A peace exhibition that highlights warmongers and some peace activism...

On Monday I posted this about the damage that Harper's CPC Con revisionists are about to wreak upon the Museum of Civilization now Canadian History.

On Thursday I toured Peace: the Exhibition at the War Museum.

It was Dr Lotta Hitschmanova's birthday - over 104 years ago; she had a small place in one of the vignettes that acknowledge her role as a post-WWII refugee to Canada, and her contributions to reconstruction work.

More about Lotta, whose voice and brilliant *branding* of the USC through her public service announcements on the CBC, is acutely remembered by people who grew up in the 1950s and 60s.

I found the exhibition to be superficial; the focus was on war and from my perspective, peace was presented as an occasional inconvenience to the all-important military industrial complex and weapons manufacture corporations.  The political machinations that enabled these business interests to thrive were given a shiny gloss and spin.

Since the perspective was Canadian, some of the politicians featured are: Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau and astonishingly, Harper.  Or perhaps that was pathetically predictable.

Most of the graphic displays are modest in scale, reproductions of photographs, and documents, artifacts on display and so forth.  Not so for the two pictures of PMSHithead which are of course MASSIVE.

It was curiosity that drew me to this exhibition; I had heard much valid criticism of it, particularly with regard to the elements emphasized, and most relevant, all that was absent.  However, the curator for this exhibition surely deserves some recognition for her defense of the paltry statements in support of peace that survived what must have been grueling negociations with ideologically-driven, CON-staffed program committees.

Did I mention that the greatly admired participation by our Canadian troops in UN peace-keeping initiatives is given a minuscule place?  No surprise; that history doesn't jive with Harper's remake of Canada.

This review brings a thoughtful and positive perspective, reflecting upon the importance and the history of making peace instead of waging war.

The Great Mouse Massacre.

My cat used to be a great mouser. She is now a feline elder, beset with chronic health issues and confined to the second floor as it would be dangerous for her to navigate the stairs - she is blind in one eye.

Thus, I knew I would have to deal with the minuscule missile of grey fur that streaked across the kitchen floor last week.

I purchased humane traps. The concept behind these cantilevered plastic boxes is simple: a yummy appetizer is left in the furthest corner, the mouse enters, shifts the center of balance, and the device clicks shut.

The next morning, two of the traps were closed and ominously, the other two were empty ... of bait.

The plan was to release the caught mouse (mice?) a few blocks from my house - in other words, to relocate them.

I gingerly opened one trap. Nothing. The other? Zip.

Fine. This was a declaration of war.

The mouse had been lulled into a state of complacency and triumphalism by the ease with which it had outsmarted the humane traps.

At my local Home Hardware store, I asked the young clerk about vermin poison. "If it dies in its hidey-hole, won't its carcass stink up the kitchen for awhile?"

His eyes shifted nervously as he said: "I think the poison makes the mice really thirsty so they leave your house to look for water."

He shrugged. I snorted.

"Let me see one of those New Improved Mousetraps™©", I said.

I looked at the plastic object, slightly narrower than the metal coilspring clamps that shipping clerks have at the top of their boards.

SNAP! It was now firmly clutching my finger. "Well, said I, it caught me, it'll surely catch a mere mouse."

So last evening I delicately prepared 4 itsy bitsy teensy weensy amuse-gueule, little pieces of bread with a smear of peanut butter, for the better mouse traps.

This morning: one dead field mouse.

Before you start yelling at me, may I say in my defense that the mice previously hunted down and caught by my cat were likely tormented before she applied le coup de grâce and then dropped them under my desk chair.

My new tenant died quickly - and efficiently.

The War for Afghanistan's Women

A terrific piece in the LA Times by Malcolm Potts about demographics and women in Afghanistan. Some tastes:

There are two wars going on in Afghanistan. One is to defeat the Taliban, and that war is not going well. The other is to liberate women, and that war has hardly begun. If the first war is won but the second is lost, Afghanistan will turn into a failed state -- a caldron of violence and misery, home to extremism and totally outside the Western orbit of influence.

One result of rapid population growth is that two-thirds of the Afghan population is below the age of 25. The primary role models for the volatile, testosterone-filled young men in this group are local warlords. The reason Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (who, incidentally, is the 17th child of a man who had 54 children) have found a haven in Afghanistan is largely because of the mixture of loyalty and anger generated among males in such a society, in which there are no genuine economic opportunities for advancement. The word "taliban" means "student."

(I didn't know that about 'taliban'.)

A stable, modern and functioning Afghanistan is the West's goal. But it is not worth risking the death of one more American or British soldier fighting there unless there is a bold, achievable plan to educate women, enhance their autonomy and meet their need for family planning.

Or Canadian soldier.

As they say, go read the whole thing.

Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!

In Michael Ignatieff’s recent mea culpa , not only does he acknowledge that he was wrong about the Iraq invasion but he reveals a humility that has endeared so many Canadian voters — not. Peppering his earlier paragraphs with quotes from the philosopher Isaiah Berlin, he faults his error in judgment on the academic’s propensity to view the world through ideas and knowledge rather than simple understanding of reality. This convoluted explanation of the difference between the intellectual and politician serves as some kind of proof that he has rappelled the walls of his ivory tower to embrace the simplicity of thought of the common man. And who better to represent that common man than Ralph Kramden!

“As a former denizen of Harvard, I’ve had to learn that a sense of reality doesn’t always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what’s what than Nobel Prize winners. The only way any of us can improve our grasp of reality is to confront the world every day and learn, mostly from our mistakes, what works and what doesn’t. Yet even lengthy experience can fail us in life and in politics. Experience can imprison decision-makers in worn-out solutions while blinding them to the untried remedy that does the trick.”

The “bus driver” has a shrewder grasp of reality because he bumbles along in life and picks up a few “what’s what” by learning from mistakes. You have to wade through some 15 or 16 paragraphs that grapple with the obstacles faced by politicians and the challenges of dealing with Iraq before Ignatieff actually and clearly acknowledges that he was wrong because others were less wrong. Those who were against the Iraq invasion were too common and simple to know they were right!?! How else can we interpret this:

“We might test judgment by asking, on the issue of Iraq, who best anticipated how events turned out. But many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the invasion because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong.”

Ignatieff’s so-called apology is pompous and self-serving. In the paragraph that follows, he basically calls those who demonstrated good judgment callous cynics who didn’t suppose the human rights ideals that fueled his own belief that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. His vision and good intentions, like those of Bush and such honourable Iraqi exiles as Ahmed Chalabi, were his failings? Ignatieff and his fellow neo-conservative pundits do owe an apology for defending and boosting the Bush administration’s ridiculous and illegal plans to liberate Iraq by bringing ruin and insecurity to a nation that had not posed any threat to the US or its allies.

Ignatieff might learn a thing or two about the common man by renting The Honeymooners on DVD. Robert Svedi had this to say about the appeal of this television classic:

“Another reason for The Honeymooners long shelf life is that the problems that the Kramden's and the Norton's faced some fifty years ago, are the same problems that still plague people today. Money shortages, being stuck in a dead-end job, housing and relationship issues and the desire to better one's condition are all things that are dealt with on a daily basis for most of the population every day. The Honeymooners allow us to laugh at ourselves while teaching us that the most valuable commodities are really love and friendship.”

Jackie Gleason’s bus driver has more insight into the human condition than this wannabe Prime Minister.

UPDATE: For the sake of political expediency, I thought I would bite my tongue on the LPC's coronation of Ignatieff as the de facto leader of the party. I've expressed my doubts that he would put his personal ambition aside to work for solutions for Canadians, including working within a coalition government should Harper fail to deliver anything but a just and effective budget. But his recent comments with respect to the brutal assault of Gaza by the IDF was just too much to remain silent. My fellow progressive bloggers have been raking Iggy over the coals and provide great insight as to why he is an utter disappointment. Some have suggested I repost this because it is just too damn easy to dismiss this latest pronouncement as just a gaffe when in fact, Ignatieff has been pretty consistent in his views.

Here is a list of some excellent posts about Iggy's "not an occupation" statement worth reading:

• Ignatieff Gets a Huge Pat On The Back - from The National Post

• Gaza: "Big Concentration Camp"

• Israel faces UN war crimes probe

• Not Good Enough

• Ignatieff the Bloody

• Wanker of the day

• An Israeli atrocity

• Oh, Iggy

Cross-posted at Resettle THIS!