Fires Burning -What to Fix?

Like many other people living in the western part of the world, I felt a sense of sadness as I read about Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris burning, perhaps destroyed. If I had a "bucket list", visiting that cathedral, Paris or even France would not be in the top 10. There are a hundred other things I might want to see or do before I got around to going to Paris. The building is of no special religious or historical significance to me. And yet I had this sense of loss, this subtle, almost subconscious acknowledgement that something that had always been there, was no longer.

The building was a monument to a powerful force in the development of western society. It spoke of a time when the Catholic church was so all-powerful that it could raise the billions of dollars (in today's terms) it took to build it and to ensure that thousands of people spent their entire lives working on it. The building demonstrated the power of the vision of those who said it needed to be built. It is remarkable that that vision, which on occasion wavered, lasted for almost a 1,000 years. With the frequent additions and changes to the inside, there is no doubt that the cathedral was a monument to the architects, the creators of new building techniques and those who worked with stone, wood and glass. It is a piece of history.

In the very recent aftermath of the fire, a few very large corporations and thousands and thousands of individuals have donated money for the building to be restored. While I recognize the impulse to restore what was - I question whether or not someone should.

1) The cathedral can never be made to what it was. It can be restored so that it looks the same, craftspeople can use old techniques and shape the exact type of materials - but they can't make it old - they can just duplicate what someone else did. It will always be just a copy. The remarkable imagination and the vision required to build something to glorify their God cannot be present in that copy. The inventiveness and courage of the designers who gambled that their structures, some which had never been used before, would stand the test of time will be duplicated by computers drafting accepted designs. A lot of money (some say $10 billion) will be spent to restore what can be fixed and to copy what can't.

2) In Canada, there has been a fair amount of discussion as to what to do with monuments that celebrate events or people that by today's standards, were racist. It has been argued that public spaces and institutions should not glorify those who oppressed others. Notre Dame is a monument to/of the Catholic church that supported slavery, homophobia, numerous invasions of the Middle East, the slaughter of people of the Jewish faith and the burning of witches. For well over a thousand years the Catholic Church shaped the thoughts of the western world. And not always to the good.

According to the CBC (https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/notre-dame-1.5102307) in France "as many as 51 percent now identify as having no religion whatsoever" and therefore it could be argued that some people want to restore the cathedral, not because of its religious significance, but rather because it is an important cultural icon. It would seem that regardless of what it is called, it remains a monument to a time when there were harsh and frequently deadly consequences for anyone who was different.

In light of the ongoing protest driven by a range of social issues and perceived inequities in France, one has to wonder if there might not be a better use for the $10 billion.

Reaping What You Sow

To no one's surprise, Jason Kenney and his UPC party handily won yesterday's Albertan provincial election. In spite of the allegations of, at the very least, of unethical manipulations during his leadership campaign and the far too many far right/ultra social conservative/racist/homophobic comments by members of his party, everyone knew that they would win.

I am quite sure that the oil companies are delighted because they now have a premier who, ignoring all scientific data to the contrary, will work hard to increase the carbon footprint of Alberta. Kenny has promised to attack everything and everyone who dares suggest that there might be another way to create a sustainable economy other than to produce the dirtiest and most environmentally destructive type of oil. More investment capital may flow into those companies now that everyone knows that Alberta is prepared to rape itself for short term gain. The average Albertan will be happy because they voted for a party that promised them better days ahead, especially for those who want to/need to bury their heads in the sand.

But while all of the above are delighted and can take some of the credit for the sound defeat of the NDP - the people who should take the most credit (and who will bare almost none of the consequences) are all of those left-leaning, small "l" liberals, pseudo-green Canadians who so vigorously protested the building of the pipeline. By doing nothing to support Alberta, by not even attempting to find reasonable compromises that would allow Alberta to maintain an economy that contributes to Canada, Alberta was isolated; made to feel a victim; made to feel that no one cared. The provincial NDP stood alone looking for something, anything that would allow them to continue to deal with the crashing Albertan economy and at least do a little bit about its carbon footprint. The protesters, by so loudly condemning the very thought of Alberta wanting to sell oil provided exactly the type of ammunition required for the conservatives to once again argue that all Canadians hate Alberta. For so many Albertans, the only solution for Alberta was to have a strong leader who will fight Ottawa and stand up to the rest of Canada. Kenney by selling himself as someone who will fight for Albertans; who will challenge all of those Canadians who want Alberta's transfer payments but do not want Albertans to be successful; who will, if necessary drag Alberta to the point of separation from Canada has now joined the pantheon of leaders who rather fight the federal Liberals in Ottawa than to look for solutions..

If any of the oil pipeline protesters thought the battles/discussions were difficult last year - just imagine how difficult those debates will be this year. The environmentalists have lost a friend, someone who believed at least close to what they believed. There is always a danger in drawing lines in the sand/ or painting the world only in black and white. When we assume that there is only one way to do something and that is our way - we run the risk of other people seeing the world diametrically opposite.

The protesters instead of finding ways to make Albertans allies in the fight against climate change have pushed Alberta into wholeheartedly fighting any plan to reduce our carbon footprint. Well done!!!

Doug Ford's Ontario - Dystopian Literature in the Making?

I read a lot. On average, every month or so I usually read 4-5 fiction books and 2 non- fiction book. I also listen to a couple of books a week as I spend my days spinning or weaving. While I am open to reading most types of fiction, my favourite genre is some sort of fantasy or Utopian/dystopian story about people that are sort of like me living on a planet sort of like mine. I have always been intrigued by stories that explore how different societies evolve and how an individual copes with the rules and structures that have been created. I think that type of story if done well, allows the author to explore how different societies might either nourish or destroy a people's capacity to grow and develop as a society. The good authors excite the sociologist within me.

However, few of the authors of Utopian/dystopian fiction spend very much time exploring how those future societies were developed. I always wonder how, for example, an autocratic society is allowed to even start. It always seems to me to be a flaw in all of the great books from More's Utopia to Huxley's Brave New World to even Collins' The Hunger Games (less of a great book) that how or why people allowed it all to happen is not discussed.

It has always been difficult for me to imagine me living in a world where I would willingly give up certain rights and freedom in exchange for perhaps some sort of security; where I would agree to have someone else make all of the critical decisions for me. And that I would do so with no sense of outrage and an overwhelming need to protest any such move.

On the other hand - I no longer live in the Province of Ontario, a place that seems to be rapidly sliding into some sort of dictatorship; a place where the bizarre views of one individual (and one has to assume the party that elected him as a leader) have become the law. The Ontario government is opposed to the federally imposed carbon tax. I would understand if they had a better plan and were not allowed to use it - but they don't have a better plan. The government appears to believe that either the amount of carbon that we spew into the atmosphere has no relationship to climate change or that climate change itself is not happening.

Governments are allowed, perhaps even suppose to disagree with each other. Rational dialogue between competent adults allows the various opposing parties to find reasonable compromises. Doug Ford's definition of a reasonable dialogue is to require gas station owners to post large notices on the gas pumps stating how much money the carbon tax is "taking" from the purchaser. What is missing from that notice is how much money will be rebated back to the consumer (all of it). The notice is disingenuous at best; at worst it is a conscious lie designed to manipulate the voters.

What makes all of this the start of a potentially good dystopian novel is the fact that the Ontario government is proposing passing a law that will significantly financially punish operators and owners who do not post the signs. To be clear - the Ontario provincial government is going to force individuals to post statements that depending upon one's perspective - are either incomplete or untrue. The government is going to force people to post signs that simply are political propaganda and the taxpayers of Ontario will, apparently willingly, pay for the cost of the posters.

Personally, if I had to buy gas in Ontario - I would consider only buying gas at a station that refused to post such signs. They are going to need the money to fight the criminal charges.