MOSQUE AT "GROUND ZERO," USA.

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.

FOOLISHNESS? WASTE? (ANOTHER LAMENT)

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!

TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT?

    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

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.
√

PITY POOR SASKATOON (2)

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

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.
√

ONE DOWN, TWO (?) TO GO

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

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.
`

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

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.

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

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

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)

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.
√

CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 1 - Basic Orientation)

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.

THE GREAT DIVIDES

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

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.