Nothing is certain in life: we all generally subscribe to this bromide. But certain things can be predicted with some confidence, based on past experience. Now that the votes in the Scottish independence referendum have been counted, and Scotland has voted quite clearly to remain in the United Kingdom, some things are bound to happen.
Britain can learn from the Canadian experience. In recent times, the Province of Quebec has gone down the same path as Scotland: the most recent referendum, in 1995, saw the sovereignty movement lose by the narrowest of margins, approximately 51% to 49%. Quebec is still in Canada, but there are some truths that Britain must learn from.
First, it would be wrong for Britain to assume that the independence movement in Scotland is finished. Far from it. The tally from last night reveals that 1.6 million Scots voted for independence. That's 45% of the total. Further, the concentration of Yes votes around the Glasgow area indicates that there is a base for the independence movement to work from. Those who voted in favour of independence were willing to take a chance on a risky venture of which nobody knows the outcome. The 55% who voted to remain in the UK may have done so out of loyalty to the crown, the flag, and the union: or they may have done so out of uncertainty how the future independence would unfold. As Scots get used to the idea of a possible independent Scotland, they may well put these fears aside. Quebec soundly rejected sovereignty in the first referendum in 1980 by approximately 60% to 40%, but the 1995 referendum, as described above, was much closer.
Second, and related to the first point, the genie is very much out of the bottle. Britain can never go back to the comfortable, somewhat complacent nation-state is was prior to this referendum. Independence has been discussed for years. I remember the time that Lou and I travelled around Scotland in 1992. We ended up in a pub ( imagine that!) in Edinborough on a Friday night. The pub was crowded with the after work business folks. We got talking to a couple of well dressed business men and they were fascinated with the Canada/Quebec situation. When I broached the topic of possible Scottish independence, they both smiled and one of them said "It's a beautiful dream." These men were not wide-eyed radicals. Even back then, the thought of independence was an ideal worth striving for, but not thought to be really possible. Look at Scotland now. The past is gone forever.
Third, in the last few days leading up to the vote, a nervous No side brought out everything they had to try to keep Scotland in the union. Famously, the three main party leaders made a "Vow" to the Scots promising changes. That reminded me of the years after the first Quebec referendum when Brian Mulroney, to his credit, tried to bring Quebec into the Canadian constitution with the Meech Lake Accord. Mulroney, a Quebecker, knew that the first referendum meant that significant changes were necessary to keep separatism silent permanently, and he tried to do the right thing. Whether the accord was a good deal or not, historians will have to judge. The fact is, he tried to bring the changes Quebec wanted, and the rest of Canada said "no" to those changes. The result is that separatism has never really died in Quebec, and a second referendum followed that almost won. To this day, Quebec remains outside the Canadian constitution.
I bring this up to warn Britons that, if the government in Westminster does not live up to its famous "Vow", Scotland will try again. It has nothing to lose by doing so. The idea is tantalizing to many Scots. There are and have been grievances between Scotland and Westminster for decades. If Westminster comes through, then Scotland may not go ahead with a second referendum. But the changes for Britain will be staggering. Not only will Scotland get more powers from Westminster, the national government will have to do the same for Wales and Northern Ireland. And what of England? Will there be an English parliament with devolved powers? Why would England be content to continue to have important issues affecting it decided by politicians from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while those lands can make their own decisions? Britain may have to seriously examine the possibility of becoming a federal state, similar to Canada or Australia, and de-centralize power from London. And, if that happens, an actual written constitution will be necessary, the first in British history.
Britain would be well-advised to pay attention to the Canadian experience. In this sense, the mother will have to learn from her daughters.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
THE END OF THE NATION-STATE
Note: this entry was composed at approx. 4:30 pm on Sept. 18, 2014, roughly 40 minutes before the polls closed in Scotland. The results of the referendum were unknown at this time.
The modern nation state took its form in the eighteenth century. Depending on who you read, France is given as the earliest example of a modern nation-state. Since the French Revolution, France has undergone several changes, some very violent, before settling on the entity we have today. Since the eighteenth century, the world has created untold versions of the nation-state, but the consistent thing in all of this is that the nation-state is regarded as the most advanced and most modern political expression of humanity's will to live and work together as a cohesive unit.
Simply put, a nation-state is a political organization that derives its authority from a sovereign people. The nation-state may comprise several ethnic or cultural groups of people: several religions, several languages, several philosophies may exist within a nation-state. For example, before the French Revolution, there was no real idea of what "France" was. "France", in the middle ages, was the area surrounding the city of Paris: other people who lived in what we now call France identified themselves as Gascons, Bretons, Normans, Acquitanians, etc. Only through centuries of effort by strong monarchs and equally strong ministers such as Richilieu, Mazarin and others, did the far-flung regions begin to feel that they were part of something larger, something stronger, something more secure ... something that they began to call "French". Other nations in Europe, notably Germany, Italy and Spain went through similar experiences.
In the Middle Ages, it was relatively easy to determine a "nation". If you shared an ethnicity within a defined geographical space, if you spoke the same language, if you worshipped the same gods, then you were a citizen of a nation. In England, all people eventually spoke English and worshipped in the same church. In Japan or Korea, all people living in those lands were of the same ethnic background. In the aboriginal history of North and South America, you knew you were Mohawk, Lakota, Maya, Quechua, Aymara or Inuit because the other people in your general land area were the same as you. But as the centuries unfolded, people began to overlap. Mohawks joined with Seneca and others to form the Six Nations Confederacy. Incas evolved out of a Quechua tribe conquering other tribes to forge an empire. Saxons, Bavarians, Westphalians and others fell into the Prussian influence to become Germans. And, as a result, nation-states were born. Over time, people took on the larger identities as explained above.
The key ingredient in forming the nation-state, besides the emotional and visceral feeling of being a "Frenchman", or a "German", or an "Italian", or any other nationality, is having a strong central authority to keep the nation-state together. In older times, this was usually in the form of a strong monarchy. Later, the authority was in a strong central or federal government. As long as the authority of the central government went unchallenged, the nation-state worked smoothly, and loyalty to the nation-state was unquestioned. But, occasionally, people or regions would begin to question the authority of the central government. That's when the nation-state began to totter. The best example of this is the Civil War in the United States. Other nation-states have endured brutal civil wars: Greece, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, many modern Arab and Middle Eastern nation-states come to mind. And when people decide to explore the dissolution of nation-states peacefully, separatist movements and referenda occur: Canada, the former Czechoslovakia, and currently the United Kingdom come to mind.
Which brings us to the present day. Events around the world seem to be heralding the demise of the nation-state. Not just politically, but economically and culturally, do we see people more willing to shed the narrow definitions of who they are. Politically, we may be on the verge of witnessing the historic dissolution of the United Kingdom if Scotland votes in favour of independence. In 1989, an equally unbelievable event occurred with the dissolution of the USSR into its several components. In the 1990's, Czechoslovakia went through the "velvet revolution", breaking themselves peacefully and willingly in half, forming the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Even stable and thriving nation-states such as the United States and Canada are fraught with division and disagreement that sometimes results in political paralysis. The nation-state of Belgium, one of the most stable states in Europe, famously went without a federal government for several years because the two major ethnic components, Flemings and Walloons, couldn't find a way to form a workable political coalition.
Perhaps the most insidious threat to the nation-state is economic in nature. The rise of multi-national corporations has been such that it is difficult to determine where a corporation's "country" or "home office" is located. Questions arise: to whom does a multi-national corporation answer or obey? Under what laws does a business operate? If a multi-national runs afoul of a nation-state's laws, does it simply shut down operations in that nation-state and relocate elsewhere? If workers try to organize or earn higher wages, benefits and pensions in one nation-state, does the multi-national have any obligation to allow this when workers in a different nation-state do not organize or earn higher wages etc? Do multi-national corporations make decisions based on the corporation's best interest, or in the best interest of a nation or a people?
So, as Scots today go to the polls to determine their place in the larger nation-state of the United Kingdom, we watch fascinated and a little apprehensive. But does the apparent demise of the nation-state mean disaster? Or is it a good thing? Nation-states, particularly strong ones, have caused wars and injustice throughout our history. Could smaller nations, possessing no large forces, or large egos, or external ambitions be the way to go? It has been suggested that the possibility of large-scale wars, like the world wars of the last century, could be a thing of the past since such wars are bad for business, and multi-national corporations are so inter-connected , so global in their outlook, that war would be unacceptable to the corporations. And people may evolve into feeling a greater loyalty for the world itself, given the ease with which we travel, the amount of global culture we consume, and the financial wealth we accumulate from the far corners of the world.
The end of the nation-state could be one of the most enlightened choices we, as a species, could ever make.
The modern nation state took its form in the eighteenth century. Depending on who you read, France is given as the earliest example of a modern nation-state. Since the French Revolution, France has undergone several changes, some very violent, before settling on the entity we have today. Since the eighteenth century, the world has created untold versions of the nation-state, but the consistent thing in all of this is that the nation-state is regarded as the most advanced and most modern political expression of humanity's will to live and work together as a cohesive unit.
Simply put, a nation-state is a political organization that derives its authority from a sovereign people. The nation-state may comprise several ethnic or cultural groups of people: several religions, several languages, several philosophies may exist within a nation-state. For example, before the French Revolution, there was no real idea of what "France" was. "France", in the middle ages, was the area surrounding the city of Paris: other people who lived in what we now call France identified themselves as Gascons, Bretons, Normans, Acquitanians, etc. Only through centuries of effort by strong monarchs and equally strong ministers such as Richilieu, Mazarin and others, did the far-flung regions begin to feel that they were part of something larger, something stronger, something more secure ... something that they began to call "French". Other nations in Europe, notably Germany, Italy and Spain went through similar experiences.
In the Middle Ages, it was relatively easy to determine a "nation". If you shared an ethnicity within a defined geographical space, if you spoke the same language, if you worshipped the same gods, then you were a citizen of a nation. In England, all people eventually spoke English and worshipped in the same church. In Japan or Korea, all people living in those lands were of the same ethnic background. In the aboriginal history of North and South America, you knew you were Mohawk, Lakota, Maya, Quechua, Aymara or Inuit because the other people in your general land area were the same as you. But as the centuries unfolded, people began to overlap. Mohawks joined with Seneca and others to form the Six Nations Confederacy. Incas evolved out of a Quechua tribe conquering other tribes to forge an empire. Saxons, Bavarians, Westphalians and others fell into the Prussian influence to become Germans. And, as a result, nation-states were born. Over time, people took on the larger identities as explained above.
The key ingredient in forming the nation-state, besides the emotional and visceral feeling of being a "Frenchman", or a "German", or an "Italian", or any other nationality, is having a strong central authority to keep the nation-state together. In older times, this was usually in the form of a strong monarchy. Later, the authority was in a strong central or federal government. As long as the authority of the central government went unchallenged, the nation-state worked smoothly, and loyalty to the nation-state was unquestioned. But, occasionally, people or regions would begin to question the authority of the central government. That's when the nation-state began to totter. The best example of this is the Civil War in the United States. Other nation-states have endured brutal civil wars: Greece, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, many modern Arab and Middle Eastern nation-states come to mind. And when people decide to explore the dissolution of nation-states peacefully, separatist movements and referenda occur: Canada, the former Czechoslovakia, and currently the United Kingdom come to mind.
Which brings us to the present day. Events around the world seem to be heralding the demise of the nation-state. Not just politically, but economically and culturally, do we see people more willing to shed the narrow definitions of who they are. Politically, we may be on the verge of witnessing the historic dissolution of the United Kingdom if Scotland votes in favour of independence. In 1989, an equally unbelievable event occurred with the dissolution of the USSR into its several components. In the 1990's, Czechoslovakia went through the "velvet revolution", breaking themselves peacefully and willingly in half, forming the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Even stable and thriving nation-states such as the United States and Canada are fraught with division and disagreement that sometimes results in political paralysis. The nation-state of Belgium, one of the most stable states in Europe, famously went without a federal government for several years because the two major ethnic components, Flemings and Walloons, couldn't find a way to form a workable political coalition.
Perhaps the most insidious threat to the nation-state is economic in nature. The rise of multi-national corporations has been such that it is difficult to determine where a corporation's "country" or "home office" is located. Questions arise: to whom does a multi-national corporation answer or obey? Under what laws does a business operate? If a multi-national runs afoul of a nation-state's laws, does it simply shut down operations in that nation-state and relocate elsewhere? If workers try to organize or earn higher wages, benefits and pensions in one nation-state, does the multi-national have any obligation to allow this when workers in a different nation-state do not organize or earn higher wages etc? Do multi-national corporations make decisions based on the corporation's best interest, or in the best interest of a nation or a people?
So, as Scots today go to the polls to determine their place in the larger nation-state of the United Kingdom, we watch fascinated and a little apprehensive. But does the apparent demise of the nation-state mean disaster? Or is it a good thing? Nation-states, particularly strong ones, have caused wars and injustice throughout our history. Could smaller nations, possessing no large forces, or large egos, or external ambitions be the way to go? It has been suggested that the possibility of large-scale wars, like the world wars of the last century, could be a thing of the past since such wars are bad for business, and multi-national corporations are so inter-connected , so global in their outlook, that war would be unacceptable to the corporations. And people may evolve into feeling a greater loyalty for the world itself, given the ease with which we travel, the amount of global culture we consume, and the financial wealth we accumulate from the far corners of the world.
The end of the nation-state could be one of the most enlightened choices we, as a species, could ever make.
Friday, September 5, 2014
PHEASANT SEASON FOR BARACK AND HIS FRIENDS
Every year, Barack and his friends looked forward to their favourite hobby: pheasant hunting. They couldn't wait for the months to pass until, finally, pheasant hunting season was only a few days away. Barack called his good friends David, Francois, Angela and even little Stephen, the smallest of the group, and invited them to join him on the first day of the pheasant hunt. Barack told them he'd get his pick-up truck, the most expensive and fancy of all of the friends' vehicles, and load it up with enough ammunition and supplies to ensure a great day of hunting. The friends agreed and the date was set.
Early on the morning of the start of pheasant hunting season, Barack gathered all the supplies and put them into the truck. There was plenty of food and water, because it promised to be a very long day of fun. He made sure there was a good GPS system, because the woods were vast and deep and they didn't want to get lost. He made sure that there was a safety kit for the truck and a first aid kit for the friends, in case of accidents. And he made sure there was plenty of ammunition for the hunt.
Barack picked up his friends David, Francois, Angela and Stephen one by one. It was still very early, the sun hadn't even appeared on the horizon yet. All the friends were excited and chattered endlessly about all the fun they were going to have. They drove many miles out of the city and into the countryside. As the sun was just coming up over the eastern horizon, they arrived at their destination, at the edge of a large forest.
Barack and his friends got out of the truck and began to unload their supplies for their day of fun in the woods. They put on their camouflage suits and hats, painted their faces to blend into the bush, and loaded their backpacks with food, water, first aid and lots and lots of ammunition. Then, they took out their shotguns and made sure they were safe and secure: gun safety was of the utmost importance for them. At last they were ready.
They walked alongside each other in a straight line, about 10 feet apart from each other. They had their orange safety vests on and agreed that they would stay within sight of each other at all times. Barack had a whistle and it was agreed that, when he blew it, they would safe their guns and gather towards him for a meeting. All was in readiness.
When they were 10 feet away from the edge of the bush, they began to load their shotguns. With a final nod to each other, they entered the bush. When they had taken three steps inside the forest, they raised their guns to their shoulders and fired off a blast ahead of them. They took another three steps and blasted again. They reloaded, continued to walk three steps and blasted into the forest. The noise and power of their shooting shook the forest to its core. This went on for four or five hours. Finally, Barack blew his whistle and the friends ceased fire and gathered to where Barack stood.
They agreed to stop and have some lunch and drink some water. A couple of the friends had some minor cuts and scrapes from walking through the dense bush and so the first aid kits came out. After the cuts were bandaged, and the lunch eaten, the friends checked their supply of ammunition and found they had quite a bit left. So they agreed that they would continue the hunt for another couple of hours. They reloaded, got back into their line and continued walking into the bush, firing off blasts from their shotguns every three steps. After another couple of hours, Barack blew his whistle and they gathered to discuss their fun day. There was very little ammunition left, so they decided to use their GPS and go back to where the truck was parked.
As they walked back, they searched the ground that they had covered. Several dead squirrels, chipmunks, porcupines, even a couple of possums, and dozens of songbirds were found, almost blown apart by the shotgun blasts. But, alas, no pheasant was found among the dead animals. Many trees had blast holes in their trunks, and branches and boughs littered the forest floor.
When the friends arrived back at Barack's truck, they agreed that, while it had been a fun day, they were disappointed that they had not killed a pheasant. No problem, they reasoned. Tomorrow was another day, and the forest was vast. They would do it all again the next day at a different location. And so they did. They were picked up early the next morning in Barack's truck, re-supplied with food, water, first aid and ammunition, and walked into the new section of forest, blasting with their shotguns every three steps in, and did this for most of the daylight hours. When they walked out, retracing their steps, they found more dead small animals and more blast marks on the trees ... but no pheasant.
No matter, they decided. Pheasant season stretched for many weeks yet. They would do this every day until they killed a pheasant. And, sure enough, early in the morning, every day, they drove in Barack's truck to a different part of the vast forest, re-stocked with supplies, and repeated their hunting method. They killed many small animals, but did not kill a single pheasant.
Finally, on the last day of the season, the friends met at the last part of the forest they hadn't yet hunted. They were a little discouraged, but nevertheless went into the bush with high hopes. They blasted into the bush every three steps for the usual ten or twelve hours, then retraced their steps to go back to Barack's truck, parked on the edge of the forest. At last, just before they emerged from the forest darkness, they found a dead pheasant. They hoisted the body of the bird above their heads, cheered loudly and declared the hunting season a roaring success.
Later that evening, Barack was relaxing at home with his lovely wife, Michelle. He was very tired from a long day, indeed a long season of exerting himself in the hunt. But he was immensely proud and satisfied of his success, along with his friends. Michelle was sitting beside him and asked him if the last day of the hunt had been fun and successful.
"Yes, it was. We killed a pheasant today. All our hunting skill paid off!" Barack said excitedly.
"So that's it, then, is it?" Michelle asked. "You killed the only pheasant in the forest?"
"Oh no," said Barack. "There must be several more pheasants in the forest. But we'll have to wait until next year to get them."
"Hmm," said Michelle thoughtfully. "I'm glad you finally got your pheasant, but it took a long time. And how much do you think it cost to get it? You know, you used a lot of gas in the truck, ate a lot of food and drank a lot of water. And the ammunition ... how much ammunition did you use?"
Barack thought about it a minute and added it all up. He had to admit to his wife that it cost thousands upon thousands of dollars to get the pheasant.
"Well, that's OK, I guess," Michelle said. "But I wonder if there is a better way?"
Barack had to admit that she had a point. He immediately picked up the phone and called David, Francois, Angela and even little Stephen on conference call and summarized his talk with Michelle. They agreed that there had to be a better way to kill next year's pheasant.
"I know," said Barack. "We should get a hunting dog. He can pick up the pheasant's scent, flush it out and we could shoot the bird as it sprang up out of the bush."
The friends liked the sound of it, but wondered where they could get such a dog. Barack thought about it for a long time and finally spoke.
"I don't know right now. But we will take our time and search high and low to find the right dog. When we find one, we will spend whatever we need to train the dog, lean how to hunt with him, and get ready for next year. That way, we will save money, kill more pheasants, and not shoot up the whole forest. That is what we will do. It will take much time, but we'll do it."
The friends agreed. And that is what they did. The hunt went very well the following year. Many, many pheasants were killed, but very few of the other animals were hit. The trees were not blasted apart as much either. And the hunt only took about half the season until every last pheasant had been killed. Barack and his friends were satisfied with the hunt, but knew, deep down inside, that, even though there were no more pheasants left in this forest to hunt, there were many more forests in the country that were full of pheasants that needed to be killed. They looked at one another with knowing glances and smiled broadly.
Early on the morning of the start of pheasant hunting season, Barack gathered all the supplies and put them into the truck. There was plenty of food and water, because it promised to be a very long day of fun. He made sure there was a good GPS system, because the woods were vast and deep and they didn't want to get lost. He made sure that there was a safety kit for the truck and a first aid kit for the friends, in case of accidents. And he made sure there was plenty of ammunition for the hunt.
Barack picked up his friends David, Francois, Angela and Stephen one by one. It was still very early, the sun hadn't even appeared on the horizon yet. All the friends were excited and chattered endlessly about all the fun they were going to have. They drove many miles out of the city and into the countryside. As the sun was just coming up over the eastern horizon, they arrived at their destination, at the edge of a large forest.
Barack and his friends got out of the truck and began to unload their supplies for their day of fun in the woods. They put on their camouflage suits and hats, painted their faces to blend into the bush, and loaded their backpacks with food, water, first aid and lots and lots of ammunition. Then, they took out their shotguns and made sure they were safe and secure: gun safety was of the utmost importance for them. At last they were ready.
They walked alongside each other in a straight line, about 10 feet apart from each other. They had their orange safety vests on and agreed that they would stay within sight of each other at all times. Barack had a whistle and it was agreed that, when he blew it, they would safe their guns and gather towards him for a meeting. All was in readiness.
When they were 10 feet away from the edge of the bush, they began to load their shotguns. With a final nod to each other, they entered the bush. When they had taken three steps inside the forest, they raised their guns to their shoulders and fired off a blast ahead of them. They took another three steps and blasted again. They reloaded, continued to walk three steps and blasted into the forest. The noise and power of their shooting shook the forest to its core. This went on for four or five hours. Finally, Barack blew his whistle and the friends ceased fire and gathered to where Barack stood.
They agreed to stop and have some lunch and drink some water. A couple of the friends had some minor cuts and scrapes from walking through the dense bush and so the first aid kits came out. After the cuts were bandaged, and the lunch eaten, the friends checked their supply of ammunition and found they had quite a bit left. So they agreed that they would continue the hunt for another couple of hours. They reloaded, got back into their line and continued walking into the bush, firing off blasts from their shotguns every three steps. After another couple of hours, Barack blew his whistle and they gathered to discuss their fun day. There was very little ammunition left, so they decided to use their GPS and go back to where the truck was parked.
As they walked back, they searched the ground that they had covered. Several dead squirrels, chipmunks, porcupines, even a couple of possums, and dozens of songbirds were found, almost blown apart by the shotgun blasts. But, alas, no pheasant was found among the dead animals. Many trees had blast holes in their trunks, and branches and boughs littered the forest floor.
When the friends arrived back at Barack's truck, they agreed that, while it had been a fun day, they were disappointed that they had not killed a pheasant. No problem, they reasoned. Tomorrow was another day, and the forest was vast. They would do it all again the next day at a different location. And so they did. They were picked up early the next morning in Barack's truck, re-supplied with food, water, first aid and ammunition, and walked into the new section of forest, blasting with their shotguns every three steps in, and did this for most of the daylight hours. When they walked out, retracing their steps, they found more dead small animals and more blast marks on the trees ... but no pheasant.
No matter, they decided. Pheasant season stretched for many weeks yet. They would do this every day until they killed a pheasant. And, sure enough, early in the morning, every day, they drove in Barack's truck to a different part of the vast forest, re-stocked with supplies, and repeated their hunting method. They killed many small animals, but did not kill a single pheasant.
Finally, on the last day of the season, the friends met at the last part of the forest they hadn't yet hunted. They were a little discouraged, but nevertheless went into the bush with high hopes. They blasted into the bush every three steps for the usual ten or twelve hours, then retraced their steps to go back to Barack's truck, parked on the edge of the forest. At last, just before they emerged from the forest darkness, they found a dead pheasant. They hoisted the body of the bird above their heads, cheered loudly and declared the hunting season a roaring success.
Later that evening, Barack was relaxing at home with his lovely wife, Michelle. He was very tired from a long day, indeed a long season of exerting himself in the hunt. But he was immensely proud and satisfied of his success, along with his friends. Michelle was sitting beside him and asked him if the last day of the hunt had been fun and successful.
"Yes, it was. We killed a pheasant today. All our hunting skill paid off!" Barack said excitedly.
"So that's it, then, is it?" Michelle asked. "You killed the only pheasant in the forest?"
"Oh no," said Barack. "There must be several more pheasants in the forest. But we'll have to wait until next year to get them."
"Hmm," said Michelle thoughtfully. "I'm glad you finally got your pheasant, but it took a long time. And how much do you think it cost to get it? You know, you used a lot of gas in the truck, ate a lot of food and drank a lot of water. And the ammunition ... how much ammunition did you use?"
Barack thought about it a minute and added it all up. He had to admit to his wife that it cost thousands upon thousands of dollars to get the pheasant.
"Well, that's OK, I guess," Michelle said. "But I wonder if there is a better way?"
Barack had to admit that she had a point. He immediately picked up the phone and called David, Francois, Angela and even little Stephen on conference call and summarized his talk with Michelle. They agreed that there had to be a better way to kill next year's pheasant.
"I know," said Barack. "We should get a hunting dog. He can pick up the pheasant's scent, flush it out and we could shoot the bird as it sprang up out of the bush."
The friends liked the sound of it, but wondered where they could get such a dog. Barack thought about it for a long time and finally spoke.
"I don't know right now. But we will take our time and search high and low to find the right dog. When we find one, we will spend whatever we need to train the dog, lean how to hunt with him, and get ready for next year. That way, we will save money, kill more pheasants, and not shoot up the whole forest. That is what we will do. It will take much time, but we'll do it."
The friends agreed. And that is what they did. The hunt went very well the following year. Many, many pheasants were killed, but very few of the other animals were hit. The trees were not blasted apart as much either. And the hunt only took about half the season until every last pheasant had been killed. Barack and his friends were satisfied with the hunt, but knew, deep down inside, that, even though there were no more pheasants left in this forest to hunt, there were many more forests in the country that were full of pheasants that needed to be killed. They looked at one another with knowing glances and smiled broadly.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS
A conservative believes in "the bottom line".
A liberal believes in " a just society".
A conservative believes in "taxpayers".
A liberal believes in "citizens".
A conservative seeks to find a "cause".
A liberal seeks to find a "solution".
A conservative says "we can't afford to do that".
A liberal says "we can't afford not to do that".
A conservative believes in "common law".
A liberal believes in a "charter of rights and freedoms".
A conservative sees the land as full of "resources to be developed".
A liberal sees the land as having "resources to be protected".
A conservative sees the "corporate model" as the best way to run things.
A liberal sees the "community model" as the best way to run things.
A conservative praises the "sacrifices of soldiers".
A liberal praises the "efforts of peace keepers".
A conservative claims that Canada is not "competitive".
A liberal claims that Canada needs to "re-prioritize".
A conservative wants to rate "public institutions" according to performance standards.
A liberal wants to invest in "public institutions" in order to improve service to citizens.
A conservative believes in the "efficiency of the private sector".
A liberal believes in the "efficiency of collective action".
A conservative sees taxes as a "burden".
A liberal sees taxes as a "price of admission into society".
A conservative sees himself as a "job creator".
A liberal sees himself as a "job preserver".
A conservative loves "free trade" as a way of improving profits.
A liberal loves "free trade" as a way of creating jobs.
A conservative puts much stock in the advice of " accountants".
A liberal puts much stock in the advice of "experts".
A conservative seeks to "win".
A liberal seeks to "conciliate".
A conservative believes that "compromise" is a sign of weakness.
A liberal believes that "compromise" is a sign of wisdom.
A conservative believes in "charity".
A liberal believes in "social security".
A conservative wraps himself in the flag.
A liberal creates a national flag.
A conservative trusts in God to help with decisions.
A liberal trusts in people to help with decisions.
A conservative enjoys the status quo.
A liberal enjoys the challenge of new initiatives.
A conservative loves his country.
A liberal builds his country.
A conservative fears the world.
A liberal feels at home in the world.
A conservative reads financial reports.
A liberal reads novels.
A conservative likes to listen to music.
A liberal likes to play music.
A conservative loves his family.
A liberal loves all families.
A conservative enjoys the destination.
A liberal enjoys the journey.
A conservative bleeds red blood.
A liberal bleeds red blood.
A conservative is a person.
A liberal is a person.
A liberal believes in " a just society".
A conservative believes in "taxpayers".
A liberal believes in "citizens".
A conservative seeks to find a "cause".
A liberal seeks to find a "solution".
A conservative says "we can't afford to do that".
A liberal says "we can't afford not to do that".
A conservative believes in "common law".
A liberal believes in a "charter of rights and freedoms".
A conservative sees the land as full of "resources to be developed".
A liberal sees the land as having "resources to be protected".
A conservative sees the "corporate model" as the best way to run things.
A liberal sees the "community model" as the best way to run things.
A conservative praises the "sacrifices of soldiers".
A liberal praises the "efforts of peace keepers".
A conservative claims that Canada is not "competitive".
A liberal claims that Canada needs to "re-prioritize".
A conservative wants to rate "public institutions" according to performance standards.
A liberal wants to invest in "public institutions" in order to improve service to citizens.
A conservative believes in the "efficiency of the private sector".
A liberal believes in the "efficiency of collective action".
A conservative sees taxes as a "burden".
A liberal sees taxes as a "price of admission into society".
A conservative sees himself as a "job creator".
A liberal sees himself as a "job preserver".
A conservative loves "free trade" as a way of improving profits.
A liberal loves "free trade" as a way of creating jobs.
A conservative puts much stock in the advice of " accountants".
A liberal puts much stock in the advice of "experts".
A conservative seeks to "win".
A liberal seeks to "conciliate".
A conservative believes that "compromise" is a sign of weakness.
A liberal believes that "compromise" is a sign of wisdom.
A conservative believes in "charity".
A liberal believes in "social security".
A conservative wraps himself in the flag.
A liberal creates a national flag.
A conservative trusts in God to help with decisions.
A liberal trusts in people to help with decisions.
A conservative enjoys the status quo.
A liberal enjoys the challenge of new initiatives.
A conservative loves his country.
A liberal builds his country.
A conservative fears the world.
A liberal feels at home in the world.
A conservative reads financial reports.
A liberal reads novels.
A conservative likes to listen to music.
A liberal likes to play music.
A conservative loves his family.
A liberal loves all families.
A conservative enjoys the destination.
A liberal enjoys the journey.
A conservative bleeds red blood.
A liberal bleeds red blood.
A conservative is a person.
A liberal is a person.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
ARE WE GOOD STUDENTS ?
Sting
We often speak of the lessons of history, and how, if we study the events of the past, we gain insight into the times in which we live and obtain a glimpse into our future. Theoretically, if we apply that knowledge correctly, we may avoid the mistakes of the past and create a better world for the generations to come. At least, that is the hope. But, it seems, we have not learned many lessons at all. We seem to continue to blunder from one catastrophe to another, all the while believing that, somehow, things will be better. They never seem to be better. Hence, the cynicism of Sting's song title and lyrics. He suggests that history has no lessons to offer, and that the cycle of catastrophe is doomed to be repeated.
I take another view. History is, indeed, a good teacher. We now have the ability to record almost everything that is done, said, shown or thought. The amount of stored information that is available to everyone is staggering. Even before the digital age, the amount of stored information was immense, but now, thanks to technology, it is beyond belief. And it is readily obtained by everyone. No need to make special trips to libraries or archives or historical sites to find the information. It's here literally at our finger tips.
So, the question becomes this: if there is so much historical information and knowledge at our disposal, why do we continue to make the same errors ? It is a question asked by any teacher of any subject in any part of the world and at any time in our history. Why don't our students learn ? We are good teachers, we have the resources, we know what we're doing ... why do some students fail to learn?
The eminent historian Margaret MacMillan touches on this dilemma in her latest work The War That Ended Peace. She attempts to shed light on the causes of the First World War, and it is timely that she published her book, given the fact that this month, June of 2014, marks the centennial of the start of that horrible bloodbath. MacMillan acknowledges that the topic has been examined several times in the last hundred years. Indeed, one of my favourite histories which I read about twenty years ago, covered the topic in minute detail. It was the immense work Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie, and it was excellent. Why re-visit this topic again? And what could MacMillan possibly offer to us in the way of lessons?
Briefly, MacMillan differs from Massie and the other historians who treated this topic in that she attempts to compare the events of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to our own times. In that simple way, she is trying to help us to understand that the forces of history do, indeed, seem to repeat themselves, and often seem to be cyclical in nature. But the key word here is "seems": in her examination, the events of that time do not fall into a type of inevitability that we have no control over. If we finally realize this, she suggests, we can halt the events which, in the past, were thought to be inevitable and irreversible. The most tragic aspects of her book occur at the end, in the months between mid 1913 and the summer of 1914, when general war was declared. As she takes us through this time period, she shows us that, at several points, the war could have been avoided by anyone with the courage to stop the so-called "inevitable" forces at play. And she shows us that, indeed, those forces were stopped at several times before 1913-1914. There were several crises, notably at Fashoda in east Africa, at Morocco in the early 1900's, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, and the two Balkan Wars of 1911 and 1912, where patience and genuine efforts to mediate resulted in the de-escalation of tensions. But, she argues, in 1913 and 1914, those people of wisdom or patience were either dead or retired, and the fatigue of a world gone to the brink too often resulted in the feeling of inevitability. It was heart-wrenching to read of the failures of the leaders of the major nations who allowed themselves to be swept along by events that were completely within their control, but were allowed to go out of control because of the mind sets of the leaders and their followers. And the leaders were not the only ones to blame, she contends. Professional diplomats, military figures, journalists, business people, and the common citizens all had their roles to play in this tragedy. The fact that the war broke out in one of the most exciting, intellectually progressive, and technologically innovative times in world history adds to the tragic nature of the start of the First World War, and has haunting echoes in our own time.
No one can doubt that we live in times that are equally charged with tension and pressure. Conflict abounds. Like the age before World War One, we have lived in relative peace for decades. There has been no major, general world war, although our times are littered with several small wars, no less destructive, no less tragic. Are we on a similar course to a major disaster as the world of the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries was? MacMillan, the astute teacher of history, shows us that we are. But she ends her work on an optimistic note:
...if we want to point fingers from the twenty-first century we can accuse those who took Europe into war of two things. First, a failure of imagination in not seeing how destructive such a conflict would be and second, their lack of courage to stand up to those who said there was no choice left but to go to war. There are always choices.
The lessons are there before us. And MacMillan and others like her have done their best to teach us these lessons. The question remains: will we finally learn the lessons, and avoid the costly errors of the past? Or are we doomed to repeat them?
Are we good students? We need to hope so.
Monday, May 19, 2014
THE RACE FOR THE CUP, PART THREE
I had a good first round in this year's playoffs, but was taken to the woodshed in the second round. I certainly did not foresee Montreal coming on strong against the Bruins, who played more like teddy bears than big, bad bears in the last two games of their series. Nor did I foresee the Rangers getting the better of a jittery Pittsburgh squad. It looks like the Penguins are in for some real soul-searching and possible rebuilding in the off-season. As for the west, I pretty much got it right with the 'Hawks looking like serious defenders of their championship, and the Kings out-duelling their cross-town rivals. Now, we move on.
Montreal Canadiens vs New York Rangers
The first game is in the books and the Rangers administered an old fashioned butt-kicking on the Habs in their own building. The Habs looked tired and slow, uncharacteristic for them this playoff year. They have impressed me with their team speed and dedication to winning. But with Carey Price on the shelf for the series now, they are very beatable. On the other side, I have been consistently underestimating the Rangers all year, and especially in the playoffs. There is a lot to like in their game, and Lundqvist seems to rounding into all-world form just at the right time. Before the series started and before Price's injury, I would have said Montreal would win in maybe 5 games. Now ..... I am still going with the Habs, disrespecting the Rangers once again. But it will be tough and it could go seven.
Chicago Blackhawks vs Los Angeles Kings
I like both teams in this series, but since there is only one winner, I'll have to make a decision. The first game is in the books here too, and the 'Hawks looked pretty good in beating the Kings. But the Kings can take a licking and come back strong, and they will do so in this series. Goaltending looks good for both teams, but the 'Hawks know what it takes to win, and they may have the grittiest corps of talented players in the league. So, the 'Hawks will take the series in seven games.
So, this sets up an original six Stanley Cup for another year. If the 'Hawks do indeed go up against the Habs, it will probably be Chicago in 6 games unless Price coms back from his injury. If the 'Hawks go up against the Rangers, it will be over in 5 games for sure, with Chicago winning. So , for the first time in a while, we will have a back-to-back defence of the Cup with the champions being...
The Chicago Blackhawks.
Montreal Canadiens vs New York Rangers
The first game is in the books and the Rangers administered an old fashioned butt-kicking on the Habs in their own building. The Habs looked tired and slow, uncharacteristic for them this playoff year. They have impressed me with their team speed and dedication to winning. But with Carey Price on the shelf for the series now, they are very beatable. On the other side, I have been consistently underestimating the Rangers all year, and especially in the playoffs. There is a lot to like in their game, and Lundqvist seems to rounding into all-world form just at the right time. Before the series started and before Price's injury, I would have said Montreal would win in maybe 5 games. Now ..... I am still going with the Habs, disrespecting the Rangers once again. But it will be tough and it could go seven.
Chicago Blackhawks vs Los Angeles Kings
I like both teams in this series, but since there is only one winner, I'll have to make a decision. The first game is in the books here too, and the 'Hawks looked pretty good in beating the Kings. But the Kings can take a licking and come back strong, and they will do so in this series. Goaltending looks good for both teams, but the 'Hawks know what it takes to win, and they may have the grittiest corps of talented players in the league. So, the 'Hawks will take the series in seven games.
So, this sets up an original six Stanley Cup for another year. If the 'Hawks do indeed go up against the Habs, it will probably be Chicago in 6 games unless Price coms back from his injury. If the 'Hawks go up against the Rangers, it will be over in 5 games for sure, with Chicago winning. So , for the first time in a while, we will have a back-to-back defence of the Cup with the champions being...
The Chicago Blackhawks.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
PRIORITIES
Since 2008, a phrase has dominated much of the discourse in the world. This phrase creeps into conversations, on news casts, and in political speeches. We have been so imbued with the words that most of us believe in its truth. The phrase is ... "in these tough economic times."
I have never believed that we live in "tough economic times." Easy for me to say, I guess, since I enjoyed working in a profession that had an excellent salary grid, good benefits package and a top-drawer pension, which I am enjoying today. But the truth of the matter is that, for most people in North America before 2008, we were enjoying similar situations. In fact, the perception is that if you go further back in recent history, times were positively giddy with almost full employment, large union membership which guaranteed good benefits and pensions and opportunities for all. What went wrong?
In fact, very little went wrong. Well, let us qualify that a bit. Certainly, things went wrong for large numbers of people. Those who lost their investment portfolios and, therefore, their retirement plans suffered. Plants shut down, sending many out of work. Large corporations struggled and saw profit margins shrink. Consumer confidence eroded drastically. Politically, in many countries, all this resulted in distrust and crises in many parliaments. It seemed that the times were, indeed, "tough." We shrugged our shoulders, did our best to hold on to what we had, and listened to the media and corporate and political leaders who exhorted us to "save", "work harder", "become more competitive", and "tighten our belts".
Utter nonsense. Why? Because the crisis of 2008 was no worse than any other downturn in the so-called "business cycle". Because media and corporate and political leaders found convenient and easy phrases to throw at us. Because many of us who suffered the above losses, or knew someone who had suffered, believed the phrase. "We live in tough economic times." It's an easy mantra to swallow and it implies that, somehow, it is the fault of something else, something huge and unknowable, something sinister and heartless, that is causing these "tough economic times".
The reality is that we are not in "tough economic times". Instead, we are in what I like to call "times of misplaced priorities." What does that mean? It means that, instead of making choices that make sense, instead of becoming more involved in decision making, instead of paying attention to situations in the world around us, we choose to take the easy road. We like to think of trivial and pleasurable things, rather than the dull, dreary nuts and bolts items that affect us greatly. We can't be bothered with details: we'd rather pay simple and quick attention to things and then turn off. We'd rather have fun than be serious. We like the glitz and glamour instead of the hard work. We'd rather leave the hard work to someone else, but we like to complain when things go wrong.
We have lost our way. How can we justify a professional athlete like Dion Phaneuf of the Toronto Maple Leafs making $7 million per year to play hockey? In fact, how can we justify a player in the American Hockey League, a minor league, making a two way salary of $894,000 per year. That is what a young man named Tyler Biggs makes playing for the Toronto Marlies. Biggs has never played a game in the NHL, and is, by all accounts, a decent but unexceptional player for the Marlies. But his salary is major league indeed.
Compare those numbers to these salaries, which I quickly researched in a google frenzy preparing for this column:
Lawyer ..... average salary $123,000
General Practitioner ..... average salary $132,000
Dentist ....average salary $131,000
OPP officer .... average salary $76,000
RCMP officer .... average salary $72,000
Bank Manager ..... average salary $101,000
Nurse .... average salary $63,000 ( there was a wide discrepancy here )
Secondary school teacher .... average salary $90,000 (there was a wide discrepancy here )
Member of Parliament .... average salary $163,000
Prime Minister ..... average salary $327,000
Cabinet Minister, Speaker, Leader of Opposition .... average salary $242,000
Captain, Canadian Armed Forces .... average salary $77,000
General, Canadian Armed Forces .... average salary $156,000
Private, Canadian Armed Forces ..... average salary $48,000
Engineering Manager ..... average salary $113,000
Construction Manager .... average salary $160,000
Construction Worker .... average salary $39,000
Electrician ..... average salary $40,000
Plumber .... average salary $25,000 (there is a wide discrepancy here)
This list goes on. Pick your salary to complain about, we all have our bête noirs. The point is that there is clearly something wrong when we willingly accept that some people who do jobs that involve playing games, sitting in an office, telling us what to do or think, or other such things, are paid more than those who heal, protect, work with their hands, and, in the most extreme example, die or suffer grievous injuries in the name of defending the society that pays them their wage.
How did this happen? How did we allow this ? And, perhaps more importantly, what does this say about us as a society? Our priorities are indeed out of whack. In the bigger picture, it's not just about salaries or who does what kind of work. I chose salaries as a means to shed light on what I perceive to be our inability to make the right kinds of decisions in the direction we, as a society, indeed as a species, are heading. We are, as John McFarlane, the editor of "The Walrus" magazine, says, "drunk on popular culture" and are unwilling or unable or just too lazy to face certain truths. We enjoy hearing about the latest childish misadventures of pop stars or actors, but don't want to be bothered about famine, war, disease or suffering. We pollute our environment despite the dire warnings. We allow the wealthy corporate elites to increase their profit margins by sending good-paying jobs to foreign countries. Indeed, we encourage foreigners to come here to take jobs from Canadians simply because the foreigners are willing to work for small wages and no benefits. And, out of that, we are told to believe that anyone who is different from us, who come to our shores seeking a better life than the one they left behind, are somehow sinister, threatening, or making us give up our traditions or beliefs. We don't see their humanity and wishes for working to improve their own or their family's situation. We shrink from solving our impending pension and debt crises, believing that, somehow, winning an imaginary lottery will be our salvation. We spend like there is no tomorrow. We try to keep up appearances, thus heightening our self worth and self esteem. We turn away from images of cruelty and violence in other parts of the world, yet lap up entertainment in sports and movies and video games that glorify gore and suffering. We incessantly complain about our cowardly and cynical leaders, both corporate and political, yet refuse to get involved in the process of demanding better from them. We gobble up petroleum in obscene amounts, and call those who advocate for cleaner and renewable sources of energy cranks or tree huggers. We eat and drink like obese gluttons while billions eat very little and eat very poorly. We vilify those who raise alarm bells and praise those who entertain or titillate us.
As the cartoon character Pogo once said: "we have met the enemy, and he is us."
What went wrong?
I have never believed that we live in "tough economic times." Easy for me to say, I guess, since I enjoyed working in a profession that had an excellent salary grid, good benefits package and a top-drawer pension, which I am enjoying today. But the truth of the matter is that, for most people in North America before 2008, we were enjoying similar situations. In fact, the perception is that if you go further back in recent history, times were positively giddy with almost full employment, large union membership which guaranteed good benefits and pensions and opportunities for all. What went wrong?
In fact, very little went wrong. Well, let us qualify that a bit. Certainly, things went wrong for large numbers of people. Those who lost their investment portfolios and, therefore, their retirement plans suffered. Plants shut down, sending many out of work. Large corporations struggled and saw profit margins shrink. Consumer confidence eroded drastically. Politically, in many countries, all this resulted in distrust and crises in many parliaments. It seemed that the times were, indeed, "tough." We shrugged our shoulders, did our best to hold on to what we had, and listened to the media and corporate and political leaders who exhorted us to "save", "work harder", "become more competitive", and "tighten our belts".
Utter nonsense. Why? Because the crisis of 2008 was no worse than any other downturn in the so-called "business cycle". Because media and corporate and political leaders found convenient and easy phrases to throw at us. Because many of us who suffered the above losses, or knew someone who had suffered, believed the phrase. "We live in tough economic times." It's an easy mantra to swallow and it implies that, somehow, it is the fault of something else, something huge and unknowable, something sinister and heartless, that is causing these "tough economic times".
The reality is that we are not in "tough economic times". Instead, we are in what I like to call "times of misplaced priorities." What does that mean? It means that, instead of making choices that make sense, instead of becoming more involved in decision making, instead of paying attention to situations in the world around us, we choose to take the easy road. We like to think of trivial and pleasurable things, rather than the dull, dreary nuts and bolts items that affect us greatly. We can't be bothered with details: we'd rather pay simple and quick attention to things and then turn off. We'd rather have fun than be serious. We like the glitz and glamour instead of the hard work. We'd rather leave the hard work to someone else, but we like to complain when things go wrong.
We have lost our way. How can we justify a professional athlete like Dion Phaneuf of the Toronto Maple Leafs making $7 million per year to play hockey? In fact, how can we justify a player in the American Hockey League, a minor league, making a two way salary of $894,000 per year. That is what a young man named Tyler Biggs makes playing for the Toronto Marlies. Biggs has never played a game in the NHL, and is, by all accounts, a decent but unexceptional player for the Marlies. But his salary is major league indeed.
Compare those numbers to these salaries, which I quickly researched in a google frenzy preparing for this column:
Lawyer ..... average salary $123,000
General Practitioner ..... average salary $132,000
Dentist ....average salary $131,000
OPP officer .... average salary $76,000
RCMP officer .... average salary $72,000
Bank Manager ..... average salary $101,000
Nurse .... average salary $63,000 ( there was a wide discrepancy here )
Secondary school teacher .... average salary $90,000 (there was a wide discrepancy here )
Member of Parliament .... average salary $163,000
Prime Minister ..... average salary $327,000
Cabinet Minister, Speaker, Leader of Opposition .... average salary $242,000
Captain, Canadian Armed Forces .... average salary $77,000
General, Canadian Armed Forces .... average salary $156,000
Private, Canadian Armed Forces ..... average salary $48,000
Engineering Manager ..... average salary $113,000
Construction Manager .... average salary $160,000
Construction Worker .... average salary $39,000
Electrician ..... average salary $40,000
Plumber .... average salary $25,000 (there is a wide discrepancy here)
This list goes on. Pick your salary to complain about, we all have our bête noirs. The point is that there is clearly something wrong when we willingly accept that some people who do jobs that involve playing games, sitting in an office, telling us what to do or think, or other such things, are paid more than those who heal, protect, work with their hands, and, in the most extreme example, die or suffer grievous injuries in the name of defending the society that pays them their wage.
How did this happen? How did we allow this ? And, perhaps more importantly, what does this say about us as a society? Our priorities are indeed out of whack. In the bigger picture, it's not just about salaries or who does what kind of work. I chose salaries as a means to shed light on what I perceive to be our inability to make the right kinds of decisions in the direction we, as a society, indeed as a species, are heading. We are, as John McFarlane, the editor of "The Walrus" magazine, says, "drunk on popular culture" and are unwilling or unable or just too lazy to face certain truths. We enjoy hearing about the latest childish misadventures of pop stars or actors, but don't want to be bothered about famine, war, disease or suffering. We pollute our environment despite the dire warnings. We allow the wealthy corporate elites to increase their profit margins by sending good-paying jobs to foreign countries. Indeed, we encourage foreigners to come here to take jobs from Canadians simply because the foreigners are willing to work for small wages and no benefits. And, out of that, we are told to believe that anyone who is different from us, who come to our shores seeking a better life than the one they left behind, are somehow sinister, threatening, or making us give up our traditions or beliefs. We don't see their humanity and wishes for working to improve their own or their family's situation. We shrink from solving our impending pension and debt crises, believing that, somehow, winning an imaginary lottery will be our salvation. We spend like there is no tomorrow. We try to keep up appearances, thus heightening our self worth and self esteem. We turn away from images of cruelty and violence in other parts of the world, yet lap up entertainment in sports and movies and video games that glorify gore and suffering. We incessantly complain about our cowardly and cynical leaders, both corporate and political, yet refuse to get involved in the process of demanding better from them. We gobble up petroleum in obscene amounts, and call those who advocate for cleaner and renewable sources of energy cranks or tree huggers. We eat and drink like obese gluttons while billions eat very little and eat very poorly. We vilify those who raise alarm bells and praise those who entertain or titillate us.
As the cartoon character Pogo once said: "we have met the enemy, and he is us."
What went wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
