But I do have something to say

“Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad.”
  - George Bernard Shaw

For those who actually read and enjoy this blog, I apologize for the delay in writing anything new.  First of all, I must blame a bad summer.  My wife and I spent two months nursing our very sick dog, Only.  In the end we lost her.  After that there were a couple of weeks of emotional release while we mourned her. After a short get-away, we returned home to get on with life.  At that point I wanted to start new blogs.  I had ideas, but something kept stopping me from getting started on any of them.  I kept thinking that I had nothing worthwhile to say.

As I thought about this, it suddenly dawned on me that what was stopping me was a form of self-censorship.  I was afraid to write things because they may be sensitive or contradict someone else.  Those of us, the majority I would think, who occupy the middle ground in thought and beliefs have been cowed by the writers of the far left and right.  Writing has become a polarizing effort.  But I do have something, actually many things, to say.  In many cases they seem to be things that nobody wants to come right out and say for fear of incurring the wrath of one fringe group or another.  Why is this?

“If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.”
  - John Stuart Mill

It is this way because the middle thinking group have let this happen.  We are afraid to express ourselves and our beliefs because we have become afraid of the response from the far left or right.  The fringe groups have set the agendas.  They are the ones who have chosen the subjects that we are supposed to be concerned about and have raised those subjects to a level of hysteria where no moderate response is tolerated.  They have polarized any subject with a ‘with us or against’ attitude. 

Ask about the plight of the indigenous people in this country and you are called a racist or are made to feel guilty because you didn’t do anything about residential schools.  Most of us were not even around when the residential school system was going on.

Ask about religion and you’re considered a religious fanatic. Say that you are a Christian and you’re labeled as anti-Muslim.  Speak out in support of Muslims and you’re your accused of wanting to destroy our “culture”. 

Ask about free speech and you’re seen as a supporter of hate speech.  Speak about limiting free speech and you’re (rightly) accused of impinging on people’s rights.  The only place where it seems to be okay to limit free speech is in universities.  Bring in a controversial speaker and you will be howled down and accused of ruining young minds.  And yet universities are the one place where different ideas should be welcomed and discussed, even controversial ones.  George Orwell in his book 1984 introduced the idea of thought police as a warning to future generations, but today too many people and groups think that that is their role in society. 

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
  - George Orwell

 Try and have a discussion on almost any subject these days and someone will take exception to your point of view.  Honest discourse should be encouraged and welcomed.  But too often you will be shouted down and accused of something heinous. It is no wonder that we have let the loudest shouters usurp the conversation.  Hence the state of intercourse in this country that is now so polarized and poisonous.  We are being yelled into submission.  But it has to end.  Those of us who believe that we should listen thoughtfully to opposing views, that compromise is possible and that ideas are precious and must be nurtured must start to speak up and bring some sense to so many conversations whether written or spoken.  Don’t let our entire society become so polarized that we are not allowed to think any more.  Speak up!  Express your views on this or any other topic.  Don't become self-censored.

“There's a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.”

  - P. J. O'Rourke

It is so Hard, but . . .

They say one of the biggest challenges of writing something is to figure out what to write about.  That is often the case for a casual blogger like me.  Something will cross your mind, but by the time you get to your computer, the idea has passed.  In other cases, many things will come to mind but you just cannot pick one to concentrate on.  If you try and be timely with a story, you find that things move so quickly that you cannot keep up. I am somewhat in that situation right now.  Oh the trials of the semi-imaginative writer!

For this post, let’s look at a few things somewhat at random.

A good place to start is with President Trump as it frequently the case.  He is on his first foreign trip this week to visit Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Rome, and to attend two meeting, one at NATO and the other the G7 in Sicily.  An interesting sidelight came up with his trip to Saudi Arabia over the issue of head covering for women.  Some years ago, he criticized Michelle Obama for not covering her head when on a similar visit, but there he was with his wife and daughter at his side, both uncovered.  A few days later, he visited the Pope where a picture shows him with his wife and daughter both of whom were solemnly wearing head coverings. 

While at NATO headquarters, Mr. Trump gave a speech to the other member heads of government accusing them of not spending enough on defence.  He stated that this was not fair to the American people.  Whether this would be fair to other nations’ people was of no interest to him.  This was, like all of his speeches and pronouncements aimed squarely and solely at his American base.  The fact that the US spends more of its GDP and tax dollars on defence (which of course includes offensive weapons) is an internal US decision since they consider that they have a responsibility for the entire world.  No wonder they do not have a decent health care system for their citizens.  Should Canada spend more on defence?  Probably.  But that decision should be made by the citizens of this country, not by Mr. Trump.

In Canada the Conservative Part is about to choose its new leader.  The only person who has shown any promise to me is the lady, Rona Ambrose, who was unable to run.  She has done a lot to re-establish some credibility in the party during the time when she has been interim leader.  I don’t think that any one of the people currently in the leadership race would have a chance of winning my vote in a general election nor could win the next federal election.

On a totally different note, on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen Driving section today (Friday, May 26) was an article extolling the virtues of a new sports car, the Lamborghini Huracan.  The story boasts about the 600 plus horsepower and the 2.9 second 0 to 100 kph acceleration.  Really?  Who needs over 600 horsepower in a car?  Who needs to go 0 to 100 kph acceleration?  In western countries where we have speed limits and traffic laws, who needs this performance?  On out roads full of ruts and potholes, who can use this performance?  We are, I thought, becoming more conscious or the environment and the burning of fossil fuel.  Extolling these kinds of cars and their outrageous performance is hardly responsible in these circumstances.  Don’t get me wrong.  I am a car lover and have been all my life.  But I have always respected efficiency in cars over brute power.  Let’s see more responsible reporting in newspapers and car magazines.

The Orphan Monument

I was going to submit the following letter as a lament on things not done.  Although a copy of it was published in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the press in Upper Canada has chosen not to publish it, so I thought it needed to be circulated by other means.

There is a monument, commonly called the Bonaventure Anchor, which is found at the tip of Point Pleasant Park in Halifax, Nova Scotia where it can be seen by ships entering and leaving that great port.  This monument is different.  Unlike the hundreds if not thousands of war memorials across Canada which are dedicated to those who died in wartime, with the possible exception of the Peacekeeping Memorial in Ottawa, this one is dedicated to military members who died on duty in peacetime.  Whereas most of the war memorials are maintained by the local Legion branch or the town, or some other level of government, this monument is an orphan.  Nobody will accept responsibility for this monument that is important to many veterans of the Cold War and beyond.  Among other things, it is the only monument open to the public that records the names of the nine men who died aboard HMCS Kootenay in 1969 in the Canadian Navy’s worst peacetime disaster.  In fact, survivors of that event and their families gather each year for a memorial service on the anniversary date, October 23^rd.  But there are others who are so honoured, although there are still many names that need to be added.

So why do we have to talk about this monument now?  Unfortunately, the monument needs work.  It needs work to protect it.  It needs work to refurbish it.  And it needs the names added of many other victims of peacetime service.  A survey has been carried out that outlines the essential work that has to be done.  There appears to be sources of money available to undertake some of the work.  Among the most critical items is the need to protect the monument from shoreline erosion which threatens the stability of the base.  As the owners of Point Pleasant Park, this should likely be in the purview of the Municipality of Halifax/Dartmouth.  But work cannot be undertaken on the monument itself without someone acknowledging ownership and authorizing such work.  This is the problem with orphanhood.

When the monument was dedicated in 1973 by Rear Admiral Robert Timbrell RCN, then the Maritime Commander Atlantic, he promised that the Navy would look after the monument with the work being done by the ships of the Atlantic Command.  Obviously, this promise has long been forgotten.  But should the burden fall solely to the Navy when many of those that are and should be honoured were members of Maritime Air Command of the Royal Canadian Air Force?  

A small group of volunteers, several who are survivors of the Kootenay disaster, have been trying for the past couple of years to find some organization or agency who will take some responsibility for this monument.  They have so far approached various levels of government, as well as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Legion and the Naval Association of Canada, looking for some help in this quest.  So far there has been no positive response from anyone.  Some agencies have not even bothered to reply to requests.  So these volunteers soldier on looking for some answers and hopefully some recognition about the fate of this monument.  And so in this vast country with its many hundreds of war memorials, there stands a rather imposing monument that remains an orphan.

But I have just found out today that some group has agreed to do something about the monument. I am told that the military, among others, has agreed to form a committee to take charge of the restoration work that needs to be done.  A lot of credit must be given to a couple of people, both Kootenay survivors, who have pursued this issue.  Chief among them is a gentleman named Allan “Dinger” Bell who has been investigating and pushing this issue for over ten years.  He has been assisted by John Montague, another survivor.  This is truly a very happy outcome for this quest.  But we cannot let down on continuing to ensure that the committee carries out their mandate and the necessary work in fact gets done.

The Two Misters Wonderful

Mr. Wonderful #2:  Kevin O’Leary has dropped out of the Conservative Leadership race.  Not much of a surprise, really.  He has given a couple of reasons for dropping out, primarily his admission that his poor French would not let him win in Quebec.  Nonsense!  If he was a real politician, he would have found some strong Quebec lieutenants to carry his message into that province.  This is how other leaders from outside Quebec have handled that situation and gone on to win elections.  The most recent example is Mr. Harper, the predecessor as the Conservative Party leader.  So, if this is not the real reason, what could that reason be?

Mr. O’Leary entered the Conservative Party race when Trump mania was at its peak.  Trump had just been elected president, but had no yet been sworn in.  Expectations were high.  He was going to show the world what a great businessman could do to “Make America great again”.  There is no question that Mr. O’Leary was going to try to ride this coattail.  But in the last 100 days things have changed in the United States.  And Mr. O’Leary must have realized that running a country had absolutely nothing in common with running a business.  For one thing, you are not really the boss, at least not in a democracy.  You cannot run things as you see fit. And it is nothing like being on a reality TV show.  You have to be able to respect people, listen to them, take advice from them and deal with a Parliament/Congress and a Supreme Court.  So I think that Mr. O’Leary finally had to acknowledge that he was not capable of doing these things and found an excuse, “Je ne parle the good Francaise” to bail himself out.

Mr. Wonderful #1:  I said a lot about Mr. Trump in the first part of this discussion.  I think he, too, is finding out that you cannot run a country like a company.  You cannot just order people around and, when things go wrong, declare business bankruptcy and start over.  You cannot just sign executive orders and expect everyone to fall in line as if it was a memo “from the Office of the CEO”.   You cannot treat other countries as if they were a customer that you just have to make a deal with (to your advantage of course).  The biggest danger, if he does not learn these lessons, is in international relations.  He may eventually figure out how to get things done with Congress, which of course he will have to even to get a budget in place.  However, this will not be nearly so easy when dealing with other countries and international organizations.  He must first learn that every country is different with different problems and national interests.  He must also learn that it is not about “The Art of the Deal’.  Other countries can put forward some tough negotiators who are very adept at making deals and learning the “other guy’s” weaknesses.  If Mr. Trump, his trade advisors and the so-far gutted State Department don’t learn about these countries, they could be in for some very hard times.  So far, the only foreign policy activities we have seen is “show of force” posturing against what he sees as enemies and blustery rhetoric against so-called friends.  No much subtlety in those moves.  The international stage was where Mr. Trump most assailed his predecessor, but it is on that same stage that Mr. Trump could see his greatest failures.

What Then?

I have this picture in my head of the likely scene that marks the end of the Syrian civil war.  By the way, why do we call it a civil war when any such war is the most uncivil of all types of conflict?  Anyhow, back to my scene. In it I see Bashar Al-Assad standing on a huge pile of rubble with a few of his supporters standing around him looking triumphant.  But in the background, the ground is littered with a million dead bodies.  A dark and forbidding picture to be sure, but as this war struggles on, the scene seems to get closer and closer. 

Now don’t get me wrong, I am certainly no supporter of Bashar Al-Assad.  He should have stepped aside five years ago if he had any regard for the people he rules.  Then it could have been accomplished through negotiations and in a fairly orderly fashion.   But it is far too late for such an orderly turn-over now.  There is too much history, misery and too many players in the game for such a thing to happen today.  The opposition has grown from a group of Syrian rebels to a crowd of challengers that includes not only home grown resistance fighters but Turkey, Kurdish peshmerga, ISIS, Iranian proxies and now the powers of America and Russia.  Each now want their piece of the pie that will remain of Syria after this miserable conflict is over.  

Several countries, including Canada, are now saying that Al-Assad must go.  But in my opinion, it is too late for that simple an answer.  If history, particularly recent history, has taught us anything (and I always wonder if anyone pays attention) it is that the removal of a strong one-man ruler is one of the hardest things to accomplish.  It inevitably causes a power vacuum and resulting instability.  Consider the case of Iraq and the removal of Sadam Hussein.  This resulted in a protracted war involving the United States acting as a virtual army of occupation and the resulting rise of ISIS.  But in the case of Syria, you have Russia as a solid backer of the current regime.  Syria is much closer to Russia, politically and geographically, than Iraq was, so Russia feels that they have a vested interest in calling the shots there.  Since Russia has been much more involved in the actual fighting, particularly against Syrian dissident groups, it would be much more reluctant to see “its” man go.  What then?

How does the world get out of the mess that is the Syrian civil war since it has now become simultaneously a civil war, a war against terrorists, a proxy war between different countries and a possible spark to war between two superpowers?  Certainly the United Nations cannot do much because of the threat of vetoes in the Security Council.  I don’t think NATO has any stomach to get involved as an organization.  Negotiations for even temporary cease fires have proven quite fruitless, so the prospects of a negotiated settlement, particularly one imposed from outside, look pretty hopeless.  So unless the western powers led by the US want to get caught up in another quagmire, the solution must be left up to the Syrian people.  Maybe the only solution is for the Syrian, indigenous opposition groups to sit down with Al-Assad and more or less surrender to the idea that he will remain in power, and that their joint effort will now be on defeating the terrorists groups like ISIS and stabilizing the country.  This would be a very hard decision for the Syrian people to make.  No one really wins in this war.  Even Al-Assad will be left with a weakened country faced with dissent and the prospect of terrorist war.  

If I could see any other solution to this mess, I would certainly propose and support it, but I cannot.  The Syrian people will go on suffering whosever side they are on.  But unfortunately, with all of the factions with a hand in this thing, the ordinary Syrian people are the last people that anyone is thinking about right now.  So look kindly on those Syrian refugees that have made it out of the war zone and make them feel welcome.  If this war ends, many of them will undoubtedly go back to their homes.  But if we treat them right, many will stay and those that return will have nothing but kind thoughts for the western people who gave them asylum.  In the end, it has to be ordinary people that are the most important.