Just hand me a pen!

 

Borrowed from free, internet images; definitely AI generated

“The hand that signed the paper

 felled a city ...”

This opening line of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas’ lament about war should be a wake-up call today. Written in 1938, the poem preceded World War II, but Thomas would live to see the most horrifying truth in his poem manifest when in 1945, President Harry Truman “signed the paper” that “felled” Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 civilians.

The exercise of power by "a few over many" takes on the colour of the human(s) who hold it in their hands. Would Jimmy Carter have signed off on the nuclear option to force the end of the war with Japan? Probably not. Would the current president be capable of signing it? Both had/have it in their power to sign papers that could “fell cities.”

But “felling cities” by “the few holding power over the many” scenario isn’t the only manifestation of the consequences. My church has mobilized behind the desperate need of the hungry of Gaza; many of “the many” have sacrificed in support of this cause, only to see the Prime Minister of Israel “sign a paper” to shut off humanitarian aid.

We say that “the pen is mightier than the sword;” heaven help us when the pen and the sword march together, when brutality and propaganda link arms.

Literally, many a city has been felled in Gaza and Ukraine by the abuse of power by the few.

The preservation of democratically elected governance is a must; the world, meanwhile, seems to have become enamoured with watching the exercise of unstoppable power, most probably under the delusion that that power will rub off on them. Persons with a social conscience—whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or none of these—who believe that its efficacious to include both neighbours and strangers in efforts to make a better world, must act. Power easily becomes ruthless and abusive if unchecked; it doesn’t cater for public welfare but uses public assets to bolster its hold on privilege and power.

But what can I do? So many are asking. In a functioning and fair democracy, you use your vote, of course, and campaign for the candidate with integrity and a sense of public service. Even elected governance takes the shape and colour of the people chosen. 

Vote for people, not parties.

Dictatorships, Oligarchies, Kingdoms have historically been dismantled by bloody revolutions. Best case is a democracy that recognizes the signs of approaching demagoguery and nips it in the bud, as we say. Failing that, a strike would be better than armed revolution; if many lay down their tools and refuse to work until change happens, bloodless revolution has a chance. 

A boss who isn’t obeyed ceases to be boss.

The rallying of the many is difficult; rallying of the many, many is almost always beholden to extraordinary leadership.

And where will such leadership be found?

Pass the Ball!

 

MUSINGS ON WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL SOCCER FROM SOMEONE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS ON THE SUBJECT

According to recent CBC news reports, women’s soccer will have a professional league by 2025. I guess that men’s professional sport as it now exists in basketball, hockey, baseball and soccer will be model for the new entity. Basically, that means that franchises will be owned (like your local Subway) and will operate inside a league structure that regulates team operations. The franchises will employ, trade, waiver and terminate players on a pseudo-free-market basis as regards pay and “working conditions.” Revenue will be primarily based on public fanaticism’s (fan’s) willingness to pay to watch the soccer competitions among franchises, and to purchase heavily-marked-up fan merchandise. Citizens of much, of little or no interest in women’s soccer will contribute tax dollars in order to enable construction of venues for the sport.

The key ingredient determining the success of the envisioned league is whether enough people will pay to watch women compete on the soccer field. Gender equality is certainly at play here and it seems obvious that there exists in Canada a cultural conviction that combat-style sports is men’s work, like truck driving and bridge engineering used to be.

Accepting for a moment that sports has a valuable role to play in a culture—supported by pointing out fitness, eye/hand coordination, harmless diversions for youth, etc. factors—it still follows that sitting on a hard seat in a stadium watching other people stay fit doesn’t necessarily provide the same benefits. Still, it’s a free country; there’s no law that says we can’t throw up a fence around a soccer field and offer people the right to come in and watch us “do sports” for a price. Heaven knows that staging an exhibition of taking off one’s clothes for pay, no less, has put more than a few coeds through college.

I know it exists, but I’d need to have explained how, for instance, a Canadian Women’s National Soccer Team winning gold in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics turns into a national achievement, a source of national pride when comparatively few of us armchair TV watchers had even the slightest hand in making that possible. Some would argue that such achievements and the presence of professional sports in a culture is encouragement to amateur sports, hence to sportsmanship and physical activity in the population. If that’s true, then I bow to the women who are elated over the possibility of living a life that is, well, soccer.

I watched a high-level women’s hockey game once and found it at least as entertaining as a tangle between the Canadiens and the Leafs. In fact, it resembled NHL hockey closely except with less aggressive contact. (The group hug around the scorer after a goal seems to have become a team-sport staple wherever such games are played.)

Someone (perhaps I) once said that in this age of the instant, the convenient, the technical and mechanical advances, life is becoming a quest to conquer boredom. Whether this involves endlessly watching sports, copious reading, traveling, crafts and hobbies, playing chess in sidewalk cafes, a new avocation, whatever, is a matter of individual preference. For one of these strategies, professional women’s soccer offers an expanded choice, and after 2025, a career option for remarkably athletic girls. 

 

Goodbye, Brain

 Anxiety about danger relating to Artificial Intelligence is everywhere. Meanwhile competition among greedy internet companies rushing headlong toward the abyss could make a fence post weep.

One of my big concerns is that the creativity and resilience of human consciousness will diminish as advancing technology reduces the need for creative thinking. A kind of reverse evolution. 

I had occasion recently to ask a bright person at the till in a restaurant to divide a bill in two because I and my friend had shared a meal. I think it was for $48.64 or similar. He couldn't find his calculator, and when I said "It's $24.32," he looked at me as if I'd pulled a rabbit out of my navel. "Oh yah," he said, "you're a teacher."

DUH!

By way of illustration of how AI says to us, "Don't think, just ask!" I pretended I had a College level assignment to do, and decided to use Copilot to help me out. The AI response needed reformatting, but tell me if the temptation to plagiarize AI wouldn't be strong, especially if you were late. And imagine that your teacher didn't realize it wasn't your work and gave you an A. Well, I hope it makes my point. 

I told Copilot AI to ...

Write a polemic on: "Successful cultures have learned that in serving humanity well, some things must be done socialistically, and others capitalistically. It's not an either/or."

Ten seconds later, Copilot replied ... I was impressed

"Alright, George, let's dive into this."

Successful cultures have indeed recognized that a balanced approach, incorporating both socialist and capitalist principles, is essential for serving humanity effectively. This isn't a matter of choosing one     over the other, rather understanding that each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and leveraging them accordingly.

Capitalism, with its emphasis on competition, innovation, and individual enterprise, has driven techno-logical advancements and economic growth. It rewards hard work, creativity, and risk-taking, fostering an environment where new ideas can flourish. However, unchecked capitalism can lead to significant in-equalities, with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few, often at the expense of the many.

On the other hand, socialism emphasizes collective welfare, equality, and social justice. It seeks to en-sure that everyone has access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and housing. By redis-tributing wealth and resources, socialism aims to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, creating a more equitable society. However, excessive socialism can stifle individual initiative and innovation,  leading to inefficiencies and a lack of economic dynamism.

The most successful cultures have learned to strike a balance between these two systems. They recog-nize that certain sectors, such as healthcare, education, and social security, are best managed with a so-cialist approach to ensure universal access and equity. At the same time, they understand that other       areas, like technology, entrepreneurship, and consumer goods, thrive under capitalist principles, driving innovation and economic growth.

This hybrid approach allows societies to harness the benefits of both systems while mitigating their respective drawbacks. It fosters a dynamic, innovative economy that also prioritizes social welfare and     equity. By doing so, these cultures serve humanity well, ensuring that progress and prosperity are shared more broadly and equitably.

In conclusion, the dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is a false one. The most successful cul-tures have learned that in serving humanity well, some things must be done socialistically, and others   capitalistically. It's not an either/or situation, but a matter of finding the right balance to create a just,     prosperous, and dynamic society.

DUH!

Extortion: Tariff Style

 

If we didn’t know before, it’s now clear why DT loves the word “tariff” so much. It’s to him what an assault rifle is to an extortionist. Unless Canada stops the money-laundering and other criminal activities affecting the fentanyl problem in the USA, he will hurt us ... hard! Already, Canada is running scared, as most of us would be with a gun to our heads. A few more helicopters patrolling the border, a few more customs officers won’t make any difference; it’s not an 8,891 km, leaky border that’s the problem.

Like any commodity, the supply of drugs responds to demand. Add to it the fact that the production and consumption of drugs like fentanyl is illegal, and you have the current out-of-control, deadly situation. Certainly, the policing that resulted in the closure of an “illegal drug super-lab" at Falkland, B.C. recently means that $500,000,000 worth of drugs may have been taken off the market. But it doesn’t reduce demand, it simply reduces supply, therefor, higher price and little else.

The Trump extortion solution is ludicrous; here’s mine:

1.       Existing drug manufacturers are licensed to produce all the addictive drugs currently in demand.

2.       They are available in all pharmacies to anyone over 18-years of age; others require a doctor’s prescription or parental consent.

3.       They are reasonably priced in accordance with the costs of manufacturing and distribution.

4.       The hazards of addictive drugs are a critical part of the school curriculum through middle and high school years.

5.       Steps are taken to detect signs of impending addiction early, and referrals to trained social workers becomes a “job” responsibility in applicable environments.

What do you think? Whatever strategies are chosen, their general direction should be negotiated inside the US/Canada/Mexico trade agreement to be complementary in all three countries. Waging “Wars on Drugs” through the production and distribution arms has failed miserably. Whatever the plan, its primary goal when it succeeds will tend toward eliminating demand first, supported by supply policing.

The obvious cautions given by many to the idea of legalizing drug use must be considered. Did legalizing Cannabis use in Canada open the floodgates to demand? Did it reduce crime? Is the present illegal pushing of drugs actually creating the problem we see? Many suffer obesity and bad teeth thanks to sweets and junk food; shouldn’t the restrictions applied to alcohol and drug use be applied here in the interest of preventing self-harm? Does the help we offer for overdose casualties and for debilitating addiction actually serve to postpone the seeking of help? Is there really an addiction-prone personality type, and is addiction predictable—and in the case of harmful drugs—preventable?

I’m not qualified to answer any of these questions definitively, but if prevention by tackling the problem at the demand level were to become the focus, I’d be all for it.      

The administration taking over in Washington in January is showing all the signs of governing by decree, and with Elon Musk’s wealth now available to grease the wheels of power, the prospects for democracy seem bleak. Canada, too, has a drug and drug cartels problem ... admitted.  Bowing to the tariff threats of the Trump regime, though, should not be our way of tackling our rehabilitation to drug-use normalcy.

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424849/ is useful in understanding the anatomy of drug addiction.)

 

 

"Winning isn't Everything; it's the ONLY thing."

 

Wearing a tie makes me feel like a man who's wearing a tie. 

The party system often cited as a cornerstone of democracy is showing itself to be doing to human relationships (politics) what denominationalism has done to Christianity, to Islam, Judaism and practically every religion ever invented. The pre-election campaigning in the USA and the current “throw the bastards out” rhetoric in Canada are shameful reminders that we prefer our citizen-to-citizen relationships to echo our combative sports. Winners and losers, zero sum games, diplomacy and negotiation are for wimps, we won, we won, we won. Take that, suckers!

Have we resigned ourselves to the conviction that we’re not capable of better? I gave Christian denominationalism as an example that defies one of Jesus Christ’s primary admonitions, namely that his followers remain united. 

To abandon unity in favour of a new party to compete with the old has resulted in magnificent, but empty, cathedrals and loss of interest by many in the gospel unless it can deliver a message of unearned, eternal bliss wrapped in unconditional positive regard and flashy entertainment. Some would say, unless it can be shown to be right while others are wrong.

Are we born with an inclination to be competitive (because it’s exciting, maybe) and not cooperative (because it’s boring, maybe), or do we teach and learn the choosing of competing party systems over unity? 

Schools have competitive sports programs: team uniforms, victory celebrations and the rest. I’ve occasionally debated with other teachers what it is we’re teaching via sports. Among the defenses—including physical fitness, camaraderie, team spirit—my assertion that we’re also training them in adopting a winner/loser outlook to their place in the world was sometimes shrugged off.

But we didn’t separate into pro-hockey and anti-hockey parties; we talked about better and best Physical Education programming. Disunity in a school staff is suicidal. Less obviously in religions and politics, but certainly more evident when, for instance, an anti-gay faction leaves to start a new anti-gay church, or any modern democracy mounts an election.

Rosthern is holding a municipal election this coming week. Being a small town, I know some candidates casually and little or nothing about others. I have no idea whether any have a provincial or federal party affiliation. I do know enough to vote confidently for a few whose integrity is not in doubt. 

To apply a non-partisan election to provincial or federal politics would take substantial rethinking, considerable abandoning of old habits, but it would be worth a try, wouldn’t it? And, it might remove one reason to despise our neighbours?

If you disagree, email me at gg.epp41@gmail.com and we can start up a partisan quarrel … which I’d hope to win! I'm only human, after all. 

 Conversation with Klavier:

(This time with Brian Smith, High School English and Social Studies teacher.)

Klavier: How are you, Brian. Still eager to go to work in the morning?

Brian: Well, generally.

Klavier: Generally? What does that mean?

Brian: Well, I’m not sure. But the turmoil of the times gets to me some days. For instance, the “Israel has a right to defend itself” and the … well, the “genocide of Palestinians” arguments have crept into our school. Students who probably couldn’t find Gaza on a map are aligning themselves with one side or the other.

Klavier: And is that unusual?

Brian: Well they often have opinions that disagree, but it’s like this one has raised up some feelings that … well, that you wouldn’t particularly notice if it was about … I don’t know … say like the other day we were talking about socialism in history class and a debate about the welfare-state-encouraging-laziness broke out. Well I had to admit there are probably people who get themselves on the welfare roles so they can laze about and … and sleep in. But if that were the only argument, what would happen to the many who’ve been dealt a bad hand and simply can’t cut it in this economy without help? It’s like Truth A is competing with Truth B …

Klavier: …when smart people should be able to work out a direction that acknowledges both truths? We live in a competitive and a cooperative world, don’t we. Seems to me your students  are aiming toward winning an argument, which means the opposition argument must be shown to have lost. It’s a natural extension of how sports, the economy, education, even the arts can teach us to be … competitive.

Brian: But wait, we do all kinds of stuff cooperatively. Even most things, I’d say. Build roads, run our towns and cities, drive on the right side, etc. Our students cooperate with schedules, movement, order generally … all the time.

Klavier: That’s very true. So why have your students fallen into the my truth is better than yours mode? Are they simply echoing what they’re picking up from the news? From their parents? From their peers?

Brian: I’m sure that’s much of it. I shudder to think what my colleagues might be experiencing if they have Muslims and … and, or Jewish kids in their classes. I’m not even sure how to steer my—I don’t know … can I call them ethnic Canadians?—how I should steer them through the … the emotional rhetoric they’re exposed to, day after day.

Klavier: I don’t know your kids, but I’m led to believe that the main truths about the conflict in Israel and Gaza are buried in history. Reread Exodus and Joshua in the Bible with an enquiring mind, do what you can to gain a fair grasp of the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948.

Brian: Well, I’ve already done that last part. Seems to me setting up a state as a homeland for a particular ethnic … well, ethnic or religious minority … was a big mistake.

Klavier: But, Brian, was it both a huge mistake and  an absolute moral necessity? Are we looking at two truths that appear contradictory, but are both … well, true?

Brian: …and how do you imagine getting sixteen-year-old “children” to grasp that?

Klavier: Maybe since you’ve done your historical basics, maybe the best approach is to encourage them to find their basics. It probably can’t be done using the Israel, Gaza war; they’ve probably come to be too committed to opposing sides already. Pick a conflict in which they don’t have any real skin and have them actively work toward a solution that honours conflicting truths. That would make sense to me.

Brian: Like how would we do that?

Klavier: Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but this might work. Pose this case of conflict: a street of old houses, all abandoned, have become occupied by “vagrants,” according to the city, let’s say. Homeless people, drug addicts and assorted anti-socials and others are squatting there. The city decides to be decisive, orders the squatters out and contracts to have the buildings bulldozed and the lots redivided for sale. Human rights advocates and social action groups protest and some of the “residents” vow to be bulldozed with the old houses rather than move to who-knows-where.

Brian: Sounds like Detroit.

Klavier: Could be, or any other metropolis experiencing the agonies of inner-city decay, homelessness and poverty.

Brian: But how do I engage their minds in this? We’re all middle-class suburbanites.

Klavier: Well I’m not a teacher and the thought of running a high school classroom fills me with existential fear, but I think this is what I might do. I’d divide them into groups of four by counting off—no cliques allowed. Then I’d rearrange the room so groups could dialogue properly. I’d give the groups this assignment: “The city has given the Human Rights lobby the task of arbitrating between the city and the squatters. Imagine your group is that arbitrator. Come up with three action points that you think could be approved by both sides. Be sure to consider cost, benefit, logistics like who will do necessary work, etc. Even cost out the items as accurately as you can.”

Brian: Some would hand in their list in five minutes.

Klavier: Of course. And the same people might possibly hope there’s a prize for being fastest. But that’s how I—a layperson—think I would have learned the basics of cooperatively finding ways to solve problems. I won’t insult your experience and training any further by suggesting methodology you understand better than I do.

Brian: Knowing my students, they’ll finish this exercise … and … and then go back to yelling their “facts” at each other in the hallways, even in History class.

Klavier: Ahh, but we have people who know how to make the basics of listening patiently and negotiating respectfully real, even when the problems seem impossible. Adults who flog opinions as if they were facts should stay out of classrooms and politics, perhaps be potato growers instead … potatoes are always the right answer.

Brian: And where are these “people who know how?”

Klavier: They’re everywhere. We call them teachers. Or parents. Or some are both.

Brian: Nice!

Klavier: You’re welcome.

P.S. Why is Israel? For a brief history, click here.

 

A Rake among Scholars

 

Great Grandparents of a host of rakes and a few scholars

COMMON RAKE

UNCOMMON SCHOLAR 

“He was a rake among scholars and a scholar among rakes.”

The sardonic description of a certain person by Thomas Babington McAuley, 19^th Century British politician, historian and essayist, could apply to nearly everyone. It’s the social equivalent of the Theory of Relativity; the esteem in which you’re held—or not—depends on what company you’re in at any given time.

We are never satisfied with better, bigger, smarter or more competent; we long to know what or who is best, biggest, smartest or most competent of all. Olympics, the Oscars, sports playoffs, etc. respond to that need. If we can’t determine who’s at the peak by measuring, we devise ways to steer public opinion to a conclusion of greatness ... or mediocrity. Fact is, this mentality not only defines who’s the “scholar” in the paradigm, but also who are the many who are clearly “rakes.”

We visited the Louvre while in Paris and stood in line to see the storied Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. She was roped off to keep viewers back and she’s only 30” X 21,” so our examination was short ... and distant. I’ve seen copies of the painting often and, trust me, it’s only as great as we make it out to be because we say it is. (I took an Art Appreciation half course at the University of Alberta long ago, so on this subject, I’m at least a scholar among rakes.)

Suppose the lead female actor in a local theatre company does a fantastic job of characterizing condescension, more nuanced and memorable than Maggie Smith (rest her soul) playing the Dowager Countess of Grantham in Downton Abbey. One will win a BAFTA award and heaps of money; the other will wait on tables in a chain restaurant so she can pay the rent.

“Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, /and waste its sweetness on the desert air.” Wrote Tomas Gray in Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. Gray’s pensive ruminations in the cemetery (published in 1751) are still studied and honoured. For each of the poets we’ve declared “great,” there are probably ten thousand who have picked up a pen and sought to express their insights through that medium. Count me as one. Full many a one was born to prate unheard, /and waste their insights on the desert air.” (Pardon my faulty plagiarism, Thomas Gray.)

 
You might well imagine that there’s no mystery here; that humans can’t all be kings, not even princes, not even butlers or footmen … nor scholars; that only the village “rakery” position is freely offered to anyone who happens to land on earth unheralded, un-preordained to anything else.

 We who are neither among the rakiest of rakes, nor the scholarliest of scholars, are destined (like everybody else) for all our short lives to be who we are, content with—or chafing at—the restrictions of our time and place in the serendipity of life.

A confession: I have aspired long to master prose writing like, for instance, Herman Melville in Moby-Dick. I have friends who aspire to the extraordinary in quilting, singing, playing an instrument, wood turning, baking, etc. So far I haven’t opened a booth at the town fair for selling what I’ve laboured over, but like those who do, I will put one “wooden bowl” of a poem on display. It’s not an elegy written in a churchyard, but is an elegy written after a visit to a dying father:

THOSE WILL BE PEARLS©

 

i know my

(how do you feel, dad?

are you better today, dad?)

sounds like offer of a lozenge

to a hungry man. but forgive me if you can

my grief for you is trivialized by stammered words

 i know. i feel it.

your deep-lined face, pale bony hands

are answers to

my rote-learn’d clumsy questions

—what use are words to us?

 

no one remembers signing up for sterile halls,

and stark white walls like these

i think we know, my friends, that

somewhere in the index of what’s truly real

where truth lies ‘prisoned-like …

we all enrolled by being born.

 

“full fathom five grandfathers lie

those are pearls that were their eyes.”

 

you smile little, say less

perhaps you understand me after all these years

and what you see … amuses you?

the dying seldom make long speeches

grant you that

and that was ever you

you answer slowly, “ever is a long time, dave.”

(later I’ll think, “why, ever is no time at all.”) 

 

I have to go.
“I’m sorry,” I say, because I truly am
sorry for you, 

but were I honest like we used to be

I’d also raise a prayer of thanks:

thank god it’s me, today,
who smells the coming rain
hears children laughing just across the street
can start his car and drive to any place
and work and make and break
with these still-steady hands.
praise god

and then the sky pours down in sheets of rain and hail

I throttle down my car, my thoughts, my world

and weep.

“full fathom five my Dad will lie;/those will be pearls that once were his eyes.”^[1]

 

---

[1] Adapted from The Tempest I,ii,474-477