A TIME FOR CELEBRATION--AND SUSPENSE

    
     WHY IS BEGINNING A NEW YEAR such an exciting time, an occasion for celebration? Is it, as many suggest, because we have come to collectively recognize it as a time for summing up, for clearing the decks and starting anew? Or is it just an excuse for yet another party, a modern version of "pagan" winter festivals, before we have to plunge back into the same old rat race?
     I suppose it all depends on how we individually look at it. Perhaps there will seem something of the obvious in my own view on the matter, but, just to be clear about what that view is, I'd say most people are influenced in their outlook by how they made their way through the year just ended.
     If it has been a good year in their personal lives, say with an earnings increase or other happy event, they'll naturally be in an optimistic mood and eager to celebrate.
     Others less fortunate may be more inclined, if they are still able to "accentuate the positive," to welcome the symbolism of a new year as an opportunity for achieving a better life in the year ahead, and thus welcome New Year's partying as a way to express thankful good riddance to a difficult twelve months, and then celebrate with a degree of hope for the future.

     THERE'S A CHRISTIAN BACKGROUND to the celebration of New Year's Day, although, as with Christmas, the seasonal celebration aspect pre-dates Christianity; for example, ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians and Persians began their year at the autumnal equinox, and the Greeks at the winter solstice. And they celebrated.
     The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia says that in the Middle Ages under the Julian Calendar, "most European countries . . . observed New Year's Day on March 25, called Annunciation Day and celebrated as the occasion on which it was revealed to Mary that she would give birth to the Son of God."
     But with the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582 (says my Encyclopedia Britannica), Roman Catholic countries began to celebrate New Year's Day on Jan. 1. Scotland followed in 1600, and Germany, Denmark and Sweden about 1700, England in 1752.
     The Jewish New Year, called Rosh Hashanah, or the Feast of Trumpets, comes in September, and is prescribed by the Old Testament as a holy Sabbath. The Chinese celebrate New Year's between Jan. 10 and Feb. 19 of the Gregorian Calendar. In India, because of wide cultural and ethnic diversity, New Year's is celebrated, usually as religious festival, on a number of different dates.
     For the world generally, though, we know that it runs mostly on the same Gregorian Calendar in many ways, so Jan. 1, and the night leading up to it, are big events just about everywhere.

     HOW IS IT, YOU WELL MIGHT ASK,  that our present-day New Year's festivities, in North America, other English-speaking nations, in South America, Africa, big chunks of Asia, and much of Europe besides, have lost their "holy" flavor?
     Well, I've searched for some authentic explanation, but have come up empty. I am therefore obliged to fall back on hunch and instinct: I believe that we must put it down to decadence, friends, pure decadence. We might, in fact, go so far as to say, "a backsliding to paganism."
     Those of religious bent, however, should not be too distressed, because they can take consolation from the fact that we have adopted the practice of making New Year's "resolutions," whether we're adherents of a religion or not.
     When we make resolutions to do better in this aspect or that of our personal lives in the coming year, are we not seeking improvement in a somewhat conscience-stricken way? And is not achievement of a clear conscience an everyday pursuit, practice and indeed promotion, of just about every religion? Quite so. And let us hope that the good resolutions are resolutely kept by one and all.

     WHAT DO WE HOPE FOR THE NEW YEAR? Everyone makes his or her own choices in replying to that question, so I can give only my own answers. Each of the answers, I must say, involves some element of suspense, because, well, that's part of the attraction of this time of year: Not knowing  what the future will bring. About all we can be sure of is that there will be surprises.
     Most people will, I expect, initially think about hopes for the New Year from a self-concerned point of view; that is, they consider their own status in life--economic, social, healthwise and otherwise--and how it might be improved. But before long they will also turn to considering the state of their nation and the world, since all are linked. If the nation is doing well, then they're more likely to as well; ditto the world.
     As for myself, I'll keep my personal-life concerns to myself (until such time as I decide otherwise, of course, because almost anything can be a subject for this space), but I will now proceed to briefly share my own personal and sometimes offbeat outlook on the nation and the world.

     ELECTIONS, ANYONE? It is highly unlikely that the people of British Columbia will be able to get through the year 2011 without an election, and might experience two, not counting the municipal kind. The two main B.C. parties are about to be leaderless, and so they, the Liberals and the New Democratic parties, will be staging leadership conventions to select replacements for Premier Gordon Campbell and NDP leader Carole James.
     The scramble to succeed each seems to be pretty lively. But, not having much more than an average citizen's knowledge of such goings-on (my days of covering politics being long gone), I won't try to pontificate about who might win the leadership jobs.
     As far as the Liberals are concerned, it would seem a stretch to think they can come up with anyone who has enough charisma and ability to rescue them from the low-popularity black hole that Campbell dug for his party. But one never knows, given the highly effective status modern political advertising-brainwashing has attained.
     With the NDP, one can only hope that the party's leadership goes to none of the cabal of backstabbers who performed their coup against James. There are more honorable ways of doing things.

     AND WHAT ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCENE? A national election, according to most reports, is being put down under the heading, "Likely, maybe." Today's news (Dec. 30, 2010) included a report that the minority government under Conservative PM Harper is making preparations to get into election mode, starting soon with a Harper cabinet shuffle.
      If a federal election does come in 2011, it will present Canadians with an important choice. They will have to examine very carefully where the Conservatives really stand when it comes to the national health insurance plan, Medicare.
      Voters will need to ask themselves whether they are prepared to risk cutbacks in--or even loss of-- that vital program should the Conservatives win a majority. If they have any smarts, the national Liberals will make Medicare and its future the main issue--and they should, quite justly, make the most of Harper's early-career expressions of firm dislike for such schemes as Medicare. As leader of a minority government, he has seemed relatively benign on the question, but if he should be handed a majority, I say, "Watch out!"

     THE AFGHANISTAN WAR IS THE OTHER major issue of the next federal election campaign.  Yes, the Canadian troop drawdown is in the works, but it seems to me there is a degree of government disingenuousness about precisely how and when and to what degree this will occur. I think this may be as a result of pressures on Ottawa from Washington, which needs all the help it can get.
     There is another military issue to consider: the federal government's deal--around $8 billion--for the purchase of up to 80 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
     What's going on here? This is, or will be, one of the most efficient killing machines ever invented. Why do we, supposedly sensible Canadians, need these aircraft? So we can take part in a U.S. attack on Iran--or on Venezuela, or on any other country that dares to disagree with the U.S.?
     (Well, probably not Iran. It's too able to defend itself. Besides, to attack and invade Iran the U.S. probably would have to institute the draft, and that would be an insurmountable political problem for Mr. Obama. Maybe Venezuela, though. It has lots of oil, so we can be forgiven for thinking of the American conquest of Iraq and its oil. Except that, right, Venezuela is really friendly with Iran, and, besides, it might not be exactly a pushover militarily . . . . Well, maybe the Americans will pick somebody or something to attack, no doubt some place with oil, and likely ask us to go along for the ride . . . why, yes, with weapons like the F-35.)
     The F-35 deal to my mind is one of the most scandalously wasteful deals in Canada's history. It should not be allowed to proceed, in spite of any cancellation penalties that might be involved.  The Liberals and other Opposition parties have a duty here, and they must use every means at their disposal to stop that deal. If it means an election through a vote in Parliament that defeats the government, then fine--I say that with the voters of Canada,  that deal will not fly.

     FOR TITLE OF "LEADING HUMANITARIAN AND Newsmaker of The Year,"  I nominate Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks mastermind. He has brought to the public information the world has needed for many a year--the exposure of the not very pretty inner workings of the greatest and most powerful empire humanity has ever known, that, of course, of the country known as the U.S.A.
     The world cannot help but benefit in major ways because that empire, and any future pretenders to empire, are going to have take greater pains in informing an increasingly skeptical public about their policies and actions, if they wish to continue in elective, democratic office. They have suffered in the trust department. (Unfortunately, early reactions do not indicate a leaning in the direction of self-correcting reforms in government practices. The opposite--meaning greater pains to cover up with even greater authority--appears to be the more likely outcome.)
     One of the difficulties I see in the whole Assange-WikiLeaks story, however, is a very serious one and could present potential life and death issues. I am speaking of the lives of Mr. Assange and his organization's large crew of workers.
      Assange himself seems to me to be in real peril of never being able to walk a free man again and, in fact, might even find his life in danger, whether walking free or not. We've already heard calls from some in the U.S. proposing his summary execution. If the same attitudes extend toward any who might replace Assange in the event of his long-term incarceration, or of his execution or "disappearance," or extend even to those who work for WikiLeaks, then totalitarianism will have replaced democracy. We can only wish Assange and his helpers well, and hope we are totally wrong in the possibilities we have projected.              

     IN ANY NEW YEAR REVIEW,  ECONOMICS surely must top the list of assessments. The way things are economically today, and have been for the past couple of years, it's probable that a great many people will be happy to have made it through 2010 with little or no economic loss, never mind gain. And, in facing the 12 months ahead, both sets of individuals, the fortunate and unfortunate alike, will be including a note of caution in their expectations.
     It can be taken as a given that we face a rocky path ahead, through and probably beyond 2011, according to quite a few estimates. The U.S. would seem to be a major part of the problem. Of course Canada has by most accounts survived, and even recovered to a point, from the world "failure" economy of the past two years. We thus may adopt a holier-than-thou posture with relation to the rest of the world, and our so-called journals and broadcast outletssof record, and their knowing commentators, see good times returning, sort of.
     Canadians should not be misled. It's true that we are somewhat significant as a "petro-power" and we also have other vast resources. But the fact is that we are still very, very much tied (attached, bound, locked) to the U.S. economy. As the U.S. goes, so goes Canada; that is almost axiomatic.
     The problem is, the U.S. economy has been tanking, and there hasn't been much sign of recovery, although its government has tried heroically to put on a bright face.
     The thing that seems to me to belie the recovery scenario is America's debt picture. I do not think things can go very well for a country when its government  appears to believe (as has been evident in U.S. governments for some years, but seemingly more so now than ever) that the solution for too much debt is . . .  more debt.
      But aside the problems of the U.S., the world at large faces a continuing major--and much ignored--problem in the form of ongoing massive population expansion, as much as 83,000,000 extra mouths to feed per year.
      So far, world food production apparently is able to more or less keep up with the demand, but how long that can last is anybody's guess. At the moment in our part of the world we are experiencing price increases for food, and the ominous indications are that plenty more are in store.  
        
     BUT ENOUGH OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS for now. It's easy to say the world is going to hell in a handbasket, because (as has been often noted in the past) the world is always going to hell in a handbasket.
     It is also true that many people, many countries, many governments are doing their best to keep the world from arriving at an actual hellish place--and at this time of the year, while recognizing that they and we are far from perfect, we have to wish them well and hope for the best.
     If we are going to solve problems, of course, we need to define them, and supplying a degree of definition is my purpose in this Blog entry today.
     So I have to emphasize that, whatever may be in store for Canada, the U.S. and of the rest of the world, we cannot abandon hope for improvement, and we ought to individually try to work for it, through our contacts with others, and through our votes.
     In that spirit, and in a truly neighborly way, I also believe that we Canadians can and should say, to each other and to all peoples:
      "A Happy New Year to you and yours!"