Goodnight Mr. Mandela

Nelson Mandela is different, Nelson Mandela broke the mold. I doubt there will be another like him. Why? The leader of what was at the time of an anti government movement the African National Congress (not a 'black' movement it's membership was multiracial), an organization at the time engaged in armed struggle with the Government of South Africa. An organization who's tactics were condemned by many human rights groups such as Amnesty International (it's land mine campaign for example killed far more poor black civilians than it did South African Security Forces, and that was accused of the torture and summary executions of civilians) the ANC had few friends in the Western World, and was feared by many. Nelson Mandela was jailed for engaging in their armed struggle and emerged prison a man of peace, a true hero of national reconciliation. 

The segments of society that opposed the ANC, not just white, but also Asians (coloureds) and even rival black groups (such as the Zulu nationalist Inkatha movement) genuinely feared what would happen if he was released. What type of man would emerge from prison after twenty seven years? A man thirsting for revenge, a bitter vengeful man? Who could blame him if he did, who could blame them for fearing him? 

What happened instead was absolutely remarkable. It would be as if George Washington was captured by the British, released after twenty seven years, then stopped the Revolutionary War and asked Britain to stay in the thirteen colonies and share in their wealth. Truly astounding!.

He could have been angry, he should have been angry, he could have easily taken the ANC and others with him down the road of what so many leaders on the African continent had done before and lashed out violently. Taken the mantle of leadership and spun the country into a bloody cycle of revenge. But he didn't. Instead remarkably out those prison gates walked a man of peace, calm and reconciliation. A man that loved his country and all it's people, a man that more importantly knew that South Africa was more than simply an unjust system of government it was a unique society worth protecting, a society that did not deserve one form of repression to be replaced by another. 

When eventually taking office as South Africa's first majority rule President, he reached out and made sure that what happened to him did not happen again. That 'not one hair on one head' to paraphrase him, be harmed as a result of his release. It is hard to think another leader in similar circumstances like him anywhere. Too often the release of a jailed opposition leader results in rebellion, and violence, Mandela made sure that did not happen - at least not in his name. The man of 'armed struggle' had become a very badly needed figure of national reconciliation. More than that an inspiration not just to millions in his own country, but millions of others around the world.

As I heard him say once on a TV clip of him visiting the prison on Robben Island where he spent so much time "we must make sure we never do this to others". And he didn't. Instead he went against the odds and pulled off what many thought impossible; a peaceful transition from apartheid to majority rule. Oppression and violence usually breeds violence, Mandela went from oppression and the violent reaction to it, to a man of peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. 

Much of the circumstances around Mandela's release also benefited from the changing climate in Eastern Europe and a reform mind South African President in FW de Klerk who knew the apartheid was unsustainable and had the strength to change it. In Europe the Berlin Wall fell, and freedom was seemingly breaking out all over the world. South Africa and Mandela rode that wave too, but like all things around him he made it uniquely his own.

Thinking about the 'might have been's', and 'could have been's' only makes one shake their head in wonder. Everyone expected things to go bad, that blood would flow in the streets, some perhaps at the time would even have been happy if it did, but Mandela wouldn't let it. He loved his country, and he loved it's people too much to allow that.

You cannot compare him to Gandhi or Martin Luther King, as both men began and ended their struggles as men of peace and did so against countries that unlike South Africa had a free press, and who's broad aims had general public support. You cannot compare him to the Philippines' Benigno Aquino, because he too never was a figure in an armed movement. He's not a George Washington or Simon Bolivar either, he is uniquely his own. 

Rest in Peace Nelson Mandela, for because of you so many others, black white, Asian and the mix of all of the above that make up the fabric of South Africa are able to also rest in peace in their homes and wake the next day free.  There will not likely be another man like him, and what's more than that, what makes Nelson Mandela so special that he himself likely wishes that the world will not need a man like him again. Why? Because we will eventually learn to be secure in ourselves without feeling we need to hurt the security of others. 

Toronto Doesn't Need an NFL Team

It's all well and good for the local businesses that we have a Buffalo Bills game going on in Toronto, but I'll say this: Toronto nor any other city in Canada does not need an NFL team. 

The Canadian Football League has a long history and tradition, and Canadians should support it. Why? Because it's their own. The Argos have supported and represented this city for generations, Torontoians should support them in return. They are as much a part of the fabric of this city as the Ex, the CN Tower and yes the Leafs.

Unfortunately Canadians also have another long history and tradition, and that is turning their back on anything from their own country for the American version as soon as possible. Yes Toronto has an NBA and MLB team but they came here in a vacuum and did not displace an equivalent local team or league. There was no damage with their arrival, only an addition to the sporting heritage of this city. Lets be clear though, the Blue Jays and the Raptors are compared to the Argos relative newcomers and do not have anywhere near the same history or long term connection to the City of Toronto.

If Toronto - and I really don't know how likely it is - gets an NFL team it will be the death of the Argos within 5 years, giving the rest of the country yet another reason to despise the mega city by Lake Ontario that is so insecure and uncomfortable in it's own skin.

Canadians should support their own teams, and their own league. It has a rich tradition and history, sort of like that other place Canadians know so little about... That country they live in called Canada. A parent may admit another child in the orchestra is a better player than theirs but that doesn't mean they stop supporting and cheering on their own.

Canada does not need an NFL team nor all the sleaze and corruption associated with the NFL. This is not just about sport it is about the larger Canadian envy/obsession with all things American.

America and Americans are great, the best friends we could have, but good fences make good neigbours and we Canadians would be a lot more interesting as a people if we just focused on developing what we have here rather than wanting what's on the other side of the fence.

Canadian Rock Music: You Don't Need to Leave Home Anymore

Recently I had a chat on Facebook with an old friend of mine Ryan van Sickle a Canadian Singer/Songwriter who had been living and working in New York City. Having recently seen his homecoming concert opening for Ian Tyson in Hamilton I asked him how long he'd be up here for; "to say" summed up his reply.

Not getting into details we moved on to other topics but his succinct response summed up the attitudes among Canadian artists that has been gradually shifting over the past two decades.

The time period this page primarily covers - the 1970's and 1980's was a time when success for any Canadian artist was measured by their success south of the 49th parallel - aka America. Translated, for Canadians true success translated into American Success.

The litmus test of success for any Canadian musician was by definition success in the American Market, and who could blame us? With the most powerful and influential county in the world having just over 10 times our population at our border, a little American Envy was to be forgiven. As could any Canadian artist wanting to move south then come back and say "hey screw you! You didn't like me here.. But guess where i made it there!!"

These cross border converts caused a measure of pride and in the case of those like Stompin' Tom who remained home also a measure of disgust. Time moves slowly, but within that same  decade Canadians grew, gained confidence and began to take on the world from home.

It was the less critically acclaimed but wildly successful pop/pop-rock singers like Bryan Adams and Corey Hart that climbed to the top of the charts in the 1980's gaining international success (I even had a pen pal in the Philippines who kept raving about Corey Hart) that began to change the national scenery. Canadian artists who proudly proclaimed themselves thus, but who stayed home at the height of their careers and never tried to hide their roots. Bryan Adams for one putting a Canadian Flag over his drummers stand during overseas shows.

These guys didn't necessarily sing about anything particularly Canadian like say a Gordon Lightfoot, nor were they considered particularly musically innovative. What they did do was prove you could not only top the charts in the US and remain based in Canada, but that you could brag about it and still be a success. That in truth was their real innovation, not musical, but cultural in a way most Canadians would not have thought of.

Towards the end of the 1980's newer bands started getting airplay, bands like The Tragically Hip, Tom Cochrane (around earlier with Red Rider) and Blue Rodeo, groups that gained wide Canadian airplay. Although there were initial murmurs of it, no one was asking why they were not making waves in the US. It seemed Canadians had more self confidence, that they could finally appreciate a band nationally that had not had great success in the United States. In fact. although their 1989 album "Up to Here" featured a song titled "New Orleans is Sinking" they would go on to greater domestic success singing a song titled after the popular Ontario vacation region of Bobcaygeon. 

Yes it finally seems Canadians are musically comfortable in their own skins, and it's about time. Other bands, Chalk Circle, The Northern Pikes and Great Big Sea to name a few came, went and some stay on to continued success here at home. Others such as Lowest of the Low gained fanatical local success but continued to tour nationally and in the US border states, a success not tainted by the need to be first feted elsewhere and not shy about singing songs of their home and native land. 

Sergeant Major John Osborn & The Battle of Hong Kong

A visitor to Hong Kong Park (in Hong Kong of all places of course) would not help but notice a rather incongruous statue of a soldier, a Canadian soldier standing bayonet fixed facing forward towards some unseen enemy. 

It is a statute in memory of the Canadian soldiers who died defending former British colony in December 1941, more specifically it is a monument in memory to one specific soldier Sergeant Major John Osborn of the Winnipeg Grenadiers. A man who died attempting to defend Hong Kong and who's actions in death came to embody the phrase 'that others may live'.

In conjunction with the December 7th, attack on Pearl Harbor the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy began attacks on US, British and Dutch forces in the Asia Pacific Area. Already hardened from nearly five years of brutal fighting from their 1937 invasion of China, the Japanese quickly gained territory throughout the Pacific.

Short on forces and focused on the defense of the now isolated British Isles  Canada sent two battalions (about 2,000 men) of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada to bolster British and Indian forces already garrisoning the territory. The force was so hastily assembled that some of it's vehicles and equipment never arrived. and were left in Manila, Philippines. 

On December 8th, a day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assault on Hong Kong was launched by a force of about 20,000 battle experienced Japanese forces. 

It was not surprising that they eventually took control of the territory,  what was surprising that the defenders lasted as long as they did. Outnumbered and out gunned the Canadian and their allies fought with a desperate tenacity. Much of the fighting was done at night and it often degenerated into brutal hand to hand combat. Not the fictional balletic martial arts depicted in Hollywood, but desperate frightened men in the dark swinging rifles as clubs, gouging eyes, smashing in skulls with rocks or your helmet, the men must have wondered what side of hell they had fallen into.

Looking at a map of the Canadian engagements what was even more remarkable was that they were even able to launch localized counterattacks against the larger, more experienced and better equipped Japanese forces. Companies or platoons (approx 150 or 40 men respectively) leaving the relative safety of their prepared positions attempting to push the invaders back or catch them off guard in order to buy time; a day, or even a few precious hours for their friends to make their way south. 

The Canadians were getting their battle experience by learning on the job. 

CSM Osborn and a group of his soldiers of A Company, Winnipeg Grenadiers were cut off and fighting for their lives. After staying back to cover a withdrawal Osborn rejoined his soldiers, as the advancing Japanese forces again closed in several grenades were thrown at the  soldiers taking cover with CSM Osborn. 

Ordering his men to keep down, Sgt Maj, Osborn managed to throw back several of the grenades until one fell out of reach, at that point CSM John Roger Osborn threw himself on the grenade to save his men and as a result lost his life. 

In total 557 Canadians died for Hong Kong; 290 in the battle itself, and the rest perishing in the brutality of Japanese prison or forced labour camps. 

The Good Book say's 'greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends'. Sgt Maj Osborn was truly then a loving man. 

Awarded the Commonwealth's highest award for Valour his citation reads:

**** "At Hong Kong on the morning of 19th December 1941 "A" Company of the Winnipeg Grenadiers to which Company Sergeant-Major Osborn belonged became divided during an attack on Mount Butler, a hill rising steeply above sea level. A part of the Company led by Company Sergeant-Major Osborn captured the hill at the point of the bayonet and held it for three hours when, owing to the superior numbers of the enemy and to fire from an unprotected flank, the position became untenable. Company Sergeant-Major Osborn and a small group covered the withdrawal and when their turn came to fall back, Osborn single-handed engaged the enemy while the remainder successfully rejoined the Company. Company Sergeant-Major Osborn had to run the gauntlet of heavy rifle and machine gun fire. With no consideration for his own safety he assisted and directed stragglers to the new Company position exposing himself to heavy enemy fire to cover their retirement. Whenever danger threatened he was there to encourage his men.

During the afternoon the Company was cut off from the Battalion and completely surrounded by the enemy who were able to approach to within grenade throwing distance of the slight depression which the Company was holding. Several enemy grenades were thrown which Company Sergeant-Major Osborn picked up and threw back. The enemy threw a grenade which landed in a position where it was impossible to pick it up and return it in time. Shouting a warning to his comrades this gallant Warrant Officer threw himself on the grenade which exploded killing him instantly. His self-sacrifice undoubtedly saved the lives of many others.

Company Sergeant-Major Osborn was an inspiring example to all throughout the defence which he assisted so magnificently in maintaining against an overwhelming enemy force for over eight and a half hours and in his death he displayed the highest quality of heroism and self-sacrifice." ****

Canadians were fortunate to have men like Sergeant Major John Robert Osborn who were willing to give all for our freedom and the freedom of others. Canada is still fortunate that today we have others like CSM Osborn who still wear the uniform and who hope never to be asked but stand ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for ourselves and others. 

Canadian Hard Power and Disaster Relief in the Philippines

The rapid ability of Canada to bring large scale help in the wake of the recent Typhoon Haiyan disaster in the Philippines as well as the past earthquakes in Haiti and Pakistan is due almost entirely to the reinvestment in our military. 

Not a popular thought among Canadians, most of whom would not even know what a Canadian Soldier looks like (and worse not even be embarrassed by that), however 10 years ago it would have taken a couple months probably at best to get the relief we were able to bring to the Philippines in a matter of days. Ten years ago along with the stories about the tragedy there would also be stories in the media about why it took so long for us to do something and why we let our Armed Forces deteriorate so badly.

Because we're brought up on images of the US Military deploying everywhere around the world almost instantly we assume this is how most militaries operate. However the fact is that by far most armed forces in the world cannot function or move far beyond their own borders.

Very many countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have larger Armed Forces than Canada has; that being true, it is also a fact that however impressive these countries army's navies or air forces may be on paper or on the parade square, the fact remains most of them are not capable of moving or operating far beyond their own borders.

To use two countries with large armed forces in the news recently as examples, both North Korea and Syria have massive armed forces and can certainly threaten their immediate neighbours with invasion (South Korea, Israel or Turkey) or shoot missiles far beyond their borders, however what these countries cannot do is move their armies beyond their immediate borders, even move them far in their own hemispheres!

A good example would be that, if Jamaica (let's imagine) was located next to Syria, well it could easily be invaded and crushed by it's more powerful neighbour. However, as an island in the Caribbean, it is perfectly safe from invasion by Syria because Syria does not have the ability to move a large amount of troops and equipment fast enough and in large enough numbers to do anything significant to Jamaica ,or even Bermuda.

Even if over several months they did, Syria could not keep those troops fed, equipped resupplied across the Atlantic Ocean with everything from a replacement bolt on a tank track to rifle ammunition. For it's friends like Canada to defend Jamaica it would only require a half dozen ships and maybe a dozen fighter jets to completely cut off any force Syria sent to help.

Why? Because Syria does not have the access to overseas bases, air to air refueling aircraft for fighter cover and a navy with the experience of operating over long distances of the open ocean. It does not have the ability to move, protect and resupply it's large military over vast distances. It would have to move everything it needed in unprotected cargo ships or transport planes without fighter escorts that would be easy target practice for even a token force.

Like by far most of the worlds Armed Forces the Syrian or North Korean military are designed to prop up the government, keep down the population and intimidate their neighours. They are NOT designed to pick up and move around the world.

Any Syrian force sent to Jamaica would eventually run out of fuel, food, spare parts and ammunition - basically everything it needed to operate, move its vehicles, fight and sustain life... it would soon be essentially useless. Unable to drive it's vehicles or fly the planes it got to Syria because of lack of fuel or even get ammunition to the individual soldiers patrolling the streets of Kingston.

There are likely over a hundred countries at least around the world with larger Armed Forces than Canada has, however the difference is that thanks to recent reinvestment in it's strategic capabilities there are also less than a dozen countries - 8 to 10 at most - around the globe that can move their forces anywhere in the world and keep them there with everything they need.

That is something Canada has worked very hard to be able to do over the years and something Canadians should be very proud of.

Sketchy on the The Iranian Nuclear Deal

Forgive me for being skeptical, but I am not jumping for joy with relief over the recent agreement with Iran to freeze it's uranium enrichment program.  The agreement is likely more tactical on all parties part than meant to guarantee long term regional stability. 

> Iran delays or forestalls an Israeli attack on it's facilities, but knows it can continue again when the world is looking elsewhere (remember North Korea anyone or Pakistan)

> Israel, under tremendous pressure from the US not to attack Iran, gets back in American good graces and buys more time to prepare for any eventual strike.

> The United States under a president that is perceived internationally as weak and indecisive can tout a diplomatic victory to the home audience and avoids what it really wants which is another war in the Middle East.

However based on the North Korean example there is no reason to believe that this deal will prevent an eventual Iranian nuclear bomb(s) and a resulting larger conflict. The United States may not want another war but if Israel believes it's existence is threatened, there will be a war, and likely a wider regional one.

Regardless of what the hawks of either the Republican's or Democrats say about 'all options being on the table', the truth is they are not, not in a serious way and not for several years. 

Why? While it can be said the US and it's allies had a right, even an obligation to over throw the Taliban in Afghanistan, (the process largely botched after 2002), the world's most powerful military has essentially exhausted itself in the past dozen years with it's political masters ignoring the Duke of Wellington's dictum that "big countries don't fight small wars". 

There is no appetite in the US high command for another war, after over a decade of conflict the US Armed forces gained valuable counter insurgency experience but any war with Iran would be largely conventional, and fought by an exhausted rank and file. 

More importantly than all that, the American Public has a say in all of this, and they don't want any more Mid East wars. The Us public will not support a large scale attack on Iran. As learned again and again, any President that goes to war with less than overwhelming public support (I"m not talking 55 - 60% - I mean more like 70 - 80%), automatically hamstrings the war effort and ends up fighting a political rearguard action rather than the enemy abroad. 

So what should be done? Well the realist in me thinks it's too late, the nuclear genie is already out of the bottle. What SHOULD have been done - if it could have - would have been to make the prospect or the act of going nuclear so terrible, so final for any regime trying to do so that the response would have been seen as a warning to others.

Rather than spending blood and treasure fighting long wars half halfheartedly, having gone after North Korea or earlier Pakistan in a devastating manner. One that surely would have been awful at the time for those involved would have served warning to others of the consequences of going down the nuclear road. Rather a painful lesson now, than 15 years from now we leave our children to deal with a world of a couple dozen nuclear armed nations most of whom would be hostile to us and held hostage by their parents generation's lack of early action. 

The thought process behind occasional signs you see at peace marches proclaiming "no more Hiroshima's" may be well intention-ed, but may also be indicative of a mindset that will guarantee more Hiroshima's, and eventually one on our own continent. 

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and the Late Night Comics

Insecurity is not a redeeming quality in any relationship, be it a marriage or relations between two countries. So with the recent Rob Ford revelations does it not seem that immediately following the latest update on the saga inevitably comes the next segment on what was said on the US late night comedy circuit?

C'mon folks! Once yes but it seems to get repeated constantly, and with all this was there not a Canadian comic anywhere that mentioned something? I have yet to see one! The news hosts laugh and smile after the clips of Jon Stewart and Jay Leno roll, but is this not like the class clown happy the jocks are finally paying attention to him in gym class because he fell off the climber?

Canadians care too much about what Americans think of them, this is not ant-American but anti-Canadian insecurity. News flash, in the grand scheme of things, why should they? The best and brightest from Canada it seems move down there whether it be sports, entertainment, science or medicine. Why should they pay attention, when we give away the store to begin with.

Too often Canadians complain that Americans don't pay attention to them or don't know anything about Canada. Well guess what... Canadians by and large don't know anything about Canada either. Every July 1st, when people pull out their flags and become proud Canadians for a day before going back to calling themselves Irish, Greek or Italian, comes the accompanying stories as regular as clockwork about how little Canadians actually know about their country, about how most cannot answer even basic grade school questions about the country's history, geography or political system. So let's not complain about what the Americans know or don't know, let's actually be able to know something about our own selves first.

So yes these clips are funny I admit, but why so much focus? Don't just blame the media, look at the links posted of clips of US comics on Facebook by Canadians. But seriously people, is it too much to ask by leading off with what Canadian entertainers are saying? To care about what the rest of the country is saying about the scandal before caring about what others outside it thought?

If your best friend was constantly worried about what you thought and how come you don't pay attention and know enough about them wouldn't you think they were more than a little creepy?

Grow up and get a life Canada!

Revolutions 101: 1776 vs. Tahir Square

You can't help but be inspired, the crowds, the lights the mass of humanity in the square, it's like a giant party. But when the party is over the work begins - and it is never easy, it is never fun or inspiring.

Revolutions are not pretty, forget Star Wars, forget silly Mel Gibson movies, revolutions tear families apart, pit neighbour against neighbour and usually replace one set of nasty people with another set of nasty people, who make a few cosmetic changes then carry on with business as usual.

Americans today are celebrating one of the worlds rare revolutionary success stories - and even then it was a blood bath that is sometimes referred to as  Americas first civil war, with families having members fighting on both sides. It was long, difficult and painful. However the fledgling United States even in 1776 had the building blocks to make it work, ones that still today Egypt lacks.

Ironically inherited from their previous British overseers, a free press, private land ownership, an independent judiciary and a people that were by nature independent and self reliant. With these institutions intact the newly formed United States had the skeletal structure to build the sinews of a free society on. Egypt today has little of that, or at least what it has is truly in it's embryonic stage at best.  

Was it perfect no - Women couldn't vote and slavery existed in many states, and internal violence would persist for over a hundred years as the nation fractured into civil war, reconstituted and underwent a bloody westward expansion. Even with all the right pieces in place for success, it would be a long struggle to peace and prosperity - should we expect any less from say... Egypt.

**(Let us not forget that the US Civil War killed more Americans than World War 1, World War 2, The Korean War, and The Vietnam War COMBINED! The country is still divided by it)

The US was also blessed abundant natural resources, almost immediately after the revolution, it's cotton, timber and other resources were in demand by the nation it had just fought to free itself from. Economically it could recover from conflict better than almost any other nation on earth, then or now.

Egypt by contrast is a country of few if any natural resources, not blessed with oil reserves like many of it's Arab brethren the only real card it holds is it's geography. Located beside the State of Israel it's an important player for peace in the region, and perhaps more importantly the Suez Canal plays a role as a vital strategic waterway.

The hard truth is that without the Suez Canal and it's role in being a peaceful Arab neighbour of Israel, no one would pay attention to it and Egypt would just be another Sudan, but with pyramids.

In it's modern incarnation the Nation of Egypt has never had to stand on it's own, rather than being immediately economically sustainable like the United States, it's always had to have some kind of benefactor. First the British, then post World War Two it leaned towards the Soviet sphere and they pumped into it billions in military and other aid. When Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel they shifted to the US sphere, but kept (with American encouragement) their autocratic form of governance. Today Egypt is one of the largest (I believe the second largest) recipients of US aid. Much of it military. This is the fuel that keeps the Egyptian economy - such as it is - sputtering along. Tourism, which should be a mecca for her will certainly not be helped by recent events.

The role of religion in both societies cannot be understated. For all the show of 'God and Country' the founding fathers of the United States were Christian but not overly evangelical about it. Wanting to avoid the trappings of European monarchies they deliberately avoided having an official state religion. In post revolutionary America, you could worship - or not worship - as you please.

One of the ways over the years Egypt's various strongmen allowed their people to vent steam was in the mosque. As a result, with no history of press freedom, no right to form political opposition parties for so many years, no open debate, most peoples frame of reference for political change is religion, as it was for so long the only other place they could get information from that differed from the state.

Therefore no one should have been surprised when in their first election, a largely rural and semi literate population put in an Islamic leaning government. No one also should have been surprised when therefore it suddenly started actually acting like an Islamic government. However if there is going to eventually be a free and democratic Egyptian society then governments with a 12th century mentality have to be tolerated - and then voted out. Not overthrown, even as sadly currently Coptic Christians are prosecuted and in some cases forcibly converted.

Egypt will not be truly free until religious minorities are able to worship openly, and those who chose to reject all religious faith can do so without fear and repercussion.

1n 1776, the United States began it's journey, it was a long and difficult road. A blessed land it had everything it could ask for in it's favor; from an industrious population, to strong civil and civic institutions and abundant natural resources and yet it still took generations to bring everyone into the fold of a free and open society

How can we expect a country like Egypt with little going for it other than the passion of it's people and foreign aid to move any faster.

Dear Mr Collin's Thank's for Coming Out But...

Thoughts on Washington Wizards Center Jason Collins coming out as the first currently playing openly gay athlete in a professional sport: A milestone yes but the real response by this point should be... "Big deal".

To paraphrase the late Ralph Klein on a different matter; a individual's sexuality is 'between them, their partner and God'. No one else's business. If I'm a Washington Wizards fan the only thing I'd care about with Jason Collins is if he's contributing to the team and the community on and off the court.

For adults who happen to be gay the real test of acceptance by the rest of society should be in my view a response of "so what". Much the same as I don't care about my proverbial straight neighbour on the right's sexuality, I really don't care about my proverbial gay neighbour on the left's sexuality either.

However:

I do care that they are nice people.
I do care if they treat my family and I with respect.
I do care how their day went and if they're doing well or not.
I do care that neither of them break the law and interfere with children or harm my home or family.

But I do care that no one is bothering, threatening or harassing them. Not specifically because of their sexuality, but because I don’t like bullies and I don’t like seeing people picked on.

What however I don't care about is with either of them is their sex life with their significant others... Bottom line is this: if I'm not included, then I don't need to know about it.

Yes Mr. Collin's it took courage to be the first but, if you had waited until retirement to come "out" or even never, no one should have thought the less of you - because it's none of their business anyway.

Why The Battle and Pillage of York (Toronto) April 27th, 1813 Matters

Many Canadians are by now sick to death of War of 1812 reminders, more than a historical commemoration it is now associated as much with a campaign tool of Stephen Harper's Conservative government or fodder for stand up comics as it is with a series of events that shaped the fate of an entire continent.

More than universal health care, more than official bilingualism, even more than hockey, events like the Battle of York (Toronto) shaped Canada as a nation, and the future direction it would take.

A year before this event, in year 1812 it seemed almost certain that Upper and Lower Canada would be added to the newly founded Untied States, it was among other things a combination of swift action by British Commander (Issac Brock killed in 1812), his alliance with a Native leader (Tecumseh - also to later die in battle near present day London Ontario), timidity on behalf of certain American Commanders and some just plain good luck that saved the provinces from assimilation.

It is a shame and a poor comment on Canadians in general - and Torontonians in specific - that so few know about these events and even fewer seem interested. If Toronto was truly "a world class city", if it was a European, Latin American, or US City individual citizens would know the history of the place they live, celebrate it and take pride in passing knowledge of it to visitors.

Perhaps it's a legacy of us as a nation always having a protector or big brother (France then the UK, then the United States) that makes us complacent, makes us take our collective heritage for granted like the child of wealthy parents always assuming mommy and daddy will be there for him. However it is long past time that as a people we take pride on our heritage and not just celebrate it but truly become knowledgeable about the events that shaped who we are. Whether you're 5th generation Canadian or just arrived here from Somalia last year, if you live in Toronto, this event is part of your cultural heritage.
It is not enough on July 1st to say you love Canada, yet not know anything about the country as whole. It is rather like someone who says they love their wife but can't remember their favourite colour, favorite movie or what foods they like. You can't truly say you love something if you don't know anything about it.  

Boston and 9-11: The Difference Between US and THEM

With the recent Boston Marathon bombings before a claim of responsibility has been issued, before a finger of blame has been raised the conspiracy theories have already come to the fore. They are annoying, they are offensive and yet in the end by their very existence they prove themselves wrong.

For only in a truly free and open society can things like 9/11 conspiracy theories be expressed without fear of repercussion. The real truth is that if the proponents of such theories were to voice their opinions or post their beliefs and supporting links on their facebook accounts contrary to the official line in the countries that oppose us(provided they were even legally permitted to have a facebook account) they would be arrested, jailed, tortured and possibly executed as an enemy of the state. 

The true irony of a liberal society is that by allowing the free flow of information governments generate less trust among their population than they do in those societies where the State controls everything you’re allowed to hear.The fact that a 9/11 “truther” is able to freely and openly accuse their own government of mass murder and do so without repercussions, without having to be cross examined or forced to defend such libel before the courts is the greatest testament to the falseness of their beliefs. It is the greatest argument that though by no means perfect or blameless, western democracies founded on Judeo –Christian values are the strong hand a grasping world reaches to in good times and in bad. 

Were they to make the same type of accusations towards an individual citizen as they do their own government a9/11 conspiracy theorist could be sued, forced to present their evidence in court and be subject to cross examination. No such defense exists – nor should it – for governments. The truther’s are the ultimate school yard bullies, free to hurl accusations of murder and deceit, yet safely protected by the laws of the very society they so fiercely condemn. We should both pity their ignorance and scorn them as cowards. 

Purveyors of 9/11 conspiracy theories, holocaust deniers and flat earther’s are rebels at heart. Often celebrated in popular culture, they are given an open forum by society and receive free distribution of their views by the media they so rabidly condemn as government pawns. These individuals waste whatever talents they may have tilting at phantom windmills, kicking sand in the face of the only societies on the planet that allow the free expression of dissent.

The answer truly is not to silence them or their ideas, rather it is through the understanding that by encouraging the tolerance of free and open expression of opinion; thoughtful, rational, offensive, outlandish or just plain crazy we prove wrong those who believe that dissent is controlled, free speech is suppressed and as citizens we are but cogs in a diabolical machine. 

The curtain is easily drawn and there are many means for us to see behind it, yet for far too many it’s easier to conjure nightmares than to peak through with free and open eyes. 

War in Korea or Anywhere? Suppy Trucks Trump Smart Bombs

There is a great saying about warfare that can apply to any military operation from war to peacekeeping and disaster relief that goes to the effect of: 'Amateurs talk strategy, generals talk logistics'. The truth behind the phrase is that a country's military can have the best fighter jets, best tanks and best trained forces in the world, however all that means nothing if you can't move those forces to where they need to be, do it quickly and once there keep them provided with everything they need to live and operate (fuel, food, water, ammunition, part parts etc). 

If you can't do those basics then let's face it, you can have the most high tech jet in the world, but the only thing it will be able to do is look cool on the runway. That art - logistics - is the key behind military success. So understanding how logistics works and what armies require to fight is perhaps the most important factor in trying to decide whether a country is serious about using military force. 

This simple factor, looking at the movements of military supplies is the main reason why those observing the situation in the Korean peninsula do not believe that a North Korean attack is imminent. That is not to say a war could not happen due to miscalculations by either side that lead to a sudden escalation of violence. However for the North (and therefore the Kim regime) to have any hope of surviving a conflict they would likely look for a quick military success then try to negotiate a peace from a position of strength before any build up for a massive US/South Korean counter attack could take place. 

For the north to launch a deliberate full scale attack - as opposed to limited scale cross border raids - there would need to occur a massive and quite observable movement of the fuel, ammunition, food, water, air defense units to guard against preemptive strikes etc towards the border with South Korea. All this movement would be quite observable to satellites and other other intelligence gathering methods. The sudden and unusual movement of whole units and the ammunition, fuel, communications equipment etc that they'd need to move, fight, and coordinate with each other would be the real indication that something sinister is afoot. Why? Because you don't need those things to guard a border, but you do need them for an attack south.

With news coverage of past wars focusing on precision airstrikes and front line combat you rarely get a chance to see what's behind the curtain making it all work. Counter intuitive as a it may be to those brought up on first person shooter X-box games or someone just looking at a table of relative military strengths (comparative numbers of tanks, fighter jets etc) in war combat is for the very few. 

Numbers are deceptive. In the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the unit that spearheaded the US Army's thrust through the desert to Baghdad was the Third Infantry Division. On paper it's strength is about 20,000 troops with hundreds of tanks, armoured vehicles and helicopters. However each tank needs a truck to supply fuel to it, it needs a separate truck to provide it ammunition to fight. It's crew needs water and food, radios need batteries etc. The trucks or helicopters that supply those need drivers, they need troops to protect them en-route  they need fuel themselves etc, it goes on and on. 

In fact of the approximately twenty thousand soldiers in that 'Infantry Division' the commander was quoted that they had a mere 1,200 actual infantry - the foot soldiers that do ground fighting. If you add in crews for the tanks and artillery. you maybe get 3,000 or 3,500 at most out of 20,000 that would actually fight. The rest are there to provide those few what they need to live, move, eat and fight - essentially every basic necessity of life, on the battlefield and off.

It can be reasonably guessed that North Korean units would not require the same type of logistics train that US or other Western armies do, however they still need to move, eat, shoot, and fix the things that break down. A movement of 10,000 troops for an attack south (and any full scale attack would be much larger) would even with the assumed lighter logistical requirements of the 'Democratic People's Republic' forces likely require the use of an additional twenty thousand troops to move the assault forces and bring them what they need. All of which would be quite easily noticed and monitored. This hasn't happened yet. Otherwise alarm bells would be going off and American and South Korean forces would surely be under great pressure to launch a preemptive attack to try to minimize the effect of any North Korean strike.

In the first Gulf War the United States poured just over half a million troops into Saudi Arabia in the build up to Operation Desert Storm. This build up - Operation Desert Shield - began in August 1990 with units and equipment still arriving right into February 1991 when the war was already well under way. Why so long? It wasn't necessarily moving the fighting troops and their equipment that took time. It was bringing everything they needed to live and fight that took much of the effort. Of the over half million troops deployed, maybe sixty to eighty thousand at best were what you could call 'front line' forces, the rest were to keep the machine going and ensure it had everything it needed to move, communicate, fight and live.

To put it into perspective, in that six month time span the United States military did the equivalent of moving a mid sized city like Calgary half way across the world, and set it up fully functioning in the desert with everything it would need to operate.

It is THIS logistics capability that is the true strength of the US Armed Forces. Most Western military forces have special forces, high tech fighter jets and satellite guided bombs. But no other country can take that many forces, move them that far around the world, and keep them continually supplied everything they need. Not China, not Russia, not Britain, France or any combination there of. In fact in every major coalition conflict (The Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo etc) allied countries have a some point relied on the US's airlift, intelligence or some other component of the American logistical chain to get what they required. 

Finally, in all likelihood the warlike talk coming out of the North Korean capital could just be noise to help establish a name for new leader Kim Jong-un; however it is also likely being done to try and coerce a different type of logistical support. Food aid and the easing of international sanctions.