FIGHT CLUB

Fighting is exciting and brawling is enthralling, but at some point it begins to threaten the game. It is, after all, baseball, hockey, football we really came to see.

Ottawa these days has been a classic bench clearing brawl:

·         Five Senators were under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner; now the entire Senate is being audited and all Senators are suspect.

·         The Prime Minister’s Office is at the centre of an RCMP investigation.

·         The Prime Minister’s right hand man, Nigel Wright, was forced to resign for inappropriate, perhaps criminal behaviour.

·         Justin Trudeau has been charging charities $20,000 to speak at their events and, allegedly, skipping votes in the House of Commons to do it.

·         Opposition Leader, Thomas Mulcair, is alleged to have run several stop signs and hassled a cop.

·         Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, with six of his friends, stayed at the official residence of Canada’s High Commissioner to Great Britain for eight days while on vacation in England a while back.

·         The other day I heard a private citizen claiming that he watched from the gallery as one of the Conservative MPs played Angry Birds in Question Period. I mean the video game, not the actual game he presumably thought she should have been playing.

Thankfully Parliament is taking a break for the summer and giving the dust a chance to settle. We might hope that the substantive issues will continue to be investigated and the nonsensical, diversionary issues will dissipate. And, while they’re vacationing, I hope their mothers might take them aside and share with them a pearl of wisdom like this one my mother shared with her wrangling children. It’s a cautionary tale every child should know.

THE DUEL

by Eugene Field

The gingham dog and the calico cat

Side by side on the table sat;

'Twas half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)

Nor one nor t'other had slept a wink!

The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate

Appeared to know as sure as fate

There was going to be a terrible spat.

(I wasn't there; I simply state

What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)

The gingham dog went "Bow-wow-wow!"

And the calico cat replied "Mee-ow!"

The air was littered, an hour or so,

With bits of gingham and calico,

While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place

Up with its hands before its face,

For it always dreaded a family row!

(Now mind: I'm only telling you

What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)

The Chinese plate looked very blue,

And wailed, "Oh, dear! what shall we do!"

But the gingham dog and the calico cat

Wallowed this way and tumbled that,

Employing every tooth and claw

In the awfullest way you ever saw—

And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!

(Don't fancy I exaggerate—

I got my news from the Chinese plate!)

Next morning, where the two had sat

They found no trace of dog or cat;

And some folks think unto this day

That burglars stole that pair away!

But the truth about the cat and pup

Is this: they ate each other up!

Now what do you really think of that!

(The old Dutch clock it told me so,

And that is how I came to know.)

Perhaps, when Parliament resumes in the fall, no one will show up. Wouldn’t that be nice?

IS IT SCIENCE OR RELIGION?

By now, thanks to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and their friends, we all know that religion is the source of most of the evil in the world. Well, at any rate, the cause of most of the wars and violence humans have endured. But, like so many of the things we all know, it isn’t true.

Certainly religion is a factor in some violence. The Crusades are a handy historical example, as are the Inquisition and witch-hunts. And 21^st Century sectarian struggles fill our TV screens. But even Jihad may be motivated by factors other than religion, and many conflicts have no religious roots at all.

Consider the two great wars of the 20^th Century.  WWI, with its focus on Germany and England, was hardly a battle between the Lutherans and Anglicans. And WWII (Germany and Italy against the rest of us, with Japan seizing the opportunity to seize an opportunity) is equally hard to characterize as a religious affair. So, if religion isn’t the main problem, what is?

Well, why did the Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Egyptians spend so much of their time beating up on their neighbours, seizing their territory, stealing their stuff, and generally killing and enslaving them? And why did the Greeks, Romans, and Barbarians do the same things in most of the world they knew? And what about the Brits, French, Spanish, Dutch (yes, piddly little Holland for heaven’s sake); why did they wander all over the globe from China to the Americas doing the same things to everyone they could find? And if it was because they were Christians and the rest of the world was not, why were they also, at the same time, beating up on each other?

The truth is, the motives for these conflicts are obvious; seizing territory, stealing stuff, generally killing and enslaving people, and of course the fear of being on the receiving end of said activities. Fear and greed are the central motives in all this violence. But it takes more than motive. You need an opportunity, an advantage, the perceived likelihood of success.

It seems to me, throughout the long history of conquest, you find the masters of advanced technologies beating up on those who have not yet mastered them. The Bronze Age runs over the Stone Age, the Iron Age runs over the Bronze, Steel runs over Iron, and the folks with the Nukes pretty much get their way. The spear, the bow and arrow, the long bow, the musket, canon, rifle, scope, all enabled one people to dominate another. The Europeans, for example, had the technology, i.e., the opportunity to create vast empires. And the did. Even piddly little Holland.

Why do nations rise up and inflict horrifying violence upon other nations? Because they can. And they can because they happen to have some folks who’ve figured out how to do things others haven’t. In other words, they have the best scientists. It’s actually all about Science.

When I was a kid “we” were in an arms race with the Soviet Union. They were nominal Atheists as we were nominal Christians, but it wasn’t about that. It was about preserving and advancing our respective ways of life, i.e., affluence and influence. In short, we each feared what might happen to us if the other mastered the advanced technologies we had not yet mastered. The focus was technology, not theology, and the battle fields were Indochina, Africa, and the Middle East.

In January of 1991 we watched, with shock and awe, as a US led coalition of 34 countries (including Canada), in an amazing display of developed technology, made war in the Persian Gulf. We wanted to do this for lots of reasons, but we did it because we could.

In September of 2001, we watched, with shock and awe, as a tiny band of terrorists from the Persian Gulf, in an amazing display of borrowed technology, retaliated in New York. They too had lots of reasons for wanting to do this, but they did it because they could.

What I’m suggesting here is really quite simple. Religion is not the problem and Science is not the solution. The solution, if there is one, lies elsewhere.

Love your enemies , do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:27-31

What a concept!

GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.

Stephen Harper has built his political career on promises of high government ethics, accountability and transparency, but we’ve seen precious little of any of that lately. Well, actually ever.

His modus operandi, like his predecessors, is to deny, deflect, demean and control the message at all costs. Indeed, the only place we regularly see him fielding question is in that theatre of the absurd called “Question Period”, where questions are framed by opponents to score political points as they rave, heckle and feign outrage and indignation. If Canadians want to see accountability and transparency we need to look to Washington, not Ottawa.

According to Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson University in Baltimore (see Neil Macdonald), after 51 months in office, Obama has held 84 news conferences, 38 of them solo and 46 with some other visiting leader at his side. He's held 110 short question-and-answer sessions, usually with a small pool of reporters, and has granted 700 interviews, either one-on-one, or with a group of reporters. And all this is in addition to the daily on-camera White House press briefings. By comparison, Harper has held five full-fledged news conferences in the past six years.

Harper-style “transparency” – perhaps the word we are looking for is “invisibility” – seems to have worked for a while, but recently the questions are piling up.  And every new revelation suggests a dozen new questions. And every evasive answer in question period further undermines the Prime Minister’s credibility.

If he really want’s to introduce openness to government Harper needs to find a way to speak unambiguously to the Canadian people. Though often chided for acting more like a President than a Prime Minister, he might do well to borrow a page from Obama’s playbook. And a monthly news conference where he answers questions posed by the media might be a good start.

Change is hard, particularly in an institution and old and stuffy as Parliament. But the changes in communication that have happened in recent years: 24 hour news cycles, Internet accessibility, and instant messaging of all sorts, simply demand corresponding change.

And whatever happened to the Reformers who were so insistent about government accountability, open processes, and the modernization (democratization) of the Senate? Well, they’re sitting on the backbenches in the House of Commons, and in the Conservative Party Caucus. They’re the ticking time bomb that might very well spell the end of the Conservative Party if real change doesn’t happen soon.

Is the country really ready for an NDP Government, or another Prime Minister Trudeau?