Driving Rude

I drive a lot. I admit it. I've put 220,000 km on my little car in the last five years. Very unGreen of me. Of course for the five years before that I didn't really drive at all and to make up for it I'm moving back down to the city - no more commuting for this girl. Anyway, in all this driving I have seen a lot of bad driving.

My three pet peeves:

1. People who are driving 10-30 km/hr faster than me on major highways. Seriously, if I'm moving at 120 km/hr should I have to speed up to pass a semi? Or get passed by one? Or be tail-gated by some git in a black SUV who thinks that the real speed limit (at least for them) is 140? I really wish the government would bring back photo-radar and set it at 130.

2. People who do not pull over for emergency vehicles. I have had people honk at me and pass me when I pull over because a fire truck, ambulance or police vehicle is coming. Maybe you could turn down your music and use the rear view mirror. Really, it has a purpose.

3. People who 'butt in' on off-ramps to skip the line or who move into the merge lane and zoom past on the right to get that little bit further ahead of traffic. I'm pretty sure that it is not only rude but illegal. It's also dangerous. The place I get to experience this most is the off-ramp from the 401E to the 400N in the collectors. People come screamin' along and swerve into the exit lane at the last moment - long after the white line has become solid. I had it happen to me yesterday: a beige SUV tried to merge at the very last second and ended up getting stranded about two feet from the crash barrels. Git.

I know I'm not innocent, and I'm not perfect. But I try not to be an ass. That's all I ask.

Be nice when you are out driving this long weekend.

Jethro the Life Coach

' "What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you." '

Jethro was Moses' father-in-law and obviously a wise and compassionate man. He came out to the desert to return Moses' wife and children to him. While there he celebrated Moses' successes and observed his current actions. He noticed, as only an outside observer can, that Moses was working himself to death. His burden was too great. As only a great coach can, Jethro showed Moses another way and encouraged him to act on this new knowledge. He lit a new path for Moses to follow and helped Moses become more effective in his chosen work. After Jethro had rendered that invaluable service, Moses sent him on his way.

Jethro had done a fantastic job as a coach.

When I was taking care of my mother, I knew that I was burning out but I did not see another way to manage things. I believed that I had to do everything myself, that no one else could help me or do the job as well as I could.

' "That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." '

Eventually I learned to let go, even just a little bit, and allow others to help. One of those who helped was Jane, she hardly knew my mom but took her grocery shopping every week - a task that I loathed.

When we delegate to those we trust, we are better able to focus on the most effective use of our time and resources.

I owe great thanks to Jane and to all those who helped me care for my mom - I wouldn't have made it without you.

Exodus 18:13-27

Happy Birthday Mom!

That's pretty much it. Today would have been my Mom's birthday.

I'll be so glad when this week is over.

The Amazing Ms. MacMillan

Thanks to Dr. K. for telling me about this little news nugget.

Page A1 of the Globe and Mail on August 29, 2007 has a story about a controversy at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.

The dispute is between historians and a veteran's group. The topic is the bombing and fire-bombing of Dresden and other German cities towards the end of World War II. Margaret MacMillan is one of the historians on the four-person panel assembled to review the wording.

'The fight over the 67-word panel, titled An Enduring Controversy, erupted shortly after the Canadian War Museum opened in May, 2005. A group of veterans objected to its saying that "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested," and to its contrasting 600,000 dead with the statement that "the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war." '

One of the bomber veterans responded by saying that, "I took offence that we were just helter-skelter bombers. We always had justified targets."

Yes, and the precision of the bombing runs is amply documented. bwahahahaha
Dresden burned to the ground. Firebombing is not something that can be targeted. It's a fire for heaven's sake. Total destruction. The same tactic was used in Japan, before the nuclear bombs were dropped. Firebombing is just about as effective when the city is made of wood - as cities tended to be in 1945. Estimates for the number of people killed in the firebombing of Dresden range from 35,000 to 100,000.

It's a war crime. Specifically, under Principle VI(b) of the Nuremberg Principles: "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" or maybe targeting civilians, item (c).

I got into a fight with my first IR prof earlier this summer over the topic of post-modernism. One of the other students asked if it was impossible for us to fairly judge the war crimes of others when we were imposing our own moral code on them and that in a post-modernist system their morality might well be completely different. I argued that "Yes, it is incorrect to assume that *our* morals are the correct morals and moreover that we are incredibly hypocritical because we will accuse others of war crimes but that if we the imperial, capitalist powers commit an act it is 'good' but that if someone else does it, it is 'bad'.

We may not be able to impose our moral standards on others but we should at least try to follow them ourselves.

Funnily enough, this issue was first brought to my attention by The West Wing. Leo is trying to figure out why the U.S. does not agree to the jurisdiction of the World Court and one of his commanders from Vietnam explains that Leo himself committed war crimes as a bomber pilot. If the U.S. agreed to abide by international law, they could then be charged. So, while America insists that others are brought to justice, it neatly sidesteps any charges against itself.

We could do the same except that we have already ratified the International Criminal Code and acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In fact, "Canada became the first country in the world to incorporate the obligations of the Rome Statute into its national laws when it adopted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) on June 24, 2000. Canada was then able to ratify the Rome Statute on July 9, 2000."

Our soldiers and leaders could be charged with war crimes.

Maybe we should remember that when we are following the U.S. into battle.

Malfeasance in Montebello

Last week at Montebello, near Ottawa in Quebec, the leaders of North America met for a '3 Amigos' summit. There were, of course, organized protests and massive amounts of counter-security. The democratically elected leaders were being protected from the demos who, theoretically at least, elected them. Check out this U-Tube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehubbers%2Eca%2F

These were SQ (Surete du Quebec) officers, in other words, they were cops. Or maybe they were RCMP.

I think there are legitimate arguments to be made for why cops should be undercover in a large demonstration. The best one for me is that there is always a small minority of any large group, especially at protests and demonstrations, who are unstable. These people pose a danger to themselves, to other people in the group and to the respectability of the group as a whole. I fully respect the right of the police to gather intelligence on these people and monitor the situation.

Unfortunately, at this demonstration, that small, unstable minority were the police. As I watched the video I was filled with admiration for the union leader, Dave Coles , who interceded on behalf of the peaceful protesters and forced the 'anarchists' back behind police lines. I seriously doubt whether I would have had even a small portion of that man's courage - those cops were scary and big. The crowd laughed as the 'rioters' were thrown to the ground by police, ripped, and marched away.

Here is a CBC article that covers a little bit more and actually manages to mention *why* the protestors and national leaders were in Montebello in the first place: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/22/ot-police-070822.html.

"The Security and Prosperity Partnership pact, signed in 2005, is intended to forge closer trade and security links between the countries."

Many people, and I am certainly one of them, feel that the SPP is the single largest threat to Canada's sovereignty and continued existence as an independent nation. While some might argue that our nationhood is merely a technicality at this point, I like to believe that we still have the ability to make our own decisions, especially on the international stage. That while we must always be mindful of our ginormously powerful neighbour to the south (yes, ginormous is the technical term) that we still have the potential to be a strong mid-power nation. The SPP threatens to rip that all away.

I encourage you to take a gander at Glenn's site: http://hubbers.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/threats-to-our-water.pdf for more information and links on SPP. Then maybe write a letter.

Steven Truscott almost innocent

Steven Truscott was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeals in a 5 judge unanimous decision on August 28, 2007.

It takes a very large stretch of my imagination to try and empathize with what it would be like to live your entire life as a convicted murderer - when you knew you were innocent. I can't imagine what it would be like to live the vast majority of your life under an assumed name, your identity taken from you by the court of public opinion.

I cannot imagine the strength and faith it would take to forgive the wrongs done and accept the course of fate. Mr. Truscott sounded humble and grateful for the verdict handed down yesterday; a lesser person could have easily been bitter.

Fascinating legal aspect, for me anyway, is that he was not found innocent, only not guilty. The Court of Appeals did not make the final step to a full exoneration. There was a discussion about this on CBC Metro Morning Tuesday morning before the verdict was read. Here is an in-depth article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/

Congratulations to the Truscott family, to all of his supporters who lobbied so vigourously for his appeal and to the lawyers from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted who took the case back to the courts.

It is an ambivalent day for justice, a great defense for the abolition of the death penalty and a serious indictment of Canada's justice system. To paraphrase one CBC listener, while it is good to see this miscarriage of justice rectified there remain two crimes unsolved: one, the tragic murder of 13 year-old Lynne Harper and two, the tragic theft of Mr. Truscott's freedom and innocent potential.

More reasons to become a lawyer. While I have problems imagining a world where the system of law is practiced in a just and humane manner I will keep working for it.

God is in the details?

Okay, I confess, I don't see the point of this major part of Exodus. Not only does God get *really* specific about how the Tent of Meeting is to be built when explaining it to Moses but then the entire thing is repeated while the Israelites are actually building it. It is sooo boring. Cubits this and that, overlaid with gold, built from acacia wood. How does this help?

Remember I'm new at this so feel free to shed some light on what the point is. I can only think of two possibilities.

1. One of my favourite movies is the Wedding Planner with Jennifer Lopez. Near the beginning of the movie she quips "Most grooms are NID." When asked what that means she replies with a smile, "Not Into Details."

This part of Exodus makes it abundantly clear to me that God is totally into details. There is nothing unimportant when it comes to building a sacred space. Even the undergarments of the priests are explained. I like this, it fits in nicely with one of my new favourite sayings, "God is in the details." When we pay attention to the small things, every little step of the way, it makes the success of the whole project much more likely. The trick, I guess, is to keep the big vision while nailing each little detail. Taking little baby steps towards that huge end goal.

Or, as Jim Rohn put it: "You don't build the house until it's finished."

2. My second thought is that humans tend to value things more when they have had to sacrifice money, time, and effort. God was trying to create a sacred space, a place that would hold the Glory of the Lord. The Israelites had already shown that they were fickle and perhaps not too bright so God came up with a plan to get them to pay attention. God requested they sacrifice their gold, silver, and bronze to build the Tent of Meeting. Also that their most skilled artisans dedicate themselves to the holy task and their most learned men to becoming priests. Finally, the Tent of Meeting is big. Humans like big-ness, we tend to think it is more important.

The Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, gave God a place to dwell amongst the Israelites but the detailed and laborious nature of its structure helped God to dwell *within* the Israelites, which is really the point.

So, I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, all those instructions weren't that important for God, they weren't some attempt to gain importance. Maybe they were just God's way of getting the attention of the Israelites and communicating with them on a level they could understand. A really materialistic level, granted, but one they knew. It makes me wonder how much we've progressed in the last few thousand years.

hmm...

My coach has me working on my Vision - which I'll have to post once it's finished. Then I'll start working out the details, the hundreds of baby steps required to reach the final goal. Maybe I'll throw in some acacia wood, just for good measure.

Exodus 25:10 - 28:43, 36:8 - 39:31