It’s been a raging controversy for days. On May 9, Newsweek magazine published a report that said that American guards had flushed a Qur’an down the toilet and also abused it, in order to distress Muslim prisoners held in Guantanomo Bay. This report used an anonymous military offical for the information. Subsequently, riots broke out in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world, leading to the deaths of several people.

After tremendous pressure from the US government, Newsweek retracted the allegation because they could no longer confirm it with their source. The Bush administration was all over it, criticizing Newsweek, suggesting that the media needed to be held “accountable” for what they said and implying that Newsweek had contributed to deaths. They pointed out that there were guidelines in place since 2003 for ensuring that the Qur’an was treated like “a delicate piece of art” and was not to be desecrated in anyway.

I find it interesting that the US government is appalled that anyone would believe a report about abusing the Qur’an, as though US soldiers have always behaved entirely properly. We’ve seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib. Is it really a leap to assert that people who are willing to stack people up in naked pyramids, attach electrodes to their hands while they stand on boxes, and even beat prisoners to death, probably wouldn’t think twice about flushing a Qur’an?

But there needs to be facts behind stories. As it turns out, for years reports have been coming out of Guantanomo (recently characterized by Amnesty International as a “gulag”) and other American prisons that the Qur’an is being abused and desecrated, including as an interrogation tactic. Last night, the Pentagon confirmed that it had substantiated five cases where the US military at Guantanomo “mishandled” the Qur’an. They claim it wasn’t flushed, just “mishandled”, and they also claim that reports from prisoners about the Qur’an being abused and being flushed are being made up by the prisoners, who are “not a benign group of people”.

As the US backtracks, it’s becoming increasingly clear that whether or not the specific incident Newsweek mentioned happened or not, the allegation they made was at least broadly true. As the truth emerges, something more troubling than a false news story (as Democracy Now! pointed out today, where is the controversy over the lies that really cost lives – WMD in Iraq, for example?) emerges too – the US government’s attempt to muzzle the media when what the media say does not suit their purpose.

Welcome to the site. Please use the categories on the right to find posts that interest you and to avoid posts that offend you, or worse, those that bore you. Comments are unmoderated so feel free…enjoy your stay.

Originally written Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Casie and I went shopping yesterday for our new home. We needed some minor household items, like a coat rack, a shoe rack, and a rug for the front hallway. I needed some blinds for my office window, because from about 3:30 to 5:00, the sun shines directly into my eyes, making working on my computer rather difficult.

Casie suggested WalMart, but I disagreed and suggested Zellers instead, because I have decided to never again buy anything at WalMart. I dislike their horrendous polices toward their employees and the environment, as well as the damage they cause to local businesses. I don’t know if Zellers is any better but they can hardly be worse.

Being the design diva she is (in spite of the occasional notable “design crime”), Casie recommended that I not get plain white blinds for my office, but instead purchase an off-white colour. There were none that fit my window, so I purchased a “Decorative Bamboo Shade”, brand “Homestyles”, instead. It looked attractive in the packaging, Casie agreed, so the purchase was made.

I forgot all about it until this afternoon, when right on the dot at 3:30, the sun started to peek out from under my neighbour’s roof and shine into my office. “Time to put up my new blinds”, I thought, so I went at it.

Thus began a battle of epic proportions. The Bamboo Shade scored the first point when I tried to open the packaging. Packaged in a tough resilient clear plastic seemingly suitable for transporting hazardous material, it took multiple stabs with a screwdriver for me to crack its outer shell. As I reached into the package to retrieve the Shade, the sharp edges of the package sliced into my arm and I began to bleed slightly.

First blood goes to the Shade. I retrieved the Shade and its incomprehensible instructions. Two odd metal attachments were included from which the Shade was to be hung, after they were screwed to the window frame. The instructions recommended I use a drill to put holes in the frame, lacking a drill, I was forced to improvise and used a nail to put small holes in first. Standing on top of my office table, sweating as the sun beat down and cursing as I struggled to put the screws into the window frame, I finally managed to securely place each bracket.

Now it was time to put the Bamboo Shade up. As I lifted it, the two cords used to raise and lower the Shade slid out of the Shade and dropped to the floor. “That’s odd”, I thought, “I wonder if they are meant to be unattached like that.” I lifted the shade up. It has a wood frame at the top, with two pieces cut into it that are meant to slide into the protruding metal edges of the supports I had just screwed in. With the Shade fighting me every inch of the way, its end sweeping important papers and bills off my desk into disarray, I struggled to raise it to the correct position…only to realize that it would not fit. The way the brackets were designed meant that you could not attach the Shade to each at the same time – you would have to screw in one, then put the Shade up, then screw in the other.

Naturally, the instructions made no mention of this. In fact, the instructions failed to account for the standard type of window installation I was attempting altogether. Frustrating, but no big deal. I would have to remove one of the brackets. So I grabbed the screwdriver and got to it.

I removed one screw successfully and started on the second for the leftmost bracket. Except that I couldn’t unscrew it for some reason….ah. The screw head has lost its indentation – the act of screwing it in stripped the metal slots from the screw head. I now had no way of removing the screw.

Round two: victor, Bamboo Shade. You’re not going to win that easily, I thought. I grabbed my hammer and got to work smashing and clawing at the bracket. After risking tearing the entire window frame from the wall, paint chips flaking off the joints in the frame and chunks of plaster echoing inside the walls, I finally removed the bracket. Then I started jockeying the Shade back into place. I got it secured on the left – time for the right. I put the bracket back where I wanted it and grabbed the screwdriver. That’s when I noticed that once the Shade was in place, it covered the screw holes. I had no way of reaching them!

Reeling from the Shade’s relentless onslaught of sheer bastardness, I grabbed my hammer and a couple of nails. No more would I even attempt to use the brackets, clearly designed by someone who would benefit from a highschool education. I hammered the Shade into the frame. “Done”, I thought. “I’m done! Now all I have to do is get the cords working…”

I reached for the instruction manual once again. The only mention of the cords was in this paragraph:

“To lower the shade, simply pull the cord to the left to release the cordlock and hold while the shade drops. Allow the shade to drop to the desired height.” Etc.

That the word “simply” even appeared in the instructions was an insult. I saw that the cords flying out of the Shade was yet another insidious Shade tactic. I examined the mechanism that the cord ran through. Two small gears, a pulley, some plastic pieces…it was incomprehensible. I went downstairs to examine a similar shade. A simple mechanism with one pulley showed me with one glance that the Shade had indeed devised a clever strategy to defeat me. I grabbed the longest cord and got to work trying to thread it through the mechanism, my only clue the line in the manual that read, “Pull the cord to the right to lock, pull the cord to the left to release”.

After using a formidable array of weapons, including a nail, a pair of tweezers, some pliers, and very nearly the hammer, I was able to thread the cord through the mechanism and through the second pulley. The remainder of the cord placement was obvious – through a hole in the Shade, through a couple of loops, then tied off at the back. The second cord went faster than the first. Finally, it was done. The Shade was pinned to the wall. After one-and-a-half hours, I was victorious.

Yet the Shade would have the last word. It hung there in front of the window, a handsome addition to my office. I pulled the cords to raise it. It raised in a sloppy mess of folds and stopped two feet before it reached the top of the window. That is as high as it would go. I had just lost 20 percent of my window, permanently. And the 20 percent I had lost was covered in a bulging, amateurish mess of sagging brown folds. I stared at the Shade and it stared back at me. We both knew who the real victor was.

Originally written Wednesday, November 24, 2004

What is the point?

What is the point of writing a letter to the editor? What is the point of challenging an assumption or having a discussion? What is the point of me writing this?

Why bother writing about events in Iraq as I have done here? After all, nothing I say will change what is happening there.

Anyone who seeks to change things through knowledge and information is faced with that discouraging question: what’s the point?

I think the answer is simple: the point is to influence a decision, however small, made by somebody in some place at some time.

Change occurs as a consequence of actions. People’s actions are based either wholly or in part on decisions. A key human trait is the ability to make decisions based on knowledge, not just on experience.

So by speaking, writing, and educating, change can happen. The smallest decision can be worth the effort that influencing that decision took.

A case in point: a colleague, Scott, told me he watched Fahrenheit 9/11. He said that he would likely not have watched it were it not for our conversations about current events.

Deciding to watch a particular movie is a minor decision, but change ripples outwards from small events. Decisions to read a particular book or see a certain movie have changed people’s lives.

So if you are out there trying to make a difference and you ask yourself this question, or others ask it of you: don’t be disheartened. The positive effect you have might be far larger than you think!

Originally written Thursday, November 11, 2004

It’s interesting how certain beliefs that seem to be unrelated to each other are combined in very standard ways and adopted by distinct groups of people.

Let me explain. Think about the idea of conservatism. What issues come to mind?

Here are some I can think of off the top of my head:

– corporatism, unbridled capitalism, free markets
– anti-abortion
– in favour of the war in Iraq and the so-called War on Terror
– anti-gun control
– religious
– anti-gay rights

This is a broad range of issues that don’t all have strong connections. For example, conservatives are against abortion because they support what they call a “culture of life”, yet many support needless war, which is all about death. Conservatives support corporatism, capitalism and free markets, yet many are Christians, and Christ said that those who followed him should “go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21).

Why is it that people accept beliefs (conservatism, liberalism) that cover just about every conceivable social and political issue, yet are often unrelated and even contradictory?

The issue of faith is especially important. Most people are religious, or at least claim to be, and there’s no doubt a significant number hold their faith as very important in their lives. The successful merging of faith, especially evangelical and born-again Christianity, with conservatism has become an enormous factor in US politics. The same has happened here in Canada although to a lesser degree.

For any revolution to be successful, it must encompass faith. The change that needs to take place in our society and across the globe cannot happen if religious people are left out. How can this challenge be met? What can be done to separate faith from conservatism?

The optimistic part is that the belief system held by religious conservatives really is self-contradictory. How does Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek” when slapped reconcile with a policy of “pre-emptive” war? How can unrestrained corporatism be defended when Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”? (Mark 10:25)

(This optimism might be unfounded. Maybe a contradictory belief system is actually harder to change than a rational one.)

In a recent conversation I had with an insightful friend (that’s you, Luc), we talked about what could be done to break down barriers between groups of people. Most conservative Christians are strongly opposed to gay marriage and often gay rights in general. I think that for many, the root of this opposition (and hatred in some cases) is based on the primitive human fear of the Other.

Fear of the Other has driven human conflict since the dawn of mankind and that fear still drives international events today. One of the best-known ways to break this barrier is simple: make friends. When the Other becomes familiar and friendly, fear dissolves, taking hatred with it.

Would it be possible to create events that brought different groups of people together in an atmosphere that forced or fostered reliance, teamwork and eventually friendship between them? For example, a survivalist trip in the Northern wilderness. The event could be billed to church groups as a way to experience God’s creation, and to groups of gay activists as a way to get out of the city. ;) Create a stressful event – perhaps the “accidental” destruction of all of the canoes once the camping site had been reached – that forces the group of people to rely on each other.

Is this a recipe for disaster or could it see the outbreak of friendship among people who would not normally ever meet each other? (Perhaps it’s both – people finally break those barriers, then die of starvation.)

When Dorothy lived in Kansas, she experienced a very small world. Kansas is the middle of nowhere by anybody’s judgment, even a Kansan’s. But when a tornado swept her away to Oz, her world changed. She became close friends with people (well, an animal, a scarecrow and a robot) that she would not normally have ever met. They joined each other on the Yellow Brick Road and traveled with a common purpose.

I realize that this idea is not exactly ethical. But it’s just an idea, the product of a wacky brainstorm session. It’s probably not a good idea to mislead people into unexpected situations. But perhaps something similar could be accomplished in a different, better way. Maybe YOU can think of something. So why not leave a comment and let me know? I’d like to hear from you…

Bringing people together under false pretenses is wrong, even if in the end it would be better for everyone involved. It’s worrisome to think, though, that we may all be brought together because of some horrific catastrophe, like nuclear war and the ensuing nuclear winter, if we do not solve our differences. If that happens, we may wish we had tried every stupid idea we came up with to try and solve them.

Comment by Iliafer:

Thoughtful, nay, insightful, but here’s why your plan won’t work:

Quote:

“Would it be possible to create events that brought different groups of people together in an atmosphere that forced or fostered reliance, teamwork and eventually friendship between them? For example, a survivalist trip in the Northern wilderness. The event could be billed to church groups as a way to experience God’s creation, and to groups of gay activists as a way to get out of the city. ;) Create a stressful event – perhaps the “accidental” destruction of all of the canoes once the camping site had been reached – that forces the group of people to rely on each other.”

This won’t work, because one of the Christian conservatives will undoubtedly bring his hunting rifle on the trip to the great white north – our deer are bigger ;o) Then, when the canoes are taken away and the Christians and gays are forced to live in so-called “harmony”, the stress of the situation will surely cause one of the Christians to blow their stack, take the gun and shoot one or more mouthy gay person (because, gays tend to run off at the mouth ;o) j/k). No matter what, there will be power struggles (a la Lord of the Flies) and eventually someone’s gonna lose it. And, the conservatives will likely come out on top because they are the ones with the guns.

Sad, isn’t it?

Comment by Royboy:

Quote: ***This is a broad range of issues that don’t all have strong connections. For example, conservatives are against abortion because they support what they call a “culture of life”, yet many support needless war, which is all about death. Conservatives support corporatism, capitalism and free markets, yet many are Christians, and Christ said that those who followed him should “go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21).***

“Needless war”, that’s editorial… hence the premise isn’t terribly well founded.

From a religious perspective war is entirely necessary to smite the “evildoers”. This is bolstered with the “me” culture of America where ppl are actually encouraged to buy large SUV’s to keep themselves (and families) safe at the expense of the smaller car they smash into. Meaning “take the fight over there instead of here”. It is this ethos that narrowly won the election for Bush despite transparent shortcomings in execution. (meaning I disagree with the conventional wisdom that values issues won Bush the election) That certainly shored up his core support and got them to the poles… but for the undecideds that put him over the top IMO.