Parlez-vous "amour"?

⁸Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. (1 Peter 3:8)

¹²See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. ¹³But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. (Hebrews 3:12)

¹¹Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:11)

A few weeks ago, I was blessed with being able to celebrate the birthday of a friend by watching "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs."

Going into the movie, I had expected a kid's movie with some fancy 3D visuals, and nothing more, but I came out of the theatre thoroughly impressed with the movie's humour and message.

Particularly of interest to me was Steve, the pet monkey belonging to the movie's protagonist.

Steve, unlike other monkeys, was able to "speak" through a monkey-translator.

Of course, the interesting part (and something I didn't expect to see in what was technically a kids' movie) was when the translator was applied to the main character's father, a frumpy middle-aged widow, who only spoke in fishing metaphors.

It took a monkey translator for him to finally be able to articulate his love, affection and pride for his son, words which the main character had desperately wanted (and needed) to hear.

Maybe it was the result of my reading of Gary Chapman's "The Five Love Languages" recently, but I was particularly touched by this scene, which highlighted what so many of us seem unable to do, which is properly express our love for one another.

Chapman's book proposed that every person was fluent in a particular "love language," which would affect how they gave or received emotional nurturing and fulfillment. Within relationships, it was possible for one party to be giving love the way they would want (speaking their own language), but for the other party to completely miss the message, with the intended expression of love being lost in translation.

Given the sad state of marriages and familial relationships in the Western world, it wasn't hard to agree with the idea that many people simply do not know how to express their affections for each other in ways which would be properly recognized and received.

What if we could change that?

Perhaps we can learn how to "speak" the proper language for the people around us, in order to meet their needs for affirmation and love?

Maybe then we could reach out to those who silently pray for companionship, and to the people who need affirmation the most.

Maybe then we could fill the emotional needs of the people around us, freeing them to reach their full potential, and to escape the snare of bad habits or practices intended to fill the void.

Maybe then we could help the people around us shake the feelings of despair and loneliness that often go unaddressed.

Maybe then we could truly reflect God in the way that we live.

Maybe.

Then again, maybe someone will make a monkey translator so that we won't have to try so hard to show the people around us we care.

Until that happens though, maybe we should try harder to live out what we've been called for.

Tehran's June 4th/No sympathy for Mr. Miller

Some thoughts on the situation in Tehran:

Iran stands at the crossroads between repressive dictatorial theocracy that yearns to reset the clock a few centuries back, and a progressive, open society based on democracy and established in modernity.
The old generation desperately fights to retain their power, even as the buds of a democratic spring emerge from the cracks in the concrete of brutality and corruption.

One thing that strikes me: so many of the images we see are of protestors (mostly younger, but also with some older members as well) are incredibly western - that is, it is no stretch of the imagination to see these people in a western setting, perhaps on a campus or in front of parliament.
The placards they hold are in English - as if they are calling out, not just to their own kin, but also to those of us in the West to support them in their struggles.

I can only hope that they will not be put down ruthlessly, as the students in that infamous square were, just over 20 years ago. This is almost certainly a vain hope, given the inhuman and grotesque treatment afforded to the Iranian people by their leaders over the years - executions for crimes ranging from political, to human issues (homosexuals are regularly executed in Iran, as are "adulterers" - often with nothing more than accusations as grounds for death).
I can only hope that the West, beginning with U.S. President Obama, will take a strong line against the Iranian regime - after all the talk of change and hope, this is the opportunity of many lifetimes - to release from the bonds of oppression and tyranny the Iranian people - to allow them to reclaim their place as one of the oldest, most illustrious cultures to ever grace the face of the earth, instead of their current infamy as purveyors of Hamas, Hezbollah, state terrorism, gross economic incompetence (despite incredible oil wealth), and naked nuclear ambition.


Closer to home:

Toronto Mayor David Miller is whining that the Federal Government is refusing to pay for his trains.
Perhaps he should have thought about this before unilaterally entering into negotiations and a contract with Bombardier to supply the fiscal blackhole known as the TTC with new streetcars.
The gall of this man is unbelievable - he spends like a king on programs and initiatives of little economic return, then treats the businesses and taxpayers who bankroll his largesse with disdain and disregard (an example of this is found in his personal crusade against car-owning Torontonians, who drive to work, and pay their taxes).
And then goes crying the the provincial and federal governments about how he's not getting what he deserves, despite overseeing Canada's largest city, with some of the heaviest taxes anywhere (just ask homebuyers and homeowners in Toronto).

He shouldn't complain:
If he were to get what he deserves, he'd be out of a job (of course, unlike the rest of us, he'd have a very nice pension to live off, which brings us to the issue of unionized city workers, but that's another topic).

Epiphany

I had lunch today with a mentor who introduced me to a world that has captured my interest for the past few years, and it confirmed for me something that I had finally realized just yesterday.

I had been feeling lost - feeling like I was off the tracks, and desperate to gain traction.
Choices made, mistakes committed, regrets experienced.
It is time to let these go.

For the last little while, I've been obsessed with getting along my path, obsessed with getting where I'm going as quickly as possible.
Along with that desperation came dissatisfaction and mistakes.
But today I realized that the race does not belong to the swift, but rather to the wise, who know what needs to be done, how to do it, and just as importantly, when to do it.

I will be faithful.
I will be patient.
I will be joyful.
I will get there when the time is right.

I can't wait to see tomorrow come.

Thank you God.

Disappointed?

I am glad I am nothing like you.
I am glad that I can bring something other than misery to the people around me, and that I know how to be something other than miserable.

I have tried my best to extend the olive branch, but you have yet to surprise me: any act of kindness or attempt to bridge the gap on my part, continues to be rewarded with disdain and hostility.
I have tried to bring you joy but time after time, you spit it back in my face.

I suppose I should know by now that this is who you are: unable to accept others, unable to accept yourself, and unable to enjoy life. For you, existence (I cannot even say "life") is something to be endured, rather than enjoyed. Worse yet, you expect the people around you to be the same as you; constantly angry at everything, always blaming the world, circumstances, and yourself.
You wear your negativity, cynicism and pessimism like a badge of honour, as if it somehow makes you superior, and somehow more "wise" than the rest of us.

You seem disappointed that I'm not turning out to be what you want or expected.
Perhaps you'd prefer if I turned out more like you.
To that, I can only say that I am happy to disappoint.

Nonetheless, I feel pity for you.
How can I not have pity for a man who does not know how to enjoy what he has?
You, who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
How can I not have pity for a man who does not know how to receive love from the people closest to him?
You, who know how to give snide remarks and merciless criticism, but not how to give or receive grace or compliments.
How can I not have pity for a man who cannot love others, because he does not love himself?
You, who know how to raise your voice and lose your temper at the smallest mistakes, yet not how to appreciate the smallest acts of love.

I can only pray that someday you will find that life doesn't have to be about building walls and setting barricades.
And I will continue to live my life my way, because I can see where your way leads - and I want nothing to do with that.

The Chinese double-edged sword

It is a double-edged sword to be Chinese.

Having recently watched the historically-inaccurate, but definitely entertaining "biopic" of legendary Chinese martial artist/Wing Chun practicioner "Ip Man," I am again reminded of the tragic recent history of the Chinese people. Ever since the 1800s, the Middle Kingdom has been on a steady decline, only recently slowing the descent in light of the incredible economic growth and increasing military presence of today's China (that is, the People's Republic of China, not to be confused with the Republic of China/Taiwan).
In the 1800s, it was the Western powers which aggressively forced their way into the Chinese sphere of influence, resulting in events such as the Opium War, and arguably setting the stage for China's plummet from being one of (if not THE) premier centres of power, wealth and culture in the world, to being an economic backwater (all the way until the 1980s) and centre of oppression (true even today).
Arguably the most traumatic piece of recent history, would be the horrors of the Sino-Japanese War, inclusive of some of the worst atrocities witnessed in the history of humanity, committed in the name of the Japanese Emperor, by the Imperial Army. These acts of inhumanity ranged from the abuse heaped upon the so-called "comfort women," whose ranks included women and girls from all of the conquered countries (Korea, Taiwan, the Dutch East Indies/Indonesia, the Philippines etc.), to the widespread torture, rape, mass murder and genocidal "experiments" perpetrated upon Chinese civilians, most infamously in the Rape of Nanking.

It is no wonder why some of the most popular movies produced by Chinese filmmakers in the past few years have featured plotlines where Chinese folkheroes, from Huo Yuanjia, to Ip Man etc. are able to win victory against the various foreign devils, against overwhelming odds. Perhaps there is nothing quite as satisfying (to a Chinese person aware of our tragic history and the injustice committed against our people) as watching these invaders and monsters (the Japanese in particular) brutally receiving their just desserts.

However, what if this hatred and rejection of foreign influence is not completely justified?
After all, along with Western troops, Western interference also brought about revolutionary medical technology and techniques, as well as new knowledge, either through education, or through the efforts of countless missionaries who sought to bring their faith to the Chinese masses (among them, Robert Morrison, the first Protestant missionary to the Chinese, who was buried with his first wife and child in a place far from home, in the service of people who weren't always receptive). The Japanese brought with them industrial capabilities intended to aid their war effort; capabilities that could of been put to use in the post-war period to benefit the Chinese economy (admittedly, this is wildly-speculative, as the history of North Korea would show).

Moreover, a look at history shows that, sadly, Chinese people have often proven themselves more adept than anyone else at oppressing and brutalizing Chinese people.
Case in point: Next month will mark the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, which is referred to by the Communist Party leadership as the the "Political Turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989", much as the Japanese prefer to refer to the Rape of Nanking/Nanking Massacre as the Nanking Incident, preferring to adopt the ambiguous and less accusatory terms to describe events. Even today, the subject is controversial, and could well lead to imprisonment or worse.
Another case: Chinese who do not belong to any of the "Official" religions, including Christians and Catholics (among others) who choose not to worship at Official "patriotic churches" are regularly harassed, beaten or imprisoned, and their places of worship (often private homes) destroyed.
China recognizes neither property rights or individual rights such as freedom of religion, conscience, and assembly. De facto, each Chinese citizen is a serf of the state and the Party.
More recently, the parents of children who perished in last year's Sichuan earthquake have been ordered not to commemorate their lost children. They have been harassed and threatened with imprisonment if they dare to hold memorials for their children. The reason for this: the Leadership does not want protests against the lack of an inquiry into the reason for the huge death toll. The government had promised to hold an inquiry, but has not done so, simply explaining the deaths caused by the earthquake on the magnitude of the earthquake itself (nevermind that other places have survived worse or similar earthquakes, but did not see their buildings collapse on the magnitude seen in China).
And despite the past decade of increased business ties and thawing relationships, there are still thousands of missiles aimed across the Taiwan Strait at the population centres of Taiwan, ready at a moment's notice to rain fire and death on many people who, in terms of history, culture and language, are very much like those on the mainland.
Moreover, in terms of bodycounts, few genocides in history could have matched the tally of the Cultural Revolution (as much as 3 million dead) or the Great Leap Forward (25-30 million dead from a self-inflicted famine). One could be forgiven for referring to these events, along with their unbelievably ironic names, with tongue firmly-planted in cheek.

It seems that it isn't just the foreign devils who are adept at oppressing the Chinese people; we can be very good at it too. Being Chinese means more than belonging to one of the oldest cultures in human history; it also means possessing one of the most tragic pasts in human history, as the Chinese people have alternated between oppression by the foreigners, to oppression by their own. What wretches we are...

A Hippo named Chrissy

Messianic President Obama has been inundated with gaffes and challenges as of late.
As the U.S. president, this is to be expected, and his responses have thus far been exemplary.
However, more telling than anything wrongdoing by the president, is the reaction from the populace and the media.

Recently, Obama rather insensitively likened his bowling skills (or lack thereof) to the Special Olympics on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
As a person with a sense of humour, I can appreciate that sometimes we make ill-advised comments on the fly that simply fall flat.
Obama quickly apologized to any parties that might have been offended, and life goes on.
What is amusing, however, is the seeming free ride he is getting from the press and the organization (in this case, the Special Olympics) he offended.
Tim Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics, almost falls over himself to defend Obama, commenting that Obama's apology was done "in a way that was very moving."
Gov. Schwarzenegger joined the parade, remarking that "I know where his heart is at" of the U.S. President.
This is definitely the right way to respond to such a mistake. Apologies were offered, and grace was extended.
However, ask yourself: What would the response be like if it had been, say, George W. Bush who had made the comments? Or any other Republican, for that matter?
Would grace have been extended quite so freely and quickly? Or would the comments have been misconstrued and ceaselessly bombarded for their lack of sensitivity, offensiveness, or crassness? Where was grace for the (admittedly numerous, and often humourous) speaking gaffes of "Dubya"? It seems that not all Presidents are equal after all (at least not their reception and treatment)...

Of course, this is not something that is confined south of the border.
Up in Canada, we have our own tempest in a teapot brewing, this time involving the mixing of church and state.
It seems that Gary Goodyear, the Minister in charge of Science for the Conservative government did not fall over himself to affirm his belief in the holy doctrine of evolutionary theory.
This was quickly seized upon by a journalist in the Globe and Mail, who quickly outed the Minister as the modern day equivalent of a witch: a Christian, Biblical literalist and Creationist.
After all, everybody knows that it is heresy to exude even a whiff of doubt about the doctrine of Evolution; anyone who purports to be scientifically-minded, but does not fervently proselytize this incontrovertible truth must surely be a Creationist in disguise, a knuckle-dragging mouthbreather, unfit for anything but ridicule and crucifixion (of the social and political kind, that is).
Even Minister Goodyear's delayed and nuanced explanation of his position (in favour of evolution, no less) was not enough to silence the cries for blood, because his explanation wasn't doctrinaire enough - that is, it did not explicitly and powerfully declare evolutionary theory to be the sole position of credibility to the exclusion of all others. Apparently, leaving room for people of other beliefs and the crazy possibility that we don't have all the answers (yet) is not satisfactory to the protectors of the true faith.
Goodyear's explanation was that he believed, but that this was his personal belief and that he did not want religious faith (conceivably his own) to be the subject of debate, due to its private nature.
Apparently, many would disagree, because the firestorm and controversy that followed led to indignant calls for his resignation, and vicious attacks on his competence (where else would discrimination on religious grounds be tolerated? Of course, only when the target is white, Christian, male and conservative). Church and state aren't so separate after all, since what the critics (in this case, mainly from the left-leaning/"liberal" side of the political spectrum) are calling for the intrusion into the private beliefs of a citizen and elected representative of the Canadian people. This from those most "tolerant" and "enlightened" of people, liberals (by which I mean small-l liberals, and not only the liberals of the Liberal Party of Canada).

Liberalism and hypocrisy. Where you find one, the other will surely be close by.

Why I am skeptical of media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts

For those of us on the outside, finding objective and unbiased reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is always a huge challenge, not least of all because of the strong emotions this conflict evokes in both the reader/listener, and the media personalities who deliver their reports to us.
As much as media personnel endeavour (one would assume) to be emotionally-detached from the situation, it is simply human nature to feel repulsed by the sight of dead human beings (whether they be soldiers, civilians, or even terrorists/militants/insurgents).

Barring that, there are some very real reasons why reporting on the Mid-east conflict ought to be viewed through a very skeptical lens:

1) Press freedom:
This is virtually nonexistent. Palestinian officials (whether they be Fatah or Hamas), like their accomplices, Hezbollah, do not allow foreign press any degree of independence. In order to gain access to areas controlled by the above, foreign correspondents must agree to report and show only what the Palestinians allow them. It is often remarked that while Israel has historically been more adept at winning the conventional war, the Public Relations war has been unanimously in the favour of Hamas/Fatah/Hezbollah etc.
A quick look at the (often violent) anti-Israeli protests around the world, including in Western states, shows the fruits of this selective reporting. Foreign correspondents are escorted around the warzone by Gazan personnel, resulting in a huge amount of bias and selection of stories.
For their part, the Israelis are also restricting press access into the warzone, the primary reason of which would be the risks to correspondents (and IDF soldiers) who venture into the line of fire. For those who dislike Israeli actions or Israel itself, this will also be seen as a sign of guilt for the many allegations of war crimes that have been made against Israel.

2) Veracity/Accuracy of reporting:
As noted above, the PR war is the playground of the Palestinians, who are infamous for staging photos and video footage. In essence, photographs or videos of the conflict from Palestinian sources (sources which many Western media outlets rely upon) have been shown to be demonstrably falsified (i.e. the al-Dura video purportedly showing a 12-yr old Palestinian boy being murdered by IDF troops at his father's side). More often than not, a closer look and some critical thinking will unmask the deception, but it seems that many in the West are uncomfortable or unwilling to truly approach things with a critical perspective.
More importantly, the Western media seem to report the casualty statistics provided by the Palestinians and UN without asking more questions. Usually the reports will simply state something to the effect that "Palestinian casualties have reached 600, with over 300 of those being women and children." The unspoken implication is that these casualties (or at least the vast majority of them) are non-combatants.
But take a closer look and examine the Hamas and Hezbollah philosophy of recruitment. According to them, women and children (which includes youths up to the age of 17) can still make fine soldiers and instruments of war for the cause of "pushing the Jews into the sea." As in Iraq, women and children can (and have been) used as suicide bombers, troops, etc.
Furthermore, one must ask: what uniform do Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah troops wear to distinguish themselves from non-combatants?
When you ask that question, the correct answer inevitably directs you to ask another question:
How do we know that these reported casualties are indeed non-combatants? If the only thing that identifies combatants from civilians is a rifle (which is easily transferred), then there is scant proof that a corpse is a non-combatant.
This is not to whitewash the tremendous tragedy of civilian casualties ("collateral damage"), or the responsibility of both belligerents to try to minimize them, but we must ask these questions in order to form a rational and objective opinion of the situation.

Excellent Youtube debunking of the al-Dura video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY

Check out the "rational and objective" comments. Guess which side is ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth? Almost as rational as 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

3) Bias in the West:
Right off the bat, Israel (since the end of the Cold War) has started with a deficit in public support in the West. Academics and media (most often on the left of the political spectrum, but also on the far right as well) start with the premise that Israel is responsible (for the conflict, for prosecuting the war in a "proportionate" and "restrained" manner, etc.).
At the least, this manifests itself into an unwillingness to filter data critically and ask difficult questions (for example: why has Hamas failed to provide anything but war to the Gazans? Why has the Fatah-controlled West Bank been comparatively peaceful? Why have Israeli civilians, including Israeli-Arabs, been targeted by indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire for the past 4 years, despite the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005?). At its most dangerous, it has led to the proliferation of faulty or inaccurate reporting, and the use of material from dubious sources (French stations seem to be more guilty of this than others, such as passing off footage from past conflicts' casualties as recent footage), as well as the phenomena of Western civilians (protestors, aid personnel, etc.) being used (sometimes willingly and knowingly) in the cause of a substate belligerent whose sole, stated aim, is the destruction of an internationally-recognized state and its population (doesn't sound as romantic as "freedom fighters" now, does it?).

A good example of this is in the coverage of IDF bombings of UN schools (UN complicity in the Hamas use of civilians as human shields is another topic entirely).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
The above is a good example of the double standard employed by Western media. The reporter is very doggedly and critically questioning the IDF spokeswoman. Admirable. Except this same amount of detail is rarely (if ever) demanded from Hamas/Hezbollah etc.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053418.html
From Haaretz (often accused of liberal, anti-Israeli bias):

The Israel Defense Forces bombed an UNRWA school in Gaza yesterday after militants fired mortars at troops from inside the school, the IDF Spokesman's Office said last night. The bodies of militants were found inside, it added.

Since it is so obviously detrimental to Israel's popularity around the world, has anyone bothered to stop and ask WHY are these targets being bombed? I suspect that most people find it easier to point an accusing finger at Israel, than to do some thinking and digging. Tragically, this will only spread ignorance and hatred.