A story in the Globe and Mail this Saturday said that one
candidate for the B.C. Liberal party
leadership had almost 1400 of the members who he had signed up were considered ineligible
because they did not have an e-mail address.
Although there were various other factors involved, the fact that the
lack of an e-mail address was the one most quoted raises a number of questions
about what it takes to be a member of society these days. Does the lack of an e-mail address, a Twitter
account or a Facebook page now deprive you of the right to be seen, heard or
informed? In another example, this past
week Bell was hosting their Let’s Talk forum.
Since I suffer from clinical depression, I wanted to become part of the conversation. So I went on-line to the Bell site to see how
I could join in. I found that I could
submit comments on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites, none of
which I belong to. But I obviously have
an e-mail account. But nowhere did the
site allow me to interact via e-mail. So
I was unable to participate and mental health lost the 5¢ it would have brought them.
*
I don’t know how many of you watched or listened to
President Trump’s State of the Union address this week, but the part that I
listened to was the most jingoistic speech I have ever heard from a democratically
elected head of state. The constant
introduction of “heroes”, almost all in uniform and white males was a
distraction that a serious address did not need. In addition, as one writer noted, in the 5330
words he spoke he never once mentioned the word democracy and anything alluding
to it. To hear Congressman Joseph
Kennedy III rebut the speech was, by comparison, a model of oratory worth listening
to.
*
Speaking of Mr. Trump, I have a couple of thoughts about why
he has such trouble with domestic and foreign affairs. With respect to domestic affairs, he has no
experience with anyone leaning over his shoulder telling what he can and cannot
do as Congress is doing now. As a
businessman who has run his own business empire for most of his life, such
oversight is foreign to him. He does not
know how to deal with or how to get things done. Add the judicial system to the mix and he
finds it untenable. This could be why he
seems to want to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department among others.
As for foreign affairs, it is a similar situation. As a businessman, he is used to dealing one
on one with other business people when it comes to trying to reach a deal. He is used to concentrating on that one other
person and try to bend him/her to Trump’s will using all of the tricks of the trade
that he has extoled in his book ‘The Art of the Deal’. When he has to deal with
multiple opponents, like he has to in multilateral trade and other forms of
international dialogue, he cannot just concentrate on one, he has to deal with
many. This would explain a lot about his
attitude toward NAFTA for example. He
would love nothing better that to see NAFTA collapse so he could deal one on
one with Canada and then Mexico. That
way he thinks he could get the upper hand and the type of I win-you lose deal
he really wants.
*
If you look back to the end of the Second World War, you
will find that the joint North and South Korean Olympic team is the most
positive thing that has ever happened there.
Could this be the beginning of a dialogue between these countries that
leads to better relationships, and cuts the US out the equation? After all, in any conflict that involves
outside powers, these are the two nations that would suffer the most.
*
Those of you who are aware of the removal of the statue of
Edward Cornwallis in Halifax need to reread my earlier blog about retroactive
justice, http://jgforbes.blogspot.ca/2016/05/sins-of-fathers.html.
*
The best advice that I have had this year is from my son who
told me not to venture into the current discussion about improper relationships
between men and women, and particularly anything to do with the #MeToo
movement. I’ll say no more on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment