Atheists vs Believers: The Third Period

So Who will it be? Weeks have gone by with no clear resolution, but tonight the metaphysical hockey game will come to a close and we will finally know the truth.

As the players start their march from their dressing rooms, the fans in the stadium are out of their minds with excitement. The arena has become possessed by the game at hand and the enormity of the stake.

The players are also clearly affected by the atmosphere and the animosity between the teams is palpable. Dawkins in jawing with Aquinas while St. Anselm stares down Phillip Pullman. Yet there is one player who stands outside the fever pitch. As goaltenders usually are, the Believers goalie is quieter and more reserved than the other players. As the others head out to the ice, he remains in the dressing room focussing on the game at hand.

After a peaceful moment he pulls on his glove and blocker, picks up his stick and walks into the electric arena.

At puck drop the players stare each other down like and line up like soldiers on a battlefield. The sounds is deafening, yet the lonely Believer's goalie crouches quietly in his crease.

Referee Kant drops the puck and the players spring into action. Play moves into the Believers end and the puck rolls into the corner. It's hard to say exactly what happened next but an agressive Pullman collided with an equally spirited Anselm while battling over whether religion was important or not. Both players ended up lying on the ice, intertwined and unable to get up. The other players immediatly forgot about the puck and began pushing and shoving in the corner. Quickly things escalated from a normal hockey scrum to a full-out Donniebrook as the benches emptied and even Atheist goalie Karl Marx skated the length of the ice to join in.

Yet while the players on both sides tried to decapitate one another, the Believers goaltender remained an outside, watching what had been a good hockey game deteriorate into chaos. He knew right then there was only one thing to do.

He turned and skated towards the fighting players and threw down his gloves and stick, tossed his hemet away and skated into the crowd of swinging saints and dualing deniers, yet instead of joining in the battle he skated past them and knelt down beside the injured players on the ice. He asked them questions to find out how badly they were hurt and listened to what they had to say.

Meanwhile, the other players slowly stopped fighting, turned towards the 3 men on the ice and for the first time realized Pullman and Anselm had been hurt. But they were puzzled by what they saw. Of all they had heard about Jesus, Believers and Atheists alike, they expected to see something miraculous...an instant healing or divine intervention. Instead what they saw was the image of a man on his knees, listening intently to what both the Atheist and Believer had to say. What they saw was nothing other-worldly but something each and every one of them would have been cabable of doing if they hadn't been too busy fighting and arguing about who was right and who was to blame.

Now, at this moment the entire arena had become silent, with all eyes pointing at Jesus. With all the flashy plays, big saves and uppercuts thrown, it was a simple act of kindness that had captivated the audience and put the spotlight on the Believers goaltender who, given this opportunity, delivered a message as simple as the act that had stopped the fighting:

"For those of you that care to hear, God is here for God is love alone. To love one another as I have loved you was, and still is, the only truth there is. Your life is yours to live, and life is so important, but nothing is more important than being ready when you are called to be of service. Love is not religious, or scientific, but life itself and being open to living and loving is the only way true life can ever be experienced, otherwise you are only fighters, battling your way throuh life, blind to both the needs of others and yourselves."

With that, Jesus turned and skated towards centre ice. For a moment, the other players stood still, and then followed suit. When the players had lined up at centre ice, the shook hands and congratulated each other on a game well played and then headed for their respective dressing rooms with 19 minutes still left on the clock.

And so with that, the game ends decidedly undecided, ready perhaps to be continued a different day in a different place, but not here, not now. Although it may not feel as if anything has been resolved, the general feeling is that the premise for the game was all wrong anyways; that the question of God's existence was somehow less important than the result; that the message of peace and love delivered by Jesus was more important than anything else.

Will Grassby

Crosby versus Ovechkin: The Battle to be Best

The two greatest stars in the NHL are facing off head-to-head from two of the biggest hockey cities in the United States. The NHL and NBC each teared up a little bit, and hockey fans everywhere checked off their calendars. Alexander Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby, and of course the rest of the Capitals and Penguins, were finally facing off in a playoff series.

Since coming into the league in the same year thanks to the lockout cancelling what would have been Ovechkin’s first season, the two have been in direct competition for the title as league best, for bigger and better trophies, and for the hearts and minds of the fans. Ovechkin won the first battle, taking home the Calder in 2006, and each have won a Hart, Crosby in 2007, Ovechkin in 2008. Ovechkin has also outscored Crosby in three of the four seasons since they both broke into the league, while scoring goals with reckless abandon. But statistics aside, the most interesting aspect of the battle between the two youngsters is the battle for the fans.

All of hockey’s eyeballs had been on Sidney Crosby for years. Here was a clean-cut boy from Canada (Nova Scotia, no less), who spoke perfect Wayne Gretzky English and dominated his opponents in junior hockey. He was being toted as the new face of the NHL, which was suffering from an image and a game problem before and especially during the lockout of 2005. The rights to draft his services were put to a lottery for all teams, and the NHL brass breathed a sigh of relief when that first ball they pulled didn’t have an ugly green and purple coyote thing on it. Pittsburgh it was, and how suiting to have Super Mario there to tutor him in his waning days. They could revitalize a failing franchise in a strong hockey market, and breathe new life into the franchise and the entire NHL. That’s a lot of pressure on a seventeen-year-old.

So Crosby was the cool kid and everyone wanted to be his friend, until this foreign exchange student showed up and became the life of the party. Two years older and able to funnel three beers at once with complete disregard for his body, Ovechkin became the toast of the league. He could score goals; he could throw hits; and he can celebrate with the best of them. Unbridled enthusiasm from a kid who didn’t know any better and was doing what he did best, which also happened to be what he loved to do. And to the delight of everybody (but perhaps Sid), he kept doing it.

So two parts maturity, three parts temperament, add in some hockey breeding and a dash of marketing, and Crosby becomes a hard-luck whiner who nobody wants to be around, while Ovechkin’s still scoring goals with reckless abandon. Crosby grew up being compared to Wayne Gretzky the hockey player, as he grew up watching Wayne Gretzky the diplomat. A polite Canadian, Crosby said all the right things about hard-work and fair-play and we’ll-get-‘em’next-time, while Ovechkin’s still scoring goals with reckless abandon. Even the NHL marketing machine, with a series of very cute and funny ads, played Crosby the straight man to Ovechkin’s prankster. In the brilliant hotel add featuring a number of NHL stars goofing around like kids in a hotel during a hockey tournament (what’d they call it when they threw flour in your face while you slept?), Ovechkin orders large amounts of room service, only to have it sent to Crosby’s room. Crosby, in his very best Seinfeld impression, bemoans being the butt of Ovechkin’s joke. Ovechkin is just a lot of fun. Perhaps Sid did a bit of whining in his first year or two, but it must be tough when men twice your age with a tenth of your talent are shoving the butt ends of their sticks into your ribs behind the refs’ backs, while Ovechkin’s still scoring goals with reckless abandon.

Not to belittle Alexander Ovechkin. He has done great things for the Washington Capitals and the game of hockey. He has maintained his ‘cool foreign exchange student’ demeanour as well as his zest for life and scoring goals. He has improved the play of his teammates, and is always the first one in on the celebration when they score. He has done interviews and commercials and been a personality, all in a culture and a language he doesn’t understand. He has given the NHL an anti-Sidney to play against Crosby’s hero. And perhaps most importantly he has guided his Capitals into the second round of the playoffs, all while scoring goals with reckless abandon.

However I would still take Sidney Crosby on my team, and I still think Pittsburgh will take the series. (I had said Pens in five, but mostly because I was mad at Washington for coming back against New York…). Crosby has the style of play that will succeed in the NHL playoffs, and he has shown it by leading his team to the finals last season. All while being two years younger, and with the continued weight of the league’s and the fans’ expectations. Go Sid Go.

Russ MacDonald

Tweet Tweet

his past month I have heard the word Twitter more times than my previous twenty-one years and six and a half months of existence [editor's note: I am actually 22 and a half, not 21. I don't know what to tell you]. I have never tweet (tweeted?), nor do I really understand the appeal. I’m not really sure if this is just a further foray into narcissism, or if this is another manifestation of decentralised mass communication that has evolved from the Internet. I do use facebook, but I’m not really sure if there’s a large difference between a facebook status update and a tweet. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. I was relatively late jumping on the facebook train, not really for any ideological reasons, but I just didn’t really see the appeal there either, although I now find it quite useful for keeping in touch and coordinating events. I do also appreciate the irony in an online blogger accusing Twitter of narcissism, especially without having ever used the service, however I like to think that my posts represent more than mundane self-absorption (and in more than 140 characters).

An article on cbc.ca today said that as of February of this year, Twitter had more than seven million unique visitors, although sixty percent of people using the site were not coming back within the next month. That is compared to a seventy percent return rate for facebook at the same stage in its growth. Numbers like that suggest that Twitter will become a passing fad, without enough substance or evolution to maintain a large base of people. I suppose there will always be some Twitterers (twits?) who will maintain the service, but perhaps its popularity will fade into the netherworld of Internet memes (remember ICQ?).

From a cultural standpoint, it is interesting to question what Twitter says about us. My sister, who is recently back on the facebook train, had explained to me that she long-ago deleted her first account, because she found it to be nothing more than an inane waste of time, with little real value. I guess that comes down to how you use it. I have noticed a trend with the most recent incarnation of facebook down that road, with more status-updates and fewer wall-posts, becoming more about ME! I do enjoy following my friends’ various travels and projects, however it is of less interest to me that ‘Sarah is boooooooored.’ (More irony: I will likely inform people of this blog via facebook-status-update. Maybe I should tweet about it too.)

It will be interesting to see where facebook goes, and how it is used by us in the future and by future generations. Will it continue to devolve into a mess of personal updates and applications, or will it maintain its usefulness as a networking site. I suppose that is really up to the people who use it, but that begs the further question about the politics of technology and what the driving force behind the changes really is. Are people adapting to the technology as it is presented to them? Or is the technology shifting to shape the demands of the people. The new facebook layout was met with large amounts of backlash, and yet people have gotten over that and begun to shift the direction of the site again. Perhaps it is suiting to end this post with a mention of youtube, but for a remarkably funny song about the perils of MySpace and the potential for your children to find your profile in twenty years, check out MyHope.

Russ

The Atheists vs The Believers - 2nd Period (Part 3 of 5)

After a short delay the 2nd period is ready to be played with part three of our five-part metaphysical hockey game blog series. This week the key players shift and the topics of discussion are markedly different, but the goal remains the same. Cementing once and for all the greatest question of all. Is there a God?

With the players back on the since re-frozen ice everything is set to go for the 2nd period of the metaphysical hockey game.

Referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice and drops the puck. We are underway. Off the draw the Atheists take the puck and dump it into the Believers zone and give chase furiously. They look like a team on a mission and the first one to the puck is Greek star Epicurus who grabs the puck in the corner and barges his way unstoppably to the front of the net. His argument is simple. He says “"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (from 2000 years of disbelief) He fires this quick shot and scores the first goal of the game, less than 1 minute into the period.

It is to be noted that Epicurus was originally reluctant to join the ranks of the Atheists because he himself is a deist, meaning his answer to this problem is that Gods, although they exist, do not involve themselves with the world and therefore allow evil to occur.
Epicurus joined the Atheists due to his allegiance to skepticism and the scientific method, something he felt was incompatible with the faithers on the other side.

With the ever troubling “Problem of Evil” on the table and the Believers already down by a goal, they look disorganized on the ice and Richard Dawkins seems very interested in sealing the deal by throwing several hard, but mis-guided shots on the Believers’ goal.

Yet there seems to be a bit of conflict growing amongst the Atheists. A team composed mostly of educated philosophers and thinkers, they see Dawkins as out of his league; a try-hard if you will. A few of the Atheists are fed up with him hogging to puck and missing shots that they would no doubt bury into the back of the net. This frustration comes to a head when Dawkins decides to try to go end-to-end with the argument that religion itself is the source of evil.

After stick-handling through a couple of checks with religious fundamentalism as his cause, he gets blindsided by an almost 1700 year old St. Augustine of Hippo. A figure almost completely cut out of The God Delusion, Dawkins is completely surprised by the surprisingly spry Augustine and is sent sprawling into the boards.

Augustine subsequently grabs the puck and shows great dexterity in maneuvering around the Atheist defense whose insistence that evil and God cannot co-exist was exposed by a quick suggestion from Augustine the evil itself does not exist. When pressed by the back-checking Dawkins to elaborate on this blasphemous claim Augustine puts it in scientific terms for the Oxonian. What is cold but lack of heat, he said, and with that, what is evil but lack of good? What Augustine is establishing is evil as a perversion of the good and a by-product of free will. With that he left Dawkins with this quote:

“For the almighty God…would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? …in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil.”

On that note Augustine fired the puck between the Atheists’ goaltender Karl Marx's legs. Game tied.
1-1. Augustine had effectively shown the Atheists the possibility of an omnipotent, all-benevolent God in a world with things that seem evil.

However the battle has just begun. The Atheists come back hard arguing that the world would be infinitely better without any “perversion of good” and that Augustine’s had his foot in the crease on the goal by effectively playing with words instead of presenting a valid argument goal. “Go upstairs” they all yelled in chorus.

Kant skates over to the penalty box area and takes hold of the phone receiver. He calls up to the official goal judge Henry Huxley. Known for his fair judgements Huxley is quick to make his decision. Although Augustine’s foot was in the crease, he says, the rule states he must interfere with the goalie to disallow the goal. Since his argument does provide a valid analogy of a world with both an all-powerful, all-benevolent God and evil, or however you want to phrase it, the goal stands. 1-1

With that the Believers’ bench shout out for joy as the Atheists look seething.

2 minutes to go in the period and they are indeed a chippy 2 minutes. Numerous high-sticks are seen as well as a couple of “charges” against Augustine by Atheists who were not at all pleased with the sneaky move on his goal.

Despite the jeers, the period ends with the score tied.

Headed to the dressing room is one cheery group of believers and one grouchy looking group of atheists (although it's hard to tell whether Dawkins is grouchy or if it is just his usual demenour.)

It looks like the 3rd period will be one for the ages. The Atheists are chomping at the bit to get back on the ice and throw their best arguments at the rather annoying Believers squad while the Believers are looking to ride the wave of their late goal to victory. With both teams motivated and anxious to get back out there, even the Atheist fans cannot doubt it will be an electrifying finish.

Please check back next week on Wednesday at 5pm EST for the 3rd period.

Will Grassby

Columbine: Looking for Answers

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre that left fifteen people dead and another twenty-three injured after two gunmen went on a rampage at their high school in Littleton, Colorado. Afterwards, questions abounded, and answers stockpiled as well.

Many of the purported ‘reasons’ for the killers’ actions reflected the notion that they were outcasts, goths, nerds, or played violent video games and listened to violent music. Fans of Marilyn Manson, much of the blame was placed at his feet for ‘influencing’ these young men to commit this heinous act. It seems somewhat ironic that a man whose stage name and persona is a play on the association between pop culture and mass murder is subsequently blamed for such an event.

Manson was interviewed by Michael Moore for Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine, in which he discussed gun control and American culture in the context of the Columbine massacre. Say what you will about Moore (or Manson), but the discussion they had covered a number of relevant topics. In the interview, Manson highlights a number of other factors that were much more likely contributors to the events than any simple answer of violent music. According to Moore, the United States dropped more bombs on Kosovo that day than at any other time during the war. Manson also highlights a culture and cycle of fear and consumerism perpetuated by the media as more damaging than any rock-n-roll music. The final question of the interview is the one which has stuck with me the longest since first viewing the film, and it’s when Moore asks Manson what he would say to the kids involved and the people in the community, to which Manson replies: “I wouldn’t say a single word to them, I would listen to what they had to say, and that’s what no one did.”

And he’s right. Too often we are all too focused on what we would say and do, and speaking louder to ensure that we are heard, when instead we need to stop and listen to each other. When people become disenfranchised and feel they are wronged, they make sure they are heard in whatever way they can. When that is mixed with violence and adolescence, we find ourselves with tragedies such as Columbine. When it is mixed with radical nationalism and misplaced religious zealotry, we have events like September 11th. When it is met with peace and support, we have “Give Peace a Chance”.

In order to resolve any number of the conflicts facing the world today, we much approach them with this same resolve. We are all the same, and we all just want to be heard. What is right and just will inevitably triumph, and the way to see to this is by encouraging open communication amongst all parties.

Russ

Melting Ice Delays the Metaphysical Hockey Game

My apologies for the past two weeks, but a rash of things have come up over the last little while that has prevented me from keeping up with the blog and the ongoing metaphysical hockey game. Let's just blame it on the warm temperatures melting the playing surface (also known as my brain) and I assure all our readers that play will resume next Wednesday, 5:00pm EST with promises of a very informative and exciting 2nd period.

Thanks for your patience!

Will Grassby

Imagine

Imagine all the people, sharing all the world.

Today is Easter Monday. Last Wednesday marked the beginning of Passover. A week ago today was the fifteenth anniversary of the death of Juvénal Habyarimana, which was swiftly followed with the Rwandan Genocide. Ninety-two years ago yesterday, Canadian efforts culminated in victory at Vimy Ridge. Forty-one years and nine days ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. In the midst off this, I thought I’d share my reflections on the world.

As the world learned too late, over 100 days in 1994, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were butchered at the hands of Hutus in Rwanda. However, the difference between the Tutsis and Hutus is difficult to pin down, and may be as simple as artificial divisions remaining from European colonial times dependant on the size of your nose, or possible your heard of cattle. And yet both ethnic groups have taken turns mercilessly slaughtering each other. In 2001, terrified school girls were subject to taunts and projectiles hurled at them by angry Loyalists in Belfast, because the Loyalists believed that the Bible is the only infallible authority on Christianity, while the children believed that the episcopacy is also a valid power. Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been mean to each other ever since their religion was twenty-two years old when a disagreement broke out about who the legitimate successor to the Prophet Muhammad was. These and all arbitrary differences are creating an ‘other’ to blame for our own deficiencies, and dividing humanity.

In many cases religious or ethnic differences are simply used as a smokescreen to hide other cultural challenges, but the fact is that divisions created sometimes thousands of years ago to suit the needs of a horny king or a discarded heir or a colonial power are continuing to drive a giant wedge between humans today. What we need now is a complete separation of church and state, and a greater global harmony going forward. While visiting in Turkey, Barack Obama recently boldly reinforced that the United States was not a Christian nation. Canada has, to a large degree, exemplified that notion quite well, and continues to be a beacon of multiculturalism and acceptance.

‘Cause tonight; we can be as one tonight.

I was listening to CBC radio a while back, and they were interviewing a Muslim scholar. I can’t remember who it was, or the context of the discussion, but what they were talking about was their notion that what their organization was striving for and envisioned was a world in which everybody was Muslim. This made me stop and think for a moment, because the concept of the entire world following the same religion, and the idea of organizations striving for this, was a concept that had never really occurred to me. Sure it makes sense that people would generally desire others to agree with them on such topics, but for an organization to actually foresee this as an eventuality, let alone a possibility, really struck me. Perhaps because the only way I can see that ever happening is as a secular world, rather than any one religion over all the others.

That’s because it seems somewhat presumptuous to me to assume that your religion, or race, or ethnicity, or group is solely correct and only your people will be chosen or saved (I'm afraid it was 'the Mormons.' Yes, 'the Mormons' was the correct answer). Since most religions are for the most part mutually exclusive, it follows that only one can be totally correct, or, quite possibly, that none are correct. Some may accuse me of taking too literal an approach to this matter, but I believe a literal approach is a valid way to consider such an issue, especially when one group involved can raise almost $40 million in California to see to it that homosexuals cannot be married, because over two-thousand years ago, Leviticus said: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Something that always gets me, and gives me hope, is the Christmas truce of 1914, in which enemy soldiers dug into trenches in the Great War joined each other in No Man’s Land to sing, exchange gifts, bury their dead, and play soccer. The war would last almost five more years, but on that day everybody was a human being.

Imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too. Imagine all the people; living life in peace.

Russ

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, RETHINK

There have been recent ads featuring a man, perhaps Galen Weston, tossing an empty water bottle towards a recycling bin, only to have it bounce off the rim like Vince Carter’s 2001 Game Seven miss against Philadelphia. Much like the Toronto Raptors, the planet will never be the same.

(A basketball analogy and a contentious embellishment! What an intro!)

At the same time, the University of Winnipeg has become the first university in Canada to ban the sale of bottled water on campus (after the University of Washington did so in the United States), and is slowly phasing out the sale in time for the fall semester. To replace the loss of Aquafina et al. on campus, the school is installing more water fountains and providing each incoming student with a reusable bottle. Similar action is being taken by municipalities around the country, with Toronto and London leading the way, and more expected to follow suit. Any initiative that replaces environmental degradation and irresponsible capitalism with reusable products and communal resources at the expense of the bottom line is bound to be a good one.

We have all heard the arguments against bottled water, so I am not going to dwell on rehashing them too much, but the basic points are: they produce unnecessary waste; oil and other resources are used just to make the bottles; the product must be shipped from its bottling plant creating unnecessary carbon emissions; and they are not any healthier than tap water, and may actually lack teeth friendly additives such as fluoride. Proponents argue that recycling is a viable option, but a brief Internet search led me to figures varying between a twelve to twenty-three percent recycling rate for the bottles, with more sites closer to the twelve side. Of the remaining eighty-eight percent, the best case scenario is a landfill. It is easy to say that the bottles can be recycled, but this is clearly not happening, and it assumed that recycling is actually a positive force. There is also no reason to waste resources creating and shipping a product that already flows cheaply and easily to our homes. When in Italy last summer, we were delighted to find numerous ornate fountains in public squares that could also be used to fill our water bottles (lest we evaporate in the Italian heat).

Proponents of bottled water will argue that they are storing it in case of an emergency that renders tap water undrinkable. This is a reasonable argument in principle, but it is mostly a blatant lie, because nobody that concerned about water reserves would drink their emergency supply. If this were truly the case then people would buy large containers of bottled water to store for such an occasion, which perhaps isn’t a terrible idea. Another option would be a large office-esque ‘water cooler’ with reusable 20L jugs. Furthermore, any notion that bottled water is better for you than tap water is, in most parts of Canada anyways, a deliberate attempt by corporations to mislead consumers into fearfully buying their product. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it will not be the last.

Some argue that the ban by the University of Winnipeg is restricting students’ free will to drink the beverage of their choice. However, the university isn’t banning water, or limiting water available on campus. They are simply expressing their free choice to not sell bottled water, after a resolution was passed almost 3-1 by the students. Let’s hope this trend is extended to further Canada institutions.

We all know the Three Rs (reading TV guide, writing to TV guide, renewing TV guide), but do we really consider them in the proper hierarchy? Reduce is at the top for a reason, followed by reuse, and recycle. Recycling helps the planet much like hybrid cars. All they really are is ‘less-bad’ than the alternative, and yet allow us to guiltlessly continue our destructive lifestyles. By endorsing recycling, corporations are able to get us to continue to buy their (often unnecessary) products which may be doing different and greater harm to the planet than any single bottle in a landfill. The process of recycling uses many resources and produces waste, and while not as harmful as landfills, it is not an ultimate solution. I saw an ad recently that promoted buying a certain brand of diapers by suggesting they will donate a cost of a tetanus vaccine to an underprivileged child. This may seem hunky-dory, but the real question must be why is that child dying of tetanus, and the real solution won’t be found at the bottom of a bag of diapers (a discussion for another day, perhaps). And yet by buying diapers we are able to feel good about our consumption.

I am not suggesting that recycling is a bad thing. There must be a reasonable amount of waste that each person requires to live, especially in today’s Western world. A complete overhaul of our culture and ethic is not necessary; however it is necessary to continue to aggressively question our actions and be conscious of the consequences. Recycling and Green Bin programs must continue to be expanded, and every Monday night I am appalled by Ottawa’s poor recycling (and non-existent Green Bin) program when compared to Toronto and the GTA. These considerations and their results are beginning to be seen in Toronto and London, and the University of Winnipeg, and we need more people to be conscious of and take responsibility for their actions.

Russel MacDonald

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 3 of 4)

Brent Densmore returns for Part 3 of his series on sustainable development in the 21st century. Today Brent discusses the relationship between the car and surburban living and the need to reverse urban sprawl

To supplement the implementation of renewable resources, Thomas Friedman argues that governments should increase the current gas tax. This would serve two purposes: Firstly, it would promote the use of energy-efficient vehicles and secondly, it would raise money that can be used to invest in renewable resources. Friedman states:

“There has to be a system that permanently changes consumer demand, which would permanently change what Detroit makes, which would attract more investment in battery technology to make electric cars, which would hugely help the expansion of the wind and solar industries — where the biggest drawback is the lack of batteries to store electrons when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. A higher gas tax would drive all these systemic benefits”(Friedman, Thomas http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28friedman.html)

While it is extremely difficult for any leader to raise taxes in his or her country, sometimes it needs to be done. David Miller, the Mayor of Toronto, recently raised home property taxes and added new fees for recreational activities in order to balance the budget (CBC.ca, “tax increase for Toronto”http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/02/10/tto-budget.html?ref=rss). This upset many Torontonian’s, as it should, but the public outcry wasn’t that bad. If people are willing to accept the above tax increases then I am sure they will eventually embrace a tax increase aimed at protecting the future of our planet.

In the early 1900s, Henry Ford introduced the first mainstream automobile called the Ford Model T. After years of improving the assembly line, Ford was able to produce automobiles quickly and cheaply, which enabled him to sell them at a reasonable price. As a result, many Americans could easily afford these automobiles which led to a major change in how one could live. It was no longer necessary to live within close proximity of your job; you could now live further away and still get to work without any difficulty. As demand for housing outside of the urban centre increased, the growth of suburban towns skyrocketed. This led to a massive investment in infrastructure; highways and bridges were built so that it would be easy to commute to and from the city.

The suburb was viewed as a great idea; they created thousands of new jobs and allowed people to live outside of the noisy city.

As the demand for suburban living increased as did car sales, which doubled between 1970 and 1995 (Rogers, Richard. Cities for a small planet. Boulder: Faber and Faber Limited, 1997 P. 36). As a result, our addiction to fossil fuels can be directly correlated to the rise in suburban living. In order to travel to and from your home in the suburbs, you have to drive your automobile. In the mid 1900s, oil prices were low and global warming wasn’t an issue. Today, oil prices and carbon dioxide emissions are higher then ever. It is no longer economical or environmentally friendly to drive everywhere. There must be greater use of public transit to offset high oil prices and reduce carbon emissions. Richard Rogers explains why it will be difficult to implement this when he states the following:

“The car has made viable the whole concept of dividing everyday activities into compartments, segregating offices, shops and homes. And the wider cities spread out, the more uneconomic it becomes to expand their public transit systems” (Rogers, 35).

Clearly it is time to move away from urban sprawl and focus on creating densely populated cities. Major urban centre’s will always be the most attractive for jobs and services, but if urban planners do a better job at designing small, densely populated cities, then we can decrease our dependency on them. If people are concentrated in fewer areas then it will be much easier to utilize public transportation. This would significantly cut down on the dependency for the automobile and therefore reduce our consumption of unsustainable energy.

Check back next week for the final part of Brent's four-part series where he will take a look at some real-world examples of successful and sustainable development and the need to act before it is too late. Part four will become available next Friday at 5pm EST.

The Atheists vs The Believers: 1st Period (Part 2 of 5)

This blog is a contiuation of a five-part series dealing with the argument between atheism and belief in God. Today we begin with the First Period of the metaphysical hockey game introduced last week in the "pre-game show."

The crowd has been anxiously filing into their seats and everyone is finally ready to go, so with no further ado: The opening face-off.

Lining up to take the draw are esteemed philosopher and Saint, Thomas Aquinas and renowned evolutionary biologist, and outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins. Aquinas is known for his attempts to reconcile faith and reason and is most known for his "Summa Theologica", a massive work that includes the well known "quinquae viae", or the "Five Ways." Dawkins is a prominant anti-creationist who in his book "The God Delusion" argues for the non-existence of God and points out religion as a major source of evil in the world. He discusses the "Five Ways" directly in "The God Delusion" and dismisses them saying: "The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas don't proove anything...". Dawkins also argues that it is unimportant to study theology in order to disprove it in the same way "most of us disavow...the Flying spaghetti monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology..." With this in mind, it is clear that right from the opening face-off, this is truly going to be one hell of a match (figuratively speaking of course).

With the players ready to go referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice to drop the puck. The animosity in the air is palpable.

Dawkins looks ready, but Aquinas knows exactly what he wants to do. Years of research and philosophical training have prepared him for people like Dawkins who are willing to refute his arguments without even understanding them. Just as the puck is about to be dropped Aquinas looks out from under his helmet and says "If you don't believe theology is worth studying, why do you systematically try to refute the"quinquae viae" in your book?" With that said, and Dawkins slightly unsure how he should answer, the puck is dropped and Aquinas wins the draw back to McGrath. As he skates away Aquinas politely mentions that at no time did he ever call the "quinquae viae" proofs of God's existence but that it was rather people like Dawkins who gave it that appellation many years later.

Although there is no goal scoring yet, momentum seems to have shifted to the Believers after Dawkin's philosophical weakness being exposed early. As expected, the Believers have started out with a tight-checking style mainly stating their belief as they dump the puck in while waiting to pounce on a mistake by the Atheists.

The Atheists however play with scientific precision. Dawkins recovers from his early blunder, firing several well-aimed shots on goal, including the dangerous "flexibly definable God" argument. This shot implies that God can be seen as a "filler" in the increasingly few gaps in our knowledge left unexplained by science. With this promise of religion soon being rendered history by scientific progress, the Atheists gain new life. They are beginning to overwhelm to Believer's defence who are only able to try and deflect these shots wide of the target in the hope of making it to the end of the period unscathed.

Unfortunatly for the Believers, with a few minutes left on the clock, young Oxonian defenceman Alistair McGrath admits the validity of Dawkins refutation of the long-treasured Christian belief of "intelligent design", leaving him all alone on a break-away. At the last second McGrath reaches out and trips up Dawkins by saying intelligent design and William Paley's "The watchmaker" (which is a 19th century argument that argues that if one were to find a watch on a beach that would not assume it came to be on its own, but rather that there was a watchmaker who designed it; Paley goes on to infer that the world is the same and that it is too sophisticated and "intelligently designed" to occur on its own) is a 19th century argument that it is not representative of contemporary Christianity, but it is too late. The whistle blows and Immanuel Kant crosses his arms over his head. Penalty Shot!

The crowd is on their feet as Dawkins starts in. He skates out wide to the right side and cuts back in across the top of the circle, gaining speed and hoping to catch the Believers goaltender out of position with his favourite "there almost certainly is no God" manoeuver. It appears to work as the goaltender starts to follow Dawkins across exposing the bottom right-hand corner of the net. Dawkins fires and already has his arms in the air when out of nowhere a big, "Christian" goal stick slides along the ice and deflects the puck up over the net into the crowd. No goal!

Dawkins looks back, wondering how he missed a sure goal and sees Jesus standing in the crease, staring right at him as if to say: "you're going to have to do better than that."

Indeed it appears as if saying there almost certainly is no God proves nothing but the improbability of God, which Jesus defeated with an equally inprobable save.

After two more minutes or spirited (or perhaps "lively" would be a more appropriate term) but goal-less play the buzzer sounds and the first period is done.

0-0. A scoreless, but extremely entertaining period of metaphysical hockey leaves nothing resolved, but many interesting ideas to think about over the next week leading up to next Wednesday's 2nd period.

The Atheists hold a clear advantage in shots, outshooting the Believers 9-2 and were the stronger of the two teams over the 20 minutes. It looks like they may have to change their tactics a little bit to get through the tight checking of the believers and get their shots through to the net. Faith is proving a difficult defensive tool to get around and the experts are saying that if they want to break through with some goals they will have to stick to their strength of using fact based evidence instead of probabilities. In an interview with Athiest coach Jean-Paul Sartre, he suggested that perhaps the Atheists will be looking more towards their experience in the 2nd frame to try and get back to the "essence" of their ideology.

On the other side the Believers are not overly pleased or disappointed with the 1st period. They played to their strength and it didn't fail them, the score is still even. Believer coach Karol Józef Wojtyła commented that his team needs at some point to find some offence and emphasized the importance of the defence stepping up into the attack. Only time will tell if these coaches make good prophets or whether their words fall on deaf ears.

Either way, the 2nd period promises to be evilly exciting.

Check back next week for period 2 and the continuation of "The Atheists vs The Believers" at 5pm EST on Wednesday April 8th.

New Urbanism, Lansdowne Park, and Oddball Canadian Rules

The city of Ottawa is currently embroiled in a debate about the merits of two competing visions for new stadiums and pro sports in the city. The first group is led by Jeff Hunt, owner of the Ottawa 67’s, with his proposal of Lansdowne Live! The group’s proposal is to return CFL football to the nation’s capital, and play out of a refurbished stadium at Lansdowne Park, replacing the dilapidated Frank Clair Stadium with a venue that can support football and soccer, as well as feature practice fields for soccer and baseball, shops, restaurants, an amphitheatre, and an aquarium, along with living, shopping, and eating.

The second group is led by Ottawa Senators’ owner Eugene Melnyk, and his Ottawa Soccer Stadium proposal. He wants to build a soccer complex in Kanata beside his Scotiabank Place that will feature five open-air grass pitches and a 20 000 seat stadium with the capability of converting to a concert facility. He would bring an MLS team to Ottawa to play out of his building. It would be built to share parking with Scotiabank Place on city land currently used as a snow-dump. Both groups are cajoling the public and council to give them the rights and the funding to complete their projects, and only one can go forward in the near future.

The responsible politicians and the people of Ottawa can only make one decision, and that decision must be Lansdowne Park. For those unfamiliar with the city, Lansdowne Park is close to the downtown core at the crossing of Bank Street over the Rideau Canal, about three and a half kilometres from Parliament. The proposed site for the soccer complex is west of the western suburb of Kanata, almost thirty kilometres from Parliament down the highway. It would be akin to the Toronto Blue Jays playing in Ajax.

I admit that any business proposal including the third incarnation of CFL football in Ottawa in fifteen years is perhaps dubious at best, and it is too bad that the sports and stadiums weren’t switched. And from Melnyk’s perspective, I can certainly see his agenda of creating his own sports and entertainment zone by his currently standing Scotiabank Place, home to his Ottawa Senators. However, for the sake of the city and the public, a revitalization of Lansdowne Park must be a priority. There have been no indications from either group that they would consider working together, even though both stadium proposals could support both sports. There is, however, serious question about whether a city that twice couldn’t support a CFL team could simultaneously support a CFL and MLS franchise.

But the case for Lansdowne goes beyond sports. It is currently a 2km concrete square featuring a parking lot, a partially condemned football field, a small hockey arena, and the Aberdeen Pavilion. The proposed renewal project would incorporate this space as a vibrant, happenin’ part of the city. Easily accessible, it could be designed with public transit and walking in mind, without the need for vast parking lots and traffic jams. This past winter some of the World Junior Championships games were held at the site, and we were able to skate to the games via the Rideau Canal. Compared to European urban waterways, the Canal is relatively isolated from the city, which can be quite pleasant, but doesn’t offer the same level of interaction as it could, which could in part be rectified by a renewed Lansdowne Park.

Scotiabank Place was built in 1994 to house the Ottawa Senators, and is a stark example of urban sprawl, cheap land, and short-sightedness. Whereas Toronto’s Air Canada Centre is attached to the subway and in quick walking distance of the downtown core, hockey fans in Ottawa must bus or drive, and wait in the resulting traffic mess that occurs when 20 000 people are trying to get on and off the highway via the same ramp at the same time. Not to disparage soccer, but we do it because it’s hockey. I’m not convinced soccer fans would have the same zeal for their team; at least not the casual ones. Placing an exciting sport with cheap seats in a downtown stadium on a warm summer’s evening would create a far better atmosphere than thousands of people sitting in private vehicles on the highway, and I can imagine it would attract many more casual fans. I would never watch the Blue Jays if I had to do it in Oakville.

New urbanism and shifting values towards city living are growing trends. Ottawa must take advantage of the grand public spaces it has, and elaborate upon them to create a community that people want to be a part of. A new stadium and public space at Lansdowne would be more than a place for a sports team to play; it would become a year-round vibrant part of the city. New housing projects on the site and in the area, and on places like Rideau Street, and development of LeBreton Flats will all help to create the kind of city where people will want to live, work, and play. Creating another suburban highway project will play to the benefit of Mr Melnyk, and not do much for the continued revitalization of the city. It is for this reason that Ottawa must favour the Lansdowne proposal.

Russ MacDonald

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 2 of 4)

Brent Densmore returns for Part 2 of his series on sustainable development in the 21st century. Today on the agenda are some of examples of how and how not to sustain growth with a specific emphasis on the intelligent management and consumption of natural resources during this process. Brent picks up from last week discussing the complications that arise in company compliance with environmental regulations.

One idea to ensure companies comply with new regulations would be to implement a government organization similar to that of the International Organization for Standardization. This new organization would compile a list of criteria that a corporation must adhere to in order to gain certification.

Once certified, the corporation would advertise that they are officially environmentally friendly and use it as a marketing tool. At the same time, the government would provide customers with a refund on products that are purchased from these companies.

This new system should provide enough motivation for corporations to adopt these practices because customers would be more likely to buy their products if they were to receive a refund.
When President Obama discusses green energy, jobs and technologies, he is referring to renewable resources and the many opportunities they would provide. Unlike past American Presidents, Obama has accepted that not only is his country addicted to fossil fuels but so is the rest of the world.

Harry Longwell states that “oil and gas consumption is essential to sustaining growth in the industrialized world and is key to progress in nations working their way towards prosperity” (Longwell, Harry. “The future of the oil and gas industry: past approaches, new challenges.” World Energy 5.3 (2002) 101).

This poses two problems: One, fossil fuels are the main contributor to global warming and two, oil is not a sustainable resource. A perfect example that these two problems have presented can be seen in China.

Elizabeth Economy summarizes this problem when she states that:
“ China’s rapid development, often touted as an economic miracle, has become an environmental disaster. Record growth necessarily requires the gargantuan consumption of resources, but in China energy use has been especially unclean and inefficient, with dire consequences for the country’s air, land and water” (Economy, Elizabeth. “The great leap backward?” Foreign Affairs 86.5 (2007) P. 49).

If our current and future economic growth is dependant on fossil fuels, what does that mean for us in the future? China’s example should be a warning to both industrialized and developing nations that sacrificing the environment for the economy will only get you so far. Economy goes on to state that:

“Although China holds the fourth-largest freshwater resources in the world, skyrocketing demand, overuse, inefficiencies, pollution and unequal distribution have produced a situation in which two-thirds of China’s approximately 660 cities have less water than they need and 110 of them suffer from severe shortages” (Economy, 50).

As you can see from China’s unfortunate example, it is essential that we start the transition process of to moving away from fossil fuels as our main source of energy and begin investing in renewable resources. The two most popular sources of renewable energy today are wind and solar power. While neither wind nor solar power can provide enough energy to cut fossil fuel consumption, by say 50%, they can still provide enough power to significantly reduce our dependence on oil and help clean up our environment.

In order for this to happen, it will require government investment to perfect the technology. In addition, they must provide substantial tax credits for corporations and households that chose to install and use this energy.

In Canada, there is a program called “ecoENERGY retrofit” which aims to provide tax credits and refunds to those who utilize alternative energy (“Natural Resources Canada”). This is an excellent idea but requires greater funding and publicity.

In addition, Walter Rosenblaum outlines further problems that are restricting the expansion of renewable resources: “…payback periods are too long for the average homeowner. Workers skilled in the installation and maintenance of small solar systems are scarce. In most communities, building codes are more an obstacle than an encouragement to solar system installation” (Rosenblaum, Walter "Energy, politics and public policy." Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1981. P. 46.)

These three problems can easily be solved by nothing other than commitment. An investment in the technologies would encourage individuals to learn how to install these systems, especially in today’s tough economic times. Amending building codes takes nothing but a bit of time and should not even be an issue.

Check back next Friday at the 5pm EST for part 3 of 4, where Brent takes an even deeper look at strategies for reducing fossil fuel dependence and the role that the auto industry and suburban living plays in this.

The Atheists vs The Believers - Pre-Game Show (Part 1 of 5)

Alright, here it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down. The debate between believers and atheists has gone on, unresolved, for so long that we here at The Blog Journalists have decided it’s time for a final showdown.

One game, winner takes all, losers are converted.

Hold on, one “game”? Isn’t this a several thousand year old metaphysical question? How will it be solved?

The answer is on the ice.

Over the next four weeks The Blog Journalists will be simulating the first ever (I am going out on a limb here to say I am very sure this has never been done before) metaphysical hockey game. Our worthy opponents are “The Atheists” who will face-off against “The Believers” for eternal glory (or, should we say in light of the unresolvedness of the competition at the current time, mortal glory….but with a chance of eternal glory!)

The match will theoretically be played at the centre of the hockey universe, The Air Canada Centre in Toronto (emphasis on “theoretically”; please don’t show up at the gates an hour and a half prior to game-time) and is being dubbed the most meaningful hockey game to be played in Toronto in a long, long….long time.

This game will differ from your ordinary hockey game as organizers (namely myself) have agreed to play the game one period at a time over the next several Wednesdays in order to fit The Blog Journalist’s schedule.

This week we will be providing a bit of expert analysis as well as revealing the tentative starting line-ups for each ideology. Next week it’s “Game-On!”

First things first, let’s meet the competitors, starting with the high-powered Atheists. The present team captain Richard Dawkins, authour of The God Delusion will play forward, a position that The Believers have called fitting, as they find him quite offensive. Dawkins will be flanked by a couple of Europeans (as if The Atheists needed anything else to get on Don Cherry’s hit-list), one who has earned the nickname “The Greek”, Epicurus, and grinder from Germany, Ludwig Feuerbach. On defence the Atheists had been hoping to secure a pair of top-scientists, but were unable to convince either Charles Darwin or Einstein to join their ranks, as they decided to take this one in from the stands along with the rest of the agnostics. Instead the Atheists will have to settle for the relatively green defender, authour Philip Pullman whose inexperience will be made up for by veteran Sigmund Freud. Rounding out the atheist squad is goaltender Karl Marx, who although is in theory is one of the best goaltenders around, to this point has been ineffective in putting this into practice. One more interesting news-tidbit surrounding Marx, he has also been quoted in the papers saying something about the need for drug-testing and rampant opium-use amongst The Believers, although there has, to this point, been no evidence to support these claims.

Now to take a quick run-through The Believers’ starting lineup.

On forward The Believers will be sending out a line being dubbed the “All-Saints” unit, composed of St. Thomas Aquinas up the middle with St. Anslem of Canterbury on the left and St. Augustine of Hippo on the right. The expectation is that this line will maintain a defensive, dump and chase style to try and neutralize the powerful Atheistic attack. The defense for The Believers will be the more contemporary pair of Oxfordians, Professor of Historical Theology Alistair McGrath, authour of The Dawkins Delusion, and Systems Biologist Denis Noble. This pairing has been known to work very well together historically and give The Believers a much needed youth movement on the blueline. If they prove to be too green, The Believers have “The Rock”, otherwise known as St. Peter, waiting in the wings. Finally, the easiest position of all for The Believers to fill was goaltender as it is well know amongst believers that Jesus saves.

Overall, The Believers have a more experienced team, with a number of their players being several hundred years old. Only time will tell whether this will prove to be a disadvantage and if their metaphysical stick-handling will defeated by the younger, more contemporary Atheists. Either way, their play is regarded by experts as philosophically sound.

There is no doubt in my mind (especially since I am writing this stuff) that this will be a tight game and that it will go down to the wire. If needed, there will be “sudden death” overtime, which as ominous as that sounds in a metaphysical debate, I promise you it does not imply any sort of death, but rather “next goal wins.” But you already knew that…

That about sums up this week’s pre-game festivities here at The Blog Journalists. Please don’t forget to return at 5pm next Wednesday for the first period.

Note: Two things I would like to mention. Number 1: this blog series is intended to work as a fresh look at a subject that is all to often bogged down by reactionaryism. My goal in this work is to present popular arguments, new and old, in an interesting to read format with a neutral view. I do not intend to offend anyone through this series and am in no way trivializing the philosophical importance of the debate or the belief or non-belief of any individual. In fact, I am trying to do quite the opposite. I am trying to promote the subject matter and the validity of both “ideologies.” I realize that I have taken a very Western/Christian approach to the debate and I must say that I regret this as I would have liked to have taken a broader approach, however I choose to stick within my realm of experience so as to not misrepresent any facts or groups of people due to my ignorance of the subject. If you have any questions, please either leave comments on the forum to promote discussion, or for private inquiries, please email: theblogjournalists@gmail.com

The Legislation of Discrimination

I have recently been applying for a number of jobs, with various levels of government and other institutions. A number of these jobs, and particularly those of the federal nature, have declared themselves to be equal-opportunity employers, and have cheerily invited me to self-identify as a woman, an aboriginal, a visible minority, or a person with a disability. I am confused as to why I am being asked this, since the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or for pardoned convictions. Part I, Section 7.b) states:

It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:l_I//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I)

Therefore me answering that question can have no bearing on my candidacy for the job. And yet, the only conclusion that I can draw from repeatedly being asked these questions, is that it must make a difference, which sounds an awful lot to me like discrimination.

Digging deeper into Canadian Law, one will come across the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 deals with equality, and 15[1] states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp402-e.htm#subsection152)

Here again, it would seem that discrimination is explicitly prohibited. But if one were to read further, they would come across 15[2]:

Subsection [15(1)] does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So there it is. Discrimination is illegal, unless it is to the benefit of groups that have previously been disadvantaged because of race, etc. Affirmative action has been around in the United States since the 1960s, and Canada has had the Employment Equity Act since 1986.

I appreciate that racism and sexism continues to be a problem, and not one that can be dealt with by pretending they don’t exist. I understand that qualified people have been denied many opportunities, whether they be jobs or spots in universities or other such ventures, simply because of the colour of their skin. It appals me that the Canadian government is forced to introduce legislation requiring equal pay for equal work between men and women, and that in 2009 we are still discussing the issue. However, Employment Equity and self-identifying are not the ways to go about rectifying the situation.

Canada is a multicultural nation, and this diversity should be celebrated. Natives, French, English, Europeans, and more recently immigrants from a growing number of countries have come over and flourished. We all benefit from such diversity, as does humanity as a whole. From a young age in diverse educational environments, Canadian children learn about tolerance and inclusiveness, and how to live in a multicultural environment. (This isn’t even a conscious consideration when you’re five, and I consider a lack of a diverse environment another detraction against Catholic schools as I discussed two weeks ago: http://blogjournalists.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-of-religious-education-funding.html.)

If there are problems with certain groups or people in some parts of the country not reaching their full potential, then we must as a country and as a community come together to help give these people the tools to excel. Lowering standards and earmarking spots does not help anybody. Truly qualified minorities are seen in a lesser light if the implication is that they only succeeded because of preferable status. Underqualified minorities may secure a position but they are missing out on the possibilities that knowledge and education can present to them, and they may also not have to work as hard to get to where they are, which is a detriment to society, and a potential danger to coworkers working in dangerous environments. Such programs are also distinctly unfair to those passed-over, as it is unfair to assume that they all had the best possible opportunities, and treating people differently on any basis is inherently wrong and un-Canadian.

There is some suggestion that affirmative action programs are in place to redress past wrongs. Because Kluckers burned crosses in the Twenties, third-generation Canadians of Chinese decent are being granted special consideration in the job market. Perhaps I’m being facetious, but this is not the way to go about correcting past wrongs. Better and more beneficial ways to increase diversity in schools and the workplace would be to advertise and actively recruit qualified people in disadvantaged areas, or provide these people with the skills/education/engagement necessary to incorporate themselves into the workforce.

I am not claiming that I have not yet found a job because I am a white male. I am certain this is not the case, and I have full faith in my ability to secure a job (I instead blame the economy). I am not begrudging anybody who has worked hard and benefited from this program. I am simply putting forward the case that in 21st Century Canada, such tactics are not only discriminatory, but are counter-intuitive to what we should be trying to achieve as a civilization.

Russ MacDonald

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 1 of 4)

This is the first in a series of 4 articles by Brent Densmore dealing with the current crisis facing the world as a result of 20th century over-expansion and unsustainable development. Today's article is an introduction to the series, a contextual look at some of the factors that have contributed to where we are today, as well as some of the challenges that we face in moving forward. Please check back at 5pm EST on each of the next four Fridays for the continuing story.

The collapse of the Berlin Will and the subsequent end to the Cold War reinforced the fact that capitalism and democracy were the dominant economic and political systems of the world. The spread of the free market economy and the rapid decrease in telecommunication infrastructure have resulted in an extensive global marketplace that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Rich western nations, such as the United States and Great Britain, are no longer the economic super powers they once were. India, Japan and China, to name a few, now have the same access to markets and information as the rest of the world.

As a result, these nations are now able to compete with the historically rich nations, something many thought could never be done. It was only 30 years ago that wealth was virtually non-existent in these nations; today, their economies are growing at a rapid pace and their people are reaping the benefits. These nations however, are now consuming more food and water than ever and are demanding many of the same consumer products we have in here in Canada.

While it is a great that these new nations are now prospering, the world as a whole cannot sustain this new level of consumption; never before have our natural resources been depleted at such an alarming rate. There will be nothing left of our planet if we continue to live at this rate for the next 50 years.
(Editor's Note: a recent article from the BBC suggests that global resources will be depleted even faster, please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm)

In order to fix this problem and right the ship for future generations, we must all begin to live a more sustainable way of life. It will take a collected effort to change our old habits, something that may be hard for many, but it must be done.

The first step to implementing a more sustainable way of life requires a change in government policies. Secondly, the use of renewable resources as legitimate energy sources must become a reality. Finally, there must be changes made to how our cities are being built. While this is by no means an inclusive list, these three ideas will build the crucial foundation of a more sustainable way of life.

The development of a more sustainable way of life will require everyone to make a diligent effort. This isn’t something that one person or country can accomplish on their own. In order to make sure that everyone is on the same page, it will require the leadership of all governments around the world. They must be committed to significant change and be willing to absorb public resentment for as with any other new idea, there will be a share of the public who opposes new ideas.

As mentioned previously, the first step in this process is for governments to change certain outdated policies and most importantly, enact new environmental legislation. Mark Lynas states “the environment is still seen as a soft-focus poor relation to the real hard-politics issues such as health, the economy and asylum-seekers and so on” (Lynas: “Bring in the police to save the planet.” New Statesmen 9 May 2005: 40). The era of growing GDP at the expense of the environment must come to an end. While there is no denying that these too are important issues, it is clearly time that the environment becomes part of this list.

During the recent United States presidential election, President Obama released an extensive list of environmental policies and ideas that he believed would help cure our addiction to an unsustainable way of life. Some of his ideas included “government investment in clean energy and green jobs, promotion of green technologies and fuel efficiency standards, protection of the Great Lakes and National Parks, and the promotion of inner-city recycling programs” (“Obama on the Environment”). While by no means is this an inclusive list, it is an excellent start and it is a relief to see that the President of the United States has aspirations to fix this problem.

The most important ideas Obama lists relate to the promotion and investment in clean energy, technologies and jobs. If the government doesn’t promote or invest in these ideas then who will? In today’s competitive global market, corporations will require a long-term commitment from their governments on these issues. They won’t be willing to radically modify their factories, offices and practices unless everyone else is following suit. From their viewpoint, why would they? Aside from a few exceptions, no corporation will sacrifice their profits and reduce shareholder value while their competitors stand pat and face no punishments. Therefore, not only will there be a requirement for new policies to be enacted but there also must reward-based system in order to encourage speedy compliance.

Brent Densmore

Next week Brent will discuss and break-down some of the political changes that have the potential to revolutionize the way the environment is treated within politics, as well as a look a the some of the international issues that pose a challenge in solving this crisis.

Exciting New Developments with The Blog Journalists

Instead of the usual Wednesday blog, this evening we will be introducing some of the topics and events that are percolating in The Blog Journalists newsroom and will be produced for the public over the coming weeks.

Starting this Friday Blog Journalist Brent Densmore will be beginning a 4 piece blog series, appearing over the next 4 Fridays, delving into the ever more pertinent issue of sustainable development. Brent, a graduating student at Ryerson University, has spent hours preparing for this in-depth and concentrated look at how to combat issues such as urban sprawl and find cost-efficient and environmentally friendly ways of improving public transit.

Also, beginning next week, co-founding Blog Journalist Will Grassby will beginning an extended and provocative 10 part series looking at religion, faith and atheism from a number of different perspectives. This series will include snippets from current events as well as references to both contemporary and historical thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Alister McGrath and even Jesus himself. Will endevours through this series to break down the of the barriers that exist between believers and non-believers as well as to take a new and refreshing angle on a topic that is all to often dragged down (from both sides) by a monotony of worn-out arguments.

In addition to these new developments, Russ MacDonald will be continuing with his usual weekly column which we all look forward to with baited breath. There is no doubt he has some pots on the burners that are boiling over with stories to satiate our intelligent readers' appetites.

That's what is cooking right now with The Blog Journalists. Please be sure to check back at 5pm Eastern time on Friday, armed with your comments, for the premiere of Brent Densmores first major blog series.

That's all for now!

Ciao

Will Grassby and The Blog Journalists

Selfishness Sends Sity Spiralling Strikewards

I think my poetic licence may be revoked after that title. Oh well.

As was predicted in this space one month ago, the OC Transpo has reversed its decision on banning ads from the Freethought Association of Canada declaring the improbability of God’s existence, and encouraging people to enjoy their lives. I have also seen a marked reduction in the ‘Gods of Rock’ ads, although that just may be a coincidence. But alas, this is not the focus of today’s piece, although today still follows on the trend of buses.

As most Ottawans know, the OC Transpo strike came to an end on January 31st, after both sides agreed to go to binding arbitration with the impending threat of back-to-work legislation from the federal government. The arbitration hearing (or however that works) is set for the summer, I believe. Both sides seemed pleased, as of course did all of the citizens who rely on the transit to live their lives. You may recall that the most contentious issue on the table was that of scheduling. The city wanted to take more control of the drivers’ schedules, claiming they could save money, and then later changing their story calling it a safety issue. The drivers argued that it was about their quality of life, and being able to spend more time with their families by drawing their schedules the way they wanted based on seniority.

So for a month things ran fairly smoothly. The buses gradually got back on the roads, and service seemed to return to normal. Recently, the OC Transpo has begun to enforce federal safety standards requiring drivers to work no more than fourteen hours per day and requiring minimum eight-hour rest periods between shifts. These are standards intended to increase safety by reducing driver fatigue, although driver fatigue has never been an issue. Twenty years ago these regulations were waived by the federal government at the request of cities so that they would be able to run their systems more efficiently. Now, at the behest of the city of Ottawa, federal Transport Minister (and Ottawa MP) John Baird has announced his intention to overturn this exemption, to address driver fatigue (which, again, has never been an issue). This ruling will also affect transit systems in Windsor and Gatineau, as they are the only three systems that cross provincial or national borders.

In retaliation for these measures being taken unilaterally by the city, the Amalgamated Transit Union that represents the drivers has stopped their drivers from booking further schedules. Drivers are currently scheduled until April 17th, although the city has said that even if the dispute is not settled by then, the service will continue on the existing schedule. There is also an indication that some drivers have begun an independent and unofficial work-to-rule campaign, pulling such stunts as intentionally dawdling and delaying service, driving past people waiting to get on, in some cases buses have been reported as not showing up at all. Union leader and notorious jerk André Cornellier said about work-to-rule: “I’m delighted if they are, but I can say we didn’t ask them to do anything.”

I believe the real issue here to be about money. The city can claim safety all they want, but the exemption to the federal safety rules was put in place at their request. And, again, the city has admitted that driver fatigue has never led to an accident. The drivers on the other hand can claim quality of life all they want, but there have been reports of drivers earning six-figure salaries, by abusing and manipulating their schedules to produce the greatest amount of overtime. Now I’m not suggesting that workers shouldn’t be granted overtime pay, but surely the extra pay is compensation for extenuating and negative circumstances regarding your schedule, and when you are in charge of your own schedule, then perhaps you should not be granted the same level of overtime pay? Especially not when it comes directly at taxpayer expense.

So what we are left with again is another stand-off, but hopefully this time we have the tools to avoid another strike. The Conservative federal government is working with the right-wing mayor of Ottawa to try and save money and make the system more efficient, at the expense of the people who make the system run. On the other side is the union, ostentatiously standing up for overtime pay by leaving little old ladies at the curb as their buses fly past (and assuredly soak them with water; spring time is upon us, and this city has a terrible roadside drainage problem). And neither side is willing to admit that this is what they’re in fact doing: they both have thinly veiled claims to safety and quality.

And in the end the losers again are the people of Ottawa. We stand and wait for late, crowded buses driven by smug drivers, while the bureaucrats posture. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the boss would be in charge of scheduling their employees, in order for the system to run at its best. It also doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to give seasoned employees some say in this process, as they generally work hard at a tough job that occasionally requires driving the Midnight 95. However, employees who intentionally schedule their own overtime should not be entitled to the same level of benefits as others. You should not be able to artificially create overtime work, and if it were truly about quality of life, then this would not be an issue for the drivers.

Russel MacDonald

The Merging of the World: Using Connectivity to Understand and Promote Diversity

Over time humanity has always striven after connectivity and through this connectivity; unity, but all too often this goal becomes perverted. In connecting with others we sense an incompatibility which causes us to shy away from those sharing a different opinion. It can even lead to violence, war and destruction. When was the last time you heard of a war between two countries because they agreed about something?

The reason our quest after unity becomes perverted is simple. In our desire to be the same, we realize somewhere along the way that we are not. Most of us are passive enough to simply back away and surround ourselves with people who share our opinion. Some of us, mostly those with a philosophical or political persuasion, will attempt to engage the other in discussion and have a lively debate, perhaps trying to convince each other to re-evaluate their assessment. There are also those that are so sure that they have the truth that they move beyond lively debate to criticism, derogation, fundamentalism and general intolerance. All of these phenomena however are, as I previously mentioned, results of a single desire; a desire for unity.

Perhaps it seems ironic that a notion such as “unity”; a notion that is so commonly seen as a virtue can also be the source of so much discord. Then again maybe this does not come as a big surprise. Other more notorious phenomena can also be linked to unity, or homogeneity. Communism, ethnic-cleansing, ethnocentrism, religious fundamentalism, colonization and even random violence all involve the employment of different methods of assimilation in order to convert, convince or force people to be the same.

Yet for some reason these methods do not work. They cause significant pain and suffering, but they never succeed in totally assimilation or eliminating the other race, belief or point of view. One only needs to look as far as the holocaust or the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia to see that even the most extreme political movements and violence is not strong enough to wipe out even one group of people or one ideology.

It is worth noting however that these movements to assimilate exist in forms we do not recognize on a daily basis. Trends are one of the obvious forms of social assimilation that we accept and buy into all the time; one that is especially evident among kids, but exists also among kids of all ages. Feeling pressure to get that new toy because everyone at school has it is a way of avoiding social exclusion that almost everyone has been a part of. As a kid I remember in the span of a week almost everyone in my class had a fancy new generation yo-yo and I thought, I don’t even like yo-yos, but I don’t want to be the only one without one. Another example is how over the past half-century women, at least in the Western world, have enjoyed liberation from patriarchal assimilation and sexism, but at the same time they are expected to conform in other ways that are more subtle. The pressures to be skinny, to look beautiful all the time and to be feminine are all forms of assimilation that millions of women buy into everyday. Even men feel pressure to fit into the mould of the socially acceptable “manly-man.”

What I am getting at here is that social pressure and social assimilation are more subtle, and therefore more powerful than major ideological movements. It seems that people are a lot more willing to buy into being the same as others when it does not happen on the rational level, but instead on the subliminal level defined by “social acceptability.”

This, however, is not a good thing. As we move towards a higher plane of connectedness, we are more and more surrounded by information and propaganda that we don’t even know exists. In this sense, I would suggest it is ever more important to have a clear picture of who we are and what exactly is important to us; something that is not always easy.

Connectivity and uniformity are, as I suggested in the opening paragraph, intertwined. The nature of information is of course to inform, but also convince. This is a good thing. The world would be a boring place without difference of opinion and lively discussion. This is precisely why it is so important to preserve the diversity of opinion we have and that starts right with our own individuality.

This, however, is the paradox of the age of connectivity. How are we supposed to convince other people that we are right and preserve diversity at the same time? If we truly had our way in this, everyone would be exactly the same with the same understanding of the world as we have. Of course we will never be successful in convincing everybody ourselves, but as I already discussed, the power of social pressure is huge and is only catalyzed by the immeasurable amount of information we have at our fingertips today.

Like I said before though, the answer to this paradox can really only be what we can ourselves do as individuals. We have to be able to respectfully disagree but at the same time try to understand others, and even when we cannot understand others, we can marvel at the intricacy and diversity of the world we live in. Those that try to change others and make them more like themselves really only cause anguish, no matter what their cause.

Perhaps this is a little post-modern, but finding unity in our differences is a possibility in my eyes. We, as individuals, are all linked by our uniqueness and as our connections to each other continue to grow, we should use this connectivity to explore instead of assimilate. In the end, we have to realize the possibility that someone else’s way might just be as good as ours.

Will Grassby

The Question of Religious Education Funding in Ontario’s Schools

On Friday John Tory announced he would be stepping down as leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, after a humiliating by-election defeat to Liberal Rick Johnson in the riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, near Peterborough. The by-election was held after PC MPP Laurie Scott agreed to step aside and allow Tory to run in an attempt to gain a seat in the legislature, after he was defeated in his home Toronto riding of Don Valley West in the 2007 election. The rural Kawartha Lakes riding was considered a lock, after Scott had defeated Johnson in 2007 by 10 000 votes, but Tory’s career as party leader fizzled as lost by 906 votes. I almost feel bad for him.

The 2007 election was largely dominated by the single issue of funding for religious schools, after one of the most curious and self-defeating policy gaffes in recent memory. John Tory came out in favour of extending public funding to religious schools beyond the Catholic School Board, provided they met the criteria laid out by the province. This issue was met with huge backlash, and Tory later retreated to the promise of a ‘free vote’ if elected. Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty argued in favour of the status quo, with Catholic schools the only non-secular institutions receiving public funds, and the provincial Greens argued for a singular, unified secular board in Ontario. This is a large part of the reason why I supported the Greens.

To fully understand the issue, as with any issue, one must understand the history behind them (thus the importance of learning history). When Canada was created with the signing of the British North America Act in 1867, there were two dominant groups in the country; English Protestants, mainly in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and parts of New Brunswick; and the French Catholics, residing mainly in Québec. Education was inherently religious in nature, and incorporating and assimilating children into these dominant Christian faiths was seen as beneficial for society. Taken to the extremes, this resulted in Residential Schools, where native children were taken from their homes and indoctrinated with western values; abuse that we are still apologizing for.

But over the coming years, immigration increased, and from different parts of the world. Society diversified, and multiculturalism became an official national policy. The ‘English Protestant’ board gradually transformed into the inclusive, secular board we see today. A ruling by the provincial court in 1994 even officially declared the board secular, after certain religious groups asserted that the public education provided was ‘humanist,’ and ran in opposition to their views. Even in Québec did society become more secular, after the Quiet Revolution of the 1970s, with their school systems eventually becoming two secular systems, one serving the English population, and the other the French. Ontario and Alberta remain the only two provinces providing funding for Roman Catholic schools.

For those of us born in the 1980s in Ontario, fully funded Catholic schools will seem like the norm, but it must be realized that it wasn’t until 1985 that funding for Catholic schools was fully extended to include grades 11-13 to create a fully funded Catholic board. Waves of Catholic immigrants in the 60s and 70s had created an electorate that was 1/3 Catholic, and all three parties were vying for these votes. This decision came about after numerous court cases on various aspects of religious education had been filtering through the Ontario courts since 1928.

Mr. Tory is right. To continue to fund, at the expense of the public education system, only one separate school board providing education to one religious group is unjust. It is even a practice condemned by the United Nations, as it runs in contravention of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for discriminating in favour of one faith over others, even though it has repeatedly been declared not a violation of Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With the ever changing face of Ontario and ever shifting societal values, public institutions must reflect these changes. Especially institutions fostering the development and growth of our children. By placing all children at an equal level in an inclusive, secular education system, they are all able to learn from each other and we best suit the needs of society. The opportunities and experiences presented to these pupils learning together is one of greater inclusiveness and social harmony. By dividing children and bussing them around the city based on religious lines will only lead to a further divided society.

A certain amount of upheaval would surely result from reducing our education system to one single publicly funded board, but in the interests of providing the best level of education for all of Ontario students, this is a step which must be taken. Similar factors were faced by the people of Newfoundland, with their public schools divided amongst many different Protestant denominations (and no secular board), and half-empty buses were shuttling students all across the cities to reach under-funded schools. A 1997 referendum in the province, moving to reduce the schools to one single public board, garnered 73% support, and has led to a better school system for all of Newfoundland’s students. With changing provincial values and demographics, and positive results seen in other parts of the country, Ontario must follow suit.

Russel MacDonald