The Dictator

This week I took my nephews to see the latest Mission Impossible, and by far the biggest response from the audience was this preview for the latest film by the creator of Borat spoofing Lybian dictator Muammar Gaddafi. We'll see if the movie to be released this summer is as funny as the preview, but it is appropriate that this movie was made in the same year that two nutty and dangerous dictators died. It might not be easy to find comedy in Middle Eastern megalomania, but if anyone can pull it off, it is Borat.

Bob Rae Rips NDP

Canada voted today to extend our military mission in Libya despite the vocal opposition of the NDP, but the most surprising part of the entire debate was when Liberal leader Bob Rae blasted the Dippers for wanting to cut and run. He even went so far as to call their position ridiculous. "It is a fundamentally absurd proposition. Because of the internal workings of the New Democratic Party, they say we have to be the party of peace. Well, we’re all the party of peace... It does not mean you have to be a party of appeasement or of indifference."

I was not expecting any friendly fire between Liberals and Dippers this fall, but it is plausible that the Libs will actually try to win votes back from the NDP. In this salvo Bobby attacked one of the NDP's greatest weaknesses, foreign policy, so he wasn't exactly pulling punches. In the event that these two parties were to merge, the greatest internal divisions would likely occur on matters of foreign policy. The NDP and the Liberals disagreed quite often over Afghanistan (except when it came to accusing our troops of being war criminals).

Rating John Baird The Globetrotter

There is no question that John Baird has been one of the busiest MPs in Parliament this summer, trotting the globe engaging in international diplomacy with foreign nations. Today's poll question; how would you rate John Baird's early performance as Minister of Foreign Affairs? Excellent? Acceptable? Replaceable? He has become deeply involved with the Libya mission, which is starting to inspire some pretty harsh criticisms among the Canadian punditry. The other day it appeared that NDP strategist Ian Chapstick was going to start crying on the Soloman Show over so-called "mission creep". Not only do I support replacing Gaddafi, I'd like to know if we can stop by Zimbabwe on the way home. There are more than few targets in Syria that are in serious need of some explosive ordnance. Basher Assad is butchering his own people on a daily basis, can't we at least take out some of his palaces? Are they within reach of your current operating base in Italy?

I can only imagine how Liberals feel about Baird performing this function of government. My head might explode if Mark Holland ever became the face of Canadian diplomacy. I only make this comparison because Liberals react to Baird much the same way as Tories react to Holland.

War With Libya?

As six Canadian jets from a Quebec base are on their way to the Mediterranean to assist in the enforcement of a no fly zone, are you willing to risk going to war with Gaddafi to enforce this endeavour? That's today's poll question. After declaring a cease fire, Gaddafi's forces were opening fire on ambulances and civilians. Personally I say yes, this nut needs to be cracked. Kudos to French President Nick Sarkozy for being ready and willing to "go hot" against Libya for over a year, before the protests even started. It would appear that the French and British will be taking the lead. Canadian forces will still take a few days to get all their equipment and support staff into the theatre, but the French and British are ready to start at a moment's notice. Good on our colonial forefathers. Vivre La France!

What Happened To UN Security Council Seat-gate?

To all those people who said that Stephen Harper deserved a black eye because Canada did not win a seat on the United Nations Security Council, just remember that the UN selected Muamar Gaddafi for their Human Rights Council. This certainly speaks to the credibility of the UN to make intelligent and pragmatic decisions on its council membership. The most substantial yet under-reported part of this Libyan crisis is Gaddafi's role at the UN. What does that say about the UN?

United Nations "Suspends" Gaddafi From Human Rights Council

Way to go United Nations, they have finally suspended Libyan leader Moomar Gaddafi from their Human Rights Council. That of course begs the question; what the hell was this lunatic doing on the HRC??? Who were his references? Paul Martin? Who recommended Gaddafi for a seat on the HRC, and which UN member nations voted in favour of the appointment? The bigger story is not that he was suspended from the HRC, but rather that he was ever appointed to it. I did watch the Daily Show last night, and Jon Stewart asked if Moomar was suspended from the HRC, what would it take for him to get expelled from the HRC?

Excellent question...

Gaddafi Crackdown

As revolution spreads across the Arab world, General Muamar Gaddafi displays the most effective way to suppress a revolt if you are a dictator who wants to retain power in the region; open fire. Protests spread to Libya, and the response has been helicopter gunships and sniper fire. Where the Egyptian army refused to open fire on protesters, the Libyan military evidently is more loyal to the boss. I would be shocked if Gaddafi relinquishes power as Mubarak did. The only way that's possible is if the military refuses to execute orders, and thus far it appears the Libyan army is following orders.

I would love to see that tyrant removed from power. He is an evil man and the world would be a better place with him having no influence over any human being. Gaddafi has got to go. By the way, Barak Obama seems unusually conflicted about what's been going on lately.

Stephen Harper Visits Africa

Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper is visiting Africa to promote his maternal health initiative to try and reduce the mortality rate of mothers and children. Whenever I watch my Prime Minister perform abroad, I can't help but feel proud that this man (and not Stephane Dion) is the top statesman who represents Canada around the world. Ignatieff would be just as embarrassing, fortunately it doesn't look like he'll be winning any elections anytime soon.

As the Prime Minister visits North Africa, there is escalating tension in Egypt as protesters are demanding the resignation of the long serving President Mubarak. I think democracy would be great for that part of the world, but the current Egyptian leader has been keeping the peace for many years now. There is a risk that a new regime could escalate hostilities with Israel, which would be really bad for everyone involved. It is very important that the Muslim Brotherhood not gain power in Egypt.

Invictus

Last evening I decided to rent the latest Clint Eastwood film (directed and produced, not acted) Invictus starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, and I thought that it was fantastic. I enjoyed the film a great deal, and I thought that Freeman's portrayal of Nelson Mandela has to rank among his best work. Shawshank Redemption was his mountain top, but I found this role to be very moving. It isn’t easy to write a compelling screenplay to a true story with a known ending, but they pulled it off.

I will say this, I played a lot of football in high school. I have never played rugby. For all the high speed collisions and physical violence in football, those rugby guys are hardcore. I wore a helmet and shoulder pads, they don't. I remember playing intramural contact hockey at University, and a guy from the varsity rugby team played on our squad. He played contact hockey without shoulder pads, but his shoulders were so big that the refs couldn't tell that he was violating intramural equipment rules. That guy was a wrecking ball on the ice, crashing into people at high speeds with no shoulder pads without so much as a scratch.

Of course I never told him that he had to put on shoulder pads (despite school regulations), because I knew if you put body armour on that guy and turned him loose, we would need paramedics on standby.

UN Congo Mission: Just Say No

The United Nations asked Canada to lead the UN mission in the Congo after we are finished in Afghanistan next year, and we have declined. I am assuming that the UN officials responsible for choosing to ask Canada do not watch our parliament's Question Period and did not consult Ujjal Dosangh on the conduct of our troops in the field. If they did, they would have had grounds to suspect that our military are marauding war criminals who will deliberately send innocent Congolese farmers to be tortured.

Personally I wish the people of the Congo all the best, but I lost respect for the UN mission in that country when they botched that election. I am not interested in Canada taking command of that mission, especially when we are going to need military resources for our aid work in Haiti. Some day when I'm rich and famous, I would love to be able to visit the Congo and go into the jungle searching for man eating apes and the lost mines of King Soloman. I would even invite Laura Linney and Tim Curry. I support an international military presence in the Congo, but now is not a good time for Canada to take that responsibility. We have other responsibilities.

I started a poll on this yesterday, and thus far the response is overwhelming. There is no appetite to jump into the Congo when we complete combat operations in Afghanistan.

Do you think that Canada should send a large peacekeeping force to the Congo?

No (96%)
Yes (2%)
Undecided (1%)

The United States set to begin funding foreign abortions?

Newsflash to the United States, according to the Liberal Party of Canada, Hillary Clinton has now promised to include funding of foreign abortions into future G8 policy initiatives. Today Canadian Liberals are claiming vindication for their failed foreign abortion initiative because Hillary Clinton made a statement about family planning; and leader Mike Ignatieff seems to have reclaimed his righteousness to demand our tax dollars fund foreign abortions. Even if Hillary personally believes that we should be paying for African abortions, she never said that was going to become American foreign policy. Canadian Liberals and Evan Soloman disagree.

It is one thing to say that maternal health should include abortion, but it is a bridge entirely too far to say that we should pay for them abroad. That will never become American foreign policy, so how in the hell is the statement she made vindication for Liberal demands that we fund foreign abortions? Soloman interviewed Bev Oda today, and he completely misrepresented Clinton's statements. Solo was representing that this is something that the United States intends to do through a G8 initiative rather than just Hillary stating her own beliefs. If you watch her statement she was smiling and in great spirits until the question was asked, then she looked down, her face went dark, and she stated her belief.

As Kory Teneycke asked on the Soloman Show, it will be interesting to see if and how quickly backlash from this spills over the border into the United States. I'm sure the country will be really excited to start paying for African abortions. Curbing African population growth likely excites many Liberals, but it's not something I expect to get much traction in the center. What would it say about a country if they were to adopt a more aggressive abortion policy abroad than it has at home?

The World Cup of Soccer

I am interested to know how many Canadians are excited for the upcoming World Cup of Soccer in South Africa. Globally this is a bigger sporting tournament than the Olympics, though I have long maintained that soccer is just an outdated relic of European colonialism. Hockey is by far the more entertaining sport but because of capital costs for entry and participation, the sport is exclusive. To play soccer all you need is something round. Personally I can't stand soccer, but I pay attention to it during the World Cup because it means so much to so many people across the planet.

This blog post was released to the World Wide Web while I was enjoying life on the golf course!

Smashing Windows

I was unaware that vandalizing public property was an effective means of gaining support for your political beliefs. What have I been missing? Here I was under the mistaken impression that the best way to spread your message among the populace is to publish your opinion into the public sphere and allow people to read it, think about it, and develop their own opinion. That all you need to make are salient points of thought about your beliefs and if you can do it effectively then you will be able to increase the total sum of support from your fellow citizens.

But no, evidently what I should have been doing all along to make people more receptive to my beliefs is dressing up like a ninja and smashing windows downtown. For example I strongly believe that we should elect our Senators and then give them a full veto over the lower house instead of just a filibuster. What a fool I've been trying to spread support for my beliefs by starting an opinion website and encouraging peaceful debate on the issue! I should have been out throwing marbles at the feet of the horses of RCMP officers in an attempt to injure both the officer and animal. And if you didn't catch the sarcasm there, obviously those actions are deplorable and should be strictly punished by law enforcement.

The greatest irony in this morning's vandalism is that it is being undertaken by the anarchy division of the anti-Olympic movement. They would like us to disband our government, military, and civil service and live without the rule of law. Meanwhile they are out there convincing regular citizens that the police are even MORE necessary than before they started going bananas on a window. It is in fact counter productive to increase public belief in the necessity of law enforcement when your object is to disband it.

All the ninja's running around town smashing windows should be detained, put on an airplane, and dropped into Somalia. If you want anarchy, there it is in all its glory. You should perhaps experience a lawless society for a year before you start preaching your desire for it to others. How long do you think any of these misguided youths would spend in Mogadishu before E.T phones home crying to mom and dad "please get me out of here"?

"Ignorance is bliss when it is folly to be wise"

-Jim Lahey, Trailer Park Supervisor

Soloman weighs in on "Maternal Health Debate"

Today on the Soloman Show Evan hosted a panel with Carolyn Bennett, Paul Dewar, and Mike Lake to address the "Maternal Health Debate" (Evan today indicated his intention to address this several more times in the future). Solo's Question of the day webpoll was "Should the Canadian government support access to safe abortions around the world?" If you were playing the "take a shot each time Evan, Carolyn or Paul reference George Bush" Drinking Game at home, you likely passed out before the panel was finished.

The Tory MP was explaining the government initiative to save millions of lives of women and children in impoverished nations abroad by providing the most essential needs like clean water, food, and inoculations. Evan kept interrupting with points like "why are you avoiding maternal health?" or "why are you ignoring saving lives?" Even though the overwhelming majority of deaths in women and children are from malnutrition, no access to clean water, and disease; Evan repeatedly suggested that addressing the major killers of women and children was avoiding the issue of maternal health. Right, let's take resources away from the programs that can save the greatest number of lives and divert them to 3rd world abortion clinics? How does that make any sense?

Evan was assisted on his left flank by Carolyn Bennett, who has gone completely nuts on this issue. Carolyn, I am pro choice, and I think you've become maniacal! Why don't we poll Africa's poor and ask "what would you rather have? 1) food and water, 2) access to abortions". At one point she went so far as to say we need to provide safe foreign abortions to protect the lives of children. To her, the funding should go above clinical services, and include building roads to abortion clinics. I can't make this stuff up! How many bags of wheat would it cost to build that road from Mombasa to the "Happy Abortions Clinic"?

E-Solo really framed the question more pleasantly than simply funding foreign abortions. He used the word "support" instead of "fund". I ran a similar poll, and 98% of respondents voted no to funding foreign abortions in an economic recession. Evan's crowd predictably went 82% yes this is something we should be spending money on.  And has the world been flipped tuned upside down when the NDP critic makes more sense than the Liberal?  It was also ironic how Evan accused the Tory MP of "playing politics" with maternal health.  Excuse me Evan, who is playing politics here?

Send your complaints to politics@cbc.ca, but keep it civil. I would not put it past E-Solo to put the more emotional responses up on the TV screen.

Muamar Gaddafi

If anyone didn't already believe the Dictator of Libya is crazy, his speech at the UN definitely clinched it. What does it say about the world that people like him, Aquavelvajad, Kim Jong Ill, Robert Mugabe, or any number of other lesser known warlords are allowed to reign over a large population of human beings? Just because they have the most guns and are the toughest S.O.Bs inside their borders does not mean that they should be allowed to inflict suffering on the local populace. Gaddafi is certifiably crazy, but remember when Bush invaded Iraq and Muamar shit his pants and turned over his entire nuclear program? He was trying to build a bomb under Clinton's reign, Bush kicked the shit out of Saddam, and fear enticed Gaddafi to turn over all his nuclear equipment that he bought from the guy who built the Pakistani bomb.

You gotta wonder what was going through Obama's head when he heard Gaddafi's "Obama should be President for the rest of his life" endorsement. I was thinking of running for public office, and I really want to seek a public endorsement from Charles Manson. That this tyrant masquerading as a leader wants Obama to be President forever, should be some sort of indicator. Under Bush, Muamar was afraid and turned over his nuclear program. Tupac Shakur used to say that when you are dealing with dangerous people, fear is stronger than love. Granted, he was shot to death in a gangland style street shooting. He didn't have much to say about it after that.

I look at Gaddafi, and I would really like it if Michael Ignatieff would elaborate on his targeted assassination belief. Which crazy world leader would Michael Ignatieff most want to have offed?

The South Park guys said it best in this speech in Team America. I don't think the left understood what the South Park guys were trying to say. The left treated it like it was a gay joke, but the South Park guys are generally Libertarian and were just trying to express how they viewed the war on terror while making a joke.

"Because if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we will have our dicks and our pussies, all covered in shit"

Loving Democracy

I love Democracy. Government of the people, for the people, selected by the people. When a Government is accountable to its citizenry, it is forced to make decisions on the basis of improving the lives of its people. When they fail or do a poor job, they can be ousted in a peaceful means that does not require a military coup. Chairman Mao (who I believe never ran in a single election) once said “Politics is war without bloodshed. War is politics with bloodshed.”

There are flaws in the democratic process to be sure, and it is a continuous battle to ensure that the best interests of the people are served. Sadly fundraising has a disproportionate effect over policy on the ability to get elected, and corporate sponsorship can skew policy away from the greater good. Occasionally the miraculously gifted public speakers such as Adolf Hitler and Barak Obama are able to seduce the masses into a hypnosis like the Pied Piper swooning rodents. The good news is that even the most gifted public speaker has to deliver quality of life to his electorate, because failure of government is a very strong smelling salt to snap supporters out of their political coma. I don’t care how gifted you are at performing that speech on your teleprompter; I just want to see if your policies work.

What really chaps my ass is when elections are held, people go through the process of voting believing that their opinion matters; but it doesn’t because the process is rigged and the election itself is nothing more than a fictitious ceremony to convince the populace that they support the dictator, whether they do or not. You see these charades in Putin’s Russia, Saddam’s Iraq, Myanmar, and a slew of other dictatorships masquerading as democracies. That repressive Knights of the Roundtable in Burma held an election in 1990 and lost in convincing fashion to one of my heroes Aung San Suu Kyi. They decided that they did not want to give up power and proceeded to arrest most of the people that had just defeated them in free and fair elections. (as an aside, if you have not seen Rambo 4, I strongly recommend it)

Then there are examples like Robert Mugabe, who was once truly popular with his people and was even knighted by the British. Whether he was corrupted by power or overdosed on “Marxtasy” (a word I just invented combining Marxism with ecstasy), he decided to strip the successful farmers of their land entitlements and redistribute them to poor unsuccessful farmers in the name of post colonial social justice. At the time Zimbabwe was one of the top food exporters in Africa, and they relied on agriculture for most of the country’s wealth and prosperity. While many of us may fawn over the noble deeds of Robinhood stealing from the rich to give to the poor, what may flourish in fairy tales can indeed be disastrous in reality. So what happened in Zimbabwe when they deposed the productive and elevated the inexperienced? You guessed it, massive catastrophic failure leading to the collapse of their national economy and eventually their currency. Today it costs something like 10 billion Zimbabwe dollars to buy a loaf of bread.

His policies were directly responsible for a catastrophic economic collapse, and when he held an election last year he promptly lost. For a megalomaniac running the electoral machinery to lose by 5%, likely means that his opponent realistically won by more than 30%. Did Mugabe do the honourable thing and step down? Not at all. This righteous man of the people decided to hold a new election, except this time he would improve his odds by jailing, torturing, and killing hundreds of the opposition party members and supporters. His police forces were busy little bees, ensuring that on his second attempt things would be as they ought to be in the world of the tyrant. His opponent was forced to drop out of the run-off race, lest all his political colleagues be killed or imprisoned before Election Day. It makes me sick to see a lunatic who is a disgrace to Democracy, who tarnishes the dignified concept of representative government.

I’m not sure why Marx was against democracy, I’ll have to look it up. He probably thought that people are too stupid to make an intelligent choice, which seems to be the basis for most of his theories.

And then there is Iran, but that rant will have to wait for another day…

Who the Hell is Bob Geldoff?

I was recently browsing through my archives of written work, and I stumbled upon a piece that I wrote on the 4th of July in 2005 right after being introduced to Bob Geldoff. Despite being raised in the 80s, I had no idea who he was until I saw him promote his second Live Aid in '05. Despite my writing this nearly 4 years ago, I believe it is just as relevant today as it was then.

-----------

Who the hell is Bob Geldoff? Until I saw him pop up on my TV last week to promote his new Live 8 concert, I had no idea who he was. So I asked my older sister about him and learned that he was the lead singer for a cheesy eighties rock band who threw a concert 20 years ago to raise money for Africa and has since been knighted by the British. I saw a man who is now celebrated as a visionary for his humanitarian work, which is undoubtedly a noble pursuit that attempted to affect real change. As a result of Live Aid, at least in part, the developed world has pumped tens of trillions of dollars in aid money into the continent over the past 20 years. But when you look at the statistics and the talking points being heaved at us now (and then), it is clear that very little has changed.

I know that throwing billions in food aid at the problem only prevents the growth of domestic agriculture in Africa. "Free food" competes with local producers, and diminishes the long term sustainability of domestic production leading to impoverished countries being unable to feed themselves in perpetuity. Should we put billions of dollars in a plane and rain money all over that continent? Who will benefit the most from that, the people starving to death, or the Warlords who have created the worst of the problem? You can't cure poverty without ending civil war and government corruption. Political stability is a precondition to economic prosperity. Therefore it has become a choice between Nation building or putting a band-aid on a broken leg. Considering current global opinion about the attempt at Nation building in Babylon, it is now as unpopular as ever to use military force to remove a corrupt regime; so how can aid improve living conditions in a country with a corrupt ruling regime?

When I watch these musicians demanding that my government spend more of my tax dollars on a solution to a problem that has not been working, I feel contempt. On one hand I don’t doubt that these self-indulgent superstars do feel that this cause is important, but they do benefit greatly from the positive press coverage that they receive. I think Ed the Sock said it best in one of his “EDitorials”, so I will include that wonderful piece of opinion at the end of my rant. When was the last time Bono or Geldoff got bad press? Ask Michael Jackson about the difference between good press and bad press. Lest developed nations feed impoverished nations forever, there will always be starving children on our television screen. Even when we try to feed them all, it never seems to be enough. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him forever.

Let’s not talk about money. Let’s talk about solutions that actually work. So long as corruption and civil war reigns supreme in Africa, money will not help the average person. I care more about how the money is spent than how much money is spent. Should we get into the business of nation building? Defeating corrupt regimes so that the people need not suffer? Ending corruption can do more to end poverty than 100 trillions of dollars thrown out of an airplane. But Nation Building is very unpopular, so how do we end corruption? Perhaps we could offer corrupt governments a million U2 CDs to be nice? So lets spend billions on millions of U2 CDs to end corruption! Who benefits the most from that? A starving child in Africa, or Mr. Bono? For every article on the benefits of Live 8, lets talk about the benefits of such publicity for rock stars.

What has Sir Corey Haim done for us lately? Sir Vanilla Ice? Sir MC Hammer? Or should they hire a new publicist?

-------------
A 2005 EDITORIAL BY ED THE SOCK


The story begins, appropriately enough, in Africa.

In 1985, Ethiopia was suffering from a devastating famine when UK rocker Bob Geldof organized Band Aid, a collection of Britain’s top artists that came together to record a benefit single for famine relief.

The single was “Do They Know it’s Christmas” – in retrospect, a stupid question to ask about a continent that has no snow and is overwhelmingly non-Christian. But I guess “Do They Know It’s Kwanzaa” didn’t have the same ring to it. But the charitable zeal spread across the pond as American stars organized USA for Africa and it’s benefit single – We Are the World – a sentiment that would later be echoed by a US president. Canada got into the act too with Northern Lights, the only celebrity benefit where the performers arrived by bus. Even eastern Europe got in on the action with a benefit song by the world-famous Shmenge brothers and Israel’s single, No They Don’t Know It’s Christmas, you meshuginnah goyem.

Emboldened by their successes, the biggest names from all the efforts came together in a giant benefit concert called Live Aid that was telecast globally and raised millions for the cause.

Not all the artists at Live Aid were top sellers…among the performers was a band known in the UK but otherwise rather obscure – an Irish rock combo called U2. The group had released The Unforgettable Fire a month earlier to a collective American yawn, but Live Aid launched U2 from uncharted territory to worldwide success.

The global exposure of Live Aid and the goodwill associated with it put U2 on the map. By 1985, Rolling Stone magazine was calling U2 “the Band of the Eighties.” All from the strength of Live Aid. In short, Africa was berry berry good to U2.

And here began the U2 pattern of major charity efforts coinciding with an album release or concert tour.

Which may be why Bono jumped at a chance to be a part of the single Sun City by Artists Against Apartheid, protesting the iniquities in South Africa. Humanitarian as his concern no doubt was – U2’s EP, Awake in America – didn’t start selling in the US until after Sun City was released…hmmm…African charity concert…album sales…African protest song…album sales…do you need to be a musician to see the rhythm? (See U2 Timeline)

But his time in Africa really sensitized Bono to the plight of Africans…in fact, he’s said to the press that Africa isn’t a crisis...it was an emergency. (Bono has made this ‘emergency’ line part of his stump speech. Here are some examples)

So what was his response to this emergency? Ummmm…nothing for a few years, which is a strange way to respond to an emergency. It’s like paramedics putting you on hold.

1987 was the year it all hit for U2. Among the socially conscious rock fans of the 80s, U2 had become heroes for their politically charged music and African benefit music. The Joshua Tree became their biggest album ever, which they quickly followed up with the documentary film Rattle and Hum – which pushed U2 into full-blown overexposure.

But while U2 was finally finding major success…Bono didn’t feel the need to be a part of any big African relief project. (See U2 Timeline)

Hmmmmmm…apparently, the “emergency” in Africa seemed less immediate while people were taking his picture. While he did make mention of Africa from the stage, it seemed to backfire. Could it have been that a preachy multimillionaire rock star subsumed in an orgy of a concert tour trying make working-class crowds feel guilty about poverty might have seemed a trifle hollow?

And by the time of Achtung Baby and the ZooTV tour, talk of Africa and anything else political had given way to radio-friendly tunes and an over-the-top sensory display. And their follow-up PopMart tour was even more awash with mindless spectacle. Not just that, but critics had started noticing something about U2’s new music – it was crap! And the fans could smell it too as U2 played to less-than-full arenas and their tour almost went teats up.

Then suddenly, Bono re-discovered world suffering. But Africa somehow slipped his mind as he concentrated on the more headline-grabbing tensions in Bosnia. U2 played a concert for Sarajevo – right around the time they released a new single.

Then Bono sang on a benefit song for a British children’s charity, and he and the Edge joined the protest for debt relief for poor countries at the G8 economic summit in Germany – at the same time as they were promoting U2’s Greatest Hits CD.

Charity work…record sales...charity work…record sales…charity work…record launch…charity work…record launch…didn’t Pavlov do this experiment with dogs?

In Germany, Bono met Jamie Drummond, the head of a UK campaign called Jubilee 2000 which was agitating world governments to cancel 100% of the debt for the world’s poorest countries…which of course still included Africa. Drummond reminded Bono that Africa, in the form of Live Aid, had made U2’s career, and it was time to give something back.

So Bono signed up and became a tireless cheerleader for the cause. Yet 2000 came and went and the debt wasn’t cancelled...but U2’s album “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” debuted at number 1 in 22 countries. I’m sure all the free exposure Bono got from his charity work had nothing to do with it.

Bono kept going even after the Jubilee campaign wound down, and was in the process of producing a charity single for African AIDS relief when the planes flew into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. With 9/11 the focus of the world’s attention, Bono suddenly forgot about Africa again and diverted proceeds from the song to 9/11 relief efforts. What about African suffering, a crisis Bono had termed “an emergency?” 9/11 was just more immediate. Apparently, Bono practices a form of triage philanthropy.

But the 9/11 benefit song secured U2 a spot at that year’s Superbowl, where Bono literally wrapped himself in the American flag…after which All That You Can’t Leave Behind, which had been out for a while and had dropped down the charts, jumped more than 40 places on Billboard album charts, and The Elevation tour went on to become the second highest grossing tour of all time.

Sure – you could argue that it’s all a coincidence and Bono’s political activism just happens to coincide with U2 product launches. You may also find it a coincidence that Clark Kent disappears when Superman shows up. But at least Bono finally remembered the African emergency, and in 2002 he formed his own relief organization, Data. www.data.org

Not related to the pasty-skinned Star Trek character, DATA stands for Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa...or Democracy Accountability Transparency Africa…even they aren’t sure, which is consistent with the mixed messages of his organization, one day agitating for debt relief, the next day for money to fight African AIDS.

DATA’s professed goals are: “…to raise awareness about, and spark response to the crises swamping Africa: unpayable Debts, uncontrolled spread of AIDS, and unfair Trade rules which keep Africans poor.” – That’s a lot of newspeak which basically means they’ve created a charity to inform us that Africa is impoverished and ridden with illnesses.

Sally Struthers has been doing that in one minute TV commercials for 20 years. So, nobody else is working for African aid? HMMMMM…. So it seems that maybe there ARE a few others dabbling in the cause. So why create another charity to do what others have already been doing?

Well, those charities won’t do is splash Bono’s mug on every page of their website. What another charity will do is divert already thin resources to a duplicated effort, otherwise known as donor fatigue , defined by long-time relief group Doctors Without Borders as “a state in which donors no longer contribute to a cause because they have become tired of receiving appeals for donations.” In other words, too many charities asking for money, so all of them get less. Thanks Bono.

And what does DATA actually do? Again, according to its website: “DATA does not either directly offer program money to development projects on the ground nor does it make grants to implementing partners. DATA is solely focused on spreading the word about the crisis and advocating solutions that will work.”

Yes, you heard right. No medicine, no volunteers, no money for Africa. They say their purpose is to lobby Washington, but that’s the same purpose as the other 36,959 registered US lobby groups.

That’s a lot harder than selling iPods.

DATA also pushes governments to increase foreign aid to African nations. Bono has been really outspoken on the issue, even chiding politicians who don’t meet Bono’s stringent standards for aid levels.

Yes, Bono is all about telling countries to increase their foreign aid. And you know where countries get their funding for foreign aid? Tax dollars. Tax dollars, of course, come from taxpayers.

Know who isn’t a taxpayer? Bono. At least not on his earnings from U2. In his home country of Ireland, where thanks to pro-entertainer tax laws, the members of U2 pay no tax on their earnings from the band.

To put that into perspective, In 2002, Bono’s taxes alone from the Elevation tour would have been in the neighborhood of 3.5 million dollars…that’s not even factoring in album sales. (Based on band’s earnings for tour, split 5 ways, taxed at 25%)

If, according to African relief agencies, it costs $1 a day to feed a starving person in Africa. The money Bono avoided in taxes in one year from one concert tour – no album sales or other income factored in - could feed almost 3 ½ million starving Africans.

A picture is worth a thousand words….in Bono’s world, maybe they’re worth a thousand dollars too. They certainly are in PR value for an aging rocker fronting a mediocre band.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

This past week I had a political chat with one of my buddies on the golf course. He happens to be a left winger, but we both love sports and love playing golf. I queried him about his opinion on Iraq. He strongly supports the withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, and yet strongly believes that the country will descend into a chaotic civil war when they do. This presented a curious contradiction. If you are cheering for the withdrawal and believe the country will go out in flames if they do, are you then cheering for the country to descend into anarchy? He could not answer.

After the 10th green, we started talking about Africa and the countries that are messed up because they are led by megalomaniacs. We both agreed on the crazy leaders who need to go, such as Mugabe. I said that the Bono/Geldoff model applied over the last 20 years has not worked, and he agreed. I proceeded to ask whether we should put together a military force of African membership to take out the megalomaniacs, and he disagreed. To him the best solution was that we strangle them with sanctions, even if millions of their citizens die of starvation. Force innocents to suffer for a longer period time rather than embark on a quick action to remove the cancer.

It was an agreeable conversation, but to me illustrated a contradiction on the left. They advocate a position that will increase suffering in the name of suffrage. Sanctions are more likely to punish the vulnerable than those in power. Dumping aid on an unstable continent does little if anything to help the needy. And yet, leaving the crazies in power leads to more pain and suffering. This then begs the question, if military force is not to be used, what on earth can help alleviate these desperate situations all over the world that both on the right and left agree is detrimental? I don't know the answer.

“An idealist is a person who helps other people to be prosperous.”

-Henry Ford

Somalia: The 18 year case study for Anarchy

Anytime I find myself debating possible solutions to the suffering and plight and the third world with some of my left leaning friends, they struggle mightily to conjure up any resolution that does not include military force. Economic sanctions tend to cause the most damage to the most vulnerable people, while food drops and aid payments often find their way back to the oppressors. When there exists political instability amidst economic disparity, the alleviation of the suffering of the citizenry is virtually impossible without landing some boots on the ground to impose order.

Sadly, civil wars are uncomfortably commonplace in Africa, where poverty is rampant even at the best of the times. Civil war only serves to magnify the suffering of the common folk. Be it the Rwandan genocide in 1994 (estimated 800,000 killed), Idi Amin in Uganda in the 70s (estimated 300,000 dead), a decade of turmoil in the Congo as left nearly 5.4 million people dead, Charles Taylor and his two civil wars in 1989 and 2003 killed an estimated 200,000 people; and so on and so forth.

But perhaps the most illuminating example of civil war induced anarchy is Somalia. When President Barre was overthrown in 1991, the country plunged into a bloody conflict that is still being fought today. In the immediate aftermath of the 1991 coup, an estimated half million people died in a famine prompting the United Nations to spring into action in concert with the USA in Operation Restore Hope. The first President Bush committed the troops to go in, and then passed the football on to Bill Clinton. Less than a year later, Slick Willy withdrew American troops after 18 died in Blackhawk Down. A withdrawal that when viewed through the prism of hindsight deserves the moniker Operation Extinguish Hope.

I suppose the question that we should be asking ourselves is do we want to change the world? It is a noble endeavour to be sure; as no moral human being wants to stand idly by while innocent women and children are suffering and dying needlessly. It is as they say; evil prevails when good men fail to act. The strategy that we have adopted since the days of Live Aid has been to dump money and food on the continent. What has changed? There are certainly scattered success stories in Africa, but by and large trillions of dollars and 20 years later, what progress has been made?

I support trying to make a difference and striving to make the world a better place. But before I present my solution, I must qualify that I unequivocally reject the theory of Karl Marx that all warfare is class warfare. I subscribe to the theory that some people are just evil; who for whatever the reason lack a conscious and are capable of the most heinous acts. Morality is not perfectly correlated to salary. Evil acts are not restricted to the impoverished. History can provide countless examples of the wealthy engaging in morally empty and arguably evil behavior. Sadly, the willingness to cross the line between right and wrong can at times be profitable. It is a type of sociological evolution that encourages the “evil gene” to flourish, but it is imperative that those of us who value civilized society are steadfast in our resolve to fight evil.

The solution to these civil wars and rescuing countries like Somalia from the abyss becomes apparent if you watch the film Shake Hands With the Devil. We need to send in Blue Helmets, an international force skewed to African membership, and loosen the rules of engagement. If they are willing, I’d suggest putting that force under the command of Romeo D’Allaire and Colin Powell, and start killing bad guys. The nation building model that would be best suited for individual situations is a conversation for another day. As a former Registration Officer for Elections Canada, I’m actively working on some ideas.

To those who would cite Blackhawk Down as proof that military intervention is ineffective, there is insufficient evidence to support that claim. 160 elite American soldiers in a two day battle against thousands of Somali militia men, inflicted a casualty rate in the neighborhood of 50 dead Somali militants for each dead American. Clinton withdrew the American forces 3 days later, so we have no idea what good we could have accomplished had we stayed. What we do know for sure is that the withdrawal has left that country in worse shape. This perpetual state of anarchy has created a lawless society which is now making headlines on a daily basis for rampant piracy. I am also not optimistic about the pending rise to power of the “Islamic Courts Union”, now that Ethiopia has withdrawn its forces from Mogadishu. Islamic and Courts are two words that make me very squeamish when placed in sequence.

What I don’t know is the willingness of the United Nations forces or the appetite of the citizens of Western Democracies for the use of military force to at least attempt to make the world a better place. Because what he have been doing has not been working, and either we strengthen our resolve to alleviate suffering in the long term, or we just wash our hands of these failed states and mount a few rocket launchers on civilian freighters passing through the Gulf of Arden.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” - JFK

Gender Equality

As much as I have been a vocal supporter of the NATO mission in Afghanistan, when I see that the elected government is proposing legislation to make wives the property of their husbands, I say no way. When we examine our long term goals for transforming a terrorist state into a peaceful Democracy, I strongly believe that gender equality is a fundamental prerequisite. Whatever influence we have in that country must be used to block this legislation. What separates the civilized world from the uncivilized? Gender equality. Those countries that treat women as property are far more likely to be the most violent, insane, and morally reprehensible. Be it in Africa or the Middle East, when women are oppressed, those countries tend to be more barbaric. When women have a strong voice in society, it adds nurture to the nature and tends to move the country in a more progressive and productive direction.

I have always believed since the beginning of this war on terrorism, that if we can export anything to the uncivilized world to make the planet Earth a better place for all of us to live, women’s rights would do far more good than Democracy. I love Democracy and I believe that it is the best form of government, but exporting gender equality should be the top priority of our missions abroad.