Who will send in the Clowns?

A day or two ago, the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus had its last show. After 146 years of preforming to millions of people – the show is no more. That circus and its various reincarnations had, as one commentator said, been around longer than had baseball. For at least some of those millions of people who saw the circus at least once - it is the end of an era. For some of us romantics - there is one less place to run away to. For the thousands of people who made at least part of their living through the circus – they will earn less money next year. For the relatively small number of people who worked at the circus full time, they have not only lost their jobs – they have lost a way of life.  While there are a lot of reasons why the show closed after struggling for years to survive financially – it is still, in many ways, sad.

 

There are a lot of people who are celebrating the closing of the circus. All of those people who moaned about the cruelty towards the animals, how unfair it was to cage animals so that both city and country folk could pay money to be both afraid and amused at the antics of animals doing things/tricks that were unnatural to them. The great wail of anguish that arose whenever people thought of fierce jungle cats bowing to the authority and power of the man with the chair and the whip; of the obscenity of some great bear dancing or pretending to wrestle his trainer; of elephants walking /moving in time to some unheard beat – only to stand on a far too small platform; of horses endlessly cantering around a sawdust covered circle while their riders danced on and off their backs and the dogs – small breeds usually- sometimes wearing silly customs, doing tricks for little rewards. The very existence of such animal acts proves that mankind still believes that we have the right to use our power to dominate other animals regardless of those animals’ innate intelligence or nobility. All such acts are proof that we have a long way to go in demonstrating that our humanity extends to all beings.

 

While I am sympathetic to those lofty concerns that drive people to quietly boycott or loudly protest such things as circuses, I find the duplicity somewhat troublesome. At the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto and at countless hundreds of small and large town fall fairs around the country, animals are put on display; some like the fancy chickens are placed in small cages and left there for hours so that the folks can admire and be amused, while the larger animals such as horses are required to prance, jump and pull heavy weights at their owner’s’ command. At dog shows, the over bred, over-washed and manicured “man’s best friends” are paraded around – and are required to be perfectly and unnaturally behaved.

 

I am not sure who one should feel sorrier for. The lion that spends his life confined to small cages and when let out it is obliged to jump through hoops of fire, or the dog that is so well bred that it is almost guaranteed to health problem in what should be its healthy middle years. Both animals have been bred and trained for our pleasure and all too frequently to prove that we can at least control something in our lives.

 

The circus may be a form of entertainment that has passed its time. Its end may be a sign that we as a species are more aware of our obligations to other beings. But I am not too sure if the closing of a world famous circus is proof of anything except that we have found other ways to get our pleasure and to demonstrate our control. At best it is an incredibly small victory that means little in terms of how the animals we say that we love are treated. At worst it is just pretend. The big money makers in the growing pet industry will on one hand help with the celebrations and other hand rake in even more cash.

The Man Who Would be King (Maker)

Andrew J. Weaver – the leader of the B.C. Green party is poised to be the person in control of at least part of the next B.C. government’s agenda. He or other members of his party were not elected by a significant percentage of the B.C. electorate for that job, nor do they represent a cross section of B.C. voters – in fact all three of their newly won seats come from Vancouver Island. However, because of some perhaps unusual voting patterns, the Green Party may now hold the balance of power in a Liberal minority government. That makes him and his two fellow Green party members a powerful force for shaping a government that has, at least in part, a clear vision of how to run a province from an environmental perspective. The real questions are : is there really a clear vision of how to do that and td they have a mandate to do it?

 

One has to believe that never in their wildest dreams did the Green Party think that in 2017 they would be in such a position. I have to assume that they would have been excited if they had just gained two extra seats. Their primary goal was in all likelihood to get enough seats so that they could become a party as defined by the legislature and therefor get government funding for its operations within the Legislature. They, unlike the two other parties, spent very little, if any time thinking about what policies they would want to be presented in the Throne Speech. It is a giant step to go from a small – perhaps one could say insignificant opposition force within the Legislature - to a party that holds the balance of power.

 

It is interesting to note that their first priority is to be given the status of an official party (a party needs to have four elected members in the legislature before they are awarded that status). Their second stated priority is to have the rules as to who can and cannot contribute to political parties. If the Greens have their way, neither unions nor large corporations will be allowed to donate. While this change is frequently seen as a way of leveling the playing field especially as the Green Party does not accept such donations, one cannot assume that this guarantees that the Green’s coffers will fill at the same rate as the Liberals. In fact I would argue that in other jurisdictions where this policy has become law, dominate parties continue to raise the most money from individuals.  I think that it is worth noting that the first two demands that Weaver made public had to do with how, in his mind, the Green Party could be made stronger. I don’t think his position is unusual or even inappropriate, but they feel more than slightly self-serving.

 

Weaver in more recent days has started to discuss the Green Party’s general opposition to both the building of the Site C dam and the expansion of the Kinder-Morton pipeline.  I suspect that the first item will get a fair amount of support from the general public. Unless someone does a much better job than in the past in selling the concept, there does not appear to be a lot of support for it to be built – at least in the short term. It is an issue internal to B.C. that affects no other province.

 

The Kinder-Morton pipeline is another issue. While it is true that a significant part of the expansion will occur in B.C. and that the highest places of risk in transporting the partially processed oil, including the loading it on to ships, is in B.C., a decision to not allow the pipeline’s construction generally affects people outside of the province. There are thousands of people in Alberta and elsewhere who depend upon the income they earn from oil production. If the pipeline is not built, there will be fewer jobs – jobs that Albertans need to maintain their economy. If Alberta cannot, at least in the short term, earn the money it does from oil revenues, then they will not be able to sustain their economy. Families will be forced to re-locate, small business will not thrive, house prices will continue their downward trend and Alberta as a province will stop paying into the Canadian Equalization Plan. Alberta will not be able to transition to another type of economy if the economy is not vibrant.

 

Whether we like it not, there is a demand for the oil. If it is not shipped through a pipeline, it will be shipped by train – something that is far more dangerous and less well controlled. CN and CP do not need any permission to transport as much oil as they wish through whatever territory they want. Rail transport is not a viable alternative. The only viable alternative to the pipeline is to shut down oil production. And I don’t have a problem with them but...

 

It seems to me that the people who are advocating for less (or no) oil to be shipped from Alberta are the people who will suffer the least from such an embargo. The people who voted for Andrew Weaver will not suffer one little bit if jobs are lost in Alberta or if there is a major train derailment in the Rockies. They will continue to live on their nice island (as I do), driving their generally overly large vehicles and enjoying what traditionally has been the warmest climate in Canada. There will be no cost to them. They will continue to enjoy their pleasant life style AND get the chance to pontificate upon how wonderful they are because they stopped the pipeline. It seems to me that if people like me are opposed to oil productions (and fracking for natural gas), then we should pay some sort of price. Are we prepared to significantly reduce (or stop) our use of gas; are we prepared to invest the millions and millions of dollars in developing affordable alternatives; are we prepared, at least in the short term, to financially support the people of Alberta as they go through a transitional process from oil production to....? Of course, for the majority of people, the answer to those questions is no.

 

The Greens have this rather scary opportunity to demand implementation of their election platform– in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of people voted for them. While that might be great for the planet – and for that reason I support them – it is not democracy.

Cultural Appropriation

To be absolutely clear – there is no doubt that the western/industrial/mainly European world has for centuries felt entirely free to use/appropriate anything from another culture it felt like. It has done so without any consideration of what such appropriation felt like to those of that culture. Clothing designers, musicians, writers, movie producers and others have all felt entitled to use another culture’s images or stories to enhance their product. Groups such as the Rainbow Family or those Europeans who are so immersed in First Nation culture that one argued with me that “he was more Indian than the Indians” have assumed that because some of their values are, if not aligned with traditional North American First Nation’s values, are at least parallel to them, that that gives them the right to use any part of that culture that they want to. No matter how distorted that use becomes. Such appropriation is at best profoundly misguided.

 

In the last week or so there has been a significant amount of discussion within the various media in Canada on the issue of cultural appropriation. It appears to have all started when an editor of a magazine, attempted (he says) through humour to initiate a discussion as to when can an non-aboriginal Canadian use Aboriginal character, story lines and other artifacts in their creative works. His words were, very understandably, not appreciated by the Aboriginal community. Other non-aboriginal writers got involved in the discussion and some of them such as Jonathan Kay, editor-in-chief of the Walrus have also faced some public censure.

 

One of Kay’s points was that it does little good to call someone a racist just because they have appropriate a piece of another’s culture. I think he is right in that while the act of appropriation may be and perhaps should be labelled a racists act – if the individual did so not understanding why such appropriation is potentially harmful – is he or she a racist? I don’t think so.

 

Those of us who are of the elite – and by that I mean of European decent – and certainly people of a certain age - have been raised in a world where certain things were understood. To be clear – these were cultural understandings. A white person in Alabama in 1960 would have assumed that there would be/should be two drinking fountains – one labelled for white use, one labelled for non-whites. Clearly that is horrendously racist. But the white person could not have recognized that because it was the only world they knew. Similarly, I grew up playing “cowboy and Indians”. No one wanted to be the Indians – they always lost. My world view of First Nations people was in general formed by television and perhaps some books (my father’s boyhood books by G. A. Henty that I devoured as a boy were more than a little bit racists). While the play activity may have very clear racist overtones – the act of playing “cowboy and Indians” did not make me a racist. However, now that I know better, if I allowed my son or grandchildren to play such games, without me having a conversation with them to redirect them – then I would quite clearly be a racist. As a human I have the capacity to learn and to adapt to new cultural understanding. I, on occasion, may need some time to make those adaptations.

 

There are some (many?) people who in spite of ample exposure to the other side of the issue, refuse to deviate from their long held cultural beliefs. For example, they continue to believe that as white people, they have the right, if not the obligation to be in charge and to decide what is right for other people; that their skin colour alone makes them and their culture better in every aspect. These people and their activities need to be clearly labelled as being what they are: racist. But I would argue that there are far more people who are struggling with the issue of what is or is not okay. We search out information; we want to talk with those Canadians from First Nation communities; we acknowledge that we have been wrong in our approaches and our attitudes. The last thing we want to do is to oppress or hurt someone. And we need help to understand.

 

Is it fair that the victims of oppression are continually required to educate me and folks like me? Is it right that the very people who have had so much of their culture denigrated or more likely completely destroyed have to defend what is theirs? Is it even reasonable to ask those peoples to have patience with me and to not get angry or frustrated as I fumble my way though it all? Probably not.

 

But if not them – then who?

 

Apologies to Air Canada

On my last blog, I may have cast aspersions upon Air Canada. It was as if I was preparing myself to be disappointed and getting ready to rant loudly against a big powerful company. I do so like being the David against the Goliath. But alas I have absolutely nothing to complain about.

Every step of the way from check-in in Nanaimo to the recovery of my pack from luggage in Sudbury was almost seamless. While one plane left a bit late and another was put into a brief holding pattern, the connections were easy to make with no fears of missing the next plane. Even the arrival and departure gates were not too far apart. It is not that it was a pleasurable journey. I left my home at a very uncivilized hour, spent too mush time waiting in airports, once got squished into a seat beside a rather large person (mercifully for a short flight), was almost the last out of both of my short flights,  all of the planes seems overly loud - to the point that I could not hear the announcements and of course, none of the seats were comfortable. But It was all very manageable, the service or at least what passes for service was pleasant, no one was grumpy, the pilots seemed competent and to the best of my knowledge none of the other passengers had any major complaints.

Was it a great experience - no. Was it better than i thought it would be - yes. So I guess that is a win for the small guy. Although it needs to be stated that I had such low expectations that it would not have beeen hard to be almost pleasantly surprised.

Air travel - the Almost Constant Gamble

I came to flying on airplanes fairly late in life. I was in my mid-fifties before I ever flew. During the past ten or fifteen years I have only ever flown between Ontario and British Columbia. Clearly I am not an experienced air traveller. It is not that I am, or ever have been afraid of flying - in fact I quite enjoy the sensations - I just never had a reason (or the financial resources) to fly when I was younger. I am not however, a fan of the whole experience - getting to the airport  90 minutes before your flight leaves, having to partially disrobe for the security check and the following awkwardness of putting on my belt and shoes afterwards, the endless walks- sometimes done in panic as the connecting times between my flights has been shortened by mechanical difficulties, de-icing and other assorted delays; a walk exacerbated by the fact that the runways for short flights are at the opposite end of the airport from those of longer flights. But now I have a new thing to be worries about. Getting kicked off of the plane.

It may be because people losing their seats on airplanes has become a story to watch for that the media are reporting it more often; it may be that I am just more aware of it, but it feels as if, almost on a daily basis, someone, somewhere has been asked to leave their seat because the airlines have overbooked. Airline travel is already surprisingly inconvenient. It is quite clear that the airlines, at least for those of us who travel economy, see us as cash cows who willing can be squished into ever smaller seats and who require minimal services. When things do not work out according to schedule - there is barely an apology. For example last November when I was making my near semi-annual trip to Ontario, in Toronto, at sometime around 10:30PM I was informed that the fight had been cancelled due to weather conditions. I was not to fly out until 8:00 AM the next morning. I was offered $20.00 in food vouchers to compensate me. While I could appreciate the fact that the weather is beyond the control of Air Canada and that I did not want to fly if it was too dangerous to land, at the very least giving me a suggestion as to what I could do for the next ten hours would have been nice.

I find it absurd that I, who bought a ticket months ago, have no guarantee that I will get on my chosen plane. That some airline employee who is dead heading - to get to another airport to work on another plane - can get my seat. The seat that I paid extra for so that it does not feel as if my knees are being  forced to rest somewhere near my chin might go to someone else. Yes I will be offered some financial compensation. But how much would be enough for me to waste hours/days in waiting for a next flight. If I wanted to spend 24 hours flying the 5,000 kilometres - I could have chosen a series of flights that did that. I chose a more direct route. It would be nice if the airline companies respected my choice.

I understand that airlines over book on some flights because there are some cancellations or no-shows on some flights. For the airlines, they can only maximize their profits if the plane is full. I get that. If I were a share holder of Air Canada - I too would want my returns maximized. But I don't understand why I should be punished or treated badly because other people cancel their flights. It is not my problem.

To make matters a wee bit worse - my daughter has just sent me a message from the Greater Sudbury Airport that flights maybe delayed or cancelled due to runway maintenance at Toronto Airport. Lovely...they have know about the repairs for months....perhaps Air Canada could have told us.

Good News and Bad News - The Conservative Party's Nominations

Last week Kevin O'Leary bowed out of the leadership campaign for the Conservative Party. That is the good news. O'Leary was, at best a misguided, overly arrogant and completely inexperienced candidate. At worst, his proposed policies suggested dangerous directions for Canada to go in. He was bombastic, he seemed to say whatever popped into his head without  any filtering and he was combative to those he disagreed with. It is not completely clear to me as to why he quit the race. His stated reason - that being that while he knew he could be elected as leader of the party, he did not think that he could gain enough seats in Quebec to win a general election, does not ring true. A number of prime ministers have been elected without winning a lot of seat in Quebec  - most recently Harper. I suspect that he left the race because he realized, just days before his fellow businessman turned leader realized it, that running a country is a lot of work and, I suspect, not nearly as much fun as he thought.

The bad news is that the front runner in the above race is now Maxime Bernier - the person who O'Leary now supports. No one is ever sure if, when a candidate gives his support to another candidate, if his supporters follow him. That is - will those who said that O'Leary was their first choice, now switch to Bernier. One can only hope not.

Bernier is, in terms of political values and philosophies, a libertarian. He believes that if only the government would stop trying to regulate Canadians and their business practices, life would be fine. Libertarians generally believe in the trickle-down theory of economics. That if there is lots of money being generated by unfettered business - that everyone will be better off. The only people I know who believe this theory are those who are rich or who have a reasonable expectations that they will be. The rest of us know that it is just not true. I appreciate that frequently various governments appear to be far too involved in our daily lives. But there is no indication, in fact the data proves the opposite, that businesses left to themselves will do the right thing and protect the environment, the disadvantaged, minorities and the consumer.

It would appear the Bernier may become the next leader of the Conservative Party. If this happens, then our job will be to ensure that he does not become the next Prime Minister.

Being Petty - Some Inequities in Canada/USA Trade

It quite frankly takes all of my self-will to not allow myself to become reactive and even petty at Trump's outlandish statements as to what is fair and not fair in terms of Canada/US trade. I need to keep reminding myself that not only is he a buffoon who has neither the moral integrity of a snail (I apologize to all snails for this comparison) or the intellectual capacity of a child in grade one (I again apologize), he seems incapable of staying on task for any length of time. It is clear that he can be influenced and have his mind changed by almost anyone who can find a way to talk to him. I also need to remind myself that his bias as to the importance and absolute need for the USA to be first in everything is not unique to this president. Indeed - it is a common trait of many USA's citizens.

Whether or not there is an inequity or an unfairness with how Canada markets its softwood lumber has been debated at a number of international tribunals and courts over the past few decades. In every instance, the USA has been told that there is no unfairness and therefore they should not impose a tariff. I am sure that the same thing will happen this time - it is a shame that both countries are going to waste so much time and tax payer's money to debate it, all because a handful of US softwood companies want an uneven playing field upon which to compete. It seems more than slightly absurd to imagine the USA with ten times the population being concerned with such a minor problem.

Then there is the most recent kerfuffle from Trump over the concern from some Wisconsin dairy farmer's cries of unfairness over the fact that they are being denied access to Canadian milk markets. My opinion of our marketing boards was discussed in a blog posted on March 20, 2015 - In the past two years I have seen no reason to change my mind. It seems to me that a nation has the right to decide how to support its citizens. However the absurdity of a state like Wisconsin - which has more dairy cows (USA) then all of Canada ( facts) - complaining about not being allowed to saturate an international market defies description.

Being petty - perhaps it is time that we started to cry unfair when we look at the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables that being imported from California to Canada. CBC (CBC) reported that in 2013, Canada imported 2.7 billion dollars worth of California's fresh fruits, vegetable and nuts. Those  fruits and vegetable were only able to grow because of irrigation. According to author Marc Reisner, the building of dams on such rivers as the Colorado and its tributaries have allowed farmers to grow crops on land that would never have produced.   Furthermore, California farmers are not paying the full cost of the water that is being drawn from the rivers and aquifers of western USA. He argues that they are paying less than ten percent of the cost of the construction of the dams and irrigation systems built. The government has subsidized irrigating large factory farms for generations. Surely this could be called unfair trading practice. What chance does a Canadian farmer have of competing with his USA counterpart when there is such an uneven playing field?

Marc Reisner's book -  Cadillac desert: the American West and its disappearing water is not an easy read. Like other history books written by people with lots of facts and a self righteous passion for a topic, but no sense of storytelling, it is a book full of facts but demonstrates little understanding of the people behind the facts. However, it is very clear that the USA, in its mission to fulfill it manifest destiny, has taken (Reisner would perhaps use the word "drained") water from states further to the east and directed it to deserts or near deserts of California and elsewhere to grow crops and to build cities (e.g. Los Angeles).  His projection for the future is bleak. California would never exist if the water was not being imported from elsewhere. The large farms only exist because of that water and because that water has been very cheap for the those land owners. The current rate of use is not sustainable. There quite simply is not enough water to maintain the farms and the cities for ever. When the water dries up - and it will - those farms and those cities will eventually shrink to what they should have been if humankind had not decided to attempt to control geography and destiny.

Perhaps we would be doing a favour for the USA if we said we would no longer buy fruits, vegetables and nuts from California as they were using unfair trade practices. Perhaps some citizens would wake up and realize that they are living on both borrowed water and borrowed time. Perhaps some would realize that irrigating deserts is just a foolish idea - but then so is play God.