I'M BACK BABY

After a significant time away, I'm happy to say that I'm back on this blog site. I have noticed some changes to the format, so I'll have to get used to them. But most importantly, I'm back. These past few months have been a challenge for all of us. We are slowly starting to emerge from the cocoon of pandemic isolation. I've actually been to a patio for lunch with a buddy of mine .... once. And we've had friends over to our back deck for socially distanced drinks .... 3 or 4 times. Not normal. We also have reconnected with our extended family and went to a cottage in late July for a holiday. It was lovely and we had a wonderful time in beautiful weather. Will we continue to emerge from the cocoon ? Will life ever get back to "normal" ? Or perhaps we'll create a new "normal" during these next few months. Or maybe the pandemic will come back, full force, in a "second wave". Time will tell. Anyway, it's good to be back. See you soon.

WARTS AND ALL ....

Time was, I had an absolute blind crush on Canada. Like most, I came to adore my northern land, confident in its goodness, superior morality, and Dudley Doright-like honesty. That was the myth we were raised on back in the halcyon days of the 60's. We were the children of Centennial Year, Expo, the Leafs winning the Stanley Cup most years.

We had just created our new flag. And we had a prime minister that was young, cool, stylish and brilliant. We were a young country, we were told, and the future would belong to us. We were not stodgy old England, or corrupt France, or violent America. We were the new kids and we were going to create great modern things. As Pierre Berton later called it, it was "The Last Good Year."

The mythology, as John Ralston Saul describes it, was in full force. We still had all the stereotypes and institutions that our ancestors created. We venerated these stereotypes and believed that they were unquestionably true.

The Mounties always got their man.

Maple syrup ran like liquid gold from tall and stately maple forests.

Our trains, mighty and unstoppable, criss-crossed the continent, taking those things we hewed or drew from the earth to markets around the world.

The winter brooded, dark and deep for half the year or more, toughening us and defining our solid if unspectacular nature.

These were simple concepts, and we could all believe in them because they were pleasant, easy, charming and precious to us.

We gave the world two of the toughest sports in the world, hockey and lacrosse. We knew, of course, that lacrosse was a gift of the Indigenous people, but they were "our" indigenous people, so that counted as "Canadian."

Those games were not wide-spread in the world, which made them more characteristic of us. Unknown, subtly violent, "manly" and carved from the forest and frozen ponds, anyone in foreign countries who knew of them knew that they were "Canadian" and best left to the semi-wild inhabitants of that northern land.

And there was the land itself, the biggest myth of all, one we could sink our teeth into. Western mountains, vast oceans of prairie grassland, the never ending forest, our own version of "old Europe" in North America, and the charm of Atlantic villages perched defiantly on the ocean's craggy shore. It was immense, unknowable, unfathomable. It staggered the imagination of those from the "old world" and exhausted their imaginations. And it was ours, all of it … owned by we few, we happy few, who had dominion over all the land and all it contained. It was the crowning glory to our lovely little myth.

We have all grown up since those halcyon days. The world has become old, cynical, and harsh. Myths die hard, but die they must. And new realities come forward with startling clarity. We now see our Parliament buildings, once the architectural symbol of our connection to glorious histories, as the home of partisan politicians and avaricious lobbyists who seek to line pockets instead of building a nation. We see our police in a new light, flawed and sometimes all too human, mostly good but occasionally horribly bad or ineffective. We see our huge and gorgeous land now scarred and dirty, old before its time and robbed of its youth and vigor. We see our countrymen and women now as strangers and aliens, with startlingly different ideas and goals. We have been rocked by scandal, horrendous crime, violence, inept leaders, and racism and bigotry that we never knew existed in our previously peaceable and lily-white kingdom. We have been shaken to the core by a pandemic that has tested our resolve and willingness to be kind to one another. And we have been found wanting.

 

Still, we try. We know now that we have committed many grievous errors towards the Indigenous people who first arrived in this land. We have so far to go to make things right, but we have started. We still have natural wonders to delight the soul. But we also know that we have to become better stewards of the land, and the air above us, and the water we need for life. We still create filth, but we now feel guilty of it and try to reduce our impact. We know that Canada has different faces among us and different beliefs and ways of life, and we are becoming more accepting of this truth, although some still resist and show intolerance. And we know that the future will not necessarily be bright and cheerful and happy, but it could be better despite the challenges if we begin to make sensible decisions. We have a long way to go. And the best thing we have is our people: all of us.

 

We are a great country, warts and all !

 

 

THE NEW SPARTA

It's a part of most kids' history education in Ontario. The grade 11 "Ancient and Medieval History" unit on classical Greece. And one of the most popular aspects of that unit was a survey of Sparta. The legends were attractive: a society based on values such as courage, fortitude, strength and sacrifice. The Battle of Thermopylae, the stand of "the 300" under the inspired leadership of Leonidas, defeat only through betrayal and deceit. The kids seemed to enjoy it and I certainly enjoyed teaching it.

The reality, of course, is much more nuanced and complicated than a unit in a high school history course. Sparta's reputation in the modern mind is unsullied. Sparta's reality in the study of serious history and scholarship is full of controversy and flaws. We know that, unlike contemporary Athens, classical Sparta was no democracy, nor was it a center of art, architecture, literature or philosophy. Spartans referred to themselves as "Laconians" and the modern word "laconic", meaning dull, inexpressive and even anti-intellectual is derived from this ancient term. There are no gleaming marble temples, columns, or statues left behind by the Spartans. No lyric or epic poetry. Only the legends of military endeavor.

Sparta was an oligarchy. The social structure of Spartan society is probably well known to most readers, so a only a brief summary will appear here. Like most societies, Sparta can be represented by a pyramid, showing the relatively small number of true citizens, the "Spartiates" at the top, and the enslaved "Helots" at the bottom. The helots were the largest component of Spartan society and were used to do most of the labour, certainly the menial jobs that always need to be done. Because they were enslaved and enjoyed few if any rights or freedoms, there was always the risk that the Spartiates could be overwhelmed by the sheer number of helots, should the slaves ever decide to throw off the yoke of servitude. Indeed, a helot uprising in the 5th century BC almost succeeded, which, the legends say, caused the Spartiates to create the intensely military-based society that ensured the survivability of the upper class, but also ensured the absence of all the characteristics of a truly "civilized" society discussed in the preceding paragraph. All true Spartan citizens dedicated themselves to the pursuit and education of martial arts, discipline and stoic adherence to a code of fortitude and service to the state that endures in our imaginations to this day.

In modern times, there are disturbing trends that indicate that a return to the Spartan ethos is not that far away. Recent events in the United States creates concerns that that country is heading in that direction. A direct comparison is often helpful, but we must also be aware that there are so many differences between the two societies under investigation. Having said that, the following items are offered for the reader's consideration.

Like most societies, ancient and modern, the social system in the US can be shown graphically as a pyramid structure. In the case of Sparta, as discussed above, it was necessary to have this structure because of the large number of slaves who did the majority of the work and the small number of citizens who controlled them. In the US, there is an economic oligarchy, small in number but rich in power and resources, who occupy the small upper echelon of the pyramid. Lower echelons denote the other economic classes: upper middle, lower middle, working, working poor and underclass. In this chart, the suggestion is that the lower middle class and working class are the vast majority of the American population. There could be some debate about actual numbers and even about nomenclature of these classes, but most people would agree that this a fairly accurate representation.

The pie chart on the right gives an approximate breakdown of the percentages of the membership in the economic classes in the American population. With only 3.6 % of the American population being in the upper class, there is a vast majority that do not control much of the wealth, power and resources of the country. The big difference, of course, is that there was no middle class in Spartan society. In the US, the middle and working classes enjoy some of the benefits of the prosperity of the country, and can exercise a vote in elections to hold some political power. In Sparta, the "inferiors" and "perioeci" had little power. In both cases, however, the upper class had little to fear from these middle groups. But the lower classes were and are a source of some interest. Thus, as in ancient Sparta, modern American society shows a society where power, wealth, influence and prestige is concentrated in a small number of people. Those at the top are, undoubtedly, concerned about the masses below them and what threat the masses pose to them.

Demographically, the lower classes in the United States, like that in Sparta, are increasingly made up of people who are ethnically different from the dominant or middle classes. In Sparta, the helots were largely made up of slaves who were captured in battle and came from other areas inside and outside of Greece. They were not true Spartiates. In the United States, the same ethnic situation arises. In the not far distant past, the population of the US was overwhelmingly white, with small pockets of Indigenous or African-American people on the periphery. Today, the white segment of the US population is still the largest, but segments of non-white people are growing. The chart on the left shows this. With an approximate 60-40 % split, white people in the US are realizing that it will not take long for the "ethnic" portions of the country to supplant them as the majority and perhaps even become larger segments of the population.

The potential "threat" to the upper echelons of the US population are perhaps shown in the chart to the left. A disproportionate amount of both the African-American and Hispanic populations live in poverty. That's not to say that all of those segments suffer economic hardship: but those who do suffer and are members of the working poor or poor tend to be black or brown and less so white. This is a problem that ought to receive attention, inasmuch as poverty itself is a problem. But when ethnicity is added to the mix, the potential for tension arise. White Americans tend to make up the bulk of the upper and middle classes in the United States and could possibly see the "other" ethnic segments of the population as threat. Recent events in the US, showing systemic racism and excessive use of force against minority persons, especially African-Americans, seems to indicate that white America is prepared to maintain their dominance by force, and are preparing to do so.

Spending on law enforcement in the United States is growing. The chart at left shows that approximately 4% of the Discretionary spending in the US budget went to law enforcement. Forbes Magazine reports that the amount is approximately $100 billion US on law enforcement, with a further $80 billion US on incarceration. Scenes on television and online of squads of heavily armed police, with body armour, Kevlar vests and helmets, shields, tear gas and rubber bullet launchers, automatic firearms and armoured cars create the atmosphere of a paramilitary army of occupation, ready to inflict maximum force to maintain the social status quo upon its citizens, mainly of lower social and economic classes.

The information is not completely conclusive as to the complete similarity of the modern US to ancient Sparta. But the trends are interesting to contemplate. Certainly, the increased use of paramilitary force to keep "the mob" in line sounds very much like the perceived need of the Spartiates to maintain a military superiority over the lower classes in order to prevent rebellion and overthrow, which would replace the old order with a new.

Just how far the US intends to go to crush dissent, prevent assembly of citizens seeking redress, and punish those who seek to re-distribute power remains to be seen. But heavily armed US police are looking more and more like the hoplites that became the pride of ancient Sparta.

COOL, MAN !

When I was a kid, I wanted desperately to be like a couple of the leading figures of the 60's and early 70's. Young kids are engaged in a struggle to establish an identity for themselves and often look to role models for guidance. Family members and friends are usually not good for this, for the simple reason that they are too familiar, too close and too readily available.

For me, I wanted to be just like John Lennon. Not just the John Lennon of the early iteration of the Beatles, but the John Lennon of the last few years of the band, when he set himself apart from the others as the rebel, the "bad boy" of the group. To be sure, all the Beatles were in some ways "cool" but Lennon was the acknowledged leader of the group and, thus, the most "cool." His style, his manner and, most of all, his music made him the object of my admiration. While Paul McCartney was writing lovely songs like "Hey Jude" and "Let It Be", and George Harrison was developing his art with "My Guitar Gently Weeps", Lennon was rocking his way through "Revolution" , "Dear Prudence" and "Happiness is a Warm Gun". These were songs that were edgy and ones that your parents were sure not to like, while they would hum along to the McCartney tunes.

Thus, the search for "cool" began when I was around 13 years old. What is "cool"? One could consult the dictionary and find a formal and somewhat stodgy definition that helps in the beginning of understanding of cool. Part of it is a certain rebelliousness: Lennon had that in droves. I wanted that.

But later, I discovered another guy that helped me define the term. Around age 16, I discovered the music and style of Cat Stevens. Now, this was a guy who I definitely wanted to emulate, mainly because a girl I liked back then was in love with him. I really liked the image of Cat. The beard, the long flowing hair, the dark mystery of him … and, of course, so much musical talent, although it was not really like Lennon's. There was not much edgy or rebellious about Stevens' music. But it was very introspective and philosophical, which was part of his "cool". As I grew older, I tried to mimic Stevens. I learned the guitar mainly because of him, I tried to grow a beard ( successfully, in my 20's ) and let my hair grow longer. But, while Stevens was dark and brooding, my beard was Celtic red and my hair was straight and somewhat thinner than his leonine main. Oh well, it was a good try.

My search for cool expanded beyond music in my later teens. I became a huge fan of Pierre Trudeau, our first and, really, only "cool" Prime Minister. There was a certain ice water in the man's veins. He was a coldly rational and pure intellectual man, which I admired. But there was also a steely toughness about him. My two favourite cool Trudeau moments were when he was accosted at the St Jean Baptiste parade in Montreal in 1968 , when objects were hurled at the reviewing stand where he was seated. His security detail wanted to get him out of there for fears of the growing Separatist and FLQ threats and mounting violence and agitation of that night. Trudeau refused to show fear or weakness and toughed it out, dodging bottles and rocks thrown at him and he chided his guards, telling them to leave if they wanted to, he was staying. Man, that's balls.

The second example of Trudeau cool was during the height of the October Crisis in 1970, when the FLQ kidnapped two people, murdering one of them. Trudeau called in the army through the War Measures Act and went eyeball to eyeball with the terrorists. But that wasn't the cool part. One day, Trudeau was confronted by a reporter on Parliament Hill, challenging the implementation of the War Measures Act. Trudeau stood his ground with the reporter, giving back to the man, and actually making the reporter look and sound stupid. When the reporter asked the PM just how far he'd go in this showdown with the terrorists, Trudeau famously replied, "Just watch me." That was badass.

In university, my search for a cool icon branched out, depending on what I was studying. When I was studying English lit, I looked to a whole raft of heros: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Chaucer, Byron, Cervantes … the list was endless, but the problem with these figures was that they were long-dead and there were only imprecise images of them. Only their words, their fantastic words, made them cool. But of more modern writers, Leonard Cohen was unmistakably cool. His poetry and music were terrific and, again, he was unbelievably popular with women. He wrote few novels, but one of them, "The Favourite Game" was, and still is, a novel I enjoy. The protagonist was a thinly-disguised Cohen : confidence bordering on arrogance, bravado, love of music, wine and women … it sounded like a recipe for success to me.

When I studied history, though, it was undoubtedly Ernesto "Che" Guevara as my cool icon. In my many visits to Cuba, I have become fascinated with the man, mainly because of the legend of this quixotic revolutionary, tilting at windmills and courageously beating against the stream. The truth of his life is somewhat less romantic, but no matter: after Corda's famous photograph of the idealistic revolutionary "commandante", gazing into a wondrous utopian future, Che's true life story didn't really alter my view of him. Like Cat Stevens, Che had the "look" that I wanted to emulate because women loved it. Only recently have I broadened my knowledge of the man: I still admire him, but I no longer idolize him. He had his faults, massive faults …. who doesn't ?

In more recent years, Barack Obama has held a fascination for me. I completely have a "bromance" going for the last good President. His sweeping intellect, his poetic speeches, his breadth of knowledge on so many diverse topics make him attractive. But, more than that, his class and elegance speaks volumes. While President, Obama had to endure some of the most outrageous slurs, attacks and charges against his character, his family, and his policies. And he fought back with intelligence, charm, wit, humour and patience. I don't know how he did it. If it were me, I'd be slinging the mud back at my detractors harder and with more fury than they hurled it at me. And, in the age of Trump, his voice and timing are appreciated more than ever. He doesn't go after Trump repeatedly or viciously, as Trump goes after him. Obama waits for the right moment, then unleashes the right words, delivered with grace and dignity, but clearly critical of the buffoon who currently holds the office of President. "Elegance" is the word that best defines Barack Obama.

And in my own family, I had a cool role model as well, although I didn't see him as often as I would've liked. My mom's younger brother, John Day, my Uncle Jack was always a cool guy to me. Good looking, good-humoured, a fine family man, stylish and suave: that was my Uncle Jack. He had an appreciation for nice cars ( Jaguars, mostly ), boats, good food and drink. And he was a genuinely nice guy, always with a smile and a good word. We lost Uncle Jack this past March, a very sad thing indeed. But I will always consider him one of the coolest guys I've had the pleasure of knowing.

So, after all that, how does one define "cool"? I guess the safe answer is that there is no one, single thing that sets a person off as cool. For me, it's a combination of all the things described above. A "cool" guy has to be smart, elegant but not showy, confident without arrogance, a slight swagger to him, rebellious but not dangerous or foolish, talented in many ways, appreciative of the good things in life but not overtly materialistic, quiet but able to converse intelligently on a variety of topics, willing to admit when he's wrong or does not have a certain knowledge, willing to learn new things, and, above all else, have charisma.

And the most important thing I've learned: you can't acquire cool, you have to be born with it.

THE POST-PANDEMIC WORLD

In the previous blog, I recounted the history of "The Beveridge Report", a landmark document that shaped the way Britain re-organized itself after the chaotic life-or-death struggle of World War Two. The Report was truly one of the greatest endeavours in the twentieth century, although it is little known today: in fact, it was probably little known at the time. In my blog, I expressed a hope that, in the midst of the existential crisis in which we now find ourselves, someone somewhere is preparing a type of Beveridge Report to re-create our world after we emerge from this pandemic.

My version of what this Beveridge Report would look like would encompass many good ideas from other people. It is clear to me that the pandemic is not just a single phenomenon, or a stand-alone issue requiring maximum effort and a single solution. Like the Second World War, the pandemic has many fronts and presents many symptoms of problems that our society needs to address as an organic whole, and not piecemeal and in an ad hoc fashion.

The pandemic has exposed many weaknesses in our global, unregulated capitalist economic system. The most glaring weakness is in the fragility of the free market. Stock markets react like paranoid schizophrenics to the slightest challenge. Supply chains are extended so far around the world that shortages emerge at the earliest outset of trouble. Corporations and small businesses that extoll the virtues of capitalism and entrepreneurialism cry for government assistance when things get tough. We have seen the rise of less regulated business in the last 40 years or so, and this crisis, along with previous prove that unfettered capitalism is not desirable. A return to a more interventionist and more heavily regulated economic system must be part of the new Beveridge Report. Stock markets must be shut down at the start of a clearly defined crisis. Supply chains need to be tightened up and sourced more locally. And governments must not be afraid to step in and put corporations on shorter leashes. More red tape? Fine, the tape is applied for a reason.

Along with this, the pandemic has forced all of us to reevaluate our definition of and appreciation for work. Prior to the pandemic, there was an unofficial but clearly understood hierarchy of labour. Certain jobs were held high in esteem, usually associated with levels of academic education. Other jobs, involving manual labour or done by large numbers of people, were held in lower esteem: indeed some jobs were the subject of sarcasm and derision by the "higher-ups". That must end now. We have seen how people such as grocery store cashiers, stock handlers, and food preparers are necessary to our society. We see how garbage pickup and recycling sorters are needed. We miss our bartenders, baristas, servers, cooks, dishwashers, cleaners and busboys/girls. We now pay attention to those behind the scenes who keep the drinking water flowing, the sewers working, the electricity coming on at the flip of a switch. We are now singing the praises of truck drivers, postal workers, delivery and courier people, transit workers, dockyard workers and air crew.

The hope is that, after the pandemic, we don't just slide back into our complacency and old ways. What's needed is a plan to ensure that ALL workers earn a decent wage, a wage that will allow them to take care of themselves and their families, that will put food on the table, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs, take care of their ageing parents and allow for a better future for their children. There must be expanded health, dental and pharma care for ALL people, to keep us all healthy. There must be expanded pensions for ALL citizens beyond the meagre scraps we now hand out to our seniors.

One of the ways that this can be done is though the concept of the Guaranteed Annual Income ( GAI ) that has been proposed by many, including Martin Luther King Jr., and one of the last truly "Progressive" Conservative thinkers and political leaders in Canada, Hugh Segal. Segal was a minister and bureaucrat in the governments of Brian Mulroney, and, in his later years, has advocated for the GAI as a means to eliminate poverty in the world. The GAI would ensure that things like EI, welfare, and pensions would be more efficient. It would establish a figure that a person needs in order to live a good, healthy and productive life. It does not ensure that people can do nothing and live like a king, although there will undoubtedly be abuses and abusers out there, just as there are now. People who work and are paid decent wages will not draw on the GAI unless their wages are below the established figure. And, when a person is sick or doesn't work for legitimate reasons, the GAI kicks in and ensures he/she is comfortable, fed, healthy and has some money to buy necessary products, keeping the economy going. The GAI needs to be part of the new Beveridge Report. Who pays for this ? You will.

The pandemic has also exposed failings in our health care system. Despite our prior beliefs, this pandemic has stressed the system to the breaking point and has shown just how unprepared we are for such things. We don't want to believe that pandemics are possible: we just too clean, too safe, too advanced and too superior for such things to happen. Well, they do and they will again: the next pandemic is just around the corner, ready to explode on us when some unknown virus decides to mutate and look for hosts.

Clearly, the need to get rid of any notion of private, for-profit medicine has to go. The United States is the poster child for for-profit health care and it has suffered badly in this pandemic. That's not to say that countries with a socialized health care system has fared much better: look at the disaster in Italy. But a need to put patients first, before profits, must be the top priority in the new Beveridge Report. And, as stated above, the inclusion of dental and pharma care in the health care system is a must.

But along with this, there needs to be a large, well-funded and dedicated "force" whose sole job it is to prepare for and deal with pandemics, epidemics, and mass casualties. It must be a separate entity from the conventional hospitals and clinics we now have. Thinkers like Robert Reich in the US have advocated for this type of service. Call it the "Pandemic Force" if you wish. The Pandemic Force ( or PF ) would exist as a medical paramilitary entity. Just as the military is composed of personnel, equipment, and bases to train for and deal with the next war ( and eating up billions of public dollars for such an eventuality ) so the PF would be a sizeable force of well -trained and well-equipped professionals who act independently of conventional medical workers. The PF would have its own facilities for housing and training the professionals and for treating the victims of the next pandemic. Plenty of large unused building dot our landscapes: old factories, schools, stores and malls: they could easily be re-purposed for such a use. When there is no pandemic, the PF professionals would be constantly training and re-evaluating their procedures. There would be strict protocols in place for when the PF would be used and how they would supersede conventional medical practice. And they would have the ventilators, medicines, masks and gowns, diagnostic equipment, cleaning and sterilizing equipment, food and nourishment they'd need to exist and do their jobs. The military gets billions of dollars for similar needs: so too, the PF should get what they need, because as previously said, we know the next war is coming: so too, the next pandemic.

In a similar vein, we need to re-think our approach to mental health. We have been in the midst of a mental health crisis in Ontario ( and, I suspect, other jurisdictions as well ) long before the pandemic hit. We don't know how to deal with mental health issues. As a result, we have too many people struggling with REAL problems alone and unsupported. Addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling and sex have ruined lives and torn families apart. People with serious mental health problems are often dealt with by the police with , despite better police training and good intentions, tragic consequences. People with mental health issues are often placed in correctional facilities, left to languish and get sicker, with no hope for a better future.

As I advocated for the so-called PF, there needs to be a separate entity to deal with mental health patients. I have seen how certain outreach programmes are helpful for people living on the streets. These outreaches are small and dependent on funding or donations and, largely, volunteers with little or no training, just good intentions. We need to create a "rapid response force" similar to police, firefighters or paramedics, whose job it is to respond to those who are in a mental health crisis, who are trained in how to deal with such people without resorting to lethal force, and who can administer mental health "first aid". As a second part of such an entity, mental health hospitals should exist exclusively for such patients, separate from conventional hospitals. Anyone who needs mental health services, as out-patients or who need to be checked in, will be allowed to use such facilities. In doing so, we can eliminate the stigma of needing mental health help, and create an atmosphere where real research and development, training and mental health practice can occur.

Many might wonder, if we create these new facilities, what would be the role of regular hospitals and regular health care professionals ? They would be free to practice conventional medicine: accidents, injuries, trauma, acute illness ( heart attacks, strokes, etc ) and chronic illness ( cancer, autoimmune, etc ) , pediatrics and geriatrics. In other words, our conventional hospitals, doctors, nurses and support staff can practice medicine as we expect them to do.

Finally, the Report should deal with environmental and climate change issues and initiatives. Why? This issue was the burning issue of the time immediately before the pandemic hit, and the international conversation revolved around whether there was a need to exert maximum effort to curtail the effects of man-made climate change and environmental degradation. Proponents of such an effort called the issue an "existential crisis", but those opposed could not see the immediate or long-term effects of the change. Now, with the economy slowed down substantially because of the pandemic, we are experiencing improvement: better air quality readings, cleaner water, wildlife returning to old habitat, fewer vehicles choking highways and roadways, fewer jets soaring overhead. The pandemic can be thanked for this opportunity to see what large scale cutbacks in our profligate ways can bring. Now is the time to bring about the end of the gasoline and diesel engines: now is the time to bring more solar, wind, hydro and geothermal generated power: now is the time to expand transit to make the roadways clearer. And internet conferencing removes the need for corporate workers to fly to international destinations as much for face-to-face conferences, although these traditional conferences will undoubtedly still need to happen: just not as frequently.

There are many other things that can be re-thought after the pandemic: retail commerce, travel and tourism and education come to mind. The possibilities are endless. We have a unique opportunity to create a better world from this chaos. There will be those who oppose such changes, mainly because they don't like change itself. Other reasons for opposition will undoubtedly come from those who see a reduction in entrepreneurial gain. Others will react badly to the higher taxation which will be needed to fund these new initiatives.

My solution to the problem of naysayers and doubters and opponents ? Shoot them. Line them up against a wall and shoot them. All of them. And do it in front of their family and friends pour encouragez les autres.

OK, I'm kidding about the above paragraph. There will be opposition, just as there was to the original Beveridge Report in post-war Britain. Atlee, the Prime Minister at the time, merely brushed criticism aside, or ignored it, and forged ahead with the reforms, opposition be damned. That is what we should do here. Ignore it. Treat it for what it is, which is mostly whining by people with limited vision, lazy aspirations and a willingness to let their own interests and greed override the common good.

Thus, I submit my Report. Read it slowly, thoughtfully and more than once. And agree with it … don't make me buy a gun !!   ( just kidding, I hate guns …. archery ? )

HOPE AFTER THE VIRUS

In the early days of the Second World War, Britain was in the fight for its life. All of Britain's European allies had been knocked out of the war by Hitler's Germany. In the Pacific, Britain's possessions and dominions were under threat from the advancing Japanese empire. Britain's own empire was sending help in the form of troops, ships and supplies, but they were not enough. The Soviets were engaged in a life-or-death struggle of their own with the Nazis, and the United States did not enter the war officially until late 1941, but did not ramp up enough men and materiel until late 1942. Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, held Britain's war effort together almost literally with his own two hands, and the survival of that island nation was nothing short of a miracle of luck, tenacity and courage.

A second miracle, interestingly, was also happening behind the scenes. While Britain was preoccupied with the war effort, a commission was enacted that would dramatically shape the post-war world and, in no small way, alter the way Britain and many other countries defined their societies and how people would interact with each other. And, most importantly, this commission re-invented the role of government in a way that would be profound and long-lasting.

According to Churchill's biographer, William Manchester, the Prime Minister knew that Britain would have to change after the war. The suffering, the privations experienced by most of the population, the entire way of doing things needed to be put right. Amazing to think of such foresight from a man who was one of the most privileged in Britain, a true blue-blood aristocrat. But he had lived through the turbulent times of the rise of Britain as a world power in the late 19th century, only to see it shattered in the bloodbath of the First World War and the terrible economic uncertainty and upheaval of the 20's and 30's. He knew that the nation would not stand for a return to the status quo after the Second World War. He knew that the whole social structure of class and privilege must come to some type of re-ordering … to ignore that would lead to a possible revolution resembling the Bolshevik experience in Soviet Russia.

Sir William Beveridge

Or so Manchester would have us believe. In reality, this great change came about at the behest of Churchill's health minister, a man named Ernest Brown, who realized that the system of insurance, particularly health insurance was in need of an overhaul. It was a rather clumsy, outdated and inefficient system. Churchill, immersed in the war effort, agreed with Brown that such an overhaul was needed. Brown gave the assignment to an accomplished but little-known man outside of politics called Sir William Beveridge. Beveridge took on the assignment with relish and, while bombs rained on London and the population was transfixed on surviving the existential threat of Nazism, Beveridge and his team created one of the seminal works of social planning, the so-called Beveridge Report.

A summary of the Beveridge Report here would take up much space. The reader can look it up for him/herself. But the nub of the matter is this: not only was Britain's insurance sector reformed, the entire health and welfare system was as well. Churchill, when he saw the Report's final copy was dumfounded by the breadth of the reforms, but Manchester insisted that Churchill would've enacted most of it. Alas, Churchill and his Conservatives were turfed out of office in the post war election of 1945: the British people needed his bulldog spirit during the fighting, but wanted nothing to do with him in peacetime. The new Prime Minister was Labour's Clement Atlee. Atlee endorsed the Beveridge Report whole-heartedly and saw, correctly, Churchill's defeat as a signal that the British people wanted fundamental change. Atlee and his colleagues set about creating, for better or worse, the modern post-war welfare state, with all its social safety nets and programmes.

While Britain languished economically in the 20 years after the war, it can be argued that the working classes in that nation were healthier, better cared for, and paid more fairly for their work. I remember having a conversation with my old Grandad, a Cambois coal miner, about Britain from the end of the war until the late 60's. I never knew if he was a Labour supporter, but he told me, in no uncertain terms, that conditions for working people in Britain improved greatly.

We are now living through a period of great turbulence in the world. The current Covid 19 pandemic is perhaps the tip of the iceberg: we have been enduring a 40 year period ( since the days of Thatcher and Reagan ) where the social safety net has been whittled away, and rampant capitalism has been allowed to flourish. Working people have seen the purchasing power of their wages deteriorate. Power and wealth is more securely concentrated in the hands of a few. Democracy is under attack from human and cyber sources that distort the truth and bend things in the favour of the wealthy. And now this severe pandemic has hit us and made us think of our society and how things are being done, and how they ought to be done.

An enlightened government should, in this time of crisis, endeavor to create another Beveridge Report. While we are all preoccupied with surviving this terrible virus, and while we watch thousands of our fellow citizens fall ill and even die, someone should be working on "The Plan" for the world post-pandemic. There are so many things that need to be re-thought, re-purposed, and re-prioritized. This is the perfect opportunity.

I'd like to believe such a government exists. And I'd like to hope that someone, somewhere, is willing to take on Sir William Beveridge's challenge. Who will plan the brave new world that will be born, kicking and screaming, out of this pandemic? Who has the vision and the guts ?

We need that person NOW !

NOTES ON A VIRUS

In 2003, Lou and I visited Heron Island, a small outcrop on the Great Barrier Reef off Queensland in Australia. We booked a few days at a small resort on Heron at the end of a wonderful but tiring tour of Australia, thinking it would be a nice way to relax and recharge before returning home. It proved to be just that, and, as we usually do, we made some new friends at the resort. They were all farmers from New South Wales and were having a small holiday of their own during the Aussie winter after a hard year of raising cattle and growing rice on the driest continent on earth. Our conversations spanned many topics, and I was amazed to learn of their efforts to grow what I thought was a crop that needed wet conditions in such a dry place. From there, the conversation touched on how humans could manage to do amazing things by altering the environment to meet their needs. Most of us nodded our heads in approval to such modern-day alchemy.

One farmer, however, was noticeably silent. His friends knew him well and knew what was coming of course. He took a pull on his pint of beer, shook his head and began a quiet but well-measured and well-thought dissertation on how all of this was going to be the ruin of all of us. His friends smiled and quietly chuckled: they'd heard this before. But Lou and I listened with great interest. I don't recall his exact words, these 17 years later, but his final offering has stuck in my mind ever since. "Well, it is obvious, isn't it? We're the plague. We're the ones who are ruining things. There's too many of us."

That year, 2003, was the year of SARS. I remember that, as our travel date approached, we were worried whether Australia would let us enter the country. Toronto was one of the epicenters of SARS, and we thought our Canadian passport would open up a world of difficulty for us. It turned out not to be the case. We entered with no difficulty whatsoever, although a couple of Aussies offered some commiserations to us for being the last ones left alive from Toronto to carry on.

Now, we live in 2020 and the word "Covid-19" has taken on the same worrisome connotation as SARS or the Black Death from medieval times. We are, as of this writing, in the process of shutting down the country, with extraordinary measures enacted for the first time since warfare, or since the last major pandemic, the Spanish Flu of 1918-19. We have seen the best of humanity ( such as the selfless and tireless work of people in the health care professions ) and the worst of humanity ( the hoarding and panic buying of basic supplies, and the mindless racism of those who just need a flimsy excuse to hate). We practice "self-isolation" and "social distancing" in order to "flatten the curve" of the statistics of new cases, proving that, if nothing else, our modern times is clever in the invention of catchy phrases.

But the Aussie farmer's words …. " we are the plague" …. ring true most of all. There are just too damned many of us on this planet. We number around 8 billion …. how many other organisms number this many? Insects, yes, and bacteria and germs without a doubt. Maybe fish in the sea or birds in the air ? Maybe. But large, intelligent, social and rapacious animals ? No, we're the highest number. And the results have come home to us in a hard way.

Our numbers have seriously altered the planet on which we live. We take and exploit what we need to maintain our modern lifestyle, and we don't bother to put anything back. We live cheek-by-jowl in huge and ever-growing cities. We breathe each other's breath more than we care to know. We depend on food and other materials from far-flung corners of the globe, just to keep us comfortable, fashionable, over-fed and over-medicated. And we just don't care about the cost whether it be environmental or in our collective and individual health.

The Aussie farmer was commenting directly on the environmental price we humans are exacting on the planet. And that price is going up steadily. Until the advent of Covid-19, the hot topic was climate change and environmental degradation, and it certainly stirred up a lively debate and actually some effort to solve the problem. But it took a new version of the Black Death to make us actually pay attention to our spend-like-a-drunken-sailor ways.

Only when things begin to affect ourselves in a personal way, only when the existential threat of death by sickness, only when we realize that family and friends are in imminent danger of becoming incapacitated and ill, do we take this seriously. Climate change ? How does that affect me? I like warm and sunny weather. If Canada becomes more like Florida, that'd be great ! Wait, what ? I might get sick and die soon? Hell, we'd better do something about it NOW !

There's no doubt that self-isolating and social distancing, along with good handwashing and staying home from work or school will ultimately stop the exponential rise of Covid-19 cases. And soon, there will be a vaccine for it. But, before the cure happens, millions will be affected, and many of them will die.

Will we learn from this ? Will we make a determined effort to lessen our numbers and our impact on the planet. Let's hope we have the time to tell.