Modern Messaging: "what do you hear?" 1

You have been replaced

"You have been replaced by a machine"

What do you hear?

Photos by GH

Statues in Grand Rapids, MI

Read a Significant Series - Catch 44

Dad's Navy Days: October 1943 - Homeward Bound (19)

"I heard mess deck buzz. We were getting a lot of money

and going on leave." LS Doug Harrison, October 1943

The Queen Emma, a Dutch liner, carried loads of troops safely back to the UK (from Sicily and Italy) in the fall of 1943, to barracks and mail and money and leaves and some peace. No one would have been happier than my father, 23 years old at the time, especially after he settled an old score.

 ["Travel in 'true navy style between the two buttons": Map found

on pg. 7 COMBINED OPERATIONS by C. Marks, London]

He describes his first homecoming of sorts and final WW2 battle in the following way:

     We arrived at Niobe barracks in Scotland [very near number
     4, upper left on UK map] and in true navy style were put on
     a train and sent to Lowestoft in England, not too far from
     Norwich, England (my hometown’s namesake or visa versa) on
     or near the east coast. [near no. 44, lower right on UK map] 

     About leave. When I was in southern England I put in for

     Glasgow and received two extra days for travelling time. But

     I never really saw Glasgow. I went, paid off a grudge, and

     immediately put in for the return trip to London. 

     Do I have a reason for such odd behaviour? Yes. One day at

     Roseneath camp in Scotland, we ratings were all fallen in

     ranks, when out comes black garters and he says, “Any one of

     you guys a fast runner?” I stepped one pace forward. “Okay,

     run over there,” says black garters, “get a wheel barrow,

     shovel, fork, hoe, and go with this man and clean up that big

     estate garden.” What a hell of a shock and what a hell of a job.

     It had been left for years. I made up my mind then that I would

     get back at black garters, and I connived to do it while on a

     leave, and I damn well did. [pg. 38, "DAD, WELL DONE"]

I think a couple of lessons can be learned here. Don't mess with my father. If you want his help, ask for it, but don't play tricks on the poor boy. He'll remember where you live and come-a-knockin'.

Fortunately, that was the last of Leading Seaman Doug Harrison's confrontations on the continent and shortly after a bit of a do ("We were due for a do and we did it up brown [i.e., with brown ale]. You couldn’t possibly lose me in London, England even when I was three sheets to the wind. No way."),  he was homeward bound for Canada and his mother's arms.

["Navy boys home in Canada; Buryl (top), Chuck, Doug"]

     After my leave I went back to Lowestoft, then to Greenock
     [Scotland], then was loaded on a ship [The Aquitania] back to
     Canada and 52 days leave. Mum waited at Brantford Station
     for every train for days and I never came. And when I did arrive
     she wasn’t there. But she sure made a big fuss when she saw me
     and we cried an ocean full of tears. It was nice to be home again,
     Mum. It was coming up to Christmas and quite a few times I
     thought I would never see another one. I thank God for his
     protection. [pg. 38, "DAD, WELL DONE"]

Until only a few years ago I believed that father's trip home ended his participation in World War 2. But, through interesting circumstances, I learned he performed several other duties related to Combined Operations for almost two years on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. However, that story will be for another day.

["Combined Ops ball team, Comox, B.C., circa 1944 - 45;

rare Comb. Ops badge on breast of ball jackets"]

Photo by GH

***

Please click here to read October 1943 - Homeward Bound (18)

the hits keep on comin' 8

Surely, the following movie will be in production soon. Who wouldn't want to see who the winner is in a battle between a 25-year old man from Arizona and a 125-year old saguaro cactus?

                Death by Misadventure: The Screenplay - Part 4

Yes, I know. Part 3 of my screenplay ended rather abruptly. We followed Grundman - from a safe distance - across a mile of desert and watched while he littered the ground with beer cans, cigarette butts, shell casings and a half-dozen saguaro corpses until he reached Ha:san. Then he and the story stopped dead.

No, our narrator didn’t walk out on us. I just wanted to add suspense. That’s show-biz. (FYI. There’s still been no word from anyone about a pet coyote.) 

Tom Miller, the movie's narrator and author of the book upon which the screenplay is based, will next read three short sentences directly from page 192, Jack Ruby’s Kitchen Sink.

“Finally David Grundman encountered Ha:san. A couple of rounds didn’t do it. Ha:san, 125 years old, remained erect.” 

The camera will move in for a close-up of Grundman’s sweaty face as he surveys the damage he has wrought thus far. 

Seconds slowly tick by. He casually takes the last swig of beer from the last can of his six-pack and a final draw on his cigarette. Just as casually he flicks the butt toward Ha:san's tough hide.

We have time to ask ourselves, What’s he thinking? Is he going to wise up? Curse himself for doing so much damage to other living things? Go get a bigger rifle?

Grundman bends down, reaches for the box of shells sitting at his feet.

The narrator reads, “He moved slightly to another angle and pumped a few more slugs into the splendid 3,000-pound saguaro, but it refused to fall. He tried again from farther over.”

Though Grundman’s face registers frustration he is determined to best the cactus. So he picks up a saguaro rib from the ground and starts poking at Ha:san’s lowest arm, which has grown almost five feet in its 70 years. 

(To those who are surprised by the man’s stubbornness or stupidity, or both, may I just say for the record that you shouldn’t be. Mankind has been doing much the same thing to the planet for the last 100 years in countless other ways. You should be used to it by now. Sorry, back to the screenplay.)

Grundman’s poking finally dislodges the arm, which rests about four feet above him and weighs close to 500 pounds.

I could stop right here to build more suspense, but instead, what follows will take place in ultra-slow-motion in true Sam Peckinpah-fashion.

The 500-pound arm falls ever-so-slowly and dramatically toward the ground, and it breaks Grundman’s neck on the way.

Then Ha:san, suddenly unstable, starts wobbling, and falls onto the lifeless man as well, piercing his face and torso in hundreds of places.

As the movie screen gradually fades to black so that the credits can roll, three things will happen simultaneously.

We’ll see the county medical examiner fill in Grundman’s toe tag with the following words; cause of death – external compression of the chest - 04/02/82.

We’ll hear the ballad 'Saguaro' that contains the line 'one mighty arm of justice came hurtling toward the ground'. (Michael Stevens, Austin Lounge Lizards)

We’ll be asked by the film’s narrator, “How will mankind’s movie end?”

Black.

***

Final notes.

There was one witness to David Grundman's death by misadventure., i.e., Jim. W., Grundman's travelling and drinking companion. His full name is given in Miller's book.

Tom Miller's book of short stories about America's South-West will be found today under a new title, The Revenge of the Saguaro.

Tom recently sent me the following note: "Your 2-part Londoner series on the saguaro incident goes in my archives at the U of Arizona Library. You have been preserved."

Years ago my mother canned a lot of fruits and vegetables to help us get through the winter so I'm not sure how to feel about being preserved. 

Live small and prosper.

***

Please click here to read the hits keep on comin' 7

suck it up

sometimes you don't get to choose.

["my father would catch the drift"]

for example, if you signed up to join the Navy - like my father in 1941 - you wouldn't get to pick what ship to board. you might like the new destroyer out of Halifax. you might get assigned to a dud for a long trip around Africa.

the brass plaque outside my shop door reminds visitors that life doesn't always go the way one desires.

photo by gah

***

Please click here for more about the workshop

Would Canadians block a “Buffett Tax”?

[US Republican leaders Sunday criticized President Barack Obama’s proposal for a new tax on millionaires, calling it “class warfare...” Sept. 19 London Free Press]

Let’s review:

One. Warren Buffett went on record about a month ago saying “rich people often pay less in taxes than those who work for them due to loopholes in the tax code, and can afford to pay more.” (Yesterday’s Free Press)

Two. Pres. Obama is expected to propose a “Buffett Tax” soon, on folks making more than $1 million annually, in the hopes of lowering the stratospheric US deficit.


["Can the US dig its way out of a ballooning deficit?"]

Three. Wood chips are hitting the fan. Paul Ryan, chair of the US House Budget Committee reportedly says of the tax, “It adds further instability to our system, more uncertainty and it punishes job creation and those people who create jobs. Class warfare may make for good politics but it makes for rotten economics.”

After reading the above statement I felt I should share a few thoughts of my own:

One. I agree with Warren Buffett. The rich - in Canada and the US - can afford to pay higher taxes and help reduce growing national debts.

Two. Ryan needs to ask himself how his business as usual approach (i.e., the current tax system) is helping the US economy at the moment, and if the job creators are actually creating jobs thanks to their low tax rate.


["Reduce spending. Pay down debt. Save for tough times ahead."]

Three. If Ryan thinks higher taxes makes for ‘rotten economics’, how would he describe the US economy right now?

Fortunately, I live in Canada and, according to Federal Finance Minister Jim Flatulence, our fundamentals are sound and we can continue to look forward to declining deficits and short lineups at the bank.

That being said, I will still raise one last question.

If Canada’s fundamentals change and the economy falters and the budget deficit and national debt grow and a rich business leader on par with Warren Buffett (one of the three richest people on Planet Earth) says the rich should pay more taxes in order to help out, will a Canadian version of Paul Ryan stand up to block any tax increase?

Just wondering.

***

It won’t be me.

Please click here to read more about Warren Buffett and paying more taxes.

.

1996 Everest disaster: Was it preventable?

The last book I read that mentioned climbing disasters on Mt. Everest was entitled The Boys of Everest by Clint Willis. 516 pages. I couldn’t put it down.


[Photo of book cover by GH]

It reminded me of a three-part series I wrote about the 1996 Mt. Everest disaster, as featured in Jon Krakauer's gripping novel Into Thin Air. I repeat the series here.

1996 Everest disaster: Was it preventable?

Part 1

My oldest son bought me three used books by Jon Krakauer for Christmas gifts and I was unable to put the first one down once I’d read the first page.

Into Thin Air, a personal account of a 1996 Mt. Everest disaster, sounded familiar, perhaps because I’d seen TV shows in the last few years about the same event, and I was immediately hooked even though I remembered many details related to the outcome.

I wasn’t hooked because I’m a mountain climber.


[Mt. Everest from space: Photo credit NASA]

Far from it. My low tolerance for risk wouldn’t allow me to climb higher than Base Camp (17,600 ft.) on Everest (29,028 ft.).

Of course, if I became light-headed and left unwatched, I might try for Camp One (19,500 ft.) or Camp Two (21,300 ft.).

However, as a former marathoner - 13 marathons in all - I’m not confident I could develop suitable strength and endurance to even reach the Base Camp.

I wasn’t hooked because I wanted to revisit the disaster and read about gory details.

My main reason was to see if there were answers to questions I had about the climb:

What drives people beyond a point of, what I consider, reasonable risk?

Could the disaster, in which several lives were lost, have been prevented?

Would I even try to reach Base Camp?

My curiosity was partially satisfied with the following from Ch. 17, Summit, 3:40 P.M., May 10, 29,028 Feet:


[Everest route photo link]

“Shortly after Fischer (USA, leader, head guide) left the top, Gau (Taiwan, leader) and his Sherpas departed as well, and finally Lopsang (Fischer’s Sherpa climbing leader) headed down - leaving Hall (New Zealand, leader, head guide) alone on the summit awaiting Hansen (USA, Hall’s client).”

“A moment after Lopsang started down, about 4:00, Hansen at last appeared, toughing it out, moving painfully slowly over the last bump on the ridge. As soon as he saw Hansen, Hall hurried down to meet him.”

“Hall’s obligatory turn-around time had come and gone a full two hours earlier.”

When Krakauer wrote that last line I was reminded that earlier in the book Rob Hall, the leader of a large group of guides, staff and paying clients, had told everyone, no matter where they were in the last leg of the ascent, to turn around at 2 P.M. and return to Camp Four, their closest refuge.

Turning around any later would severely hurt their chances of a safe return to their highest camp.

Why had Hall waited until 4 P.M. for Hansen, the last climber on his team, knowing the risks to himself and his client were so high?

“Given the guide’s conservative, exceedingly methodical nature, many of his colleagues have expressed puzzlement at his uncharacteristic lapse of judgment. Why, they wondered, didn’t he turn Hansen around much lower on the mountain, as soon as it became obvious that the American climber was running late?”

Hall’s lapse of judgment brought about the worst of consequences.

***

1996 Everest disaster: Was it preventable?

.

Part 2

If you haven’t read Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer, a personal account of a 1996 Mt. Everest disaster, you should.

Because if you were ever to climb a mountain, or apply its lessons to other areas of life, you would be the wiser for it.

I read it recently and learned a bit about why Rob Hall, a very responsible, skilled leader from New Zealand, made a tragic mistake on Everest’s summit.


[Mt. Everest from space: Photo credit NASA]

Many of his colleagues have wondered: “Why didn’t he turn Hansen (a client) around much lower on the mountain, as soon as it became obvious that the American climber was running late?”

Here’s what Krakauer reveals:

Exactly one year earlier, Hall had turned Hansen around on the South Summit at 2:30 P.M., and to be denied so close to the top was a crushing disappointment to Hansen. He told me several times that he’d returned to Everest in 1996 largely as a result of Hall’s advocacy - he said Rob had called him from New Zealand “a dozen times” urging him to give it another try - and this time Doug was absolutely determined to bag the top.

“I want to get this thing done and out of my life,” he’d told me three days earlier at Camp Two. “I don’t want to have to come back here. I’m getting too old for this shit.”

It doesn’t seem far-fetched to speculate that because Hall had talked Hansen into coming back to Everest, it would have been especially hard for him to deny Hansen the summit a second time. (pg. 293)

Guy Cotter, a NZ guide, said this:

“It’s very difficult to turn someone around high on the mountain. If a client sees that the summit is close and they’re dead-set on getting there, they’re going to laugh in your face and keep going up.”

Peter Lev, veteran US guide, said this:

“We think that people pay us to make good decisions, but what people really pay for is to get to the top.”

Those who say that death is too high a price to pay to get to the top of the world’s highest peak are, in my opinion, absolutely right.

When Rob Hall (an accomplished climbing guide) did not turn himself or a client around near Everest’s summit to make a safe retreat toward their nearest refuge (as previously arranged), I felt that was an instance that reveals human beings and their systems fail - on mountaintops, high seas, farms, cities, Wall St. and Main St. - for some of the same reasons.

Krakauer writes:

“In any case, Hall did not turn Hansen around at 2:00 P.M. - or, for that matter, at 4:00, when he met his client just below the top. Instead, according to Lopsang (Sherpa climber), Hall placed Hansen’s arm around his neck and assisted the weary client up the final forty feet to the summit.”

“They stayed only a minute or two, then turned to begin the long descent.”

Later events conspired to make their descent extremely difficult, then impossible.

Hansen was never heard from or seen again.


[Hansen’s grave: photo link]

A lone ice ax, found near the end of fixed ropes above a 7,000 foot sheer drop, bore testimony to his fate.

Hall was heard from later that day and into the night but never seen alive again [except possibly by Harold Harris, a young NZ climber and guide, who attempted to rescue Hall and Hansen - and paid the price with his own life].

Rob Hall’s frozen body, however, remained visible to future climbers for some time near the summit.

***

Personal and system failures can be tragic.

What causes tragic failures?

.

1996 Everest disaster: Was it preventable?

Part 3

Lives were lost in 1996 near Everest’s summit, for reasons not all found in Jon Krakauer’s book Into Thin Air.

Two men, perhaps more, are dead because they would not turn around and try another day.

I feel that lesson should not be lost on us - even though most will never set foot near Mount Everest.

Our daily lives are affected by social, political, physical, religious, economic, environmental (and other) frameworks, and within each we at times drive or push too far beyond our limits.

As well, we ignore our conscience or other guides, fail to make a safe retreat when the possibility exists, miss the opportunity to replenish essential resources, and subsequently find ourselves without strength or much hope for survival.

For example, here are a few sentences from A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright that reveal we may have pushed past the Earth’s economic limits:

“During the twentieth century, the world’s population multiplied by four and the economy by more than forty. If civilization is to survive, it must live on the interest, not the capital, of nature (but) markers suggest that in 1999 we were at 125 per cent (of nature’s yearly output).”

And is it not logical to suggest that if we push past our economic limits we slowly bleed the environment dry?

An oft-used quote from Barry Commoner tells me the environment will surely suffer as we push past the planet’s economic limits:

“Sooner or later, wittingly or unwittingly, we must pay for every intrusion on the natural environment.”


[Illustration by G. Harrison]

So, in the political, corporate and personal sphere, firm policies must be put in place and/or limits set to ensure resources are used in a sustainable manner, for the benefit of all now and in the future.

On a personal note:

While training for and running 13 marathons, I often strayed beyond my physical limits or ran at someone else’s chosen pace, then barely survived several of the 26.2 mile events. I hit the wall and became - on a few occasions - an ugly companion for running mates.


["Staying within my physical limits": BOSTON MARATHON, GAH]

Whether we address social relationships (marriages, friendships), economic, environmental policies, et al, we tend to push limits to the extreme and suffer the consequences.

By reading Into Thin Air, I was forced to think a bit more about where we are now, where we’re going, and how we’re getting there.

***

The book, and life itself, are gripping adventures, are they not?

Please click here to read another Series of Significance.

.

It’s not just “Another Saturday Night.”

"It's another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody,
I got no money though I just got paid.."


[“Chinese fishermen on an almost dried up irrigation canal”: photo by David Gray, Reuters]

***

Please click here to read a ‘series of significance’ concerning the water and food bubble facing present and future generations.

.

One bite is worth a thousand words

Gourmet dog, Gord Harrison, Warren Buffett, Pay more taxes.


[Photo by G. Harrison]

***

Please click here to read more about Gourmet dog, Gord Harrison, Warren Buffett, Pay more taxes.

.

Letter to the Editor: What? That’s all you got?

Been there. Done that.

That’s all that came to mind after reading a letter entitled ‘Better way to create jobs’ in Wednesday’s issue of The London Free Press.

Jeffrey Daubs sums up his economic philosophy in these words:

“Jobs come from profits and productivity. Employers hire employees when it is in their best interest to do so. If we truly want prosperity we need to cut regulations and taxes so that we can have a business friendly environment at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.”


["A sustainable economy is a long way off": Mojo's runner]

I’m astounded by the simplicity of success and why no one has thought of it earlier.

But wait... someone has thought of it earlier.

Successive governments since the 1970s have attempted to stimulate a business friendly environment by doing the same thing, and we now have a federal Conservative government willing to strip more environmental regulations and lower corporate taxes from an already all-time low in Canada.

Don’t hold your breath for more productivity and profits by following ‘business as usual’ methods. The market place across the globe is tired of ‘ye old tried and true,’ maybe for reasons politicians, businesses and consumers are not yet willing to admit and confront.

We’re way passed Jeffrey’s mantra.

Ever heard of climate change, limits to growth, resource depletion?

***

Please click here for more about climate change and limits to growth.

.

Series of Some Significance: Catch-44, the progress trap, and the greedy monkey

[The following five posts were originally published in December, 2010 on separate days. They appear together below for your convenience.]

Catch-44, the progress trap, and the greedy monkey PT 1

I’ve recently discovered that the term Catch-44 is pretty popular.

By ‘recently’ I mean within the last few hours and after coming inside from my shop.

I used the term twice today thinking it was a product of my own imagination, but a Google search reveals Catch .44 is an indie crime drama filmed in Shreveport, LA., starring Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker, among others.

Stink. I wanted the term all to myself, just like the litre of ice-cream loaded with Smarties I found in the downstairs freezer a few days ago. (Somehow my wife knew about it!)

I like the term Catch-44 because it conjures up memories of Catch-22 (a gripping book and film with later connections to the movie and TV show M*A*S*H) and... it denotes something twice as bad as a Catch-22.

Feelings that I would describe as Catch-44-ish come up almost every day. Sometimes early in the morning before I’m even out of bed.

(The feelings are unrelated to having to get out of bed. I like getting out of bed - eventually. Coffee awaits. Sorry, I digress).

I used the term first while describing our predicament with rising costs - and not just related to hydro, which much on the minds of many Ontarians.

I said:

“Because no government is effectively encouraging the move toward smaller cars, homes and lifestyles, our roads will continue to support more cars per capita (and the related expense), our homes will continue to grow and demand more energy and production of household goods, and the associated costs of our lifestyle will increase.

It’s a Catch-44, which is twice as shocking and frustrating as a Catch-22 and any hydro bill.

I elaborated a bit on my use of the term in a later post when I said, “In other words, we’re in a Catch-44, a bad trap, twice as bad as a Catch-22.

We’re building and paving roads today that we’ll never repair or replace in the future as far as present home owners are concerned, because they’ll be dead.”

Now, where did I get the idea that we’re in a bad trap?

Stay tuned.

.

Catch-44, the progress trap, and the greedy monkey PT 2

The popular term Catch-44 not only conjures up memories of Catch-22 (a gripping book and film with a M*A*S*H connection) but infers there are troubles that are twice as big as size 22 troubles.

In an earlier post I mentioned that I experience Catch-44-ish feelings almost every day, e.g., when I read about rising hydro costs and our growing demand for more juice.

I elaborated a bit on my use of the term in a later post re rising infrastructure costs, i.e., related to tarmac roads, and our inability to pay our way when I said, “In other words, we’re in a Catch-44, a bad trap, twice as bad as a Catch-22.”

In my mind, I relate Catch-44 back to another term - a progress trap - and illustrative examples of the same found in the book A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright (see Read This, right margin).

In it he writes:

“Since the early 1900s, the world’s population has multiplied by four and its economy - a rough measure of the human load on nature - by more than forty. We have reached a stage where we must bring the experiment under rational control, and guard against present and potential dangers,” (pg. 31) i.e., lest we fall into a progress trap.

“We have already caused so many extinctions that our dominion over the earth will appear in the fossil record like the impact of an asteroid... a bad smell of extinction follows Homo sapiens around the world.”


["Asteroids - like the blunt fist of mankind"; photo link here]

In Chapter 2 he reveals “what we can deduce from the first progress trap - the perfection of hunting, which ended the Stone Age - and how our escape from that trap by the invention of farming led to our greatest experiment: worldwide civilization. We then have to ask ourselves this urgent question: Could civilization itself be another and much greater trap?”

What a great question.

The book is a real page turner.

I highly recommend it, but don’t expect a happy ending a la Walt Disney, e.g., Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

The tone of the book is reflected in Wright’s thoughts about some of the roots of modern civilization.

“From ancient times until today, civilized people have believed they behave better, and are better, than so-called savages. But he moral values attached to civilization are specious: too often used to justify attacking and dominating other, less powerful, societies. In their imperial heyday, the French had their “civilizing mission” and the British their “white man’s burden” - the bearing of which was eased by automatic weapons. As Hilaire Belloc wrote in 1898: “Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.” Nowadays, Washington claims to lead and safeguard “the civilized world,” a tradition in American rhetoric that began with the uprooting and exterminating of that country’s first inhabitants.” (pg. 33)

So, about that first progress trap mentioned earlier...

.

Catch-44, the progress trap, and the greedy monkey PT 3

I use the term Catch-44 to mean a bad trap, twice as bad as a Catch-22.

A ‘progress trap’ is a term I encountered in the book entitled A Short History of Progress.

In Chapter 2 the author, Ronald Wright, reveals “what we can deduce from the first progress trap - the perfection of hunting, which ended the Stone Age...”

Now, about that first progress trap he writes the following:

“Modern hunter-gatherers - Amazonians, Australian Aboriginals, Inuit, Kalahari bushmen - are wise stewards of their ecologies, limiting their own numbers, treading lightly on the land.”

I know, you’re already ahead of me. You’ve deduced that early man did not tread lightly, were not good stewards. You may also have jumped farther ahead to modern day, to our wastefulness, and to the corner we have painted ourselves into quite nicely.

Hey, not so fast.


["Are we nothing more than a greedy monkey?": photo by GH]

Wright continues:

“It is often assumed that ancient hunters would have been equally wise. But archaeological evidence does not support this view. Palaeolithic hunting was the mainstream livelihood, done in the richest environments on a seemingly boundless earth.”

Stop it. Already you’re thinking about how unwisely modern corporations have decimated the seemingly boundless forests and salmon stocks in the NW region of the US, aka ‘the Pacific North-west.' Let Wright finish.

“(Palaeolithic hunting was) done, we have to infer from the profligate remains, with the stock-trader’s optimism that there would always be another big killing just over the next hill. In the last and best-documented mass extinctions - the loss of flightless birds and other animals from New Zealand and Madagascar - there is no room for doubt that people were to blame. The Australian biologist Tim Flannery has called human beings the “future-eaters.” Each extinction is a death of possibility.”

Okay, it’s my turn to openly reflect on a related matter.

This from an essay I read last night from a book entitled Moral Ground (K.D. Moore, M.P. Nelson):

“We are indeed experiencing the greatest wave of extinctions since the disappearance of the dinosaurs,” said Ahmed Djoghlaf, head of the UN convention on biological diversity. “Extinction rates are rising by a factor of up to 1,000 above natural rates. Every hour, three species disappear. Every day, up to 150 species are lost. Every year, between 18,000 and 55,000 species become extinct,” he said. “The cause: human activities.”

Sorry, I digress.

Wright says:

“So among the things we need to know about ourselves is that the Upper Paleaolithic period, which may well have begun in genocide, ended with an all-you-can-kill wildlife barbecue. The perfection of hunting spelled the end of hunting as a way of life. Easy meat meant more babies. More babies meant more hunters. More hunters, sooner or later, meant less game. Most of the great human migrations across the world at this time must have been driven by want, as we bankrupted the land with our moveable feasts... the hunters at the end of the Stone Age were certainly not clumsy, but they were bad because they broke rule one for any prudent parasite: Don’t kill off your host.”

“As they drove species after species to extinction, they walked into the first progress trap.”

“Some of their descendants - the hunter-gatherer societies that have survived into recent times - would learn in the school of hard knocks to restrain themselves.”

Question: Does modern man restrain himself?

Wright concludes:

“But the rest of us found a way to raise the stakes: that great change known to hindsight as the Farming or Neolithic “Revolution.”

And how is that going for us?

We’re inflicting other progress traps upon ourselves.

Now we’re burning rain forests to plant soy for beef cattle.

Now we’re stripping ancient forests in the Pacific NW - at the same time destroying salmon stocks - to send raw wood and jobs to Asia.

Your turn.

Do you know of other examples of Catch-44s, other progress traps?

Are we nothing but greedy monkeys?

.

Catch-44, the progress trap, and the greedy monkey PT 4

By now, especially after reading the previous 3 parts of this brilliant series, you probably use Catch-44 in your daily conversations to mean a bad trap, twice as bad as a Catch-22.

How could you not?

You may also use the term ‘progress trap’ in the manner described in the book A Short History of Progress (author - Ronald Wright), i.e., to mean that we get so good at living a certain way it spells the end of us. (E.g., the first progress trap - the perfection of hunting, which ended the Stone Age).

But you may wonder where “the greedy monkey” fits in when encountering the title to my posts.

Well may you ask, as per the conclusion to PT 3, “Are we nothing but greedy monkeys?”

No, I say. We're worse.

And from an anthropomorphic point of view, I even think any self-respecting monkey would agree with me.

Though monkeys are greedy, they will never be as greedy as humankind. Though easily trapped because of their greed, their weakness is a mere nothing in comparison to our own.

For example, all one requires to catch a monkey in some regions of the world are the following materials:

A wooden stake,

a length of rope,

a hollowed out coconut shell with a 1-inch hole,

a few sweet candies.

Then follow the following instructions:

Drive the stake into the ground,

attach the stake securely to one end of the rope and the coconut to the other,

toss the candies into the coconut,

and wait for a greedy monkey.

What will happen once a monkey smells the sweets?

It will reach inside the hole and grab them. And when approached by the trap-setter, it will make a tight fist around the candies and attempt to flee.

However, can you see the monkey’s problem?

Its fist, full of candy, will now be larger than the 1-inch hole, and it can only escape from being caught by releasing its treasure.

Any greedy monkey will soon find itself inside a cage or soup pot. Many do. They are too greedy to release the prize and are held in place by their own hand.

Greed may cost the monkey its life, but the level of greed demonstrated is a mere nothing to that shown by humankind in many instances, because our collective greed can lead not just to the loss of one life but many, and to the extinction of many plant and animal species at the same time.

We know that modern man can barely restrain himself in the use of earth’s resources. Sustainable use of water, land, trees, minerals, fuels and multiple food sources is not practiced.

Though through the centuries humankind has moved from hunting and hunting-gathering to (predominantly) farming because of progress traps (we hunted so well many types of game were hunted to extinction), we’re inflicting other progress traps upon ourselves as we extensively farm around the world.

I wrote in an earlier post, “Now we’re burning rain forests to plant soy for beef cattle.”

About life on the largest scale, A Short History of Progress presents the following:

“Richard Alley points out what should be obvious: humans have built a civilization adapted to the climate we have. Increasingly, humanity is using everything (e.g., renewable and non-renewable resources) this climate provides... (and) the climate of the last few thousand years is about as good as it gets.” (pg. 52)

Ronald Wright continues:

“(Climate) change is not in our interest. Our only rational policy is not to risk provoking it. Yet we face abundant evidence that civilization itself, through fossil-fuel emissions and other disturbances, is upsetting the long calm in which we grew. Ice sheets at both poles are breaking up. Glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas are thawing (we now know that Canada’s north and Greenland are loosing their ice layers quickly); some have disappeared in only twenty-five years. Droughts and unusually hot weather (Canada has experienced its hottest year on record) have already caused world grain output to fall or stagnate for eight years in a row. During the same eight years, the number of mouths to feed went up by 600 million.”

“Steady warming will be bad enough, but the worst outcome would be a sudden overturning of earth’s climatic balance - back to its old regime of sweats and chills. If that happens, crops will fail everywhere and the great experiment of civilization will come to a catastrophic end.”

“In the matter of our food, we have grown as specialized, and therefore as vulnerable, as a sabre-toothed cat.”

Talk about your Catch-44, your progress trap, your greedy monkey.

Will humankind suffer through vast changes associated with climate change with its greedy fist caught in a trap of its own making?

.

Catch-44, the progress trap, and the greedy monkey PT 5, The Conclusion

Being a man of few words, I was earlier able to explain the meaning of the title in only 4 posts.

Though we will find ourselves in many predicaments in the near future, the greatest will be because of climate change. Our role in our own demise is indisputable.

Catch-44, progress trap, greedy monkey and countless other terms, I’m sure, will be used to describe our inability to solve a solvable problem.

It seems, though “our only rational policy is not to risk provoking it” (i.e., the near-perfect climate in which 6.7 billion of us live), we poke it with a sharp stick - our motive relates to greed in many instances - at almost every opportunity.

I concluded Pt 4 by asking, “Will humankind suffer through vast changes associated with climate change with its greedy fist caught in a trap of its own making?”

Though I said ‘no’ when wondering aloud if we are like a greedy monkey (we are far worse than any monkey), I say ‘yes’ to the above.

Consider humankind’s carbon emissions related to its pursuit of what many call the essentials of life, i.e., food, clothing and shelter, as well as a few systems upon which we have grown dependent, i.e., transportation, communication and recreation. (There are others, of course. There is no end to our pursuits).

About Canada I would say the following:

On average, bellies are getting bigger. Unnecessarily so.

Closets are getting bigger. Unnecessarily so.

Homes are getting bigger. Unnecessarily so.

The number of cars per capita is growing. Comfort and convenience wins over conservation.

The number of electronic communication devices is growing. Convenience wins again.

The number of recreational opportunities is growing. And no one plays checkers anymore.

Related carbon emissions are growing.

According to recent news, ‘countries that signed (the Kyoto Protocol in 1997) were supposed to cut their emissions from 1990 levels, but Canada’s have risen 24%.’ (Dec. 7, London Free Press)

The Canadian government allows emissions to grow.

So do so many other governments on planet Earth. So, climate change advances. Total calories, cotton shirts, square feet per person, cars, cellphones and play times advance further.

Will we slow the amassing of material goods for the sake of the present and any future generations?

Not at this time. Methinks our greed will not allow it.

Catch-44. Progress trap. Greedy monkey. All apply.


We may be at the point when only a series of major economic set backs or environmental disasters will force us to release our tight grip on a multitude of sweet treasures of so little value when compared to life itself.

Intriguing times we live in, aren’t they?

***

Please click here to read another Series of Some Significance.

.

Series of Some Significance: Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank

[The following three posts were recently listed separately. I have arranged them together here for your convenience and ultimate satisfaction. Ultimate! gah]

Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Part 1

“Put crooks to work.” That’s the spirit.

At least that’s the spirit in Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s Ontario, if he is elected our next Premier.

What Hudak wants:

He wants 2,700 convicted prisoners (excluding young offenders and inmates awaiting trial) to perform up to 40 hours of mandatory manual labour a week, including “raking leaves, collecting garbage and cleaning graffiti.” (May 27, London Free Press)


[“We’re workin’ on a chain gang”: photo link]

He wants to “end the practice of letting convicted prisoners spend their time watching TV or playing cards.”

What Hudak thinks:

“I just think it’s the right thing to do.”

“It’s time for inmates to give back to society.”

He thinks ‘the value of the work the inmates perform would cover the added cost of security and travel involved in doing it, but would also set aside a $20 million contingency fund in case it doesn’t.’

What do I think? Stay tuned.

***

What do you think of Hudak’s plan?

.

PT 2 - Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak plans to put 2,700 (approx.) convicted criminals to work for up to 40 hours per week if elected Premier.

Though Hudak thinks it’s the right thing to do and “details on whether inmates would be manacled together to prevent escape have yet to be worked out” (May 27, London Free Press), not everyone agrees whole-heartedly with his work gang idea.

For example, Jim Bradley, Community Safety and Corrections Minister, feels Hudak “will be putting citizens at risk by bringing dangerous criminals into their midst... (i.e.) our parks and our neighbourhoods and our schoolyards and our business districts, where there are kids and families.”

Correctional workers “support the idea of inmates doing work but would prefer the tasks to be meaningful and productive.”

Alex Hoyos, a resident of my own city, says the following in a Letter to the Editor:

“Bad idea... punitive labour for criminals is a thing of the past.”

Among other things he adds, “Forced labour is immoral, guarding the criminals... costs more than the benefits, the risk of a criminal fleeing is many times higher...”

However, he notes he is not against paid or voluntary jobs within prison facilities that provide meaningful occupations, the possibility of earning some money, and opportunities to learn skills for a job outside of prison. And finally he notes, “this is just another crazy idea from Hudak.”

Then there’s an idea from Harrison.

***

Do you think this is another crazy idea from Hudak?

Would you want criminals raking leaves in a park next door to your property?

.

PT 3 - Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Alex Hoyos of London thinks PC Leader Hudak’s plan to make 2,700 provincial inmates perform up to 40 hours of mandatory manual labour per week “is just another crazy idea from Hudak.”

And me? What do I think? Two things.

I think Hudak’s intentions might not be half-baked. I think his initiative, however, is.

Hudak’s intentions: No one can look inside the PC leader’s little round head to determine the full extent or purity of his intentions, but if he intends to make prisoners rake leaves or collect garbage instead of play cards in order to better prepare them to re-enter society with useful job skills and more education, then society as a whole will receive a benefit.

If Hudak intends to take any monetary savings connected to his work gangs and make some form of restitution to those who suffered losses as a result of certain crimes, then some citizens will receive a benefit.

But can we attribute such intentions to his initiative to send prisoners to do mandatory work such as “raking leaves, collecting garbage and cleaning graffiti?”

I don’t think so. Though Hudak attributes ‘value’ to the manual labour (“He expects the value of the work... would cover the added cost of security and travel... but would also set aside a $20 million contingency fund in case it doesn’t”) I don’t think the value is in sound education or meaningful job skills that will help anyone in the future.

$20 million spent, in my opinion, on meaningful education and job skills is a sound investment in Ontario’s future. And Hudak’s plan has less to do with investing and more to do with inventing. Or re-inventing, i.e., the chain gang.

I’ll let Michael Den Tandt have the last word:

“And of course there's the now obligatory crime wedge issue, whereby right-thinking, law-abiding folks are invited to get mad at the lousy, despicable felons and crooks.

“So the Conservatives would use public money to have convicts, presumably in striped jailhouse outfits or Guantanamo orange, paraded along the boulevards, picking up trash and cutting grass.

“As a campaign platform, it is truly pitiful. It throws the door open to Horwath and the NDP to do something interesting, if they can.” (May 31, London Free Press)

***

If you feel Hudak’s plan has some merit, please let me know.

Please click here to read deep thoughts from a conservative think-tank.

.

Series Of Significance: “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

The following series of five posts were recently posted separately. They now appear together for your convenience.

PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[“The average Canadian family spent close to half its income on taxes last year - more than it paid for food, shelter and clothing combined, says a new study...” April 27, London Free Press]

My word. How shall I respond to the latest study from the Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank?

Shall I clutch my chest over my heart? Shall I fall over and lie face down atop my shag carpet? Shall I curse the government for the terrible predicament (It is a terrible predicament, isn’t it?] that the average Canadian family faces day in and day out for the rest of my life?

No. I’ll do none of those things. Neither should you. Most average Canadians will be just fine, thanks.

Studies that share so little information don’t pass the Harrison Sniff Test.

Though the Fraser Inst. reports that “in 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes,” which may all be well and true, I want to have more information for context, perspective and balance.

For example:

What does the average family receive in return by paying taxes to different levels of government? Is there a concrete benefit to educational, health care, social programs, etc.? Can we put a dollar figure on the value of a good education or health care over the course of an average lifetime? If Canada invested in a dental care program would it the average family actually save money over the long term?

By discussing the benefits to taxation fully, the average Canadian family might see they generally live like kings and queens in a free country.

I’d also like to know the percentage of tax that families pay who earn less than $40,000. And who earn between $40 - $50,000, between $50 - 60,000, and so on, right up to millionaires (the number of Canadian millionaires is growing) and billionaires.

By looking at those figures we might see that the 41% tax rate is about average in Canada. Or we might see that people with higher earnings pay fewer taxes and therefore have a higher percentage of disposable income, and that a fairer taxation system is in order.

With even more information, we might learn that the average Canadian is almost getting the best deal in the world.

And who is the Fraser Institute? How conservative are they anyway?

***

PT 2 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[In 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes. Spending on food, clothing and shelter added up to 34% of the family income, the study found (i.e., a new study from conservative think-tank the Fraser Institute). April 27, London Free Press]

When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees. I don’t curse our government.

When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.

I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.

So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?

How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.

And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.

Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.

Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.

***

PT 3 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[“Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family,” Fraser Institute senior economist Niels Veldhuis said. April 27, London Free Press]

Should we fall down? No.

In spite of the conservative think-tanks findings, offered without the benefit of helpful context, when the average Canadian family (income $72,393) learns it pays 41.3% of that amount in taxes, it may breathe a sigh of relief.

“It’s the best deal on the planet,” some people will say.

“It sounds like a lot, but we’re doing well,” others will say, and say it honestly.

Now, admittedly, 41.3% is more than the average family spends on food, clothing and shelter (those costs come in at 34% of income), but people are getting a lot for their 34%.

For example, in the Food Dept.:

The average Canadian is overweight and wears XL Levis with a stretchy waistband

Canadians make 17 million visits to restaurants per day

Canadians pay one of the lowest amounts for weekly groceries (under 15%), compared to income, in the entire world. The percentage is higher in the US; it stands at 45% in Indonesia

Canadians annually write grocery lists that include millions upon millions of dollars worth of cookies, cola, sugar-covered cereals and snack foods

The average Canadian family would do much for its health - and health care costs - if it spent less on food, cooked more meals at home and walked around the neighbourhood more often after supper.

I’m sure the Fraser think tank would agree.

About the Clothing Dept.:

The average Canadian family has seen the size of closets grow substantially over the years

For example, in my 1930s three-bedroom house, the three closets (one is a hall closet for coats and two vacuum cleaners; one bedroom does not have a closet) are no more than 3 ft. by 4 ft. Modern homes and apartments now often come with one or more walk-in closets, room enough for more clothes and shoes than one person can shake a stick at. Sorry, I digress.

‘Clothes Hog’ and ‘Shoe Hog’ are modern terms and many families hire professional organizers or declutterers to help bring material possessions under some kind of control

The vintage and used-clothing markets have grown substantially in the modern era

The aforementioned 34% likely includes the cost of Nike running shoes for weekend runners at $169 per pair and the expensive NHL jerseys that adorn many fans watching the current hockey playoffs

I would therefore say the average Canadian family is getting by pretty nicely at the moment.

The conservative-minded Fraser Institute may want the average Canadian to feel that government has to be smaller, programs have to be cut, taxes have to be reduced - but I don’t buy their small government, market-first, large lifestyle philosophy.

And about the Shelter Dept.:

The average Canadian is not finding costs related to their homes unbearable because of government spending

For example, in the early 1900s, 800 - 1,000 sq. ft. homes, and smaller, were common. My parents and my four siblings lived in a one and a half storey, seven room house in Norwich for many years. We managed to get along without pitching anyone into the streets.

My wife and I and two sons lived comfortably together in our current home, eight rooms, 1,050 sq. ft., before the boys moved into their own digs. Half of the house, including the basement, is now under-used.

I would estimate that the modern day standard for a house is greater than 2,100 sq. ft., or twice my home’s size.

I would guess furnishings cost in excess of $20,000 per home. And if that includes the latest big-screen TV and finished rec room, I would suspect the high average debt per family ($148 debt for every $100 income) is the result of over-borrowing for items on “the want list” and not the size of the government. Again, I digress.

Now, what about that other 25% that the average Canadian family has left to spend after taxes and life’s essentials?

How are Canadians doing in the transportation, communication, recreation, RRSP and backyard pool departments? Any ideas? Is the government standing in the way of our success, progress, or excess?

***

PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[It has become fashionable these days to view government spending as a tremendous burden on society. In fact, spending our money collectively through governments, with their strong emphasis on health care, education and welfare, is the smartest investment we, as a society, can make. Shooting The Hippo, 1995, by Linda McQuaig]

Sixteen years have passed since L. McQuaig’s Shooting the Hippo said the above words. They may still be true.

The average Canadian family may be getting a very good deal for the 41% it pays in taxes, 34% it pays for food, clothing and shelter and the 25% it has left over to spend on whatever it wants.

And what does the average Canadian family want? I’m not sure.

And though Fraser Institute spokesperson, senior economist Niels Veldhuis, says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), he doesn’t say what the average Canadian would actually gain by reducing taxes or the size of government or its programs.

The average Canadian could buy more food I suppose, though we are growing more obese by the day.

We could buy more clothes and more furniture for our home, I suppose. We could upgrade our transportation, communication and recreational choices, I suppose.

But perhaps there’s more benefit to putting money aside for collective choices as opposed to individual choices. More on all of us, others. Less on the individual, me.

I don’t know if Canadians will ever find out.

The more elitist organizations, such as the conservative Fraser Institute, propose fewer taxes and smaller government (without context, and usually for the elite’s overall benefit - what might that be? - and not the average Canadian’s), the more likely the average Canadian will, unknowingly, lean toward the goals of the elite.

And what are the goals of the elite?

“In many ways, what the elite wants now is to lower citizen’s expectations of what they can count on from society, to roll back the frontiers of government - to return to an earlier focus on enforcing more narrowly defined legal and political rights. It wants to wean us away from the notion of government as provider and equalizer, and re-establish the discipline of the marketplace in meting out those sorts of rewards where they are “earned.” Under the harsher discipline of the marketplace, we would have no automatic “rights” or “entitlements:” all we would have is whatever we could get by selling our services to those with the money to pay us.

“Presented this way, the new ideology might not sound appealing to most members of society; so it is rarely presented this way. Rather, proponents of rolling back government have focused on finding fault with the system of extended rights that we’ve come to enjoy, or presenting ordinary citizens as victims of an excessive tax burden apparently caused by government largesse.” pg. 7, Shooting the Hippo

Are ordinary citizens in Canada, e.g., the average Canadian family, victims of excessive taxes?

I don’t think so. The average family is growing big and strong on 34% of its income (maybe too big and strong) and has 25% leftover to buy additional stuff that will one day clutter up a big house and garage in the burbs.

Instead of worrying or questioning the size of government, we should ask for a lot more information from the Fraser Institute. They paint wild pictures and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated.

Perhaps we should even read Shooting the Hippo by Linda McQuaig so we’re better equipped to recognize a pile of guff when it appears in the news.

***

PT 5 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[The notion that a consensus existed on cutting social spending was misleading. If anything, a consensus appeared to exist not to cut social spending. An Angus Reid poll, taken in late April 1993... found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians opposed any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent opposed any funding cuts to education. pg 34, L. McQuaig, Shooting the Hippo]

Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”

I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.

I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).

Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.

0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!

What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.

O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.

As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.

From Shooting the Hippo:

This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.

Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)

Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:

Times have changed

McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s

This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.

I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?

Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?

Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?

If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.

(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).

***

Please click here to read another Series of Significance

.

Series of Significance: Smoke and Fire Down Your Pants

[The following five posts were originally listed separately. They are resubmitted here in one package for your convenience. I’m all about convenience. No extra charge!]

Welcome to Harperville: Smoke and fire down your pants

[Ottawa - After more than five years as the leader of minority governments, Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally lost the confidence of the House of Commons on Friday...

“The vote today, which obviously disappoints me will, I suspect, disappoint most Canadians,” Harper said. - March 26, London Free Press]

Welcome, one and all, to Harperville... the wee little corner of the universe inhabited by a reformer, deformer and smoke and fire performer of some caliber, and all those who know and love him.

I present to you the Prime Minister of Canada.

Before I allow him to say a few words, however, let me just say that Friday’s vote should have disappointed the Prime Minister. It should have disappointed each member of the House of Commons and each law-abiding citizen of Canada, even those in Harperville.


[“Harper is not even half disappointed”: photo link]

But it should disappoint us for the right reasons.

The following comes from an insider’s view of the House:

“And now the House has found the government in contempt, for the first time in Canadian history, as well as the first time in the entire history of the Commonwealth. The PM dismissed it all this past weekend as procedure; the Speaker has concluded it is pivotal.” - The Parallel Parliament

Harper should be disappointed that he is the only Canadian Prime Minister in history to be found in contempt of Parliament.

Let’s hear what he has to say for himself. Shhh. He’s about to speak.

“I’ve come here today to blow smoke and fire down your pants!”

Crap. Business as usual, as one might expect.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 2

[Headline - Harper 'lies' about coalition details: Broadbent

"I've never seen the leader of a Conservative party, certainly not Bob Stanfield, certainly not Joe Clark, lie — I choose the word deliberately — the way Mr. Harper has," Broadbent said.

The former NDP leader, who helped negotiate Monday's deal between the New Democrats and the Liberals with the support of the Bloc Québécois, said Harper also lied when he said the three opposition leaders refused to sign their agreement in front of a Canadian flag because Gilles Duceppe, a Quebec sovereigntist, objected.

In fact, there were at least two flags present at Monday's signing ceremony, as well as a painting of the Fathers of Confederation. Wed., Dec. 3, 2008, CBC News]

Coalition details:

Prime Minister Harper has a history of lying about coalitions. And the Canadian flag too, for Pete’s sake.


As well, Harper forgets to tell Canadians he signed up for a coalition when Leader of the Opposition. (Did he wrap himself in the Canadian flag at the time? Did the Fathers of Confederation smile upon him?)

My goodness. The man who likes to blow smoke and fire down your pants got burned himself.

Some readers might ask, why should anyone believe his word about a coalition today?

My only response: You’ve never been to Harperville, have you?

However, that’s the past. Surely Harper’s contemptuous behaviour concerning coalitions is behind him. Except for the baggage of the recent, nasty and singular contempt charge (nothing like it in the history of Canada) against him inside the House of Commons, surely it’s clear sailing for our Prime Minister during his future weeks on the election trail.

Recently, the PM landed in British Columbia and promised parents with kids under 18 that they will be able to split their incomes for tax purposes if he’s re-elected.

Whoops.

“But there’s a catch - the measure won’t take effect until after the country is out of budget deficit, likely in 2015.” (The London Free Press)

2015. That’s if all goes according to the Conservative plan and they can afford it then.


2015. That’s if the real world doesn’t throw any curve balls along the way. Like another recession, financial or economic wrinkle.

That’s if Harper is still leading the Conservatives.

In other words, Harper can afford to give wealthy corporations another tax cut next year but can’t afford to help families the way he would really, really like until 2015 - maybe.

That’s what I call blowing smoke and fire down your pants. The guy’s a whizz bang.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 3

[Ottawa - Minutes after his government (i.e., the Harper Government) lost a confidence vote and was branded in contempt of Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper came out swinging against the opposition “coalition.” Mar. 26, The London Free Press]

“What coalition?” one might ask.


Good question. Answer: Harper is just blowing smoke and fire down your pants.

Shortly thereafter Harper promised income sharing benefits to families. They can be collected in 2015 - maybe. Just more smoke and fire down your pants.

Though there is a slim chance some Canadians will benefit from Harper’s promise, there is an excellent chance all Canadians will one day suffer the consequences of providing Harper and Harperites (or residents of Harperville) the keys to high political office.

This from a well-respected, local Member of Parliament:

“I have stood and voted for bills I believed vital to the future and health of this country, only to have the success of such votes ignored by the present government. I looked on as the Harper government secretly passed along a 200-page handbook to its members about how to scuttle committees and blunt their usefulness.” The Parallel Parliament

Surely the writer jests. Harper wants to scuttle committees, blunt their usefulness, slow or hinder the democratic process?

Unfortunately, according to a fine book I’m reading, the MPs words are true.

This from Tar Sands Showdown by Tony Clarke:

“Canada’s vulnerability in terms of energy security (e.g., having enough to heat our homes) was underlined by the response University of Alberta professor and president of the Parkland Institute Gordon Laxer received in April 2007 from the National Energy Board (NEB) regarding a series of inquiries he had submitted in preparation for his report Freezing In The Dark: “Unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.”

Yet, says Laxer, the NEB was established back in 1959 with precisely the mandate of ensuring the long-term security of Canada’s energy supply.

A few weeks later Laxer appeared as a witness before the House of Commons committee on international trade to present the results of his research on energy security issues in Canada. But, almost as soon as he began, his testimony was shut down by the chair of the committee, a member of the Harper government, who promptly adjourned the proceedings.

In short, there are serious grounds for concern about increasing energy insecurity in Canada, particularly in relation to supplies of oil and natural gas.” pg. 206

Harper is in control? Yes.

Harper is doing what is right for Canada? Not a chance.

But... he is the Grand Wizard when it comes to blowing smoke and fire down your pants.

More to follow.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants: Random thoughts

The following are all original thoughts from inside my little round head:

Mr. Harper will steer the election campaign toward the evil coalition.

Stupid idea.

He will also offer income splitting to some families somewhere in the future.

Maybe.

He continues to hinder the democratic process as he has done in the past, as in the Tar Sands.

He relies on a negative ad campaign to do so.

***

There. Now I feel better.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 4

[Ottawa - Harper insisted the economy is his “No. 1 priority,” since the global economy remains “fragile,” hinting he’ll try to steer the election campaign towards the economy. Mar. 26, The London Free Press]

[“Mr. Harper will steer the election campaign toward the evil coalition. Stupid idea. He will also offer income splitting to some families somewhere in the future, maybe. He continues to hinder the democratic process as he has done in the past, as in the Tar Sands. He relies on a negative ad campaign to do so.” Mar. 31, It Strikes Me Funny by G. Harrison]

Talk about smoke and fire down your pants.

Last night I was enjoying a program on TV and, during a break, one of Mr. Harper’s many negative ads appeared on the screen. Large white letters. Mr. Ignatieff linked to a coalition. Very small white letters. The date. 2008.

Old news it was. From an angry, insecure Prime Minister.

The ad helped me recall the time in 2004 when Harper wanted to lead a coalition himself to replace the Liberals. Was it a stupid, evil idea then?

The reason why Harper, Harperites and all residents of Harperville love their blunt and bland negative ads is because Conservative support across Canada comes in at around 37% during elections, the majority of Canadians are completely willing to support someone who is not Stephen Harper, and negative ads encourage people to stay at home on election night.

That’s right, Canada. Harper doesn’t want all people to vote. Talk about a defender of democracy.

He wants Conservatives to vote (They love his ads, by the way. They’ll vote until the cows come home) but he doesn’t want the other 63% (approx.) of Canadians to vote.

He would rather blow smoke and fire down your pants, lead you to believe that there isn’t an MP in the House of Commons you can trust (except his band of merry men) and make you think there’s no good reason to vote.

Harper’s negative ads don’t work on me.


["The Harper shopping cart is empty"]

They remind me of why Harper is the first PM in Canadian and Commonwealth history to be called into contempt.

The Grand Wizard of smoke and fire is such a tiny little fellow when you get to know him.

More to follow.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 5

[“At no other time in my short and eventful life have I sensed there’s been a greater need for cooperation between Canadian political parties than now.” By Gord Harrison, posted 2 years ago, Cold Lake Sun, Alberta]


["I said it before, I'll say it again": photo by GH]

I said it two years ago (and in The Londoner on Dec. 10, 2008), I’ll say it again. Cooperation between political parties is essential. Challenges facing our country are immense.

But is PM Harper capable of cooperating with other political parties? In a word, no. He doesn’t build bridges. He seems only capable of slinging mud along with bridge-building materials.

This from Doug Finley, Harper’s national campaign director:

“I believe we’re ready for a majority. Certainly the seats are there. Will the tactics change? No, not considerably.” (Feb. 7, 2011, Maclean’s magazine)

In other words, get ready for more smoke and fire down your pants. Prepare for tactics and language that will lead to further divisions within Canada, and not unity.

How could it be any different with an Alberta-style separatist at Canada’s helm?

That said, I now provide a past column to illustrate my point.

Can an Alberta separatist cooperate with the other parties?

At no other time in my short and eventful life have I sensed there’s been a greater need for cooperation between Canadian political parties than now.

I believe that just as one garage cannot manage to put snow tires on all cars in the Deforest City, one school system cannot educate all children or one local church handle the needs of all church-goers, one political party – no matter how many seats it has won – cannot alone solve the many pressing social, environmental and economic problems facing our country.

But is cooperation possible between our federal political parties?

Though recent events in Ottawa suggest otherwise, two things I learned recently make me think, yes.
Gordon McBean, professor of geography and political science at the University of Western Ontario, in last Saturday’s London Free Press said: “Lester Pearson, one of our great prime ministers, gave Canada a legacy of bilingualism, the Canada Pension Plan, universal medicare, a flag and the first U.S. - Canada Autopact, while not having a majority government. He did it by working thoughtfully with the other parties.”

And during a conversation with local federal Liberal MP Glen Pearson two Saturdays ago I was told he is working with Mary Ann Hodge from the Green Party and Steve Holmes of the NDP to develop ideas for environmental projects.

“They were the candidates that squared off against me in the last election,” he said. “But now that it's over, I've asked them to continue working with me to help Londoners come up with clear ideas on the environment. They have graciously accepted and I'm thrilled at the non-partisan attitude that characterizes our meetings. This is the way politics is supposed to work.”

He finished by saying he’s writing a book on non-partisanship at the moment and is convinced the big problems we’re now facing will only find solutions through cooperative management.

Though in the past and present it appears political parties have managed to work together toward important common goals, I have to ask, does Stephen Harper possess an ounce of cooperative spirit in his skill set?

I think I have legitimate concerns after he revealed plans in the House of Commons several eventful days ago to reduce party funding and end the right of women to appeal to the Human Rights Commission when faced with pay equity issues.

He strikes me as a control taker, one who wants all the marbles all the time on his side of the table. Also, the louder he shouted about the coalition’s supposed deal with Quebec separatists the more he made me think he protested too much.

Especially after I discovered he actually supports his own form of separation.

In an online article by Monte Paulsen, investigative editor of The Tyee, entitled Separation, Alberta-style I read that Mr. Harper said the following eight years ago in an article he wrote for the National Post:

“Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform-Alliance to get ‘in’ to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their ‘Canadian values’.
Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values (i.e. as the province of Quebec has done to protect their values).”

So, can an un-cooperative and possible Alberta-style separatist change his spots, for Canada’s sake, by the time Parliament returns in late January?

I hope so. I’m holding my breath.

(By GH, posted 2 years ago, Cold Lake Sun, Alberta)

I’ve stopped holding my breath. I’m now preparing for more smoke and fire down my pants.

This concludes another exciting series of some significance. I will now go outside and hammer a political sign on my front lawn. The sign will not be in support of the Harper government.

On May 2nd, please vote for your favourite federal candidate or MP.

***

Please click here to read more at the Parallel Parliament.

Please click here to read more about PM Harper and Harperville.

.