corruption

i am a huge fan of the movie syriana. and i love the corruption speech in the movie. so much so that i'm going to post it here in its entirety:

Danny: Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Brown, thinks he’s gonna run this up the flagpole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, no-name congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. (mimics prosecutor) “But, Danny, these are sovereign nations.” Sovereign nations! What is a sovereign nation, but a collective of greed run by one individual? “But, Danny, they’re codified by the U.N. charter!” Legitimized gangsterism on a global basis that has no more validity than an agreement between the Crips and the Bloods! (Beat) … Corruption charges. Corruption? Corruption ain’t nothing more than government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That’s Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel Prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around here instead of fighting each other for scraps of meat out in the streets. (Beat) Corruption … is how we win.

george w. bush vs john lennon

journalist: what did iraq have to do with the attack on the world trade center?
george w. bush: nothing.

seriously. watch the video. amazing. it's been a week and i still can't stop laughing. incredible. stick your middle finger in the air and wave it like you just don't care!

best-president-ever. ever!

moral obligations

there has been much debate since jack layton, leader of the ndp, called for a pullout of canadian troops from afghanistan, saying "this is the wrong mission for canada."

in the wake of those comments and in the wake of five canadian deaths in two days, bloc québécois leader gilles duceppe has called for an emergency session before prime minister stephen harper presents canada's foreign policy to the united nations on sept. 20. this all, it should be noted, was shot down by foreign affairs minister peter mackay, who said that the necessary debate over canada's presence in afghanistan took place in may, when a two-year extension for the mission was narrowly approved.

now i am all for debates, that's for sure, but the question shouldn't be whether this is the right mission for canada, or whether we should even be in there in the first place, or whether we should cut our losses and run. the truth is, we violated afghanistan's sovereignty by going in and killing taliban troops. simple as that. we helped in this war. and as i have said many times before - almost to the point of redundancy - we have bought afghanistan's problems, and we have a moral obligation to stay and fix things.

the real debate should be for how we are going to solve this problem. it should be to discuss how we can reduce canada's casualty rate, while getting at the taliban and finally bringing some order and restoration to the people of afghanistan. one way to do this would be to reduce the amount of heavy lifting canadians and coalition forces do by improving the afghan military. abdul rahim wardak, afghan's defence minister, has said in the past that they would need to expand the afghan military to about 150,000 to 200,000 well trained and well equiped troops. he has said that the amount of money some coalition nations spend on one of their own soldiers in the field could fund 50 to 100 new Afghan troops. and if afghanistan's forces can be beefed up to those number, then maybe for once they can do more of the fighting and then coalition forces down't have to be gathered in such great number. and by increasing the army, we can help employ more people who are currently having to join various militant groups or get into the drug trade to earn money due to afghanistan's starved economy.

we should also look at new strategies, more aggressive ones instead of sitting and waiting to be taken out. all we've ever done since the initial overthrow of the taliban, is to wait and react to whatever comes at us. it's about time we went on the offensive, like the current push against the taliban, but it would be preferred if we did less of the front line fighting. the only way this will happen is if a) the united states cleans up iraq and returns some troops to afghanistan, which is just never going to happen. you might as wish to santa claus for world peace. or b) afghan forces are built up to the point where they can start providing for their own security. we've seen the giant mistake it was in iraq to disband the army and the police there. let's not make that mistake a second time around.

ultimately we have three goals to acomplish: 1) reduce canadian casualties. 2) provide security to the people of afghanistan. 3) make sure afghanitan doesn't turn into a terrorist state. we don't want to have to return ten, twenty, fifty years from now. the first two are possible. the latter, hopefully will come about due to our efforts on the former.

(source 1) (source 2) (source 3)

9/11

as the five year anniversary to 9/11 approaches, the first thing that comes to mind is, "has it really been five years?" the second thing that comes to mind is the way the world is today. it's been an interesting five years, to say the least. lots of things have happened and lots of things have yet to happen.

the most notable, of course, is the ongoing iraq war. two days ago, a tragic bench mark was reached: officially, 2,974 united states service members have died in the war. this surpasses the total dead on 9/11, by 1 person. the news would be harder to take if it weren't put in to the context of iraqi civilian deaths, which is reported, unofficially, to be over 40,000 people. with regards to canadian casualties in afghanistan, that number reached 33 yesterday when another soldier was killed as a result of friendly fire which also caused thirty other soldiers to be wounded. now this may not be a lot in terms of numbers, but considering we only have about 2200 troops in afghanistan, it's a big deal.

the goal here isn't to talk statistics, which is a gruesome enough matter as it is, but the question is, are things better now? for the iraqi people? that's up in the air for the moment. for americans? well, the bush administration released a report saying that the united states was safer, but not yet safe, thereby simultaneously comforting, yet freaking out the american polulation at the same time. it's a common tactic of the bush administration: keep the people scared so they stay the course. and what about us canadians? where do we stand? our international reputation isn't as strong as it used to be, our soldiers are dying in what may ultimately be a futile fight, and we seem to be constantly under foot of the big elephant that lives just across the border.

as for what the future holds? well, it is too early to decide how much "blow back" there will be from the iraq fiasco, but rest assured, if history is something to learn from, it is pretty much guaranteed that there will be some sort of blow back with how the u.s. government has fought the war on terror. early guess: a new generation of "terrorists." because if anything, the war in iraq has hurt the war on terror. by starting a war that didn't need to be started, the u.s. government diverted valued time and energy and resources, as well as creating a whole new batch of future terrorists.

(source 1) (source 2) (source 3) (source 4)

olbermann vs colbert

this is just a fun interview from a few months ago. these two are great. absolute gold, i tell you.

unparfor: united nations paris hilton force.

the situation in darfur is getting worse and worse by the day, despite the signing of the agreement a few months back. and now, khartoum is ordering the african union force out of darfur by the end of the month, citing essentially that the african union has no right to transfer their assignment to the united nations or any other international body.

the ideal of humanitarian intervention has taken a lot of hits as of late, and the whole darfur situation may be the final straw. now i'm not saying that nations and people will necessarily give up on humanitarian intervention, but it is quite clear that there are severe limits to the concept. limits, really, set by our own desires and what we can benefit from, and limits set by other international laws and regulations concerning nationality and sovereignty.

should we forcefully go in? at what point is it okay for nations to impose peace and good will on others? do we really even care enough to do so? what's in it for us, ultimately, by sacrificing time, money and lives to save people who, ultimately, probably have no bearing on our own lives? these are all questions that probably have answers that no one wants to really hear.

it appears that more and more, the media's attention has waned on the subject, which means the mass audience's attention span has also reached a limit. well, we tried, sort of; on to the next disaster, right? i mean, darfur is soooo last year. after all, there are over six billion people in the world, each of them suffering in their own way, right? i mean, just look at paris hilton: she's a walking catastrophe. somebody get her a u.n. food ration! and personally, if the vancouver canucks don't win the cup this year, my life will be a living hell.

for a recap on the whole situation, go to the bbc website, here. also, here's the article from the guardian unlimited:

Khartoum orders Darfur peacekeepers out

David Fickling and agencies
Monday September 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The Sudanese government has ordered African peacekeepers to leave the troubled province of Darfur by the end of the month, raising concerns about the plight of thousands of refugees in the region.

Jamal Ibrahim, a foreign ministry spokesman, said the 7,000-strong African Union force deployed in the province would have to leave before the start of October.

"If they are unable to continue with their assignment in Darfur beyond September 30, then they have to leave before that date," he said. "At the same time, they have no right to transfer this assignment to the UN or any other body. This right rests only with the government of Sudan."

International observers have demanded that the under-equipped peacekeeping force be replaced by a more effective UN contingent. The removal of all troops is seen as a worrying development as it would leave no barrier between the region's rebel groups and their government-backed opponents.

Noureddine Mezni, a spokesman for the African Union, said Khartoum had not yet informed the union of its decision.

The foreign ministry spokesman said the government would pursue its own plans to pacify Darfur. "Sudan will proceed with implementation of the Darfur peace agreement according to its own plan to restore security and stability in the region."

Fighting in the province, along Sudan's western border, has resulted in at least 200,000 deaths in three years and displaced 2.5 million people. Last year the conflict spilled over into neighbouring Chad and briefly brought the two countries to the brink of war, while in 2004 the UN labelled the situation the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

The conflict began in 2003 when a collection of local rebel groups began attacking Sudanese government offices. Brutal retaliation from the government-backed Janjaweed militia followed, with thousands of people killed and villages torched.

Khartoum has refused repeated efforts to establish a 20,000-strong UN peacekeeping force in the province, and on Thursday it rejected the most recent UN proposal to send in troops.

In a speech at the weekend the president, Omar Bashir, described the proposed UN mission as "old-time colonialism in new clothes", while his vice-president, Ali Osman Taha, held up Hizbullah as an example to the Sudanese people of how to resist UN troops.

"We have options and plans for confronting the international intervention," he was quoted as saying by the state news agency, Suna. "We are prepared for all possibilities."

Local papers reported that crowds of demonstrators burned US and British flags and chanted anti-UN slogans in El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, while the state's governor donned combat fatigues and promised to set up training camps for locals to resist any UN force.

There have been reports of further fighting in the region over the past week, with a major government offensive involving thousands of troops and Janjaweed militias reportedly claiming 20 lives and displacing more than 1,000 people.

The African Union force is in the region patrolling a 2004 ceasefire between the government and rebel groups that is technically in force but openly being flouted.

In May, long-running talks saw a peace agreement between the government in Khartoum and the Sudan Liberation Army, the largest of the rebel groups. But violence has grown since July as SLA commanders began turning against their former rebel allies, and the outcome of the agreement caused further factionalism between tribal and rebel groups.

Jan Pronk, the leader of the UN mission in Sudan, said last month that the picture was "bleak" in the region.

"The situation is worse than in the last three months before the signing of the agreement, and it is deteriorating," he wrote on his blog.

"The agreement was meant to cement the parties together, but it has become a source of further disruption."

the taliban

four more canadian soliders were killed today in afghanistan during a ground offensive that started in southern kandahar a day earlier. this brings the total dead to 31 since the afghan mission started in 2002. there are now renewed calls for canada to get out, with ndp leader jack layton saying "this is the wrong mission for canada. it's not balanced. it doesn't represent the equilibrium between humanitarian aid, reconstruction and comprehensive peace process that canadians would want to see."

well no shit, layton. do you want a gold star for that bit of insight? we're in a situation where the united states and the british, who still have forces in afghanistan, are primarily focused on iraq. should they have gone into iraq? no. but they did, leaving us to pick up the pieces. before any real reconstruction can begin, the taliban have to be uprooted, and defeated, and despite what the americans may like to think, that job was not finished, nor is it even close to being finished.

the ground offensive will continue, and there will be more bodies. i have said it before, and i will say it again; we have bought afghanistan. back in 2002, we were all gung-ho about going into afghanistan. after 9/11, the united states had the world on their side, and when they decided to go into afghanistan, we went, resulting in a distinct change from the previous decades of peacekeeping. sure, we dropped some bombs in kosovo, but we didn't have the large numbers of troops on the ground like we do now. we went in with the americans, into a war. reconstruction is part of the package with modern day warfare; you just don't bomb a country and leave it. not anymore. you stay behind and help rebuild.

well, we're trying to rebuild, to reconstruct, but the taliban have proven to be stubborn, and most of all, deadly. so comes the question: were we serious about taking on the taliban back in 2002? i like to think that we were; that canadians believed in it. and if we were serious, then we have to finish the job and give the afghan people a chance. if we leave now, the taliban will just steamroll the fragile afghanistan government. and then what? what was the point of the last four years?

obviously, it's easy for me to say this because i'm writing from my comfortable vancouver apartment. i don't have any kids, and i don't have a desire to pick up a gun. but we have to step back and look at our objectives and our responsibilities. we have to give it a fighting chance.

and yes, there have been a lot of successes, such as over 200 taliban soldiers being killed, 80 captured, with another 180 fleeing the area during this ground offensive. but forgive me if i don't celebrate the killing of other human beings, even if they are our "enemies." and i suppose there have been other success, such as women being allowed to go to school, and that is definitely something to celebrate.

i want this over as much as the next person, but in all honesty: we should have seen this coming. you just have to look back at history: afghanistan has been embroiled in one war or another, under the control of one war monger or another, for centuries. they kicked the british out at the height of their power, and they kicked the soviet union out in the 80's. chances are, we will fail, and looking back, we probably should not have gone in to begin with, but hind sight is 20/20. or a kick in the crotch, whichever you prefer. we have to give it a little longer. how long is a little longer? a year? two? three? i don't know. but there will come a time when it will feel like the right time to get out. i guess that will be when the next election comes around.

all i know, is that our troops will come out stronger, hit back harder. if the way we've fought in the past is any indication, our troops will be bouncing back in what appears to be one of the biggest battles since world war two. we have the best troops in the world, with the best training. having little to no budget for years has allowed our soldiers to adapt to virtually any environment quickly.

i also know that bleeding, on the international stage, buys you clout. we bled in both world wars, we've bled during peacekeeping, and we're bleeding again now. like it or not, the reality is that bleeding... dying... buys you clout with your allies. what this will translate to, i don't know. all in all, it's a bit of a vicious and vile thought, especially when every drop of blood that buys us clout with our allies, comes from a human being. can we turn this around into a positive? perhaps. i haven't lost hope on that at least. we've seen how the rest of the world sees us in such a positive light, even if that view of us may be a little fake.

at any rate, i've ranted long enough. here is a vid clip from the hour that they aired months ago, where they set up just how dangerous afghanistan is. i think i posted it before, but i'm doing it again, because it gives you a good sense of perspective on who we are fighting.



(source 1)
(source 2)

entourage: turtle

poor turtle. he just can't get a break on entourage. you kind of feel for the guy, because he is so unsuccessful with women, even with vince's star power. still, he's the type of guy you want on your side in a fight, because you know he'll be there for you. everyone should have a turtle in their lives.

bush vs ipod

bush's ipod commercial from the culture jamming folks at submediatv.com

countdown with keith olbermann

keith olbermann is a pretty intelligent guy with some pretty intelligent things to say. sometimes he tends to get a bit preachy, and he likes to use his extensive vocabulary. he comes across as a bit of an elitist, but at the same time, he's got this sort of home-grown comedian charm to him that makes him down-to-earth. he is often times compelling, and the interviews he gives are always insightful. you know, i never thought i'd say that about any american news anchor (at least not in this day and age).

at any rate, his show, countdown with keith olbermann is interesting, especially when he makes barbs at his bestest buddy, bill o'reilly. here, he's discussing donald rumsfeld's comment about how those who criticize the government over iraq are nothing but a bunch of appeasers. oh rummy! has it really sunk to this? well if that's the case, tattoo me neville and spank me silly. check out the vid:



the second video is an older one of keith smacking down ann coulter. gotta love it.

entourage: ari

here's ari's character spot for entourage. best ari line so far in season three is when he's address his agents:

"People... staff meeting has been cancelled. you all have one goal today; To get Vincent Chase's brother, Johnny Chase, a job. Any job. i don't care if it's a porn shoot in which he is being gang raped by a gaggle of silverback apes; if there are cameras rolling... everybody wins."

mechanics of writing

control is a strange thing. control is something that you don't know you want or even know you had until you lose it. as a writer, control is the ultimate thing i strive for. it's funny, i was never into writing very much as a kid; i was more into drawing. i would draw these intensely dark and vivid pictures that blended comic book styles with real world sensibilities in terms of proportion, angles, sizes and shades. i loved to draw. as a kid, and particularly as a highschool kid, i think i spent 90% of my spare time doing this. the other 10% was thinking about sex. usually it's the other way around for a highschool kid. at any rate, i loved to draw, because i always did the art for myself; there was never any intent to impress anyone else.

in grade 11, my teacher saw the art i was doing and suggested that since that was what i was interested in, that was what i should do. it was interesting, because i came back to the classroom one day after going to the washroom, and found her showing the whole class my drawings. it felt horrible at first, because my art book was like a diary to me. but i realized quickly that she was calling me out; getting me to start showing people my art, to stop being so insular. she was smart enough to realize that by grade 11, after years of art classes, i was talented enough to have made my own decisions on what art i wanted to do, or could do. not everyone is cut out for silk screening or pottery. and besides, i'd done that for years and i was over it. so she let me draw all year long, never once telling me i should follow the ciriculum. i was having a blast. then grade 12 came along and i had a different art teacher. she told me i had to follow the ciriculum. no choice about it. when i told her i hated pottery, she asked me what i liked to do, and i said i liked to draw. she then said i could draw pottery. i balked. i mean, i was in my last year of highschool and that's what she wanted me to do? i thought by now they would have given me more credit than that. and i realized that i had lost control. i never knew i had any until then. someone was telling me what i could and could not do with my art. so i quit on the very first day. as soon as she told me that, i nodded and smiled and walked right out of her classroom and deregistered and took a spare block.

in many ways, that was the best and worst decision i'd ever made. in that spare block, i would hang out in the library with my friends and we'd just goof off for the first couple of weeks. then for some inexplicable reason, i started writing. a friend of mine and i jokingly started collaborating on a fantasy book. you know the deal: swords and sorcery and dragons with hot chicks who could kick ass. (you know what's funny? the fact that some of the mot powerful female figures in art, like buffy, like xena, like ripley; women that kick ass, are created by geeky men. it's interesting.) we wrote like madmen; whipping out two hundred pages of medieval blood and guts with a splash of teenage hormonal indulgence. then we got to a point where we disagreed, and this is the problem with colaborating. you have to take into account what the other person is thinking or wants. needless to say, the book ended then and there. but my writing didn't.

the next thing i knew, i was whipping out short story after short story; some of them long and detailed, others short and sweet. they were all immitations, of course. i copied the styles of every single writer i had read. but it was fun. i was hooked. i would take my stories to the spare block and share them with my friends, who got a kick out of them. ever since then, i have been writing, and i have not drawn one single picture.

in a way, that's a shame, because i had loved to draw, but my writing has now taken place of that desire. i don't regret anything, because now i have more control than ever. i realized, after seeing the expression on my friends' faces after reading my stuff, that i don't ever want to be in a position where i can't do what i want to do. i now had control, not much compared to the grand scheme of things, but this one part of my life i could control. and i wasn't about to let go. and control is so important to a writer. being able to control what you write, how you present your writing, is ultimate. so many writers give up that control, like other types of artists, in order to be accepted into the mainstream. some writers don't compromise, and they still "make it," which is very admirable. but most don't.

control and compromise are very closely linked. for me, i have always refused to compromise my writing (except this one time, which i will explain in a bit). it may not be the best writing, it is definitely not the worst, but at least it is pure and honest and what i want to write. as a writer, or any other type of artist for that matter, you have to understand that in order to keep control, to not compromise, you will have to come to terms with the realization that you may live in artistic obscurity for your whole career. but that's a choice i'm willing to make. i am so sick and tired of "safe" books. i would read something, and think, wow, you know this might be good. but then i get bored, and i get bored because what i'm reading is utterly safe, despite the grand ideas behind it.

in the end, your writing is truly the only thing you can control. you can't control other people's tastes, you can't control a publisher's decisions, you can't control the markets; all you can control is what you put on the page. and if you refuse to compromise, you will ultimately succeed or fail on your own merits. and that's the gutsiest thing any artist can do. i have so much more respect for failures who have refused to compromise, than the successful who have. there is a line from a song the band refused did years ago, that says, "...rather be forgotten, then remembered for giving in."

just to switch gears now, here is an update on how my novels are progressing. i just got another review from a friend of mine on this is hardcore. he read the book in one sitting, took him about four hours which is what i wanted; it's a lean book. anyway, he said he expected something more at the end. and he's right; the problem is, i sort of changed the ending because i got cold feet with how i was going to end it. his reaction has made me change the ending back to the original one, which has more guts and expresses the ideas of the book more. that being said, this is hardcore is my attempt at a genre thriller, but even so, i tried to inject some ideas that are bigger than the book and the characters. by changing the ending, i copped out, which i'm ashamed of. it's sort of why i wrote this whole blog entry about not compromising.

why did i change the ending? i think part of the reason was i was sort of letting the annoyance of still being an obscure writer get to me. i thought, maybe i should write something tamer... something more appealing to the masses... these are things every writer will go through, but that's just your idiot side talking. don't listen to it. i single-handedly ruined the ending to this is hardcore because i compromised, and the worst part of it was, i did it to myself. no one made me. but don't worry, i'm changing it back. this is the one time i compromised that i spoke about earlier. i like to think of it as another lesson learned.

as for my untitled book, i have been thinking long and hard these past couple of weeks before putting the second half of the book to paper. what i've come to the conclusion is that i want to make the second half of the book as different as it can be, without totally losing the reader and the plot. the first half of the book is noisy; lots of dialogue, lots of action. the second half, will basically be like a calm, peaceful... music video. that's the best way i can describe it. there will be little to no dialogue for large portions of it. it should be exciting. we'll see if i can make it work.

the following is just a rough sample piece i wrote a while back from the as yet, untitled book (please forgive the format. for some reason it won't align properly, but i'm too lazy to try to fix it):

Under the overpass, under the snakes of concrete and rush of vehicles, the two of them stay. Hidden. Thick as thieves. Between concrete towers, trampling upon gravel, John catches up to Sean, grabbing her by the arm and spinning her around. He pins her against the cement column. Her giggles turn into full-bodied laughter. He looks at her as if he’s looking upon her for the first time. Never ceasing to amaze, she squirrels away from him and stumbles out into the sunshine. She treads through the ray of light as the hustle and bustle of life above moves at a frenetic pace. She’s a direct contrast against the stained and darkened graffiti that is set against the cold, solid wall. Like water and oil. Like Prada with a splash of Banksy. And he calls:
- Be my valentine.
- Ew, I hate you. You’re such a wannabe. She looks at him. You don’t even know me.
- I’m trying -
- You don’t know me. She watches the expression change on his face. Do you think I ignore you?
She turns her face into the sun and steps into light. From beneath the shadow of the overpass he too steps out into the sunshine. He has to shield his eyes from the piercing rays. It’s as if he can’t see. It’s a brighter day. Blazing. She comes into view, first in harsh light and then into soft focus. She’s a blurred pinkish twig, morphed into fully formed blossom before him. As if coming in from Babylon. He leans in so close to her, but she pulls back.
- Don’t be a stranger, Sean.
- I won’t.
She smiles at him from the corner of her mouth and turns away. And it’s then he ponders how sweet it is as she walks away in that accented walk of hers. Her dress, so light, flutters about her legs as she goes. It’s like she’s wearing nothing at all but she carries it well. Like she’s used to wearing less. But she’s not. She’s covered and full-bodied. Shielded. Invisible armour. Like gravity; you can’t see it but you know it’s there. So back through the harsh light she goes. And she doesn’t look back. All good things… before they even begin. He never really felt Thursdays like he did today.