The Weariness of Christmas

 Are you stressed about Christmas yet? Are you weary of the whole experience? It would appear that you are not alone. You are probably stressed if you’re not ready for Christmas. You’re probably weary if you are ready.

I have a favourite Christmas decoration showing a woman with an armful of wrapped gifts, her hair standing up and a look of pure frustrated emotion on her face.  The caption – the ghost of Christmas stressed. I have a feeling that there are a number of you that can relate to that ornament.

The stress comes from trying to figure out all of the things you have to deal with this season. What should I get the kids for Christmas? What about my spouse? Brothers/sisters, parents, visitors, friends?  Would Bob really like or ever wear that Christmas sweater? Should I get my wife a new crockpot? And the list goes on.

And then there is entertaining. It’s your turn this year to host dinner on Christmas day.  At you sister’s house last year, she put on a great celebration; lots of good food, nice gifts for everyone, and the right wine.  Am I supposed to equal that, or even do better? We want to make the best Christmas ever.

Just thinking about this makes you stressed and weary.  And Christmas is only three weeks away.

Wife, “Have you done your Christmas shopping yet?”

Husband, in a panic, “Why? Is it Christmas Eve already?”

I know, I’ve used that before. But it does reflect what a number of people go through, particularly men. (Confession, I’ve been guilty of that myself. Thank goodness for the friendly jewelry store.)

The questions you have to ponder. When should I start my Christmas shopping? How many should I invite for dinner? How can I keep Cousin Jack from getting drunk? And so many more.

How about this for a question, Where does the celebration of Jesus’ birth fit in?

You aim for the greatest Christmas.  Or was it last year’s? Or when you were eight years old? Wrong on all counts.

The greatest Christmas came over two thousand years ago when a baby was born in a manger in Bethlehem in Judea.

Election Blues

 

“Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.”

  - Harry S. Truman

We almost had another federal election.  The last one was just about six months ago. As usual, Andrew Coyne and many others have called for election reform. Their argument is that a majority government can be elected with about 40% of the votes and thus does not represent the true will of the people.

Our present system of the winning candidate being the one with the most votes come to us from the British parliamentary system and is still used there and in the United States.  The US system relies of the fact that there are only two parties of any consequence in that country.  A viable third party, as has sometimes been the case in the past, raises the same concerns there as here.  Is the system flawed?  Probably.  Can it be fixed? Possibly.

Ontario tried to introduce a different voting system in a referendum in 2007.  It was dubbed the MMP (mixed member proportional) system and would have had a proportional representation system for most of the members plus a group of 39 seats (“the gang of 39”) set aside for candidates to be nominated by the parties in proportion to their elected seats.  As I said at the time in a letter to the editor, my “concern is a conviction that the voters will never get to directly vote for party leaders or prospective cabinet members.”  It was a system that could only have been devised by a committee.  Fortunately, in my opinion, the electorate turned down the proposal.  But the attempt points out one of the problems with the various ideas that have been floated for electoral reform.  Each of the ones proposed so far have been a mish-mash of ideas like the MMP system above.  Each has seemed to try to address a number of factions while satisfying none.  All have also appeared to be designed by committee. 

Are there other options?  There are two methods of candidate election that are used extensively in other democratic nations and they are much more straightforward than any of the ones being discussed in Canada.

The first is straight proportional representation.  It is widely used in Europe.  There are, however, some downsides to this method.  They invariably result in minority governments which in turn bring about coalitions – a word that is somehow anathema to Canadians. Canadians tend to prefer majority governments.  Proportional representation also tends to open the door to new parties so that many represent very special interests.  This is not to say they are unworkable – they just take more effort to work out the necessary coalition dynamic that can rule effectively.  However, the major defect in my case is that the elected representatives could be drawn from a party list with no apparent concern for local representation.  The first seat goes to the party leader and so on down the party’s list.

The second alternative is the use of run-off elections.  In this case, when no candidate gets 50% of the vote for his/her riding, there is a run-off between the first two vote-getters.  This ensures that the winner gets over 50% of people’s first or second choice.  Of course it takes a bit more time with the run-off, usually held one or two weeks after the main election.  And we are an impatient lot who demand instant answers, so that wait might not be popular for some.  However, it is in my opinion, the best of the alternatives.  It is straightforward, fair and effective.  It can produce majority or minority governments, depending on the mood of the electorate.  Other supposedly similar schemes such as ranking preferences on the initial ballot with some sort of numerical scoring to select the winner can become confusing for many voters and could be open to question of the results.  The run-off format is clear and transparent.

So, in a country that is essentially a three party system, which method of selection of your governments would you like to live with? 

“Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair.”
  - George Burns

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.