Oh, the shame of it!

I have to admit up front that when Prime Minister Harper prorogued Parliament for a second time a big “Why” came to mind.  It has become normal for someone to approach any political news with suspicion and it does not matter who is at the helm.  Liberal, Conservative, left or right, as far as many are concerned it is fair to assume that a political agenda is at hand.  But that is like looking at a master chef with suspicion and saying, “You're cooking something up. I can smell it!”

This type of political maneuvering by Harper is precisely why he is so much fun to watch.  Like a kid looking at a frosty chain link fence wondering how good the ice crystals would taste, Harper will put his tongue in places very few politicians would consider.

Of course, Harper cannot prorogue Parliament without the consent of the Crown, and the Governor General has the last say in that.  So really, Harper's lives by the old adage  “Ask and you shall receive.”

The official reason cited for suspending parliament is to provide the opportunity to refocus the Government's agenda and explain to Canadians what the government plans to accomplish over the next session in Parliament.  It has also been said that the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver will be concluded shortly before the new session commences.  Whether the two are connected one can only ponder, but it would be fair to say that very few Canadians will choose to tune into the Parliamentary Channel to watch grown men yell at each other over cheering on our athletes during the Olympics. As exciting as the former really is.

The unofficial reason cited was provided by the NDP House leader Libby Davies who has stated that there is no legitimate reason to prorogue Parliament and to do so would be a "political scam."  Interesting how Davies gave us a peek into his political tool bag.  According to him, there is a legitimate reason to prorogue Parliament.  A lesson I suspect he learned the first time Harper did it, when the leaders of the opposition formed the coalition of the unwilling.  So at least the NDP agree with Harper, as least in principle.

Not to be outdone, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale called the government's move "beyond arrogant" and its justifications for it "a joke."  He is quoted by the CBC as accusing Harper of being a tyrannical ruler when he said, “It's almost despotic.”   Yet again Goodale gave us a peek into his political toolkit stating the justification for it was a joke.  Apparently he also believes that proroguing Parliament at some point can be a justified action as long as it is not a joke.  Perhaps he went to the same class as Davies.

Of course the real unofficial grasping at straws came from other sources, who have cited a Conservative government conspiracy to cover-up the Canadian military abuse of Afghanistan detainees.  CBC quoted Goodale as stating,  “Three times in three years and twice within one year, the Prime Minister takes this extraordinary step to muzzle Parliament. This time it’s a coverup of what the Conservatives knew, and when they knew it, about torture in Afghanistan. So their solution is not to answer the questions but, rather, to padlock Parliament and shut down democracy.”  It's bad enough Goodale is unable to count, now he tosses in the destruction of a Canadian democratic society.

The left-wing press was quick to pick out the three talking points established by the opposition, which are, (1) political scam, (2) despotic actions, or in other words tyranny and (3) the end of democracy.  According to the Liberals and the NDP, Canada is no longer a democracy but is run by a political tyrant hiding a scam, which of course we have been told is a right-wing political hidden agenda.  And, people ask me why I enjoy watching Stephen Harper govern.

So while conservative MP's across Canada were setting up meetings in town halls with constituents to field economic concerns for the government to address, the liberal press set out to egg-on the masses. As a result, large groups of young adults holding signs calling to “bring back democracy” and “we want our government back to work” marched on parliament buildings and public offices across Canada.

For some reason many actually believe that the government is only working when it sits in Parliament.  If that were so then according to historical practices no government has ever worked more than 150 days per year, because that is the average number of days that Parliament is ever been in session over the course of a year.  If the Harper government was not working when the earthquake hit Haiti, Canada would not have reacted so quickly and sent 2000 troops over to help in the rescue effort.  Harper even lifted the cap on financial funds to be used to rebuild Haiti.  All this was done while Harper and our government were 'not at work'.

The truth being told, it really doesn't matter why Harper prorogued Parliament.  His actions will be taken in account by the voters and his track record will be tallied in the history books.  The real truth behind such a fuss being made over Harper's actions is that the opposition has nothing else to attack him with.  He is a frustrating man for his adversaries to deal with.  It appears that he really doesn't care how he is perceived.  He has a job to do and if that means sticking his tongue where no other politician dares I suspect Harper will be stuck to the task.  Oh the shame of it!

Are your Pants on the Ground?

I had a rather good response from a reader in the Leduc area regarding my comments towards what I have coined the “Digital Generation”.  Specifically my angst towards what I have perceived as the degradation of common courtesy at the hands of some representing the younger generation.  You will find this readers response in a post in the blog "Your Welcome".

I have a policy; and that is to allow an open voice and last word to those who write a “letter to the editor”, and in doing so I want our readers to know that I respect their opinions.  In regards to the response from this reader I will not offer a rebuttal.

However, timing is everything, and this week I was handed a little gem from a senior citizen from Atlanta, Georgia who appears to have a similar view of the younger generation.

The television show American Idol attracts many young people looking for fame in the music industry.  Many a viewer have been handed some rather humorous moments in the opening few episodes when the panel of judges travel from city to city and endure hours of what can be only described as painful bombardment of off key vocals, strangled cats and fingernail scratching on chalk-boards.  For the most part, when a deluded wannabe is handed a dose of reality from the likes of Simon Cowel, the most painfully honest judge, what usually follows is a tirade of censored bleeps, tears and anger.  “I'll be a big as Britney, I'll show them!  What do they know, sniff, sniff.”

A message came last week, while the judges were screening contestants in Atlanta Georgia.  In walked a sixty-eight year old man name “General” Larry Platt.  Normally, a man of that age would not have made it before the judges, but the “general” is not just a regular 'Joe'. Mr. Platt  was given the moniker “general” by a famous civil rights activists and evangelist Hosea Williams.  It was a title that Platt had actually earned.

It is important to note that both Platt and Williams are black, and Williams lived during a time when black people were beaten for such trivial offenses as drinking from a public water fountain, or walking on the 'white' side of the street.  Hosea Williams lived with persecution and fought for civil rights for all black people.  General Larry Platt was active in this fight, and if you look at Platt he has all the appearances of a man who has had a hard life, and speaks with a vocal inflection of a person who endured many years of forced social servitude.  As a result of Platt's efforts, the State of Georgia designated September 4, 2001 as Larry Platt Day for his "priceless and immeasurable contributions to society" and "his great energy and commitment to equality and the protection of the innocent and for his outstanding service to the Atlanta community and the citizens of Georgia”.

Yes, Mr. Platt has accomplished much for the current and future generations in regards to civil rights in America, and saw American Idol as a chance to take another run at it.

The “General” stood before the judges and began to pump out a hip-hop vocal called, “Pants on the Ground” and in part the lyrics are; “Pants on the ground, Pants on the ground. Lookin’ like a fool with yo pants on the ground. Hat turned sideways, pants hit the ground. Call yourself a cool cat, lookin like a fool, with your pants on the ground.”

Although it was a really catchy tune, and very funny to watch, Mr. Platt was not making a fool of himself.  What he was doing was making a rather strong statement about the members of the “Digital Generation” represented in the black youth.  He is a man who views the young people as he puts it, “making fools of themselves” by displaying themselves in a disrespectful manner.  Not so much disrespectful to others but to themselves.  Platt is a man who has had a hard life fighting to free that young generation of African-American's from the discrimination he endured.  In other words, it appears he wanted them to at least represent their community well in the eyes of the general public.  For Mr. Platt to work his way through thousands of people who were clawing their way to stand in front of four judges and a television camera and make a statement of how disappointed he is in the behavior of today's youth says a great deal of how important his message is.

And, this behavior is not just within the American black community.  Many of our youth today don’t represent their peers well. They can be seen with their pants pulled down, dragging the frayed cuffs on the ground.  Boxer shorts showing.  Even some of our young ladies can be seen with pants too small and pulled  so low the cheek creases are showing.  There baseball hats are turned either backways or sideways.  Which are never taken off inside a restaurant or public building.  As Platt puts it, show some respect for yourselves, and stop “looking like a fool with your pants on the ground.”

Some people may point out that the youth are only expressing themselves and making a fashion statement.  I just don't see this type of behavior as a fashion sense.  It's not fashion, its mental illness.  I stand with Platt and say that it is hard to witness the loss of common everyday manners, from how they address their elders in the service industry to how their peers represent their generation in public.

It's time the Digital Generation hiked up their pants and began to show some respect for themselves.  Because this type of behavior does not earn respect, “Lookin’ like a fool with yo pants on the ground.”

What's in a Name

If I told you that while a congregation of Christian's were worshiping in church, stones and bricks were thrown through the windows and Molotov Cocktails were broken against the church walls, would that surprise you?

Of course your first question would be, where?  Because we know that in this world Christians are not welcome in some parts.  If I told you this was occurring north of Edmonton, you would be shocked.  If I told you that this was occurring in Moscow, you would be curious.  But then when I tell you that this actually occurred in Malaysia it would be fair to say that many would greet this news with indifference, saying, “What does this really have to do with us?”

That would be a fair response.  However, this story is a rather prickly one, because what you may not know is that the church mentioned is a Catholic congregation that has a practice of printing a Roman Catholic Newspaper in a country that is 60% Muslim.  At this point some people may adjust their trucker's hat and condemn the Muslims for attacking a Christian church, thinking once again that it is 9/11 all over.  But that response would not be fair.  Because what the church did was petition the Malaysian courts for permission to use the name Allah instead of God in their published stories.  Once permission was granted they did just that.

The reason for wanting to use the name Allah instead of the usual terms used in Christianity such as LORD or Heavenly Father, was to reach out to the majority Muslim community in an effort to get their attention and introduce Christianity for the purpose of evangelizing.  In simpler words they believed it was a soft sell to conversion.

It pays to advertise because I can't help to consider that they got the attention of their market and at least their intended audience came within an arm's throw distance of the church.  But what this speaks of is the Church's failure to do “due diligence” in understanding their market.  For they assumed the name Allah was just the Arabic translation of the name God.  In fact, in this world, God by any other language or faith can be referred to as Yahweh, Elohim, Adonia, Shen, Eluah, Bhogwan, Wageguru, Ishvara, Jehovah and Father.  Islam not only refers to God as Allah but they also have a list of “99 of God's most beautiful names”.

The actions of this Muslim group that attacked the church are not justified by any legal standard even in Malaysia where Islam is the official religion and the courts are to follow the jurisdiction of Shariah Law.  Nowhere in the Qur'an does it justify acts of violence when someone outside Islam refers to Allah, but what this speaks of is the ignorance of the Malaysian Roman Catholics in using Allah as a Christian term publicly.

It comes down to the old phrase, “You say Tomato and I say Tomawto.' (phonetically spelled)  So really, what's in the name?  It actually came down to the understanding of God in accordance to Christian doctrine.

God to the majority of Christians is a triune God.  God is One God in three distinct, but not separate, persons.  There is God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  Triune meaning three in one.  So in essence, the Christian understanding is that only one God is worshiped and therefore Christianity is a monotheist religion.  In fact, Judaism as well as Islam are monotheistic.  So for a western view of this offense against the church in Malaysia, we once again adjust our trucker’s hat and claim persecution of the church.  Again, that would not be fair.

The Triune doctrine is just one problem that these hooligans saw in using Allah as a Christian God, because to them there is only one God and Allah is his name. To Muslim's the understanding of who Allah is to them is found in the 112th  Sura in the Qur'an.  It simply states that “In the name if Allah the Merciful, the Compassionate.  Say (O Mohammad) He is Allah the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone.”

Do you see it?  If the Malaysian church had made an effort to understand and read this, the attack on the church would not have happened.  Because, under the Christian understanding, Jesus is the son of God, and God the Son.  He was born of a virgin, begotten by the Father, and under mainstream Christian teachings which definitely includes Catholicism, Jesus is God.

The two opposing doctrines of Christianity and Islam, the understanding of God is simply an irreconcilable difference.  According to Islam under the 112th Sura, the use of “Allah” as a Christian God, is an offense to Islam.

In a country where only 9% are Christian, and over 60% are Muslim, and a country where Religion and State have not been separated, the Christian church should have at least understood that using Allah as a public term for God was not a soft sell to evangelism but rather a narrow view.

So what's in a Name?  Plenty.

You Are Welcome!

I had a real epiphany during the holidays. It's not that I have never had this insight before, but it was on this occasion that I took offense to something that has become so common in our society that very few people give at any attention.

There are those who ignore this offense, but on this occasion it struck me, and made me ponder; what has happened to the art of social manners?

My wife and I decided to go out for dinner. But it was not just a family restaurant, or fast food joint. No, we decided to enjoy some atmosphere, and experience fine dining at its best. You know the place where a dress code is implied by not only the price of the evening, but also the company of fellow dinners.

I made the reservations, and after a 40 minute drive we arrived. The restaurant had a great atmosphere. Soft music in the background, soft lighting, the sound of trickling water from a rock waterside and a large fireplace just far enough away for comfort with just a hint of gourmet cooking slowly lingering. The other guests were dressed in there finest, and my wife look fabulous.

Yes, I had arrived at a place that was pure class. Our server came to the table, which had already been set with heavy pewter plates, and well bound menus. She was a well dressed twenty-something very professional looking young woman. She said, “Hey guys, how are you doing this evening?” I have gotten used to people referring to my wife and I as “guys” because quite frankly, social norms have softened over the past 30 years or so. But in this place, this well groomed restaurant, I didn't really expect this. However, this night was about quality time with my sweetie, so I pressed on. After placing our orders, I handed our server the menus and said, “Thank you”.

That was when my epiphany burst between my ears with swift and decisive accuracy. It came when my well dressed, proper looking professional twenty-something server said, “No Problem.”

No Problem! Those two simple words bounced around my head like a bimbo whacking a cue ball on a pool table. No problem!.. So what was my epiphany?  'I had become my father!' I was offended, because although I had been hearing this condescending term for some time now, the contrast of the evening had made it plain. 'There must have been a problem for our server to ponder over.'

What ever happened to “Your welcome”? But now the “guys” greeting, along with the gum chewing phrase, “No Problem” dropped this high class restaurant down to a truck stop.

If this was just a one-off thing, I would have brushed it off. But this gal was a member of the “Generation Y” or “Echo boomers” group. They are also known as the “Digital Generation” and “Generation Next.” Basically anyone born after 1980, which is slowly becoming known as the Baby Boomer's failed social experiment.

It seems that my generation have failed to instill any sense of respect or manners in our children. This is not to say that all people of this generation are disrespectful, I have met many who show proper manners. But, we have raised this generation to call their teachers, parents, aunts and uncles by their first names with no title barriers such as Mister, Misses or Sir in order to remind others that there is a pecking order in society. My generation the Baby Boomers started with the “Don't call me Sir that was my fathers name”, garbage and the rest is standing over you at a restaurant twirling hair with an index finger saying, “No Problem.”

But why should I be surprised? Generation Y is the pampered, over protected offspring. They are the electronically distracted generation. They have also pushed education tolerance to the extreme, children of the Baby Boomers go to school prop their feet on the desk and say, “entertain me”! They have earned such mocking monikers as the “Entitled Generation”. Coddle children who grew up demanding everything, and not realizing that in order to gain respect they have to earn it, by paying social dues such as coming to work on time, or doing good at a entry level job before moving onto the sports car career.

Think of it. Have you ever had a conversation with a twenty-something, be it your child, nephew or neighbour and when they ask for something, you don't hear, “I really need a favour....” No, what you get is a statement of desire followed much later, when you did not 'jump to the pump' for them, with.... “I told you to..!” Another simple phrase.. “I told you to..” much like “No Problem”, which are verbal approaches that are condescending, disrespectful and identifies a social ill that like all societal degradation is not reversible.

I can appreciate the fact that I am ranting just a 'tad'. But is all this disrespectful, entitled attitude their fault? Probably not, because they have been raise to believe if they go to college it is all that is necessary to obtain a wonderful job doing exactly what they want to do in life, make the money they think they are entitled to which verifies the level of tolerance and respect that they were born with. This simply isn't reality.

Somewhere along the way, their parents were so into positive motivation, they forgot to hand them a simple dose of reality. Something that I was handed on that perfect date with my wife. Yes, 'I have become my father.'