Burma and Serbia

The situation with the Rohingya in Burma has been in the news lately. I haven't studied all of the details and backstory, but for the Buddhist in Myanmar to take this action is pretty unexpected. I mean from what I've always heard Buddhism is all about peace and love. So for the Buddhist who I'm told are so peaceful, to be pushed to taking this drastic action, it makes me wonder what must have happened.

So the Muslim Rohingya are being forcibly ejected from Burma into neighbouring Bangladesh. Now Bangladesh is an Islamic nation, an exporter of terrorism as we saw in New York just this week. So it was this accident of geography that gave Burma this option in dealing with the Rohingya issue, that is the option to force them out of their country into an adjacent Muslim zone.

Which brings to the parallels with Serbia. Also recently the old Balkan wars of a generation ago have been in the news. Serb and Croat leaders from back then still going through trials and sentencing. So back in those days Serbia also had Muslim problems in their nation. And Serbia in a way set the example by forcibly removing Bosnian Muslims out of Serbia and into Bosnia and Muslim dominated areas. Serbia, like Burma today, had the option with geography to push Muslim trouble off their land and onto an adjacent Muslim country.

It's interesting the changes in world opinion from a generation ago in the Yugoslav wars to today. Back then it was Serbia is bad, bomb Serbia, stop Serbia. There was no discussion at all about Serbia being Christian, or the threats Serbia was facing that led them to do what they did. Ah simpler times.

Now today with Burma and the Rohingya the outrage is more muted. World opinion is more nuanced. The situation with the Rohingya and Muslim violence is seen as difficult and complex. The actions taken by Burma are certainly harsh with a real human toll, and individual-level injustice. Yet its recognized that Islamic strife is a problem worldwide (Genesis 16:12). Also the world recognizes that it isn't sufficient to tell Burma that mass deporting the Rohingya is not an option, while offering no other solutions.

The Books Everyone Read

I recently read Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy. It was a good book. It held my attention through the 800 pages. It makes you think. Set in the 19th century Imperial Russia, many of the themes are still relevant today.

I'd always meant to read that book. It was one of those books I grew up thinking everyone read. Well I thought everyone read them. So with Anna along with these other titles I've completed in recent years I have finally completed the task to read these books that everyone read.

Atlas Shrugged
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Anna Karenina

There are still some classic books that I've been meaning to read for a long time and perhaps I will get to them. So the reading and learning journey continues.

I have some ideas but I'm not entirely certain what to make of Anna. I'd be interested to hear the views of others who have read it and what they think it is about.

Comment on The Church Virtuous Circle

In my previous post on virtuous circle life in the church, it was some things I'd been thinking about for some time. Writing it in a diagram helped me to visualize stuff I'd always known about and grew up with but never really thought about in that way.

I think the chain style is important, as it helps visualize where breaks in the chain can occur and how people can come be non-churchgoers.

It's well known that church attendance is in decline in Canada. Also at the church I grew up in, and still attend sometimes. Recently there was a fellow from Michigan speaking, a good speaker. He said at his home church they had 23 kids in their program for ages 3-7. It just struck me how healthy his home church was. I'm confident they will still be around a generation from now.

It was a bit painful too, the diagram made me examine my own life, choices I made along the way, and my kids relationship to church and religion such as it is.

From the bottom left I got though the first two links. I was born protestant and grew up going to church every week. However within a year of finishing high school I was basically done with church and effectively stopped going for many years. Now in modern times I've come back somewhat to around 1-2 a month on average for the last couple years or so. The same church I grew up in.

Also in the later links, I married outside my church. Nominally a catholic, like me very seldom actually attended church. In the years I was dating then married we never once got up on a regular Sunday morning that wasn't Christmas, Easter or some occasion and voluntarily went to church, any church.

If you read the Old Testament outmarriage was the downfall of Israel and Judah starting with King Solomon. We were warned in the church as kids that outmarriage was the major cause of people leaving the church, and they were right.

For my kids, well I did not do a good job with religion. They were baptized catholic but basically never went to church as children. So it wasn't a natural part of their routine growing up. Plus the failed marriage of their parents is hardly going to steer them to be churchgoers now or into independent adulthood. So more breaks in the chain from my own experiences and choices in life.

The Church Virtuous Circle

I will just post the diagram I drew of what occurred to me. Will comment more in later posts.

Prime Minister substitute drama teacher

So what to make of Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada. At this point it's nearly two years in. Somehow it seems to have gone by quickly. Lots has changed during that time.

Trudeau is the affirmative action Prime Minister. He was elevated to the leadership of the Liberal party due to his ethnicity as the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Luckily he actually has his father's recognizable last name, which is a bit of a feat for where he comes from. To be fair to Justin he did win a federal election so he does get credit for accomplishing that.

Justin's background as a substitute drama teacher suggests he aspired to and came into this role of Prime Minister perhaps somewhat by accident, a bit later in his adult life after bouncing around some. Now during the election campaign the Liberal ads assured us that Justin was "ready" to be the leader of Canada. That old substitute teacher, ski bum, bouncing from school to school stuff, that's the past.

Based on the advertising, I think a lot of people expected Justin to "molt" from his early adult form into the form of a Prime Minister. The reality is that has not happened. Justin hasn't molted. He is still the sub drama teacher, always was and always will be.

His agenda since being elected seems at times like the musings of a sub teacher speculating what he would do as PM. Mandate an equal male-female balanced cabinet regardless of qualification. Thumb his nose at the Americans with cheeky Tweets about anyone in the world who can get here is welcome to come and stay in Canada. Renegotiate NAFTA with the emphasis being on social justice instead of trade.

Trudeau comes across as not especially interested in the job of Prime Minister. As far as I can tell his top priority, the only thing he's really motivated about, is criss crossing the country from Halifax to Vancouver to Toronto attending gay pride parades. And that's about it, Prime Minister gay pride. Is there anything else Justin seems really engaged with? Well establishing himself as the alpha male feminist too.

There's so much that he could and should care about and focus on. Each month thousands of primarily Haitian "refugees" from the USA flooding into Canada across an open border. Millions of jobs in Canada on the line in the NAFTA negotiations. Rising interest rates for better or for worse. Possibility of Canada being hit by an errant or intentional nuclear missile strike from North Korea. But he just doesn't seem to overly care about any of that stuff. Maybe it was unrealistic for Canadians to expect him to.

Canada NAFTA negotiations

So there's another round of NAFTA negotiations ongoing. The original trade deal was the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and USA back in 1987, about a generation ago.

Much has changed in Canada in only a generation. I remember trade agreements used to be about increasing trade, creating jobs in Canada, preserving key industries like dairy farms and auto manufacturing. In 1987 Canada's negotiator was Simon Reisman, a well-known, respected, successful Jewish businessman. He got it. He understood we were negotiating a trade agreement and his job was to get the best trade agreement for Canada.


And then there's today.
Look at Canada's so called priorities of this "trade" negotiation. The environment, Indians, gender, outlaw right to work in USA, etc. No mention anywhere of trade, industry or jobs. We can assume none of those things matter to the Prime Minister Trudeau.

The whole thing seems to be about advancing the social justice warrior agenda. Reads like some tripe written by the Dalhousie student union.

Who is the negotiator? On the USA side the leader and face is unquestionably President Trump.

And on Canada's side we have Chrystia Freeland. What a comparison from Mr. Reisman in only a generation. Freeland comes to cabinet from a career in big media, and appears to have no experience in business or industry.

Freeland seems to be a feminist sjw, writer of books with titles like "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else". The wiki page states "She is a proponent of personal asset seizures..."  No doubt. It's not clear how Mr. Trudeau saw her as the best Canada could find as the lead NAFTA trade negotiator, but the Prime Minister seems to have little interest in this matter.


Given that, best outcomes to Canada from this NAFTA negotiation are no change, or cancel the NAFTA agreement. No gain can come to Canada from an agreement negotiated between Trump with his priorities and Freeland with her priorities.