MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 2

If an experiment is to be successful, it must test many hypotheses before arriving at an incontrovertible truth. That test may take a long time and go through several iterations, shedding many notions and beliefs. When one arrives at the incontrovertible truth, there is nothing left to test, nothing left to discuss.

This is certainly the case with Canada, which, in my last post, I suggested was an experiment. I traced the evolution of the provinces since the 1867 Confederation, and pointed out that there two types of provinces in Canada: those which existed in either colonial or dominion form pre-Confederation, and those which were created by the Canadian federal government post-Confederation.

One might assume that, after the geographic and political expansion of Canada had been completed in 1949, with the addition of Newfoundland and Labrador, that all would finally settle and that Canada would endure forever as a stable and harmonious entity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Turmoil and evolution have been the hallmark of our country from the beginning, making for a rather rocky and acrimonious co-existence. Consider the following:

Confederation itself was truly an unintended event. Originally, the first conference that ultimately led up to Confederation, held in Charlottetown in 1864, was to be about Maritime Union, a joining of the three maritime provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The Canadas got themselves invited to the conference, originally as observers, then as full participants to discuss a wider colonial union, then completely highjacking the conference. Prince Edward Island decided to withdraw from the discussions. Newfoundland, also attending as an observer, wanted nothing to do with this colonial union. But the skillful negotiations of Sir John A. Macdonald convinced the other colonies to give the union a go. Two more conferences, in Quebec and London, hammered out Confederation.

It was a rocky road. In Nova Scotia, a huge battle emerged between the pro-Confederation forces led by Sir Charles Tupper and the anti-Confederation side, led by Joseph Howe. Howe was a fiery and influential orator, and, for most of his life, he worked tirelessly to get Nova Scotia out of Confederation, coming close to succeeding many times. Nova Scotia was the province least enamored of Confederation, and was its most vocal critic in the early years. But not its only critic.

Ontario usually sees itself as the bastion of Confederation, the home of Macdonald and George Brown and many other "Fathers of Confederation." In recent times, it has been the federal government's best ally on a wide number of issues. It wasn't always thus. Ontario's third premier, Sir Oliver Mowat, was a constant source of opposition to the federal Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. It didn't help that Macdonald was a Conservative and Mowat a Liberal. What is interesting is this. Macdonald, of course, was the driving force behind creating Canada in the first place and envisioned a nation with a strong central government, and the provinces subservient to the federal government. Mowat was the polar opposite and clashed with Macdonald on several issues. Two of these were the boundaries of Ontario and the theory of "disallowance", whereby the federal parliament could disallow any provincial statute it didn't like. Mowat nearly pulled Ontario out of Confederation on a couple of occasions, most notable over the dispute over the boundary of Ontario and the newly-created province of Manitoba. Both provinces actually put their respective police forces in the territory in order to stake its claim. It was up to Macdonald and the federal government to mediate an agreement between the two.

Newfoundland stubbornly resisted attempts to persuade it to join Confederation. It applied for and achieved "Dominion" status within the British Empire in 1907. As a dominion, Newfoundland participated in World War One independent of Canadian forces, and its regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, achieved international fame for its heroic sacrifice at the battle of Beaumont-Hamel. Dominion status remained until 1933, when severe economic hardships led the British to suspend dominion status and rule Newfoundland with a "Commission Government" for 15 years, through World War Two, effectively returning Newfoundland to colonial status. After the war, the British were anxious to solve the Newfoundland situation and pushed for a union with Canada. It took two referenda, both closely contested, before Newfoundland was welcomed into Confederation as Canada's tenth province in 1949, largely due to the tireless work of the pro-Confederation leader Joey Smallwood. To this day, many Newfoundlanders mourn the situation. July 1st, Canada's national holiday, is commemorated in Newfoundland as the day it mourns and honours the sacrifice of its native sons at Beaumont-Hamel.

Quebec is the province best known for being less-than-enthusiastic about membership in Confederation. It is linguistically and culturally so different from the other provinces that it has continuously felt threatened by the larger, more populous, economically more powerful, English-speaking entities of North America. Prior to the 1960's, Quebec was a rather backward province. It was heavily rural and agricultural, completely under the influence of the Catholic church, and undeniably inward-looking. Despite having Canada's only major city, Montreal, it never felt part of Canada. Montreal itself was Canada's economic and cultural powerhouse, but it was the largely Anglo-Scottish sector which controlled this. A large Jewish population actively developed its own cultural entity. The French-speaking population of Montreal was completely marginalized, effectively slaves in its own land.

That all changed with the Quiet Revolution in the 1960's. As Quebec's economy grew, a restlessness within its French majority asserted itself. French culture was celebrated. The influence of the Catholic church in areas like education and health care waned after the corrupt administration of Maurice Duplessis ended. Intellectually and politically, Quebec made more demands to safeguard its culture and institutions, and became more active at both the provincial and federal levels. One of the leading figures of this time was the journalist Rene Levesque, a former Liberal cabinet minister, who became increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change and what he and his followers saw as a type of betrayal at the federal lever by Quebecers like Jean Marchand, Gerard Pelletier and, most notably, Pierre Trudeau. What followed was, effectively, close to 40 years of a mostly peaceful civil war for the soul of Quebec and its position within Canada. As we all know, on two occasions, referenda were held on the question of Quebec's continuing place in Canada. On both occasions, the federalist side won narrow victories over the sovereignist/independentist side. The debate continues to this day.

And then, there's Alberta. This province, carved out of the NorthWest Territories in 1905, has had a very intense love-hate relationship with Canada. Largely settled by American and East European farmers in the early 20th century, when the federal government was anxious to get people into those largely empty lands ( First Nations peoples notwithstanding ) in order to discourage talk of annexation to the United States, Alberta has always considered itself the swaggering cowboy province. None of that mattered very much until two things happened. Oil was discovered in 1947: lots of it, and Alberta suddenly became very wealthy because of it. And the second thing was a population increase that suddenly gave this province a platform on which to advance its ideas.

Alberta has always been a very conservative province, largely because of its agrarian roots. But the cowboy mentality, however artificial it may be, is a large part of this grassroots conservatism. Huge clashes occur between Alberta and the federal government because of this ideology. But, by far the biggest driver of Albertan discontent with Confederation, is with oil and other natural resources and who actually controls them. In the 1970's, bitter disputes over oil prices led to political conflict between Alberta's premier, Peter Lougheed, and the federal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, that opened wounds felt today. In the 1973 international oil crisis, the dispute reached its zenith, with angry Albertans sporting bumper stickers on their cars that read "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark." Hardly the spirit of national unity.

To this day, the political and economic divide between Alberta and the federal government festers.When the largely Alberta-supported Conservative government of Stephen Harper took power in Ottawa in 2006, Alberta rejoiced that, finally, they had achieved power in Canada and would set the national agenda. That lasted until 2015, when the Liberals under Justin Trudeau came to power, largely based on eastern and urban support.

Thus, the  experiment has endured. It has been difficult, to say the least, and underscores the notion that Canada has been far from a peaceful place. But the experiment goes on. Several hypotheses have come and gone, several versions of Canada have emerged, only to be supplanted by another iteration. Surely, some kind of outcome, some thesis of Canada will be achieved in the future ?

More about this in another blog.

MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 1

Canada is a wonderful country. We do many things right here. We're not perfect, by any means, but we try and, quite often, we succeed.

But there are many peculiarities about this country. In some ways, it is helpful to think of Canada as a "great experiment." By that, I mean that several things were done here first and under a watchful eye, in order to ascertain if things work or if they're failures. This is offered in the context of Canada being a part of the British Empire, and of Canada being a bit of a "problem child" for its British parents. Consider the following:

Of the 10 Canadian provinces, 7 of them existed in recognizable form before Confederation. Ontario and Quebec were known by several names, notably "The Canadas" or "Upper Canada" (Ontario) and "Lower Canada" ( Quebec ). They were partially self-governing colonies within the British Empire. So, too, were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and, arguably, the oldest of them all, Newfoundland. In point of fact, Newfoundland had achieved "Dominion" status within the Empire after Canadian Confederation, putting the island on an equal footing with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Newfoundland's dominion status ensured that it would remain an independent entity, separate but equal, from Canada.

British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland held out from the original Confederation in 1867 for various reasons, but what's important to realize is that the reasons were unique to each colony and were an expression of the will of the governing class of people, just as the fact that the original four provinces in Canada were expressing the will of their governing classes as well. The original map of Canada was a small one, with only Nova Scotia and New Brunswick occupying the territory they have today. Ontario and Quebec had territory only going so far as the "height of land" as defined by the British. The rest of the territory was known as the "NorthWest Territories", which was nominally under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, then put under the control of the British Crown.

Why is all this important? What is the purpose of this history lesson? Stay with me, for all will be revealed as this "great experiment" continues.

When British Columbia ( 1871 ) , Prince Edward Island ( 1873 ), and Newfoundland ( 1949, finally! ) joined Confederation, they did so, again, as an expression of the will of the governing classes in those colonies. But it must also be said that they did so under considerable pressure and influence of the fledgling Canadian government and, especially, of the British, who wanted less to do with the affairs of these strange and wild colonies in North America. It is also important to note that, in 1870, the British passed ownership and care of the vast NorthWest Territory ( also known as "Rupert's Land" )to the Canadian federal government. All of a sudden, the tiny east coast and Great Lakes country of Canada became a continental giant, spanning more than 3,000 miles from the Maritimes to the Pacific and north to the ice cap. And this is where the experiment takes an interesting turn.

The federal government began creating new provinces where none had existed before. Manitoba was the first, in 1870, although it was just a small portion of what it is now. On a map of the time, it resembled a "postage stamp" in shape and size. As time evolved, so too, did the map. Ontario and Quebec expanded north beyond the "height of land" to gradually fill in the boundaries we know today, reaching Hudson's and James Bays in 1912. Manitoba also grew northwards to fill in the territory we know today.

It is in the creation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta that the experiment takes its most interesting turn. Those provinces were created out of districts organized by the federal government in the late nineteenth centuries. As Manitoba grew, so did the others. Saskatchewan and Alberta were amalgamations of some of those districts and became provinces in 1905.

The territories were re-organized later, reaching their final iteration in 1999, with the creation of Nunavut, carved by the federal government from the NorthWest Territories. The NWT is now a shadow of its former self.

What's interesting about all of this is that the 3 "Prairie Provinces" and the 3 Territories were not created out of existing entities within the British Empire ( colonies or dominions ), nor were they really created as expressions of the will of the governing classes, because there were no governing classes, unless one counts the provisional governments of Louis Riel and his Metis followers. The legitimacy of those governments is very, very debatable.

No, the Prairie Provinces and Territories are, without doubt, creations of the Canadian federal government. There can be no debate about this: this is historical and political fact.

Once one understands the nature of the creation of the provinces, one gets a better appreciation of the experimental essence of our Confederation. But it also creates much uncertainty about the future outcome of the experiment.

More of this later.

REALPOLITIK COMES TO OTTAWA

One of the leading figures of the Renaissance was Niccolo Machiavelli. A brilliant intellectual, he was a writer, poet, advisor to the powerful and a thinker. His seminal work "The Prince" is considered to be the founding treatise of the discipline of "political science." In it, Machiavelli outlined the qualities of the ideal political ruler. In subsequent years, "The Prince" has been examined in minute detail, which has left Machiavelli himself the subject of much debate. Was he a cold-hearted, bloody-minded operative or a true theorist who  delved into the human psyche, holding a mirror to us all ? Did he, in fact, have a greater understanding of the human spirit than anyone else ?

Perhaps the main point of Machiavelli's work is the concept of "realpolitik." This is the belief that any type of decision in politics should be based on the concept of pragmatism: it should be based on the realities of the time, on the realities of the situation a person is facing, and on workable or "doable" outcomes or solutions to that situation. Realpolitik is "getting things done", ignoring ideological or philosophical frills that may encumber or even prevent real or successful solutions from ever occurring. A practitioner of realpolitik is often seen as an evil being, one without the softer aspects of humanity: compassion, empathy, charity or even love. The term "Machiavellian" has come to mean someone to be feared, avoided, and hated.

The events of the past few weeks in Canadian politics has, for me, been a fascinating study of Machiavellianism and realpolitik. The resignations of Jody Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott from the cabinet of Justin Trudeau has sent ripples throughout Canada, shaking the very foundations of Trudeau's government. Because of this, Wilson-Reybould and Philpott have been held up as shining examples of what political leaders should be: principled, altruistic and honest. They have been portrayed as everything, from victims of an overbearing male to crusading champions of women's rights and Indigenous purity. And, as a contrast, Trudeau has paid a heavy price in his reputation, his integrity and his ability to lead a government.

All of which is sheer poppycock, and complete balderdash. Consider the following:

In 1983, at the conclusion of some long-forgotten Constitutional conference, Bill Wilson, a chief of a British Columbia First Nation delivered some prophetic and significant remarks to then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The video is widely available on youtube or in the CBC archives. Wilson told of his two children who were studying law and wanted to be Prime Minister some day. He revealed to the assembly that his kids were women and got suitable laughter and applause. Trudeau quipped that he'd "stick around until they were ready" to which Wilson hit back with (paraphrasing) they could be on a plane that evening. "A good exchange between two keen debaters," you might think. But I see more to it. If you look at the video ( and I urge you to do so ) you will notice that Wilson was not laughing, but instead fixed Trudeau in a death stare that would rival anything seen in a superhero movie. Wilson could barely disguise his dislike for Trudeau. And Trudeau would not look at Wilson after he made his "plane" response. There is palpable animus in this exchange.

My point ? The sins of the fathers have been visited on their children in the present day. Justin Trudeau has succeeded his father as PM and Wilson's daughter, Wilson-Reybould became Justice Minister and Attorney General in Justin's government. At first, the two seemed to work well together. Not now.

Wilson-Reybould has been described by some cabinet colleagues as being "difficult". Her sister described her, in an article in the Star, as the "go get 'em" one in the family, not at all quiet, but rather driven and ambitious. The sister used the "running of the bulls" in Pamplona, Spain, as an example of how much of an "action" person she was and is. Wilson-Reybould pulled the sister from the relative safety of their balcony onto the street to run with the bulls for a brief stretch. The sister had no intention of doing this, but Jody took charge and, well, it makes a good family story.These are all good qualities in anyone with designs on positions of responsibility and power. Machiavelli would have approved.

As a minister in Justin Trudeau's government, Wilson-Reybould was seen as a leader, occupying a senior portfolio. The fact that she was Indigenous didn't hurt her rising star status either. Trudeau earned praise for crafting a cabinet that was exactly half female, something not done in Canadian politics before, earning him praise as a male "feminist". This gave him a platform with which to tout several domestic and international initiatives benefiting women and girls around the world, raising Canada's international profile immensely. The praise went to Trudeau. His cabinet colleagues were seen as support only, doing his good work. Wilson-Reybould seemed to go into the shadows while other ministers, notable Chrystia Freeland and Jane Philpott ( more about her later ) took on tough tasks like foreign affairs and the "doctor-assisted death" initiatives. Wilson-Reybould could not have liked this.

This is where Machiavelli would fold his hands on his desk and lean forward closely to observe what happened next. Along came the SNC-Lavalin affair, wherein Trudeau, anxious to protect the company and keep jobs in his native Quebec, approached Justin Minister Wilson-Reybould several times about obtaining a "deferred prosecution agreement" ( perfectly legal ) in order for SNC-Lavalin to work its way out of potential criminal prosecution while co-operating with a federal investigation into prior activities concerning Libya and Ghadaffi's son. Wilson-Reybould, quite properly, refused to do so, citing conflict of interest with her position as Attorney-General. And this is where Machiavelli would've been most proud.

I maintain that Wilson-Reybould saw her chance to discredit Trudeau. When Trudeau moved her into another position, Minister of Veterans' Affairs, she saw this as a demotion. She published an unprecedented on-line essay on her experience and achievements as Justice Minister, instead of quietly accepting her new position, which is what she should've done. Then, scarcely a month after the new position change, she abruptly resigned. In the interim, the Globe and Mail published the story of possible political interference in the SNC-Lavalin affair, citing unnamed sources for the story. "Unnamed sources"? How far do we have to look?

As mentioned above, Wilson-Reybould's resignation, subsequent silence on the matter, only to be burst wide open with her damning testimony at the Justice Committee inquiry on the matter, have only served to raise her reputation, while putting Trudeau on the complete defensive. Mission accomplished? Not quite. Another two resignations followed: Gerald Butts, Trudeau's chief advisor and, strangely, Jane Philpott, a highly regarded cabinet minister, who had previously held the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. It must be pointed out that Philpott is not First Nations, but is considered to be a "good close friend" of Wilson-Reybould. Has the plot thickened yet?

As a final coda to all this, the CBC contacted Wilson-Reybould's father, the above-mentioned Bill Wilson, for his reaction. I urge all of you to look at this video on youtube or CBC archives. Mr. Wilson is getting on in years now, but has not lost any of his feistiness. Besides supporting and expressing pride in his daughter, as any good father would and should, Wilson launched on a slightly rambling and extremely emotional tirade against the "Trudeaus" ( note the plural ) and the shameful approach to Indigenous affairs by Canadians generally. It was based, of course, on truths and reality, but it was still slightly cringeworthy to watch and hear. And what did it have to do with the SNC-Lavalin affair? Or ethics in government ? Or altruism ? Absolutely nothing.

Which brings me to this. This entire sorry spectacle has nothing to do with principal, or ethics, or altruism, or honour. It has everything to do with power, influence and the attainment of both. Wilson-Reybould played every card in her hand. Her ethnicity played a huge role in this. She shares her father's frustration at the snail's pace with which improvements for Indigenous people moves. She has studied how to work within the "white man's" system ( Wilson's words, not mine) in order to bring about change. And then there's the issue of gender. Despite Trudeau's good words and deeds on the "feminist file", he has raised expectations among certain women very high. If he has not moved fast enough, then some women would like to see him removed and replaced with a woman at the top job in government. Would that be Wilson-Reybould herself ? Many on social media have suggested so. Certainly the Opposition ( led in a Machiavellian way by female Conservative members, largely Lisa Raitt ) have suggested that Trudeau has a "woman problem."

I counter by suggesting that some women in government have a "Trudeau" problem. History teaches us that most revolutions occur not when people are completely downtrodden, as is the common misconception, but rather when their expectations have been raised, even slightly: when things start to improve, people want more and they want the improvements to happen immediately. I submit to all readers that this is what has happened here.

There are many Machiavellian actors in this piece. Wilson-Reybould, her father and Jane Philpott have already been discussed. But Justin Trudeau exhibited Machiavellian traits as well. He sought to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin affair in order to placate the company, thus preserving Quebec jobs and, in doing so, raising his own profile. Imagine if he hadn't and SNC-Lavalin had made good on their threat ( they may yet do so ) to leave Canada for England, eliminating 9,000 jobs. Imagine the howls of protest from the nation and especially the Opposition for Trudeau not doing everything in his power to save Canadian jobs. So, he had to do this. Admittedly, it was inappropriate for him to put pressure on Wilson-Reybould to intervene, but it was not illegal. When Wilson-Reybould protested, Trudeau got her out of the hot seat portfolio and put her in Veterans' Affairs, which, as explained above, was seen by her as a demotion. And then there's the Opposition led by the vacuous and ineffective Andrew Scheer. Scheer must think that he'd died and gone to heaven with this gift from the political gods. He has been like a dog on a bone with this issue, which is his job as Leader of the Opposition. But the smirk on his face is obvious for all to see: he sees this as his opportunity, perhaps his one and only opportunity, to strike at Trudeau before the fall election. He has no policies, no traction with voters outside of Alberta or Saskatchewan, and, frankly, has the personality of wallpaper paste and the intellect of a cocker spaniel. And he could become Prime Minister of Canada because of Wilson-Reybould's ambition and drive.

Realpolitik. It's a tough game.

One final observation. In order to garner sympathy from all of us, Wilson-Reybould cited the enormous pressure she was under from the alpha male, Justin Trudeau, in this incident. It raised her anxiety and worry levels. Hmmm …. isn't that what realpolitik is all about ? Isn't that what being a leader, be it an Indigenous leader, a female leader, a political leader, or Prime Minister is all about ? Pressure? Perhaps the ends do, indeed, justify the means.

It's all so Machiavellian. It would make a great novel.

THE "SOCIALLY LIBERAL, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE" MYTH.

There have been many times when I've engaged in healthy and vigorous debate with my friends. The topics are wide-reaching, but, more often than not, the discussions involve politics. My liberal friends and I partake in lively and mostly humourous Conservative-bashing, and I really enjoy these. My conservative friends and I, however, engage in more intense and often visceral discussions that eventually descend into argument. Sad to say, I find these rather stimulating as well, and I know my adversaries like to bait me and get me angry. But there are times, when we feel the debate temperature rising, that one or both of us decide to pull back and end the debate before hard feelings emerge. I often do this by saying "we'll agree to disagree" and that usually does it. But many of my conservative friends de-escalate with something like "well, I don't agree with everything that Trump/Ford/Harper/Kenney says because I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative."

I used to buy that sentence and nod my head and secretly thank them for ending what could've been a divisive debate. I thought that phrase, "socially liberal but fiscally conservative", was a reasonable position and that my friends were thoughtful and wise people.

I was conned.

What, exactly, does "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" mean? When its said quickly and in the heat of conversation, it sounds like a fair middle ground, a place where all of us can live in peace and harmony, doing the right thing and enjoying all the fruits of liberalism and conservatism. In reality, it's a non-sensical cop-out, a way of silencing an interlocuter and claiming a draw in the debate when the speaker is clearly losing.

"Socially liberal" implies a belief in all the qualities of a modern, progressive society. It implies that the believer is against things that seek to destroy us: racism, sexism, xenophobia, denial of climate change, and all kinds of inequality. The socially liberal person adheres to an agenda that could get Liberals, NDP or Greens elected. The socially liberal person believes in a better tomorrow and thinks of him/herself as being one of the "good guys" and might, when under observation, shake his/her head at the silliness of Trump or Ford.

"Fiscally conservative" implies a belief in being financially responsible. It suggests that one of the biggest problems in modern society is debt, corruption, and the stifling of the entrepreneurial spirit. The fiscally conservative person is particularly upset when his/her taxes are being squandered on wasteful things. As a result of this anger about taxes, the fiscal conservative is deeply distrustful of  big government, which he/she sees as a type of enemy. The fiscal conservative wants to reward the vision, hard work and risk-taking of those who are willing to do these,  and wants to punish those who, in their eyes, are slothful, profligate, or unfocussed in their financial vision.

One may ask "is it not possible to be both?" The answer has to be a resounding NO !!

The "social liberal, fiscal conservative" ( hereafter referred to as SLFC ) is a person who says all the right things about social justice …. until there's a price tag attached. Then, the liberalism is reigned in faster than a turtle head on a really cold day. The SLFC would be quite comfortable with sayings like, "of course I believe in equality … wait, you say there has to be affirmative action programmes to help disadvantaged people get ahead paid for by taxes? I'm out !! " Or something like, "of course I believe that climate change is real, but Canada doesn't contribute much to world pollution like China does, so these climate pricing schemes are just going to cost me money. No way do I support them." Or how about this one: " yeah, it's really sad to see all the suffering in the world, but why do my taxes have to go to help foreigners? Especially when we have so many poor people here at home! Wait, you want to raise my taxes to help people on First Nations reserves get drinkable water, or decent and clean housing? Nope, not on my dime !"  Or, finally, consider this line of "thinking." "Well, sure, the opioid crisis is a terrible thing, but I don't want one of those safe-injection sites near my neighbourhood. Who's going to pay for it, anyway?"

Some readers may be ready to have their heads explode after reading these. I challenge you to ask yourself these simple questions. Are my SLFC sentences unrealistic? Have you never heard people say things like them? Have you not said them yourself? Of course you have.

These sentences reflect a type of self-denial, a type of intellectual schizophrenia. Issues are often complex and endlessly nuanced. When we find ourselves embroiled in debates, we want to come off as an informed, intelligent and confident debaters. We don't want to seem to be simplistic or …. gasp … wrong. So we try to invent these positions that cover all the bases, that show us as being a person of reason or compassion, as well as possessing a cold intellect.

And it's a sham. You cannot be SLFC. Why? Because there's a limit to your liberalism or conservatism, that's why.

It's like being a "young senior" or a "free-will determinist". Or being sort of pregnant. Or kind of dead.

You're either a liberal or a conservative, with all the strengths and weaknesses, all the benefits and detriments, all the positives and all the negatives of both sides.

So, make up your mind … what are you?

i HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE !

Sixty years ago this past week, an event of far-reaching significance reached its climax. With the forces led by Che Guevera and Camilo Cienfuegos bearing down on the Cuban city of Santa Clara, victory was assured for the rebels. The three-year-long Cuban Revolution was over. Fulgencio Batista, the dictator ruling Cuba with an iron hand, fled on New Year's Eve, 1958, and the forces of Fidel Castro, along with his brother Raul, Che and Cienfuegos marched into Havana a few days later to establish a new government which has endured to this day.

Guevera is generally credited with coining the slogan that inspired the Revolution and remains one of the most oft-quoted phrases in modern history: "Hasta La Victoria Siempre." It stirred the rebels 60 years ago, and continues to urge modern Cubans to embrace the ideals of that Revolution from a distant age.

Any translation of a popular and significant phrase from a foreign language into English poses problems, but this simple phrase carries some interesting baggage with it. Loosely and literally translated, it means "until the victory, always." That's a bit awkward, but the best translation I've seen is this one: "onward to victory, always". Somehow, that sounds a bit more inspirational. It's certainly meant to be an exhortation for believers to work relentlessly to the final victory, which, when you think about it, is a necessity when participating in a revolution. Should the revolution fail, should it not accomplish its goals, then those who espouse the revolution would undoubtedly face terrible reprisals from the other side, even possible death. As Benjamin Franklin once famously declared during the doubt riddled American Revolution in the 1770's, "gentlemen, we must hang together, for if we fail, we shall surely hang separately."

For me, however, the Cuban phrase contains a uniquely human and tragically heroic quality. If the phrase is to be believed, a follower of the revolution must be always striving to achieve the victory that is necessary. Since the word "siempre" or "always" is included, it is implied that the struggle is eternal and that the victory will perpetually be out of reach, never attainable. Like some Cuban Sisyphus, the revolutionaries are condemned to be constantly fighting for this ideal, always getting close, but never quite getting there, struggling to move the revolutionary boulder up the slope almost to the top … only to see it roll back down to the bottom, whereupon they must trudge down, roll up their sleeves and try mightily once again to strive to the top … only to repeat the process into eternity.

Che, if he coined the phrase, was absolutely dead-on in his exhortation for Cuba. He must've known the awesome obstacles that the new-born Revolution would face in the years ahead, particularly when the United States chose to pay attention to the events of the Revolution and become involved. The victory at Santa Clara marked an end to the immediate struggle, to be sure. But Che must've known that the Americans would do everything in their immense power to try to sabotage the Revolution. He was right. And so, Cuban history from the end of 1958 to the present day has been that of constant struggle, strain, defeats, hardships and even misery. There have been victories too, but an honest Cuban would say that the three generations since the days of Fidel, Raul, Che, and Camilo have been tested in the crucible of suffering.

In may ways, though, the Cuban struggle is an acute example of the broader human struggle. We all are striving to some goal, some ideal: it may be a personal goal, as in the attainment of personal happiness or fulfillment, or a collective one, as in national greatness or general survival. It has always been thus and it will always continue to be so.

We are a strange species. We have the same physical needs as other animals. We are born, we need basic things to grow, we mature, we fight and clash with others, we dominate and then we decline, grow weak and die. For what ? What do we gain from this ? Simple survival of the species ?

Our history would suggest that there is more. We do more than basic survival. We create. We illuminate. We feel compassion. We achieve almost godly things. We strive for greatness, and sometimes we actually get there. But when we get the boulder to the top, we look over and see another mountain slope, with another boulder to push to the top. And we go. And we push that boulder. Why?

Because there is always the victory, waiting for us, beckoning us onward, always, inexorably onwards to gain it.

What else can we do ? Hasta la Victoria siempre !

THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

One of my personal conceits is that I write fairly well. I'm an amateur, to be sure, but I enjoy it. I've always been able to write: as a kid in school, I used to love "composition" class, when our teachers would give us a topic or hold up a picture and challenge us to make a story out of it. I could do this easily, and my stories were usually given high marks and were read before the class. It was a sort of identity for me: the kid who could write.

As I got older, I began to think about using my writing skills to further my education and perhaps follow a career. I started to think seriously about journalism as my future calling. When the time came, I applied to Western and Ryerson because both schools had well respected programmes in journalism. I went to both schools, with samples of my high school writing in hand, to be interviewed by faculty, tour the facilities and get as much information as I could. It ended up that I went to Western, but didn't follow journalism, choosing instead to study more academic areas and ultimately go into teaching. Oh well …

However, my interest in journalism has never waned. In many of my courses, I had units in journalism, believing firmly that an understanding of media, how it works and its importance in our society was something my young students should know. I also attempted, on several occasions, to launch a school newspaper as an extracurricular activity. It was one of the great thrills of my career to see, with the opening edition of one of the papers, the entire concourse of our school fall silent with students bent over copies of the paper. Later, with the advent of social media, the hard copy paper fell out of favour, despite our best efforts to publicize it and produce interesting reading.

When it's done well, journalism is a form of living history. It chronicles the times in which we live, and provides material for future historians to use as they attempt to understand us. Good journalism, and especially good writing, can do wonderful things for us. It can teach, of course. It can enlighten. It can entertain with its intelligence and discovery. And it can sway us, and make us think of things that we hadn't thought before. I always believed that good journalism is a jewel in the crown of our democratic society: we need independent, intelligent, objective reporting of events and people in order for us to become aware of what goes on in our locales, our country, and our world. Without good journalism, we would be living in complete vacuums, ignorant and dark creatures of fear and superstition.

When journalism is done badly, as it often is, it becomes either a bad joke in our eyes, or a pernicious tool for those who seek to control or manipulate us. It can be propaganda for demagogues and dictators, or an enabler of mindless and childish titillation. It can be a distraction from real and unpleasant issues which require immediate attention, benefitting only those who drive or profit from those unpleasant issues. It can be clumsy, unprofessional, intrusive and, in its worst iteration, a form of semi-pornographic entertainment. When this happens, people often lose respect for the honest journalists who continue to ply their trade with the same conviction as medieval monks on some wind-swept island among the barbarians they're trying to enlighten.

We now exist in a post-journalism world. Social media, in its many forms, is the main source of information for many people. The 24-hour news cycle constantly hammers us with images and slogans that become, after time, mind numbing. People shun paper copies of publications. We read long form copy less than ever. And, as a result, we think less. The open hostility to real journalism, most blatantly shown in the Trump administration, appeals to many people because these people don't want to think: to do so requires effort. They want to feel, to let emotion rule. And the easiest emotion to conjure is fear: the second easiest is anger. Together, these are potent forces for the corrupt and opportunistic to use. And this is exactly what's happening now.

We need good journalism now more than ever. If our democracy is to survive and flourish, we must be willing to read more, regardless the platform we choose to read. And we must think more. For these to happen, we need to encourage young people to choose journalism not just as a career, but as a calling, as sacred as a religious calling. It is democracy's only hope.

A MAN HEARS WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR AND DISREGARDS THE REST

You can learn a lot from your friends. I certainly do, every day of my life. And I'm grateful for this gift. Some of the things I learn are harsh and painful, exposing my weaknesses and faults. Some things are uplifting and inspiring, pushing me to be a better person. Other things are funny, creative and even whimsical. But I always assume that the lessons I learn are the truth, for the lessons come from friends, and I trust them.

Recently, I polled my friends on facebook on the issue of climate change. The question I posed was a simple one. I asked them if they thought the issue of climate change was real and serious. I now realize, thanks to one of my respondents, that I should've phrased the question better, and framed the issue around "anthrogenic", or human caused, climate change. I assumed, however, that most people, when they consider climate change in the modern context, would understand that we were talking about human caused climate change. I freely admit that I had a certain expectation as to the answers I would get.

I was pleasantly surprised at the response. More than 40 of my facebook friends took the time to respond. I was thinking of a possible response of around a dozen or so: this was a nice surprise. Forty of my friends represents about 10% of my total facebook friend count: of course, many of the 400+ people who are classified as friends are not frequent users of facebook, or are constant correspondents with me. Several of them are in foreign countries, and therefore may not understand the question. So the response was nice. The second thing that surprised me was the overwhelming answer of "yes" to my question. I expected "yes" would be the majority response, but the extent of the "yes" side was amazing. Only one person said "no", which is a fair and honourable response, and two others said "yes" with caveats. The rest said "yes" plainly, sometimes in capital letters, with exclamation marks, or other equally emphatic phrases. It was an education for sure.

The question phrased by one of my respondents was "where are you going with this?" Good question. Initially, I intended it for my own curiousity, to see if my views are consistent with other people's, and yes they are. But then I decided to blog this to try to put it all into some kind of perspective. No reader should be surprised by this.

Doug Ford has recently gone on a high-spirited campaign against the "carbon tax" that Ontario has originally planned to implement. The tax was to be part of an initiative that included cap and trade, which Ford earlier cancelled. Ford claims that a tax will be a strain on those who already "pay too much tax" or who are low-income earners. Ford also claims that a carbon tax would be a "job killer", scaring investors and companies out of Ontario. Ford also intends to challenge the federal government, which is about to implement a national "carbon price" across the nation, specifically targeting the provinces which do not have their own carbon price or tax: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick. "Coincidentally", those provinces have Conservative or conservative-leaning governments. Ford intends to make this a hot-button issue in all upcoming elections, specifically aiming at Justin Trudeau's Liberal federal government, with the hope of defeating Trudeau and placing Conservative Andrew Scheer as the new Prime Minister. It's a long game Ford is playing, and there are some personal ambitions of his own on view for all to see.

Ford's gambit flies in the face of empirical evidence on the benefits of a price on carbon. When cap and trade was in effect in Ontario ( in a partnership with Quebec and California ), it seemed to work and some 3 billion dollars of revenue was earned by the provincial government which was supposed to be put toward implementing other solutions to the carbon problem. International studies have shown that carbon "taxes" have significantly reduced emissions in certain places, have not "killed jobs", and have, in fact, created a new economic sector, the sustainable environmental economy. Nobel prizes in economics were awarded to those who studied and supported this thesis.

And, finally, opinion polls have indicated that the majority of Canadians support some type of carbon price. Here's where my little poll comes in. In my little corner of the cyber world, more than 40 people, to varying degrees, agree that climate change is real and serious. I did not ask them if they supported a carbon price. But if a problem is that significant and serious, obviously some solution must be sought.

To be fair, there may be other solutions to the issue of climate change. Nobody has "THE ANSWER". But it seems to me that what we have in front of us is a start. If polluters are forced to pay, and if polluting by all of us ( private citizens and large corporations ) is no longer free or convenient, we will be forced into more positive initiatives.

Taxes are, generally, regressive. It's money out of someone's pocket. Nobody likes them, me included. But they are necessary. We all know that. And so, we pay them, grumbling all the while. Fair enough.

Sooner or later, the international studies show, we have to stop talking and debating about climate change, and start to take action. There are those who refuse to accept this, but most of us realize that it's true: the time for climate action is now. We have no choice. It really is a matter of survival for us as a species and for the earth as a planet.

I hope the 40+ of you who answered my little poll agree with me on this. Grumble all you want. But pay the damned tax. And insist our leaders stop turning this into an election issue. It isn't. It's well past that. It's survival.