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.

One of the more remarkable things about the Democratic Presidential nomination contest is the presence of an out gay man, married to another man, as one of the leading candidates. When Pete Buttigieg announced his intention to seek the nomination it caused barely a ripple. He was a largely unknown small city mayor with little if any national presence and given virtually no chance of sustaining a lengthy campaign for the nomination, let alone winning it. His opponents were polite, if perhaps a little condescending towards the thirty seven year old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, feeling, I suspect, it was good to have an openly gay candidate in the race as it enhanced the Democratic Party’s credentials as inclusive and representative of all Americans.

But something happened in the intervening twelve months, something no one would have predicted. Mayor Pete, as both his supporters and opponents now call him, not only persisted but grew in strength, attracting mind boggingly large donations and consistently registering in the next tier of candidates behind the front runners: Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders. People who always assumed he would be one of the first candidates to exit the race watched in surprise as the young man from Indiana held his own against a field of much more familiar and experienced faces. In fact, he not only held his ground, he actually gained with his calm, sensible, centrist positions while swatting away questions about his sexual orientation and youth with all the skill of an experience pol.

And now, just two months before the first caucuses and primaries, he is one of the leading candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to select delegates for the Democratic convention. Suddenly the innocuous, feel good candidate from South Bend is a threat to the perceived front runners and, after months of approaching him with kid gloves, at least one of them and her supporters are taking aim at Mayor Pete.

In the November Democratic Debate Mayor Pete did what he was supposed to do. As a centrist candidate he asked Senator Warren some difficult questions about her endless policy papers, specifically the proposal on “Medicare for All” and the elimination of tuition for all students at public universities in the United States. His questions and criticism effectively halted Senator Warren’s ascent in the polls and brought the wrath of her supporters and those of her fellow traveller, Senator Sanders down upon him.

Suddenly, the token gay candidate is labelled “Wall Street Pete”, or similarly negative sobriquets if you’re a left wing Democrat. Hashtag “Never Mayor Pete” has sprung up as have other hostile social media expressions. Protestors are showing up at his speeches and fundraisers and Senator Warren herself attacked him for not disclosing his clients when he worked for a controversial consulting firm, or failing to disclose publicly his funders. Mayor Pete responded by releasing the names of all his former clients as well as his funders and by opening his fundraisers to public scutiny. So far at least, none of this new information has contained even a whiff of scandal or controversy unless, of course, you count the completely false claim he was somehow involved in a price fixing scheme for bread by Loblaws in Canada. Now some of his young critics are saying they will never vote for him even if he does become the Democratic nominee.

I guess much of this is fair game when Mayor Pete becomes a leading candidate and a threat to others who feel they are entitled to the nomination. But some of it isn’t.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the young protestors and internet warriors who are now attacking Mayor Pete in ways that ultimately will only benefit Donald Trump. Raising unfounded concerns about a candidate’s past ethical behaviour, or about the possibility he’s compromised by his financial backers, is a page right out of the Republican playbook and you can be sure those questions, even though shown to be unfounded, will be repeated over and over again in the Donald Trump re-election echo chamber. Ironically, that is one of the charges made against Mayor Pete by his more “progressive” opponents and their supporters when they complain that by questioning the efficacy or cost and political acceptability of Senator Warren’s policy proposals, he’s giving ammunition for future attack ads against candidate Warren if she wins the nomination. But of couse there is no comparison at all. Senator Warren put all these proposals into play in the public arena and they need careful scrutiny. If that scutiny isn’t provided by an opposing candidate, who will provide it?

Also, to all those young supporters of Senators Warren and Sanders who say if Mayor Pete is elected they won’t vote for him, I simply say “grow up”. America is facing one of the greatest challenges in its nearly two hundred and fifty year history in the 2020 election. Some describe it as existential, believing four more years of a Trump Presidency will do irreparable damage to the Republic, damage that will permanently lessen, if not ultimately destroy it as a functioning liberal democracy. To place partisan Democratic bickering above that is the height of irresponsiblity and is excused by neither youth nor inexperience.

For many of the young supporters of Senators Sanders and Warren Mayor Pete, even though the youngest of the candidates by far, is also the most conservative. They accuse him of mimicking Republican talking points on things like Medicare for All and free tuition even though his positions on these issues are well within the liberal mainstream in America. I understand the wish to create a more just, inclusive society that extends the benefits and prosperity of America to all its citizens, but to insist on abrupt changes that are fundamentally at odds with core American values risks losing the 2020 election and enduring four more years of the current administration. To paraphrase Speaker Nancy Pelosi when speaking of the House of Representatives: unless you have 270 Electoral College votes at the end of the 2020 election, all you are having now is a conversation. And if the Democratic nominating process only results in a conversation then everything Democrats despise about the current administration will continue for four more years. And that could be catastrophic.

The second issue behind criticisms of Mayor Pete is more complex and results from his being an openly gay man who is married to another man. Perversely, it’s a kind of contemporary liberal take on the old descriptiion of homosexuality as “the love that dares not speak its name”. None of the other candidates wants to be tarred as being anti gay and I’m pretty sure none of them is. Aside from compromising their progressive credentials, that would alienate an important Democratic constituency, LGBTQ voters and financial backers.

But you don’t have to be anti gay to be concerned that an openly gay candidate might not be electable. And I’m sure many Democrats harbour that concern but can’t find a way to express it. In the Sanders and Warren camps it’s being mobilized to attack Mayor Pete by masking it with another concern: that he has little support in the black community which is then spun into a narrative about his being a privileged white male with a questionable record on race relations as a mayor. To be clear, concerns he enjoys very little support from communities of colour, particularly older black women which are a core Democratic constituency, are legitimate, but what is mostly absent is a candid discussion of why that is.

I suspect the main reason Mayor Pete has little support in communities of colour is because he is an openly gay man who is married to another man. Recently, some have challenged the assertion that homophobia is greater in the black community than in other communities. This, despite a long history of especially open intolerance of gay men and lesbians from that community. I don’t know why that is although, when it comes to older black women, I suspect the influence of black churches is a significant factor. Everyone is uncomfortable labelling blacks as prejudiced against another group, but without a clear understanding of the reasons behind their lack of support for a candidate progress won’t be made or worse, the wrong path forward will be chosen.

The charge Mayor Pete enjoys “white male privilege” is increasingly making the rounds by those who see his candidacy as a threat to their own ambitions. And it is echoed by their supporters. Speaking now as a seventy year old gay man, I find that claim both ridiculous and deeply offensive. And it tells me that the people making it are either being dishonest or are staggeringly ignorant of what it means to be a gay man in what, despite some progress, is still a deeply homophobic society.

I know that with the adoption of gay marriage as the law of the land, many want to believe acceptance of gay people all across America is complete, but that is just hogwash. Go online and sample the hatred constantly spewing towards gays and lesbians from all corners of the country and then give your head a shake.

So, instead of a frank discussion about this important topic, we hear concerns about Mayor Pete’s age or his white male privilege. While his age may be a legitimate concern, both criticisms are now code words for who and what he is.

The paramount consideration for Democrats choosing their 2020 Presidential nominee must be his or her ability to defeat Donald Trump, and all the digressions over who is or is not more progressive; who cares more about “ordinary” Americans or the increasingly mythical middle class; who will provide medical coverage in one way or another; what approach to take in expanding access to college education etc. all become distractions when viewed through that lense.

Mayor Pete is a very impressive guy and each time I hear him my admiration grows. But I do not believe he is the strongest candidate to take on Donald Trump for a number of reasons, including his being gay, his youth and his relative inexperience. It would be nice if others would be this candid. Actually, I think he is more electible than Senator Sanders and maybe even Senator Warren though.

I expect Mayor Pete will have a long and significant career in American politics and this run for the Presidency will provide a good grounding, one that might lay the foundation for a successful run in the future. In the meantime, Democrats must focus and refocus on who will be their strongest candidate in the 2020 contest. I don’t yet know who that is.

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 appears at the lower right hand corner of your screen when you click on the blog.

It’s been a year since China seized two Canadians as hostages in retaliation for the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou on an extradition warrant from the United States. The two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, have spent the year in harsh prison conditions without access to lawyers and with very limited Canadian consular access. Meng Wanzhou is free on bail as her extradition case is being adjudicated by the Canadian courts. She has a team of Canadian lawyers representing her and is living in one of her Vancouver mansions.

Two days ago China announced their investigation of the two Michaels is complete and the results have been turned over to prosecutors with the expectation they will be charged with some kind of espionage and will be sent to trial. Trials in China have a conviction rate of ninety nine percent.

At the same time, China has banned the import of Canadian canola and, for a time, also banned all Canadian pork and beef products. The meat ban was lifted recently but that is a reflection of shortages of pork in China caused by an outbreak of swine flu in the country, not an indication of any softening of the Chinese position. It has been made clear there will be no movement on the detention of the two Canadian hostages until Ms. Wanzhou is freed.

We have been assured in the past year that the Canadian government is doing everything in its power to secure the release of the two Canadians, including several high level conversations and soliciting support from international allies. This position was repeated yesterday by the newly re-appointed Minister of Justice for Canada, David Lametti. And it isn’t true.

I spent many years negotiating contracts, including what I describe as “asymetical negotiations” where the party opposite was, on paper at least, much more powerful than the group I was representing. I understand the need to proceed with caution and to take all aspects of the relationship into account. But when a negotiation is either not working or, as in the current case, not really happening at all, it is time for a strategic reset. I believe we’re at that point in the current dispute with China.

Part of the problem with the Canadian approach is that it is heavily influenced by business interests who want nothing more than a return to our former relationship with the Peoples Republic of China where Canadian companies can make money in the vast Chinese market. As I’ve said previously, simply returning to the old relationship without learning the lessons of the current conflict would not only be a mistake, it would guarantee similar confrontations in the future. Canada needs a major rethink of the relationship, starting with a clear understanding of the authoritarian and lawless nature of the PRC. I am glad the opposition parties in Parliament out-voted the government yesterday to establish an all party committee to delve into the relationship. In the meantime, however, two Canadians are languishing in a Chinese jail and Canada is being ineffective in its efforts to free them.

It is clear that poking the dragon that is China today has consequences and any actions a mid sized power like Canada takes should be based on a careful calculation of what will be effective and what the blowback will be. However, that does not mean we should never take that poke.

Thus far, China has paid nothing for its rogue behaviour and that must stop. Although I obviously don’t know the complete range of options available to Canada to counterpunch, a number of possibilities have surfaced. They include sending Chinese athletes who are training in Canada home; adopting legislation similar to that now adopted by the United States that threatens consequences for individuals responsible for cracking down on pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong; expelling Chinese consular officials who we believe are committing espionage on Canada and Canadians; closing some Chinese consulates in Canada; limiting Chinese access to Canadian airspace; banning Huawei from participating in the rollout of 5G technology in Canada; and expelling Chinese students studying in Canada. Any of these, coordinated with similar actions by our international allies, will be felt in China.

When I used to teach negotiations one of the principles I emphasized in any confrontation was that you must retain the ability to escalate. That should remain a core factor in determining what we do and when we do it.

Escalating will be neither easy nor pleasant. We know from its past behaviour China will react disproportionately and furiously. I have no doubt the two Michaels will feel that wrath and that other Canadian interests will be affected at least in the short term. But the alternative is for Canada to remain a patsy while its citizens are being abused. That is no alternative at all.

just sayin

G

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

There are many reasons the Liberal Party governed Canada for much of the twentieth century, but near the top of that list is the fact the conservative consensus in this country has never jelled sufficiently to hold and offer a compelling alternative to the Liberals.

And here we go again.

Just a month has passed since the federal election but already there is an extraordindary pile on by Conservative critics of Andrew Scheer. This, despite the party winning the popular vote and increasing its seats in the House of Commons by twenty six, and forcing the once seemingly invincible Liberals led by Justin Trudeau into a minority.

Although the speed with which the critics are attacking may be unprecedented, the pattern is not. Conservatives lose an election and the knives come out. My personal memories on this go back only as far as John Diefenbaker but it is a pattern that has repeated itself over and over ever since. Why is that?

One reason is the Conservative Party, and its predecessor the Progressive Conservative Party, has always been an uncomfortable coalition of right wing populists, usually from the west, and more traditional Tories. Sometimes the disagreements within that coalition lead to complete rupture. That happened when Preston Manning led the Reform Party in a major schism from mainstream conservatism in Canada, leading to years of uninterrupted Liberal government, first under Jean Chretien and then Paul Martin. It only ended when the successor to the Reform Party, The Canadian Alliance, effectively staged a takeover of the old Progressive Conservative Party creating what is today’s Conservative Party. It then went on to win the next election and governed for nearly ten years under Stephen Harper. But in 2015 it was blown out of the water by a resurgent Liberal Party led by Justin Trudeau.

Part of the reason for the Liberal’s success in 2015 was that Canadians had grown tired of the Harper government and, particularly, its nastiness towards its opponents and others who did not agree with its increasingly outdated view of what Canada should be.  That reflected rising tensions between the conservative coaltion partners, tensions that, despite Stephen Harper’s strong leadership, were causing fractures.

Canada has changed a lot since the days of John Diefenbaker and continues to do so at an accelerating rate. That is especially true in and around its major urban centres: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, where increasing concentrations of the total Canadian population live. For residents of those centres the narrow social conservative message of prairie populists does not resonate. In fact, it alientates. Yet those views still play an outsized role in today’s Conservative Party.

Which brings me back to the recent federal election where the Conservatives failed to make significant gains in the Maritimes and Quebec and, more importantly, in the many seats in and around Toronto. Even in Vancouver, where some predictions had them wiping out the Liberals, that didn’t happen. Many people are attributing this to the leadership of Andrew Scheer but I think it goes much deeper than that. Certainly, he’s representative of today’s Conservative party but, as such,  he is only the most visible symptom of a bigger problem: the apparent tone deafness of the Conservatives to educated, multi ethnic urban dwellers in Canada’s biggest cities. It is possible that a more charismatic leader who was more comfortable in his own skin might have allowed the Conservatives to eke out a narrow win but that would have been more a comment on the vulnerability of the Trudeau Liberals than the appeal of the Conservative message.

Andrew Scheer is a perfect representative of the current Conservative Party: a social conservative who knows his views on things like womens’ reproductive rights, the equality of gays and lesbians and physician assisted dying will not resonate with large swaths of the Canadian electorate and so plays a game that is too cute by half. The canned message is that there is settled law on at least two of those issues, and he will not seek to change it. But for many people that is not reassuring as they assume that religious and moral beliefs should, indeed must, inform political leaders’ actions. Otherwise, the stench of hypocrisy hangs in the air. So, instead of reassuring voters, the message becomes even more negative and entangled with the trustworthiness of the politician. Voters are not stupid, particularly well educated urban voters, and to think they can be duped into supporting politicians who hold views on social issues completely at odds with their own is a fatal miscalculation. And that doesn’t even address the most compelling issue of the day, climate change and the Conservative’s incomprehensible position on it.

So, what should the Conservatives do? Frankly, the view that just having a new leader will fix the problem falls well short. The party needs to take some bold policy steps that will probably anger its right wing populist base and I’m not at all sure it’s capable of doing that.

Specifically, it would need to change its policies on “trigger” social issues and climate change to reflect where the majority of Canadians now stand while still presenting a message that is fiscally conservative; that aims to limit the role of government in society and that pursues a traditionally conservative foreign policy.  And that cannot be window dressing.  The party needs to truly embrace these ideas, ideas that are certainly anathema to many of its core supporters.  Which brings us back to the leadership question. There’s no doubt Andrew Scheer would not be an effective leader to defend the policies I’m describing. What that party needs is a leader very much of the twenty first century on the whole range of social issues and climate change but with solid conservative credentials otherwise. Ideally, in the current political configuration, a woman would be the best choice. Just think of the challenge that would pose to Justin Trudeau.

If, as I suspect, the current Conservative Party is incapable of this transition then the best alternative is to found a new conservative party that would look a lot like the old Progressive Conservative Party. It would be messy and would likely benefit the Liberals in the short term but, in the long term, would offer a good conservative alternative to the dominant liberal orthodoxy of today.  And Canada needs that if its political system is to remain robust and effective.

I’m not sure whether I qualify as a “red Tory” or a “blue Liberal” but I do know that people like me have no political home in Canada today. In the last election I voted Liberal despite serious misgivings about the government but with even greater concerns about what the Conservatives would actually do in government. That’s hardly the basis for a good democratic decision.

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 which will appear on the lower right hand side of your screen when you first open the blog.

For reasons I don’t particularly understand I have been watching Season Three of “The Crown” on Netflix.  After several episodes I feel like I’m experiencing a kind of Seinfeld moment but without the laughter.  In other words, it’s about nothing.

At the same time, the news is full of salacious stories concerning Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died  in a New York prison while awaiting trial on new charges.  The allegation is that Prince Andrew had sex with an under aged girl who was trafficked from America to England by Epstein for just that purpose.  The Duke has denied the allegations or, at least, claimed to have no memory of the events.

I know The Crown is fiction and yet, even in that realm, it struggles to produce a compelling narrative about a family who, it seems, is not all that interesting, unless, of course, they behave as Prince Andrew is alleged to have done.  And that leads me to question why the Queen is the head of state for Canada and why her offspring and relatives are offered any particular deference in this country.

These are people who won the birth lottery.  Nothing more.  They are, by all appearances, ordinary people living extraordinary lives, lives that sometime demand duty of them for which we are to feel some sympathy.  I don’t.

The majority of my ancestors came from the British Isles where, I expect, most of them were staunch royalists.  Growing up in Canada I was taught to feel a special kind of reverence for the Royal Family and remember particular events affecting them as seeming to have immediate relevance to me.  For example, I was only four when I heard that King George VI had died and, although I didn’t understand why, I knew it was terrible and grieved as well as a small boy could.

But now I’m seventy and I live in a country whose diversity and democratic institutions give me a great deal of pride.  And I don’t know how the British Royal Family could possibly be appropriate as the heads of state of that country.  I have no more interest in the comings  and goings of the Royals than I do of movie stars whose names I barely recognize these days.  So, from my Canadian perspective, I declare it is time for Canada to become a republic.  Not, I want to add, a republic like our neighbours to the south, but one that retains its parliamentary form of government and has an appointed head of state who remains above the political fray.

As for the British, once they get through dismantling the United Kingdom there may not be much left for the Royals to preside over, except probably little England.  And, really, that’s fine with me.  I expect it’s good for the tourist dollars the country will need after Brexit has led to its deindustrialization.

Canada, on the other hand, needs to stride forward as a fully independent and self confident modern nation, one that has finally freed itself from the last vestige of colonialism.  I know changing the Canadian constitution is fraught and extraordinarily difficult, so lets start with a simple referendum and then ask the politicians to honour the result.

Yes, my mother is probably rolling in her grave  right now.

 

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 bottom left hand side  of your computer  screen when you open the blog.

In twelve months many will be breathing a sigh of relief after Donald Trump is defeated in the 2020 election; or will be bemoaning the end of the republic and democracy because he has been re-elected. And the intervening twelve months will be filled with some of the most outrageous and extreme political behaviour most of us have ever seen. At this point, I don’t know what the outcome will be although some recent developments should give hope to Democrats and other anti-Trump people.

America had an election yesterday. Unless you were there, you may not have noticed. It wasn’t just an “off year” election, it was an “off off year election” where neither House nor Senate seats were in play. The (admittedly meagre) results are being hailed as a good sign for those who oppose Donald Trump and, in some respects, that is true. The Democrats took complete control of the state government in Virginia, capturing majorities in both the state house and senate while already holding the governorship. It also appears they’ve won the governorship in Kentucky, home to Mitch McConnell and a deeply red state that Donald Trump won by more than thirty percentage points in 2016. Both states show a continuation of the 2018 trend where suburban communities, hither-to-fore Republican strongholds, are turning increasingly to the Democrats. However, at least in Kentucky, that was partially offset by increased strength for Republicans in rural areas.

What strikes me when I look at these results is how deeply entrenched Trump’s support is in many areas of the United States and that no amount of scandal or bad behaviour is likely to change that. For people on the liberal side of the political spectrum as well as conservative anti-Trumpers, this is beyond understanding. By the standards of their world and beliefs Donald Trump has demonstrated again and again that he is unfit for office and yet his support holds firm. This made me think back to my recent experience trapped on a cruise ship for fifteen days with only Fox News and MSNBC as available news outlets. Not surprisingly, I spent much of my time watching MSNBC but I did dip my toe into the Fox universe occasionally. My first reaction to the Fox reports was absolutely dismissive, certain I was in possession of all the facts and had a clear understanding where truth lay. On reflection, however, I’m not sure that was always the case. The constant repeating of liberal tropes enforced and reinforced my pre-existing views so that I was quite literally incapable of being open to even consider reasonably the perspectives being offered on Fox. And that is a major part of the problem in the United States today. Both sides are huddled in their walled off media universes, hearing the same news but understanding it through very different filters. And the current impeachment process is a good case in point.

Putting aside whether or not proceeding with the impeachment process is good politics, there are legitimate non political questions that deserve to be asked and considered. At this point it seems incontrovertible that Donald Trump, working with Rudy Guliani, attempted to coerce the government of Ukraine to publicly launch a corruption investigation into Donald Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden by witholding congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine for its war with Russia. It also seems certain that some Trump loyalists, and perhaps the President himself, tried to cover up this effort and obstruct investigations into it.

Republicans have turned themselves inside out trying to defend the President; first denying the attempted shakedown occurred; then saying, if it occurred, it was addressing corruption generally and was not aimed at an American political figure; then saying, yes, it occurred but there was no “quid quo pro”; then saying, it occurred, but so what, and now, finally, coming to the right response (if you oppose impeachment): it occurred. it was wrong. we disapprove of it. but it is not sufficient to warrant impeachment and removal from office. And I think that will remain the mainstream Republican response for the duration although that could be derailed by Donald Trump’s fragile ego.

And, even though strongly dismissed by Democrats and the opionators on MSNBC and CNN, it is a fair question. Is the behaviour sufficient to warrant the removal of a President from office and undo the results of a democratic election, particularly less than a year from the next election when the people will be able to conclusively make their own judgement? I’m not going to attempt a detailed legal argument here but, instead, offer the view that impeachment should occur only in the most extraordinary of circumstances where, amongst other things, the security and safety of the nation is at risk. I understand that many feel that is exactly the case with the current impeachment probe, but I’m not so sure. Part of the problem is that Donald Trump’s critics are so offended by so many of his actions that their ability to react carefully and thoughtfully on this one is compromised.

I have many American friends who would happily have him impeached because they believe he regularly violates the emoluments clause in the constitution; or because his election was irredeemably flawed by Russian election interference; or because he regularly debases traditional American values, particularly with regard to immigrants; or because of his blatent sexism and mysogyny; or because of his enabling of homophobia; or because of their belief, fed by his refusal to release his tax returns, that he is corrupt and maybe under the influence of foreign adversaries.

I get that. I really do. There is no question but that he is a horrible man. But he is a horrible man who won the election and who continues to enjoy the support of a significant part of the American electorate and undoing the elections result through impeachment may well have long term and damaging consequences to the American body politic.

So, which should it be? Impeach or don’t impeach. Only time will tell. My own view, given the proximity of the next election, is that votes of censure in both houses would have been a wiser approach although probably not sufficient to satisfy the Democratic base who, as I said earlier, devoutly believe this man should not be President and should be removed at any cost.

Be careful what you wish for.

just sayin

G

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

Well, two weeks have passed since the Canadian federal election and the dust is settling. The entrails are being read; the polsters congratulated and the chattering classes are opining on what it all means and what should happen next. So, a few thoughts on the election outcome.

Where to begin? Well, I wouldn’t have normally chosen to start here but, given everybody else is, I guess “western alientation” is as good a place as any. As we are constantly reminded by the media, the Liberal government failed to win any seats between the western suburbs of Winnipeg and the eastern suburbs of Vancouver and this, it seems, is a monumental problem worthy of our urgent attention. More particularly, the voters in Alberta and Saskatchewan chose to elect Conservatives and only Conservatives to represent them in the federal parliament meaning there is no obvious road to having those provinces represented at the federal cabinet table in the new Liberal government.

Shortly after the results of the election were known, Scott Moe, the Premier of Saskatchewan, helpfully suggested the new Liberal government should scrap the carbon tax, change equalization and “immediately” get pipelines built. That, it seems, was the minimum the “west” demanded for having shut out the government (if this doesn’t make a lot of sense to you, you’re not alone).

Jason Kenney, Premier of Alberta then chimed in threatening separation from Canada while not threatening separation from Canada. His most memorable outburst was “Justin Trudeau is not going to push me out of Canada!”. Would someone please give him his Teddy bear and send him to his room. The adults need to have a conversation.

And, right on cue, the voices of western separtism “flooded” the internet while certain Canadian columnists (Rex Murphy I’m looking at you), fed the flames by opining on the grievous insults that had been piled upon those two prairie provinces.

While I’m on the subject of “two prairie provinces” I do want to say, as someone who lives quite literally at the westernmost edge of Canada (yes, that’s the Pacific ocean I’m looking at as I write this), I would prefer they stopped talking about “western” separation or the suddenly fashionable “Wexit”, presumably playing on “Brexit”, as if that was a good role model for leaving a federation (yes, I know Andrew Scheer supports Brexit, whatever that could possibly mean). Perhaps they could call it “Prexit” but then that might offend Manitoba so, really, I think we should just nix the acronyms.

But back to the substance. Alberta and Saskatchewan are aggrieved because they believe they are suffering because of the carbon tax, the failure to get pipeline(s) built and the belief they contribute more to the federation through equalization payments than they should. I don’t know as much about Saskatchewan as Alberta but I do know Alberta has the lowest corporate and personal taxes in the country (including the vaunted absence of a sales tax) and, apparently, the Kenney government is now determined to make those taxes even lower. At the same time, Alberta pays more for most publicly funded services, services like healthcare and education, than any other province and yet doesn’t have better outcomes than similar provinces in any of those areas. By the way, it’s paying more creates serious problems for the other provinces as they try to compete for scarce human resources. What’s more, the last time the Equalization Forumula was changed Jason Kenney was a senior minister in the Harper government that changed it. If it was so egregiously wrong why did he support it?

As for pipelines, it would be helpful to hear from either Premier Moe or Premier Kenney what exactly they propose to expedite the process. Again I note Jason Kenney was a senior minister in the Harper government that in ten years in office failed to build any pipelines despite making a lot of noise about them. The Trudeau government bought the Trans Mountain Pipeline to ensure it would be completed. That probably cost them their majority and yet, even now, they insist it will go ahead.

And as for abolishing the carbon tax: get real! Nearly two thirds of Canadians voted for parties that support the carbon tax, at least two of them wanting it significantly increased and quickly. But, according to Scott Moe, the views of those other Canadians don’t count because the voters in Saskatchewan and Alberta don’t want it. Okay, I know this is not helpful but, really: SUCK IT UP.

The simple fact is there is a horizon beyond which the world will not use fossil fuels. And it may be closer than we think, if only because of the imperative of saving the planet. Albertans and Saskatchewanites need to come to terms with this. If they don’t they will both return to their days as “have not” provinces where, they will be glad to know, they’ll receive equalization payments from the other provinces.

Other than the western woes, I think the election turned out about as well as it could, given the choices. The Liberals deserved a rebuke and they got one. The Conservatives didn’t give centrist voters like me any reason to vote for them and, indeed, offered one or two reasons not to (yes, the carbon tax is one and the virulent social conservative views of many of their candidates, including their leader, is the other).

For me at least, the best news of all was that all the candidates for The People’s Party of Canada lost their deposits.

As one headline said: Canadians are a sensible people.

just sayin

g

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