Tea Bags and Plastic

I do not live a decadent lifestyle. If I drink, it is usually a glass of $10.00 wine. I don't gamble. Except when I am travelling, I almost never eat in restaurants and my definition of fine food is a plate of brown rice with some broccoli and mushrooms on top. I really try to keep my life as simple as possible. When I relax, all I want is a cup of tea - a drink that has been drunk for centuries around the world. In fact, according to Wikipedia other than water, tea is drunk more than any other beverage. (https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Tea). Plain tea is very simple - boiling water poured over the leaves of a specific plant that originally came from Asia but now grows in various parts of the world. That is all. How can tea not be good for you - or at least harmless?

The answer is plastic. Tea and plastic - two words that should never be used in the same sentence. Tea is natural, plastic is made from oil. But the purveyors of high-end teas have decided to use plastic tea bags for their best teas. And it turns out that those plastic bags release literally billions of microbeads of plastic into the tea which then end up in our guts (Globe and Mail).

Life is incredibly complex. There are all kinds of disasters happening all around us. Some of those disasters are, at least initially completely beyond our capacity to predict. But surely, with all of the discussions as to the number of micro bits and pieces of plastic that are floating in our rivers, lakes and oceans, some bright person at the tea company would have realized that using plastic for tea bags would potentially cause problems. Don't they test things before they release them to the public?

On the other hand, perhaps it is some sort of far-left dastardly plot to kill off all of the capitalists drinking their premium brands of tea.

Greta Thunberg

It is interesting to read various people's reaction to Greta Thunberg's, the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, address to the UN. Some people are stuck in a rut - arguing as to whether or not her comments were polite enough or appropriate for a young person to make to her "betters". Others are, somewhat unbelievably, arguing that there is no such thing as climate change and that therefore there was no need for her to be there at all. Some people seem to feel it is all a public relations ploy engineered by the political left or her parents or that she is being manipulated by participants in some sort of weird conspiracy plot designed to change life as we know it. I am sure if I dug down deep enough, I would find at least a few people suggesting that is was all an alien plot intended to soften the world up for an alien invasion.

I do not have a clue as to who wrote her speech. I do not care if her thoughts have been influenced by her parents or by people who think that the world leaders need to get off of their butts and do something. It does not matter if she is a bit vulnerable or perhaps easily influenced. In fact the whole debate about who she is etc is just a smokescreen so that people do not have to confront the reality that our climate is changing and that while some of those changes might be due to cyclical complex weather patterns, some of the changes are clearly because of what humans have spewed into the atmosphere, the land and the water.

It is easy to get distracted by how she got here, how she travels about or to debate her age or her relative lack of sophistication in terms of world affairs. She clearly is relatively sheltered, coming from a first world country with access to all types of services and levels of education. She is at best naive in terms of her understanding of both the science and of what needs to happen to address the problem in a meaningful way. But none of that means that her message is wrong

For all of those people who think her a near -saint or as someone who can motivate the leaders of the developed world to create policies that will reverse the changes in our climate - they are wrong. For all of those people who see Greta Thunberg as our saviour, a person worthy of the next Nobel Peace prize - they are living in a fantasy world that is doomed to be drowned in the next flood or else be turned into a desert. She is not our knight in shining armour, she will not cause anyone to do anything. Nothing will change because of her impassioned speech - as impressive as it was. Unfortunately, a handful of inspired by her but privileged high school students protesting for a day will be equally as un-useful.

The only hope is that she and others like her will be able to convince their older peers who can vote - to do so. And that those new voters will vote for individuals and parties that have both the vision and the capacity to act. The only hope is that she and others like her will be able to convince their parents to vote for those same individuals and parties. And the only hope is that all of those young people will be able to convince their peers and the others in their lives that we cannot keep on living a lifestyle that depletes the earth's resources.

Greta Thunberg may be a wonderful person, but changing the world is everyone's job. We must not abdicate our responsibilities to her.

A Very Minor Rant on Trucks

I think I can understand a person's (generally a male's) desire to drive a pick-up truck. And without a doubt, the bigger the truck - the better it must feel. There must be some sort of ego rush as one drives down the road, perhaps a foot or so higher than anyone else, lording it over all the drivers of smaller vehicles. The driver may argue that he needs the truck for work (although the truck bed is frequently cleaner than my trunk has ever been) or that he has things he needs to cart to the dump or back from Home Depot, but the fact is that he seldom needs a truck and he almost never in his life will need a truck with such big tires that one almost needs a step stool to get into it.

If it wasn't for the large carbon footprint that these trucks have from both the amount of fuel they burn and the energy needed to manufacture them - I would almost be inclined to say it is none of my business. If someone wants to spend all of that money on a four-passenger vehicle, it has very little to do with me. Certainly, there is nothing that I can do change the owners' minds. Except.....

Large pick-up trucks, oversized SUVs and cans are a menace to smaller cars. Those of us who drive smaller cars do so either because it is all that we can afford or because it is environmentally responsible to do so. Every time I am on the highway, I am very aware that if any one of those pick-up trucks crashes into me - especially those with the extra chromed, extra-large bumper - I am dead. Not because I am driving an unsafe car, but because the other driver is driving something to boost his ego.

On Saturday, I found a new reason to dislike big pick-up trucks. I was downtown and needed to park my car. I found a spot in a parking lot about three rows away from the street. I got out and walked towards the street. I could not get through rows of parked vehicles. There were 6-7 big trucks in a row and their oversized side view mirrors were so close to the next truck that there was no room for me to squeeze through. It is bad enough when large vehicles park in spots clearly designated for smaller cars or when they block my sightlines but now the drivers are even making it difficult for pedestrians.

Maybe we should ban such vehicles from city streets and parking lots. I am not really serious - but I do wish someone could explain to me the value of large pick-up trucks.

Election #3 The Problem With Being Perfect

Just a few days ago, I did a blog on the difficulties of deciding how relevant should the activities be of politicians when they were younger. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have been active in looking at their opponent's social media pages searching for any previous sins. In hindsight Liberals should have been less enthusiastic looking for other people's sins, but perhaps they did not know about the skeletons that were hiding in Mr. Trudeau's closet.

I went to a small school just off the island of Montreal. The elementary and high school were attached and I don't think there were more than 300-400 students in the whole school. Sometime in the early 60s, when I was in elementary school, the high school students did a "minstrel show". I am sure I saw the show at least one year although it may have been for two years. The show was a big deal. The high school students all wore blackface and dressed up in costume, they sang songs and told jokes in fake southern American accents - acting like they and the audience assumed black people acted and talked. I can remember enjoying the show. I suspect that I was envious of the students who seemed to be having such a good time on stage and who clearly were appreciated by the audience.

It was a small school, in a community that always felt as if it was far off of the beaten track. In the early 1960s, there was no suggestion of what was about to happen in terms of civil rights to the south of us. I don't think the issue of racism was ever mentioned in any classroom I sat in. There were no people of colour in my school. The teachers, the students and the parents were all absolutely oblivious to the wrongness of these minstrel shows. Thankfully, well before I got to high school these show disappeared from the gym stage. It was wrong and it should never have happened but it was, at least on my part, unintentional racism. I had no way of knowing any better.

But certainly by 1970 - it was clear that people needed to start to think about these issues and by the 90s it is difficult for me to believe that anyone in Canada would have dressed up in blackface for a party - and think that it was okay. Someone can apologize all they want for doing so - I would accept that apology if there was some indication that it happened a long time ago and that they have taken steps to be educated on why it was wrong. The fact that Justin Trudeau wore blackface at least two times when he was an adult causes me to question his capacity to make intelligent decisions. I am reasonably sure that he is not a racist - but he has shown incredibly poor judgement. It is more disturbing that he did it as a teacher. He should have been a better model for his students.

There is no doubt that this news has been released at this specific time because it will hurt the Liberal's chances of winning the election. It was a crass political act that will ensure that the election will be about personalities, not policy. We deserve better.

The pictures/videos will confirm to some people that Trudeau is an ass and should not be the leader of a country. Those who will always support the Liberals will blame others for the news being released and say what he did 20 years ago is not important. It is far too early to guess whether or not the news will significantly sway people who had not yet made of their minds.

Within the war room(s) of the Liberal party, I am sure some have considered Trudeau resigning as perhaps he should. But that cannot happen. It would hand the running of the country to some other party - whether or not they deserved it. Perhaps the best that the Liberals can do is to suggest that the voters will decide whether or not the errors of two decades ago are relevant.

Scheer of the Conservatives has said that he would let anyone run for his party, no matter what they had said as long as they apologized. I bet that he will not be so generous to his main opposition.

Trudeau's failing is not that he did something stupid when he was younger - it is that he acted like he was near perfect in terms of his values and beliefs. He isn't and so some Canadians will be feel betrayed to find that their newest emperor is no better than their old one.

Election #3 Maxime Bernier and the Leadership Debate

Canadians like to think that they are a fair-minded people. In fact, much of our public persona around the world is based on the assumption that we treat people fairly, that everyone has an equal chance to succeed, that we do not discriminate against anyone. And in general, much of that is true. Or at least we try to make it true in a general way. There are, of course, thousands of examples where we have failed miserably to even come close to those ideals. On the other hand, there are times when our desire to appear to be fair causes us to make absurd decisions that while they may be fair for one individual are irresponsible and sometimes dangerous for the rest of us.

The Leaders' Debates Commissioner has decided that Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party has the right to participate in the leadership debates scheduled the first weeks in October. It is not that long ago that the Green Party were not allowed to participate in such debates in spite of the fact that they had earned votes in every part of the country because they did not have a seat in the House of Commons. Bernier and his party which was just created a few years ago and therefore has never garnered any votes at either the federal or provincial level now gets to spew his near racist, isolationist, right-wing conservative hate messages on national television. He gets to act like he has something useful to say - most of which will be toxic to any reasonable debate. As noted by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh “It is wrong that Mr. Bernier be given a platform to promote an ideology of hate that spreads prejudice and disinformation.” (Global News). The fact that he has people running for his party that clearly identify themselves with the far right/neo-Nazi movement should be grounds alone for him being blocked from participating in the debate.

It is more than slightly depressing that a political party that suggests that we need to reduce the number of immigrants allowed into the country and whose economic principles are based on the theory that we can all be successful if we only tried a little bit harder can be created and given substance in 2019. We really should be better than that. It is infuriating that in our desire to ensure that everyone gets the opportunity to participate in our democratic election, we are forced to accept the irrelevant and harmful garbage that comes out of his mouth.

The singular advantage of him being on stage with the other party leaders is that we will get to see who speaks out the loudest against his proposed policies. If I were the Conservative Party strategist, I might be worried about Bernier snagging some votes from the far right of that party.In the meantime- perhaps we should stop being so fair.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5913569/singh-debate-commissioner-letter-bernier/

Election #2

In the last handful of elections, various political parties have devoted considerable energies to perusing the social media websites of candidates from other parties in the hopes of finding either some racist, sexist or homophobic comments made in the past or some incident that suggest that the candidate has racist, sexist or homophobic leanings. Frequently when such comments or activities are found and circulated to the press, the candidate either voluntarily or at the request of their party withdraws from the contest. Not only can such disclosures be embarrassing for the party but I suspect that it can be expensive to replace the signs and campaign literature. Frequently it seems to me that such disclosure does not serve the public good.

What an individual said or did 30 years when they were young may not reflect on what they feel or believe today. Young people are vulnerable to peer pressure. There is an almost overwhelming need to belong. It is not surprising therefore that sometimes, some people say or do things that in hindsight were profoundly wrong. Sometimes things are said or done that are culturally normative or because of the lack of exposure to different opinions or attitudes. Sometimes people are jerks. They say or do hurtful things because they just do not think or perhaps even recognize the impact of those things. But those things, no matter how terrible they may have been, may not define who the person is today. The issue should be - what have they done since? Is there any indication that they have continued with those attitudes or have they changed? Does the individual have a track record of being engaged in their community, working with everyone and anyone, or are their social media posts and private comments still littered with racist, sexist or homophobic comments? Does the person associate with people who demonstrate tolerance and acceptance or do they socialize with others who have a long history of discriminatory remarks? Have they demonstrate the capacity for personal growth or are they still mired in the intolerance of their youth?

As much as it pains me to say so, I think that Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is generally quite right when he suggests that if a candidate apologies for their comments, that they should not be asked to drop out. On the surface, it is a great policy. Except.....

The Conservatives have a candidate who has in the recent past made racist, and homophobic comments. She has worked hard to share her views on a number of platforms. She has spent time with individuals who are well known to have racist or homophobic views. It is not enough to apologize by saying " I am sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone". That type of statement comes from a place of privilege, it comes from someone who will not or cannot acknowledge that their particular world view is wrong and that just stating their views is harmful to people. The fact that she continues to make such statements suggest quite clearly that she has not changed her views, that there has been no personal growth, no acceptance of the harm she may have caused. She should not be allowed to run under the banner of any party.

The fact that Sheer supports her candidacy suggests that he too might be okay with others who are racist, sexist or homophobic. And that is scary.

Another Election??

I do not know how times I have voted it. It feels like a lot. I have voted in every election for the past 50 years with the exception, I think, of the provincial election in 1972 when I lived in Toronto. It does not really matter how many elections I have watched as every election is unique both in terms of who is running and what the issues are. It should be noted that I have a terrible track record in that only once or twice has the person I voted for, gotten elected. I am never discouraged by this record, not have I ever chosen who I have voted for out of frustration or desperation. However, as I get older I do have a sense that the consequences of my choice may have perhaps less impact upon my life if for no other reason than I may not live long enough to feel the full effect of whatever policies get created.

It would be fair to say that I am not particularly excited by the upcoming federal election. Four years ago there was, at least amongst some of the people I knew, an overwhelming sense that the country would not tolerate another four years of Harper's brand of conservatism. There was a feeling that not only was it time for a change but that a change would happen. While I did not vote for the Liberals, there was a hope that Trudeau's "sunny days" would have a beneficial impact on the emotional health of the country. Certainly in the first few months there was a sense of optimism as he took to the world stage and preached about a better, kinder, more responsible type of government. It was hard not to feel good when he ensured that his cabinet was balanced in terms of female/males ministers because it was time that it happen.

But in the last 36-40 months, much of that optimism has evaporated. As any party finds out, running the country is complicated. There is seldom one answer that will make everyone happy. That if the party wants to run the country for more than one election cycle, the Prime Minister needs to make decisions that are political in nature - decisions that they may not have made as private individuals, decisions that will make at least some of the people very unhappy. As dissatisfied as some Canadians are with the direction of the present government, I do not think that that dissatisfaction is strong enough to intentionally push Trudeau's Liberals out of power. If there was a very strong party waiting in the political wings to take over - perhaps but there is no one.

The Conservatives will retain their percentage of the voting public. People who have not been upset in the past by their right-wing agenda, their barely hidden near racist beliefs about some immigrants and their fundamental belief that we all have equal opportunity to succeed will not be upset with anything that gets said in the next few weeks.

The NDP are but a sad copy of their previous glory. There is no sense that the leadership of the party has any capacity to generate excitement in the general public or for that matter even within the core of their supporters. The country could use a party that had a clear vision of what Canada would look like if the government believed that we need to take care of each other, that we need to have more, not fewer programs, that support those who are struggling. The NDP could have been that party - they aren't now and perhaps never will be again.

The Green Party may be the most dynamic party of the bunch. Their leader is a brilliant, well educated multi-experienced leader. The party has had a number of successes at the provincial level and some pundits argue that they are on a roll, that they have the momentum. Those pundits might be right except that the Greens have little organization at the federal level and virtually no one other than their leader who has any practice of being a Member of Parliament. While their values are clear in terms of the environment - I am far less clear about how they would impose those values through policies. In my mind, the primary question is: if the Greens increase their voting percentage - who will they take those votes from. If the NDP lost voters it would not change the political landscape. If the Greens took too many votes from the Liberals - the Liberals could lose their majority.

The question then becomes: who would form the government?