Criticism

 

I have a computer bridge game that criticizes my play. It tells me what I should have made but never how I was supposed to do that.

Criticism can be a good thing.  Helpful criticism can correct mistakes, improve things, bring in new ideas and lead to healthy debate.  But, like the computer game, it too frequently doesn’t add anything positive to the criticism.

You see this in a lot of newspaper op-ed opinion pieces.  The writer will rail away at his or her target but provide no alternative advice. A lot of columnists make a career out of this type of writing.  Instead of adding anything new to the discussion, the criticism just leaves you hanging.  This is not helpful nor constructive.  It’s no use telling everyone what’s wrong with something or somebody without telling them why it’s wrong.

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”       - Malcolm Forbes

Another abuse of criticism is to avoid the topic and attack the messenger.  You frequently see this in the comments section of on-line news stories.  In the most ridiculous cases, one commentator will start attacking another commentator just because they don’t agree with the message.  In other uses, the commentator will blame everything on a business or political leader.  This is particularly evident in attacking our current Prime Minister.  Everything is his fault.  “I got Covid-19; it must be the PM’s fault.”  “The war in Ukraine must be the PM’s fault.”  “I have hay fever; it must be the PM’s fault.”  You would think that the poor man must stay up all night plotting these horrible things. 

Too many critics don’t understand the topic they are critiquing.  Critics of healthcare who don’t understand that provinces are the arbiters of this field.  Critics of military procurement who don’t understand how that system works or the parts played by different players, including the courts.  Critics of banks and money who have no idea how monetary policy and bank management work.  Just a few examples.

“Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself.”

  - A. H. Weiler

 There are of course professional critics; theater critics, political columnists, and book reviewers (confession: I have reviewed books for specific-topic magazines, and sometimes got in trouble for it).  Too many of them make the same mistakes as I’ve outlined above.  Theater critics who knit pick every little fault of a production without analysing why.  Political columnists who are so obviously biased that it removes all objectivity from their remarks.  The list goes on. But good ones don’t make these mistakes.  They provide insightful and fair comment with no hint of their own bias.

“The remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he really is very good, in spite of all the people who say he is very good.”
  - Robert Graves

 In my mind, a good critique is one that gives a balanced approach to the subject at hand, provides reasonable alternatives to the problem they find at fault, avoid attacking the messenger, and give no hint of the particular bias they may hold.  Just as important, it is really important that the critic know the field they are criticizing. And finally, any criticism must be honest.  To argue using untrue facts or examples must be the worst sin of all. 

“I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
  - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Ide(a)s of March

 (This blog consists of a compendium of thoughts relevant to the happenings in March)

The war in Ukraine goes on.  The Russian Army seems to have no other aim than to kill as many Ukrainians as possible, in other words, a form of genocide.  A major question is how the war will end.  Different scenarios have been put forward such as a peace treaty, a stalemate, or a Russian withdrawal in the face of economic challenges.  The demise of Mr. Putin has even been suggested.  But what happens if Russia conquers all of Ukraine?

“. . . perhaps human nature was incapable of using power arising from dictatorship without succumbing to the temptations of its abuse of power.”

  - John Toland, from his book “The Last 100 Days”

*

There have been adds recently about a supposedly Chinese dance troupe called Shun Yen.  The add makes the point that it represents “China before Communism”.  But this kind of entertainment bares no resemblance to the real China before Communism unless it could be found in the world of some very rich war lord. The truth is that China before Communism was a feudal country where 80% of the people were peasants who lived the way they had lived for over five hundred years.  Only in the cities in eastern China were things any different.  The average Chinese peasant farmed maybe a quarter acre of land that he rented or bought from the village chief, who in turn worked for the county overlord who paid for the privilege to the area war lord.  The average peasant farmer paid 50 – 80% of his annual income in taxes.  If you doubt these figures, I commend to you a book titled “Thunder out of China” (I found a copy of the book on Amazon. It had been reprinted in 1992).  It was written by two journalists for Time magazine, Theodore H. White and Annalee Jacoby, who were in China for most of the Sino-Japanese and Second World Wars.  Like any book you read, the first thing you should look at is the book’s copyright date, which in this case is 1946.  This date shows the historical context at the time when the book was written, namely after the war was over but before the main communist push to take over China.   It shows a China that was suffering through revolutions and wars from 1911 until 1945.  None of these events seemed to make any improvement in the fate of the millions of peasants in the country. That change would not come until the communist take-over in 1949 – 50.

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

 *

The war in Ukraine has brought a call for Canada to strengthen its armed forces with more people in uniform and new weapons.  Retired Generals and military friendly writers have been promoting this idea.  The problem any Canadian government has is getting buy-in from a majority of the voters and taxpayers.  Any time such an idea has been raised, particularly since the end of the Cold War, it has been howled down by just about every special interest group around.  People much prefer more money for health care, dental care, pharmacare, childcare, climate change, infrastructure plus about twenty other things that are considered priorities.  This is the reason why no government of any stripe has dared to do much about it. The recently announced agreement between the Liberals and NDP will only make this matter worse.  Despite the NDP agreement to support defence spending, where is the money to come from after the new social programs have been costed (this was the NDP condition of defence spending support)? The NDP have never been in favour of defence spending.  Whether the current climate of war in Europe will make any difference is anyone’s guess.

 But no matter what happens with available money, the one thing that has to be done is to improve the state of defence procurement.  The first thing on that file has to be the elimination of the “what me worry?” attitude of the three government departments that currently oversee such procurement, Defence, Procurement, and Industry (whatever their titles are these days) which are all beholden to Treasury Board.  Efficient defence procurement requires a single entity to be in charge once a procurement has been given the go-ahead by Cabinet.  Perhaps in a future blog I’ll give you my insight on other defence procurement issues gleaned from over 35 years in the business. 

“Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself.”

  - A. H. Weiler

*

The three most pleasant things we have right now are laughter, music, and the promise of spring.  Laughter can make us feel better, music (other than rap or heavy metal) can sooth us, and the promise of spring makes us appreciate the outdoors again.

*

(You now have to wonder what April will bring.)

War is Hell!

 

Some have asked me about writing a blog about the war in Ukraine, but up until now I have been reluctant.  Things seemed to be moving so quickly that I was concerned that whatever I said would be out of date by the time you read it.  However, I now feel that some things are becoming obvious so that I can write something cogent about what is going on.

It seems quite obvious that this war (no matter what Mr. Putin calls it) is taking longer and proving more difficult than Vladimir anticipated.  Ukrainians are not just giving up or welcoming the Russians as liberators.  They are fighting very hard and apparently quite skillfully.  The Russian Army is suffering significant casualties.  However, the Russians are becoming more brutal as things become more difficult, amounting to an all-out assault on the Ukrainian civilian population.  There are recorded cases of Russian military firing on civilian ambulances in addition to the bombing at the Mariupol maternity hospital.  Both are clear violations of the Geneva Conventions.  And yet one writer in a news story the other day accused Ukraine of such a breach because there were some videos of Russian prisoners talking to their families back home.  Is this supposed to be equated to Russian atrocities against Ukrainian civilians?

The response by western nations has been, shall we say, less than overwhelming.  Economic sanctions have been imposed which will eventually impact the Russian people and to some extent the so-called oligarchs.  They will be of little concern to Mr. Putin who will continue to have all of the comfort and personal convenience of any potentate.  It is only if the oligarchs and people of Russia rise up against him will it become an issue with him.  Meanwhile, he will hide under the power of the state apparatus and continue his war.  For some reason, the Russian people have proven themselves willing to accept the depravations of war and the casualties that go with them.  A large uprising seems unlikely.

“. . . the principle of dictatorship; perhaps human nature was incapable of using power arising from dictatorship without succumbing to the temptations of its abuse of power.”

 - John Toland, from his book “The Last 100 Days”

Russia has used the threat of nuclear retaliation to remove western military action from the chess board. The statement that Ukraine is not a NATO member seems pretty thin to me.  Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were members of any alliance, but western countries waged war in those places. So, it would seem that the mere threat of nuclear weapons has neutralized the west.  If Putin gets away with it in Ukraine, no country in Europe is safe.  The Baltic States, Moldova and Romania will likely be future targets.  The west has to do more than devalue the ruble.

“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who stand neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

Martin Luther King