Balderdash - Excuses Not to Vote

In less than a week, political pundits and others are going to start talking about the low numbers of Canadians who voted. They are going to suggest (again) that Canadians do not vote because (1) peoples' lives are so busy that polling times just do not work for them, (2) that people feel that their votes do not count and (3) that the public perception of politicians is that they are corrupt and/or disconnected from the voters. To all of that I want to cry balderdash!!!

Peoples' lives may be more complicated than they were half a century ago, but there are so many more options available as to when to vote than there used to be. Certainly, in my area advance polling stations were well advertised and in great locations. Those polls were open for 12 hours a day, for four days. It is hard to believe that someone, if they were going to be out of town on October 21, could not have found time during those four days - if they had wanted to. I remain unconvinced that letting people vote via the internet would significantly increase the percentage of voters.

There are, depending upon how you count them, two political parties who have a chance of forming the next government. There are also two other parties (plus the Bloc in Quebec) who appear to have a reasonable chance to act as power brokers in the case of a minority government. How many more choices does one need? Certainly, there are far more choices than there were in 1960. In this election it would appear that those who vote for the smaller parties could have a real influence on the outcome. Only someone completely ignorant of our political history would suggest that peoples' votes in 1960 counted for more than they are today.

Of course, there are corrupt politicians. Has there ever been a time when there have not been a few (or perhaps even more than a few) politicians who were more concerned with their power or their money? Following the lead of our sometimes corrupt first prime minister and his cronies, every government has made decisions that have benefited people that they knew and either liked or were obligated to. To assume that all 338 newly elected Members of Parliament are only there to serve all of the constituents, all of the time is naive at best. But they are only disconnected if we remain unengaged. The best counter to corrupt politicians is a large number of citizens who are engaged.

We, as Canadian citizens have ample opportunity to vote, there is, if anything too much information available to help us make out decisions and we are allowed to be as engaged as we choose to be.

If someone decides not to vote for any of the above reasons - that is on them. Blaming the system for not being perfect (and Lord knows it is far from that) is not a reason for not voting - it is an excuse.

Perhaps the media pundits should stop pandering to their laziness or apathy.

Blocking Bridges and Plastic Bottles

Protesters blocked some bridges during the rush hour last week in an attempt to raise the public's awareness of the need for action on climate change. It was an interesting strategy to accelerate public awareness and involvement in the issue. I am not sure how effective it was. The actions in various cities certainly garnered the attention of the media, the police and of course, anyone whose commute to work was made longer. While I found it impressive that some people were prepared to risk going to jail to increase public awareness, I am not at all sure if they were "attacking" the right audience.

Some commuters, I suspect, were just frustrated by the delay. Those that are concerned or even passionate about the need for someone to do something about climate change were probably tolerant of the action; those who have not made the environment their primary concern were more likely to be irritated by the delays. I suspect that no one who is in a position of power to do anything about the amount of carbon in the air, or the amount of pollution in our rivers, lakes or oceans was inconvenienced in any way. And surely, any social action must not only increase the public's awareness of the specific issue (although I find it hard to believe that anyone is not aware), it also must make it at least a little bit uncomfortable for those in a position of power.

I believe that protesters need to be sure that they are acting against the right target. Otherwise, they are frittering a valuable resource in terms of people's time and energy.

Yesterday, CBC (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-litter-ships-bottles-1.5318390) reported on an international study that suggests that a significant percentage of the plastic water bottles that are found of the world's most remote beaches may, in fact, come from boats, specifically cruise ships. Everyone, I assume, knows that disposing empty water bottles by chucking them over the back rail is not only a bad idea but it is also illegal. But clearly, some cruise ships are doing it. The paper wondered if our assumption that much of our beach and ocean plastic pollution comes from the land was at least partially incorrect. We can ban all of the single-use plastic we want in Canada, but if cruise ships are doing it where we can't see them - our ban will not solve the problem.

It would seem to me that blocking access to the corporate offices of the cruise lines and protesting every time a cruise ship docked at one of our ports would do much to both educate the passengers and to make it just a little bit uncomfortable for the owners. It could be a much more effective use of our resources.

Yes, it is a small thing, but we will start to win the war by winning small battles.

But of course, we won't do that because cruise ships bring too much money into our cities.

A Thanksgiving Thank You

It is traditional about this time of year that Canadians gather in family groups, eat enough food to feed a village and hopefully take a few minutes to say thank you for all that we have. It perhaps feels like a well, over-used phrase to say thank for friends and family, but those of us who are lucky enough to have friends or family with whom we are in touch - should be grateful. Both are rare commodities in a world that is so full of strife, chaos and dislocation.

When I am at the market selling my weaving, I usually spin. As I sit there spinning, people quite often come up to me and say how relaxing it looks or how meditative it must be. I usually say that it is impossible to spin while tense, but I never know if I only spin when I am relaxed or if the act of spinning relaxes me. I frequently go on to describe a good day for me which is me spinning for four or so hours with my tablet playing a downloaded audiobook from the library on one side, and my tea on the other
side. I always say I know how lucky and blessed I am to have a life where I get to do what makes me feel good. As I am talking to those people, I can never get over how exceptionally fortunate I am to have such a life.

It is not perfect, I could probably go on for hours (and sometimes do) listing all of the things that I wish were better. But just because things are not exactly the way one thinks they were going to be, is no reason to ignore the extraordinary blessings that so many of us have.

There is a pike of crap that is happening in the world. Syria is still a nightmare and perhaps about to become worse because of Turkey's fight with the Kurds, there are idiot politicians who seem to be hell-bent on boosting their own egos while watching the world crumble around their neighbours, thousands of people who are homeless in Canada are facing the winter months with no place to live and extreme weather events continue to disrupt life causing not only deaths but community dislocation. Not only are these and other problems happening now, but there is no plan, no vision of how to deal with any of the issues. And all the while in Canada the political debate revolves around getting more with no increase in taxes.

I would never suggest that there is nothing that we as individuals can do about some of the above problems. I think that perhaps the first step to changing the world is to recognize that many of us have been unbelievably lucky in how our life has turned out. We need to acknowledge our privilege.

Giving thanks for our blessing is not enough - we need to find ways so that everyone has the opportunity to feel equally as blessed.

Election #6 Another Debate (A Good One This Time)

I normally would not have gone to a second local debate but the one I attended a week or so ago was so disappointing (as was the leaders' debate) that I felt the need to go out again to see if I could get a better feeling for the candidates that I will have to choose from.

I am pleased to say that the debate last night was pretty good. The fact that it was in a theatre with great sightlines, really comfortable seats and lots of legroom may have had something to do with my satisfaction but there was also a better format and a great moderator. As well, there were only four candidates on stage. I am not sure if other candidates were not invited or if some of the candidates have realized that they did not have a chance of being elected and have dropped out of the race. But having fewer people on stage meant that there was more time for questions.

There were three questions posed by the local chamber of commerce (the sponsors of the evening) and the other 24 questions came from participants at the debate. 27 questions is a lot to get through, but because the session lasted for almost two and a half hours - no one seemed to feel rushed. The range of questions included ones about abortion, the economy, the environment and a number of questions about local issues including the opioid crisis, the need for treatment centres and for affordable housing. It was a much wider range of question than were available at the other debates that I witnessed. It was of course not a debate. Each of the four candidates answered the question and in general avoided discussing another party's platform or track record in part because if another party was mentioned then that candidate got extra time to rebut the comments. But there was sufficient time for all to speak and to indicate their party's position.

The other well-designed thing about the event was the fact that someone had control over the microphones and as soon as an individual candidate had used their time - the microphone was turned off. This meant that there was no cross-talk. The national debate organizers could learn from this technique.

After the last two debates, I wondered if there was any point in watching them. I am now convinced that there is a way to have the candidates on the stage, speaking to the people. And that is good news.

Election #5 The Great (Sort of) Debate

I spent part of yesterday afternoon/evening watching five men and one woman generally avoid answering the questions by demeaning their opponents while at the same time trying to extol their own personal or their party's virtues. The one possible exception to that was Elizabeth May who on at least the environmental issues tried to stay on task. Unfortunately, for the Green Party, every question is really about the environment and her repetitions of the theme got a bit tiring. The other people vying for people's votes were similarly singularly focused on repeating their mantras: "I am good, everyone else is therefore bad".

It may not have been entirely their fault. Six people forced to engage in a predetermined format that limited anyone's comments to less than two minutes is a recipe for something other than a useful debate. All too often, in spite of various moderators attempts to get the party leaders to not talk over each other, it felt as if much of the time there were at least two people talking. I would not have minded that if they were saying something useful, new or even entertaining. But in fact, it seemed as if they had all memorized a handful of key phrases and accusations and threw those comments into the "debate" whenever they felt so inclined to do so.

This meant when one leader said something that was wrong, there was little time for any other leader to dispute the claim. For example, Sheer at least twice said that Trudeau had fired an Indigenous member of his cabinet because she disagreed with him. While this statement may have some truth in it, Trudeau may have asked for Jody Wilson-Raybould resignation (it is not actually clear if she resigned or was asked to leave cabinet). The fact that she was from a First Nation had nothing to do with it. To suggest that her firing was proof that Trudeau was not committed to a level of reconciliation is, at best, disingenuous. The debate format left no time to respond. It could have been an interesting conversation if the two leaders had had time to address that question. As it was, it was just a smear attack.

There were numerous other comments throughout the two hours that had no other function than to smear the reputation of an individual or a policy. I suspect that because the leaders knew the format before starting, and in fact, their "people" had negotiated it, they knew that they would be free to cast aspersions upon each other with no consequences. How could that be called a debate? It was no better than what so frequently happens in the House of Commons.

Given the size of the country and the impracticality of getting all of the leaders in the same spot more than two or three times, this may be the best that we can do. But I do not think so. With all due respect to the leaders, there were two that did not need to be there. The Bloc are only running candidates in Quebec - they have little to contribute to a national debate until such time as they see themselves as equal partners with other provinces. If they insist on arguing that they are a separate nation and therefore have the right to negotiate differently the rest, the leader of the Bloc brings little of use to the debate. Similarly, as I have noted elsewhere, Maxime Bernier has no seats in the house and should not have been there. If only the leaders of the four parties who have candidates across the country and who have seat in the House of Commons, perhaps we would have seen a real debate about the issues that are important.

The alternative would be a series of half hour debates - one on one. It would take a few hours longer, but at least we would see some real discussion of the real issues. As the format is now - it is just an exercise in seeing who can be nastier and who can shout the loudest. If there was ever an argument against proportional representation - having even more people at the debate would be it.

Election #4 - I Should Have Been a Politician

Every once in a while, I think about running for public office. Fortunately for both me and the public, this thought only occasionally invades my consciousness. It usually only happens when there is a provincial or like now, a federal election. The thought almost always pops into my head during or just after attending a candidates' debate. I can't help but wonder as I listen to those courageous people behind the microphone if I couldn't do better.

I attended such a debate last night. It was part of a series of debates that were happening across the country with the same four questions being asked at each meeting. In the case of Duncan, the debate was "televised" via social media to two other sites within the riding so that residents in those towns could also see the debate. The format was simple: four national questions , four local questions and then a few questions from each of the sites. Because the debate was on the environment, the questions were predictable, the answers seemingly predetermined with each of the four candidates almost obliged to sound "green" whether they were or not. It did not quite work out that was as one individual from what could be called a fringe party - suggested quite clearly that climate change was not really a problem. It put an interesting twist into the discussion - It could have been a debate but all of the candidates were far more interested in proving how green either they were, or their party was and therefore the evening was a series of comments generally unrelated to what others had said.

My minor urge to be a candidate was stimulated by what I can only assume to be the wilful ignoring of how complex the issues are. The candidates were generally in favour of solar power, electric cars, organic farming, our salmon rivers being restored, a reduction in tree cutting, fewer plastics used, access to safe and affordable housing and preventing the pollution of our waterways. Each of the questions asked was proceeded by a lengthy preamble as to the problem, a preamble that clearly suggested that there was a right answer and a wrong answer. The format allowed the candidates to answer the question in a very narrow way that enabled them to avoid complex issues. For example there were (of course) a few questions that dealt with our dependence on carbon fuels. While the candidates all enthused of the possibilities of electric cars, including one candidate who said his next car would be an electric one, no one mentioned the carbon costs and the social costs of producing the batteries required to operate the cars. 50% of the cobalt used in lithium batteries comes from Democratic Republic of Congo - a country that has a horrendous human rights record that includes various warring factions using both rape as a weapon and child soldiers. In many cases the profits from mining in the Congo go to fund the purchase of even more guns etc. The fact that solar cells require various rare earth minerals and it is not clear whether or not we can access sufficient quantities (https://www.vice.com/en_us /article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy). It is not that we should stop developing these technologies but rather that politicians need to articulate that there are consequences to our desire to go green.

Similarly, while it is hard to argue against the theory that organic gardening is better for the environment, no one talked about the cost of those fruits and vegetable - costs that for some people are just too much. People talked about the fact that our water sources appear to be drying up, but no one talked about our desire to eat foods that need to be irrigated. Everyone agreed that we need more housing, but no one talked about the fact that building new houses will require wood or plastic (which comes from oil). No one talked about that as we build new single family dwellings - we are covering land that could be and in many cases was used to grow food.

However, the question that really made me want to be a politician was the one that asked how could we make airplane travel more carbon neutral. It was, of course, an impossible question. But all of the candidates tried. However, if I had been at the front of the room, I would have suggested that it was the wrong question. I would have asked - why in Canada do we need to fly from city to city. The answer is that our passenger rail service is so pathetic that no one now has the almost four days required to go from Vancouver to Toronto.

Debates are part of the democratic process, but surely we need to find a way that allows for the candidates to demonstrate that they understand that nothing is a simple as it sounds in a 90-second answer.

Greta Thurnberg #2

It is all rather exhilarating to read about millions of young people getting out on the street and demanding that their governments do something about climate change. As one reads about the protesters marching in the streets and listens or reads about the powerful, impassioned speeches that young people are making, one could easily believe that this time - the world will change. This time someone in a position of power will do something, almost anything to not only stop the seemingly inevitable environmental disaster about to face us but in fact - start to reverse it. However, that could only be true if politicians are listening to and will respond to the protesters, protesters who cannot vote. One could believe that change is imminent except for the fact that none of the protesters has a plan to effect the needed change. None of them has a solution. The truth is that there is not a single plan - there are so many possibilities that politicians can promise to work on, that nothing will change. The changes needed at the political level are so complex that it will take a number of political cycles to effect those changes. No government in the democratic world will stay in power long enough to ensure that something happens.

Unlike the protests that revolved around the Vietnam war or the protests that demanded some sort of voter equality for Afro-Americans - there is not a single solution to climate change. There is not a quick fix. No country can unilaterally declare that they will immediately stop polluting the air. No country can change the amount of carbon in the air - at least not in the short term - by planting a billion trees. No country can quickly cut its dependence on oil. The solutions - and there are some - are all long term. Before we can stop spewing carbon into the air - we need to create the industries that can build the alternative forms of transportation. Before we, at least at a national level, can be carbon neutral we need to invest billions of dollars into creating the infrastructure. For example, getting rid of the internal combustion engine will do much to reduce all of our carbon footprints. But not only do we need to create a network of charging stations, but we also need to create trucks that can carry our goods across the country. It is possible - it just requires the political will, a pile of cash and time.

There are a number of long term solutions that make take a decade or more before they are in place. That is not a reason to do nothing. But it is a reason to be both practical and to take responsibility for our own personal carbon footprint. The inability of national governments to develop some sort of consensus for any sort of action does not mean that we should not protest. Rather it means that people should get out the streets to yell and scream even more often- if for no other reason than it reminds the politicians that we are watching them. But we need to do more on a personal level.

Every time we buy new clothes from offshore we have increased our carbon footprint, every time we buy a green pepper or a head of lettuce we are both increasing our carbon footprint and lowering the water table in some part of the world, every time we buy or use some new technology - we are putting the climate at risk.

It is not the big corporations or the governments who have caused the problem - it is us and our insatiable desire to have the newest thing, different clothes or the newest super vegetable or fruit. We may need the government to do the big global things. But if every protester and all of their families and friends did the small things - I would b a lot more optimistic about the governments of the western world finally getting the message.