Meanwhile, the predictable response from young Tim Hudak, who once more amply demonstrates that he just isn't ready for prime time politics.
Monday, April 23, 2012
A Victory
Every once in a while, there is a win for the good guys and gals. I don't know about you, but it is enough to keep me going.
A Short But Not So Sweet Letter
Here is a copy of the letter that I just fired off to my Conservative Member of Parliament, David Sweet:
Dear Mr. Sweet,
Although I am sure you are only too aware of the hypocrisy involved, it seems more than passing strange that your government should suddenly cancel the Katimavik program, leaving in the lurch young people who had opted for the program over university next fall (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1166033--young-canadians-in-limbo-after-conservatives-cancel-katimavik ), ostensibly in the name of austerity, while your International Development Minister, Bev Oda, has no compunction about profligately spending the taxpayers’ money for her own comfort (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/23/bev-oda-savoy-hotel_n_1444818.html?ref=canada).
Any thoughts on the matter, or should I just rely on the usual spin your government puts on all of its embarrassments?
Sincerely,
Lorne Warwick
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.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
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
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.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)