What is the Strength of the Canadian Character?

It’s a question Canadian’s ponder and navel gaze about more often than they should. It can be something that frustrates and confounds us, or more often than not something that we pay no mind to except maybe once a year on the first of July or in a high school social studies class.

Unlike the British and French we don’t cling to our past glorying in it and believing our history continues to make us a great nation, that our traditions are a shining light, the envy of the world. In fact, frustratingly Canadians know very little about their past. As annual Canada Day poll, after Canada Day poll shows, most of our citizens could not pass a quiz on even the basics of their own nations history. So what about the future?

With the possible exception of former Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier who said that the “20^th century would belong to Canada” we rarely dream of or aspire to greatness as a nation.

There is no equivalent of Manifest Destiny in Canada, unlike the United States we don’t dream that we are a nation destined for glory, a ‘shining light on a hill’ for the worlds oppressed. In our elections there is never talk of ‘Canadian Exceptionalism’, any candidate who did would mocked left and right by the media and public.

So if we don’t glorify or even know about our past; if we don’t have national visions of glory and destiny, what then is our unique strength and character as a nation and as a people?

The answer is in the ‘now’; Canadians are a people that live in the present. This does not mean we don’t plan for the future or have our own unique perspective on our past.  It means that we don’t cling to past glories, we don’t generally have grand visions of a powerful future, but by being in the now, by living in the moment we are often able to pull together and propel ourselves to greatness for a moment in time.

Whether it is storming Vimy Ridge in 1917, an overtime win on home ice in the Vancouver Olympics, or our seemingly never ending need to deal with issues of national unity Canadians have a unique ability to reinvent themselves to meet a challenge.

Unburdened by our past or shackled to a vision of future greatness, the Canadian Character is one that strolls along unassumingly living day by day until an obstacle is placed in our collective path. Then determinedly, and very often creatively we accept that challenge pull together for the moment to meet the crisis. We don’t always succeed, but truthfully, most times we do.

So the secret to our greatness as a people and as a nation is not to be found in a Pierre Burton book or a Group of Seven Painting, it’s not found in some glorious vision of becoming a northern superpower, it is found in the often daily challenges we meet and rise to overcome. As a nation, or individually, we always find a way and that my friend is the real strength of the Canadian Character.

Why Obama Might Lose

Two points to watch tonight:

Forget conspiracy theories here is some history to guide what could happen

1 > In bad economic times the incumbent President always takes a beating. EXAMPLE: The last one term president was George HW Bush - remember him? After the 1991 Gulf War he was riding a huge wave of popularity.... 

One year later... Recession... And along comes the governor of Arkansas, a bac

kwards state mostly known for rednecks, hillbillies and moonshine named William Jefferson Clinton. A man known largely for sex scandals with big haired women but who ended up beating a president that just a year earlier had huge approval ratings.

Why? People tend to vote against the president in bad economic times - Just ask ol' George HW Bush about that.

2 > Next point, for all the fear mongerer's out there, never judge - sadly - what a president will do by what they promise in an election campaign. I remember a certain president who was going to close Gitmo, have civillan trials of terrorist suspects and immediately withdraw from Iraq. You probably know him - he's up for re-election today.

What he ended up doing in the first two years? Pretty much continue GW Bushes foreign policy but with better grammar, and could correct pronunciations of the names of the leaders he met.

The Hypocrisy of Democrats & Trial of Barrack Obama: War Criminal and Murder

It was said early in his tenure about current US President Barrack Obama that the main difference between him and George Bush in their foreign policy was that Obama could correctly pronounce the names of the heads of state he was visiting. Meaning that for all the inspiring speeches and solemn promises, in practical terms during the first two years of his tenure President Obama largely continued on from where George W Bush left off.

 A superpower is as a superpower does, and if you look closely the foreign police of the United States from 2004 until about 2009 under both George Bush and Barrack Obama has followed a rather predictable and somewhat logical course flowing smoothly from one administration to the next.

What?!! Impossible?!! You’re crazy!! I can hear it all now from both supporters and opponents of the current president but I will let facts rather than ideology or campaign rhetoric speak for me. While Republicans wasted valuable time in silly debates about birth certificates and debating the religious faith practiced (or not practiced) by the Commander in Chief, Democrats – including based on the Facebook posting I see many Canadians – seem to lack a clear understanding of their candidates record and come across as smitten but Obama’s charisma, coolness and self satisfied that he broke presidential mold.

George W. Bush, “the murderer and war criminal”, but Obama? C’mon wasn’t he against the Invasion of Iraq, and later the ‘Surge’, Guantanamo Bay, and the use of Predator Drones in Pakistan, wasn’t all that quite clear back in 2008?

The answer yes, but welcome to Politics 101, regardless of your political party, campaigning and governing are two different animals. If you have not realized that at this point you’re probably still believing in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. The facts are that in Iraq Obama largely continued the policies of his predecessor and then replicated them in Afghanistan. Gitmo?  Still open for business. The hard truth is that any sitting US President or leader of any country for that matter has to deal with the reality they are faced with, regardless of what they may have said on the campaign trail.

The second more uniquely American factor in this is that aside from being the world’s sole superpower with unique responsibilities that no other country has, their whole political system is build on checks and balances. This means that any drastic change of course or action is quite difficult and very often opposed at every turn by Congress or the House of Representatives, making any new agenda difficult for a sitting president to implement without compromise of some kind.

Don’t buy it? Let’s look at the facts of Barrack Obama’s early years as US President and see if by the same standards as George W Bush was judged, by his actions can we hang the label of “murderer and war criminal” on Mr Obama.

The Trial of Barrack Obama:

Exhibit A: Attacking a Country that had not attacked the United States and without a United Nations Resolution & the Extra-judicial killing of an American Citizen Overseas:

This one is the main knocks against George W Bush, that his Invasion of Iraq did not have the blessing of the United Nations (either did NATO’s air assault on Yugoslavia but I don’t hear anyone calling for Jean Chretien’s head). A sinister innovation of the post 9/11 wars has been the introduction of drone strikes. Missile armed remote controlled aircraft that unleash death on the unsuspecting below; a tactic that came into use under the Bush administration and first used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While campaigning for the presidency Mr. Obama called these same strikes “counter - productive” and “dangerous”. That stand quickly changed – even reversed itself when he obtained office, and as President, Obama not only did not stop the drone attacks, he actually increased these strikes with the resulting increase in loss of civilian lives in Pakistan. A country with obvious support for the Taliban, and with the blood of both Canadian and American soldiers on it’s hands, yet also a country that the United States officially considers an a “loyal friend and ally”.

Secondly ladies and gentlemen of the jury consider the case of Anwar al-Aulaqi. Who the hell is he? An American citizen who moved to Yemen and became involved in planning al Qaeda operations against Americans. Fine you say, go after him, and you won’t get any argument from me. However as an American citizen he is entitled to certain protections under the law – including due process – that someone like say... Osama Bin Laden would not enjoy.

Mr. Aulaqui was killed by a CIA Predator Drone strike on September 30^th, 2011, at the time he was not engaged in combat, and likely did not even know the drone was present above him. Strictly speaking, legally this was an ‘extra – judicial killing’ with about as much legal authority as a New Jersey mafia hit. Obama ordered an American citizen murdered without even attempting to obtain legal authority for his execution, rather George Bush like you could say.

Exhibit B: Broken Promises and Flip Flops on Iraq:

In spite of pledges for an early withdrawal and an honourable peace, Mr. Obama instead waited and withdrew US Forces on George Bush’s timetable and even increased activities such as ‘night raids’ which the Iraqi government blamed for further terrorizing an already traumatized Iraqi civilian population.

Why did Obama not keep his campaign promise of an early troop withdrawal? Because once in power he had to deal with the reality of as Gen. Colin Powell (ret’d) put it “you broke it, you bought it”. Meaning that by 2008, signs of progress were showing finally showing in Iraq, and a sudden pullout of United States military forces would mean that would likely be lost and bloodshed would rapidly increase. So Obama did the practical and expedient thing and continued on with the plan laid out by Bush/Cheney.

Exhibit C: Afghanistan and the Surge he said wouldn’t work:

In the post 9-11 wars Afghanistan was commonly called ‘The Good War’ by those campaigning for Mr. Obama, although I don’t believe he ever used the phrase himself. While the situation in Iraq was improving, the situation in Afghanistan was badly deteriorating, with the Taliban still active in large parts of the south and east of that country.

As a Senator Mr. Obama opposed a ‘troop surge’ in Iraq, meaning inserting 30 to 40 thousand more troops into that country to ‘clear, hold and build’ and try to create some stability and create forward momentum of some kind.

So what once in power did Obama do? He committed to a troop surge in Afghanistan, and in one of his biggest flip flops since taking office actually appointed the surge commander in Iraq – Gen Petraeus - to command it. I have yet to hear a single Obama supporter have an explanation for why this would be opposed in one geographic location but supported in another.

On this charge the hypocrisy of Canadians shines like a bright light in the darkness. While the majority – about 80% of Canadians support the current US president, by it’s later stages most of these same people opposed Canada’s own participation in the Afghan War. How one can support the US President’s actions in that country and no support your own country doing the same thing is a leap of logic I have not been able to overcome. We are – regardless of who is Commander in Chief south of the border obligated by treaty to mutual defense.

What does all this mean? It shows a President Barrack H Obama, who like his predecessor George W Bush will break international law, break US law, attack a country without UN Sanction, and generally do what he feels is in the country’s best interest and to hell with the rest of the world. Surprise, surprise... Just like any other US President or head of state of any other country in the world. 

Horses & Bayonets: A Metaphor for Election Half Truths

Horses & Bayonets, the line from the debate can be held up as a metaphor for the current US Election. On the surface a self evident witty reply in an otherwise rather lackluster debate, but on closer examination not a statement that stands up to any scr

utiny.

In short: Based on the current size of the United States Army and Marine Corps compared to the relatively small pre World War One US Military, and given the fact that every US Infantry soldier or Marine is issued one and taught how to use it: While definitely having fewer if any horses the United States likely DOES actually have more bayonets than it did a hundred years ago.

So the statement, while a great debate line is only half true and does not stand up to scrutiny.

The truth is, regardless of who wins Tuesday’s election, there will not be much of a change in American foreign policy, at least not in the early years.

For Whoever Wins the US Election Danger Lurks in the Far East

Whoever claims the presidency after this Tuesday's election will have to confront the growing potential for conflict in the Far East.

While war in Syria and threats of war with Iran will keep the Middle East in the headlines for the foreseeable future,  in the Pacific a toxic mixture of territorial disputes between China and it's neighbours as well as left over resentment against Japan's World War 2 aggression (which the leaders of countries such as China and South Korea stir up whenever domestically convenient) has created a potential for a conflict that would dwarf anything we've seen in recent memory.

Under the Obama Administration the United States has quietly begun shifting it's strategic focus more and more on the Pacific Rim, even symbolically stationing a small contingent of U.S. Marines in Australia for the first time since the Second World War. There is no reason to believe a Romney Government would do anything different.

Finally, the saddest irony of all; Japan having woken up to the new reality of it's neigbourhood has begun to feel compelled to move from away it's post war pacifist orientation. From briefly sending troops to Iraq, to participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield (something Canada will eventually do regardless of current party policies). Now in some quarters the only nation on whom atomic weapons were actually used is considering acquiring nuclear weapons of it's own. If only just to ensure it has a counter point to the periodic threats of national extermination it receives from China and North Korea.

As BC singer Sue Medley once sang "We are living in dangerous times".

This U.S Election: Don't Forget the Vote - Hip Hop Style

The United States of America has a great democratic tradition, one that in spite a few hiccups along the way is admired and envied by much of the world; except it seems by many Americans. Among Western democracies the United States has one of the lowest rates of voter turnout,

Although it has climbed in recent years with the 2008 elections having a 57% turnout, and the prior elections in 2004 and 2000 having turnout rates of 56% and 51% respectively, (a spike that may be due to the popularity at the time of candidate Obama, or prior to that the divisions created during the Bush presidency).  It still appears that many Americans - over forty percent of them - do not bother coming out on election day to make sure their voices are heard - and this from a population that regularly complains their politicians don't listen to them. Maybe it's because such a large portion of the population has decided to let someone else speak on their behalf. Hardly the revolutionary American ideal.

This is in spite of several celebrity campaigns geared to get more Americans to the polls on voting day. Remember Rock the Vote? Or the 'Vote or Die', which included such guiding lights as P Diddy and Madonna, (who it was later revealed neither voted nor died in the ensuing campaign). Although garnering much publicity it is obvious none of these celebrity campaigns have been bringing out the voters in droves.

So for the sake of my American brethren, I'd like to make my own contribution to trying to get people to their polling stations in this November's election, I'll call it by the simple understated name of : 'Don't Forget the Vote'

Now every campaign needs a slogan or a song, so here's my attempt at a little hip hop rap to get folks hopping to the polls this November:

Don’t Forget the Vote

Hey yo...

This November let’s remember

Have your voice, make a choice

Don’t forget the vote, don’t forget the vote

Obama-nation, Mitt’s your station

Be someone, have your say in

Don’t forget to vote, don’t forget the vote

Yo...

Black, Caucausion, Latin, Asian

Hello everybody of mixed persuasion

Don’t forget the vote, don’t forget the vote

So....

Posers fake it, dancers shake it

Wall St knows if there’s money they’ll make it

Don’t forget the vote, don’t forget the vote... 

That's right, Don't Forget the Vote ya'll!! 

What Should Really Concern Canadian NHL Hockey Fans

Forget the lockout, or the potential of a one; there’s a bigger issue at stake that should be concerning Canadian NHL fans. Why over the past several years have the big name free agents, the real stars of the game avoided if at all possible signing with Canadian teams? With the negotiating power of their agents and their attendant star power, free agents can usually - as long as they don’t price themselves out of range - count on eventually playing in the city or for the team of their choice. If for example Jordan Staal wants to play with his brother Eric in Carolina, he’ll eventually make it happen. If Mike Richards wants to skate under his old Tampa Bay coach John Tortorella in New York, he’ll make sure it gets done. Consequently, if self confessed lifelong Toronto Maple Leafs fan Steven Stamkos really wants to play with the team he grew up loving, he’d direct his agent to make it happen. Former Ottawa Senator Mike Fisher marries a country singer and ends up playing Nashville, need we go on?

Why is this not the case? Although we see them as partisans, warriors for their teams, NHL players are also union brothers (back to the potential lockout), they do charity work together in the off season, share the same agents and bottom line they talk. Word gets out; if you don’t want to miss your child’s first Christmas play because you’re too busy signing autographs and being gawked at by fans, then sign in Carolina. Newly married and want to take your wife out for quiet dinners, don’t sign in Toronto.

A couple years ago at an end of season outing with my eldest son’s hockey team conversation came around to Hockey Night in Canada commentator, and former NHL goalie Glenn Healy, who happens to live in our hometown of Ajax. Healy, fiercely proud of his Scottish roots enrolled one of his daughters locally in Scottish Dance lessons, as word got out the conversation went, instead of mom’s dropping their daughters off soon the dads started to, ‘star struck’ hockey dads wanting to chat and opine with him on all matters hockey. Needless to say Mr. Healy eventually stopped going.

This is perhaps the point, we love our teams to death and by extension suffocate their players. With the preponderance of teams in the National Hockey League located in American cities many young Canadian players end up marrying locally, with their children being born in the United States. Often their significant others do not want to move to Canada and adjust to the resulting change to a more public lifestyle, and in the case of the sunbelt teams a change in climate. To be honest, who wouldn’t want to make a living playing hockey in Florida, count me in!

Not to say that Lord Stanley’s mug won’t return at some point to a team north of the 49^th parallel, In recent years Calgary came within a disallowed goal of a possible championship. I am convinced that in the spring of 2006 if Dwayne Roloson had not been injured in the finals that Edmonton would have beaten Carolina (incidentally Edmonton, was the last team to sign a ‘star’ Canadian free agent – Chris Pronger, and we all know how that worked out), and it was arguably a goalie change – or lack of – that was the difference in Vancouver not beating Boston in 2011.

Eventually there will be again a Canadian franchise that through internal development and good trades hoists hockey’s Holy Grail. In the meantime; it is that same all consuming passion for The Game that propelled today’s young stars to give everything to someday skate in the NHL, that when mirrored back in the form of overwhelming fan and media attention helps keep them from coming back home to play for the teams they once loved. 

Prayer for Breakfast

The simple act of waking up on a Monday morning is, unless you are very fortunate in your career or school choice – not one that usually evokes feelings of bliss and excitement. For many of us as we lay our heads down Sunday night to end what hopefully was a restful weekend is the nagging knowledge that it has all come to an end. That we will wake up to face the stress, anxiety, drudgery and otherwise complicated existence of our school and work lives for the next five days.

I’ve faced many such Sunday evenings, to be followed by many such Monday mornings with the script playing endless and predictably, deadlines, tension, watching your back and never really sure who has your best interests in mind. The best we can do often is smile in the face of adversity and remind ourselves that we’re doing this to achieve a goal, whether it be providing for our families or saving up to pay off debts or for that dream vacation. Whatever our motivation, they call it work not play for a reason.

Where ever I happen to be working I try to find something pleasant in my surroundings, usually this takes place during my all too brief lunch breaks. After a quick bite I take my respite in walking, getting to know my surroundings and try my best to appreciate the goodness in them. Whether it is a beautiful building a quiet park or the comfort of friends that work close by I have always tried to find something positive in my surroundings; something to be thankful for other than the paycheque (often spent before we even receive it) deposited in my bank account every two weeks.

Not to say that the money is not important or not appreciated. Money certainly is not everything as the saying goes; but it is right up there with air in terms of things we require for our needs and pleasures in this life.

As the week goes by we sweat, stress, and lose sleep working to take care of our physical and emotional needs, these can be taken care of by family or friends, or just as often those emotional needs are simply and superficially met by the knowledge that the fortnightly deposit of a paycheque enables us to feed, house and clothe our families for another, week, month, or even next few days, but usually for not much longer than that.

Something is always missing, something that ties it all together. For me that something is a walk a mere block and a half away to Christ Church Deer Park. A grand old building somewhat of a fixture in old Toronto It’s beautiful stained glass and creaky old wood encased in magnificent stone work is for me a lunch time oasis of peace and reflection.

It’s place where I can say thank you for the day so far, a place where I can rest my burdens in the hands of something bigger than myself, in a living God that knows who I am and what I need. I have always learned something from my struggles, from my day to day triumphs and failures and the sum of those experiences both good and bad have made me who I am, in my own way I am thankful, and give thanks for them all.

Those moments of reflection before starting my day, or in the midst of it nourish me in a different way. Yes I’m thankful for what I have, thankful for where I am. I know that I am important to those around me, that I am needed and have a place in this world as we all do. A day starts off better with a good breakfast for your body, a hug and kiss goodbye from the family, and to top it off something that binds all these separate parts together. Prayer for breakfast, soul food for the busy week ahead.

Remembering the Dieppe Raid and it's Lessons Learned, August 19th, 1942

On this day 70 years ago August 19th, 1942, elements of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division conducted a mass raid on the German occupied port of Dieppe France.

It was just less than a year after Pearl Harbor and the American entry into World War Two. Canadian soldiers had been training in England since the start of the war and aside from minor actions along the coast (not including the valiant yet doomed defense of Hong Kong - those of you that flew there in the 80's or '90's landed on a runway constructed in part by the slave labour of Canadian prisoners of war) the Canadians were anxious to get into action before the "Johnny come lately Yanks".

Allied command wanted to see the feasibility of capturing a port (relatively) undamaged to ferry in supplies for the eventual allied D Day landings and the liberation of Europe. After much lobbying the Canadian 2nd Infantry Division (the blue patch) was chose for the operation, to be supported by smaller forces of British Commandos.

In a fatal case of 'too many cooks spoil the broth', heavy naval gunfire support from the British Royal Navy was withdrawn for the operation - rather misnamed 'Jubilee' - due to the risk of damaging the port facilities and the risk of losing a Royal Navy capital ship was deemed unacceptable. Heavy bombers were also withheld due to the risk of damaging the objectives. Bit by bit pieces of the support structure were removed.

On the morning of August 19th, approximately 5,400 Canadian soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division (a division is made up of several battalions/regiments) consisting of units from across Canada stormed the rocky beaches of Dieppe.

The force was truly a Canadian one, made up of units from Quebec, Toronto, Hamilton, Calgary, Saskatchewan and the East Coast, it was also one of the largest air battles of the war with hundreds of aircraft - Canadian, British, American and German battling in the skies above the carnage on the beach and the ships below. A British destroyer was sunk by German aircraft.

But it was the battle on the beach, where flesh met steel that the real outcome was being decided. Canadian soldiers assaulted German positions dug in on high cliffs allowing unobstructed fields of fire on to the attacking Canadians, some like the South Saskatchewan Regiment made it into town where Major Charles Merritt, taking his helmet off and twirling it around his hand saying to the effect of "come on boys no danger here" won the Victoria Cross  leading his forces across a bridge under fire - then doing it again and again under constant German fire.

Not to be outdone the Padre of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, stayed unarmed on the beach while German fire poured down from the cliffs and casino, helping to load wounded Canadians on to landing craft for evacuation back to England. in spite of his certain death or capture he refused to leave the soldiers on the beach even though he was offered many chances to board a landing craft back to England and safety, he too won the Victoria Cross. Both Foote and Merritt were captured and spent the rest of the war as German prisoners.

Over 900 Canadians died on those beaches and in the sky that morning, about 2,500 were wounded or captured. A horrible tragedy for the nation. At the time death notices were sent by telegram and casualty lists printed in the morning papers. Over the course of the war families learned to dread picking up their morning paper and the notice of a telegram delivery was known to cause people to collapse. Such were the times of a nation in the throes of what was likely the worst human calamity ever - the Second World War.

Armies/Militarizes are basically learning institutions (if you don't know that then you haven't served and likely don't understand.. and there's nothing wrong with that). The lessons from the raid on Dieppe were poured over, analyzed, and built upon. New vehicles were created (called 'Funnies') to specifically overcome beach obstacles, the importance of dedicated naval gunfire was reinforced.

These lessons were put into practice on D Day - June 6th, 1944 when the allies stormed the beaches of Normandy and began the liberation of Europe. On that morning the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division landed on Juno Beach, taking the lessons with them from that fateful August morning in 1942 they gained the furthest advance inland of any allied force. Capturing more ground than their British and American allies. The only forces to achieve their objectives on that historic day were Canadian, and it was because of the tragic lessons learn on the stony, horrible beaches of Dieppe.

Let us remember them.

Evangelical Atheism - The World’s Newest Religion

There is a movement growing in the West, not exactly sweeping Europe and North America like a prairie fire but certainly spreading it’s roots and steadily growing. It is atheism. By no means new but once the belief that dare not speak its name in most polite company. They are those who claim no religious affiliation or more specifically a belief that there is no God, no eternal life. That all religious texts are fictional figments of their writer’s imagination, at best the work of fanciful or deluded individuals struggling to understand their place in the universe; at worst created to control and manipulate their adherents.

The rise in popular culture of well known atheists, such as scientist Richard Dawkins and the late writer Christopher Hitchens has spurred the growth of atheism by giving it public and by and large respected advocates with access to the mass media. Where once lack of belief was considered a private matter, now the perceived folly of the belief in a deity or an afterlife has gained a wide audience through television, newspaper columns and even in Britain bus ads! Atheism had changed it has become well, evangelical.

Non believers now had public acceptance, public advocates and began to go on the offensive, dare I say a crusade against all religion and religious beliefs. The familiar criticisms were trotted out; that religion was the source of more wars and bloodshed than any other cause (ignoring the mass oppression and bloodletting of such twentieth century practitioners of official state atheism such as the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia in the time of the Killing Fields, Vietnam and of course that non believing workers paradise North Korea). The fact that many conflicts which had a veneer of ecclesiology to them such as the Balkans or Northern Ireland were really about nationalism with religion used as another tool to separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ seems not to matter. Religious faith, no matter how superficial had to be at fault.

Religion was believed to be the source of all oppression of women, a way to keep the masses wallowing in ignorance, and was just counter to everything that scientific belief stood for. That there have been scientists, brilliant thinkers, people who have worked and sacrificed to improve the human condition of both believers and non believers, and that much of western art and literature has some biblical influence to it is not considered. The work of Christian or other faith based charities, not relevant. What was important rather was to discredit those who still believe and campaign for issues such as the removal of tax exempt status for churches.

What was once the maxim of medieval and later times of “believe what I believe, or I’ll kill you” (or often still is in those ‘scientific atheist’ states – or to be fair in modern theocracies as well), has become in the west, “believe what I don’t believe in, or your foolish, deluded and ignorant”. The new Evangelical brand of Atheism now resorts to typecasting and stereotyping individuals for their personal beliefs on one hand, and on the other requesting tolerance and acceptance of their views, science meets hypocrisy.

Granted often religion and those who claim to be it’s strongest adherents have been their own worst advocates. From mass murder and plunder in the name of God which has gone on since – dare I say it – biblical times, to the more modern day phenomena’s of  sleazy television preachers swindling the naive and elderly to the scourge of what we politely call ‘suicide bombing’. People of faith have often done little to advance their cause in a worthwhile manner. The common adage used by many is that the world would be a better place if Christians were a little more Christ like. That is of course you believe that there actually was a Christ.

The modern version of atheism seems to have proudly taken on many of the worst aspects of religion, yet strives for none of its redeeming virtues. Where are the great works of art dedicated to the belief in nothing, or at least scientific method as practiced by Richard Dawkins? Where are the great pieces of music that will move a listener to tears, the grand architecture that takes the breath away of those that cast their eyes on it. Can belief in nothing inspire something?

A friend of mine who describes himself as “on my best days a liberal protestant”, recently posted an article about an individual – an atheist – imprisoned for his views in an African state. He was bemoaning why the atheist or secular community was not organizing and advocating on his behalf.

The answer to me was easy, could it be that in Western Europe, in North America atheists gained acceptance too easily, without a grand struggle, without a fight for their rights like the suffragettes or the civil rights movement in the United States. It was often the faith of those marching for justice that was a motivator and sustainer of many of those marching. There is no history of individuals or masses of people voluntarily going to jail for their lack of faith to prove their point. No atheist in North America, sustained by their belief in the evolution of a godless universe marched toward club wielding police in Mississippi. Nor were they climbing on buses to ride for freedom with the occupants singing how no god watches over them.

There is no history of group sacrifice in the new evangelical atheist movement, no ability to say “we improved the human condition”. What beauty, what progress can a belief in nothing offer? Smugness maybe, arrogance, perhaps – as many of the new atheist refuse to even acknowledge any redeeming aspects or positive influences of faith in history. What else, what more can a belief in nothing provide us? What has it atheism done to move mankind forward, to make the world a more better or peaceful place? Maybe the answer is in their belief – or lack of belief – system itself, nothing. 

No Fly Zones 101 - What We've Learned and How the one Over Libya Might Work - Originally Published March 18th, 2011

Originally published on my Facebook (John Blakely) page in March 2011, I thought this might be useful reading for anyone contemplating an intervention in Syria and the serious business of making war, however justified it may be.

*********************************************************************************

After an unplanned early evening nap I woke up to the announcement that the United Nations Security Council had approved the creation of a 'no-fly zone' over Libya; further to that, Canada will be contributing militarily to its enforcement. That unplanned nap led to this unplanned posting. I had intended my next couple of Notes to be a comment on the state of women in North America shortly after International Women’s Day, and one on the current uproar over hockey violence. However events change so here we go...

  

Whether you agree with either decision (the no-fly zone and Canada's participation in it) or not it is a significant step, not only because it required the rare approval (or abstainment) of all five permanent SC members, but it also authorized attacks against Moammar Gadhafi's forces on the ground. This action dramatically changes the fate of Gadhafi's regime, in short if the international community follows through - and there is every indication it will - unless a third party country takes him into exile, Gadhfi is finished. It may be months or a year, however he likely will meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein, a violent man facing execution at the hands of his own people.

  

Canada's participation should surprise no one, it is one of the few NATO countries with experience in enforcing no fly zones which it did over Bosnia in the late 1990's under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada's air force was also a participant in the 1999 air war over Kosovo and Yugoslavia, where although having one of the smaller contingents it flew the third most bombing strikes against Yugoslav ground forces and cities after the United States and Britain. 

  

I would remind Canadians (who may be feeling self righteous about not participating in the Iraq War) that in that conflict they did not  have a UN Security Council resolution either, nor was there an attempt to seek one. However regardless, we did participate as combatants in the bombing of a sovereign European country, and the following occupation (under the guise of KFOR - a NATO led enforcement mission often mistakenly referred to as a peacekeeping mission) of a part of it's territory. Why mention this? Not to say that I was opposed to it, but just in orderto give some context regarding Canada's history of participating in these types of combat missions - because that's what they are - in circumstance both with and without UN approval. Canadians have notoriously short and selective historical memories so it is important to point out that this is not something new - although I am sure the media (who also have short memories) will report it as such.

  

No fly zones - although they exist in the civilian context over for example Walt Disney World and Buckingham Palace - first came into the common vernacular after the first Gulf War (which did have UN approval and in which Canada contributed). It was put in place immediately as a condition of the ceasefire, and initially applied only to 'fixed wing' aircraft (ie. fighter jets or bombers). However when a failed uprising by Shiites in southern Iraq, encouraged by then president George HW Bush and a similar one in the north by Iraqi Kurds was put down by Saddam Hussein’s forces primarily with the use of helicopters the mandate of the zone was used to cover those too.

  

The use of helicopters is a tricky one, in the case of the Gulf War, the Iraqi general present at the ceasefire stated to U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf that he needed to fly his helicopters in order to properly withdraw his forces which had their mobility restricted due to allied bombing of Iraqi bridges and roads. Under these circumstances the request seemed reasonable and Schwarzkopf agreed, not being aware of the impending rebellion in the south.

  

No such restriction will be allowed in the Libyan situation. Most of Gadhafi's helicopters are of the same variety as Saddam's old Soviet Era Hind models which can be used for both troop transport and ground attack. Libya is a large country with poor infrastructure outside main cities, an argument could be made that helicoptes are needed to evacuate wounded or deliver humanitarian aide. No dice, not this time; likely any Libyan helicopter that is caught by a NATO or Arab League jet will not be flying for long. As later happened in the Iraqi no-fly zone, Libyan air defences such as radars and missile batteries will be targeted too.

  

Opponents of no-fly zones rightly point to the 1992 - 1995 Bosnian War as an example of where they had little or no effect. No fly zones did not prevent Serb massacres of civilians in Screbanica or Zepa, nor did they prevent the Serbs from ramping up their attacks against Bosnian Muslim, and Bosnian Croat forces.

  

This point is a fair one to make and historically true, however the failure in fact had more to do with the timid application of the zone itself as well as the nature of the Bosnian terrain. Once the west - largely at American insistence - got serious in late summer 1995 the Serbs were brought to the bargaining table after an approximately two week NATO bombing campaign working in conjunction with a combined Bosnian/Croatian offensive on the ground. The resulting Dayton Accord, and a 60,000 strong NATO peacemaking force ended the fighting.

  

Any no fly zone in Libya will be more similar to the later example of the Bosnian rather than the Iraqi one because although not stated in the resolution NATO will effectively become the air force of the Libyan rebels. It will be more aggressively implemented, and as any soldier has has heard (and I heard it many times in my own rather unspectacular military career) the immediate outcome of any military action depends on two factors: 1 - 'The tactical situation', and 2 - 'The ground'. meaning the terrain on which that action will take place.

  

In dealing with the second point first; unlike Bosnia which is mountainous and heavily forested providing excellent cover for Serbian forces on the ground who were often successful at moving troops and equipment while avoiding NATO detection, Libya is largely open desert. There will be no hiding place for Libyan forces to manoeuvre against the rebels. Any Libyan armoured column moving against civilians will likely be detected by satellite and destroyed from the air. As was the case in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, Libyan forces will likely resort to hiding heavy equipment in schools or moving their forces in ambulances or civilian vehicles to avoid NATO air attack.

  

Regarding the first point The Tactical Situation, the Libyan air force is old, it's pilots do not have anywhere near the training  American, Canadian or British Royal Air Force pilots do, nor do they have the experience. Their morale is already low as witnessed by defections of pilots either flying their planes to safety in Malta, defecting to the rebels or as some rebels have suggested, deliberately dropping their bombs off target.

  

Although my former army colleagues may take umbrage at me pointing this out, air forces are the only armed service where most of those who participate in actual combat (with the exception for example of helicopter door gunners) are officers. The Libyan pilots who's aircraft will be the targets of any NATO strike represent the most highly educated component of the Libyan military. They know that UN Security Council Resolution 1973 means that their flying days will soon be over and - as happened in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, They will likely just stop flying or limit their flying to short range strikes by two or three aircraft.

  

In fact, in all previous instances of no fly zones actual examples of shooting down an offending aircraft as contrasted with ground attacks, are relatively rare. It happened in only one instance during the Bosnian War, and in the years between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq war only on a handful of occasions did Iraqi aircraft attempt to come into contact with patrolling US and Royal Air Force jets.

  

Even the Federal Republic of Yugoslav’s air force which was a relatively modern and by Eastern European standards fairly well trained and equipped one only made the most feeble of attempts to stop the NATO attacks on their country. In the entire 78 day air campaign only a few unsuccessful attempts were made against US, Dutch and Canadian aircraft, all resulting in the loss of Yugoslav jets and the deaths of pilots. Others took notice and just hid their aircraft and stopped flying. *(Although two US aircraft were lost in the Kosovo campaign, and the US, France and Britain each lost one aircraft over Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 - in all cases the pilots were rescued safely)

  

I predict something similar will happen in Libya. There will be a few token and ineffective attempts to stop NATO and Arab aircraft but these will end quickly and the process of attacking any advancing Libyan tanks, artillery or other vehicles  and military infrastructure will continue.

  

As a final note to this piece; any reader that got this far into my posting will observe that I did not take a stance for or against the UN Resolution or Canada's participation. I merely gave historical context, and some background. This is especially important to Canadian readers who are by and large incredibly ignorant of things military, especially in regards to their own.

(Note: If you stopped the average Canadian on the streets of downtown Toronto, and showed them a photo with a line up of soldiers from a dozen different NATO countries and asked them to pick out which one is Canadian he/she likely wouldn't be able do it, neither can most Canadians name half a dozen pieces of equipment used by their own armed forces nor name three significant military actions taken by Canada in the past century).

The most important decision a country can make is whether to engage in military conflict, and make no mistake that is what we are about to do. Gadhafi's days are now numbered and most of us do feel some sympathy for the rebels, and especially for civilians in rebel held territory currently under attack. However successful the implementation of ano fly zone may or may not be, there will miss-steps; bombs will go off target, Libyan civilians will be killed either by a targeting mistake or by an American or Canadian pilot having in a split second to make a terrible choice when fired on (as happened in Kosovo and Iraq) by Libyan anti aircraft weapons positioned in school yards or on top of hospitals.

  

The world may finally be doing the right thing, but just be aware... if you support action now, be forewarned and make sure you still support it when - as will happen inevitably - the pictures that you see come back won't be very pretty ones. War - even a just and necessary one - is an ugly thing. We can easily become fascinated by magnificently designed ships and sleek fighter jets, but as Confederate Civil War general Robert E. Lee famously stated: It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.

What is Missing from the Olympics

Missed the closing ceremonies for the London Games, and have to say I did not see much of the 2012 Olympiad, However all the athletes who attended should be proud of themselves.

However to me in many of the competitions something seemed to be missing... It took me a while to pin it down then it came to me.

I was reminded of a great story from the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals. After Vancouver won the first two games at home the series moved to Boston where the Bruins dominated both games. After one of the games the Vancouver players went out for a team dinner in Boston, the restaurant owner upon finding out they were players from the Vancouver Canucks refused to serve them and actually said the restaurant was "out of food", the Vancouver players left hungry and crestfallen I’m sure.

You can call this petty or small minded, you can call it pride in your home town and your team, or you can just call it hatred. Temporary hate for an opponent, but hatred none the less. You battle hard, play on the edge of the rule book and when it's all over you line up and shake hands.

From the limited amount of what I saw - with the exception of the Canada/US soccer game - this emotion seemed to be lacking in The Games. Countries were way too polite to each other (it was before my time but in the 1950's when Hungary played the Soviet Union in water polo the Hungarians were furious at the 1956 Soviet invasion of their homeland and it was war in the pool! There was literally blood in the water when it was over - that game really meant something to Hungarian pride and it showed in their furious and passionate play).

Now technically at that time Hungary and the USSR were Warsaw Pact Allies arrayed against NATO and the West. However it is a truism that for some strange reason, countries that are political, military and economic allies seem to have the fiercest rivalries. The same for cities take the New York Rangers, New Jersey Devils rivalry, situated across a river from each other there have been times when blood was being scraped off the ice five minutes into the game. You can be sure no one left their seats for popcorn during those on ice fireworks.

I don't know if in any team sport this Olympics if the UK played any team sports against the United States or France. Brits go on constantly about a "special relationship" with The United States, which many Americans frankly just don't get. For Heaven's sake the two countries were actually making plans to go to war against each other until the 1930's!

If I were the American team I'd save any praise for London until after the games were over and they were back home, I'd bar any UK athletes from the US Olympic Village, refuse to lower the Stars and Stripes for the queen (I mean what was the Revolution about anyway?), and generally talk smack about Britain being an old has been of a country pining for a lost empire and sucking up to the US at every chance it gets. The Yanks should have been bragging "we came over in World War Two to save your asses and now were here to save your Olympics".

The Brits should be giving it right back calling Americans crude Netherlands, spoiled children of empire who ran away from home and then can't help fawning all over the royalty they once rejected. And just like that restaurant in Boston, any time the home team was competing against the Americans, local pub owners should "run out of ale" when American athletes came by. Show some pride over profits.

That I think sums it up for me. Good show and I'm glad the Olympics were I'm sure a memorable success for all those involved. Just while it was on going I would have like to have seen a little more cut eye given at starting lines, a little more trash talk before and after games, and yes just a little bit more hatred on the field.

Time to Give the Buzz off to the Brits

"Niche sport in a nothing country"... 

The quote at the top of my status comes from a BBC commentary on the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riots. If I was head of the Canadian Olympic committee I'd have that printed up as a banner every where Canadian athletes stay as motivation, and maybe to generate a little hate, and aggression. 

Brits I've met invariably refer to Canadians as Americans and when 

you challenge them on it the refrain is "well same ting ain't it?". Every English person I've met who has voluntarily moved here seems to slag anything Canadian as inferior to that in the UK, making you wonder why the hell they even bothered coming here in the first place.

They go on about a "special relationship" with the US, yet seem to forget that Americans had a revolution and emphatically rejected things British. However if playing Tonto to the American Lone Ranger makes you feel like like a big man... go ahead fill your boots.

Oh and remember, according to the British press... Vancouver was "the worst Olympics ever".

In sum wishing the Canadian 2012 Olympic squad did better if only just to give a big middle finger to the country whose public in many ways still thinks of you all as "colonials".

Go Canada Go!!!