Air Canada - So Much to Complain about - Part two

At the end of my last post on the above subject, I said that I had been told that I had been upgraded to a better seat. I also said that I had no choice but to believe the person I spoke to as there was no way of confirming what she said. I was wrong to believe her.

As I was leaving on December 26th I, with some trepidation, entered Air Canada's on-line check-in system early Christmas Day. I noted that I had been demoted to a regular seat halfway down the airplane. That was not where I wanted to be or in fact where I had paid to be. I called the number given, fully prepared to wait an hour to get a live body on the line. Much to my surprise, I only had to wait five or ten minutes. Apologizing to the Air Canada representative for my frustrations, I went through the whole story again. She could not help me as she had no access to the system that looked at what seats were available, neither could she talk to anyone for assistance. She did say, however, that it appeared as if I had been given a preferred seat. I did express my concern about not knowing for sure, but I had no alternative but to wait until the airport the next day. I should not have believed her.

I was at Sudbury's airport before 5:00 AM the next day. Fully prepared for another round of "I am sorry - I can't help you", I was surprised when the check-in attendant looked up my reservation and said that I did have a preferred seat. I was somewhat skeptical that a seat in row 17 would be a preferred seat, but again I had little choice other than believe her. Again, I was wrong to trust her as when I finally got on the plane from Toronto to Vancouver, I was squished into a seat that was uncomfortable, where the LCD screen in front of me was 10 inches from my nose (which made watching a movie impossible) and where every move or shifting in my position meant that I touched the passenger beside me. It was an uncomfortable five hours.

At the Vancouver Airport, the person at the Air Canada "help desk" said that I would get an automatic refund, but that if there were any problems - I could go on-line and apply for the refund. Oh, goody - more fun on an Air Canada site!

If I had a choice, I would not ever fly Air Canada again. If they cannot figure out how to manage reservations, which strikes me as a low tech problem....how can they be trusted to fix an airplane?

Who me - Biased?

I would like to consider myself as someone who is rational, unbiased, fair-minded and generally only slightly left of centre. In reading today’s headlines in both the National Post and CBC, I have realized that at least two of those descriptors cannot be true. 

I like the CBC news headlines because (I have thought) that that news organization is relatively neutral, being careful not to put too much of a spin on any particular news item. For example, in discussing Trump’s activities and comment their commentary may be uncomplimentary, the coverage of the actual news appears to be fairly neutral. The fact that they could never say anything complimentary about the president, was in my mind because there was nothing nice to say. I could feel as if the CBC were unbiased in their reporting only because I agreed with them.

In reading the online edition of the National Post, one gets a completely different view of world events: the Canadian government’s proposed gun control is both unwarranted and useless, the Prime Minister is worse than incompetent, climate change is not really all that much of an issue and Trump (if people would stop picking on him) would demonstrate that he really is a good president.

When the mainstream media have such divergent perspectives of the news, it is not surprising that Canadians, amongst others, are confused as to what to believe. For some, we have been led to believe that we can trust the media to be reasonably accurate, others believe that the mainstream media can never be trusted. Unfortunately, the latter group find other, alternative media sources who they may blindly follow with no proof that those sources are any better. 

It is not that one particular point of view is always right or wrong. Clearly, there are some things that cannot be defined by black and white lines, there are some situations that do have two points of views and sometimes neither point of view makes any sense. It may be that in some situation there is no right way of resolving it.
If it is true that people only read the news that they agree with - then no consensus as to what is true and more importantly what we need to do about it  - can ever be achieved. If we cannot agree upon the facts, solutions will always be unattainable. The only choices will be to either to sink ever further into a morass of indecision or to accept a dictatorship where only one point of view is allowed. Neither option would appear to be viable long term solution to the country’s or the world’s problem. 

Other than not wanting the responsibility, the world would really be so much better off if everyone agreed with me.

Air Canada - So Much to Complain About

There are a few topics that I usually don’t write about only because it is just too easy to point out the issues. For example, I avoid discussing Trump because his failings are, at least to me and most intelligent people, just too obvious. I don’t complain about the weather, the economy or bureaucrats because everyone has the same comments (too warm, too cold, too slow). I never complain about Air Canada for similar reasons - there is just so much to complain about and everyone has the same complaints. As well, as with the above, no one cares what I think and certainly, no one can or will do anything about it.

However, it is difficult to ignore the bureaucratic nightmare that Air Canada’s new reservation system has created. Example: I booked my return flight to the Island the third week of October. I paid $60.00 extra to reserve a seat with extended legroom on the flight from Toronto to Vancouver. I got an email earlier this week from Air Canada telling me that there had been a seat change. They had moved me to a regular seat ten or so rows towards the back. I was not a happy camper to be told that I would have to spend the five hours in a cramped seat with my knees around my chin. So I called the number Air Canada’s website gave me. The first thing I hear is that their new reservation system has caused extended telephone wait times of over an hour. I dutifully sat down and waited my turn. 80 minutes later I gave up. I had other things to do.

I called early the next morning. The first four times I called, I was informed that the wait time was so long, that the system was no longer taking calls. Finally, I got through and once again was informed that it would be at least an hour.

The frustration over the long wait before I could speak to someone was amplified by a frequently played recorded messages telling me that Air Canada had a great on-line reservation system and that I should use it, that if I wanted to change seats that I could not do it until 24 hours before the flight and most annoyingly, that Air Canada kept on winning awards for being a great airline. To make it all worse, there was this terrible music, mindless, robotic and irritating. If I was a cynic, I would be inclined to suggest that the whole process was designed for me to give up and hang up. I was getting so angry that I was worried that I would just start yelling at whoever did take my call whenever that happened.

The good news is that after about 70-80 minutes, a real human came online and after digging around for a bit, she said that she did not understand what the email that I had received meant, but that there had been a seat change and that I had been upgraded into the “rich people” seats. I have no way of confirming this (because I can’t access this until 24 hours before the flight), but I choose to believe - I don’t have a choice.

Air Canada - get your act together. If you want me to book online then you need to create some sort of systems that allows me to address questions or mistakes. And please, for heaven’s sake -stop bragging how good you are and take some of that money I give you and buy some decent music.

New Math

It is well understood amongst certain people that there are significant differences in the types of education that are available to Canadians. It is also understood that these differences are directly related to the social standing, class or wealth of the individual's family. What I had never really understood until the last week or so, is that want-to-be politicians are also given access to a different type of education. I think that is unfair. I that all Canadians should have access to the same sort of mathematics that are taught to want-to-be- be politicians. If nothing else it would help me understand what they were thinking.

It was quite delightful last week to have all of the country's premiers agreeing that the federal government needs to correct the equalization formula - which would mean that Alberta and the other Western provinces might have access to more financial support for their struggling economy. So often it appears as if there is discord within the confederation and that the premiers cannot agree on anything. It was quite reassuring to see all of those men and one woman (The Hon. Caroline Cochrane of the NWT) agreeing to support their fellow provinces. There was, however, one little fly in that ointment. None of the provinces suggested that they would be giving up anything that they were already getting. None of the provinces even suggested that they might be willing to pay more into the federal coffers.

There are, of course, continuing demands for increases in federal funding. For example, all of the provinces are saying that their health care systems are in crisis and the only solution is for more federal money. Virtually every other line in the federal budget has similar demands - more money for ships for the navy, more money to stimulate trade, more money for post-secondary education etc. At the same time that some of the opposition are demanding increased support for various sectors - they are also suggesting that taxes are too high and that the government needs to both reduce taxes (especially in the corporate sector) and reduce spending (except in areas THEY think are important).

It has been a long time since I went to school and math was never my best or favourite subject. I know that there are now different ways of teaching math - perhaps even better ways. But I think 2+2 still equals 4. I am quite sure that if fewer people contribute to the total revenue and if more people receive money from that same revenue - there is a problem. Quite simply, at some point, you have to recognize that you cannot spend what is not there - or at least you can't do it without going into debt.

But clearly, my mathematic skills are rusty, out of date and no longer apply in the 21st century. If politicians think one can both spend more money and reduce taxes I need to go back to school and learn this new type of math.

I wonder where or how I sign up for these courses.?

I Want a New Car

I want to buy a new car. More specifically, I want to buy an electric car. Please note I said I want to buy a new car not that I need to buy a new car. There a number of reasons why I want to buy one including the fact that it seems to be the environmentally right thing to do. If I got one a bit bigger it would mean packing up to go to the market would be a lot easier, the thought of never buying gas unless I got a hybrid) ever again is attractive and it would be fun to have something that smelt brand new and had all of the bells and whistles. As well there would be that little bit of ego boost that would come from driving something that was slightly ahead of the curve. I am not sure if I can afford one but there are some rebates available that might make an electric or a hybrid vehicle more affordable.

Except - I am not sure if electric cars are better for the environment. Everyone says they are. It makes sense to spew less carbon into the air but how much do I spew over a year? I only drive about 12,000 kilometres a year in a small four-cylinder car. How much carbon can I possibly be spewing? More importantly what is the real cost to the environment when one buys a new battery-operated vehicle?

In an article in the November issue of the Walrus, an article by Vivane Fairbank (Greener and Cleaner) discusses (amongst other things) whether or not the building techniques that are used in passive homes are all that environmentally friendly. The article discussed embodied carbon - that is the carbon emissions that are either created when a product is built or dispersed when that item has exceeded its life span and must be disposed of. The article argues that we need to analyze the life-cycle of a product before we consider it to be carbon neutral or not.

Fairbank cites a number of articles that suggested that not all of our attempts to be carbon neutral are useful. For example, using reusable bags made of organic cotton (an especially polluting industry )might reduce the number of plastic bags in the environment but that bag needs to be used 20,000 times before it will use less carbon than a single-use plastic bag. While all of our present attempts to put less carbon into the environment are a good thing, it does the world little good if we pollute the world in other ways by using rare earth minerals and polluting manufacturing processes. They do even less good if we will increase the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere when we dispose of those things 20 years from now.

When one considers such things as the energy required to mine and process the lithium for the batteries or the quantity of plastic that is used plus the cost of disposing of all of those items that are not recyclable when they are no longer needed, perhaps amount of embodied carbons will exceed the amount of carbon that I would have put into the atmosphere if I just drove my present car. If I buy an electric vehicle I may reduce, in the short term, the amount of carbon I put into the air by not using a petroleum product to power my car, but - am I just downloading the problem for the future to deal with?

Yes, I want a more efficient car. I am just not sure if my grandchildren can afford

Teachers' Strike in Ontario - There is a Good Reason

Many, if not most, of Ontario's high school students, are home for the day. It is a bit unusual for the teachers to all take a day off in the middle of the semester- but it is probably a good way of reminding the Ontario government that the teachers are collectively committed to winning at least some of their bargaining points in their negotiations. At this point, I suspect that for most of the parents in the province it is only a bit of an inconvenience, if the elementary system was shut down there would be far more concern - particularly over daycare issues for the day. The apparent lack of interest on the part of parents and the public, in general, is unfortunate and it is dangerous.

If I were a parent, I would be particularly concerned about the proposed classroom sizes and by the fact that in a year or two - all students will be required to take four (out of 30) of their courses on-line. According to various media sources some classes already have up to 42 students in them. I suppose that is a manageable number if all of those 42 students are highly motivated, reasonably bright, without any specific learning needs and well behaved. I have to wonder if in any public school - one could find 42 students with all of those attributes. In subjects such as math which build on previous learning (if you don't understand one of the steps - it is hard to proceed to the next) and may require more detailed explanation and longer learning times for some of the students - such large class sizes seem to accept that some students will be unsuccessful. While increased class sizes may save money in the short term - an under-skilled and frustrated workforce will add costs to the social support system when those students are adults. It is a false saving. In courses such as English or the social sciences that require dialogue between the students and the teacher, the absurdity of trying to have meaningful conversations should be obvious even to the Conservative government. The thought of having 40+ students in a chemistry lab or in a wood-working shop is just too frightening to think about.

It is, however, the concept of mandatory e-learning that concerns me the most. There are a number of professional educators - many of whom have their graduate degree in education who like the concept of e-learning. They like it because they earned their graduate degree at an online university. They argue that their MA is exactly the same as those who went to university. They are wrong. It may be a valid degree, they may have covered the same type of topics - but being in a classroom for a three-hour seminar every week is different than looking at a screen. Doing the readings and having to discuss/argue what one has read is profoundly different than looking at a computer monitor. It develops a whole set of skills (and relationships) that one can't develop when learning in isolation.

Mandatory online courses assume that every student will have access to a relatively current computer and software, a high-speed internet connection and a home setting that will ensure both the space and the support are available to complete the course work. Almost as important - it will require young people to be self-motivated -a characteristic that is not always obvious in teenagers. Such expectations are absurd, even worse, they are discriminatory. The effects of such a policy will negatively affect students from low-income families, immigrants and those with different learning abilities. It demonstrates a profound disconnect between those who create policy and those who have to bear the consequences of that policy.

Online learning is a poor substitute for face-to-face teaching. For a number of students it will help them fast track their education, for thousands of students it will limit their learning opportunities. The government is potentially creating a whole sub-class of people who will not graduate from high school and who will only be eligible for the most menial jobs - jobs that no longer exist outside the poor paying service industry.

If I were a parent of a school-aged child - I would be out there marching with the teachers.

Admiration for Jason Kenny's Political Acumen

I do not like Jason Kenney (premier of Alberta). I do not like his far-too-right social or fiscal conservatism. I think his desire/need to play to the lowest common denominator and his manipulations of the Alberta public's emotions are dangerous. For example, he is the only provincial leader I can think of who has committed a large sum of public money (30 million dollars) to create an office to fight anyone and everyone who has a different point of view when it comes to the environment. He even calls it a war room - making all Albertans feels as if they are in a life or death struggle for their lives. I especially do not like Kenney's continuous efforts to prove that Alberta is poorly treated by not just the federal government but everyone who disagrees with him. He is using a well-used tactic to generate support - just read some of Churchill's or later Roosevelt's speeches made during WWII. It seems as if, that for him - it is not a matter of creating good policy that will attract voters but rather finding enough enemies so that the public will believe that no one else can protect them.

I think there may be some real cause for concern over some of his shady electoral practices - specifically during his campaign to become the leader of his party. Unfortunately, we may never know what shenanigans he and his fellow party members got up in the provincial elections as he has conveniently fired the civil servant in charge of investigating the electoral process. It is, however, hard for me to believe that if some of the people in the leadership campaign did things that have been judged illegal - that one, he did not know about it and that two, people would not have continued to bend the rules in the provincial campaign.

I have, however, some admiration for Kenney's political skills or acumen. In fact, he could have/should have demonstrated to Premier Ford of Ontario how to not screw up the federal Conservative campaign. Kenney has announced this week a number of significant public service cuts - specifically in the medical field that should raise some very loud alarms in Alberta (and in any other province with similar governments). The cuts are large enough that not only will a number of skilled professionals lose their jobs, but I would have to wonder not if, but how significant will be the reduction of services. There is as well, the fear that the Albertan government will play out a traditional neo-liberal manipulation of government services. It starts off with reduced public services, then people complaining about the lack of services and then the government allowing for private companies to provide that service because it is clear that the public service cannot.

While the cuts are scary for anyone involved either as a practitioner or a patient, it is impressive that Kenney had the political shrewdness to not discuss any of these cuts until after the federal election. If the cuts had been announced at the beginning of September, I would guess that the federal Conservatives would have had a much harder time in some parts of Alberta. I am not sure if the Liberals would have actually gained in any seats but I have no doubt that their percentage of the popular vote would have increased. Because Kenny did not raise the ire or the fears of Albertans during the election, because he did nothing to suggest that fiscal and social conservatism policies can negatively affect individuals, Trudeau had less ammunition to fight Sheer - unlike in Ontario where Ford was a convenient whipping boy.

Explaining Politics -Not

I would have a hard time explaining to an alien from outer space how Canadian politics work. It would be easy enough to explain how, on paper, our parliamentary system is supposed to function, but telling the stranger why people do what they do, why they, in many instances, seem to vote against what is best for them or their neighbours and all too frequently we collectively make decisions that fly in the face of all logic. The visitor from some distant galaxy would get a completely different explanation depending on who they spoke to, where they lived, how old they were and in many cases what gender they assigned to themselves. If I tried to explain how politics work in another country worked, I would be even more unsuccessful.

While one can explain how politics work (or rather don't) in the USA by just stating the obvious - they are all crazy or incredibly short-sighted, it is much harder to understand what is going on in Great Britain. It would appear as if the party who is guaranteeing that Britain will leave the EU will win - in spite of the fact that a significant percentage of Britons do not want to leave. How terrible it must be to have to support an act that makes little sense to anyone if for no other reason that it is not clear what leaving will actually mean.

I think traditionalist like me, people who were raised in the 50s and 60s by families that were quite clearly more aligned to Great Britain than to the US, naturally assume that GB is the elder statesman of democracy - they, after all, invented it (or at least we were told). We expect their system after seven or eight hundred years of evolution to have all of the kinks worked out of it. But the reality is that democracy, like so many other things, must always be a work in progress. Just because a country or a culture has always done something a certain way does not mean that that way is still the right way. However, the evolution of a democracy used to be a slow process, only gently influenced by current events. Institutions would take years to make even minor adjustments. Changes in very small increments would happen after extensive consultation and sometimes immense pressure sustained over years. Almost nothing happened as a direct result of current events. Politicians were somewhat isolated more often than not from the affairs of most of their constituents.

That is no longer true. We live in a time where there is almost near-instantaneous communication. We expect our politicians to know everything we know as fast as we know it. We expect them to respond just as quickly. There is no time for careful consideration of all of the facts, of slow and often painfully laborious debates or reviews. No longer are people required to be respectful or even educated in the matter. We all have the right to yell, scream, post or email anyone and everyone - demanding quick answers and solutions.

It is hard to deny the people's right to engage their elected representatives. It is equally as hard to disagree with the fact that the world is better off when the barriers that were created by status, race or gender have been dissipated (or at least started to). But it could be argued that in our passionate desire to allow everyone to have an equal right to engage the politicians - we have deleted the buffer zone that allowed people time to think about what is the best direction to take.

We have all too frequently been reduced to serving those with the loudest voices or those who are the most organized or those who have the most money to spread their message. It perhaps has always been that way, but it seems to me, at least in the case of Great Britain that they would benefit from an extended period of sober thought - without people screaming at each other that they alone know the right course of action.

Looking for the Good News

It is tempting to label all politicians as self-serving, witless buffoons who generally would not know how to organize a sock drawer, never mind draft policies and laws that would govern a country. Hundreds of pundits and bloggers do so on a daily basis in part because it is just so easy to do so. It does not matter what our political bent is, there are numerous examples of the incompetence of politicians regardless of their ideological leanings. Some days it is difficult to find any examples of a politician and even harder - a group of politicians who demonstrate any capacity to work together to effect good - or at least good for anyone different than themselves. But our cynicism is partially self-inflicted in that we do not demand that politicians work together, we certainly do not reward those that do. In fact, I suspect that our interest in politics and the activities of those we have elected is directly proportional to the level of political absurdities and stupidity that the media reports. Politics are boring if everyone agrees with each other and if all are working towards a common goal. The media has learnt that if you wanted to attract readers/listeners/viewers - you need to sensationalize the news, you need to stress the bits that will get people reacting.

This approach has a couple of consequences. One is that it teaches the public that we should distrust all politicians who do not think like us, secondly that there are only black and white answers to all issues and that there is no middle ground where consensus can be negotiated and thirdly - that politicians learn that to get attention and therefore be re-elected - they need to say and do things that facilitate that polarization. It is a vicious circle - politicians get rewarded by being extreme in their opinions in part by demonstrating a limited (or no) capacity to think, individuals are attracted to media that both stimulates and reconfirms their beliefs/values, politicians get re-elected on meaningless platforms. The form is all that matters, the substance has become irrelevant.

And yet, at least in Canada, there are some real tangible signs that not all politicians are incompetent and that there is a real possibility that some of them, from different political parties, are at least willing to consider that they can and should work together. This week, CBC reported a few comments by politicians and others that suggest that things may not be as unworkable as the pundits suggest. Ford, the Premier of Ontario has suggested that he can work together with the federal government to address some of the issues - in fact he describes his meeting with Trudeau as being "very productive, very collaborative". Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage described her first meeting with the federal Natural resource Minister ( Seamus O'Regan) as "very good start." The oil and gas leaders of Alberta are welcoming the appointment of Anne McLellan as an unpaid adviser to the government.

What is remarkable about all three of those stories is how little press they received, how little enthusiasm was generated by the possibility that maybe, just maybe politicians will work together to solve some of the issues that arise in a country as large and as diverse as is Canada. They are small stories - nothing will change because some leaders have expressed some limited enthusiasm for some meetings but it is a start. We need to support those politicians and captains of industry, we need to reward them with our cheers, we need to encourage them to keep looking for the positives, we need to assure them that we prefer it when they work together, when they avoid looking for the negatives.

It is time that we, the people, start to control how the narrative is told. We need to tell the storytellers to change the manipulative spin on the stories that they chose to tell. That does not mean they ignore the bad stuff - just that they tell the whole story.

Neighbours to the South - A Mirror of What is to be?

It is easy and oh so tempting to look at the chaotic political gamesmanship occurring in the country to the south of Canada and say - " we could never act like that" or " our politicians could never be that bad". Most of us desperately need to believe that to be true. I would even suspect that a number of citizens of the US believe that their politicians cannot be willfully lying or manipulating the circumstances for their own political benefit. And yet the evidence on both sides of the border is quite clear. Some politicians/political parties will take positions that exist only to create or perpetuate conflict and disagreement. As clearly demonstrated by Trump and his allies, it doesn't seem to matter how absurd or fraudulent your position is - someone, perhaps a lot of people will believe you.

In Canada, the inflammatory messages might be more subtle and there would appear to be less interest in reacting to them. But there is a constant effort to drive wedges between groups of people or in Canada's case between regions. Take for example the leader of the Bloc who said that it does not matter who is in the new Canadian cabinet because "no one can make Canada a coherent country" (CBC). He then went on to say " the apparent division in Canada is a natural state for an artificial country [like] Canada" (CBC). The Bloc, given their stated goal to leave the confederation, will always use language that suggests that the confederation is not working and even that it should not exist. Some people in Quebec will agree with him, most just assume that it is a bit of reflexive, mindless political jostling. Unfortunately, some outside of Quebec will see his comments as one more bit of proof that Quebecers don't want to stay/belong in Canada and say something equally as stupid, thereby proving that the rest of Canada does not like Quebecers. Similarly, comments suggesting that some of the provinces (i.e. Alberta, Saskatchewan) would be better off going it alone are made and discussed every few years.

The question in my mind that begs to be asked is why do we not only allow politicians and others to make such statements but why do so many people get on a particular bandwagon. What is it about human nature (as someone who has studied/taught sociology I really dislike suggesting that there are some innate things about human behaviour) that encourages us to look for the differences between us. Why do are we always comparing ourselves to everyone else, one hand assuming that we are superior, while on the other hand assuming that we are being treat unfairly. It is almost as if we believe that we have the right to be treated as the best but that everyone is against us.

If we could only stop believing that everyone else is out to get us, to take advantage of our good nature life would be so much easier. If we could only accept that other people, even those we do not agree with - are good people and that they would never intentionally hurt us. After all - we are good people and we would never hurt anyone - right?

Bird Watching

Bird Watching

One of the joys of living where I live is that I can walk to the Cowinchan River in a few minutes. It is not that I often take the time to walk along the dike, but it is nice to know that it is there. The dike acts as a pathway for a number of local residents including some First Nation individuals who live just east of me and are walking to town and others who are walking their dogs. During the warm months, there are frequently a few individuals camping out in spots carved out of the dense undergrowth. In the spring the river rushes by, high enough for debris to get caught in the branches of the cottonwoods that line the banks. By late summer the water is so low that in some areas I could walk across it and not get my knees wet. On the other side of the river, there is a large park with a few spots that have been shaped by generations of families (and dog owners) into swimming areas.

During the late fall, the river becomes a very noisy place. Overhead, there are flocks of Canada geese heading south, all making that strange honking noise. One can imagine them shouting out to each other - arguing if they are reading the map correctly or wondering when they are going to stop for something to eat. Then as the salmon head upstream to spawn, the gulls start to fly overhead waiting for them to die. There are times when gulls' raucous calls are so loud that they drown out all other noises. I do my best to ignore their calls and wait until I hear the short, high pitched call of the eagle. I am always a bit surprised at how high and almost thin-sounding is the eagle's call. One would think that such a big bird, with all of the attention it gets - that it would have a more impressive, perhaps even awesome call.

Last week as soon as I heard the eagles' call I grabbed my camera and headed for the river. Eagles are certainly majestic and worth watching but their eating tastes and habit are not so inspiring. In fact, if one observes them during this time of year it is clear that they are opportunistic in their choice of food. They are scavengers.

The river was alive with birds. There were some wood ducks resting in small bays getting ready (I assume) for the trek south, some small water birds that I did not recognize although looking through my books, they might have been either the Common Goldeneye or perhaps some Bufflehead, hundreds of gulls flying through the air or wading on the rocky banks occasionally nibbling on a salmon carcass and the eagles perched in trees - occasionally going for a short flight, landing near a salmon, nibbling a bit and then going back to their roost. They all looked just a little bit lazy, like a family after a Thanksgiving turkey. There was lots more to eat - there were at least 15-20 dead salmon that I could see - but no one was hungry except for those who could not resist just one more nibble. Interesting - none of the birds paid any attention to or were cautious around the eagles. Everyone knew what was on the menu and it wasn't anything alive.

I am lucky to be able to see it all.

Some days the Sun Just Does Not Shine

There have been a few days in my life when I have thought about being a politician. Fortunately, these minor twinges/urges for fame have quickly evaporated as I thought about how much work it would be, how fragile my ego can be and most importantly how poorly I suffer fools. Even less often, I feel sorry for those folks who have made the decision to be a politician. I admire many of them, if not for their wisdom and ability to see the world through a critical lens, at least because they have made a commitment to do something. I frequently disagree with most of them, but I do appreciate the fact that the majority of our elected representatives are probably doing the best they can, most of the time. However, right now, I am feeling just a little bit sorry for Justin Trudeau. I think for the next two or so years (or however long his government lasts) he will never please even half of the people half of the time.

The Conservatives across the country are setting up a situation where the new federal government can not meet their expectations. If Trudeau did attempt to meet their demands:

1) there would be no carbon tax and in fact, no clear plan to halt what appears to be the world's slide into permanent weather crisis

2) somehow pipelines would be built across the country - even when the people living there do not want them

3) corporations, especially those who are in the business of exploiting our natural resources will continue to get tax breaks with no expectations of investing their profits to Canada

At the same time, 60% of Canadians who voted for a party that had, at least on paper, a commitment to dealing with climate change would be ignored.

The other alternative would be for the government to pursue its' climate change agenda (as poor as it is) including imposing a carbon tax on those provinces that refuse to do anything and not being any more supportive than it already is to resource extraction companies. That might marginally satisfy some of the people in Canada.

So either the new government will be blamed for lost jobs in the resource sector regardless of why - thereby proving that the Liberals do not care about the west or they will do what the Conservative leadership is demanding of them and prove to everyone else that the government does not care about our children and grandchildren. If I were Trudeau, I think I might consider going back to teaching in a private boy's school.

There is, of course, a third alternative. Trudeau could accept the fact that he was not going to get elected again. He could do some things that might displease some people much of the time. He could deliver on his implied promise of four years ago. With the support of the NDP, there is so much that we could do including creating, in the west, whole industries devoted to producing alternative technologies or we could develop and implement a health care system that would reach all Canadians and that would ensure adequate access to medications; we provide accessible and affordable homes to people who need them and we could finally get out from the continuing burden of paying for extensive legal battles with the First Nations by just doing what is right immediately.

I may be being naive, but I think that if Trudeau (and his party) could have the courage to do what was needed, without worrying about being elected next time - people might be a lot happier with him than he would have thought.

Another Remembrance Day - No Change in the Number of Wars Happening Today

I was up early this morning - had breakfast, brushed my teeth, made my bed and by just before 8:00 AM, I turned on my computer and watched CBC's coverage of the Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa. It is always strange watching the ceremony so early in the morning. However, it feels somehow more significant that I do that than wander down to watch to a local ceremony in my now hometown of Duncan.

I have participated and watched a lot of such services. As a cub and then as a scout I marched in parades and church services honouring the soldiers who had gone overseas to fight for their country (which was Britain for the most part) in both the first and second world wars. My mother's father had been in France and may have suffered lung damage from gas attacks, there was a great aunt who my mother said was deaf from being too close to the artillery guns (she was a nurse in the front lines of WW1) and my father, who we all believed suffered his terrible migraine attacks at least in part because of a war caused head injury, had spent four years overseas during WW2. The depression and then the war (which separated my not-yet-married parents for those years) was part of the subtext of almost all of our dining room table conversations. It was not surprising that for most of my young life, probably well into my late teens - Remembrance Day was a significant day.

It is less so now and I suspect for the generations behind me - any significance will be manufactured by groups and institutions that have a vested interested in maintaining it. There are, of course, no remaining survivors of WW1 and relatively few from WW2. Canada was less involved in the Korean war and while the country has maintained some sort of presence in other conflicts, the number of Canadian soldiers who have actually participated outside of Canada is relatively few. In fact, almost as many Newfoundlanders were killed within a few months of each other in WW1 as have been killed in all of the conflicts since 1946.

I got a ride from a veteran this past summer. He spent a portion of our time together talking about veteran's rights, the poor care the government has offered them and some of his work volunteering with agencies that support veterans. He was, of course, absolutely right - Canada had not done all that it could have done to help soldiers re-adjust to civilian life. It never has. I am sure that my family was unique as we, on occasion, (in hindsight) experienced some of the consequences of my father's PSTD. But then my driver said that he had served all of his time in Germany and that he had had a good time. There is a whole generation of ex-soldiers whose experiences in the Canadian Armed service were radically different than my grandfather's, my father's or those who served in places such as Afghanistan. I am not sure if those peacetime soldiers will ever be able to generate the powerful emotions that seeing veterans from WW1 or WW2 did.

And I am not sure if we need to have those emotions artificially generated. War is a terrible thing. It destroys people's lives, it can destroy a whole generation's worth of dreams and aspirations. But all of the parades and ceremonies, all of the trips to old battlefields and tours of cemeteries overseas have not stopped one death from a gun, have not prevented one child from losing a parent due to a conflict that was never needed. A conflict that could have been prevented if the politicians and the people had wanted to stop it. Yes, we will remember. But I would much rather remember the stupidity and the ignorance that caused those wars, that caused those deaths, those lost dreams. I would much rather spend our collective energies stopping it from happening again and again.