Tempering My 'Enthusiasm'

Despite postings I have made on both critical thinking and avoiding fallacies of reasoning, I am well-aware that my own thinking and writing sometimes fall far short of the standards they demand. In my deep and abiding contempt for the neoconservative agenda and the simplistic, uni-dimensional thinking of its adherents, I realize that I at times resort to the same kind of demagogic tactics they employ, and while finding it hard to apologize for those lapses, I realize that little is accomplished by such outbursts other than a measure of ephemeral personal satisfaction.

I started thinking about this topic today after reading an article in this morning's Star entitled Connecting with nature is the key, activist learns. Unfortunately, the article is not on the Star's website at this time, so I will briefly summarize the salient points.

The piece, written by Stephen Bede Scharper, revolves around environmental activist Julia Butterfly Hill who, in the 1990's, spent more than two years on a platform atop a thousand-year-old redwood tree in an effort to save it and some of the surrounding area from a clear-cutting operation. She ultimately succeeded in reaching a deal with the Pacific Lumber Co. that achieved her goal, but the journey to that achievement was both an arduous and instructive one.

Enduring the worst from both Mother Nature and human nature during her two-year battle atop the redwood, she went from being regarded as a kook by the workers to someone they developed a respect for. How did this happen? The turning point seems to have occurred shortly after a hail of gunfire whizzed around her platform, and Hill asked the workers if they felt better for venting their anger. This led to a discussion about how she ate and how she secured her food, after which the workers apologized for the fusillade and left.

Three weeks later they returned, this time with gifts of organic fruits and vegetables which they loaded into her rope-lifted basket. The lesson learned here? It was a seminal one for Hill: constructive engagement. Instead of being self-righteously strident, she began to see there was more value in being 'effective', i.e., learning to connect with those who opposed her.

Is this approach possible in the political battles we face in Canada against the forces of neo-conservatism? I don't know. My gut tells me there is little chance of success with that tact, but on the other hand, what are we accomplishing right now with simple denunciation and denigration, both of which, I readily admit, feel very good to practise?

Are there, indeed, better ways to try to achieve our goals?

Should this story later be posted on the Star website, I will provide a link.

Facing Death With Grace

I have a good friend who suffers from a chronic health condition for which he receives treatments that mitigate the symptoms. He faces very real limitations in his daily life as a result of his illness. I had a brother-in-law who died about three-and-a-half years ago from brain cancer. I also just finished reading Roger Ebert's memoir, entitled Life Itself, part of which reflects upon his life-altering illness.

What do these three have in common? Each of them, amidst consider suffering, have shown great fortitude and grace. I am fascinated and inspired by the strength of character they found within themselves to cope with their illnesses without self-pity or a sense of cosmic injustice, while at the same time, quite truthfully, I am sometimes haunted by the question of how I would/will react if and when I am put to the test.

From their examples I derive a sense of awe at what human beings are capable of, as well as the hint of a transcendent truth about our natures. Unfortunately, our world today pays scant attention to those subtle intimations, but I suspect they are everywhere if we care to really look.

My reflections were prompted by a touching story of a woman named Jackie Smith, who is facing a fairly imminent death. Her story is available in today's edition of The Star.

Sunday Reading Recommendation

For an insightful analysis of the choices facing both Andrea Horwath and Dalton McGuinty as they negotiate over changes to the Ontario budget that will win the support of the NDP, check out Martin Regg Cohn's piece in today's Star.

As he points out, there is considerable risk for both, but also potential benefits if neither is too doctrinaire in the final two days left in what could be an exercise in brinkmanship.

Some Blather From Gerry Nichols: Your Mother Wears Army Boots

Earlier this week, Gerry Nichols, self-described on his website as One of Canada's Top Five Political Minds, wrote an opinion piece in The Start entitled, In praise of negative political ads. In it, the former head of the National Citizens Coalition asserts that positive political ads are a far greater offence to the body politic than negative ones.

However, in reading his piece, it becomes very obvious very quickly that his thesis is merely a thinly veiled excuse to attack Thomas Mulcair and the upbeat ad that is intended to introduce him to the electorate:

Complaining that the ad is vacuous and provides no information to help the voter make an informed decision, he goes on to extol attack ads:

Ironically, it’s the much maligned negative ads that are much more likely to focus on the nitty-gritty of where a candidate stands on policies.

Just think about your typical attack ad: “Candidate Jones wants to raise taxes on everything!” or “A vote for candidate Smith is a vote to destroy our public health-care system”.

In short, attack ads often raise issues people actually care about. And this is one reason why, like them or not, negative spots resonate with voters.

Oh really? I have said it before and I'll say it again: attack ads, in my view, have a twofold purpose: the most obvious is to denigrate a political opponent, as evidenced in the latest Tory effort to discredit Bob Rae; the second and more insidious effect is to discourage citizens from participating in the politcal process, especially at election time, leaving the field open to the 'true believers, the die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper.

And it is for the latter reason that I will never be able to forgive Harper for the damage he has done and will continue to do to the soul of our nation.

UPDATE: For a cross-section of Star readers' views on Nichols' piece, click here.

Margaret Wente Scores Another Win For Superficial Thinking

I suspect that with the exception of her employer, few believe The Globe's Margaret Wente is a subtle thinker who deserves a forum in the self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record.' Her capacity for cartoonish characterization is especially apparent in her latest column where, borrowing liberally from a secondary source, as is her wont, she professes to explain the difference between the conservative and the liberal mind.

Replete with stereotypes, absolutist examples and fallacious thinking, the article will have a certain entertainment value for those who take the time to see through her usual banal superficiality.

Progressive Taxation Is Not An Obscenity

I have expressed many times on this blog my concern that the notion of progressive taxation has been almost relegated to the status of a historical curiosity. Acceptance of the current myth that taxation is bad, that lowering taxes is the only way to promote economic growth and well-being, is dependent both on the well-financed propaganda of the right-wing and a kind of collective amnesia from the rest of us about how progressive tax rates have led to the society we enjoy today, where the collective good takes precedence over individual greed.

However, trickle down economics, the idea that wealth at the top trickles down to all of us, has proven to be an abject failure for all except the wealthy, judging by record-high unemployment rates, deficits, etc. It is for this reason that I was very pleased to read Linda McQuaig's column this morning in The Star, in which she gives high praise to Andrea Horwath for getting the topic of taxation back on the agenda.

She does observe however, that it would be an easier battle had she a billionaire or two on her side championing the cause, as does Obama in the U.S. in the person of Warren Buffet.

I hope you will take the opportunity to read the entire piece.

PROOF of Tory Election Fraud

Today I received an email from The Council of Canadians which includes a link to a sworn affidavit by Annette Desagne, a former employee of Responsive Marketing Group, attesting to election fraud through the misdirection of voters to the wrong polling stations. When you read the actual affidavit, you will see that she was clearly under the direction of the Conservative Party, and that her calls were not the actions of a rogue employee nor an isolated incident, both of which 'explanations' have been offered by the Harper regime.

First, an excerpt from the email:

You may have heard claims from the Conservative Party of Canada's lawyer earlier this week that our legal challenge is 'frivolous' and a 'publicity stunt'. The evidence the Council has obtained clearly counters any such accusation in revealing that voters were deliberately misled...

The first piece of evidence is a sworn affidavit from Annette Desgagné, a former Responsive Marketing Group (RMG) employee who initially made calls on behalf of the Conservative Party. Three days before the election, however, she was instructed to make calls about polling location changes and was given a new script that did not indicate that she was calling on behalf of the Conservatives.

In her affidavit, Ms. Desgagné states that she specifically recalls contacting voters in the riding of Nipissing-Tamiskaming (one of the seven federal ridings being legally challenged), as she needed help with the pronunciation. The second piece of evidence, from Elections Canada, however, states that no polling location changes occurred in Nipissing-Tamiskaming. Only one polling location was changed out of all seven ridings.

You can see the actual affidavit here. The second piece of evidence, from Elections Canada, is here.