Keep It Simple, or Make It So

I finished "Does Canada Matter?" and it had quite a rousing conclusion. It nailed very well what I believe to be the main fault of our materialistic culture, in which he quotes Rick Salutin, "Individuals 'don't make ethical or political choices' but 'shopping choices,' where "life comes down to acquiring money and going shopping with the proceeds'" (Bolt, p.188, Salutin, "A Plea For Canada" Maclean's, 1 July, 1995)

Speaking about my own life, I came from a good Catholic family. We weren't poor, none of us ever recall having to skip any meals, but we started out with little, and my parents worked terribly hard raising me, my brother, and my sister. Dad, in short, never attained any executive position, and basically "worked for a living", but earned tremendous respect at work and some seniority. My parents, as the saying goes, "scrimped and saved" and almost never spent too much at once (in spite of Mom's love for shopping), and today have a deservedly comfortable retirement in what I believe to be a middle-middle class condominium, considering the standard of living here in Canada (in most parts of the world, they would probably be considered living like millionaires). But there are times that I get overwhelmed by how much "stuff" my parents have, even though their condo has room for it all.

I can still remember a time when our lives seemed so much simpler, but maybe it is just my child's eye view of the time. It was during the 1970s and 1980s which I believe to have been a socially less tense time than the 1960s. It was before the Information Revolution and the mass overload of "stuff" from all over the world that we have to choose from now because of globalization, which results in the loss of uniqueness of our individual selves and regions, not taking into account political boundaries at the moment, but just the distinctive flavours of the places we call home. As hard as our parents' lives were, did they have to deal with so many decisions and so much confusion? Also, does our national affluence mean that everyone here is having their basic needs met? And what's more, where do you think that most of the stuff we use comes from, our cars, computers, cell phones, satellite television and such? Most of the raw materials come from abroad, from regimes who are friendly to transnationals and enslave their own people. One way or another, it just can't go on for too much longer, and I dare anyone to tell me that it can. What irks me about the neo-con revolution and George W. Bush in particular is that they basically condone shopping as the answer to threats to their "way of life". You have to ask yourself how much longer we can keep up with the latest things, particularly since none of us are getting any younger.


I feel a bit hypocritical saying all that, considering that I have most of those things I was talking about (except a car, I don't know if I'll ever own one) but still, I'm trying to simplify my life as much as possible, shopping for little more than I consider necessary, and fighting my own small battles with Big Business (for example, I try to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart). Back to the book though, it should be interesting to note that this book was published in 1999, so naturally the political climate here and abroad today is radically different. If Mr. Bolt were writing the conclusion today, he would probably say that Canada would be in a unique position as a fairly wealthy Western nation to buck the trend of total free-market liberalism, and start trying to live simpler lives more centered around home and family, without so much choice and other baggage that many of us carry around at the present time. Of course, we have no hope of doing that under the present Liberal administration, and probably less under Harper's Tories. Even the NDP came out in support of bank mergers today, and people wonder why I don't support them. With certain conditions, but one can only conclude that they are willing participants in globalization as anyone. I think it's disappointing.

Lastly though, I believe it's a good idea that we can somehow free up more time to do the things that we should be doing, to think less about what we are going to get that we really don't need, to think more about how to improve our relationships with the people who matter most to us (and with other people in general), why we were put in this life, how we can prepare for the future, and how we are going to clean up the mess we have made of the planet. This prescription for our sick world does seem to be quite radical since it calls for a change of our collective lifestyle, but for our emotional and spiritual well-being, I can't see any other way. We need to revisit some values that most of us seem quaint and old-fashioned, a sort of return to collective innocence.

Wanted: Free Market Purists

I would like to address those people who believe that free-market liberalism is the ideal system. You seem to have a champion in, among others, Rick Santorum. If you also believe in God, you should feel right at home with him, since he believes that free enterprise is doing God's work. There are certainly some other examples, particularly among neo-conservatives, who believe that any government meddling in private industry is nothing short of blasphemy.

Instead of going off in an expected pro-environment, anti-business rant, I would like to refer you to this gentleman, who seems to have gone to the heart of the issue of what is wrong with Western Culture, and what has been wrong with it from the beginning, and how it simply cannot be sustained if the human race is to survive. The book, in case you haven't clicked on the link in this paragraph yet, is called "Does Canada Matter? Liberalism and the Illusion of Sovereignty". You would think from the cover that is about Canadian sovereignty, but it appears that our problems are much larger than that, and that it's a conservative polemic, it is, but not in the way you're thinking.

He states that right from Confederation, Canada was sort of the culmination of the liberal free-market dream of both Great Britain and the United States, and goes into the almost predatory practices that happened from coast to coast to make Canada the country it is today, particularly in the Victoria-Saanich region where the writer is from, and delves deeply into the anti-community, anti-democratic, and ultimately, anti-human aspects of growth, development, and community planning. It does not make you proud, if anything, it's all quite humbling. He really makes you question what we call progress, and wonder where we are going with it.

I haven't quite finished the book yet, but most of what I've read so far seems so true to life. I believe we are placing way to much emphasis on science, technology, and "progress", and losing our soul in the process. He expresses a need for the return of moderation, sustainability and, dare I say it, traditional values. So if you are like Mr. Santorum, a believer in neo-liberal, free-market, small government ideals, this book may be a cure for what ails you.

Seven Questions You Can't Ask In Canada

Last week when I came home I happened to tune in to "Countdown" with Mike Duffy on CTV Newsnet, and they were having a panel discussion of the title of this post. I didn't know where it came from, but thanks to BBB, I was able to find the source. So now, I would like to write down Ms. Wente's questions, and fill in my own answers.

1. Margaret Atwood writes some really awful books.

I recently finished "Surfacing", which in this light I could say that it was a meandering, boring book, but mercifully short. I've read only a few of her books but considering the volume of her work, even if she has written some all-time classics, she has probably written some stinkers as well. Even the best have their off-days, although I'm not qualified to say if she is or not.

2. Recycling is a waste of time and money.

Well, I keep hearing new things all the time, the latest being that you should just throw out the tops of cans, when for years I put them inside the cans after I washed them, because workers kept getting cut by the jagged edges, and also, the recycling triangle you see on most plastics, if the number is higher than two, they don't bother recycling it. I think of it as a work in progress, and I like to think that it is helping the problem with finding landfill space, unless someone would like to correct me. Also, seagulls don't hang around dumps anymore, it's a change, but is a sign of good change?

3. Only private enterprise can save health care.

Well, to a point, we already have some privatized health care, and I can definitely say that public health care simply can't go on the way it has been. Too much delay in service.

4. David Suzuki is bad for the environment.

It only goes to show, if a person or organization turns out to be wrong enough times, or wrong more times than he's right, then people will stop listening to this person, and in my opinion, people would be right to tune out. It's like those stories about Chicken Little, or more accurately, the Boy Who Cried Wolf. If Suzuki has been right a few times, it would not make up for all those times that his predictions turned out to be fallacious, and like that Boy, if he is right, no one will believe him. What I think the Green movement needs is more people like Julian Simon, someone who can inject a little healthy skepticism, so we could get to the ultimate truth as to what is wrong with the environment.

5. The Group of Seven are overexposed genre painters.

I have to admit here that I do not have strong, educated opinions about painted works. I do get prints from famous artists and photographers now and then (my favorites are from surrealists like Dali), and one year, I bought a Group of Seven calender. I can only say that very little stood out for me.

6. A national daycare program won't do anything to help poor kids.
I have to excuse myself from responding to this, because I really haven't a clue about this one way or the other.

7. The United States is the greatest force for good that the world has ever known.
I'll definitely agree that the US is the greatest force the world has ever known. I may even go out on a limb to say that the neocons and their world agenda have only the best of intentions. BUT... the questions that I would have is, do they really know what they're doing? Do they really have one iota of a clue about how foreign policy works? I would answer both of my questions with an emphatic NO! I believe that the Bush administration suffers from a form of what I consider to be a form of neo-hippie idealism, that if you offer someone freedom, they will gladly accept it and be eternally grateful to you. Part of the problem of this mindset is that "changing" or "saving" the world is a mostly narcissistic motivation, no matter who is doing it or why. It's one thing to try to make the world a better place, it is another to try to "save" everyone. And if their intentions are less than pure...

"I Dare You To Vote For Us"

US
 
So it looks like we're getting an election sooner rather than later. As I tried to explain to Ben in my last post, it's like the two main parties are in effect saying the title of this post. From the Right, Before Dawn has just about had it with Stephen Harper.

... and THEM
 
I caught a bit of George W. Bush's speech last night, and he really stands by John Bolton as their representative at the United Nations. He also said that he believes in the UN. So what are we to make of that? Does he want to save the UN, or does he want to destroy it? Forgetting much of what I've learned and written about him so far, maybe he is just what they need. More likely, it could be part of a neo-con design to make the UN a rubber stamp, a puppet organization that would act solely for the US government under the facade of international law. That would be a worst case scenario, I would much rather see them destroy the UN than to have that happen.

Open Up And Say ... AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, what would a dentist from Thousand Oaks (in the Bay area), California care about Canadian politics? Plenty it seems, particularly when it comes to socialized medicine. But in the last week, he's been writing about the publication ban that we had for a few days and the controversy surrounding the Captain's Quarters blog (beginning here). You may not know him now, but there is a good chance he has a link to your site. This guy writes at least one page every day, I wonder where he finds the time.

An Extreme Case Of The Drapes Clashing With The Carpet
 
So this is the guy that Bush appointed for America's representative at the UN, and according to some people, his nomination was out of spite. He seems to represent most of the American stereotypes. While I do not condone plain-and-simple America-bashing, those stereotypes, as any commonly held beliefs, have some basis in truth somewhere. The American government does have a somewhat deserved reputation for being overbearing and judging other nations by their own standards, and while it showed some improvement after the Cold War ended, it took off again in the current administration.

I am still willing to cut the Americans some slack, because they still represent democracy and freedom and are after all the most powerful nation on Earth, Bush's appointment of John Bolton does seem to give the message not just to the UN but to all other nations and basically everybody that it's either our way or nothing, and if you don't like it, then keep your trap shut! This does seem to fit in well with the neo-con's evangelical agenda of running the whole world by their own rules, with or without the UN. What words come to mind right now... geocentric, ethnocentric, well, you get the idea.

Wolf In Charge of the Flock?

Perhaps it's just my anti-neocon bias, but I'm worried about Paul Wolfowitz being appointed head of the World Bank. Newsweek has an interview with him, and what he says seems to be the opposite of what neo-cons stand for: "I am not a unilateralist."

---

So what has been said about the Terri Schiavo case that has not been said already? My thoughts and feelings, for what they're worth. Basically, I believe that her parents' intentions were pure, and her husband's were not. Also, she did not appear to be in a vegetative state in those videos that have been shown over and over again, but there is some speculation that they were around ten years old. Obviously, she suffered permanent brain damage, barring a miracle, she would have remained that way for as long as she lived. But I don't think that her parents were waiting for a miracle, they were willing to accept her as an infantile person with limited memory and no speech, and almost zero chance of ever getting better, but she still seemed concious, no matter what the doctors said.

Why didn't Michael Schiavo just divorce her? It seems highly unlikely that that conversation he had with her before she became incapacitated actually happpened. Who could really say for absolute certainty? We only have HIS word on it. My 2 cents here is, if he's really as scummy as I think he is, it's bound to come out sooner or later. It may come out sooner, if the autopsy provides any solid conclusions. Then again, it might not, but all in all, it just seemed that the husband was and still is acting on strictly his own interests, her family be damned.

Also, I extend my best wishes to His Holiness, John Paul II. Even though I have seldom agreed with him for a long time, even though I find much of what he said and did questionable, you cannot help but admire the strength of his convictions. He will be a hard, hard act to follow.

Power to the People!

You have to give the people of Iraq credit, and yes, you have to give the Americans credit as well. I can't help but feel the election and turnout were amazing and wonderful. This has to be Bush and Blair's finest hour. They had better savor this moment, because it's going to be all downhill from here. Also, I wouldn't overestimate the gratitude from the people of Iraq, they're probably anxious for the Americans to leave, and I believe they will, by way of Iran.

I think the issue that many people, mostly on the Left, have with America is that it is the most powerful nation that ever was, and that it can and will take over everything by force. Well sorry, that simply could not happen. The world isn't that small and people can be pretty unwieldy no matter how friendly the territory is. If that is in fact what the NeoCons have in mind, they need to be stopped, because they are insane. One country cannot run the whole world, stupid.

OOOOOOOOH! THAT MAN!!

I'm not sure if I'm still a social liberal or an economic liberal. My position may be a little more clear by this article on MS-NBC about the Republican Party trying either to change, or dispense with, Social Security. If it is really about sticking it to FDR, the New Deal, or the Left in general, the kindest thing I can say about it is that it's pretty small-minded. I believe that the New Deal was a monumental achievement, but like most good ideas, it was taken too far, and it was necessary to scale back some of the social programs, but God forbid we should trash any and all social programs.

For me, the definition of classical laissez-faire liberalism was: no welfare, and the law simply did not apply to shop owners or even managers, and the government simply did not want to get involved in any way, financially or otherwise, in people's private lives (but could spy on them if they wanted). If that is what the NeoCons want to bring back, it's one more reason that they have to be stopped. Back to me, I am a little old-fashioned (for one thing, I would like a little restraint in public discourse as I did not say how I really felt about undoing Social Security), and some of my values are in agreement with the Right, but if they start talking about spiking all social programs altogether, I may lose my own sense of restraint.

Globalization at its best and at its worst

So has anyone reading this not heard of David Holcberg's article yet? I don't think that it's online anymore, not on the original site anyway, but it reproduced the best bits in a Louisville, Kentucky newspaper, and I have seen it reported (presumably verbatim) in its entirety on Usenet, where I'm sure that it's been immortalized on Google. It that his real name? If so, he might want to change it.

In an age where we are swinging back to the classical liberal, free-market ideals of the 19th century, it appears that no one, not even the neo-cons, has the nerve to try to defend this point of view (but hopefully he won't be killed for it, I'm with Voltaire on that issue).

If any good can come out of the tsunami, it is the relatively quick response by governments who are able to do something about it. What is the point of acting like a global village if we don't act like good neighbors?

Back to the 19th century, it seemed to me that it was pure, free-market capitalism at its apex (with all the abuses and sheer inhumanity that went along with it), yet, there are those who say that it has never really been tried, which is what others say about communism. Anyone want to contribute a differing point of view?

The original article came from the Ayn Rand Institute, where they seem to be ard. As mentioned earlier, it's probably not there anymore.

Lastly, some news from CNN that you cannot be indifferent to, if you have any idea who Tucker Carlson is.

Recent Discoveries...

Read any good books lately? Particularly, I'm referring to polemics(?) Recently, I finished Paul Martin: CEO For Canada? by Murray Dobbin. Also, I started reading another book I bought a few years ago called The Last Guardians by Paul Pelango. I'm almost halfway finished at the moment, but I notice a recurring theme in polemics lately, that governments have adopted the buisiness model and a business approach to absolutely everything.

I believe that it's an old expression to run such and such a thing "as a buisiness" meaning professionally and organized, but I really don't think that it was meant to be taken literally for EVERYTHING! I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it does seem that the business and corporate way of thinking is thisclose to taking over everything. It's sort of a reverse Red Scare, back in the '40s and '50s that people had gotten it into their heads that the communists had in fact taken over the government, and we just didn't know who they were.

I have no great love for communism myself, since it has caused immesurable destruction and terror in the world, and I'm suprised that some people still stand by it. Forget about the Stalinists, I'm talking about the more moderate commies who say that real communism has never actually been tried. That may be the case, but I'm sure that is the line that the neo-cons are saying about capitalism. Well, I haven't actually heard any of them say it yet, but they probably will eventually, whetether they believe it themselves or not.

They Are The Walrus
 
I recently read an article in the October edition of Walrus magazine explaining Stephen Harper. Up till then, I just didn't know what all the fuss was about him, I figured that anything is better than Stockwell Day. It turns out, though, that Harper is as radical as Day and not a little bit more politically savvy. Also, Mr. Harper is part of the neo-con movement, and actually here in Canada the neo-cons have their very own puppetmaster, a political Svengali if you will, our own equivalent of Karl Rove. His name is Tom Flanagan in case you didn't know.

No, he's not the liar character that Jon Lovitz played on SNL, but he is nonetheless American born, and as ardent a believer in the capitalist orthodoxy as anyone ever was. He is a professor of the University of Calgary, whose Political Science Department is the de facto Canadian headquarters of the neo-con movement. Until I read the Walrus article, I thought that Paul Martin was the final nail in the coffin for Canada, but I don't think he will be. He'll probably be the penultimate nail, but Harper would be the final nail. That's how I feel about the neo-cons, they do scare the hell out of me. But why? Ask, and I will answer.

So who delivered the first nails in the coffin? My guess is the first government to adopt a business approach to government. So who's government was that? Paul Pelango's explanation would suprise you. It was apparently just after Diefenbaker was defeated, when the recommendations of the Glassco Commission called for a more businesslike approach to government. Unless I'm mistaken, he said that the Mike Pearson government took the first steps in that direction, and that it really took off under Trudeau. That's right, PIERRE Trudeau.

Pelango was a fan of his until he did the research for writing his book, which I think came out around the turn of the millenium. I had gotten the book because I had heard of the RCMP's ineffectiveness in enforcing white collar crime. I won't go into that here, but he called a chapter of his book "The Trudeau Effect", which was enlightening if not depressing. So far, it seems that Trudeau was the first prime minister to adopt the business approach of government, and that Mulroney, Chretien, and now Martin were natural successors that continued on the exact same path that their predecessor had left off. In short, God help us.

School's in, next Tuesday

I'm registered for two courses this coming semester, and the next semester as well, and my mind is more ready than ever. It already feels like fall outside, and it wasn't even that good a summer. Oh well, 'tis time to begin anew. From Arts and Leters Daily, a roofing contractor in Brooklyn, NY makes a case against the gun lobby, not that he intended to, it's just that he was suprised with the ease with which he was able to acquire high-powered weapons and ship them to the former Yugoslavia, the appearance of impotence or indifference of world powers of Iran's quest to get the Bomb, and the often quotable Winston Churchill, a man whom I admire greatly, but with serious reservations. One of which is quite relevant at the present time, his opinion on Arabs and Iraq. So who the hell is Leo Strauss, and why does he have such a devout and powerful following? This is one man's unflattering opinion, and an ongoing saga of a tale of two countries, which increasingly seem to have more similarities than differences.

Hopefully, a detente between Left and Right

First, an interview by MotherJones magazine of Niall Ferguson (!) I may have been loathe to admit it a year or so ago, but much of what he says makes sense. A nuanced view of feminism, Superwoman v/ Supermom, an informed POV on 3/11 in Madrid, somewhat convoluted beliefs on Islam, a long philosophical treatise on mind and body, and reviews on books critical of the current Bush regime, which I have not had a chance to finish as of this writing, because it's a really looong piece.