International Year of Chemistry.

Its difficult to throughly endorse a worldwide celebration of chemistry, and its "contributions to our well-being", when it's sponsored by chemical industry corporations of such notorious disrepute as BASF (with partner Monsanto in the shadows), the Dow Chemical Co., and DuPont. In fact, it may be even more imperative with sponsors such as these to contemplate the negative impact of industrialised chemistry during a year of events where that particular side of the matter is unlikely to be widely scrutinised.

But then the International Year of Chemistry is an initiative of the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) and UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), which has been endorsed by the UN with the stated aim of raising awareness among the general public of the vital contributions chemistry makes to our lives ever day (and hopefully attract youngsters to the field). The aim of the year's events is also to raise awareness of the potential chemistry has for solving contemporary as well as future global problems. Both these aims are quite worthwhile.

It may also be pertinent to reflect on the fascinating history of the field, from the dimly lit alcoves of ancient alchemists to the gleaming laboratories (and toxic waste sites) of today. Especially when the year coincides with the 150th anniversary of the first printing of Michael Faraday's (1791 - 1867) The Chemical History of the Candle, based on a series of lectures for young people which today have transmogrified into the Royal Institution's Christmas Lectures (not to forget the 220th anniversary of Faraday's birth). It also coincides with 350th anniversary of the first printing of Robert Boyle's (1627 - 1691) The Skeptical Chymist, a volume considered a cornerstone in the field, which contributes to Boyle being regarded as the founder of modern chemistry.

More importantly, as the organisers have noted, the year coincides with the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Prize being awarded to Marie Skłodowska Curie (1867 - 1934) — the perhaps most renown among female scientists in any field. As such it presents an ample opportunity to highlight the work of the many female chemists (like, among many others, Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, Lise Meitner, Clara Immerwahr, Ida Noddack, Rachel Fuller Brown, Agnes Pockels, Rosalind Franklin, or Irène Joliot-Curie), as well as female scientists in other fields, whose contributions to our knowledge of the universe we inhabit generally remain widely unrecognised and unacknowledged. Chemistry, after all, is the one field of science which connects material sciences, astronomy, physics, biology, and geology, through its concern with the very building blocks of everything (atoms and their subatomic particles: protons, electrons, and neutrons).

Most of the year's official events are organised through national chemical societies and regional chemical federations, hence for the most part consist of rather exclusive or trade oriented events — such as conferences, congresses, fairs, meetings, and symposia. However, there are a number of "outreach" events planned as well, including lectures, open discussions, workshops, and art exhibitions actually aimed at increasing public (rather than fellow chemists) appreciation of chemistry. Luckily, by the very nature of chemistry, the general public need not rely on "official" efforts to educate itself. As the science of matter and the changes it undergoes, chemistry — through its concentration on the composition, behaviour, structure, and properties of matter — is perhaps the most substantial, hands-on science, which can be practically engaged in by anyone with practically anything.

Everyone engages in it everyday, through simple acts like boiling an egg, without necessarily being aware of it: chemistry is all around us. With a little help form the nearest public library, and an assortment of ordinary household items, we can all easily set about exploring the wonders of the matter that surrounds us, binds us together, and makes us what we are from the comfort of our own homes.

International Year of Forests.

Over 1.6 billion people around the world — almost a quarter of humanity — depend on forests for their livelihood. Forest products are a source of employment and economic growth, accounting for some US$ 270 million in global trade annually, sustaining communities around the world. Home to some 300 million people worldwide, forests are also integral to regulating the climate and supporting biodiversity. Yet the world's forests, and the people who depend on them, are under increasing pressure from unsustainable logging, and agriculture and biofuel producers competing for land.

Each year 130,000 km² of the worlds forests are lost, mainly through conversion to agricultural land, unsustainable harvesting of timber, unsound land management, and the creation of new human settlements. Covering over 31% of the world's total land area, the Earth's forests and forest soil store more than one trillion tons of carbon, twice the amount found in the world's atmosphere. Forests offer the quickest, most cost effective and largest means of curbing global emissions, while deforestation accounts for up to 20% of the global greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

Not only impacting carbon emissions and climate change, forest degradation also destroys animal and plant habitats, contributes to soil erosion and siltation of rivers and streams, frequently destroying the livelihoods of the poorest among (forest dependent) people. Harbouring 80% of the world's biodiversity, providing habitats for about two-thirds of all species on Earth, the continuous deforestation of closed tropical rainforests in particular could account for the loss of as many as 100 different species every day. Which is why the United Nations is launching the 2011 International Year of Forests at the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) to raise awareness about sustainable management, conservation, and sustainable development of all types of forests.

However, it seems that in Canada — proudly displaying a leaf as its national symbol — the current Conservative government is happy to mark the International Year with a mere pat on the Canadian forest industry's back. Claiming to have more protected forest, and more "third-party certified" forest than any other country, as well as some of the "toughest" forestry regulations in the world, Canada's government and forest industry seem quite content congratulating themselves for the country's position as the world's most successful exporter of forest products.

The Canadian forest industry's inroads in Asia are fodder for a government hungry for any signs of its dismal policies' successes, with Canadian wood exports to China, for instance, tripling in value over the past five years — from C$ 109 million in 2005 to C$ 385 million in 2009. Yet what government and industry frequently fail to mention is that less than 10% of Canada's forest are fully protected, and that logging of one of the world's three largest remaining "frontier forests" (the other two situated in Brazil and Russia) as well as clearcutting account for nearly 90% of all logging activity in Canada.

It may therefore be worthwhile to consider the importance as well as the future development of Canada's forest industry, especially at a time when logging remains the dominant activity in the country's forests. An estimated 50% of Canada's vast boreal forest, the "northern" forest which occupies 35% of the total Canadian land area and 77% of Canada's total forest land, is now accessible by highways and logging roads. Simultaneously, the Canadian Forest Service has experienced dramatic reductions in budget and staff, making access to information about the state of Canada's forests, as well as oversight and promotion of sustainable land management more difficult than before. In other words, it's now easier for Canadian's to find out exactly how large profits the forest industry is reaping than it is to see the forest for all the wood.

Comprising nearly 45% of the total Canadian land area, the forest's animals, plants, and products affect each Canadian every day, from the products we consume and depend upon on to the air we breathe. The "productive" forest areas of Canada total almost 2.5 million km², or roughly a quarter of Canada's total land area. Forestry is Canada's largest natural resource industry, with forest products' trade surplus almost eclipsing the combined surpluses of agriculture, energy, fisheries, and mining, making our country the largest exporter of wood products in the world.

Representing almost 2% of Canada's GDP, worth C$54 billion annually, the forest products industry is one of the country's largest employers, providing 240,000 direct jobs across the country (in silviculture, logging, wood industries, paper and allied products), as well as thousands of indirect jobs through purchases of goods and services. The Canadian forest industry is the economic heart of some 200 communities across the country — communities which have limited alternative economic and employment opportunities.

Clearly, there are many more reasons to take the opportunity over the coming year to consider the asset as well as natural wealth Canada's forests represent, and how we are managing the over a third of the world's boreal forest, the fifth of the world's temperate rainforest, and the tenth of the total global forest cover which lie within our borders. Clearly, our forests deserve more than a round of sanctioned cheers to celebrate how fast we’re managing to sell them.

A War to Remember.

On November 11, they were almost halfway, having left Québec nearly two weeks earlier. Volunteers from all across Canada, heading for a theatre of war on the other side of the globe. For some of them, who'd barely traveled outside their home province, it may as well have been the end of the Earth. For some of them, it'd be the last place they'd ever go. They had signed up to defend peace, justice, progress, and civilization itself, against an enemy who — they'd been told — threatened all with his backward religious zealotry and militant aggression. They were the vanguard, the first 1,019 Canadians out of 7,368 (including 12 female nurses) who'd fight for the British Empire in South Africa over the next two and a half years.

The Second Boer War, known as the South African War in Canada, began 110 years ago. Canadians' awareness of this conflict, its causes and consequences, isn't particularly acute — though given our current involvement in Afghanistan, and the parallels between the two conflicts, we could do with a reminder. Especially as we once again find ourselves governed by reactionaries hellbent on reshaping the identity of our nation to one that better suits their jingoist stance — as evidenced by the current Conservative governments new, revised citizenship guide, and its greater emphasis on Canada's military history. Though don't rely on it for mention of Canada's "adventures" in South Africa, given that our exploits there aren't much to brag about.

That war was precipitated by the British Empire, having already annexed the Natalia Republic (today's KwaZulu-Natal) in 1843, setting its eye on the remaining independent Boer republics of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (Transvaal). Situated between the Orange and Vaal rivers, by 1870 the Orange Free State had yielded impressive diamond deposits, while the Transvaal, north of the Vaal river, was the destination of the Witwatersrand Gold Rush in 1886, following the discovery of the largest gold-bearing deposits in the world. The South African gold may not have been as pure as that produced in Australia and Canada, but it was a lot easier to extract. As for diamonds, they wouldn't be discovered in Australia and Canada until a century later.

The only obstacle between the British Empire and this new sources of wealth were the Boer (black South Africans certainly didn't count). The Boer, descendants of Dutch, German, and French settlers were weary of the influx of mainly British prospectors into their states, and — having gained their independence — certainly not interested in becoming British subjects. The situation came to a head when British colonists launched a disastrous raid into Transvaal towards the end of 1895. Though ostensibly a private enterprise, it had been backed — until the very last moment — by the British government. The Boer successfully repelled the raid, but their predicament was exacerbated further by an unexpected expression of support from the German Emperor.

To the British this was simply further evidence of German meddling in "their affairs", and a perfect pretext for full-blown conflict. As British troops began assembling along their borders, the Boer gambled on a preemptive strike, launching an offensive in October 1899. However, by January 1900, colonial reinforcements from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, gave the British the upper hand, and by September 1900 the Boer republics were overrun. Refusing to surrender, the Boer engaged in a protracted campaign of irregular warfare, lasting until May 1902.

Canada's Prime Minister, Wilfrid Laurier, initally attempted to steer clear of a conflict which had no bearing whatsoever on Canada's national interests. But a majority of English Canadians were rearing for a jolly good "adventure", with the sole opposition emanating from Québec, and a few vocal English Canadian labour unions and farmers' groups. French Canadians in particular were not only worried of setting a precedent for involvement in future conflicts, but could also sympathise with the Boer — small nations struggling for independece in a sea of Anglos. Laurier eventually bowed to pressure, and agreed to a compromise which saw Canada provide volunteers, equipment and transportation in lieu of conscription.

Though Canadians had participated in the Nile Expedition of 1884-85, this was the first time large Canadian contingents participated in armed conflict abroad. Many signed up beliving they'd fight alongside other Canadians, commanded by Canadians even. As it turned out, the Brits called the shots from beginning to end, minding to quickly get out of the way once the actual shooting started. A scenario Canadians would experience for much of the First World War as well. As it happened, the first significant British victory of the conflict was won by Canadians, in the Battle of Paardeberg. Though as wreaths are placed at the South African War memorial in Toronto, the Boer War Memorial in Montréal, and other points of rememberance throughout Canada, let's remember that this particular "victory" — like most of them — was the result of pure luck.

Having experienced their worst day of losses during the entire conflict (8 dead, 60 wounded) in their very first combat, and bungled a nighttime sneak attack which saw most of the Canadian battalion retreat, two Canadian companies managed to convince 4,019 Boer men and 50 women (roughly 10% of the Boer army) to surrender. The battle could've easily gone the other way. Today there aren't many obvious reminders of this specific conflict in Canada, beyond its most infamous commander — Horatio Herbert Kitchener — being the namesake of many a street, park, school, and public building throught the country, even a city in Ontario.

The Mennonite community once known as Berlin, was violently intimidated to change its name after the racist Field Marshall's death in 1916. No German name would be tolerated by the rabid pro-Empire Anglos — despite the fact that the conflict fought at the time was (ostensibly) against German Emperor Wilhelm II , the first grandchild of British Queen Victoria. But Kitchener is perhaps best remembered as the mustachioed Big Brother staring down from a recruitment poster — like a British Stalin — intimidating citizens of the Empire to go get killed in the First World War, the pointless conflict which spelled the end of the era of empires. (Though we're often told to revere those fallen in that war for their sacrifice to peace and democracy, let's remember none of the participating nations were democracies in any modern sense of the word.)

What is less known is the tactics Kitchener employed in 1900, once the British offensive had failed to subdue the Boer. Apart from a "scorched earth" policy, which saw the devastation of Boer farms and ranches, their livelihoods and livestock destroyed, as well as using Boer prisoners as human shields to protect trains, Kitchener also turned refugee camps into concentration camps. Though similar camps had previously been established in the Russian Empire prior to the first partition of Poland, in the USA to concentrate Native Americans, and by Spain in Cuba and the Philippines, Kitchener's concentration camps are distinguished for being the first to actually be termed such.

The internment of Boer women and children in 45 tented camps (and an additional 64 for black South Africans of various ethnicities who lived in the two independent Boer republics) was meant to deny the Boer "guerillas" access to supplies, food, and shelter. Those interned also served as a means to extort: families of Boer men still fighting received smaller rations than others, causing mass starvation. Combined with poor sanitation, lack of food soon made diseases — measles, typhoid, dysentery — endemic in the camps. Shortage of medicine and medical care quickly led to large numbers of deaths.

According to the Canadian War Museum's resident historian Cameron Pulsifer, any comparison of these camps with the more infamous ones established by the German Nazi-regime is "grossly exaggerated and unfair". An opinion that easily calls into question the point of said museum. Whether or not the British — with ample help from Canadian volunteers — had intended to perpetrate a genocide is beside the point. They waged a war on two independent states for the purpose of annexing their territories and forcibly assimilating their populations. Regardless of the stated intentions, the end result ultimately speaks for itself: nearly 25% of the Boer population, 50% of all Boer children under the age of 16, and an estimated 12% of the black South African populations died in Kitchener's camps.

Starvation, disease, and exposure killed 27,927 Boer — of whom 24,074 were children — and 14,154 black South Africans. Though as no attempt was ever made to keep records of black South Africans, their deaths were likely underestimated. As many as 22,000 of the nearly 107,000 black South Africans interned may have perished in the camps. By comparison, only some 3,000 Boer men were killed in actual combat. Additionally, of the nearly 28,000 prisoners of war taken by British forces, some 25,630 were sent to prisons overseas. While not as purposeful as the Holocaust, it's a genocide that's left a lasting effect on the demography and quality of life in the region.

Why does this matter to us now? Because Canadians participated fully in these genocidal actions, taking active part in the "suppressive" policies during the entire duration of the war. Military fetishists like Pulsifer and his fellows at the Canadian War Museum may lack the courage to admit it, but not one among all these people — men, women, children — ever posed a threat to Canada in any way whatsoever. The Canadian War Museum's obfuscation of the atrocities and war crimes committed by Canadian volunteers is disingenuous and dishonest.

Ironically, once awareness of the appalling conditions in camps had been raised, primarily by Emily Hobhouse, Kitchener allegedly issued a "take no prisoners" order to prevent overcrowding. This only came to light during the court-martial of three Australian soldiers — one of whom happend to be folk hero Harry "Breaker" Morant — put on trial for executing Boer prisoners. Kitchener denied ever issuing the order, promptly signing the death warrants of the Australians. This didn't prevent Canadian scouts from wearing black feathers to indicate they'd shoot any Boer captured under arms. And what do we have to show for our participation in this "grand adventure"? 267 Canadians killed in action, 252 wounded, three Victoria crosses, one scarf crocheted by the Queen, and a springbok on the cap badge of the Royal Canadian Dragoons.

Though the legacy of the Second Boer War also taints the dress uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whose distinctive Stetson hats and Strathcona boots were first officially sanctioned for use by Canadian South Africa volunteers. Canada also "gained" a Minister of Militia and Defence in South Africa veteran Sam Hughes — a reactionary hothead who not only helped convince Prime Minister Laurier of the necessity of getting involved in the South African war, but would go on to whip up nationalist fervour in the build up to the First World War, goading Canadians to yet again sacrifice themselves in a foreign conflict that had little to do with them.

As we're asked by our parliament this year to pause for two rather than the traditional minute of silence on Remembrance Day, let us remind ourselves of the chauvinist forces that are in fact one of the leading sources of conflict in our world. Let us remind ourselves how easily we can be decieved to lend our support to armed aggression in far away places, against people we don't know and have never met, who pose little — if any — threat to us.

As the martial sentimentalists in our current government and in our society attempt to institutionalise militarism in our country, to ritualise rememberance ceremonies, and imbue them with chauvinist platitudes and historical revisionism in order to turn future generations into willing recruits, let us remind ourselves that in 1899, the (Liberal) government of Canada claimed the overseas expediton to South Africa would not be a precedent. Time has clearly proven otherwise. It is in our power to change that.

Amazon's gone bad.

Less than a week before Canada Book Week starts, and little over a week until World Book and Copyright Day, America's largest online retailer of books have demonstrated through - what they themselves have termed - "ham-fisted" actions how our freedom to read what we chose continues to be impacted by the arrival of supermassive book retailers. Amazon.com found itself accused of censorship and homophobia after the company removed titles tagged as 'adult' from its online charts, stripping over 57.000 books of their sales rankings - effectively removing them from the company's main product search.

What particularly raised ire was the seemingly arbitrary application of the 'adult' tag to titles with gay themes. Although several children's books as well as titles on sexual health, biographies, and classics were also suddenly at odds with Amazon's "consideration of [their] entire customer base," straight smut was allowed to remain. A tome of Playboy centerfolds (tagged as 'photography') was okay, Heather has Two Mommies and Stephen Fry's autobiography weren't.

Given that little over half of Amazon's revenue is generated in the US, it's perhaps not surprising that the story didn't receive much attention outside the anglosphere. But the company's product searches were affected on all six of the additional, separate websites Amazon operates globally, and the issue itself appears to date back to at least February - ironically the month Freedom to Read Week was celebrated here in Canada. The debate that's followed, mainly online, has unfortunately largely reduced the problem to a gay rights issue.

Amazon's not a a library or public service; they're a business with a right to stock whatever they want. But it's a right that becomes problematic when a bookseller dominates the market like Amazon does. Any titles they, and the other three or four major players, decide not to stock become harder to find, and - by extension - to publish. Supermassive booksellers can also exert pressure on publishers (as Amazon has done in the past) to offer greater discounts, and interfere with publishers direct sales, thereby undercutting the profitability - and ultimately, the existence - of small publishers in particular. It's censorship by proxy.

Herein lies the much larger problem, one mostly ignored by the righteous cries of indignation rapidly raised in response to Amazon's "technical issue." Ultimately, Amazon's business allegedly involves selling stuff, not points of view. So who oversees the tagging, the adding of keywords or categories by customers? Is tagging useful and necessary, or merely an opportunity for certain customers to 'report' titles they deem 'offensive'? That type of tagging is a typical American pastime, one Amazon founder and chairman Jeffrey Bezos and his fellow bozos surely are familiar with.

Like most conservative societies, America's obsessed with labeling everything it considers foreign and frightening. Why else provide boxes for indicating race on official forms, such as driver's license applications? The people most frequently 'offended' by literature that doesn't fit their particularly narrow-minded and parochial outlook have demonstrated quite well in the past that they're capable of speaking for themselves. There's no need for online retailers to back them up, or provide them with tools that help propagate their hateful, self-righteous views. It's certainly not the business of private corporations or their individual customers to determine what others should be able to read.

This debacle is partially the result of online retailers' fierce competition to create a purposefully 'user-driven' online-shopping experience, providing exhaustive amounts of information about every piece of goods - including reviews and comments from other customers. Which, as in Amazon's case, opens the online catalogue to practically anyone who may or may not have something useful to add about a specific item, and who - more often than not - have an axe to grind. As 'pioneering' as Amazon's customer reviews may have appeared once, they've certainly caused the company trouble before (specifically over author's anonymously giving themselves glowing reviews in order to boost sales.)

In other words, this isn't "a glitch," as Amazon stated in a lame, late effort to stem the tide of online fury, but a consequence of how the system is set up. Add a myriad of tags in order to make sure that whatever the customer searches for, Amazon will have something to sell, and "mistakes" like these are bound to arise. After all, Amazon is a rather typical American corporation, started not for the love of books, but as an attempt to cash in on the commercialisation of the Internet. Amazon is all about making money - a fact starkly illustrated by the company's campaigns of intimidation and layoffs to avoid unionisation of its labour force.

However, as commercially driven, flawed, and cynical as Amazon's tag structure is, it can offer search options for those genuinely interested in a specific category to rival the indexes of most national and public libraries. After a fashion, it lives up to Mr Bezos stated aim "to make every book available – the good, the bad, and the ugly...to let truth loose." Hopefully, Amazon will take this opportunity to steer clear of that typically American ambition of providing a moral compass for the masses, evaluate what information it displays online, and stick to what it does best: providing the widest possible selection, and selling what sells.

In the meantime, here's a handy tip for all you budding reactionary crusaders out there: the chance of encountering something that offends your sensibilities online are a lot smaller if you don't search for it in the first place.

Anyone for tennis?

As the Australian Open commenced this week, the question on many tennis aficionado's minds wasn't who'd dominate centre court, who'd camp out by the net, who'd remain parked by the baseline, or even whether the two-handed backhand would remain the pro's weapon of choice. It was what Alizé Cornet would be wearing — a question which touches on sport in a most minimal fashion.

The nineteen-year old current top French player, ranked fifteenth in the world, made headlines some time prior, appearing in a mixed doubles match reportedly wearing a "see-through" top (not nearly as scabrous as it was reported). Duly outraged, grand old dames of tennis issued scathing comments, while Tennis Australia let it be known that any competitor in the upcoming Grand Slam tournament not adhering to its strict dress code would be fined some A$2.000 (≈C$ 1.650).

Now, neither French players nor the fashion house Lacoste — presently Ms Cornet's wardrobe sponsor — are strangers to controversy. Finding ways to combine their interest in tennis with their passion for fashion, they've endeavoured to break the dominance of unadorned white, on a court where gentlemen once only wore long trousers and ladies full-length dresses, long before the emergence of flamboyant players like Andre Agassi.

La Divine Suzanne Lenglen, winner of five consecutive Wimbledon titles between 1919 and 1923 (the last French woman to win that title until Amélie Mauresmo in 2006), pioneered dresses daringly cut for the time, just above the calf, while Le Crocodile René Lacoste introduced a tennis shirt of his own design in 1927 — adding his croc logo a year later — which he went on to mass market in 1933. Today, fashion houses of all stripes lure athletes with millions of dollars annually to endorse their wares. To the point where tennis starlets no longer need to possess nor display any athletic prowess (Ms Kournikova comes to mind).

Not wearing underwear may have been a poor choice in combination with a flimsy top, but the point of a bra is — ultimately — to provide support where it's needed. As Ms Cornet clearly isn't in need of any, this then becomes a question of mere nipples preventing distracted competitors, referees, and audience alike from keeping their eyes on the ball. It's a storm in a teacup understandably whipped up by those interested in hawking something other than sport — to which the ubiquitous logos will attest. No surprises there.

More perplexing is the fact that Tennis Australia has chosen to play along with Ms Cornet and her sponsors, making sure attention was drawn to the up-and-coming player — and, one presumes, by extension to the upcoming tournament. Any true opportunity for a serious discussion about the collusion of commercial interests with sport, and the ensuing consequential sexualisation of athletes, is hence lost to the self-interest of the organizing body.

The only truly shocking aspect of this affair is Tennis Australia's insistence that it actually possesses a dress code. Anyone who's ever endured the dominance of garish getups at the Australian Open — the fifth oldest event of its kind — knows it's hardly the last sartorial bastion of tennis, like Wimbledon. Professional sport is first and foremost a business, dominated primarily by what pulls the punters in.

No amount of public ballyhooing about nipples is likely to change that — as evidenced by the fact that Slovakia's Daniela Hantuchova, ranked 21st in the world, sponsored by Nike, made her Monday debut Down Under in an outfit tight enough to render her entire ribcage in vivid detail, never mind her nipples. No mention of a fine yet, though; and somewhere in Oregon a vendor of sports apparel smiles.

Looking toward 2009, part II.

Astronomers can look forward to an exciting year, with the official launch of the International Year of Astronomy in January, aimed not only at celebrating the 400th anniversary of Galileo Galilei first demonstrating his improved telescope, but to stimulate interest in science generally and astronomy in particular. The main event will be April's 100 Hours of Astronomy, intended to encourage as many people as possible to peer through a telescope for the first time.

And there'll be plenty to crack a gander at: an annular solar eclipse in January, the longest total solar eclipse of the 21st Century in July, and three (in May, July, and December) triple conjunctions of Jupiter and Neptune. NASA will celebrate the 40th anniversary of humanity arriving on the Moon, by smacking the LCROSS probe into the pockmarked satellite — an event that will also be visible on Earth via telescope. NASA's Kepler Mission to discover Earth-like planets will hopefully be a lot less violent.

Back on Earth, physicists will eagerly anticipate the second attempt to start up the world's largest high-energy particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider. The ensuing smacking around of protons in the world's largest machine, in order to discover hitherto hypothetical quantities of inner space fragments, may turn out to be the biggest (no pun intended) event in a century's particle research.

Save perhaps Tom Tykwer's (Run, Lola, Run) and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's (Amelie) new films, cinema's prospects in 2009 appear rather dull. Tykwer’s The International has Clive Owen and Naomi Watts taking on a particularly evil bank, while Jeunet's Micmacs à tire-larigot pokes fun at the arms trade. Faces familiar to Jeunet's fans, like Dominique Pinon, Albert Dupontel, André Dussollier, Yolande Moreau, and Dominique Bettenfeld will appear — though Jamel Debbouze has pulled out.

There's also The Maiden Heist, a comedy in which Christopher Walken, Morgan Freeman, and William H. Macy portray museum security guards with a somewhat unhealthy attachment to certain exhibits, and the likely most hyped film of 2009, Star Trek. Among the myriad of things audiences will undoubtedly be left to ponder (apart from the usual time travel drivel) is whether the fact that the female Starfleet officers' miniskirts being longer now then they were in the 60s represents a step forward or back.

Children's books turned into film this year include Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are, directed by Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich) with a screenplay by McSweeney's founder David Egger, blending live action, animation, and CGI, with actors in large foam suits, as well as Roald Dalh's Fantastic Mr Fox, a stop-motion animation with characters voiced by George Clooney, Cate Blanchett, Anjelica Houston, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, and Meryl Streep among others, with Jarvis Cocker (Pulp) contributing "three, four" songs.

Old favourites being rehashed this year also include Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch), with Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Dr Watson attempting to — oh, tedium — stop a conspiracy from destroying Britain, and The Prisoner, the iconic late 60s allegorical, psychological spy drama, which perplexingly (though such was its calling card) is being remade as a six part television miniseries.

In gaming there's bound to be lots more of the usual jabbing, smacking, whacking, and gallivanting with gun in hand to be expected, though a few sophisticated titles are slated for release too. In January, twenty years after the city-building simulation game SimCity initiated a change in the average gamer profile, Electronic Arts plans to publish SimAnimals, a fauna-simulation game allowing players to run their own forest complete with critters for NDS, iPhone, iPod Touch, and Wii.

In April, Microïds aim to release Still Life 2, the long-awaited conclusion to the Post Mortem (2003) and Still Life (2005) adventure games. Far from physically challenging, these art-crime thrillers provided plenty of mental exercise in suspenseful settings, with one puzzle infamously tapping gamers' culinary skills to correctly interpret a gingerbread cookie recipe. Hopefully, the new installment will dispense with the predecessors quirks, while providing equally challenging and original puzzles within an exquisite tapestry of intrigue.

Atari's set it sights on the nostalgic, middle-aged gamer, with Ghostbusters: the Video Game set for a June release coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the first film’s premiere. It's the sixth computer game adaptation of the parapsychologists-cum-apparition-exterminators' adventures, this time around for NDS, PC, PS2, PS3, Wii, and X360. Identical to the pitch for Ghostbusters III, the story's written by original authours Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis, with Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts adding their voices; Rick Moranis couldn't be coaxed out of retirement and Sigourney Weaver simply wasn't game.

Gaming Boomers may appreciate MTV Games efforts to roll out The Beatles (working title) music video game for PS2, PS3, Wii, and X360 in time for Christmas. Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia Harrison are involved in producing a game that would allow players to "interpret" 45 songs, ranging from the albums Please, Please Me to Abbey Road, in the guise of their favourite Beatle.

On the cutting edge, Heavy Rain from Quantic Dream will likely be the sharpest contender of 2009. The French outfit, which previously created the action-adventures Omikron: the Nomad Soul (1999, with contributions from David Bowie) and Fahrenheit (2005, titled Indigo Prophecy in North America), has presented impressive previews, but will initially only design the game for PS3. A sequel to Fahrenheit might also be released this year, for PC, PS3, and X360.

Looking toward 2009, part I.

As the New Year dawns media commonly fills up with retrospectives and rankings, as though dwelling on the past could possibly teach us something. If history has ever taught anyone anything, it that it's never prevented anyone from indulging the very proclivities that make us human. A far more worthwhile pursuit would be to instead gaze forward, to the coming year's possibilities, opportunities and events.

One of the main events will no doubt be the end of the Bush-dynasty's reign for a foreseeable future, with the anointment of the first elected non-white leader of any Western state. Often compared to President Lincoln, who — had he been alive — would've turned 200 in February, Mr Obama will hopefully not only live up to the enormous expectations he has inspired, but also manage to stay alive in office longer than that protoplast of idealised American unity.

Lincoln happened to share his birthday with Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who first proposed the mechanism of natural selection. Although Mr Darwin too would've turned 200 in February, and his famous book, On the Origin of the Species, celebrates 150 years in print this coming November, one suspects we'll hear more about the idolised president(s) than the much maligned evolutionary theorist.

Travellers confounded by local currency may fare somewhat better now that Slovakia has replaced its koruna with the euro, while the East African Community hopes to reintroduce the East African shilling as a common currency among its member states (Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda) towards the end of the year. As for the EU's Lisbon Treaty, no one seems quite sure of where it's at. It should, as of now, be in effect, but since it requires all 27 EU members approval — and the Irish distinctly don't — it obviously can't be.

While the EU tries to sort that snag out, the UK will take yet another tentative step towards becoming a democracy in the modern sense of the word by finally establishing an independent judiciary. The UK Supreme Court, as a court of last resort within the realm, will take on the judicial functions of the House of Lords, separating them from the Lords' legislative ones. Perhaps in another century or so the Brits may even jolly well pack the monarchy in.

Canada too could edge closer to a system of representation that actually reflects popular will, as British Columbia prepares to hold yet another referendum (in conjunction with a general election) on reforming our antiquated electoral system by introducing the Single Transferable Vote. Of course, should it pass the change won't likely be in place until 2013, and then only in BC; federally such a change would no doubt take even longer. A safer bet is we'll face yet another federal election sooner.

In fact maybe as soon as the end of January, when the Conservative minority government presents its new budget. The government will either tone its reactionary antics down, allow the Liberals to prop it up, and deliver a budget that passes, or persist in its churlish childishness and lose power. In the first scenario, the Liberals will come across as wimps, take the blame for any budget deficits, get slapped around with confidence motion threats, and the knives will be out among the opposition parties, their coalition at an end. In the second, we either end up with a largely unpopular coalition government, or an election the opposition (never mind the electorate) can scarcely afford.

However, nonsense won't be restricted to politics in 2009. Take, for instance, Sheik Mo's Babylonian folly, the Burj Dubai (The Dubai Tower), slated for completion in September. A supertall skyscraper, the tallest man-made object of any sort ever constructed, currently at 780 m (2,559 ft) and still rising. This time around an angered deity needn't confound anyone's language; simply messing with the economy should do the trick.

Closer to home, the Icon Towers are set to become Edmonton's tallest residential structures, at 92 m (303 ft) and 112 m (368 ft) respectively. Not quite tall enough for local oil sheiks to impress their foreign chums, due to the fact that Edmonton does have a municipal airport smack dabble downtown. Hence, Transport Canada (the government's aviation body) won't allow any buildings over 150 m anywhere near the city centre. So, short of actually flying, 42 floors are about as high as one can (legally) get here.

If bobbing around the ocean suits one better, then the forthcoming December maiden voyage of the Oasis of the Seas — the largest passenger vessel ever constructed — could be the ticket. Ridiculously oversized, this monstrosity will allow its 6000 or so passengers to forget their even at sea. Never mind exotic destinations — the craft, larger than an average aircraft carrier, is the destination. By contrast, the completion of the Chenab Bridge, spanning its namesake river in Jammu and Kashmir, seems infinitely more practical. At 359 m (1,178 ft), it will be the world's tallest railway bridge.

Je me souviens.

As Remembrance Day dawns we're once again subjected to chauvinistic platitudes and historical revisionism from various self-proclaimed defenders of peace, freedom of expression, and democracy. Media bring us tales of soldiers' "heroism", television tableaus overflow with gung-ho war movies. A day during which we could have reflected on the horror of war — and the 42 currently fought around us — is turned into a celebration of the armed forces and militarism.

What is ironic is how anti-democratic and stifling this trend is. Apart from distorting in the public mind the processes by which tolerant, democratic, and peaceful societies are actually forged (popular political organisation and action, as opposed to armed conflict), these simplistic ceremonies obscure the actual causes of war, and — worse still — serve as tools of indoctrination, insisting on absurd notions like the "necessity" of warfare. Notions aimed at turning future generations into willing recruits for further slaughter.

It's worthwhile then to remind ourselves of the grip that the martial sentimentalists still hold on our collective imagination, how for self-serving purposes they trample even the very things they claim we owe to their sacrifices. Things like the freedom to dissent, to express an opinion contrary to theirs, for example. It's nearly two years ago that the Royal Canadian Legion threatened the Peace Pledge Union with legal action for infringing on its "trademark" red poppies.

The PPU, founded in 1934, has for over seventy years been the distributor of the White Poppy appeal, which the Legion suddenly felt threatened not only its economic interests, but apparently also its unique right to dictate history and influence current military policy. In its comment on the incident, the PPU reflected:

What was originally a meaningful ceremony of consolation for tens of thousands of bereaved quickly turned into a justification of a futile war, and every soldier became a hero. Those heroes, and the millions more who have died in war since then, continued to be 'honoured' and 'remembered'. But what does that mean? What is being honoured and remembered?

What was once a language of conciliation has become a language of obfuscation. When the victims and perpetrators merge into a meaningless whole, as in 'to honour those who have died in war', we know we are in fantasy-land. People go to war for many reasons — not all of them worthy of respect, let alone honour.

Tens of thousands rushed to the recruiting offices in 1914 for the adventure that the war might offer. Tens of thousands more, who did not want to go to war, were conscripted and signed up to kill — not to die. Why should we honour reckless or foolish adventurers because they were killed in a futile war? Why should we honour those who acquiesced with the state's order to go and kill — that is, to perform acts that are contrary to most moral codes and laws?

'Tell them of us and say "For your tomorrow we gave our today".' That inscription on a memorial to World War Two's Burma campaign is how the British Legion likes us to think of the war dead. It's a neat piece of sleight of hand, aiming to make us grateful, even a little uneasy. It certainly deflects deeper questions about the 'values' of war. It is this guilt-inducing meaning that the red poppy attaches to itself; and this is largely why so few dare to criticise its pernicious values. No one has died in war for me — or for you. (The comment can be read in its entirety here.)

Let us then dare today to remember that in no other era in human history has so much time been spent talking about peace, and so little done for it. That there has never been more lies, more death, more destruction, and more despair than in our time. Let's remind ourselves of the human casualties, the millions of people murdered, as well as the material, economical, and cultural losses.

Let's remember how easily we can be deceived to lend our support to armed aggression in far away places, against people we don't know, who pose little — if any — threat to us. Most importantly, let's remember that when the battlefields finally fell silent on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918, there was hope that one World War would be lesson enough for future generations. These things are worth remembering.

Same but different.

There must have been much rejoicing in the capital when the final result of the presidential election was announced. People cheering, dancing, carousing in the streets, overwhelmed by the victory that brought the change they desired for so long. No doubt, in some quarters the mood must've been quite the opposite, strikingly quiet and grim. After all, some people's desire for stability and continuity had been quashed.

The run-off saw an activist lawyer squaring off against a former US Air Force veteran, the former representing new blood and fresh ideas, the latter experience and a connection to the past. As results trickled in, it was clear that from the very beginning Mr Toribiong, the lawyer and former senator, had defeated Mr Chin, the former combat pilot and current Vice President. Details are sketchy, for none of the three periodicals produced locally have a website. So foreign observers can at this point only guess at what actually took place in Palau on November 4th.

While considered sovereign, Palau (yes, it does exist) is still very much a US colony, financially dependent, defended and tied to its master by compact. With a presidential system akin to the American, and a Capitol building modelled on Capitol Hill, the similarities extend beyond a curiously analogous choice of candidates - though one doesn't quite match Mr Obama's charisma, while the other was a much better pilot than Mr McCain. So why should non-Palauans care about the outcome of an election in the distant Pacific island nation? Perhaps for the same reasons so many non-Americans invested themselves in the recent American election.

Many of the non-American observers of the American proceedings would no doubt disagree, citing a multitude of reasons for keeping a close eye on the process leading to what is frequently dubbed "the most important job in the world." Yet, ultimately, the new American leader shares another similarity with his (new) colleague in Palau: both are only supposed to represent the people who elected them.

An American president's job, as the figurehead of the American administration, is to safeguard his fellow Americans and their interests. In that respect, Mr Obama will not likely be different from his predecessors towards non-Americans at odds with Americans or their interests. Which isn't to say that his election is insignificant, but being the first non-white elected leader of any Western nation doesn't extend the job description to suddenly embrace everyone on the planet. To non-Americans the result of the American election, historical as it is, is as much a curiosity as that of the Palauan election.

However, Mr Obama's electoral campaign also differs in having been much more publicised, consequentially raising the hopes of millions of people around the world tremendously. Criticising his policies therefore puts one in immediate danger of not merely being accused of being a buzzkill, but likened to the prats leaving the New York Young Republican Club on the night of the 4th, lamenting the inevitability of a "Muslim socialist" ruining their beloved nation.

A lot of Americans appear to believe that in choosing between a Democratic and a Republican candidate they actually face two starkly different choices. To most non-American observers the two parties are simply different sides of the same, conservative coin. If one were to parachute Mr Obama into, say, a riding in a German federal election, the only party likely to welcome him as a candidate would be the centre right Christian Democratic Union; the Social Democratic Party generally steers clear of candidates who list the Bible as one of their all-time favourite books.

This difference in perception isn't a measure of how radical Europe has become, but how narrow the political spectrum and how immense the ideological ignorance is in America. From a non-American perspective, the Democrats are to the Republicans what Diet Coke is to The Real Thing: conservatism without the death penalty and with added conscience.

Throughout his campaign Mr Obama was the vendor of change, and in some respect his win already is – in others, it's merely status quo. Even President Bush's speech-writer referred to the historical moment as "a triumph of the American story." Mr Obama's progress has confirmed the veracity of the “rags to riches” narrative that holds the American psyche hostage in its mythological grip, sustains it, and is the major underlying cause of many of that society's problems.

Do Mr Obama’s supporters truly intend for him to dare tamper with it, and boldly go where few of them are prepared to follow? Or does "change" for them represent a retreat into the familiar, greatest nation on earth, beacon of liberty, free enterprise, and pursuit of baseball, hotdogs, and mom's apple-pie America that only ever existed in their collective imagination? At this point the latter, the re-establishment of the "American Dream" may indeed seem like progress. Especially considering that, statistically, a child born in Canada is six times more likely to make that fabled class-journey than one born in America.

Real change would mean ridding themselves of the debilitating malignant libertarian streak that always pits the rights of the individual against the rights of society. Real change would mean finally realizing that great societies aren't built by strong individuals but by strong collectives. In order to really change, Americans needs to pull it all down and start again, and in order for that to occur things need to get a lot worse before they can get any better. With Mr McCain as president, they could've got a lot worse faster.

Either way, the “American Dream” is for Americans only. The rest of us sleep well enough without it.