Opinions

 

It’s probably fair to say that we all have opinions. Young or old, male or female, even children have opinions. We probably couldn’t manage throughout life without them. We have opinions on life, others, religion, politics and politicians, money, family, entertainment and entertainers, the Toronto Blue Jays or the Ottawa Red Blacks or the Vancouver Whitecaps, or other sports or teams, health care, the young or the old, taxes, food costs, tariffs, neighbours and friends, climate change, kinds and makes of vehicles, size of houses, rent versus buy, where you live or where you want to live, brands of products, travel, vacations, holidays, immigrants, aboriginal people, work and coworkers, east versus west, US politics, Donald Trump among other things. Opinions are yours and very personal.  Nobody else has your opinions.  You may hang onto them tenaciously.  In many ways they define you.

Opinions make you comfortable in your choices. They guide you in how you face life. They define you when you talk to others. “Do they agree with my opinion? (They probably don’t entirely)” “Do I really want to hear their opinion?” (Probably not unless it fully agrees with yours) But opinion must be tempered by feedback or facts. To be welded to an opinion that has been refuted by facts if folly.  You must be able to weigh your opinions constantly to see if they still make sense. Otherwise, you opinions can become destructive.

Opinions become destructive when they become rigid; you become opinionated. Being opinionated can be manifested by not being able to test your opinions.  You can also find yourself trying to push your opinion down everyone’s throat. Or when you are no longer able to adjust your opinions even when faced with overwhelming evidence that requires such an adjustment or significant change. Some people still believe that climate change is wrong or a hoax despite evidence that it is, in fact, having an impact on climate. The rigidity of an opinion becomes an obstruction to rational thinking.

Opinions become dangerous when they lead to conflict between individuals or groups. When the defense of an opinion becomes so heated that it leads to confrontation and violence. Defense of or vehemence against opinions become the source of vendettas, or in the worst-case war, civil (whatever that means in this context) or international.

You are welcome to your opinion, but please respect mine. Just be open to new information, and don’t let your opinions guide your emotions.

The New Diplomacy

 

The Ambassador of the United States to Canada, Peter Hoekstra, gave an expletive laden reprimand to a Canadian at a trade oriented gala the other day.  This is not the first time the Ambassador has given us a tongue lashing, but it is the first time, as a public speaker, he has used cuss words to . . . do what? To show he is some sort of tough guy? To try to emphasize his point? To become more like his boss, the President of the US? Remember the President and Vice-President ganging up on President Zelenskyy of Ukraine in public and on television?  Who knows?

Is this the new diplomacy?

Diplomacy used to be well thought out words and acceptable phrases. Diplomacy was a gentlemen’s and lady’s game. Diplomacy was telling someone or some country that you disagreed with them without hurting their feelings. In the extreme, it was telling some country that your country was now at war with them, without rancor. It was not saying, “We’re going to destroy your #!x0? %$@ country!” It has generally worked for centuries.

This new diplomacy will not sit well with traditional diplomats or countries. It will introduce belligerency into international affairs, particularly when it is practiced against so-called allies.

The response to Mr. Hoekstra, asking him to apologize is just not good enough.  If it was only him speaking, he needs to be reprimanded. If his own country will not reprimand him, it must be considered his country’s policy.  If it really is his country’s policy, then he should be expelled from his role in Canada, probably by withdrawing his credentials.

If this type of diatribe is to become the new diplomacy, I know a number ex-RCN Chiefs and Petty-Officers who would be great diplomats.

Uncomfortable Thoughts

 

Aging

There are various stages of aging.  You start by being a retiree. Then you become a senior citizen. From there you just become old. Then an octogenarian. And finally, you become a drain on the health care system. If you are lucky, you then become honoured because you are over 100 years old. We all know what follows. But the truth of the matter is that we get older one year at a time, just like everyone else in the world. A lot of younger people use the fact that you get old almost as an accusation, as if we had a choice and did it deliberately just so we could draw old age pension and challenge the health care system. It can make us senior citizens feel guilty, almost apologetic. Sorry folks. I didn’t ask to get old, I just accumulated years, one at a time.

Taxes

One minute you are trashing the government because of the huge (sic) deficits and debt almost every government is running. Later you demand that taxes must be lowered. Then you are praising, to your American friends, the great social programs we have in this country. Then we tell ourselves that the health care system is not working, and more money must be directed towards it. Does anyone else see the disconnect in all this? You cannot reduce the deficit and lower taxes and still maintain all of our social programs. Do away with the health care system? Yes, it would take a big bight out of the deficit.  Then we could go to the American system where only the well off can afford reasonable health care. Download more to the provinces? Then your federal taxes will go down, but your provincial taxes will balloon. The biggest discretionary program in the federal budget is national defense and the Coast Guard.  If that is cut, who is going to protect us? There are no easy answers here.  As was proven in the 1980s, trickle down economics do not work.

Antisemitism

Antisemitism seems to be increasing, particularly because of the Israeli war in Gaza. We automatically equate Israel with all Jews. But not all Jews are Israeli and even within Israel, not all of the people supported the war. The intensity of the war in Gaza is a political operation.  It was (we hope ‘was’ is the right way of referring to it now) done by the government of Israel. Part of the reason for prolonging it is to protect the Israeli Prime Minister from criminal charges which had been brought against him before this war began.  As long as there was a war, the charges were held in abeyance.  It will be interesting to see what happens next.  So, to hold all Jews guilty is wrong.  Remember, it was a political operation, not a religious one.

AI isn’t Intelligent

 

AI (Artificial Intelligence) is all around us these days.  Web sites invite you to use it to answer any question or even to write an essay or letter. It has been touted as the great breakthrough for streamlining work and potentially making working people redundant. It is a great race between developers and between countries.  The thinking is that the country with the most advanced system will control the world. Militaries crave it to fight and win wars.  But what is it really?

“The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another. “
  - J. Frank Dobie

The AI that is currently being used and abused is nothing more than a huge database with a sophisticated search engine. It sucks in any data that can be found, preferably in electronic format. It takes this data from whatever source that can be found.  It does this with no thought or remuneration. It is just data. Authors, such as my son, are very upset because their copywrite material is literally being stolen.  It basically has no conscience.

“Man is a credulous animal and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.”
  - Bertrand Russell

AI also requires a huge amount of electronic data storage plus a huge bank of processors to search through this database. This in turn requires a huge amount of electrical power and releases a large amount of heat. It is not environmentally friendly.

So, the question is, what would real artificial intelligence be? At this stage, in order to create new algorithms by a computer, the parameters and constraints of the algorithm must be fed into the computers. Only then can new algorithms be developed. This means that there is control, ultimately by humans, over such developments. You have to tell the computer what to do. Which also means humans can control over what computers do not do. Real artificial intelligence would happen when a computer could self-develop algorithms with no human input or control. At that point, humans would lose all control over their lives and environment. They would eventually become slaves to computers. Remember HAL 9000 from the movie “200l: a Space Odyssey”?

“Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality.”
  - George Santayana

 

MAGA Madness

 

In Canada we do not get the full scope of issues going on in the United States. Unless you read the New York Times or Washington Post, or watch MSNBC, we don’t get the full picture of how Donald (I love tariffs) Trump is trying, and in many ways succeeding, to reshape America and the world. His method seems to consist of lies, misinformation, acting against his critics, usurping the law, enriching himself, making Executive Orders appear to be laws (they are not unless passed as a bill in Congress), and exhibiting misogyny and prejudice against just about any individual person or group he doesn’t like.

Some recent ridiculous examples.

He has removed a number of female generals and admirals from key positions in the military. He is also trying to politicize the military as his own private army.

He and his supporters have openly lobbied for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize (Lester Pearson would roll over in his grave). And on another note, his Trade Representative is lobbying for Trump to receive the Nobel Prize for Economics “for his commitment to ‘restructuring’ global trade rates. (Apparently excessive tariffs on the entire world is somehow laudatory).

The USA is hosting the G20 Summit next year.  Trump wants it held at the Doral golf resort, which he owns.  As he has done in the past, even with his own security detail, he will expect all of the delegates and their staff to pay for their accommodation and meals at the resort. And I’m sure there won’t be any special deals during this event.

And then there was, and still is, DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency. It has been reported that it has wasted $21.7 billion since its inception six month ago by paying employees not to work.  To try to blunt this department’s ongoing onslaught, Democratic lawmakers are advancing a bill called, ‘Pick up after your DOGE Act’. The name may be humorous, but the intent is not.

Have you heard of Laura Loomer.  She is a reasonably attractive 32-year-old Trump admirer who peddles conspiracy theories and gets people fired who she thinks are not loyal enough to Donald Trump.  She has no official position in any government office but appears to have the president’s ear.  She has apparently been responsible for at least twenty people getting fired including some Republican stalwarts.

He has also found time to take control of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and wants to rename it the Trump Centre, cowed several prestigious universities into paying large fines and changing their programs to suit his fancy, bragged about the non-existent savings because of tariffs, and tried to take control of the Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) so he could lower interest rates.

You have to admit, he is changing the United States.  It will be interesting to see what he does in his third presidential term. When he starts that, he will be my current age.

Are we Overregulated?

 

“Behind every great fortune there is a crime.”
  - Honore de Balzac

I’m reminder of the old saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Now we seem to be trying to do that very thing.

We are consistently hearing the cry that there are too many regulations, too much red tape, too many laws.  The plea is usually from the business community who want more unfettered ability to enhance their business. The oil and gas lobbies are particularly adept at this. It’s one of the reasons that we have so few environmental laws and regulations (believe it or not). We now have our governments advocating and legislating the same thing.

But there is another side to this argument.  If we examine these laws and regulations, we can usually find that there is a reason these were put in place in the first place. The original laws now called the Criminal Code were based on the biblical ten commandments. They have been updated to their present form to account for newer criminal activity. Laws against fraud were undoubtedly developed to counter people and institutions carrying out such things. As fraudsters became more sophisticated, so the laws had to be amended to deal with this growth. The Indian Act, plus the requirement to involve the indigenous peoples which some governments want to override for “growth” (read exploitation), was designed, even in its current flawed approach, to protect that indigenous population from just the type of things that are now being promoted.

As for environmental laws and regulations, they go back to before there was any thought of climate change.  The need for clean water and air was the initial requirement. Anyone who visited Hamilton or Pittsburgh in the 1950s would understand that.  Because of regulations and public interest, both Hamilton Harbour water and Pittsburgh air have now been cleaned up. We did the same thing while forestalling the demise of the ozone layer.  We now pretty well take these laws and regulations for granted. The current requirement is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change.  Climate change is largely caused by the refining and burning of fossil fuels, and this is where the current need for environmental laws is needed.  So, it becomes a question of wanting profit in the short term or leaving a legacy of a stable environment for future generations. Where do you think those who want to get rid of these laws and regulations stand?

So, let’s not throw the baby (environment, lands, people) out with the bathwater (laws and regulations).

“Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality.”
  - George Santayana

It Might Have Been Better

 

Now, here’s an idea to chew on. It might have been better if Donald Trump had won the election in 2020. I know, I know, how can I say such a thing? Well, here’s my thinking.

Donald Trump was humiliated by his loss in 2020. He became embittered and he became angry. He sought revenge and looked for ways to “get even” with his perceived enemies.

A win would have ensured there was no January 6^th in 2021 and the subsequent denial movement.

Mike Pence would have been the Vice-President, a moderate voice rather than the radical and outspoken J.D. Vance.  Mike Pence would not have had to “betray” Trump on January 6^th.

In 2020, Trump had an agenda and was following it in his first term. Whatever its faults, it was a known agenda that people were getting used to. It probably would have done damage, but not as drastically as his present course. 

In 2020 there was no Elon Musk whispering sweet get-rich-quick schemes in Trump’s ear. There would probably have been no DOGE and the damage that was done. In his first term there was no talk of mass firings or threats to close entire government departments.

In 2020 there were no plutocrats trying to control the county by developing the so-called Project 2025. There would have been no impetus to develop that because their embittered mouthpiece (Trump) would still have been in power.

Trump’s cabinet in his first term had people who, although trying to follow Trump’s agenda, sometimes argued with him to reduce the possible downside.  But they were nowhere as radical as those he had selected this time around. Several of his current cabinet secretaries appear notably incompetent.

In Canada’s case, we had just agreed to a new trade agreement, and he would probably have stuck to it for his second term. It would not have needed to be reviewed during this current term.  In his first term, there was no talk of taking over Canada and Greenland.  He may still have gone after the Panama Canal, but that has just become a business deal.

Perhaps people did not think he would have the hubris to run again. Perhaps in 2024 they did not understand that the four-year gap would give him time and the backing to develop such a radical new agenda, to adopt such radical supporters, and to allow Elon Musk to pay for his re-election run.

And by now he would have been out of office when his second term expired last January.

Maybe it would have been better.