Karma - Part 2

A few days ago, I wrote a post suggesting that President Bush's vision combined with his actions over the past few years probably bode well for America as a nation, because righteous actions (liberating Afghanistan + Iraq) will lead to a prosperous future.

There's one other issue that was on my mind as well and that's "Collateral Damage", which is the unintended deaths of civilians which comes as the result of military action. Does this hurt President Bush's Karma? Who suffers the Karmic punishment from the killing of innocents, even when it's unintended? The soldiers who carry out the actions or the President who ordered the campaign to begin with? Does the "end goal" (i.e. a stable and democratic Iraq) nullify the bad karma caused by the civilian deaths? Is it only the intentions that matter? And if so, shouldn't Presidents know that civilian deaths are an obvious part of modern warfare?

I lean towards the thinking that America will HAVE to be successful in order for the bad karma of the collateral damage to be wiped away. Intentions aren't good enough. Iraq, in a few years, will have to be significantly better than pre-Saddam rule. Good intentions can still cause trouble and death and someone will ultimately have to be held responsible for those paaps (sins).

Having said that, I can only imagine a scenario in which Iraq WILL be fairly better off in a few years. In 2002, Iraq was probably a worse place to live than almost any other Middle Eastern nation, and now, because America NEEDS Iraq to succeed, I can only imagine that Iraq will surpass every other nation (except Israel) in its region when it comes to standard of living indicators. That's why I was so worried about John Kerry getting elected... it was so likely that his actions would've led to chaos - he didn't seem to have the will and resolve at ALL to stick around in order to stabilize and democratize the country.

Another issue - the last sovereign Sikh state (pre-1840s Punjab) was established in an era that did not see the unintended deaths of civilians associated with military campaigns. Any deaths of civilians were done on purpose. Assuming that Sikhs, hypothetically, at some time in the future, establish an army in a Sikh state... it's not like the army would be handicapped by modern warfare technology because of its tendency to kill civilians by accident? Israel is surrounded by potential aggressors on virtually every border and that should be a lesson to Sikhs. If a Sikh state is ever established again in the Punjab... Sikhs WILL likely have to defend themselves... and the lesson of Israel shows that a Sikh army might have to unfortunately kill civilians (by accident) in the context of a larger goal.

Fox News

All political biases aside, its just a better news network than any other. Yeah, it's not perfect, and a couple of the anchors and reporters seem like jerks, but on the whole, they're just better. Better coverage, better guests, better commentary, better access, etc. etc. etc. Yes, they're anti-Canadian at times, which is the only thing I really dislike, but I suppose that can only be expected. And I've seen them praise "western Canadians" a few times, so that made me less offended.

I watched the Iraqi Election Coverage on Fox... and I was shown why Americans like it way more than CNN. Whenever Americans were attacked over the past week, the reporters would talk in very simplistic terms, calling US soldiers "our guys" and sometimes even calling the "insurgents" the "bad guys", and I just thought that was so cool. No one on CNN or any other news program would ever speak like that. When the US embassy was attacked, they anchor called it "our embassy", and even though I'm not an American, I just thought that it was really cool. Most self-loathing Americans (i.e. Liberal Americans) are so turned off by commentary like that, and why? I don't get it. Why is it unprofessional to refer to the US soldiers as "our soldiers"?

I've said this before, but I guess I like to repeat it. Liberals/Democrats in America are unpopular because they're not (usually) as patriotic as their counterparts. Its the SAME thing in Canada--except the exact opposite. Canadian Conservatives are the ones who loathe Canada, and that's partially why conservatives lose elections up here. I know so many people who don't mind voting for Harper and CPC candidates, but they don't want those "Canada-hating-Canadians" to have their way and feel vindicated. They have reservations about the Liberals, but they still love Canada. And most Conservatives in Canada do too, and I'm sure most Democrats down south do as well... but there's STILL that perception that the other side is more "Canadian" or more "American" and that's what kills Canadian Conservatives and US Democrats.

On the Western Standard Group Blog (The Shotgun), there's always a debate about "political escapism" (i.e. discussing US issues more than Canadian issues) and it's always started by Norman Spector, and although he doesn't know how to present an argument in a manner that would actually persuade people's opinions - his central point is correct. Canadian Conservatives can't consider Canada to be a "half-assed" country, and if they do, Canada will continue to get worse and worse. And just the people who make those arguments... they have no perspective AT ALL. I'm an 18 year old kid, and up until last year I was in that camp... the camp that HATED Canada, because I thought it was some socialist hell-hole, and then I started asking if I'd truly like to live anywhere else, and the answer was no - no chance. America, maybe, anywhere else - NO WAY. I still debate in my head over which country is better, Canada or America... right now I'm sticking with Canada, but even if Canada were at second place... there's nothing half-assed about second place. Europe, as a whole, sucks, and where else is there? Australia? Maybe.

Hmm. Sort of went off-topic, but that's okay. So I guess I have two messages: Fox News is a good news network (even though many of their shows don't discuss "real news") and Canadian Conservatives have got to realize that Canada is a pretty damn good country, and... until they do, maybe they'll be proven right. Maybe Canada will stop being a pretty damn good country.

What else could've possibly happened?

In my pathetic effort to have a post corresponding to every single day, I'm going to link to this story.

Man struck by car responsible for damages
January 27, 2005

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico -- A man hospitalized with a possible skull fracture and other injuries after being struck by a car is being held responsible for damages to the vehicle.

Sergio Segundo Ruiz, 60, was hit Monday about 10:30 p.m. when he crossed an avenue, apparently without taking any precautions, said Jose Adan Reyes, an official from the city's traffic department.

Under local law, crossing the street with disregard for safety and approaching traffic is an infraction, Reyes said.

A city police officer was posted outside Segundo's hospital room. The owner of the 1986 Ford Taurus involved in the accident was freed and is awaiting payment for the damages, the extent of which was not released.

Well, that seems fair, but probably a little too fair. It's nice to see pedestrians getting some of the blame as well... from time to time. Lousy, careless jaywalkers.

What if...

It'd be so cool if this story was actually just a cynical ploy to attract younger voters, by making the conservatives look more hip and youthful.

The SSM debate might really alienate younger Canadians, and I'm going to pretend that Harper is some evil schemer who set this whole story up.

Why couldn't someone else call for him?

I don't know how to feel about this story.

Yes, it's stupid, but I can't see why it warranted his resignation... His appointment was political - it's not like he was an elected official. Or am I missing something? I don't see why he had to resign. Aren't people in the premier's office supposed to be suck-ups?

Let me try to relate this to a story:

During last year's Vasakhi Nagar Keertan (parade), I was standing with two of my friends when the Premier walked right by us. Me and my friend quickly went up to the premier to tell him how good of a job we thought he was doing, and he was handing out Vancouver 2010 pins while casually accepting everyone's nice comments.

And then my other friend (who's a hardcore left wing anarchist) shouted out to the Premier - "SO YOU STILL DRINKING THE BOOZE?" like a TOTAL JERK! And the Premier handled it really calmly, replying that no, he did not drink while driving anymore, and then my left wing anarchist friend awkwardly replied back saying "That's good, its a bad example for the kids" (like he really cares about the kids! heartless left-winger that he is) and the premier responded back saying that he agreed entirely.

Anyways - I just ducked out of sight in embarrassment when my friend made those comments, and afterwards, I didn't know whether to laugh or feel embarrassed.

Amrit Velaa

I'm not sure if writing about it will help in any way... but it's worth a shot.

Dropping out of the Amrit Velaa cycle is tragic for one simple reason: Missing Amrit Velaa causes you to do other things which will mess up your Amrit Vela possibilities for the future as well.

Your mindset is never as calm or pure when you miss Amrit Vela on a regular basis and that causes your mind to falter throwing you into a cycle. Missing Amrit Velaa causes more missed Amrit Velaas while keeping Amrit Velaa makes it easier to wake up and concentrate in future Amrit Velaas.

I linked to a post on Sikhsangat.com a few weeks ago which gave some good tips on getting out of the "bad" Amrit Velaa cycle and getting into the "good" Amrit Velaa cycle. The thing that works for me best is: Forcing myself to do more paat and listening to keertan during every possible hour. Doing Ardaas to Guru Sahib for help doesn't hurt either.

In Defense...

It seems to be pretty fashionable to defend the presence of the Blogging Tories blogroll on the side of people's blogs, and so I'll follow suit and offer up a defense.

Before I start let me mention how we in Canada are slightly unfortunate to have the name of the Conservative party as the "Conservative Party". Let me explain that.

In America, principled conservatives can throw off the title of a "Republican" very easily by simply saying that they're "principled conservatives" who vote for the Republicans because the Republicans are the more conservative party. Does that make sense? They could make the case that they're not party hacks and instead vote their best interests. There are many Republicans who ARE party hacks and will stay Republican even if the Republicans hypothetically become a more liberal party sometime in the future, but the principled conservative type will simply vote in the best interests of themselves or of their nation, regardless of party politics. That's the example that I hope to follow.

However, in Canada, it really sucks because when someone accuses me of supporting something just because the "Conservatives" do, I have no defense. What am I supposed to say? "Yeah... I only support them because I'm a conservative"?

Anyways, I've gone slightly off topic. I had two reasons for joining the CPC supporting blogroll.

Firstly, I really don't like having the Liberals in power. I think Paul Martin is a spineless joke. I think he's a good guy, but just hopelessly gutless. I would prefer a "Conservative Party" government even though I don't agree with the Conservatives on every issue. Well actually, I probably do agree with them on almost every issue, but I don't agree with how forceful they are on individual issues, but I can understand their reasons. Will I always support the Conservative party? Probably, but that's not definitely the case. It was probably in Canada's best interests to have the Liberals elected in 1993 in order to smash the deficit. It’s harder for conservatives to do "necessary" hard things because they don't often have the political capital, while the Liberals can usually get away with it because they're Liberals... and Canadians are comfortable with the belief that the Liberals aren't evil right-wingers who only cut the healthcare budget because they hate poor people and minorities. If I wasn't 6 years old at the time, it would've probably made sense for me to have hoped for a Liberal government. (The PCs needed to get thrown out at the time, and Reform was probably too inexperienced to run a government)

The second reason is because of that TTLB Ecosystem thing. Most people will have no idea what I’m talking about. On the side of my blog, there’s a little message that identifies me as an “Adorable Little Rodent” which is a mid-level ranking in the TTLB blogger ecosystem. The ecosystem’s rankings are based on the number of incoming links from other blogs. Well, umm, yeah. I joined so my ranking would go up 4000 spots and… it did! I have no idea why I care, but I do.

Its been a month...

(Note: Most readers will not understand this post.)

...Since Baba Takhur Singh Jee's passing, so it's time to ask stupid questions!

1) Since Harnaam Singh Dhummaa is widely considered Jathedaar now, how often does he talk to Baba Jarnail Singh Jee? Since he's the caretaker and since Baba Jarnail Singh Jee is supposedly the true jathedaar, he would need guidance from Baba Jarnail Singh Jee on a regular basis, correct?

2) How did he get Baba Jarnail Singh's phone number? He was abroad during Baba Takhur Singh's passing, so who gave him it?

3) Assuming that Baba Jarnail Singh is in the wilderness, he probably doesn't have a phone. So how does he communicate with the outside world? How does he guide Baba Harnaam Singh Dhummaa? Is it because Harnaam Singh is also a Bramgiaanee? Do they communicate through SachKhand? Was Harnaam Singh able to communicate through SachKhand a month ago as well, or did he only acquire those powers upon the Dastaarbandi?

I'll think of more questions soon!

(Seriously though, Baba Jarnail Singh is shaheed, Baba Harnaam Singh is not a Bramgiaanee, the Taksal is a proud and good institution, but if it keeps up such falsehoods, it will no longer maintain its status as a leading panthic jathebandi. I don't intend to disrespect Taksal, I only intend to highlight the implausibility of Baba Jarnail Singh's non-shaheedi. Baba Jarnail Singh was a great Gursikh--one of the greatest of the past century, disrespecting and undermining his shaheedi must end.)

Update: On second thought, I'd probably agree that this post wasn't entirely mature or necessary. So I guess I apologize. For any Sikh readers that are interested, please read the comments section.

Legitimate Grievance?

In a discussion this past week in our History of France class, the professor made some remark about how communism is a very "optimistic" belief system, regardless of its alleged flaws or positives.

Naturally, I couldn't stand such a small, seemingly "positive" comment being made about communism.... so I quickly raised my hand and said that communism might make people optimistic, but its borne out of a deep pessimism and distrust/bitterness with society.

Anyways, was my comment on-target or is communism, in its most pure sense, actually optimistic? Is calling communism "optimistic" an objective remark? Do communists still sincerely believe that their belief system would lead to anything positive at all? And since I can't imagine that they honestly do, how could their belief system be classified as optimistic?

Aren't all belief systems essentially "optimistic"? Nazism/Fascism seems the most optimistic of them all. Returning to a time of glory... purifying society... optimism for war, etc. etc. etc.

Oh and there's also an interesting discussion going on at Let It Bleed, on why the Swastika is way more detested than the hammer and sickle, and whether that should truly be the case. Oh and I'll also point to a post that the monger made a LONG time ago, where he states that he considers communism to be (very slightly) worse than Nazism. I can't say that I really agree with him, but I think it's worth a look nevertheless.

Quote of the Day

My friend just sent me this article, with a specific emphasis on this quote:

I don't just see light at the end of the tunnel, I see light at the start and throughout the tunnel. - Mohammed Hanash Abbas

We shouldn't let the actions of such a small minority cloud the great success that Iraq will be remembered as in the history books. And it will be - anybody who hopes for something to the contrary is a deeply sick and twisted human being.

Karma

President Bush's inauguration made me think of a pretty interesting question.

According to Sikhi, and most other eastern traditions (most western traditions have this sort of thinking too), we get punished for what we do wrong and we're rewarded for what we do right. We have a karmic debt to pay in this world which could be erased through good deeds, meditation, etc. And until that happens, we will have to live out the consequences of our actions - of our karma.

You're probably wondering how this relates to Pres. Bush. Well, most people like to go on about how all empires will end and how the American empire will be no different. Theories about overextension and other problems convince people to believe that America will eventually collapse, sometime in the future.

According to a Gurmat/Sikhi perspective, America will collapse if they act unrighteously. No unrighteous force can carry on indefinitely. Karmic debt must catch up with an individual, an empire or anything else. This is what Guru Gobind Singh was saying to Aurangzeb (The Mughal emperor) in Zafarnama. Guru Sahib was telling Aurangzeb that he was a tyrant and that he had no respect for religion, justice, righteousness or anything else. Guru Sahib believed that eventhough he had lost his entire family and many of his most devout Sikhs, he was ultimately the victor because Aurangzeb's empire would come crashing down on itself due to the negative karma he had accumulated through his sins, his tyranny and everything else.

America has done some unrighteous things in the past, through a foreign policy that often placed short term practical benefits ahead of basic ideals. No one doubts that.

President Bush outlined a vision on Thursday which stated that America's ideals and practical interests were one single objective in the coming century. I think he captured it best when he quoted Abraham Lincoln:

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

Maybe President Bush truly understands karma? I think he captured something that a lot of past rulers never truly understood. And maybe because of that, America will sustain itself into the future. It won't last forever, but its nice to know that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet has such good and noble ideals.

Now of course, all of that's dependant on whether you believe President Bush. I'm not the cynical type, so I do. And how could you not? It really is farfetched to believe that the President is dark-hearted enough to talk about freedom all day and not mean a single word of it. Could he possibly be that deceptive? I personally can't see anything but a sense of genuine belief in his eyes.

President Bush isn't perfect, and he's not the perfect President either, not by a long shot, but I don't understand how anybody could believe that he's anything but a "good guy" - with noble intentions.

I even believe that Paul Martin's a good guy too, just a gutless, spineless wimp of a good guy. Most public officials are actually good guys. Some of them just aren't as courageous as others.

Anyways, back to the point of my post: If America follows through with President Bush's lofty ambitions and truly helps democratically reform the world, much like they've done in Afghanistan and are in the process of doing in Iraq, using my religious beliefs as a guideline, I can only assume that America will prosper for many decades into the future.

Invitation

One of the few groups that I'm a member of at UBC - The Sikh Students Association is holding a conference on February the 5th in the Student Union Building Ballroom. I also believe I'm a member of Lifeline, The Young Conservatives, The History Undergrad Society, and weirdly enough, while I was talking to the Israeli Advocacy guy during club's days, he signed me up for that group too. (I'm not active in any of the above groups, except the SSA.)

Anyways, because I'm incredibly forgetful when it comes to inviting people to events, I thought I would post it on here. Anyone who's in the Lower Mainland on February 5th - please attend our conference. And that means anyone. Its a "Sikh Conference" but then again, it won't be that religiously based. Anyone can come to the conference and understand and appreciate the topics of discussion.

War isn't always a bad thing

I know. Shocking title, huh? It’s true though.

I only bring this up because every year, at some time, I find myself in a classroom participating in a discussion on World War One.

It’s usually after reading some anti-war novel. This time we were supposed to read Henri Barbusse's Under Fire – and as usual, the class is expected to uniformly walk away with one theme that all of our professors expect us to imbed deep into our consciousness: War is bad. No matter what.

War is always mindless and uncivilized. War is described as the lowest state of being. And all of this is essentially true, if only it weren’t packaged in such misleadingly simple terms.

Professors pick World War One as a representative for all wars because of how unique it was. The battle lines remained essentially unchanged for 4 full years. There was no progress in the war. People died and that was it. Nothing was accomplished – no tyrannies were gloriously defeated and the deaths of most French and German soldiers were so completely in vain.

The war’s deeply horrific nature is necessary for professors to indoctrinate their students to believe that all war is bad. Nothing good can come from war, because World War One was so bad, they say. Even if you’re fighting in self defense or pre-emptively eliminating a threat, war can never be good. Even when a bunch of Fascist Islamic militants declare war on western society, even then, war serves no purpose. It would be more honourable, apparently, to suffer the consequences of appeasement than to invade, defeat and depose an outlaw regime. It would be more righteous to turn a blind eye to enemies that hope for destruction to befall your nation than it would be to stand up to them.

Why? Just because World War One was so bad? That might sound like a rhetorical question, but I’m being sincere. I’ve never actually understood the left’s total and complete opposition to all forms of armed conflict, particularly when they oppose it in a situation of self defense. Is someone like Bush always trying to steal someone’s oil or is there a deeper reason? Is the sovereignty of someone like Saddam or Kim Jong Il really that sacred? And in many (but not all) cases, is democracy really not that much better than “other forms of government”?

War is bad thing most of the time. Not always though - moral and practical justifications or the lack thereof (self defense, pre-emption, future peace, etc.) are what really define it.

Ujjal Dosanjh is a Big Fat....

Unfortunately, writing essays for school is still more important than spending time writing posts on here, but I apologize anyway for not addressing this issue earlier.

Yesterday, all day, the story of the Akal Takht's actions in Punjab dominated Canadian news coverage. Why? I really don't know. The hukamnama or 'edict' only forbids SSM in Sikh Gurdvaras. It didn't forbid, for instance, a United Church minister from conducting marriage in any way that he or she wanted. Of course it didn't - the Sikh clergy in Amritsar only has jurisdiction over Sikhs, and they could care less about anybody else's choices in this matter. The same thing goes for the Vatican in Rome. Catholic Cathedrals will not carry out Same-Sex marriages, but I don't know how or why Catholics would be concerned by Same-Sex marriages taking place in a Synagogue or a Mosque (hypothetically). I don't imagine that they would be.

There really is so much miscommunication and misunderstanding when it comes to the issue of SSM. For so many religious communities, the simple mention of 'gays' provokes the most emotionally charged response against anything that might seem "pro-gay". Yes - the Jathedaar of the Akal Takht did call for all Sikh MPs to vote against the SSM legislation, but I highly doubt that he was explained the difference between civil and religious marriage. According to Sikh theology, the Jathedaar is not "like the pope" as was said by most media outlets, he's actually just like any other human being, prone to the same faults and errors in judgment - however, it is true that he is the supreme political and religious authority for Sikhs throughout the world. I wouldn't be surprised if he was given the impression that Sikh gurdvaras would be compelled or even forced to carry out Same-Sex Marriages if the legislation passes sometime this year. Sikh scripture makes no mention of gays, and it'd only be guess work in trying to understand the "Sikh position" on the issue, but for a general discussion on Sikhs and Gays, I would suggest this link to anyone who's interested.

Simply put, I don't care if the legislation passes or fails. I don't think its significant in anyway. I don't think it'll impact gay lifestyle in any significant form, nor do I think that its really necessary for gay relationships to be called 'marriages' - civily or religiously.

ANYWAYS, back to the title of my post. Ujjal Dosanjh is a fool. However, his words yesterday were part of a deeper anti-religious bias that is so evident in public life. Not only is it now important for public officials to separate their faith from their duties (which is a good thing!) it's also now important for those officials to not be religious at all - even in their private life. That's the sentiment that Ujjal was expressing yesterday with these comments:

I mean, Prime Minister Martin and Prime Minister Chretien both were Catholics, the Vatican didn't have an impact on them. And therefore no other religious institution would have an impact on anybody else.

He also went on to say that the hukamnama (or edict) "will absolutely not have any impact whatsoever". Why would it not have an impact? Why is it important for Sikhs or Catholics to ignore their religious authorities? Ujjal has a past as a hardline communist and that past is still with him. People like him might pretend to have respect for religious authority but deep down inside they despise religion, which is their right, I suppose.

At the very least, Paul Martin attempts to convey a sense that he's double-minded about the issue - that he does have doubts - that the words of the Catholic hierarchy do mean SOMETHING to him. He tries to present the image that he has a duty as a Prime Minister ahead of his duty as a faithful Catholic. Which is fine by me. Ujjal on the other hand, makes no effort to even PRETEND to respect religious faith or authority. So why do they call him a Sikh then? Ujjal's remarks clearly define him as an atheist - he could be described as a "Punjabi MP" or something to that affect, but he's definitely not a "Sikh MP" any more than Svend Robinson was a "Christian MP".

Attempt at a Rant

This is going to be an actual rant. I don't think I've ever really ranted before on this site, but that's what I'm about to attempt.

I was going through the General Section on SikhSangat.com, when I came across a topic on the looming elections in the UK. Even when I was about to vote in their poll (in order to see the results), I was conflicted on whether to vote for Labour or for the UK Conservatives. Few North American conservatives realize that most 'conservatives' outside our continent aren't conservative in the same tradition as Republicans or (most) Canadian Conservatives. So the choice was between a pro-war, hawkish Liberal in Tony Blair and a more moderate liberal who's less charismatic and less pro-war in the Conservative leader (I always forget his name). If I were British, I wouldn't really know who to support.

Anyways, someone made a post in that thread with this reason to re-evaluate the Sikh community's traditional support for the Labour Party.

2) The failure to introduce positive discrimation. Sikhs vastly under represented in the Public Sector (NHS, Police, Armed Forces) Directorships, Media, Sports, Politics. etc.

I was expecting reasons that involved problems associated with EXCESSIVE government intervention in society and I found someone talking about "positive discrimination" alongside a myriad of other whiny socialist cries.

One of my deepest philosophical reasons for being ideologically conservative is because of my strongly held belief that I shouldn't be treated as or viewed as a victim in relation to the state. How could someone be strongly victimized enough in order to demand "positive discrimination"? Incase I have any UK Sikhs reading this post, this is a humble request: STOP TREATING YOURSELF LIKE VICTIMS. The state has no obligation or duty to go out of their way to ignore your qualifications and hire you on the basis of your race or ethnicity. Your parents or your parents' parents didn't come to England as a favour to the English people; they came for a better life. The same thing goes for immigrants to Canada, America, or anywhere else. Your parents came as human beings, not as Sikhs, Hindus or Indians - so they could contribute to English society by working hard and earning a decent living. They didn't come over so the state could go and do them unneccesary favours. If anything, they're indebted to society and NOT the other way around. You didn't come to England in order to screw around someone who happened to be born 'white'. Do you understand that? Do you understand the very basic idea of fairness?

Immigration departments don't grant immigration in order for their societies to be abused and divided by whiny immigrants who demand things that they have no entitlement to. I could almost understand the rationale behind 'positive discrimination' in relation to African Americans (with slave ancestry), because American society abused their ancestors on their way towards building a prosperous society. Blacks were systematically discriminated against for centuries after they were FORCEFULLY brought to America to be slaves. Are you the same as them? Were your ancestors enslaved for two and a half centuries? Were they later systematically separated from white society? No, they were not. You have no entitlement to "positive discrimination" or whatever else you want to call it.

Stop acting like such pathetic victims. Sikhs will go nowhere in England as long as they keep viewing themselves as "Sikhs" or "Indians" or "Punjabis" in relation to the state. There's no such thing as a group when it comes to the state - all are individuals. Learn to treat yourself like a responsible individual and maybe you'll get that government job fairly. As long as there's always that justification for failure, as long as there's always that added unfair incentive to slack off in school or anywhere else, any gains that Sikhs will make, will be fundamentally unjust.

I just realized that if I changed around some words in the above paragraphs and if I were white, I'd be deemed a racist, or something akin to a racist - but my post has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with fairness - it has everything to do with the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' that almost every immigrant group is put through. No one should be entitled to 'positive discrimination'. Everyone should be treated fairly. Why don't some people get that?

Accountability

I don't think many people appreciate how historic this past federal election truly was. It ended 11 years of complete dominance by the Liberals. I only bring this up because I was reading a post by Arjun Singh on the BlogsCanada blog where he discussed Conservative MP Betty Hinton's views on the productivity, democracy and accountability created by June's election.

Let me quote you two paragraphs from one of my favourite bloggers - The Monger:

Given that they are not ideological allies, is there any practical (read: electoral) advantage for the Alliance in merging with the PC's? In a word, no. The PC vote in the Atlantic and Quebec is going to go almost entirely to Martin in the next election, and likely the same thing in Ontario. Martin will win a bigger electoral margin than Mulroney in 1984: I'll bet a U.S. dollar against anyone who says different.

The Alliance should therefore not fear going into the next election without a Tory partner. They will lose anyway, so what's the advantage in cuddling up to a bunch of unreconstructed Quebec nationalists and Atlantic welfare-statists? Let the Martin juggernaut finish off the Tories once and for all, and see what happens after that. Maybe Harper can forge a new coalition: western small-c's, Ontarians fed up with socialist Grits at both federal and provincial levels, and a handful of Atlantic Canadians. Quebec is a write-off for any conservative party, for at least a generation; but seeing as it would be a write-off for the PC's as well, this is no big loss to the Alliance.

That post was written 15 and a half months ago, by one of the keenest, sharpest and probably smartest bloggers in the country. The Monger was noticeably shaken when the conservatives failed to win just 7 months later, and I never really understood why. Yes, they could've and should've won... but at least in relation to expectations (that weren't less than 2 or 3 weeks old), they did win. And now, things are genuinely improving. Read Arjun Singh's post and you'll see how. Yes, a majority or even a minority (Conservative) government would be so much better, but in comparison to the past decade, this is pretty good too.

No! I'm not a Liberal!

A lot of bloggers like to write about bias in the classroom. High school teachers and University/College professors are usually hardcore socialists and many of them make no effort to hide their anti-American or anti-capitalist biases.

I've learnt to accept and expect such biases from my teachers, yet there's one thing that continues to annoy me, and that's when my professors ASSUME that because I look like a fairly devout Sikh that I must be a pretty devout Liberal as well. This really, REALLY annoys me.

I remember History 12, when we had an open marxist as our teacher. There were so many instances in which my teacher baselessly assumed that I was some militant liberal. I remember him showing the movie Malcolm X to the entire class (in order to showcase how horrible America is/was) and in the middle of the movie, the teacher pressed pause and asked me what I thought about a speech that Denzel Washington/Malcolm X had just made. He assumed that because I would probably be in favour of a Sikh homeland in Punjab (which in theory I definitely am), that I would definitely condone and endorse the words of Malcolm X (before he was reformed into a more moderate thinker). I responded right away that his rhetoric, and the rhetoric of other "Nation of Islam" leaders sounded just as bad as the rhetoric of fascists from the 1930s. The teacher was horrified and quickly made some argument about how they were in the minority, and thus they were able and justified in making racist remarks - or something like that.

A few weeks later we went to a Holocaust symposium hosted at UBC. We talked to some survivors, we heard some academics talk about the scale of genocide, and then there was a Q and A session. During the Q and A, I asked the panel what "lessons" could be learnt from the Holocaust in order to prevent future genocide, and after I asked the question, my teacher ran right up to me and said "Good question Japnaam! These people need to know that Jewish nationalism isn't the only lesson of the Holocaust!" And I was just confused, "But my question had nothing to do with Jewish nationalism?" And my teacher was dissapointed one more time.

I've disappointed several professors and TAs since High School as well. I remember the January to March 2003 lead up to the Iraq War clearly and I actually made an impact by convincing my first year Political Science tutorial of all the pro-war arguments. They were shocked and had no rebuttals whatsoever - even the TA. "Wow, you're the first pro-war Canadian we've ever met, and we would've never expected those arguments from you!" and even on the substantive issues like the possiblity of WMD, the idea of "sovereignty" being silly and immoral in relation to bands of dictatorial thugs like Saddam, and on the idea of how Iraq would almost certainly be better off within a few years after the war - everyone sort of "agreed" with my points.

Conservative students simply need to grow the courage to share their points of view. When that happens, professors will be less likely to assume that the entire class is filled with Bush-hating liberals, and the equal flow of ideas will become more and more common.

Canadian Weblog Awards

Hmm... I didn't deserve to win (for Best New Blog), but I did anyway. Babbling Brooks, And Gods of the Copybook Headings are both better blogs, and a couple of other blogs were probably better too, but it doesn't really matter about who's better, does it?

I ran a better campaign.

This was supposed to be a victory post, but I think I need to comment on the awards competition itself.

Robert Mcclelland made the mistake of turning the awards competition into a democratic experiment. And as we all know, democracy is pretty overrated (kidding).

My campaign team reverted to tactics which exploited the system, since the majority of my votes came from Sikh Youths who read my blog, while being completely unfamiliar with the rest of my opponents. Sort of like the party nomination contests that people in my community are infamous for taking advantage of -- except it was less corrupt and immoral.

For next year, the Weblog Awards should be turned into a competition that's decided by a group of elites within the blogosphere. That's just my opinion, and I'm saying that as someone who "won". Maybe Robert could bring together a group of 20 bloggers for next year - a mixture of conservatives, liberals and moderates and they could decide the winners. Its definitely less democratic, but I think it'd make the results mean more, since the judges would be far more informed than the average reader.

I know - the thought of curtailing democracy sounds extreme, but its not like we're electing a government or something - its only an awards competition. Very few awards competitions are 'decided by the people'. The people gave Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 a Best Picture award last weekend - would that ever happen with a competition that's operated by an informed group? Probably not (and that's even taking into account the fact that the "Academy" that votes for the Oscars is dominated by extreme liberals). Informed judges should decide awards competitions. This isn't and shouldn't be a popularity contest.

That doesn't make him a Sikh...

This isn't really that big of a deal, but I was slightly annoyed when someone showed me a copy of today's Globe and Mail article on the Judy Sgro incident:

Harjit Singh, a 49-year-old Sikh pizza-parlour owner from Amritsar, accused Ms. Sgro of reneging on a promise to help him resolve his immigration problems in exchange for free pizza and garlic bread from his Brampton, Ont., business, and for providing Ms. Sgro with campaign volunteers.

Harjit Singh is not a Sikh. Couldn't they do some very basic fact checking? His last name doesn't neccesarily make him a Sikh. He's someone from the Punjab region of India (where almost all of the world's Sikhs are concentrated). There are a handful of Punjabi churches throughout the country, and there's a handful of small "White" Gurdvaras (Temples) as well. Being Punjabi does not make someone a Sikh. There are Punjabi Hindus, Muslims and Christians as well. Harjit Singh used to be a Sikh, until he converted to Christianity years ago. Fortunately, the Toronto Star was factual and responsible enough to look into that:

Sarwar Din, pastor at Evangelical Asian Church in Toronto, says Singh and his family, converts to Christianity, have been regular churchgoers for years. "He is a very nice guy," Din said yesterday. "From time to time, I would pray with him. His whole family used to come to church."

Again, its not that big of a deal. Being a Christian or a Sikh doesn't make him any more or less likely to have done what he's done... but the Globe and Mail should be more careful anyway. And plus, its not like they referred to Judy Sgro, or the other people in the story as "Judy Sgro, a 60-year-old Christian woman..." Yes.. not a big deal, but it still shows that the Globe and Mail should be more responsible when it comes to baselessly assuming people's religious affiliations.

So just to sum that all up - firstly, he's not a Sikh, and secondly, listing his religious affiliation is entirely useless and unneccesary anyway.

Good Effort!

A really good effort by a few hundred Sikhs in Punjab in helping out with the Tsunami disaster in Southern India. Good job to the SGPC for putting together this team.

Unfortunately however, the Tsunami victims didn't really accept their help... Good effort anyway. I'm really glad to hear that they (the SGPC) are trying to take an active role. The United Sikhs organization has also been doing lots of great work over the past few weeks... Our SSA (Sikh Students Organization) at UBC raised $10,000 as well.

Too many Sikh cooks spoil broth
AFP[ FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2005 11:32:10 AM ]

NAGAPATTINAM: Sikh community dispatched 110 chefs from Punjab to the tsunami-battered southern coast only to be told that the survivors would not eat what they cook.

In Tamil Nadu, where the tsunami killed some 8,000 people, villagers live on a staple diet of rice and, if they are lucky, fish. Unlike people from northern India they do not eat wheat bread, potatoes or meat.

"A big army of Sikhs from Punjab have arrived to help the affected people," said local government official Shanta Seela Nair, head of rehabilitation operations in Nagapattinam district, the worst-hit in the December 26 tragedy.

"They wanted to set up community kitchens and we told them the food they cook will not be eaten by the local people. Instead the cooks can be used as volunteers for help in other areas," Nair said.

"But they also need to eat their own food. So we let them set up a kitchen at a college ground," she said.

According to Sikh tradition, langaars or community kitchens, offer free food to the poor and needy across north India where the religion was founded in the late 15th century. '

The Sikhs, resplendent in blue, orange and white turbans, travelled more than 2,500 kilometres (1,550 miles) by train.

Trucks, loaded with donated rice, wheat flour, potatoes, onions, cooking stoves and gas cylinders followed them down.

Nair, the state's senior administrator, said "perishable goods" such as wheat flour and rice were sent to remote villages.

"Their intention was good but they did not bother to find out whether local villagers like what they cook," she said.

The 300-strong Sikh or "disciple" team includes 110 cooks, 40 doctors and the remainder volunteer support staff. They were organised from the religion's holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

The doctors have plied their trade from village to village while the cooks have had to muck in on general relief work.

"We are a bit disappointed," said chef Kuldeep Singh Nassupur. "Despite all this, some (people) still walk in (to the langaar ) asking for food and we never say no."

One of his colleagues Hardeep Singh said that during a disaster the most important factor for the Sikh religion was "serving the needy".

"It is our duty to help our brothers. It does not matter whether they come to our kitchen or not. We are here to serve," he said.

This could really hurt them

Same-Sex Marriage could really end up hurting Paul Martin among Canada's immigrant communities. I've seen two articles from TribuneIndia.com covering the issue. And oddly enough, the Sikhs quoted in the second article sound almost exactly like conservative evangelicals or catholics. I never imagined this being such a huge issue in Punjab... but apparently it is.

Here's the first:

Martin cancelled visit over marriage Bill row
Sarbjit Dhaliwal
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 6
The Same Sex Marriages Bill, which is to be introduced in Canadian Parliament (House of Commons) in its session beginning on January 31, is said to be the main reason for the cancellation of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's visit to the Golden Temple, where he was to pay obeisance on January 15.

As many as four Sikh members of Canadian Parliament--- Mr Gurbax Singh Malhi, Mr Ujjal Dosanj, Ms Ruby Dhalla and Mr Navdeep Bains---were to accompany Mr Martin to the Golden Temple. One senior member of the proposed entourage of Mr Martin told The Tribune today on the phone from Canada that now Mr Martin was expected to visit India only for one day. He would meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh in Delhi. In fact the Canadian PM, who is to visit India, China, Japan,Sri Lanka and Bangkok, has made a major change in the schedule of his visit.

Sources said that six Sikh MPs are sharply divided on the issue of same sex marriage issue, which is to be permitted in Canada by Martin's Government by passing the Bill in the coming session of Parliament. Mr Gurbax Singh Malhi, an MP of the ruling Liberal Party, and Mr Gurmant Singh Grewal and his wife, Mrs Narinder Kaur Grewal, both MPs of the Opposition Conservatives, are opposing the Bill openly.

Mr Ujjal Dosanj,who is a minister in Martin's Government, is obviously supporting it because without the approval of the Council of Ministers it could not be introduced in Parliament. Interestingly, Mr Navdeep Singh Bains, a young Amritdhari Sikh MP of Canada, is said to be supporting the Bill, while another MP, Ms Ruby Dhalla, is yet to make her stand clear on it. Sources said that the Bill would get through as it had the support of a majority in the House because certain Opposition MPs are also supporting it. Otherwise, Mr Martin is heading a minority government that is supported by only 135 of the 308 MPs in the House.

In the Sikh religion same sex marriages are not allowed. It is taken as against the law of nature. Indian law also does not permit such marriages. But legal action has not been initiated anywhere as yet in India though reports of such marriages have appeared in the media.

Sources said that Mr Martin was advised that as he was considered the principal votary of the Bill, the Sikh clergy may not present him and other Sikh MPs supporting the Bill with the siropas during their visit to the Golden Temple.Non presentation of siropas would hit the Liberal Party hard politically because most of the Sikhs supporting it in Canada would turn away from it, keeping in view the posture adopted by the Sikh clergy.

In fact Mr Martin's Government could fall any time after the session. General elections would follow the fall of the government. In that election the Liberal Party would be requiring the support of Sikh voters, say sources. Because of this reason, Mr Martin wanted to avoid the siropa controversy.

In fact already a number of Sikh religious bodies of Canada have informed the Sikh clergy and the SGPC with regard to the controversy about same sex marriages and the stand taken by various bodies in this regard. The Ontario Sikh Gurdwara Committee, an apex management body of 15 Sikh gurdwaras, have publically taken a stand against the Same Sex Marriages Bill. It has built pressure on Mr Bains to oppose it. In fact a large number of churches are also opposing the Bill and campaigning against it.

And here's the second:

SGPC against same-sex marriage
Sarbjit Dhaliwal
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 13

The SGPC is against same-sex marriage, which has become a hot issue in countries like Canada, where Sikhs are settled in a big number.

Taking a clear and firm stand on the issue, Mr Sukhdev Singh Bhaur, general secretary, SGPC, said today that such marriages were against the Gurmat and Sikh code of conduct. “Because of this reason, the SGPC was against such marriages,” he added.

There are six Sikh MPs in Canadian Parliament. They are divided on the issue. Three of them have taken a stand against the Bill to be passed next month by the Canadian Government to legalise such marriages in that country. However, two MPs — Mr Ujjal Dosanj and Mr Navdeep Singh Bains — are supporting the Bill. Ms Ruby Dhalla, another MP, has not made her stand clear yet.

Asked that certain Sikh MPs are supporting the Bill in Canada, Mr Bhaur said that it was because of politics of votes that they were supporting it. Sikh MPs should only support what was in accordance with the Sikh “maryada” and code of conduct. They should stick to what has the approval of the Gurmat, he added.

Mr Sukhdev Singh is not alone to say so. Leading Sikh scholars, including Dr Kharak Singh, who has authored books on Sikh religion, and Dr Jodh Singh, Editor-in-Chief of the Sikh Encyclopedia, are of the same view. Dr Jodh Singh said that the concept of same-sex marriages was against the spirit of Guru Granth Sahib. It was also against the law of nature.

“To go against the law of nature was not advisable for those who have been given the responsibility by people to shape the destiny of their respective countries,” said Dr Jodh Singh. “Man has been paying a heavy price for violating the law of nature,” he added, pointing out the devastation caused by tsunami.

Questioning those supporting the same-sex marriage, Dr Jodh Singh asked whether two men married to each other could give birth to a baby, and likewise could two women married in the same manner procreate? If the answer was no, then why to support such marriages, he said.

Dr Kharak Singh, who was a member the Sikh Dharam Parchar Committee of the SGPC that decides about such issues, says that same-sex marriages was an unnatural phenomenon and Sikhism does not approve of it.

Meanwhile, informed sources said that top echelons of the Sikh clergy were expected to issue a statement with regard to the same-sex marriages either tomorrow or early next week.

“Obviously, the legalisation of such marriages by Canadian Parliament by enacting the law next month would influence the Sikh way of life especially of its youth, in that country,” Canadian Sikhs have told Sikh leaders here.

If I had to choose or predict...

I was thinking a few days ago about which prominent Canadian Conservative blogger could possibly, one day, become an actual politician. Or, to be more specific, someone who could hypothetically become the Prime Minister of Canada.

Many bloggers are automatically disqualified because they might not be bilingual, but most of them are disqualified because they're too politically incorrect. Bloggers are usually pretty opinionated, and very few of them are moderate enough to withstand the eastern media's intense scrutiny. There's probably a whole bunch of bloggers who could develop into the stereotype of the Karl Rove-like backroom political powerbroker, but very few would actually be capable enough of attaining elected office.

Common sense immediately narrows down the field significantly. And after a careful examination of most Canadian Conservative bloggers, I'd nominate Laurent Moss from Le Blog De Polyscopique for Prime Minister of Canada (sometime in the future, of course).

Now I'm not saying he should be Prime Minister, since I've never met him, nor do I know what he looks like, nor do I know whether he has any charisma whatsoever, however, judging from his writings, Laurent is a fluently bilingual, genuinely conservative/libertarian francophone from Montreal and that in itself makes him a great candidate, if I had to predict or choose a blogger who could ultimately assume the most powerful office in the country.

Let me go over his credentials:

- He's a Francophone Quebecer, probably a Roman Catholic too. This should be inconsequential, but I'm speaking in practical terms. No non-catholic has been elected Prime Minister since Pearson and only Joe Clark's short minority of 1979 demonstrated a non-Quebecer assuming political power since before Trudeau.

- He's strongly federalist, yet smart enough to realize that being a federalist doesn't neccesarily mean that he has to be a liberal.

- He's genuinely conservative on most issues. He writes against high government spending, he's not neccesarily pro-American, but he's anti-anti-American, he's strongly supportive of free speech (CHOI FM), and with every major issue, he seems to lean towards the conservative/libertarian position.

- He declares himself to be pro-choice, but he's demonstrated that he's tolerant of pro-life views, he considers them to be wrongly villainized, and he seems to genuinely fit into the "society is better when abortion is rare" category of people, who would probably be against late-term abortions, partial birth abortions, etc. His views put him with the majority of Canadians, yet they allow him to seem conservative enough to appeal to conservatives as well.

- He's a blogger. I'm sure that must mean something. Yet he very rarely blogs anymore. Meaning he has a life outside his computer! Another point for him.

- His posts are very informed, and very well supported. He's a smart guy with well thought out positions on a wide array of issues related to public policy.

- He's a member of the Western Standard group blog, meaning that he's at least in touch with the views of the Reform/Alliance crowd (that sounds like a put down, but it's not) that dominate the Western Standard.

I could probably go on with a few more points, but I think I just realized that this post is pretty ridiculous... ah well.

UPDATE: After posting this I just noticed that Laurent wrote an insightful post earlier today at the Shotgun about the possibly colliding worlds for supporters of Gay Rights and Abortion.

People think I'M smart, but what about THIS guy?

Joel Fleming writes an insightful post about the emotionally draining experience of sitting through Political Science tutorials in most Canadian universities... (one of the main reasons I decided to become a history major) He's 18 years old, just like me, and he has a disturbingly sharp mind. I'm jealous. And just so everyone has a more representative measure of his grasp on Canadian society, check out this post as well.

Allow me to share my favourite poli-sci tutorial moment: After I went on a rant about something... I forget exactly what, there was a moment of silence, after which the TA said "Woah, you sound just like Donald Rumsfeld", and really, who wouldn't want to sound like Donald Rumsfeld?

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. - Donald Rumsfeld

Update: Someone just told me that because our blog templates are identical, they get confused over which blog they're reading. I'll take that as a compliment.

I take that back...

In my last post I made a relatively silly point about why the 1990s were the "good times" in comparison to the years since.

- Because of the ignorance, security and travelling issues were a lot more laid back. Travelling to the USA or anywhere else was much less of a hassle.

Even though I made it clear that security was lax due to a general ignorance about possible threats, let me make it clear that I (generally) consider that ignorance regrettable because it resulted in 9/11 and other possible catastrophes.

On another topic, there was a thought that crossed my mind several months ago. I wonder what happened to the security agents that essentially allowed 9/11 to take place due to their failure to be adequately vigilant. Do you think that they still work at airport security, and more importantly.......... how do they live with themselves? I don't mean that in a mean way, but I would have a very hard time carrying on with life, knowing that the deaths of nearly 3000 people and a major factor in the partial meltdown of the US economy was because of my failure to be vigilant enough when doing my job. Has anyone heard anything about them? I haven't.

La Belle Époque

That's right. Going to university allows me to write my post titles in French.

Anyways... I'm taking a fourth-year course right now, on the History of Modern France... and the professor was referring to a period in French history known as the "beautiful era" or essentially the "good times", to which the French continuously look back upon with nostalgia as an era that developed French culture, saw peace between France and its neighbours (a peace that they knew was bound to be broken), and was just overall, a good time.

I think in every life, there has to be something similar to that. Many people think that western civilization will never beat the "good times" of the 1990s. It obviously will, but probably not anytime soon.

The 1990s were a pretty good time. I personally think that it actually was the west's La Belle Époque. Sure, some of us here in BC got screwed over by a political situation that resulted in two successive, 5-year-long NDP governments, but on the whole, things were pretty good.

- Fears over nuclear war were essentially over. The Cold War was finished... And the west (the USA) had won.

- Relative freedom was spreading in Eastern Europe.

- The economy boomed around 1994.

- The thing that dominated US presidential politics focused around an affair, not a war. (even though, I optimistically believe that Iraq will lead to peace in the long term.)

- Even though there was rampant corruption in many quarters of the Canadian federal government, there was an unquestionable rightward tilt among the federal liberals which resulted in Canada's first balanced budget in a quarter century. Paul Martin probably delivered a more conservative budget in 1995 than most people remember.

- The west was relatively ignorant of Islamic extremists. (Ignorance is bliss, right?)

- Because of the ignorance, security and travelling issues were a lot more laid back. Travelling to the USA or anywhere else was much less of a hassle.

- For my Sikh youth friends in the USA, slurs such as "paki" and "turbanator" were slowly but surely being replaced with a sense of tolerance, until that new slur (Osama), pushed back the level of cooperation and friendship ten years between "brownish" students and white students in thousands of high schools.

And as with all nostalgic periods, we overlook the fact that there were many problems as well. Bosnia and Rwanda among dozens of other conflicts resulted in the deaths of millions. Japan's economy collapsed. America's own economy was being built on investment into the potential of dot coms that never truly materialized. However, things in the west were generally pretty good.

I think the main problem George W. Bush had in the past election was in communicating his vision that his foreign policy was one that would ultimately lead to peace. I think he did a pretty decent job of conveying that vision, but even so, its still pretty scary to watch history unfold infront of us. None of us knows whether long-term peace in the middle east, or in many other places will take hold over the next decade or so. If it does, then maybe we'll witness a period better than the 1990s sometime soon... if not, we might yet have to wait a few decades. It'll come though... eventually.

Another reminder to...

Vote! I'm nominated for "Best New Blog". Vote for me even though I think that at least 2 of my competitors are better.

Please Explain

This might seem like a disingenuous question, but I'm actually being sincere.

Why do politicians get credit for dishing out the taxpayer's money to the Tsunami victims? (Even though it actually is a noble deed.)

I was just watching part of Paul Martin's press conference in which he dished out another $400 million and you instantly got the feeling that he was longing for the Canadian people to love him for being so generous and compassionate. And the saddest part is that I'm sure that this will help him electorally. Canadians will actually think to themselves "My god, that Paul Martin is such a kind and good man." (Even though he probably is a good and kind man, anyway.)

Its so shocking because he genuinely seems to believe that HE, himself is giving that money away. He genuinely seems to think that it was HIS compassion that enabled Canada to deliver that aid to the countries affected in South-East Asia.

Well, at least Martin still runs a surplus budget. I wonder how generous and benevolent Pierre Elliot Trudeau must've thought that he was... doling out tens of billions of dollars that didn't even exist.

Wow.

Spiritual Sickness...

Great post with lots of good tips over at Sikhsangat.com....

How do you persuade people?

During last June's federal election, I was perpetually annoyed at how all of my friends lost all of their capabilities to think logically when it came to mindlessly supporting the liberals... one more time.

I couldn't formulate arguments that could persuade even a single person! It was frustrating. Which was always so strange for me, "I'm a conservative, am I really that weird? Are my views really that radical?" No, they're not and they weren't back then, either. I'm still pretty convinced that most people could be persuaded, if given the right reasons. I was so disingenuous that I actually tried to convince people through the gay marriage issue. "Yeah guys, they're going to let gay people get married and have kids and everything!, oh, but just so you know, I actually don't mind that at all".

So, over the course of the next few posts, in order to make my case for conservatism, I hope to illustrate how I personally became a 'conservative.'

I know that many Sikhs have been suspicious of the Conservative Party from way back during the mid-1980s when Joe Clark was in India during the funeral of Indira Gandhi and did NOTHING to speak out against the killings of thousands of Sikhs in the streets of Delhi, even though he must've known that it was taking place. I think this really soured a lot of Sikhs on their potential support for the conservatives. I had to tell at least a dozen people this past federal election that: "no, no! Joe Clark is a Liberal now!". And I also remember back in 1993, during the federal election, when I was 6 years old, I was really excited that the Liberal candidate in my riding (Herb Dhaliwal) would win, just because he was a "Sikh". This was different for Sikhs in 1993, because the conservatives never had any prominent South Asians in their cabinet, or even in their caucus, and the reform party didn't attract any 'ethnic' candidates until 1997. I sort of realized this as a 6-year-old, but a lot of people feel the same way at some level. There's no better way to counteract that fundamental lie about conservatives being racist than to prominently display minorities within the party (which is why I assume that the Conservative caucus is the most ethnically diverse.)

I'd like to start off by saying that I was always conservative from when I was very young, yet my general thoughts and beliefs didn't develop into actual feelings of support for any 'conservative' party until... ummm, until I was 13. (Well, I always supported the Republican party in America from when I was very young but that was only because I strongly disliked Bill Clinton, even though I don't dislike him as much currently - I'll discuss that another time.)

My first 'conservative' inclination was when I was around 8 or 9 years old, when I learnt that my parents paid around 50% of their income to the government. I was floored. Absolutely stunned. I couldn't believe it! Over 50%?!?!? And for what? It seemed so unfair. I was shocked, confused and a whole lot more. And THEN, I learnt that they paid more money, because they MADE more money. My feelings of how unfair things were jumped from high to super-super high. "You mean they penalize success?" I don't think I actually said that, but that's how I felt. Things need to be communicated in terms of 'fairness'. A young person, who hasn't been sufficiently brainwashed by the state or by state-supporting elites will ALWAYS agree that the graduated tax system is unfair. I remember once, in English 11, I wrote this pathetic essay about how the federal income tax was "illegal" because it was only created during war-time when it was sold to the Canadian people as a temporary measure, and my aggressively socialist English teacher gave it a C-. I was pretty stunned, because I didn't realize or understand how my calls for a "flat tax" could be so easily dismissed.

I was 8 or 9, so I never really knew anything about politics, but there was still an image in my mind, for some weird reason that the Liberals were a "pro-business" party, and that's an image that a lot of young people actually still hold. I remember being sick, home from school during the delivering of the 2000 federal budget, when Paul Martin cut taxes... I was actually sort of impressed. The image in my head that the liberals were a pro-business party was re-enforced, because no one communicated to me the fact that they really weren't. I knew that the reform party was more "conservative", but that only made sense to me in social-conservative terms; it never did make sense to me that they were actually more capitalistic. A lot of young people have a lot of lofty goals and dreams and it has to be communicated to them that the liberals are infact a party that holds down the potential of the Canadian economy, it has to be communicated to them that the liberals are a big government party that spent the country in a multi-generational debt because Pierre Trudeau didn't care about the future.

Another 'conservative' inclination came through abortion. No one told me about abortion until I was at least 9 or 10, and even then no one told me whether it was "good" or "bad", but that decision wasn't that hard to make. I was absolutely shocked and horrified when I heard about abortion, and I won't lie about that. My views on abortion might've become a bit more nuanced since, but I was genuinely horrified by the thought of abortion, and still am to this day. The fact that the liberals were a predominantly pro-choice party didn't annoy me as much as the fact that the liberals absolutely VILLAINIZED Stockwell Day during the fall of 2000. I'll get to that tommorow or the day after; but after the Liberals villainized Stock Day for being "a Christian" (essentially), I was permanently horrified by the Liberal Party of Canada.

If not the USA, then who?

One of the most annoying characteristics about left-wingers is their short-sightedness when it comes to global affairs. If you ask any random socialist what their number one hope is, in terms of international relations, they'll almost always say something about ending US imperialistic/colonialistic dominance in the world. Well, that's cool guys, but if the US isn't dominating, someone will probably step up in their place, right?

I'm taking a class right now, its called the History of International Relations in the twentieth century. In order to understand twentieth century international relations, the professor has to often revert back to history from previous centuries. During one lecture, the professor introduced us to "Worlds Systems Theory" or something like that, and it was essentially a theory which stated that at least one hegemonic power had to dominate the world at any given time in history... He started off with the Spanish... then the Dutch... then the British... and the professor stated that obviously, the United States were now the world's number one hegemonic power. He also spent a lot of time discussing hegemonic decline, including economic factors, military factors, and general issues related to overextension... he concluded by saying that all hegemonies had to end... which obviously got me thinking.

As I see it now, its completely 100% in the interests of the world for the USA to perpetuate their global dominance for the rest of time. If the USA isn't dominating global affairs, who will? Wacko Jihadists from the Middle East? Not likely, but maybe. The increasingly fascist and oppressive Red China? Maybe. The deteriorating societies of Europe, with their low birth rates, their unsustainable economies, and extreme (although often mainstream) right wing political parties? I don't get it. Who's the alternative?

Most left-wingers will agree that "terrorism is bad" and that they hope that innocent US civilians aren't attacked by a nuke or some other form of WMD, and I believe them. They're stupid, but they're (usually) not evil. However, underneath their genuine belief that terrorism is bad, they also hope for certain consequences to come about if the US is attacked, i.e. the US will be so devastated and economically broken that they will retreat into complete isolationism after they realize the sins and the wrongs that brought upon their tragedy.

If the US retreats, that'll knock out the world's number one giver of humanitarian aid and the number one liberator of oppressed societies (Afghanistan now, and Iraq will be listed as one indisputably within a few years). Other nations will begin to flex their muscle. The Korean peninsula would likely fall to the North. God only knows what China will have in store for its region. And on and on and on.

The US has its faults. It has a history of not acting 100% righteously. Most people agree now that during the Cold War, the US made a lot of shortsighted mistakes when it came to stopping the flow of communism, but how could the US possibly be worse than China? Or Mainland Europe? Or Arabs from the Middle East? Can anyone possibly foresee a more peaceful world with some non-US entity dominating global affairs?

Some left-wingers get this. They realize that for all of the US' problems, the US is still better than any possible hegemonic alternative. Most people don't realize that if almost any other nation had the resources and the manpower of the United States, this world would be in total chaos. We'd be at World War Ten by now. Christopher Hitchens is one of the only left-wingers who understands this... why can't there be more?

And maybe, one day, god forbid, left-wingers will get what they've always hoped for... would they still be too stubborn to admit that the US was never really that bad? The USA will begin to look far more "liberal" than most people now think... Liberal in relation to any possible alternative, at least.

Quote of the Day

We are six percent or less of the world's population, yet we give almost half. We are a very small number of people, relatively speaking, and we carry the weight of a dozen countries. Secondly, we maintain a military structure that keeps the peace of the world.....Who is in the Indian Ocean with the aircraft carriers, helicopters, skilled personal? No one has the infrastructure in the world, we spend almost half a trillion dollars a year on our military structure, which is essentially the fire department of the planet and it is always at the disposal of people hit in a national disaster.....Incidentally on food aid, we give 60% of all the food aid in the world. It is simply irresponsible to talk about the U.S. as anything other than the most generous nation on the planet. - Charles Krauthammer (this past Sunday, when discussing responses to the Tsunami.)

Overnight Bramgianis

Even though my blog is relatively small (only around 100 visits per day) I probably have one of the most unique audiences out there. On one hand, I probably have a few dozen right-wing Canadian visitors, and then I also have a few dozen Sikh youth visitors as well.

This post is exclusively designed to target Sikh Youths.

Someone just sent me a portion of a conversation that they were having on MSN Messenger. I'm altering the screen names slightly in order to protect their privacy, but the content and consequence of this part of the conversation is unmistakeable.

X Singh says:
is baba jee a brahmgiani? [referring to Baba Harnaam Singh]
baba harnaam singh singh jee is now the jathedar of the Damdami Taksal says:
iam pretty sure...anything he says comes tru

What??! What is wrong with some Taksali youths? Normally, I'm pretty silent about this issue because I have a deep respect for Baba Jarnail Singh, Baba Kartar Singh and Baba Gurbachan Singh, but "Damdami Taksaal" does not go back any longer than Baba Sunder Singh (first half of the twentieth century). It wasn't even called "Damdami Taksaal" until a few decades ago. Anyone who says anything to the contrary is WRONG. Anyone who says that Taksaal was created by Guru Gobind Singh Jee is doing a GREAT disservice to the Sikh panth because they are undermining both the Khalsa Panth as a whole and also Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. Two weeks ago, if I asked any Taksali who knew Baba Harnaam Singh well, if they thought he was a Bramgiani, I guarantee not a single one would say that he was. So why is he one now? What made him a Bramgiani?? Most taksalis haven't even met Baba Harnaam Singh nor do they know much about him at all.

YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GURU BY GIVING SUCH IMPORTANCE AND STATUS TO HUMAN BEINGS.

Update: Additional thoughts here.

Polygamy...

I don't know if its because I can't stand being condescended too by Mark Steyn whenever he writes a column about "Gay Marriage", or if its something else, but I'm really starting to re-evaluate my views on Gay Marriage.

I don't think society will collapse if gays "marry" (and indeed it hasn't since they were first granted the 'right' to do so), but I'm conflicted on the whole polygamy issue. Will society collapse if polygamy becomes legal? Probably not. Will people rush out and marry numerous partners it polygamy is permitted? Probably not either. And its the same thing with "Gay Marriage", I can't imagine how the lifestyles of gays change at all depending on whether they're "married" or not.

Personally, I'm beginning to have a problem with government intervention with marriage at any level. If gay marriage becomes legal, many have argued that polygamy is essentially legal as well (or will be shortly), I didn't buy the argument at first, but numerous people, have logically presented that argument since the Supreme Court ruled on the marriage decision last month. It wouldn't really bother me if polygamous relationships were formed by consenting adults, but it does bother me if the government is perceived to be sanctioning or 'accepting' those relationships. I like to think that I'm strongly against 'legislating' morality and discriminating on that basis, or even being perceived to be acting in such a manner, so in order to get rid of that problem all together, the government would have to stop recognizing all forms of marriage and instead let marriage be an exclusively religious issue. The idea of civil unions seems to be becoming more and more appealing... where the government would simply grant partnership rig