Beep Beep - Egypt!

Great article on the way the idea of revolution has become mythologized as a peculiarly Eurocentric piece of rhetoric. Facebook, social media and the like have danced at the corners of this event - waving their victory flags (and all the more in the RELATIVE non-violence of this uprising). It worries me that revolution might already be just another commodified entity in an ever cheapening rhetorical sociological frame work.

"If the mythology of revolution indicates a pure state of popular will, the mysticism of the state—its modern political theology—reposes on a redundancy: a mysterious ritual of self-establishment that literally allows it to float in the air without the need to look down; it does not need awareness since it is itself, in Hegelian parlance, the peak of consciousness, spirit incarnate. Every state, by definition, walks on the edge of—and indeed across—a precipice: not just by demanding that millions of citizens comply with the law by imposing just a modicum of violence in routine times but also, as more people in the world are now becoming aware, by piling up hundreds of billions of “sovereign” debt for decades without anybody really worrying about it."

See entire article here:The elusive subject of revolution « The Immanent Frame

A little Christmas Trudeau

“Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human values: compassion, love, and understanding.”

Food Sovereignty, Women, and Peace

Mennonite Central Committee has come out with a nifty little button to wear instead of a poppy. The idea is that a poppy might convey the type of solidarity with war that is completely contrary to the religious ideology of the MCC. I understand that position but I am somewhat ambivalent to the use of this other symbol as a form of subtle protest. In fact there is a dull irony at work here if one considers it a little longer. It seems ironic that an agency that is ‘working toward peace’ might choose this coy-ish protest. Perhaps it is evidence that when we plead to ‘give peace a chance’ we intuitively know that that peace is not the natural state of being for humanity-that it takes a form of aggressiveness to procure peace of injustice. Please don’t misunderstand me to be unsupportive of MCC’s agenda – its just interesting how we frame what we say…

To that end La Via Campesina has come out with a statement about how food sovereignty is connected to ending all forms of injustice against women.
Women united for food sovereignty and against violence towards women

Raj Patel expands on this in his book The Value of Nothing

'”At their conference in Maputo, Mozambique, in 2008, La Via Campesina cam up with a new slogan and series of strategies around food sovereignty in which they’re explicitly targeting transnational corporations, in a move that focuses and unifies its various branches. the new slogan is the most revealing, because it put’s society's most pervasive inequality of power front and center “Food sovereignty is about an end to all forms of violence against women.”

…their latest declaration shows an understanding of hunger as the most recent manifestation of millennia of exploitation, and of the distortion of relationships around how value is set. they diagnose the problem of hunger and poverty not as a shortage of food but as a lack of power…La Via Campesina (is) organizing their countermovement in response to the spread of capitalism that not only turns land work into commodities, but turned workers themselves into private property.” (p. 124, 125)

So then I suspect that the work that MCC is doing will actually be framed with a good deal of what might legitimately be called violence as it works proactively to address the injustices of places like Nepal.

I (heart) Alberta Beef

Weight Log: 222 lb

Look I am not a conspiracy theorist – let’s just get that out of the way! I know and love many farmers and related industry workers. I would never suggest that the public was conspired against to ease the effects of mad cow disease (especially on Alberta farmers where over 40% of Canadian cattle reside). With that disclaimer out of the way let me suggest something interesting in the coincidence of recent history. Notice if you will what seemed like a largely uncorrelated coincidence at the time – namely the popularity of an old weight loss diet developed by Dr. Robert Atkins and the height of the mad cow crisis in North America. Both of these phenomenon occurred concurrently in 2003.

At its height, the Atkins diet controversial as it may have been, had 1 in every 11 Americans using its prescriptions in order to lose weight. Popularly understood to be the meat diet – this program based its low-carb. plan on science that supported a protein rich nutritional intake that would inevitably reduce weight. It is more than a little interesting that mad cow disease reared its ugly head during this time as well.

Mad cow disease arrived largely due to the practice of feeding beef to beef. In other words, left over bits of animal (especially the nervous system tissues) were incorporated into the feed that other beef animals were given to eat. Since the original flesh was contaminated with the disease – the feed was also contaminated and then so were the animals that ate the feed. As a result whole herds of animals were exterminated in order to insure the safety of North American food supply. Borders between countries were closed to exports and imports of beef products. And there arose a substantial protest movement in Alberta and other places that sought to support the crashing beef industry. The ubiquitous I (heart) Alberta Beef signs seemed to spread like chicken pox on a toddler. In the end a number of beef producers were forced into a position of bankruptcy despite the rallies and barbeques and prayer meetings.

It is more than a little ironic that a diet plan advocating meat/protein thrived in a period in recent history when a major source of meat in North America was experiencing turmoil. The question is not about whether the beef industry orchestrated this coincidence of history – I will leave that to other more pedantic speculators…

What appears as interesting is when you ask a question like: Was choosing the Atkins diet in ‘03/’04 a political act of support for the beef industry or a desire on the part of individuals to lose weight? In other words, were individuals choosing to go on the Atkins diet because they wanted to show solidarity with the beef industry or was a it an attempt to configure their lives and body images toward the conventions of society? A fairly cursory survey of the research suggest that no such study has ever been conducted so we are only left with speculation. But the actual result of such a study are not critical to be able to ask some significant questions about the collision of these two phenomenon on the socio-political scene.

In what ways can our choice of food resist the impending peril that is understood to be available in that type of food? If one in every 11 Americans were on that diet we can surmise that a substantial number of Americans were either completely oblivious to the potential dangers in the food they were eating or were willing to accept the risk associated with eating this type of food. In either case one might wonder what it was about the power of the Atkins diet that could produce such a great affinity for its weight loss plan. What narrative explanation was at work in allowing both protest rallies and diet adherents to forgo the warnings of substantial regulatory bodies in eating meat? The answer here might give us a clue about the ways in which resistance is meaningfully constructed on a social basis. This might allow us to unravel other ways that social resistance is constructed and maintained.

Daniel Miller in “Stuff” talks about the idea of resistance.

“When someone tell us we should do this or that, we bridle and feel put upon. When this message is carried, not by a hectoring voice, but well hidden within the mere substance of apparently hidden stuff, we are less likely to sense our disempowerment.” – p.82

I am an immigrant…

I am an immigrant

I am here to take your job away from you

I will sponge off your tax dollars

I will soak up your pension

I will crowd the hallways of your hospital

I will force you to accept my outlandish religious views

I am an immigrant

I came here to screw you over

I want to take over your culture

I want to run your political institutions

I want to make your country as much like my own as possible.

Because…

The country I came from was perfect

no war

no poverty

no bigotry

no sexism

no religious restrictions

I could wear whatever I wanted to wear

I could pray to whomever I want to pray to

I could talk openly about my beliefs without anyone threatening to put me in jail

I was never persecuted because of my dialect or color of skin

I never saw my entire village wiped out by genocidal maniacs

I never had to worry about my family starving

I never watched my children running naked through the streets.

My country was perfect

I am an immigrant

Safe or Brave?

"[Governor General Michaelle Jean was not just being asked a constitutional question. In the nation's eyes, she was also being asked a moral question: is it democratic to silence the House of Commons for one-sided political power?

I'm not going to refer to Charles I, as others have. I'm directing the question to Jean: is it moral?

In the worst economic crisis since 1929, as Harper himself said, is it moral for multinationals to lay off hundreds of thousands of humans worldwide?

Was it moral for GM, Chrysler and Ford to willfully disregard "peak oil," a
concept known for decades and continue to churn out gas-guzzlers? Was it moral for unions to fail to prod automakers to look to the future as Japanese carmakers had wisely done?

Is it moral for a prime minister to egg on Canadians to hate each other?

All these things were easy to do. Canadians don't riot. In this country, a
political autobiography would be called The Hope for Audacity.

Auto executives will continue to live well. So will union leaders. Harper
will be fine." - Heather Mallick

See the rest of the editorial here

Oh Canada?!

Indulge me for a moment to comment of the political shenanigans transpiring in our nation's capital. I am not, as it is likely no surprise, particularly worried or bothered by the prospect of a coalition government. But that has less to do with how my ideological bent informs my political desires than it does with the dilemma presented by this form of government. I am also mystified by how media buffoonery has allowed the political rhetoric to once again reflect the contrived notion of partisanship.

That a coalition might be supported/enabled by the Bloc should not concern us in the ways it has in public discourse thus far. The Bloc is a separatist party whose intention is to see Quebec achieve the status of nation. If we are to follow the information given to us by Ipsos Reid and other polling organizations we would do well to note that voters who have sent Bloc members to Ottawa have done so for a myriad of reasons. It is true that Harper had 28% voter share in Quebec before the French debate and after the debate only 18%. The subsequent shift to the Bloc was due to Harpers position on arts funding, etc. Regardless of why they switched it is clear that the spectre of separatist rhetoric was not a direct cause of the shift but the failure of Harpers policies to convince voters to support him. Voters for the Bloc will identify most strongly with many of the more conservative values that the PC's espouse. The point I am trying to make here is that politics makes strange bedfellows. Let's remember that the PC's as it stands right now cannot pass a single piece of legislation without the complicit 'support' of one of the other parties.

Until now this complicity was not seen as a negative light on the PC's regardless if they needed the NDP's or the Bloc. PC's were not seen as compromising their values by being enabled by separatists or socialists. Rex Murphy is right to lay the blame for this crisis at the feet of Stephen Harper's feet for trying to lop off the fundraising power of his rival parties.

What everyone seems to be missing is the clear opportunity that is presented to address the presence of the Bloc as a political force. How can the Bloc truly consider itself a separatist party when it allows itself to become a central cog in the machinery of Canadian governmental system? Why isn't the media jumping all over the Bloc for it flavour of the week political pandering? I think have a feeling that many Quebecers are embarrassed by the childish isolationism and the fickle ideology of a party who would seek to govern them as a future nation. I have a feeling that there are those who are feeling much the way Albertans felt when the separatist rhetoric of the Canadian Alliance clowned its way through the parliamentary system. Alas it seems everyone is too nervous to speak to the blatant inconsistencies that would have a separatist party become part of the government but isn't that sorta what we have already? I mean regionalism is alive and well. We should not be deluded to think that Canadian provinces are or could be viable on their own.

In the end it seems to me that the things we are not talking about is often more interesting than what we are talking about…

Bedroom Punditry

Levi gives us an Election postmortem...

According to the 20 or so respondents to my very scientific poll. Chickens and fish won the vote for least wrong to eat. Tigers on the other hand won the vote as the least appealling meal choice. Crafty buggers! They run a shifty campaign! I even heard they were running for the demoncrat nomination for President - hey wait scratch that I was thinking 'cougar' - - SILLY ME!
Just Kidding!

Clinton-Obama

Immigrants should be sterilized…

Today in my sociology class we watched a National Film Board documentary called, "The Sterilization of Leilani Muir". Here's the basics:

Leilani was born into a family where she was largely unwanted, and had a difficult childhood. Her mother was often inebriated and withheld food from Leilani. However, Leilani reportedly maintained an average performance in school. The only allegations made against her by the school were for stealing food. As Leilani aged, her mother tried to find ways to remove her from the family. When she was eight, Leilani's mother placed her in the Midnapore Convent for a month. Then, in 1953, Leilani's mother sent an application for Leilani to attend the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives (a.k.a the Michener Center) in Red Deer, Alberta. At that time Leilani was rejected due to a high volume of patients, but she was later accepted, on July 12, 1955, shortly before her 11th birthday. Leilani was accepted into the school solely on the basis of information provided by her mother, without any diagnostic testing. Before Leilani could be accepted into PTS, the program required a signature from a guardian permitting the legal enforcement of compulsory sterilization. Leilani's mother used her then boyfriend's (future husband's) name, Harley Scorah, to agree to the sterilization of her daughter. Leilani saw her mother only intermittently over the years until her departure from the school at the age of 20. (read more here)

So Leilani scores 64 on an IQ test and is confirmed for sterilization. The reason: that she should not pass along her deficiencies to her progeny. She's told that she is going to get an appendectomy and when she goes under the knife she also gets a tubal ligation. Later on in life she finds out that she cannot have kids. She also scores an even 101 on a subsequent IQ test. She successfully sues the Alberta Government and wins ¾ of a million dollars in compensation for it suffering.

What surprised me about the documentary is the connection that this legislation had to anti-immigration and racist ideologies. Here's a brief description of the bill's history and impetus:

Here's the line that stands out for me (it was an aspect of the documentary that was especially disturbing as well):

The United Farmers of Alberta (that's right it's the UFA we all know and love?), a grassroots movement, responded quickly to the Survey and called on the government to draft legislation for life segregation or sterilization of the feebleminded. The weight of the survey's results, combined with growing fear that new immigrants were inferior, had generated fears over the protection of land and jobs.

It is irrefutable that anti-immigration sentiments fueled what is ostensibly a not so distant cousin of the Arian race policies of Nazi Germany. Recently, I received some of those ubiquitous forwarded emails which expressed some very strong anti-immigration sentiments. While I understand that immigration policy is very complex and nuanced – it is still very disturbing to read these electronic propaganda pieces which essentially promote much of the same racist overtones.

New Web Site to check out - BIG THINK

For those of you interested in this - I've posted this video to some of Steven Pinkers thoughts. This type of thought was pretty common in my philosophy class last semester and I think it is worth contending with (that's different than endorsing - ok). It's a more condensed version of some of the stuff that Ryan posted on here
here is the link http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/1132

What’s wrong with kids these days… …2?

Adult: Sometimes I worry that kids these days will never make it into adulthood.

Youth: What do you mean? If you mean that we won't become like you than – I certainly hope that never happens.

Adult: Well, even if you don't adopt my lifestyle, I really hope you won't throw all that we have worked for - squandered in irresponsible reckless living.

Youth: What exactly have you done that is so great?

Adult: Well, we essentially ended the global nuclear threat.

Youth: Was it really ever was a real threat – come on.

Adult: Exactly, you don't appreciate the stuff you have never had to dread.

Youth: But if my history teacher was correct – you guys sorta started the "Cold War" – didn't you?

Adult: Never mind – that was complicated. What about the sexual revolution?

Youth: You guys actually revolted against sex?

Adult: Shut up wise guy. I mean we fought and won major battles for equality in women's rights, gay and lesbian legitimacy. And we tore down those archaic institutionalized forms of marriage that essentially where beat zones for women.

Youth: Does that have anything to do with the fact that I have three dad's and two mom's?

Adult: You really don't get it. Women were locked in repressive relationships dictated by society. We gave them freedom. We gave them opportunities for jobs they never dreamed of having before.

Youth: So now both parents work all the time and that's better?

Adult: Well maybe if some of you younger folks would contribute the family could make it more easily. I hate to flog a dead horse but you guys are irresponsible brats. You have sex with who ever you want, you can't stick with a job let alone a career, you're in debt up to your eyeballs and loaded on some sorta substance. You just can't throw all that on our laps as if we made you into these bumbling oafs.

Youth: Ooooh! You got me. Now listen are you going to get that text message – it could be mom you know…

Adult: How do I pick those up again?

Youth: No not like that you'll get screwed on your minutes. Give it here. Gosh for someone who 'created' this wonderful 21^st Century you really are a bit of bumbling – what was it again…

Harry Potter as an example of the weapon of choice in the new world order

Information:
I talked to one of the managers of our local Chapters outlet she commented on the strict policy governing the release of the new Harry Potter book. She said that no one was allowed to open the boxes they were packed in until a certain time before their release. She said there were security guards at the unloading of the shipment to each store. This all to ensure that a copy of the book could not be released/pirated early.
Then on Q, I heard about how a copy of Michael Moore’s latest film Sicko:

…has been circulating around on the web on file sharing and YouTube. What’s funny about this is that Moore is on record for stating that he is opposed to the copyright rules that govern this type of material. The company that distributes his yet to be released documentary is claiming that it will take a very aggressive approach in rectifying the problem.
Then my buddy Evie posts a cool little take on how ignorants get to set the budgetary agenda of an entire province. He’s got a point too.
All boils down to this. The power of this world belongs (or will soon belong) to the one who can control information. Our access to it. Our possession of it. And ultimately our use of it – which will become secondary. Look out for the new democracy of the web that will insist that every one deserves to know. Look out for the info twisters of this new world who wish to manipulate the information in much the same way those old apothecaries did in the early 1900’s. Look out for the Information Protectors who hoard and with-hold information for their own purposes.

So now what do you know?

Tony takes on George....

and wins
mostly...
...seems to kinda duck on the Clinton question - a little bit.
I love how he brings it with George...

ht to Tanya for the late night call

iRack

who says technology is appl-itical...

try pronouncing this guys name...

quote: "It used to be cheaper to govern a million people that it is to kill a million people but now (post 9-11) its the opposite..."

Some friends of mine have been talking...

about how pluralism is affecting our lives - especially as we try to live them out day to day. Here and here.
And I was listening to John Mayer and I am starting to wonder if I am, "lack of coherence or consistency with respect to one’s views about the world." Well not really so much. but check out these lyrics and then if you want to follow the link to watch a video performance of the song...
Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing there mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time
Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily
Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for
Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside
Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

Video Clip of song on YouTube

Not sure that I fully grasp what Mayer's point is entirely here but let me suggest a few things.

So much of western culture is cerebral - head based. Think about it. This gets really evident when it comes to popular culture. Societal distinctions are made on the basis of musical tastes, habitual Television viewing experiences (shows you watch regularly), reaction to movies, pundits perspectives on politics, talking points, 'branding' as a marketing strategy (Mac/PC; Nike/RBK; Telus/Bell), choice of sports team selected to win pugalistic ball game (Colts by the way), etc., etc., What these factors all have in common is that they are essentially things that we 'receive' through our senses and interact with in our brain. Even jumping around at a concert, is, at the core, an experiential element. These are not things we actually do. They are essentially things that happen to us...

In my view these are societal distinctions are becoming more and more important strata of identification. This is not how it used to be. Much more importance was put on one's ability to accomplish certain tasks. Vocational roles, gender function roles, financial status roles, etc., Now it's not that these things are no longer important but they are lessening. And things like keeping up with the lastest television show, or having the right brand of clothing are more important.

Problems around pluralism are complicated when they are related to the cognitive aspects of human experience. When one of the main functions of societal identity and one's place in it is the determination of what point of view we are going to take on this or that, we are dealing with pluralism in only one dimension.

As far as Christianity is concerned, for as long as our focus is going to be on trying to convince people to think the right thoughts, we will struggle in our culture. When we decide to be obedient to the truth we know and put into practice the best way to live - I think we will struggle less with how alarming pluralism seems to be in culture.

Luke 7:35 - "Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."Otherwise said, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Eugene Peterson

I think this is what John Mayer is getting at here. Everyone is competing for brain space over what is the right way to think. Yet ironically for all the energy wasted on convincing people's brains our actions seem to tell the most gruesome tale about what we really think. Of course it would be stupid to shut off our brains and stop doing all this wild and wacky theology and ideology. But it might be better for us to remember what kind of pudding we actually taste like...

great politcal poetry none too reverent...

john allemang: poetic justice

a short excerpt;

Osama's Christmas Letter

The season's best to all of you

(unless you're a Christian, Kurd, or Jew);

It's been a hectic time, I know

For all who hate the foreign foe

But here in hidden border caves

The past year's made us terror's slaves

And while the mountain air's a perk

Next year for sure, I'm quitting work

To spend time with the wife and kids

And sell my memoirs - any bids?

p.135

thanks again trudy perfect Christmas gift

minority rights r us...

From Rick Mercer's Blog:
I have heard rumours that in the future the Conservatives plan on devoting every Thursday in the House of Commons to more votes on minority rights.
So far they have planned motions debating whether the Chinese should be allowed to drive, whether women should be allowed to vote and whether turbans should be allowed in... (read more)