Travels

 

Travel can be a wonderful and surprising event. Even places that you used to know from years past can become different.  My friend, Lorraine, and I recently returned from a road trip to Nova Scotia. It turned out to be a great trip with several highlights. The highlights included places, events and people.

You know you are in Nova Scotia when you see and hear this.

The Piper at the Nova Scotia Welcome Centre

Places

Have you ever eaten breakfast on Wedgewood china? That was the case in Pictou, Nova Scotia at the Scotsman Inn, a bread and breakfast accommodation. The place was run by, you guessed it, a Scotsman and his wife. In some ways, it was almost like a museum with some of its exhibits and wall hangings. An excellent and healthy breakfast was served each morning on the Wedgwood and other fine china.

The Scotsman Inn Dining Room set for breakfast

One of the wonderful things about this and some other places was the existence of a veranda where people could and did get together in evenings and talk. You get to meet your fellow guests and find out about them.

The second B&B we stayed in was in Lunenburg, a most interesting town. Lunenburg is a World Heritage Site and is very picturesque. The B&B was called the Rose and Thistle.  The owner, appropriately, was Rose and her husband George (‘Thistle?’). This was an old house that had three suites and, of course, a big veranda.  The veranda wrapped around two sides of the house and was another place for guests to meet and talk. The dining room was a bit more modest than the Scotsman, but we still ate on china.

The other places we stayed at, the Courtyard Marriott in Halifax and the Old Orchard Inn in Wolfville were just big hotels, comfortable and full of amenities, but not much character.  The exception was the Algonquin Hotel and Resort in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. This has always been a favourite of mine.  An old railway resort hotel, it has kept up the luxury of those types of hotels in Canada. It is now under the management of a major chain who have done a great job of refurbishing the hotel without compromising its character. The hotel also has a large veranda where people sit out and meet each other.

Veranda at the Algonquin Hotel

Events

The Nova Scotia Tattoo is still as great as it was when it started in 1967 as a centennial celebration. Lots of great bands, both brass and bagpipes and drums.  The bands came from all over Canada and from Europe and were universally good. There were also gymnastic displays and the Navy Gun Run. This latter event has been going on for many years. We were sitting in the front row so got the full effect of the bangs when the guns were fired (with blanks of course).

We also attended the Pictou Lobster Carnival, an annual event that celebrates the end of the local lobster fishing season. We ate lots of lobster that weekend.

People

The really wonderful part of this trip was meeting other people, almost always on the verandas I’ve mentioned earlier. We met people from many places. Many of them were from Canada, different provinces including Quebec and B.C. But we also met people from different countries including the US, England and even Argentina. Everyone was very friendly and willing to talk about themselves and exchange experiences. A gentleman from England kept me late one evening questioning me about Canada and particularly the US.  He could not understand why the US, the richest country in the world, did not have universal health care. I had to explain about the power of rich lobby groups that had such influence in government policy. Other discussions were equally inciteful on different topics. We were never lonely on a veranda.

Irritants

Of course, not everything was perfect.

There were some spots on major highways that were so rough that I sometimes had concerns about my car’s suspension.  Quebec, are you listening?

Some drivers can be very annoying.  I have problems with drivers that slow down at curves in the road or when they pull out to pass other vehicles such as transport trucks. I am convinced that speed doesn’t kill, speed differential does. I thought of that when a car passed my doing about 150 to 160 km/hour. The rest of the traffic was doing 115 – 120. I also have a problem with drivers that tailgate in hopes, no doubt, that you will speed up to their speed. I would like to make a bumper sticker that says, “It’s not my job to stay ahead of you, it’s your job to stay behind me.”

Slow service by wait staff can be tedious, particularly at upscale places.

Toilet paper that is so thin you can read through it now seems so popular, too popular.

Plaudits

In Nova Scotia we took a number of secondary highways. In almost all cases these roads were very well kept and smooth. It made travelling on them a real pleasure.

There are many interesting places in Canada for travel and vacations. Congratulations to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for hosting us for a great vacation.

I apologize to my friends in Nova Scotia for not contacting or visiting them. We were on a fairly tight schedule.

The Sufferers

 

I was born in England during the Second World War.  My Scottish parents were working in a factory making wings for Spitfires.  When that work ended at the end of the war, we moved to a village east of London called Chadwell Heath where my father had found work. There we had an apartment over a butcher shop.  Across the street from our apartment there was a large hole where a building had stood. It had been a doctor’s home and clinic. Chadwell Heath had been under the flight path of the V1 flying bombs on their way to London. Their range was determined by an estimate of the amount of fuel they were filled with. When that ran dry, the rockets fell to earth and exploded. That meant that some went long and some fell short, and that was what had happened to the doctor’s house.

In Chadwell Heath, I played with two other boys about my age. Between the three of us, we had three good eyes, and I had two of them. Two young boys blinded, possibly for life, one with one eye, one with none. They had been blinded by flying glass from the explosion at the doctor’s house.

The reason for this story is to emphasize the toll that is taken by civilians in wars. We see it today in missile and drone attacks in Ukraine and bombing attacks in Iran.  It has been a tragedy in ever war ever recorded. Area bombing in World War two, havoc in the Korean and Viet Nam wars, Afghanistan, anti-colonial wars in Africa. All had their civilian sufferers. And that’s only in the twentieth century, a so-called modern civilized era.  In ancient wars between city states for example, the entire population of the losing side was exterminated or enslaved. There were attempts to limit the civilian suffering in many eras, but none have ever been truly successful.

War is particularly tragic on children. In many cases, their injuries will last a lifetime which will usually severely limit their ability to become productive. Their psychological damage, which can be very severe, will also last a lifetime. It will either make them scared of every little bang, or they will grow up seeking revenge from the enemy that caused their misery. The cycle will go on.

Military personnel get to know what to expect and are able to defend themselves. Injury and death are part of their profession. But not so for civilians. I don’t expect future wars to be any different unless we fight wars with one single military person against another with the winner determining the outcome. But that will not happen. Breaking the spirit of a country’s civilian population is too embedded in the military strategy.

Canada has been lucky; it has never experienced a war on our territory. It does not have a national memory of such damage. Any such memory comes from immigrants and refugees who have experienced it in their old country.

Each year we have a Remembrance Day to honour fallen military people.  Each town has a cenotaph to remember their dead.  Why don’t we have a day of remembrance for civilians who have suffered in war?

Parochialism

 

I wrote the following letter to the Globe and Mail. As you may expect, the newspaper chose not to print it. The original letter writer who I was responding to, as you can see, was not happy with the choice of the new Governor-General.

“The letter writer bemoans the fact that the new Governor-General is from Quebec and asks whether there were no candidates from the western provinces. Let me first point out that since 1950 there have been no Governors-General from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. Vincent Massey, in the 1950s, was the first Canadian who became Governor-General.

But can’t we get over the parochialism of labeling everything by province and realize that we are Canadians. The Governor-General represents Canada, not any one province.  Provinces have Lieutenants-Governor for that. Louise Arbour is the best candidate for Canada that I can think of at this time.  Her outstanding service in the Supreme Court of Canada plus her service in the International Court of Justice speaks to her competence and respect for the law. In both situations she represented Canada.

As an immigrant at age five, I was brought up in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen and served in the Royal Canadian Navy. I have lived in three provinces but always considered myself Canadian.  Why can’t others?”

Too many people today seem more interested in their province than their country. This parochialism has alienated provinces from each other and with the country.  How else do you explain so much talk of separation?

The US has this fixation with the state. Ask an American where he is from and he/she will invariably say what state.  In the UK, they will tell they are English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, although you had probably already figured this out from their accent. In Europe, South American, Australia and New Zealand, people tell you what country they’re from.

Those in Canada who demand a Governor-General from a region (the West, the Maritimes) have not suggested an outstanding person from their region as a good candidate for the job.  Can you?

Government Housing

 Military people might call these married quarters or PMQs. But government owned housing comes in many ways, and for different reasons. The Governor-General and the Prime Minister live in government housing.  Military people live in them. There is government housing on almost all military bases. It is common in almost every military in the world. In some countries, government houses come in the form of palaces or castles. But it is all government housing.

If you were assigned to one of these places, like married quarters (it is unlikely that any of my readers would live in palaces or castles), you would not think of making unilateral changes to the structure by yourself. You wouldn’t think of tearing down a wall or wing of the house or doing any significant modification without some type of official authorization.

The US White House is government housing.  It is meant to house the President of the United States and provide a workspace for his/her immediate staff. So, what gives the current president the idea that he can tear down an entire wing at the east end of the building?  Why does he think he has the right to build a garish “ballroom” on this site? Such permission is supposed to be approved by congress with the recommendation of a heritage counsel. Although the heritage body has condemned the plan (it was never asked about tearing down the old structure), the congress has never been asked to vote on it.  And what started off as vanity project to be paid for by donors has now to be funded by taxpayers’ money to the tune of one billion dollars.

Can you imagine getting away with that in married quarters? But Donald Trump does not believe in rules and laws. If that applied to us, wouldn’t be wonderful/horrible world!

“When a man is wrapped up in himself, he makes a pretty small package.”

  - John Ruskin

“No man is exempt from saying silly things; the mischief is to say them deliberately.”

  - Michel de Montaigne

There are no problems . . .

 

Do you think you have problems? We all do, I’m sure. There are financial problems, family problems, problems at work, problems with neighbours, health problems, problems with governments.  There are so many kinds of problems. But the word ‘problem’ has such a negative connotation.  It feels static.  It sticks in your brain.  It is kind of like the lump in your stomach when you’ve eaten too much. It just sits there.

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

What if I told you that you could eliminate problems? Oh no, is this one of those feel-good theories that we hear about!?  Well, no.

. . . there are only challenges

What if we treated each problem as something else?  What if we treat each one as a challenge? Challenge is an action word.  Challenge is something you work at. Challenge is something you take action on.

Financial issues – do some budget analysis.  See where you can reduce costs, or increase income. If necessary, see a financial counselor.

Family issues – communicate with each other.  Actually, talk and listen.  Don’t let it fester.

Work issues – talk to your boss. Oh, is your boss the problem?  Then talk to HR, other managers. If it’s absolutely necessary, look for an opportunity in another part of the company or look for another job.

You get the idea.  Devise a plan and carry it out.  Can’t come up with a plan?  Then get help to develop one.

The important thing is to do something. Don’t succumb to a problem and let it fester.  Challenge is something we can all deal with.  Give yourself a chance.

“In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.”

  - Robert Frost

There are no problems, only challenges.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

 

Have you noticed that we live in a world of acronyms and abbreviations? They’re everywhere in our everyday language.

As a military man, I was brought up in such a world.  The military was notorious about such things. I was introduced to it at military college, RMC (Royal Military College).  We had CWCs (Cadet Wing Commanders) and LCDRs (Lieutenant-Commanders), LCOLs (Lieutenant-Colonels) and BGENs (Brigadiers-General). Its motto was abbreviated to TDV (Truth, Duty, Valour).  

But it was out in the real world of, in my case, the RCN (Royal Canadian Navy). There was an entirely new set of acronyms and abbreviations. The first ship I encountered was HMCS (Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship) Beacon Hill, an FFE (Escort Frigate), converted for cadet training. When I was posted to an exchange appointment to the USN (United States Navy) I was inundated by a whole new set of such things. When I asked what some of them meant, I was directed to the DicNavAb (The dictionary or naval abbreviations.) While there, I worked at the DesDevGru (Destroyer Development Group).  In my second year there, we merged with another group where I worked under the first Black Admiral in the USN, who possibly had the longest title as ComCruDesGruTwo/DesDevGru (Commander Cruiser Destroyer Group Two/Destroyer Development Group) (honest, I still have their plaque!).

Whereas in the past, the military had a near monopoly on this language, it is now so prevalent that we just take it for granted. The military primarily used them to ensure brevity in communication; they are now made up and used indiscriminately. How many times a day do you see such things as OMG, GST, TSX, NHL.  Last night, we saw POTUS (President of the United States) give the State of the Union Address to, among others, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).

Open any newspaper and see acronyms, primarily, on almost every page (usually except the comics). They are very prevalent in the business sections where every writer adds a few to his story, frequently without definition. It seems like insiders talk to bamboozle the average reader.

Then internet spawned a new breeding ground for acronyms and abbreviations. Text messages and some chat sites beg for brevity. I’ve seen messages that consist solely of such things, not a single whole word.  

You don’t talk about merchandise anymore, its ‘merch’. Usual has become ‘use’. Friends have become BFFs (best friends forever) or FWBs (friends with benefits).  I don’t know if other languages use such things as much as English, but they have become a fixture in this language. For once, wouldn’t you like to see a narrative written entirely with dictionary approved English whole words.

On that note I’ll say TTFN.

The African-American Struggles

 

February is Back History Month.

I am currently reading a book called “King: a Life” about Martin Luther King Jr. He was, of course, a great leader of the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 60s. It brought back some of the other books I have read about the African-American struggles, primarily in the 20^th century. It is a long and dark episode. King, for his part trying to end discrimination through peaceful protest, had his house bombed twice, was shot at, stabbed and eventually assassinated. His entire career lasted just 13 years; he died at the age of 38.

There are many examples of brutality against African-Americans during the 20^th century as shown in the following examples.

There was the destruction of the Black suburb of Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1922, just because it seemed successful by the standards of the day. Its attack was started by a single gunshot in downtown Tulsa by nobody knows who, but of course, blamed on a black man.

In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was very powerful in Indiana and some surrounding states.  It’s target was again people of colour plus immigrants and Jews. It practically ruled Indiana when many of its state legislators and the Governor were members.

Just under 3,500 Black people were lynched in the US from the end of the Civil War to the 1960s.  The last lynching was recorded in 1968.

When I was military exchange with the US Navy, I spent the period 1974-75 in Charleston, South Carolina.  One Saturday night, there was a Klan demonstration near the edge of the city complete with a burning cross.  The next day, the local paper reported on the event by essentially making fun of it. But still, there were events to show that some things had not changed. A USN Chief Petty Officer was retiring and selling his house.  It was bought by a Black doctor.  When other protests did not deter the sale, the house was burned down.

 During the year there, my commanding officer was the first black admiral in the US Navy, Rear-admiral Samuel L. Gravely. He was a fine officer with a good sense of humour and a good leader. But even he had his problems. He did not take his family to Charleston, so he lived in the Bachelor Officers Quarters.  Each Sunday evening, he went out in civilian dress to a local church and usually brought back friends for coffee. For the first few weeks, he would be stopped at the main gate by the Marine guards and given a hard time. This was followed by a phone call by Sam to the command duty officer to get down to the main gate and “. . . tell this G.D. Marine who I am.”  After a couple of months, a large picture of Sam in uniform was posted at each position at the main gate. The Sunday night phone calls ended. He eventually was promoted to Vice-Admiral and retired after being a fleet commander. He proved he wasn’t a token choice. But that was the 1970’s when things like the Civil Rights Act had been enacted.

The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s brought more oppression as southern whites violently reacted.  This soon spread to the northern states as more blacks moved north for work and to escape the oppression in the south.

Between 1964 and 1991 four civil rights acts were made law in the US. The first in 1964, aimed to end discrimination in schools, employment and public accommodation. The others basically reinforced the first. The result of all this was the virtual desegregation of the country.

The current President of the US, Donald Trump and his administration seem to be trying to reverse this. He has fired black employees including a number of coloured senior military officers.  He has set out to treat Hispanics much the same, including his efforts to deport a million people a year. His promotion of a depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama as apes is a fine example of his bias.

In Canada, we should not be smug about our attitudes. We have had our share of discriminatory actions.  Our treatment of Indigenous people shows that we have our own biases.

The Developer Strikes

 Sometimes it can be difficult trying to write a blog.  The first thing you have to do is find a topic.  Having tried many, you give most of them up because you don’t know what to do with them. So, you flounder around some more.

And then a topic becomes so obvious you have to pursue it. So, here is another blog about our favourite wanabe dictator and land developer, Mr. Trump. Not only are his ICE agents harassing people in different cities, most notably right now in Minneapolis, they are attacking them and in at least one case, killing a US citizen. ICE has been called Trump’s private militia.

If that isn’t enough, he has decided, in his land developer mind, to acquire Greenland.  He has threatened the country that does “own” Greenland, Denmark, and any European country that opposes his with another tariff war. He says it for national security reasons, but that argument is, at best, tenuous. Note that the US has military basing rights in Greenland and still has a major military base at Thule (now called Pituffik Space Bsae)  in north-western Greenland, currently housing a surveillance sensor system to detect missile activity coming over the pole. It has been there since the 1950s. There is no reason to believe that if it were diplomatically requested, additional US military bases would not be granted by the Danish government.  So much for the national security argument.

The other argument put forward is access to rare earth and critical minerals. But that is what international trade is for.  US companies should be able to get mineral rights and set up mining operations for export from Greenland to the US or any other country.  It is done all over the world.

What he probably wants is to be able to claim that the US is now the largest country in the world.  He probably sees it as a great place for a Trump hotel and maybe even a golf resort. Notice it is not most of the US population that wants this, it is President Trump and some of his cohorts.

If I were Denmark, I would tell him they would sell the island . . . for one hundred trillion (that’s trillions, not billions) Euros. If he baulks at this price, then I would raise the price to one hundred and fifty trillion Euros. Insist on Euros, because to acquire that much money would depress the US dollar as he tries to acquire the Euros. Is it practical? Possibly not, but it would undoubtedly anger him. Then he would have to back off, or take more aggressive action. That would undoubtedly cause a major breach with the only allies he really has.

Life in a Snow globe

 

It’s snowing here. Certainly not an unusual thing in Canada in winter. This snowfall has big flakes that some people will tell you would indicate that it will not last long.  But the forecast calls for this storm to last for many hours and to deposit 10 – 15 centimeters.  Unlike some storms, there are no high winds or blizzard like conditions.  The snow falls gently. Looking out the window is like living in a snow globe.

Do you remember snow globes, or do you still have one? You know, the spherical things that show a serene winter scene and are full of clear viscous liquid and white flakes. When you shook the globe up, or turned it over briefly, the flakes would rise and then descend gracefully through the liquid. They always had a nostalgic look.

Nostalgia seems to permeate this holiday season.  It’s as if we are trying to grasp some ideal and hold on to it. Some may argue that this is a modern phenomenon called up by the troubling times we seem to be experiencing.  But it’s not. Nostalgia has been a part of the celebratory season for as long as I remember, and I’m in my eighties. And like it or not, times have always been challenging for those living it at the time. We reminisce about holidays past.  We think about those who have gone. We remember about our childhood, or of our younger years. This is not a bad thing. It is a reflection of who we are and how we got here. It could and should be positive. But there comes a time when the snow globe fades and the snow disappears and we have to reenter the current world. But hopefully we will do so with a more positive attitude, and we will continue to try and make the world a better place.

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.

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.

Recent Thoughts

 

Mental Health and Crime

The recent tragedy at the Filipino festival in Vancouver, when it was revealed that the perpetrator had mental health issues, has put a spotlight on those who suffer from that affliction. Calls have gone out, once again, for involuntary interment of such patients. Such a notion horrifies those of us who have a mental health issue. Where would such incarceration begin and where would it end. If I have a bad few days with my clinical depression, will I be turned in by someone and taken away? The truth is that it is estimated that about 10% of the population suffers from some sort of mental health issue, that is about 4 million people. Are we all at risk of involuntary incarceration? Would those who are incarcerated be guaranteed treatment, or would the volume of them overwhelm the resources that are available, inadequate as they are even in the present circumstances? Almost all people who suffer from mental health issues live crime free lives.  Many have treatment options that allow them to live healthily and productively (no matter what you think of my blogs, at least I’m doing something). Others have learned to cope with their malady.  Only very few carry out outrageous actions. Let’s do away with this notion that mental health should mean involuntary internment.

Alberta Separation

So, a large segment of the Alberta population wants to separate from Canada and become what? A separate country? The Republic of Alberta? Do they understand all of the things that will have to be done, even if they do break away against the many legal hurdles in their way? They will need to set up a legislature and a head of state.  Will it be a President or a Prime Minister. What will give this new country its legitimacy? How about a constitution.  How will that be made? Will there be a bill of rights? How about the many national institutions that will need to be established. A judicial system.  The existing one will not be enough. A national police force, no more RCMP. Border security and an immigration system. Border posts and employees. National security, armed forces and the resulting equipment. A postal system. All of the things that the federal government currently provides. It will not be cheap. It will not be cheap.  Canada is not going to give those away. An intelligence agency is a necessary evil in this day and age. A health care system.  Will it be state run or reverted to a private system.  Good luck making people happy with that.

There is an alternative, of course, and a few people want this. Become the 51^st state of the United States and all that that would entail. Good luck getting any break from Mr. Trump.  Oh, he will love acquiring your oil and gas. How will you set up a state election process to satisfy US requirements.  How will you vote? Will you find the Republican Party okay, or a bit too far right even for you? Will a Republican majority legislature welcome a new state that may add a few more Democrats to their number and shift the balance of power?

I hope that Albertans have the answer to these questions before they get too carried away with this separation idea.

Oh Yeah, the Election

In my opinion, the right party and man won. It is, however, a shame that some of the smaller parties did not get more representation.  What I do find interesting is the hubris of Mr. Poilievre who seems to believe that he has a right to continue to lead the opposition and be the leader of the Conservative party. Doesn’t he get it, he has lost his seat!

In a future blog I will discuss electoral reform.

Federal Leader’s Debate, 2025

 

(At least we hope there isn’t another election in 2025)

I watched the leader’s debate in English on Thursday evening, as I’m sure many of you did.  I came away with some impressions that I would like to share with you.  I’ll do them by party from right to left on the platform.

Bloc Quebecois

Mr. Blanchette, it turns out, is a one trick pony, “Quebec, Quebec, Quebec”.  His constant reference to “Quebec and Canada” became annoying but it did show his only message. To paraphrase – I’m only interested in getting things for Quebec. That was about all he contributed.  He was also quick to butt into other speakers’ discussions and demand a response for Quebec. It is obvious that he wants to win a preponderance of Quebec seats.

It is interesting that the Bloc, who only field 78 candidates is included in the debate, whereas the Green Party, which is fielding 200, is excluded. It shows you that it would be very hard to start a new political party in Canada. (Note that the Peoples’ Party was also not included)

NDP

Mr. Singh wants, so badly, to be the fly in the ointment; to have a minority government that will need an agreement with him to stay in power.  He obviously enjoyed when he had the agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. He constantly referred to the various social programs that he claimed he got through because of it.  The fact that, during that arrangement, he didn’t need to pay for the programs did not arise. He was, by far, the most prolific interrupter throughout the evening.  He was mostly trying to overwhelm Mr. Carney.

Liberal

Mr. Carney is the shortest leader in height which makes him look vulnerable. But he does not act vulnerable. He tried hard to explain his platform, although some of the explanations were a bit hard to fathom. He did not respond to questions, or accusations, about his previous employment nor his net worth and this will be seen as a fault, but his net worth is, in my opinion, nobody’s business. He was “accused” of having more discussion time than the others, but a lot of that time was taken up by other leaders, most notably Mr. Singh, interjecting and trying to talk over him which made it very difficult to get his message across. Nonetheless, I was impressed by his ability to keep his cool and keep trying without retort or remark.

Conservative

Has anyone else noted that Mr. Poilievre seems to have a perpetual sneer. Nobody challenged him on his platform (or lack of it). He certainly does not seem to have a sound climate plan, except to ship the problem overseas. He wants to increase oil and gas exploitation but ship it to foreign countries (China and India were mentioned) so it would not count against Canada’s contribution to GHG.  He was not often challenged on any of his statements, but he too often tried to shout down Mr. Carney. His big push was on crime where it seems quite prepared to use the Charter’s not withstanding clause to impose harsher and harsher sentences.  I have always been against the use of that part of the Charter for any reason and I find it very dangerous in the hands of the federal government. He even hints that he wants to do away with bail, at least for some accused. This platform on crime seems to be based on a misinformed idea of the state of crime in Canada.  (Saturday’s Globe and Mail has an editorial about the real state of affairs in this regard.) He tried to defend his reasons for not getting a security clearance, perhaps not realizing that even without it, if he sees or discloses classified information, he is still subject to the Official Secrets Act. He reserved his biggest blasts against the idea of a fourth Liberal term in office. It was almost like another one of his three-word slogans, “No fourth term”.

Summary

The debate was interesting, but I’m not sure that it would change very many minds. Mr. Poilievre did not land the killer punch he no doubt hoped to. Despite the interruptions, Mr. Carney did not come across as weak nor a copy of Justin Trudeau. He is his own man and has his own ideas. Mr. Singh did not endear himself nor did he come up with anything new that might entice some people to change their votes to him. Fortunately, most of us do not have an opportunity to vote for Mr. Blanchet. I’m not sure anybody outside Quebec would want to.

Elections are always important, and this one is probably a bit more so. I’m not sure that debates such as this are designed to explore new ideas or defend existing ones. To me, they are most valuable for showing the character of the contenders.  On that question, I think this debate was a success.

Wouldn’t it be exciting to see a leaders’ debate where at least half of the leaders were women.