That line in the sand

Chris Walley, over at News from Farholme (check out his Lamb Among the Stars series as well - its pretty awesome) just put up a post about how, in many areas of life, we draw a line in the sand, and keep thinking everything is ok, as long as that line isn't crossed, and we live with our heads in the sand sometimes (yes, I know, that's one sand metaphor too many - Dr. Walley is a professional author, I am not). Here's an excerpt:

In a complex world it is easy over issues of concern to mark a line in the sand at some particular point. You turn your attention elsewhere, constantly glancing back at your line in the sand and, as long as it remains untouched, you conclude that all is well. So, for example, I consider that everything is all right as long as I can walk down to the city centre in daylight without being mugged. There are many such benchmarks in society and in our lives. Indeed I suspect almost all our public and private morality is composed of a series of such benchmarks.

Cool ... wait a second ... ?!?

I just finished a good book - it has a neat view of what the world could be like in 30 years. I might have blogged about it before (my Google-fu says nay), but its a really well worth reading - there are some interesting, plausible ideas about the future of society, the environment, and the net. Then I got to the end of the book, where the author is writing his notes about writing a 50-year forward projection, and talking about the end of the Cold War as a current event ... wait a second. A check of the front cover reveals that it was published in 1990 - that's right - we're nearly halfway into the future depicted there, and its still a reasonable idea of what the future will look like. I would definitely recommend reading it if you get the chance - available on Amazon or possibly your local public library (they're wonderful places, incidentally - they even have music and movies nowadays).

And did you really think I'd reccommend a book without mentioning the title or author? Earth, by David Brin, is what you're looking for.

Now THAT'S Power

President Obama changed rush hour.

Admittedly, only for one day, but still, that's something. He was in Ottawa today, and his motorcade was driving from the Ottawa airport up to Parliament - a route that more or less bisects the city. This wasn't a major inconvenience this morning (I think) as most of the road closures were effected after the morning rush hour. But, his return trip (around 4 in the afternoon, I think), changed traffic. With the city more or less carved in two, everyone was leaving work early (myself included - don't worry, someone about three levels up the org chart from me authorized it - I wasn't playing hooky) - I left work at 3, and still had to ask an RCMP officer for permission to cross the street, and it was rush hour traffic for my entire trip home, well before one would expect rush hour to be. (I'd hate to imagine the security when Bush went to Iraq (and still got shoes thrown at him) - this was a visit to an allied capital, where Obama is popular). So, the President of the United States can change rush hour for a city of 1 000 000, simply by his presence. That's power. (And no, I didn't see the motorcade - missed it both times - though its got to be weird not to hear helicopters all the time after you retire from the Presidency)

The Obama Inauguration

So, like half the other politicians, political pundits, and armchair statecraft enthusiasts on the planet (likely), I'm putting a post up about the Obama Inauguration (I haven't checked yet - why waste an opportunity to talk about something I'm completely unqualified for by doing research :-) ). A few of the people at work had CNN on at lunch, so I joined them and watched President Obama's swearing in and speech. He was obviously nervous (he fumbled twice during the swearing in, though I think the first time was the other guy's fault), though it didn't show on his face. His speech, IMHO, was good, but not great. It was eloquent, well delivered, and seemed to balance realism with inspiration fairly well, but nothing really stood out. (Well, besides the parts where my Canadian background snickered at the American-ness of parts of it - this inbuilt assumption that America is naturally a world leader, and needs to return to that state.) I think it set a good tone for his presidency, and he does look like he'll do, at the very least, a competant job, especially given the conditions he's been dealt. However, I think those who are expecting Obama to save America, and singlehandedly fix everything will be sorely disappointed. He's only human. His speech, though very applicable now, will likely not be remembered in 10 years - schoolchildren will not be memorizing it for decades to come, and, if I can measure a President by his inaugural speech (why not, this is the blogosphere), I think that while he may be what America needs now, he won't be very much noted a generation from now.

A few political notes

So, just quickly, American presidential race - I still want Obama to win, he's got a lot of momentum, and there's rumblings about Hillary's race being in trouble. On the Republican side, McCain has it pretty much wrapped up, though Huckabee is staying in it. The Democrats are going to win the election anyway.

On the Canadian front, the election rumblings are dying down, as the Liberals and Tories have made a deal on Afghanistan pull out. It's not set in stone yet, but its looking good. What I think more interesting, is that, in a recent poll, the Greens are polling even with the NDP - I'd like to see them win some seats in the coming election, and I think they may be able to manage it. (The Conservatives are near majority-government level support - not a bad thing - Harper is competent, and has done a good job as PM)

Peace

Election Update - Iowa

Well, as some of you may have heard, Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses by a significant margin. I haven't really heard enough about the Republican field to decide who I would rather win (but have no real impact on, as I'm not American ...). Huckabee doesn't seem any worse than any of the others (he was a Baptist minister at one time), but the Republican candidate isn't going to win anyway (and pundits more professional than myself are saying that Huckabee's Iowa win isn't all that significant - lots of Baptists there). Obama's win in Iowa is more encouraging - his message is one of unity, and co-operation - something American government sorely needs after the previous administration's polarizing election tactics. Also, relieving my earlier doubts somewhat, Iowa is primarily white, yet Obama won as a black man - perhaps race won't be as big of an issue as I feared. In any case, it was a major boost for his campaign, and a hit to Clinton's and Edwards', the strongest of the other candidates. Anyway, though an election I could actually vote in would be more interesting ... this one's not bad. Later.

Presidential Prognostications '08

Well, just because I like to, I'm going to sit down in my armchair and put on my political analyst hat. What I'm thinking about is the American Presidential election of next year (a subject which I, admittedly, know not very much about, not being American - then again, I also have a more objective outside perspective ...). For starters, the Republicans are sunk. Bush and Cheney have wrecked their support, and I think it would be very hard for any Republican candidate to win. That said, I think Fred Thompson has the best shot of any of the Republican Presidential candidates - never underestimate the Schwarzenegger effect - Thompson played a very presidential figure on TV, and has actual Senate experience ... In the Democratic race, I predict Hillary will win, but would rather see Obama take it. Clinton is a polarizing figure, while Obama seems to have a more co-operative style of leadership. Of the candidates, from both parties, I'd most like to see him in the White House next year. I think that's unlikely however. We like to think we've moved beyond race as a society, but America, especially, has fought a war over it, and had all sort of historical racial stressors. That sort of thing stays in a society, and is not easily gotten over (just look at English and French in Canada - and we haven't been at open war for centuries). I don't think America will elect a black President (though they should). So, my current prediction: The Democratic candidate, likely Hillary Clinton, will be POTUS this time next year. I'll keep you posted (as we may not have a Canadian federal election to keep me occupied until 2009 ...).

Crazy Idea of the Month

Well, the recent Daylight Savings Time change got me thinking about times. Specifically, why are they still tied to the sun? It is archaic. We have electric lights, we have globalized communications - why are our clocks still synchronized to the time that the sun rises or sets in our particular corner of the world? Why can't we just use a 24-hour time clock (because 12-hour clocks are redundant, confusing, and would likely completely disappear if TV switched to a 24-hour clock), universalized over the entire map. (UTC, known in the past as GMT or Zulu, would work). As far as the calendar goes, January is midsummer in Australia, yet midwinter here. Why is it that 6AM is morning in both locations? Just a crazy idea ... I'm sure there are (increasingly less valid) reasons for tying our clocks to the sun's rise and set ... but still - it would help with a few things (international communication and transport come to mind) (admittedly, I expect those whom it would help most - FedEx and such - are already using this sort of system). Signing off, time: 2225.

It shouldn't be that way ....

There's an article on IHT today about Pope Benedict visiting South America, and the challenges facing the Catholic church there. The article spends a good deal of time discussing the rising Protestant threat to Catholicism. It really shouldn't be that way. While there are some significant and important theological differences between the Protestant and Catholic views of Christianity, there's a lot that's the same too - the two groups should be natural allies, not competitors. Perhaps this is a special exempt case (as I said, there are some important divergences between Protestant and Catholic faith), but I still really don't like to see denominational infighting in the Christian church. When it comes down to it, we're aiming for the same goal, and our collective energies would be better spent in pursuit of that goal, rather than arguing among ourselves.

Oh my ...

There was a really big college shooting at Virginia Tech today ... shocking and horrifying - not much info out yet, but here's one article.

PS - This is my 100th post. Whoo-hoo! Wish I had a better topic.

Just Passing it on

They have an interesting article on the International Herald Tribune about a push to outlaw Holocaust denial. I mainly just wanted to pass the article on, but I really think that banning it is the wrong way - as the article states, while the Holocaust was a horrible, depraved event, outlawing the denial of it is pointless, as it is well documented, and established historical fact, and the threat to free speech is just too much. My two cents.

The Remembrance Day Post

Odd, I always thought the poppy was a completely Canadian thing - apparently its British too though - interesting. Just one thing I thought was strange - I just heard this year about white "peace poppies" - this idea strikes me as very strange, as they are very controversial. Odd that the peace poppy reduces peace ...

No Comment ... well, maybe

Came across this online - thought it interesting enough to pass on ... Australia just seems like an atypical location for a Muslim cleric to be saying insensitive things. His (amended) argument seems coherent (I said coherent not correct), but he picked an extremely poor analogy.

Senior Muslim cleric in Australia has apologised for his comment that Muslim women who did not wear the hijab headdress looked like "uncovered meat" and were inviting sexual assault.

Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly said he had only intended to protect women's honour and that comments had been taken out of context in a report in The Australian newspaper.

The Australian quoted Hilali as saying: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?"

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he said in a sermon last month to mark the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, referring to the headdress worn by some Muslim women.

However, the comment has caused an uproar in Muslim communities worldwide.

Leading Muslim women had called the comments repulsive.

BREAKING NEWS - Military Coup in Thailand

Though there isn't much news out yet (and may not be for a while - the press has been locked down) there has been a military coup in Thailand. Without firing, a leading army general has occupied the capital, suspended the constitution, and set up martial law. The organization forming the government is known as the "Council of Administrative Reform", and pledges alliegience to the king. They claim they intend to hand power back to the people and re-establish democracy in short order, once they have re-written the constitution to de-emphasize the executive branch, the powers of which they claim the deposed Prime Minister abused. The burning question in this situation is whether or not the PM had a true mandate to govern. His party had swept the last three elections with massive support, but the opposition parties had boycotted the last election, and no Parliament had been set up, as another election was pending. There had also been massive rioting in Bankok (the capital) leading up to the coup against his party, which is popular primarily in rural areas. This is a situation worth watching, as we have yet to see whether what just occured is the removal of an over-reaching Prime Minister, or a power grab by the King (who is personally quite popular).

New WTC Design

They just released the new tower designs for the World Trade Center site in NYC - its good to see they are starting to fill in the skyline again - and the new designs look modern and recognizable. I'd say this is a good thing.

--[Editor's note: I tried to post a picture of this, but the computer was being uncooperative - just click the link and view the original article if you want to see]

Hitler in India

Interesting article on the International Herald Tribune site. Apparently Hitler isn't viewed quite so negatively in India as in the rest of the world. Quite an odd read, even if it may just be the Tribune (like the restaurant in the story) drilling for publicity.

Why Suicide Bombs?

I found a link to an interesting argument by a guy called Haim Harari about the reason for suicide bombings, and general unrest in the Middle East/Muslim world. It seems to make a lot of sense. I'll quote an excerpt here, but the full article is quite worth reading.

So what is all the fuss about suicide killings? It creates headlines. It is spectacular. It is frightening. It is a very cruel death with bodies dismembered and horrible severe lifelong injuries to many of the wounded. It is always shown on television in great detail. One such murder, with the help of hysterical media coverage, can destroy the tourism industry of a country for quite a while, as it did in Bali and in Turkey.
...
What is behind the suicide murders? Money, power and cold-blooded murderous incitement, nothing else. It has nothing to do with true fanatic religious beliefs. No Moslem preacher has ever blown himself up. No son of an Arab politician or religious leader has ever blown himself. No relative of anyone influential has done it. Wouldn't you expect some of the religious leaders to do it themselves, or to talk their sons into doing it, if this is truly a supreme act of religious fervor? Aren't they interested in the benefits of going to Heaven? Instead, they send outcast women, naïve children, retarded people and young incited hotheads. They promise them the delights, mostly sexual, of the next world, and pay their families handsomely after the supreme act is performed and enough innocent people are dead.
Suicide murders also have nothing to do with poverty and despair. The poorest region in the world, by far, is Africa. It never happens there. There are numerous desperate people in the world, in different cultures, countries and continents. Desperation does not provide anyone with explosives, reconnaissance and transportation. There was certainly more despair in Saddam's Iraq then in Paul Bremmer's Iraq, and no one exploded himself. A suicide murder is simply a horrible, vicious weapon of cruel, inhuman, cynical, well-funded terrorists, with no regard to human life, including the life of their fellow countrymen, but with very high regard to their own affluent well-being and their hunger for power.

Thanks to the crew at Dvorak Uncensored for finding this. There seems to be a good conversation shaping up in their comments section too.