Remembrance Day 2013

During my early morning walk a few days ago I saw a poppy and pin on the walkway. I picked it up, put it together, and stuck it on the fence that straddles the walkway. When I looked at it I envisioned the shape of a cross and took a photo to try to show that image. When I processed it afterwards, some conflicting thoughts ran through my head. While I value the fact that young men were willing to risk their lives fighting on behalf of their country, I also decry the need for war. My father was a drill sergeant during WWII. When I was young he would talk about the futility of war and how horrible it was. Later in his life his attitude changed and he took some pride in having served in the army. I'm not sure why.
So what is Remembrance Day supposed to signify? Is it to honor those who risked life and limb or to keep the public conscious of war in order to have conscription available at a moment's notice? Are we remembering war as a last resort, or as a moment of pride and honor? Perhaps we risk losing potential soldiers if we don't make heroes out of those that have fought and died during the conflict. If war were to become a distant memory we may just decide not to bother if a war were to be declared. As long as war is glorified we can count on vulnerable young people to join up with relative ease.
While I can imagine times where taking up arms becomes necessary, I'd rather we spent our time and energy learning how to resolve conflict instead of learning how to kill efficiently. I don't know of any video games that teach conflict resolution but I've seen lots of examples of games using extreme violence. Once violence is commonly accepted, it becomes an easy first choice.
So, I struggle with how to approach Remembrance Day every year. The photo I'm posting hopefully will illustrate it better than my words.

My response to our local paper's editorial today

I was upset enough after reading today's editorial in the Nanaimo News Bulletin, that I wrote a letter to the paper. Here it is (in case it doesn't get published):


Re your Editorial: "Voters clear on the future": 
In your editorial dated May 18, 2013 you state that, among other things, "In light of the results Tuesday, there are some clear facts the people of B.C. should strongly consider accepting, if they have not already: A clear majority of British Columbians -- even more in the Parksville-Qualicum riding -- believe in a free enterprise model of governance."
I happen to live in this riding and wish to challenge your assumptions, stated as "facts", on a number of counts. Firstly, an editorial is not a statement of "fact". It is an opinion piece by the editors or contributors to the newspaper. Secondly, making a blanket statement about the voting preferences of voters is verging on delusional, as even the so-called pollsters couldn't predict the voters' intentions. And, thirdly, assuming with confidence that the voters chose free enterprise rather than the other choices (not stated in the editorial), is presumptuous and highly pretentious. 
Are you, by default, stating that the rest of the Nanaimo voters chose to reject "free enterprise" and therefore have some sort of death-wish? Are they therefore less knowledgeable, somehow, than are your "facts"?
It has been stated that the preferred electorate is an ill-informed one. Perhaps your policy is the same. That way the voters can be manipulated to vote the way of the "ruling" class. 
You have shown your true colors by treating your readers as in need of your "facts". This, in my opinion, reflects very well the position of our "ruling" class. As a result, I certainly won't be looking to your paper for some balanced thought, especially not in your editorial column.

Oftentimes, when I respond, in writing, to a paper I find I'm not the only one with the same opinion. But, I do think that it's important that the average citizen, such as myself, state their responses to any public pieces and hold them accountable in that sense. It may not change their minds, but it may add support to others who thought the same but didn't have the time or inclination to say so.

Mud-slinging 101

With the BC provincial elections on the horizon the incumbent Liberal Party is ramping up it's  US-style attack ads on the opposition leader, Adrian Dix. The NDParty is caught in a quandary--do we attack back and show them we're as tough as they are, or do we rise above the fray and show the public a kinder, gentler approach to running for office?
With a two-party system it's too easy to set up a false dichotomy that paints the other as the Evil Force that will destroy the province if elected.
It's sad that we have to depict each other as different in order to distinguish ourselves from the other when in reality there's little real difference between people, especially once they take a seat in the legislature.
If the only way we can persuade people to vote for someone is to put down the other person we are no better than the schoolyard bully who attains superiority by beating others into submission.
That's not the kind of people I want running our province, or country, for that matter. I want people there who have the time and energy to look after the general population's needs and not there only to hang on to power at all costs. What a waste of time and energy!
To break this sick pattern of "may the best man win", we must be willing to break the mold and campaign on a positive note, outlining the vision of the Party and its members, and then once in power, being willing to be open and accountable to the public for its decisions and actions.
Until and unless that happens we're just a step away from a "dictatorship" mentality where the public be damned--the only difference being a brief time before the next elections where the politicians feign interest in the citizen's needs simply in order to retain or gain power.
Just exactly what does "democracy" mean again?