I take back what I said in the previous post about everything having changed for the worse since the 60s. There has been one small but significant improvement in our lives, one exception to the general degradation of our society and culture.
I refer to the revolution in women's underwear. To this observer, the state of the art now is infinitely preferable to what it was 50 years ago. Those who wear the more natural undergarments of today must be much more comfortable than their mothers and grandmothers were back in the straight-laced 50s.
Let us be thankful, then, for the demise of Dagmars and the Frederick's of Hollywood bustline. Let us celebrate the falling from favour of pantyhose, which were singlehandedly [Is that the right word? Ed.] responsible for the alarming decline in the western birthrate.
Let joy -- and Anne and Yvonne and Maureen -- be unconfined.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
50 years later
North American society started to disintegrate in the hippy-dippy 60s. I have expressed that opinion before. Just about every aspect of our lives has gotten worse. A list of what's wrong with our countries, our communities and our families would make a long book. Indeed, many such books have already been written.
It must have been about 50 years ago, the date when everything turned to shit. TV, health care, fast food, cars, politics, air travel... it's all shit! Compare the state of any of those things 50 years ago with that of the present day, and you can't help but think that the good old days really were better.
It's not just a case of looking backward through rose-coloured glasses. It's true.
Yesterday I got to think that we should be able to pinpoint a precise date when the rot set in. It's important that we do so in order to celebrate properly the 50th anniversary of the Reverse Midas Touch. Exactly when did everything start to go pear-shaped?
I nominate November 8, 1960 -- the day John F. Kennedy was elected. Those who said the world would never be the same again were right. Unfortunately, they were wrong in predicting the direction of change. Instead of marching bravely into a new Camelot, we took the first step down the long and slippery slope into the Inferno.
Readers are invited to name their own Day the World Changed Forever. Comments to walt.whiteman@yahoo.com.
It must have been about 50 years ago, the date when everything turned to shit. TV, health care, fast food, cars, politics, air travel... it's all shit! Compare the state of any of those things 50 years ago with that of the present day, and you can't help but think that the good old days really were better.
It's not just a case of looking backward through rose-coloured glasses. It's true.
Yesterday I got to think that we should be able to pinpoint a precise date when the rot set in. It's important that we do so in order to celebrate properly the 50th anniversary of the Reverse Midas Touch. Exactly when did everything start to go pear-shaped?
I nominate November 8, 1960 -- the day John F. Kennedy was elected. Those who said the world would never be the same again were right. Unfortunately, they were wrong in predicting the direction of change. Instead of marching bravely into a new Camelot, we took the first step down the long and slippery slope into the Inferno.
Readers are invited to name their own Day the World Changed Forever. Comments to walt.whiteman@yahoo.com.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Campaign for potty parity
In all the excitement, I forgot to tell you that yesterday was International Toilet Day. The main driver of this event (?) is the World Toilet Organization, and no, I'm not making this up.
Like feminism, it's something we must take very seriously. In fact, there's a strong feminist ethic amongst those promoting more toilets for the women of the world -- not just the Third World but the First World too.
The long queues at the dwindling number of public toilets for women demands action. So said a British woman (naturally), a specialist in "inclusive engineering" -- a discipline which Walt didn't know existed. They believe that to achieve reduction in wait times, with attendant social and even medical consequences, new buildings and public spaces should have two to three times as many toilets for women as for men. Reverse discrimination? Maybe not a bad idea though.
On the same programme, Walt heard an American campaigner -- a man -- call for "potty parity". Being American, the group he represents has a number of lawsuits going, to force the installation of more toilets for women. But this gentleman had another suggestion -- more unisex washrooms. This has the added bonus of being fair to the "transgendered", especially those who are "going through the change".
Yesterday the WTO promoted "the Big Squat". The WTO website says "To help raise awareness for the 2.5 billion people who don't have access to sanitation, thousands of people are going to squat for one minute." I guess I missed it, but then I wasn't in town. There are advantages to living in the country!
Like feminism, it's something we must take very seriously. In fact, there's a strong feminist ethic amongst those promoting more toilets for the women of the world -- not just the Third World but the First World too.
The long queues at the dwindling number of public toilets for women demands action. So said a British woman (naturally), a specialist in "inclusive engineering" -- a discipline which Walt didn't know existed. They believe that to achieve reduction in wait times, with attendant social and even medical consequences, new buildings and public spaces should have two to three times as many toilets for women as for men. Reverse discrimination? Maybe not a bad idea though.
On the same programme, Walt heard an American campaigner -- a man -- call for "potty parity". Being American, the group he represents has a number of lawsuits going, to force the installation of more toilets for women. But this gentleman had another suggestion -- more unisex washrooms. This has the added bonus of being fair to the "transgendered", especially those who are "going through the change".
Yesterday the WTO promoted "the Big Squat". The WTO website says "To help raise awareness for the 2.5 billion people who don't have access to sanitation, thousands of people are going to squat for one minute." I guess I missed it, but then I wasn't in town. There are advantages to living in the country!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Catholicism under fire in China
Dear Catholic readers, please keep in your prayers the true Catholic Church -- the underground Church -- in China. Some think that the ordination of bishops appointed "jointly" by Rome and Beijing shows a willingness by the Vatican that all should be one. Whatever the Vatican thinks, the true agenda of the Chinese government is to put the Catholic Church in China under its sole and complete control.
Word has reached us today that the Chinese government plans to call a meeting of the "National Assembly of Catholic Representatives" before the end of this year. This puts still more pressure on the underground Church to recognize the authority of that government-backed body instead of the Holy See.
The National Assembly claims to be a "sovereign body" ruling the Catholic Church in China. It is controlled by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association -- the schismatic puppet "church" set up by the Communists. Pope Benedict XVI, in his letter to the Chinese Church, said that such institutions are incompatible with the Catholic faith, and urged loyal Catholics not to participate in their affairs or recognize their authority.
Chinese bishops have expressed concern that if they fail to participate in the National Assembly meeting, their congregations will suffer reprisals. The meeting will certainly exacerbate divisions between Catholics who cooperate with the "official" CPCA and those in the underground Church who remain staunchly loyal to Rome.
Read the AsiaNews report here.
Meanwhile, bishops in the central Chinese province of Hebei province are under heavy pressure to participate in the consecration of a new bishop who has not been recognized by the Vatican.
Priests in Hebei reported that two bishops -- Peter Fen Xinmao of Jingxian and Joseph Li Liangui of Xianxian -- have been taken to an undisclosed location by local government officials. The priests fear that the bishops are being subjected to pressure to join in the November 20th ordination of Father Joseph Guo Jincai, who is a leading official in the CPCA. The Vatican has not approved the ordination.
Click here for a more detailed report from Ucanews.
Word has reached us today that the Chinese government plans to call a meeting of the "National Assembly of Catholic Representatives" before the end of this year. This puts still more pressure on the underground Church to recognize the authority of that government-backed body instead of the Holy See.
The National Assembly claims to be a "sovereign body" ruling the Catholic Church in China. It is controlled by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association -- the schismatic puppet "church" set up by the Communists. Pope Benedict XVI, in his letter to the Chinese Church, said that such institutions are incompatible with the Catholic faith, and urged loyal Catholics not to participate in their affairs or recognize their authority.
Chinese bishops have expressed concern that if they fail to participate in the National Assembly meeting, their congregations will suffer reprisals. The meeting will certainly exacerbate divisions between Catholics who cooperate with the "official" CPCA and those in the underground Church who remain staunchly loyal to Rome.
Read the AsiaNews report here.
Meanwhile, bishops in the central Chinese province of Hebei province are under heavy pressure to participate in the consecration of a new bishop who has not been recognized by the Vatican.
Priests in Hebei reported that two bishops -- Peter Fen Xinmao of Jingxian and Joseph Li Liangui of Xianxian -- have been taken to an undisclosed location by local government officials. The priests fear that the bishops are being subjected to pressure to join in the November 20th ordination of Father Joseph Guo Jincai, who is a leading official in the CPCA. The Vatican has not approved the ordination.
Click here for a more detailed report from Ucanews.
"Train Afghan troops? Good luck with that"
That's the title of a column by Margaret Wente in today's Globe and Mail. This is not the first time I've commended a piece by Ms. Wente to you, dear readers. She is a rare voice of sanity amongst the right-thinking and politically correct denizens of the Globe's op-ed pages.
Let me give you just the beginning and end of her opinion on the wisdom of keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan on the "training mission" announced on Remembrance Day by President Harper. [President??!! Ed.]
What explains Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s sudden change of heart on Afghanistan? One day he’s vowing to shut the door and turn out the lights on the Canadian mission by next July, the next he’s channelling Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. Now he tells us that 950 Canadian soldiers will stay on as trainers, “to honour the sacrifice we’ve made and consolidate those gains.”
Sweet. But that’s not why we’re staying on. We’re staying on because U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and our friends at NATO put the arm on him, and when those folks get that insistent, it’s awfully hard to refuse.
... ... ...
I sympathize with people who say it would be “shameful” for us to cut and run now. But I also think someone should explain how any of our training efforts could possibly make a difference. Ultimately, the success of the Afghan forces depends on the support of the Afghan people.
And that brings us to the worst problem of all – the deeply corrupt and deeply reviled Karzai government itself. The way a lot of Afghans see it, we’ll simply be helping to prop up another bad regime. And they won’t be wrong.
Worth noting is Ms. Wente's take on the real reason for the Harper flip-flop. Harper caved. End of story.
Let me give you just the beginning and end of her opinion on the wisdom of keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan on the "training mission" announced on Remembrance Day by President Harper. [President??!! Ed.]
What explains Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s sudden change of heart on Afghanistan? One day he’s vowing to shut the door and turn out the lights on the Canadian mission by next July, the next he’s channelling Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. Now he tells us that 950 Canadian soldiers will stay on as trainers, “to honour the sacrifice we’ve made and consolidate those gains.”
Sweet. But that’s not why we’re staying on. We’re staying on because U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and our friends at NATO put the arm on him, and when those folks get that insistent, it’s awfully hard to refuse.
... ... ...
I sympathize with people who say it would be “shameful” for us to cut and run now. But I also think someone should explain how any of our training efforts could possibly make a difference. Ultimately, the success of the Afghan forces depends on the support of the Afghan people.
And that brings us to the worst problem of all – the deeply corrupt and deeply reviled Karzai government itself. The way a lot of Afghans see it, we’ll simply be helping to prop up another bad regime. And they won’t be wrong.
Worth noting is Ms. Wente's take on the real reason for the Harper flip-flop. Harper caved. End of story.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Spector tells Harper how to wiggle out of the Afghanistan trap
Checking out the comments bulletin boards in major Canadian newspapers [An oxymoron? Ed.], I see that opinion is running heavily against "Call me Steve" Harper's solo decision to extend the mission in Afghanistan for another three years. Even the CBC's "Cross-country Checkup" ["Cross Country", surely. Ed.], which is notorious for screening callers to make sure they only parrot the politically correct party line, had more "antis" than "pros" on Sunday.
You would think that, with public opinion running roughly 2 to 1 against staying in the cesspit that is Afghanistan, Mr. Harpoon might be having second thoughts about the wisdom of caving in to the American demands. Trouble is, having flip-flopped so publicly, and having been caught in a monstrous lie, it's not so easy to do it again.
To the rescue comes Norman Spector, Globe and Mail columnist and at one time a top bureaucrat and political advisor to the not-soon-enough-ex Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. In today's column, Spector advises Mr. Baloney's successor to let Parliament vote on the issue, rather than pretend it's an executive decision that he (Harper) can take on his own.
The way Spector sees it, Harper can't lose by letting Parliament decide. If they vote "yes", it relieves him of responsibility for the further loss of life and treasure. If they vote "no", Harper can go to his masters in the White House and the Pentagon and say, "Gee, sorry, but I couldn't get it past those stupid elected representatives."
It's a brilliant strategy, with the bonus of being seen to be clearly democratic. Even Obama has to have the advice and consent of the Senate before waging war. Why should the Prime Minister of Canada be any different?
You would think that, with public opinion running roughly 2 to 1 against staying in the cesspit that is Afghanistan, Mr. Harpoon might be having second thoughts about the wisdom of caving in to the American demands. Trouble is, having flip-flopped so publicly, and having been caught in a monstrous lie, it's not so easy to do it again.
To the rescue comes Norman Spector, Globe and Mail columnist and at one time a top bureaucrat and political advisor to the not-soon-enough-ex Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. In today's column, Spector advises Mr. Baloney's successor to let Parliament vote on the issue, rather than pretend it's an executive decision that he (Harper) can take on his own.
The way Spector sees it, Harper can't lose by letting Parliament decide. If they vote "yes", it relieves him of responsibility for the further loss of life and treasure. If they vote "no", Harper can go to his masters in the White House and the Pentagon and say, "Gee, sorry, but I couldn't get it past those stupid elected representatives."
It's a brilliant strategy, with the bonus of being seen to be clearly democratic. Even Obama has to have the advice and consent of the Senate before waging war. Why should the Prime Minister of Canada be any different?
What would Lawrence have done?
Two names I know but had forgotten about came to my notice today, thanks to a tip from Agent 17. They are T.E. Lawrence -- "Lawrence of Arabia" -- and his biographer, Michael Korda.
I read a couple of Korda's books when I was studying and teaching negotiating skills and approaches to getting and using power. In Hero: the Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia, Mr. Korda has analysed the techniques used by Lawrence as he led the Arab insurgency against the Turkish Empire in World War I. The methods pioneered by Lawrence -- including IEDs -- could, he suggests, be used today against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the warlords of Afghanistan.
The article to which Agent 17 referred me appears on The Daily Beast website today. Here are a couple of paragraphs.
Lawrence also took the trouble to think about how to defeat an insurgency as well as waging a successful one himself. He advised strongly against bombing insurgent villages (drones did not yet exist, but he imagined them), since that would inevitably involve killing innocent women and children, and would make revenge for their death a duty for every surviving family member, as well as for their clan and tribe. He recommended dropping leaflets warning the villagers that something of value and importance to them would be bombed and allowing them time enough to remove their families and flocks before doing so.
He also took the view, as he had in the Arab Revolt, that it was easier and cheaper to buy the tribes off than to fight them: gold was as important weapon to him as explosives. He was in favor of the use of fast armored cars operating far behind the enemy lines, and supplied by aircraft, roving at will and attacking by surprise.
Lying on his cot in a barracks at an RAF station in what is now Pakistan, Lawrence wrote to his old friend Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard, the Chief of the Air Staff (this was the equivalent of a private writing to a four-star general and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), of a troublesome insurgent leader in Iraq (Sunni insurgency against a Western occupier in Iraq is not a new phenomenon): “The fellow you need to influence is Feisal el Dueish... If I were at Ur, my instinct would be to walk without notice into his headquarters. He’s not likely to kill an unarmed, solitary man. . . Such performances require a manner to carry them off. I’ve done it four times, or is it five? A windy business. . .”
Note that the suggestion of fearlessly walking unarmed into the headquarters of an insurgent leader implies an understanding of the Muslim tradition and obligation of hospitality toward a guest, even an enemy guest, and also a willingness to listen to the other person’s grievances, an important point.
Bombing people will seldom change their mind, and certainly not about their own government, whether done by the Turks against the Arabs in 1918, or by the British against the Iraqis in the 1920s, or with drones in Afghanistan today.
Where are the T.E. Lawrences of yesteryear when we need them today? Leadership isn't much good without vision and imagination. I don't see a whole lot of that on display in Washington, Ottawa or London. So, since no-one seems to have a better plan, why don't we chip in and send a copy of Korda's book to Messrs. Cameron, Harper and Obama, and let them learn from Lawrence.
I read a couple of Korda's books when I was studying and teaching negotiating skills and approaches to getting and using power. In Hero: the Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia, Mr. Korda has analysed the techniques used by Lawrence as he led the Arab insurgency against the Turkish Empire in World War I. The methods pioneered by Lawrence -- including IEDs -- could, he suggests, be used today against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the warlords of Afghanistan.
The article to which Agent 17 referred me appears on The Daily Beast website today. Here are a couple of paragraphs.
Lawrence also took the trouble to think about how to defeat an insurgency as well as waging a successful one himself. He advised strongly against bombing insurgent villages (drones did not yet exist, but he imagined them), since that would inevitably involve killing innocent women and children, and would make revenge for their death a duty for every surviving family member, as well as for their clan and tribe. He recommended dropping leaflets warning the villagers that something of value and importance to them would be bombed and allowing them time enough to remove their families and flocks before doing so.
He also took the view, as he had in the Arab Revolt, that it was easier and cheaper to buy the tribes off than to fight them: gold was as important weapon to him as explosives. He was in favor of the use of fast armored cars operating far behind the enemy lines, and supplied by aircraft, roving at will and attacking by surprise.
Lying on his cot in a barracks at an RAF station in what is now Pakistan, Lawrence wrote to his old friend Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard, the Chief of the Air Staff (this was the equivalent of a private writing to a four-star general and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), of a troublesome insurgent leader in Iraq (Sunni insurgency against a Western occupier in Iraq is not a new phenomenon): “The fellow you need to influence is Feisal el Dueish... If I were at Ur, my instinct would be to walk without notice into his headquarters. He’s not likely to kill an unarmed, solitary man. . . Such performances require a manner to carry them off. I’ve done it four times, or is it five? A windy business. . .”
Note that the suggestion of fearlessly walking unarmed into the headquarters of an insurgent leader implies an understanding of the Muslim tradition and obligation of hospitality toward a guest, even an enemy guest, and also a willingness to listen to the other person’s grievances, an important point.
Bombing people will seldom change their mind, and certainly not about their own government, whether done by the Turks against the Arabs in 1918, or by the British against the Iraqis in the 1920s, or with drones in Afghanistan today.
Where are the T.E. Lawrences of yesteryear when we need them today? Leadership isn't much good without vision and imagination. I don't see a whole lot of that on display in Washington, Ottawa or London. So, since no-one seems to have a better plan, why don't we chip in and send a copy of Korda's book to Messrs. Cameron, Harper and Obama, and let them learn from Lawrence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)