Bears Noting

ONWARDS INTO THE NEW YEAR

2012-01-08T23:15:00.000-06:00

When I'm not here, I'm often at my main blog, Chrome on the Range.

I do hope you'll drop over sometime and visit there. (Psst: it's a bit friendlier, and more personal, than here.)

Blessings and Bear hugs for 2012.

ANIMAL-HUMAN INTERFACE

2011-11-01T11:36:00.002-05:00

Yes, this is my kind of story.

Even though it is not about Bears.

This time, it is about Elk. (Some of my best friends are Elk.)

Oh, and make sure you've got your sound turned on, so you can hear the Elk conversation (and other things).

This really Bears noting.

EMPLOYMENT ISN'T WORKING (Nor is Unemployment)

2011-09-20T06:28:00.000-05:00

Now, here is a challenging thought.

In the United States, 64 per cent of people living in poverty have full-time jobs.

I was a bit hard-put to believe this. But apparently, it's correct. And in some cases, it's a couple of part-time jobs, which may add up to more than a full-time job.

Moreover, I know people in that category.

Now, more news. Among young families (meaning families under 30), 37 per cent are living in"economic distress." Meaning "poverty." That's up from about 25 per cent through the first decade of this century. For elderly families the poverty rate is about 5.7 per cent.

Back in the 1970s, the poverty rate for younger families was only slightly higher for families headed by someone aged 65 or older.

But now, having six young families in poverty compared to one elderly family in poverty, is the new norm. It means a huge social change.

First, there was a major shift back in the 1980s, with more money allocated to older citizens. Then, with welfare reform in the 1990s, there was less money to help poor families, which often have only one parent-wage earner (usually a woman). It's those latter families, and high-school dropouts, for whom there are no jobs, even for those who want to work.

The proverbial pigeons have come home to roost. And they're creating a mess, as pigeons usually do.

The change emphasizes the class distinctions (some say "class warfare") in the U.S.

Until meaningful and sustainable employment can be found for a lot of Americans, many will be locked in poverty. And when people are locked in poverty, they cannot spend money on houses, appliances, cars, and the like. That is spending the economy needs to see in order for real economic grown to take place.

"Buddy, can you spare me a job?"

Note: These are American figures, so this is not directly applicable to Canada. But I wonder if the numbers would be significantly different in the "true north strong and free."

REMEMBERING 9/11

2011-09-13T22:30:00.002-05:00

I haven't written anything here, but I have three items related to 9/11 on my Chrome on the Range blog. If you haven't checked my "Chrome" blog, I would encourage you to do so. That's my main blog.

(Those items begin here.)

BYE FOR NOW, JACK.

2011-08-29T15:03:00.002-05:00

A beautiful Memorial Service for Jack Layton was held on Saturday in Toronto. I saw most of it on television. (It was broadcast live, then re-broadcast later in the day.)

Family and friends were on hand, as were political rivals like Prime Minister Stephen Harper. So were thousands of ordinary people — people like you and me.

I've included some of the details of the service so you can get a sense of what happened. There are also some video and still pictures.

Though I never had the privilege of meeting him, I followed along with his life and work. He truly was a prince of a man, so dedicated was he to others.

I'll conclude with the final paragraph of his last letter, written to Canadians while on his death bed.

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

HOW THE MIGHTY ARE FALLEN

2011-08-25T00:58:00.000-05:00

This past Monday, we learned of the death of Jack Layton. Mr. Layton was the head of Canada's New Democratic Party. He was also the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Comons.

I intuitively posted about Mr. Layton's death on my Chrome on the Range blog. But I thought I should add a note here as well.

A state funeral is planned for Saturday afternoon in Toronto, beginning at 2:00 p.m. (Eastern time).

LIFE WITHOUT TELEVSION?

2011-08-21T20:59:00.006-05:00

I don't know if I'm getting sillier as I age, but I've really come to almost to loathe television.

We get it here, I think, mainly because of programs which would be of interest to our grandchildren. Or so we tell ourselves. They don't have television at home. It does teach them, and us, some new things.

But really.

Back in January, Maria (at cats, crafts and penguins) turned a delightful phrase, describing television as "endless commercials interrupted by bad shows." My heart instinctively said, "Yes!"

The thing about television is that it's a one way communication. Unless you yell at it when someone says something stupid. Which means Bear is yelling at the television quite frequently, when he watches it. I don't consider that to be a useful form of communication. Yelling at the tv makes as much impact on the whole television businesses as ants make on dry concrete. And writing to broadcasters only invokes a stale, tired, meaningless "thank you for your comments" letter. To which one is inclined to say, "Bah! Humbug!"

Aside from a few cooking shows which my beloved J sometimes watches, sometimes the weather channel, and occasionally the news, we hardly watch the tv. I mean, what is worth watching? Except when one is too tired to read, but not quite ready for bed. (In which case, almost anything is watchable, unless it produces nightmares after the fact.)

I'm a firm believer in the potential of the medium. Particularly to educate us, to bring us things that challenge our thinking or encourage our values. It brings one "up close and personal" when there is some breaking news. Or a Royal Wedding. Or a state funeral. But even those things tend to be overdone, sometimes. Though they are about the only true "reality tv," more or less

So, some questions.
• How much do you watch tv?
• What kinds of things do you watch?
• Are you satisfied with the quality of the programming you receive?

INFORMATION AGE

2011-08-19T16:58:00.006-05:00

"First, we traded wisdom for knowledge, then we traded knowledge for information." ~ Anon.

That's how we got to the "information age."

And now, as Da Blog Fodder has pointed out, we've exchanged information for data.

Sigh! When will this ever end?

BEAR'S BELATED BLOG BUILDING

2011-08-15T02:24:00.001-05:00

Yup. Bear's blog is going in for a re-make, re-do re- um, well, whatever. (Actually, I've already started; not sure what things are gonna look like when I get finished.)

Thoughts would be appreciated.

Bear is not a Boar (or is it bore?); freshness can be exhilarating. Emphasis on "can be."

End of message.

THEY WERE NOT AMUSED (2)

2011-08-06T23:24:00.001-05:00

While American stock markets are down, they are not alone. Canadian markets are down, too, following the American lead. To put it simply, I'm losing my retirement savings, along with a lot of Americans.

The current American difficulties are certainly not President Obama's fault. He inherited a huge mess from the Republicans, particularly Bush the Younger (meaning Dick Cheeney). The Republicans were committed to increasing spending while not increasing taxes; they still hold that kind of approach. That is simply living in a fool's paradise. If a government doesn't have the tax money, it can never repay its debts, and the nation is eventually strangled, economically, and then socially.

People are getting edgy, not just about the debt problem in America, but the debt problem in Europe as well.

Within the European Union, five countries on the edge of default: Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy. It is noteworthy that Greece, even with it's austerity measures passed, is still a concern. Many key leaders now fear that Greece may not have done enough. Iceland is still in trouble. Even Britain is having difficulties; continuing difficulties.

Nobody in Europe seems to have a handle on just how bad things could be over there, or if the current "fixes" will really fix anything.

So this isn't just an American problem. It's a problem of lavish spending through programs which were not set up in a sustainable manner, in many countries.

And with the loss of jobs in America, largely due to outsourcing, the world continuing to see the emergence of a new phenomenon. Incomes in other countries, such as India and China, are starting to rise, particularly in urban setting. The emerging nations of Asia are well along the path towards having economies as strong as the United States.' Some of the emerging nations in Africa are moving up as well, but they're still well behind the Asian nations.

What will happen depends on the speculators and traders, who effectively control the stock markets. I believe we are going to see a second dip of recession, or, at the very least, a very long-term recovery. Canada, while burdened in the 2008 recession, has strong banking regulations, which helped blunt the blow. Yet our unemployment rate is just over seven per cent, down from almost nine per cent in 2010. America's unemployment rate is just over nine per cent. It was above ten per cent a while ago, nearly double the post-World-War-Two average of 5.7 per cent.

I don't know where this is going to end. But we "ordinary people" in North America are going to see a lot more problems before real stability returns.

So, for the foreseeable future, I expect most of us will continue to be lumped in the group of "not amused."

THEY WERE NOT AMUSED

2011-08-05T23:36:00.004-05:00

The US Congress seems to have settled its debt ceiling problem. For now. But this is just the beginning of bigger problems.

The Representatives and Senators may feel they've done their bit for their friends (oops; I mean for their country). But how do the people of the country feel about the government of the people, by the rich, for the rich, and other political nonsense?

As the title says, not thrilled. Not by a long shot.

"How bad was the response?" you ask.

In a survey of Americans after the political brouhaha in the Capital, the people of the country have given Congress an 18 per cent approval rating. Only 18 percent. Meaning that 82 per cent were somewhere between "very displeased" and "as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"

All this in the New York Times of August 4th.

So, the yaddering about the national debt level, which almost tipped the country into fiscal default, has given Congress the lowest approval rating on record. In light of the continuing recession, a lot of people are saying that job creation should be the priority. But that would have increased the debt, not reduced it.

And if the polling done for the Times is right, more than four people out of five who were surveyed thought that "debate" (a polite term for the "unfriendly verbal engagement") was more about trying to develop some kind of political advantage than about doing what the country really needed. And about three-quarters of those interviewed felt the "debate" had hurt the image of America around the world.

That, I guess, is the expense of "politicking." Of making sure your party "wins," whatever the outcome. Though I can hardly see how anyone could win anything meaningful in this situation.

And it showed how much trouble the Republican party will have with it's Tea Party set. Same for the Congress, overall.

There have been two major financial responses.

First, the Dow Jones has reported a sharp decline — basically meaning that many companies are worth a lot less. As are many people's stock portfolios. It's a Bear market. Over which this Bear has no control.

Second, Standard & Poor’s (the credit-rating agency) removed the US federal government from its list of risk-free borrowers. To put it in other terms, American bonds are a long way from being junk, but they are heading in that direction. S&P made the move because of its worry about the size of the government's long-term debt. Congress cut that debt by about $2.1 trillion; S&P would have preferred a decrease of about $4 trillion.

So, can you say "double-dip recession"? Sure you can.

And, while America has focused on its debt reduction debate, other factors have made the world economy even worse. I'll deal with those tomorrow.

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION (More news than fits the print)

2011-08-02T21:23:00.004-05:00

Well, the United States government managed to get the federal debt ceiling raised. But, I'm still wondering about it.
1. How is the government going to get enough money to pay its bills in the long term?
2. How will this development effect someone with little money? (I ask that because a person living in Georgia, and making minimum wage at a full-time job, earns about $11,000 a year. I'm sure some people make that in a week, or less.)
Interesting: I saw President Obama on television, talking about this "manufactured crisis." This almost-disaster, that didn't need to happen, and sets a difficult tone for future days. Sadly.

In the midst of the fray, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) returned to the House for the first time in many months, and cast her vote on the budget plan. This, after being shot in the head last year. She gave no advanced notice of her return. But she was greeted warmly by other members of the House, from "both sides of the aisle."
An amazing recovery she has made! With help from a lot of wonderful and talented doctors, and nurses, and technicians, and, . . .
I wonder if that person in Georgia, earning $11,000 a year, would get the same treatment for a gun shot in the head.

The weather today started out sunny and fair. Not a cloud in the sky. Then, at supper time, dark clouds rolled in. We were promised thunder showers all night, and more rain tomorrow.
About an hour after that, the sky was bright, with only a few fluffy clouds.
Which proves that, each day, all we get is a 100 per cent chance of weather.
Better than previous, though. On this day in 2002, the high temperature was zero. Or 32°F, if that' how you measure things. We Canadians can be cool customers, even in the midst of summer.

Ann Marie (as in The Rev. Ann Marie) is the priest at an Anglican (Episcopal) congregation which I attend from time to time. (It's not really where I belong, so to speak; it is a good place to be.) The gospel text for last Sunday came from Matthew's gospel, where the writer shared the story of Jesus feeding five thousand men, plus women and kids. Ann Marie spoke of abundance that we have, and our need to share that, in simple but significant ways. This, in a very working-class neighbourhood on the traditionally poorer side of River City.
Earlier in the week, I had been thinking about abundance, too. In relation to a book on Celtic Christianity by J. Philip Newell, where he was touching on "the fecundity of God."
I haven't got my head wrapped around those two elements, yet. But I understand, intuitively, they are inter-related, in a very important way.
So my "Woke up Sunday Morning. . . ." post is going to have to wait a while.

And, that's the news.

OH, WAIT — this is the wrong day at this blog. You see what happens when they throw a holiday into the week, just to confuse Bear? Bear gets confused. Very, confused.

DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA

2011-07-29T23:51:00.004-05:00

"What Bears Noting?" asked Bear.

Well, a guy named Bonehair (or something like that) got his buddies together and ran something through a House, that was designed to upset and frustrate the President, and a whole lot of American people. Mr. Bonehair couldn't even get all his buddies on side with it, but whipped enough to get whatever through. (Not a good situation for him in the long term, though.)

Then the Senator people started looking at what had been dragged through, and in. They thought it was kinda odd, like a

Dead skunk in the middle of the road
Stinkin' to high Heaven.

So they decided to leave Mr. Bonehair's stuff alone, and get on with something called a debt ceiling. (That's when you plaster your worthless stocks and bonds all over the ceiling, I think.)

Now, you would wonder why a Canadian would be worried about the drama, drama, drama in the US Congress.

Well, think about being something the size of a Beaver, that's sleeping beside, say, something the size of an Elephant. Every time the Elephant rolls over, the Beaver gets bounced around. And when the Elephant gets a cold, the Beaver starts sneezing.

Americans are Canada's main trading partners, and vice versa. If the American economy gets unsettled by something some people are doing in the USA, we Beaver-people get upset. When American stock markets get the shivers and shakes, Canadian markets start looking for a warm sweater.

That's why something big in US of America Bears Noting up in Canada.

And, that's the news.

~ 30 ~

MYTHS ABOUT POVERTY

2011-07-26T02:54:00.000-05:00

One just never knows what is going to happen next.

I hadn't planned to say more about poverty this soon, but the following story was too good, meaning too bad, to pass up.

A report by the Salvation Army shows that myths about poverty are rampant in Canada. Myths are rampant.

I find that incredibly sad. I actually thought Canadians were better informed than that. I guess I am wrong.

More than half of Canadians think a family of four can get by on $30,000 a year, or less. (That's a bit less than £20,000.) A similar number of Canadians believe that if poor people really want to work, "they can always find a job."

I can't believe that. Has nobody heard that unemployment in Canada is up at nine per cent?

Other "delights" in the Salvation Army's report:
• 43 per cent of Canadians agree that "a good work ethic is all you need to escape poverty,"
• 41 per cent believe the poor would "take advantage" of any assistance given to them and "do nothing."
• 23 per cent say poor people are in that position because they're lazy,
• 28 per cent say the poor have "lower moral values."

And so it goes. Myths.

An Army spokesman provided a valuable insight. "I don't think Canadians are mean-spirited. I don't think they are not compassionate," says Andrew Burditt. "Sometimes those of us who don't have problems are far enough removed from the struggles of everyday life that it's too easy for us to say, 'Just get a job.'" I understand that all too well — how easy it is to blame the victim. I think it's time for us to do a collective "reality check."

The Salvation Army says about one Canadian in eleven (9 per cent) is living in poverty. I can well believe that. If anything, I'd say that's a bit low. Certainly it would vary from region to region.

In the meantime, the lives of good Canadians are bedevilled by myths.

FRIDAY ON SUNDAY?

2011-07-24T23:17:00.002-05:00

Lost or stolen or strayed,
One big, friendly, old Bear,
Seems to have been mislaid.
Last seen wandering vaguely
Quite of his own accord,
All around the south side of town,
Forty Shillings reward.

(with apologies to A. A. Milne)

Of course the British don't use Shillings any more; it's simply Pounds and Pence. Nonetheless, forty Shillings (which sounds like a lot initially) is actually two Pounds Sterling. (I remember that from a long time ago; don't ask why.) That's CAD$3.10 today.

From which you might assume that Canadian Bears come pretty cheap. Especially those who are wandering about vaguely, instead of working diligently at their computers to meet a deadline.

Oh, but the indignity of it all!

RE-THINKING POVERTY

2011-07-19T22:19:00.000-05:00

"If you think the cost of education is high, think about the cost of ignorance." ~ Anon.

A recent report says that poverty in British Columbia costs the government $8.1 to $9.2 billion a year. It also says reducing poverty significantly would cost the government about a half to a third of that: $3 - $4 billion a year.

The report comes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA). It's title: The Cost of Poverty in B.C.

B.C. is the part of Canada which rubs up against the Pacific Ocean. (It's sometimes called British California.) By comparison, it is larger than every U.S. state except Alaska. The population is about 4.5 million, roughly the same as Louisiana.

The cost of poverty, as reported by the CCPA, works out to about $2,100 for every man, woman and child in BC, or $8,400 for a family of four, every year. That's a significant amount of cash.

Where are those costs? Health care is huge. Poor people are usually hungry and malnourished. I've seen numerous health agency reports (including one by the Health Region based in River City). Malnourished people are sicker than the average, because poor eating lowers a body's defences to fight off illness. Poor people don't pay as close attention to their physical or mental health — they seek help from doctors and dentist less often than others. And so it goes.

Then there is the cost of ignorance — unemployability. There is lower or lost worker productivity. There is increased crime. There is homelessness or terrible housing, which often makes people sick.

I'm sure none of this comes as a surprise to any of you.

The report ends with a strong conclusion:
Purely on economic grounds, it makes more sense to tackle poverty directly than to continue to pay out year after year for its long-term consequences. The real question is not “Can we afford to reduce poverty?” but “Can we afford not to?”

But solving the problem is not as simple as it sounds. There is a lot of bias, strong bias, against the poor.

The poor are blamed for their poverty. That's like blaming a fish for being born in water. The continuing cycle of poverty means many or most poor people have no idea of how to be non-poor; poverty is the only thing they know — it's a learned response to life. And when you add the people de-employed by the 2008-09 financial disaster, the number of unemployed people is pretty high. Unemployment is about one worker out of ten in the U.S, almost as high in Canada. Many hard-working people are out of jobs through no fault of their own. Many have fallen into real poverty. But somehow they are made to feel the job loss is their fault.

Fortunately, there are programs for helping people. Unfortunately, those programs are so limited in terms of the number of people they can help, they make little significant difference.

So I keep coming back to that quote about the cost of education. It's a lot less than the overall effect of ignorance. The same holds true for the cost of keeping people in poverty, instead of helping them find ways to get out of it.

Are Things Really Amazing?

2011-07-16T01:04:00.002-05:00

Victoria, over at Beauty in the Ordinary, has providing me with some interesting food for thought. In this case, it's "Louis C.K." appearing on Conan O'Brien's show.

Louis comments on the amazement of flying, the old way of doing this with credit cards, super-fast touch tone phones and hand-held devices, that take a second or two, and goes on to talk about how people complain when these things don't work perfectly and immediately. His point is that so many things in life are amazing, but nobody is happy, despite all these "amazing" things.

Somehow, I feel a misplaced sense of amazement. My question in response: Do these amazing things really make life better? What qualities of life — what core qualities of life — are improved? Love? Joy? Peace? Patience? Compassion? Kindness?

I guess I feel electronic gadgetry and high-flying aircraft may be amazing one one level, and not amazing at all on a much more profound level. To me, it seems like a miss-match.

Consider this. On its first night, the new Harry Potter movie took in about $43 million. Not bad for a movie, I guess. (Yes, I know Potter has a cult-like following, which accounts for this phenomenal income. I can virtually hear the "Oohs" and "Aahs.")

But my next question is: How much of that $43 million was sent to feed, house and provide medical care about ten million people, including two million children, who are hurt and starving in the drought-torn "horn of Africa"? (It's along Africa's east coast.) It is a huge humanitarian crisis, to which most people are only beginning to awaken. And there are predictions that the civil war and drought in Somalia may drive even more thousands into Nigeria. It is currently dealing with almost 400,000 refugees, who could entirely overwhelm Nigeria's strategy and ability to cope.

Ironically, we have extravagant pleasure and enormous pain existing in our world, at the same time, virtually side by side. The "electronic gadgetry" has brought those two things together. But if we have a narrow focus, we can miss the pain and hunger, or dismiss it as something inconvenient to our lives. Electronic gadgetry does not necessarily serve us well in this regard, nor does it necessarily serve those who suffer.

We might rightly be amazed but scientific advances, but do they make us more human, and more sensitive to the needs of others?

Delay

2011-07-15T18:12:00.013-05:00

Bear had promised

to provide something insightful

on his blog, today.

Unfortunately,

Bear is "indisposed,"

and will be delayed

making this deadline.

He will be publishing his notes
either later this evening
(as in much later),
or maybe even
tomorrow morning.

We apologize on

Bear's behalf.

We trust,
in the meantime,
that you will have
an opportunity to peruse
the re-design of
Bear's blog.
If you have a thought
on the matter,
please relay it
to the Bear.

~ The Editorial Committee

Well, . . .

2011-07-12T14:18:00.000-05:00

It's like this.

I was planning to have something worthwhile here today. Hopefully thoughtful; possibly provocative.

But that's not going to happen.

I have been busy with some other very worthwhile work, but it isn't something that I can post here. Not today; perhaps not ever.

You realize, as do I, that this kind of thing isn't supposed to be happening. I'm retired. I have not appreciable work to do.

Alas; I'm not a very good manager of my existence. The unanticipated has an "interesting" habit of sneaking in where and when lest expected.

"Life happens while you're in the process of making plans."

Ever had that problem? I suppose you have.

So, to keep you from getting completely bored, here are some questions.

Can there be such a thing as a moral economy? If such a thing existed, what might it look like; what would be the key characteristics? Would it be consumer-driven? Would it be focused on the needs of people, or focused on the needs of business?

That'll keep you thinking for a few minutes at least.

(Hint: I'm going to be getting on to the idea of a Moral Economy. I'll explain on Friday. That will have something to do with a series of newspaper columns I have written over the last eight years, and the thinking that has gone into the whole concept.)

Thank you for your patience.

CHANGE

2011-07-06T22:38:00.002-05:00

I once heard it said that the only constant in change. It's true. Lots of things keep changing. People come and go; seasons wax and wane; heat, rain, snow, and cold surround us at different times.

Another change is going to happen, here.

I've decided to use this blog more than I have in the recent past.

I'm going to post some ideas from long ago and not so long ago.

Every Tuesday and Friday, I'll have something, starting later this month. As in next week. Perhaps.

On Mondays and Thursdays, there'll be something new on my other major blog, Chrome on the Range, to which I've already introduced you (below).

Hope to see you at both places.

Please Bear with me during this period of reconstruction.

RIGHT, THEN; MOVING ON (UPDATED!!)

2011-06-23T21:06:00.003-05:00

If you have come here, thinking this is my main blog, I'm sorry to disappoint you. This isn't, though it used to be. This blog is about to take on a new life. But that won't happen until sometime in July, 2011, at the earliest.

If you're looking for "what's happenin' now," you need to head over a couple of roads from here, and drive down to the end, where you'll view the open range.

Hop the fence, and feel free to wander around at your leisure. Nothing over there is particularly dangerous. St. Patrick got rid of the snakes for me. You'll perhaps find some gophers, or even an antelope, or some gentle bull.

Probably the most dangerous creature you'll meet at that spot is a Bear — the same Bear that is here, but a bit different in his behaviour. If cornered, he may start quoting A. A. Milne to you, or drive you to distraction with eloquent puns.

I'd say, "Please drop over for a visit," but I think I may have scared you off already. However, if you're a truly adventuresome soul, and really are up for an interesting experiences, do come on over.

Thank you.

MOSQUE AT "GROUND ZERO," USA.

2010-08-20T00:17:00.000-05:00

Well, this is going to be long. Longer than usual. And in several parts.

(BTW, you can blame Da Blog Fodder for this; he put me up to it. Mind you, he's been active in posting, and sharing other information, about this pending development. As have his readers. If you go over to his blog and look about, you'll find lots of things to consider. Much of it centres around his "Of Mosque and Men." OK — credit given where credit it due.)

As there has been a huge amount of mis-information floating around about this proposal of a mosque a few blocks from "Ground Zero" — the site of the old World Trade Center in New York.

I want to start by putting out as much correct data as I can. To that end, I begin with the observations of a blog friend from New York, who has worked on Wall Street.

The proposed mosque would be part of a building housing various areas relating to Islam, and also some recreational areas, including a swimming pool. The location is not at "ground zero," but several blocks away.

There are to be all sorts of commemorative areas at, or closer to, ground zero.

The area of the proposed mosque and cultural center now houses a variety of enterprizes, including bars, discount electronic shops, and shops specializing in pornography.

I used to work in a big office building a short block away from the Twin Towers back in the late 1970's and early '80s. That part of Wall Street has always been a strange architectural mix of very, very old New York buildings, varying eras' attempts to be modern, and many humdrum bits of ugliness.

It houses gleaming offices where capitalism reigns, churches, pizza shops, tourist souvenir stalls and shops, discount clothing stores...even luxurious lofts created out of discarded old buildings. Most of the wealth is well-hidden. On the street level, it's a bit of a honky-tonk place, where everything moves pretty quickly.

News stories that say that the proposed mosque is to be built on the site of the Twin Towers are incorrect.

There are a number of parks in the area, some located on the nearby river side...great places to sit and catch some fresh breezes, and perhaps think peaceful thoughts.

That, from New York.

The larger issue is the amount of furor this has created in the U.S., and (to some extent) elsewhere. Much of that upset has focused on how westerners understand Islam, and how westerners are being encouraged to see Islam. That is the issue which I find most concerning.

As a bit of historical background, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share a common background, and are collectively known as the "People of the Book." That is an important consideration.

I want to try to put in some information about Islam. And I want to try to look at how Islam is being portrayed in North America, particularly the US.

I'm not claiming in any of these comments that I perfectly understand all these things. I don't. But I know enough to be able to ask questions, to encourage thought — which is all I'm trying to do.

CHANGE OF EVENTS

2010-08-17T14:46:00.001-05:00

By now, you've seen my laments on the tearing down of a house, and the chopping down of a tree.

There's been a change. Not sure why, but there has.

This is something to celebrate.

What has been torn down was the garage of the old house.

It has been cut off in order to create a new lot,

which can be "severed" (if City Council agrees), and sold for a new house. (But it is still too bad that the owner thought he had to cut down a tree to make the potential new lot more "saleable.")

So what will arise?

Perhaps something one of these places, just a bit down the street from the proposed lot.

Or perhaps something like this, one street over (just up from our house).

Those houses are a bit on the small or narrow side, but still nice enough, and with a view of the river, even a small house can be quite inviting.

ONLY GOD CAN MAKE A TREE

2010-08-12T00:59:00.006-05:00

That's how Joyce Kilmer concluded his well-known poem, "Trees," written about a hundred years ago.

On the other hand, any fool can cut down a tree. Which is what's happening at the site of a perfectly good house that's being torn down (and about which I blogged previously).

This one was perfectly healthy, as far as I could tell.

Sadly, the world's inventory of trees is declining with rapid deforestation in many areas, in North American and South America, as well as Asia and Africa. So every good tree is worth keeping. That's especially true in the urban forest, where trees help to cool the city, and its homes, through their shading.

To make up for the loss of trees elsewhere, we've been doing our bit by growing trees on our micro-holding.

We have a big pine in the front. We have transplanted it from several homes to others, but now it's reached the size that a we won't be transplanting it again.

We've got several spruces at the front as well. Along the side, two more spruces. At the back of the house two more. Scattered through the yard another eight spruces. Four of them surround the Celtic meditative garden I've been trying to build.

Plus this mountain ash (in front of which you can see one of our back yard spruces).

Hiding behind the mountain ash, an apple tree. The apples are not particularly good for eating (by our tastes), but they're great for baking.

At the other corner of the house, a big maple

Plus two Manchurian Elms — which are really "weed trees." They grow all over, spread thousands of seeds (which invariable seem to grow wherever they land), and you can't trim them from April through September, for fear of spreading "Dutch Elm Disease." I would really like to take those two out, but not until good "replacements" have grown to sufficient height.

You can see the little spruce in front of the larger elm.

I just wish we had more trees.

P.S.: No report on our trees would be complete without a mention of "The Mistress of the Trees."

RISING WORLD FASCISM (yet another lament)

2010-08-09T01:13:00.003-05:00

I'm hardly the first person to talk about the return of Fascism to the political agenda of many western nations' political parties. Of course, it isn't called "Fascism" — that would simply scare too many people. It's simply fascism with a different name — some Orwellian "newspeak."

One of the countries where this is happening is Canada. But I'm taking an American example, because the U.S. is much further down this particular road than is Canada.

One of the most interesting pieces of this from the blog of a "Pesky Emotional Republican."

Check this chart:

To begin at the beginning; a confession. By temperament, I'm a "small-c" conservative; I'm not a "Large-C" conservative whose thinking is shown on this list.

The first problem I have with this list is the language. Overly simplistic, jingoistic (excessively hostile), language.

Lets take a look at a few things.

"Globalism" — from the Liberal list. Globalization/globalism is supposed to be the ultimate goal of "free enterprise."

"Judicial activism" — from the Liberal list. Meaning of that phrase? "Decisions by a judge with whom I don't agree."

The truth is, of course, that I believe in mixing and balancing the various items on these lists. But the goal of Fascism is to create polar opposites — to be opposed to co-operation (which is routinely explained as a "selling out one's convictions"). Once the polar opposites have been created, your goal is to get rid of people — in one way or another — who don't agree with your thinking. Which is why bi-partisan government isn't working in the US, or in Canada.

Lord, have mercy upon us!

FOOLISHNESS? WASTE? (ANOTHER LAMENT)

2010-08-02T06:45:00.022-05:00

This house is not far from our home. I didn't realize what was happening until I passed it recently. It is literally right across the street from the river which runs through our city.

As you can see, it is a large house; perhaps a quarter or a fifth of it has been demolished. The building looks structurally sound. The windows are in good repair. The outside was brick-covered. For all intents and purposes, a good house.

But it is being torn down to make way for a bigger, fancier house.

I've long believed that the more affluent we become, the more effluent we produce. And I'm not just thinking of sewage; I'm thinking of waste in general. A perfectly good house, which might have been able to accommodate two families, is being turned into garbage, taken to the dump, at a time when we have a lot of homeless people in our city (an issue which, ironically, I raised in my last posting).

To quote a couple of lines from a contemporary hymn, by a friend and colleague:

when waste and want live side by side,
it's gospel that we lack.

Or to return to my earlier premise, homelessness is an ethical and spiritual problem long before it's an economic problem. It's problem with what we value as human beings.

Sigh!

THOUGHTS ABOUT HOUSING and HOMELESSNESS

2010-07-26T21:22:00.003-05:00

1. The Real Problem of Homelessness
While we tend to see homelessness as an economic problem, it is an ethical and spiritual problem long before it is an economic problem. It is a problem of how we see, and treat, one another, as human beings and fellow citizens of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, and the World.

The simple truth is that we all have same basic human needs -- food, shelter, clothing, health, community, meaning, etc. If we don’t eat, we die. If we don’t have shelter (at least here in Canada), we die (particularly in the winter). But even if we don’t die, we have health problems. Former Senator Michael Kirby, now the Chair of Mental Health Commission of Canada, speaking in Vancouver recently, said that up to 50 per cent of the homeless have mental health problems. (That simply confirms what I have known since the 1970s.) I know that these include low social skills, which make these people “hard to house” (to quote one person who had worked with them a lot). Add to that the physical health problems such people experience, in common with all people living in poverty, and the human burden mounts rapidly. These health problems are well-documented, even in Saskatoon.

2. The Real Problem of “The Market”
We need to remember that the faceless phantom called “the market” is of limited value in solving spiritual and ethical problems, which underly the economic problems.

The saying goes, “A rising tide lifts all boat.” Which is true; but it is meaningless, if you cannot afford a boat.

“The Phantom of the Market” takes no account of -- indeed, ignores -- those who cannot “play “ in the market; those who are economically, physically, or emotionally disadvantaged and marginalized. Simply put, “The Market” does not know how to deal with basic human needs, except in terms of money, as opposed to terms of humanity. "The Phantom" deals with everything on the basis of supply and demand; those who cannot meet the demands of the market are simply cast aside. Or to put it in the most direct terms, if you don’t have the money to pay what a landlord is demanding, you don’t have a place to live. And when the supply of housing is short, and thus “in demand,” (as it is now), those who control the supply (i.e., the landlords) will raise their prices to “whatever the market can bear” -- when there are many who do not have the resources to reach “whatever the market can bear.”

For example, a single worker in Saskatoon earning the minimum wage of $8.60 per hour, earns about $1,500.00 per month before taxes. Given that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) says people can reasonably afford to spend about 30% of their income on housing, this single worker can afford an apartment whose monthly rental would be about $450.00

3. Solution
If we are going to house people who cannot afford “boats” we need to look at solutions which work for all people.

We need in Saskatchewan, in Canada, an effective national housing policy, which will provide a robust stock of housing available to people at all income levels. “The Market” will look after those who have money; we need something else which care for and serve those who do not have the money which "The Market" demands.

This means “affordable housing” for all people. In a recent conversation with an official of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, she expressed to me CMHC’s concern that not only low-income people (i.e., people the low-income cut off, or LICO that Statistics Canada notes) but middle income people as well, are having problems finding suitable housing in Saskatoon (and other places). Another representative of CMHC warned Saskatoon City Council recently that unless a city has a good supply of apartment housing, it cannot expect to attract new people to the community. (This, at a time when City Council is allowing so may apartments to be turned into condominia, thereby creating a shortage of apartments, and inflating the rents for apartments.)

There are all kinds of models available for the building of housing -- publicly funded housing -- funded jointly by federal and provincial governments. I personally favour a co-operative kind of housing, where the ongoing decisions are made by tenants, staff, and government representatives (since the government is “footing the bill” for building such housing), working together. Nonetheless, the money for the construction of such buildings can only be provided by governments, since "the private sector" will claim (with some justification) that it cannot make enough money on "low income housing" since tenants cannot afford the rents which private-sector landlords would want to charge.

Conclusion
To simply rely on "The Phantom of the Market" to meet the housing needs of citizens with low incomes has not worked, is not working, and will not work in the future. We need intervention on the part of the whole community (represented in this case by the federal and provincial governments) if we are to find appropriate solutions to the needs of many citizens, including low-income and moderate-income citizens. But we also need direct citizen engagement, too!

LAMENT FOR MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2010

2010-06-28T14:22:00.001-05:00

This item was originally posted on my "Chrome" blog, but I'm including it here, because it rightly "Bears Noting."

I wish I could find things more noteworthy, in a good kind of way.

With it, a working definition of Fascism.

LAMENT FOR SUNDAY, JUNE 27, 2010

2010-06-27T03:57:00.001-05:00

This is something that I've posted to my my "Chrome on the Range" blog. But since it's something that "Bears Noting, I've put it here, too.

Life is getting more and more trying as, it seems, people become more and more frustrated. I'm not sure where this is going to end.

Sigh!

TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT?

2010-04-28T03:28:00.002-05:00

    Question: When is a deal not a deal?
    Answer: When you make it with the government.
    Many in the Saskatchewan’s Agricultural sector, and beyond, will remember the problematic changes by the New Democratic Party to the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP) in 1992. Now, The Saskatchewan Party has created a similar fiasco — with chiropractors.
    I hadn’t planned on returning to Canada’s democracy problems so soon. But Saskatchewan's recent Budget holds a precise example of what has been worrying me, and so many other Canadians. (I’m not saying this is only a Saskatchewan problem; it’s just that Saskatchewan’s event is so timely.)
    Previously, I discussed the latest report from the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. A central finding in the “Democratic Engagement” report was that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.”
    The “steep decline” was pushed ahead by the Saskatchewan government’s decision to limit funding for chiropractic care.
    Every three years, the Saskatchewan’s Chiropractors negotiate a contract with the Saskatchewan Health. That was done again, the agreement was ratified by the chiropractors. Their president, Dr. Shane Taylor, of Regina, says the agreement included a 2.5% increase in government payments per patient visit, from $12.50 to about $12.80. (That’s for the first 16 visits; Taylor said 90% of the roughly 125,000 people who see a Chiropractor each year go for 16 visits or less.) Taylor says he went to the Saskatchewan Health and signed the agreement on behalf of the chiropractors earlier this year.
    In the budget, the Wall government reneged on the deal, offering only limited chiropractic assistance to people with very low incomes. It’s a case of using a law to over-rule a contract. And it’s quite legal, as unhappy farmers learned in 1992, in relation to GRIP.
    The government’s decision has created several problems.
    First, this has destroyed the credibility of people negotiating on behalf of the Government. The budget decision screams “bad faith.”
    Second, this decision has jeopardized the health of people who are now getting chiropractic care through Saskatchewan Government Insurance (in the case of car accidents) or the Workers’ Compensation Board (for people hurt on the job). Payments to chiropractors from those agencies were based on the government agreement with chiropractors. The questions: can those agencies still pay chiropractors, and how much?
    Third, this is a major setback to the direction of 21st century medicine and holistic care. The goal of “Functional Medicine” is not to simply treat injuries and illnesses, but to treat people. And to work largely on “evidenced based care.” Taylor says the evidence shows chiropractors can get people back to work faster, at less cost, and more effectively, than can physicians. But when you have the physician and chiropractor working together, perhaps with other professionals, the progress is even better.
    Three questions remain. What can chiropractors do, will they be paid by government-related agencies, and on what other deals will Brad Wall’s government renege?
And behind all that, there is an even more sinister sign. This is the conservative government's first broad step in privatizing health care. The actual process is called "de-listing." It's the government's way of saying, "Remember some of those services we used to cover through medicare; we're not going to cover them any more."
Which means individual citizens are going to have to reach deeper and deeper into their own pockets to meet their health care expenses. For the old, and the chronically ill, this is just the beginning of their nightmare.

---------

This originally appeared as an op-ed column in The Western Producer of March 24, 2010.

DEMOCRATIC WELL-BEING

2010-02-05T21:23:00.011-06:00

Just as money can’t buy happiness, Gross Domestic Product doesn’t tell us how well we’re doing as a nation. (Gross Domestic Product is the overall measure of our nation’s economic activity; it came to be regarded, erroneously, as the sign of how well a country was doing.)

Protests across Canada on January 23rd, against the lengthy shut-down of Parliament, are one sign things aren’t going an well.

But that’s no surprise to Canada’s Institute of Wellbeing. The Institute (an independent, non-partisan body) recently released its report on the “Democratic Engagement” Domain, the first report of its kind done in Canada, perhaps in the world. (This one follows reports on “Living Standards,” “Healthy Populations,” and “Community Vitality.”)

The central note in this report is that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.” That’s seen in the fact that fewer people are voting, or are participating in formal political activities. Likewise, about half of Canadians aren’t satisfied with their democracy, while very few believe federal government policies have improved their lives.

This “democratic deficit” didn’t surprise to me, either. During our last federal election, only 3 out of 5 eligible voters cast ballots. Stephen Harper was returned as Prime Minister with the support of merely 23 per cent of Canadian voters. Hardly a ringing endorsement. That number highlighted for me the increasing malaise I’ve seen among among urban and rural citizens — a kind of resigned indifference — a feeling that government doesn’t work for them, or represent their concerns. Their response, to paraphrase Shakespeare: “A plague on all your political parties and governments.”

Lenore Swystun and Kelley Moore of Saskatoon’s Prairie Wild Consulting saw that, and a lot more. Together with Holder and Associates, they developed the report for the Institute. Their work was based on historic studies of Canadian attitudes, plus their own research with Canadians from coast, to coast, to coast, as well as international studies.

They considered not only voter turnout but interest and participation in political activities, as well as representation of woman and minorities in Parliament, and Canada’s commitment to international development. We’re promised to put 0.7% of our GDP into Official Development Assistance; we actually spend about half of that most years, putting us in 16th place among 22 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Our government is way behind Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, though it is twice as generous as Japan and the U.S.)

That doesn’t fit my perception of Canadians’ overall caring and generosity. Consider how much we’ve raised for relief in earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and you can see how generous Canadians are. I think many see the mis-match between what they do and what our government does. The report reflects that visible mis-match.

How can we build a Moral Economy, which reflects the needs, concerns, and values of Canadians, and to which political parties and governments see they must align themselves?

The time has come for us to see this situation for just how bad it is, and do something about it. "Politics" as a whole has become far too insular and entrenched; I really doubt that the current system in Canada can reform itself. If you've ever compared parties election platforms with the priorities set in party policy conventions, you'll see the gaping canyon that separates the two. There's an appearance of democracy, of consultation; in reality, parties are run from the top down. Same for governments.

The report provides some broad recommendations.
• Create opportunities for meaningful engagement;
• Seed a culture of engagement in government;
• Ensure more accountability and transparency in politics;
• Invest in civic engagement;
• Make voting easier
• Increase diversity in politics;
• Use technology better;
• Invest in civil society; and,
• Engage Canadians about our place in the world.
It also calls for more research, and closer monitoring, which are important.

The problem, of course, is that the current political ethos, our political context, is dead set against all those principles for action. Canada isn't the only nation facing this; most "democracies" in our world are having the same problem.

Perhaps ordinary citizens, of varying ages and backgrounds, using internet connections, will be able to repeat the events of January 23rd, at different times and in different places. Maybe they will become the Democratic Engagement which the report anticipates. Frankly, I don't see an alternative to the "huge democratic deficit" that Canada faces.

* * * * *

This post is based on my "Moral Economy" op-ed column which appeared in The Western Producer on Thursday, February 4, 2010.
√

YOU ARE WHAT EATS YOU

2010-02-03T22:23:00.001-06:00

Yeah, yeah, yeah; I know. I lived through the 1960s. That's when people were picking up on Victor Lindlahr's book, written in 1942, entitled You Are What You Eat: how to win and keep health with diet.

But what happens if the thing you're biting bites you back? Aye there's the . . . pain.

It happens more often than you think. I'm not talking just about very obvious food allergies, everything from hives to Coeliac (or Celiac) disease. I'm talking about relative low-level sensitivities. In themselves, they may not pose a major problem. Put them together and you've got "Trouble in River City," as "Professor" Harold Hill put it in Meredith Willson's The Music Man.

"Trouble in River City" I can do without, thank you very much.

My doctor and I have been working on a number of things which may be troubling me.

One is gluten — the stuff in wheat (red, white, and durum), barley, rye, triticale, and the like. A person with Celiac disease can't handle those kinds of food — bread, pasta, candies, cakes, pies and soy sauce; some salad dressings, luncheon meats, and soups. Some of us can "handle" those things, even if they are doing minimal damage to our intestines, and leave us feeling sluggish. I've seen studies which suggest that as much as 70% of the population may have problems with gluten, but don't know it. So removing some gluten from my life may make it easier for my whole body to work better.

Another common problem is food which causes problems for people with arthritis. These are in the nightshade family — everything from tomatoes to potatoes.

The point is that doctors (as in MDs) — at least some doctors — are beginning to look more closely at integrative medicine. It's not just giving you pills for this particular problem; it's looking at the much bigger picture of who you are as a person, and "connecting the dots" in your life. Instead of getting pills, maybe you need to take something out of your life. Maybe you need to get more exercise (like walk the dog, in my case).

That's why I "team up" with my doctor to build a healthier me. Yes it takes more than the average 5-10 minute visit, but it's a great investment in my long-term health.

So I eat more rice and less bread and pasta (though I really like pasta). I eat more fish and less meat. I eat a lot more vegetables, particularly greens, and more fruits. I eat fewer potatoes and more yams (or sweet potatoes).

Not a bad plan, overall.

What kinds of experiences have you had with food?

PITY POOR SASKATOON (3)

2009-11-01T05:06:00.001-06:00

On Friday, two days after the civic election, the hopeful developer of the "River Landing" complex (also known on this blog as "Fort Gathercole") reported publicly that he did not have the money and so would not be building. So the "Atch Hole" is going to be a hole for a lot longer.

This came as absolutely NO surprise to any of us who have followed this tragic saga for the last number of years. Indeed, we would have been shocked if he had been able to come up with the money.

The biggest question -- what will City Council do next? Just try to re-jug the proposal, or do some serious re-thinking?

For background information see: River Landing.

PITY POOR SASKATOON (2)

2009-10-23T08:35:00.007-05:00

I recently wrote a letter to the newspaper about the sad state of affairs in our city. I have begun to describe that situation in the first part of "Pity Poor Saskatoon." Today the my thoughts appeared in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the paper -- albeit in an edited form.

Here's the original.

It’s Saskatoon's election time. And John Gormley (with his “usual gang of suspects”) is back with GAAG. (That’s short for “Gormley Against Anything Good.”)

Gormley mentions a “Gang of Four” on Council (“The Politics of City Election Campaigns,” Oct.16/09) but says less about Council’s other seven “gang-sters.” What Gormley missed is their thinking about urban development, which he perhaps shares. They’re firmly stuck in the 1970s. This is 2009.

Saskatoon’s deeply in debt, instead of using a sustainable, “pay as you go” development policy. That debt level is 1970’s thinking. Watch for taxes to rise significantly or services to be cut drastically.

We had the Gathercole building, then the Gathercole site, then Parcel Y; now it’s the “Atch hole.” Will Lake Placid ever build there? Perhaps the City's accepted a “pig in a poke.” That overall lack of planning major developments is 1970’s thinking. And how long will the “Barry vacant lot” sit vacant?

Consider the Farmers' Market. Built too small, in the wrong place, without enough parking, and streets too narrow. That’s 1970’s thinking. (It’s so crowded I, like many others, rarely go there any more.)

And the mayor wants to turn the Farmers’ Market to a kind of General Store, because he doesn’t understand Farmers' Markets. That’s pre-1970’s thinking.

The new bridges -- Preston over Circle Drive and the south-west Circle Drive Bridge. Where are the spaces for future LRT (Light Rail Transit), that we'll need to move Saskatoon’s growing population? No LRT. That’s 1970’s thinking.

Recycling is important. Community-University research has shown that more than half of what goes into Saskatoon’s land fill can be re-used or re-cycled. That would save the city money and extend the life of our current land fill. But, no civic curb-side recycling here. More 1970’s thinking.

There’s a problem with 1970’s thinking. Cities that keep using it don’t shine; they rot.
-------

Just to fill in the blanks, John Gormley is a lawyer who was a Conservative Member of Parliament for a time. He makes his living as a radio talk show host these days. He's just touch to the right; he thinks Attila the Hun was a socialist. When he speaks of those with who he disagree he calls them "the usual gang of suspects."

"Saskatoon Shines" is the big advertising motto the city is using currently.

Curb-side recycling (usually done by the City itself) is a feature of many Canadian cities, often much smaller than ours.

Some of the other elements are explained in previous postings.

The reference to "Atch hole" is to our Mayor, Don Atchison. The community largely wanted the Farmers' Market to go on the Gathercole site. But Mayor Atch (who is up for re-election) has an "edifice complex" -- a Farmers' Market is too simplistic and dull for such a great site. Sigh!

PITY POOR SASKATOON

2009-10-22T13:53:00.012-05:00

We're getting close to our civic election. It comes in less than a week -- October 28th.

A lot of people are saying things are pretty good in Saskatoon. Yes, a lot of fancy things have been done along the river in the downtown. But where are the items of substance?

Where is Lake Placid's "River Landing" development, which should be close to finished now, but hasn't even been started? It's supposed to be the "anchor" of our city's downtown redevelopment. (See my earlier post on "Fort Gathercole.")

Where is "Station 20 West" -- the grocery store and service centre for the people in one of our poorest neighbourhoods, who desperately want and need a grocery store? The Provincial Government originally promised significant financial support to the project. They we had an election, and a different party formed the government. The new party canceled the deal with the poor, the old, the sick, and citizens in general.

Where is the long-promised childrens' hospital that we need for our province?

Where in the new Oliver Lodge -- a long-term care for seniors in poorer health? The provincial government promised money about 20 years ago for that. So far the only thing that has been accoplished is the demolition of the oldest wing of the existing building.

Why has our city council incorporated a new art gallery, instead of fixing the existing one? The new building will be much more expensive (if memory serves correctly).

(Mendel Art Gallery)

On top of all that, the mayor and his associates on Council have driven the City deep into debt, and have raised the tax rate 20% in the last 6 years.

And the number and value of building permits this year is way down.

The saying is that, "Saskatoon Shines." To me, Saskatoon has a dull glow at the best. Maybe "rot" better describes what's beginning to show.
√

IN PRAISE OF COALITIONS

2009-10-10T02:10:00.006-05:00

What Canada needs is a reasonable and effective coalition government. We need a government where people can work together, to solve the problems and build on the strengths of our nation.

Unfortunately, that isn’t likely to happen, because of the personalities involved.

Coalitions are normal in many countries -- Israel, India, Germany, France, and Italy, to name a few. In Britain, right after World War 1, Prime Minister David Lloyd George led a coalition government from 1918 to 1922. Britain again had a coalition government (including Conservatives, Labour and, Liberals) from 1935 to 1945 (there was no election during World War 2). That coalition was led first by Neville Chamberlain, then by Winston Churchill. Canada even had an elected coalition government -- the “Union Government” of Prime Minister Robert Borden, from 1917 to 1920.

There is nothing new, strange, or illegal about coalition governments. They have been, and can be, very effective.

Coalitions represent a wide range of thought, much like the thinking of Canadian people. That’s a good thing: we all don’t always think alike agree on everything. If we did, life would be pretty boring. And there would be no chance for change. However, we do think differently; we see situations differently; we see varying opportunities for the future. I think this diversity of thought is good.

As I have written before, much of Canada was built by people from very different backgrounds working together to solve common problems. They knew that if they didn’t work together, they wouldn’t survive, individually or collectively. That reality hasn’t changed.

On the other hand, single-party majority government’s don’t have the same sensitivity to the wide variety of thinking among Canadians voters.

Of course, we almost had a second coalition government in Canada last December, involving the Liberals and New Democrats, with the tacit support of the Bloc Québecois. That would have been a bit different, in that coalitions are usually formed at the request of the ruling Prime Minister. But Stephen Harper recognized the problem, and ran like a dog with his tail between his legs -- to the Governor General. It apparently took a fair amount of convincing, but Michael Jean bailed him out.

But that tells us why we are not likely to have a coalition government.

We have adult men and women in our Parliament who are content to play “king of the hill” like little boys and girls. Stephen Harper is lusting after a majority government, so he can enforce radical change on Canada -- until the country no longer resembles what it has been (to paraphrase one of his more “interesting” statements). We have Michael Ignatieff, brighter and more experienced than Harper, but less politically seasoned, lusting after the same job. We have Jack Layton dreaming of more power. So these personal ambitions prevent the collaborative, community-building approach that our country needs at a difficult and challenging time. Which is not at all helpful.

Canadians-- young and older, rural and urban -- need something better than that, and deserve something better.

(This was originally written for The Western Producer, a Canadian newspaper, and published October 8, 2009. It speaks of a number of British parallels.)
√

ONE DOWN, TWO (?) TO GO

2009-09-22T09:44:00.002-05:00

The first of what may be three elections for us is over. Danielle Chartier, representing the New Democratic Party, (i.e. Social Democratic) received 1,840 votes. Corey O’Soup of the Saskatchewan Party (i.e., Conservative) was second with 1,506 votes. Two other candidates (Liberal and Green) got just over 70 votes each, in the by-election held yesterday.

(Danielle giving her victory speech.)

The past two men who held this riding were both NDP, and both Premiers (i.e., Prime Ministers of the province). It was the CCF, forerunner of the NDP, which led the fight for medicare in Saskatchewan, then the rest of Canada.

Danielle lives just a block from our home; O'Soup doesn't live in our city, let alone the Riding. Danielle has a long history of community service. Cory was involved in a community development project, but turned his back on the people of this riding for the sake of political opportunity, when people needed his help (very long story).

Next up; civic elections, which will be held last week of October.

Will there be a federal (national) election? Well, the boys and girls of the Parliament in Ottawa are still "playing poltics" about that. When "scoring points" for "the party" is more important than serving peoples' needs, politics gets pretty disgusting. Sigh!
√

ELECTION FEVER

2009-09-04T11:42:00.001-05:00

In Saskatchewan, we may be hit by three (count 'em, three) elections in quick succession this fall.

1. In the Saskatoon Riversdale Provincial (as in State or County) Riding, the by-election is set for mid-September.

2. In late-October, we have elections for Saskatoon City Council (like other urban and rural municipalities in the province).

3. Now, there's a chance we may have a Federal (national) election as well -- the key issue being programs of support for workers who lost their jobs in the recession (such as Employment Insurance).

I think elections are a good thing. It is actually a chance for people who want to think, to think about the issues that effect their lives -- political or more-than-political.

But three in a row in a few months? Let's get serious!

Yes, there are significant issues we have to deal with in our community, province, and nation. But to try to tackle all the problems at, effectively, the same time, is to invite being overwhelmed -- politicians and voters alike.
`

NEW FLU STICKS; STILL LEVEL SIX, AND . . .

2009-07-04T20:49:00.002-05:00

While you were sleeping, the Bear was watching. Not saying, just watching.

Now, time to talk.

Over the last two days, the World Health Organization (WHO) has reported almost 13,000 new cases of a/H1N1 Influenza, and 50 more deaths. That's in just two days. Total recorded infections world-wide are about 90,000, with 382 deaths.

If we're at 6,500 new cases a day right now, we could well see 10,000 new cases a day by August or September.

But there is good news. It came at a meeting of officials from Canada, Mexico and the U.S., held in Cancun, Mexico on July 2nd. The speaker was Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO. Here are some excerpts from her speech.

• "We have seen some social disruption, especially when schools and camps have to close, bringing added demands on parents and their employers. Most health systems have coped well, though some have reported some strains on staff, hospital beds, laboratories and resources."

• "The overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a full recovery within a week, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment." (Emphasis mine.)

If you want more information, Dr. Chan's speech is available on the WHO web site. It is worth the read, if you're interested in keeping up on the details -- which could save your life.

REFLECTIONS ON TWO NATIONS -- TWO HOLIDAYS ( JULY 1 and JULY 4)

2009-07-04T04:47:00.006-05:00

There are a lot of people, on both sides of our common border, who think Americans and Canadians are pretty much the same. That is true, superficially. When given more consideration, the hypothesis begins to fall apart.

That doesn't mean that Canadians are good and Americans are bad. Or vice versa. It is just that we are different. We see things differently; we value things differently.

The starting place, I suppose, is our own respective institutions. Americans are in search of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," according to the Declaration of Independence (traditionally thought to be signed on July 4, 1776). In the British North America Act (July 1, 1867), Canada's first constitution, a key phrase refers to "peace, order, and good government." Those phrases represent two very different approaches to life. So one should hardly be surprising that our thinking is different.

Though I'm being a bit "broad brush" here, I think it is fair to say that Americans are more individual-oriented, while Canadians are more community-oriented (though much less now that in the past).

Nowhere is this more obvious that in our approaches to health care. Canada has, in effect, a single-payer system. Each province (state) has its own health care program, and pays for hospital and physician services in its province. (Constitutionally, health care is a provincial responsibility.) There is a federal act which co-ordinates inter-provincial collaboration, and provides federal money to the provinces, so similar services can be maintained nation-wide, regardless of the relative wealth of the various provinces.

This did not come quickly or easily. It evolved over a 20 year period, from the end of World War Two until the mid-1960s. Saskatchewan (where I now live) was the first province to take action. In 1946, the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act was passed, giving free hospital care to virtually everyone in the province. The provincial government wanted to do more at that time, but didn't have the money. By 1957, the Federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which extended the Saskatchewan model to all provinces through permanent Federal-Provincial shared-cost funding. With the federal money in place for hospitals, Saskatchewan again took the lead in providing coverage for physicians services in 1962. By 1966, there was another Federal act, which provided shared-cost funding for physicians services. And while there has been some fine-tuning of the system over the subsequent years, the principles are still much the same.

I knew some of the pioneers of the Saskatchewan acts. The acts came about because of citizen pressure on government. There were lengthy public discussions -- in Church basements, Community Halls, and School classrooms. Rural people, particularly, saw neighbours loosing their farms -- both their homes and business -- in order to pay their hospital and doctor's bills. They agreed that sort of thing shouldn't be happening in a country like Canada. (That's not "peace, order and good government.") The leading party in Saskatchewan, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, was both instigator and responder to the citizens demands. And citizen demand is what ultimately led to the development of what is referred to as "medicare" in Canada.

So today, every person's hospital care, and doctor's care, is covered. A couple of provinces charge premiums for individuals or families, but these are relatively small, certainly not at the levels of US insurers. (To get Canadian-level care in the US, people would have to pay over $1,000 per month).

Ironically, the challenge which led to Canadian medicare is still a huge problem in the United States. Almost 50 million Americans (just under 20 per cent of the population) have no health care coverage, because they cannot afford it. Many more have inadequate coverage. Unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US; of those who go bankrupt, 75% have some, but not enough, health insurance.

The proposed solution is a single payer. It's called HR676, and is slowly gaining support. A recent poll I saw indicated about 60 per cent of health care professionals, particularly doctors, support some form of this plan. This plan appears to go well beyond the bounds of Canadian legislation, in that it covers a lot more than Canadian medicare.

What will happen next is not clear, for either country. Some Canadian physicians are pushing for a return to more private health care (meaning more money to doctors, at patients' expense). Some Americans are pushing for better care through better insurance, even if that is provided by government (with or without some premium paid by the insured).

Interesting times await.

NEW FLU STICKS; NOW LEVEL SIX

2009-06-12T00:03:00.012-05:00

Finally. The World Health Organization (WHO) has gotten around to declaring what everyone else knew for weeks. We have a real, true, honest, full-blown pandemic with A/H1N1 influenza. The disease can be passed easily from person to person. About 29,000 confirmed cases world-wide, with 144 deaths. The disease has spread to multiple countries in every continent (including Australia, a country that thinks of itself as a continent). That's "Level 6" in WHO language. It doesn't get any worse. Technically.

That "technically" is significant. The Level 6 declaration recognizes the extent to which the disease has spread geographically, not the severity of the situation (which is the more important issue). In Canada, where we could have 3,000 to 4,000 deaths in a "normal" 'flu season, we've had FOUR deaths attributed to A/H1N1 (this latest monster 'flu). Four deaths; not four thousand.

So, wash your hands when you get home from being wherever. Wash before meals. Sneeze into your elbow. Etc.

I'm not suggesting we should ignore the problem. I am suggesting, as usual, that we keep the whole thing in its appropriate context. "Let's be careful out there," continues to be the appropriate phrase.

One other thought. One way to possibly curb the spread of this illness: wash your hands before you send an e-mail or blog post. You can trust the Bear on that. ;)

KEEPING TABS ON THE SWINE THAT 'FLU

2009-06-06T13:30:00.006-05:00

I was at a meeting of our health region's ethics committee this week, and guess what got mentioned? Yup; A/H1N1 Influenza.

I raised with my colleagues the potential problem with the World Health Organization's mathematical model of influenza prediction. One of my colleagues, a physician (who shall remain nameless), said perhaps the mathematical model is "only for pandemics that count." At which we all laughed.

The latest statistics I have show the WHO has recorded about 22,000 cases of A/H1N1 influenza around the world, with 125 deaths. So the death rate is about 0.5% of those infected.

With the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) situation in 2003, there were only about 8,100 cases recorded world-wide, but 775 deaths. The death rate then was 9.5% of those infected.

Bit of a difference between those two outbreaks.

So, there are pandemics, and there are PANDEMICS (as in pandemics that count).

Indeed, the WHO itself seems to have come to the same conclusion. It's thinking about reporting a "severity assessment" with any change of pandemic level alert.

Hey; have those people been reading my mind (or my blog)?

SWINE 'FLU, BUT THIS IS WEIRD.

2009-06-01T20:27:00.007-05:00

So, let's get this straight.

1. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), when there is "efficient and sustained human-to-human transmission" of an influenza outbreak. That is a Level 6 problem -- a full-blown Pandemic.

2. According to the WHO's most recent update, On June 1, there area bout 17,500 cases of A/H1N1 flu internationally, with 115 deaths. That's level 6, technically.

3. Somehow, though, I think there's something wrong with the mathematic model the WHO is using to predict and declare pandemic situations. Level 6 should mean that people are dying like flies caught in a brush fire. But that's not happening.

P.S.: Just don't go on any Australian cruise ships for a while.

IF SWINE 'FLU, WE'D HAVE A LEVEL 6 PANDEMIC BY NOW (2) -- MAYBE??

2009-05-21T11:51:00.019-05:00

The latest information from the World Health Organization is not encouraging, but far from being disastrous. As of this morning, the WHO (in its Influenza A(H1N1) update 35), indicated there were 11,034 confirmed cases in 41 countries, with 85 deaths. (While I don't wish to undervalue the lives that have been lost, we are very fortunate there have been so few, thus far.)

What this appears to mean is that the current version of the flu is not nearly as deadly or virulent as in other major outbreaks. And while the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Margaret Chan, has been pushed to move to the final level, level 6, she continues to say that such a move is not warranted at this time. There are some suggestions Chan may not be strictly following the WHO guidelines for level 6 (as the linked story indicates). However, this may be in keeping with the overall criteria for assessing the severity of a flu outbreak. Her action, moreover, does not stop individual governments from upgrading their own precautions and actions.

Ms. Chan is, in my estimation, trying to strike an effective balance between vigilance and action on one hand, and over-reaction (and panic) on the other. I think she is doing a good job.

IF SWINE DROVE, IT WOULD BE WORSE THAN IF SWINE 'FLU

2009-05-08T13:28:00.005-05:00

Last year in the United States, about 37,300 people died in traffic accidents.

So far this year, two people in the US have died of current variety of H1N1 influenza.

So, how many people have stopped driving because of all those traffic deaths? Hands up please.

That 37,300 is a drop of about 9% from the year before. The decrease is largely attributed to the fact that people are using their seat belts more. Or, simply, more people are taking reasonable precautions when driving.

In 'flu time, reasonable precautions mean washing your hands frequently, and using disposable tissues for blowing your nose, etc.

Which is why this ol' Bear is going about life as usual. But being just a bit more careful, especially washing my paws when I come in from shopping (or whatever).

IF SWINE REALLY 'FLU, WE'D HAVE A LEVEL 6 PANDEMIC BY NOW

2009-05-07T12:41:00.011-05:00

Fortunately swine don't fly, though people can and do (in airplanes).

I promised you about a week ago that I would try to help you stay abreast of what's been happening with the H1N1 Influenza. But my ethics work here has kept me sidetracked. (So I've been a dreadful failure in keeping you informed -- official numbers are only part of the story.) I just sent another memo to a colleague this morning, raising issues about the health and safety of people who work during a pandemic. In the SARS outbreak in Toronto a few years ago, a significant number of deaths were among health care professionals. (Just as in 9/11 in Manhattan, a lot of police and firefighters died in the line of duty.)

One of the major concerns in any pandemic relates to the number of health care professionals who will show up for work. There are research numbers which suggest that about 50 per cent would stay home. Talk about a health care system being overwhelmed by that loss of employees!

One of the challenges of emergency work is protection of workers. Back in the days when I was a firefighter, I sometimes had to work above the fire (a particularly dangerous place) looking for people who might be trapped or injured, so we could get them to safety. Back them I had a heavy canvas, rubber-lined "turnout" coat, boots, a helmet, and self-contained breathing apparatus. And given that level of protection, I was reasonably confident doing what I had to do, even thought I was in a risky situation.

The biggest fear in a pandemic is that health care workers will not get the protective gear they need in order to do their jobs safely. That puts them, and their patients, and families, and, ultimately, the community, at risk. How much risk? I'm not sure. But at least in principle, this is a significant problem.

So we have a legitimate ethical challenge. Workers say, "Yes, we're committed to our profession and our patients, but how can you expect us to work when we don't have the protection we need?"

I'll let you think about that one.

IF SWINE FLU, DOES THAT MEAN PIGS REALLY CAN FLY? (2a)

2009-05-01T23:45:00.006-05:00

I'm moving all my work related to A/H1N1 Influenza to my "Bears Noting" blog. This, after all, is my blog for "current news" and ethical developments.

I will be updating items here as I get information.

I have already received a bit of news from others. If you know about something that is happening in your region or country, and want to add it, please feel free to do so. That way we'll be able to keep each other informed of our experiences.

See you anon.
√

Newspapers: R.I.P.??

2009-04-24T18:48:00.002-05:00

As a person whose life includes a career as a journalist (primarily in radio but subsequently free-lance in print), and as an ethicist, I tend to watch the "business" of journalism as well as work in it.

Within the space of two days, I came across two different laments over the deaths of newspapers. One was on long-time friend and excellent journalist Jim Taylor's Weblog, the other on the blog of Mike H, The Life of Writing. Then French Fancy got into the act, and I read and then got a note from Wake Up and Smell the Coffee. A couple of other journalists added their thoughts to me. Then someone drew my attention to an article in The Atlantic Monthly by Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, about why he blogs (and gets a lot of attention).

So I followed the "3R's" of journalism: research, reflect, (w)rite.

The following is a revised form of something published in The Western Producer. That paper has an on-line version, for which there is a subscription fee.

The changes I have made here reflect some of the on-line wisdom and concern we have been sharing in the blogsphere.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

~ ~ ~ TODAY'S NEWSPAPERS ~ ~ ~

Newspapers are making news these days -- often by going out of business.

In the U.S., Seattle Post-Intelligncer has quit printing after almost 150 years. Denver’s Rockey Mountain News is gone. The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune are going, going, . . . These are big papers -- like Canada’s National Post or Globe and Mail. Smaller, local or regional papers face similar problems.

This makes me sad. Having been a writer and broadcaster for about 30 years, it’s like seeing your neighbour have to sell his or her farm, or home. Journalists write “the rough draft of history” -- and with a degree in history, I worry about that potential loss of information, to current and future generations. That same loss makes us less aware of what’s happening in the world around us, and could happen to us. It’s hard to make sound ethical judgements in an information vacuum.

What’s happening? The biggest problem is lack of money -- from advertising. It’s basically a case of how many eyeballs (readers) a paper can “deliver” to a potential advertiser, as opposed to what a magazine, or television, or other newspaper can deliver. The problem is not new; but is getting worse. As the economy tightens, and trends shift, so do advertisers wallets. With less money, papers reduce staff and pages. (In fact, a recent report from the Mercury News in San Jose indicated the newspaper industry shed 5,900 "newsroom" jobs last year.) With fewer reporters, research fades, while governments and big corporations “massage” their messages. The quality of news can be “dumbed down,” as reporters are require to crank out stories like sausages from a sausage machine. (The image is not far-fetched; in radio, we had a deadline every hour. Exmoor Jane recounted having five deadlines per day when working for a London paper.) International events are omitted or buried as papers shrink.

As ownership is concentrated (with fewer people owning more newspapers, radio, and television), a kind of editorial “group think” sets in -- so one paper looks like another. Add the trend to make information “entertaining” (“info-tainment” is the technical word). (French Fancy's dismay about the treatment of Natasha Richardson's death speaks directly to the matter of info-tainment.) I believe that news should be well-written and interesting. But news is news, while Monty Python and American Idol are entertainment.

Eventually, one wonders what one is really getting, and whether it is even worth reading (or bothering with a subscription).

My fear is that the loss of good newspapers will leave us all far less educated, more insulated, and increasingly self-centred. And far less capable of dealing with the challenges and pressures of daily living.

There are, I think, two rays of light in the gloom.

Instead of, or in addition to, print editions, some papers are producing electronic or “on line” editions. As people become more computer oriented, they tend to get their news through computers. Some are exclusively electronic, like B.C.’s The Tyee. Whether this will improve the overall quality of the reporting remains to be seen.

Then, there’s the return of an ancient tradition. Long before print, there were troubadours and minstrels -- poets, singers, performers. As they traveled, they would also carry the news from one place to another.

Those ancients have been replaced by others -- called “bloggers” -- who fulfill the old story-telling function, sharing bits and pieces from here and there. Sometimes professional journalists also blog -- giving a different flavor and context to their work. (There's an interesting piece in The Atlantic Monthly by Andrew Sullivan about why he blogs.)

Newspapers, journalism, news -- everything seems to be “in process” -- “in transition.” I see it happening, to some extent, every day in the blogsphere (though writing in the blogsphere tends to be self-centred, sometimes to the point of being narcissistic -- though some bloggers provide good information and reflection on important topics). Meanwhile, politicians are trying to harness the blog world for their messages, as are (big) businesses.

But there’ll always be stories to tell, and someone will tell them.

You can trust the ol' Bear on that.

CHANGE HAPPENS

2009-04-23T16:01:00.008-05:00

I've made some changes in how I do my blogging.

When I first set up the blog "The Ethical Pilgrimage," it was in connection with my post-graduate studies in bioethics. When I became chronically ill, my plans to finish my degree evaporated.

Now, that blog is about to do the same (more or less).

I'm going to keep it up in the blogsphere, as a matter of historical record and reference (should I need it, or other people want to see particular items). Thoughts which I would normally have posted there will be found on this site. I will probably be posting here a bit more frequently, though "Chrome on the Range" will still be my primary blog. "Desert Epiphanies" will continue to be the site for more thorough discussion of matters related to spirituality, faith, and church.

Thank you to those who have taken the time to read and follow those few notes on "The Ethical Pilgrimage." If you'll "bear with me," I think you'll find this site to be as noteworthy as that one.
√

SMOOT-HAWLEY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN, or, How to Turn and Recession into a Depression

2009-02-02T18:42:00.015-06:00

Most people are not familiar with the "Smoot Hawley Tariff Act," named after the guys who put the ideas together. But those tariffs helped turned a U.S. recession of 1929 into a world-wide depression through most of the 1930s. And the current U.S. government is about to do the same thing all over again, with it's new $855 billion, "America first" stimulus package.

Once again, Americans are showing they cannot remember their own history. They are again jeopardizing their economy, and the economies of other nations.

Senator Reed Smoot (a Republican from Utah) and Representative Wallis Hawley (a Republican from Oregon) saw the U.S. economy needed to grow, by increasing American firms' share of business. One way to do that, and effectively "stimulate" the economy, was to restrict foreign imports. That way, people would be forced to "buy American" or pay a lot more for the same thing. In fact, the Bill raised import charges on about 20,000 items.

Opposition began even before the law was passed in June, 1930. Over a thousand economists and many business leaders begged President Herbert Hoover to veto the bill. Complaints came from well over 30 other nations as well. (People knew about it because it had passed the House of Representatives in May, 1929.)

That action may have helped to trigger the financial crash of October, 1929. By the time it became law, other countries were already boycotting or imposing their own tariffs on American goods. Canada was among the first to do so, even before the bill had passed in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. State Department says that between 1929 and 1932, overall world trade dropped by 66%.

While the U.S. stock market had been uncertain since 1929, by 1930, politicians and business leader were saying the end of the crisis was in sight. But in late 1930-1932 the market headed almost straight down, reaching its lowest point in June, 1932, a year after the Smoot-Hawley Law was signed.

Smoot-Hawley wasn't the only problem America faced, but it was significant. The other major problem was a string of bank failures. But if you cannot produce and sell enough to re-pay your debts, of course banks are going to fail. Think of Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Mannie Mae, and Freddy Mack, which have run into huge problems in the last few month. It's the 1930s all over again.

History's lesson is that if you put up a brick wall around your country to keep imports out, other nations will do the same. That's the main problem with the current U.S. stimulus package. It has a clause which would do, in effect, the same thing which the Smoot-Hawley Act did in 1930; it will help turn a recession into a protracted depression.

Canada has been protesting, as it did with the Smoot-Hawley Act. The "buy American" clause in the current U.S. proposal is a fundamental violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Will the Americans listen? Who knows? Will Stephen Harper impose Canadian counter-measures if the American law passes. Not likely; I see Harper as pretty timid in his dealings with the United States. Were the stronger-willed, broader-thinking Michael Ignatieff in charge, things might be much different.

President Obama inherited an economic disaster when he took office as America's 44th President. How he handles the "buy America" language in the stimulus package will be a major test of his foreign policy. How he handles it may determine outcomes as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan.

THE Christmas Present for Canada

2008-12-29T10:27:00.004-06:00

The Christmas present that Canada needs this year -- and needs desperately -- is a Parliament that works. It would be a Parliament which deals with the real needs of real people in a difficult time.

That depends on Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He’s the guy from Toronto who is part egghead economist and part ideological pit bull. I admire and respect a person of strong convictions, who stands by his convictions. My admiration disappears when those convictions begin to hurt people. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is so full of what’s (ideologically) right that sometimes he doesn’t understand what’s good, necessary, practical, and helpful.

After applying his ideology to disrupt our 39th Parliament, he went to the Governor General asking for a federal election, because Parliament had become “dysfunctional.” In October’s election, the non-progressive Conservatives got about 170,000 fewer votes than in January, 2006. They enjoy the support of only one voter out of five.

During that election, the Prime Minister kept arguing the fundamentals for Canada’s economy are strong. But by election time, the Toronto stock market had fallen from its high of 15,156 in June to 9,955. That’s a drop of 34 per cent. Now, he’s “very worried” about Canada’s economy. That's quite the switch.

After the election, Harper told a Tory policy convention that the party would have to be less ideological and more practical. Yet the financial update the new Parliament received was really not practical -- it didn’t do much to solve Canadian’s problems. And it was extremely ideological. Probably the most ideological item was the plan to cut off federal funding to political parties. It was an attempt to undercut the opposition. But more important, it was an attempt to limit public discussion of important national issues. The move created a huge political backlash, which could have ended Harper’s government, had the Governor General not bailed him out.

Now Harper and his helpers are consulting people. The Finance helper, Jim Flaherty, is asking for time to put something together, though most other world governments have already taken strong action. The time for consulting, Mr. Flaherty, was in September and October -- the time your boss was wasting on an election.

Mr. Flaherty needs to develop a wide-ranging proposal to help stabilize our economy. And the proposal must help to stabilize peoples’ lives, too. There must support for some major sectors -- manufacturing (including automobiles), forestry, fisheries, agriculture, mining, though the support will depend on the specific needs of the sector, and the companies in it. That aid must be dependent on keeping people employed. There must be help for small business owners, who also employ many people, and who are getting caught in a credit crunch. There must be lower taxes in the lowest tax bracket. And there must be help for individuals who lose their jobs -- in terms of longer and stronger unemployment benefits. These are necessary even if there has to be a budget deficit. This is the nature of a moral economy.

If Mr. Harper can get past his ideology and do the practical thing, we may have a workable solution which everyone in Parliament can support.

(These thoughts were originally published in The Western Producer, in a slightly different form.)

Fascism or Coalition?

2008-12-03T01:49:00.007-06:00

Today I received an e-mail note from Canada's Conservative party, telling my why I should support Prime Minister Harper and fight the Liberal-NDP Coalition. The Tory letter began with the words, "Two months ago Canadians voted in a general election. They made a clear choice." The rest is my response.

Thank you for this note.

You are absolutely right!

"Two months ago Canadians voted in a general election. They made a clear choice."

In the end, 5.2 million Canadians (22.2% of Canada's 23.4 million eligible voters) cast ballots in favour of Conservative candidates. That's roughly one voter out of five. A support level for the Conservatives of 1:5 is hardly a ringing endorsement for anything. (In the same election, just over 40% eligible electors, 2 out of five, voted for "none of the above" by not voting at all.)

I don't belong to any party. In my voting life I've supported various parties. If there were to be another election soon -- another huge waste of time and money -- I don't know who I would support. I do know that Mr. Harper scares the living daylights out of me. He seems so hard-headed and self-righteous, and worse, so hard-hearted. His attitude reminds me of those attitudes held by leaders of Fascist governments in the past.

At the party's November policy conference Mr. Harper warned delegates to avoid an ideological approach to governing. "We will have to be tough and pragmatic, not unrealistic or ideological in dealing with complex economic challenges, he said. And he added, "We must work hard to keep Canadians trust and earn it again. We must listen to all voices, whether they support us or not." But by time the 40th Parliament convened, he had entirely forgotten those words.

Sadly, I do not think Mr. Harper is capable of listening to other people. Indeed, in Mr. Flaherty's economic statement, there was a plan to silence the voices of those who are not Conservatives.

So now we are at a crossroads. Should we allow a "centrist and socialist" coalition to rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois), or a fascist party rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois)? Because Mr. Harper cannot hold office without the support of the BQ, if he faces the opposition of the Liberals and New Democrats.

I know you're going to send me an insulting meaningless "thank you for your comments" letter in reply to what I have written. That says a lot about how much you listen to voices of those who are not die-hard Conservatives. But this letter comes with a warning. I am not at all thrilled by the idea of Canada being governed by a centre-left coalition. But I'm too afraid of Mr. Harper to give him my support. I think I speak for a lot of people in Canada's "silent majority."

Respectfully,

Rob-bear

A $300 MILLION WASTE

2008-11-07T20:38:00.009-06:00

Last month, Canadians came through our 40th General Election. A recent survey I heard about said that roughly three-quarters of Canadians were not happy with the experience. I understand that; I certainly was not happy at all.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, lusting after a majority government, finally thought he saw his chance in September. Conservative popularity reached about 40 per cent -- enough to win a majority. So Harper called the election -- even though he (apparently) broke the law on fixed election dates, which Conservatives had introduced, and which became law this spring. He said he needed the election because Parliament was dysfunctional, hoping people would forget that he was the one largely responsible for the dysfunction.

We had a $300+ million, five-week waste of time, money, and energy. The election brought no significant change in Parliament. The no-longer-progressive Conservatives still form a minority government. The Liberals are still the Official Opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is in third place. The NDP is fourth. The Greens still haven’t elected a member. Some parties gained/lost seats, but not enough to change anything.

And the legality of the election will be argued before the Federal Court of Canada.

The most significant thing about election is the loss of democratic activity. Two voters out of five did not, would not, or could not vote (in some cases because of new election rules). That's even worse than in the Presidential and related elections in the U.S., at the beginning of November. From the numbers, Mr. Harper’s Conservatives enjoy the support of only one voter out of five -- hardly a ringing endorsement, though Harper sees it as such.

What has happened to our political process? I’ve followed politics fairly closely for about 30 years. I’ve seen party policy conventions, election platforms, and politician’s actions. In so many cases, those actions bear little or no resemblance whatsoever to what “grass roots” people deliberated and decided at policy conventions. Is it any wonder that citizens become discouraged by what they see politics over principle or party over principle?

And what happens when the membership of a parliament or provincial assembly bears no resemblance to the number of votes a party gets in an election? Further discouragement. That's what happens in our "first past the post" electoral system, as opposed to a proportional representation system.

It seems that people are losing interest -- and losing confidence -- in our current electoral systems and parties. As decision-making move further and further away from ordinary citizens, those citizens notice the difference, the distancing. And they often conclude that ordinary citizens are irrelevant in the overall scheme of fulfill their roles as citizens?

I believe it’s up to the politicians to address that problem, along with Canada’s people. -- and to do that sooner than later.

Will that happen? Don’t bet the farm on it.

(These thoughts were originally published in The Western Producer, in a different form.)
*

CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 2 - Background)

2008-11-07T19:34:00.026-06:00

If you want to check more on Fascism, here's a good link: Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. I trust you will find this information interesting and useful, and at least a start in understanding what Fascism really entails.

There is also a web site dedicated to explaining how Fascism in, or may be, evolving in the United States of America. See: 14 Points of Fascism: The Warning Signs. This link originates with the "Project for the Old American Century," whose main page concludes with a quotation from Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator of the 1940s: "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." (See About POAC) This does not mean that the American experience is the same as the Canadian experience, but a comparison may be instructive.

CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 1 - Basic Orientation)

2008-05-03T10:50:00.015-05:00

I believe that Canada is heading down the road to Fascism, and is making good “progress” in that regard.

For a brief period in Canada’s history, we were afraid of Fascist governments. Between 1939 and 1945, Canada was at war with Fascist governments -- particularly Germany and Italy.

But the rise of Communism, and its rapid expansion in the later 1940s, quickly pre-occupied western nations. Communism was the bogey-man. And people basically forgot about Fascism.

The problem is that, despite their ideologies, Communism and Fascism are almost the same thing, because they act the same ways.

RIGHT vs. LEFT

In common political language, we use terms derived from the French National Assembly, at the time of the French Revolution. (The world has changed so much that it is hard to make legitimate comparisons from then to now.)

Today, politicians of the “right” believe in free-market capitalism and extreme individualism. Politicians of the “left” focus on collective development and co-operative society-building. And there are, of course, various mixtures of those policies. I don’t think either exists in a “pure” form.

LIVING the CIRCLE

The problem, of course, is that the principle defies reality. It assumes a kind of straight line. In fact, political philosophy is built in a circle -- like most other things in our world.

Think of a circle, with the north, south, east and west of a compass imposed on it. That’s how to sort our politics.

On the left side of the circle, you have your “left-wing” parties. On the right side of the circle, you have your “right-wing” groupings. That is pretty clear. What follows is, perhaps, less obvious.

On the top half of the circle, you have “democracies.” On the bottom half of the circle you have “dictatorships.”

So it is possible to have one of four basic models: a left-wing democracy, a right-wing democracy, a left wing dictatorship, and a right wing dictatorship. Left-wing dictatorships are called “Communist.” Right-wing dictatorships are called “Fascist.” Again, I don’t think any of them exists in a pure state.

While the ideology separating Communists and Fascists is radically different, in practical terms they are highly similar. That is why they meet at the bottom of the circle. That is because they are both tightly-controlled dictatorships, that use similar methods to achieve their goals.

I believe that Communism is basically unacceptable to the majority in Canada. I also believe that Fascism IS acceptable to many Canadians. And I believe that we are moving towards a more Fascist form of government, and away from the more balanced social democracy that Canada has been for so many years. The is a move which will fundamentally change our approach to life. Instead of having a kinder, gentler, more equal country, we will end up with one which is more vicious, harsh, and divided. I do not believe those characteristics — vicious, harsh, and divided — are of benefit to any nation.

CHANGE IN AFGHANISTAN?

2008-03-08T14:55:00.016-06:00

While there are a lot of global economic and political issues being played out in Afghanistan, it is the social issues -- the life of the people -- which most consistently gets lost in the "change" that is happening.

"Change," according to whom?

Whose life will be better for all this "change"?

Basically, we Euro-Americans are trying to drag the Afghan people into the 21st century (from our perspective), even if “we” have to drag “them” kicking and screaming (which they are).

“We” want to change thousands of years of culture, and do it virtually overnight. We're trying to change their whole society — everything they believe about who they are, and how their society "should" operate.

It is a kind of a cultural imperialism. But we are doing it because, you see, “we” think a liberal democracy “would be good” for “them.”

Change focus. We are in the early 1960s. The Americans are trying to get the Saudi Arabian royal family to effect a more “democratic” and “humanitarian” tone to their society. The response from the Saudis is instructive. “Do not send us your Coca Cola, Ford cars, or upstart son of a whisky merchant [i.e., President John F. Kennedy]. We have our own culture and have had it for thousands of years.”

Is real change possible in Afghanistan?

There are strong forces opposing change in Afghan society. Particularly the Taliban, but they are not alone. Traditional rulers, so-called "Warlords," really don't want much change, nor do many traditionalist clerics and ordinary citizens. No different from our society, where "conservatives" of all kinds oppose creative change.

A recent report for a knowledgeable Afghan woman, on International Woman's Day in Saskatoon, presented the situation in sharp contrast. (What she said is well known; she simply highlighted the problem.) "Redevelopment" money being spent three ways in Afghanistan. First, to arm and equip the new Afghan army. Second, to "pay off" the "Warlords." If there's any money left over after that, it might go into something else like a school or a hospital.

And that is the situation which the Canadian Government wants to support until 2011. Because the government thinks real change will happen if it supports this new "status quo."

If we are rdally committed to making change in "their" society, we'll have to leave troops -- army of occupation -- for several generations -- not years, or decades; generations. It will take that long for real change to take hold. Otherwise, the "conservatives" in that society will quickly reverse any changes that have been made.

And who will benefit from any of these kinds of "change?

"POLITICS" MADE SIMPLE

2008-03-01T12:22:00.011-06:00

Listening to people talk about "politics" today, I feel very sad about the lack of basic understanding that most people have about "politics." I'm not talking about party positions or philosophical positions. I'm talking about the basics of politics.

To understand politics in our society, we need to reflect on "the cradle of democracy" -- ancient Greece. The Greeks had an wonderful word -- politeia. (That is the word from which we have our English words "politics" and "political.") That Greek word meant citizenship -- particularly "the rights and responsibilities of the citizen" — and citizens collectively.

But over the millennia we have developed "political institutions," of two kinds.

First, there are assemblies, which bring people together: city councils, legislatures, parliaments, congresses, etc. These are now filled with "elected representatives."

Second, there are parties: associations or groups of people who tend to think the same way about most things.

The flaw with these "political institutions" is that they have taken away — usurped — the rights and responsibilities of of citizens. Their actions deprive ordinary citizens of their politeia -- their "politics. "About the only thing left is the "right" and "responsibility" to put an "X" on a particular line of a particular piece of paper at particular times.

The loss of those rights is a historic study in itself.

There was a time when the leaders of the assemblies might have been "the brightest and best" — but more often they were simply the people who had the most power — either economic or military. With today's assemblies, there are lots of bright people on the outside — often brighter that the elected representatives. But because the elected hold the power — power which they are usually reluctant to share — we citizens have lost the core of our citizenship.

The time has come for us to reclaim our politeia -- our citizenship.

THE GREAT DIVIDES

2007-11-08T23:34:00.001-06:00

The November 7th provincial election in Saskatchewan made it clear that there are some major divisions in our province. (Most people know about them; the election just made them crystal clear.)

The Saskatchewan Party, based on its continuing political record, is (generally) the party of the rich and the rural.

When you look at a map of Saskatchewan’s constituencies, it’s a veritable sea of green — indicating a Sask Party MLA. The bits of orange are in the northern part of the province.

The few urban seats the Sask Party has won tend to be in the more “well-to-do” areas — like the east side of Saskatoon, particularly the north-east and south-east of the city. The seats called “Saskatoon Northwest” and “Saskatoon Southeast” are actually rural constituencies with small urban pockets.

So, generally, the Sask Party is the party of the rural and the rich.

Which is entirely in keeping with Sask Party philosophy.

(Why the NDP, a party with traditional rural roots, has done so poorly in rural areas is a good question to consider.)

So, now it is up to Brad Wall. What is he going to do to bridge the gap between those who are prospering in this economic boom and those who are not? And what is he going to do to bridge the chasm between rural Saskatchewan and urban Saskatchewan?

Will he work at bridging those divides, or will he encourage them for his political advantage?

FORT GATHERCOLE

2007-10-31T22:15:00.003-05:00

Within the next few months, citizens and visitors in Saskatoon will note construction starting on Fort Gathercole.

While that title is strange to some, I trust it will catch on, for two reasons.

First, the construction is on the Gathercole Site. That was the site of Saskatoon's old Technical School, thought the building later became the office for the Saskatoon School Board. The building was re-named in honour of the long-time Director of Education, the late Dr. Fred Gathercole. The structure was torn down a couple of years ago because the city had no understanding of how to re-adapt the structure, and had no interest in learning. Since then, the City has taken to calling that chunk of property simply "Parcel Y." (It's also know is "Parcel Why?" by some of those who wonder why the city is allowing such strange and inappropriate development of the land.)

The second part of the name comes from the structure of the proposed development itself, by an outfit with the title "Lake Placid." It is actually shaped very much like an old prairie fort — one that could have been built by the Hudson's Bay Company or the North West Company. But instead of logs palisades, Fort Gathercole has three enormous steel, concrete and glass boxes for walls: the hotel box/wall, the condominium box/wall, and the retail-professional box/wall. If you muster up the courage and dare go inside the walls, you'll find a open courtyard. It has a paddling pool in the summer and a skating rink by the winter. There's nothing that would draw people to the site except the walls and the quaint courtyard, but the City still thinks of this as a kind of destination attraction (which shows how "small" some people think).

Overall, it's a bit of "stunning mediocrity" — stunning because it is so mediocre for a space which is just begging for something excellent.

Take note — coming soon in the heart of Saskatoon — Fort Gathercole.

(NOTE -- October, 2009 -- the land, which is still vacant two years later, is coming to be called the "Atch hole" -- after the mayor who wanted this kind of development so badly. Kinda' catchy, in its own way, that title.