected to. And I've been impacted for the first time, when trying to access upper air model outputs needed to predict whether rain or snow will be coming to Tsawwassen today. Now I see only a page from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that informs users that "The website you are trying to access is not available at this time due to a lapse in appropriation." I have to assume that American meteorologists working at the National Weather Service (presumably for no pay or delayed pay) will still have access to the data required to do their job.

What a mess!

Military spending and empire

Posted January 7, 2019

In 2016 the U.S. had about 800 military bases outside its own territory, in 80 countries (David Vine, American University). I have heard the total is now closer to 900 bases. It's interesting to note spending amounts by the top-ten military spenders. The data is from 2016 but other than higher spending amounts, the ranking is still likely valid. Data is from a Jane's Defence report in Bloomberg News. We also need to remember that the U.S. has no comparative military adversary.
The rankings:

  1. U.S.A. $622B (a vast underestimate as much of the expenditures are "classified" and kept secret even from the People's representatives (Congress) - but still more than the combined spending of the remaining countries in the list)
  2. People's Republic of China $191B
  3. U.K. $53B
  4. Russia $48.4B
  5. Saudi Arabia
  6. India
  7. France
  8. Japan
  9. Germany
  10. South Korea
Best comment on this report came from a Swede: “I love living in Sweden.”

For more detailed information on the extent of American foreign military bases I highly recommend this old (2015) but still relevant article from The Nation.

Greed, debt and myopia: The Achilles heels of democracy

Posted January 6, 2019

A glance at current world debt data conveys a scary truth: almost all Western nations are advancing quickly towards financial ruin. I will be stressing U.S. statistics here simply because of the dominant role America plays in the global picture. A collapse in the U.S. dollar will be catastrophic for almost every country in the world - except perhaps for Iran, North Korea and Cuba which alone amongst all the countries of the world have resisted implementation of the U.S. model of central banks. Canada is certainly no example of discipline in terms of debt; despite being in a period of economic growth and strength, when historically we have paid down debt, our national per-capita debt is now greater than that of the U.S., and both our "public debt to GDP ratio" and our "external debt to GDP ratio" are both significantly worse than for the U.S. We thought we had our debt problem well in hand, as ever since the days of Trudeau the elder Canada has had a relatively good record of paying down debt. But in recent years we have again fallen into deficit spending for political expediencies. The big questions are why is it necessary to continually run deficit budgets in a time of economic strength, and what will be the end result if debts become so large they can never be repaid?

Now for some U.S. statistics. The U.S. National Debt (federal) at this moment stands at about US$21,919,490,000,000 - almost US$22T. It is increasing at US$44K per second. In addition, state debt stands at US$1.2T and local (civic/municipal) debt is almost US$1.9T. Unfunded pension liabilities stand at more than US$6.4T. Total personal debt, including mortgages, student loans, and credit cards comes to more than US$19.4T. Total US Unfunded Liability, which includes Social Security, Medicare, Federal debt held by the public, plus Federal Employee and Veteran Benefits, currently totals close to US$122T, or $994,466 per taxpayer. Total interest paid to date stands at over US$3T and is rising at an ever-increasing rate. US national debt now held by foreign countries stands at US$6.2T (less than I thought but still a large figure).

Enough statistics, already! So to answer the aforementioned questions, the general population's greed, and the need for politicians to get re-elected on what is generally a short, four-year cycle is at the core of the problem. Essentially, politicians are buying the electorates' votes with their own money - or more truthfully the money of their children and grandchildren. People are far too captivated with short-term entertainment to be bothered with the long-term implications - another characteristic of ancient Rome. But interest has to be paid on these debts, else the entire financial system will collapse. No-one, either national or foreign, will lend any money if they don't have an assurance they will get paid back with interest. And the dilution of the value of currency guarantees that those interest rates will rise. Otherwise there will be no incentive to continue lending. The U.S. has so far in 2019 (only 6 days into the year) printed new currency to a total of more than US$532B; that is how much has been added to the "dollar supply" during the first six days of 2019 - with no substance to back it up. It is simply creating money out of thin air. President Nixon's crimes are largely remembered as being his involvement with a break-in at offices of his political opponents, and lying to Congress. But the greatest crime of this arguably-worst U.S. president in history, both against the American people and against all people of the world, was removing the U.S. from the gold standard (the so-called Bretton Woods system), to enable payment of spiralling costs related to the Vietnam War (at the same time as he was scuttling prospects for a peace settlement - see this link). Since then the U.S. has largely financed its economy with paper promissory notes (US dollars and government bonds); i.e. debt. The value of gold in 1970, before Nixon did his devious deed, was US$37 per ounce. Today it stands at U$1,287 per ounce - an increase of 3478%. So the excessive printing of all this paper money has reduced the value of the U.S. greenback, in terms of the gold standard, from $1 in 1970 to approximately $0.03 today.

There will be consequences for this manufacture of devalued currency as the debt continues to increase. In fact it is only this printing of money that has allowed the U.S. national economy to continue to function. Otherwise the country would already be in default on its debts, or taxes would be much, much higher. So the answer to the second question, what will be the consequences when the debt is too large ever to be repaid are clear: either a rapidly declining economy (and military), or total economic collapse (recalling the USSR). In a sense what Canada, China, the Europeans and other countries do is inconsequential. Because the U.S. basically controls the global economy, its collapse will be catastrophic to the entire world. Enlarging on the consequences, at the very least the debt load will impoverish the U.S. resulting in infrastructure decay and collapse, and weakening of its social security systems (such as they are). However it could be more catastrophic. I'm beginning to wonder if the fall of Babylon spoken of in Revelation 18 might as likely be a result of this financial collapse, as it might be the result of war or an environmental catastrophe. It would be nice to think that the collapse of capitalism will be gradual, and that the prudent will be able to escape its worst effects. But prior market collapses suggest otherwise - these things typically happen in a day or less. So it is with the prediction in Revelation 18:19, that the downfall will happen in a single hour.

Is there still a way for the U.S. to avoid financial ruin? Because of the nature of democracy, where people want to have their cake and eat it too, I'm doubtful. The last time the U.S. had a budget surplus at the national level was in 2000. At the end of 2018, only 48% of those surveyed in a national Pew Research survey believed cutting the deficit should be a top priority - down from 63% in 2014. The only way for the nation to save itself now is for people to put on some spectacles to overcome their economic myopia - and peer into the future. The only cure will be both to increase taxes - to a painful extent (especially taxing the rich), and to cut spending - mostly military spending. I see no signs that the American people are willing to support either initiative. So democratically speaking, there is no way a politician promoting the only cures to this potentially terminal malady can be elected.

As a postscript to this discussion, one might ask why it is, in light of the economic warfare now taking place between the U.S. and China, that China does not call in the debt owed to it by the U.S. - or at least stop lending any more. After all, over a trillion dollars of U.S. debt is owed to China. The reasons are two-fold. First, causing a collapse of the US$ is not in China's national interest. Their U.S. debt will become worthless if/when the U.S. dollar collapses. Secondly, they are getting a substantial return on their investment in U.S. debt, and it is only going to increase as global interest rates rise. The U.S. may adversely affect the Chinese economy through tariffs and embargoes, but interest payments on debt will be a major compensation to China.

Interest payments on U.S. National (federal) debt are projected to total US$7T by 2026, and will become the third largest category of the federal budget. That's a huge amount of taxes that will go to servicing the debt (and making both national and foreign millionaires even richer), instead of maintaining infrastructure, social services and military. If the U.S. collapses because of its economic mismanagement it will not be the first to do so. Ancient Rome devalued its currency not by printing paper money, but by physically chipping off the edges of their coins, making them smaller, and then making additional coins by melting down the bits that were chipped off. They also reduced the amount of precious metals in their coins by adding worthless fillers. What the U.S. is currently doing with its currency is essentially the same thing. But the eastern, break-away half of the ancient Roman Empire, based in Constantinople, resisted this currency devaluation strategy. And it alone survived, at least in some form, almost 1000 years longer than the western empire which was based in Rome. It's food for thought.

Meditation

Posted January 5, 2019

Everyone these days seems to agree that meditation is a good thing and we should do more of it. Indeed, lack of time for meditation is a common lament. It is really just common sense that we should stop servicing our ToDo lists sometimes and just meditate. Indeed, wasn't that essentially what God implied we should do, through his "seventh day" in the Genesis creation story?

Meditation can be defined as a practice where an individual uses a technique, such as focusing their mind on a particular object, thought or activity, to achieve a mentally clear and emotionally calm state. The problem with modern-day meditation is that the object of focus is so often one's self. In an i-focused world, introspection is promoted as being the cure for anxiety that plagues so many in their busy lives. It is often directed toward enhancing one's self-image, and wilfully bringing one's mind to rest.

Meditation is also promoted in the Bible:

And there are many more examples. My point, however, is that biblical advice is to meditate on God, not on ourselves. The focus of our thoughts, and our empowerment, is supposed to be on him and from him, and not on self-realization or empowerment. It seems to me that this is an entirely different form of meditation. That does not imply we are not to think about our own actions - past, present and future. We are to ask forgiveness for past sins; consider our current situation in the light of God's word, and to try to move forward under his guidance. As Proverbs 4:26 says, Ponder the path of your feet; then all your ways will be sure. But this "pondering" is more akin to thoughtful planning than to meditation.

It should be noted that the Bible on at least one instance advises against meditation:

This will be your opportunity to bear witness. Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth of wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict (Luke 21:14)
So it appears there are times when we are to rely on guidance from the Holy Spirit rather than on our own deep meditations and preparation.

Anyway I write this simply as commentary on meditation; it is good to meditate and I should do more of it, but I think that for a Christian the major focus of that meditation should be on God. That will lead to a peace and understanding that will help us apply his precepts to the proper ordering of our daily lives, and provide encouragement regarding our ultimate purpose and destiny.

The Creed kerfuffle and systems of governance

Posted December 12, 2018

There was a great kerfuffle in twitterland recently about the fact that the Trumps were pretty much the only people in attendance at the cathedral not to read or recite the Apostle's Creed and Lord's Prayer, or sing any of the hymns at the funeral of the late President G.H.W. Bush. The Apostle's Creed is, of course, the most basic, underlying statement of faith in Christendom. While I might understand someone not choosing to say the Athanasian Creed or even the Nicene Creed, not repeating the Apostle's Creed is very much like an American refusing to say the Oath of Allegiance. (As an aside, I was particularly surprised that Melania did not participate; perhaps she didn't want to show up her husband, or perhaps I have been mistaken about her personal spirituality). In any event I think there's a basic misunderstanding among many people regarding the support for Trump coming from American evangelicals. They think that evangelicals actually believe Trump is one of them. But the real reason evangelicals support Trump is that he supports their causes, and most significantly their pro-life, anti-abortion beliefs. To most evangelicals, voting for the Democrats and their militant pro-choice stance is just not possible. And the media at large - in both Canada and the U.S., doesn't understand what an important issue this is for devout Christians. Given this understanding, it becomes easier to fathom why evangelicals can "overlook" Donald Trump's many egregious moral and ethical shortcomings. They don't really need an evangelical in the White House, though undoubtedly they wish they could have one. They just need a president who will resist the dominant pro-feminist, anti-Christian momentum so prevalent in western cultures today. The fact that Trump knew that evangelicals and their pro-life focus were his ticket to the White House is beside the point to many of them. Like it or not, there is a symbiotic relationship between American Christians and their current president.

In an American-style, two-party system where Christians increasingly have difficulty finding representation, there is no real alternative to the Republican Party. And if there is no alternative, it's not truly a democracy. As I've lamented before, the previous generation of Christian religious leaders in the U.S. has essentially driven Christians out of the Democratic Party, mistakenly thinking that gaining dominance in a single party, the Republican Party, would be advantageous to them. The side-effect was that this opened the doors wide for expression of anti-Christian sentiments in the party which was historically more naturally aligned with Christ's teachings - the Democrats. The same has happened to some extent in Canada. What America (and Canada) needs now is a true system of "proportional representation" where everyone's vote counts. Many other countries have such a system, but I see no possibility that the Republicrats in the U.S. would ever agree to such a thing. Even here in Canada, Trudeau-the-younger went back on his electoral reform promises after getting elected. Our "first past the post" electoral scheme has well served the dominant parties in Canada for far too long, and they will not willingly abandon it even though it leaves significant portions of the electorate essentially unrepresented.

It is also interesting to remember that much to the disgruntlement of the Jewish people, Christ was notably apolitical. He provided no advocacy for a "democratic" system of governance - though he could have, and essentially told the people to live in obedience as far as their consciences allowed to the dominant government of the time - Rome. It is noteworthy that the current governments of many countries now looked down upon by the West are no more autocratic, authoritarian or brutal than the Roman government was in its days of empire. Russia and China come readily to mind as modern-day examples. In our day, where people are so easily misled by the "propaganda of social media," I think that "democracy" is actually an inferior governance scheme to that of a benevolent dictatorship. Russia to a considerable extent has that under Putin, and China to a lesser extent under Xi Jinping. It is said that the number of Christians in China will soon exceed those in America. But in Russia especially, Christian values are more supported and defended today by government than in Canada and the U.S. It's really quite ironic for a generation raised thinking about those godless communists in Russia. Under communism, Russia was indeed anti-Christian, but nowadays, not so much. The trick, of course, is to keep a dictatorship benevolent: power corrupts. And Christians understand that the ultimate benevolent dictatorship will only come with the return of Christ.

Massively multiplayer online games

Posted November 14, 2018

Massively multiplayer online games, or MMOGs as they are commonly referred to, seem to be taking the world by storm. I know this because of what I see online, and also because my grandchildren are getting involved. I have watched with dismay the violence inherent in many computer games, and my initial take on the few MMOGs I was aware of was that they weren't as violent as the earlier, first person shooter (FPS) games like DOOM. However I'm coming to question whether that is true.

The games that I am a little bit familiar with are World of Warcraft, Eve and Fortnite. They all involve strategy, and Eve is especially big on social interactions. In that game, players take identities and occupations for themselves in an enthralling sci-fi adventure, and then play out their associated roles. It sounds interesting and innocent enough on the surface, but I've come to understand that violence and killing are the ultimate activities of these and most MMOGs. With Eve it can take months to work one's way into an actual battle, but these battles are violent. And players' avatars in Eve are immortal; once killed, they take a new body on the far side of the universe and start again. It's pretty much reincarnation.

The other really bad thing about these games -- and there are many hundreds of them running constantly now, is that for many people they are incredibly addictive. Many players confess they play them for more than 6 hours each day, often in place of sleep or other productive activities. So they comprise an incredible waste of time, limiting the time participants can learn about real history or science, or take part in real personal interactions. Of course there is no physical exercise involved, and after the rules and methods of the game have been figured out, little learning. What is perhaps worst is that some players get so involved in their game that they start having trouble discerning that it is not reality. Experts' claims notwithstanding, I am convinced that these games are responsible for a substantial number of violent crimes perpetrated by gamers. It is claimed that since Japanese youth have some of the highest involvement in these games, and Japan has one of the lowest violent crime rates, that gaming can't lead to criminal activity. But I would argue that other cultural factors are responsible for the low violence in Japan (including the scarcity of guns, and the impact of shaming). As mentioned already, these games interfere with real personal relationships, with the social games especially acting as substitutes for real-world interaction and friendships.

Some people are beginning to realize the negative effects these games have on participants' lives. The Vancouver Canucks recently banned all employees from playing Fortnite during team travel and activities, as it was agreed by most - even many of the players, that it was negatively affecting their inter-personal relationships and focus on hockey (which of course is their job). Especially with children, I think it's extremely important that parents monitor and limit time with these games. They should also sit in for at least a few hours and come to understand the level of violence. In many games, there are no "moral laws;" anything that has a positive outcome for the player himself/herself is viewed as good, even if the player has to commit great evil to achieve it. Behaviours such as stealing, extortion and mass killings are allowed and often implicitly encouraged. There is also an activity called griefing in some MMOGs, where players intentionally harass other players in unacceptable ways.

I have always believed that video games are at least as bad for participants' morals as R-rated Hollywood movies, but the more I learn about the pervasive nature of massively multiplayer online games, the more I fear they are leading the world into a very dark place. Players actually carry out actions in these games. They are not simply sitting as couch potatoes watching actors commit immoral acts. "Doing" is much more impactful on the psyche than merely "observing." Parents need to learn the real values behind these games, and not let their kids sugarcoat it all as innocent fun. In many cases the kids are unaware of the values they are subconsciously absorbing, and also oblivious to the ever-increasing amount of time they are spending on the games. Psychiatrists report that they are amazed to see the level of emotional involvement, with physical trembling or shaking being witnessed at particularly stressful times of game play.

Finally, I should mention that Fortnite may not technically qualify as an MMOG since groups of up to only 100 or so players engage in any single game at one time. Still, millions of kids are playing it, and the game-play is similar to MMOGs. Although my son has informed me I didn't particularly object to FPS games when he was a kid, I can honestly say it was through ignorance (which is not a valid excuse). If I still had kids at home, I don't think they'd be playing any of these games unless I was a frequent observer.

Democratic representation in Canada

Posted November 5, 2018

While I am far from happy with the present Liberal federal government in Ottawa, and with the Prime Minister in particular, I think he is doing something right. He seems to be picking people for his cabinet who actually have experience and expertise in the subject matter of their cabinet positions. This is in stark contrast to the way it is currently being done in the U.S., where in many cases department leaders have track records strongly opposed to the work of the department they are called upon to oversee. There are actually scientists in Trudeau's cabinet, and fully half of the cabinet ministers are female which seems to be reasonable representation, given that half the electors are women.

Specifically, here is a description of who holds 13 of the approximately 32 cabinet positions:

So yes, there is diversity and there seem to be some good people in appropriate roles currently in our federal government. It's pretty impressive considering the limited number of people available for ministerial roles; only elected parliamentarians are eligible. Unfortunately when one searches for noteworthy accomplishments over the past couple of years the picture becomes less rosy. And typical of our style of representative democracy, no-one in cabinet can speak out from personal conscience against any particular policies the government presents -- not, at least, if they want to STAY in cabinet. So we heard no objections from government ministers when Trudeau decreed that any charitable organizations receiving public money for summer student employment -- in any field -- would have to declare their pro-choice position on abortion. And of course the NDP are fully on board with this. I have to wonder if/when there will be a court challenge, as this seems to be patently against freedom of religion. Sadly, women's rights seem to trump religious freedom nowadays.

Following the herd

Posted October 28, 2018

It has always puzzled me why people with common political leanings respond so much in accordance with one another on diverse issues that seemingly have no logical connections. Examples include but are not limited to: abortion, climate change, poverty, crime and punishment, education, health care, and (especially in the U.S.) gun control. A superficial explanation might be that it's all linked together by people's willingness or unwillingness to accept change. But this explanation comes up short for me. I can think of no rational explanation why, for example, people who are against abortion are also often so critical of environmentalists (their children will continue to depend on the ecosystem for their health and well-being), or are against increased immigration, or the raising the minimum wage for the poor. The big question is why social conservatism/liberalism is so linked with totally-unrelated fiscal conservatism/liberalism. Here are some examples:

Conservative Liberal Type
pro-life pro-choice social
capital punishment lighter sentences social
oppose gun control favour gun control social
limited immigration multiculturalism social
science skeptics religious skeptics social
religious rights LGBTQ2 rights social
focus on rights of wealthy focus on rights of the poor fiscal & social
private healthcare public healthcare fiscal & social
economy over environment environmentalists fiscal & social
everyone for him/herself pensions, social safety net fiscal & social
militarists diplomats/pacifists fiscal & social

I realize this table is an over-generalization, but on average and in most countries these categorizations are at least approximately true. At the very least one might think that conservatives, some of whom have strong religious values, might be a bit less adamant regarding the right to carry weapons, and a bit more aligned with Christ's values regarding the poor. Likewise many liberals, who claim to be non-discriminatory and "open" to minorities seem to forget about tolerance when it comes to religious rights. And one would think that many of these various viewpoints would coexist in both conservative and liberal groups. For example, I am conservative when it comes to abortion and religious rights, but liberal on most other categories in this table. I fail to see how the "family friendly" conservatives are being helpful to families in opposing universal childcare and funding of post-secondary education to those who are in need. Unfortunately I would find myself completely ostracized in either political camp because I don't fall in line with all their respective views. And sadly, it's much the same in the realm of religion as it is with politics. Adherents are generally expected to unquestionably accept all the doctrines of the church/synagogue/mosque. Disagreement even regarding minor or uncertain matters is often not tolerated.

The only conclusion I can come to is that people are remarkably like the mythical lemmings, said to follow one another even to the extent of running off cliffs together (which was purely a Hollywood tale). Perhaps a better comparison would be with any herd animal, such as caribou or wildebeests. Christ likened his "flock" to sheep, which is at least a bit more complimentary than a herd animal; sheep think to some extent on their own, though often to their own detriment. But conservative people tend to agree on all the typical "conservative" principles, while liberals pretty much argue the opposite. And because news services are now so opinionated and slanted only towards their own viewers' opinions (their so-called base), people are seldom exposed to ideas which would challenge their own assumptions. Nor do they appear to think critically on such matters for themselves, preferring to spend their time dwelling upon the latest sporting events or cinematic trivia.

It's a tough time to be a free thinker.

Climate Change Deniers

Posted September 16, 2018

In light of the Hurricane Florence weather event, a picture from a news service of one of North Carolina's barrier islands recently caught my attention.

Picture of a barrier island

I'm not sure what is left of this neighbourhood now, after Florence's visit, but one thing is certain: within 50 years, and probably much less, this will be no more than a sandy shoal. All these expensive houses will be completely gone. If Florence didn't wipe them out, a future storm will. Rising sea levels guarantee that. Presumably the people who bought here were either big-time gamblers or completely ignorant of science. Just as increasing greenhouse gasses, such as those produced by our burning of hydrocarbons, are scientifically known to trap heat, so too will this warming melt glaciers and other land-based ice-fields. The inevitable result is rising sea level, which we are already witnessing. The calculations have all been worked out within relatively small margins of error.

I find it perplexing that so many people take the advances of science for granted (for example in the fields of medicine, aerospace and information technology), yet blindly disbelieve or disregard aspects which are, as former United States Vice President Al Gore said, inconvenient to them. But as I've become painfully aware, people believe whatever they want to believe - facts be damned. Of course this same statement applies to the denial of a creator.

Why American Christians support Trump

Posted August 29, 2018

Despite having great input from the American side of my family, I had never quite comprehended why or how Christians in the US of A could have supported Donald Trump, and for the most part still seem to. Clearly the man is a bully, a buffoon, and completely lacks empathy for the less fortunate. Aside from that, he is racist, unfaithful to his wife, is generally a misogynist, and appears to get great delight from insulting other people. A man of limited literacy, his spur-of-the-moment, late-night tweet rants are about as far from "presidential" as one could possibly imagine. He obviously admires dictators and authoritarian leaders, surrounds himself with advisors who have little regard for the law, and appears to despise old allies like Canada and western Europeans. He has no compunction about harming the economies of these long-term friends of America, for his own (potential) political gain. For the benefit of corporations, his administration shocked the world by standing alone against a UN resolution promoting breast feeding of babies. And as we all know, he is a compulsive liar. A recent article at newrepublic.com spoke of how evangelicals know full well that Trump lies constantly; they just don't care. It seems not to matter at all that the man appears to be about as "un-Christlike" as one can imagine (and I say that knowing full well that Christ is the only real judge on the matter).

But I've been pondering the sad situation of late, and it's finally sunk in: Christians are pretty much the only group that's benefiting from this man's actions (corporations and the military-industrial complex would likely have done just as well under Clinton). I watched on today's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) Newswatch (an excellent newscast by the way) as Trump held a formal dinner for his Christian supporters and thanked them. Of course, in normal Trump fashion he also patted himself on the back and pointed out how much he had done for them, and expected their continuing support in the upcoming elections. But the sad fact is that Trump is pretty much the only place American Christians can find governmental support these days, thanks in large part to the Moral Majority's successful efforts in the 1980's to draw Christians out of the Democratic party and into the Republican party. So the polarization is real: the Democrats champion the rights of the LGBTQ2 community, while the Republicans - and especially Trump and Pence cater to the Christian community. Given Trump's apparent total personal disregard for Christian values and the disadvantaged - those whom Christ spoke of in the Beatitudes, this is ironic. But I understand that American Christians have little choice. It's either Trump & Co., or all traces of the Christian heritage of the nation are going to be lost. The Bible tells us that's the way it's going to be at the time of Christ's return, so sad to say, humanly speaking it surely seems that Christians in the U.S. and elsewhere are in a losing battle. Perhaps today's Verse of the Day from the Bible app is appropriate:

Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord.
All that is left for us is to fight the good fight and maintain our faith.

Another sad thing I heard recently is a poll that indicated that Christians in America are much more comfortable attending church with others of the same political persuasion (that would be Republican, I would venture to think). At least they are much more willing to attend with those of other races than they used to be, which is a very good thing. But this sentiment about the role of politics confirms to me that politics has assumed a far, far greater role with Christians than it should. I would think that if nothing else, going to church with Democrats should provide an excellent opportunity for Christians to practice Christ's instruction to love their "enemies," though people with opposing political views should not be enemies at all. Anyway I do, now, finally understand why Christians support Trump. If I were an American and could vote down there, I'm not sure if I'd just hold my nose and vote Republican this coming November, or try to ignore politics and remember that my real home is elsewhere. I just hope that American Christians realize that Trump is just catering to them for personal gain, does not, for the most part, really believe as they do, and that they are being used - and that without their support he would have absolutely no hope of occupying the White House.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision regarding the proposed Trinity Western University Law School

Posted June 18, 2018

Having fired one salvo at Washington DC in my previous blog, I am now aiming another at Ottawa - and specifically at the Supreme Court of Canada. Last week in a split decision they ruled that Law Societies in Canadian provinces do in fact have the right to bar graduates from the proposed Trinity Western University Faculty of Law from practising their profession in those provinces. Trinity is now having to put their proposed Law School idea on the back-burner. There are even questions whether they should be allowed to continue training nurses and teachers in their medical and education faculties. This all stems from the fact that TWU students are required to sign a Bible-based commitment to abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriages. We should remember that this is a Christian school, based on Christian precepts. But LGBTQ advocates consider this to be an affront to their human rights, and Canada's highest court has now agreed.

The case came down to a simple matter of religious rights vs. the cause of "diversity" - today's code word for gay rights. The claim, accepted by the court, that TWU law graduates would reduce diversity in law is of course in reality quite the opposite. It is religious people who will be barred (no pun intended) from participating in positions of power and influence by this ruling, thus reducing diversity. But it seems theirs is not the right kind of diversity.

I found the follow-up news story to this one on Global TV's evening news to be particularly ironic. After essentially celebrating this victory of the LGBTQ community over outdated religious norms, their next story was to celebrate the conspicuous worship of Britain's star football (soccer) player (originally from Egypt). After he scores a goal (which he does with great regularity), Mohamed Salah performs sujood, the Islamic act of prostration right on the field. Don't get me wrong, I'm not critical of him doing this. But the odd fact was that in these two stories, Global TV had celebrated gay rights on the one hand, and religious diversity on the other. Did it not occur to them that most Muslims (and Jews) consider homosexuality to be sinful just as most Christians do? Or are they just being overtly anti-Christian? Hmm, someone isn't thinking this one through.

The family-separation controversy

Posted June 18, 2018

The recently-implemented policy of the Trump administration to separate children of illegal immigrants from their parents is, of course, appalling. Seeing hundreds of young children forcibly separated from their parents - apparently a few still at the breast-feeding stage - and incarcerated in warehouses as well as actual cages, in the "civilized" U.S.A. is something I never thought I would see. But I probably wouldn't bother to post a blog about it if it weren't for the audacity of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to use the Bible to justify it. Specifically, he claims that Paul's letters to the Romans - Romans 13 to be exact, gives power to governments to enforce laws. While this is true, the same justification could be used for any law a government chose to create - imagine the worst here, some laws of Nazi Germany come quickly to mind. Martin Luther King Jr. was correct when he differentiated between "just laws," which we have both a legal and a moral responsibility to obey, and "unjust laws," which we have a moral responsibility to oppose in any democratic society.

The government does of course have a legal right to refuse entry to illegal immigrants. It does have a legal and perhaps even moral right to deport them. But they do not have the right to break apart family units. And if reports are true that these immigrants are being told they may never see their children again, that is doubly appalling. That is evil.

If Sessions (or Trump) chose to read further in that same chapter of Romans they would of course have seen the command to love your neighbour as yourself. Love does no evil to a neighbour; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law. I wonder if Trump and those carrying out these crimes against humanity (and the family which Republicans have previously claimed to support) have ever read the rest of Romans 13. Probably they have, but like many others today they just pick-and-choose what they want to hear in God's word. I'm just wondering how those who are carrying out these evil deeds think they will justify them on judgement day. Do they really believe in judgement day?

One final point should be mentioned. All too soon, thousands of these children who have been torn away from their parents will be old enough to consider seeking vengeance on those who have harmed them. And Americans will continue to wonder where all the hate comes from.

CNN Opinion on "Republican" Christianity

Posted April 29, 2018

A CNN opinion piece caught my attention today. Written by Christian poet, novelist and college teacher Jay Parini, it focuses on the disconnect between what most U.S. Republicans promote and what Jesus taught. So for the second day in a row I'm going to provide excerpts from a news article. This one closely mirrors my opinion of the so-called Christian Right in American politics.

(CNN) Even some Republican members of Congress, such as Rep. Peter King of New York, are upset about the firing of the Rev. Patrick Conroy, a Jesuit, as House chaplain. "To be the first House chaplain to be removed in the history of Congress, in the middle of a term, raises serious questions," King told reporters. "I think we deserve more of an explanation of why. Was there political pressure?" Speaker of the House Paul Ryan took it upon himself to fire Conroy. Ryan's spokeswoman AshLee Strong denied Thursday that Conroy was pushed out for anything he said or did. What might he possibly have done, in any case? Well, there was that time in November during the tax debate when Conroy seemed to be criticizing the Republican plan from the House floor in a prayer that he offered. "May all members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle," Conroy prayed before the vote was taken. "May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans." A week or so after delivering these sensible words, Conroy told a reporter from The New York Times he got a message from the speaker's office. "A staffer came down and said, 'We are upset with this prayer; you are getting too political,'" he said.

Conroy told the Times that when next he saw Ryan, he was told bluntly: "Padre, you just got to stay out of politics."

I don't know the full story, and I doubt anyone does, but if indeed Conroy was fired for "political" reasons, that seems crazy to me. Christianity is the religion of Jesus, who was himself "political" in that he took sides with the poor, the ill and those who lived on the margins. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus asked his followers to love their neighbours. Someone asked him to define what he meant by "neighbours." "When you give a banquet," he said, without hesitation or equivocation, "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13) He said again and again that he came into the world to preach "the good news to the poor" (Luke 4:18). Repeatedly he asked the wealthy to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor (Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30, Mark 10:17-31). He cared for the needy himself by feeding them (Mark 8: 1-13). The Sermon on the Mount opens: "Blessed are the poor..." (Matthew 5:3) This is all straightforward.

But in recent years a new, perverted version of Christianity has surfaced: the so-called Prosperity Gospel. Those who preach this distortion of the message of Jesus assert that the rich are rich because God approves of them. It encourages people to have faith so they can become rich. It celebrates wealth as a sign of God's grace. One hears TV preachers like Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar preaching these dangerous ideas. Joe Carter, editor of The Gospel Coalition, explains this well here: "What You Should Know about the Prosperity Gospel." The roots of this heretical version of Christianity reach deeper than Carter suggests, however, going back to Puritanism itself in the 16th century.

I'm a Christian, and I find the smugness of Republicans both upsetting and anti-religious. Giving tax cuts to the rich may well line the pockets of Paul Ryan's Republican Party and those who support it. President Donald Trump is indeed almost a messiah figure for those who imagine that personal prosperity has anything to do with virtue or the blessings of God. Jesus was clear about what a Christian must do: side with the poor, and know that your riches are not to be found on this earth. The work of the government, in my view, is to find ways to stand solidly with the poor, the sick, and all manners of outcasts. And it should have nothing to do with celebrating the culture of wealth, especially when it hurts those on the margins.

There is talk of getting a protestant chaplain to take over from Conroy who doesn't — being a Catholic — know much about "family" issues. This seems like a smokescreen to me. Perhaps Paul Ryan wants a prosperity-style preacher who will not be "political" and challenge the celebration of wealth (and dismissal of those in need)? There are plenty of preachers out there who will cheer him, and Trump, on. This worries me greatly. It should worry you, too.
Indeed, but unfortunately this Prosperity Gospel reflects the views of many in today's apostate western churches - reminiscent of the Laodicean church spoken of in Revelation 3 and expanded upon in Revelation 17, 18 (see my discussions under Eschatology). To this modern church, prosperity theology provides a necessary and convenient justification for the crass materialism and lack of concern for the poor that is so dominant in our capitalist societies. I'd be curious to know what uber-rich First Lady Melania Trump, who is a Catholic, thinks about the Prosperity Gospel and the firing of Congress's Jesuit chaplain. I would think she would necessarily feel somewhat conflicted.

Global News commentary on summer jobs disaster

Posted April 28, 2018

A Global News commentary today was so much on the mark that I want to quote part of it here. The commentary was entitled Liberals have themselves to blame for summer jobs disaster. Here are excerpts of the printed article.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s unlikely that the 12-week employment of a $15-an-hour “organizing assistant” is going to tip the balance one way or another insofar as the Trans Mountain pipeline is concerned. However, it is rather awkward for the federal government to be helping to foot the bill for the activists who have devoted themselves to torpedoing a project deemed “in the national interest” by that same federal government. It also comes as various faith-based organizations across the country suddenly find themselves cut off from such funding for failing to kiss the proverbial ring of the Liberal Party’s official worldview. Those who would scuttle important national projects need not worry, it seems.

We learned this past week that a B.C. group, the Dogwood Initiative, had received a grant under the federal Canada Summer Jobs program and was using that funding to hire an organizing assistant “to help our organizing network stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline.” It is true that this group has previously received Canada Summer Jobs program grants, money that was doled out while the Harper Conservatives were in power. And yes, there were pipelines to be scuttled then, too. But to cite that previous funding as a defence of the Liberals’ current approach is to rather miss the point.

As we’ve seen in recent days, the Conservative Party is no fan of Dogwood or the idea of the group being on the receiving end of any federal dollars. Yet the Conservatives did nothing to block or deny those while they were in power. Why, it’s almost as though there was no political litmus test for the summer jobs program back then. The issue isn’t so much that Dogwood has once again secured federal funding. It’s that those same grants are now being denied to groups who have previously received it. The Liberals have set a political threshold for saying, “no.” So it’s fair to criticize them for not only that approach, but the fact that their net has ensnared charities and summer camps, yet not the avowed enemies of a multi-billion-dollar piece of needed energy infrastructure. Yet in the House of Commons this week, the prime minister had the gall to defend the grant to Dogwood on the basis of free speech, proclaiming that “We will always support the right of Canadians to express themselves.”
If only that were true.

After reports surfaced last year that various anti-abortion groups had received funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program, the Liberals moved swiftly to try and prevent that from recurring. But rather than simply say “no funding for anti-abortion groups,” they crafted a bizarre attestation that groups must check off before their funding applications can be considered. This forces groups either to declare that they are in support of “reproductive rights” (i.e. abortion rights) or not be eligible for funding. Not surprisingly, there are many organizations unwilling to compromise on their values. The Liberals then claim that this is about a group’s activities, not its values, but clearly, that’s not the case. Organizations, such as Calgary’s Mustard Seed Church or the Southern Alberta Bible Camp — which have previously made use of the Canada Summer Jobs program — are not involved in any sort of anti-abortion activism. And even if they were, it is not a crime in Canada to oppose abortion, nor does espousing such views in any way violate the Charter. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the Charter guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

While many Canadians might strongly object to the federal government subsidizing anti-abortion groups, many Canadians clearly have similar feelings about subsidizing groups looking to wreak havoc on a crucial Canadian industry. The Liberals can’t have it both ways: they can’t justify the denial of funds to a cohort of groups on the basis that they’re undermining the government’s efforts and values while simultaneously defending the funding of other groups that also undermine the government’s efforts and values. The Liberals needlessly politicized this program and have only themselves to blame for this untenable mess. They either need to scrap the attestation or scrap the program altogether.

Readers of this blog who are aware of my position on petrochemical pipelines and transporting oil by tankers in dangerous waters adjacent to pristine wilderness will be well aware that I am not wishing that Dogwood loses its funding. However the inconsistency of allowing funding for this group which opposes federal liberal policies, whilst preventing groups which are pro-life from receiving any funding - whether or not they are active in anti-abortion efforts, clearly shows the inconsistency in policy of this government. It also shows that abortion rights are far more important to Trudeau & Co than any hypothetical economic benefits from pipelines - a fact that is apt to alienate two completely disparate groups of electors and hopefully contribute to the downfall of this hypocritical government next year.

Is U.S. First Lady Melania Trump a Christian?

Posted April 27, 2018

I don't normally pigeon-hole people into categories as Christian believers or non-believers. Christ is the only judge of course, and scripture teaches us Judge not, that ye be not judged. Nevertheless I sometimes see things that surprise me regarding the faith (or lack thereof) of others. I had assumed, for instance, that Melania Trump, with her fashion model background and infamous nude photo, might not be someone I naturally identified as a believer. After watching a video of her during a church service however, my opinion shifted considerably. It occurred during a moving choral presentation of the hymn How Great Thou Art. Unlike her husband who sat with arms crossed in the classic, non-verbal communication pose suggesting disinterest, Melania on several occasions appeared to wipe tears from her eyes. Actions, especially those coming from the heart (emotions) speak volumes about the values a person stands for. While it is possible the first lady was simply moved by the singer or singers who were presenting this hymn, it suggests to me there may be some depth to Mrs. Trump's Christian witness. She claims to be Christian, and is the first Catholic to live in the White House since President John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie. And at least since becoming First Lady, she (unlike her husband) has done nothing to my knowledge to belie her Christian faith.

As an afterthought, I could wish that if Mrs. Trump is a Christian, more of her faith and values would rub off on her husband - especially those regarding telling untruths (ref. Exodus 19, and I Timothy 1:9,10 where lying is included in a long list of other sins). That man tells so many lies he can't keep them consistent in his own mind! Oh and then there's marital fidelity which might be an issue. But perhaps that's a bit too much to expect from The Donald.

The Skripal incident

Posted April 19, 2018

The poisoning of former Russian/U.K. double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter with the nerve agent Novichok on 4 March 2018 was a major international incident. It was the first time a nerve agent had been used in Europe since the end of World War II. Condemnation from the West, notably the NATO powers, was almost instantaneous, with fingers pointed directly at Russia in general, and President Vladimir Putin in particular. Many thought this was justified, keeping in mind the poisoning in the U.K. of former Russian FSB and KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in 2006. That murder was clearly the act of Russian state actors, as the radioactive contaminant left traces that were easily detectable by investigators once the substance was identified. In Litvinenko's case, Russia was clearly sending a message to its secret service agents that betrayal would lead to a most agonizing death. So who could question a similar motivation by Russia in the Skripal affair?

There are however a couple of problems with this presumption of guilt regarding the Sergei and Yulia Skripal poisoning. The first is that the Russians, not being particularly stupid, would clearly have anticipated many of the negative repercussions that would derive from use of a nerve gas in the U.K.. And this poison was not nearly as difficult to detect as polonium, which emits mainly alpha particles undetectable by most radiation sensors. The Novichok nerve agent would be detected, and with it it's most likely source, as it was initially developed in the U.S.S.R.. Considering the potential financial implications for Russian oligarchs with investments in the West, not to mention the political ramifications, it seems to me a very strange thing to do. From a basic cost/benefit assessment, was the death of Sergei Skripal really worth the price? Was it that important to reinforce the message already delivered very effectively through the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko?

Then there is the matter of proof. While western leaders were quick to point their fingers at Russia, this time there was no radioactive particle trail. What was most damning in my opinion, was the quick and persistent refusal to allow any Russian experts in as observers of the investigation. A basic right in all civil trials in most countries is to allow the defence access to all information, so that they can provide valid objections and sometimes develop alternative scenarios. Why was Russia not allowed to see the evidence? Was there something to hide?

A false flag action is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. Could this have been a false flag activity by the U.S. or Britain? The CIA has conducted numerous false flag actions within my lifetime, most notably the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (U.S. forces withdrew once their identity became known), and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam which gained popular support for the Vietnam War despite being a bogus event. The infamous Reichstag Fire, through which Hitler gained total control of the German government by falsely blaming the opposition communists also comes to mind. Certainly the vilification of Russia has been a primary objective for NATO in recent years, as NATO's very existence depends on the existence of a reviled and substantive enemy to oppose. So a potential motivation for such an action exists. The quick and seemingly excessive response from the west also raises warning flags in my mind. Hundreds of Russian diplomats were banished from NATO countries, and investments of many Russian oligarchs may end up being confiscated.

I am not claiming to know that Russia did not carry out the Skripal poisoning. What I am saying is that there seems to be no proof, or at least no proof that has been conveyed to the public. Various American officials have claimed certainty in the matter, but provided no direct evidence. The Russian government was not allowed to participate in the investigation. The fact that such dramatic diplomatic actions and political condemnations have taken place without proof suggests to me that a covert, false flag operation could have been involved here. Despite the nastiness of the chemical agent involved, harm came to only a very limited few, and in fact even the intended victim survived the attack. It seems we're witnessing an astonishingly strong response to a failed murder attempt on one man. A cost/benefit analysis to the parties in this case strongly favours a false-flag operation rather than a vengeful, dumb-headed revenge plot. There is questionable motivation for the Russians to have conducted this operation, and there is no proof. It is nothing more than an unsolved attempted murder case. But it certainly has benefited the hawks in Washington and their NATO-ally militants.

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline

Posted April 9, 2018

Kinder Morgan has just announced it is suspending work on the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which faced strong opposition from the BC government as well as majority opposition from residents of the Lower Mainland and First Nations. Given that the pipeline's purpose is to triple the amount of oil being fed to terminals in Burrard Inlet, and the consequential tripling of risk of an oil spill either at a terminal or as a result of a mishap involving a tanker in the confined waters of Burrard Inlet with it's strong tidal currents, I am happy to hear the project has been shelved. The way Kinder Morgan ran roughshod over the City of Burnaby, where the terminal is located, and ignored the concerns of First Nations people, fishermen, and the tourism industry (to name just a few), supports my opinion. And of course Prime Minister Trudeau's support of the pipeline is just another example of his hypocrisy: he is just as big a hypocrite as Trump is a liar. His "performance" at the Paris Climate Summit is now revealed as just that, given his impotent declaration some months ago that the pipeline will be built - legal and environmental issues notwithstanding. Trudeau is in fact just as big a hypocrite when it comes to environmentalism as he is regarding tolerance (his tolerance of pro-life Christians is non-existent).

I am fully aware that Kinder Morgan's action may be nothing more than a political move to prod the federal government into action. However opposition to pipeline construction is not solely political. It comes from popular opposition of environmentalists, which is well supported in the courts. Trudeau cannot overrule the courts. With hundreds of people already arrested at the pipeline protests, including federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May, and growing support from world-famous environmental activists such as Canadian Naomi Klein, the protests which so far have taken place in horrible weather conditions will only continue to grow as the summer approaches.

I realize there are costs to society in preventing the pipeline from being expanded. But Canada has gotten by just fine with the single pipeline and that is going to continue operating. So tar sands promoters can't claim the sky will fall if the pipeline is not expanded. I also realize that final victory has not yet been attained in this environmental war, but a battle has definitely been won and if my late friend Bob Loveless were still around, he'd be high-fiving today for sure!

John Brennan's remarkable response to Donald Trump

Posted April 8, 2018

Late last month John Brennan issued what must surely be the most stunning assault ever on a sitting president by any former CIA director. It was a direct reply to a Trump tweet that proclaimed the firing of former FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe just 26 hours prior to his retirement "a great day for democracy." The firing of McCabe, which was carried out mostly (though perhaps not entirely) for political reasons, cost McCabe his retirement benefits and pension. It seems to have been an incredibly vindictive thing to do - a punishment far out of proportion to any mistake he might have made near the end of his long and largely successful career. But it was not totally unexpected, given Trump's proclivity for firing people and the fact he particularly despises the managers of America's federal law enforcement agencies.

Anyway, Brennan's quote is worth repeating here:

"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You will not destroy America ... America will triumph over you."
Wow, I realize there's politics involved, but that's definitely a double-barrelled shot at the president coming from a highly respected and influential member of the American Intelligence and Security community! (I must add however that I personally am most definitely not a fan of Brennan, most especially because of his role in the criminal U.S. military drone program that has taken so many innocent lives utilizing impressionable young "soldiers" hiding in bunkers who seem to think they are just playing video games).

I've been trying to tune out of American politics. It may not seem like it looking at my blog posts, but I really have. It's just that the news from down south is just so amazing that it's incredibly tough to ignore.

Christian Marriage

Posted April 4, 2018

I recently stumbled upon a series of YouTube videos on Faith and Fame (not to be confused with the Fox News series with the same title). The one about Michael W. Smith was quite inspiring. But the one featuring Amy Grant...not so much. This is sad because I, like many Christians, greatly enjoyed her music for many years. I even took my daughter to one of her concerts. The fact of the matter, however, is that while exceedingly popular, the lyrics to her Christian songs were seldom her own.

The problem with Grant and a great many Christians today, is that they pick and choose which of Christ's teachings to pay attention to and which to ignore. I've long lamented the fact, which I am still shocked by, that fully one third of Christian marriages fail. Even more troublesome is that this fraction is actually slightly higher than for the population-at-large. This statistic was for the U.S., and was taken several years ago but I am certain things are no different in Canada, and haven't changed much. The point is that Christ clearly spoke against divorce (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12). For followers of Christ to ignore these "inconvenient" teachings and focus on all the sins that mostly non-Christians indulge in is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Those who truly love Christ try their best to follow all his teachings in their own lives.

This brings us back to Amy Grant. The known facts in her case are troubling: she admits knowing "almost from the start" that she had married the wrong man. She attributes her mistakes to hormonal issues, rather than lusts of the flesh which is what the Bible calls it - in a way making it out to be a medical problem rather than a spiritual one. Midway through her marriage she told her husband Gary Chapman - who was admittedly struggling with his own demons - that she had given her heart to another man. A couple of years before her divorce, Vince Gill's marriage ended after his wife discovered an I love you Amy note. Grant and Gill had been spending a great deal of time in each other's company. Grant claims it was not a sexual relationship at that time while Chapman says he's sure it was. Whichever the case, this is a classic example of failure to maintain "hedges" around marriages (see my Hedges: Loving your Marriage Enough to Protect it book review). I also found a commentary on the Amy Grant situation in a Christianity Today article way back in February 2000 that still seems relevant today. It brings up the relevant question as to whether Christian celebrities like Grant need to possess the special requirements for public ministry spoken of in the Bible. I'm taking the liberty of reprinting the article here:

Popular Culture:Take a Little Time Out
Amy Grant's ever-smiling face is everywhere, obscuring the tragedy of two failed marriages.
By Wendy Murray Zoba | 2/07/2000

I hear a dissonance in what I call "the Amy Grant situation." I open my copy of TODAY'S CHRISTIAN WOMAN and there she is on the inside back cover, captured in a moment of hilarity sitting cozily in front of a fireplace, selling us her latest Christmas CD. I open MARRIAGE PARTNERSHIP magazine ("marriage"/"partnership"--get it?) and there she is on the inside front cover promoting her Christmas tour. I open a catalogue from a Christian retail chain, and there she is again--ever smiling, ever promoted.

The Chicago Tribune (Dec. 11) described the "Amy Grant Christmas" tour as "a wonderland of religious carols ... and a heaping portion of vintage schmaltz."

These images trouble me. The recent news stories about the breakup of Grant's 16-year marriage to Gary Chapman coupled with the stories about her new (but long-suspected) boyfriend, Vince Gill, whose 17- year marriage ended in 1997, should give us all pause. But neither Grant nor the Christian marketing industry, in promoting her concerts and albums, has missed a beat.

There was no adultery that caused the breakup of the marriages, she assures us. By adultery she means sexual contact. There were, it seems, other intimate exchanges between Grant and Gill sufficient to bring down the Gills' marriage. According to People (Nov. 29, 1999), Gill's wife Janis found a note--"I love you, Amy"--in her husband's golf bag. (Through an assistant, Grant declined my two requests for an interview that could provide any missing context.) "That was the beginning of the end," says Janis Gill's sister, Kristine Arnold. The Gills divorced two years before the Grant/Chapman separation and divorce.

The problem with this situation is that no biblical category tells us how CCM artists function in the kingdom. Are they "ministers"? "Prophets"? "Teachers"? "Evangelists"?

If nothing else, they are public communicators who knowingly and willingly bear Christ's name in their very public ministries. They wield influence over their followers and have accepted and benefited from this visible mantle. They lead. They inspire. They "pump up." Sometimes they stumble.

We cannot begrudge them their humanness. Grant says in CCM magazine: "Go look in a mirror and everything that's black and ugly about you, it's the same about me. That's what Jesus died for."

Amen. Apparently she has worked through the faith issues, but it seems that neither she nor the evangelical community has reckoned with the issue of public ministry. "If I were a business executive and had an affair, my job would be safe," my husband (a pastor) once said. "As a pastor, I'd lose my job." A higher moral standard applies to those who lead and influence in Christ's name, regardless of their office.

Grant says in CCM that a counsellor told her, "[God] didn't create this institution [of marriage] so He could just plug people into it. He provided this so that people could enjoy each other to the fullest." Grant herself adds: "[I]f you have two people that are not thriving healthily in a situation, I say remove the marriage. Let them heal."

If that is what Grant's counsellor told her, then she got bad advice. Anyone who has persevered in marriage will attest that indeed there are moments of "enjoying to the fullest," but that often attends many tedious, sometimes painful, stretches. The best premarital advice I received came from our pastor's wife: "There are going to be times when you'll hate each other's guts." Those moments have been few and far between, but when they have occurred, my husband and I recognized this was normal and would pass.

The apostle Paul says that marriage represents, in earthly relationships, the mystical bond between Christ and his church. It is "a profound mystery" (Ephesians 5:32). And the Lord knows the bond between Christ and his church, played out in real lives, can get messy. Should we "remove the marriage"? Divorce happens--too often and not always for the right reasons. It is grievous and frequently carries ongoing destructive repercussions. It is something the Christian community should hesitate to gloss over. Rather than Amy Grant telling her (mostly Christian) audience, including youth groups, that she is looking for a date for New Year's Eve as her way of acknowledging her new circumstances, it would be appropriate if she, and we, took a time out. Those smiles, the pictures in glossy Christian magazines, and the shimmering gowns can fool us into forgetting the wreckage. Two families have been torn apart against their wills.

Whether Amy Grant and Vince Gill have found happiness amid the pain of others is a matter between them and their families, their church communities, and the Lord. But her dressing up and our propelling her public ministry, without taking time for serious reflection, violates what should be the Christian conviction about the sanctity of marriage.

Wendy Murray Zoba is Associate Editor for Christianity Today. Related Elsewhere CCM's post-divorce interviews with Amy Grant (in its December issue) and Gary Chapman (in its January issue) are insightful both for what the singers say--and for what they don't.

I am not in any way "judging" Amy Grant. God does forgive all sins which are confessed and repented of, and I have no knowledge of Grant's present or future relationship with our Saviour. I'm just saying that in public statements I've heard, she seems to be defending her actions, and even encouraging others to leave any relationship in which the partners are not "thriving." In any event Grant's divorce and remarriage has certainly cast a poor light on Christians, as many comments on-line now refer to it in relation to the hypocrisy of Christians who divorce and re-marry contrary to biblical precepts, but condemn behaviours such as homosexuality and promiscuity in others - a point which is of course well taken.

These are sad times for Christianity, and what is increasingly an apostate western church.

Day of infamy

Posted March 16, 2018

Fifty years ago on March 16, 1968 American forces murdered 500 Vietnamese villagers in what has become known in the west as the My Lai Massacre, and the Son My Massacre in Vietnam. A few soldiers, who until recently were ostracized for their "disloyal" comments, said they were ordered to shoot everything that moves. Victims were almost all women, children, and old men. All were civilians, and unarmed. One woman watched her father's head being blown apart at close range by an American soldier. She wanted to tell him to "play dead," but knew that if she spoke she too would be killed. While there have been much greater war crimes committed throughout history, and during the past century, my naive upbringing had led me to think Americans would never behave in this way.

I remember this event well because in those years shortwave radio was my main hobby. Even then I didn't trust the main, North American media outlets. I had collected QSL cards from dozens of shortwave stations from around the world, and was considering getting a ham radio licence myself, as a distant relative in Ontario had done. I knew of the massacre almost as soon as it happened, as it was top-of-news on Radio Moscow, Radio Havana Cuba, Radio Hanoi...and soon also the BBC World Service which in those days was far less influenced by NATO spin. For months and months the Voice of America denied it all as communist propaganda, and they didn't actually acknowledge what happened for over a year and a half. Even then, they downplayed the number of murder victims (and still do). It was a lesson I never forgot: American forces were just as evil as those godless communists, and American media was no more trustworthy than anything you would hear on Radio Moscow. It is for that reason that I still watch news from Russia Today, as well as the BBC World Service (and sometimes also Al Jazeera). This way, I get the other side's propaganda to balance our own western propaganda so that I can make an informed decision on my own. Often it's not all that difficult to see through the lies coming so frequently from both sides. Basically, the take-home message is that there is no "force for good" amongst the major powers of the world today; they are all just empire building, and truth is irrelevant.

Donald Trump and Canada (Part II)

Posted on the Ides of March, 2015

So Donald Trump is now boasting that during a recent meeting with our Prime Minister, he actually made up the trade figures that show that the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada (in reality it has a surplus - according to the U.S. government's own website). This is shocking on so many levels, since he is currently overseeing a re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and such an obvious lie (or misrepresentation?) of this important data is rather unbelievable. That he would actually brag about making it all up in his discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau is totally bizarre. Basically he is admitting to creating "Fake News," something he is always blaming others for.

But it gets more bizarre yet. The discussions the U.S. President is referring to do not appear to have happened at all. Though Trump has talked trade directly with Trudeau during previous visits, there have been no recent meetings. Our PMO (Prime Minister's Office) admits to being rather perplexed about what "meeting" the U.S. president is referring to. Trudeau himself is, perhaps wisely, refraining from comment. Meanwhile every U.S. network, with the notable exception of Fox News, as well as most international news services including the BBC World Service and RT are highlighting this event. Presumably the only people who will remain unaware are Fox News devotees.

Is it just me, or is there something seriously wrong with the U.S. president? To make up, or lie about trade figures is bad enough. To brag about doing so is incomprehensible. But to brag about something that makes you look bad in the eyes of the world, but didn't even actually happen, is beyond strange. Perhaps he dreamed he had a meeting where he made up the trade figures, and thinks it really happened. But this is a man with the capability of destroying our planet. It's something that's best not to think about, especially at bedtime, when the president may be having more dreams of his own.

Donald Trump and Canada

Posted March 8, 2018

Some time ago I decided I was going to stop following American news and politics. I ended subscriptions to U.S. news podcasts. Ever since the arrival of Donald Trump, watching news from south of the border has been bad for hypertension. When Trump's rule by chaos starts affecting Canada, however, I can hardly ignore it.

Trump ignores all facts when he claims Canada takes advantage of the U.S. in trade. The recent announcement of tariffs against steel and aluminum imports will more than likely trigger a global trade war - unless he backs down which of course he may very well do (he should be called the Great Vacillator). My complaint is that he now says that Canada might be exempted because of it's military partnership with the U.S.. Yikes, this is so reminiscent of the way the old Roman Empire coerced subservient countries to fight its wars for it. By the last two centuries of that empire, true Romans (Italians) were hard to find in its armies and navy. If this is to be a "condition" of continued trade, I think Canada should look for other trading partners and opt out of all further military expeditions which operate at the dictate of the "Commander in Chief." If, as I believe, the U.S. is nothing more than a reborn Roman Empire (most of it's citizens' ancestry is from western Europe), then history would seem to be repeating itself.

I can't help digressing to make one additional comment about Trump. This is a man who recently commented regarding Chinese President Xi Jinping changing that country's constitution to allow him to remain in office for life: "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day." I consider this to be the most worrisome thing Trump has said to date, and can't understand why it isn't headline news in the U.S.. Another thing I can't understand is how American evangelicals can still support him. Trump is a man with extremely low regard for women (except for extremely attractive ones), who has ridiculed his former wives, has clearly had extra-marital sex with many women including a porn star, who lies constantly to everyone, and who recently joked that his current wife Melania may be the next one to go (and this man claims to be a Christian!?!). Yet last night I watched an American newscast where a group of five "evangelical" women praised him as the best president the U.S. has ever had. It was unbelievable, not to mention an incredible insult to former President Jimmy Carter, who was undoubtedly a true Christian president who always tried to make decisions based on his Christian values. These women were justifying Trump essentially by saying that God forgives, though Trump has famously asked why he needs to be forgiven for anything. I just shook my head in disbelief. Would these women consider such behaviour acceptable from their own husbands? Would they be so eager to forgive? Or perhaps divorce is so well accepted within the church now that adultery is no longer considered a sin. The idea that such a man could become president would have been incomprehensible to American Christians 50 years ago - no, likely only 20 years ago. It is still incomprehensible to non-American Christians. His behaviour is shocking to a majority of non-Christians!
If one needed any evidence for the apostate church in America, stronger evidence would be difficult to imagine.

The problem with social and economic governmental systems

or, why socialism and communism won't really work either

Posted January 31, 2018

Obviously I am no fan of capitalism...for reasons clearly stated (and re-stated) below. But do I think socialism, or communism would really cure our troubles? Not really.

Actually, the system that existed in Canada during much of my lifetime (the last half of the twentieth century) was probably as good as it gets. Our system was a mixed socialist/capitalist system. It seemed to take advantage of the benefits of both, while avoiding the corresponding pitfalls. Universal medical coverage, pushed forward by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (or CCF) party -- the precursor of the New Democratic Party (NDP), was the most noteworthy socialist achievement. But there were many more: government-run automobile insurance programs, Universal Allowances for Children and Child Care benefits, Worker's Compensation, Disability benefits, Spouse's allowances (taxation benefits), Petro-Canada the oil company, government-run ferries, the Royal Mail, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old-age security (OAS), Employment Insurance and Welfare are some examples. Support for medical research and development was also provided. Canada is recognized as one of the top-ten socialist countries in the world 1. The ordered list is:

  1. China
  2. Denmark
  3. Finland
  4. Netherlands
  5. Canada
  6. Sweden
  7. Norway
  8. Ireland
  9. New Zealand
  10. Belgium
It is interesting to note that these countries (with the possible exception of China - depending on whom you are talking to) also comprise a list of many of the most livable and safe countries in the world to live. By and large they all do quite well economically, as well.

But free enterprise and private business were also strongly promoted in Canada. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) has during this time always been recognized as providing a strong foundation for capitalist endeavours in Canada. Capitalism, if and only if highly regulated to prevent fraud and greed, certainly does encourage innovation and job creation.

So what is really at the core of the problem? It is human nature. Capitalism certainly "worked" OK for much of its history. It has only been a result of almost total de-regulation, and the vilification of unions that the capitalist system is now in a state where it appears to be ready to collapse. With almost all the gains of corporations now going to the top shareholders - the one percent, workers will increasingly realize how they are being used, and revolt...if the economic system doesn't totally collapse before they do so.

Human nature is also why socialism isn't the answer to the growing economic inequity and social inequality.

(1) http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countrs-in-the-world/

Christian communism

Posted January 28, 2018

I recently listened to an interview with Dr. Richard D. Wolff (not to be confused with Michael Wolff, author of the recent best-seller Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House). Dr. Wolff provides as clear and informative an explanation of socialist economics and the problems of capitalism as I have heard in recent memory. He starts off slowly, but it soon gets very, very interesting. Wolff is an American economist, professor and lecturer who has focused on Marxism, and has provided articles to the quarterly journal Rethinking Marxism. And he definitely knows how to speak to a non-academic audience; you don't need a PhD to understand his arguments. The discussion is available at various places - I would suggest viewing it here (scroll down a little to the video "The Empire Files: Understanding Marxism and Socialism). It is only half an hour long, and though Marx is over-hyped a bit at the beginning this is time well spent if you want to understand the fundamentals of socialism and what capitalism is really based on (greed, of course). You can also learn more about Prof. Wolff by visiting his website .

Subsequent to listening to Wolff's informative interview, I recommend a visit to the Billionbibles website, which focuses on communism in China, the largest remaining communist country remaining today (though their economics are rapidly becoming more capitalist than socialist). Be sure to click through to the "(continued at)" links midway down each page to get to the Christian Communists and Christian Communism pages. There are now more Christians in China than in the United States and interestingly, the website points out that in the past 2000 years, every nation that heeded the True Gospel has prospered. The Bible certainly provides a good deal of support for communism (and almost none for capitalism - in fact the Christian church was firmly anti-capitalist until the time of John Calvin). Finally, a click on the Rise of China link is certainly thought-provoking.

Finally I suggest a visit to the Christian communism Wikipedia site. It explains that Marxism, as set forth by Karl Marx in the middle of the nineteenth century, is comprised of philosophical, sociological and economic components. It is only the philosophical aspect that is atheistic and anti-Christian.

While I can easily say that I am in full agreement with the principles of "Christian communism," it is a bit more difficult to think of how I should adjust my life to conform with those principles. Christ told the rich man to sell all his possessions, and to follow him. And we are also instructed to rely on God for our sustenance, not hoarded wealth. While I am certainly not rich (by Canadian standards at any rate), I know that I am rich by global standards. What is God's will for me? Certainly providing for the needy is something we should all do as we feel led. But should we sell everything? Should we divest from all investments in the dysfunctional capitalist system? The Bible also tells us that we are supposed to address the needs of our families (spouse, children, even grandchildren - see Proverbs 13:22). So I gather from this that Christ's instruction to the rich man in Luke 18:22 was for this man specifically, and also to teach a principle of generosity. Nonetheless there is lots of food for thought, especially as we live in an economic system which has replaced love and service to the real God with service to the god of wealth and greed.

Christ, to the dismay of his Jewish contemporaries, never spoke of political actions or responses (other than paying taxes and submitting to kings and governors - all of which were autocratic in those days). But socialism, and perhaps even communism, are clearly much more compatible with Christ's teachings than is capitalism.

Canadian values or intolerance?

Posted January 15, 2018

I very rarely agree with the American "right," but they have a good point regarding Trudeau's so-called "tolerance." Trudeau recently decreed that groups holding pro-life positions are ineligible for $220 million in federal job grants this summer. This will negatively affect many church camps which do great work with youth. In fact it pretty much excludes all conservative Christian organizations, not to mention Muslim and Jewish ones as well. Republicans are calling Trudeau "reprehensible", and they are spot-on. Conservative Christians pay taxes just as atheists do, and are just as entitled to receive benefits from those taxes. Trudeau arrogantly claims that conservative Christian groups are "out of line with Canadian society." Yet the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not include abortion as a "right." Millions of Canadians believe, as I do, that abortion is wrong, and at the very least should be greatly restricted. But apparently we don't reflect "Canadian values." Interestingly, when the Conservatives were propounding Canadian values of a different kind, Liberals were quick to question how Conservatives were qualified to set out what those values might be. Now that they are the governing party, and the shoe is on the other foot so to speak, they claim to be the defenders of these values.

Picture of Trudeau wearing blasphemous t-shirt

Trudeau claims to be a Roman Catholic. Pope Francis is famous (infamous to some) for his "tolerance." He doesn't want Christians to be seen as single-issue proponents for pro-life or any other single cause. But he does have a much better understanding of the definition of tolerance than Trudeau has, and I am 100% certain he would have a thing or two to say to Trudeau regarding his clearly intolerant edict.

I generally try to follow Christ's instruction "Judge not, that ye be not judged." But I cannot abide hypocrites. When a man claiming to be a Christian specifically blocks Christians from obtaining federal funding (derived from their own taxes), and wears a "birthday party t-shirt" - on Christmas Day no less (December 25 is Justin Trudeau's birthday) which ridicules the Last Supper, I have to admit that I now deeply regret voting Liberal in the last election. It certainly won't happen again, so long as Trudeau is the liberal leader. I disagreed with a lot of his father's policies; he was self-serving and unfortunately revised our legal system to benefit lawyers (like himself), and align far too closely with the American judicial system. But I'd much prefer the likes of the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau as Prime Minister to his intolerant offspring. PET was arrogant, but not intolerant or anti-Christian.

With the leaders of all three "major" federal parties in Canada now excluding those with pro-life beliefs from any political power, the only hope appears to be getting rid of the current first past the post electoral system in favour of some form of proportional representation. Unfortunately the liberals, after promising to promote this during the last election, have now killed the idea, claiming that it would allow those with extremist views to gain representation. Clearly we now understand who those extremists are, from the Prime Minister's perspective.

On this Martin Luther King Day (in the U.S.) I conclude this blog with a screen capture from the Apple.com home page.

The time is always right to do what is right

Jerusalem

Posted December 26, 2017

Donald Trump's decision to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital and to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem has understandably caused quite a stir in diplomatic circles - and in Palestinian communities. Several previous U.S. presidents have stated this as an objective, seen by many as an attempt to garner support from the Jewish community, but none have actually followed through with action. Given Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians within it's territories, it is easy to understand the global disapproval over granting Israel permanent jurisdiction over all of a city that Palestinians claim a portion of as their own. It is likewise understandable why Canada abstained from the recent United Nations General Assembly vote condemning this change to the status of Jerusalem, despite being friendly to Israel for the most part.

There is just one, very significant problem. The Bible tells us that God promised Abraham this land for his descendants for ever (Genesis 13:14-15, 15:18, 17:8). To those who would argue that God's blessing on Abraham extended to his son Ishmael, father of the Palestinians, we read in Genesis 17:19, 21 and 21:10, 12 that it was to Isaac, and not Ishmael that God's covenant was extended. Nevertheless Ishmael's mother Hagar did receive a promise from God that he would be the father of an innumerable multitude (Genesis 16:10, 21:13). This "lesser blessing" was apparently due to the fact that Hagar, despite being a wife of Abraham, was a slave. Evidently it was not in God's plan that Abraham's primary heirs would be children of a slave. Nonetheless Abraham was "displeased" with Sarah's mistreatment of Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 21:11), and though I do not claim to know the mind of God, I expect God is likewise displeased with the mistreatment of Abraham's "less favoured" descendants in the form of modern-day Palestinians, at the hand of the government and army of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Admittedly it is unclear exactly where this innumerable host of Ishmael's descendants should live; he took a wife from Egypt, so perhaps that is where the Palestinians should be. Unfortunately the animosity between the descendants of Hagar's son Ishmael, and Sarah's son Isaac continues to this day.

So what were the geographic boundaries of Israel's Promised Land? In the south, it was from the Red Sea in the region of Eilat today, to the Sea of the Philistines which would be the Mediterranean Sea near Gaza (Exodus 23:31; Ezekiel 47:19; Genesis 15:18). The western boundary was the "Great Sea," another name for the Mediterranean (Numbers 34:6; Ezekiel 47:20). In the north, the boundary extended from the Great (or Western) Sea through what is today Lebanon and Syria to the Euphrates River in the north (Genesis 15:18; Deuteronomy 11:24; Ezekiel 47:17; Joshua 1:4). The eastern boundary ran from the Euphrates River in the north, extending south along the Sea of Galilee or "Sea of Kinnereth" to the Golan Heights. That really doesn't leave any room for a separate Palestinian state. It must be admitted that historically, Israel never exerted full control over all the lands God promised to them. But God foretold through the prophet Joel that he will judge all nations because they "divided up my land," making reference to the land he gave to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Joel 3:1,2).

So where does this leave a Christian on this issue? While mistreatment of the Palestinians has included what has been called the largest open-air prison in the world - Gaza, and seems reminiscent of the treatment the whites in South Africa bestowed upon black nationals, we cannot deny the fact that this is land God gave to the sons of Israel, for a perpetual inheritance. Jerusalem itself is central not only to biblical history, but also to biblical prophesy (book of Revelation). Israel has its history in these lands - for a much longer time than non-native North Americans can claim for our land. And Jerusalem was the historical capital of Israel ever since the capture of the city by King David about one thousand years before Christ. Based on this, and despite the unfortunate mistreatment of resident Palestinians by the present-day State of Israel, I think Christians have to support Donald Trump's declaration regarding the capital of Israel. And though the timing might seem questionable, I can't help think that God is having his purposes carried out regarding Jerusalem.

As a footnote, I must admit that despite being a mean-spirited, self-centred, egotistical, self-serving hypocrite who specializes in Orwellian double-speak and is a compulsive liar, President Trump is actually doing some good things for the Christian community. In a way he is like a few of the Roman emperors who supported Christianity during its early years (in between bouts of persecution), for political reasons. This support of Christian values is likely a reason for some of the animosity directed towards Trump by liberals in both the political and religious spheres. He is empowering members of the pro-life movement to speak up, and overtly supporting many traditional Christian values in America - values that made America great, for which he should be commended. It is unfortunate that he is also, inadvertently or intentionally, providing support to racists and capitalists whose values most certainly don't line up with biblical Christianity.

Cougar hunting

Posted December 21, 2017

The pro and anti-hunting advocates are at it again, this time over the killing of a cougar in Northern Alberta by Steve Ecklund, host of an outdoor television show. Apparently he's quite proud of his accomplishment, and it's been garnering him a whole lot of hate mail, along with some letters of support.

{picture of hunter holding dead cougar}

One notable criticism came from Laureen Harper, wife of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. She is quoted as saying (on twitter):

"What a creep. Chasing a cougar with dogs until it is exhausted then shooting a scared, cornered and tired animal. Must be compensating for something, small penis probably."
I'd say that's definitely letting him have it with both barrels (pun intended).

Harper says her family hunts and fishes too, for food, but this hunting for sport is different. Anyway, this just didn't seem like something I'd expect Laureen Harper to say. Being a cat lover myself, I tend to side with her on this one though. Hunting advocates assert there could be 2500 cougars or even more in Alberta. But considering the extent of the Alberta wilderness, that doesn't seem like a particularly huge number to me. I suppose this cat's head will find a place above Ecklund's fireplace as proof of his hunting prowess. But seeing the picture of Ecklund holding the dead animal just makes me sad. It seems to have been in its prime, and should be out there fulfilling it's ordained role in the balance of nature.

Banned words

Posted Saturday December 17, 2017

According to a report from the National Post yesterday, federal scientists and bureaucrats in the U.S.A. are now advised not to use the words vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based and science-based in financial planning documents (if they hope to receive funding). How the Centre for Disease Control, for instance, is going to be able to continue to study the effects of the Zika virus on the fetus, which is science-based work and involves the "f" word, is yet to be determined.

This is right out of George Orwell's 1984. Former Prime Minister Harper tried restricting the work of government scientists, and it earned him little support and contributed significantly to his loss of office. One has to wonder if the same fate will befall Trump, at or even prior to the next presidential election.

Regarding Christmas

Posted Friday December 15, 2017

While the secularization of the season has been ongoing for decades - talk of Santa Claus generally replaces Christ, the substitution of generic terms such as Holiday and Winter Festival in place of Christmas has more recently become politically correct. A friend from Winnipeg recently sent me a commentary on this by Ben Stein, who is a well known American actor, writer, commentator and activist. Although doctored, false versions of Stein's talk abound on the internet (revisions written circa 2009 by Obama haters), below are excerpts of what he really said. I feel that it is appropriate to publish them here again this Christmas season.

Confessions for the Holidays by Ben Stein, December 2005

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are - Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship ..(celebrities).. and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these (celebrities) came from and where the America we knew went to.

Apple's rabbit hole

Posted Sunday December 3, 2017

My involvement with Apple's computers began long before retirement, when I was working one day per week as Environment Canada/Pacific Region's science representative at UBC's Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Mountain Meteorology and Hydrology. All the faculty and grad students worked on Macintosh and Linux computers, as did I. The students there told me they couldn't understand why anyone would want to use Windows. But I'd been using Microsoft Windows since the days of Windows 2.0 and never seriously considered purchasing a Mac for my own use (I did once contemplate buying an Apple II but ended up buying an IBM PC jr instead). As I neared retirement though, many of my peers who were retiring or had recently retired chose to go with a Mac for personal use. It was a bad time for Windows, and Apple was doing really interesting things with their Mac OS X / iOS ecosystem. We ended up getting one Windows Lenovo ThinkPad and one MacBook Pro. The ThinkPad has since died and has been replaced by another Mac. Though the price/performance ratio of Apple products is outrageously high, their ecosystem until recently has provided unrivalled benefits. Admittedly Amazon and Google are now competing with their own offerings, some of which are better than Apple's. But if you're "all-in" with Apple's hardware, it's still very difficult to escape what I've taken to calling Apple's rabbit hole.

The benefits of the Apple ecosystem can't be overstated. Their cloud server, iCloud, was once extremely limited but has become a key foundation to using Apple's services. Paramount is iCloud support for the Apple Photos app. All photos and videos taken from an iPhone automatically upload to one's iCloud account, and are downloaded to all devices signed into that iCloud account. Likewise all photos taken from digital cameras can be imported to iCloud through a Mac (assuming it is one which still has an SD card slot). So you can easily and efficiently view, select and edit photos on the relatively large screen of your Mac or iPad. All changes are automatically sent to all your devices, so you never have to perform an edit or file deletion more than once. As well, only thumbnail images of photos are left on memory-limited devices; you can download the full-resolution photo or video extremely quickly just by selecting that thumbnail. I typically have full versions of all my photos and videos on my main iMac, but let Apple manage storage space on other devices automatically. You don't need to pay for huge amounts for maxed-out storage on iPhones, iPads and MacBooks any more.

The same memory-saving strategy can be applied to music files as well. And any or all of your personal files can be stored in iCloud, so the latest versions are always available to any macOS or iOS device. I personally just keep a few actively-used files in the cloud, and add password protection to them for extra security. But it works very well. And Apple's focus on privacy means that unlike Google's cloud services, Apple doesn't track websites I visit or mine the content of my emails. Regarding emails, its very convenient to have one place to file all messages, irregardless of which email address they were sent to (assuming you have have multiple email accounts, as I do). Contacts are also much easier to add and maintain on a computer than on a phone; again, everything is automatically synchronized between all Apple devices. Calendars, reminders and Notes are likewise harmonized through the iCloud connection. And you can always see what you were recently looking at in your Safari browser, no matter what device you were recently using. Also you have control over HomeKit devices such as door locks and lights. It all does work rather automagically.

As well, if you also have an Apple watch, those phone calls, messages, emails, notifications, and navigation messages also go to that, accompanied, if you wish, by a gentle but highly noticeable tap on the wrist. If you have Apple's wireless airpods, verbal messages go to them as well. And with an Apple TV, you can view on your big screen all your home videos as well as movies purchased from Apple's iTunes store, and all movies you've burned from DVD or Blu-ray to store in iTunes on your Mac.

This brings me back to some of the rabbit-hole difficulties. For several reasons, I'd like to escape. With some experience in Linux, I'd much prefer a computer with the flexibility offered by that operating system. I could build my own machine, to my own specifications and without Apple's stylistic concessions. The underpinnings of macOS are very similar to Linux in any event. Apple is infamous for it's form over function philosophy, which has resulted in their machines falling behind in performance - especially graphics performance for gaming and simulation software such as X-Plane. As well, they have been eliminating brilliant features from their machines; my latest MacBook has only one external connection which has to serve for all functions: providing power/charging the battery, accessing external drives, and providing a signal to an external monitor. The wonderful mag-safe power connector that pulled out of the MacBook easily without damage to the machine is gone. The SD card slots, USB-A slots, Ethernet connection, IR sensor and optical drive that were all included in my 2009 MacBook Pro are also gone from the latest MacBook (which is admittedly a cheaper model). There are no longer external sleep indicator lights or battery level LEDs. And the illuminated Apple logo on the back of the screen is gone. Keyboards have become borderline-usable in the cause of thin and light - even on the desktop iMacs! At least they've kept the earphone jack, which has been removed from the iPhones. As well, the charging connectors have not been harmonized: it's lightning for the iPhones and USB-C for the Macs. They have added a fancy graphical touch-bar to the high-end MacBook Pros and removed the fixed function keys - a horrible change for touch-typists. You cannot buy a 2017 15 inch high-end MacBook Pro that doesn't have this feature - it isn't even optional. To make matters worse, Apple only supports their hardware for 7 years; after that it's considered "obsolete" and future Operating System upgrades and software updates can't even be applied. These severe limitations combined with high prices make for a discouraging situation. That said, Apple's build quality is still excellent, and advances have been made in some areas. Most notable of these improvements is perhaps the unbelievably fast access to solid state drives (SSDs). This has pretty much obliterated the traditional bottleneck that was access to stored programs and data.

The bottom line is that although Apple hardware has its limitations, and its software is getting increasingly buggy (possibly the topic of an entirely separate future blog), I'm pretty much stuck in Apple's rabbit hole. Linux is badly fragmented, with literally dozens of combinations of operating systems and desktop graphical user interfaces. It also lacks the advantages that Apple's control of its system architecture provides - Apple is including their own, special-purpose custom chips in a lot of their machines. There is very little chance of there ever being an ecosystem in the Linux world that bears even a faint resemblance to Apple's. While there are a great number of more powerful, wonderful, and cheaper machines available that run Windows and Linux, for home users Apple still seems to be king. And even though it is no longer true that with Apple it just works (some things in HomeKit and Apple TV are rather flaky and difficult to get working reliably), losing the benefits of this wonderful technical "ecosystem" seems like a price too high to pay. I do have a US$35 Raspberry Pi computer running Linux to feed my Linux cravings, but it seems certain that I'll be stuck in the rabbit hole for the foreseeable future, notwithstanding my strong dislike for large, multinational corporations - and Apple is about as big as they come.

Social implications of Darwinism

Posted Saturday October 28, 2017

Many bio-ethicists today think the traditional concept of a human is artificial, and impossible to justify. Assuming we evolved from lower species, humanity is only "special" in that humans have come to dominate all other life forms on the planet. Individual people are no more significant, or important than individual whales, for example. Some always have to die so others can live. That's how nature works. Letting some die is just more natural and efficient than taking pains to care for the poor and the weak.

Our society has always argued that all people have the right to life, liberty and a decent standard of living. This necessarily includes the right to medical care, and a "livable" minimum wage. But what is this based on, if there are no universally acceptable arguments supporting the unique nature of humanity? Why should we not just let people starve? Animals starve. It's all just part of survival of the fittest, and it is actually the best thing for the species as only the strongest survive to reproduce, passing their superior genes on to their offspring. That people are more valuable than other animals, or even rocks and trees for that matter, is not provable scientifically. Some would actually argue that the planet would be much better off without us.

But the reason most people feel uncomfortable about not caring for the poor is that there is an innate awareness that people are special. In most societies, and especially in ours, this came from a belief, now fading, that people were made in the image of a creative God. This is particularly true for Muslims, Christians and Jews - and also some native Americans. The uncomfortable fact is that without this concept, there is no firm foundation for special treatment of the human species. I think this is partly at the root of why many people no longer feel any responsibility to help the poor and needy. It is also a necessary readjustment to morals and ethics in order to embrace capitalism, which is most certainly a Darwinian economic system.

The price of freedom?

Posted Thursday October 26, 2017

Unsavoury former Fox News political commentator Bill O'Reilly recently made the outrageous claim that unrestricted ownership of guns is the price of freedom. Seriously, he said that. Owning a gun is what you need in order to be free. And some people seemed to agree. Perhaps he actually believes that the U.S. is the only free country in the world, because no other countries, to my knowledge, have the right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution - including Canada of course. And as far as I know, we somehow remain "free." Sometimes I get the impression that many Americans think they are still living in the age of the wild west; there seem to be gunslingers lurking around every corner. There are some justifications for owning a gun in specific instances, but ensuring freedom is most certainly not one of them. The last time guns helped to ensure the freedom of Americans was during the last half of the Second World War, when they needed to fight off the Japanese in the Pacific. And even then, they were only needed by the military, not civilians. The communist threat is long past, and jihadists are very few and far between (and guns provide scant protection against suicide bombers in any event). The main purpose for guns today in America is for use in committing crimes, and often that crime is murder.

I'll happily grant an exception to this for police officers, who must ensure people's security against criminals who have guns. Guns in the hands of police do indeed help to ensure freedom from criminals. And for those at heightened personal risk from criminals, I would also make an exception. But those are the only exceptions. For everyone else, gun ownership should be a special privilege - not a right, and everyone should be required to go through extremely thorough screening and gun safety training processes. If they fail any of that, they should be prohibited from having firearms. But alas there is scant hope that most Americans will ever abandon their devotion to firearms. One thing is a certainty: if there is ever major civil unrest, or a civil war in America, it's going to be a bloodbath!

Risks and challenges of automation

Posted Wednesday October 25, 2017

A recurrent theme in the news these days seems to be the automation of jobs, and resultant impact on employment. Photos of Tesla's car manufacturing assembly line are representative of this: robots are everywhere. One report indicated that between 35 and 42 percent of jobs in Canada will be automated within the next decade. The Huffington Post recently summarized an account from The Economist estimating that 47% of all jobs will be automated by 2034, and "no government is prepared." Very similar numbers have recently been published by The Brookfield Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Toronto's Ryerson University, and also by the Department of Engineering Science at the University of Oxford. That report says that jobs taken over by automation will increasingly move into cognitive, non-routine tasks and occupations such as driving and conducting job interviews. It claims the top five jobs at risk are the retail salesperson, administrative assistant, food counter attendant, cashier, and transport truck driver, though certainly not all human jobs will disappear in these fields. Among the low risk occupations for automation are retail and wholesale trade managers, registered nurses, and teachers at all levels.

Having been in a profession that makes forecasts, I am well aware of the uncertainties inherent in making predictions. But while the numbers may be off, the trend is clear: many jobs are going to disappear during the next decade. We already see this happening all around us - automated teller machines continue to proliferate, and there are an increasing number of automated checkouts in many of the retail chain stores. Many administrative procedures now seemingly have to be carried out through on-line methods (NEXUS card activation is a recent example I've experienced). But on the other hand, expectations that automated cars and trucks will replace human drivers are overblown in my opinion, especially in northern climates where snow accumulations on roadways for much of the year will make it very difficult for automated vehicles. Also, technology is highly dependent upon the existence of a stable and secure society. Factors which could throw these predictions completely off include major environmental catastrophes (either natural or man-made), or social unrest on a large scale (revolution or anarchy). Considering the potential impacts of the so-called apocalyptic twins of nuclear proliferation and global warming, which could include nuclear winter or forced global migration and ecosystem destruction, some might even consider these predicted trends towards automation to be rather speculative.

In any event the most relevant question coming from this data is which occupations the next generation should endeavour to prepare for, if they hope to have job security. For the next 30 years or so, I agree that jobs at all levels of the medical profession and care giving, teaching, and (regrettably) law will be in high demand. So too will technical jobs in programming and robotics.

Of course all this down-plays what are likely the most important considerations: value of the job to humankind, and personal interest. Jobs that will be of greatest benefit to society, ranging from religion to science to municipal operations (such as first responders and jobs running and maintaining our cities) will give great satisfaction. And one does need to pick a job for which they have both interest and aptitude. It's a changing world, where even jobs in professions in science (like meteorology), though not disappearing, are rapidly changing as computers become more and more adept at conducting analyses, providing forecasts, and processing and distributing information.

Liberal hypocrisy

Posted Tuesday October 24, 2017

The recent case of the Inuit girl denied coverage for necessary orthodontist work has brought to light the hypocrisy of the Liberals' claims to be turning a new page regarding support for First Nations people. Prime Minister Trudeau recently made a big deal of this in a speech at the United Nations, where he essentially "confessed" the sins of Canada regarding historical mistreatment of native peoples, and especially actions related to the residential schools and Big Scoop where native children were removed from their homes. Some people, including myself, thought it strange that he would choose to do this at this venue, rather than addressing some other, pressing international issue (of which there is no shortage). But if confession is good for the human soul, perhaps it might be good for the nation as well, and stealing those children away from their parents was indeed indefensible.

Going back to the current issue, the girl in question has been examined independently by two orthodontists in Edmonton, and they both agree that if her severe overbite is not addressed now, she will suffer a lifetime of pain, which will also affect her speech and ability to eat properly. Clearly this is not a cosmetic or vanity-based request, but a medical necessity. Since the person in question lives in the north, the federal government is responsible for covering her medical needs. But so far Ottawa has chosen to refuse repeated applications to cover the procedure, which has an estimated cost of $6,000. And what is particularly galling is that they have already paid lawyers more than $110,000 to fight the claim! One can only imagine how much good those extra $104,000 would have done if applied, for instance, to improving the healthcare of people in northern communities rather than enriching some Ottawa-based lawyers.

It really is a contemptible denial of human rights as well as a waste of taxpayers' money. One wonders if any of those national representatives that Trudeau spoke to at the U.N. has heard of this. Hopefully not, as it is not only a revelation of our government's hypocrisy but a shame to all Canadians.

BC Lions' Faith and Family Night

Posted Monday October 23, 2017

I am sympathetic to American NFL players "bending the knee" in protest to the very real social issues at play in the U.S. - former generations fought and died so they can have the right of peaceful expression and protest in the land of the free. However I think the kneeling done by CFL players at the recent - and annually held - Faith and Family Night at BC Place Stadium is for a much higher cause. It is refreshing to see, in this day and age, this forthright acknowledgement of the Creator, even if it isn't purely "Christian" worship. As is customary, a few players from the opposing team (the Edmonton Eskimos) joined in. Afterwards, players and staff stayed for a couple of hours to answer questions from fans and media about their personal faith.

Photo of BC Lions kneeling on the field for <i>Faith and Family Night</i>

It's almost enough to get me interested in watching BC Lions games again. Almost. Unfortunately they are out of the playoffs this year, and one broadcaster apparently quipped that God doesn't seem to be answering their prayers this time. Still, it's heartwarming to see.

The Falwells and Donald J. Trump

Posted Saturday October 21, 2017

Jerry Falwell Jr. appears to be following in his father's footsteps. I consider Falwell Sr. to be one of the villains of Christianity, at least in the modern, western church. He politicized the American church, preaching that God's will could be achieved politically through the actions of men. He encouraged Christians to join one party, the Republican party, to gain political advantage. What this achieved, of course, was to give him more power and influence within that party. It also resulted in an almost-complete abandonment of the other major party, the Democrats, by genuine Christian believers. The consequence is what we see today: a Dominianist theology amongst Republicans that argues that Christians have a divine mandate to assume positions of power and influence over all aspects of society and government. And faithful Christian witnesses amongst the Democrats have become few and far between, resulting in many of the tragic social policies we see being implemented, with almost no internal debate or criticism within that party. All of this contributed greatly to the vast political and social divide we now see in America. Of course a true, just theocracy will not occur until Christ returns to lead it. Christians today are taught in scripture that we are citizens of a heavenly place, not an earthly one. Falwell's followers seem to have forgotten this.

Anyway Jerry Falwell Jr. has taken over leadership of Liberty University in Virginia following the death of his father. He continues to pursue the same strident, extreme, right-wing politics that made his father famous (or infamous). His support for Donald Trump has been crucial, especially after the then-presidential-candidates' damning comments in the "Access Hollywood" tapes which revealed him bragging lewdly about groping and trying to have sex with women. Falwell aggressively defended him and commented that "we're all sinners, and we've all done things we wish we hadn't." This is consistent with the decline from 64% to 30% over the past 5 (!) years of Republicans who feel that personal morals and ethics are important qualities to consider when choosing a political leader, according to a report by Public Radio International. In fact far fewer Republicans feel this need for personal morality in their leaders than do Democrats or independents, an astonishing finding regarding the party to which most American Christians seem to align.

Falwell shows no repentance, and expresses no disappointment or regret in his mindless endorsement of Trump, even in the face of the president's pro-white, anti-Hispanic, and anti-immigrant sentiments. Like his political hero, he displays no empathy towards those whom Trump bullies and abuses, accusing students at his school who question his position of "grandstanding." There has been considerable push-back against Falwell, both from existing students and alumni. Hundreds of them have reportedly returned their diplomas to the university and removed all record of their LU degrees and diplomas from their resumes. A group of Liberty graduates has written that

"Falwell has shown himself to be unabashedly in service of money and power, at the expense of others, (..rather than in the service) of the message of the gospel he claims. He is unfit to lead any institution, but particularly one that professes a moral, ethical, or religious mission."
Understandably this is causing many prospective students to reconsider Liberty University as a school of higher learning. I think it unseemly that a Christian leader should be making excuses for the president's sins...especially a president who has famously said "why do I have to ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes;" who hypocritically switched from pro-choice to anti-abortion in order to be accepted by Republicans (and become president); and who joked flippantly about having fun drinking his little wine and eating his little cracker. Christ is the sole, ultimate judge of mankind, but as a senior Iowa Republican said, Trump's inability to articulate any coherent relationship with God, or demonstrate the role faith plays in his life really sucks the oxygen out of a room" (Trump claimed "the whole room was laughing" when he made his joke about communion). So Trump has nothing to ask forgiveness for? And he has read the Bible and thinks it's a great book? Right.

There have been many great world leaders who have not been Christian. What I have a problem with is a leader who claims to be a Christian while showing no signs of following the teachings of Christ. Jesus had a few things to say about hypocrites.

American racism

Posted Wednesday August 16, 2017

I was quite shocked to see the obvious hatred on the faces of the white supremacists who rioted in Charlottesville, Virginia this past weekend. It was really ugly. Besides the fact that they killed a counter-protester, they clearly came prepared for battle, with shields, torches and clubs. Fortunately there were no guns. The most surprising thing in all of this is that rather than diffuse the situation, President Trump is adding coal to the fire by refusing to single out the culprits, saying the victims are just as much to blame. As CBC commentators said, it's a stunning and breathtaking failure on the part of the president. Anti-Semites carrying Nazi banners were prominent in the march, and it's particularly puzzling why Trump, whose son-in-law and close advisor Jared Kushner is Jewish, does not speak out against them. His daughter Ivanka has actually adopted the Jewish faith. Surely he can't be anti-Semite, even though he appears to be extremely bigoted against blacks and Muslims. Anyway thanks to him, things appear to be unravelling rather quickly in the U.S. this summer. One has to wonder how much longer he will be able to survive as president, as U.S. business leaders as well as many of his own Republican colleagues are now distancing themselves from him. Trump had to dissolve two of his business advisory councils today, as many of their members have resigned in protest over his handling of the racial issue.

Supreme arrogance from the White House

Posted Tuesday August 15, 2017

Last Wednesday, via Twitter, Donald Trump stated "there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world." The President won election on the shoulders of the so-called "Christian right," and to do so he had to claim some affinity to the values of this group. Though he had no record of being pro-life, or practising any of the ethics or moral values the Bible teaches, he somehow managed to convince many Christians to vote for him. But his statement that America will always be the greatest reflects two things: a complete lack of understanding of history and what causes empires to fall, and an implied confidence that God could have nothing to do with future outcomes. If he had actually read the Bible (which is doubtful), he would have been aware that God even let his "chosen people," the ancient Israelites, fall into captivity on several occasions, when they departed from the path of righteousness. How much more might he not do the same to America, or any other Gentile nation?

It should be noted that empires often fall from within, and not from external forces. This can be from economic collapse, a distinct possibility for America, and also from internal revolution - another possible eventuality. Notwithstanding America's current, dominant military power, this seems to be a very strange statement for a "Christian" president to make. If, as is possible, America is the Babylon the Great referenced in the biblical book of Revelation, it is clear that this empire will indeed fall, as all others have done before it (most recently the British and Russian empires). And according to the Bible, the merchants of the world will lament the loss of so great a trading partner.

Main-stream media again in service to the empire

Posted Sunday August 13, 2017

As in the case of all too many wars during my lifetime, I see the media again misrepresenting the global political situation in service to the American military industrial complex. The latest manifestation pertains to North Korea, whose Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un has been threatening to actively defend his country from the American military, as is his wont. But the media has been completely misrepresenting his threats, and throwing the poor natives of Guam into a panic. Specifically, Kim has been threatening to lob four missiles into the waters around the island of Guam, from whence the U.S. military launches many of its bombers and surveillance planes towards Korea. He did NOT say that he would target Guam itself, and he did NOT say his missiles would be armed. Clearly he was merely trying to demonstrate a capability to strike Guam. But that's not what the media has been reporting.

Ironically, Trump is the only antagonist in this conflict who has specifically threatened a nuclear attack on a specific target. His statement that he would unleash on the DPRK fire and fury such as the world has never seen before can have no other meaning than that he will attack with nuclear weapons. Any and all attacks with nuclear weapons are guaranteed to cause enormous numbers of civilian casualties, and therefore constitute war crimes of the most grievous kind. America has railed against those who use "weapons of mass destruction." In fact this was used as one justification for the invasion of Iraq. So threatening annihilation of millions of people living on the Korean Peninsula clearly reveals the astonishing hypocrisy of the American position.

As a postscript, I can't help remarking on how strange it is to see an American president stooping to the tactics and rhetoric of a third-world communist dictator in his war of words which, the world hopes, will not escalate into yet another global conflict. Because if America strikes first, China and in all probability also Russia will come to Kim's aid. That's three countries, each with enough nuclear weapons to destroy all human life on earth.

Trump the technophobe, and why the Russians love him

Posted Sunday July 23, 2017

I have refrained from commenting lately on U.S. President Donald J. Trump, mainly because doing so could occupy all my time - he says so many outrageous things. And it would all be wasted time. But at this point, I can remain mum no longer.

We all know that Trump is a compulsive liar. The Toronto Star has a database of 414 "false things" that Trump said during his first six months as president. Most are blatantly, obviously, embarrassingly wrong. The Star refrains from calling them lies because it is often difficult to know whether Trump is intentionally trying to deceive, or is just speaking in ignorance about things which he knows nothing. This has resulted in his total loss of credibility, a potentially dangerous situation for the most powerful leader in the world (in terms of military capacity at least).

But it is becoming clear that he is also a technophobe. He does not use a computer, or email. His sole embrace of new technology seems to be his use of his twitter account from his phone to dispatch insults to his enemy-of-the-day. In a speech during the run-up to the Republican nomination, he advocated "closing up the internet in some way" - argh! And when told of the new, digitally controlled electromagnetic launch catapult to be used on the new aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (the first of a new series of unnecessary carriers with a length greater than a third of a kilometre), he insisted - using words I would not use on this website - that this had to stop and the navy has to go back to steam-powered catapults which are cheaper and easier to understand. Steam powered catapults, in the twenty-first century? I can see why the Russians really like Donald Trump (and yes, they also like him because he pays them back in so many ways for all the money their oligarchs lend him).

I am currently enjoying an autobiographical audiobook by my favourite U.S. president during my lifetime, Jimmy Carter. The so-called peanut farmer from the south was, contrary to the opinion of his critics, a very strong, honest and smart man, a naval submariner, engineer, and contributor to the design of modern U.S. nuclear submarines. But he made lots of enemies because of his civil rights commitments to blacks (many of his childhood friends were African-Americans), and he was not considered militant enough, by many Americans, to be their president. It's interesting to note that Carter is currently spending part of his 93rd year helping build Habitat for Humanity homes for the poor in Edmonton and Winnipeg (he has a long affiliation with Habitat for Humanity). This man puts his Christian values and beliefs into action. I haven't finished the book yet, but will most certainly publish a review on this website when I do. But the reason I bring this up is the stark contrast in morality between Trump and Carter. That contrast could hardly be greater - they are complete opposites. Carter cared about the poor, racial minorities, and the homeless (and still does). Trump thinks the rich need to be richer. And he has complete disdain for truth and honesty, using people and then discarding them when they are no longer useful to his purposes. Americans who think he has the slightest interest in pro-life issues, beyond getting himself elected, really need to give their heads a shake. As elected leaders in a democracy are supposed to reflect the wishes, morals and character of the general population, my only comment can be how far America has fallen since the days of Carter's presidency. Could Americans really not have chosen someone better than Trump?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Posted Tuesday June 27, 2017

I recall being rather critical of the U.S. Senate's refusal to consider President Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Antonin Scalia had died suddenly, and Obama was early in his final year of his presidency. The refusal of Mitch McConnell and the Republican-dominated Senate to even consider anyone Obama nominated reminded me that some in the right wing of the Republican Party still refused to acknowledge Obama as a legitimate president. They tried to block almost everything Obama did during his presidency. They didn't have to accept his choice for Supreme Court justice, but refusing to consider him was just wrong. The president had a right to have his candidate of choice considered. On a statistical basis, any president serving out two full terms might expect to be able to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice. Scalia had been a conservative judge, and many Republicans feared that Obama would change the balance of the court by appointing a liberal. But his nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, was of high reputation and definitely a centrist on the political spectrum. He appeared to be a perfect choice; middle-ground, unbiased judges should normally be considered a good thing on a court. It's too bad that so many judges are so biased in their views. But the Republican-dominated senate refused to consider this pro-family and fair minded judge. It was fortunate for them that Clinton didn't win the presidency. Under her, they would likely have done much worse than Garland.

President Trump's nomination was another excellent candidate, but one definitely on the right side of the political spectrum. As a social conservative, I am pleased that Neil Gorsuch will uphold conservative family values, though I am less confident that he will support the needs of the poor against the profit motives of corporations and wealthy stockholders. Nonetheless he does replace a judge who was also right-of-centre on the political spectrum, so this does seem to be a fair, if perhaps not optimum choice.

I realize that many Christians in America figuratively "held their noses" when they voted for Trump in last year's election. They knew he was arrogant, sexist, hypocritical, dishonest, and ill-qualified as leader of the American Empire. But they voted for him primarily for his promise to select a Supreme Court judge favourable to their concerns (and also because of his choice of running mate, Mike Pence, a dedicated Christian). With the selection of Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump has come through on his promise, and he may yet have an opportunity to nominate another one or two justices to that court. So for those who feel the end (selection of Gorsuch) justifies the means (unethically blocking a legitimate nomination), I suppose this is a validation of that principle. But I can't help feel that courts - and legislative assemblies - would work much better if they contained fewer individuals with extreme cultural and political views. Fortunately, I have seen no evidence that Gorsuch is a Dominionist.

Persecution of Christians

Posted Saturday June 3, 2017

In a recent editorial in The National Post, journalist Robert Fulford lamented that the "West" can barely rouse itself over the worldwide terrorizing of Christians that is ongoing today. Note that he used the word terrorizing, rather than the more generic "persecuting" to describe this situation. It is indeed strange that what is happening to Christians in many parts of the world gets such understated coverage in the world's press, irrespective of political leaning. It stems largely from the fact that, except in the United States, Christianity is no longer "politically correct," so supporting persecuted Christians is far from a priority.

Like most Canadians, I defend the rights of religious minorities to worship as they please, as long as they do no harm to others in the process. In the West, Muslims are frequently the target of verbal and sometimes physical abuse which is highly unfortunate. Christ taught us to love our neighbours, and even our enemies, so vilifying Muslims is clearly contrary to God's will from a Christian perspective. And the vast majority of Muslims world-wide, and especially in North America, are "good people" who do want to live in peace. The problem however is that there is a substantial number who are militant extremists, who believe the way to honour Allah is to kill the infidels who don't conform to their particular sect of Islam.

The number of Islamic extremists engaging in "holy war" (jihad) is truly alarming. Admittedly Christianity has seen its share of conflicts. But, for example, whereas those involved in The Troubles in Northern Ireland numbered in the hundreds (with a few thousand sympathizers), active Islamic extremists number in the tens of thousands, with hundreds of thousands of sympathizers. And while the Irish affair had the appearance of an internal conflict among Christians (Roman Catholics vs. Protestants -- though its roots were actually more political and nationalistic than religious), Islamic terrorism targets people of all other religions (and no religion) everywhere: everyone who is not Muslim.

Videos from this past February from an organization calling itself The Islamic State in Egypt recently promised attacks against all worshippers of the cross. One soldier said that "God gave orders to kill every infidel." They have certainly been following up, with the murder last month of 28 Christians and wounding of 25 others in Egypt. It should be noted that 1 in 5 Egyptians identifies as a Coptic Christian. But it hasn't just been in Egypt. In Mexico, 23 Christians were recently killed specifically because of their faith, and some 30 Christians have been thrown out of their homes and their houses destroyed. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants have been targeted. Worldwide, according to the Centre for Studies on New Religions, 90,000 Christians were killed for their faith last year, and as many as 600 million were prevented from practising their religion through intimidation, forced conversions or bodily harm. While much of this is happening in the Middle East and Africa, as Robert Nicholson of the Philos Project says, "There are many places on Earth where being a Christian is the most dangerous thing you can be."

It is important that religious freedoms not be curtailed. If freedom of Muslims to worship is restricted, freedom of Christians will also soon be lost. Besides, no-one ever converted a Muslim to Christianity by coercion or force. But we do need to do whatever we can to bring the persecution of Christians to the attention of others, and most especially other Christians. Bearing in mind that the likes of ISIS are really the evil spawn of wars waged by the West for profit against Muslim nations, clearly the answer is not more war. In that regard, wars will fail, as indeed did the Crusades of the Dark Ages. But as a Christian, I believe in the power of prayer. We need to pray, as Christ instructed, that "God's will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." That God's will is not always done is implied by the need to pray that his will be done. Other than that, asking our politicians to speak out in support of religious freedom everywhere is something we can do.

But we also need to remember that persecution is something that Christ predicted would come to his followers throughout the age. So unfortunately, we can't expect that it will just go away.

Christian medical mission to the Dominican Republic

Posted Sunday May 7, 2017

My dentist recently returned from a medical missions trip to the Dominican Republic with the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA), and had quite a story to tell. He said it really makes one consider how trivial the things that get us angry and upset really are. While the U.S. State Department and World Bank state that the Dominican Republic is an upper middle-income developing country that is able to keep up with its national debt payments (the most important thing, after all), the country has an average wage equivalent to only US$392 per month. More troubling is the fact that more than half of that income is earned by the richest 20% of the population, leaving the vast majority of people impoverished. And worst of all, medical services for those unable to pay for them (that would be 80% of the population) are practically unattainable.

My dentist informed me that from a dental perspective, unsafe drinking water greatly exacerbates the problems. Capitalism has stepped in to provide "safe" hydration, in the form of Coca Cola, which is cheaper than clean water. The poor cannot afford safe water, so they provide soft drinks to their children, from infancy on up. These sugar-laden, acidic drinks are devastating to teeth. Many people coming to the CMDA clinic had multiple abscesses, and deciding which teeth to pull was often problematic. Aside from trying to provide education on dental hygiene (and the importance of avoiding Coca Cola), all of his time was spent pulling out teeth. He felt really badly for some of the young girls especially. And working conditions were terrible; there were no proper dentist chairs (lawn chairs were used), there was no air conditioning, and the fan worked intermittently. Ironically, across the street from his hotel was a luxury mall, catering to the 20%. And there was no shortage of luxury automobiles on the street, creating an illusion of wealth.

The situation on the medical side was even worse. People are routinely left to die from simple infections and common ailments such as appendicitis because they cannot afford the few tens or hundreds of dollars required for medical help. Christian aid such as the CMDA mission is helping, but it is really a drop in the bucket. One great thing that came of it, however, is that during the recent nine day visit by the team of 48 doctors and assistants (over the spring break), over 240 people who had never been Christians accepted Christ as Lord. One villager whose life was saved in a previous CMDA medical mission has since established over 20 churches. When Christians do as Christ instructed -- caring for the less fortunate, people do see the love of God through us. From an eternal standpoint, that is the greatest achievement of this work.

It can't help be noted that across the water in Castro's evil communist domain, lack of medical and dental care is not a problem. Although there is a shortage of advanced medical equipment as a result of U.S. economic oppression of the nation over the past 6+ decades, good healthcare is available to even the poorest in Cuba.

Anyway as my dentist pointed out, it is a moving experience singing gospel songs (in English and Spanish) with these poor people, and considering that these are indeed our brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet most of the "Christian" world ignores their great need. And the Dominican situation is far from unique in the world today. We are reminded of Matthew 25:40: Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. Good for the members of the CMDA for being an exception and actually helping to meet the needs of these people.

Elon Musk's neural lace and human inequality

Posted Tuesday April 4, 2017

Elon Musk is a remarkable and visionary inventor and entrepreneur. His grasp of physics, engineering, and the capitalist system has enabled him to leverage investments with exceptional results. It is incredible that one man could be responsible for the world's leading electric car manufacturer (Tesla), a highly successful and innovative aerospace company (SpaceX), and other ingenious transportation initiatives such as the Hyperloop. But his newest endeavour, Nzuralink, is most definitely in the realm of science fiction.

The idea behind Neuralink" is to develop a "neural lace" which will be embedded in the human skull and interact directly with the brain. But while the technical ability to create the silicon components certainly exists, one major component is well beyond comprehension: the interface with the human brain. Since we still have only a vague and generalized understanding of how the brain works, it is inconceivable that we will be able to connect any kind of computer directly to it for cognitive purposes. As any computer programmer is well aware, the devil is in the details. Even the grandest project depends on the success of the smallest components. Simply put, any connection to the human brain, beyond a simple ability to stimulate neurons to make muscles respond, is so far beyond our current biological capabilities as to be totally in the realm of science fiction. Mankind has not been able to create even the simplest life form - a capability that seems to be solely in the realm of the divine. Without a full understanding of cell biology, it is inconceivable that we will be able to directly connect to cells in the brain in such a way as to access (read or write) information stored in any kind of man-made computer.

One of the motivating factors behind Musk's initiative is his justifiable and commendable concern about human inequality. Would such a breakthrough as he envisions mean an inevitable increase in human inequality? Would it result in super-humans who would dominate those who did not benefit from this technology? Who would qualify to get the required surgical procedure done, and at what age should this be done. These are all questions that Musk says need to be answered. And he is correct - they would be critical if such capabilities were to be developed. But there is certainly no urgency to address such questions, since the capability to achieve this is certainly beyond our lifetimes (and Musk's). The age of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) is certainly upon us, where computers play a pivotal role in our understanding of our surroundings (real or imagined). But I am sure that direct neural hookups will not be coming anytime soon - if ever. So while investments in Tesla, SpaceX and Hyperloop might see positive returns, I certainly wouldn't be betting on, or investing in Neuralink. Elon Musk's successes have been remarkable, but I question his expertise in the biological sciences, and think perhaps those previous accomplishments may have gone to his head.

A revisionist history of modern Israel

Posted Sunday April 2, 2017

I last wrote about the state of Israel on August 14, 2015, and what I said then still holds. The current policies of the Israeli government toward the Palestinian minority remain an embarrassment and are at times outrageous, even criminal. But calls to isolate modern Israel, through means such as divestment and boycott, seem to be invoking a revisionist history - as if this is somehow required in order to justify its condemnation. This was exemplified in a documentary I recently viewed - The Empire Files: How Palestine Became Colonized, by Abby Martin. I often agree with Martin's point of view, but this instalment left me scratching my head.

Martin began by questioning the agreement to establish Israel "over top of the existing Palestine" in the first place. She portrayed it as a malevolent imposition on the Arab inhabitants of the land by the imperial powers of Britain and France. But the fact is that if the Jews needed a homeland, which they obviously did after what had happened to them due to antisemitism in Europe and elsewhere, Palestine was the appropriate candidate. This was true even if one didn't take into account the fact that Israel's God had promised this land to them. By virtue of the fact that this had previously been the Jews' homeland, they had, for example, a far greater right to it than the Europeans who came to the Americas had to the New World. Anyway, this is something of an old controversy, and I wasn't surprised to hear Martin speaking on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs in this regard.

What I did find more surprising, though, was her claim that the Six Day Arab-Israeli War of 1967 was a result of Israeli aggression. I remember that event well, as I was at that time of my life taking great interest in world events, in particular via short wave radio. I distinctly recall everyone worrying whether Israel would be able to survive a coming invasion by a coalition of its surrounding Arab neighbours - specifically Egypt, Jordan and Syria. But Abby Martin made Israel out to be the aggressor, through an unprovoked attack - essentially a land grab. This is not at all the way I remembered it. I was reassured when I checked Wikipedia regarding the Six Day War that my recollections were in fact correct. And if there was a villain responsible for the war, it was the old Soviet Union, which goaded Egyptian President Abdel Nasser into massing his military forces on the border of Israel by providing him misinformation that Israel was doing the same. Israel's response was truly a preemptive war for survival. But that's certainly not the picture of history you get from viewing this episode of Empire Files.

As I've said before, I am not saying this to justify in any way the deplorable treatment of Palestinians in Israeli-controlled Palestine. But it seems difficult to find a balanced and honest history of the region in the media today. Pro-Israeli (mostly U.S.) commentators are far too accepting of the current persecution of Palestinian Arabs, but anti-Israeli activists and media - like Abby Martin’s Empire Files, also do not provide the true story. All this biased information from both sides just incites more hatred and violence. When I visited Israel with my family in 1994, relations between Jews and Arabs were actually quite good. We saw some evidence of tension in a few areas, but little in the way of real hatred from either side. Sadly, all that now seems to have changed for the worse, on both sides. And one-sided documentaries that purport to provide historical justifications for the unrest, but only serve to fan the flames, are not helpful.

Wrecking ball

Posted Wednesday March 29, 2017

The wrecking ball is hard at work in Washington D.C.. As Trump's strategist Stephen Bannon has said, deconstruction of the administrative state is Trump's mission. The losers will be the poor, the young, the elderly, the infirm, refugees, and all others who need social services. The global environment upon which we all depend is going to be negatively impacted in a "yuge" way. Only the wealthy will obtain preferential access to good schools and medical care. And the big winner, of course, will be the military - which is slated to get an extra $ 55 billion to $ 60 billion per year for the next four years. The department which most urgently needs to see cuts instead gets a windfall. It sounds familiar: the brutal Roman Emperor Septimius Severus famously said the key to success was to enrich the soldiers and scorn all other men.

It's always interesting to compare the words of extreme capitalists, like Trump, to the words of Christ...and then scratch one's head in wonderment why any Christians support capitalism. Today's comparison: strength, intelligence, toughness, viciousness, violence are the ingredients you need to be a successful entrepreneur in America according to Trump, vs. blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who strive for righteousness, those who are merciful, pure in heart, and peacemakers according to Christ. Yup, it's strange.

Foxes loose in the hen house

Posted Saturday March 11, 2017

Once again, I've been trying to steer clear of U.S. politics. It's bad for my blood pressure, I'm told. But I can't resist venting just a little bit. Despite doing a few good things (reversing the official federal stand regarding "choice" in washrooms was a big one), the consequences of Donald Trump's choices for cabinet and advisors are now becoming obvious. The major qualifications of most of them seem to be great wealth and being from the extreme right-wing of the Republican party. I will mention just a few which I consider to be among the most egregious appointments.

  • Ryan Zinke, appointed as Secretary of the Interior is against environmental regulation and in favour of further oil and gas extraction.
  • Billionaire Betsy DeVos, appointed as Secretary of Education has no background in education and is a long-term backer of private and charter schools. She has called public schools a "dead end," and has come out against making public colleges and universities tuition-free.
  • Rick Perry has been appointed to be Secretary of Energy, a department he has previously said should be abolished.
  • White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has never held a senior government post before. One might think that position would be filled with someone who could compensate for Trump's complete lack of government experience.
  • Scott Pruitt, appointed as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has sued the agency 14 times. He has opposed regulations for clean air and water, and in general disputes the authority of the agency he has been chosen to run. He also rejects the overwhelming consensus of scientists regarding the role of carbon dioxide in climate change, and has very little scientific understanding in general.

As one who specialized in the use of satellite data during my career, I am also dismayed by the recently announced budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These will cripple atmospheric and oceanic research, training, and observation programs just when they are most needed. Though the cuts, amounting to 22% of agency funding ($513 million) would only fund the Department of Defence for 12 hours (now isn't that an eye opener about where U.S. government priorities lie), they will be devastating to NOAA. David Titley, a retired Naval officer and former chief operating officer for NOAA, says there has been a declared war on regulation, and an undeclared war on both climate science in particular and education and knowledge in general. Trump and his billionaire buddies obviously haven't a clue about science, and like our previous Prime Minister seek to silence inconvenient objections which might interfere with their plans for deregulation and unfettered exploitation of the environment. Perhaps Europe, which has long had the most advanced weather and climate models, will step in to do some of the work that NOAA has been doing.

It seems clear that these appointments are designed to destroy or incapacitate the government departments in question. What they will NOT do is help to make America great again. Rather, they will only contribute to its further decline.

Racism is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Posted Monday February 6, 2017

I encountered an article on Max Solbrekken's World Mission website today that I recall hearing about before. It's old, dated June 2011, and undoubtedly hearkens back farther, to the days of apartheid. But it is clearly still relevant since racism remains such a major problem in many countries to this day. Here is the article, entitled Racism is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is said to be a true story, though its author is unknown.

This happened on a British Airways flight between Johannesburg, South Africa and London, England. A white woman, about 50 years old, was seated next to a black man. Very disturbed by this, she called the air hostess. "You obviously do not see it then?" she asked. "You placed me next to a black man. I did not agree to sit next to someone from such a repugnant group. Give me an alternative seat."
"Be calm please," the hostess replied. "Almost all the places on this flight are taken. I will go to see if another place is available." The hostess went away then came back a few minutes later. "Madam, just as I thought, there are no other available seats in Economy Class. I spoke to the captain and he informed me that there is also no seat in Business Class. All the same, we still have one place in First Class."
Before the woman could say anything, the hostess continued. "It is not usual for our company to permit someone from Economy Class to sit in First Class. However, given the circumstances, the captain feels that it would be scandalous to make someone sit next to someone so disgusting."
The Hostess turned to the black man and said, "Therefore, Sir, if you would like to, please collect your hand luggage, a seat awaits you in First Class." At that moment, the other passengers, who'd been shocked by what they had just witnessed, stood up and applauded.
WELL DONE, British Airways!
Solbrekken points out that the Bible teaches that there is no respect of persons with God. All are equal in His sight. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Acts 2:21). Good stuff.

Noam Chomsky on Christianity

Posted Saturday February 4, 2017

Noam Chomsky is one of America's leading intellectuals, and is now in his late eighties and still going strong. He taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and remains Institute Professor Emeritus there now. His fields of expertise are listed in Wikipedia as being linguistics, analytic philosophy, cognitive science, intellectual history and political criticism. He has received so many awards and medals they are too numerous to list here. He mentions George Orwell in a list of political thinkers who have influenced him. Actor Vigo Mortensen who played Aragorn in Peter Jackson's movie version of The Lord of the Rings is a vocal admirer of Chomsky's work. However because of his anti-capitalist beliefs and two-state position on the Middle East (he is of Jewish descent), Chomsky has been vilified by corporate interests, most U.S. Republicans, and the Government of Israel.

But the main reason for this blog is of a religious nature. Although claiming to be currently non-religious, he was raised Jewish, and has expressed approval for liberation theology, which pertains to Christ's teachings about the poor. Of course I don't agree with Chomsky on all matters, but he has great insight into the plight of the poor and needy of the world, and regarding the great inequities which have developed during his lifetime...and especially during the past 40 years. I think it notable that Chomsky is one of the many who have been turned off Christianity by its followers - clearly he has considerable admiration for Christ himself. Here's a quote from one of his interviews, recently rebroadcast, where he was lambasting the Christian position regarding the poor and needy, and also the church's support for militarism.

"Jesus himself, and most of the message of the Gospels, is a message of service to the poor, a critique of the rich and the powerful, and a pacifist doctrine. And it remained that way, that's what Christianity was about... up until (Roman Emperor) Constantine. Constantine shifted it so the cross, which was the symbol of persecution of somebody working for the poor, was put on the shield of the Roman Empire. It became the symbol for violence and oppression, and that's pretty much what the church has been until the present. In fact, it's quite striking in recent years, elements of the church, in particular the Latin American bishops, but not only them, tried to go back to the Gospels."
In addition to the Roman Catholic Church, Chomsky was referencing Evangelicals such as C. Rene Padilla of Ecuador, Samuel Escobar of Peru, and Orlando E. Costas of Puerto Rico who focused on Christ's message to the poor.

Chomsky obviously sees past the flaws of "organized" Christianity, and recognizes the difference between that and the teachings of Jesus. It's too bad he doesn't accept all of Christ's message.

Donald Trump presidency - Week 1

Posted Friday January 27, 2017

Seven days have passed with the new U.S. president in office, and it seems like much longer. Though it's a bit early to pass judgement (and there's a lot of that going around), I have a few thoughts.

Despite the major concerns I have about this man, there are a few positives.

  1. Being pro-life, I like his very controversial stand on abortion rights. At least he's stopped U.S. funding for abortions in other countries.
  2. De-escalating tensions between the nuclear superpowers is definitely a good thing (though his invitation for Russian hackers to interfere in the election definitely wasn't).
  3. Though not necessarily good for Canada (or Mexico), his emphasis on bringing jobs back to the U.S. may rein in the multinational corporations a bit, and be a small bit of medicine that is urgently needed by the U.S. economy.
  4. By and large, he is following up on what he promised to do during his campaign. This gets him some points in my books, even though I don't agree with a lot of it. At least he seems to be honest in this regard (but more about honesty in the next section). Anyway, so far Americans can't claim he's pulled any surprises on them.

Unfortunately there's a lot of negatives from this first week in office.

  1. Slashing Obamacare, seemingly just out of principle, while not proposing anything substantive to replace it. This will likely leave over 20 million Americans without healthcare coverage.
  2. Making huge cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, and calling their programs and regulations an unnecessary impediment to business.
  3. Approving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. Facilitating increased burning of hydrocarbons is most definitely not what the environment needs at this point. Trump's policies may actually take global warming and oceanic acidification past the tipping point beyond which they cannot recover.
  4. Proceeding with plans to expel and/or block immigrants, based on ethnicity and religion. Most of the immigrants are Mexican, and provide much-needed farm labour, while those coming from the Middle East are only immigrants because of U.S. wars. Now Trump refuses to help those who have been displaced as a result of U.S. policy.
  5. Aggressive actions toward Mexico are pure bullying. Latin American countries already felt threatened by the U.S., and now they're going to feel much more threatened. Hopefully Canada can serve as intermediary, but our "peacekeeping" skills may be thwarted by Trump's highly protectionist stance. And we ourselves may become victims.
  6. Forbidding government scientists from communicating their findings directly to the American people (who fund their work) appears to come directly out of Stephen Harper's old playbook. Truth can be very inconvenient at times. Only leaders with things to hide employ such tactics.
But the most troubling aspect of Trump's first week is his denial of obvious truths. Turnout in Washington for his inauguration wasn't all that bad, but making the obviously false claim that it was the "largest ever" is puzzling to say the least. Trump has totally lost his credibility with all but the most dedicated supporters. And the rest of the world looks on aghast at what appears to be a manifestation of at least some elements of George Orwell's dystopian world taking shape. Compare Trump's spokesperson Kellyanne Conway's claim that the White House was simply providing "alternative facts" when they make false claims of inauguration attendance and millions of illegal votes, to the situation in Orwell's 1984. From that novel:
The political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful... and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
And
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command... and if all others accepted the lie, which the party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth.
Clearly the Trump administration's alternate facts are lies, and what they are doing mirrors the function of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's novel (which interestingly topped Amazon's book sales this week). It's very alarming, since there seems to be a gullible and receptive audience for these falsehoods. So although supporting his stance regarding abortion, I have to give some credence to what a well-respected former workplace associate of mine said: Americans appear to have elected a goon as their president!

I hope the Trump presidency turns out well for America (and the world). The comparison between Obama and Trump reveals stark contrasts, and despite Obama's lack of success (see previous blog), many of his efforts and goals were laudable. In his own life, he demonstrates good family values; Trump...not so much. Expectations for the Trump presidency at this point are not looking good.

The Obama legacy

Posted Thursday January 19, 2017

It must be a function of my age, but the 8 years of the Obama presidency certainly seem to have flown by quickly. Anyway on this last day of his presidency, I thought I'd take a moment to consider his legacy. People the world over had very high hopes for Barack Obama. He was obviously a smart, knowledgeable and articulate person. Many were amazed that the election of a black man to the highest office in the country could even occur. I am relieved that he made it through his two terms. In a country with so much racism, and so many guns, I was concerned we might see another assassination. Thankfully, that did not occur.

So what good things can we say about his presidency? There are a few.

  1. He added to, and protected national parks.
  2. He prohibited drilling for oil in the arctic (albeit after initially approving it).
  3. He paid more than lip service to the cause of the environment. In his first term he advocated and encouraged clean energy alternative technologies. In his second term, blocking the Keystone XL pipeline and making meaningful contributions at Conference of Parties (COP) climate change meetings were noteworthy accomplishments. And stepping in to protect native Americans in the Dakota Access Pipeline dispute was commendable.
  4. He didn't start World War III (but gets faint praise for that considering his aggressive policy and buildup of arms and troops in the nations surrounding Russia). Ok, so I'm scraping the bottom of my idea queue here.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot, but those do come to me as highlights. He seems to be a very decent family man, and was relatively scandal free. It must be said that his wife and daughters contributed significantly in that regard.

Unfortunately, negatives relating to his time in office come much more readily to mind.

  1. The first, and most egregious to many, was his acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize in honour of his stated determination to reduce nuclear arsenals. Given that he soon after authorized a 1 trillion dollar investment in new nuclear weapons development reveals this as the peak of hypocrisy; he surely knew when he accepted that prize that he was going to approve substantial reinvestment in these weapons of massive destruction.
  2. While accusations that Obama embraced Islam were clearly wrong and motivated largely by hate, it is no surprise that he was really no friend to Christians or traditional Christian values. His support for "Pro-choice" groups and encouragement of expansion to LGBTQ rights were examples of this.
  3. The failure to bring in an effective, single-pay health care plan for Americans was a huge disappointment. America remains the only major, developed country without comprehensive health-care coverage. He was not strong enough to overpower the commercial medical establishment, and pharmaceutical and insurance companies making obscene profits on healthcare. (In truth, the Congress should get the majority of blame for this). Obamacare has helped many families, but has been so much less than it could have been. And it's lack of success will make it much easier for the incoming Republican administration to dismantle.
  4. He failed to prosecute a single person or institution for criminal acts related to the real estate collapse in 2007-2008, which brought on a global recession. Wall Street bankers and investors who clearly broke the law went unchallenged and unpunished. Instead the criminals got bonuses and their organizations got bailouts - while victims who lost their homes got little or nothing. To me, this is another sign of weakness, in failing to take on the well-heeled capitalist crooks who take such great advantage of the unregulated financial system in the U.S.
  5. Then there is the continued, indefinite imprisonment without trial of "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay, contravening agreements in the Geneva Convention, the International Red Cross, and within U.N. human rights documents. These prisoners should be given fair trials if they are to remain imprisoned, or at the very least be treated with respect as prisoners of war.
  6. Obama called the matter of inequality the defining challenge of our time, but did remarkably little to alleviate it. The amazingly high number of incarcerated Americans is, I am convinced, a direct result of that inequality. The four nations with the greatest number of prisoners are, in order: U.S.A., Russia, China, Brazil - and coincidentally they are among the major countries with the greatest inequality.
  7. Following in the footsteps of his predecessors, he continued to worsen the incredible mess that is the Middle East. ISIS grew and thrived for a time in the power vacuum left behind the destructive wars in Iraq and Syria. Most leaders of ISIS reportedly came from Iraq.
  8. Obama expanded presidential war powers he had once vowed to reduce, and killed untold thousands through un-manned drone aircraft strikes operated by naive young recruits from the video-game crowd - many of whom have quit when they came to understand what they were doing.
  9. Notwithstanding his pardoning of Chelsey Manning in the final days of his presidency, he greatly increased, rather than reduced, the persecution of whistle-blowers. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are top-of-list, but there have been many others.
  10. Last, but not necessarily least, Obama's overt support for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primaries may affect the future of the country, and indeed the world, in ways we cannot predict. I am convinced that Sanders would have beaten Trump if he had the opportunity to run against him for the presidency. And while still too militaristic for my liking, many of Sanders' social policies would have been like a breath of fresh air to America.

So it seems even to a politically left-leaning person like myself who had hoped for great things from Barack Obama (and I still find him to be a "likeable" person), the list of negatives is much longer than the list of positives over his term in office. In spite of a final, national approval rating of 62% (including 41% who strongly approve the way he has performed)1 - no mean feat in today's polarized America, the first American president of African-American descent goes down as a very mediocre president in my books. I think the main descriptor I would use for him is disappointing.

(1) Rasmussen Reports, Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Russian interference in the American election

Posted Saturday January 7, 2017

After hearing President-Elect Donald Trump invite Russian hackers to reveal more of Hillary Clinton's emails in the run-up to the recent election...in fact saying they would be "well rewarded", is it not rather ironic that we now have the CIA and U.S. lawmakers debating whether Russian interference in the election was an act of war? Obviously the Democrats are trying to find an external entity to blame for their recent loss, but they are getting lots of help from Republicans who by accepting CIA claims of Russian interference, appear to be agreeing that their own president-elect is illegitimate.

It's a strange place down there.

Capitalism and inequality

Posted Tuesday December 6, 2016

Although everyone seems to recognize that inequality is a major problem, no-one seems to be able to figure out what to do about it. That is because inequality is a primary side-effect of the capitalist system. And the less regulated that capitalist system is, the worse the inequality.

The latest Money Talk video presentation from TD Canada Trust revealed that income inequality in the U.S. has greatly increased over the past two decades. Specifically, income going to the top 1% has gone up from 14% to 18% in that time. Almost one fifth of all income goes to one hundredth of the population! And it appears this is just going to keep getting worse. President-elect Donald Trump has indicated he will reduce the number of tax brackets from 7 to 3, with the richest getting the greatest reduction in taxes (surprise, surprise).

Please note I am not bringing up the situation in the U.S. all the time because I'm anti-American, but because America is the champion of this evil, unregulated capitalist economic system which unfortunately has been adopted by most countries of the world. America truly is the elephant in the room; they cannot be ignored. I am only "anti-American" in terms of that country's social, economic and military policies - i.e. their government. Most Americans are really nice people who are just unaware of actions that are being carried out in their name, and the alternatives that actually exist.

Empire and the military industrial complex

Posted Monday December 5, 2016

In a recent television interview, Australian journalist and activist John Pilger commented on the current, continuous state of war we see in the world today, and how it is a realization of what he spoke of in his 2002 documentary film The New Rulers of the World. He argues that the U.S. is now engaged in a global war, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on many other fronts as well. This war is one which includes not only bombs and guns, launched either directly (as with drones) or by proxy (as by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and Syrian "freedom fighters"), but is also a cold war involving economic, financial, internet, propaganda, electronic and industrial activities. This cold war is real because antagonism exists between parties and they are out to take advantage of one another. As stated in an ancient Chinese proverb, "There cannot be 2 tigers on the same hill.” America considers all other influential nations to be other tigers. Pilger quoted Gerald Celeste (Trend Research) when he said "Regarding war, it’s getting so easy to take the people to war. Hatred is very easy to build between and among nations."

Pilger revealed that 40% of the huge U.S. Defence Budget is “Top Secret,” and therefore not known even by the peoples’ elected representatives in Congress. All of the National Intelligence budgets are secret. Anything the government wants to remain secret is put into the military budget. It all started with the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb in the Second World War. That also was when the American military began illegally censoring and reading Americans' own mail and telecommunications (reference Richard Feynman). Although the U.S. Founding Fathers had argued that one of the most important things was to keep declarations of war in the hands of the people (Congress), in 2002 Congress gave that power over to the executive branch (President) as a unilateral right. So the 9-11 terrorists won (reference Chalmers & Johnson: The Sorrows of Empire).

Pilger says the USSR was brought down by 3 things:

  1. Extreme economic rigidity
  2. Imperial overstretch - making too many commitments, and making too many enemies (the U.S. now acknowledges more than 700 military bases on foreign territory; in addition there are at least 300 more that are secret)
  3. Inability to make necessary adjustments because of the interests of powerful, vested interests (there are over 6000 military bases in the U.S. itself, and even Donald Rumsfeld says some of these must be closed - but how?)
Sorrows of empire include perpetual warfare, loss of civil liberties, and the outcome that prudent people no longer believe what their politicians tell them. Bankruptcy is the last sorrow of empire, and its ultimate end. As Herb Stein, the Republican Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to the President said, "things that can’t go on forever - don’t." Regarding bankruptcy, the unimaginable and unprecedented annual deficits being run up by the U.S. are no secret. Neither is the loss of manufacturing and industry, all being farmed out to third-world countries for the cheap labour which benefits only corporate shareholders. For example, aside from a very few “token” high-end computers produced by Apple, there are very few computers made in the U.S. any more. (Time will tell if Donald Trump will be able to substantially change this - I have my doubts). Pilger predicts that the unravelling of the American Empire will begin suddenly through an economic crash or catastrophe. The stock market is no longer a functioning market, but a club of crooks.

Pilger goes on to say the U.S no longer has an intelligence agency. Its failure to foresee significant events, such as the fall of the Soviet Union and the 9-11 attacks is ample evidence. The CIA is little more than a private army for the president, and its principle purpose is the overthrow of foreign governments (starting with the Iranian government in 1953). Method of overthrow is generally through the use of provocateurs, as in Jakarta, Caracas, Venezuela, Ukraine and elsewhere. Direct attacks, as with the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 have been less successful.

Globally, the demise of the American Empire today would be no more regretted than the demise of the old Soviet empire, though the general economic impacts would be greater. In the 130 of 180 U.N. states that are under influence of American control, the relationship works the same as with the Chicago mobsters. People had to pay the mobsters for protection, which was essentially protection from the mobsters. Now nations pay in many ways including militarily, economically and politically, for protection from American economic power. Just look at Cuba for an example of what happens to countries that won't play along.

So, Pilger believes that as the economic house of cards collapses, the president, agreeing to advice from those in the military industrial complex, will by utilization of the subservient corporate media get Americans' minds off the economic gloom by getting them into more war. He says when all else fails, they take you to war because you can see the path. Go back to the crash of 1929: recession, depression, currency war, trade war then world war. Sound familiar? Sounds Orwellian.

Even after the economy collapses, the military will still be available. This is all rather depressing - apocalyptic even. Hopefully Pilger's predictions will not come true. All that those of us who are Christians can do is trust in God. Although it often doesn’t seem to be the case, nothing that is happening is a surprise to God. He knows the end from the beginning -- and revealed them, at least in part, to the Apostle John in the book of Revelation. Of course we don't know the timing of the events predicted in that text, but clearly we are living in more perilous times than most people appreciate.

Capitalism vs. Christianity

Posted Sunday December 4, 2016

An article by Gregory Paul in the Washington Post (August 2011) caught my attention the other day. Paul is an atheist with a rather superficial understanding of Christianity, yet he has certainly identified an incongruity in the typical western Christian's worldview. When he refers to social Darwinism he of course alludes to the belief in the survival of the fittest; that the poor are poor for a reason, and they should be left to survive on their own, if they can. Government should have no role or responsibility relating to their well being. Paul says:

Many influential U.S. conservative Christians propose that government must be shrunk to a bare minimum that is so socially Darwinist that it dances with anarchy. Only then can entrepreneurial greed have the free run that liberty demands. A radical modernist ideology in greater antithesis to the traditional scriptural favouring of the poor over the rich can hardly be imagined. The economics of the plutocratic Republican Party that embraces the Christian, anti-Darwinist creationist right are essentially identical to the economics of the uber-atheist, anti-creationist, Darwin-adoring Christianity-loathing Ayn Rand. Can a stranger amalgam of opposing opinions be devised?
Christ was not anti-capitalist as Gregory Paul suggests. True capitalism had not been invented in his day. Nevertheless it is ironic that many Christians abhor socialism when Christ's attention was so clearly directed to the poor and needy. It is said that Marx may have gotten his socialist ideas from the structure of the early Christian church (Acts 2, 4), though of course Marx went far beyond basic socialist economics in his Communist Manifesto.

But the question could easily be asked: would Christ have been against capitalism if it had existed in his day? It is difficult to think of him supporting a system which in the U.S. today has resulted in the top 1/10 of Americans now owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and has also resulted in 43 million Americans living in poverty - many in dire straits.

I just have to wonder why more Christians don't understand how their acceptance of the inequalities inherent in unconstrained capitalism conflicts with biblical precepts.

Capitalism vs. the environment

Posted Sunday December 4, 2016

I found the following quote by American author, poet and environmentalist Wendell Berry to be succinct and accurate:

No amount of fiddling with capitalism to regulate and humanize it can for long disguise its failure to conserve the wealth and health of nature. We see eroded, wasted, or degraded soil, damaged or destroyed ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and extinction of species, whole landscapes defaced, gouged, flooded, or blown up; thoughtless squandering of fossil fuels and water, of minerals and ores. Natural health and beauty are replaced by a heartless and sickening ugliness. Perhaps its greatest success is an astounding increase in the destructiveness, and therefore profitability of war.
When the prime motivation is short-term profits for small groups of rich shareholders, there is little thought for the environment our children and grandchildren will inherit.
'Nuf said.

Bernie Sanders, Democracy Now! and the Corporate Media

Posted Tuesday November 29, 2016

Some may wonder why I watch the news program Democracy Now!, considering that it's "progressive" take on world events leans strongly to pro-choice and gay rights agendas. It is certainly not that I agree with them on these social matters. But alas, there are no places to get unfiltered, uncensored and unbiased reports of world news. With similar reasoning, back in the 1960's I used to listen regularly to Radio Moscow and Radio Havana Cuba to learn about happenings in the Vietnam War. But it was certainly not because I was a communist, or believed everything they had to say. I just knew I wasn't getting the full story from the Voice of America. As I've mentioned before, there actually was a news service in those days that was quite unbiased - the BBC World Service. Unfortunately this is no longer the case, as it now echoes what it is told to say by the British Government and commercial interests, just as the corporate-owned North American media does.

To be honest, I don't actually watch Democracy Now! very much anymore. There's way too much pro-choice programming, which I certainly find offensive. But I do check their headlines, and found one today that perfectly illustrates the need for independent news organizations. It was an interview by Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman with presidential candidate and senator Bernie Sanders, the longest he has given since the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. There are many eye-opening revelations in the broadcast, not the least of which was the fact that one U.S. network provided more air-time watching an empty podium waiting for Donald Trump to appear, than on all of Bernie Sanders' speeches during his entire campaign! Trump was "good for the networks" because he brought in viewers (and consequently advertising dollars). This despite the fact that at the time, Sanders was filling stadiums with enthusiastic supporters in far greater numbers than either Clinton or Trump. We in Canada heard a bit about this, but apparently there was pretty much a news blackout on Sanders in the U.S.

Anyway if you have time, you really should watch this interview with the person who might have become the next president of the United States, were it not for the meddling of the Democratic National Committee. It can be found here. Drag the time slider of the Daily Show to 13:00 to go directly to the interview.

A few thoughts on Fidel Castro

Posted Monday November 28, 2016

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz has been around on the political scene ever since I remember taking an interest in world events. Next to Queen Elizabeth, he was the longest-serving leader on the planet. As a teenager, I used to regularly listen to Cuban shortwave radio broadcasts to get the other side of the story regarding the Vietnam War. And of course Castro's agreement to host Soviet nuclear missiles on his soil nearly precipitated World War III. He was a very strong man and a natural leader, and his ability to survive for more than five decades in close proximity to a very antagonistic U.S.A. is truly remarkable. So his death last week at the age of 90 is noteworthy.

A lot of bad things have been, and are still being said about Fidel Castro. By and large, these criticisms are valid. He was a dictator, could be ruthless, and oppressed any and all opposition including political, religious, and cultural. He was particularly hard on homosexuals and Protestant Christians, believing somehow that both were related in some way to American domination and imperialism. It is difficult to estimate how many people were unjustly imprisoned or executed under his rule, but there were a lot. Many others fled the country. He adhered to Marxist-Leninist policy regarding religion in general, and encouraged atheism as the truth that society should accept (though he believed Christian social principles were laudable). One must consider when judging, however, how many innocent people have died or been imprisoned at the hands of other leaders over those years - most notably American presidents. Does the fact this was being done by a democratically elected president make it less evil? I think not. But this is of course no justification for what Castro did.

However there was definitely a positive side to Castro, and more-so than for most of the other dictators and despots with whom he is often compared. The revolution he led was indeed needed in order to overcome oppression of rich landowners, foreign intervention, and increasingly, mobsters who were intent on turning Cuba into what Las Vegas eventually became. Socialism is what Cuba needed to eradicate illiteracy, inequality, and squalid poverty. Under Castro, Cuba transformed from a country that was mostly illiterate with no medical services, to one where everyone is educated and well-qualified medical doctors have been exported to many needy third-world countries. Infant mortality has been dramatically reduced. And Cuba has received recognition from the U.N. as being the one nation that is most environmentally-friendly and environmentally conscious. Their marine biologists continue to do excellent work in the pristine waters surrounding their island country - the only one in the Caribbean whose beaches and local waters have not been contaminated by unregulated real estate development.

Above all, Castro was and always has been a committed egalitarian. He despised any system in which one class or group of people lives much better than another. He wanted a system that provided the basic needs to all -- enough to eat, health care, adequate housing and education. In this, he was largely successful. Critics who point to the overall low standard of living in Cuba as being caused by socialism are ignoring the fact that the standard of living overall has greatly improved under Castro, except for the rich. The main blame for the continuing poverty goes directly to those pointing the finger - American-based capitalists and their economic blockade. And Castro himself had no interest in personal enrichment, despite unsubstantiated rumours to the contrary from a few expatriate critics. Apparently one of the frustrations of his first wife was his lack of interest in collecting fees from his law clients. As biographer Vozka Skierka stated, "he will go down in history as one of the few revolutionaries who remained true to his principles."

Regarding Christianity, Castro said "If people call me Christian, not from the standpoint of religion but from the standpoint of social vision, I declare that I am a Christian." He was an exponent of the idea that Jesus Christ was a communist, citing the feeding of the 5,000 and the story of Jesus and the rich young man as evidence. Unfortunately there is no record of him ever apologizing for, or expressing regret for the persecution of Christians that occurred under his rule. And we know that "being a Christian" is a matter of the heart and of faith, not just a matter of social ideals.

It has been interesting to follow corporate media's take on Castro since the time of his death. They have been showing some of the poorest areas in Cuba, proving that Castro's revolution has failed. But you never see the vast poverty-ravaged sections of American cities, which in many ways, due to the rampant drug addiction, are far worse than what we see in Cuba. I should also point out that poverty in both countries is a result of American policy: the economic blockade of Cuba, and capitalist, Darwinist economic policies in America that are derived from the Milton Friedman school of economics.

The next few years are going to be an interesting time for Cubans. Fidel's brother Raul Castro who now rules the country is only five years younger than his brother. His death or resignation will truly be an end of an era, as communism can no longer prevail without a very strong leader. I would hope that Cubans transition to a democratic socialist state rather than following the examples of Russia and China into de-facto capitalism which would re-impoverish the less fortunate and return Cuba to the state of gross inequality that existed before the revolution, and which we see in so many capitalist countries today. American President-elect Donald Trump has absolutely no right to demand, as he does, that "Cuba has to change." Cuba will change, but how it does so is none of America's business. It is a decision that resident Cubans need to make.

Political views of J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted Sunday November 20, 2016

A couple of months ago I wrote an article in this blog about some of the political views of C.S. Lewis. So having recently finished re-reading the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I got interested in what Lewis' fellow Inkling J.R.R. Tolkien thought about politics. I found his views not to be too different from those of his friend.

Tolkien really despised most politics. Though he was a conservative according to his wife, it was in a very half-hearted way. In fact he sometimes mocked Winston Churchill. Tolkien in fact referred to himself as a non-violent anarchist. He believed in subsidiarity - the principle that power should reside at the most immediate (or local) level possible. Tolkien also despised imperialism. When he spoke of patriotism, he spoke of England, not Great Britain. Likewise he deplored racism and tribalism. Before allowing for the publication of The Hobbit, officials in Nazi Germany inquired of him whether he had any Jewish ancestry. He scorned them, responding that "sadly, I possess no such noble blood."

Tolkien also had a fear of modern technology, and especially when it was put to use by governments. This fear ranged all the way from distrust of tape recorders (perhaps he foresaw the rise of the American National Security Agency), to dislike for assembly lines and military technology. He was especially dismayed over atomic weapons. When he learned of the American development and use of the atomic bomb in 1945, he indicated that words could never express his horror at this act. That's surely quite something for such a literary scholar and philologist as Tolkien to say - words escaped him.

It appears that some of the ideas of George Orwell were shared by Tolkien as well. Being a professor of linguistics, the perversion of languages especially worried him. He said that when languages perish, peoples perish too. Of course a major theme in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was the reductionism of language, and concepts such as "double-speak."

J.R.R. Tolkien certainly wasn't a typical conservative of his day. A lot more could be said of Tolkien's political views, even though he wasn't very political. But this at least provides a little insight into the man, and the concepts and ideals that motivated him.

Empire of Illusion

Posted Saturday November 19, 2016

I recently watched a lecture by author Chris Hedges where he spoke about his 2010 book Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. I have not read the book (yet), but found the talk to be very interesting. Hedges claims we have been immersed in a consumer culture in which we have been saturated with cultural images, and a deification of wealth and those who possess it. Coincidentally, I'm currently reading the book "Finding Truth" by Nancy Pearcey, and she focuses on modern-day idolatry from a Christian perspective. Though her conclusions are more general and spiritual, the end results of this pathological materialism are similar to those arrived at by Hedges.

Hedges claims that adherence to this consumer culture and deification of wealth result in inner compulsions, which leads to illusion, which leads to perpetual childishness, which leads to disillusion - and a search for a demagogue who promises renewal, vengeance and new glory. Hedges claimed (in 2010) that we can now see this psychological disease leaping up along the fringes of American society.

Hedges went on to say that when humans and the environment are treated as commodities, the result is collective suicide. In the U.S., for-profit healthcare industries have the legal right to hold sick children hostage while their parents bankrupt themselves to save their sons and daughters. Conservatism has morphed into corporatism. Citizens have been utterly disempowered, to serve corporate interests through globalization. Hedges calls this state of affairs "inverted totalitarianism."

Hedges claimed that the money spent by the U.S. military over recent years would be enough to end poverty and starvation throughout the world today, and eradicate many diseases. He quoted Saint Augustine, who said that Hope has two beautiful daughters: anger and courage; rebellion is what is needed. I agree that God has gifted us with the resources and ability to end many of these evils. He is watching what we do with those resources and our rapidly increasing knowledge. But whereas Hedges holds out hope only if we rebel against those who control this money and the priorities of government, a return amongst the general population to realChristian principles is what is actually required.

As usual, Hedges (despite being a Christian theologian) doesn't place the blame for our present circumstances where it belongs: the spiritual bankruptcy and idolatry of our modern western culture. But he certainly describes the ills of our modern cultures with clarity. And considering the date of this book's release, and the results of the recent U.S. federal election, many of his comments were certainly insightful and seemed almost prophetic.

Leonard Cohen

Posted Friday November 11, 2016

I was saddened to hear of Canadian poet/singer/songwriter Leonard Cohen's death yesterday at the age of 82. Cohen's lyrics were often deep and insightful, and almost always sad. But his songs were interesting, different, and sometimes beautiful. I'm sure most people of my generation greatly enjoyed some of them. His Bird on a Wire as sung by Jennifer Warnes in her "Famous Blue Raincoat" album is one of my favourites, in part because of how beautifully the recording was done.

Unfortunately one of Cohen's claims to fame was his many romantic interests. He epitomized the free love movement associated with the sexual "liberation" of the sixties and seemingly could not bring himself to committing to a lasting, permanent relationship. His time with Marianne Ihlen was representative of this, and his song So Long, Marianne has immortalized that romantic episode in his life.

Although cause-of-death has not been announced, Cohen was evidently aware that he was nearing the end. In an interview with the New Yorker less than a month ago he said he might not be able to finish the songs he was currently working on. He said "I am ready to die. I hope it's not too uncomfortable. That's about it for me." He also indicated that he didn't dare attach himself to a "spiritual strategy." I find it difficult to understand how a man could feel ready to die without having "dared" to consider the spiritual aspect of life. It is noteworthy to point out that he didn't discount spiritual things as irrelevant, but just couldn't bring himself to deal with them...so sad. In a letter he penned to Ihlen when she was on her deathbed this past summer, he told her he would follow her very soon. "See you down the road," he said.

Cohen was a great poet and entertainer, and famously spent a lot of time out of the public spotlight. It's too bad he didn't consider the big questions of existence, and prioritize spirituality.

Donald Trump

Posted Thursday November 10, 2016

Eighteen years ago, Republicans were outraged over then-president Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, demanding he step down. It is therefore remarkable that in 2016, that same Republican Party, the party with which most Christians in America are arguably aligned, has selected and elected to the presidency a man who openly bragged about seducing married women, this just three months after marrying his third wife.

Canada is by most measures a far less "Christian" country than the United States. But for the life of me, I can't imagine a man with such conspicuous moral deficiencies being chosen as Prime Minister here. It is true that electing Hillary Clinton may have been an even worse option. But the argument that Republicans didn't have much choice falls flat when you consider the large field of contenders in their selection process. And while the videotaped incident of Trump's boast didn't come to light until after he was "chosen," many of his other moral deficiencies, which are legion and well known, were seemingly overlooked.

So, this begs the question: has the core of the Republican Party - those that choose their party's candidates - changed that much since the 1990's, or was the condemnation of Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair just a case of political hypocrisy? Perhaps it was a bit of both.

Moral hazards of capitalism

Posted Monday October 17, 2016

Ever since I began thinking about our economic system, which would have been about 4 decades ago, I couldn't get around the realization that capitalism goes against most of what the Bible teaches about love and responsibility for one's neighbour. That Christ came personally to the poor rather than to the privileged and powerful is also directly opposed to the concept of prosperity theology, which is based on capitalism and has become more and more popular within the North American church during the aforementioned decades.

So when I stumbled upon an article entitled The Moral Hazards of Capitalism, I realized how well its author Michael Schwalbe expressed my own views on the matter. Taking risks with other people's money is at the core of capitalism, and the immorality of doing so seems to be completely ignored...or accepted. Such was not the case throughout most of the history of Christendom.

I will only include here one small point that Schwalbe makes, as it is relevant to a certain U.S. presidential candidate's claim that his avoidance of paying taxes is "smart." Speaking of the risks inherent in capitalism, the author points out that "we all risk being harmed when public infrastructure decays because government is starved by capitalists who, focusing myopically on their own enrichment, use their political power to cut or evade their taxes." I highly recommend that you follow the above link and read the article.

Political views of C.S. Lewis

Posted Thursday September 29, 2016

Like many, I have spent a fair bit of time recently watching the strange political developments south of the border. This is evidenced by my two previous blogs on politics. But I am increasingly coming to believe that interest and involvement in politics is non-beneficial and a waste of time for Christians. I think the Jehovah's Witnesses may be correct in this regard. We are not going to change the outcome of the end times, and are most definitely not going to bring the Kingdom of God to earth as Dominionists claim. That means that Christians should not directly involve politics even in such things as their justifiable opposition to the butchery the sophists of the world call "choice". We should focus on personal relationships with those we come into direct contact with, and Christian witness, and as Christ directed carry out charitable actions and show true care for our neighbours. In particular we should leave the judging to God.

I recently read a comment by renowned Christian author Philip Yancey (What's so Amazing about Grace, Finding God in Unexpected Places) that struck a chord with my own thoughts. He says he's dumbfounded that so many evangelicals in America support Donald Trump, "someone who stands against everything that Christianity believes." He referenced the teachings of C.S. Lewis, whom many believe was the greatest Christian apologist of the twentieth century. This led me to a Sept. 24th New York Times Sunday Review/Opinion editorial by Peter Wehner who commented on the present-day relevancy of Lewis' position on politics.

Lewis had contempt for politics and politicians, according to his brother Warnie, and steered clear of political controversies in his time. He declined an offer from Winston Churchill to recommend him for an appointment as an honorary Commander of the British Empire because he felt it might lend support to those who mistakenly imagined his writings and beliefs were anti-Leftist.

C.S. Lewis was also wary of "morals legislation." He didn't believe it was the duty of government to promote the Christian ideal of marriage, and didn't think Christians should impose their morality on others. He asked what business it was of the state to criminalize homosexuality. He said he would be "very angry" if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. He pointed out that the majority of British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. Nonetheless, as his stepson Douglas Gresham has stated, "if Lewis (who died 50 years ago) were alive today, he would think he had died and was living in Hell. If you presented him with a world in which 60 million children are murdered before they have a chance to be born, a world which produces 10% more food than needed and yet millions die of starvation, a world in which young people are constantly fed on a diet of gratuitous sex and violence on television, video, advertisements (and he could have added video games), he would be horrified." It's just that the solution isn't going to come through politics. Indeed the Bible suggests it won't come at all, until the return of Christ.

Lewis believed theocracy to be the worst form of government and detested the idea of a "Christian party," which risks blaspheming the name of Christ. "The demon inherent in every party is at all times ready enough to disguise himself as the Holy Ghost," he said. For an understanding of Lewis' ideas about demons and our real adversaries, I highly recommend his novel "The Screwtape Letters."

Peter Wehner in his Times article goes on to say that for those of us who believe in the truth of Christianity and still believe in the good of politics, the last several decades — and the last 15 months in particular — have been painful. Like water that refracts light and changes the shape of things, politics can distort and invert Christianity, turning a faith that at its core is about grace, reconciliation and redemption into one that is characterized by bitterness, recriminations and lack of charity. There is a good deal of hating and dehumanization going on in the name of Christ.

(If you're interested, you can read the full New Your Times editorial here).

Hydrocarbons

Posted Tuesday September 27, 2016

There have long been concerns over what would be done when the world's oil reserves become depleted. I attended scientific presentations a decade ago that claimed we were then nearing the point where demand would exceed supply. Many analysts predicted huge rises in the price of oil, and with it other hydrocarbon products. In fact this fear had been leveraged by speculators whenever possible, ever since the 1970's, to send the price of crude skyrocketing. Substantial fortunes were made by a few - while societies at large paid the price, as in the price of gasoline and diesel for example. As of January 2015, the world consumes 86 million barrels of oil per day.

Discovery of vast reserves of hydrocarbons locked in oil sands (more properly called tar sands) in northern Alberta, and in Venezuela, Russia and elsewhere, together with the development of technologies to extract this oil (though in the case of tar sands, at considerable financial cost as well as cost to the environment) changed the picture dramatically. Availability of these reserves meant that the world could not possibly run out of oil within the foreseeable future. The high price of crude, which had been thought to be sustainable, meant that tar sands extraction could be profitable despite the high costs involved. Alberta hydrocarbon reserves alone, thought to be about 1.8 trillion barrels barrels, could on its own completely supply the world's requirements for oil for 60 years. And the availability of huge new quantities of natural gas extracted through hydraulic fracking has further increased global hydrocarbon reserves. But the tar sands development in Alberta has been like a raping of the land: huge black tar pits and toxic ponds alongside the Athabasca River have replaced green forests and habitable land. Increases in cancer rates have been observed amongst native people living down-river and down-wind of the mines. And processing of the sands into a marketable product consumes as much fresh water as a city with 2 million inhabitants.

The realization of what the rapid burning of hydrocarbons was doing to the environment dramatically changed the picture again. While the claims of doom and gloom from environmentalists were viewed as scare tactics by right-wing politicians promoting oil and gas, research and development on renewable energy was being spurred on. Advancing technology was making it possible to bring down the cost of electricity from wind and solar power dramatically, year after year. Here in North America, few seemed even to be aware of this. But it was not so in China and parts of Europe. Even in the oil-producing countries in the Arabian Peninsula, huge investments - and advances, were being made in renewable energy.

So where are we today? The cost of producing a kilowatt hour of electricity from solar power is now down to US$0.584. That's less than 6 cents per kWh! In the United Arab Emirates they use solar energy to power their oil drilling rigs, because it is cheaper than using the very oil they're bringing to the surface! And they are investing heavily in solar power R&D, because they know the writing is on the wall - the days of increasing oil consumption are over. Reports from Dubai predict that the cost of solar energy will be less than US$0.05 by 2020. In China, more than one million people are employed on solar power projects, research, and implementation. In Norway, more than 20% of new vehicles sold are now electric. Incentives there have helped:

  • zero tax on electric vehicles
  • free electricity available in cities
  • free parking
  • free use of ferries (wouldn't that be nice here in BC!)
  • access to all bus lanes
If Norway can do it, why can't we? The answer why we haven't done it, of course, is that our previous federal government, with it's leader Stephen Harper who is the son of an oil executive controlling the agenda, was doing his best to convert Canada into a Petro-state. Norway has also produced significant amounts of oil, but they have had a much clearer vision of the future.

The future is difficult to predict, especially on social issues. But the future of the hydrocarbon industry is pretty clear. The great increase in efficiency of renewable energy production, together with the urgent environmental need to move away from hydrocarbon dependency, means the oil industry is now in the early stages of a perpetual decline. And the oil companies know it, which is why they are now collaborating on a wide variety of renewable energy technologies. Even with low oil prices, more and more vehicles will be powered by electricity. And it will make no sense at all to generate electricity by burning hydrocarbons in most places. But someone needs to send a memo to Mayor Melissa Blake of Fort McMurray, Alberta's Premier Rachael Notley, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The burned-down houses in Fort McMurray do not need to be replaced, and new pipelines will not be needed. The price of oil will likely remain below US$50 per barrel, with spikes to $60 possible (though unlikely). The only thing I can think of that would temporarily increase the price beyond that would be a major, widespread war in the Middle East that disrupts all oil production (admittedly a possibility). But I am very sure it will never in our lifetimes be profitable to extract oil from oil sands with prices this low. Where politicians seemingly couldn't agree on ways to save the planet's environment, research scientists on renewable energy may have done the job.

And the recent flip-flop on renewable energy by an Ontario government desperate for re-election doesn't change my mind on this.

Applying political decision-making to the November 2016 U.S. presidential election

Posted Wednesday September 7, 2016

Here is how I would apply my political decision-making strategy presented in my previous blog to the upcoming U.S. election. Not being an American citizen, it is of course purely an analytical exercise. And although I'm analyzing the election south of the border purely for fun, I am very much aware that the outcome could have serious repercussions for Canada and in fact for the whole world.

In my opinion one of the Really Bad Things that has happened to politics in many countries is that elections have become limited to only two alternatives. Such two-party systems always limit options, and have a propensity to become two flavours of essentially the same thing. It's no different really than the options offered to voters in the old Soviet Union, who got two flavours of communism to choose between. Americans now seem to have two flavours of capitalism offered to them by the Republicrats.

So I will be considering 4 viable candidates for president: Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, Jill Stein for the Green Party, and Donald Trump for the Republicans. Though I am not an expert on these candidates or their parties, each has well-known policies and agendas, and some have track records to assess their credibility. In terms of each of my political priorities, here is how I view each candidate.

Sanctity of life
Hillary Clinton is well know for her strong pro-choice stance on abortion rights. Militarily she is likely the most hawkish of the candidates, having favoured U.S. intervention in many conflicts including the ones now wreaking havoc in the Middle East. In addition she is extraordinarily belligerent towards Russia, a very dangerous attitude toward the world's second nuclear superpower. She does have a quasi-reasonable approach to controlling domestic violence and guns however. That earns her a score of 10/30. Gary Johnson is pro-choice, but he and his party believe the government should stay out of the abortion debate, avoid military conflicts, and are against gun control. They have no track record of course to substantiate any of this. Johnson gets a score of 10/30 as well. Jill Stein is strongly pro-choice on abortion, and strongly anti-war, advocating gradual but steady reductions in military budgets. The Greens have been rather quiet on the gun issue, and while promoting non-violence in general they "recognize the need for self-defence and the defence of others who are in helpless situations." I'm not exactly sure what that means, but it certainly doesn't seem to threaten the gun lobby. Stein too gets 10/30. Donald Trump now claims to be pro-life on abortion, but he has no track record in its support. I think it obvious that he chose Mike Pence as his vice-presidential running mate to try to alleviate the concerns of his Christian constituency, but I greatly doubt that Trump will do anything meaningful on the abortion issue. While not as hawkish as Clinton on foreign affairs, his repeated questioning of "since we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them" betrays either an astounding naivety or reveals something truly dark about his character. And the gun lobby has no stronger advocate than Trump. So Donald Trump scores 5+5=10/30 as well. All four are tied on this important issue, though for slightly different reasons, and all four get failing grades.

Maintenance of a free society
Hillary Clinton's Democrats have supported voter rights and attempts to ensure everyone has a chance to vote. This is commendable, but in their case they can hardly be credited for it because it's so self-serving. Clinton's views and record on government transparency and citizens' privacy are terrible (consider the witch-hunt for whistle-blowers and those who reveal "state secrets"). Meanwhile her own information management record shows personal disregard for those same secrets. Her contempt for democracy was on full display during the run-up to the Democratic National Convention, when it was revealed that she and the Party did everything possible to discredit and put down Bernie Sanders. The way both Democrats and Republicans strive to limit competition by "third parties" strikes at the heart of democracy. And while freedoms for Muslims are sometimes advocated, religious freedom in general plays second-fiddle to the rights of more favoured special interest groups such as the LGBTQ lobby and those opposing Creationism. Clinton gets 5/20 on democracy, and that's being generous. Gary Johnson and the Libertarians claim to be all about freedom, civil liberties, and defending the rights of the individual, but their platform of freedom from as many laws and as much regulation as possible equates to freedom for corporations more than freedom for individuals. Their reduction of the size of government would however likely result in less internal spying on Americans in the name of national security. They have little to say about religion other than they support the separation of church and state. Johnson gets 10/20 here. Jill Stein and the Greens understandably argue for electoral system reform that raises their profile against the "established" parties. While self-serving, I see this as justifiable. It is wrong that they are excluded from national debates, and restricted from ballots in many states. Stein seems to have little to say specifically about freedom of religion, and whether this should be compromised by respect for diversity, which is one of the Green Party's "10 Key Values." Stein gets 15/20. Donald Trump and the Republican party have a dismal position and record on maintenance of a free society. Together with the Democrats, they strive to limit third party politicians' access to debate forums and ballot forms. Their record in limiting access of the disadvantaged to polling stations, and the under-staffing of those stations in poor neighbourhoods, ensuring long voter lineups, is appalling. Religious freedom for Christians and Jews is supported, but making it difficult for Muslims to practise their faith sets a dangerous precedent regarding religious freedom in America. I'd give Trump 10/20, which perhaps is being generous. In fact I'm sure people of colour would rate him much lower on this matter.

Economic policies
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats historically have treaded more to the "left" in economic policies, but over the past decade have moved to the right, to ground previously held by Republicans. Clinton is clearly pro-Wall Street, accepting large donations and speaking engagements with stock market interests. The Democrats have done nothing to punish or prosecute the bankers and speculators that caused the 2008-2009 market crash, nor do they appear ready to impose regulations that might prevent a recurrence. And Clinton and her party only pay lip service to maintaining and enhancing programs such as universal health care and a social safety net. "Obamacare," which Clinton supported, has turned out to be a disastrous compromise with insurance corporations. I give her 0/20. Gary Johnson and the Libertarians clearly wash their hands of any kind of responsibility for the poor and needy, leaving this to "charitable organizations." This of course is all philosophically driven by their obsession with small government. In my books, this approach does nothing for the good of the population at large, and Johnson also gets 0/20. Jill Stein's emphasis on single payer healthcare, which is pretty much the only kind of social health care that works, is most refreshing. She is also strong on immigrants' rights, and free education for undergraduates. This and other left-leaning economic policies of the Greens - even more than environmentalism, give me reason to consider the Green Party. My only concerns relate to the fact I haven't seen any kind of discussion how some of the consequences of the Green's economic policies would be dealt with. Stein gets 15/20. Finally, I feel that Donald Trump does have a few good ideas, especially bringing back manufacturing to America from the "offshore factories." But his lack of empathy towards the poor and disadvantaged, together with his treatment of people as objects to be profited from, suggest the benefits might be less than thought. His policy on refugees is clearly racist, and just how he would get the Mexicans to pay for a wall between themselves and America remains a mystery. Will he threaten war? It's good macho fodder for his supporters though. But he does better than Clinton and Johnson, getting 5/20 by my reckoning.

Social policies on inequality and corporations
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have, over the past two presidential terms, advanced the cause of corporations to the point where it is arguable that America is now a corporatocracy, and no longer a democracy. Clinton's closeness to Wall Street is obvious. Talk of raising the national minimum wage has only arisen to placate Bernie Sanders' supporters. The middle class has continued its decline despite steadily rising corporate profits. Inequality grows, and the corporations get their trade deals that limit the local and national rights of citizens to their own independence. It is all a national disgrace, coming from a party that once was the "people's party." Clinton should perhaps get a minus grade, but I'll grant her a 0/15. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Parties policies of limiting governmental controls and freeing corporations from regulations go even farther than the Democrats. Again he deserves a minus score, but I'll give 0/15. Jill Stein gets top marks here due to the Green Party's emphasis on equal pay for equal work, a minimum wage that is a "living wage," and opposition to secret global trade agreements that favour corporations over people, and especially over the disadvantaged; 15/15 for Stein and the Greens. Donald Trump gets credit for his opposition to global trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). As in many things though, he goes overboard and would cancel or renegotiate pretty much all trade deals, to "America's advantage." The question of how he would get other nations to agree to less favourable terms remains. It is, like his promise to get Mexico to pay for the "Great Wall," a great mystery. None of this, nor his criticism for Wall Street criminals, masks the fact that he, like almost all billionaires, is inherently corporate-friendly. Increasing workers rights or raising the minimum wage would be the last things he would do. Trump gets 5/15.

Stewardship of God's world
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats do pay some attention to environmental issues. Clinton is not a climate change skeptic, and some decisions over the past years, such as blocking of the pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast have been environmentally friendly. However today's Democrats offend their corporate sponsors as little as possible, and other decisions allowing hydrocarbon development offshore, in the Arctic, and fracking in the continental U.S. have all been bad for the environment. I'll give Clinton 10/15 on the environment. Gary Johnson and the Libertarians say government should not be involved in regulating the environment - that is best done through free markets and property rights laws. Right, we've seen how well self-regulation has worked in the past. 0/15, obviously, for Johnson. Jill Stein and the Greens do well, as expected, on the environment. Policies related to subsidizing renewable energy (instead of the hydrocarbon industry), against hydraulic fracking, against expanded offshore drilling, labelling GMO foods, and ecosystem protection easily qualify Stein for full marks - 15/15, on stewardship of God's world. Donald Trump, consistent with the historical Republican position, denies that climate change is even occurring. Worse, he claims it is a hoax, and is used only as an excuse to raise taxes. He unsuccessfully sued in Scotland to block plans for wind turbines which he said would mar the view from a golf course he was proposing to build. 'Nuf said, 0/15 for Trump.

Conclusion
Tallying the scores, we get:

Leader Party Sanctity of life (30) Free society (20) Economic policies (20) Inequality (15) Stewardship (15) TOTAL (100)
Hillary Clinton Democratic Party 10 5 0 0 10 25
Gary Johnson Libertarian Party 10 10 0 0 0 20
Jill Stein Green Party 10 15 15 15 15 70
Donald Trump Republican Party 10 10 5 5 0 30
So for me, Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party of the United States would be the only party I could possibly vote for. Not that Stein and the Greens are perfect - far from it. Particularly on the issue of abortion, I am strongly opposed to her view. But would I refuse to vote for her on that issue alone? Certainly not after seeing what tunnel-visioned Christians have gotten in the past for voting based on this single issue. In this election there is no candidate with a solid pro-life record, and the credibility of Donald Trump on this issue (and most others) is near zero, despite his pro-life sidekick. I'd also vote Green to add my voice to what I hope will be a growing number of Americans who realize the duopoly that now exists in the American political system is unhealthy and dysfunctional. Americans have traditionally been great champions of competition in the marketplace. They claim it to be one of the advantages of the capitalist system. If Americans want to get their democracy back, the competition has got to be increased, and they have to move away from this Soviet-style framework where only two viable parties, often in collusion with each other on many important issues, vie for victory at the ballot box.

Political decision-making

Posted Thursday September 1, 2016

Politics is hard to ignore these days, at least for those with an interest in maintaining knowledge of current events. Although we Canadians seem for the most part to be satisfied with our current government, and the next federal election is several years away, news from south of the border certainly seems to make its way into our consciousness thanks to the media. Personalities have unfortunately seemed to have become dominant over policies in the run-up to the current presidential election. Anyway, I started asking myself what issues are important to professing Christians such as myself. I thought this might be an opportune time to create some kind of generalized prioritized list of issues that could be used to evaluate candidates' stated positions on important issues of the day. In this blog entry I'll lay out what is important to me in deciding who to vote for - or possibly whether to vote at all. In a subsequent blog I'll try applying these to the presidential candidates in this November's U.S. election process as an academic exercise.

I have five major areas where I believe our politicians should provide positive leadership:

  • Sanctity of life
  • Maintenance of a free society
  • Economic policies
  • Social policies on inequality and corporations
  • Stewardship of God's world
In evaluating the above, special care must be taken in determining the trustworthiness and credibility of the politician and his/her party. Specifically it must be determined if a demonstrable track record substantiates what is being said, of if opportunism and deceit are being utilized to mislead and trick gullible voters.

As with many socially-conservative Christians, sanctity of life is a leading concern for me. But unlike many people whom I think have been misled to focus solely on the right-to-life of the unborn, I give equal value to all people. This includes safety from war as well as domestic violence, which also brings in policies on gun ownership. I am in agreement with an American evangelical Christian pastor opposed to guns, which can be seen in the video "Would Jesus Wear a Sidearm?" This can be viewed here. I give a weight of 30% to the issue of sanctity of life, with roughly equal emphasis/credit to policies regarding abortion, war, and domestic violence.

Maintenance of a free society entails strengthening of democracy through reforms such as those that make every vote count (e.g. dispensing with first past the post), ensuring everyone can vote, maintaining citizens' privacy, and especially our religious freedoms. Freedom gets a weight of 20% on my decision-making scale.

Economic policies seem to be at the top of most people's priority lists in most election cycles. Of course this includes maintaining a favourable environment for business and trade. But to me, the emphasis is on policies that provide for care to the poor, refugees and the disadvantaged through social programs, universal health care, and a social safety net. This also gets a weight of 20% on my scale of importance.

Social policies on inequality and corporations is related to economics, but focuses in a specific policy direction related to reduction of corporate power and restoration of decent working wages and conditions, especially for the so-called "middle class." Minimum wage legislation is one example, as is restoring workers' rights to unionize, and placing limits and controls on banks and investment houses. This also has to do with classic socialist ideals which are not limited to economics (but for me does not include concepts directly related to feminism or Libertarian socialism). These issues get a weight of 15% on my scale of importance.

My last, but still very important area of policy is stewardship of Gods' world. I strongly believe that this world is an incredible gift of God to mankind, and Adam was tasked with maintaining it...beginning with the identification (or naming) of creatures. That God gave mankind dominion over all creatures means we have the right and responsibility to use them for the necessities of life (food, clothing), and to manage their well-being. It in no way justifies wanton destruction of nature for profit, as some claim. Now that our God-given intelligence has led us to understand that unrestricted use of fossil fuels leads to devastating degradation of our planet (especially acidification of the oceans, as well as climate change), we are obliged to make changes to minimize our impact on the ecosystem. Environmental policies - stewardship of God's world, gets a weight of 15% in my decision-making process.

A final issue of concern is whether to vote if there is no person or party that is deemed satisfactory, or worthy of the office. Some people, including Jehovah's Witnesses, refuse to vote on principle, and I have often wondered whether following politics should be a priority for Christians at all. But I certainly do follow politics, having been something of a news & politics junkie for much of my life (using shortwave radio in my younger years). Many people feel it's a matter of patriotism, and it's our patriotic duty to vote, but I consider this to be true only if it's a legal requirement, as in some 22 countries including Australia, Belgium and Brazil (render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's implies a need for compliance beyond paying taxes). But my current opinion is that Christians should use our diminishing voices in ways that support and coincide with God's directives as given in the Bible. Over-zealous patriotism can lead to some very bad places, but even the Apostle Paul seemed to be pleased to acknowledge his Roman citizenship, and used it to advantage on at least one occasion. However we must remember that our REAL allegiance must be to our heavenly father, and not to earthly rulers or states. Our faith in God has nothing to do with national patriotism.

Church property

Posted Wednesday August 31, 2016

At a church service not long ago we were reminded of the importance of maintaining the unity of the Christian church, which is after all supposed to be one holy, catholic and apostolic body of believers, and also be the "Bride of Christ." This relates even to "those other Anglicans," who got us evicted from our church property some five years ago, because of our unwillingness to compromise our beliefs to fit modern cultural norms. We need to remember that God is the only righteous judge.

Having gone from having a beautiful stone church building some 80 years old, complete with pipe organ, flying buttresses and a lovely courtyard...to a rental property, adequate though it is, has not been a particularly pleasurable experience. Of course the entire church body is aware that it had to be done, but there has been some inner questioning about how this could possibly be the will of God, which was so sincerely sought after. It has led me to consider the actual importance of a church building and property, and I've come to realize that the buildings we worship in are completely inconsequential.

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has been fond of building cathedrals. This spilled over to some Protestant groups as well, after the Reformation. During much of history parishioners believed, or were led to believe, that constructing grand cathedrals was a labour of love and a service to God. And while the results were some splendid buildings, and lots of employment for craftsmen and artists, a lot of the money raised for construction came from poor and needy common folk whose tithes and offerings were demanded as a requirement for salvation. Many today wonder what these building have to do with the central message and purpose of Christianity. Sadly, many of them are now relegated to museums and heritage sites, especially in Europe. And in many western countries, conservative believers are being forced out of these buildings by denominations led by liberal theologians and their special-interest supporters (as happened with our church).

In particular it must be remembered that the "church" is a body of believers, and not a building at all. Early Christians met in homes and caves, often secretly out of necessity. Nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to churches having any connection to real estate. Although it is a wonderful experience to worship God in a grand cathedral, with music led by a pipe organ, this truly must be of absolutely no consequence to God who cares only about the souls of mankind. So perhaps it is not surprising if Christ seems unconcerned with this aspect of the lives of his followers. In fact I am convinced that having to make sacrifices such as losing church buildings strengthens people's faith, making us realize the utter meaninglessness of all that is temporal. Although having to pay rent for a place of worship is undesirable, in our case it is at least going to another Christian group, and is far superior to mortgage payments going to a bank. Too many churches have spent the majority of their offerings on payments for church property, instead of working for the salvation and betterment of their congregations and local communities.

To conclude, many Christian congregations from large to small have lost their church property over the past decade. These properties were purchased with parishioners' tithes and offerings. I don't know if our church is going to try to purchase another building in the current, overheated real estate market in Vancouver. Certainly there is a "search committee" looking to find a suitable place. But hopefully we are coming to understand Christ's views on the importance of human lives and souls, and that nothing else matters beyond ensuring their salvation and, as far as can be done, serving to carry out God's purpose in providing help, care, and "daily bread" to the needy in our communities here in this fallen world.

Racial Violence in U.S.

Posted Wednesday July 20, 2016

Killings of both blacks and police in the U.S. lately have brought to mind the previous round of civil strife that occurred in the mid sixties. Having watched TV newscasts and listened to Voice of America shortwave radio broadcasts of the race riots in those days, I have to wonder if America is facing another round of hate-inspired unrest. Retired NYPD officer and detective Graham Weatherspoon expressed it well when he said "We are at a pivotal apex in where this country is heading". He says his son, who is in the U.S. military, told him that some soldiers are being discharged because it is apparent they enlisted only to further their white supremacy agendas. That is, they are training to be soldiers in a race war in America. Former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh expressed the sentiments of many white supremacists when he tweeted the other day "3 Dallas cops killed, 7 wounded. This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you." This tweet was soon deleted, but unfortunately many people like Walsh are active and influential in the extreme-right segment of the Republican party.

Weatherspoon, who is black, went on to say that in his policing career his life has been threatened many times, and his police partner was murdered. He indicated that protective vests were of no use against high-powered assault and military weapons, and that there is no need for people to have these weapons in America. In implied response to why the U.S. government would refuse to restrict such weapons even from suspected terrorists and people with mental health issues, he said that money motivates a lot of people in his country, and that unfortunately, money is the god of America. Retired detective Weatherspoon concluded by saying that racial hatred is a cancer that has polluted the U.S., and the world. He also cited the endless violence in the middle east, and especially between Arabs and Jews. Most Americans, he said, live in a state of fear and/or denial. The full interview can be found in the July 8 Democracy Now! newscast available here.

Having a son who is a police officer in the U.S., I cringe whenever I hear that police are involved in violence, either by them or more especially against them. Although this seems to be happening more frequently, attacks on police have actually been down during the last decade compared to previous decades. Fortunately the people of Washington state, where our son lives and works, seem not to have major problems with racism. Anyway the days ahead will be critical in terms of preventing a repeat of the race riots that were experienced a half-century ago.

Time, revisited

Posted Friday July 8, 2016

I can't believe it's been so long since posting my last comments here. Part of the reason (excuse) is that I've migrated from Flux to Coda as my web editing software-of-choice. Anyway the time has flown by so fast that it's really gotten me thinking...on things like life, death, mortality. Having a Christian worldview, death isn't so much to be feared as dying. But becoming a senior (65 years this past April) isn't exactly a highlight in one's life, even when family and friends come together to make for a wonderful birthday party - which they did.

But the real motivation for this blog entry is a telephone conversation I had today with a dear, old friend. Admittedly I haven't seen her often since the days of my youth, but she played a major role in helping me deal with the death of my mother when I was 14 years old. For many of my teenage years, and in many ways she filled the role of a mother for me during those difficult years. It was also she who got me together with the girl of my dreams, who would become my faithful life companion these 43 years (and counting). Anyway, her husband had passed away three years ago, himself having suffered from serious decline in his later years. But today was the first time that I heard this highly optimistic, upbeat, and always outwardly happy person sound really tired. This month she has had to move to a seniors' home, and is having increasing trouble breathing due to worsening asthma. She indicated it wasn't the move that was so difficult, but her inability to stay active. The physical constraints imposed by aging inexorably reduce one's quality of life. I feel it already, myself. The verse my father quoted in his later years, John 21:18, comes to mind: Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." Whether Christ here was speaking specifically to John or not, it nevertheless applies to many who attain old age.

Our solace of course is the hope of a far better existence in another life - that all-important light at the end of the tunnel. As one ages, it also becomes evident that the difficult years that some of us will have to endure will pass quickly. It helps to keep Romans 8:38, 39 in mind: For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. I still find it hard to imagine how those without this hope can face the issues related to what they must consider the end of their existence.

Empire

Posted Tuesday December 22, 2015

In a recent interview, journalist Chris Hedges effectively presented some interesting truths about America and where it stands in the world today. He also put it into historical context. The U.S. is the world's biggest and strongest empire in the history of the world. The power of the Roman Empire at its peak pales in comparison to the economic, political and military domination that America now has over almost the entire planet. Despite this, the military industrial complex somehow manages to maintain political control at home by instilling a sense of fear into the general population. As our current Prime Minister recently explained, fear makes us weaker, and ready to blindly follow whoever offers us safety...by whatever means. That is obviously the intent.

Chris Hedges argues that Americans have been blinded by a psychosis of permanent war. And Christian writer Ben Witherington, writing on the beliefnet website seems to agree. He points out that Rome's demise began as a spiritual decline, which led to a moral collapse, which led to a "get what you can" acceptance of greed. In the final years of that empire, in the early fifth century A.D., 2% of the population owned 90% of the empire's wealth. Does this sound at all familiar? Today, tax policies favour the rich at levels beyond absurdity. In 1953, under Republican president Eisenhower, the tax rate on wealthy Americans was 91%. Today it's 15%, and there are those with the audacity to claim that even that is too high.

Witherington goes on to say that Rome was also nickled and dimed to death by a series of small, unwinnable wars. He cites the Korean conflict, the Vietnam war, the Gulf conflict, the Iraq war, and Afghanistan as equivalent events in the late history of the American empire. He says if the money spent on American wars from 1950 until now -- all of which were unnecessary, all of which were undeclared, none of which meet the criteria of just war theory -- had been devoted to peaceful purposes, America would have from the money saved been able to have:

  1. eliminated all poverty in the northern hemisphere for the foreseeable future
  2. raised the lowest income bracket in the U.S. to that of the middle class
  3. prevented all sorts of major diseases
  4. cleaned up our environment and found solutions to global warming.

After World War II U.S. factories continued to produce armaments at an increasing rate. The U.S. now has many times the necessary power to destroy every living thing on the planet. It has more military bases spread out across the globe than anyone can count. Over a million Iraqis have been killed in the latest Iraq war, with the result that the leadership of that war's evil spawn, ISIS, is dominated by Iraqis. Meanwhile at home, internal surveillance in the U.S. is now comparable, on a per capita basis, to the surveillance carried out by the East German Stasi in the late days of communism. Of course that surveillance was loudly decried by freedom-loving Americans at the time. Today, 1% of Americans are in prison, and 40% of the inmates at Rikers Prison in New York, with a prison population of 10,000 inmates, are there simply because they can't pay bail. It is ironic that the "freest country in the world" has the most prisoners. It has been said that prisons are a form of social control, disciplining the labour force. Clearly the ancient Greek saying that "tyranny imposed on others eventually turns on itself" is turning out to be true in modern-day America."

It is hard to say at what point in it's decline the American Empire is today. For the most part the country has abandoned its Christian heritage, and now worships self, wealth, and celebrities (as is the case in most "western" cultures). This is not unlike what happened in the Roman empire. People are made to live in fear, something which should not be the case for a nation which claims to have a trust in God. Despite all the media attention to Muslim-inspired terrorism, since Sept. 11, 2001 a total of 45 Americans have died on their home soil from attacks related to Islam. This compares to 48 deaths as a result of right-wing terrorists in the same timeframe. Both totals pale when compared to the more than 400,000 deaths from general gun violence in the U.S. since 9/11.

In Rome, the senate was maintained, as a facade, long after it had been stripped of effective power. In the U.S. today power rests with the economic, political and military forces that drive the empire. Corporate media are the enablers for this process, a recent example being Donald Trump getting more than 200 times the coverage of Bernie Sanders in the current presidential election race despite having roughly equivalent numbers of supporters. Although the U.S. population is largely unaware, they have little effect or control over where their corporatocracy is leading them.

GUNS: Madness by the numbers

Posted Tuesday December 15, 2015 (updated July 23, 2016)

For the last three years in the U.S., killings of pre-teen children through gun violence have been occurring at an average rate of one death every second day. And the gun lobby claims the solution to this is more guns. This just seems incomprehensible to me. Presumably these people are OK with their nation becoming one in which one must be prepared to kill people in order to survive. But it all seems very strange in a country which claims to follow Jesus Christ, who said that loving one's neighbour was the second greatest commandment, after loving God. And he also taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" rather than retaliating against their enemies (Matthew 5:39).

In 2015 in America (population 323 million), 1207 people were shot and killed by police (http://killedbypolice.net). In 2015 in the U.K., which has a fifth the population of the U.S., 3 people were killed by police (Wikipedia). The number for that population in the U.S. would have been 241, so the kill rate by police per capita is 80 times higher in the U.S. than in the U.K. . Police in the U.K., Republic of Ireland, Norway and New Zealand do not routinely carry guns. Only 5% of police in England and Wales are authorized to carry firearms. The stated reason why police aren't armed in the U.K. is that "their primary duty is to the public rather than the state." And in the U.S., officers are three times more likely to be murdered on the job in states with high levels of gun ownership than in states with low gun ownership (NBC News, 2016).

A gun owner in the U.S. is 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance than he is to kill an intruder. And he is 22 times more likely to kill himself than to kill an intruder. America is becoming a very dangerous place, and deaths involving terrorist attacks represent a very small percentage of violent deaths in the U.S. Many in America are obsessed with guns, and American society at large is reaping the consequences.

Comments on federal election results

Posted Tuesday October 20, 2015

Results are in and as expected Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have won, though the extent of their victory had not been anticipated. I have mixed thoughts about the Liberal majority. On the one hand, clearly and as explained in previous blogs, Stephen Harper's time had expired. Also, Harper provided ample evidence that power corrupts. His power in our government was almost absolute, as it seems that none of our Conservative MPs dared to question or oppose him. So the corollary that absolute power corrupts absolutely seems to have applied in his case. My concern is that the same thing may happen again with Justin Trudeau. His father Pierre certainly had an arrogance in his demeanour, which seemed in fact to be part of his appeal. Although it is presently nowhere to be seen in his eldest son, one has to wonder if he will be shown to have inherited it. It is for this reason, and despite the fact that minority governments tend not to last very long and have limited effectiveness, that I had hoped for a Liberal minority with a stronger NDP showing. I like Thomas Mulcair. He is genuine, and did a great job trying to fend off Harper during the previous parliamentary sessions. I think that he and Trudeau could have worked well together.

Justin Trudeau is certainly likeable, and contrary to the constant flood of Conservative attack ads, apparently quite competent. His positive outlook is certainly a breath of fresh air, after all the negativity and fearmongering of his predecessor. He reminds us of our younger years, and of better times. I could really get on his bandwagon, if it were not for his aggressive pro-choice stance on abortion. But his insistence that pro-life people could not run for election as Liberal candidates, no matter how impressive their credentials, was, and is, a real turn-off.

Which brings me to a final, sad conclusion: the anti-abortion battle has been lost in Canada. There is no point in fighting this war any longer. Canada is part of a post-Christian western culture that is no longer based on conservative Christian values. Christians should be content on following their consciences in their own lives, without trying to impose them on others. There are many other issues of concern to Canadian Christians, ones where we can still have an impact. Encouraging our government to provide care for the poor and disadvantaged, providing properly funded and efficient health care for our aging population, and free post-secondary education come to mind. And stopping our military from engaging in foreign wars would also be a major step in the right direction. One is reminded of Christ's admonition that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. A return to peacekeeping, which used to be an appropriate and well-respected role for the Canadian military, would be a good thing. Also there are benefits to the Liberal Party's traditional emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism: it does provide some assurance that Christian values and freedoms will be protected along with those of other ethnic and religious communities - many of whom share our conservative social beliefs. This assurance is otherwise far from certain in a culture that is increasingly hostile towards Christian principles and values.

Contrary to what some of my Christian friends might feel, the end is not yet. It's going to be an interesting four years under Justin Trudeau. Some of the changes he brings about are likely to be positive. Most especially, if he can bring about electoral change so that the "First Past The Post" electoral system is done away with, and a more just system of proportional representation is instituted, that will be wonderful. It would undoubtedly have been done had we gotten a minority Liberal or NDP government. Now I'm not so sure, as it seems very difficult for political leaders to abandon a system of democracy that tends to give them absolute power, even if only for a period of four years. Hopefully Elizabeth May will be able to convince Trudeau to follow through with his promises in this regard. It would be nice to see the roughly 10% of Canadians who would vote Green if they didn't have to vote strategically (like I did in this election) actually have their political preferences reflected in Parliament.

Another reason why Canada needs a change in government

Posted Thursday October 15, 2015

The Americans have one advantage over us: their system limits the rule of any president to 2 terms (8 years).

In theory Canadians don't elect our prime minister, but rather our local representatives for parliament. The prime minister is supposed to lead the country based on the support of those MPs, who do change from time to time. In reality though, few people actually choose who to vote for based on their local candidates. In this election, people are choosing between Harper, Trudeau, Mulcair, and May. So we do essentially choose our leader.

The saying power corrupts is well known, and well justified. Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister for 10 years, which is at least 2 years too long. His office now controls all federal matters, and his parliamentarians' roles are little more than to rubber-stamp what comes out of the PMO. It's exactly how the politburo ran in the old Soviet Union.

It looks like we're going to get a change. It would be nice if it could be a Green change, but I think any change would be beneficial for the country at this point.

Why I can't vote Conservative

Posted Tuesday October 13, 2015

This Facebook entry is right on the mark..

An Open Letter to Stephen Harper
by MARY CLEAVER, SATURDAY OCTOBER 10,2015

Dear Mr. Harper,

I live in BC with my husband and two little girls. I grew up in Calgary and have many friends and family members there. I'm white and in my early 40s. One of us is a stay at home parent, so we benefit 100% from the direct deposits in lieu of a national childcare program. We also benefit 100% from income splitting. And we can afford to take advantage of the increased allowance in our TFSAs.

In other words, we're the picture of the family who benefits the most from your economic policies.

But we're not voting Conservative on October 19th.

You see, you've misjudged us. We enjoy our standard of living, we work hard for it but it's not the only thing that matters to us.

You assume we don't care about our first nations neighbours, or Canadians trying to bring their family members here from war torn countries. That we don't care about less fortunate Canadians, our veterans, or scientists. You think we don't mind that to save a few bucks and balance the books we axed the census, dumped decades of research from our libraries, cut funding to CBC, under-spent our budgets in important departments and closed coast guard stations. You figure we no longer want our lakes and rivers protected and that we don't understand that climate change is a far greater risk to our way of life than Barbaric Cultural Practices.

You've underestimated us.

On October 19, we're not voting for our bank balance. We're voting for change because we want the caring Canada of our youth back. The Canada that supported our single mothers that gave us the opportunity to succeed in the first place.

Mary Cleaver
To this Ms. Cleaver might have added...
  • You reduce and/or limit transfer payments to provinces for medical programs at a time when those funds are increasingly necessary (because of our aging population).
  • You beleive bellicose grandstanding on the world stage is a good substitute for diplomacy and peacekeeping (that Canada used to be so well known for).
  • You refuse to raise taxes on those who can well afford it, choosing instead to cut back resources for science and social programs.
  • You run the country from your office, in contempt of Parliament and all the people we elect to represent us, demand obeisance from your MPs, and require they not speak on any policy matters without prior approval from your office (including regarding pro-life, which at one time you claimed to support).

I much prefer this country the way it was when I was growing up, and most especially before Harper came to power.
I think that pretty much sums it up.

Consternation!

Posted Monday October 12, 2015

This is awful - I can't vote Green! Although I'm a big fan of Green Party leader Elizabeth May, and most of her platform, I discovered that the Green candidate running in my riding is totally useless...and somewhat offensive.

To get straight to the point, at an all-candidates meeting the other day in Ladner he was asked for his opinion on the controversial plan to build a jet fuel terminal on the Richmond side of the main arm of the Fraser River. This of course is just opposite the Ladner wetlands that form such an integral part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds. It has been in the news quite a bit lately, but this guy said he was unaware of it! Really? Clearly he's not even aware of environmental issues, and he's running for the Greens? Perhaps this might also explain why I haven't seen a single Green Party sign in my community, even though a significant number of people here vote Green (Green party support province-wide is currently around 10%). I suppose it's difficult to recruit good-quality candidates when everyone knows they aren't going to win the riding. But this was just awful.

And to add insult to injury, he said that he only got interested in politics after he dispensed with religion. Apparently he was raised in an evangelical Christian home. Now a proud atheist, it seems that he's trying to contrast himself with Stephen Harper by advertising the fact that he's not like him. Obviously this tact of putting down religion is offensive to me, as it should be to all Christians. If a candidate is an atheist, that wouldn't stop me from voting for that person. But I certainly won't vote for someone who brags about it as if it's a reason to elect him!

So, who to vote for? After some considerable pressure and good arguments from my wife, I'm likely going to vote Liberal - despite their barring everyone who is pro-life from running as a candidate for them. It's really them, or not vote at all - which is another option, but one that doesn't appeal to me. This time I guess I'll be voting for the least of 4 evils. Our local Liberal candidate seems pretty good anyway, and the fact that the Liberals have trended towards the left of the political spectrum (while the NDP have gone the other way) is also an incentive. But it's going to be a close race here, with the 3 major parties all in the running. It's much different from last time when it was a cakewalk for the Conservative candidate.

Guns & gun violence - Switzerland

Posted Thursday October 8, 2015

Today I watched an Al Jazeera documentary on guns and gun violence in Switzerland. I confess it came to me as a bit of a curve ball, since as described in my October 3 blog on mass murders in the U.S., I feel there is a direct relationship between the availability of guns, and gun homicides. It turns out that Switzerland is 3rd in per-capita gun ownership after the U.S. and Yemen. Yet they have amongst the lowest number of murders by guns of any country - approximately 2 per year per million population (compared to about 30 per million per year in the U.S.).

Gun ownership is a tradition in Switzerland dating back to the Second World War, and even before. The Swiss, though neutral, naturally felt threatened by Germany, and figured that if the Nazis realized that every Swiss man (and many women) was an armed enemy soldier, it wouldn't be worth invading them. It seems to have worked. But Switzerland is no longer threatened with attack, so the justification for gun ownership would appear to be gone. Yet defenders of the right to bear arms appear to be just as vocal in Switzerland today as they are in the U.S.

What then explains the vast difference in gun-related homicides in Switzerland compared to the U.S? The Swiss wonder about that too, and ascribe it to:

  1. their relatively high living standard with less inequality
  2. their participatory democracy, with most issues put to referendum and great regional autonomy (i.e. not a corporatocracy)
  3. their deep sense of responsibility for one another.
I don't know if those are the main reasons or not, but it does prove that a nation can have high gun ownership (roughly 1 gun per 4 people) and still not suffer from high rates of gun violence. But there is one very dark cloud related to guns in Switzerland. Almost 1000 suicides per year are carried out with these killing machines in Switzerland (972 in 2012), so even here the lethal consequences of gun ownership are significant.

Trans Pacific Partnership

Posted Wednesday October 7, 2015

Recent consensus amongst 12 nations including Canada regarding the largest trade agreement ever negotiated, involving 40% of world trade, was no surprise but nevertheless very unfortunate. This TPP agreement primarily benefits multinational corporations, with greater costs and loss of freedoms for the vast majority of Canadians. It has been openly acknowledged by proponents that details of the negotiations had to be kept secret, otherwise opposition in the countries involved would have scuttled the treaty.

The major impacts of the agreement on Canadians will be:

  1. Pharmaceutical companies will have a monopoly on drugs they develop for 8 years. Since drug prices are based on what the market will bear (for the benefit of shareholders) rather than on the actual cost of developing, producing and disseminating the medications, costs to consumers either directly or through medical plans will be enormous. Drug companies already make billions of dollars of profit annually on several common cancer-fighting drugs alone, and this will now be applied to all new medications in all participating countries for an eight year period. Of course it will be the poor who will suffer most, but the country as a whole will pay a huge price due to the increasing medicinal needs of its aging population.
  2. It has been estimated that Canada will lose 20% of its remaining auto parts manufacturing jobs. This figure is difficult to validate, but the number of lost jobs will definitely be substantial.
  3. To compensate farmers for loss of income protection through their supply management systems, they will be paid an estimated $4 billion dollars in compensation. To my understanding this is an annual amount. The payers, of course, will be taxpayers. It is highly unlikely that the price of farm produce at the market will fall enough to compensate us for this additional cost.
  4. Great strides have been made recently in encouraging consumers to "buy locally." The TPP will make this more difficult. Local products will not be able to be promoted above foreign imports, and increased shipping will result in added greenhouse gas emissions. For food products, this may require increased use of preservatives and pesticides as well.
  5. Perhaps the most grievous impact of the TPP will be the empowerment of foreign corporations to sue our national, regional and local governments for perceived breaches of the agreement. We will no longer be able to favour local producers and service providers, and when we do so we will pay the foreign multinational corporations huge court settlements - through our taxes. We will find, like the citizens in Hawaii who opposed the monopolistic exploitation of Monsanto, that their elected governments will have no ability to reflect the wishes of their constituencies. So much for democracy.

We in capitalist societies already live in corporatocracies, rather than democracies. The TPP, if passed into law, will certainly exacerbate this situation. At present our corporate media seems more fixated on whether a very small number of women seeking Canadian citizenship should be allowed to wear a niqab, than on issues relating to this treaty which will greatly affect the economy and social structures of our country for many years into the future. Hopefully opposition which is already growing strongly in the U.S. (where the potential benefits of the agreement are actually much greater than for Canada) will spread to this country. Several prominent contenders for the 2016 presidency have already come out strongly against the agreement - or are leaning in that direction. This may prompt some Canadians to think twice before supporting the deal...so hope remains.

Informed thinkers not welcome in Ottawa

Posted Tuesday October 6, 2015

Last week Maria Manna was forced to resign as Liberal candidate in a southern Vancouver Island riding over reports that she had questioned, on Facebook several years ago, the official line on how World Trade Centre buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001. It is, as blogger Richard Hughes described, yet another example of our political parties and the corporate media making mountains out of molehills. This is hardly the kind of offence that should disqualify one from representing a constituency in Ottawa.

I don't know anything about Maria Manna, other than that she had won the nomination to represent the Liberal Party in her riding in the upcoming election. However I do know about the meeting she attended where issues of the building collapses were discussed. It was a meeting not comprised of conspiracy theory wackos, but of well-regarded engineers, architects and scientists, many of whom knew in great detail how the buildings were constructed. Four strange things are seen in the slow-motion videos of the building collapses:

  1. The collapses did not begin at the levels where the airplanes impacted the two towers, or immediately above. The collapses began substantially above the impact zones
  2. Even though the top of one tower begins to tilt as it falls, the building does not topple sideways, but falls into its own footprint
  3. The buildings collapse at a rate which indicates there was no resisting force below the collapsing floors. They collapsed as if the lower supports had already been taken out.
  4. Why the third, smaller Tower 7 collapsed, and in exactly the same manner, is inexplicable, as it was not struck by an aircraft at all. Fires, or the impact of the collapses of the other, nearby towers have been offered as possible explanations. But this kind of collapse had never happened before with a building with this type of construction.
I don't have an explanation for what happened on 9-11. It is conceivable that there was another conspiracy to bring the towers down, one which involved the planting of demolition explosives. The buildings had been attacked before. This could have been done by foreign terrorists, or even by U.S. government agents (though this thought is almost too terrible to contemplate). But the primary issue is not how it really happened, but whether there is doubt about the accepted explanation. If you are interested in watching the discussion by the referenced professionals that Manna spoke of, it is available online at this link. I definitely recommend you watch it, especially if you have a basic understanding of physics and classical mechanics. And play back the building collapses in slow motion.

The point of this blog is not whether the official explanation of 9-11 was correct, but rather whether one should be disqualified from running for a seat in Parliament because he/she questions this approved version of events, as promulgated by governments and their subservient media. Clearly the only representatives welcomed by the main political parties are those who will accept official versions of things without question, and will therefore likely unquestionably accept the leads of their own parties, irrespective of their own beliefs or what the people they are representing might want.

To conclude, factors which now disqualify a person from being a candidate for the 3 main parties include:

  1. believing that people don't have the right to take a human life without that person's permission (the case of unborn humans)
  2. believing a representative should have the right to vote by principle, or on the wishes of his/her constituents rather than on the directives of the leader
  3. questioning the questionable explanation for the sad events of 9-11.
It is clear that questioning, informed and intelligent minds are not welcome as the people's representatives in Ottawa. "Rubber-stampers" are now being offered for us to choose from. Canadian Parliament is becoming more like the old Soviet Politburo with each passing election.

Regarding Pope Francis

Posted Sunday October 4, 2015

I get to see a wide variety of opinions from my "Facebook friends." Politically, they vary from moderate left-wing through rather extreme right-wing. And theologically, most are either atheist or agnostic in viewpoint (my former workplace friends) or come from an evangelical Christian background. Since out of principle I don't post anything about myself on social media, most of these people have little idea what my viewpoints actually are (though I'm sure they all know I'm a Christian). This is probably just as well.

Regarding theology and social activism, Pope Francis has been getting quite a bit of press from his recent 6-day visit to the Americas. Much of this has been surprisingly favourable, considering it's source. Comments from some of my conservative evangelical friends have been less flattering, however.

I'm certainly not a Roman Catholic. Nor do I have a lot of sympathies for that denomination, or for any religious "organization" for that matter - but less so for Roman Catholicism than most others. I need not relate the litany of crimes committed by the Roman Catholic Church through the ages, not only against faithful Christians but against the fundamentals of our faith itself. And Francis has done little if anything to address most of those issues.

Nevertheless I will readily admit there are a great number of Roman Catholics who are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and are members of the universal, small-c catholic church of Christ; that is, those who comprise the "Bride of Christ." And although all the popes, including Francis, are what I consider usurpers of the special status that Christ conferred to the Apostle Peter, Francis has had a lot to say that evangelical Protestants could benefit from. In particular, his focus on the need for Christians to care for the poor is commendable, and though contrary to the capitalist ethic is fully in keeping with the teachings of Christ. His speech to the American Congress where he included both the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of criminals was brilliant (one thinks of the imminent execution by lethal injection of Richard Glossip, whose guilt is far from certain). And his emphasis on Christians' responsibility to care for the creation that God has bestowed upon us, rather than exploit it as has too long been the preference of capitalists including many Christians, is certainly laudable.

God is the sole judge of all men's souls, and we should be careful in our criticisms of any man just because of his position. Many conservative Christians have condemned Francis as being soft on homosexuality and abortion. Roman Catholics have long been staunch pro-life and traditional-family advocates, along with many Protestants. But it is worth noting that Francis has only said that these are sins that can be forgiven. He has not said that women should make the choice of abortion, or that homosexuality should be advocated as a legitimate lifestyle to young children in schools. But you would think that was the case, from some of the outcry from evangelical Protestants. Likewise his statement that Christ's life ended in failure from a human standpoint is not worthy of condemnation. Death on a cross, from a human standpoint, was most definitely a failure. That is essentially why the Jews denied him; they wanted their Messiah to be a king who would lead them out from under the domination of the Roman Empire. He did not do this, and to those Jews and also casual secular bystanders of the day, Jesus did indeed appear to be a failure. But Francis did NOT say that Jesus was actually a failure, or that he was not doing what was needed for our salvation, or that he was not carrying out his father's will (which clearly he was). It would be good if people could check their personal biases at the door, and take the words of people at their face value before condemning them.

Yet another mass murder in the U.S.

Posted Saturday October 3, 2015

This week saw another mass murder1 in the United States. It was the 294th mass murder in that country this year making for an incredible rate of more than one mass murder per day, and it is the 45th shooting on a school or college campus in 2015. 10 to 15 students and teachers were killed, and another 20 injured at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Yet American politicians seem determined to do nothing about it. As President Obama says, Congress blocks even the collection of data on gun deaths. How can this be?

According to Friday's Global News report, the U.S. has the highest rate of gun homicide by a huge margin. The annual rate is 29.7 deaths per million people. That's 9,000 people per year killed with guns. This rate of murder is 6 times greater than in Canada. Also, compare that 29.7 per million statistic with the Australian figure: 1.4 deaths per million people. As Obama said regarding the U.S. situation, "If we think this is normal, we need to own up to it. I don't think it's normal."

It's incomprehensible to me how men like John Hanlin, the Sheriff who is investigating the latest killings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, can say that he would refuse to enforce the law if gun control laws were enacted. Clearly this man should be fired. Jennifer Hanlin of the group Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety has a great response to this and to the constitutionality of gun control legislation. I encourage you check it out here. It's interesting to note that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is allying itself with Hanlin's group. President Obama's comments are also worth watching.

From a common-sense standpoint it's so obvious. If there were no guns, there would be no gun homicides. Since it is much more difficult to commit murder without a gun, there would be many fewer homicides, and very few mass murders. The country with by far the greatest number of guns per capita has by far the greatest number of gun homicides and mass killings of any stable nation in the world. Why can the American people not connect the dots? The abolition of guns in America is an unrealistic dream. But all steps possible within the confines of the American constitution for controlling and registering firearms should be explored. Clearly this is not being done.

(1) A "mass murder" in this context is defined as one in which at least 4 people are killed in one event through an intentional act of murder.

Canadian election - A second opinion

Posted Thursday September 24, 2015

My dear wife has been paying some attention to issues pertaining to the upcoming federal election, and has a very different take on the issues than I. For the record, she has been a supporter of the Conservatives in the past, when it was actually a "progressive" party. But recent policy decisions and abuse of traditional parliamentary procedures, and especially their constant solicitations for donations, had pretty much turned her off. So she really dropped a bombshell the other day when she mentioned she'd like to vote for them again.

Here's her reasoning. The Conservatives have a record of being family-friendly, especially to "traditional" families like our own. Allowing income-splitting for parents of growing children has been particularly beneficial to families with a stay-at-home parent watching over the kids. The Liberal and NDP claim that only the wealthy can afford to do this is just not true; our daughter earns some money working from home as a piano teacher and artist, but splitting income with her husband on the tax returns is very helpful to her and her family. I'm sure there are many others in the same situation. Support for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, though being overruled by the courts, is also greatly appreciated by many of us.

The Liberals and NDP have both said they would scrap income splitting for young families. Since the majority of families, regrettably, have both parents working outside the home these days, more voters would benefit from enhanced external child-care provisions than from income splitting which helps stay-at-home parents. Both income splitting and enhanced childcare can't be achieved without raising taxes, and childcare is what the opposition parties say they will implement in place of income splitting, if elected. (Actually, both approaches should be taken, even if taxes go up a little; the next generation should be our nation's priority).

Families are struggling these days in all western countries. A great shift came about when women entered the work force in the seventies and eighties. While no-one disputes that women should have the freedom to make such choices for themselves, this had one huge, unintended outcome. Housing prices always rise to whatever people can afford to pay. The great increase in family incomes when women went out to work was a major reason for the unprecedented rise in real estate values. It soon became very difficult for a family to buy a home in a good neighbourhood on a single income, unless that income was very large indeed. And even in well-paid professions, salaries earned in early years when the children are young are often relatively modest, with lots of debts to pay off as well. So the choice of women to enter the workforce soon became an imperative for many (or most). When one looks at affordability today, two incomes can provide little more than one income could in the previous generation.

The change has provided much greater opportunities and choice for women, though some would still prefer to be able to stay at home with their children. In my opinion the approach the Conservatives have implemented is much better, and here's why. The big losers in this new societal structure, of course, are the children. With a parent no longer playing a major, daily monitoring and guidance role in the upbringing of children, the next generation as well as civilized society as a whole are in great peril. Drugs, gangs and crime are increasingly becoming options that unguided young people choose, and parents seem to be the last to know. The loss of moral guidance from religious sources compounds the problem.

There is no doubt in my mind that having a parent at home to watch over children is far superior to having childcare provided, notwithstanding the success that Scandinavian countries are having with this approach. Although there's no going back now, and the idea is undemocratic as well - I still wish that only one parent was allowed to work in a two-parent family. I wouldn't care which spouse it was, but it would usually be the one with the higher potential income.

So, going back to the original election issue, is it better to vote for a party that supports traditional, one-income families and encourages religious institutions who teach young people good moral principles -- while otherwise eroding the traditions of parliamentary democracy; favouring corporations at the expense of individual freedoms; catering to the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class; facilitating destruction of the environment instead of encouraging sustainable development; pursuing militarism instead of diplomacy and peacekeeping, and discrimination in place of policies for open immigration? Or are the losses greater than what is gained? It's a similar situation in the U.S.. Republicans there vocally offer support for the pro-life movement and for the traditional family, but otherwise have absolutely horrible policies on everything else. Especially, they are guilty of the murders of over a million people through recent wars they have started, often solely in search of corporate profits and/or based on ideology. Are causing the deaths and destruction of so many individuals and families not just as bad as killing all those unborn children?

Right-wing political parties have been successfully wooing conservative Christian voters for several decades now. Unfortunately it all began with the "Moral Majority" linking up with right-wing Republicans in the U.S., leaving the centre-left Democrats with almost no Christian voices internally. Now, as the Democrats have come to dominate U.S. politics, Christians are paying the price. As my wife correctly points out, no party is perfect. All are a blend of good and bad. I guess how one votes is based on how you weigh the importance of the various issues. Do pro-life and pro-family ideologies outweigh all the harm that extreme capitalism is doing to modern society, even when it is known that courts will usually over-rule implementation of those desired, traditional policies anyway? If so, then I'd have to agree that the best choice in the upcoming election is Conservative. Prime Minister Harper is counting on Christians to respond in this way. But I still like Green.

One scary politician

Posted Sunday September 20, 2015

I'm trying to avoid paying attention to the never-ending American political circus otherwise known as presidential politics. Nevertheless I couldn't help noticing some of the comments from one of the Republican candidates for president, Carly Fiorina.

I know a little bit about Ms Fiorina...a little bit too much. It was she who, to my understanding, almost destroyed Hewlett Packard while she was it's CEO. HP went from being one of the best companies to work for, to one of the worst. Their products went from being some of the best, to some of the worst. Walter Hewlett, son of company co-founder William Hewlett, tried to have her thrown out, but failed, garnering just 2% short of the necessary votes on the Board. Fiorina played the leading role in the demise of the egalitarian "HP Way" work culture and guiding philosophy, claiming it hindered innovation. One thing for sure - SHE certainly hindered innovation. She subsequently laid off 30,000 American employees, and people like me stopped buying HP products. (I still love my HP25 programmable calculator, sitting on my desk before me now. It's vintage 1975, and still works perfectly.) Fiorina also runs a few non-profit and charitable organizations, which she appears to have neglected to register with state governing bodies.

So knowing what I do about this woman, I was more than a bit surprised to see her in the running for president of the United States. My surprise changed to horror, however, when I heard what she was proposing regarding relations with Russia. She would:

  • refuse to speak at all with Russian President Putin (a children's playground bullying tactic);
  • send "thousands" of additional American ground troops to eastern Europe to "counter Russian aggression;"
  • install missile "defence" systems on Poland's border with Russia, with the likely outcome that Poland would become a proxy battleground for Russian and American forces just as Vietnam was;
  • rebuild the sixth fleet and send it to the Baltic, directly threatening Russia's naval bases;
  • greatly increase shipment of armaments to countries bordering on Russia, especially Ukraine.
Yes, she proposed these things! I saw a news clip of it, from a recent television debate. And the Republicans in the audience loved it.

If Carly Fiorina had even the slightest understanding of the Russian psyche, she would know that this could easily result in World War III. Russians will feel incredibly threatened. Putin's popularity at home will rise from 80% to 98%. And just because America has greater military power than the next 16 countries combined, and already spends more money than the next 16 countries combined, doesn't mean that Russia does not still have the capability to obliterate the U.S. - and the entire world for that matter, with its nuclear weapons. Of course they don't want to use those weapons any more now than they did during the cold war. But the capability is still there, and those who think otherwise are remarkably foolish.

All I can say is that if this woman is elected president, heaven help us all. Fortunately I see that as a very unlikely outcome, especially since the Republican Party's extreme policies on immigration have made them virtually un-electable.

H is for...Hypocrisy

Posted Tuesday September 8, 2015

Ok, it's back to school for most of the kids today, so I'm borrowing a bit from Sesame Street. Today's letter is H, and today's word is hypocrisy. I'll be letting fly with both barrels today, so I hope no-one gets terribly offended.

I've been thinking a bit about hypocrisy lately, after reading in Isaac Newton's notes his lament about hypocrisy in his times. He said of Christians in his day:

I fear there are but very few whose righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes & Pharisees.
What I write here is not directed at any particular person or people. Rather it is directed at the Christian Church in general in the "West" -- comprised mostly of descendants of the peoples of the old Roman Empire, whose countries today may be represented by the iron and clay feet of the statue referred to in the prophesy of Daniel 2. The key point of the matter is the propensity for Christians to cherry-pick biblical teachings which they agree with while ignoring some less "convenient" passages.

Lets take the belief that only God has the right to take human life. God grants it, and God takes it - we are mortals. Christians are right in their strong opposition to abortion. But where do they stand when it comes to wars that kill many thousands of innocent people? In the cases of the Vietnam War and more recent Middle East wars, they have mostly sided with political ideology rather than Christ's teachings. They have sided with Emperor Constantine's theft of the Christian cross for use on the battlefield. Where was the outrage, the protest, over the killings of thousands of civilians and children in southeast Asia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza? Perhaps I missed it, but most of the opposition I saw didn't come from the Christian church.

We are instructed by Christ to love our neighbours, even our enemies. Israel was told to treat the "stranger within their borders" as they treated each other. Where is that love when it comes to acceptance of immigrants and refugees?

We are told in the Bible to help the poor, and that those who give aid to the needy are serving their Saviour. Jesus in no uncertain terms says that those who do not do so risk everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:44-46). Also, where is the love when it comes to helping the homeless, the mentally ill, and the drug addicts? It is true that some Christians are active with food banks and other such endeavours - God bless them! But for the most part the view amongst Christians, derived from their right-wing political affiliations, is that the plight of the poor is their own fault and we are not our brothers' keepers - so very, very contrary to Christ's teachings.

Christians today mostly seem to be capitalists. No matter that profits from the hard work of the poor accrue to shareholders rather than to those who actually do the labour. Socialist-leaning Christians such as myself are a lonely bunch. But Christ clearly stated it is the poor who will inherit the kingdom of heaven. The rich are seldom spoken of in favourable terms in the Bible. Why do Christians pay homage to the capitalist system, which more than anything seems to be their god, rather than listening to the words of Christ? Prior to the twentieth century, capitalism would have been anathema to most Christians.

Then there's the environment. Regarding this wonderful world God has created for us, why are so many Christians willing to be party to the raping of the land for profit's sake. This is often done at the expense of the poor, who are dispossessed of their property at best, and at worst whose health is adversely affected through contamination of the environment. Why do these Christians refuse to believe, for nothing other than ideological reasons, that greenhouse gasses resulting from the burning of hydrocarbons will change the climate in such a way that the poor are most seriously affected through loss of land and livelihood? Shouldn't we care?

Finally, there's the elephant in the room - divorce. Christ's teachings on divorce were actually more clear and unequivocal than biblical teachings on homosexuality. In fact, Jesus left it to the Apostle Paul to remind Christians that, as stated in the Old Testament, homosexuality is contrary to God's plan for mankind. But Christ himself spoke on divorce, saying that it was only allowed under Mosaic law because of the hardness of man's hearts. The personal condemnation of divorce by the son of God himself couldn't have been clearer. But what do we hear of this in churches today? Ministers don't want to offend parishioners who have been divorced, so they say little. And yes, of course God does forgive those who repent. There will be lots of divorced people in heaven. But Christ says in John 14:21 "He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me." So if the pain and hardship that divorce inflicts on family, especially children, are not enough, one might think that these words of Christ would be sufficient to dissuade most Christians from divorcing, and convince them to try a little harder to make their relationships work. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Apparently the divorce rate is higher amongst professing Christians than in the general population. Of course there are instances where divorce is justified (the Bible specifically mentions infidelity, and a case could be made for physical abuse). But how exactly can these population statistics be true, if Christians really believe what Christ had to say, and want to live for him? Surely unfaithfulness and abuse are not more frequent in Christian homes than in non-Christian. The only possible explanation I can think of is that Christians may be less willing than non-Christians to stay with spouses in cases of infidelity. But any way you look at it, it's a sad and shocking situation. By avoiding Christ's teachings on divorce, ministers are failing to impress on young couples that in God's view, a wedding is not a party time but a serious time of making a life-long commitment; that failed marriages result in misery and adultery; that divorce was not a part of God's intent for humanity.

To conclude, it is easy to believe that there are far more hypocrites amongst religious folk and their leaders today than there were in Christ's time. Christians like to claim they believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God, but many certainly don't act like they believe it. The theme of Christ's teaching most often dealt with love, but regarding the religious leaders of his day he pulled no punches (Matthew 23). The so-called "West" is now decidedly post-Christian, and many of it's churches suffer from corrupt leadership. This is not so much the case in Russia, China, and the southern cone (Africa, South America), where believers are much less misled by liberal theologians and the degradation of moral values that we see in our countries today. The churches there are also more concerned with the plight of the poor, and are much less militaristic.

Again I reiterate the purpose of today's rant is not to offend or condemn anyone. And I freely admit that I too am not innocent, and personally should be more active for the cause of Christ in the world today. But this is about the general, lamentable condition of the western church. People in that church who consider themselves part of the universal, mystical "body of Christ" should more seriously consider the words of Jesus before automatically following the lead of political leaders, putting credence to the call for national "patriotism," and adopting the decaying moral values of our decadent culture. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times, and of the "falling away" predicted in scripture for the last days.

Refugees

Posted Sunday September 6, 2015

The refugee situation in Europe has gone from bad to disastrous. The U.N. reported in mid 2013 that over a million Syrian refugees had fled the country. The total now is said to be more than four million, with hundreds of thousands more fleeing for their lives this summer (and many hundreds dying in the attempt). And while it is U.S. military adventures that spawned and encouraged the growth of ISIS Islamic jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa (resulting in refugees from those affected countries), it is Russia, with its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which bears significant responsibility for prolonging the Syrian civil war. Assad has overseen many times more deaths in his country than former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein ever did in Iraq. The conflict in Syria is one in which there are no "good guys;" everyone bearing arms there is guilty of horrible crimes against the civilian population. So the people have no choice but to run for their lives.

The response within Europe has been varied. Germany and Austria have welcomed large numbers of refugees with food and signs saying "You are welcome here." Our minister today compared this to what we hope to see when we Christians reach our final destination. But this heartwarming response has been far from universal. And it is too often the case that Christians are on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to immigration policy. Hungarian Christians, in particular, are disgracing the name of Christ in their refusal to provide even the basic necessities of life to these poor souls. But it is not they alone: there is great opposition in many western countries, including our own, to accepting these immigrants.

Giles Fraser, in his recent article in the Guardian, stated correctly that the Bible is clear on what Christians should do: accept the refugees and help them as much as can be done. He refers to the command of God to the Israelites after their escape from Egypt:

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 19:32-34).
This is of course consistent with Christ's message of love seen throughout the New Testament.

Those opposed to allowing these people to immigrate to their countries often use the excuse that many of them are Muslims. But these people are not terrorists. In most cases they are the victims of terrorists. I fail to find anywhere in scripture that the love we are supposed to show to strangers is conditional upon their being Christians. In fact, if Christians hope to win others to Christ, this would be a great opportunity to show God's love through their own actions. If the fear is that these people will overrun our land and change our laws, then we are in effect saying to Christ that he was wrong in teaching us to love even our enemies, and that we now know better. Implicit in this view is that we don't trust God to bring about his sovereign will and purpose in our land.

Finally, a recent poll here in Canada found that supporters of the Conservative Party are most likely to oppose accepting these refugees. Regrettably, this is the political party that most Christians seem to support. In my view, this is a very sad state of affairs.

Meteorological autumn

Posted Thursday September 3, 2015

According to the U.S. National Weather Service website, September 1 was the first day of autumn - Meteorological Autumn rather than the Astronomical Autumn we're all accustomed to. From what is now a now defunct meteorological website, I learned that meteorological seasons have been discussed since the early to mid twentieth century, which came as a bit of a surprise to me because I'd never heard of them before, despite having read very many meteorological and climatological journal articles during my career.

It makes a great deal of sense to keep the commonly known astronomical seasons of course, since especially in high latitudes length-of-day is a function of astronomical factors. But I reluctantly have to admit that this new (to me) concept does have some merit in our northern climate. For instance, in much of Canada the first three weeks of December typically feel much more like winter than autumn.

Here on the Pacific coast, however, if we're going to talk about meteorological seasons it makes a lot more sense to speak of a rainy season and a dry season. Temperature changes tend to happen very slowly here, but precipitation is what really characterizes our climate. The onset of the rainy season is usually abrupt, occurring around the middle of October. The dry season comes on more subtly and variably, usually sometime in April.

Anyway now we know - meteorological autumn has arrived!

Israel

Posted Friday August 14, 2015

Since I currently seem to be blogging about situations in various countries, I suppose I should comment on Israel. I'm reluctant to do so because I'm horribly conflicted about what is happening there. On the one hand I was brought up in a Christian culture that was very excited about the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, since it's existence is much spoken of in end-times biblical prophesies (Jer. 33, Deut. 30, Acts 15:13-17). Thus many felt that Christ's return was imminent. And the Jews clearly are God's "chosen people," as spoken of in the Bible (though Christians have been "grafted in" (Rom 11) to the family of God). Also, having visited the country with my father and children, I have some understanding of the situation there.

So what's not to like about the State of Israel? Lots, it seems. Constructing settlements in the West Bank while claiming to be open to a "two-state solution" was dishonest and deceptive of the government, to say the least. But the one-sided wars against the essentially-captive population of Gaza in 2008 and 2014 have been the worst. In the 2014 Operation Protective Edge a total of 2200 Palestinians were killed, including 550 children. United Nations refugee centres were even targeted. Basically, the Palestinians were trapped; they had no-where to run. 1200 Palestinian homes were destroyed, and 100,000 homes were damaged. These cannot be repaired or replaced because of the continuing Israeli embargo. Meanwhile only 73 Israelis were killed in that conflict, all but 6 of those being soldiers. It would be easy to blame Prime Minister Netanyahu for the carnage, except that most of the country supported him in this war, and in fact criticized him when he ended it.

Henry Siegman, former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and son of a former leader of the European Zionist movement now says the U.N. must step in to the conflict, and the U.S. must stop obstructing the Security Council's resolutions on the matter. According to Siegman, during the 2014 conflict Netanyahu's current Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked called for the "destruction of the Palestinian people, including their elderly, their women, their cities, their villages, their property, and their infrastructure." Miri Regev, the Minister of Culture is determined to censor the artistic community to prevent it from creating art that "insults the State of Israel." Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon had tried to bar Palestinians from riding on buses with Israelis in the West Bank settlements, essentially setting up a system of segregation similar to what Blacks in America endured in the early days, and the system in South Africa under apartheid. Siegman says the cabinet is comprised of half a dozen people who are xenophobes, right-wing nationalists and racists. He says the state "now represents a shameful betrayal of the most important values of my religion and my ethnic ancestry."

I tend to agree with Henry Siegman, except for one problem. As emphatically stated by Tzipi Hotovely, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, the Bible specifically "quotes" God's granting of all of Palestine to the Jews. She says that "consequently Israel will retain all of Palestine because it follows the will of God." So much for a two-state solution.

Hotovely is of course correct about the quotes. And Abraham's seed was specifically ordered by God to annihilate entire nations, after their exodus from Egyptian slavery. We understand this was because those nations were exceedingly evil, something that the evil in today's world suggests could have been true. But the dispossessed Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank hardly seem deserving of such treatment. Is Justice Minister Shaked justified in calling for what sounds like genocide in this modern day? And therein lies the problem.

I find it very difficult to align with Israel's interests under it's current government and policies. But condemning Israel seems almost "un-Christian." Nonetheless I cannot believe that the loving God I believe in condones such actions by his chosen people.

So, I remain conflicted.

Mexico

Posted Monday August 10, 2015

I recently posted about my concern that the U.S. might be headed into a period of chaos and anarchy. But Mexico seems to be much closer to a state of anarchy than the U.S.

It is still true that tourists are reasonably safe if they remain in "good" parts of Mexico City, or in gated resort areas. But even in those places the number of murders and violent attacks are increasing. Numerous Canadians have been killed in the past few years, and formerly safe places like the Baja Peninsula are now battle zones.

But for Mexican journalists, human rights activists, and some professionals the situation has become dire. Clearly much of the country is now controlled by drug lords, corrupt politicians and police, and gangsters. The apparent murders of 43 students from a teachers college remain unsolved almost a year after they took place. Twenty police were recently arrested in Guerro State regarding 6 violent killings. Just this past month a prominent human rights activist and 4 associates were hunted down and killed in Mexico City after fleeing there in hopes of safety. The brutality of the drug wars goes largely unreported, but decapitations, burnings, and acid attacks are common.

Donald Trump wants to build a wall to keep "rapists, murderers and drug pushers" out of the U.S. But those people are not the ones trying to leave Mexico. The vast majority of those fleeing are trying to escape the dangers and disintegration of society that are rapidly escalating in their country. Trump definitely has it all wrong.

Mexico, unfortunately, is now on my "no-travel list." Murder rates are exceeding 300 people per 100,000 per year in some areas, and its getting worse. And while most of the victims are indeed involved in the drug trade, increasing numbers of people are being hit in the crossfire. Also, in the absence of any effective law enforcement, thieves, thugs, and other common criminals are having a field day. If this is not a state of anarchy, then it's getting pretty close.

The August 6 Canadian political debate

Posted Saturday August 8, 2015

Even though our next federal election is more than two months away and a great deal can change in that time, I decided to watch the leaders' debate. One reason I did so was because this might be the only debate that Green Party leader Elizabeth May will be allowed to participate in. Overall, the 2-hour program exceeded my expectations. The political commentary after the debate was awful, though.

To summarize, I thought all four leaders performed well, or at least as expected. Elizabeth May (Green) was the clear winner in my opinion, being on top of the facts and expressing her points clearly and concisely. I can't recall disagreeing with any of her views, except perhaps her desire for re-examining the amending formula for constitutional change. I don't think that opening it up through national referendums is a good idea.

Thomas Mulcair (NDP), Leader of the Official Opposition also did well I thought, appearing statesmanlike and hitting key points. However I disagree with his approach on Quebec sovereignty; Trudeau's reliance on the Supreme Court's verdict that Quebec cannot separate on the basis of one referendum was the right road to take. Harper is also good on Quebec. Mulcair is clearly catering to his large contingent of Quebec MPs who disagree with this ruling, and it makes me nervous.

Trudeau (Liberal) didn't look as "prime ministerial" as Mulcair, but his youthful enthusiasm compensated somewhat for his occasional lack of poise. I thought his closing lines were quite effective and eloquent, referring to the Conservative Party's attack ads that claim he's "not ready yet," and briefly bringing to mind his present and future (his children) as well as his past (his famous father). However he was not hanging onto his father's coattails. But I was disappointed by his refusal to support a $15 minimum wage, and his opposition to raising corporate taxes. Also, his defence of his support of the infamous spy Bill C51, as well as military involvement against ISIS was very weak, and that makes me nervous.

Regarding Prime Minister Harper's (Conservative) performance, I just couldn't help but marvel at the deceptive nature of many of his comments. There were at least half a dozen occasions when he stated something that was false or misleading, in some cases having the other leaders chorus in with "that's not true." Examples included:

  • incomes are rising right now across the board (as Trudeau says, wages are shrinking)
  • the other parties oppose income splitting for seniors
  • Canada has the strongest job growth in the G7 (this is only because of our increasing population, not government policy)
  • we have a balanced budget now, while other countries don't (government sold GM shares effective next year, but credits the income to this fiscal year - convenient)
  • we're the only government to reduce greenhouse gasses while growing our economy (!)
  • claimed to have cleaned up coal-fired power plants prior to the U.S. initiative to do so, but this was all done by provincial governments (mostly Ontario), and largely opposed by the Ottawa Conservatives
  • claimed to have backbenchers voting and acting more freely than has been the case for decades (!!)
At least Harper finally, sort of, admitted that Canada is now in a recession, though of course he placed the blame elsewhere. It's amazing how he can still command more than 30% of the electorate, according to recent polls. I'm wondering what it would take to bring some sense to the Conservative Party supporters; this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party that we know from the past.

The worst part of the evening was from the commentators after the debate. There was not a lot of insight shown there, beyond the obvious. Trudeau's interviewer was extremely critical of his closing lines, saying directly to him on-camera that they were "awful," or something to that effect, whereas as mentioned I thought they were very appropriate. And the broadcaster must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel to bring in that "body language expert." While I concede that his assessment of Harper - that he was the most "Prime Ministerial" in his body language, was correct, his criticism of both Mulcair and May betrayed his right-wing orientation. His most egregious comments pertained to Elizabeth May. He hardly admitted to her participation until the very end, and then commented on her "distracting earrings (I hardly noticed them), pins on her jacket and, yes, her glasses. Apparently he couldn't see her eyes very well through her glasses. How this pertains to body language totally escapes me. This guy was hopeless.

There has also been considerable talk in the mainline media that voting for Greens is wasting your vote, irrespective of how well their leader performs, or whether you agree with their platform. What a cynical approach; no wonder young people are reluctant to get involved in the voting process. So much for "changing the world." I can't help thinking that this talk of wasting the vote is mostly because many in the corporate sphere (including of course the media) are even more opposed to the Green Party than they are to the NDP (who have admittedly gone soft on socialism).

The Green Party would be the only party that would even consider allowing me to represent them in a riding. The Conservatives wouldn't tolerate my view that Members of Parliament represent their constituents in Parliament, rather than representing the Prime Minister. They would disagree with my opposition to our current "first past the post" electoral scheme, my support for science and the civil service, and my belief that Canada should return to it's peace-maker role in international relations...not to mention my pro-environment/anti-hydrocarbon stance. In fact, I find it difficult to find any common ground at all with the new Conservative Party of Canada, except perhaps for their approach on francophone issues. But the Liberals and NDP have both indicated they refuse to allow people with pro-life leanings to run for them. Elizabeth May, while certainly not running on a pro-life platform, did the best she could without greatly damaging her chances for election. She is on the record as saying she can't understand why any woman would want to have an abortion. That of course generated considerable criticism in some circles, but it now seems to be largely forgotten. Clearly May will not disqualify anyone from running for her party based on their views on abortion, one way or the other. Given that I won't vote for a party that wouldn't allow me to run for them, that leaves only the Green Party. And since that was the party I planned to vote for all along (and did so in the last election), Elizabeth May's strong performance only reinforced this commitment.

Is the USA descending into a state of anarchy?

Posted Wednesday July 29, 2015

An uneasy feeling has been creeping into my psyche: Is societal structure breaking down in the U.S? Despite the fact that some have been predicting this for many years (decades), I've always been hopeful it wouldn't happen in my lifetime. But some alarming statistics are cause for concern.

Lets start with the fact that since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 there have been less than 100 deaths from terrorists in the U.S. But terrorism is all the media is focused on. This isn't surprising, since the media is essentially the military-industrial-complex's mouthpiece, and Americans have to be kept in fear of terrorists in order for them to unquestionably accept the enormous military budgets ostensibly dedicated to suppressing terrorism. The military would claim that the low fatality count is a result of their astute counter-terrorism efforts, which is of course total rubbish. Only a handful of poorly-organized terrorist schemes have been uncovered during these entire 14 years. But during this time period, as President Obama recently stated, "tens of thousands of Americans have been killed through domestic gun violence." Where are the billions of dollars and dedicated propaganda efforts to reduce this toll of death and destruction? They are no-where to be found, of course. It also makes me wonder how closely connected the gun lobby and home-grown militias really are in the U.S.

Just as troubling, perhaps, is the number of people reportedly being killed by police in the U.S. In the U.K, according to https://www.facebook.com/TheAntiMedia, a total of 52 people have been killed by police in the last 115 years. In the U.S. a total of 369 people have been killed by police in the last 115 days! And this doesn't even include the number mysteriously dying in prisons. If this is even close to being true, one wonders how can this be? And don't get me wrong - I'm not just pointing my finger at police. They are being killed too. It has become a very violent society.

We know that one quarter of the world's prisoners are incarcerated in the U.S., a country which constitutes only 4.5% of the world's population. It's tempting to think this is merely the result of a political/judicial system running amok, abusing minorities and the poor. Private, "for-profit" prisons require a large prison population to ensure shareholders' profits. But the alternative explanation is frightening. What if, in fact, one quarter of the world's criminals actually live in the U.S.? All the madness and mayhem happening in the U.S., especially in the south, really makes me wonder. Why, exactly, are Confederate flags, which represented a revolt against the American government, allowed to fly freely - even on government properties? Why is this not considered treason?

Hopefully these thoughts are nothing more than mad musings of a cynical old observer of world events. But with inequality growing at such a rate, racism thriving in some states, quality public education becoming a thing of the past, and the few remaining rational politicians like Bernie Sanders apparently having little chance of winning the presidency, one has to wonder where it is all leading.

History, truth and the corporate media

Posted Sunday June 14, 2015

I recently had the opportunity to watch the documentary Orwell Rolls in his Grave which, though now somewhat dated, clearly shows how media controls knowledge. In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government's Ministry of Truth was responsible for ensuring all surviving historical records were changed so that they reflected the Party's ideology and current policies. In our world today, the corporate-controlled media is essentially carrying out the role of the Ministry of Truth by presenting as "news" only what is acceptable to the government and suppressing all the rest.

In the old Soviet Union, reporters were allowed to report on almost anything, except for one "sacred cow." The integrity of communism and the Communist Party could not be brought into question. Today the situation is the same in the West. One of the surest ways to short-circuit one's journalism career is to question the integrity or justness of the capitalist system. Capitalist policies relating to the economy and international relations are seldom questioned, in the name of "patriotism." Case in point: When is overthrowing a democratically-elected government by means of a coup d’etat acceptable, and not questioned by the media? The answer, of course, is when it overthrows a government that opposes American-style capitalism and which the corporate-controlled government in Washington doesn’t like. Examples during my lifetime of U.S. involvement with coups overthrowing democratically-elected or populist governments (and usually involving the CIA) include:

  • Iran (1953)
  • Guatemala (1954)
  • Ecuador (1961, 1963)
  • Congo (Zaire) (1961, 1965)
  • Brazil (1964)
  • Indonesia (1965)
  • Greece (1967)
  • Bolivia (1971)
  • Chile (1973)
  • Nicaragua (1979 and through much of the ’80’s)
  • Haiti (1990)
  • …and most recently Ukraine.
For a while this year it looked like they were trying to incite a revolt in Argentina as well.

Also, governments and leaders in the following countries, though not democracies, have been overthrown largely through CIA involvement:

  • Cambodia (1970) involving the overthrew of its Prince for refusing to participate in the Vietnam war
  • Bolivia (1971)
  • Afghanistan (1979) which led to Islamic terrorism
  • El Salvador (1980) which involved disgraceful support for an unimaginably brutal and murderous military dictatorship.

It is noteworthy that in all these cases, the lot of the citizens has never been bettered, but usually ended up much worse than before the overthrow. But improving the lives of the common people is never the real intent of the perpetrators. The beneficiaries, if any, have generally been U.S. and multinational corporations.

So getting to the point of my little rant, I'm wondering who really remembers these historical events. They have been largely ignored by the mainstream media, and that's only getting worse. Are they being taught in history classes in schools? Clearly Orwell’s Ministry of Truth has been hard at work obscuring and obliterating history. Fortunately this information is still available on the internet, for those who care to search. However even the internet has recently come under attack from corporate conglomerates attempting to gain control of it, and this corporate effort was only fought off through strong public opposition. But in the corporatocracies in which we now live, we can expect another challenge to this remaining bastion of knowledge. If successful, the result would be that websites that maintain this kind of information would become marginalized by having bandwidth choked off. They would literally disappear from virtual space. And the Ministry of Truth finally will have triumphed, as in Orwell's novel.

Harper on Ukraine and Russia

Posted Thursday June 9, 2015

Last week, Prime Minister Harper made a point of stopping in Kiev on his way to the G7 meeting in Germany. The purpose was to show the world, and especially Russia, Canada's support for the U.S. backed government in Kiev in it's struggle against the eastern separatists. Apparently Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsenly Yatsenyuk asked Harper for more than moral support and military training. He also asked for actual weapons to help fight the Russians. So we're being asked to contribute actual armaments that will contribute to the deaths of more Ukrainians in their civil war.

If the corporate media are to be believed (which is doubtful), Harper did not immediately agree to Yatsenyuk's request for weapons...which is the first good thing I've heard about our Prime Minister in quite some time. However it must be remembered that neither Harper nor any of his government officials have even met with Alexander Darchiev, the new Russian Ambassador that was appointed last year. Clearly our government believes that military options are better than diplomatic efforts in dealing with this sad manifestation of a renewed cold war.

Alberta election

Posted Thursday May 7, 2015

The unthinkable has happened: the NDP has won the provincial election in what is traditionally Canada's most conservative province - and with a majority no less! They had never before even come close there. Even as polls increasingly predicted this outcome, I could scarcely believe it could happen in this historical bastion of right-wing conservatism.

While a good part of the result can be explained by the mismanagement and disarray of the Alberta Conservative Party, there was another, viable right-wing party - the Wild Rose Party which was very definitely in the running. Considering this, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the outcome was not merely a result of disgust with the preceding government, but a realization by many Albertans that the traditional right-wing argument that wealth trickles down from the Corporate "top" to the working class is just not happening. The corporate-friendly Conservative Party has lost all credibility, and one has to wonder what the federal Conservative Party is making of this result. Certainly it bodes ill for the re-election of Stephen Harper and Co. this fall, which cannot be a bad thing.

Easter!

Posted Sunday April 5, 2015

It has been a great Easter weekend here, both weather-wise and spiritually. We attended wonderful Good Friday and Easter services, and the Easter message was especially uplifting. It dealt with the implications of the resurrection for us, and especially the eternal life that is our great hope and expectation. Of course this belief is common amongst Christians. But as alluded to in my previous blog, with the passage of years it's importance becomes understood at a deeper level of consiousness. That's my experience anyway.

He is risen!

Time

Posted Sunday March 29, 2015

I've been away in Winnipeg for most of the past month attending to the estate of my late aunt, who passed away suddenly and peacefully at the good age of 95. Looking through her pictures, from her early years, through the time I got to know her as a kid in Winnipeg, and right to the end, it struck me again how time is the great enemy of mortal man.

Einstein was right - time is not a universal constant. Not only does time vary with one's velocity, it seems to increase as a function of one's age. When I was in elementary school, I recall waiting forever for summer vacation to come. Of course when I was 10 years old, one day comprised 1/3650, or ~ 0.03% of my total existence. Now approaching 64 years old, one day comprises only 1/23360, or about 0.004% of my life. And correspondingly, it seems to pass by six times as quickly as it did in my childhood.

My aunt was the last Neil of her generation. My generation now comprises the "seniors" in the family. It's all a part of the circle of life - to every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven (Ecclesiastes 3:1). But the words from Amy Grant's song Our Time is Now - "Time is illusion, time is a curse; Time is all these things and worse..." sure seem to ring true. And from another famous song, Stevie Nicks' Landslide -"Can I sail through the changing ocean tides; Can I handle the seasons of my life" (to which she later added "I don't know"), it's hard to know how we'll cope with the challenges of aging. But thankfully, we who are Christians have a promise of a better place awaiting us after we have passed from this current existence into a place where time will have little meaning.

How capitalism works

Posted Monday February 9, 2015

Democracy as we once knew it in the western world has ceased in most countries. We now live in what might more appropriately be called "corporatocracies." Corporations have all the rights of people, but none of the societal obligations or responsibilities. Without corporate support, politicians cannot afford the advertising needed to be elected, so of course they answer to those who funded their campaigns, rather than the people who elected them. This was made possible through the courts, whose lawyers are also largely dependent upon corporations for their business.

So how exactly does capitalism work, and what is the role of corporations? Sitting here at my MacBook computer, I think it might be appropriate to cite Apple as an example. It is by no means the worst, but it is the biggest, which makes it an easy target. In the last quarter, Apple made a profit of US$18B (as in billion), which is the greatest ever for a corporation anywhere in the world for a 3 month period. Their products are made mostly in China, and all income from outside the U.S. goes to Ireland. They set up shop there because of its low corporate taxes. None of this income is taxed in the U.S. (or in China for that matter). So the American people are certainly not getting a piece of the Apple pie. Instead, they pay for the infrastructure that Apple (and all corporations) require with their own tax dollars. Also bear in mind that American citizens, unlike its corporations, ARE, almost uniquely amongst the nations, required to pay American taxes even if they don't reside in America.

Meanwhile Apple is selling 10 iPhones per second globally, which is more than twice the rate at which human babies are coming into the world! The corporation makes US$2,314/per second in the process. From what Apple now has "in the bank," it could acquire outright:

  • IBM for US$152B; or
  • Ford, GM AND Tesla, and have US$41B left over; or
  • Disney for US$155B, including all its properties, rights, and subsidiaries.
A few weeks ago Apple spent US$2B on a new data centre for it's iCloud service as if it were pocket change (essentially it was).

Apple has US$178B cash in banks, but they went to the Bond market to borrow US$30B because it's cheaper to borrow the money and pay interest on it than to bring their own money into the U.S. and have to pay tax on it. They effectively pay half the tax rate of small American businesses - 19% of what they earn in the U.S. (but remember Ireland?). All their profits go to shareholders, and none to "regular" folks who can't possibly afford to buy Apple shares, or to the benefit of society at large. And remember, U.S. workers of this "American" company don't even get the jobs related to manufacturing the products.

By virtue of its size and profitability, Apple is noteworthy in it's "offshore" holdings, but this business practice is typical. Currently, US$2T (trillion) is hidden offshore by multinational, but ostensibly "American" corporations. On this they pay no tax, even though the IRS knows about it. When are Americans going to wake up to the fact that the capitalist system is what is actually robbing them of their jobs, wealth, and social benefits? And of course all western countries suffering under this unjust financial system are enduring the same outcomes.

Fascism

Posted Saturday February 7, 2015

I am growing increasingly concerned about the direction in which our national, "Conservative" government is leading this country. I have heard it said that Prime Minister Harper promised around a decade ago that if elected, he would change the country to the extent that it would be largely unrecognizable. I'm sure he meant that in a positive sense, but I greatly prefer the Canada that existed during my childhood, and even the Canada of late 20th century, to the unregulated, environmentally-unfriendly, militaristic Canada that we have now.

In particular I'm concerned about fascism. Most people associate fascism with Nazism, and relegate it to history. But what is it, really? There are various definitions floating around, but this list of characteristics is fairly representative:

  1. Promote powerful and continuing nationalism
  2. Disdain for human rights
  3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
  4. Supremacy of the military (remember when Canada was known as a nation of peacekeepers? (Matt. 5:9))
  5. Rampant sexism
  6. Controlled mass media
  7. Obsession with national security
  8. Religion and government intertwined
  9. Corporate power is protected
  10. Labour power is suppressed
  11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
  12. Obsession with crime and punishment
  13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
  14. Disdain for science and the environment
I'm not claiming that our government is fascist, but some of their policies and methods are so similar to fascism as to cause concern.

Ukraine - pawn in a new cold war

Posted Tuesday February 3, 2015

Sad but true.
The military-industrial complex in the U.S. requires constant war, and in particular it needs conflict with a credible opponent that has major armaments (i.e. nuclear). Without this, it becomes very difficult to justify spending 40% of the US federal budget on military-related expenses (especially considering that the U.S. military is already stronger than the combined strength of the next 16 ranked countries). The "war" on terrorism, and the Middle East in general, is highly unpredictable. Better to have an on-going, long-term conflict with a traditional foe.

Sadly, Ukrainians are paying the price, as did the Vietnamese some 45 years ago. But if you believe the corporate media reports, it isn't the West that's causing this conflict at all, it's the old bogeyman Russia (under new management now that the communists are gone).

So, what has really happened in Ukraine? It's hard to describe in a short blog, but here is a brief outline.

  • Ukraine has always had very close ties with Russia, but is also a divided country. In the east, the economy was good due in large part to large industrial and military contracts with Russia. There was also a lot of intermarriage between Russians and Ukrainians, and many spoke Russian as their first language. The economy in the west, including Kiev, was weaker, and many, especially the youth, lusted after the perceived wealth and higher living standards of western Europe (did they check on Greece?)
  • American Foreign Affairs sought to exploit this schism, and used every available method to foment rebellion against democratically-elected but admittedly corrupt Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych. Foul-mouthed U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, famous for her "F*ck the Europeans" quote regarding their lack of support for what she was bringing about in Ukraine, has explained that the U.S. has spent US$5B over the past two decades to essentially subvert Ukraine. She had assured Ukrainians that there are prominent businessmen who support this U.S. project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia, and into the U.S. sphere of interest (and NATO). Not only is it unknown who exactly caused the violence at Maidan in Kiev to trigger this conflict, it is normally expected that in a democracy one awaits an election for a change in leadership. If this had not been a U.S. - inspired revolution (like so many others in recent memory), this would have been called what it was - a coup d'etat. It is also disgusting to hear Nuland speak about what is "absolutely impermissible" in Ukraine, a foreign, independent country. You can learn more on this, and hear Nuland herself speaking here.
  • Nuland's hand-picked replacement for Yanukovych was Petro Poroshenko. Since eastern Ukraine was essentially in a state of civil war by the time of the "election," he did of course win, based on support from the west.
  • Regarding Crimea, it is conveniently overlooked by western media (which controls western public opinion) that Crimea has historically been Russian, and was not so long ago (in my lifetime) given as a gift to Ukraine by former Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev. This, despite the fact the port there is an indispensable component of the Russian Naval infrastructure. He did this because he, and Russians in general, had complete trust in Ukraine as an ally. With Porshenko openly wanting to gain membership of Ukraine in NATO, it would have been a catastrophe for Russia to have lost the Crimean port. It would be like expecting the U.S. Navy to give up it's naval port in the Hawaiian Islands...worse, actually. So the outcome was entirely predictable, and was no surprise to U.S. intelligence (though they publicly claim that this was an outrageous land-grab by Russia, and that the people of Crimea should never have been allowed to vote on the matter).

I followed the Vietnam War in great detail on shortwave radio back in the 1960's, and learned then that the only national news service that could be trusted was the BBC World Service from Great Britain. The only thing that has changed is that the BBC has now become a mouthpiece of their government for propaganda purposes, just like all mainstream western media. Russia Today is also obviously biased, but actually seems more truthful than western media. About the only western media source that is worth listening to today regarding politics and economics is Democracy Now, though I find it rather unpalatable on social issues (pro-abortion and LGBTQ agenda). In general, I've learned that what is said on corporate media broadcasts is best disregarded. If not disregarded, then one is better to assume that the opposite is true.

Kick 'em while they're down

Posted Sunday January 25, 2015

Now that Venezuela's economy is suffering from low oil prices, the U.S. along with it’s good friends at the World Bank are out to kick them when they're down. The Venezuelan program of providing cheap oil to other South American countries has benefited it's cash-strapped neighbours, but greatly annoyed multinational oil companies. The wording of the American media report is interesting. It states that Venezuela has created an “addiction” to their cheap oil. The Venezuelan program, brought in by the late President Hugo Chavez, is seen as keeping the region "dependent" on Venezuela for energy. The U.S. is out to change things, warning these dependent countries that they can no longer depend on Venezuela for their energy needs. Presumably they should be borrowing from the World Bank to purchase more expensive, fracked natural gas from the north.

Those nasty Venezuelans, creating addictions and dependencies. Of course no organization is quite as good at making poor nations dependent as the World Bank is.

Sometimes I really have to shake my head at how biased the western media is toward U.S. global interests. The article I'm referring to can be found here.

Also I hear that the U.S. is going to be ramping up its foreign news capabilities by US$750M this year, citing the need to counteract propaganda from sources such as ISIS, Boko Haram, and RT. Yes, they included Russia Today, which is certainly no more biased than North American corporate media, lumping them in with the two terrorist organizations. The Cold War is definitely back on.

More shocking statistics on inequality

Posted Monday January 17, 2015

OXFAM reported yesterday that the wealth of the richest 85 people in the world is equal to the wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people! That means that those 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest half of the people on the planet combined. Think on that for a minute.

Furthermore, since the end of 2009 the number of billionaires has doubled from 793 to 1645 (OXFAM data). In the same time, the number of children living in poverty has increased in more than 30 countries (UNICEF data). Of course there can't be a connection. (The concentration of wealth increased by 120% globally during this time.)

Meanwhile, right-wing American media have raised the question of whether Pope Francis is a communist because of his emphasis on helping the poor. I think it says something about today's society, and especially some evangelical Christians, when they criticize a man for prioritizing the poor. One has to wonder how Jesus would be received if he returned today and preached his sermon on the beatitudes (Luke 6:20-36). Would he be thrown out of the temple?

Regarding the charge that he's a communist, Pope Francis said that "people don't understand that love for the poor is at the centre of the Gospel. In that regard, Communists have stolen the flag of Christianity." So true.

The Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack

Posted Monday January 12, 2015

I'm not sure we need yet another illustration of the disastrous consequences of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and especially the invasion of Iraq. But the recent attacks in Paris certainly provide unequivocal evidence that the military activities led by the U.S. are primarily responsible. Terrorist Cherif Kouachi, involved in this attack, had clearly stated back in 2008 that his interest in radical Islam was rooted in his fury over the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, and particularly the mistreatment of Muslims held at Abu Ghraib prison1. Of course we know that Saddam Hussein had no love for al Qaeda, and nothing at all to do with the 911 terrorist attack that was part of the justification for the Iraq invasion.

Abu Ghraib, and the well documented torture carried out there on people not even charged with a crime, is a terrible blot on American history. That prison, together with continuing drone strikes, is resulting in the creation of terrorists far more rapidly than they can be eliminated.

Reference: (1) Terrorist background of the Paris Jihad Mass Murderers