Although Canada’s election is still two weeks away I will be out of the country for the duration and thought I would offer some final thoughts on it before I leave. I recognize things could change dramatically between now and September 20 but, in as much as I’ve cast my ballot by mail today, it’s all over for me.

In my initial blog on the election I criticized the Liberal government for calling a completely unnecessary election in the middle of the fourth wave of the pandemic. Nothing since has changed my view on that although as a wedge issue vaccine passports certainly work in the Liberal’s favour, as do the anti vaccine mobs following Prime Minister Trudeau in his campaign, shouting abuse and demanding the right to live free and die. If their objective is to get him re-elected they are doing a good job. Their claim they have an absolute right to not get vaccinated is qualified, in my view, by the fact they are driving this fourth wave, putting vaccinated Canadians at risk and putting strain on the healthcare system that we all pay for. So, when it comes to vaccine passports, I say “bring them on”.

But when it comes to the overall management of the pandemic I’m not persuaded the Conservatives would do any worse than the Liberals. Overall I think the Liberals get a passing grade, although not outstanding and with some pretty obvious failures, but there is little in the Conservative position that concerns me, with the possible exception of vaccine passports, and as provinces with Conservative governments move to implement some form of passport (hello Ontario), it’s not unreasonable to assume a new Conservative government would not be far behind.

Aside from management of the pandemic, there are three issues that ultimately determined how I voted: climate change, management of government finances and relations with The People’s Republic of China. Others like Medical Assistance in Dying and gun control do concern me but aren’t of sufficient weight to move the dial for me.

Policies, or the lack thereof, to respond to climate change were major determinants in my voting choices in the last two federal elections. They are a big reason I voted Liberal in both of those elections although those votes were as much against the then Conservative leaders as for the Liberals. I have no doubt the Liberals will do a better job positioning Canada to fight climate change in the years ahead but I also acknowledge the Conservatives under Erin O’Toole have finally accepted the need to tax carbon emissions and have proposed a plan to do so. That O’Toole was willing to do this against the strong wishes of his base in Alberta and Saskatchewan speaks well for him but it also acknowledges the political reality on the ground elsewhere in the country.

I’m no expert on government actions to combat climate change so it’s difficult to evaluate the two plans although it’s obvious the Conservative plan aims for smaller reductions in emissions than does the Liberal one. But I don’t think that’s the end of the matter. Wthout the active cooperation of Alberta and, to a lesser extent, Saskatchewan, any plan to reduce carbon emissions is going to face a difficult if not impossible road forward. So while the Conservative plan is less ambitious than the Liberal one, it may also have a greater chance of succeeding, not just because the target is lower but because it would be implemented by a government seen as less hostile to those two prairie provinces and their oil industries. That said, I am puzzled by Erin O’Toole’s subsequent announcement he would try to restart the Northern Gateway pipeline, something that seems to undermine his environmental creds, not to mention being very unpopular in the Lower Mainland of B.C. and Vancouver Island, both vote rich areas where the Conservatives need to make gains if they are to win. Also, it isn’t lost on us in B.C. that, while he is prepared to support the Northern Gateway pipeline, he remains opposed to the Energy East pipeline through Quebec which, arguably, is a better option at least from the standpoint of the Canadian economy.

When it comes to managing government finances and getting Canada back living within its means, there should be no contest between the parties. The Liberals long ago eschewed the careful fiscal management of Paul Martin in favour of deficit financing, seemingly forever. And lest people say that’s only because of the pandemic, let’s remember the Liberals were running deficits long before the pandemic struck, deficits that far exceeded those they had campaigned on. At this point no Liberal politician seems willing to acknowledge that could be a problem down the road. Instead, with the zeal of evangelists, they tell us no amount of deficit spending is too much to “build back better”, to radically transform the role of government in Canadian society by, amongst other things, committing to a trillion dollar stimulus despite evidence the Canadian economy is coming back well from the pandemic induced recession. Believers in big government are happy as the sky is apparently now the limit when it comes to what government can provide. But there will come a time when interest rates increase and when the burden of debt weighs increasingly heavily upon Canadians. This is not going to end well.

Even the Conservatives are treading carefully on this issue which may make political sense but provides only faint hope for those who are concerned about government finances. They say they will balance the budget within ten years and without cuts. In other words, they plan to grow the economy out of deficits without Canadians feeling the least bit of pain from cuts in spending or increased taxes, this despite economists noting that plan relies on an annual growth rate that has only been achieved once over the past decade. I do trust the Conservatives more on this issue than the Liberals, but only just.

Those of you who read my blogs know I am concerned about the challenges posed to the West by the rise of communist China. In fact, I believe it represents an existential challenge that needs to be responded to by Western powers with a great deal of skill and realism.

In the past several years China has shed its benign mantle as it asserts its military and economic power across the globe. The most jarring case for Canada is the detention of the two Michaels, held as hostages by Beijing for a thousand days and counting. Any illusions the West had about a moderating China as it modernized and became more affluent have proven disastrously wrong. It’s not just Canada that has miscalculated on this file but, at least with Canada, the way forward is complicated by PRC tentacles in so many areas of Canadian public and private life. Much of that has occurred under the watch of successive Liberal governments and it’s clear conflicts of interest on this issue exist between many of the Liberal Party’s supporters and representatives, conflicts that bedevil the pursuit of a clear sighted, Canada centric policy towards China.

As long as the two Michaels are imprisoned in China few if any Canadian politicians are going to support a more pro China Canadian foreign policy but it’s when the current crisis ends that I worry about. I suspect a Liberal government will want to return to “business as usual” with China as soon as possible and I don’t think that is in Canada’s long term strategic interest. In fact, quite the opposite.

Canada must join with its democratic allies to forge a realistic and effective policy for relations with China. That policy must recognize China for what it is, not what we would like it to be or hope it will become. It must ensure we have the military capability to defend against Chinese aggression and that we lessen our economic dependence on China even if, in the short term, that means slower economic growth than would otherwise occur. And, on this file, I believe the Conservatives will do a better job.

In my previous blog on the election I cited the “Meanness Factor” as one reason I find it difficult to support the Conservatives. What I didn’t state at the time was that Meanness Factor has a Liberal counterpart that I describe as “The Sanctimony Factor”, the assumption the Liberal world view is without question the right and proper one, and those who don’t share it are to be pitied and looked down upon. This, I believe, is one reason the Liberal government keeps getting itself into scandals, most not serious enough to bring down a government but they all illustrate a sense of rectitude, of entitlement, of being allowed because the longer term objectives are just so right. I mean, how many times does Justin Trudeau have to get caught breaching ethical boundaries before he finally gets it? Truth is, I don’t think he ever will.

For over thirty years Canadians have been faced with a choice between the “Perpetual Governing Party”, the Liberals, and a Conservative Party that had become the hostage of social conservatives with roots in Alberta and Saskatchewan. As a result, many of us held our nose and voted Liberal. But this election offers another opportunity and, while it may be a long shot, it’s worth considering. Despite pandering to the conservative/populist wing of his party to get elected Leader, Erin O’Toole has not only led from the centre but has steadily forced his party to follow, whether on issues like climate change, taxation policy, LGBT issues, gun control and even abortion. And that’s not an inconsiderable achievement. I have no doubt that if he fails to do well in the election the knives will be out and he will be gone in a flash, leaving the Conservative Party an unpalatable alternative to the Liberals for most Canadians. On the other hand, if he succeeds (however that is measured), there is a real chance he can move the Conservatives back towards their Tory roots, something that would be enormously good for the health of the Canadian body politic.

Sometimes in an election there is a moment that changes everything. Sometimes it changes the entire trajectory of the campaign, or sometimes it does nothing more than determine my vote. Such a moment occurred two weeks ago when the Liberals posted a doctored video of comments Erin O’Toole made on healthcare on social media, and then followed up with an embarrassing show of faux outrage that they had to know had no basis in fact. The issue concerned the role of private providers in the Canadian healthcare system. Erin O’Toole said he supported a role for those providers within the single payor, univeral access system. That latter is what the Liberals cut out. I then witnessed Justin Trudeau in full rhetorical flourish condemning O”Toole for this outrage particularly “In the middle of a pandemic no less”. The next day I saw Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland attempting the same thing at a rally in Toronto. And I was disgusted. Not just because of the duplicity but because of the underlying belief we, the voters, were so stupid as to fall for it.

As many of you know, I spent a large part of my career working in and around healthcare in B.C. and I am often discouraged by the antics of politicians bent on scoring political points at cost of finding any way forward to a sustainable and effective public healthcare system, on the left always heading for the “third rail” of Americanization/privatization. Private providers have been selling services to the Canadian medicare system since its inception, whether doctors providing their services to patients in private clinics and then billing the system or, more recently, governments of all political stripes including the NDP contracting with private providers for diagnostic, surgical and many other services.

And yet, seeking a short term political gain, Justin Trudeau couldn’t resist playing the card no matter the cost to the system. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for me. Of course it wasn’t that single event. But it was just so typical of his behaviour and that of his government, and I am tired, really tired, of it. I’m tired of the faux empathy, the glib phrases (“because it’s 2015”), the never ending scandals, the willingness to dive into the political gutter at the drop of a hat all the while maintaining their virtue, the strutting across the world stage that is too often wince inducing, and the promises to do things differently when nothing really changes.

But can I trust the Conservatives? That’s the question friends and relatives put to me. I’m never quite sure what lies behind the question although I suspect there’s some inchoate dark fear the Conservatives if they win will become sort of Taliban lite, sweeping away hard fought gains for women, gays and lesbians, pot smokers and those in need of medical assistance in dying. None of which will happen. Even if you doubt Erin O’Toole’s sincerity, and I don’t, Canada’s constiitutional order would protect against those types of excesses. Access to abortion, marriage equality and medical assistance in dying all came about because their previous prohibitions were found to violate Canada’s constitution. Then there’s the political calculus. If the Conservatives win under O’Toole they will know they have to cling to the centre if they are going to be anything other than a one shot wonder. So, yes I can trust them at least as much as I can trust the Liberals who, by the way, have broken many previous campaign promises.

And so, for the first time since Kim Campbell was Prime Minister (and also my MP), I voted Conservative.

Just sayin

G.

A note to my NDP friends: Of course I know there is one other major political party in Canada, the NDP, but I just don’t think it has a snow ball’s hope in hell of winning. However, I am impressed with Jagmeet Singh, both as a politician and as a person, and I hope he is able to pick up some additional seats although I have no idea where they would come from.

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

Although he’s out of fashion these days, I can’t help but recall the words from Rudyard Kipling’s “Recessional” written for the Jubilee of Queen Victoria as I watch the messy end to the twenty year involvement by the West in Afghanistan’s civil war. The lines that most resonate with me are “The captains and the kings depart” to the echo of “Lest we forget. Lest we forget.”

America, accompanied by its NATO allies invaded Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of 911 and it had been determined the architects of those attacks had safe haven in Afghanistan. Prior to the invasion the Americans gave the then Taliban government the option of expelling Al Quaeda and avoiding an invasion. The Taliban refused and then faced the combined fury of the Americans and its NATO allies including Canada. America and its allies prevailed after only a few weeks of conflict but failed to capture key figures in Al Quaeda’s or the Taliban’s leadership as they melted away into the northern territories of Pakistan. And so began twenty years of Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

I believe the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was justified and, moreover, unavoidable after the 911 attacks. I also believe it was appropriate for NATO allies like Canada to stand with America in that war. I see people saying now the war should never have been started but they seem to have forgotten the trauma of 911 and the very simple fact it was the first shot in the war and it was fired from Afghanistan.

That said, what followed was neither necessary nor wise and spectacularly ignored the lessons of history. It’s not for naught Afghanistan is described as the “Graveyard of Empires”. The last foreign invader who had any sustained success there was Alexander the Great in approximately 330 BC. At the time it was part of the Persian empire that he was at war with. Although he didn’t settle there, he did leave many of his men and their followers who intermingled with the native population and whose descendants form part of the Afghani population to this day. In the intervening twenty four hundred years many foreigners have tried to subdue Afghanistan, including the British Empire and the Soviet Union, and all have failed.

I don’t think of Afghanistan as a country like all others. In fact, it fails the test of nationhood on many fronts. It is a vast territory spanning central and southern Asia and is populated by an astonishing number of separate tribes and peoples, most with their own territory, history, traditions and religions. The largest group are the Pashtuns, who also comprise approximately twenty five percent of the Pakistani population where they are mostly located in the northern tribal areas and the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and northern Balochistan. They are the backbone of the Taliban. But there are also other significant ethnic groups including Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbek, Aimaks, Turkmens, Balochs and others. What has usually united these groups throughout history is a shared antipathy to outsiders trying to occupy their lands. All are Muslims but bitterly divided by sect. The territory of Afghanistan has had the unfortunate fate of crossing the major trade routes between east and west from Asia to Europe, tempting other nations to seek to control the territory. So, warfare has been a way of life for a very long time.

As we watch the sad spectacle of people trying to escape the Taliban many are seeking to assign blame and there is a fair bit to go around, but very little should rest on Joe Biden’s shoulders. The historical record clearly shows he has been consistent in seeking to get America out of a major involvement in Afghanistan, including when he was Vice President and opposed the so called “surges” under the Obama administration. A much greater share of blame should be assigned to George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Having scattered Al Quaeda and overthrown their host government, the Taliban, George Bush and his government set about trying to transform an ethnically and religiously divided country, a country that by most standards hasn’t made it into the twentieth century, into some kind of functioning Jeffersonian democracy. And even if that had been even remotely achievable, he and his government then turned their attention and resources to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein and, with breathtaking arrogance, try to install a Jeffersonian democracy in that ancient land. As we witness today’s debacle we should never forget that it was the hard core conservatives in America who were so blinded by hubris they failed to even seriously consult the lessons of history as they drove American foreign policy in the region.

Donald Trump on the other hand made getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq central tenets of his foreign policy, one that was motivated above all else by its effect on his image and reputation. He entered into negotiations with the Taliban that effectively sidelined the government of Afghanistan and made agreements that virtually guaranteed the kind of collapse we are witnessing today. His hypocrisy in criticizing President Biden over this would be breathtaking if it wasn’t so typical of him as he places his own needs above those of his country.

Perhaps the final withdrawal could have been handled better, begun earlier, been more orderly, I just don’t know. Part of me believes the chaos we are witnessing now was inevitable and, by the way, we shouldn’t be shortchanging the remarkable efforts that are being made to evacuate Afghanis by the Western nations including Canada. And as for the criticisms of Canada’s efforts to evacuate Canadians and Afghan’s trapped there, maybe it could have been done earlier or more efficiently but, again, I’m not sure that’s the case. Despite the desperate circumstances, I still want Canada to show reasonable caution in deciding who it admits to this country, particularly from that part of the world.

Also, I am puzzled by the criticism of Canada’s efforts that are usually based on some version of “we owe them”. Let me be very clear, I wholeheartedly support bringing Afghan refugees to Canada, particularly those who are at special risk because of the Taliban’s Bronze age view of society, but I don’t do that because I think we “owe it to them” any more than we owe this opportunity to any other downtrodden, oppressed or desperate people in the world. Canada had no “skin in the game” in Afghanistan and yet it committed enormous resources to help the Afghan people in what proved to be the hopeless task of building a modern, pluralistic society. 156 young Canadian men and women died in that conflict and another 2,071 were injured, some terribly. Canada spent billions of dollars on its military and humanitarian roles and yet, by any standard, there was really nothing in it for Canada except we believed it to be the right thing to do, so when I hear “we owe it to them” I wince because, in the way that phrase is being used, I don’t think it’s correct.

Some are lamenting that the West’s defeat in Afghanistan is a big win for its rivals, particulary China, Russia and Iran. But is it really? All three are immediate geographic neighbours of Afghanistan and one, Russia, paid the same price as the West when it tried to subdue and control the country militarily. In fact, I expect all three will experience problems going forward, whether because their own restive Muslim populations are supported by the Taliban or because, in the case of Iran, Islamic rivals of the government in Tehran will use Afghanistan as a base. And as for Pakistan, well it had better watch its own Taliban very carefully. Even if particular threats to each of the countries don’t emerge immediately, the inevitable disorder and chaos in Afghanistan is going to create headaches for its neighbours right away.

There have been many tragedies in Afghanistan in its long and troubled history, this one only the most recent. The West’s first goal in invading was to prevent terrorists using it as a base from which to launch attacks against Western countries. That danger is still there and must now be met through other, less intrusive measures. To the extent it can it should also presssure the new government in Kabul to repect the rights of its people but, of course, that will have a limited effect.

And in a broader sense, the West must learn yet again that military ventures into other people’s territory almost inevitably ends in tears. Lest we forget.

Just sayin

G.

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

To absolutely no one’s surprise, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Rideau Hall on August 15 and asked the Governor General to dissolve the current Parliament and call an election for September 20, providing the shortest election period allowed by law. She, of course, granted his request and, by the way, for all those demanding she refuse it, she really had no grounds to do so. And so Canada is plunged into an election just as the fourth wave of COVID 19 is sweeping the country and as ecological disasters hammer the country from the Maritimes to British Columbia.

The justification offered by the Prime Minister for this election is twofold: first, he complained the Opposition was, well, acting like an opposition and slowing down his legislative agenda; and, second, that this is a kind of inflection point for Canada where Canadians should have a direct say in how the country should emerge from the pandemic and, in the words of the Liberals, “build back better”. Of course, both of these are nonsense. Although Prime Minister Trudeau only has a minority government, it is a strong minority and the likelihood of it being toppled by the opposition parties anytime soon is negligible to non existent. And as for the “inflection point” argument, if we’ve learned anything at all about this pandemic it’s that no one knows when or how it will end.

Those of you who follow my blogs will know I objected strongly to Premier John Horgan calling an election in B.C. during the pandemic when his minority government was working well with support from the Greens. Part of my complaint then stands today: “Stop Treating Us Like Children” and be forthright about the motivation for the election call. Anyone who was reasonably informed then, as now, knows the election is being called because the Premier or Prime Minister thinks he can turn his minority into a majority and guarantee another four years in government. There’s nothing particularly wrong about that, but it’s really insulting when the politicians think they can somehow fool us into believing their motivations are otherwise. But, of course, Premier Horgan was successful in gaining a strong majority and, presumably, Prime Minister Trudeau thinks he will be similarly rewarded.

But will he? It seems the Prime Minister and his government are counting on the general satisfaction Canadians feel over their handling of the pandemic although, I should just note, that could change rapidly if disease and death spikes as the fourth wave gains momentum. I suspect that is one of the reasons the campaign will be the shortest allowed by law. That said, they are probably right thinking most Canadians will think it unwise to change generals while we are still in the heat of battle, although yesterday’s defeat of the Liberal government in Nova Scotia may cause some worry for them.

The unfolding disaster in Afghanistan may also come back to bite the government although, generally, foreign affairs don’t decide elections in Canada and, in fact, if the government pulls off what is considered a successful evacuation of Afghan refugees, we may see Cabinet Ministers yet again greeting them at airports to much acclaim. Too cynical you say? We’ll see.

As they come out of the gate it seems the Liberals are ahead in the polls although by less than was the case just a few weeks ago. And the problem for many Canadians like me is finding an acceptable alternative to vote for. I am tired of the scandals, of the government by slogan, of the sense we all need to be “woke” and, most particularly, the view that deficits don’t matter. Once the deficit promise proved successful in the 2015 election, there was no holding the Liberals back. The sensible nostrums of Paul Martin faded like a distant quaint memory and now we are told as part of “build back better” we should re-imagine how Canada is structured, particularly the role of the federal government in all our lives.

I get the pandemic resulted in expenditures necessary to keep Canada and Canadians afloat and that led to mind boggling debt and deficits, but what I don’t get is the belief that, having gone there, the sky is now the limit, that Canada will never have to worry about debt and deficits again which, as any good student of history will tell you, is nonsense. Canada is already coming back from the pandemic induced recession at a speed few if any predicted. Employment levels are approaching pre-pandemic levels and other economic indicators are also responding strongly and yet, never wanting to let a crisis go to waste, Justin Trudeau and his government are proposing we spend billions, maybe more, on stimulus and new programs that will profoundly change Canada’s economic, government and social structure. No one on the Liberal team even wants to commit to a timeline for addressing the deficit, if not the debt. And this should concern us all.

On the other hand, the Conservatives have largely abandoned their traditional fiscal conservatism, probably sensing it would not be well received by Canadians at this point in the pandemic. They are, at least, providing a ten year horizon for eliminating the deficit and if that were the sole issue in the election, it would be enough to secure my vote. But it isn’t. We are in the middle of an environmental disaster brought on by human activity. Those of us in British Columbia are particularly aware of this as our forests burn and whole communities are wiped off the map by wildfires. And yet, when asked to support a simple statement that “Climate change is real” at their convention, Conservative delegates voted it down. What the…? Yes, Erin O’Toole has moved the party on the issue and I applaud him for that but, given his backbench and core supporters, do I really think his government would take real, meaningful action to address climate change? I do not.

The same thing can be said on management of the pandemic where the Liberals cleverly boxed him in on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccines in the first few hours of the campaign. And he fell for it. But perhaps he really had no choice because, again, his core supporters in Alberta and Saskatchewan are having no part of vaccine passports or mandatory vaccines even though the overwhelming majority of Canadians feel otherwise according to the latest polls.

And not to be forgotten, the Conservatives oppose medical assistance in dying and stronger gun control measures.

Yes, Erin O’Toole is saying all the right things on access to abortion and the rights of gays and lesbians and banning conversion therapy for them, and I believe him, but what concerns me is his backbench, not to mention his base.

Which brings me to an intangible about the Conservatives, what I call “the mean factor”. Almost without fail and no matter the issue, the Conservative spokespeople (okay, probably excluding Erin O’Toole himself), are angry, juvenile and just plain mean in so many of their comments. As if to illustrate this point just look at the attack ad they launched against Prime Minister Trudeau in the opening minutes of the campaign (I believe it has now been discontinued).

And then there’s the perennial bridesmaid, the New Democrats. Even if I thought they had the faintest hope of forming a government, I certainly wouldn’t trust them with the nation’s finances at this point, if ever.

The Greens? Enough said.

So, what do we do? I’ll certainly be watching the campaign but, at this point, I think the best outcome would be another Liberal minority government but my enthusiasm for that begins to wane when I think of “the tax and spend” Liberals supported by the “tax and spend more” NDP. Still it would be a delicious comeuppance for Prime Minister Trudeau to end up basically where he left off, after wasting god knows how many millions of dollars on a completely unnecessary election.

Just sayin

G

If you would like to receive a notice each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

It started with the end of the Second World War. The western democracies had triumphed over facism and Nazism in Europe and Asia, liberating the western half of the European continent from years of darkness and tyranny, and for much of Asia, from Japanese occupation and oppression. Of course those European countries unfortunate enough to be captured by the Russians and incorporated into the Soviet Union didn’t celebrate their liberation for long before Stalin’s tentacles locked them into a new kind of tyranny and darkness. But for the West it was a time of perhaps unparalleled optimism.

What followed was an attempt to create a new world order with supra national institutions designed to prevent the kind of slide into darkness that had characterized the first half of the twentieth century. These institutions, whether the U.N., the W.H.O, the World Bank or several others were imbued with Western ideals and values.

The very idea of the West seemed validated by its triumph and many assumed that triumph would soon envelope the rest of the world that would, in turn, adopt a western model of democratic government. This was based on certain assumptions about humanity, assumptions that liberal freedom and ideas would triumph once they were understood outside the democratic west. And with rarest exceptions, that was wrong.

But, despite decades of Cold War with the Soviet Union and poorly conceived, and often anti democratic and illegal interventions by the major Western powers in smaller countries, the belief in the ultimate ascendancy of the West persisted, no more so than in the United States that saw itself as “A shining city upon a hill” that all others wished to emulate. There were moments of doubt precipitated by particular failures like the intervention in Vietnam, but, despite them, the West’s belief in itself remained remarkably intact. With the benefit of hindsight it’s hard to understand how the lessons of those failures did not lead to a more fundamental evaluation of the world and the West’s place in it, but they didn’t.

And then the Soviet Union imploded, laying waste to the communist idea, particularly as the recently freed satelites of the Soviet Union rushed to embrace the West and democracy. The absolute triumph of democracy, free enterprise and capitalism seemed assured. In fact, the words “The end of history” entered the lexicon as if the Western democratic triumph would be forever preserved in amber as all other historical impulses and movements stopped. Again with hindsight, how that idea could dominate without serious question is a mystery as it ignores all the history of mankind.

I’m not sure at what point it finally became obvious the West’s triumphalism was seriously blinded by hubris and a failure to understand humanity. It may have started when it overreached and ignored the commitments it gave to President Gorbachev by expanding NATO eastwards towards Russia igniting it’s well founded historical paranoia about invasion from the west. It may have been when American outrage at the attacks of September 11 caused it to cast aside caution and enter seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It may have been when the “Arab Spring” gave rise to optimism the ancient nations and tribes of the Arab world would transform themselves into western style democracies but, instead, substituted one form of tyranny for another, or worse, fractured into warring factions and, in the case of Syria, all out civil war. Or, closer to home, it may have been not so subtle stirrings of chauvanism and nativism in the western democracies themselves, whether the National Front in France, BREXIT in the United Kingdom or, ultimately, MAGA and Donald Trump in America.

And as each of these seismic shifts occurred, countries on the periphery of the democratic West, countries that, in their dash away from communism had rushed towards democracy and the affluence of the West, began to show how shallow their commitments to the Western idea was. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic all began to founder on the inherent conflict between their ancient beliefs and prejudices and the liberal openness demanded by the West. And in all cases the flashpoint for these countries was the treatment of gays and lesbians, something already presaged by Russia. Ultimately, these countries wanted the affluence of the West without its core values whether on human rights, freedom of the press and respect for minorities in democratic societies. And now, at least in the case of Hungary, they, having received the economic benefits of their involvement with the west, are openly proclaiming their wish to disengage from the institutions that provided those benefits.

We assume, I believe correctly, that it is not possible to decouple the economic prosperity from the values that create an open and dynamic society, whether expressed through human rights or economic freedoms. If, or more likely when, countries like Hungary either leave the EU or are booted out, we will see if that is the case. As China amply demonstrates, it is possible to achieve economic prosperity without democracy and freedom but that model may not be transferrable to ancient western countries.

It seems that the Western idea is in retreat as it confronts authoritarian dictatorships or at least quasi dictatorships from China to Brazil to Russia. How did this happen?

For starters, as I said earlier, the belief in Western triumphalism ignores the lessons of history and the nature of mankind. It is not enough to set up a democratic structure and assume it will prosper, at least as we in the West understand. And even the most robust democracies are vulnerable to abuse where the core communal understandings of a population fracture. The best illustration of this today is America where Donald Trump and his legions nearly overthrew what was supposed to be the strongest democracy in the world. And if it could nearly happen in America what should we expect in Russia, or China or any of the other countries that have not experienced the slow, incremental accumulation of civil understandings, trust and belief that are the bedrock of democracy? The simple truth is there are relatively few countries in the world whose civil and political history is sufficient to maintain a stable and healthy democracy. And that is a lesson the West never seems to have learned.

Those of us who live in the West must accept that different peoples are going to organize their societies differently and, at times, those differences will be profoundly offensive to those of us who believe in democracy, freedom and human rights. But that’s the world we’re in and the sooner our leaders acknowledge that and stop governing by aphorism the better.

And then we have climate change.

Like many I suspect, I have long understood climate change is a major threat to humanity that needs to be taken seriously but that threat was somehow in the distant future, ignoring the more strident voices calling for radical change to address it now. As I write this in British Columbia we are entering the third heat wave of the summer when it is relatively uncommon for us to have even one. This began with the unprecedented “heat dome” that enveloped the province in mid June causing hundreds of deaths. One of the worst wildfire seasons ever to hit this province is blackening forests, destroying whole communities and filling our air with harmful smoke. And if any further evidence of the urgency of the crisis is needed, just look around the world. Much of the Mediterranean is experiencing wildfires every bit as damaging as those in B.C., as is the entire west coast of America. Drought, the like of which hasn’t been seen since the “dirty thirties”, is baking Canada’s bread basket on the prairies while much of the American southwest is running out of water. Tornadoes are touching down in parts of Canada where previously they were virtually unknown. Hurricane Harvey stalled over the American southeast, dumping 27 trillion gallons of rain on Texas alone. And this summer torrential rains are causing catastrophic flooding in parts of Germany while wildfires rage across Siberia. These are only the most obvious effects and lead to one inescapable conclusion: the world is rapidly approaching a tipping point beyond which it is hard to forecast how, where and indeed, if, humanity can survive.

And, even in the midst of this crisis, the world’s leaders fail to lead. Climate change deniers still hold a significant place in American political culture and it’s unclear whether the leaders of countries like China or India are willing to take the political risks of rapidly shifting their economies away from fossil fuels. Of course it’s not fair to ask third and second world countries to make such dramatic shifts now but, without them, climate change is unstoppable. And so the world burns.

And then there’s disease.

The COVID 19 pandemic has shaken the world’s optimism to its core. Everything we were raised to believe about the triumph of medical science over the diseases of the past has been called into question by the emergence of a microscopic, simple organism that spreads disease, disability and death in its wake while bringing economies to their knees and destabling already weakened countries. It is reasonable to expect some countries will not survive the pandemic, that they will fracture irreparably along class, economic and tribal lines leaving in their wake uncontrolled swathes of land that, ultimately, will pose a threat to us all. This is not the soil in which to nurture liberal democracies and we should expect increased numbers of authoritarian rulers promising security to their people which, in the circumstances, will eclipse any other interest or need. It is already happening.

So, is this the end of times? I’m not sure but at the very moment the world needs trans-national institutions that can bring nations together to take decisive and effective action those created after the Second World War are failing whether because of the duplicity of countries like China as it joined them or because of the so called populist revolts roiling so many previously stable and reliable nations. The bitter irony is the more disruption occurs, the more populations seek simple solutions that pander to their basest instincts and push their leaders away from engagement towards isolation. Compounding this is the ease with which snake oil salesmen, grifters and completely unprincipled opportunists move into leadership positions.

While we may be witnessing nothing more than an inflection point in the millennia long struggle between democracy and tyranny, with democracies diminishing for what one hopes is not a new dark age, given the exigencies of climate change and pandemic, that inflection point could prove fatal to civilization as we know it or perhaps even to the survival of the human race.

Although written at another time fraught with danger and uncertainty, the words of William Butler Yeats hold a fearful relevance today:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.”

(“The Second Coming” First stanza)

Just sayin

G

If you would like to receive a notification each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

As soon as the Canadian government permitted fully vaccinated Canadians to return to Canada without undergoing a fourteen day quarantine I booked a flight to New York for a six day visit. As those of you who follow my blogs know, New York holds a special place in my heart having visited it several times a year for the past fifty years until the pandemic intervened. Watching from the west coast as the pandemic ravaged the city, I was anxious to see what had survived. And what I found was encouraging. But first, the trip itself.

I have travelled a great deal in my life and have had some bad travel experiences but none, absolutely none, prepared me for the seventeen hour marathon it took to get from Manhattan to my home in Vancouver. The trip to New York was characterized by lineups and mask wearing and a certain level of discomfort but, compared the return, it was pure luxury.

The first sign of trouble appeared the night before my departure when I tried to check in online. I was ticketed with American Airlines through Seattle but, unbeknownst to me, American had contracted the flight to a discount airline called Jet Blue. The next morning I made my way to JFK, fully masked and ready for some difficulty until the plane took off. I was deposited at Terminal Five which, it seems, is occupied entirely by Jet Blue and, if they were seeking to create the perfect petri dish for virus transmission, succeeded magnificently. Although only six a.m., the terminal was absolutely packed with tens of thousands of people moving cheek by jowl as I tried to find how to check in and get rid of my luggage. There were long lineups everywhere. The check in kiosk wouldn’t let me check in so I joined a line which, eventually, led me to a real person who checked me in and sent me to another line where, after waiting, I left my checked luggage. Then I lined up for security and, just when I thought I was home free, had to stand in another long line just to purchase a cup of coffee.

My flight was two hours late and packed, and when I arrived in Seattle it was technically too late to catch my Vancouver connection. Fortunately, an Alaska agent took pity on me and somehow got me to the gate and on the plane. Arriving in Vancouver, I stood in three, very slow moving lines. The first one was to talk to a customs agent. The second, to register for a test. The third was to actually get the test and finally I was free to stand in another line waiting for a taxi on a hot summer night. As I said, seventeen hours after I left my hotel in Manhattan I walked into my home in Vancouver (I could exaggerate and say I dropped to my knees and kissed the floor, but you get the picture).

My point in telling this (and believe me, I have left out many, many aggravating events that added to the discomfort), is to offer a cautionary tale to my friends who are contemplating breaking out of quarantine and exploring the world. It just may not be worth it.

As for New York however, it was great to see the city again, damaged, quieter, but still New York. There are boarded store fronts but not as many as I feared. A number of restaurants have disappeared but all those I regularly patronize had somehow managed to survive and were very welcoming when I walked back through their doors. My friend Linda took me on a tour of the Frick Madison which, as expected, was beautiful, and MOMA continued to delight as did the Whitney. Unfortunately my attempt to see a show at the Metropolitan was thwarted by it only currently open Thursday though Sunday. All the museums required timed reservations and of course, that heart of New York, Broadway, remains mostly dark. Even there though, there are signs of life as plans are being announced for shows in the fall. So, as I never really doubted, New York is coming back, maybe not the same, but still New York.

One thing about being in America that I did not enjoy was being re-submerged in the putrid swamp of today’s American politics. Since Donald Trump was defeated in the 2020 election I have mostly tuned out American news, if only to maintain my sanity. But when you’re there it is unavoidable. The current flash point concerns vaccinations or, more precisely, the refusal of millions of Americans to get vaccinated against COVID 19 despite the country being awash in effective and safe vaccines that the rest of the world is desperate for. A fourth wave of the un-vaccinated is gaining steam across the populations of red states that strongly supported Donald Trump and, presumably in an attempt to make life difficult for the Biden administration, are now refusing to get vaccinated. CNN interviewed several people in Missouri who were refusing to get vaccinated and offering excuses like: “I don’t trust the government”, to “COVID is no worse than the flu”, to my favourite of all spat out by a man in his sixties “I’m not a guinea pig” (I couldn’t help but think a more appropriate animal might be a lemming). And now hospitals and ICU’s are filling up, death rates are climbing and break-through infections are appearing amongst the vaccinated. At this rate, we are only a few mutations away from a variant that can avoid the current vaccines and those mutations are being fuelled by the un-vaccinated. Even in New York, that most liberal of American cities, there are significant pockets of un-vaccinated, led by Staten Island and parts of the Bronx. In the latter case, that’s probably a result of justifiable distrust of government by Black and Latino Americans but it only further complicates the task of achieving a sufficiently high level of vaccination to contain the virus.

As those of you who know me well can attest, I have long been a supporter of America, its ideals, its achievements, its focus on freedom and free enterprise, this despite its flaws and failures. But now I genuinely wonder if the idea of America can survive the current divisions, said to be worse than at any time since the Civil War. The challenge of the pandemic may well be its breaking point. And then god help the rest of the world’s democracies.

just sayin

G

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

The effort to vaccinate Americans against COVID 19 is stalling out and, with the arrival of the “Delta Variant”, a new epidemic of COVID 19 is breaking out amongst the un-vaccinated across America. President Biden’s goal of achieving independence from the pandemic by Independence Day, with at least 70% of eligible Americans vaccinated, has failed, the number stalling out somewhere in the mid to high sixties. Rates of infection are rising in every state in the union with the most alarming rises occurring in states that are conservative strongholds of the Republican Party and with low rates of vaccination.

Canada also has anti-vaxers” but it seems a much smaller proportion of the population than in the U.S. and the vaccination program continues apace, approaching 80% of the eligible population with at least one shot of one of the vaccines. That still means approximately 20% of the eligible population is yet to be vaccinated but polls show that, of that group, approximately only 3% say they will definitely not get a vaccine. And so the longed for goal of “herd immunity” is within reach north of the 49th parallel.

Although there are obvious differences between the two countries (at least to Canadians), it never would have occurred to anybody that there would be a difference on such an elemental health question as whether or not to get vaccinated against a deadly virus that has already killed more than 600 thousand Americans. But here we are with American states discarding unused vaccines while the rest of the world is begging for them. A recent poll showed that 47% of Republicans say they will not get vaccinated. I don’t know whether that is of registered Republicans, self identified Republicans, or the seventy five million Americans who voted for Donald Trump but, any way, it is a very large group of people.

I assume that most of the people refusing to be vaccinated participated in childhood vaccination programs, at least some of which were mandatory. I’m of an age that I remember the terror of polio and the miraculous relief that the polio vaccine delivered. We were also vaccinated for several other things, like small pox and measles, and I’m pretty sure the same thing occurred in America. And because of that, these childhood diseases are no longer a threat. But now, when a new, deadly disease comes along, many Americans refuse to be vaccinated against it.

The speedy development of effective vaccines against COVID 19 is nothing short of a medical miracle. I understand that some who are hesitating are waiting for the regular authorization from the Food and Drug Administration instead of the current emergency authorizations but this is likely to be only a small fraction of those refusing to be vaccinated. America has always had a loud anti-vaccination lobby and, lest we think it is just restricted to Republicans, I should note that Robert Kennedy Jr. is probably the loudest voice in that lobby today. That said, we are still confronted with polls showing 80-90% of Democrats getting vaccinated or planning to and, as noted above, more than 40% of Republicans refusing.

I get that America is terribly divided politically and that a large number of Republicans believe the last election was somehow stolen from them despite all evidence to the contrary. And, right along with that, I understand millions of Americans think Donald Trump behaved suitably as President although, as I’ve said before, that is simply incomprehensible to me. But I also operate under the assumption that people will act to protect themselves and those they care about when confronted with a mortal threat. And yet, despite over 600,000 Americans already dead from COVID 19 and counting, despite the many months of disruptions to daily life, despite the alarming scenes of Emergency Departments and whole hospitals on the verge of collapse during the pandemic, millions still refuse to take the one easy step that will protect them and those around them. How can that be?

I have friends and family who are Republicans and who voted for Donald Trump. I don’t know the vaccination status of most of them. I hope and pray they are doing the sensible thing and getting vaccinated. But, in some ways, they are typical of many Americans who supported Trump so I really don’t know if they are. These, by the way, are well educated, middle class Americans who certainly benefited from childhood vaccination programs and generally respect science.

Is the divide in America now so great that nearly half of the country participates in delusional thinking about vaccines and science generally? It’s beginning to look that way even as all of us benefit from the progress that has been made based on facts and science over the last several centuries.

And then there’s the question: Why do I care? Well, for starters, I care about these people but even if that were not the case, their actions are affecting everyone else. Even if the next “waves” are limited to the unvaccinated, it is likely restrictions on the daily lives of all of us will have to be brought back or even strengthened. Also, even for the fully vaccinated, there is risk. Risk that we get a “breakthrough” infection, risk to those who are unable to be vaccinated, risk to those, particularly the elderly, whose bodies don’t mount a strong response to the vaccines and, most fearful of all, risk that the quickly mutating virus will use the petri dish of the unvaccinated to evolve to a point that it can evade the vaccines.

So what the people refusing to get vaccinated are doing is not just foolish, it’s selfish.

And yet they continue. As is pretty obvious now, I find it utterly baffling to the point I seriously ask “are we even the same species?”

just sayin

G

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 corner of your screen each time you open the blog.

July 1st was Canada Day, the annual celebration of this country that we mark as founded one hundred and fifty four years ago. It was unlike any Canada Day I’ve experienced. Western Canada, and particularly British Columbia, endured the hottest weather ever recorded here; weather that led to lightning strikes and fires, one of which decimated the town of Lytton which, for the previous three days, had surpassed the all time Canadian heat record, culminating on Tuesday at 49.7 degrees Centigrade or, for those of you who use the Fahrenheit scale, approximately 122 degrees. As I write this it is unclear how many lives were lost in the heat and fire. It seems the consequences of climate change are affecting us faster and more dramatically than most had expected.

Even without the weather, fires and loss though, there was something else about this Canada Day that made it stand apart: it came just as the country was coming to terms with the “discovery” of unmarked graves adjacent to Indian Residential Schools. There is little doubt more such graves will be discovered in the weeks and months ahead, forcing Canadians to confront a dark chapter in our history: the forced removal of indigenous children from their families and their placement in Indian Residential Schools where they were often neglected and mistreated.

Not surprisingly, there is almost universal shock at these discoveries in the non-native population, as it begins to understand the legacy of those schools and their role in the treatment of native Canadians throughout Canada’s history. They also begin to explain the seeming breakdown of aboriginal communities in Canada. And with that shock came a predictable call to “cancel” Canada Day. Many municipalities did cancel Canada Day celebrations out of concern for their effect on native Canadians in light of these recent developments although, given the native Canadians have been aware of these burial sites for years, it’s unclear to me how that would have happened.

What struck me most during these events is the reaction of some non natives who have become the fiercest advocates for cancelling and who, on social media, respond to any celebration of Canada with cries of “genocide” or “racist nation” which is in stark contrast to the messages of native leaders who, instead of demanding vengeance, have been remarkably restrained in their comments, generally calling for reflection and understanding and hoping this moment will speed the work of reconciliation. I wonder what inspires such fury and blindness to all that is good in Canada in these non native Canadians?

And then there are the criminal responses to the discoveries: burning churches, desecrating public spaces and destroying monuments to men and women who played a central part in the creation of Canada. As I noted in a previous blog, while the Catholic Church played the largest role in operating the Indian Residential Schools, other denominations also operated schools. But while the Catholic Church, thus far, has refused to apologize or fully cooperate with those investigating the schools, both the Anglican and the United churches have and have paid some restitution. That hasn’t stopped arsonists from attacking them too as churches across the country are being torched.

Mobs have also attacked, defaced and destroyed statues of Captain James Cook, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II, Sir John A. MacDonald and Egerton Ryerson. Some cheer them on but for most Canadians this is deeply offensive and an attack on our history. That’s recognized by leaders of the aboriginal communities who are asking whomever is behind these attacks to stop, fearing an angry reaction by non native Canadians, with this opportunity to advance reconciliation lost.

I have no difficulty with people expressing their views peacefully and, in fact, many Canada Day parades were replaced by marches and protests that were appropriate, but the criminal behaviours are profoundly un-Canadian. By that I mean they go against the strong ethos for negotiation, compromise and accommodation that is central to the Canadian experience. Without it, this country wouldn’t have come into existence, let alone survived for over one hundred and fifty years. It’s what compels Canada to seek reconciliation with its native population when almost no other country in the world does. Weakening it is dangerous and short sighted, and drives us into opposing silos that are much more typical of our American cousins than of us.

Also, if we cancel Canada because of past behaviour and decisions, why stop at the the treatment of native Canadians? Why not turn our backs on Canada for all its misdeeds throughout history? There are other people in Canada with grievances that arguably rival those of native Canadians. And yes, I’m from one of those groups:

What about Chinese Canadians who were systematically and statutorily discriminated against and excluded until well into the twentieth century?

What about the discrimination against Ukrainian immigrants to Canada up until late in the twentieth century, including their internment during the First World War?

What about Japanese Canadians who were interred in camps and had their belongings stolen by this country during the Second World War?

What about Canada’s attitudes towards Jews for most of its history, attitudes that led to discriminatory treatment and hard limits on Jewish immigration, not to mention refusing entry to Jewish refugees on the MS St. Louis in 1939, forcing them back to Nazi Europe where two hundred and fifty perished in concentration camps?

What about discrimination against south Asians and, particularly, the Komagata Maru episode where Canada refused entry to refugees from British India and forced them to return to Calcutta?

And what about Canada’s treatment of gays and lesbians through most of its history, treatment that saw us harassed, imprisoned, fired from the civil service, expelled from the military and actively discriminated against in almost all areas of our lives?

Like every other country, Canada’s history includes actions and attitudes that most condemn today. But, and this is a very big “but”, Canada is almost alone (with a nod to New Zealand) in trying to right those wrongs, at least in so far as events in the past can be righted. And that’s because of who we are as a people, a people who have succeeded against all odds to create a modern, wealthy, successful, multi cultural and multi ethnic country in terrain that is mostly hostile to human habitation. We continue that tradition as we welcome the downtrodden and oppressed from around the world.

The world is a better place because Canada is in it and that has been so for well over one hundred years. I’m not going to list the many good things Canada has done or is doing. Any reasonably informed Canadian knows that list as well as I. From its very beginning Canada required compromise and accommodation, a willingness to acknowledge mistakes and change course, correcting what was wrong and constantly reinforcing our vision of a tolerant and welcoming society for the future.

And that’s what it means to be a Canadian today.

just sayin

G

If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Some of you may have received an earlier, incomplete version of this blog. I’m not sure what happened but it falls into the category of technological error.

Since I started this blog a year or so ago I have never reviewed a book in it but I have just finished one that the world needs to know about. It is “Empire of Pain” by Patrick Radden Keefe who is a regular contributor to the New Yorker.

Like most I suspect, I haven’t given much attention to the Opioid crisis that in Canada has been going on for five years. Of course I’ve seen the news reports that it is having a particularly devastating impact on my home province of British Columbia, causing the deaths of thousands of it’s citizens. I’ve also listened to Doctor Bonnie Henry’s comments on this crisis in the midst of the other health emergency, the COVID 19 pandemic. Still, I’ve assumed it was somebody else’s problem even as I witnessed some of its victims in my own neighbourhood. We are told it is a crisis that has reached all corners of the province, that it isn’t just confined to the war zone of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside or to the most marginalized amongst us, and yet I still assumed it was. Implicit in that belief is a sense that drug addicts mostly have themselves to blame for their condition which, as a gay man who survived the Aids epidemic, is an astonishing blind spot.

And then I read “Empire of Pain”.

This is not a book that most of us would normally read and yet, in my view, it should be. It details how the drug industry aggressively marketed opioids beginning in the 1970’s through to the present day, opioids that they knew, or at least should have known, were addictive. Empire of Pain details this development through a focus on one company, Purdue Pharmaceuticals and it’s owners, the Sackler family. To the extent I had heard anything about the Sacklers, it was because of their philanthropy and the naming rights that came with it, whether the Sackler Wing and fountain at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York or similar such places in New York or London. They were major donors, almost always with the stipulation their name be prominently attached to whatever resulted from their donations. It certainly had nothing to do with the dark history behind their wealth from the sale of addictive pharmaceuticals.

In many ways the story is an American tragedy played out at several levels. First, you have the inspiring tale of immigrants from central Europe who settled in Brooklyn and had three sons, all of whom became doctors. The eldest, Arthur, epitomized so many things many of us admire about America and Americans. The endless ambition, the belief that hard work and risk taking should and will be rewarded financially, the commitment to family and to charity. And yet, even in the beginning, the seeds of their downfall were being planted.

Arthur Sackler, while epitomizing so much that is good in America, was also one of the early proponents of pharmaceutical advertising to the public that now fills the airwaves in America, complete with a spillover into Canada, and that, in the name of profit, can distort best medical practice. He was also a pioneer in the field of pain management and made his fortune marketing Valium and Librium through Purdue Pharmaceuticals. That both seem almost innocent in relation to what came next doesn’t lessen his role in creating a huge group of opioid addicts around the world. He died at a relatively young age and his branch of the family sold its interest in Purdue to his two surviving brothers, Jonathan and Mortimer.

The surviving brothers and their offspring were the driving force behind the development of Oxycontin which they marketed aggressively to the public, to pharmacists and to doctors. This, despite evidence it was highly addictive and, in its absence, was a gateway to other drugs like Heroin and Fentanyl. Millions were ensnared in this vicious trap while the family made billions from it.

Empire of Pain presents a meticulous record of the efforts by the Sackler family to push greater and greater amounts of Oxycontin into the market. It details a shocking lack of due diligence by the appropriate regulatory authorities in controlling them and, in startling detail, outlines how the vast fortunes assembled by the family were marshalled to corrupt governments and politicians. It acknowledges the Sacklers were not alone in pushing America and then much of the world into an opioid crisis by naming other pharmaceutical companies such as Johnson and Johnson, drug store chains, pharmacists and physicians who, perhaps blinded by the emoluments and money offered them, turned away from their ethical and professional obligations.

It is a story that spans the twentieth century, and now is twenty one years into the twenty first, and it implicates all types of individuals, some of whom are usually regarded with respect if not reverence in the telling of recent American history. It also gives important background for the breakdown of parts of the American working and middle class, leaving communities decimated, despairing and open to the blandishments of religious and political carnies. It provides important background about the fracturing of American society, as well as other, mostly western, societies.

And it makes a compelling argument that behind it all was the drive of one family for wealth and secular immortality. Their blindness to any culpability is astonishing for its arrogance, or perhaps, its ignorance. And the story is not yet over. State and federal attorneys generals have launched dozens of state and federal court actions against them but, through it all, the Sacklers have somehow used their great wealth and the influence that comes with it to avoid culpability. When and how it will end is hard to predict, noting that a recent settlement agreement has been rejected by too many states for it to be implemented. The most telling objection being that it leaves far too much wealth with the family and barely registers their guilt.

I should also note how readable the book is. It proceeds from the very first page as if it was a screenplay in many acts even though the reader likely already knows the outcome remains uncertain.

It is rare that I recommend a book but this is an exception.

Just sayin

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 open the blog.

With the discovery of perhaps two hundred and fifty unmarked graves on the property of The Kamloops Indian Residential School Canadians have been forced to confront a dark chapter in Canada’s history, one that has been mostly ignored by non native Canadians to date. The reactions have been almost universal in their condemnation of the Indian Residential School system with its intent to eradicate native cultures in Canada. As I said in an earlier blog, it is a jarring and difficult wake up call, one that should see Canadians of all races, religions and creeds turn a laser focused look at that part of our history, and then recommit to reconciliation between native Canadians and non native Canadians.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this reaction has deteriorated into an angry mob denouncing this country, its history and those leaders who contributed to its founding and success. The language being used to describe Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada’s first Prime Minister and Egerton Ryerson, a Methodist Minister and early education reformer who, amongst other things, pioneered free public education in Canada, is usually reserved for some of the great monsters of history like Adolph Hitler or Paul Pot. Both MacDonald and Ryerson played a part in the design and creation of the Indian Residential School System that is now the subject of so much condemnation.

The Victoria City Council has cancelled Canada Day in British Columbia’s capital city, citing concerns over the effect of that celebration on native Canadians after the Kamloops discovery. And right on cue, there is a growing chorus calling for Canada Day to be cancelled.

Two days ago a retiring NDP MP, Mumilaaq Quaqqaq, a native Canadian, described Canada as “A racist failure”. Aside from being untrue on so many levels, this claim, while maybe feeling good in the present, won’t speed reconciliation but will make it less likely for non native Canadians to view the plight of native Canadians with the kind of empathy needed to complete the work of reconciliation. To illustrate why that is so important, consider the population statistics. Canada is a nation of about 38 million, of which only 1.67 million self identify as “native”, thirty six percent of whom are Metis (mixed race).

Similarly, the move to cancel Canada Day or to remove memorials to the leaders who founded this country will drive us apart, not bring us together. It feels as if the response to extinguishing native cultures should be to extinguish non native culture. And the non native population of Canada will not tolerate that.

I am shocked and saddened by what I have learned about the Indian Residential School system and I will support any and all appropriate measures to undo the wrongs visited upon native Canadians by that system. But, and I want to be very clear about this, I am not sorry my grandparents immigrated to Canada in the late nineteenth century, nor that waves of European immigrants came here in the preceding two hundred years and laid the foundation for this great country we call home.

Displacing populations is a constant of human history going back through millennia. In fact, I am mostly descended from Celts who were pushed to the harshest edges of the British Isles by successive invasions by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Normans. While those events are far off historically compared to the treatment of the native populations of Canada, they still affect the descendants of the dispossessed. I’m not trying to justify the Canadian treatment of it’s aboriginal population by saying it has always happened, just to put it into an historical context that shows the Canadian experience is far from unique and certainly not the worst of its kind.

Whatever its flaws, Canada has much to be proud of over its relatively short life. It is a prosperous, free democracy. In fact it is one of the oldest functioning democracies in the world. It has risen heroically to the defence of freedom many times, most notably in the fight against fascism in the Second World War. It practically invented peacekeeping from Suez to Cypress to Bosnia. It has never engaged in a war of aggression against another country. It welcomes refugees and immigrants from all over the world even in this day and age when the doors of so many other nations are being slammed in their faces. It provides a level of social support to its citizens through programs like Medicare, the Old Age Pension, Workers’ Compensation and so many others that outshine most other countries. And, most importantly, it knows its work is not complete as it continues to work to eliminate inequality and discrimination of all kinds, from racism to homophobia. So, yes, there is much to celebrate on Canada Day.

None of this means Canada is perfect nor that things didn’t happen in its past that were wrong, certainly by today’s standards. But what country on earth is? And Canada keeps working at it even when the task seems impossible. And that includes Canada’s attempts to reconcile with its native population. In fact, I believe there is no other country on earth that tries so hard, or that commits so many resources, to reconciling with its native population as Canada. And yet it is dismissed as a racist failure.

Without the arrival of Europeans in North America, Canada would not be. Of course the displaced native populations mourn their loss and wish for a pre-European time. But that isn’t going to happen. Not now. Not ever. Which, by the way, is why I question the point of the endless acknowledgements of being on “unceded lands” of whichever native tribe when no reasonable person could ever expect much of that land will ever be returned to its previous native occupants.

We should and must learn from our mistakes. And, no question, when it comes to our treatment of the native populations there have been many mistakes, although it strikes me as wrong to assume only malice in our ancestors’ behaviour. We must address those mistakes with apologies and compensation where that is possible and reasonable, and we must redouble our efforts, guided by the native peoples themselves, to create room in this great country for them to thrive and prosper.

Something that worries me in the current round of hand wringing and mea culpas is that, with the predictable push to the extreme edges, the majority of non native Canadians, who make up something like ninety eight percent of the population, will either turn against the need for reconciliation or will simply ignore it. When language is used that describes Canada as a “failed racist state”, when the founders of this country are mocked and diminished without any regard to the great good they accomplished in their lives, when the demands for justice are embedded in a rigid belief that the only path to it is the effective dismantling of this great country, then the battle is lost because non native Canadians like me will never, ever, allow that to happen.

just sayin

G

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 open the blog.

My old cat died last week. He was nearly 18 years old and is the last in a long line of cats going back nearly fifty years. First there was Mouse. Then Mimi and Trouble. And finally, Tad and Scudder. Scudder outlived his brother by five years. I miss him. Of course I do. But, thinking about him also makes me think about the relationship between human beings and pets.

First, let me get a bit of tired thinking out of the way, you know the thinking that puts people into either a “cat” or “dog” category. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I like dogs as much as I like cats. The difference is I would never keep a dog in an apartment which is where I live. And I had a wonderful dog growing up. He was an Irish Setter and his name was “Rusty”. I was five when he joined our family, and seventeen when he died. That was the first great loss of my life.

People like to debate which is better: a cat or a dog? But when we look at what each brings to the relationship with humans today I’m not sure there is that much of a difference. I understand that dogs have been domesticated much longer than cats, dogs likely first joining humans when we were still in our hunter gatherer stage, and cats later when we had settled down into farming. Both brought useful skills to people at the time. Dogs helping with hunting and gathering. Cats preying on vermin and birds that threatened agricultural crops. So that may account for the earliest connections but does little to explain the vestigial connections that thrive all over the world. Of course farmers still have dogs and cats to help with farming although as I recall from my childhood there is usually a distinction between a “house” cat and a “barn” cat, the latter presumably having to work harder for its board.

The debate over comparisons between cats and dogs usually involves an assertion that one is more intelligent than the other. I really don’t know what that means. It seems obvious that dogs have larger brains but, on the other hand, cats have brains perfectly evolved to meet their particular circumstances. Of course the measure of intelligence may get mixed up with how each interacts with humans, with dogs seemingly more affectionate and attentive. But that is hardly a measure of intelligence. In fact, it might be the opposite. People who have little experience with cats assume they are not very friendly. And they are wrong. Cats, as long as you understand they are cats and not tiny humans, can be very affectionate although it’s not as unconditional as that from a dog. To add to this, dogs have eyes that are seemingly more expressive, often coupled with a muscle wrinkle between them that causes humans to project all sorts of sympathetic interpretations. Cats, with the exception of opening and closing, express very little direct meaning from their eyes causing the uninitiated to think them cold and inscrutable when, in fact, they are not necessarily either.

The comparisons aside, I’m still puzzled by the relationship between them and humans now the most obvious utilitarian reasons for it have disappeared. What is it about a cat or a dog that humans find so attractive?

Some might argue these pets are surrogates for children but that only goes so far as “family” pets are shared with all members of a family.

And now I’m going to talk about what I know best: cats. There’s considerable truth to the idea that while a cat may be someone’s pet, that person is also the cat’s human. Especially if you raise a cat from kitten-hood, the bond is deep and strong. You delight in the cat’s playing and purring and it delights in your providing food, shelter and affection. And the affection is very important. Whats more, it’s reciprocated. Scudder would often nip me. Well, not actually a nip. He would just nuzzle into my arm and bring his teeth together. Some might say all he was doing was looking after himself, asking for affection for himself, but that would do him injustice. It was his way of saying he really really liked me, at least as far as a cat could formulate that thought. And after all, how different is that from the affection we receive from another animal or, for that matter, another human being? They say they really really like you and you reciprocate. So, I guess in a way, it’s all transactional. But it’s more than that. There is a bond of affection between the two. Oh, don’t expect a cat to express the complex emotions of a human but, in its way, it feels something warm and generous. When Mouse was an adult I saw him looking off in the distance and asked my partner: “What do you think’s going on in his head” to which he replied: “very little”. Undoubtedly true by human standards but, in the world of cats, the thoughts are as complex and sufficient as they need to be.

I actually hold the view that, for many of us, our lives are not complete without that kind of interaction with another living thing. Although I phrase it that way, I’m generally of the view that mammals are the best match with cats and dogs at the head of the line.

Or maybe philosophizing about the relationship between cats and humans is just too precious. Maybe what we feel for cats is as simple as the joy and laughter they give us, you know, play. Perhaps they remind us of ourselves a long time ago when the world still held mysteries, shocks and surprises. I have so many funny, joyous memories with my cats, although some did not seem particularly funny at the time. Sitting in front of my fireplace reading when a large and old Pre-Columbian sculpture came crashing and smashing to the ground and looking up to the ledge high above the fireplace to see Mimi’s bright blue eyes looking down at me in wonder, perhaps unsure what all the commotion was about. Or maybe she was just feigning innocence. Or during the dinner party I hosted for the Millenium when Trouble was sitting on the rather capacious stomach of one of my guests and, as I popped the cork on the champagne at midnight, launched himself in response across the room, leaving my guest bloodied and howling as the launch pad. Or the time I heard Tad wailing from the dining room only to find him impaled on the antlers of a bronze deer sculpture, he having tried to emulate his little brother whose nickname was Nadia Comaneci because of his agility jumping, climbing, scaling anywhere. Although it wasn’t so funny when little brother, Scudder, decided he would go for a walk outside the railing on my twenty ninth story patio only to slip, fall to the ground and survive. Although I should just note he never, ever went near the edge of any patio again. And then there’s all the other less memorable but equally joyful times when one of them would suddenly react as if some monster was chasing him and run frantically all over the house. Not to mention chasing tails or, my favourite, using the hallway outside my bedroom door to emulate a 737 on takeoff, usually at two or three in the morning.

So, as I said earlier, Scudder is the last in a long line and, yes, that does mean there won’t be another. At my age the prospect of leaving a cat behind seems wrong. But I will cherish all their memories for the rest of my life.

*with apologies to James Kirkwood

Just sayin

G

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