Killing One's Neighbours

Killing One's Neighbours

If a neighbour, a few doors down from me was abusing his wife and children I would be morally obligated to call the police. If I knew that he was threatening them with serious harm or perhaps even death, I would need to intervene if I could be sure that I would not make the situation worse. If other neighbours were feeling threatened I would need to do what I could to protect them including offering them shelter. BUT if I went out and bought a state-of-the-art sniper rifle, planned how I could ensure that I knew where he was and then fired at him, not caring how many others I killed - I would be charged and convicted of first-degree murder. In some parts of the western world, including various states in the USA, I would face execution. In our civil society, no matter what the justification is - an individual cannot decide to execute someone.

In my younger years, it used to be a popular past time at parties to debate whether or not, if one could travel back in time, to do so to assassinate Hitler before he authorized the murder of six million people of the Jewish faith. It has always seemed to me that perhaps the answer is yes - but only if the time-traveller came back and was prepared to stand trial for murder and only if there was proof that there was no other way to stop Hitler or that senseless slaughter.

When Trump ordered the assignation of Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, he did so because he had been told that he was a "bad" man. Trump ordered the death of a person citing wrongdoings in the past and possible risks in the future. All of those who carried out the assignation would say that they were just following orders.
Soleimani may have been a terrible man, he may have been the devil incarnate. I don't know. It is clear that he may have been the key architect of many of the disruptive conflicts in the region. He may have been directly responsible for the deaths of countless Iranians. However, it is perhaps just as likely that he thought that what he had done was morally right - that he was only ensuring his country remained safe, protected from the interference of other countries. He might have even argued that he was only carrying out the orders of his leaders. We just do not know - and we never will. He was never tried or convicted in a world court for any of his crimes.

The west has for well over a hundred years interfered and manipulated the affairs of the Middle East. It has created countries, over-thrown legitimate rulers, robbed it of its resources and supported armed conflict on all sides in a relentless pursuit of the oil so desperately needed to maintain its capitalist growth. To suggest that the west is the illegitimate parents of the sorts of activities that Soleimani undertook would not be an exaggeration.

When there is retaliation - and how can there not be - the US will cry foul. They will say that any attempt on the part of Iran to "payback" is further proof as to how bad, how dangerous the Iranian government is. Any sneak attack on American lives or property will just be proof that "they" are all terrorists.

In a world where one power is allowed to use high tech weapons to kill those he does not agree with while no other country has the right to defend itself against the US's interest - we should all be afraid.

Expensive Drugs and Lotteries

One of the news items that was circulating over the Christmas break was about a young child and her incredibly rare disorder that if not treated will cause her death. There is a potential cure (although it is not clear as to whether or not the medication will reverse the damage or just stop the disease from getting worse) - the catch is that the single-dose medication costs 2.1 million dollars (some media outlets reported the cost was 2.1 million, others said it was 2.8 million) for that one dose. The family have raises 1.5 million dollars on their own but they are running out of time. There is another option - Novartis, the Swiss-based pharmaceutical company that produces the drug is offering 100 doses of the medication-free to individuals living in countries where the drug is not approved. The names of those who will get the drug will be drawn by lottery.

The parent must be rather remarkable people, who must have an equally remarkable circle of friends and family. Raising 1.5 million dollars is no small feat. Their courage to keep on fighting is impressive. No parent hearing their tale could not help but to feel empathy and if some of us are honest, just a little prayer of thankfulness that our children were healthy. It was, of course, no accident that the above story was released around Christmas. It was written to tug at our heartstrings. It certainly had that effect on me. But in spite of my feelings for the family - I saw another story that needed to be explored.

Novartis, if someone bothered to ask them as to why the medication was so expensive, would state that the cost of researching and then finding cures for some genetic or rare illnesses is so expensive that companies need to charge exhorbinet prices to recover their costs. Research can be expensive. However, the company is offering a 100 doses for free. Their donation on the open market is worth 210 million dollars. The company clearly expects the profits from this drug will be so great that they can afford to write off that amount of money and still generate countless millions of dollars for their shareholders. They are making the offer only to families who live in countries where the drug has not been approved. Why else would Novartis make this condition other than to have pressure applied upon those countries to approve the drug and thereby increase their sales.

The lottery is a blatant attempt to increase their profits. It is shameful that any company would apply pressure on families, communities and the country to pay for a drug that is so over-price as to be unaffordable to all but the riches of individuals and indeed the most affluent of countries. This sort of emotional blackmail should be against the law - it is certainly against any moral standards a reasonable person would apply. It is well past time when countries, collectively refuse to pay these prices.

It is perhaps worth knowing that the CEO of Novartis earned 10 million dollars in 2018 (https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/compared-jimenez-novartis-ceo-vas-narasimhan-gets-smaller-2018-paycheck-after-cohen-scandal)

A Few New Year's Resolution For My Politicians

I am not normally inclined to make any New Year's resolutions. It has always seemed to me that if one needs to stop drinking or smoking or eating too much - then one should stop doing those things when you realize what needs to be done. It has always seemed more than slightly absurd to realize what needs to be done but then to wait weeks, perhaps even months to do it. Waiting until after we celebrate having survived another year makes little or no sense. However, in the case of politicians, perhaps they need a bit of a push to get done what needs to be done. More importantly, they need to change how they do things and how they behave.

So here are a few New Year's resolutions for my elected municipal, provincial and federal representatives.

1) Stop worrying about the next election - if you do the right thing - people may just notice it and vote for you again because you have integrity.

2) Chose issues to debate and pass - not based on what the vocal minority demand but on what makes sense for the majority of people including those who do not write letters to the editors or make endless phone calls to complain.

3) When you vote - do so based on concrete information. Do not be swayed by the opinions of your party leaders or the press. Our democratic system is based on the assumption that those who are elected have the capacity and the responsibility to look at the issues and to make reasonable decisions based upon the information.

4) Be civil. Surely most of you know what good manners are. Most of you were raised to say please and thank you and hopefully, most of you were taught how to wait your turn. It would make all of the councils, legislatures and parliaments so much more efficient if everyone just demonstrated the manners they were taught as children.

5) Corollary to the above - be respectful of others who have been elected. Assume that they care as much as you do, assume that their opinions may have some merit and need to be listened to.

6) respect your constituents - most of us are at least as bright as you and are capable of separating fact from fiction.  We can tell when you or your party are self-serving.

There are hundreds of things that could go on the above list in terms of what needs to be done including (but not limited to): increasing our affordable housing stock, ensuring that all children have equal access to education and medical support, ensuring that all Canadians have easy access to safe drinking water and ensuring that future generations can live and work in safe, healthy communities across the country. But if you cannot manage to change your behaviour, change how you interact with your peers and your constituents - you will never be able to accomplish any of the tasks you were elected for.

It is time for a change.

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.