Protected: Lenos Restaurant and Bar
Greg Mortenson: hero or fraud?
A couple of years ago I got the opportunity to participate in an experience that changed the way I see the world. Along with 2 dozen other volunteers, I flew to the small kingdom of Lesotho to build a school on the grounds of an AIDS orphanage. I can already hear the accusations of “voluntourism” – I understand the objections and weighed them before making a decision. I went through the same process again a few months ago when I decided to head out there again, this time to build a utility building with showers, laundry and toilets to accommodate the needs of the overflowing orphanage buildings. I will speak of this in another post, but for the moment I wish to address something that’s been bothering me for several weeks.
In the summer following my trip, I stumbled across the book called Three Cups of Tea at my local library. I’d never heard of the author, but I found the premise intriguing in light of my recent experience. In his book, Greg Mortenson related how he got lost coming down K2 and stumbled into a small village in Pakistan. The encounter changed his life, and he went on to start the Central Asia Institute, an organization dedicated to building schools in that area, so that education could be obtained by local children. CAI’s mission also put a special emphasis on girls’ enrollment - in fact no school would get built unless the community agreed to allow girls to attend.
Mortenson’s goal, as stated in his book, was to encourage education and literacy as a way to enable socio-economic growth, as well as promoting peace by offering more options to the growing youths in the area. He described how the schools changed people’s lives and often gave hope for a better future.
I got hooked on the concept of allowing locals to make the decisions and to follow these wishes. In that sense, Mortenson’s initiative offered a sensible answer to critics of several NGOs accused of cultural imperialism. Even though several schools have been built in response to the proliferation of fundamentalist madrassas, CAI’s schools never imposed a curriculum, especially not one that would promote Western culture over the local one. Instead, they concentrated on fundamentals like science, health and general literacy to improve the overall knowledge of all students. This approach allowed CAI to win over the local population, and most crucially, the approval of local mullahs.
I eagerly purchased my own copy of Mortenson’s follow-up book, Stones into Schools, which I devoured from cover to cover. It detailed the further growth of CAI and introduced us to some students whose lives had been transformed through one of their schools.
I admit, I greatly admire Mortenson’s work. I find it inspiring, and to me it is a perfect illustration that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. It also illustrates a cherished principle that even though we cannot change the world all at once, it is possible to improve it a little bit. Too many people look at the state of things and get overwhelmed by the enormity and complexity of the problems humanity faces. Then, they give up, thinking there is nothing they can do to solve it. And they are correct, in that one single person or organization cannot vanquish poverty and war and diseases. But what they can do is scratch away at the problem. By doing nothing, they allow things to keep going unchanged; but every little bit helps, and by withholding their efforts I think they are denying a part of their humanity. It’s possible to build a mountain out of pebbles, but only if we keep piling the pebbles on. Mortenson’s efforts will not turn Pakistan and Afghanistan into a paradise, but life is a little bit better for some people there because of these efforts, and that’s something.
However, as in most things in life, things at CAI weren’t all puppies and rainbows. Last April, CBS News aired a segment on 60 minutes about alleged irregularities at CAI. The 2 main issues identified in the piece dealt with discrepencies in Mortenson’s recollection of certain events, and questions about CAI’s finances as it related to the handling of donations. The news team investigated on the amounts paid by CAI for the promotion of Mortenson’s books, even though it received none of the royalties, and exposed the low ratio of funds spent on school building compared to the donations received. As well, they interviewed several people who cast doubts on parts of Mortenson’s story, mostly on how he ended up in the small village of Korphe at the beginning of his tale. In one of the most shocking moments, they interviewed Pakistani scholar Mansur Khan Mahsud who denied that Mortenson had ever been kidnapped by a Taliban commander in 1996.
At the time the segment aired, Greg Mortenson had not responded to the allegations, citing health issues. The Central Asia Institute issued a rebuttal regarding the financial issues raised by 60 Minutes. They replied that funds had not been misdirected and promised greater transparency into the financial affairs of the organization.
But the damage had been done. From Nobel Peace Prize candidate, Greg Mortenson became a fraud and a crook almost overnight. Mainstream media played and replayed the allegations while the internet churned up an ocean of opinion pieces, almost all universally condemning him and casting huge doubts on CAI’s legitimacy. The few voices raised in his defense got drowned in the negative chatter.
I found the whole thing upsetting. I read and re-read the information I could find on the subject, to make up my own mind on whether Mortenson was a saint or a fraud. I let all of this sit in my brain for a while – nicely simmering – before coming to a startling conclusion.
He is none of these things.
Greg Mortenson is a human being, just like the rest of us. As such, he has strengths and weaknesses, and he is just as likely to make mistakes as most people. That is why I found the whole episode so grotesque: it was treated in absolute terms, which cannot be used when analyzing the human condition. We were asked to make a choice: good or bad, straight or crooked, angel or demon – but nothing in between.
I can’t understand why we expect good people to never err, any more than I understand why we refuse to acknowledge the good in people we consider enemies. If Mortenson fudged the truth of CAI’s origin story, does it automatically renders all he’s done invalid? If audits find financial irregularities in CAI’s finances, does it negate all the work they have accomplished?
Criticism of Greg Mortenson’s methods may be warranted. He very well may have done some things not quite above board. But at the same time, it’s hard to dismiss his dedication and what he’s accomplished over the years.
In our endeavours, we obviously should strive for perfection, but at the same time we should acknowledge the impossibility of that goal. The sin then becomes not from failing, but from not trying. Greg Mortenson tried. He may have failed in some aspects, and I certainly look forward to finding out more about the truth of the allegations raised against him. But let’s abandon our either/or way of thinking. Let us see the nuances that comprise the whole – and then we can judge accordingly.
Protected: Syme story
Harper and Hockey – the non-scandal
All right, brace yourselves – today I am defending Stephen Harper.
I’ll leave you a bit of time to get off the floor. Breathing normally again? Then let’s continue.
Opposition parties were on fire last night at the news that Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended Game 4 of the Stanley Cup Finals last night in Boston. To recap, Mr. Harper took his daughter to see the Vancouver Canucks play against the Boston Bruins at the TD Center. It wasn’t a state visit; just a regular dad spending quality time with his kid, enjoying a good game.
Problem is, says the people, this ain’t no regular guy. That’s the leader of our country. And because of security guidelines, he cannot fly commercial. This makes sense, no one expects the PM to board the buses with wings that pass for airplanes these days. Like him or not, he has the top job and he’s entitled to proper protection.
So the Harpers flew on one of the government’s Challengers, whose operation and maintenance are paid by our tax dollars. As this was a personal trip, he cut a cheque for what it would have cost to fly commercial: $530 per passenger.
Here comes the outrage: the cost to use the Challenger comes between $3000 and $10,000 per hour (depending on the source), meaning that Mr. Harper’s cheque probably didn’t cover the cost of taking off from the Ottawa airport. And that does not include the extra cost for his security detail.
You know what? I could not care less. This is nothing but a drop in the sea of unnecessary expenses racked up by politicians of all stripes. Every administration sends people on useless junkets that bring nothing to taxpayers except a few pictures. Honestly, I want to know what City Councillors bring back from “fact-finding missions” to places like Thailand or Portugal. Or how our communities benefit from ministers attending various conferences in England or Mozambique. Every time our elected officials travel across the country for ribbon-cutting ceremonies or commencement addresses, they do so on our dime.
So the Prime Minister went out and watched a hockey game. Big deal. That’s our national sport, and it’s been a while since a Canadian team made it to the Finals. It may not have been an official visit, but still, it’s part of the political arena, and he still represented us. When your MP attends the county fair or the peach festival, it might be as a private individual but for all intents and purposes she is still doing her job. That’s the life of a public figure.
Was this a good use of public funds? Probably not. But in the grand scheme of things, this is not the stuff scandals are made of. When we’ve fixed everything else and we’ve managed to stop the Conservatives from pork-barreling for fun and profit, then we can tackle this. But right now, there are much bigger things to be outraged about.
What I’d like to know about this whole thing is: couldn’t he get tickets to Vancouver instead? I mean, why go to Boston? Does Stephen Harper secretly root for the Bruins?
Now THAT would be worthy of outrage.
Labour practices: a race to the bottom?
Some things can be counted on to work the same way over and over again. You know you can rely on your Timmie’s or Starbucks to taste the same, day in, day out. You know the DVP will be jammed, regardless of the time of day. You know there will be one last snow storm before the end of April. And you know that the editorial page of the Toronto Star will lean slightly left.
These predictable occurrences provide a soothing background to the hectic melodies of our lives, which makes it even more jarring when the pattern gets broken.
To wit, the stupendously off-key opinion column offered last week by Editorial Board member Carol Goar. Entitled “Public sector ‘haves’ face a backlash”, it powerfully illustrated our national prejudice when it comes to employees on the public payroll.
The core of Ms. Goar’s argument rests on the inevitable backlash against the perceived injustice of civil servants’ compensation. Her column, was prompted mostly by the announcement of a deal reached between the City of Toronto and its police force. The new contract offers Toronto’s finest a 11.5% raise over 3 years. Obviously, other unions representing municipal workers are looking at this deal with a great heap of satisfaction; they have just been handed a massive negotiating tool – precedent.
What made Ms. Goar’s stance so surprising was the frontal attack she took on public workers. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have no issue with a Star editorialist branching out from the “official line”. These are opinion writers, not Parliament backbenchers. She is entitled to her opinions and is free to express them as she will. The fact that she deviates from the usual Star stance on the protection of workers’ rights only shows that she’s willing to see the world in various shades instead of the usual black and white of political punditry.
But really, how does her position fit in a social democrat framework as expressed by the Toronto Star’s editorial policy? How does her column furthers the newspaper’s aim to “speak out forcefully on its opinion pages for social and economic justice for all Canadians.”
Let’s note this with extra attention: “for all Canadians“.
Earlier that week, this same newspaper covered the release of a report by the Workers’ Action Centre regarding the growing “wage theft” phenomenon. The report provided proof of rampant abuse of workers’ rights affecting mostly low-wage earners. Only a few days later, The Star published a strong editorial decrying wage theft, and calling for the government to better enforce labour laws.
In this context, I just cannot reconcile Ms. Goar’s position with the paper’s stated goal to speak out for social justice. Here are a couple of facts, easily obtainable by anyone:
- The inflation rate in Canada in April 2011 stood at 3.3%, with a 3.6% rate in Ontario.
- New jobs in Canada continue the trend toward part-time employment, which usually offer smaller to no benefits. Almost one third of the new jobs created came from the tastefully named “Business, building and support services” – think office cleaning and call centres.
- Around one-third of the Canadian workforce holds precarious employment. This refers to part-time, contract and temporary jobs, again with fewer benefits and often ineligible for Employment Insurance.
With these facts in mind, I’d like to ask Ms. Goar the following question: instead of going after the government for doing the right thing, i.e. offering their workers decent conditions, why not go after the private sector for NOT doing that? What is gained by nailing the police force for being able to negotiate what amounts to a few hair over a cost-of-living adjustment, and giving a free pass to the countless corporations who offer piddly raises (when they do offer them at all) that don’t even cover inflation?
I’d love to see public outrage over benefit cuts, pension-fund raids and the overall deterioration of employment status. You don’t need to be a bleeding-heart socialist to figure out that a labour force pushed into worsening economic conditions will have a harder time participating in the backbone activities keeping our country afloat: buying stuff and paying taxes. No raise means a declining buying power. That’s Economics 101.
It’s time to speak up against this race to the bottom. Let’s stop the hypocrisy of decrying the labour practices in emerging economies while allowing our own standards to go down.
Let’s get a new Toronto island
Life in Canada is changing. Let’s face it, the ideal society we thought we had no longer exists, if it ever existed in the first place.
Income inequality is on the rise, taking a toll on lower-income individuals and putting additional pressure on the middle-class. Government deficits threaten social programs once thought untouchable.
On social policies, the federal government seems to have seriously fallen out of steps with the times. While the courts are paving the way to legalize prostitution and marijuana use, Bev Oda’s ministry has defunded Planned Parenthood though sheer neglect – basically negating Canadians’ liberal stance on women’s reproductive rights.
Easy to see how all this can dampen the civic spirit.
Well, hear me out, because I have a solution. Something so simple, so neat and so effective that in one fell stroke it will solve all these problems and finally turn Toronto into the world-class city it has longed to be for so many years.
I call it “Sin Island”.
The idea came to me a few days ago as I passed through Montreal. Driving on Highway 132 across the river from the Casino (a former Expo 67 building so ugly it almost becomes its own form of beauty), I remembered that the island where it stands didn’t come about naturally. In fact, it was built in 1965 from the material excavated during the construction of the Metro, Montreal’s much-beloved subway system.
Since Mayor Ford wants to have new subways in place in time for the 2015 Pan Am Games in Toronto, why not do the same thing? Wouldn’t it make the process easier if we could just dump all that dirt somewhere in Lake Ontario, instead of spending millions of taxpayer dollars to dispose of it? I can see just the spot… there is a nice little bay in front of Sunnyside Park with lots of space to build. It’d be nothing to create an exit ramp off the Gardiner and a bridge to the new island. As well, you could link the Airport Island with Sin Island with a ferry, bringing in tourists directly without having to suffer through Pearson International and its extravagant cab fares.
But why, you ask, would anyone be interested in visiting a man-made island in the middle of nowhere? Debauchery, of course.
Let’s give credit where credit is due, and give a hearty hand of applause to Giorgio Mammoliti and his hare-brained scheme to put a red-light district on the Toronto Islands. Frankly, why you’d want brothels in the middle of the City’s biggest park is something only the good councillor may be able to answer. Think of the children! You don’t want them to know about sex now, do you?
But the idea had merit. If prostitution does become legal, then sex workers will likely wish to establish themselves in safe, respectable areas. Obviously, that just won’t do – think of the loss in property value. But a new island, devoted to all things frowned upon by good citizens? That’s more like it.
Brothels are just the start. In that same space, add the pot shops that will inevitably rise once marijuana is legalized. Keep the stoners away from the downtown core, but not too far that the City misses out on the tax revenue.
At that moment, you have a facsimile of the fabled Amsterdam. It needs a bit more. But what? A casino, of course! How about 2? Hey let’s make it at least a half-dozen, with hotels, restaurants and bars, and maybe a Cirque du Soleil show. And make sure to get a dispensation so liquor can be served 24/7.
Think about it! Amsterdam and Las Vegas all in one place! A huge adult entertainment centre where you can get pretty much anything you can think of to have a good time: alcohol, gambling, sex, drugs and probably some rock and roll, or at least a Wayne Newton show. All this within easy distance of downtown, and a cinch to get to for tourists, so they never have to set foot in the ‘real’ city. We’d get the tourist dollars without the inconvenience of actual tourists.
The tax revenue would more than compensate for the construction costs, and then top up the government coffers so we can afford to pay for things like healthcare and roads. And that’s not counting all the jobs that the scheme would create! It’s a win-win-win.
There you go, Misters Ford, McGuinty and Harper (or whomever). Tough problems, easy solution.
By the way, as I am currently unemployed in these boom economic times (at least, according to the federal finance minister), I’d be more than willing to assist you in bringing this project to fruition. After all, implementing my vision should be left to the person most likely to understand it: me.
I’ll be expecting your call.
Tim Horton’s and the rules of civility
Like most Canadians, I enjoy my cup of coffee in the morning. My visit to Timmie’s is as much part of my daily routine as showering or brushing my teeth. “Good morning I’ll have an extra-large coffee with milk please – one seventy two please drive through” would be the one of the show-stopping numbers if my life was ever turned into a musical.
I should feel bad for spending this money every single day when I could very well make myself a cup of joe to go before I leave home. I sure have enough travel mugs to pull it off, courtesy of my occasional bouts of do-goodery: buy mug, use mug every day, use mug every other day, forget mug in car, find mug 3 weeks later, leave mug in cupboard. Based on the price of coffee and milk at the store, I’d probably save a couple hundred dollars every year. For me, this is the price tag on convenience. And yes, I know drive-thrus cause all sorts of pollution. But at that time of the morning, I am rarely awake enough to care. Especially when it’s minus 14 outside.
My regular visits to my preferred coffee pimp offer little glimpses into life in Canada’s metropolis. I’d love to see a documentary about the Tim Hortons nation – the soccer moms, the busy executives, the chatty seniors, the teenage dates – because it seems that sooner or later, everybody goes through there. Moreover, the patrons’ behaviour, if analyzed properly, could likely offer fascinating insight on our society.
Take the drive-through. Much has been said about the improvements in service brought by technology. Transactions have become faster and more efficient. Consultants have researched the optimal scenarios and outlets base their performance measurements against these metrics. Look inside next time you reach for your bagel and change, and you will see a well-orchestrated dance, each employee assigned to specific tasks designed to speed up the process. It’s beautiful, and a bit scary at the same time. There is no leeway for thought or initiative.
Just as regimented, customers are also expected to conform to a certain pattern. To wit, the infamous drive-through rules we adhere to, if often unconsciously.
The way we react to transgressions of these sacred rules says something about the Canadian spirit of civility.
A few mornings back, I watched the person cutting in front of me with incredulity followed by helpless anger. So deep was my outrage that I felt compelled to share it with the lady taking my order, so that she could fully assess the villainy of the lady in the Jetta as she handed her a double-double. Better yet, the disembodied voice apologized. She asked forgiveness for someone else’s misdeed.
Why does that kind of behaviour upset us? Really, how fares your life when the worst thing that can happen to you is to be stuck behind minivan mom as she finally realizes upon reaching the ordering microphone that she should figure out what the other 5 occupants of the vehicle would like to order?
No society can thrive without at least a nodding acquaintance to civil rules. Maybe our strict adherence to etiquette represents not the unthinking rigidity of conformism, but the core awareness that civil rules allow us to function as a community.
So to you, dude in a Mitsubishi who parked at the drive-through exit without leaving enough space for others to leave, and to you Buick lady who paid for your small coffee with 3 different ATM cards, I say this:
Stop destroying society.
Plus, you’re standing between my and my coffee. So I mean it.
