It’s Like Vietnam, A Little, All Over Again

 

 

Back in the days of my USian existence, it was a bit frustrating during the course of the 1960s, my teen years, to watch the Vietnam engagement grow in scope, gravity and bloodiness, as well as in the consciousness of some of us coming out of the chrysalis of childhood. All around us, there was surf music, burger joints, game shows, big-bore V-8s and a whole lot of business as usual. It wasn’t a war, there was no declaration, it wasn’t even a police action like Korea a decade earlier. Everything on the home front seemed to perk along without the war bonds, rationing, and the exhortations on every street corner to traipse off to a foreign tar pit to put an end to your miserable little life for the good of God, democracy and the American Way. The home front never went to war, so it was easy to ignore the signals.

Of course, as the decade came to a close, the murmurs morphed into chatter and then to a roar to the point where even those legislators in the hallowed halls of power began to waver in their determination to see an end to the resistance of these black-pyjama clad little brown people until “we” finally tucked our tail between our legs, told our South Vietnamese allies that they were on their on, and high-tailed it out of Dodge in the last helo  to depart the roof of the embassy compound.

Now there’s smoke all around me. The signals that we’re waging war on ourselves are plain to see, hear, smell: it has never been so obvious that we are, in the name of convenience and consumption, fouling the only nest we have and setting up a gruesome end for civilization and for most life on this planet. And now, there begins that transformation from whisper to chatter as people wake up and discover that our collective complacency and procrastination have brought on the crisis foretold by phalanxes of climate scientist Cassandras, just when we reach the point where there may be no method to remedy the situation without major suffering, if at all.

 

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
                                        —Sir Josiah Stamp

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” – H.G. Wells

 

Living as if there were no tomorrow, we are converting a carefree metaphor into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
—John Whiting
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. 
—Douglas Adams

Sir John A., We Hardly Knew Ye

 

Mayor Lisa Helps announced yesterday that the statue of our first PM will be removed from its podium of honour in front of the entrance to Victoria City Hall pretty much forthwith. This has, of course, generated a good deal of tsking, finger wagging, and jaw flapping, much of it to do with the reverence we feel for our founding father, to borrow a USism. But let’s have a bit of context, by perhaps considering Johnny Mac in his own context, but somewhat transposed into our current status.

 

Do we hold Justin Trudeau to be worthy of the same level of reverence and Sir John A.? How about Stephen Harper? Paul Martin? Jean Chrétien? Kim Campbell? Brian Mulroney? John Turner? PET? Joe Clark?Mike?

With few exceptions for exceptional circumstances, the answer is no. I haven’t done the required research and reading to really nail it down, but my sense is that these folks, and all the rest of their ilk, were, first and foremost, politicians, with all the mixed connotations that that term carries on its overloaded back. They were people both revered and reviled, depending on your political stripe, your policy outlook and how deeply you were embedded in the system that produced them.

 

Perhaps a gentle step back to consider all facets of admiration and condemnation might help us to keep our blood pressure in check as we navigate possible attempts to reconcile settlers and First Nations, as well as our past with our present and future.

Deflection of Necessary Perspective

Photo by Ihor Malytskyi on Unsplash

 

There is an old Chinese proverb:

Quand le sage montre la lune, l’imbécile regarde le doigt.
When the wise man points to the moon, the idiot looks at his finger.
Paraphrased this morning in Libération:
Quand le sage montre le climat, l’économiste regards l’inflation.
When the wise man points to the climate, the economist looks at inflation.
No wonder they call it “the dismal science”. This is the very picture of pretty much all out national and regional leaders who still don’t seem to get the urgency of the situation in which we find ourselves. This is Trudeau/McKenna claiming to mitigate climate disruption while buying/expanding dilbit infrastructure, Horgan building Site C, and a whole whack of premiers fracking merrily away and giving away to energy to foreigners without bothering to collect royalties or taxes. It’s clear that Trump and Ford aren’t the only idiots, they just have less of the veneer of sanity.

Rachel’s Path to Success

Rachel Notley announced yesterday that Alberta will be seeking intervenor status in the BC reference question, that she’s ready to turn off the oil taps to BC, and that she’s rolling out an ad campaign to win hearts and minds to the Kinder Morgan cause. So here we have a promise to participate in the process whose legitimacy she has denied, a threat, and paid persuasion. Cute.

The ads are the most curious part of the package. That a province that doesn’t balance the books should spend money on ads is pretty retrograde, that the ads in question should be for the benefit of a profitable Texas-based pipeline company touches on absurd, and the idea that she can capture hearts and minds is frightening.

After all, advertising is really about getting the target population to spend more money than it ought to on things it doesn’t need, often doesn’t want, and which may, in both long- and short- terms, be hazardous to the health of the target population. Just sit in front of a television for an hour and you’ll see all these phenomena in play. Perhaps if the ads can make you believe you need to eat Chocolate-Covered Sugar Bombs, they can also convince you that you like dilbit and paying to build a pipeline so that you can ship the stuff through several hundred kilometres of varying terrain and urban landscape to tidewater, thence to undetermined markets leaving no economic benefit for most of BC and a large sword of Damocles in terms of spills. Rachel wants to convince you that this is a good deal. It is not. Rachel, Justin, Jim Carr, Ian Anderson and the whole tar baby industry are lying to you. They want you to lie to yourself. I won’t, not in this instance. Please join me.

 

Taxes are…

Long ago, I came to see the following, attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, as an axiom by which to gauge a good deal of public policy:

Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.

Today, I ran across this in the cesspool that is Facebook, and I’m a little ashamed to admit that it was posted by a former student:

I guess it hurts to see a chunk of your paycheque disappearing into the maw of Revenue Canada to be handed out by the Trudeau Liberals to miscreants both foreign and domestic, layabouts, drug addicts, Commies, queers and Jews (to paraphrase an old line from Asshole from El Paso, Chinga Chavin, c. 1975).

There is little doubt that much of what we pay in taxes is misspent in paroxysms of waste, but the object of the ire is often the wrong target by a long shot. All the welfare fraud, even all the welfare, pales in comparison with the funds eaten up by misguided projects like the Phoenix pay system where implementation is into the hundreds of millions of dollars stretching across the mandates of two governments with no end in sight to the expenditures and no resolution to the seemingly random overpaying, underpaying or simple not paying of civil servants. The examples of this sort of waste are legion, but even this sort of malfeasance pales in comparison to the amount of cash extracted by large corporations, by foundations and by rich individuals, money taken from people such as Tommy, the former student in question, and shipped offshore to be tucked away in perfectly legal (moral? not so much) accounts in Panama, the Bahamas, the Isle of Man, and such places for future reference, but without scrutiny by Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada recently was convicted of malicious prosecution of a couple of business people in Nanaimo, apparently chosen because they didn’t have the kind of financial and legal resources at the disposal of, say, the clients that KPMG counselled to set up accounts in offshore havens. Yes, you, the hardworking individual, are subject to the yoke of taxation in a way that touches the wealthy in a  proportionately gentle fashion, it would seem.

I’m an old retired guy now, but I spent a lifetime working for a living, a wage slave if there ever was one. Before I discovered the joys of a career in the classroom, I worked in commercial fishing, in logging, in hospital and hotel maintenance, in construction, in plumbing, in bookselling, in grill cooking, in gardening and hauling, in rock drilling and odd bits of this and that to fill in the gaps and pay for much of my education (I also had a really good gig for a number of years running a pool hall and bowling alley on campus, not great pay but very satisfying socially). All along, I paid taxes, and, for the most part, it was money that went away to support other people and initiatives. I obviously needed it less than those who benefited directly from government largesse. But when I hurt my back rock drilling, I actually managed to get some support from WCB, and there were no huge doctor bills or prescription worries because there were programs, supported by taxes, to take care of those items.

We don’t always get the best value for our tax dollars, and the system of taxation is far from equitable and fair (a reflection of general economic policy), but I still pay taxes on my pension and am happy to do so for the aid that some folks get when they most need it and for those services provided by all levels of government.

None of us lives insolation and we all have contributions to make to our social life. Taxes are part of it, as is the responsibility to be informed on governance and to participate in the conversations that should be leading us forward.

Do You Believe What You’re Reading?

So here, you’ll find the Post Media outrage that RT gets paid to be on the cable services, as if pretty much most of the rest of the offerings aren’t mouthpieces for a toxic system of private profit and public plundering.

 

For a bit of perspective, here is a piece from Lee Camp who broadcasts on RT and whose work is highly critical of the bulk of media outlets. It’s eloquent, obviating the need for me to blather on.

 

Dark Days At Year’s End

Dead-End John

 

Dear John,

When I last wrote, it was about the novelty of the Dear John phenomenon. This time, I fear that the intent is very much in line with the original intent of letters of this nature. Your reading of the data for and against Site C construction seems to be very different from mine, and in any case, the idea of flinging another good seven billion dollars after the bad four that was essentially down to Christy Clark and her lot is a powerful inducement to quit the project, sorta like what Dad used to say about getting out of a hole: the first step is to quit digging. You have now pretty much forever linked your name with a project conceived in greed and executed with blunt force political trauma: you have turned Christy’s nasty little quip about getting Site C to the point of no return into a self-fulfilling prophesy. You have chosen to stick with a 20th-century project that has no place in a climate care strategy in the 21st century and have therefore earned the nickname “Dead-End John”, the dead-endedness referring not only to this project, but also to the length of your mandate and to the legacy that you leave to future generations of British Columbians. You have effectively become a patsy for the former Liberal clique, all of whom must be feeling rather smug right about now. What explains the rubber-kneed capitulation that we got to witness this morning? Is your political, social, economic, and reconciliatory acumen so stunted that you were able to overlook the impending catastrophe that awaits us, both in terms of legal battles the apologies that you will be forced to issue over cost overruns and completion delays? Did some Bilderberg-like group of rich heavyweights reach out to twist some painful part of your anatomy to incite the sort of tone deafness to your constituents that produced this gawdawful abomination? Are we completely ignoring the consequences under NAFTA to control over water exports? Do we not have a willingness to explore other opportunities in terms of energy production and the kind of jobs that might go along with it?

I guess in real life there’s no chance that you’ll be back in the rotunda tomorrow to tell us that it was a bad joke, and that really, no one could be that politically blind. I think it’s very likely that the New Democratic Party of BC has seen the last contribution and the last vote from this British Columbian, and I suspect that this kind of shenanigan is likely to produce a similar effect elsewhere. When that alternate to corruption is foolhardiness, or for whatever reason produces the sort of headscratchingly blunders on the order of continuing Site C, I’m guessing that many voters are simply wishing a pox on the houses of all politicians and going off to get what they can while they can.

Sadly, there is no respect left with which to sign this missive…

Respectfully,

Dan Schubart

Previous, pre-decision note:

Dear John, (I’ve never before had the privilege of writing a Dear John Letter!)

Pull the rug out from under the Site C project, would you please? It was a political decision made by Christy Clark as a gift to her contractor friends who have already done untold damage to the province and who need to wear the blame for the, pardon me, downstream effects. Our union brothers and sisters should be looked after by an ambitious (but well thought-out) program of renewable energy infrastructure, forest and fishery remediation, and programs to encourage small-scale intensive organic farming, as well as the protection of vital water resources. The Liberal Party needs to wear the blame for this project, every aspect of it, like Coleridge’s Albatross, as they parade through the upcoming corruption inquiry (you will encourage Mr. Eby to undertake this, won’t you?), along with all the other (NOT) on-time, on-budget fiascos that characterized the Campbell and Clark tenures on the government benches.

John, er, Mr. Premier, I like your style, generally, and much of your policy platform and would like to think that I could, with a clear conscience lend both moral and financial support to your party. But a decision to maintain any part of the Site C project or to support the various pipeline fantasies would preclude support of any nature, particularly as a decision on a moral basis: I have grandchildren and I would like for them, and for all citizens of B.C. (your bailiwick), Canada and the World to have a reasonably stable planetary environment in which to grow and thrive. Site C cannot be part of that vision.

Get in front of the cameras, with or without that Weaver feller, and tell BC that the citizens are in charge, not the SNC Lavallins of the world.

In hopes that you’ll act in a way that allows me to sign this…

Respectfully,

Dan Schubart

Port Alberni

Na, na. na-boo-boo!

Remove Sexism From the Indian Act

 

Reported in the Globe and Mail that it will cost $407milion a year to eliminate sexism from the Indian Act. Why do we still have legislation on the books do deal with Indians? Might it be time to take down the window dressing and to invite First Nations to participate in truly meaningful deliberations on their own affairs? For my money and theirs, I suspect that the removal of sexism here is no bargain, and that perhaps we ought to clean our own stables before we address the needs of one segment of the greater whole of society.

Where Does Innocence End?

This was in a signature file from A Word A Day:

I don’t believe in playing down to children, either in life or in motion pictures. I didn’t treat my own youngsters like fragile flowers, and I think no parent should. Children are people, and they should have to reach to learn about things, to understand things, just as adults have to reach if they want to grow in mental stature. Life is composed of lights and shadows, and we would be untruthful, insincere, and saccharine if we tried to pretend there were no shadows. Most things are good, and they are the strongest things; but there are evil things too, and you are not doing a child a favor by trying to shield him from reality. -Walt Disney, entrepreneur and animator (5 Dec 1901-1966)

This is a lofty and worthy sentiment, completely belied by the output of Disney Studios where the happy endings in the face of overwhelming odds are legion and where the characters seem as idealized as they could be in stark contrast to the nastiness that seems to be in charge of the human universe of late. Witness that Disney has reigned over the magic kingdom as a form of refuge from the toil and turmoil of everyday life, a place where even adults can cast off the cares of life and unilaterally declare a hiatus wherein they can say, in effect, “Piss on it, enough of the serious shit. I’m gonna revert to the world of thumbsucking again for a few days!”, at least until the credit card bills come in. What?! You pay for the privilege of visiting the magic kingdom and going into the kid cocoon for whatever span of time? Oh, yeah, and you’ve already made your kids part of the conspiracy.

“Telle est la vie des hommes, 
quelques joies très vite éffacées
par d’inoubliables chagrins. 
Il n’est pas nécessaire de le dire aux enfants.”

                             —Marcel Pagnol

Life, a few joys quickly overtaken by unforgettable pains, and no need to mention it to the children…they will see it soon enough and perhaps it’s better to monitor this and get out in front of it, letting children in on the secret of choosing a path toward some sort of fulfilment and working to make some joy with friends and family.

They Papered Paradise

Along with the revelation that finance minister Bill Morneau had neglected to put his business dealings in a blind trust (and that he wasn’t the only minister to lag on that front by a long shot), the release of the Paradise Papers has a lot of Canadians hopping mad, including some on the opposition benches who, when they were in government, seemed quite content to sign deals with fiscal havens (in French, they are called Paradis Fiscaux, perhaps explaining the moniker Paradise Papers), but who have since developed and honed a sense of outrage that, of course, overlooks their own underhanded behaviour.

It can’t be worth a lot of time and resources to investigate this stuff under the current legal and fiscal statutes because, of course, it’s all perfectly legal, and therein lies the rub. This set of laws is like a get-out-of-jail-free card for those who whispered in the legislative ear to get the enabling legislation enacted. So, not a crime, but certainly this all flies in the face of any rhetoric about saving whatever social class other than those who can muster the resources to hire the legal beagles who will set up your off-shore shell companies in which you can shelter the rest of your massive fortune. Likely, this is neither thee nor me.

If you voted for either the current government or the previous government (today’s “opposition”, you are an enabler. If you didn’t vote, you are an enabler. tacit approval being much like an active imprimatur.

Let the louts in Ottawa (Victoria, Edmonton, etc.) know that you want at least a level playing field, legally, fiscally, socially. Do it starting now with a curt note to your MP and MLA, and to the likely candidates of all the opposition parties. Do be rude and bring this up at coffee and at the dinner table, and mention it to the pastor and elders in church this Sunday, as well as to your hockey team and your mother-in-law.