Tony Clements - Another Not Too Bright Politician

One can understand how an adolescent, in that ongoing quest to - if not to be popular, to be at least accepted, might be convinced to send a risqué picture of themselves via the internet. We can talk all we want to as adults about how inappropriate it is and what the risks are, but for some young people the potential rewards of being loved and wanted overwhelm any parent's warning. While there is frequent discussion on the news media as to the consequences of sending deeply personal pictures can be - it is a sad reality that relatively few young people follow any mainstream news. There is also the public perception that many young people are highly skilled in using computers/cell phones and that they know how to be safe. However, it is my experience that many young people, while they may be prolific users of social media and gaming apps - know almost nothing about computers and unfortunately understand no more than I do about how the internet really works. We, as adults, need to be aware of the dangers and to constantly remind the young people in our lives that they need to be cautious about what they circulate in the netherworld of the internet. Equally as important, we also must to become far clearer in our condemnation of those people regardless of their age, who use those pictures to embarrass, bully or manipulate the sender.

However, for the life of me I cannot understand how a seasoned politician - Tony Clements - could even consider that it was okay for him to send pictures of himself to people who he clearly did not know anywhere near well enough. We, of course, would like to believe that our politicians are as pure as the driven snow, that they never take even small gifts/bribes nor do they ever stray from their partners. That, of course, is asking far too much. Politicians are human and they will make mistakes; some will, on occasion do or say things that in hindsight should not have been done or said. More often or not those lapses in judgement are not a reflection of their capacity to do their job for which they are elected.

But to not once, but twice engage in risky behaviour that opened himself up to blackmail shows that Tony Clements lacks the capacity to, if nothing else learn from his mistakes. I quite frankly do not care if he had an affair with someone else (although it does, in my mind, show a lack of moral character and because of that I could never vote for him - but then I would never vote for a conservative anyway). I do not care that he tried to get involved in some sort of perhaps unusual behaviours - he is an adult and as long as he does not hurt anyone else - what he does is his business. However he is not an ordinary citizen. He has placed himself in a position of power, with access to national secrets . He has been part of the government, actively involved with the running of our country. The fact that he cannot recognize that his behaviour, for whatever reason or compulsion, is risky is rather scary. Was he not aware of the risks, was he not bright enough to understand the risks or did he just not care?

Adults, whether or not we want to be, are role models. For those who put themselves forward as leaders - I expect them to be good role models. Mr. Clements, in spite of contacting the police (twice!!) and writing a credible letter of apology to his constituents, has failed in perhaps his most important job.

Is it little wonder that so many do not trust politicians?

Vicarious Pleasure

There, I must confess, was a wee bit of vicarious pleasure in watching the early returns of the US election. I think it fits mine (and many other Canadians) sense of smugness over how absurd the USA's politics are when we see an election that was so full of vindictiveness, lies and absurdities. Almost any developed country looks sane and rational as compared to the US in mid election. If nothing else, watching the zoo next door allows us to ignore our own political problems.

As I much as I fantasized that the much discussed "blue wave" would sweep the country and dispose of every supporter of Trump - I knew it could never happen. However, the final results were a tad disappointing. It is inconceivable to me anyone with a political intelligence greater than Easter the pig's would vote for anyone who was a supporter of Trump. However, while it appears as if the Democrats "won" the popular vote - at least 43% of Americans voted for a Republican senator. Clearly having an economy that is doing well and rewarding those with money (as well as suggesting that eventually, sometime in the future , everyone may do as well) and promising that no one will ever threaten those privileges is a more powerful election promise than suggesting that everyone should have at least some access to the benefits of a vibrant economy. Clearly using Ester's political intelligence as a standard was setting the bar too high.


On the other hand, if the Democrats had won the election in both the House and the Senate, and if all of the states had elected Democratic governors, how boring our news would be. Trump would be impeached, silly and /or inflammatory tweets would no longer sent out from the White House and then what would we talk about? And who would we blame for the problems of the world? How would we as Canadians justify our smugness?

It is so much easier to criticize our neighbours than to see what we need to do to make this world a better place for all.

Another Vote in BC

British Columbia is having another vote - this time on whether or not to keep the present system of electing members of the provincial legislature or to switch to a newer, some say improved system. The present system, commonly called "first pass the post" means that the individual with the most votes wins the riding and the party with the most wins - (usually) forms the government. The downside to this system is that smaller parties- some might say those on the fringes - might get a significant number of votes across the province but that because those votes are spread out, these parties win few if any seats. An example would be the Green Party who in 2017 earned 16.8% of the total number of votes but only won three seats. The NDP garnered 40.2 % of the voted but won 41 seats. Another way to look at it - the NDP needed approximately 19,392 votes to win a seat whereas the Green party needed over 110,000 votes to earn a seat. On the numbers alone - clearly the present system does not reflect the wishes of the voting public.

The alternatives that are being suggested are generally referred to "proportional representation". The new system, variations of which are used in a number of countries, not only counts the number of votes in each riding to determine who is going to represent that area, but also allocates seats based on the total percentage of votes earned by each party. In a revised legislature, using 2017 voting percentages - the Green Party would have 14 seats in the legislature and the NDP would have 35. Using those numbers to generate a new legislature using some form of proportional representation we would have exactly what we have now - a minority government (run by a party that did not win either the largest percentage of votes or number of seats) -the NDP, propped up by a party - the Green party - that won the fewest number of seats and geographically represents a very small part of the province.

Those who are arguing for change suggest that not only does the present system not accurately reflect the wishes of the public, but that it discourages people from voting because they may feel as of their vote is not worth anything. While I would agree that our present system is perhaps poorly designed for a parliamentary system that has more than two main parties, it feels as if some of the justifications used are at best, weak. I worry that we are fixing a problem that is not clearly understood.

It has been argued that fewer people vote because they feel as if their votes are not really counted - that the person/party they vote for never has access to power. I am not sure when we collectively decided that we all should win or get who we voted for. We can make voting easier such as doing it online so no one needs to expend any energy to vote, we can make people feel that they are more influential and we can pander to everyone's complaint that someone is being unfair to them. But people should vote because it is their civic duty to do so, not because they will always win what they want, not because it makes them feel special or needed or valued.

I suspect that the drive to reform the voting process is driven by those who situate themselves on the centre left or left side of the political spectrum. I would guess that they feel that proportional representation will ensure that their environmental and social justice issues will be placed closed to the top of the government's agenda, because that newly formed government will need the support of the parties on the fringes. I personally worry what happens if the party on the fringe is far right of centre and they drag the government in that directing.

I also worry that while coalition governments can be effective, they require non-partisan, non-confrontational politics. As sad as it is, I wonder if that time has passed us by. I see little or no sign that any of the political parties have the capacity to work together. If a minority government is working adequately well now in BC, it is only because the politicians know the public is not in the mood for another provincial election. It should be noted that while I think that it is working adequately well - I meant that it is doing okay for folks living in the southern tip of Vancouver Island - where the Green Party's three seats are. I am not so sure if all British Columbians are equally as satisfied.

If we can agree there are problems that need to be addressed - should we not look at other options other than the party system? The consensus model used by the North-West territories strikes me as an interesting and viable model - there must be others.

And we are doing a mail-in vote - I assume because some bright minds thought that more people would vote that way - we will see. As usually - those who really care will vote and those who do not or find the whole thing too damn confusing will not.

Good-bye Greyhound

The last trans- Canada bus has made its final stop, discharged its last passenger - those buses will never again to be seen on those lonely stretches of highway across western Canada. All of the people who travelled by bus between small, sometimes remote communities or those who moved across the country to visit family or to look for a new life; all of the young people going somewhere to plant trees or moms with their young children going home have made their last journey by bus. They say that small companies are picking up the slack, that 85% of Greyhounds routes have some sort of coverage - but it will never be the same.

Whether you ever took a Greyhound bus or not, we should all take a moment today to say goodbye to a way of life, a way that allowed people to stay in touch with each other, a way that enabled people to make medical appointments, a way that allowed at least some Canadians - specifically those who did not have a lot of money or who lived in remote areas to see the country and to meet other Canadians. For so many of us it was simply a way to get home. With two or three exceptions, the bus ride was never fun, the seating was almost as cramped as the economy seating on Air Canada, sometimes it was noisy and the stops every few hours seemed to always be at strange little places that did not have the capacity to deal with 40 or more passengers all wanting to use the washroom and to get another coffee for the road. For those who made the three and a half day trip from Toronto to Vancouver, it was torture. At every stop they would stumbled off of the bus - stiff and cramped - jonesing for another hit of nicotine -to buy one more too-sweet donut - anything to mask the discomfort of those seats. But I did meet some interesting people on those trips. I had some great conversations and saw things that if I had been travelling any other way I would have missed. At least twice, when I was wet and cold, the bus picked me up in the middle of the night in what felt like the middle of nowhere and got me to a city where I could get dry, warm and ready to travel again.

Perhaps almost importantly of all - unlike VIA Rail and even Air Canada - the buses were almost on time.

To all of those bus drivers, most of whom were courteous, helpful and sometimes even fun - thank you for making what could have been a horrible time almost enjoyable, no matter how messy I looked, you treated me with respect ; to the ticket agents, the bus station cleaning staff and all of the folks who worked behind the lunch counters or cash registers - thank you for your grace under pressure and our demands for attention when I am sure you were as tired as we were. For my fellow passengers - I hope you will always get to where you need to be.

If I am lucky, I will never need to take an intercity bus again. The sad fact is that I may never be able to even if I need to. And that is a shame.

Strange Times

A few weeks ago I read a novel by D.W. Buffa called Necessity. It is billed as a thriller - it is not or at least I was never that excited by the plot nor did I really care about any of the book's characters. But the proposition that the story rested on was interesting. Without wanting to give away too much of the plot or the ending - a US Democratic senator who could be a contender for the presidency is alleged to have assassinated the president. The rational on the part of the alleged murderer for doing so was that it was necessary for the good of the country and therefore legal. I have no way (or quite frankly any interest) in trying to find out if the points of law were correct or just fabricated in the author's mind).But what was interesting and somewhat alarming is that the murdered president was portrayed as obnoxious, rude, not very bright, bombastic and someone who communicates through social media. In other words - he was virtually identical to Trump or at least our impression of him.

It seemed strange and slightly uncomfortable to me that a novel would not only lampoon a sitting president but also suggest that killing him might be legally defensible. I do not think that those south of the border need any more rationalizations for the violence that exist there.

At the end of last week, I was watching a series called Rake - a Australian television program in its fifth season. It is a comedy, a bit silly and normally not worthy of comment. The second episode of the season revolved around the US Secretary of Defence coming to Australia to negotiate some sort of peace treaty with China and other countries in the region. The Secretary (who later is revealed to be gay) occasionally reads out messages from the president. Again the president appears to be obnoxious, rude, not very bright, bombastic, someone who communicates through social media and a bully.

These two quite different types of entertainment (books and television are almost seen as being mutually exclusive), that were generated literally half a world away from each other - portrayed the sitting president as a buffoon, as someone that either one needs to be afraid of, or else as one who should be mocked. Neither the novel or the television episode referred to Trump by name nor did they feel the need to apologize or explain. It is obvious that that his "presidential style" is now part of the international cultural repertoire. Which is more than a bit bizarre and rather alarming. If I were a citizen of the US, I would be embarrassed, angry or both.

Perhaps other presidents were equally as mocked, certainly many of them have been lampooned in editorial cartoons, and made fun of on late night talk shows. But to the best of my knowledge, Trump is the first president whose total attitude and responses to the world around him have been incorporated into the mass media as a fact without critique.

It is almost as if people have accepted his existence on the political stage as part of the "new normal". How frightening!

Brexit - Leaving is Always Painful

There may be thousands and thousands of people who understand the complex negotiations that Britain is having with the EU as it tries to navigate itself out of the union. I am sure there are thousands and thousands of pages being written to both educate the masses and to explain the subtle nuances to economists. To be clear - I am not one of those who understand nor am I likely to ever understand.

The simplest explanation appears to be: Great Britain agreed to be part of a common market, that is - a collection of countries that allowed the free movement of people and goods across much of Europe with a minimal amount of red tape and cost. The less than bright politicians in London decided to hold a binding referendum on whether or not Britain should stay in the union, they lost control of the process, a small majority voted to leave the union and the government has spent the last 18 or so months trying to find a way to leave the union without losing all of its benefits.

To suggest that the negotiations have not gone as smoothly as some Britons thought they would is an understatement. It appears as if some believed that Britain go back to the way things were before the common market process was developed and at the same time, that they could keep all of the benefits of that partnership. That is - all of the challenging aspects such as having the free flow of people into Britain, having competing continental European products sold in Britain or having an European Parliament making decisions that affect Britain would go away but that British citizens would still be able to work and travel in other countries without difficulty, that British products could be easily and cheaply exported to other European countries and that Britain would have access to collective dispute resolution processes. In other words Britain still wanted to be a player - they just did not want to join the team.

It appears as if this fantasy of having one's cake and eating too is not shared by the negotiators or leaders of the other member countries. At least some of the British seemed to be surprised at this. They somehow assumed that while they wanted to have more control who lived and worked in Britain - they thought that other countries should be quite happy to have some Brits working there. They believed that all of the advantageous trades - that is trades that were advantageous to Britain would continue but they could control what products came into the country. "It ain't going to happen."

It is unfair to blame to suggest that there is a singularity of public opinion, that all of the British want to leave the EU. In fact, it is quite clear that there are many who do not. Even within the British Parliament there are numerous opinions as to what Britain should do - including having another referendum. It must make the negotiations even more difficult when amongst one own political party there are views, publically broadcasted, that are different than the leader's. This is a mess, none-the-less, of Britain's own making. It is based on the assumption that people deserve more, that one can leave partnerships and still maintain the same benefits, that one does not have to contribute to the common good if one wants to benefit from that common good.

The vote to leave the EU is emblematic of a culture that is inherently self-centred - of seeing itself as the centre of the universe and all others should be subservient to its needs. The vote reflected a people's inability to see past their own needs and to consider the greater public good. It demonstrated a shocking lack of concern about the upcoming generations and what the world will look like for them. Britons now have two options - one is to become humble and to beg for forgiveness from their fellow members of the EU - to say that they had a moment of insanity but it has passed or to accept that as with any separation between two partners - both sides lose a little and unfortunately one side may lose more than just a little.

A Coalescence of Ideas

One of the great advantages of having nothing to do and a brain that stores trivia in random and inconsistent ways is that I get to make connections between conversations that I have had, sometimes years apart, and things that I am reading now. As I have mentioned before, I am in constant awe of how things flow and connect within my limited internal universe.

For example: a number of years ago I was having a discussion with a very good friend. The general topic was unions and I was ranting on about how unfair it was that unionized employees got such great pay and benefits while the rest of the employed got, in comparison, so little. I further suggested that it was the unionized employees who voted for Mike Harris in Ontario in 1995 in an attempt to maintain their comfortable status quo. I don't think I was suggesting that we do away with unions but rather that they were taking more than their fair share. My friend did not agree with me reminding me that rather than reducing unionized workers down to the pay level of non-unionized workers, the task was to raise everyone else up to their level.

Just last Sunday I was having a hot chocolate after the Cedar Farmer's Market and somehow the three of us started to talk about education and how poorly and sometimes how discriminating our system was preparing some of our young people for the world that they would have to live in. I mentioned that the school system had always tried to "weed out" those it thought did not belong. I, and as it turned out, another participant in the conversation had both experienced the aggressive streaming of our school systems when we were younger. I, for example, was encouraged to leave school in grade nine as I was deemed "too stupid" to go to university.

In this month's Walrus (I am behind in my reading), there is an article about those students who are deemed to be "gifted" and therefore get to attend different classes and sometime even schools that cater to students who have the capacity to excel. The article suggests that students from middle and upper class white families are over represented in those enriched classes; that those students have an unfair advantage in getting into those classes.

My initial reaction to the article especially after my conversation on Sunday, was what else is new? Of course the system is discrimatory. School have always been a defender of and an advocate for the class system. There is no reason think that things will change anytime soon. The Walrus article in part seems to argue that we need to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, ethnicity or who their parents have the right to access such individualized and exceptional programming. The article does go on to point out that if more students leave the general classroom to participate in the gifted classes, then system will be even more dysfunctional (my words not the authors).

In that strange fashion that my brain functions.... the conversation from years ago, the one on Sunday and the Walrus article all coalesced into an almost seamless discussion within my mind. I am in favour of ensuring that children who have an exceptional talent in any area, are given the opportunity to develop that skill. I accept that it is incredibly difficult to teach a range of students in one classroom where some of the students are highly motivated and others are either bored or disinterested in the subject matter. It should surprise no one that in a classroom of 30 plus students there will be a wide range of interests and capacity to learn at any one time. If there is a strength to our democratic educational system it is our capacity to be encourage individuals to be different.

It struck me however, similar to my discussion with my friend, the proponent of unions, who argued that we need to raise everyone up to the highest level of pay and benefits, we should not be taking students out of the classroom to give them extra learning opportunities, but rather we need to find ways to raising everyone's educational experiences within that classroom. That the task is not to ensure that that we reduce all the classrooms to the lowest common denominator of educational expectations but rather that we raise it up to the highest level for everyone. To create a system that says all students are equal but some need (read deserve) more than others is just to perpetuate a class system.

We should be able, with all of our resources and skills, to develop a system that supports all students without leaving some behind.