Obama - a year and some later

Well, he certainly is in a wasp's nest! All those testy Republicans bound and determined to bring him down. I don't really understand their arrogance - how can they possibly imagine that the American population will be fooled for long by their partisan politics? Eventually, their voter base will get fed up with their petulance and punish them like the spoiled children they are impersonating.

A sad result of the Republican Party's virulence is that it will probably force Obama to ditch the bipartisan approach he had hoped to take. How many times does the door have to slam in your face before you stop opening it?

I am very happy for my friends and relatives still living in America that they now have at least some semblance of universal medicare. It's only civilized. I can only hope, for the sake of the poor and sick, that the bid made by certain state governors to reject Medicare will fail.

We do live in interesting times...

Obama

For the first time in my life I feel proud of America. I am a dual citizen of Canada and the USA. I voted for Obama. I feel deeply moved by the ascension of this man to the highest position in the world. Four years ago, a story about a man named Barack Husein Obama becoming the president of the United States of America, would have been published in a science fiction magazine not the world press.

Today, I see a joyful man stepping into a wasps' nest of trouble, rolling up his sleeves and beckoning the rest of us to come and give him a hand, promising hard times, hard work and hard-earned self respect. The funny thing is, thousands, no millions, are lining up to join him!

Today, I see a nation, roused from it's slumber of cynicism and fear, energized with a new belief in the ability to impact and change things for the better.

Today, I see a world, watching and hopeful, waiting to see if this man really will restore America's reputation on the international stage, really will lead America to be a force for good in the earth.

Today, I see myself, overcome with emotion and something strange to me - hope and optimism. Not a foolish hope either, not an "oh, I really hope so" sort of hope that really is closer to despair and last ditch efforts than it is to true hopefulness. Oddly, this newcomer to my heart is neither blindly trusting nor worshipful of the man in front. It simply believes that he can do the job. Maybe not perfectly, but with humility and grace and the ability to engage the help of others.

Early on in the race to the presidency, I chose to support Obama, not because he was a black man, nor later because he was a Democrat, but because I saw in him, during the debates, a man full of grace for his opponents who refused to respond in kind to personal attacks, who stood firmly on his convictions, who relied on the support of "everyman", who entrusted his campaign to the "little people" - the local workers.

Character is exposed in times of stress, and Obama's character held up throughout. We all know to play our best card in public, but to do so under attack is impossible without slip ups revealing our darker sides. Obama passed muster - he did not falter, his character came through loudly, clearly and consistently. This is why, I have confidence in him.

So, Obama, I trust you to get the job done, and I will be praying for you, your family and your administration. Hail to the Chief!

Towards Sustainable Future, circa 1972

Tired of doom and gloom? Well, who isn't. Want an outline of what can be done? Of course you do. Thirty-six years ago A Blueprint for Survival was published 1972 in "The Ecologist", then later in book form by Penguin. Written by Edward Goldsmith, editor of "The Ecologist" and Robert Allen, it paints a predicament, not unlike the one we face now, and, more importantly, proposes a strategy to deal with it. I loved it when I first read it, so I did what I always do with great books - insist that my friends read them, hence, my library suffers - Thank God for the internet! For I have now rediscovered this marvelous little text, conveniently archived!

To give you a flavour of the book itself, and perhaps tempt you to read it for yourselves here is the first paragraph from the introduction:

The principal defect of the industrial way of life with its ethos of expansion is that it is not sustainable. Its termination within the lifetime of someone born today is inevitable-unless it continues to be sustained for a while longer by an entrenched minority at the cost of imposing great suffering on the rest of mankind. We can be certain, however, that sooner or later it will end (only the precise time and circumstances are in doubt), and that it will do so in one of two ways: either against our will, in a succession of famines, epidemics, social crises and wars; or because we want it to-because we wish to create a society which will not impose hardship and cruelty upon our children-in a succession of thoughtful, humane and measured changes. We believe that a growing number of people are aware of this choice, and are more interested in our proposals for creating a sustainable society than in yet another recitation of the reasons why this should be done. We will therefore consider these reasons only briefly, reserving a fuller analysis for the four appendices which follow the Blueprint proper.

This book, written over thirty years ago, raised an alarm that has largely been ignored. Within its first pages is a likely reason why - the demand for environmental resources grows exponentially but, by the time it is actually noticed, it may be too late to change. They quote a Professor Forrestor who says,

"Exponential growth is treacherous and misleading. A system variable can continue through many doubling intervals without seeming to reach significant size. But then in one or two more doubling periods, still following the same law of exponential growth, it suddenly seems to become overwhelming."

Let's hope that it isn't too late for us to turn the tide, and perhaps this little book will provide some answers as to how it can be done.

Canada's dead, Conspiracy theories and Debt

Well, three more Canadian soldiers were killed yesterday in Afghanistan, bringing the toll up to 100. My heart goes out to their families, friends and colleagues. I think about my own sons, both of military age, and cannot fathom the depth of sorrow I would face at loosing either of them.

Occasionally I tune into the CBC on a Thursday at 11:30 and catch "Afghanada", the excellent radio drama about our troops in Afghanistan and the kind of challenges they face. It is very well done, well scripted, well acted. I think we owe it to our troops in the field to listen to this program as a way of keeping them in our minds and prayers.

Perhaps it was the combination of thinking about the war, Margaret Atwood's "Payback" and my sons that led me this morning to investigate one of my sons' interest in conspiracy theories. The trail led me to an article in the Pakistan Daily which reported on a group of American scientists and ex-military who are challenging the standard take on the 9/11 bombings - they have a website and call themselves the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. It is hard to know what to believe in this day and age, but I do think this group, with its analytical approach, poses some distressing / compelling / intriguing questions.

I know that many with sons and daughters overseas fighting and peacekeeping for Canada may dismiss such musings as disrespectful to the sacrifice their loved ones are making, and down right ungrateful to boot. Nothing of the sort is intended. With no disrespect due to those who have already died, shouldn't we think about what we are asking our soldiers to risk their lives for? The courage, and self-sacrifice of those who have already died is a debt that we who live on will never be able to repay. Do we want to increase that debt by sending others to die too, if it can be avoided?

Considering the high cost, both personal and as a nation, that we Canadians are paying to be involved in the "war on terror" launched in response to the global horror of the 9/11 bombings, it would be a good thing to sort out, once and for all, the facts behind them and who is responsible.

Proroguing the fall out...

I took the time to read my local newspaper last night. No, it wasn't the Globe and Mail or the New York Times, just a lowly, local rag. There was good news and bad news. The good news is that finally, Canadians are passionate about Canadian politics - this truly is new considering we had the lowest voter turn out ever in our last elections! The letters to the editor took up two whole pages and dealt exclusively with the political situation.

The bad news is that once you get Canadians passionate about anything (and, believe me, our passion threshold is pretty high - it takes a lot to override the calm, civilized, diffident, hey, let's be frank, boring, demeanour, we are noted for, eh?), whether it is hockey, NFL football, a great bargain, or, in this case, politics, rationality seems to flit conveniently out the window. Perhaps we are so unused to passion that we aren't that good at tempering it with reason.

Actually, let me amend that slightly, and I am trying my hardest to be fair about this, but those who wrote in to the newspaper opposed to the coalition and pro Stephen Harper, were vitriolic in their prose, failing to back it up with much - it seemed like they had swallowed Stephen Harper's rhetoric, hook, line and sinker, and were churning it back out with a lot of emotion but not much thought. Most distressing was one writer who obliquely threatened armed revolt if the coalition went through!

On the other sides, and there were at least two, some semblance of basing your statements on facts did come into play. There was middle ground, covered by the professor of political science who explained that, within our constitution, a coalition government was not illegal, nor was it undemocratic as those participating were duly elected and represented more than half of the electors. On the side of the coalition, the tone was much more of a, "come and let us reason together". Equally adamant about their stance, but without the divisive bitterness and much more conciliatory.

Almost as distressing as the angry tone of the letters, was the obvious ignorance about our parliamentary system of government. Many pro-Harperites seemed to believe that a coalition government was "undemocratic" because Stephen Harper had been elected Prime Minister in the recent elections! This is flat out incorrect - wrong, wrong, wrong. They are seeing Canadian politics through an American Presidential election filter. The way it works, my friends, is that we the people elect those we want to represent us. The party with the most MPs gets to "form a government", but in order to rule, it must negotiate with those other MPs, of a different political stripe, who also have the right to be there, make decisions, and rule. It's all about sharing power - especially when the Prime Minister's party did NOT win a majority of the seats in parliament, as is the case with the Conservatives.

Most disturbing of all, was the divisiveness that came across in the pro-Harper letters, they reflected what I had heard in Stephen Harper's speeches. There was no room for negotiation, no admission of any failure on Harper's part to engage the opposition parties. It went so quickly to an us/them mentality that is frightening. It does not bode well for the hard times ahead where we will need everyone on board if we are to survive with our civilization, not to mention our civility, in tact.

And let us not take these things lightly. Before the horrors of Naziism, Germany was considered a highly civilized society, but the hard times of the depression and the punitive measures imposed after World War I created a breeding ground for vile thoughts later birthed as even more vile deeds. An atmosphere of us / them, of blame and of finger pointing and fear prevailed.

When the leader of our country vilifies one part of the country he is supposed to be leading, this can increase divisiveness. When SH points at the Bloc and says outright that they are unCanadian, that the coalition is setting the stage for Canada's destruction, that it will pull all the money from the West and pour it into Quebec, he is setting the stage for the kind of divisiveness, and suspicion that precedes outright hatred. Is he purposefully playing into the Quebec and / or Western separatists' / sovreignists' hands? What more evidence is needed by the majority of Quebecers who voted for the Bloc that the rest of Canada does not want to hear them, that they have no voice in Canada?

Now that Harper has been given his "get out of jail free" card, let's hope he puts the time to good use and tries to undo some of the damage he has done to Canadian unity.

Prorogue - Professional Rogue or???

A new word for me - no, it is not a professional scamp or scoundrel. Originated in 14th century it is a word you will never find being used in American politics. It refers to the request to discontinue a session of parliament. In Canada, this request can be made by the prime minister to the Governor General, Queen Elizabeth II's representative in Canada. Her name is Michaelle Jean and today, Stephen Harper, our beleaguered Prime Minister will ask her to "prorogue" parliament for him.

It is a little like the "get out of jail free" card in Monopoly. Stephen Harper has led his party and his country into a corner and now he wants to buy time to figure a way out of it. Truthfully, I feel very angry at the man. He won a minority government two years ago, one of his campaign promises at the time was to limit the frequency of elections to no less than every four years. Within two years he has called another election himself.

Why would Stephen Harper go back on his promise like that? Well, I think he has an agenda and he wants free rein to implement it. I fear that he wants to change the face of Canada. And he doesn't want any pesky opposition parties to stop him. So, he took a chance on an election, hoping the timing of it, shortly after a poll showing Canadians thought him the best leader among the parties, would catapult him into a majority government. It did not. So, after spending $30 million of Canadian tax payers' money, he still does not get the message that Canadians do not want to give him a majority.

Now he is tossing around all sorts of vile accusations that will only hurt Canada, the Conservative party and ultimately him, that is if people see through it. S.H. claims that Canada's relative stability in this time of economic recession, is because of his government's good policies. Yet his government had only been in office for eighteen months, so the good policies are probably more a result of the many years of prior Liberal government.

He claims it is "undemocratic" for the opposition parties to form a coalition government, because the people did not vote for Stephan Dion. No, and they did not vote for Stephen Harper either - they voted for a party. This is not the USA, although I suspect Harper's agenda is to move Canada closer to an American form of government - perhaps in his own mind he's already there.

Clearly, Canadians gave Harper a mandate to govern with the other parties - that's what a minority government is supposed to do. This is not Harper's strong suit. Instead of trying to work with them, he vilifies them. He has said that by making agreements with the Bloc Quebecois, Dion and Layton (the NDP party leader) are threatening the security of the country! How must Quebec voters feel to hear their prime minister essentially accuse their duly elected representatives of being threats to Canada? If this is his attitude towards the representatives of Quebec in parliament, how can he work with them at all? He has no confidence in them, and quite rightly, they have no reason to have confidence in him.

Harper has gotten himself into this mess, first by calling an election so soon after he formed a government. Then, by not taking seriously the message given him by the Canadian people that we want him to work with the other parties that we also elected. We did not give him a mandate to govern with a majority. Now he wants to have the parliament, he went to such great lengths to change, prorogued until he can figure out another way to slip his agenda through.

I was willing to give him a chance to lead Canada, although I did not vote for him, I did think he had the potential to lead. However, he does not have what a truly great democratic leader needs, the ability to listen and to negotiate. I fear that Harper's inner attitude, exposed by the current turn of events, is that of dictator - my way or the highway - and his manoeuverings make me nervous. I feel he is using all in his power to stay in power, so that he can impose his vision of Canada on us unhindered by the pesky demands of his fellow legislators who, let's face it, represent more of the country than his party does.

I am beginning to fear that Harper is a dangerous opportunist, guilty of the very accusations he hurls at those daring to oppose him with this coalition government. I do hope that G.G. Jean will refuse to grant him his request. Perhaps it is a professional scoundrel we are dealing with here in PM Harper.

A Parlaimentary Dictatorship? Maybe, but...

This year I got into a huge argument with my American, college aged, niece, who, completing her first year at an ivy league university in the US, informed me in no uncertain terms that, according to her political science prof, Canada was a "parliamentary dictatorship". I begged to differ, although I did see her point re: Canada not having the same system of checks and balances that are embedded in the American Constitution.

However, what is happening now in Ottawa, demonstrates how Canada's system works to maintain some control on the party in power. Just in case the one or two of you who are reading this are not Canadians, the current parliament is headed by the Conservative party led by Stephen Harper. In our recent fall election, the Conservatives won more seats than any other party, though not more than half - the Liberals, New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois hold the other seats.

Since every piece of legislation must be passed by a majority vote, this means that the Conservatives have to "play ball" with the other political parties. The Harper government already had a minority gov't going into the recent fall elections, but S.H. wanted a majority. By refusing to present legislation palatable to any of the other political parties he forced them to vote against the legislation - their vote of "non-confidence" automatically dissolved the gov't, prompting the fall elections.

By failing to give them their coveted majority, Canadians were telling the Conservatives that they want S.H to work with the other parties. But, no, the Conservatives decided to push parliament again - essentially using the electorate as a bargaining chip - elections are costly and will effect the economy badly due to the uncertainty of their outcome. The Conservative tactics are, either play the game we choose or we will toss the ball to the people again, and again until you do it our way. The threat is: "you don't want to be blamed for causing the gov't to fall, do you?" This cynical political move was meant to cow the opposition parties into complying with the Conservative agenda.

This time around, the other parties have called the Conservative bluff. Since the Liberals and NDP together have enough seats to form a gov't, they have made an agreement to do so, should the legislation before the parliament not be passed next Monday, which is very likely. This is called a "confidence vote" and if it does not pass, parliament will be dissolved. Once dissolved, one of two things could happen - the Governor-General could call an election OR she could ask the Liberal / NDP coalition to form a gov't.

The Conservatives are planning to spend lots of tax payer money on a massive ad campaign which is expected to accuse their opponents of ruthlessly plotting to steal power from the democratically elected Conservatives. Of course, they will gloss over the fact that the Liberal and NDP MPs were also democratically elected. They will also gloss over their own inability / unwillingness to "play well" with the other parties.

Unfortunately, there are right wingers in Western Canada who will see a Liberal / NDP minority gov't as a loss of voice for their region and will feel hard done by. They will likely, as a talk host did this AM, blame the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois rather than their own Conservative party who really have opened the door to this "coup" by pushing their agenda rather than trying to work with the other parties.

The sad thing is that it would be better for Canadians to have a solid gov't working together to support our economy in these uncertain times. A fact that Stephen Harper cynically used to grab a political advantage, hoping that by holding the Canadian electorate to ransom, he could force the other political parties to pass his legislation as is. Stephen Harper has proven that he is not fit to lead Canada. He was given the opportunity to provide true leadership by putting aside partisan politics and working with the other parties to guide Canada through this crisis. Instead, he took the opportunist's approach and tried to press the situation to his political advantage.

I hope that that S.H.'s efforts to have parliament shut down before the vote can take place next Monday fails and that the Liberals and NDP with support from the Bloc will have the chance to lead our country through these dark times. Much rests on the Governer General's head so we will see what stuff she is made of in the week to come.

If you've made it to the end of this bit of writing, then you are probably interested enough in Canadian politics to read about it first hand from the CBC .