Three months and counting. That’s how long we’ve been dealing with the COVID 19 virus although, increasingly, there is evidence it was around and recognized in some areas long before that. There are now 4,152,043 cases in the world and at least 282,516 people have died from it.

Canada’s response falls somewhere above the middle on a scale from ineffective to very effective although, on balance, I think most governments in this country have managed it well, with a particular shoutout to my home province, British Columbia. At this point I’m not willing to join the armchair quarterbacks shouting from the sidelines that we should have done something earlier, or later or more aggressively. There will be plenty of time for that conversation when the pandemic is behind us, as well as a better environment in which to have it.

There is, however, one area where Canada’s policy is, at best, puzzling and, at worst, shameful and that’s on the role of the People’s Republic of China in the outbreak. In the past ten days we have seen Australia join with many of our other traditional allies calling for an external and independent review of the World Health Organization’s handling of the pandemic and, specifically, what role China played in shaping that response. Australia is a smaller country than Canada. It is much closer to China than Canada and it is much more dependent on China as a market for its exports than Canada. And yet, it wasn’t afraid to initiate the entirely reasonable call for the review. With utter predictability, China responded with not even thinly veiled threats to Australia’s beef and wine industry, all laced with the usual fury and outrage of a criminal caught in the act. To it’s considerable credit, the government of Australia openly called China out on these threats.

In the same period Taiwan sent 500,000 medical masks to Canada to help us with the pandemic. They didn’t sell them to us. They gave them. When asked to thank Taiwan publicly for this gift the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Francois-Pillippe Champagne, dodged, ultimately refusing to name Taiwan, offering instead a bromide to all those in the world helping Canada. At about the same time, Canada lent its support to the WHO position that any review of the handling of the pandemic by the WHO should be conducted internally, by the WHO. This followed the regrettable comments by Canada’s Minister of Health, Patty Hajdu, dismissing a reporter’s questions on the role of China in the pandemic as feeding online conspiracy theories and her continuing unflagging support for the role of the WHO and China in the pandemic. Up to that point, I thought she was doing a pretty decent job. Now I have trouble taking her seriously.

In fact, there is a deafening silence at all levels of the federal government on even the possiblity China acted irresponsibly, selfishly and not in accord with its international obligations. Why is that? I suppose one possibility is that Canada so desperately needs personal protective equipment that only China can supply and fears China retaliating for any perceived anti China comments from Canada by cutting off that supply. If that is the case it reinforces the belief we must never again be dependent on China for health or other crucial products. And, in any case, our allies like Australia and the Europeans have the same challenges accessing personal protective equipment and yet weren’t afraid to issue and support the call for an inquiry. It’s also possible the Canadian playbook for dealing with the blowback from the extradition proceedings against the Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, is dictating our position during the pandemic, including passively accepting China’s holding in isolation the two Canadian hostages, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, for going on two years. But there’s a bigger and more troubling possibility. One I believe is really at the root of our treatment of China: the continuing belief by Canadian political, business and academic elites that, once all this is over, we can return to “normal” with China, including a vast expansion of our trading relationship with that nation.

The pro-China sentiment that has dictated Canadian foreign policy for decades infects all three major political parties although, in the case of the NDP, for a different reason. Both leading Liberals and leading Conservatives would like nothing more than a resumption of the pre-Meng Wanzhou and pre-pandemic relationship if only because that’s what their financial backers want. There is money to be made and they don’t want to miss out. In the case of the NDP, the support is more ideological. The rejoinder I usually hear from my friends on the left when I am critical of the PRC is “yes, but look at the number of people they have raised out of poverty.” Well, okay, and if the price for that is the type of repression we see from that government, including placing over one million Uyghurs in concentration camps, now renamed “re-education centres” (why does this remind me of Pol Pot?), and its people want to accept it, so be it. But it needs to stop at the Chinese border. And it hasn’t. Nor will it until other nations come to recognize the danger they put themselves in by cozying up to the Peoples’ Republic of China.

As if interference in the internal affairs of other countries or the assertion of bogus territorial claims in the South China Sea weren’t enough, now we have the most spectacular demonstration of the effect on the world of the PRC’s approach to governance with the COVID 19 pandemic. Two days ago the German intelligence services issued a report that concluded the Chinese asked the WHO to continue saying human to human transmission was not possible when China knew otherwise and to hold off declaring a pandemic. It appears the WHO complied which raises other questions but, more immediately, we now know the PRC used this “grace time” to secure as much of the world’s supply of personal protective equipment as was possible while virtually ensuring what could have been a local outbreak or, at worst, a localized epidemic, would turn into the worst health and economic disaster the world has seen in a century. Thus far, over five thousand Canadians have died from COVID 19.

And yet, we are surrounded by leaders who want us to return to “normal” with this authoritarian, repressive and expansionist dictatorship. I guess after eighty years the lessons of “Munich” really have been forgotten.

I voted for the Liberals in the last election, not because I am a Liberal but because I thought the Harper Conservatives were well past their “best by” date. Although the Trudeau Liberals have done some things I haven’t much liked, on the whole I’ve been satisfied with their leadership, including the management of the pandemic, but when I see the duck and cover responses to any questions about China’s role in the pandemic, I am chilled because if there was ever a time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with that country to ensure we are never again in its thrall, that time is now.

Canadians want leadership on this and Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are not providing it.

Come on Justin. It’s time for some spine.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog, click on the “follow” box that will pop up at the lower right hand side of the screen when you open the blog.

We are now approximately three months into the COVID 19 outbreak. Countries around the world have adopted various social distancing measures to slow the rate of spread of the disease. In the west most of those measures have been in place for close to two months, although longer in Italy, the early epicentre of the outbreak in Europe.

The United States is different from most other countries in a number of ways, some good, some not so good. And the public response to the social distancing measures is increasingly one of them. Unlike most other countries, whether western or otherwise, in the United States there is a rising chorus of opposition to the “stay at home” and “shelter in place” orders, opposition that is manifesting itself in noisy and provocative demonstrations across many parts of the nation. The demonstrations tend to be biggest and loudest in those states least affected by the virus, at least to date. In response, a number of state governments are going against the advice of medical professionals and scientists and are reopening their economies and society, some slowly, some quickly. Whether and to what extent this will lead to a spike in COVID 19 infections is yet to be seen although the predominant scientific opinion seems to be that it will. I should note, however, that many of the citizens of these states seem willing to play the role of guinea pig on this question. In a perverse kind of way, we should be thankful to them. We will all learn from their experience.

What has interested me in the past week or so are the reports that the support for the demonstrations against the COVID 19 suppression measures are being supported, or more accurately, funded, by the same groups that supported the Tea Party movement several years ago. That includes conservative foundations formed by groups like Koch Industries and some connected to the very wealthy Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos. Which gets me thinking. What is their motivation? As the old saying goes “follow the money”. I like to believe I’m immune to conspiracy theories and I wouldn’t want to be starting one but I do expect very wealthy Americans are losing a lot of money because of the shutdown of the economy as well as being subject to limits on their personal freedom and I don’t expect they like that. In fact, I think they would like to open the economy and society up completely and let the virus rip (okay, I do know there are a number of obvious exceptions to this amongst the super rich. I am talking about those who have traditionally waged war against strong government in the United States).

If I’m right, the super rich are betting, probably correctly, that they can protect themselves and those closest to them from the virus while it tears through the rest of the population infecting millions and killing hundreds of thousands. And that will produce “herd immunity” although we don’t yet know whether the presence of antibodies does create immunity and, if so, for how long although there is reasonable speculation it does at least for a period. It’s a cynical calculation but one that might make perfect sense to someone sitting in a guilded penthouse or, for that matter, the White House.

Whether or not there’s an active conspiracy, I don’t know although I would be surprised if they don’t talk to each other about their shared interests.

On the other hand, while the kind of cynical ploy I’ve suggested would be considered reprehensible by most right thinking people, it does kind of frame the challenge we are all facing. As I asked in an earlier blog, “what if there is no vaccine?”. In the past week Gilead Pharmaceuticals stopped clinical trials on one of the more hopeful therapeutics because it wasn’t being effective treating COVID 19 patients and the search for a vaccine will take, at a minimum, a year during which countries will have to face an extraordinarily difficult choice: do they open the economy and risk increasing COVID 19 infections or do they keep the economy closed, suppressing COVID 19, but increasing unemployment, homelessness, poverty, despair and all the other social consequences, including death?

Francois Legault, the Premier of Quebec, has jump started the conversation in Canada by highlighting the need to achieve some kind of herd immunity. Dr Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Medical Health Officer, has responded that is not the path to pursue. But I’m not so sure. What is the alternative? Indefinitely hiding under our beds? Surely not. Keeping the daily infections very low while only marginally opening up the economy and society? Again, not sustainable and entirely predicated on the belief a vaccine will be developed within a reasonable timeline, something that is not at all sure.

I listen regularly to Dr Henry’s briefings in B.C. and last week, when asked what the daily infection rate needed to be before there could be significant opening of the economy and society, she responded that zero was the goal while allowing room for a slightly higher number. Given the quandry we are in I’m having difficulty accepting that. I think the real and difficult question is: what level of infection can we endure without causing the collapse of our healthcare system, including its need to provide all sorts of other medical services, including those often inaccurately labeled as “elective” or “non urgent”? In other words we need to accelerate the infection rate to get to “herd immunity” but do so in a very careful and monitored way that allows the healthcare system to provide full care to COVID 19 patients as well as all the other medical services the population requires.

Although I am not an expert in the field of epidemiological modelling, I supect there is sufficient data now to begin identifying, not the “sweet spot”, but the “sweet zone”, i.e. that range of infection we can properly manage. This is hard medicine to swallow. It will mean that a lot of people will get sick and some of them will die although the likelihood of that is lessened if we have a fully functioning healthcare system to look after them. And the very elderly and the frail will have to be protected as this happens which clearly is not as simple as it sounds.

I’ve read some of the outrage that Premier Legault’s comments have provoked from medical and scientific professionals but none of them can offer a viable alternative except continuing the suppression measures until a vaccine is found which could be a very long time, if at all. And that’s because there isn’t one barring us winning the research lottery and finding a therapeutic that can also act as a prophylactic.

We are getting very close to a point where some extremely difficult and controversial decisions will have to be made. I think it is time for our political leaders to prepare us for them.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the small “follow” box that should appear at the lower right of your screen when you open the blog.

Although it feels like an eternity, it’s only been about three months since most of us heard about the COVID 19 virus. In that time it has spread from being something exotic in way off China to a mortal and economic threat to all of us. The very foundations of our society and others seem to be trembling, in some cases on the verge of collapse. As of today there are over 2.4 million confirmed cases worldwide, with 167,369 deaths. Canada has 35,708 cases, with 1618 deaths.

From it’s first appearance, governments and private industry have been racing to find a vaccine that will stop its spread. As it morphed from a regional epidemic to a global pandemic that intensified with the harnessing of billions of dollars and thousands of minds and institutions. One thing that has impeded progress has been the lack of cooperation and coordination between countries as a world that was already collapsing into national silos approached the pandemic on a country by country basis. The most obvious and egregious example of this is Donald Trump’s decision to suspend funding to the World Health Organization at the very time we need the WHO most. Although he justifies this move by attacking the WHO’s response to the pandemic and, particularly, his view it is too favourable to China, it is nothing more than a cynical ploy to deflect blame from his own administration’s failure to respond to the virus in a timely and effective manner, and then to use it as the centrepiece of an election campaign focussed on arousing anti Chinese feelings in the United States. It would be contemptible under any circumstances but, faced with a life threatening pandemic, it is criminal.

For some time now we have been hearing officials suggesting a vaccine will take twelve to eighteen months to develop and be ready for use. It’s hard to know exactly where this estimate comes from but, according to many informed individuals, it is wildly optimistic at least when measured against the time needed to develop successful vaccines in the past. Of course it is possible the enormous resources being thrown at the challenge may allow for a significant shortening of the timeline or, for that matter, there may be a “eureka” moment when some brilliant scientist makes a breakthough that will be a game changer. But the odds against this are significant.

There is another, more troubling possibility that no one seems to be acknowledging: the possiblity that despite the best efforts and maximum resources, no effective vaccine will be found. As has been pointed out, COVID 19 is a Corona Virus, as is the common cold. Despite at least a century of research no effective vaccine against the common cold has been found.

I am not a scientist or a doctor but I have been a close observer of the attempts to find a vaccine for HIV over the past thirty five years. HIV is not a Corona Virus although, when I read some of the mechanics of how the COVID 19 virus invades and colonizes human cells, there does seem some similarity in how they both operate. And the simple fact is that, despite billions of dollars expended and enormous commitments of talent, no effective HIV vaccine has been found. So, what if we find ourselves in the same position with COVID 19?

At present, we are told there are two ways the pandemic will end: either when an effective vaccine is found and broadly administered or when so called “herd immunity” kicks in once the virus has infected eighty-three to ninety-four percent of the population. If a vaccine cannot be found we only have the second choice and that poses some very difficult medical and ethical challenges. We are all engaged in social distancing to “flatten the curve” with the hope the rate of infection can be kept at a level it doesn’t overwhelm the healthcare resources of Canada and other countries. The problem with this approach is that if we are left with the “herd immunity” option while flattening the curve dramatically it could take many years before a sufficient cohort of the population has antibodies, perhaps even longer than some of us can reasonably expect to live. And, by the way, the herd effect only works if exposure and the appearance of antibodies results in significant and long term immunity, something we don’t yet know. Aside from that important question, the alternative in the absence of a vaccine might be to allow infections to ramp up but we are told that would result in millions of deaths and the collapse of health care systems around the world. Talk about “catch 22”.

This seems like an impossible choice but one we may have to confront sooner or later. Even now, mere weeks into the shutdowns, there is a rising chorus in the United States to let up on the suppression measures and risk rising infections. This while significant parts of the country have not yet reached their peak infection under the current regime. I expect and hope Canada wont see similar pressure although I did note a few small and thus far marginal demonstrations on the weekend demanding the social distancing measures be lifted.

For most of us I expect the idea of letting the infection run rampant resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousand or millions of vulnerable people is repugnant. But that is now, and here I’m speaking as a senior citizen who is apparently more at risk of death if I become infected, I do not know how I would respond in the future if a vaccine is, or is seen to be, off the table. Would I choose to spend the rest of my life in the “locked down mode” with little if any access to the things I most enjoy in life, or would I be willing to risk all against the possibility of surviving? I don’t know the answer.

However, drawing on the experience of HIV, there may be a third choice. As most of you know, HIV, while still a terrible disease that is killing people all over the world, has been significantly tamed through the use of therapeutics, specifically drugs that stop it replicating, prevent it infecting and, in infected individuals, suppress it to the point there is little if any infectiousness. Finding these drugs took approximately thirty years and a great deal of political activism. Although it took decades to develop this treatment, it seems possible that timeline could be significantly shortened for anti virals that are effective against COVID 19. That’s because the knowledge accrued looking for an HIV thereapeutic (and also therapeutics against other viruses like Ebola) might have laid the foundation for a breakthough on a drug that is effective against COVID 19. If that’s the case, they might be available within months, not years, particularly if they are pre-existing drugs already approved for human use. I know there are a number of drugs being tested and developed. The rewards for the private sector would be enormous.

In the meantime, we can just keep our fingers crossed while continuing to flatten the curve.

just sayin

G

p.s. I want to acknowledge the input of several of my physician friends on this blog. I tested some of the ideas on facebook and requested their feedback before having the temerity to venture into this topic

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the lower right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

Over one and a half million people worldwide have been infected with the COVID 19 virus and nearly one hundred thousand have died from it. In the coming weeks and months those numbers will grow exponentially, likely resulting in millions of deaths. As of today, the epicentre of the pandemic is the United States and particularly New York City where there are approximately eighty five thousand confirmed cases and forty seven hundred deaths. An astonishing eighteen thousand Italians have already died from the virus and that number is rising daily. On a smilar trjectory, but a few weeks behind Italy, Spain now has over one hundred and fifty thousand confirmed cases and fifteen thousand deaths. Almost every country in the world has infections, although some are under reporting them or, in some of the less developed countries, have not yet detected them. The toll in human lives is unlike anything my generation has ever witnessed although, through our parents, we have memories of the Spanish Flu Pandemic in 1918/20 and the Second World War.

As every day passes, it becomes clear this pandemic and its accompanying disruption will not end in weeks or months. It seems likely we will be fighting this virus at some level until there is a vaccine or effective therapeutics to treat it. Even with all the resources of the world focussed on those objectives, the likelihood of substantial relief in less than a year is slim.

While the health effects of the pandemic are rightly the principal focus now, the disruption and economic cost it’s causing will be with us well beyond the lifetimes of people in my age cohort (I’m 70). In an earlier blog I stated I didn’t believe things would change after the pandemic. What I was responding to was the Kumbaya hope that seemed to be emerging that, once we were all through this, we would emerge better and more empathetic and with more collaborative nations. If anything, I believe that is even less likely today than when I wrote it. I was not saying the world will not be changed. It will be and in deeply troubling ways.

The landscape that emerges after the pandemic is finally over will be almost unrecognizable. Institutions we have thought immutable will be profoundly changed, if not gone. Whole nation states will collapse leading to chaos, war and famine in several parts of the world. The strongest democracies will survive but they will be profoundly weakened, both from the loss of their citizens but also from the failure of many of their institutions. They will also be burdened with unfathomable amounts of debt. The newer and weaker democracies will accelerate their drift away from democracy as populations demand authority and order. So-called “strong men” in those countries will have taken advantage of this crisis to consolidate and expand their authority while working to eliminate any and all opposition, including an independent press.

The weakest countries of the world, some of whom will have collapsed, will continue to suffer from droughts, crop failures, new disease outbreaks and internicine wars, except there will be little intervention from the traditional sources of power in the world. The wealthiest democracies will be too burdened by debt and by their own internal needs to intervene meaningfully. International institutions like the United Nations will be weakened and pushing against powerful nativist headwinds.

The United States will be profoundly weakened by its experience as the epicentre of the pandemic. The complete failure of leadership by Donald Trump and his enablers responding to the pandemic will remove the final vestiges of credibility to the claim that “America is the leader of the free world”. Nations will look elsewhere. America, too, will be burdened with staggering amounts of debt, overwhelming business failures and massive unemployment. All this will exacerbate the already toxic divisions between “red America” and “blue America”. It will be a time of profound social unrest.

While the outcome doesn’t need to be this bad, it’s likely some version of this will emerge. It is, of course, possible some thing will happen that will lessen the impact, including America electing Joe Biden in November and he, then, reasserting America’s leadership role in collaborating with its allies to rebuild and strengthen the Western Alliance. But, even then, so much damage has been done and the internal economic and social burdens on America will be so great after the pandemic, there is little likelihood we’ll see the kind of “Marshall Plan” response America led after the Second World War.

So who will benefit from this chaos? Russia, of course, will be happy to see disarray amongst the western democracies but it is too weak economically to gain much. The one country that can and will is China. I know there are conspiracy theories circulating that the COVID 19 pandemic was deliberately started by China but that makes little if any sense, not because the Peoples Republic of China isn’t capable of doing so but because the risk to its economy and stability was simply too great to take that gamble. However, now that it seems to have had some success containing the virus at home, it is reverting to its old playbook of blame shifting while using the pandemic to curry favour with nations struggling to contain it, including Canada. This is made enormously easier by the staggering incompetence and chauvinism of the Trump administration. But don’t misunderstand me, I think all countries, including Canada should willingly accept Chinese aid whether it is supplying personal protective equipment, respirators or advice and expertise. But be under no illusion, this generosity is part of China’s grand plan to replace America as the world’s major superpower and its “generosity” comes with strings and expectations.

And, to end where I began, remember China is the reason we are having this pandemic. The environment that permitted cross species movement of the virus (particularly the wild animal markets), the failure to respond quickly to the first cases of COVID 19, the lack of transparency in the initial weeks of the epidemic all facilitated the virus’s spread until it became a pandemic. That doesn’t absolve other world leaders for their failure to respond in a timely and appropriate way, but none of this would have happened without China’s initial actions. So, yes, China is to blame and we need to remember that as we chart our way forward.

If any good comes out of this disaster it will be that countries like Canada may move to limit the previously unlimited push for globalization. It is clear now that countries like Canada cannot rely on others to look after their most basic needs (including, by the way, our reliance on the United States) and the push for “one world” needs a reset. I really don’t know yet if our leaders have learned that lesson or, once the pandemic is over, they will revert to listening to the siren song of a wealthy China.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” box that will pop up on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Today is International AIDS Day. I thought it appropriate to republish this blog from last Spring

My longtime partner died on April 1, 1986, the forty second person in Canada to be diagnosed with AIDS. Although he was given only three months to live at the time of his diagnosis, he survived for one year and two weeks; one year and two weeks of the closest thing to hell I can imagine. He was forty years old.

The first cases of what would become known as AIDS in the United States were identified in 1981. Canada’s first cases were identified a year later. Despite the exponential growth in AIDS cases most governments were slow to respond probably because the disease was attacking marginalized minorities, especially gay men and intravenous drug users. When cases appeared that resulted from blood transfusions, heterosexual behaviour and vertical transmission from mothers to babies the patients were referred to as “innocent”, implying pretty explicitly that anyone else who had the disease was “guilty” and somehow less worthy of compassion.

Far too many politicians and journalists treated AIDS as a joke. Some of the exchanges or comments are cringeworthy today but, at the time, were thought funny by many. It was all a piece with the very slow government response to the epidemic, resulting in many more infected people and deaths. President Ronald Reagan didn’t even use the word “AIDS” until 1985 by which time thousands of young Americans had died from it. Things were a bit better in Canada, but far from perfect, with some politicians and aspiring politicians behaving deplorably. In British Columbia Premier Bill Vander Zalm used his narrow view of what it meant to be a Christian to slow and interfere with the province’s response. While Jason Kenny, now the Premier of Alberta, has an indelible stain on his character from his particularly odious role in San Francisco at the time.

In those days an AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence. Not a 90% survival rate. Not a 50% survival rate. Not a 20% survival rate. 0%. I had friends who, when confronted with their diagnosis, killed themselves rather than face the horrors of end stage AIDS with all the stigma and rejection that came with it. And I saw far too many families turning their backs on their sick gay sons.

During the next fifteen years I watched as a deadly virus decimated my world, killing indiscriminately and cruelly. I remember walking down the long hallway at St. Pauls Hospital in Vancouver late at night with no one around and feeling completely alone, abandoned. I remember walking through the AIDS wards at that same hospital and at St. Vincents in New York, catching glimpses of faces that, only weeks earlier, had been young and vibrant, now reduced to wizened old men staring fearfully out at at a world that had turned its back on them. I remember the stink of death and decay seeping into every corner of those wards and clinging to my clothes. I remember the groans, the cries, the weeping. And I remember the countless funerals and memorial services, always a mix of denial and unspeakable grief.

There was no welling up of support from the public; no social solidarity in the face of the deadly foe. In fact, in the broad public, it was something best ignored or, worse, seen as a validation of deeply held homophobic prejudice. That these were fellow human beings didn’t matter as they died by the thousands.

Of course there were exceptions, particularly in the medical community and amongst healthcare workers. Men and women who behaved well; admirably; sometimes even heroically. But they were the exception. For the most part, a relatively small and stigmatized minority, gay men and their lesbian allies, were on their own and they responded magnificently, whether providing care to the sick and dying; lobbying and fighting for government support; delivering meals to people too sick to shop or cook for themselves; pushing for new treatments and expedited approvals and manning help lines to try to reassure terrified young men looking for support and hope.

And now we have a new viral plague descending upon us, except this time it threatens us all. There are no “innocent” victims and no “guilty” victims, unless of course you count the stigmatization of Asians led by the appalling President of the United States. It has already evaded our Maginot Lines and set up encampments amongst us, invisible encampments from which it silently reaches out and infects us one by one. The public is alarmed and rightly so. Every minute of news is taken up with coverage of COVID 19; every level of government is mobilized in the battle; no measure is too much; no expenditure out of the question in our fight to defeat this enemy. And all of this just weeks after its arrival on our shores.

Medical scientists tell us the death toll from COVID 19 could reach into the millions with older people most at risk. As someone in his seventies I am told if I contract the virus my chances of survival are 90+ percent. What a difference from 0%, and for people who have most of their lives behind them; who have had a chance to experience the joy of living, not those just about to venture out on that wonderful journey. By the way, since its initial identification AIDS has killed over 33 million people.

So, as you cower in the face of this onslaught, try to imagine if you can what it would be like if you were alone facing this enemy. Try to imagine if you can the mortal threat pointed at you now as the subject of jokes. Try to imagine if you can, being treated as a leper by the world that gave you life, that nurtured you and that you believed you were a valued member of. Try to imagine if you can looking out the window of a hospital room with the most important person in the world to you dying a horrible death behind you while the world goes about its business as if nothing was happening. Yes, the band did play on.

I am not trying to write a jeremiad to shame or condemn. I leave that to the Larry Kramers of this world. The searing flame of my fury has been mostly extinguished by the decades. But I do hope people will pause and reflect when we hear the sterling cries “we are all in this together” and maybe, just maybe, some minds will change and soften so that if the next epidemic doesn’t touch them as intimately as this one, they will be able to rally in defence of even their most marginalized neighbours.

Increasingly, articles are appearing stating “nothing will ever be the same after this”. Really? I wish I could believe that. But I can’t. Oh, those most closely affected will never forget it and it will shape their futures in unpredictable ways. My grandmother died from the Spanish flu in 1919, leaving a two week old daughter orphaned. That daughter was my mother and her mother’s death affected and twisted my family’s life over the next century. But for most people, once the noise dies down; once the economic damage is somehow repaired, the memories will fade as will the lessons attached to them.

Oh, there will be inquires, studies, public hearings with recommendations. But mostly the lessons won’t be learned until it happens again.

That’s who we are as a species. It’s the hard wiring.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you first open the blog.

And they’re off. Eight candidates vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada and, as a result, Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. And not one of them inspiring much hope for those of us looking for a viable alternative to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. For most Canadians, most of the candidates will have virtually no name recognition: Marilyn Gladu, an MP from Ontario; Jim Karahalios, an Ontario lawyer who has received the backing of the conservative group “Campaign Life Coalition”; Leslyn Lewis, another Ontario lawyer who was born in Jamaica, defeated in her one attempt to become an MP and a strong opponent of abortion and same sex marriage; Derek Sloan, another Ontario lawyer, this one a rookie MP who believes the cause of sexual orientation is scientifically unclear and who has also received the endorsement of “Campaign for Life”; Rick Peterson, an Alberta businessman who supports a “flat” tax and rolling back Canada’s gun control laws; Rudy Husny, a former Conservative Party staffer and twice failed federal candidate who is from Quebec; Erin O’Toole, an MP from Ontario and cabinet minister in the Harper government who describes himself as “a true blue Conservative”, whatever that means; and Peter MacKay, the last leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada who, having denied that was his intention, then orchestrated with Stephen Harper the cannibalisation of the Progressive Conservative Party by the Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party of Canada. He also served as a cabinet minister in the Harper government and is currently a lawyer in Toronto.

I’m pretty well informed about Canadian politics and the only two candidates I have ever heard of are Erin O’Toole and Peter MacKay. Now that may be because I’ve somehow missed the brilliant contribution to Canada of the other six but I think it unlikely. More likely, the presence of these unknowns simply reflects the paucity of talent vying for the leadership of what should be Canada’s government in waiting. The fact that five of them represent views that most Canadians consigned to the dust bin of history in the last century only confirms my suspician that this is not a party ready for prime time. In fact, it may never be. And while I’m on the subject, what’s with self styled conservatives preoccupation with homosexuality…just askin?

I would like to describe the contest as between Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs except I can’t locate Snow White. We are told Peter MacKay is the frontrunner and he probably has the most name recognition but with that comes a record many will have forgotten but will be reminded of soon enough. Perhaps his most memorable turn on the stage was when his then girlfriend Belinda Stronach left him at the altar (okay, it was on the opposition benches) and defected to the governing Liberals. But there are more substantive memories to bring up. Lest we forget, he was the minister who had a penchant for using government planes, including Cormorant helicopters that were badly needed elsewhere, to attend what could at best be charitably called “political events” (is that lobster claws I hear cracking?) and then dissembling about it only to be called out when the facts were revealed. And what about the full blown push to puchase American stealth fighters while underestimating the actual cost (I’m being charitable again) by half and then staging a photo-op with a mockup of the plane, complete with with Minister McKay sitting in the cockpit giving a thumbs up that cost a mere $47,000 (why does the image of President George Bush declaring “mission accomplished” on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier come to mind?). Oh, and did I mention the actual cost of Canadian participation in the Libyan war was $100,000,000, not the $50,000,000 he reported to the House of Commons?

A dwarf indeed.

So, does that leave us with Erin O’Toole? Aside from a relatively minor “scandal” involving fundraising for his last leadership campaign, he doesn’t seem to have behaved badly while a minister and leaves a record of quiet competence. If I’m sounding underwhelmed, it’s because I am but at least so far, so good. But what else does he stand for? I have no idea and I look forward to hearing in the coming weeks.

But no matter what any of the candidates say, they still have to pander to a socially conservative western base that is astonishingly out of touch with much of the rest of Canada, whether on issues like abortion or same sex marriage (or for that matter, existence) or, the elephant in the room, climate change. One by one, they line up to say they oppose the carbon tax but offer little if anything as an alternative strategy. This, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of Canadians voted for parties in the last election that support the carbon tax. What does that mean? Once elected as leader, will they reverse their position or continue the ostrich head in sand approach the party has taken to climate change over the past years? I really don’t know but either way, they lose all credibility.

I write this as someone who would love to support a viable modern conservative voice in Canada. But, try as I do, I can’t seem to find one. And that will mean Canada’s perpetually governing party will remain in office until it totally discredits itself. That could be a long time.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog.

If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog, just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower left of your screen when you open the blog.

Having just returned from an eight day visit to New York and south Florida I have a few observations on the current state of the American political scene and, particularly, the Democratic nominating contest.

What is striking is the growing fear by Americans who do not support President Trump that he may win a second four year term this November. That results from several things including a robust economy but, most importantly, the seeming disarray of the Democratic Party as it tries to decide who to nominate to oppose him. The prospect of four more years of an administration best characterized as grifters is leading to despair over the fate of the Republic, not to mention the Western World.

There is also a profound sense of loss of community in America as people who believed that, despite disagreements over specific policies, there was still a strong core of support for fundamental American values and the institutions that support them. Suddenly, they’re aware that many of their fellow Americans don’t share even the most sacrosanct of values and beliefs and are willing to openly behave in ways that, even a few years ago, would have been unthinkable.

Lending fuel to this is the Democratic nominating process which seems to have been going on forever and is now pointing to the increasing likelihood that the weakest candidate against Donald Trump will be the nominee. Bernie Sanders won the Nevada caucuses yesterday in a convincing manner, drawing support from across the ideological and racial spectrum. This seems to fly in the face of the prevailing wisdom that the primary concern of Democrats is to select the candidate best able to beat Trump and the view that Senator Sanders, for a whole host of reasons, is not that person. It shouldn’t go unnoticed that Donald Trump was effusive in his congratulations to Senator Sanders or that U.S. Intelligence services believe Russia is working to help Sanders win the nomination. They obviously share the view he will make Trump’s path to reelection easier.

I found the Nevada all candidates’ debate particularly frustrating. Why is it helpful for Senator Elizabeth Warren to launch ad hominen attacks on Michael Bloomberg? Yes, it allowed her to raise money to continue her campaign although it seems to have done little to improve her showing in the Nevada caucuses. What it did do is lessen the possibility that Bloomberg will be able to unite the so called moderate wing of the party while tarnishing the reputation of a man with a long and mostly honourable public life behind him. Of course, his enormous wealth bothers some but, unlike the current occupant of the White House, it is entirely self made and is being used now to support many worthwhile political and charitable causes in the country. The only real winner in diminishing Michael Bloomgerg is Donald Trump and why, except for the most selfish of reasons, would any Democratic candidate want that?

Much is being made of the difficulty some candidates are having attracting support from communities of colour, particularly Mayor Pete and Senator Klobachar and noting, correctly, that it will be very difficult to win the nomination without that support. Of course that’s true and the South Carolina primary next week will undoubtedly highlight it. But here’s the thing. The Democrats aren’t going to win the election in South Carolina; or in Kentucky; or in Missouri; or in Mississippi; or in Georgia; or in all those other states that are and will remain reliably Republican. They will win the election in the suburbs of Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin and, maybe, Ohio. And they will win there only if they nominate a candidate who can attract the support of, often Republican, educated women; the same support that allowed them to win back the House in 2018. And nominating a 78 year old self declared socialist with a heart condition whose predominant speaking style is yelling at people doesn’t seem a particularly good strategy to get that support. I hope I’m wrong but the long trajectory of American history says otherwise. What’s more, if the Democrats don’t attract those votes for the top of their ticket, many of them just won’t vote causing losses down ticket as well. Say goodbye to the House.

While all Democrats seem to agree four more years of Donald Trump and his merry band of opportunists and grifters will be a disaster, none of them really cares enough to subjugate their own egos and particular ideological agendas to ensure that doesn’t happen. That is especially true of the supporters of Bernie Sanders who, by the way, bear a lot of responsibility for Donald Trump’s election in the first place.

I still don’t know who the strongest candidate will be except I am certain he or she will come from the centre of the party. Unfortunately that centre is following the same path the Republicans did in 2016, allowing division to clear a path to the nomination for one Donald J. Trump. To be clear, I think it is incorrect and very unfair to describe Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Trump but that doesn’t lessen my view he cannot win an election against Trump.

The whole world is watching helplessly as this plays out. Hoping for the best but fearing the worst.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog, just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

The world is facing another Corona Virus epidemic.  And like its recent predecessors it orginates in China.  As I begin writing this there are 9800 confirmed cases in China with over 200 related deaths.  There are less than 100 confirmed cases in nineteen other countries, including Canada where there are three.  Most of the cases in other countries other than China can be traced directly back to China although person to person transmission in the other countries is beginning to emerge.  The numbers are increasing rapidly and exponentially,

The World Health Organization has declared an International Public Health Emergency. China has implemented the largest ever quarantine to try to stem the spread of the virus. Currently forty five million people are under quarantine in China.  Travel to and from China is being seriously disrupted with many airlines suspending their service until the crisis abates.

It is believed the virus originated in wild animals, initially bats, and has been transmitted to humans through repeated exposure in animal markets in China. Unlike in earlier such outbreaks, the Peoples’ Republic of China has been relatively open in communicating and cooperating with other countries about the outbreak, although not before attempting to suppress and deny the information.

As the virus spreads and coverage of it expands on regular and social media many are raising concerns it will lead to increased racism towards Asians, and particularly Chinese, in the West and in other parts of the world.  Two days ago I listened to a Chinese/Canadian doctor complaining about the rise of racism as a result.  She asked the question:  “If a serious and contagious desease originated in England and was being transmitted around the world, would other people avoid English people?”.  To her, it seemed self evident that in countries like Canada and the United States, they would not.

A similar concern arose during the SARS outbreak in 2003 when, following a similar trajectory as the current Corona Virus, it began with animal to human transmission in China and then spread to twenty six countries killing 774 people, including 44 Canadians almost half of whom were healthcare workers.  China was rightly criticized for its response to SARS, a response that almost certainly made the outbreak worse.  There remains a lingering distrust of China as a result and it certainly led to negative assumptions about Chinese elsewhere in the world.

Two days ago I shared an elevator with a young Chinese man who lives in my building and who travels to and from China regularly.  It did occur to me there might be some increased level of risk to me in that enclosed space.  That was countered by what I already knew about the epidemic but, never the less, the thought appeared and the question I want to try to answer is whether or not that reaction is properly described as racist?

I have lived all of my adult life in an urban environment where I am surrounded by people from other countries and cultures.  I like to think that has innoculated me from racism.  But of course it hasn’t.  Every single human being on earth is a racist to a greater or lesser degree, whether we want to admit it or not.  No ethnicity or culture gets a pass on this.  However, there is a difference between acknowledging the presence of some racist thoughts and actually embracing them.  A big difference.  In Canada most of us would say racism is wrong, needs to be fought and, to the extent it can be, eliminated.  In fact, we would argue our country depends upon that.  I put myself in that category.

What troubles me though is the frequent misuse of the term “racism” to shame and shut down.  I don’t think my slight concern sharing the elevator was racist at all.  It was certainly an overreaction given what we know about the virus at this point, but it was neither malicious nor morally wrong.  And in response to the Chinese/Canadian doctor who used the analogy of a disease orginating in England, I can say with complete certainty that I would react similarly in that situation if I found myself in an elevator with people from England.  Assuming I would not betrays more about the person making that claim than about me by a long shot.

Of course, given the history of racial discrimination against Asians, and particularly Chinese, in Canada, it isn’t surprising that people on the receiving end of this treatment leap to the conclusion it is racism.  But they should be careful because, by doing so, they devalue the authenticity of that term and its effectiveness in battling real racism in Canada.

To broaden this a little, I said the same thing when special attention was paid by security officials to people who appeared to be of middle eastern origin after the 911 attacks. Crtics intoned that it was “racial profiling”, which it was, and tried to fuse it to racism which, at least in its most straightforward sense, it was not.  The source of the immediate threat was the middle east and it was perfectly logical for security services and officials to focus their attention on people from there.  They would have been derelict in their duty had they not.

I do understand that abuses will happen under the guise of legitimate concerns about security and, in this case, an epidemic but, while unfortunate, they are also unavoidable. And they certainly should not stigmatize people who may have legitimate, albeit not very well informed, fears.

Before finishing, I want to flip back to the role of The Peoples’ Republic of China in all this.  While its reaction this time is clearly a significant improvement over its response to SARS, I still think it is legitimate and timely to ask the question:  “Why does this keep happening?”.  It was one thing when China was a very poor and backward country where ancient practices and behaviours were at least understandable and its ability to change them perhaps impossible.  But now that it is taking its place as a modern, wealthy, powerful global player is it not reasonable for the rest of the world to demand it take whatever measures are necessary to radically lessen the likelihood of these types of outbreaks ever happening again.  I think it is.  And I think we must.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog.  If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that should appear at the bottom right hand side of you screen the first time you open the blog.

Growing up in Canada we were taught that it was a particularly virtuous country, one that had eschewed nuclear weapons and harboured no hostile feelings towards any other nation. We were a “middle power”, always “punching above our weight”, “respected” for our Pearsonian approach to world citizenship, clearly one of the good guys. Despite the huge land mass we occupied (always illustrated by school maps where Canada shared the colour pink with the rest of the British Commonweath and Empire), when it came to military engagements “peacekeeping” was our middle name, doing good but not offending anyone.

We were certainly aware of Canada’s military past, particularly it’s participation in both world wars, and were proud of it, but they were both “necessary” and “just” wars, clearly justifying a peace loving nation changing its plowshares into swords, but only temporarily. We were the future and for a time after the Second World War, that seemed a reasonable assumption. In fact, it was Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier (for those of you not familiar with Canadian history, Canada’s second Prime Minister as well as it’s first Francophone Prime Minister) who said “The Twentieth Century belongs to Canada” (actually, it was a bit more complex than that) and we believed him. It never occurred to us that our fortunate circumstances were the result of unusual and transient arrangements in global affairs.

For the first eighty years of Canada’s life it was protected by the sole superpower of the day, the British Empire. In the very early days that primarily involved fending off the hostile advances of our southern neighbour, the United States. Canadians did their part for the Empire, fighting its wars and protecting its interests and in return received the security of an imperial fighting force unequalled at the time.

Everything changed after the Second World War. Although victorious, Britain was exhausted and moved quickly, if reluctantly, to loosen the imperial strings and shed itself of the obligations of Empire. Canada also shed much of its traditional anti-Americanism and huddled ever closer to the behemoth to the south. And that worked pretty well for the next seventy years. As was the case with the British Empire, there were times we chafed under U.S. influence, moments when we refused to join American military adventurism, times when our interests weren’t front and centre, but, on the whole Canada was quite comfortable as the junior partner. We remained secure from most cold war threats and were able to use the country’s expanding wealth to build an affluent and, in some respects at least, more equitable society than our American neighbours.

For my generation this seemed the natural order of things. We would be part of an ever connecting multilateral world, although firmly anchored in the western alliance with a special relationship with Washington. How naive.

Over the past few years we have watched with alarm as most of the post Second World War assumptions came under threat from within and without, and then unravelled. First, in what seemed like a direct rebuke to the idea of bringing the human race closer together, the British voted to leave the European Union and now seem on the verge of destroying the last vestige of Empire as the United Kingdom itself threatens to unravel in response. The belief the collapse of the Soviet Union would lead to an ever more integrated and democratic world was shattered as Russian revanchism found an effective leader in Vladimir Putin. The conventional wisdom in the west that bringing China into the World Trade Organization would not only increase its own economic liberalization but would, with the creation of a vibrant middle class, lead inevitably to a western style democracy is all but dead as the single party dictatorship in Beijing forges a path that successfully modernizes its economy while applying more and more stringent controls over individual freedoms. Even some of the eastern European nations who, freed from the Soviet Union, joined the European Union and adopted the language and forms of democracy are backsliding in the face of ancient prejudices and beliefs. The once strong western ally in the middle east, Turkey, elected a fundamentalist government that is systematically undermining the foundations of a democratic and secular Turkey.

In the midst of all this, the United States did the unthinkable. Despite its flaws and misteps, the United States always represented the last best western hope for an ordered, democratic and peaceful world. But then it elected a President who is openly hostile to the ideas of multi-lateralism and liberty; a President more comfortable in the company of third world dictators than America’s traditional allies; a President who sees the world in strictly transactional terms where all limits imposed by the collective efforts of all nations are nothing more than an annoyance and a hindrance to the unfettered use of American power. The three years of his government have profoundly weakened the ideas of international collectivism and multilateralism and have left America’s traditional allies distrustful of Washington. Whether or not that damage can be reversed is hard to assess. Even if the American electorate choose a President more in keeping with its traditional role in the world next November, it will take a long time to rebuild the trust that is the foundation of that role.

All of this happened so suddenly and unexpectedly that for many of us it was inexplicable. We clung to the belief this was a temporary and soon to be corrected aberration. But what if that isn’t the case? What if what we are witnessing is the inevitable return to “normal” after an aberrant seventy years where unique circumstances allowed the predominance of western ideas of democracy, human rights, material and spiritual progress? At least that would explain the glaring, and sometimes horrifying, exceptions that kept cropping up inconveniently as the rest of us thought we were moving the human race forward to a better, more advanced stage of civilization.

So, where does this leave Canada? We have been enormously lucky to have had one hundred and fifty years where we were protected by alliances with major powers. It has allowed us to develop and evolve in ways that might not otherwise have been the case and that has allowed us to become a country most of us are proud of as multi cultural; socially liberal; increasingly environmentally conscious; and wealthy enough to provide relatively good standards of living to our citizens including health care and education.

But, as I noted earlier, while Canada is one of the wealthiest nations on earth, it is not one of the most powerful. This is the result of several things including the luxury of others protecting us, but also that, although occupying an enormous geographic space, Canada is sparsely populated, currently at less than forty million people. Of course, when challenged, Canadians have risen with great courage to defend democracy and freedom, particularly in two World Wars. In fact, at the end of the Second World War Canada had the third largest navy in the world and, during the war, had over two million men and women in uniform. This from a country of eleven million people at the time.

We’ve taken great pride in the example we try to set for the rest of world, whether it’s accepting refugees, supporting the prosecution of international war criminals, pushing trade agendas that allow less well off countries get a hand up, and dispatching peacekeepers all over the world to try to separate warring parties. Most Canadians assume their country is highly respected, even envied but now the arc of history seems to be bending away from us and our ideals. In fact, it isn’t a stretch to imagine a time when those very ideals are under existential threat in Canada itself. The world has become a much more scary and dangerous place, or so it seems. And there is little that persuades me it is going to return to the place a complacent Canada thrived in any time soon, if ever.

Canada is being challenged on all sides. In the far north, Russia is building a massive military presence and it’s not because it believes Canadians and Americans are going to come over the top and invade them. No, its purpose is clearly aggressive and territorial as arctic waters warm and shipping lanes open up.

Also in the far north, the Americans are being much more aggressive in their assertion that the Inside Passage is an international waterway and not the Canadian passage that we claim. And I’m not at all certain that any international finding on this will change that.

To the south, our major trading partner, the United States, continues to act in ways that are harmful to Canada, with its abrogation of multilateralism and a rules based international order. NAFTA was renegotiated and Canada emerged mostly unscathed, but we now know we cannot depend upon stability and consistent behaviour by the Americans. It took a long while, but maybe Lord Palmerston’s famous quote will finally sink in: “Nations don’t have permanent friends. They only have permanent interests.”

To the west we’re confronted by a resurgent and arrogant China determined to reclaim its role as the predominant nation in Asia, if not the world. Its recent behaviour towards Canada should put pay to any romantic notions we can be close to an authoritarian country that so nakedly flaunts its power, trying to justify its behaviour by citing the humiliation it endured from western powers and Japan during the last half of the nineteenth century and the first of the twentieth. That its own history of colonialism is every bit as odious never occurs to the leaders in Beijing as, even today, they suppress Tibetans and Uighurs, not to mention other non Han Chinese citizens of the Peoples’ Republic of China.

Even within the European Union, some nations are moving inexorably away from the foundational beliefs in democracy, freedom and human rights and are joined in this by Canada’s NATO ally, Turkey.

Faced with these changes, there is no shortage of advice on what Canada should do. In a recent column in The National Post, conservative columnist Diane Francis opined that we are moving rapidly to a bifurcated world where a powerful group of anti democratic nations will be led by China on one side with another powerful group of democratic nations led by the United States on the other. She then advises Canada to nestle ever closer to America and makes the extraordinary statement that Canadian leaders must never say anything critical of American leaders. She cited Prime Minister Trudeau’s comments on some “shared responsibility” for the downing of the Ukrainian Airlines jet as an example of what Canadian leaders must never do. If you recall, Trudeau’s statement was as careful as one could possibly be without dishonouring the fifty seven dead Canadians and their families and loved ones.

And then we have the remnants of the pro-China faction in Canada, most prominently composed of former Liberal politicians who simply want things to return to “normal”, whatever that might be. Some are actually lobbying for a “prisoner exchange” to free the two Canadian hostages languishing in a Chinese jail in return for the Huawei excutive languishing in one of her two Vancouver mansions as she fights extradition to the United States. That that would tell the world that Canada is not “a nation of laws” as we so proudly trumpet and is open to blackmail from any country or organization that is willing to take Canadians hostage, doesn’t seem to bother them. This longing for a return to “normal” is part of the fetishization of Canada’s history with communist China starting with the legend of Dr. Norman Bethune and carrying forward to Pierre Trudeau’s role in opening China to western nations. Somewhere during that time many began to fantasize about the enormous wealth that could be made dealing with China. The glitter of all that gold continues to blind them to the realities of the Peoples’ Republic of China and the vulnerability of Canada if it doesn’t set a radically different course in its dealings with it.

As I keep saying, Canada is rich; very rich. In fact, it is one of the richest nations ever to have existed. But we are not powerful and that is now a matter of choice. As a boy one of the things I was taught to be proud of was that Canada, while rich enough, technologically advanced enough and with the right natural resources, could develop a nuclear bomb, it chose not to. In fact, not only did we choose not to develop a nuclear bomb, we even (briefly) refused to allow our NATO and NORAD partner, the United States, to station nuclear bombs in Canada. We have continued to nurture our “boy scout” image ever since, keeping military spending as low as possible without being kicked out of the NATO club and only intervening in world conflicts as part of U.N. missions or humanitarian relief. The idea we can continue this way, keeping our head down and appealing to nations’ “better angels” that don’t exist is well past its due date and becomes more dangerous to the things we value every day we continue it.

Canada’s relatively small population does limit its capacity to assert itself and to defend its interests but we live in a world where technology is a great equalizer if you can afford it. And Canada can. I’m not suggesting we become yet another nation that blunders around the world, interfering in other country’s issues or that we attempt to export through force our beliefs and values. But I am suggesting we need to vastly increase our military and technological capabilities to defend and protect those very values and beliefs at home. By and large, the world does not share our views on how a nation should be organized and led and we are foolish to assume that even our closest allies will stand up for us on them.

I want the world to understand that if you attack Canadians, no matter where, there will be consequences that go well beyond wringing of hands or appealing to the international community. As for the question “are we large enough to do this?”, I simply point to Israel. And it goes beyond the simple protection of individual Canadians to defending the very idea of Canada from subtle and not so subtle subversion, not just abroad but also by hostile foreign powers here at home.

Because, you see, I am sick and tired of my country being pushed around and I want leaders who will do something about it.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom right hand side of your screen when you first open the blog.

Note: I have been struggling for a week now; struggling to find language that would capture my feelings on the downing of the Ukrainian airliner with the loss of so many lives, including fifity seven Canadians. Language seldom fails me, but this time it has. This is the best I can do.

We’ve all been there. Those few moments after lift off where the worries, anxieties, fears all begin to gradually recede. When the chaos of the terminal is now settling into something like order. The babies are still crying but then why wouldn’t they, experiencing the pain of changing air pressure for the first time. But they are held tightly in their mothers’ arms, their eyes locked in an embrace of absolute love and security. Older children are still having trouble containing their excitement as the lights below burst out in a magnificent display and then begin to shrink as the distance grows and they recede. After the initial bumps of takeoff; after the barely suppressed fear of subjecting yourself to those superhuman forces that hurl you into the air, you begin to relax. Maybe it would be okay to recline the headrest a little? What does that bell mean…probably someone hitting the wrong button. The captain announces we’ve just passed six thousand feet, climbing to thirty two thousand before levelling off and heading west. The energy, the anxiety, the tension; now slowly replaced with memories. Was the trip what you expected? Did you have fun? Are you sad to be leaving? Are you looking forward to home? When will you get back again?

And far below, a faceless, nameless technician is staring at a radar screen, tracking something that looks like an incoming missile. He’s on high alert because Iran fired rockets at an American base in Iraq a few hours ago. And now they are waiting for the American response. Perhaps he should check with civil aviation before reacting. But there isn’t time. Just ten seconds. He reaches up, pushes a button or two, turns a dial, pulls a lever, or whatever. And instantly the Russian Tor missile springs to life, a bit like a grasshopper as it jerks into place and then leaps off its launch pad. And, just for good measure, thirty seconds later he does it again.

For a few seconds, it is quite a pretty sight; the paths of the Tor missiles. They create perfect purple arcs against the dark but starlit sky. In fact, at first, it’s hard to notice that they’re heading for what looks like the brightest star. But then there’s an explosion, a brief burst of light and energy. And then another. And then nothing.

The Tor missile is not designed to penetrate the target. No, once its radar locks on to the target it hurdles towards it with deadly accuracy before exploding just before impact, perhaps twenty or thirty feet away. That way, the entire target will be engulfed in firey shrapnel and exploding rocket fuel. It will tear through the fuselage of the aircraft and then through everything and everyone inside it.

Imagine if you can, but of course none of us can, that moment of indescribable, unthinkable horror as the quiet scene inside the plane is instantly transformed into something not even Dante of Breugle could conjure. Limbs torn off. Heads torn off. Blood everwhere. The baby who seconds before was secure in its mother’s arms, now a lump of bloody screaming pulp, while in the aisle another is incinerated in howls of agony.

And for how long did this agony last? Well, for some at least, an eternity. But for the immediate victims, certainly minutes. A minute is a very long time. Double that. Triple it. It really doesn’t matter. It is forever.

And on the outside, the plane rumbles, twists and then falls. Until it is all over in a shower of light, of flames, of bodies, of metal. What did it smell like at that moment? Burning rubber? Check. Burning fuel? Check. Burning flesh? Check. Whatever it smelled like there, it was nothing compared to the nauseating stench that rose and spread from Tehran to Moscow to Washington.

As all around, the tiny innocuous signifiers of life are scattered, some barely scarred by the tragedy: a child’s slipper; a school notebook; a stylish stilletto pump; a shirt.

And this was done by men. There are times I deeply wish I could believe in Hell.

And now the blame game is in overdrive. Fingers pointing. Vehement denials. False accusations.

While all the while, fifity seven innocent Canadians and nearly a hundred other souls with some connections to this country, lie dead and dismembered on a soccer field on the outskirts of Tehran; the wavelets of grief sweeping everywhere across the world but nowhere more than here, in Canada, their home.

Look at their pictures. Read their names. Spend a moment on their stories. All, seemingly without exception, the best and the brightest amongst us; all stepping forward to contribute to their country and the world; and now all senselessly taken in a grotesque act of violence that followed another grotesque act of violence that followed another grotesque act of violence and on and on and on.

The first impulse is rage; then grief; then despair and finally disgust. How could this have happened? How could it not have? Despite all our glorious progress, human beings are still base animals, capable of the unthinkable and able to return to cycles of hatred and violence as if at the flip of a switch.

The conflict that led to this tragedy didn’t begin with the killing of an American contractor or the storming of the U.S. embassy in Bahgdad or the killing of General Soleimani or the launch of the Iranian missles in response to that killing. In fact, it didn’t even begin at The Battle of Thermopylae twenty five hundred years ago. People and tribes; beliefs and religions; dogmas and hatreds, ever more deadily as mankind “advances”.

We try to overcome, to organize, to channel the dark into a single human community. But still we have the bodies in the soccer field outside Tehran. And it keeps happening.

There is now no doubt the plane was shot down by Iranian ground to air missiles (made in Russia) when Iranian air defence determined it was an incoming cruise missile, presumably in retaliation for the firing of the Iranian missiles at the U.S. and Canadian military base several hours earlier. How that could have possibily happened defies understanding. Why was the airspace even open to commercial airliners if an attack was imminent? How could there have been so little information shared between the Iranian military and their civil aviation authorities about the flights in and out of the busy international airport? And, because we know they were there in the sky, what did the Americans know and when did they know it?

There is so much blame to go around. The Iranian state and its mullah leaders have gone rogue for years, attempting to foment conflict all over the middle east with the goal of pushing the western powers out and then consolidating itself as the predominant and Shia power in the region. In this regard, it seeks more than even Cyrus. It is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent ciivlians, both in the middle east and elsewhere, not to mention thousands of soldiers, including Canadians. It thrives on the type of sectarian hatred civilization struggles to put behind it. General Suleimani was one of its architects and had blood all over his hands. None of us should mourn his death.

But what about America? Even the slightest hint it might share some of the responsibility is being met by outraged howls of protest, whether from the rabid voices on right wing “talk” radio or Republican leaders in Congress. In their narrative, this is all on Iran. America has no guilt whatsoever. Really? None? Pardon my astonishment at the utter moral blindness.

Actually, I shouldn’t be surprised. America is led by a man with no moral centre. A man whose sole focus is on himself and what might make him look stronger, brighter, braver. None of which he is or will ever be. How could I expect him to empathize with the victims?

As the days and weeks pass, it is increasingly clear there was no “imminent” attack on U.S. assets that might have justified the assassination of General Soleimani or, at least, given it some veneer of legality. This was done on impulse without any proper consideration of what the short and long term consequences would be and without any broader strategic context to place it in. Just an impulse; one intended to bolster polls; add to the President’s self esteem; silence his critics; make him feel manly.

Donald Trump has Canadian blood on his hands. A lot of it. And nothing will ever wash that stain away. Never forget.

Just sayin.

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that appears on the lower right hand side of your screen each time you open the blog.