BC Wine vs bitumen-carrying pipelines

I find it hard to fathom that political leaders are more willing to fight with each other than attempt cooperation. I'm not in the know, but what stopped Premier Horgan from going to Premier Notley in Alberta and letting her know ahead of time that the BC government was planning on opposing the Kinder Morgan pipeline that's to run through the heart of the province. Horgan could have stated the position he was in and how he needed to take a stand in order to appease the electorate and the Green Party with which they have made an agreement to that effect to keep them in power. Notley could have outlined her opposition and stated her bind if she didn't support her corporate masters who would do everything they could to ensure her loss at the next election if she didn't tow the line. (I, of course, am assuming this based on what I know about politics, however limited that might be.)
Now they could come to an agreement as to how they intended to play it out in public and then pretend, at least, to be scoring points with their backers, all the while winking and nodding to each other.
For all I know they did do that, but banning BC wine to make a point is akin to, I don't know what. It is petty, silly and child-like. I'm embarrassed to be associated with politicians like that. If they can't be civil in how they resolve differences, they surely can't expect their citizens to be able to. What poor examples they are setting. I know, Horgan, looks like the "good guy", to some extent. But, like I said earlier, what stopped him from giving his NDP counterpart the heads-up?
They didn't ask me for advice, and they never will. But, should they ask...

Those in Glass Houses

Living next to a giant means we keep a close eye on what it does and who's in charge. I'm talking about the upcoming presidential election in the US, of course, as a Canadian. I'm not expert on politics but I do follow it as a human interest story. Lately, I'm amused by the righteous indignation that followed the release of an audiotape where presidential candidate, Donald Trump, speaks about how easy it is for him to kiss women and grope them. He seems to be bragging that it's easy to do if one is rich and famous.
If I were his speech writer, I might explain these words by suggesting that he was showing some insight and that he was amazed that women are willing to let themselves be treated this way just because he has some fame and wealth. He might also comment that he's noticed other men take advantage of this phenomena as well, with Bill Clinton, being an obvious case in point. He might add that he's since learned that he has a choice as to whether he takes advantage of this with women, or not, but that he realizes how hypocritical it is for men to be scolding him when many, if not most of them, in similar positions of power have done so as well. Read our history. It's full of such accounts. How many descendants is Genghis Khan supposed to have? That's only one example.
Studies a while back showed that if men were not stopped or punished for raping women, a large percentage of men would follow through with it. Luckily, we've realized that and have made laws to keep this in check.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing men's behaviour when it comes to "conquering women". I'm simply stating that this is a constant battle and we need to keep reminding ourselves that we no longer want to be that way.
Now, let's move on to the other presidential candidate. I'll just pick one incident that I'm aware of. I admit that I've gleaned all of this information from various media. So, if I'm misinterpreting what I've read, I apologize. But, I'll dare to delve in. When Assange (wiki)leaked the military secrets, the US establishment was aghast and angry. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the time. She apparently said at a meeting of the top brass, "Why don't we drone him", meaning kill him using a drone. In other words, assassinate him. Apparently, she said it without humour, which would have been an indication that she would like to do so but was only kidding.
Again, we can get on our high horse and condemn her for her words and her wishes in this case. This, again, is the "privilege" of being in a power position. She had the power to make that suggestion and if the others had agreed it would have happened. So, why isn't the media  and her fellow Democrats condemning her for her words? Some are, but quietly, I'm sure. Again, because we all have had thoughts like that. Again, we have laws and social norms that now prevent that from happening easily. Not in all countries, mind you, but so far in North America. That could change at any moment, if we don't keep a close watch.
See the similarity between the two? Once in power we think and act differently as we're given certain privileges (private law). Fortunately, there are checks and balances and condemning such behaviours helps to stop it or at least slow it down.
So, my question is this. Why aren't both being taken to task for their comments not in a condemning way but by asking whether this is the way they plan to continue to behave or whether they have learned their "lessons" and now know better. Of course, actions speak louder than words.
That, to me, is more important than knowing that they succumbed to the "traps" of being in power and went along with them, no questions asked.
We, who are not in power positions, have a responsibility to monitor their behaviours and not condone them. Not in a judgmental way but simply reminding everyone that it's not okay.
This blog is meant only as a beginning of a discussion that needs to take place if we are to make real change. Simply condemning these behaviours doesn't change anything. It just stops it temporarily. Let's start this kind of discussion now....

Voting is a feel good exercise

It's time to decide not only who to vote for but whether to vote at all. The party leaders are paraded before us in their best attire while they are pilloried by each other at the same time. We're to believe that one of them is worth voting for. Our vote is valued insomuch as it means their future as a representative of their riding. It's the only time we are begged to get involved in the government. The rest of the time we're to simply nod and smile when decisions are made that affect our lives, whether economically or socially.
I follow politics closely. I'm fascinated by how human nature shows its true colours at election time. Potential "leaders" butt heads to establish whether or not they will lead the "flock" for the next while. The "sheep" look on in awe, or with disdain, as the potential suitors promote their attributes or attack their competitors.
So, what to do? Does my vote really make any difference? If I vote for the Green Party am I casting my vote to the wind? If I vote for the ruling party, will I gain some kind of merit or be treated special by the party I supported? If I cheer for the Blue Jays and they lose, have I wasted my energy? If I cheer for them  and they win, have I made the difference?
I saw the first game of the Blue Jays/Rangers game and noticed some fans crossing their fingers hoping that that would be enough to give the Jays a win. It didn't work.
So, I'm wondering? Is voting merely a feel good exercise that gives me a little bit of hope? Does it keep my faith in the system alive so that I can face the fact that what I have to say is almost less than negligible? Perhaps it's like prayer. I pray to my god with the understanding that my requests might be heard and somehow honored. When my prayers aren't answered (my vote doesn't elect my candidate) I feel cheated and sometimes want to blame my god (the government) for not fulfilling my wishes. My faith needs to be strong to believe that my prayers (my votes) will make a difference.
So, that's what it is then? Faith in a system that I know is failing may just turn it around and make it into a caring, responsible, accountable body of people who act as representatives of the people? Okay, now I'm dreaming!
Keep up the faith, or all is lost!

Justin Who?

I was given the book, Common Ground, by Justin Trudeau to read just a few days ago. I didn't pick it up right away because I wasn't sure if I'd get through it. I admit I have some biases when it comes to a son of a former prime minister. I expected it to be full of self-aggrandizing statements and claims to fame. I was pleasantly surprised to find it to be quite the opposite. He appears to be self-aware enough and possess enough insight to find faults with this dad and his mom and the Liberal Party. He does it in a kind and understanding way, but still doesn't hold back. He also speaks to being a small "l" liberal, who happens to belong to the Liberal Party. After reading a book on the death of the liberal class I was surprised that he would even know enough to promote such a position. Maybe, just maybe, there is some hope after all. If, and I do mean, if, other people around his age are similar-minded and have strong enough convictions to pull it off we might, just might, become a nation of caring, compassionate people who will pull together to give everyone an opportunity to live under decent circumstances. Having the basics of survival are key to a happy population. Ensuring everyone's well-being would go a long way towards true peace on earth--timely for this holiday period.

When is it called bribery?

I just read an article about a woman in Alberta who's struggling to get the government of that province to acknowledge that fracking has caused irreparable damage to her property and that a delivery of toxic water should be of consequence to the company that delivered it. The article exemplifies, in my opinion, the way governmental officials and politicians turn a blind eye to anything that could jeopardize the relationship they have with large corporations. Corporations have the funding and the wherewithal to lobby and financially support hand-picked politicians during elections and after they're in office. While there are some rules around contributions there are many ways to get around them and many do so. In other countries when an official is given money for favors it's called bribery and corruption. What do we call it here? Business as usual? We certainly don't admit that any time a politician makes a decision based on where their financial support comes from that it's out and out bribery and extortion and ultimately, corruption results. What else can we name it?
The common folk are afraid to address this way of doing things for fear of being labelled shrill or out of touch. Or, are they hoping that they, too, could someday be in a position either to receive such gifting, or to be able to persuade their politicians with some cash of their own? Or, is it because we know that if we complain too much we'll be cut out of the good graces of the person-in-charge-for-the-day?
As I see it, it stinks to high heaven, as much as the toxic fumes are stinking up the atmosphere of Alberta and other oil-drilling and fracking sites around the world.
A sad state of affairs, indeed.

"We won't be intimidated"

The tragic events of October 22 at the Parliament in Ottawa have caused many reactions. The government has jumped on it as an opportunity to crack down on potential persons who might see it fit to hurt people in the name of a certain cause they believe in. The general population has become more patriotic, as though that will protect them from such persons. The members of parliament seem to have become quieted. Their responses to having been locked down for the day of the shooting seems to have intimidated them into submission. I'm speaking particularly of the opposition members whose duty it is is to ask hard questions in order to keep the ruling party in check. I haven't seen this happen so far, although a call for a reasonable response has been made.
This is where I'm making the leap from men's violence against women to this incident. Violence works. At least in the short term. It keeps the recipient of violence afraid enough to keep quiet in order to avoid possible further injuries. My guess is that the same phenomena is occurring with our MP's in Ottawa and in our nation's capitals.
Having worked for 18 years with men who were violent to their wives I got a good sense of how this happens. While working with them I had to learn to overcome my natural fear of their possible behaviours towards me as well.
Too often we judge women for not simply leaving their husbands after being violated, or at least speaking out. So, perhaps I'm being too harsh on our opposition members for not speaking out and setting an example as to how to overcome these natural fears and to address their own needs for comfort and reassurance.
Let's put it this way. If we paid as much attention to stopping the violent behaviours of men towards their partners as we appear to be towards potential violators of the public in the name of whatever, we'd stop up to 100 deaths and many injuries a year in Canada alone. Interesting priorities we have. One's accepted as "normal", as in "common", while the other is treated as an anomaly that's worth spending billions of dollars to stomp out. So, I'm naturally asking myself why this seems so important. Is it normal to cause violence against one's partner, but not against one's citizens or soldiers? Both are violent. Both are intimidating. Both cause irreparable harm.
Why not view all violence as unacceptable and come up with help-based solutions rather than with more violence?
Our PM made the statement that we will not be intimidated by this horrible act. What did he mean? What if women weren't intimidated after being abused by their husbands? What would be the appropriate response? Fight back? Fight fire with fire? Kill or be killed? That seems to be the answer to most violence. Why isn't that the answer for women? I'm not suggesting that. What I'm saying is that violence may work for a while but if both parties participate in the violence it follows that each party will have to up the ante until mutual destruction is inevitable. Violence does not stop violence. If it did we'd be over it by now. Right?
Why can't "we won't be intimidated" mean instead that we won't be tempted to lock down the country and take away citizen's rights in order to attempt to end this kind of violence? Why can't it mean that we'll put our resources into caring for our people by making sure they have their basic needs met? Why doesn't it mean that we'll make democracy a real word instead of a euphemism for what ought to be? What if we ran our country based on what will be best for the overall good, rather than what will increase the GDP?
If we have the ability to know that we can be otherwise we can choose to do so. What's stopping us?

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.