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?