Avro Arrow – Canadian Pride

What then followed was a haphazard folly of buying, then scrapping outdated Nuclear-tipped missiles and inferior, aged jet fighters from the US… resulting two years later with the expenditure of even more money and nothing to show for it.

In his 1963 book, Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years, by Peter C. Newman, Diefenbaker is described as a man “goaded by a thirst for power… beset by suspicion of even his close associates… who often put political expediency ahead of the ideal he proclaimed.” – The New York Times

According to Newman, Diefenbaker’s greatest weakness as Prime Minister was ‘a complete lack of administrative ability and a congenital inability to make decisions…  problems being postponed until they had reached crisis proportions.’

Politically, along with the odd conspiracy theory, what national figure does that remind you of today? Yes! And, like ex-president Donald J. Trump, Diefenbaker was described as a man desperately trying to return to power.

Trump’s inability to decide if the covid-19 threat was serious or not, resulted in the lack of a coherent national immunization plan. In fact, he went the opposite way by suggesting that, just like the common flu, it would fade out on its own – even though scientists warned that millions would succumb to the virus.

His excuse? He didn’t want to alarm the populous. Yet, the truth is that the majority of voters can handle bad news. But what they can’t handle is being misled by their leaders.

Instead, he doubled down in his denial. Refusing throughout 2020 to set the example by wearing a mask. This left a void for anti-government conspiracy theorists to spread disinformation – with fears of dire political and secret health plots: none of which was dissuaded by the president.

“Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost”

~ Everybody Knows by Leonard Cohen Watch on YouTube

In fact, before his huge Twitter account was shut down, he continued to fan the flames of insurrection, both online and in person – resulting in a deadly riot against the American seat of government in Washington, 6 January 2021. All along, since the November 3, 2020 election, the masses were being fed the biggest political lie, ever: that the US election was rigged; and, according to the loser Donald Trump, it was stolen from him by President-elect Joe Bidden. The proof? Not so much. Still, Trump felt that if he shouted about it long enough people would believe it. How can 80 million Twitter followers be wrong?

His problem? Credibility.

A Washington Post final ‘Fact-Checker’ analyst showed recently that the ex-president made 30,573 false or misleading claims during his four year term in office. Trump may have coined the term ‘fake news’ to media he didn’t agree with – calling them “the enemy of the people” – yet he was the biggest practitioner of it.

Plus, Trump’s initiated lawsuits were nearly all dismissed by the courts – along with several recounts disproving his baseless claims. Yet, with an absence of critical thinking, a large selection of the population seems to believe anything on their computer.

Just like the tabloids my mom bought in the ‘50s, she knew their claims were true because they were printed in publications at the checkout counters. She just felt that these couldn’t appear in print unless it was true. Like newspapers, the tabloids were considered the real thing – today, it’s called social media.

And Trump – as was recorded in a leaked tape – even tried to talk the state of Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, plus other election officials into manipulating the vote count in his favour. Maybe, he counted on the fact that since they were all members of the same political party they would capitulate. They did not.

It’s what happens when you run up against principled people in all walks of life: they are made of the right stuff… performing their duties honourably. With courage, confidence and moral toughness, they stood tall at a critical time for democracy. In my view, they should all be awarded the Medal of Freedom… patriots who did – and continue to – stand up against Trump-ism.

And just when it seemed there was nothing Trump wouldn’t resort to – with millions seemingly holding their collective breath leading up to inauguration day – Trump was successful in calling on the masses (those who didn’t question his stolen election claim) to march on the capital and very nearly caused a coup. It resulted in ransacked offices, injuries and loss of life. And, after inciting the crowd to violently take the capital, he watched the destruction, from the safety of the White House’s television screen – he never once tried to stop it.

“We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation
rather than share it.
Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
And this effort very nearly succeeded.
But while democracy can be periodically delayed,
it can never be permanently defeated.”

~ “The Hill We Climb” by Amanda Gorman, National Youth Poet Laureate

And, what explains the actions of elected republican politicians who supposedly are intelligent people? Why did they enable and abet Trump when they could see the “big lie” for what it was… a big lie? Not many politicians have the fortitude to tell their electorate the truth.

So, they played dumb (still pretending they lost the election unfairly) acting as if the whole thing wasn’t true. They then voted against their own Constitution by trying to stop the count of the Electoral College’s confirmation: Bidden won. As a result they put their party leader and future prospects ahead of their own country. Yet, he’s really, just a man whose fragile ego won’t accept failure or concede defeat.

The only wild card left is what former chief strategist Steve Bannon – now pardoned by Trump – will be recommending Trump to do next. This partner-in-crime will no doubt be loading silver bullets of insurrection into his master’s complex and devious twin guns of chaos and division.

We must try to understand the feelings of people who have endured the loss of outdated jobs and the suffering of self-worth because they can’t provide for their families: even the elimination of a way of life they once knew and took for granted… maybe even clinging to a sense of entitlement that’s not well founded. Who can blame them for feeling rejected or from falling in line behind a charismatic and persuasive leader who tells them they’re not to blame. It might be anyone else: the Jews, the immigrants, the blacks… the ‘us’ against ‘them.’

The truth that Mr. Trump – just like renegades everywhere – have to understand is that eventually, people finally do see the truth… again. We all should hope that President, Joe Bidden, succeeds in righting this ship of state.

That’s the way I figure it. – FP

Photo Credits

Avro Arrow – Wikimedia Creative Commons

John G. Diefenbaker – Wikimedia Creative Commons

Guest Author Bio
Fred Parry

Fred Parry lives in Southern Ontario. He is a lover of people and a collector of stories, music, wisdom, and grandchildren. His raison d’etre? “I’m one of those people who believe that if my work serves the common good, it will last; if not, it will die with me. As a freelancer – including ten years as a Torstar columnist – I still believe that’s true.” His book, ‘The Music In Me’ (2013) Friesen Press is also available via Indigo / Chapters.

Blog / Website: www.fredparry.ca

One day, we went shopping at an old building housing several antique businesses: everything from household to farm memorabilia… things that take you back in time. In my case, way back. Right in front of me was a Wild Bill Hickok replica gun set. What a beauty! – crisscrossed gun belts with rows of silver bullets and pearl-like gun handles adorning the Colt 45 six-shooters.

Bill had the reputation as a great wild west gun fighter. He never held up banks; but, the price they wanted for this collector-type set was highway robbery. No more shooting up the “bad” guys for me. Yet, fast-forward to today, it seems like the wild west is here again. This time, the bad guys are sporting assault-style rifles to deadly effect.

In response to mass shootings – including 22 dead / 26 injured at their outlet in El Paso, Texas – Walmart announced that they, as the largest firearms seller in the US, have discontinued the sale of key weaponry and ammunition. CEO Doug McMillon stating, “The status quo is unacceptable.” Also, the situation has risen as an issue in the current Canadian national election – with promises of more restrictive gun legislation.

Whether you’re for it, or against it, in a country with more per capita gun deaths than anywhere, Walmart’s action – as the world’s largest retailer – is monumental. But, America’s gun lobby, The National Rifle Association (NRA), criticized the move saying the company’s decision was “shameful” and that it would cost Walmart business.

When I obtained a firearm’s license, it included a RCMP background check and a gun safety course – augmenting my early army cadet days. On our hobby farm, the needs were comparatively benign: controlling unwanted pests.

A common reason people give for having a firearm is self-protection. But actually, having a firearm didn’t make me feel any safer. It wasn’t because I was afraid of someone breaking into our house; I was afraid of what I would do if someone actually did… overreacting, blasting away. Police studies also show that the public underestimate injuries or death due to accidents and domestic disputes, by having guns semi-easily available.

Incredibly, a 2017 US government report indicated that 60% of firearm deaths are by suicide. Apart from sadness, what does that say about the mental health of American society? Is Walmart on the right side of history? Or, is it true – as touted in a 1968 issue of American Rifleman magazine – that “Happiness is a Warm Gun.”

John Lennon lampooned the idea in song… puzzled why anyone would need to shoot something to be happy.

“When I hold you in my arms/And I feel my finger on your trigger/
I know nobody can do me no harm”

Wild Bill was a violent man with a gun; John Lennon was a man of peace without one. Both were murdered. As kids, we didn’t understand that guns carry responsibilities and consequences. And now?

Some say that guns aren’t the problem – people are. The problem comes when people’s guns become an extension of their troubled world.

Photo Credits

Image by Xavi Barrera from Pixabay

Guest Author Bio
Fred Parry

Fred Parry lives in Southern Ontario. He is a lover of people and a collector of stories, music, wisdom, and grandchildren. His newspaper column, Music in Me, can be found in ‘The New Hamburg Independent’ Metroland Media. His book, ‘The Music In Me’ (2013) Friesen Press is Available from Amazon and Indigo / Chapters.

Blog / Website: www.fredparry.ca

Quietly, during this observation, Bill 21 (a bill the Quebec government is about to enact) passed before my eyes as if it were a backdrop for what will be and what is. I heard the many voices speaking out against the bill as if they echoed through the very halls of the building in which I was standing.

Then my mind drifted to many years ago; to a student, wearing a hijab, writing in my class. Did she want to be a teacher, a police officer, a judge? I thought about where her life may have taken her and suddenly, as if with a new reality in my life as a teacher, it hit me: how would I have answered her if she told me she wanted to be a teacher in Quebec? I could hear her ask, “Do I have the choice?”

I repeated the question in my mind and wondered: if she asked me today about Bill 21, what would I say to her? How could I answer the question without teaching the other students in the class what intolerance was? How could the others learn that showing one another compassion, respect and understanding is at the very core of what it means to be human, when some of the students in the very same class didn’t have the same options and choices? Today, based on Bill 21, that student would have to separate herself from her identity to be a teacher. If students learn by example, what would the example be, within this Bill, as she strove to make her dreams come true? These were the questions I was met with as an educator. I realized I didn’t know where to place what I felt at that moment other than in my writing.

How could I tell any student that a dream was only possible if they removed one part of themselves to become another? Teachers tell students they can do anything and be anything they want to be in life. We tell them what they seek and what they search for are both probable and possible with hard work.

As a human being and a teacher, I found myself looking around again at my students, each working hard to be what they wanted to be. I adjusted my stance in the classroom and realized that this role we call ‘teacher’ is much bigger than a few hours in the classroom. We are the point of reference for equality, change and tolerance.

I then created my own lesson plan called Humanity Needs our Tolerance. And, as an act of hope and faith, I kissed the cross I was wearing around my neck to remind me that humanity is more than what politics tells us. It’s what our hearts tell us to say when a little girl wearing a hijab says she wants to be a teacher. My response will always be:

“You can be whatever you want to be. All dreams are possible for everyone.”

Photo Credits
Photo from Pixabay creative commons

If both players are considering only maximizing their own economic interests, player 1 will opt for a skewed distribution in his own favor and but will avoid a 100%:0 split in the Ultimatum Game in the virtual certainty that the other party will reject it. In the Dictator game, there is no penalty for selfishness, and in some populations, nearly half of the “dictators” choose that option. There are significant cultural, age, and gender differences in the proportion of subjects who choose selfish, equitable, or even altruistic strategies, with male American college students having the highest level of selfish responses. The predominance of this demographic in psychology research and extrapolation to people as a whole has contributed to a decidedly jaundiced view of human nature as viewed by science, for example in Howard Bloom’s The Lucifer Principle.

The lesson from the Ultimatum Game which seems to me most relevant to the 2016 American Presidential election is that afforded by the results when player 2 is offered a split that favors the other player but still gives him something. Strict economic interest would predict accepting a small payoff in favor of nothing, but some players will reject a 70:30 split, and the numbers go up as the level of inequity increases. It has been suggested that the rejection is based on a desire to punish egregious selfishness, in the hope that in future interactions the individual will see that his own self-interest lies in a more just and equitable strategy.

Inequity of division of wealth is a prominent feature of American society, and the level has increased in recent years, causing deterioration in the circumstances of many people of median income. The eight years of the Obama administration, despite populist rhetoric and lip service to programs that should have benefited the middle class, if anything accelerated the trend. In view of this, a candidate who promises more of the same appears to the public rather like a selfish #1 player in the Ultimatum game.

At the beginning of the election season there were at least a few candidates who offered a positive alternative to the “business as usual platform”, but by November many voters felt that they were faced with the “accept or reject” option, since Hilary Clinton was firmly committed to the policies of her predecessor, and there was very little evidence that Donald Trump was competent to run the country. The lackluster voter turnout, in a hotly contested presidential election with no incumbent candidate, indicates that significant numbers of people dealt with this situation by not voting at all.

There were at least two third party candidates (Jill Stein and Gary Johnson) who were neither idiots nor committed to business as usual, plus a last ditch effort to revive Bernie Sanders’ candidacy as an independent, but the American public was subjected to relentless messages to the effect that voting for a preferred candidate other than the two principals was in effect a vote for the principal candidate least favored – Trump in the case of Sanders or Stein, Clinton in the case of the conservative former Republican Johnson.

It will be interesting to see what sort of a lineup faces voters in 2020, assuming there is a normal election in that year. It’s rather too late to mount a constitutional amendment to radically change election laws (for example, by getting rid of the electoral college) and have it take effect by November of 2020, even if there were enough popular support for such an effort to make success likely; however, economic collapse, the outbreak of a major war, or a grave natural disaster could change the political landscape considerably. The natural disaster scenario is the one element that neither political party nor their backers has the power to orchestrate.

People on both sides of the political spectrum, under the guise of the midterm elections, are putting out feelers for the 2020 Presidential elections. Our own liberal, ineffective (in the sense of furthering the well-being of the people he represents) Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley has evidently thrown his hat into the ring.  Even in the unlikely event that the present positive economic climate persists for another two years and no new international crises surface, Trump isn’t a viable candidate for re-election. Clinton’s poor showing against an obviously unqualified Republican opponent in 2016 ought to give the Democratic Party qualms about reviving her candidacy. Consequently, both major parties and looking at contested primaries. What does seem likely for 2020 is another protracted, ugly, contentious contest resulting in the selection of a person lacking the integrity and the leadership skills to take the helm of a major country. That’s the more hopeful scenario. History has shown us that a democratic system, in a time of crisis, can fall prey to a demagogue with the unquestioned ability to lead a nation down the road to perdition.

Related: The Republican Senators’ Letter to Iran: Treason or Realism?

Photo Credit

Eugene Weekly August 30 2018 cover

Dictator Game – Wikimedia Creative Commons

So why has he done so well up to this point? Well first of all, it’s fair to say that he’s different from your usual career presidential candidate. Trump simply doesn’t hold back, whether it’s live tweeting his outrageous reactions to the Democratic debate or offending the whole of Mexico with a speech bordering on racist. Whether or not Americans agree with his opinions is something they will decide later, but for now it’s enough that, before the Republican primaries and caucuses next year, Trump has got himself enough media attention to be front runner.

With a series of comments bordering on outrageous, Trump has distanced himself from the career politicians who are losing the trust of the population. With a strong personality, he’s had the ability to cut through American politics, a shallow world of sound bites and instant judgments. His appeal has been boosted by his already-established reputation as a TV personality and respected businessman. Despite never having held public office, he commands respect on issues relating to business and the economy, purely because he’s seen to have experience and success in those fields. But although his odds of winning the election are higher than one might expect, assuming his fast start will translate into votes is another thing entirely.

So what about the points against? Well for many, Trump lacks the presence of mind and statesmanlike persona usually associated with American presidents. This has been borne out through a number of strange and controversial statements over the course of his campaign so far. As well as publicly making sexist remarks about a Fox news interviewer he has pledged to make Mexico pay to build a wall along the border and been shown to be completely ignorant on issues of foreign policy. Amid the bold rhetoric Trump has been unmasked to know little, if nothing at all, about America’s enemies in the Middle East, while he has also been fooled into retweeting an image of UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who he thought was somebody’s dad considering voting Trump. This absence of knowledge undermines Trump’s calls to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

Amongst all the uproar, bold claims and controversial statements, one thing that Donald Trump is yet to do is really show where he stands on issues close to many Republicans. It could well be that in time they realise that he is simply too left wing. He’s not a conservative. Whether it’s his pro-abortion views or calls for rises in taxes, his ideology is all set to clash with those from whom he is seeking support.

With all that said, it may turn out that Trump’s downfall won’t even be of his own making; as unlikely as that sounds. With Ben Carson catching up quickly and threatening to take the lead in the polls, the property tycoon could soon find himself falling in the polls and out of the spotlight completely.

Photo Credits

Photos from bigstock

Guest Author Bio

Malek Murison

Malek Murison is a freelance writer who has written for various publications. You can read more of his work here.

Tom “Benedict Arnold” Cotton

The pages of my local newspaper, and the feeds of social network sites in which I am participating, are full of denunciations of the March 9 Letter from Senate Republicans to the Leaders of Iran. Supporters of the Obama administration are labeling this communication as treason, implying that for our elected representatives to publicly state that they will not in the future vote to support our president’s actions, should the matter come up for a Congressional vote, is somehow unconstitutional. This stance, it seems to me, displays a basic misunderstanding of representative government and the checks and balances implicit in its structure.

The letter does bring into focus a very real problem with American government, not only with respect to foreign policy but also with respect to domestic policies that have long-term consequences. In a nutshell, that problem is that overt political control of the White House and Congress changes over a short time period, and not in synchrony. When the control of the White House, or the Senate, or the House of Representatives shifts from one party to another, there is always the potential that the successors will eviscerate whatever programs or policies the predecessor instituted.

The United States is now entering the seventh year of an eight-year Democratic presidency. At the outset, in 2008, a public thoroughly disenchanted with the previous Republican administration returned substantial Democratic majorities to both the Senate and the House. As of November 2014, both the Senate and the House now have Republican majorities, creating gridlock: the president cannot count on the backing of Congress to support any foreign policy negotiation into which he or his secretary of state may enter, and Congress has reason to fear a presidential veto, as recently occurred with the Keystone pipeline authorization bill.

Moreover, both sides are increasingly focused on winning votes in the 2016 presidential election, which means that considerations of popularity, in that 20-month time frame, will override prudent long-term management of the affairs of America and the world. Some legislators on both sides of the political spectrum appear to be proposing pieces of legislation that they know will fail, and which could not be implemented as written, in order to paint the opposition as ogres in the eyes of their naïve constituents.

The truth is, the Obama administration may have the authority under the United Sates Constitution to negotiate a diplomatic settlement with Iran, but the authority to commit the United States to honoring the terms of the negotiation rests with a Congress that is not only philosophically opposed to specific policies, but also has a vested interest in seeing those policies fail. If, as many political prognosticators predict, our next president is to be a Republican, then most of the responsibility for ongoing relations between the United States and Iran will fall to an administration almost entirely based on repudiating the previous administration’s policies. This happened in 1976 and 2008, and to some extent happens any time that American politics become as polarized as they now are.

This has happened in the past, with disastrous consequences for the people on the ground. A few years ago I wrote a short biography of Henry Kissinger for the series Great Lives in History: Notorious Lives, and this involved assessing his role as an alleged war criminal in Cambodia and East Timor. The United States’ role in replacing a regime favorable to the Viet Cong with one favorable to us, and conducting massive bombing attacks on North Vietnamese bases and supply lines within the borders of supposedly “neutral” Cambodia, is unquestioned. What gets left out of most accounts is the Democratic-controlled Congress passing a law, after the regime change and bombing, barring the use of US ground troops in Cambodia. This lack of support set the stage for Pol Pot and the horrors of his regime.

I find it hard to credit that the present leadership of Iran would not have been aware of the inherent instability of American foreign policy, had not a group of Republican senators written to them about it. The outrage on the part of the press in the United States strikes me more as outrage that someone did so in a way that the American public would find difficult to ignore, thereby demolishing any political capital President Obama might have garnered by wringing his hands over Iranian intransigence at accepting a fraudulent olive branch.

Image Credit

“Tom ‘Benedict Arnold’ Cotton” by DonkeyHotey. Creative Commons Flickr. Some rights reserved.

After approximately four hours of five minute speeches prepared by parents, citizens and children affiliated with Sundance Elementary School, the trustees at the Board of Education District No. 61 voted to close the school. This did not come as a surprise, really, as upon entering the meeting, the almost 70 people in attendance were handed an agenda for the night, the last page of which was a contract – already drawn up – to be signed, following a vote to close the school.

Following the speeches given by the parents and children, were those of the Trustees. One of them said – as a justification for her decision to vote in favour of the closure – that we, the people, could not possibly understand the reality they face as trustees, regarding the budget constraints.

I almost jumped up and shouted ‘Why you condescending bureaucrat – HOW DARE YOU!’ But in interests of integrity and respect, I instead chose to sit quietly. I regret doing so.

This statement alone is so telling of the disrespect that sits like an ugly shadow beyond the growing and ubiquitous political rhetoric that has replaced intelligent and ethical leadership. To claim that parents do not understand the difficulty of balancing tight budgets is beyond insulting and speaks volumes about how those in charge actually view the public – those to whom they are supposed to answer.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for the Trustees. They chose to run for these positions. They chose to be in uncomfortable positions. They chose to be in charge of making difficult decisions regarding tight budgets, and how school monies must be allocated and dispensed. The attitude espoused by this person demonstrates PERFECTLY how many of the people we entrust with decisions which affect every aspect of our lives, care more about the idea of their position rather than the actual responsibilities which accompany them. In short, it seems they care more about fiscal numbers than human ones. This seems to be the way of things now; an unprecedented short-sightedness.

Despite contrary opinions, I do not believe I am simplifying things. I understand that coming up with an 1.8 million dollar short fall is not exactly easy, and that the BC Liberals are the reason why they were in this position. But the simple fact is, this night was THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY for those who had the power to stand up to do so. It was the perfect chance for a small group of people who claimed ‘they had no choice’, to prove that NO ONE CAN TAKE AWAY OUR CHOICE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. To stand up and declare that this kind of immoral and irresponsible government intimidation will no longer be tolerated.

If the trustees had stood up in unity, and refused to put money before people and before ethics, they might have been ‘replaced’ by others who would follow the money and choose in favour of Liberal intimidation and the privatization of everything from schools to human rights, but then, imagine the outrage this would have spurred in the people. The necessary fury over what is being done to British Columbia! They would have sent a message to government officials that this kind of behaviour – the likes of which is widespread and encompasses every aspect of our lives – is precisely what could have been addressed by saying, ‘NO, WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO SHUTTING DOWN ANOTHER SCHOOL IN ORDER TO FURTHER LINE THE POCKETS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS’.

I am disappointed and ashamed of the people who did not follow the lead of the strong and brave people who begged them to do the right thing.  

We are in a crisis situation, and I am not understating things.

When profit takes precedence over the well being of communities, people, children and the environment, I believe this indicates where the real mental illness exists, and it is being promoted from the top. Trickling down to young people, infecting them with the sickness of greed. Money – a man made concept – worshipped, like some kind of God.

The bottom line is there will be no viable economy without intelligent contributors (the majority of whom are in school right now), nor will there be an economy if we continue to privatize everything from hospitals to schools to water to land to air, except perhaps one which will serve ONLY those who made it so.  

I will end with a quote by Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good (people) to do nothing.”

I, for one, will NEVER stand down.

 Photo Credit:

Lakeview School Rally and March by Daniel Arauz via Flickr Creative Commons. Some rights reserved.

I listen in a dark room as the sound gets closer. Clear skies through the window allow me to see the hard glitter of stars as they stare down on me from the safety of distance. My feet and hands are as icy as freezer burned meat, and the prickling of my skin makes the hair on my arms start to rise. The distant purr turns to a rumble and I feel my insides turn to hot liquid. There is nowhere to run. There isn’t a safe place in all the world to hide.

It was the late sixties and the deadly shape of a mushroom cloud didn’t scare me as much as the sound of an airplane in the night. At a young age I became an expert at picking them out from a long distance. There is a distinct vibration which distinguishes their engines from the wind, or a far off vehicle.

I didn’t know the word as a kid, but as the waves built and then eventually stretched out, I had become adept at identifying the Doppler Effect. Inevitable death as they approached – a second chance for life as they moved on.

We spent a lot of our vacation time in the bush; Dad, being a forest ranger, was always dragging us to isolated places that probably hadn’t seen a human being in centuries. Dinner was almost always fish. This meant the whole family would sit in a boat as we waited for one to taste our dangling lures which lurked under the cool dark waters. Listening to the hollow echoes of resonating waves splashing against the hull and chatter of the family, I was contented.

In my mind being in the bush meant that if World War III started then our chances of survival were good. At least we wouldn’t starve to death immediately.

Going out of town to shop, or to far off places on vacation was another story. We were out of our element. During the day the trips were exciting, fun even. The rushing traffic of Chicago, the thick acrid smog of Gary, Indiana, with its burned-out cars and black stumps of buildings, remnants of the American struggle with racism: these were scary but exciting. Even the long, hot, stretches of concrete highway with their borders of endless fields of green corn were new to a girl used to dense bush and blue lakes.

Yes, it was fun during the day, but when the hot days turned into hot nights, even if the cities were far behind, that was when the black skies turned dangerous. That’s when the planes were the most perilous, and hope of survival turned to a wish for a quick end.

We couldn’t survive here. With no fishing rods, no hunting rifle, and with no one to help us we would be doomed when the bombs fell.

***

“I wish I was born in 1920,” I say to my mom.

Her eyes widen and she stops kneading the dough to look at me. “Why 1920?” she asks. “You would be older than me.”

I shrug my shoulders and shuffle my feet. “Because I’d already be old. Really, really, really old. So if I died right now I’d have lived a long life.”

Her eyes linger on my face for a few more seconds before she turns her attention back to manhandling her dough. “You have lots of years to grow old. Don’t wish your life away so soon. It will be over fast enough,” she says. Her hands pull the cream coloured ball; it makes a “hoomph” sound every time she slaps it back into the bowl.

I inhale the tangy odour of yeast and wish I could stop time right now. The warm kitchen with racks of dough in various stages of rising, the sound of far off laughter, and the frenetic yapping of a happy dog. A book waits for me in a sunny living room. Its pages full of the promise of distant lands and exotic people.

It’s a happy moment, I feel safe and contented; the spoken wish was a night thought seeping into my day. I hear the sound of a small plane in the distance and cock my head. “Just a bush plane,” I say.

“I don’t know how you do that,” Mom says. She doesn’t question my analysis of the plane, and begins to roll the dough into small balls for the buns.

***

Years later I close a book I’ve just read about the Cuban missile crisis; I put it down and I tap the cover. My fingers sound rat-a-tat-tat as I have a real live epiphany. My lifelong fear of the sound of flying planes in the night unfolds like a red carpet inviting me to stroll down its crimson pile. I must have listened to radio reports about school children who practiced huddling under their desks, about newscasters endlessly yammering on about the effects of radiation on people and animals, and the standoff between Russia and the US. It was a clash between two bullies which brought the world to the brink. It terrified a young child, even one who no one suspected was listening.

Now on those nights when I can’t sleep, between the time where the old day dies and the new one is born, I still listen. I listen to the soft sounds of breathing, the cracking and popping of a settling house, and perhaps to the sound of grumbling planes far overhead, and I revel in my epiphany. I revel because I no longer have to stand sentry and guard against the end of the world.

Image Credit

“Experimenting on Children” by Truthout.org. www.flickr.com. Some rights reserved.

I beg to differ. While I believe that the way that health care is financed and allocated in America does not serve the general population well, and have always supported reform in principle, the Affordable Care Act has many drawbacks, about which thoughtful and knowledgeable people have legitimate concerns. If a person in a political office, having reviewed the picture, concludes that these drawbacks outweigh any benefit to be derived from implementing the law, and that there would be net harm to his constituents, doesn’t common integrity and the nature of representative government create a mandate to oppose the act by any legal means, including obstructionist tactics such a filibusters and refusal to approve spending bills, tactics which the Democrats did not scruple to use when the Republicans were in office?

The immediate effect of implementing the bill will be to direct the Federal Government to pay some undetermined but undoubtedly large sum of money directly to insurance companies to subsidize health insurance for younger people who lack employer benefits and do not earn sufficient money to buy private insurance. Some of these have pre-existing conditions that make it difficult to obtain individual insurance. Both rates and the number of people in this category have increased substantially since passage of the act. While the payments will begin in January of 2014, the government subsidy will not show up in Federal accounting until April of 2015, when it will appear (in the form of a refundable tax credit) as a shortfall in revenue. Essentially, the government is borrowing money against future tax receipts to subsidize the insurance industry.

For self-employed and lower wage workers with no employer coverage, the result for people without serious chronic health problems will not infrequently be decreased access and increased financial burdens. Suppose, for example, a family is currently paying $1000 yearly out of pocket for care. They sign up for “Obamacare”, and the insurance exchange determines that they can afford $200 a month towards a $1200 a month policy that has a $500 deductible per person and 20% copay. These are theoretical figures but based on a median or slightly below median income family of four, and the government’s site for estimating subsidies and premiums. In the first year, assuming their good health continues and consuming patterns don’t change, they will end up spending $3400 for the same services, and the government will have spent an additional $12,000 in subsidies. As for decreased access, I know personally that when I was a low wage earner and parent on a very tight budget – albeit covered by employer insurance – I avoided seeking medical help for treatable conditions and did not always fill prescriptions for things like pain killers, because of deductibles and co-pays.

The histories of the student loan debacle and Hurricane Katrina relief illustrate a very real danger to committing Federal funds for some service to people, and making the gatekeepers for certification for that service the firms that stand to profit from (or in the case of nonprofits, depend for their operating expenses on) maximizing the number of people certified. From its outset, the subsidized and guaranteed student loan program was inundated by private trade and career schools of questionable value, and when students at these schools failed to realize any benefit and were unable to pay off student loans, the Federal government, rather than foot the bill for repaying the loans they had guaranteed, took away bankruptcy protection, leaving young Americans who had been defrauded by so-called educational institutions burdened by a lifetime of debt.

In the case of Hurricane Katrina relief, certification was handled by private firms with ties to the construction industry, which encouraged applicants to apply for grants to which they were not entitled, omitting key information. People who had suffered losses were encouraged to submit false claims, and when the claims were audited, they found themselves liable for what was in effect a loan.

So what happens in April of 2015, when the government is finally faced with having to pay for subsidies to the insurance companies in 2014? First, they’ll look at all those 2014 returns and determine that in a certain number of cases more subsidies have been paid out than the actual finances of the taxpayer justified, either because their income was higher than estimated or because some mistake was made in the initial application. That overpayment to the insurance company now becomes an individual’s tax liability, difficult to discharge in bankruptcy and subjecting future tax refunds, including earned income credit, to seizure by the IRS. Going forward, the public and our Congress members will need to be very vigilant about clauses buried in unrelated bills that change the nature of the subsidy from an outright grant to some sort of individual obligation.

The insurance industry and the health care industry were both heavily involved in the design of “Obamacare,” and there are players in both camps who are every bit as unscrupulous as the private trade colleges and the lenders who hijacked the 1965 Education Act and turned it into a cash cow financed on the backs of lower-income Americans, with the collusion of the Federal government. “Obamacare” has some of the same dangers, with an additional coercive aspect not present in the higher education industry. The public benefits, which are real, could be achieved at much lower cost. This strikes me as being a very costly band aid that is likely to exacerbate the overall problem of health care access and affordability while not being very effective at fixing even those specific problems it purportedly addresses. It deserves all the obstructionism it can get.

Image Credit

“Is the Restaurant Industry Ready for Obamacare?” by Czarina Alegre. Creative Commons Flickr. Some rights reserved.

This happened to me a few times, but it ultimately turned out – despite any consequences – that when I told the truth, I felt better. I also realized that the cost for not telling the truth was twofold: Those I lied to, for instance, lost trust in me, which stung like bees in my belly, and even worse, when alone with my thoughts, lying in the face of my own conscience felt like I was choosing to assassinate my own character; that to not face the truth – simply because of my fear of it – was like choosing a long, slow death, not just of my own character and integrity, but of truth itself.

I learned at a young age that what is right is right, and if wrong is done, in order to be truly absolved at the individual level, the wrongdoer must hold her or himself accountable. A lofty somewhat libertarian goal, for certain, but truth, justice and integrity commands with a quiet, dignified elegance and simplicity that lying never offers.

In the case of Bradley Manning, a young whistle blower against the unethical behaviour of the US military, a Fort Meade Judge found him guilty of telling the truth and for doing so, he might be sentenced to up to 136 years in prison.

This is not a reasonable sentence – no one lives for that long, first of all. It’s overkill, meaning ‘exceeding what is necessary.’ Not coincidentally, this word emulates precisely the type of mentality that is being endorsed by the powers that be. The concept of over killing (I refer my readers to the recent case of Sammy Yatim – my deepest condolences go out to his family) has as its core one element: Fear.

We need to come up for air from the asphyxiating mire of lies. We need to wake up from the nightmare of fear which seeks to engulf us.

In the case of Manning, this young man is no more guilty of espionage or treason than is Edward Snowden, and punishing truth tellers for being so is not only contrary to justice itself, but demonstrative of the underlying problem: We are being ruled by liars who by their very nature, define truth telling as an act of treason.

The fact that Manning leaked these documents on a public forum points to a belief and faith in JUSTICE…not some human made construct or blurry, subjective definition of the word, but to the idea itself. And although he paid an unreasonable price for his honesty and integrity, for what it’s worth, I commend him for doing so.

It bares mentioning that the word ‘government’, broken down into its etymological components, essentially means ‘mind control’. The first part, ‘govern’, derived from Greek means to steer, drive, or act as a pilot, and the second part, from the Latin ‘mente’ means mind.

In order to maintain business as usual – to maintain the comfort of those in power who would never live in poverty, never go to war, always have access to the best health care and living conditions, never have to worry about their children having to attend sub-standard schools, and never have to eat artificially modified or toxic food – we the people are flipping the bill. We are all being used.

I don’t wish to convey the impression that I’m anti-American or anti-Canadian – quite the opposite. In whatever way I can, I stand for the people, for human and animal rights, for proper police training, for healthy living, for community, for equality of all people, for environmental protection and for truth and justice. So by definition, I cannot stand for anyone or anything that does not.

When a regime has only itself to answer to, corruption follows. End of story. Manning, like David, chose to stand up against the Goliath monster of corruption, without hesitation, and I would wager he did so because it was the right thing to do. Manning’s face and body language indicate that he is not a threatening, calculating anti-American spy, rather, a naïve idealist who, despite his youth, manned up and chose to take his orders from a source higher. His actions demonstrate the kind of selflessness and integrity that expose evil for what it is.

It stands to reason that human beings who seek positions of authority are interested in power. The mentality in Washington – outlined beautifully in Mark Leibovich’s Book, “This Town” – discusses how Washington, in particular, has slippery sloped its way in to some kind of ugly, seemingly untouchable Hollywood scenario, where the holly bears no berry and the wood is being clear cut. In this microcosm, those who comprise it have devised a system in which they have conveniently relieved themselves of all accountability. With no moral or ethical compass, they are lost and blind to the reality outside their white walls. For them, by them, and of them, there is no world outside their myopic impunity.

‘Leadership’ has taken on a new meaning in politics: These guys and dolls are like old school gangsters except they have no moral code, no sense of loyalty, and no will to protect the people they are paid to protect. There are very few real politicians anymore. Instead, as Leibovich pointed out, there are only millionaires in power, and those who are paid to keep it that way.

No, Manning’s sentence was not reasonable. Nor, in my opinion, was it a wise move considering the collective movement of a global populous whose fear is quickly turning to disbelief and justified anger over the politically imposed sickness that is infecting us all.

“Bradley was acquitted of the most serious charge: aiding the enemy”, more than likely because if convicted of the latter, the outrage would be far greater, and those condemning Manning know that pushing people at this tipping point in history must be done (at least for the time being) with a certain finesse – in a manner we can cope with – gradually and with smoothly spun, seemingly ‘reasonable’ language, peppered with wolf in sheep’s clothing rhetoric.

Larry Korb, the former U.S. assistant secretary of defense said, “Before (Manning was) deployed to Iraq, his commanding officer said, ‘I don’t know if we should deploy this guy. He’s got all kinds of mental problems, but we’re desperate,’ so they put him over there. So basically, what happens if you take someone who doesn’t belong there, you put them into a situation, you’re asking for trouble,” he said. http://www.voanews.com/content/manning-convicted-of-5-espionage-charges-in-wikileaks-case/1713101.html

Why did they send him? Was it because they feel people are expendable? Do they have no interest in protecting those on the front lines of their war, about the soldiers they condemn to exist in their nightmare, or for the millions of foreign civilians who have been murdered, whose countries have been invaded and torn apart in order so that the ruling parties can carry on their self-interested metaphorical golf game? What about public safety, human rights, and higher moral rule?

I would wager that any instability Bradley might have been feeling more than likely stemmed from a justified personal ethical crisis about what he was being asked to fight for. When faced with a real life, higher level philosophical, moral or ethical question, in the face of the ubiquitous hypocrisy of oppressive man made ‘orders’, it is inconceivable that an individual with a conscience would not feel psychologically and spiritually torn.

It is indeed a critical situation when you are faced with this simple truth: If you do what’s wrong, you’ll be paid for it. If you do what’s right, you’ll be punished.

I am appalled by this entire situation. Whether we care to admit it or not, we are paying to live in a Military state, even if it looks like Pleasantville to some. Manning is young. He saw things no one should see. We are all witness to things that simply should not be. On the one video he leaked, innocent people – unarmed civilians and journalists – were gunned down. Here’s a link to the video for which, having ‘leaked it’, Manning was convicted of being a spy.

The shallow and deep truth is that the current stranglehold of those in power will tighten unless we interrupt their shameless tournament. Right now, the people factor in only so far as we are needed to pay for the charade to continue, unbeknownst to most of us. We are unwittingly being sucked dry of our ability to think for ourselves, and fear is the weapon used to control any thinking than remains. It is in the best interests of those in power to make sure that we, the people, are kept in fear, and distracted from the truth, so that we remain unable to decipher between normal and completely fucking insane, between right and wrong. In the end, if we are unable to choose – if either because we are paralyzed by fear, or because we have lost our conviction to decide – our choices will be made for us.

We are indeed at war, and if boiled down to brass tacks, again, there are only two sides to choose from: Good and evil. Right and wrong. It’s that simple. Snowden, Manning, Dr. Meb Rashid, medical director of the Crossroads Clinic for refugees at Women’s College Hospital, Joanna Gualtieri, Edgar Schmidt, Sean Bruyea, The ‘RCMP Five’, Allan Cutler, Daniel Land, Ian Bron, Bob Gale, The ‘Health Canada Three’, Dr. Nancy Olivieri, Richard Colvin, Perry Dunlop, Dr. John O’Connor, and many, many others chose the good side. What side will you choose?

Photo Credits

Bradley Manning @ indybay.org

Edward Snowden @ Businessinsider.com