Blogging at the Big Dog

To rant or not to rant?

Ah, what the heck, it’s been a while since I’ve gone on a good pet peeve rant and the release of the new James Bond movie provides a perfect opportunityto do so. Quantum Solace. What is with the title of this film? Quantum Solace. Sounds cool, right? But what does it actually mean? Quantum (from the Latin quantus, meaning how much) is generally used only in physics and is the smallest discrete quantity of some physical property that a system can possess. By broadening the definition to mean a quantity, measure or amount (presumably a tiny one) the title of this flick can basically be boiled down to Small Comfort, which makes sense because the last time we saw the famed British super agent he had just been betrayed by a woman he had fallen in love with.

For me, this falls under the category of the old KISS principle. Why not just call it Small Comfort, a better title if you ask me, but not very cool and therefore not
very Bondish, I suppose.

Another pet peeve related to people trying to sound cool when simple would do just as well is the use, or, I should say misuse, of the verb comprise. It drives me crazy when people (especially journalists who ought to know better) say something is comprised of something else. The “is” and the “of” are redundant. And what’s wrong with saying something is composed of something else? Doesn’t sound as cool, I guess, but at least its proper.

So, what’s the big deal? Who cares, right? Well, that’s the whole idea behind pet peeves. Basically they are inconsequential things that make you nuts to help keep your mind off consequential things like global economic meltdown and innocent children starving in Africa.

Uh oh, better get back to my language peeves before this devolves into a column about something that matters. Here’s a good one: why do so many people mispronounce the word familiar? It’s not fur-mill-yer. There is no second “r” in this word. The root of fa-mill-yar is family, but you don’t hear people going around saying fur-mill-ee.

I know, now I’m really going off the deep end of inconsequential. Well, how about nuclear, then? New-clee-ar. How difficult is that? Too difficult, apparently, for the guy who has had his finger on the “new-cue-ler” button for the last eight years. It wasn’t a speech impediment, either, simply willful ignorance. If you’re going to hold Armageddon within your grasp, the least you could do is learn how to pronounce a simple word. By the way, the new guy who will have his finger on the button come January knows how to pronounce it.

Finally, I just have to go off on the subject of adverbs and adjectives. I generally cut Joe Sixpack some slack in this regard, but the demise of the adverb is becoming a disturbing trend in broadcasting, and even print media (just what are they teaching in J-school these days, anyway?) This ain’t rocket science, folks. All you have to do is stick a “ly” on the end of the adjective if you’re modifying a verb rather than a noun.

“He drives carefully;” versus “He is a careful driver.” You don’t have to hold an advanced degree in English (or even a high school diploma) to get that distinction.

That brings us to the end of what is surely an inconsequential column, but I feel much better having ranted.

In the aftermath of the historic election of the first black American president, there has been much wrangling over the challenges he now faces and what kind of president he will be. As pundits grapple with the symbolism of the vote and Barack Obama’s iconic status, I submit this: it doesn’t matter.

Good, bad or indifferent, Obama has already done his job. He got elected.

One of the best things I heard during election night coverage on CBC was a quote from an anonymous source: “Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther King could walk. King walked so Barack Obama could run. Obama ran so we all could fly.”

Sometimes iconic is all you need to be. The next generation of black Americans will grow up in a country in which King’s dream of a time when a person is judged by the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin is not just an ideal, but a tangible possibility.

That is not to say Tuesday Nov. 4, 2008 represents the end of civil rights struggles in the United States. For example, while the California vote was a virtual landslide for Obama, the same people passed a resolution rescinding gay marriage rights. Furthermore, 76 percent of African Americans who voted for Obama in California voted against homosexual nuptials. Bigotry and discrimination is far from dead south of the border.

Still, it is progress. Progress Canadians overwhelmingly support. If we were the fifty-first state, Obama would have won here by five-to-one. The reason: we think it brings them closer to our own ideals. Let’s think again. African Americans in the U.S. had the right to vote, at least theoretically, a century before Native Canadians did here. And while we have come a long way to entrenching these rights politically, both the U.S. and Canada still have a long way to go to remove the institutional and societal barriers to full democracy.

Also, while we see Obama as progressive, we are judging him by American standards, not Canadian ones. He is still way more conservative than our version of conservatism. How so many Canadians who hate and distrust Stephen Harper can love and trust Barack Obama is a little bit confusing. Oh yeah, there is that charisma thing.

In any event, President Obama is light years superior to the alternative. Even the idea of Sarah Palin in the Vice President’s chair sends shivers down my spine.

Much has been said in the last week about this historic election restoring the USA’s reputation. Let’s hope so, but it’s a long road ahead. There are still two wars to deal with, the unabashed greed of unbridled capitalism to correct and the growing threat of evangelical, rapture-seeking militant Christianity to quash.

As Leonard Cohen said, America is the cradle of the best and of the worst. The worst will definitely rear its ugly head again. In the meantime, let us just savour a moment in which the best has prevailed and that means so much to so many around the world.

That change is possible.

That ignorance is defeatable.

That there is always hope.

In the aftermath of the historic election of the first black American president, there has been much wrangling over the challenges he now faces and what kind of president he will be. As pundits grapple with the symbolism of the vote and Barack Obama’s iconic status, I submit this: it doesn’t matter.

Good, bad or indifferent, Obama has already done his job. He got elected.

One of the best things I heard during election night coverage on CBC was a quote from an anonymous source: “Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther King could walk. King walked so Barack Obama could run. Obama ran so we all could fly.”

Sometimes iconic is all you need to be.

The next generation of black Americans will grow up in a country in which King’s dream of a time when a person is judged by the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin is not just an ideal, but a tangible possibility.

That is not to say Tuesday November 4, 2008 represents the end of civil rights struggles in the United States. For example, while the California vote was a virtual landslide for Obama, the same people passed a resolution rescinding gay marriage rights. Furthermore, 76 per cent of African Americans who voted for Obama in California voted against homosexual nuptials.

Bigotry and discrimination is far from dead south of the border.

Still, it is progress. Progress Canadians overwhelmingly support. If we were the fifty-first state, Obama would have won here by five-to-one. The reason: we think it brings them closer to our own ideals.

Let’s think again. African Americans in the U.S. had the right to vote, at least theoretically, a century before Native Canadians did here. And while we have come a long way to entrenching these rights politically, both the U.S. and Canada still have a long way to go to remove the institutional and societal barriers to full democracy.

Also, while we see Obama as progressive, we are judging him by American standards, not Canadian ones. He is still way more conservative than our version of conservatism. How so many Canadians who hate and distrust Stephen Harper can love and trust Barack Obama is a little bit confusing. Oh yeah, there is that charisma thing.

In any event, President Obama is light years superior to the alternative. Even the idea of Sarah Palin in the Vice President’s chair sends shivers down my spine.

Much has been said in the last week about this historic election restoring the USA’s reputation. Let’s hope so, but it’s a long road ahead. There are still two wars to deal with, the unabashed greed of unbridled capitalism to correct and the growing threat of evangelical, rapture-seeking militant Christianity to quash.

As Leonard Cohen said, America is the cradle of the best and of the worst. The worst will definitely rear its ugly head again. In the meantime, let us just savour a moment in which the best has prevailed and that means so much to so many around the world. That change is possible. That ignorance is defeatable. That there is always hope.

There is a new breed of environmentalist emerging, one that has traded in altruistic ideology for a form of pragmatic fatalism.

Mark Jaccard — the Simon Fraser University professor who shocked his environmental buddies when he did an about face in his 2005 book Sustainable Fossil Fuels advocating oil, gas and even coal as humanity’s best long-term source of sustainable energy — is one.

In his new book, Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge, Jaccard predicts consumerism will quadruple the world’s energy consumption by 2100. Furthermore, he argues, because even the most difficult to extract resources, such as Saskatchewan’s oil sands, are and will remain more economical than renewable alternatives for the foreseeable future the only solution is to use fossil fuels more cleanly.

Steve Whipp — an ethical investing guru who does seminars on climate change and investments — is another. Although Whipp is an ardent environmentalist, he is not above investing in oil companies. His message: there is nothing wrong with making profits if it is done sanely. In Saskatchewan, this is really important because our economic prospects are currently, and for the foreseeable future, tied to natural resources, particularly oil and gas.

Whipp, like Jaccard, recognizes there is no stopping the runaway train of energy consumption so the best bet for sustaining an environment fit for human habitation is not to change what we’re doing but to change the way we are doing it.

The bottom line is: people are selfish. That is how we got ourselves in the environmental predicament we’re in and that is how we will get ourselves out.

We have to admit to our human nature. We want. We want SUVs and toaster ovens and beer fridges and trips to Europe. We also want pristine lakes, abundant wildlife and clean air.

For the most part, I’m sick and tired of “green” this, “green” that and “green” the other thing because so many people are just blindly jumping on the “green” bandwagon without any really understanding about how truly complex the situation is.

Recently though, I’ve started having a bit of a change of heart. Is it really that important what motivates people to do the right thing or just that they do the right thing?

The best thing environmentalists can do is to embrace practical thinkers such as Jaccard and Whipp. Even the lofty, esoteric morality of climate change and global warming high priests such as David Suzuki (his new commercials appeal to people’s economic concerns) is changing as they obviously realize most people care more about themselves than they do about “the planet.”

I’ve said it for years, combating climate change has nothing to do with “saving the planet,” but it has everything to do with saving us. Reducing consumption is not an option. Reducing the impact of that consumption is self-preservation. And self-preservation is something pretty much everybody can agree on.

Anyone who is willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.

I suspect almost everyone has heard something along those lines. Over the years, it’s been attributed to numerous individuals, most famously Ben Franklin. But regardless of who first uttered the sentiment, anyone who cherishes freedom should really take those words to heart.

I found out something very disturbing the other day. It seems, anyone who wishes to sell or purchase property in Canada is now “required” to fill out yet another form in the name of “national security.”

“An Individual Identification Information Record is required by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act,” the document reads.

Personally, I am outraged. At the very best this is yet another example of knee-jerk post-9/11 policy designed to create the illusion that someone is doing something to make us more secure.

At worst, it is yet another infringement on individual privacy and freedom that basically creates a record for secretive government agencies and turns every citizen who desires to be a property owner into a suspected terrorist.

What I find most disturbing is that nobody with whom I have shared my outrage seems to be disturbed by it in the least.

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the big deal?” comes the inevitable response.

The big deal is anyone who doesn’t have anything to hide shouldn’t have to worry about not hiding what he doesn’t have to hide. In other words, it’s the principle of the thing and, contrary to the apparent apathy of my 21st century compatriots, principles are extremely important.

For example, on Oct. 18, we passed the 79th anniversary of the landmark “persons” decision in which five dedicated Alberta women altered the course of Canadian history. In a nutshell, the Famous Five successfully challenged an archaic law that kept women from being eligible for appointment to the Canadian Senate. They stood on the simple principle that women are persons.

Without principles there can be no social progress and, if we allow the erosion of the principles on which our fundamental freedoms are founded, we will soon find ourselves regressing and losing the freedoms themselves. We’ve already seen how new terrorism legislation has allowed our government to trample disgustingly on the rights of its own citizens in the cases of Maher Arrar and others in the name of “national security.”

“The problem with defense is how far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?” Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1953.

A very good question, indeed. The world is, always has been, and always will be a dangerous place. The pursuit of perfect security is futile and a slippery slope that diverts attention and resources away from programs that may actually be able to do some real good. The Individual Identification Information Record, while perhaps seemingly innocuous, is simply a violation by government of our personal privacy and a complete waste of time and resources that should not be tolerated in a free society.

I was a city boy most of my life. Consequently, it wasn’t until the last five years I was even aware one of our country’s most venerable institutions is being threatened with virtual extinction.

For more than a generation, The Royal Canadian Legion was the heart and soul of small towns across Canada, as essential as the curling rink, the hockey arena and service organizations such as Lions and Rotary. Of course, the Legion also exists in cities, but it’s really easy to miss completely.

Ever since I’ve been living in rural areas and working for community newspapers, however, a year doesn’t go by when I’m all too aware as the weeks leading up to Remembrance Day bring front page headlines of waning Legion membership.

I can’t begin to describe how lucky I feel to have been born into an era of such sustained peace for our country that the Legion is in jeopardy. The fact of the matter is, there just haven’t been that many new Canadian war veterans to swell Legion ranks in a very long time. Basically, I know I won the lottery of birth, I don’t even qualify for ordinary or associate membership in the Legion because not only did I never serve (although I did work on a national technology project for the Armed Forces a few years back), but I don’t even know of a family member who did (or does).

Nevertheless, once a year, even those of us who are more than a generation removed from the last great conflict our country was involved in don little red poppies (a practice that is now almost 90 years old) and, not so much remember, but try to appreciate the sacrifices both those still living and those who have died made for us.

It’s all the more pertinent today as the conflict in Afghanistan is actually creating new Canadian war veterans, and war dead, for the first time in more than half a century, albeit at a rate that is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the two world wars. If I’m being honest, it would be great to live in a world where the Royal Canadian Legion was unnecessary, but we don’t and we should not let it fade into obscurity.

The Fort Qu’Appelle branch of the Legion is currently engaged in a membership drive. I want to encourage everyone to at least check it out (I’m going to). Even if you don’t end up joining, they’ve got a nice lounge over there on Company Avenue with inexpensive beer. Personally, I’d like to see a few dart boards, maybe a dart league, but they have cribbage, a big screen TV and lots of great stories to tell. Did I mention inexpensive beer? See you over there.

Last week, I had some pretty harsh words for our political leaders. My cynicism is born of frustration with a system that rewards power-seeking and encourages corruption. The first-past-the-post, winner-take-all model simply isn’t very democratic.

That’s not to say I don’t admire the men and women who stand for election. Elected public service is a noble calling not for the thin-skinned or faint-of-heart. And once the winners get to Ottawa, I don’t envy them the task at hand or the public scrutiny they’ll endure.

By the time this edition of The Times hits the newsstands, Canadians will be going to the polls and we’ll be well on our way to a new, probably minority, government.

Personally, I took advantage of the advance poll on Oct. 6 because of an Elections Canada SNAFU that would have meant going to Dysart to vote, but that’s an issue for another day.

I did something unusual this year. In the past, I’ve voted in a variety of different ways. I’ve voted strategically, to help stop an undesirable party from winning. I’ve voted for the candidate I thought was best in my riding, regardless of party. And I’ve given the nod to a candidate I didn’t like because of their party affiliation.

This time I voted for democracy, or, more specifically, democratic reform, by marking my ballot for the Greens. It was certainly not an endorsement of their environmental policy. I don’t think they, or anyone else, has a clue when in comes to climate change, but that too is an issue for another day.

The issue for today is proportional representation. Even if the Greens don’t elect a single MP this time, I am hoping my vote will be among a groundswell bumping their share of the popular vote thus sending a message of dissatisfaction with the status quo to Ottawa.

Indeed, the mere fact that in 2006 the Greens achieved almost five per cent of the popular vote and didn’t get a single seat should tell just about anyone there is a big problem with the system. That’s more than 664,000 Canadians who were not represented in the last Parliament.

The other tell-tale sign of a big problem with the system is that Canada is among only a handful of major democracies that haven’t already recognized proportional representation is fairer and results in more diverse representation; cleaner campaigns; and less influence by special interests. Governments elected by P.R. also tend to be more responsive, cooperative and transparent.

Proportional representation is the evolution of democracy and only the truly stubborn (Canada, The United States, Great Britain) refuse to see it.

The big knock on P.R. systems is, of course, government instability because virtually every election results in some kind of ad-hoc coalition. This criticism is generally fear-mongering by the those who have a major stake (Liberals and Conservatives) in maintaining the cronyism that has characterized Canadian governments since confederation.

That’s not to say P.R. doesn’t have its own warts, but even with its problems, it’s better than what we’ve got and we’re halfway there already. Eight of the last 17 Parliaments have been minority governments. Once politicians get used to the idea of working together, maybe they’ll finally get down to doing the job without all the partisan bickering.

Psst, Liberal Party, your desperation is showing.

Last week, Canada’s second (or is it third now? fourth?) party, trumped up a five-year-old plagiarism charge against Stephen Harper. I say trumped up because, in the first place, the guy doesn’t even write his own speeches. Secondly, I’m not entirely sure what this “big revelation” was supposed to demonstrate. That the Prime Minister sometimes struggles to engage in original thought? Puh-leeze, tell us something we didn’t already know.

In any event, PMO staffer Owen Lippert immediately fell on his pen to shield his boss and, despite a flurry of international media coverage, the story was quickly ash-canned as yet another Liberal gaff and was rightfully relegated to voters’ lists of “who gives a crap?” moments in an otherwise forgettable campaign long on rhetoric and short on ideas.

Really, is this the best the party of Mackenzie King, Pearson and Trudeau can come up with these days?

It would be laughable if not for the fact that the only real alternative — four more years of Harper’s knee-jerk pandering to special interests — isn’t much of a choice at all. Mr. Layton, of course, would like us to think the NDP matters, but outside the GTA, it has simply become yet another centre-left party bleeding votes from others who might actually have a chance to challenge the neo-Cons. And when are the Greens going to get it over with and pop the big question to the Grits? They’re already living common-law, why not make it official?

Is it any wonder a recent poll indicated 15 per cent of Canadians would rather vote in the election going on south of the border? At least our U.S. counterparts have a clear choice. It’s a classic battle between good and evil (although it depends on which side of the stupidity line American voters stand as to whether they see McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden wearing the white hats).

The point is, it is a seriously discouraging time in Canadian democracy when nearly one-in -six voters cares more about a foreign election than our own. And who can blame them? The Canadian campaign is starting to remind me of a Three Stooges flick with Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Elizabeth May bumbling over one another trying to poke Harper in the eyes.

The Conservatives should be able to put this one on cruise control to bring it home.

As if we didn’t already have enough reasons not to care about the local race back here in good ol’ Regina-Qu’Appelle. In Western Canada we’re used to elections being over by the time they reach the Ontario-Manitoba border, but at least we should be able to look forward to a good, old-fashioned scrap at home. Unfortunately, despite the cheap perfume of election-induced bravado, whatsisname, whatsisname and whatsername are already starting to look like also-rans to Conservative incumbent Andrew Scheer.

At this point I hardly care. Call me idealistic, pessimistic or just plain disillusioned, but I want more from our leaders than the petty attempts at political hay-making last week’s plagiarism accusation, in particular, and this election, in general, is giving us.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to get any different until we stand up and demand better.

There is such a thing as too much tolerance.

Take the case of more than 400 children removed from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) compound in Texas last week. The leadership of this absent-when-God-was-handing-out-brains cult would have us believe their way of life is protected by the United States Constitution because it ostensibly falls under the umbrella of “freedom of religion.” This, of course, is a red herring designed to distract from the fact their beliefs deprive their membership of the more fundamental right to liberty.

Advocates who want to hand these poor kids back to their parents argue the equally abused mothers don’t know any better because they have been brutally conditioned by the megalomaniacal, polygamist male leadership. The answer to that is quite simple: just because you don’t know something is wrong doesn’t make it right. Many serial killers don’t know what they are doing is wrong either, but, as a society, we would never tolerate murder under the guise of tolerance for disparate belief systems.

The authorities did the correct thing in removing those kids. Ultimately, right or wrong (I would argue right), their way of life is against the law. The First Amendment doesn’t protect Catholic priests from being prosecuted for child abuse and it doesn’t give Muslims licence to practice Shariah law. Why should the FLDS be above the law?

As tragic as this situation is, however, the truly scary thing is that the FLDS is merely the radical outermost fringe of a much more mainstream movement bent on a campaign of historical revisionism the like of which the world has rarely seen and which is currently the gravest threat to humanity.

The big problem with groups like FLDS, is they make the much more dangerous core wingnuts look moderate by comparison. It has been dubbed “the religious right” or “moral majority” (and is neither right nor moral), but whatever you want to call it, evangelical Christianity American-style has much more in common with the FLDS than not. In fact, it is more similar to militant Islam than to traditional Christianity (the Inquisition and Crusades notwithstanding).
 
They have convinced millions of Americans to embrace ignorance over education. They are slowly but surely rewriting American history to reposition the world’s largest secular democracy as a Christian nation. They would have us believe biblical literalism is as legitimate as scientific evidence simply on the basis of the strength of their faith. They are waiting, indeed praying, for the apocalypse as set out in Revelations, a book that almost didn’t make it into The Bible in the first place. And, while they may not be promising 72 virgins, they are recruiting martyrs for Christ in much the same way as their militant Muslim counterparts with the same carrot of eternal life in Paradise. Their insidious influence has infiltrated Congress, The White House and the public education system. Mitt Romney, a member of the Mormon Church, of which FLDS is an offshoot, was almost a contender for the presidency.

Chris Hedges, in his book American Fascists: The Relgious Right and the War on America, likens these blood-thirsty, Bible-wielding zealots to the Nazis and warns it is time for sensible people to take a stand lest we be undone by our own tolerance.

I whole-heartedly concur. It is poignant the same First Amendment that promises religious freedom also guarantees freedom of expression and the press. The evangelical movement is doing its damndest to supress the latter in favour of the former, providing the former corresponds to their own narrow interpretation. They claim religion, specifically their religion, is under attack, a classic fascist tactic, even though it has become politically incorrect to even question someone’s religious convictions.

It is incumbent upon all thinking persons to question and to take action against what is quickly becoming an imminent danger. Granted, it is a tricky balancing act. We wouldn’t want to fight fascism with fascism, but remaining silent is de facto acceptance and we’ve all seen what a mess that can create.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel sorry for Seamus O’Regan?

Half the time, the Canada AM anchor looks like he’s squirming in his seat with the inane antics of the seemingly obligatory wild and zany weather guy, in particular, and the forced upbeat and hip format of the show, in general. It’s like a viral infection of stupidity spreading through all broadcast media. Curse you, Regis Philmon!

By all appearances, O’Regan seems to want to be a serious journalist and I can just imagine him thinking ’I gotta get out of here and onto a legitimate news program.’ If there are any left, of course, (apologies to Lloyd Robertson).

I know, I know, ’if you don’t like it don’t watch it.’ I wouldn’t, except when I get up at 6 a.m. to drive my lovely and oh-so-tolerant wife to work, she is invariably watching it. Thankfully, she puts up with my cranky rants in her–ungodly for that time of the morning–cheerful way saying merely, “I like it.”

Maybe I’m just getting crotchity in my middle age, but all the superfluous (not witty) banter, ridiculously un-newsworthy fluff pieces and general cheeriness just gets on my nerves and grates against my journalistic sensibilities.

Don’t worry, it’s nothing a little yoga and caffeine won’t cure. I used to look forward to being a crotchity old man, but I’m working on a new plan of becoming just eccentric.