HOW I GOT INTO THE NEWS GAME: CHANCE? -- OR COULD IT HAVE BEEN . . . IN MY GENES???

                                               INTRODUCTORY NOTE
                    I MUST EXPRESS MY ENTHUSIASTIC THANKS to Eric Wickberg, a close friend and son-in-law, for contributing much to, and putting me on track for developing the following material on family background. He is a true expert in the Genealogy field (not to mention many others) and I am grateful for his help. I also offer thanks to a variety of Internet sources, including newspapers of that day, for verification of some of the facts reported here.
       If there is any infringement of copyright included below it is unintended and I write in the spirit of freedom of information and speech, and act as a commentator and journalist, giving my own view, in my own words, in all that follows. I will, of course, make any acknowledgements that may be legally required. Now, I say to those who may happen upon this effort: Read on, and I hope you enjoy this bit of history.
                                                                  ------                                                                         
                              
                                               HEREWITH, I OFFER AN
                                          AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY
                                                                    ---  
                                                       
      NOW PICTURE THIS: The year is 1886, a grand day, the afternoon of September 25, a Saturday.
      The location of our story of happiness and tragedy is Loch Fyne, not far from Glasgow, Scotland -- at the Crarae Qarries, just a few miles below Inverary. By all accounts, it was a glorious day for a celebration, and a celebration there was.
      Scores of people turned out, many of them civic dignitaries from Glasgow and environs. Why, they even put on a ceremonial explosion -- seven tons of honest-to-god gunpowder, inserted into the wall of an 80-foot cliff, and set off by an electric charge for a sort of showtime, dramatic event to celebrate the great success of this deposit of granite, much-used for road and other construction, in Glasgow and surrounding municipalities. Celebrations like it were held every now and again. The blast this day will dislodge between 60,000 and 70,000 tons of granite.
      It was a deposit that was predicted to provide a steady output -- it was that large -- more or less forever. But the location today, I understand, is a quiet little tourist spot, where they sell postcards and flowers. The quarry is mined out. (So take note, all you environmentalists, and voracious environment-destroying capitalists out there: oh, yes, if we don't do things the right way, well, things are just going to run out the same way.)

      I AM WRITING ABOUT IT NOW because it happens that, quite recently, I became aware -- through the amazing efforts of my family's "genetic crusader" Eric Wickberg -- of some of the fascinating details of my Young-family history that had not survived in any more than oral form. The names of things tended to lose precision as time lengthened between events and the days of their telling.
      For example, my father, Ralph McGill Young, and his sister, my Aunt Mary Mitchell Young, were orphaned at relatively early ages; thus, the names of Grandfather Christopher Craigie Young's newspaper workplaces were only vaguely remembered. I do remember, though, hearing from Aunt Mary that her father knew shorthand. And -- again, more influence on me from my grandfather, long after his 1911 death -- I took a commercial course in high school, and learned shorthand myself. So that I, too, could perhaps be a reporter. (Unfortunately, I believe there's no photo of him among any our few family souvenirs, although I'm pretty sure that he had red hair and was of relatively short stature. I had red hair, too, but was a tall-ish even six feet in my teens, twenties, thirties, but seemed to shrink a trifle in my 40s and beyond. I am now 85, having been born in November, 1929.)

      ONE OF THE PAPERS CHRISTOPHER CRAIGIE YOUNG was supposed to have worked for (according to family lore) was "The Glasgow Evening News." I tried in recent years to trace it for evidence of Grandfather's news background, but found that his newspaper employer was actually The Scottish News, and it was the paper he worked for at the time of the Loch Fyne disaster. In fact, he was there that day to cover what was supposed to be, and was planned so, as an excursion up the Loch.
       I had the impression early in life from my father and aunt that Christopher had been a sort of free-lancer as a reporter and had obtained somewhat off-and-on employment with newspapers -- but this was not quite so. He was certainly on regular staff. Perhaps a reporter's pay at the time was not what it should have been, or the call-in to work assignments wasn't as frequent as it could have been; thus, my father and aunt may often have experienced near-poverty living conditions. My point is that he was a serious, usually full-time journalist.

       IN ANY EVENT, my grandfather, Christopher Craigie Young, reporter for the Scottish News -- came close to losing his life on that fateful day in 1886. Seven people died of what was (and is) called "choke-damp" fumes from the ceremony. and seven people were gravely overcome, including  Grandfather Young, whose life later was said to have been shortened (he died in 1911 of TB) by the damage done to his lungs that day.
      Scores of other people also were felled, but only temporarily, from the fumes -- that sulphurous backdamp, or "choke-damp" from gunpowder vapor.
      The seven who were overcome, and alive but motionless, were stashed, along with seven corpses, in a makeshift infirmary near the scene. News reports of the day say there were something upwards of 1,000 people attending that excursion, which required an early-morning boat ride, starting out in the dark, to the site of the big blast.
       Permit me to emphasize the obvious fact that if my grandfather hadn't made it back to life that day, well then, I, ahem, would of course not be doing what I'm doing right here and now because I, uhh . . .  wouldn't be here. Such, no doubt, is fate. But thank goodness for Eric Wickberg's sleuthing, and for the Internet -- and naturally for the modern computer, which enables us to turn back the clock to the day when there was not a great deal of electric light, no radio or TV and immensely less opportunity to dig into all such wonderful history.

       MY GRANDFATHER, BY THE WAY, would have been 26 at the "Time of the Quarry Disaster," and was not yet married to my grandmother, Grace McGill of Stirling, Scotland. (Her last name is my middle name, giving me "Alexander McGill Young.")
        I really do have to conclude that my choice of professions had a major genetic source, and here's more evidence: As a boy, when I first heard of my grandfather's profession, I thought, my-my, that sounds like a pretty interesting way to earn a living, never giving a thought, really, to what kind of financial return there might be, large or small; it was just something that sounded fascinating, I was pretty good at English . . . and so it came to pass . . . yes, I'd say it definitely was, and is, in my genetic arrangement.
      So, bottom line -- and I speak seriously now: Newspapering . . . truly is in my "gene memory," if in fact genes have memory. I think perhaps they do -- because when I view on The Web sketches and knitted souvenirs for tourists containing scenes people have made of That Day At The Quarry, I experience strange, deep, uncanny feelings that lead me to exclaim, seriously -- and I say, still in wondering and serious mood, no exclamation points, and with measured slowness: "Great Scot -- I was there."
     I therefore declare now that here we have the reason I became a newspaperman.
     I can truly say: I had no choice. It was, and is, in my genes. Case closed.

                                                                    ------

     SOME VITAL PERSONAL STATS -- To provide background perspective, I must report that my father, Ralph McGill Young, Christopher's son, was born in Glasgow in 1899. As an orphan at the age of  11, he lived for several years in an orphanage known as Bridge O' Weir, not far from Glasgow, where he received education, in large part in the agricultural field. (He became a very good home gardener.) His eight-years-older sister, Mary, worked in a children's hospital called Stuart Hall, I believe on an island near the mouth of the Clyde.
       My father in his 18th year (1917) found himself in the British Army, and did serve in the latter years of the 1914-18 Great War. He survived the war, and he also was stricken by, but lived through, the great 'flu epidemic that occurred around the end of the war.
       Post-war, he made his way to a new life in Canada, and so did his sister, my Aunt Mary. Father had the help of veterans' colonial-settlement benefits. He wound up in Vancouver's Grandview district, where he met and married a young lady named Edith Orr, whose father also had been in The Great War.

      MY PARENTS FIRST PRODUCED my terrific brother, Ralph, Jr.; I was next and then came my highly intelligent and most charming sister Grace (now Mrs. James Andrew). Grace has had quite a career and life herself. Why, she practically ran Vancouver City Hall, when she worked for years in the City Clerk's office.
       I don't know how the city council could have got along without her. She also, later, worked in the office of the provincial Crown Prosecutor, keeping track in a major way of all the big cases. Now, that takes some ability, let me tell you. Am I proud of my sister?-- You'd better believe it!
      We lost Ralph a number of years ago and miss him very much. He became, by the way, a seafaring man during the latter stages of World War II, and, as a First Class Seaman on a Canadian oil tanker called the Moose Mountain Park, sailed up and down the east coast of the North American Atlantic, between Portland, Maine, and Venezuela.
      That coast was known as the graveyard of tankers, because of constant Nazi U-boat attacks on shipping. Ralph and his shipmates slept in their life jackets. He was lucky in that not one of his trips was interfered with by enemy torpedoes.
      Post-war, Ralph stayed at sea, working on freighters, sailing the oceans of our world. Eventually, he got to New Zealand, where he fell in love, both with a lovely lady named Shirley, and with the country. He said goodbye to the sea, and settled down. He and Shirley raised a fine family, most of whose members I have met on their visits to Canada -- hi, Viv, hi, Janet,  hi, Carol! Hi, all in N.Z.
      Ralph eventually did return to Vancouver, and we had many affectionate fraternal get-togethers.
      I was born in Vancouver and have lived the Vancouver area for most of my life, except for a total of nearly 13 years. During those 13 years, I lived in Victoria (1954-59 and 1966-69), covering the B.C. Legislature and provincial politics in general. I also had the great pleasure of living for five years in Ottawa, serving in the Ottawa Press Gallery, covering national politics.

       MY ALMA MATER NEWSPAPER was The Vancouver Sun, where I began working in 1947 as an office boy (copy boy), which led to my apprenticing (yes, they did do apprenticing back then, but, alas, no longer). I managed to rise in the ranks and became a senior reporter, covering all manner of news, but finally settling into political coverage, for which I seemed to have some aptitude and for which I did develop a great enthusiasm.
       Details of my many experiences and first-hand "viewing of history" and "newspaper days" can be expected from time to time in future blogs. Other newspapers I came to work for included The Province, the Winnipeg Free Press, the Calgary Albertan, Lethbridge Herald (the latter three part of a chain, which I serviced from Ottawa).
       I also had a go at radio, having spent three years reporting and broadcasting for Vancouver stations, at separate times, of course, CHQM and CJOR (private radio, I found, was a wild and crazy business, with a lot of nutty people, it's all about advertising, and not my style, to put it mildly). I also had a few occasions when I contributed commentaries to CBC Radio, and even a few CBC-TV commentaries.

      ONE NOTE I MUST INCLUDE is with reference to my early exposure to newspapers. It came when I was about eight years old. We lived on East Twenty Sixth in Vancouver, and it was in the middle of The Great Depression. We were poor, no doubt about it. But life was still good. We dined modestly, but with Aunt Mary, bless her soul, helping out, living with us, and taking care of us, including father in his widowerhood from 1933, we hardly even realized we were among the world's poor.
       When it came to newspapers, there were Mr. and Mrs. Bindley next door. They were retired and lived quite well with Mr. Bindley's pension. I don't know what he had done for a living, but he was a good neighbor and let us have the previous day's Vancouver Sun, knowing that we didn't have enough money to afford a subscription.
       He knew we liked to read what then was called "the funnies." This, I must emphasize, was before I had any idea of my Grandfather Christopher Young's newspaper work in Scotland, or that I had any particular writing tendencies.
        It's interesting to me that, even then, I was a pretty fair hand at learning to read and write; I seemed to have an expressive and grammatical ability and relished working at school with words, as well as with what we knew as "social studies," which encompassed history. (One thing that struck me, as I searched for each day's funnies, was the editorial page: not the editorials, but the "letters to the editor." I found them most enlightening, and they played a role in raising my interest in politics and public affairs.)

      WHEN I DID GO TO SCHOOL, my first elementary school in Vancouver had the name, Sir Richard McBride, at 29th and Culloden, near Knight Road. I attended there for seven years, Grades Two to Eight. I have to explain here that I received Grade I education, before McBride, while living for a year in a place in northeast Vancouver called The Preventorium.
      It was an institution surrounded by a high fence, and it was for children with TB, which I had contracted from my mother. She had died of TB when I was not quite four years old, and it was a great tragedy for me early in life.
      It was a time before "wonder drugs" like sulfa and penicillin arrived on the medical scene, and many people became victims of TB. I was lucky to survive.
      (With the disappearance, virtually, of TB, The Preventorum was turned into a place for special-needs children and became known as Sunnyhill.

      AFTER McBRIDE SCHOOL GRADUATION, I entered Grade Nine at a great school, which had -- and still has -- the name, John Oliver.
      Both names were of previous B.C. Premiers. Mildly odd, given the fact that in my professional life I came to specialize in political news, which involved much coverage of B.C. Premiers -- W.A.C. Bennett, Dave Barrett -- and national Prime Ministers John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson (whose names are on plenty of schools), in my Ottawa Press Gallery days.
                                                                        ------

      NOW, GETTING BACK TO THE MATTER OF GENES: Here's a note to all gene enthusiasts: Any comments you may have on any of the foregoing will be welcomed.  Just Google: Young's Soapbox & Journal. Call it up on your computer and add your thoughts under "Comments". Many thanks for your attention. And thanks again, Eric Wickberg. You are a gift.

                                                                    ------
                                                                 

NOW HEAR THIS, AFGHAN VETS: THE TORY BOTTOM-LINE TRUMPS YOUR INTERESTS

      

      YOU MAY REMEMBER, back in the day, a helmeted, flak-jacketed Stephen Harper on your TV screen, visiting "Canada's brave men and women in uniform" in Afghanistan, and praising their service in the pursuit of freedom and democracy, etc. etc.,  for that benighted part of the world.

      What he was doing was, of course, quite normal for a Canadian prime minister in such circumstances. A political leader's duty includes showing his or her commitment to the nation's military, members of which are where they are to "defend" Canada, and to pursue her international policies and objectives.

      I don't recall any serving military people coming right out and saying so, but I would have to assume our soldiers were dedicating themselves to the principle of my-country-right-or-wrong, as they answered "the call to the colors" and went into combat (described by realistic observers as "the butchery of war"). Perhaps some of our soldiers may not have used such graphic words to describe what they were doing, but, formally and officially, they had said what amounts to the same thing by taking the military oath of loyalty upon signing up.

      They were putting their lives on the line for Queen and country. And, in the end, some 160 Canadians did lose their lives serving in Afghanistan (depending on whose statistics you accept), and thousands more suffered physical and psychological wounds and injuries they likely will have to live with for years to come.

      MY PURPOSE IN THE FOREGOING is to draw a contrast between then and now.
      The "then" part can be summarized by saying that those who served did so willingly and patriotically, and, I must emphasize, were highly praised for doing so by the powers-that-be in our nation's capital and elsewhere.
       But the "now" is, at best, not pretty, and, at worst, shameful -- shame on the Government of Canada. It is as if our soldiers were considered wonderful and heroic by the politicians when they were going through the stresses and strains and agonies of war, but when the survivors came home our government was looking elsewhere, preoccupied with other more important matters (such as catering to the wealthy -- primarily, that is, to the benefactors of the Conservative Party).

      FOR VETERANS,  THE NEWS IS RATHER RAW:  It's about the Harper government telling our veterans to more or less get lost, when it comes to honoring the government's obligation in the matter of veteran disability benefits, for wounds and traumas suffered in the Afghanistan war.
      The deal is this: No more lifetime disability payments for Afghan veterans, just a single lump-sum "buyout." This, the veterans feel, amounts to their being short-changed, and has brought about a legal battle over just what the rights of veterans are, and over unilateral changes made by the government in the Veterans Charter. Furthermore, as if that were not enough, the government also has spent, or is spending, serious money in battling the veterans -- reportedly close to $700,000 in legal expenses.

      BUT THIS ISN'T THE WHOLE STORY -- the government also has expressed support for a charity that would raise funds in aid of veterans, an outfit that covers itself in a patriotic label, borrowing the term "The True North" from our national anthem, so that the government can shirk its own responsibilities for veterans.
       This "True North" thing seems to be modeled on an American organization named "The Wounded Warrior Project," again designed to transfer government responsibility for veterans to the shifting sands of private charity.
       Yes, friends, the American obsession with charity-promotion as opposed to necessary government action and support is quickly filtering into the Canadian political culture. But, then, it's what Canadians probably should expect from a prime minister whose economic background and seasoning is heavily American. (I have heard cynics actually call Mr. Harper "an American agent.")

      THE PECULIAR, EVEN AMAZING THING about the veteran-charity concept is that the government seems to have no shame about it at all. Making veterans (who, I repeat, put their lives on the line) dependent upon charity to any degree in the aftermath of their military service is, to my mind, about as shameful as it can get.
      This is even more grating for those who believe, as I do, that the Stephen Harpers of this world are not the kind of people one might expect to flock to the colors and risk their necks in military service.  No, sir. My take on their mind-set is that they believe themselves to be of a special species, and far above all that "common man" stuff. They are of the political boss class, and they, folks, are the ones who decide whether our nation will or won't go to war.
      But they are rarely, if ever, going to sign up for action and don any military uniform, or do any of the things, especially risk their lives, that our brave men and women must do.

      WELL, I SAY THIS CAN AND SHOULD CHANGE, AND HERE'S HOW:
      In future, any time Canada decides it would be a good thing to send our military forces into action, certain conditions must be met by Parliament. And the conditions I propose are the following.
      1st -- The prime minister must make regular visits to the war front, at least monthly, in order to see first hand the consequences of his power to engage Canada in war.
      2nd -- Five members of the federal cabinet must be given leave of absence, without pay, and sworn-in to the military forces (army, navy, air force, it's their choice) and accept assignment, at the rank of private, to regions of conflict at military pay rates.
      3rd --  Thirty members of the House of Commons, chosen by lot, are to be given leave of absence from the Commons, without pay, in order to serve in the military at military pay rates, at the equivalent of a private's pay rate.
      4th -- Thirty members of the Senate are also to be given leave and must serve in the Canadian forces under the same conditions of rank and pay as the aforementioned for MPs.

      I THINK SUCH MEASURES would go far in ensuring that any future military actions taken in foreign wars by Canada forces really are just and necessary.
      It also would give our elected leaders a chance to provide true leadership, and to demonstrate the genuine commitment they demand of our military and of our citizenry. Perhaps some would be on the front line shouting, "Follow me, men!" Say, now we're talking leadership, right?

      WITH THE WAR CLOUDS THAT ARE GATHERING, as a matter of fact, I'm guessing that  Canada is going to need larger fighting forces, considerably more than the estimated 60,000 that we now have under arms.
      "War clouds?" you may well ask.  Sure -- for a start just think about Ukraine-Russia, U.S.-Russia, and the Middle East-Canada and U.S.
      If the past is any indicator, our current government in Ottawa (an undemocratically elected government, by the way, and I'll deal with that in another blog soon) is bound to put us into any such conflicts. And, so, I'm confident that my suggestions and conclusions are timely, and worthy of serious consideration by both the Canadian political classes and our citizenry in general.
      The way it looks to me, we can expect to have many future veterans of military service. And they're going to need much more support than what appears to be the case under the present chintzy Conservative Canadian government.
                                                                 ---------------
   

     

         



   
     

     



   

THE REAL THING, ACCORDING TO THE KORAN

   


      I HAVE, IN THE 'WORLD RELIGIONS SECTION' of my personal library, the "bible" of Muslims, the Koran.
      It is a translation from Arabic into English, and was produced by the classics division of the great British publishing house, Penguin Books.
      This book informs me that "the Koran" means "the recital," and refers to wisdom recited to the illiterate Mohammed by the angel Gabriel while Mohammed meditated in a cave. Mohammed is said to have in turn recited Gabriel's wisdom to scribes, Gabriel having been required to do by Allah.
      To the best of my knowledge the Penguin Koran is a true and highly reliable version of the Koran. It was translated by the Iraq-born Islamic scholar, N.J. Dawood. The Penguin book was originally published in 1956.
      My copy is of the Fourth Revised printed in 1975, and I have had it in my personal library for some 30-odd years. I have had occasion over the years to refer to it now and then (usually as a result of  some news event involving Islam) in order to clarify my understanding and evaluation of that religious movement.

      MY REASON FOR DISCUSSING Islam at this particular time springs from recent events in France involving what are described as "Islamic radicals" who on Jan. 7, 2015, murdered staff-members (10 of them), of the Paris-based humor magazine Charlie Hebdo (plus a couple of police officers) for the sole reason that the attacking "Islamists" did not like the satirical treatment of Islam by that magazine.
      The important thing to realize here --  and it isn't something the news outlets of the world seem conscious of -- is that religions of the world do not have a very well developed sense of humor. I think I can say without much chance of contradiction that they take themselves terribly seriously.
      This is perhaps understandable, to a mild degree, since adherents of religions tend to spend most of their thought and their time delving into prospects of an afterlife for humans, as well as framing precise, heavily moralistic rules for the ways in which people should, or usually MUST, live. One might say there's a heavy love-of-power-and-authority aspect to religious leadership. God, we are told to believe, is the author of it all.
      If the followers of religions don't observe those rules, well, they are to be punished in this life through such things as, on the mild side, expulsion from the church (or synagogue or mosque of choice), or, in Islam, through traditional desert-tribe beheadings, on the exceptionally evil side.

      ALSO, PERDITION AND HELL-FIRE in a supposed afterlife await sinners in religions of various stripes, including Christianity, but more especially those who were once members of a given religion but decided at some point they could no longer continue as believers, as in some Islamist branches.
      It will have been detected by readers of this essay that I am personally at odds with religions in general. At this moment, however, my attention has been drawn to Islam by events in the news and I admit that my  examination of Islam here is not extensive. It is, however, what I consider to be fair comment, in a free society, arising from the horror in Paris.

      ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF MORE than beliefs. It is a prescription and a guide --  containing many decrees -- regarding certain types of living and behavior in the name of Mohammed. I have to say that for its approach to women alone it loses any chance that I could become part of it, or even support it.
      Here, for example, is one relevant excerpt from the Koran's section on women:
      "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those with whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme." (My italics.)

      THE KORAN IS QUITE DIRECT on sexual matters. It says, for example:
      " . . . If any of your women commit fornication, call in four witnesses from among yourselves against them; if they testify to their guilt confine them to their houses till death overtakes them or till Allah finds another way for them.
      "If two men among you commit indecency punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful."
      In a few lines preceding the above quoted sexual advice, the text says:
      "Such are the bounds set by Allah. He that obeys Allah and His apostle shall dwell for ever in gardens watered by running streams. That is the supreme triumph. But he that defies Allah and His apostle and transgresses his bounds, shall be cast into Hell-fire and shall abide in it for ever. A shameful punishment awaits him."
                                                                  __________
   
      THUS ENDETH  our Soapbox & Journal commentary on one of the more fascinating and cruel world events of recent years, an event rooted in religious belief that may foreshadow more dire events to come. This space will follow up with examination of the continuing story.
          
                                                             ------------------------

   
   


   
     
     
   
   
   
   
     
       
   

   
     
           

REFLECTIONS ON CASINO GAMES

   


      IT'S SAD TO SEE HEADLINES LIKE the one on gambling that appeared recently in a local newspaper. It said: "Millions in shady transactions reported at provincial casinos."
      The story below the headline in The Vancouver Sun detailed the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's news people had uncovered hitherto secret information on suspected money-laundering through casinos in the province of British Columbia.
      This information was in the records of the provincial finance department, but we apparently wouldn't have known about it except for the diligent efforts of the CBC, backed by freedom-of-information laws.

      USING CASINOS FOR MONEY-LAUNDERING is an old trick: people with ill-gotten gains take the cash to the casino, buy credits in large amounts, make a couple of bets then cash in the credits so that they can claim they won the money at the casino, should any law authorities inquire.
      It seems to me that the provincial authorities who are supposed to keep an eye on gambling transactions aren't particularly attentive, and/or have little interest in publicizing irregularities. After all, it took not the government but the CBC to shine the light on this.
      Our provincial government is supposed to represent the public interest and see that licensed gambling places operate on the up-and-up and keep "shady transactions" out of their premises. It is the B.C. government that should have brought this information to public attention.  Why it didn't in this case is therefore open to speculation.

      THREE YEARS AGO the government indicated it saw a need for anti-laundering measures. Perhaps I've missed something, but I can only conclude that so far little or nothing has been done.
      Provincial politicians seem to be quite lax when it comes to handling the gambling file. One wonders why.
      Personally, I haven't visited any casino for a long time, and have no plans to -- they are strictly places for losers. Sure, sometimes casinos display interesting performers on their show stages, but I can never escape the feeling that such entertainers are simply shills, often ones in career decline, and in any event are there just to draw in the local yokels so they can be separated from their money.

       I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, AND I'll say it again: I'm not against moderate gambling, and I'm just as inclined as the next person to wager a few bucks on the lottery. But when it comes to the casinos, well, when you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. In addition, and I cannot note it often enough: You don't find many happy faces in a casino. Which ought to tell you something.
      Let me close this editorial with what I regard as some sensible quotations on the subject of gambling.
   
      WASHINGTON: "It is the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity, and the father of mischief."

      HORACE (Roman lyric poet): "Curst is the wretch enslaved to such a vice, who ventures life and soul upon the dice."

     ZIMMERMANN: "Gambling houses are temples where the most sordid and turbulent passions contend..."
                                                                       ---------------            
    
     
     
   

SO, HOW'S YOUR GRAVITAS, WHAT'S YOUR NARRATIVE: ARE YOU GOING FORWARD, OR WHAT . . . ?

   

                                            DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER the word "gravitas" and its exhaustive political use a few years back? Yes? No? Well, how about the word "narrative," also widely employed a couple of years ago in a political sense, and still hanging in there to quite a degree? Surely it rings a bell.
      Perhaps it's impossible to pinpoint exactly who first employed those words in the political events of yesteryear. But, originally, they somehow became vogue words in the U.S., particularly among hosts and panelists on public affairs TV shows, as well as among political observers in newspapers and magazines.
      And since American political terminology has a tendency to sneak across the border and somehow filter into the minds of our own Canadian commentators and politicians, both "gravitas" and "narrative" did indeed make that trip.
      You could scarcely turn on any one of those programs without hearing an "analyst" or commentator say something like, "Well, (candidate) Jones seems to be a nice fellow, but he just lacks gravitas, and that will be a big drawback for him with voters."
                                                                 
                                                                  ------

                                           ALSO, WHEN IT CAME TO TALKING about political campaigns, their issues and controversies, and the prospects for the contending parties and candidates, the viewer and reader would come across such phrases as "the narrative has taken an unexpected turn" for X or Z party or candidate.
      My impression is that "gravitas" (very much a pomposity word) did not last long in Canada. I think this was because most people were suspicious of it, its meaning not being terribly clear, politically speaking. Readers and viewers would note that it was usually meant in a negative way -- "he lacks gravitas" -- since they would never hear any commentator or politician use it in positive verbal formations, such as "say, that candidate has a lot of gravitas."
      The voting public would, I think, prefer clearer terms like, "that candidate is a lightweight" (or heavyweight).
                                                                 ------
     
                                          AS FAR AS "NARRATIVE" is concerned, my view is that the word is pretentious when used by reporters or commentators to cover the way a political event or situation is developing: the clearer word in its place is the plain and basic "story." But then, maybe I'm old-fashioned and too appreciative of the ancient City Desk admonition to "keep it simple, stupid."
      By the way, I have consulted a number of word sources and am able to inform the reader that "gravitas" is from the latin, and comes to us through Spanish. It apparently is applicable to people of high seriousness, or those who show authority and expertise, and have intellectual weightiness.
      Does anybody know of, do I know of, a politician today of such description? Hmmm . . . let me think . . . Uh, well, it's a subject that might need further consideration and contemplation . . . will get back to you . . .

                                                                ------

                                          AND FINALLY, let me deal with one of the worst phrase forms ever dreamed up by the twisted and fevered minds of word-disadvantaged business people, political people and, yes, even of a few (quite a few) media people.
      Its use must occur millions of times daily among the English-speaking peoples of the world, in both oral and printed ways -- and it's use should be banned, outlawed, condemned, eliminated, scourged, blown up (you name it); anything to get rid of it.
      The term of which I speak is going forward. Let me repeat that so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding. We must destroy GOING FORWARD.  We must kill Going Forward. We must devise jail terms and worse as penalties to be meted out to those public figures and writers and scribblers who continue to use the term "going forward." Because what's usually in the minds of those who use it is a great deal of directional confusion.  And it doesn't mean a damn thing, anyway.
      So, in the interests of promoting (in my own small way), intellectual clarity in public discourse, I hereby offer myself as a Charter Volunteer and Supporter of any organization that might bear a name like "The Holy Crusade to Condemn To Everlasting Hell And Perdition The Term  'Going Forward'  (or, THCTCTEHAPTTGF)."

                                                 _________________________              
                 

BOUNCING OFF THOSE CRAZY AND SOMETIMES VERY OMINOUS HEADLINES

      

      JUST WHEN WE WERE BEGINNING to think that a degree of calmness was moderating tensions in the Middle East, along comes our federal government with a decision to send an indeterminate number of additional forces to Iraq. We are, it seems, piling into a new war -- the one against Islamic State militants.
      Many Canadians will be wondering what on earth our government is doing. Our citizens will be forgiven for having thought that that war was over, and for believing that if the various Muslim groups in Iraq wish to continue battling it out amongst themselves, fine, it's their business. But no, we have to keep sticking our nose into other people's affairs, more or less copying the good old U.S.A.
      What, we must ask, is this all about? Could we be in a war of Christianity vs. Islam? Quite a few Muslims do ask that question. They will not find the answer to be a religious one. No, it's much simpler: It's about the oil, stupid, it's still about the oil. As a number of others have observed, there'd be much less fuss centred on the Middle East if the area happened to be the world's biggest supplier of Swiss chard, rather than of oil.

      ONE OF THE ODDEST HEADLINES of recent days was the following (from The Vancouver Sun of Sept. 11):  B.C. school shutdown has China 'concerned'.  At least, I found that headline odd. But, on reflection, I have to note that B.C. has, long since, opened its schools to other nations, taking non-Canadian students because they, or their parents, can pay big bucks for the privilege of obtaining Canadian learning.
      To which I can only respond: It's not all about learning for our kids, stupid, it's about marketing. Of course, it also does say something positive about the quality of our schooling.

      'MIXED FEELINGS' would have to be my answer if someone asked me for my view on the report that Canada, along with Germany, has balked at the demand by NATO (dominated by the U.S.) that member nations commit two per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to "defense" spending. I put the word defense in quotes, because it really isn't for defense, it's for war-making; I mean, who are we defending against? Is Russia going to attack us? Well, that's a pretty far-fetched notion . . . except that . . . what?
      My mixed feelings come from the fact that in balking at the proposed NATO commitment, Canada's Conservative government has my support. That's hard for me to say, though, because I'm not in favor of much else that the Tories stand for when it comes to "defense".
       Canada is currently spending (according to Postmedia News, Sept. 3, 2014) approximately $19 billion per year on the military (a paltry 1.3 per cent of GDP, says the U.S.). Which means outlays on great supplies of guns, bombs, aircraft, fliers, soldiers, sailors -- all expenditures that Canadians have to cough up in taxes. I'm sure such spending creates joy in the hearts of the people who own and run the international arms industry, but for me, well, it just turns my stomach.
      What worries me is that history has shown any nation spending this kind of money on armaments will be more inclined to use the force so purchased.

      BUT WAR CLOUDS DO SEEM TO BE FORMING "over there," in what seems a serious way.  What other interpretation can one place on the growing hostility being shown against Russia by "the west"? The European Union and NATO (which basically, I repeat, is the U.S.), applying "sanctions" against Russia does bring back certain precursors to war that the world has seen in the past.
      Does anyone remember the economic conflict between the U.S. and Japan that preceded the Second World War. I was around then and one thing I remember is disputation, before Japan went to war against the U.S., concerning scrap metal -- which Japan was buying up in a big way, from wherever it could find it. Some Americans said things like "they're building up a war machine."
      There was also the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity scheme Japan was promoting within its economic orbit, and which also upset American competitors.
      And so, again, today, we have economic events of a kind we've seen before. Are they forerunners to war? Stay tuned, folks, stay tuned. In such matters, things can get out of hand very quickly indeed.

                                                                ---------------
                                               
           
  






   

   

     
   

   

ON NEIL YOUNG -- AND ISAAC ASIMOV

                             
                LET'S HEAR IT FOR NEIL AND ISAAC 

      When I became aware of rock star Neil Young's recent criticism of Alberta's Athabasca tar sands projects, I could not help but think of an American science fiction writer who was also a professor of biochemistry -- and a leader in defense of the environment. His name was Isaac Asimov, and he lived from 1920 to 1992.

      Neil Young made headlines by labeling the Athabasca tar sands projects, in total, as a huge environmental disaster, declaring at the same time that they are crushing First Nation rights in the several regions involved.

      In touring the area "to see it for myself," Young (we're not related) likened the effects of the tar sands development to the devastation caused by the Second World War's U.S. nuclear bomb attacks on Japan.

      Young was not suggesting, as some of his critics try to hint, loss of life from the tar sands in any way resembling the scores and scores of thousands of Japanese killed by the American atomic bombs of World War Two. But he was saying that the Athabasca oil-development region looks as if it has been stricken by atomic explosions. And he suggested that the tar sands pose a distinct threat to human health in the tar sand regions, and possibly beyond.

      In issuing his dramatic warning about the continuing and growing dangers of the world-wide dependence on carbon-based energy, taking the tar sands as a prime example, I believe Young was acting as a sincere, prudent, and environmentally responsible citizen.


                FROM ATHABASCA TO WHAT FUTURE?

      The dependence to which he referred, we must note, is a dependence much beloved by the giant worldwide oil companies, and one we can expect them to promote and cultivate, even to the day there's little oil left.

      In discussing the Young story I want to state that it did not merely remind me of Isaac Asimov -- it also led me to search out and find, in a corner of my overloaded bookshelves, an old volume by that great man himself. It is a book that long ago showed where humanity was being led by governments and energy corporations.

      And, so, in support of Neil Young's case, I wish to review the Asimov book, especially one key chapter in it. (I urge the readers of this Blog to try to find a copy of the book -- in a public library, or a book store. My copy came from a 1998, Richmond, B.C., library book sale. Price: one dollar. Perhaps it was considered by local librarians to lag behind the times, and was therefore tossed into the discards for sale. But, as the reader will see, I look upon the book as being very much still with the times. It was one of the best dollars I've ever spent.)

      Prof. Asimov gave his book a slightly ominous title: "TODAY AND TOMORROW AND . . ."

      Published in 1973 by Doubleday & Co., the book is a compilation of many articles that had been previously printed in a variety of publications. The book is divided into two sections: Part One is entitled "Today" and covers the basics of biology, astronomy, chemistry and physics.  Part Two, which he headed "And Tomorrow," was divided into chapters covering space, the computer age, science fiction in the future -- plus a part labelled "On Earth."


                ISAAC'S KEY: LIMITING POPULATION

      I found the "On Earth" section to be the most arresting part of the book. In it, Asimov declares that the greatest threat facing humanity is the apparently never-ending increase in human population. And he does this in his own direct, clear-eyed style, and supplies plenty of science to support his findings.

      Prof. Asimov wrote this, remember, at a time when the world population was about 3.7 billion. In case you haven't looked at the figures recently, I can reliably report that we now have 7.2 billion humans on our globe (give or take a couple of million). This would sadden him greatly, I'm sure. He writes that in the environmentally best of all possible Earths, one billion people would be just fine, possibly even ideal. Much beyond that, though, he deplores as terribly dangerous for humanity.

      Prof. Asimov detailed some fascinating figures on, of all things, human tonnage. He said that if the current rate of population increase continues for 1,560 years (dating this from 1973, of course), by then the mass of humanity will be equal to the mass of the earth, which he placed at 6,600 billion billion tons (you read it right -- that's "billion," two times after 6,600, and you couldn't count that high if you could live without  food or sleep  for 200 normal lifetimes, counting one at a time).

      Such a human increase is, says Asimov, "Impossible." I will quote him directly as he expands on this. He describes certain fundamentals of the earth and its place in the universe.


                HERE' S THE NITTY-GRITTY

      "Let's search for a more realistic limit, then (Asimov wrote).  The total mass of living tissue on earth today is estimated to be something like 20 million million tons, and this cannot really incrrease as long as the basic energy source for life is sunlight.

      "Only so much sunlight reaches Earth; only so much of that sunlight can be used in photosynthesis; and therefore only so much new living plant tissue can be built up each year. This amount built up is balanced by the amount that is destroyed each year, either through spontaneous death or through consumption by animal life.

       "Animal life may be roughly estimated (Prof. Asimov continues) as one tenth the mass of plant life or about two million million tons the world over.  This cannot increase either, for if, for any reason, the total mass of animal life were to increase significantly, the mass of plants would be consumed faster than it could be replaced, as long as sunlight is only what it is. The food supply would decrease drastically and animals would die of starvation in sufficient numbers to reduce them to the proper level.

      "To be sure, the total mass of human life (Prof. Isamov's italics) has been increasing throughout history, but only at the expense of other forms of animal life.  Every additional ton of humanity has meant, as a matter of absolute necessity, one less ton of non-human animal life."

      But be quite certain, says Prof. Asimov -- something (my italics) will happen before we get to the state of impossibly dense population levels the globe over (all 200,000,000 square miles of it). Except that we can't make it that far, he implies, not nearly that far.  He concludes that humanity is unlikely to avert some sort of disaster, as it keeps growing to ultimately immense numbers, unless humanity achieves international cooperation in reducing births. I'll repeat that: Disaster! Unless we achieve international cooperation in reducing births.


                WARMING UP IS THE SUBJECT
   
      But that is not all -- there are other problems.  Energy, for instance.  More people means that more energy is needed.  Yet, more energy means more pollution, does it not? More pollution means more greenhouse gas, thus eventual overheating of the planet. Will that be overheating to the point of human extinction? Will we be able to overcome the negative elements of conflicting cultural, regional, religious and national interests on birth-control?

      Prof. Asimov, by my study of his writings, and on the basis of his scientific facts, figures that if we keep carrying on the way we've been doing, population-wise, then we've got about 400 years left as the dominant creature on Earth. Unless . . . something . . . is done . . . to slow down population growth -- with its accompanying huge, increasing demand for such things, don't forget, as tar sands oil.

      I believe we are all indebted to the late, great Prof. Asimov for his contribution to human understanding of an existential threat. And we are obliged to Neil Young, for standing up to the environmentally-challenged federal government and its corporate buddies on the tar sands issue.

      We wish Neil Young and his supporters good luck, and hope their work will encourage Canada and the rest of the world to find and develop cleaner, safer alternatives to the ultimate disasters lurking in carbon-based energy.

                                ______________________________

     

   
   

     


            


         
   

LOVE THAT SENATE SCANDAL COMEDY

      THE MOST INTRIGUING, ENGAGING and entertaining political news story of this year will have to be labelled the Duffy-Wallin-et-al show. And, quite properly, it is getting plenty of coverage.

      I have to say, though, that I have a problem with the nature of that coverage: Most of what I've seen and heard on it is just too damn serious in tone. And through being so serious -- both the print and electronic versions -- something is being lost.

      "But," you may respond, "it is a very serious business. You know, the allegation of fiddling on expenses is not an admirable thing, especially when it comes to our tax dollars. The public is entitled to know about it, every bit of it."

       My view is that the public isn't getting quite every bit of it. There's still a Big Question involving the news reporting on the senators' difficulties. It piques my curiosity because I have yet to see this Big Question answered, or even raised, in any news coverage I've encountered. And so I figured: Well, guess I'd better ask the question myself -- along with any further questions that it might spawn.

       I'll get into the(those) question(s) in a moment. First let me say I don't plan to list the details of the scandal, because, in itself, that scandal is secondary to the point I'm making. Who did or didn't contribute politically to whom, and who did or did not okay it, seems to me a rather empty discussion. In fact, it might well be asked, "Don't they all do it, from the top on down?" Beats me. It seems that eventually it's the Mounties who'll be answering such questions in this case.


      I BELIEVE WE NEED TO DO a little reflecting on the matter. I will admit, personally, as a Canadian, that The Senate of Canada tries hard to be a place of great dignity.  I, in my past, have walked its well-carpeted halls and byways (usually just to get from one place to another through that massive Parliamentary building complex in Ottawa), and one impression that remains with me is the silence in those halls, most especially on the Senate side.

      I guess silence is a big part of dignity, especially in the "corridors of power," dignity and power being qualities too many senators believe they have. Inside the Senate chamber, of course, those senators do put forth some effort, droning on and on, for all of about three months a year, into their "work" obligations.

      Let us examine the word "senate." It comes from the Latin senatus, meaning highest council of the state in ancient Rome, or "council of elders." And from senis -- old man; see also: senile. Hmm. Could we be getting somewhere here? Average age of the Canadian Senate, by the way, is 64.53 years -- at least it was in February, 2013, date of the latest calculation. Well, 64.53 years old is a pretty young old these days, the way I look at it.


      THE CANADIAN SENATE has 105 seats, of which I believe half-a-dozen or so are at the moment vacant. The body was created more or less with Canada (you can look up all the precise historical details), and its purpose was, depending on whose history you read, to provide "sober second thought" to the doings of the elected House of Commons, our true house (most of the time) of democracy.

      It's true, however, that one point of view away back then was that one of the motives for having a senate, from the far right, was to keep Canada from becoming "too democratic." To which the peanut gallery no doubt will chorus, "Right up your alley, eh, Harper!?"

      During my five years in Ottawa I spent a great deal of time sitting in the Press Gallery, right there, inside the House of Commons, covering big news stories (in the Diefenbaker-and-then-Pearson days). We Gallery reporters all loved the Commons daily question period, as Gallery reporters do to this day. (By the way, the very lively, argumentative Commons question period, in which the government responds to daily questioning by the Opposition, does not involve an awful lot of dignity.)

      But I also did occasionally visit The Senate press gallery in the Senate Chamber, on the rare, the very rare, occasions when actual news was made there. So, I can justly say I'm more than slightly acquainted with "the workings of Parliament." (Although I cannot remember just what that news was which occasionally drew me to the Senate Press Gallery looking down from above the senators, lo, those many years ago.)


       FAST-FORWARD TO October,  2013, and we see that the Senate has taken a top spot in news-outlet budgets. The Senate is being recognized now more than ever as an institution for rewarding of political war horses in need of a richly fertilized grazing ground for their retirement.

      "Richly" is a word I use advisedly, because those senators do drink deeply at the public trough, receiving annual  income of $132,300 (Cdn.) plus fairly liberal expenses, as in Duffy-Wallin. I must also point out that senators receive excellent medical and dental coverage. That's right, and it explains why the common Canadian masses never see on TV any senator (or MP for that matter, since MPs get such coverage, too) without whiter-than-white, and very even, teeth. Would that all Canadians could have such dental coverage.

      All right: Now that we have set the stage, let's get to the nub of things; the following are my questions (and, trust me, Ms. Wallin and Mr. Duffy will not like them, nor will one Mr. Stephen Harper, except that Mr. Harper has even more incentive now to get rid of, or severely reform, the comedy known as The Canadian Senate).

          Ms. Wallin and Mr. Duffy were in the news reporting and commentary business for many years. So here's The Big Question, which I'm sure many members of the public would like, along with me, to have answered:


      WHAT SERVICES DID THEY provide in their news work that politically helped Mr. Harper and his Tories? I know of no such services, but I still think it's a question that ought to be asked -- and looked into and answered. People like Harper simply do not appoint anyone to rewarding "jobs" like the Senate for no bloody good reason.

     Most Canadians are aware that appointments to The Senate are usually highly political inspired; they are for political services that have been performed for one party or another (in this case, the Tories). The term "political payoff" has, I know, often been applied to Senate appointments (which are made solely by a prime minister). But I, of course, am too dignified in my commentaries to use such a vulgar term as "political payoff." (Oh, goodness, there I go -- I've just used it twice. Well. . . rhetorical license. . .?)

      Anyway, I ask such questions from my point of view as one who spent nearly all of his working life in news, and most of it reporting political news. I did my very best to operate as an objective reporter in my work -- just as reporters still are duty-bound to do. In pursuing that ethic, a reporter finds that a lot of material he writes does not meet with the approval of powerful political figures. Consequently, if a reporter does his or her work according to those ethical obligations that reporter if highly unlikely to be asked to receive any plum appointments, such as senator.

      Yes, I know: more than a few reporters have taken positions with political parties, often in public relations roles for cabinet ministers, for governments, and so on. I say that if they are happy with that, so be it.  No law against it. I also say, though, that when I hear of such appointments my face takes on what might be best described as a sardonic grin.


      NO DOUBT MS. WALLIN AND MR. DUFFY are not grinning that or any other way very much just now. But, and although I will watch for an answer to my Big Question somewhere in the progressing Wallin-Duffy-Senate comedy show, I can't resist the temptation to offer an opinion on where it will all end.

      I think the Senate will wind up being terribly, uhmm, conservative, and that its members will be concerned that new standards of conduct might come out of it if they are too stern with their so-called "offending members." In which case -- oops, they would themselves have to meet such new standards, possibly a tough challenge for some of them.

      Senators might also worry about the possibility of lawsuits from Duffy, and maybe Wallin,  too, which could lead to great expense. (And I'm thinking Duffy and Wallin might be able to make a good legal case, if Senate rules on such matters are as fuzzy as they seem to be.)

      On the other hand, perhaps Senate-and-related-powers-that-be are not much concerned with expenses; after all, the Senate of Canada, according to government records, costs Canadian taxpayers more than $64,000,000 per year. Including senators' expenses, naturally.
   
      Hell of an expensive comedy show, I'd say.    

   

   

   

     


   

   
       

NEWS FLASH: THE U.S. IS A THEOCRACY

   

     IT'S SUMMER, IT'S HOT, BUT WE STILL MUST stick selflessly to our post and attempt to define the larger picture. We'll be brief.
     My inclination in pursuit of this objective is mainly to ask questions, most of them related to the passing parade of news, large and small.

     FIRST QUESTION: NOW THAT HE'S AN OFFICIAL CANDIDATE,  will U.S. Republican presidential hopeful Willard Mitt Romney, a highly-ranked member of the Mormon church, disclose his intentions with respect to tithing -- a fundamental requirement of Mormonism -- should he win the presidency?
     Tithing: that's the word for turning over a tenth of one's income to the benefit of the church.
     
     ONE WONDERS WHETHER MOST AMERICANS -- especially including Republicans -- are aware of this Mormon rule. (I personally am aware, by the way, that tithing is a long-standing idea within mainstream Christianity, but few branches of the Christian church are so strict about it, in almost a cultish way, as the Church of Mormon.)
      Will this tithing principle of faith require Mr. Romney to somehow transfer the practise to his governmental duties, as president; in other words, to make branches of government tithe in some way?
     My reading of the U.S. Constitution says there's no way such a thing could happen because of the idea of separation of church and state. But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution has been bent in the past in some very awkward ways (think slavery).

      THE U.S., IT APPEARS TO ME, IS A NEAR-THEOCRACY, if not wholly one. I mean, every candidate for political office in the U.S. (and this has been the case since the beginning of that nation) must express belief in "God" (and, mark my words, it's the Christian God, very heavily so) in order to have any chance of winning any elective office.
      At the Republican convention over recent days and nights, I didn't hear a single speaker of note who failed to finish his or her remarks with almost exactly the following words: "May God bless you all, and (speaker voice-volume goes up here strongly and so earnestly) may God bless the United States of America!" (Goodness me -- could you imagine some Canadian politician making it a habit to end every speech with "and may God bless Canada"? Well, actually, I guess one could, with PM Harper.)


       BUT WE MUST NOT ACCUSE the Republicans of being the only ones wearing their theology  on their sleeves. The Democrats, as you will clearly see when their convention comes up soon, will be doing just as much "God blessing" and "one-nation-under-God"-ing, and all the rest of it, as the Republicans.

       JUST AS A REMINDER,  I am obliged to state here that the American Constitution says no candidate for office shall be subject to a religious test. Unless I have mistaken the meaning of what sounds to me like extremely clear, plain constitutional language, it is my claim that  U.S. politicians violate their own constitution every time there is an electoral contest, and many times in-between.
       Here is what Article VI, paragraph 3, of the U.S. Constitution states:
       "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (My italics.)       
      Yet, almost without exception candidates are unable to escape the religious test, because each and every one of them must say "God Bless America." That is, if they wish to be elected.
       And that's, well, you know, kind of like a . . . theocracy.
     
     

       
   

BE READY FOR A MIDDLE EAST EXPLOSION

                                             
                                           
      BY GOLLY, YOU'VE GOT TO HAND IT to those Americans -- they sure know how to get your attention.
      And I'm not talking about the Olympic Games, in which Americans almost always shine, as they have done in the recent Games.
      No -- what I'm referring to is the U.S.A.'s military virtuosity.
      There's hardly a diabolical weapon of war known to humanity that successive American governments (and their military leaders) haven't found it necessary to pursue, including the chemical warfare variety.
      Please -- don't gasp. America has in fact pioneered chemical warfare. In their war against Vietnam some half-century ago the U.S. military used "Agent Orange," containing the super-toxic chemical dioxin, long before we'd even heard of the late Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical weapons in Iraq.
      Even in 2012, many Vietnamese civilians, and even their offspring, continue to suffer from the horrible health complications produced by the U.S. chemical industry-supplied, and U.S. military-delivered, Agent Orange. Even members of the U.S. military who handled this stuff were victims, too.
      (NOTE: By coincidence, I began preparing this piece in early August, and on Aug. 9 a new U.S. project was announced to "clean up" Agent Orange residue remaining at a former U.S. airbase in Vietnam. Half a century later? How generous, how filled with feelings for humanity is that!?)

      UNFORTUNATELY, THE DAY SEEMS to have passed when we worried about The Bomb,  presumably because no one appears terribly willing to actually use one.
      Nuclear arsenals have been reduced, down to a mere 19,000-23,000 warheads (who knows for certain just how many?) and tensions between the big powers have moderated. More or less.
       This shrunken arsenal of nukes, of course, is still much more than enough to destroy world civilizations several times over. And that once again raises a vital question: How can most ordinary citizens fail to suspect that the leaders of the nuclear nations, and of their supporter-nations -- including Canada, which backs the nuclear U.S. and U.K. all the way -- are severely deficient in mental health, and have been for a long time?
      But even if we grant that our leaders are "on top of" the nuclear problem and will do all they can to avoid any kind of nuclear conflict, those weapons still exist and most are "ready to go" into action. There is, of course, much more to the weapons story. "Nuclear" is only one of the armament problems facing the world. A perhaps more immediate danger is present in the most explosive non-nuclear, or "conventional," bomb ever known: The "Bunker Buster."

      THIS WEAPON, CLAIM U.S.  military leaders, will easily take out underground nuclear power-producing plants in places like Iran. Especially Iran, on which the U.S. has its sights aggressively set.
      The Bunker Buster cannot be classified anything but a Weapon of Mass Destruction, otherwise known as a WMD, right along with nuclear and chemical weapons.
      We all came across the initials WMD quite a lot during the U.S. war against Iraq, thanks to George Bush, Jr., whose political ideology sacrificed scores of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and hundreds of American military lives as a result of his discredited and shameful claim that Iraq was armed with WMDs.

      JUST TO GIVE IT A BIT OF LOCAL perspective, we should realize that one of those massive Bunker Busters creates a blast probably big enough to destroy, say, most of Vancouver's downtown peninsula (if not more of the city) and most of the scores of thousands of people in it. So, really, with "conventional" bombs like these, who needs nuclear?
      I checked out the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP -- the U.S. classification of this bomb -- on the Web, and saw an entry for a video of an MOP test explosion, but when I clicked on that link all I got was was a tangle of garbled coding. Someone, I guess, had decided that such pictures would be too much for delicate civilian eyes, and killed the videos.
      At any rate, further research and development, more refinements and perfection of these awesome weapons, is ongoing within the mighty American military-industrial-financial complex (or is it "financial-military-industrial complex"?).
      About the only "good" side to this weapon is that it is so big and weighs so much (13.6 tonnes) that only the largest of military planes can carry one. That is, one bomb only, per huge plane. Which is probably something of a disappointment to the warriors who daily plan death and destruction from within the safety of the Pentagon.

       IF THESE BUNKER BUSTERS ARE USED TO take out buried and "hardened" Iranian nuclear power-production facilities, I wonder how many people would die from the blasts -- and, ultimately, from the resulting environmental radiation that would be released at those exploded nuclear-fuelled sites (declared by Iran to be for legitimate civilian power-production use only)?
       And, to get to the heart of this essay, I wonder how many scores of thousands would be likely to die in the Middle East war that would be inevitable in the wake of  such attacks? I ask further: Does anybody in the U.S. leadership really care? One continues to suspect that the western world's deep interest in Iran has something other than a military objective.
      It should be remembered that the International Atomic Energy Agency checked out Iran's nuclear program and found it to be non-military in nature and purpose. In light of this, one might conclude that the western world's fixation on Iran has an ultimate objective -- control of Iran's vast oil reserves. This can be achieved most efficiently through "regime change" (remember Iraq?) -- and that kind of change would be unlikely to come about without heavy loss of life, military and civilian, both Iranian and "western."

      SADLY, RECENT OMINOUS DEVELOPMENTS have taken place in the region. According to the Associated Press, a very reliable news agency, the U.S. Defense Department is making huge arms-sales deals with Arabian Gulf states with which it is allied (such as Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). Involved are more than $11 billion in weapons. The deal, it is reported, will make the Arabian Gulf states part of U.S. efforts to "contain" Iran.
      And while the U.S. acknowledges that Iran's nuclear efforts so far are concentrating on civilian energy and medical uses, it appears to be worried that Iran could or might "eventually" develop nuclear weapons with its nuclear expertise.
      Sometimes it seems that no excuse is too weak for the U.S. Military-Industrial-Financial Complex to use as a cause for war. (Really, wars and preparations for wars make huge profits for the arms industries, which is why I have inserted the word "financial." It truly is a triple-complex.)

      THAT SOMETHING BIG IS BREWING in the Middle East appears undeniable, with the U.S. and its very close ally there, Israel, working on plans for action against Iran.
      It didn't get a great deal of notice at the time, but, at the beginning of August, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, during a Panetta visit to Israel, made threatening statements against Iran.

      NETANYAHU WAS GUNG-HO FOR ATTACKING Iran, because it continues to develop nuclear power-producing plants, which he seems to feel can be quickly converted to the production of nuclear weapons.
      Israel, a nuclear power itself, will act on its own, said Netanyahu, if the U.S. takes too long to curb Iran. Time, he said, is running out, but failed to indicate how much time he was allowing the U.S. to come to a resolve over what to do about Iran. This is extremely tough talk which, in my view, borders on the maniacal. This is because other, bigger, nations most likely would be drawn in to such a Mideast conflict, and the world would face a war of possibly massive dimensions.
      The best Panetta seemed able to deliver under Netanyahu pressure was to vaguely pledge some form of "option" to proceed against Iran "if they make the decision to proceed with a nuclear weapon."
     
      THE REST OF THE WORLD CAN ONLY watch and worry, sensing that bad stuff is brewing. Syria, an ally of Iran, is deep in a civil war, said by some to be covertly promoted by "outside western forces and support." This fits in with the theory of a few analysts to the effect that Syria would have to be side-lined first, so as to clear the way for a "western" attack on Iran.

       THOSE OF US IN LANDS FAR AWAY from the Middle East hot spots (as I am here, on the Pacific coast of Canadian North America), can only hope that the religious, racial and real estate differences which divide and sub-divide nations and cultures in the Eastern Mediterranean region, can and will be overcome without the horrific human suffering that results from modern warfare.
     
       

     
   

 

TIME TO TALK ABOUT . . . DOOMSDAY

     
   
      DOOMSDAY!
      What a word -- so arresting, the kind that just has to be printed in boldface capital letters. With an exclamation point too, of course.
      I mean, it's about as dramatic a word as there can be. In English -- in any language.  But perhaps best in English, because in English it is terse, concise, sums it all up on one word.
      For example, in French it takes four words to say "doomsday" -- that is, "Jour du jugement dernier." German states it in three words,  "Der jungste tag." Spanish says it in five,  "el dia del juicio final." Italian in four, "il giorno del Giudizio."
      In those languages, the meaning of their equivalent to the English "Doomsday" is somewhat different from the meaning generally given it today in the English-speaking world. The French, German, Italian and Spanish terms mean "day of judgment," and that is a religious concept.

      IN CHRISTIANITY, Judgment Day is the day of the promised Second Coming of Christ.
      This is a current subject, because in recent years and months, we've heard much about various wild-eyed fundamentalist preachers, mostly in the U.S.A., issuing their Doomsday prophesies. But, so far, those deadly dates have come and gone, nothing has happened, and the preachers are forced to go back to the drawing board to conjure up new forecasts of doom. The next doom date, I believe, is Dec. 21, 2012, said to be related to ancient Mayan belief . . . or not. Anyway, it seems that, if you believe this, folks, we've got only half a year left.
      The theory held by the modern-day Christian prophets is that Doomsday will see the separation of those of us who have been good and just from those of us who have been wicked and evil.
      Those who have been good and just and Christian -- this is strictly necessary, it is essential that they be Christian -- are to be elevated to paradise, with its gold-paved streets and curbs. But the wicked and evil, the unrepentant sinners, and the non-Christians, will be cast into an unimaginably large fiery, sulphurous lake or pit, where they will remain in excruciating pain and torment for eternity. (Hmm . . . am I detecting something of a Nazi flavor in all this fiery pit business?)

       BUT I DIGRESS. WHAT I REALLY want to examine here is a Doomsday concept tied into today's geopolitical scene, and not to religious versions of Doomsday. My concept is one based on existing military weaponry -- primarily nuclear weapons, and the quantity of them. Plus attitudes of governments controlling them.
      Those weapons are why we have the well-known Doomsday Clock, maintained at the University of Chicago since 1947, signifying the clear and present danger that has faced the world since August, 1945. (The date of the clock's most recent adjustment was Jan. 10, 2012, when the clock was moved from six minutes to five minutes to midnight. Oh -- say, isn't Chicago that "toddlin' town" of song, where much of the nuclear-bomb pioneering was developed?)
      As most people know, but which I mention here as relevant background, the first nuclear weapons to be used, ever, in warfare (and to date, the only ones) were dropped on Japan in early August, 1945, by the U.S. military. These two incredibly massive explosions, a few days apart, but in an instant in each case, they destroyed two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the lives of scores and scores of thousands of those cities' mostly civilian occupants -- men, women and children, indiscriminately, on orders of the U.S. Commander-in-chief, one Harry S. Truman. (By all reports, Mr. Truman, of Democratic Party persuasion, seems to have gone to his grave with a clear conscience.)
      The nuclear bombs used on those two occasions were primitive by today's nuclear-bomb standards, which produce explosions hundreds, if not thousands of times greater per bomb.   

      THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK WAS the post-Second World War invention of a group of serious scientists, alarmed by the world's large supply of nuclear arms. They were scientists of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
       Their idea was a very good one, and their efforts, along with others by politicians, mainly Russian and American, have brought about reductions in the number of nuclear bombs. Unfortunately, it remains a fact that, practically speaking, these reductions do not bring the numbers down to anyone's comfort level.
      There remain in the world an estimated minimum of 19,000, and perhaps a maximum of 22,000 thermonuclear warheads, enough to destroy all humanity quite a few times over -- and a great many of those warheads are in ready-to-go condition, on "hair-trigger alert," as the military phrase goes.

      IN TODAY'S PARLANCE, THEREFORE, "Doomsday" and "Doomsday Clock" refer to a nuclear doomsday -- one that faces the world through the existence of those warheads, and the simple question springing from this may be put in the following way: Can the leaders of the world's nuclear nations be relied upon to maintain their mental balance and avoid nuclear war in the ongoing, and, I suggest, currently warming "cold" war over the world's energy and other resources?
       If you raise eyebrows over my suggestion of a new cold war, just look at recent events: the U.S.-inspired so-called "shield" in eastern Europe, which Russia sees as aggression and near-intrusion by the U.S.; plus the U.S. naval-military buildup by the U.S. in the Asia-pacific, which China sees as aggression and clear intrusion by the U.S.
       And so we have China and Russia only recently moving into a new mutually protective alliance -- it is mostly economic for the moment, but is looking to more togetherness, including militarily. These events are not terribly comforting insofar as world peace is concerned. The phrases "new arms race" and "a developing armaments buildup" rather easily come to mind on all this. (We must not forget that scads of highly destructive "conventional" arms exist, as well, and are being developed and produced at a quickening pace.)
      Armaments manufacturers have never seen better days for their balance sheets. The world, in short, is bristling with arms (the U.S. holding a massive lead over all other nations as the chief "bristler") probably at levels never seen in all previous history. Did I hear someone ask what armaments are for? To be used, silly.

        AND THEN THERE'S THE POTENTIAL for very bad things in the Middle East. My view is that a terrible conflict over Iranian oil is what's in prospect for the region, involving the U.S. (along with its allies, including a ready-to-launch Israel with its estimated 200 nuclear warheads) against Iran, a nation with immense oil reserves, control over which is firmly desired by "the west." This control can be achieved through nothing less than a regime change in Iran -- and it's hard to see how that can happen except through violence. Whether this might involve nuclear weapons, or not, no one knows.
        The excuse for this war would be the alleged development of nuclear weapons by Iran, whether such development is happening or not (and so far the evidence that it is appears to be non-existent). Still, we keep on hearing about the need for regime change in Iran to prevent that nation from acquiring such weapons. We also keep hearing about the possibility of "surgical" and "pre-emptive"attacks by Israel on those alleged Iranian nuclear development sites. Such attacks, of course, would be a cause of war.
       Well, Iranian leaders have made more than a few threatening statements against Israel, so Israel's concerns are not exactly imaginary. Still, talk and negotiations and agreements are far better than killing in warfare, whether it be nuclear warfare or not. Iran is not stupid, and it is quite aware of the devastation it would face, should it attack Israel.
     
      IF THE U.S. AND ISRAEL AND their allies embark on an attempted military solution to the "Iran problem," the whole Middle East, and perhaps much more of the world -- Russia and China being more or less supportive of Iran -- could be in for the worst conflict since the Second World War.    
       Would nuclear war in the mideast bring "Doomsday" to the world? It most certainly has that potential. This much seems obvious: it would be horrific doomsday for many in the Middle East, with a distinct possibility it could expand rapidly and draw other nations in, with highly unpredictable consequences. Such as the world-wide spread of atmospheric radiation, following any nuclear bombing, and the prospect of such radiation eventually killing multitudes more, and making humanity in general chronically weak, sickly and facing much reduced life-spans through radiation sickness.
        So, I'd say talking about a potential Doomsday is not really as over-the-top as some might suggest.

        I LEAVE YOU WITH A JOLLY 1970 quotation from Colombo's Concise Canadian Quotations (1976 edition), edited by John Robert Colombo; this quotation does not relate to the mideast, but to the question of nuclear war in general.
        "Over the long run," says this quotation, "it does not matter how small the probability of nuclear war is per unit time. It is mathematically demonstrable that, as time goes on, this probability approaches certainty." -- These words were written by J.L. Granatstein, who is a 73-year-old Canadian historian, and especially historian of war, having experienced Canadian Army service for 10 years, 1956-66.
        The only optimistic thing I can say about the quotation is that I still don't know whether anyone has produced, or intends to produce, such a mathematical demonstration as that which he mentions. But perhaps one doesn't need a demonstration, in the light of current circumstances.
        If and when we think about it, we all hope Granatstein was wrong, but are stuck with the uncomfortable feeling that he may well have spoken some serious truth.
                                              ------

        P.S. -- READERS OF ALL OF THE ABOVE might ask such questions as: "What can ordinary citizens do, to stop the insanity?" My answer is, "If you live in a democracy, then you have a vote -- so use it to support those candidates opposing militarism and war" -- and, between and during elections, contact, write letters to, phone, your Member of Parliament, your representative in the provincial or regional legislature, and express your views.   
       P.P.S. -- The issue of militarism and war is a huge one, one of the most urgent problems facing humanity --  facing you and your family, and facing me and my family. Because of this, I will be revisiting the issue from time to time in future Soapbox essays. (Provided, of course, that Doomsday doesn't intervene first. . .)

FIGHTING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT -- A LOSER?

                   
      The fight to preserve and protect the environment is unquestionably a noble cause, and a great credit to the people who actively conduct it. The campaign is up against powerful, greedy and irresponsible  forces. It therefore requires much individual and organizational exertion from its adherents.
      As an old saying goes, "There's money in muck" -- and the realization of that truth is no doubt one of the numerous reasons there is an environmental movement.
      It has to be acknowledged that a good many corporations and industry groups spend mega-millions to persuade the public that they, the corporations, do their utmost to keep the environment clean, that they're Good Guys, on the side of the people, helping the economy and providing thousands and thousands of jobs, and so on.
     Our profit-oriented news sources and outlets devote quite a lot of attention and space to environmental coverage, and that's fine, as far as it goes. In Canada, unfortunately, such publicity seems to be having little effect on the national government under the control of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his big-business-adoring Conservatives.
      I keep a reasonably close eye on developments in the environmental field, and I see little encouraging news for those groups active in the "save the planet" crusade, groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

                              EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT
      Earlier this month, environment-conscious Canadians received depressing news, in the form of a report and comments by Scott Vaughan, federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.
      Mr. Vaughan indicated that Canada is not doing its bit for the environment, and said it is unlikely Canada will meet its previously-agreed obligations in the fight against carbon emissions and global warming. In one particular, the commissioner noted that the federal government has been slow to act in controlling emissions from the transportation industry. It is important to observe that he was not delivering a political judgement, but a factual one, because he is a non-partisan public servant.
      The Harperites might suggest that they are not necessarily bound by agreements made by previous governments -- suggesting in effect that turning back the clock on progress is okay.
       This is something that I suppose one might expect from Harper -- an MP from the oil province of Alberta, whose vast reserves are under mostly foreign control. Including the Athabasca Tar Sands. China has a large ownership presence in that massive energy development, and it is a nation not especially known for commitment to environmental protection. Several other nations, including the U.S.A. and  Britain, also are major "players" in the tar sands regions of Alberta.
                         
                             SAVE THE PLANET?   
      Permit me to pause here to take exception to the widespread use of that phrase. It seems to me that "save the planet" overstates the case.
      I note this on grounds that the slogan doesn't quite mean what it says: the planet, scientists assure us, is going to be around for another four or five billion years at least, no matter what sort of trials it may have to endure.
      Sure, it's true that the slogan is used with a kind of poetic license to highlight the idea that we want the planet to be livable for humans, and no doubt for other animal life as well.
      But, might not something like "save the planet for life" say it better?

                              SO, IS THE WORLD INTERESTED?
      Unfortunately, I think there's reason to question whether the world as a whole is, in fact, much interested in environmental protection, and recent evidence tends to support that view.  Asia, we often hear, has a very long way to go before it comes anywhere near so-called "western" standards. And then, as if to illustrate the internationality of the environment, there was the news headline from earlier this month:
     "Problem of floating plastics worsens."
      It seems tiny particles of plastic occupy a huge region of the North Pacific ocean in the millions, perhaps even billions, and the amount has grown 100-fold over the past 40 or so years. Agence France-Press has reported that the plastics are mixed in with all kinds of toxic chemicals ("heavy" with toxic chemicals, their report said), including, one might reasonably expect, those of the corrosive kind emitted by uncontrolled mineral, and other, emissions from land. This, of course, is very bad for fish, and very bad for humans who eat fish.
      The blame for this evidence of governmental failure to protect international waters from plastic pollution cannot, of course, be dumped on current governments alone, since the evil goes back many years. That, of course, is no excuse for inaction today.
      By the way, since we're on plastics, what ever happened to the alleged campaign against plastic grocery bags? Nothing that I've seen -- and the situation, it seems to me, is being made even worse by those supermarkets that use automatic checkout technology. Not much sign of "let's get rid of plastic bags" in that, is there?
 
                              GET IT TOGETHER, NATIONS
      As we have seen, Canada still does have much to do in environmental protection (Tar Sands, anyone?), but the wider world is in a similar and, in too many places, a much worse situation.
      Reuters news agency only recently reported that evidence has come to the fore about some quirky things going on in the plant world, with plants just about everywhere flowering faster than earlier predicted, as a result of global warming.
      Canada, by the way, is a considerable contributor to the global warming phenomenon, because our nation is, though not too many Canadians seem aware of this, very definitely a member of the world's group of "petro-powers" (or carbon-spewers), and is right up there with the likes of Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC nations. (The real and potential Tar Sands reserves range as high as Saudi Arabia's at around 175 billion barrels, but the comparison is not terribly exact, since Saudi oil is pretty clean and relatively inexpensive to extract, while the Tar Sands oil is very dirty and requires immense quantities of water in necessary cleaning processes.)

                              AND WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE?
      We know that environmental protection has been occupying many minds for many years, in places high and low (perhaps excepting Harper's Ottawa). As a consequence, laws and rules on environmental protection have been enacted by plenty of countries, to the extent that one has to feel that few nations, if any, lack a Department of the Environment. How actively they enforce such laws, of course, is a very relevant question.
      At any rate, here we are today -- still facing major environmental problems, constantly in controversy over to allow or not allow such things as oil pipelines (like the proposed, massive Enbridge $5.5 billion Tar Sands-crude pipeline to the west coast), and whether to okay or not okay wide varieties of other projects that present major environmental concerns.
      Since all these matters require huge sums of money to bring about, they are usually put forward by gigantic private economic interests. More often than not, the large economic interests cultivate political connections, they actively lobby in the halls and offices of power -- and to the surprise of few, choose to support the conservative political philosophies that tend to be more sympathetic to big money than to democracy.
      In such circumstances, I'm afraid, the environment must be the loser.
                                                                 ---------------

      UPDATE:  On May 23, 2012, the city of Los Angeles instituted a plan to eliminate -- gradually,  over a period of a year -- plastic bags used for packing customer grocery bags at supermarkets. Environmental activists, supported by actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, are credited with leading the movement to rid landfills, waterways and oceans of the plastic pollutants. So, progress can happen toward protecting the environment. However, one city at a time, even a huge one like L.A., is not good enough -- the world still need firmer, more aggressive action at the national and international levels.
                                                                 ---------------