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.
                                                                 ---------------
   
   
                              
                      
                         

A LINE OR TWO ON THE VANCOUVER SUN -- NOW CELEBRATING ITS FIRST CENTURY

   
      SO WHY SHOULD I CARE VERY MUCH about The Vancouver Sun's birthday, 100th or otherwise?
      A good question and somewhat timely, in light of the fact that the newspaper recently (Feb. 12) put out a humungous 100th anniversary edition, and has continued its Century theme by publishing more vignettes from its past.
      To start with, my answer is that I'm interested because The Sun was the first newspaper that I ever became aware of, at approximately the time I learned to read.  That "first time" was quite early in the paper's history -- in fact, some 77 years ago.

      It must have been a habit-forming experience, since I'm still a subscriber. But the best part -- and this is a personal-interest disclosure -- occurred when in early adulthood I became a reporter for the paper, and enjoyed 15 years on its news staff, about two-thirds of which I spent mostly as a political specialist, covering the legislature in Victoria and then covering parliament in Ottawa.

       

      YOU KNOW, I WAS CONNED into getting hooked on The Sun. By that I mean I, as a boy, couldn't resist the comics -- a full page of them in black and white on weekdays, and on weekends filling an entire section of their own, in color. Oh, those newspapers, they sure knew how to build readership.

     Blondie! Popeye! Terry and the Pirates! Alley Oop! Dick Tracy, etc. etc. I mean, what normal kid ever cared about anything in the paper outside of the comics?

      I must confess that, eventually, my interest did spread beyond the comic pages. Somehow, I  discovered a thing called The Editorial Page. I don't wish to mislead here, so I have to say that at the age of eight or ten I found no value whatsoever in the editorials; they were terribly dull, obtuse and pompous (as many editorials still are today).

     But I did find the editorial page section known as Letters to The Editor -- and that played a large part in my ultimate entry into the news business (with, I repeat, The Vancouver Sun) late in the year 1947.

      AS ANY FAN OF LETTERS-TO-THE-EDITOR can tell you, the letters were, and still are, about almost any subject that might be in, or not in, the news, and they came from ordinary people, expressing their genuine concerns and interests. I remember becoming quite worked up over the injustices people often wrote about.

      The letters and my habit of reading them stimulated in me a continuing interest in public affairs, and I'd say provided me with the beginnings of a long-term education in public issues and politics. So, looking back, it seems only natural that I could do nothing other than one day make my living by writing about those things.

      ACTUALLY, FAMILY LORE WAS also at the root of my reporting ambitions. The story was that my paternal grandfather, Christopher Craigie Young, had been a reporter in about 1895 for The Glasgow Evening News. He died in March, 1910, aged 55, of tuberculosis. His death was registered by a nephew named J. Wilson, of 304 South Wellington St., Glasgow. The Lanark County Register of Deaths lists him as a journalist, widower of Grace McGill, formerly of Stirling, and son of the late William Young, "book canvasser." (My thanks here to son-in-law Eric Wickberg for his great research help on family history.)
      There are no family records detailing any news work Christopher Young did; I  never met him, of course, his death having occurred 19 years before I was born.

      STILL, I HAVE SOME GROUNDS for claiming at least a touch of news-scribbling genes. When I as a boy heard that story about Christopher Young I thought, "Wow, my grandfather was a newspaper reporter -- sounds exciting, lots of fun, glamorous, being right out there, where things are happening, meeting lots of interesting people, recording history as it happens.  Oh, I think I'd like to do that . . .Well, maybe, some day. . ."

      Grandfather Young is recorded in the death registry as having died of "Tuberculosis Phthisis." He was probably susceptible to TB, having suffered coal gas damage to his lungs practicing his reporting trade a few years earlier. That damage occurred when he went down into a Scottish coal mine to cover a disaster, and it no doubt shortened his life. I resolved that if I ever became a reporter I would do my best to take every possible safety precaution in covering anything like a mine disaster -- but, still, a reporter I thought I could be.

       As things turned out in my 43 years in news, I never came close to having to cover any mine disaster, coal or other. Just political disasters, I suppose I could say. And perhaps a little lung damage from too much hanging around smoke-filled rooms, to say nothing of spending excessive hours in hot- air-filled legislative chambers.

       IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED that the early letters-to-the-editor I spoke of above appeared during the 1930s, when it seemed as if half the population couldn't get a regular job. Winter had its good points then, especially if it snowed a lot, because when snow and ice gummed up the B.C. Electric Railway Co. streetcar tracks (our only public transit system then, and it was a very good one), calls went out for temporary laborers to work at shovelling snow and ice away from the tracks.

      My father, who fell on hard times like many scores of thousands of other Canadians in The Great Depression, was one of those temporary snow-removal workers one winter. The pay was low, but it was better than "relief," a term which, by the way, has for many years been replaced by the word "welfare." I believe the intent of those who made the change, the swine, was to make poverty sound better. 

      It was a terrible period and it was to my recollection pretty well covered by The Sun. There were scandals in the "relief " administration, including suicide from exposure of bureaucratic swindling of relief funds, and all of that made for sensational headlines.

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

       I HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT The Sun and my time with it, but for now I'll  adjourn this bit of personal history. In due course, this space will contain additional installments on The Sun and me.

     

   

  

                                           

AN OPEN LETTER TO OLD UNCLE SAM

DEAR UNCLE SAM, AND AMERICAN COUSINS:
      You may not have heard the news yet, because often it takes time for word of Canadian events to penetrate the ever-frantic news-making-and-reporting realm of your media down there (or up there, taking into account the Great State of Alaska).
       But you probably will become aware soon that the Canadian establishment's biggest financial wheel, a chap by the name of Mark Carney, 46, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, has just this past weekend made some remarks that could affect our relationship. Some of you, perhaps many of you, might feel hurt by the tenor of his comments.
       In fact, you might even feel seriously offended -- because he has suggested, in effect, that it might be time for us to cool it a little insofar as our long, sometimes warm, sometimes not, economic relationship is concerned.
       Now when one partner in a two-way human relationship clearly hints, "Let's cool it for a while," what's happening in the vast majority of cases is the beginning of major, and negative, change in a relationship. Especially when it's a very close relationship, such as ours is with the U.S.A; we are, in case you American cousins have forgotten, or have even been aware of it, each others best customers. (By the way, I'm not sure where the concept of Canadians and Americans as cousins originated, but we all know it has been around for seeming eons. No doubt it started in the mind of some politician, Canadian or American.)
   
      IN HIS CTV INTERVIEW at the weekend with the excellent reporter Craig Oliver, Mr. Carney goes further: he suggests that we ought to not just cool it with the Americans, but to get a lot cozier with others, in international economics, in effect "play the field" more. (You Americans might be taking it hard that he also said the U.S. is not a declining power, just a "reclining" one. As for me, I thought it was a great line, though slightly snide.)
      Unless I'm seriously mistaken, Mr. Carney is proposing that Canada, trade-wise, should be shifting to what might be termed an "open relationship." (Newt Gingrich should appreciate that, in a rueful way though, since I think he personally has found making a suggestion like that to be risky.)
       To be more specific I take Mr. Carney to be saying we should not put so many of our economic eggs in the American basket, but work harder at finding better and bigger markets off-shore, particularly Asia.
       We are obliged to pay attention to Mr. Carney. He has, if anyone has, a gold-plated economic background: born in Fort Smith, NWT, he has degrees from Harvard (Bachelor of Economics), and Oxford's Nuffield College (masters and doctorate in economics). So, American cousins, you, too, really ought to listen to what he says.

       I'M QUITE SURE, OF COURSE, that you will not find it easy to accept some of his remarks, and you might even indulge yourselves in unkind remarks about Canada. Possibly words along the following lines:
       "Sure, you Canadians are good buddies when the going is good. But, now, just when America's having serious economic problems, and might not be able to give you as much business as we have, what does your big economic honcho do?  He bad-mouths us, saying that we can recover, mainly, but not enough to get back to the way we were."
       Probably some of you American cousins will regard the Carney remarks as "un-American," and totally unbecoming for one of Canada's top international spokesmen. You might even go so far as to say, "They're just fair-weather friends, those Canadians with all their gol-darn oil and natural gas. Some cousins they are!"
       Permit me to remind our cousins that there are inscriptions on the Peace Arch at the Blaine, Washington State, border crossing that suggest we're even more closely related than cousins. It says, on the American side of the arch: "Children of a Common Mother" -- referring, of course, to our common British origins. On the Canadian side, the inscription declares: "Brethren Dwelling Together In Unity."

       I THINK IT IMPORTANT that Americans understand we in Canada share your love for freedom of speech. It's in our constitution, as it is in yours. We also are huge customers of your movies, your books, magazines, almost anything in the entertainment field. In fact, sometimes I think Canadians look so much to American cultural products that they could be mistaken for wanna-be Americans.
      As I have said in the past, though, criticizing America is one of the main hobbies of Canadians. Could it be that we are sort of jealous of them? On the other hand, lots of Canadians have made it big in the U.S., in many fields, but especially entertainment. Is it because our entertainers seem like Americans?
       I think we'd prefer to have their good stuff, and forget about the rest.
       For myself in the criticism field, I believe that the U.S. is far too aggressive in its international politics and economics, in its militarism and the way it projects the attitude that its role is to rule the world.

       HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I return to Mr. Carney. Let me try to calm any anger you Americans may have worked up over Mr. Carney, and assure you that the whole thing will blow over. He has given you an incentive, a goal to be achieved. All you have to do is get your rear-ends into gear and work your way out of it. Your big goal: just prove Mark Carney wrong. Really, he has issued you a challenge.
        Permit me to close by pointing out that it's not unusual for cousins to have quarrels. So we shouldn't allow the "negativisms" from Mr. Carney to confuse the issue. I think it's pretty sure that we Canadians and Americans will remain cousins, of a sort.
        Just not kissin'-cousins, maybe.
            Regards,
               Cousin Alex      
                  Richmond, B.C.
                                                                                                                                                                 
        POSTSCRIPT: For people involved in the overheated real estate market of the Greater Vancouver area, I must note that Mr. Carney gave his usual warning that Canadians should beware of taking on too much debt. He said: "Canadians could overextend themselves and could get into a position where the debts that are sustainable at very low interest rates prove unsustainable when rates return to a more normal level."
        As the guy who has a lot of influence on interest rates, he should know what he'd talking about. He is, in fact, not "just" the person in charge of The Bank of Canada. He also is a very big bigshot on the world financial scene.
        He has been appointed Financial Stability Board chairman by the Group of 20 (the G20) industrialized nations. That board of central bankers, financial officers and regulators, set up after the 2008 economic crisis, has the job of, well, trying to ensure the stability of financial institutions. Its primary job, I suspect, is to determine which financial institutions will get bailed out by poor average joes the next time things hit the skids.
                                        ---------------
        (NOTE: For those who might find it more convenient to comment on this blog by way of e-mail, instead of by the Blogger Comment route, please e-mail me at young.alexander6@gmail.com)

     
    

WHEN YOU HIT THE CASINO, YOU COULD BE STAKING MORE THAN JUST YOUR MONEY

      THE INIQUITIES OF GAMBLING have long been noted by poets and philosophers:
                                  "The Whore & Gambler, by the state
                                       Licensed, build that nation's fate. . ."
wrote William Blake (1757-1827), in his Auguries of Innocence.
      I hasten to note that so far in Canada we're not into licensing brothels -- but our governments do push lotteries, and more than a few of our local and regional governments have become exceptionally enthusiastic about licensing gambling casinos.
      Since we fill half of Blake's prescription for the dire consequences that he seems to be predicting for our gambling sin, we can only guess what fate he may have had in mind, although I'd bet (sorry, Mr. Blake) he meant something terrible.

      LONG BEFORE BLAKE, the English clergyman and poet George Herbert (1593-1633) declared the following on the dangers of gambling:
                                    "Play not for gain, but sport. Who plays for more
                                       Than he can lose with pleasure, stakes his heart;
                                         Perhaps his wife's too, and whom she hath bore."

      Those words of wisdom by the Reverend Mr. Herbert will not commend themselves, I'd expect, to the minds of folks in the gambling trade, who prey upon the poor and the greedy (and the gullible), seeking to attract them in ever larger numbers to their gambling halls.

      FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES, of course, the gambling merchants who are licensed by government to work their trade do accept (superficially, in my view) the Herbert advice, urging casino customers, in similar language in fact, to enjoy, but to play responsibly. We've all heard the slogan, "Know your limit, play within it."
      I'm pretty sure that a huge percentage of those entering organized gambling establishments to bet have an idea of "making" money. Now, we occasionally do hear a friend or acquaintance relate how he or she came home from the casino the other night with two or three thousand dollars in winnings. What you will rarely hear, though, is the truth about how much that casino player had to lose, over time, on the road to those winnings.

      I'VE BEEN IN CASINOS in a number of places over many years. The first time was on a visit to Reno -- some 40 years ago -- when Reno, probably ahead of even Las Vegas, was the main gambling spot in North America, at least for people in British Columbia. Reno gambling was a great novelty.
      At that time, Reno was a much smaller town than it is today, and its casinos were on the whole quite homey places; people seemed to be having a good time, and they liked the plentiful supply of free or low-cost meal tickets.
     I went back about ten years ago and found it much different: bigger casinos, bigger hotels, hardly recognizable from the good old Reno where people had fun.

     TODAY OF COURSE THERE ARE casinos just about everywhere, including, in plentiful supply, around my own stomping grounds, Greater Vancouver. There are, as I see it, too many.
     Actually, it wouldn't disturb me one little bit if there were none. It seems to me they serve no useful purpose, and probably do more harm than good. It must be remembered that the casino form of gambling is a large departure from the government-run and government-controlled lotteries we have in Canada.
     The lotteries are what I call a "separation" form of gambling, meaning you make your wager, usually in a store, then move on, dealing with other day-to-day matters, like buying groceries or doing other kinds of shopping.  You're separated from the betting point and the "cash-in" point (if there's any cashing in to do).
     You're taking a flyer (the odds against winning the 6/49 are massive, and the odds against winning the Lotto Max are massive-massive) but, as is often said, someone might win, and you don't have to spend very much to have a chance. There's no sitting at a slot machine in a privately-owned and operated casino and mindlessly working it (pouring money into it) in the hopes of "winning" a big payday -- while the private owners or their representatives look on and and make sure you're "having a good time" and do whatever else they can to help you separate yourself from your money. When it comes to plain, ordinary lottery tickets, though, I think most people usually spend a modest amount on them, hoping to win something.

      THE ATMOSPHERE OF OUR CASINOS bugs hell out of me. Very few people  seem to be having any fun at all. (Maybe because most are going to be losers when they leave?) In fact, many  people I've observed in casinos have a somewhat melancholy look about them. And the security guys? Oh, yeah -- you can't miss 'em. Those I've seen usually travel in pairs. They are very tastefully dressed, but they are big guys (I almost said bruisers), and they don't look happy. In fact, they look sort of mean and threatening.
      To put it simply, I don't like our casinos, find them quite boring. But my experience tells me many people spend a long time in them, and have long (funless, I say) sessions with various forms of gambling.

      THIS COMMENTARY AGAINST COMMERCIAL GAMBLING establishments comes as a response to current news of a casino expansion proposed for downtown Vancouver.  I am opposed to it, and I wish to state my support of an organization called Vancouver Not Vegas, which is against that expansion.
      Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson, according to news reports, says he won't allow new casinos or existing casino expansion as long as he's mayor. This is welcome news and I'm sure Vancouver Not Vegas will approve.
      I worry about the position of the provincial government, however, because it is heavily dependent upon gambling revenues. Oh, yes, it certainly does clean up financially with its lotteries (through the B.C. Lottery Corp.), but also takes a chunk from the commercial casinos, too. It hauls in well over one billion dollars annually from gaming, so it has a large stake in keeping the games going. This is not good.
      A former Vancouver city councillor, Peter Ladner, who is dubious about casino expansion, made some cogent comments earlier this year at a public meeting about the proposed expansion, and I think they are worth repeating.

      "WE NEED A MORATORIUM on further gambling expansion in Vancouver until we understand its impact," he said.  The Vancouver Courier noted the following in its report on that meeting:
       "As for concerns about crime and problem gambling, Ladner pointed out the RCMP's Integrated Gambling Enforcement Team disbanded in 2009, leaving monitoring  of casinos largely to the B.C. Lottery Corp."
      Ladner was then quoted as saying:
      "To put BCLC in charge of monitoring abusive gambling is like having he Hells Angels in charge of abusive gang activity."
     Ladner suggested that a referendum be held on the casino proposal, but that idea seems to have  dropped out of sight.
     Do the gambling operators always appear to win? Well, I guess they're the dealers, aren't they?     
       
     

     
     
           

   

WHAT DO YOU THINK, FOLKS: KEEP THE CBC?

   

       I'D BE THE LAST TO ARGUE that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does a perfect job in its assigned role as a unifying Canadian cultural force, with its obligation to link all regions bilingually, and to provide news coverage in a way that is free of bias, political or other.
      There have been times, in fact, when I have been so ticked off at the CBC -- usually in matters involving general and political news, rather than entertainment programming -- that I'd have backed the idea of dismantling the whole bloody network and selling off its assets in order to reduce the public debt.
       Then I have remembered that lurking in the background, waiting to pounce on the CBC share of the broadcast market, are private broadcasters, whose chief goal seems to be the coining of advertising profits through entertainment, huge chunks of that entertainment emanating from the show biz mills of the U.S.A. (as well as the goal, of course, of providing heavy airing of conservative viewpoints).
       
       BUT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE that brings me back to the support of the CBC, in spite of its faults, and that's the realization of a peculiarity that I have noticed many times in my professional experience of covering political news.
       Before I describe that peculiarity I must state that in all my years of political reporting, I always tried to be balanced in the way I handled my work. It was standard practice to seek comments from "the other side" in political news. If a premier or prime minister made a statement, or was involved in news in some other way, then getting a response from his or her political opponents was obligatory. In addition, digging into the facts of matters was essential, aside entirely from any politician's statements or desires.
       One is entitled to think that political leaders would understand this obligation on the part of news organizations and their reporters, and not take it amiss. Many of them did, and do today, accept that, but  the peculiarity of which I speak is that there were some who at times did (and do) not.
       On more than one occasion, I heard gripes from government leaders (Premier W.A.C. Bennett was one, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker was another, and, yes, I do go that far back) about the way newspapers could find criticisms of government policy by opposition representatives to be worth much as news.

        BENNETT'S POINT OF VIEW was that we should not give those parties any sizeable coverage because they were not in positions of power; they lacked the ability to do anything more than criticize and present unproven ideas. And he sometimes darkly hinted that -- well, no, he actually used specific terms, sometimes calling us "the Liberal press" and even suggesting reporters were "socialists," and if not that, still were guided by some political motive or other.
       I often suspected that the Bennetts and the Diefenbakers and the like would have been quite content to see the opposition get no publicity at all. In other words, the government won election to power, not the other guys, so why should they receive all that attention?
      This approach, in my experience, tended to come more from the right than from the the left, more from the conservative than from the liberal side of the political spectrum. (To be fair, I should remind readers that Diefenbaker was something of a "red Conservative.")
       We've had a sample of this attitude in the past week, with parliamentary committee hearings in Ottawa on the CBC's budget, which depends upon just over $1 billion a year in government subsidies.

       CONSERVATIVE MP JOHN Williamson accused the CBC of providing one-sided news coverage -- which of course meant he was unhappy with CBC coverage of his side, the government side.
       I think his argument boils down to the same thing: it was the Tory point of view that won the national election last May, so other points of view just don't rate. Therefore (although Mr. Williamson did not put it quite this way), we want to stick our noses into your (CBC) records and maybe get to see who your sources were for this or that, and so on and so forth, and then possibly be able to shut them up. I'm not saying that's precisely the case, I'm just kicking the subject around, being of suspicious mind when it comes to politics.
      Anyway, the motivation is political because the source of the questioning is a politician. And, naturally, the CBC is not going to fold under such outrageous pressure, nor should it.

      POWER IS A PECULIAR THING.  Even in democracies those who gain power can persuade themselves after exercising power for a relatively short time, that they not only deserve to wield it, but truly own it. This leads them to reason further that they therefore are not subject to criticisms and can do no wrong and are entitled to constant public cheering.
      Fortunately, in democracies they always learn they are wrong about that.
      I suppose it can be galling to any Canadian national government to be called to account as a result of news stories generated by an organization that the government itself owns. And I would guess that it's difficult for more than a few politicians to accept the idea that an outfit like the CBC is actually doing its news duty when it holds political feet to the fire, as any self-respecting news organization must.
      My opinion of CBC news coverage -- I'm not constant viewer, but I catch quite a bit of it -- is that it is, on the whole, good, professional and energetic. I do not, however, give such a high rating to the CBC's commentary programs. For one thing, they tend to use too many of the same "talking heads," which can lead to boredom, since the viewer is likely to sense in advance what these talking heads are going to say.   
      And then there's this: On a recent political discussion-analysis program I was astonished to see that one of the "authorities" on the panel was a practitioner of what generally goes under the title "public relations counsel."

       THIS OFFENDS ME,  because my view of "public relations counsel" is not terribly favorable. That is a somewhat dignified occupational title, "public relations counsel," but in my day many in news regarded people with that title (pleasant though they may have been personally) as "press agents" and "publicity agents" and (sorry, but it's the truth) as "flaks." I mean, their job was/is to get favorable publicity for their clients, whatever their ilk, whatever their aims.
      And all I can say about that is, "CBC news, what'n'hell are you doing, giving such formal respect and dignity to flaks?"
       I also have a problem with some of the CBC's entertainment line-up -- it has more import programming than your true-blue Canadian might want. So far, the MPs of the inquiring committee don't seem to have gone into that general question. I think they ought to -- I mean, we can already get "Wheel of Fortune" on American cable. So why does the CBC need to carry it too? (There are other "duplication programs" as well.)
       My opinion is that the CBC can and should be sharpened up a bit, can and should pay attention to some of the things that concern the public, but not for political reasons or purposes.

        WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT, though, I think I'll vote to keep the CBC, while insisting that it is not beyond improvement and should seriously get to work on improving itself -- but do so while holding firmly to the value that it is not a mouthpiece for any government or political ideology. Period.

        Oh, I almost forgot --

        HAPPY 75th, CBC!

DREAM ENTRIES FROM THE SOAPBOX NOTEBOOK: READ 'EM AND WEEP (or not)

   
                               THE FASCINATION OF DREAMS


     Who hasn't awakened on many mornings -- sometimes quite early -- after having experienced absorbing, arresting and, more often than one might like, absolutely terrifying dreams?

      I know I have. In fact, at times I have been so impressed, even staggered, by some of my dreams that I have taken to making notes about them, thinking they might serve as a basis for future stories of imagination. But recently, having come across a few of those notes, I've decided they can stand on their own, without elaboration or revision into some other form, and are well-suited to Blog recording.

     I mean, they do amount to fiction on their own, don't they? Certainly they do. In fact, they in many ways are more fictional than the finely crafted material of conventional fiction, for the simple reason that they come from unconscious, unfettered, natural inspiration within the sleeping mind.

      And, so, friends, I now proceed to share a couple of recent dreams, of two different nights, that I feel, even in their twisted, disconnected logic and sometimes ghastly "events," may be of general interest, and even provide fodder for those psychologists and psychiatrists, both amateur and professional, who believe dreams actually mean something (but can't agree on what, thanks to the variant theories of the late, great Drs. Freud and Jung, and their intellectual descendants).
                                                            ------

              I THINK I WAS JUST ON MY WAY TO WORK LAST NIGHT
      I am on foot, making my way to work, following a group of workmates. It is daylight, a grey, overcast day. I am trying to catch up, but can't. My mates start to cross an open field. Perhaps it's the city's fairgrounds, but in the off-season: there are no buildings or fixtures on the field, but office buildings and homes surround the field perimeters.

     My mates are taking a shortcut in crossing the field. As I follow them, I suddenly encounter a cat attacking and chewing on a roundish, bun-shaped smaller creature. As I watch, struggling with a vague thought that I ought to do something, the bun-shape morphs into the form of a dark grey rat. The cat is much larger than the rat and it doesn't seem a fair fight.

      The cat runs off, leaving me with what looks like a dead rat. The animal is absolutely still, and I begin to think I should try to revive it. There's a burning cigarette in this scene somehow, and as I stand there looking at the rat, smoke is rising from the area of the rat's abdomen. I mentally note, "This rat has swallowed a burning cigarette!"

                       SO LET'S TRY REVIVING THE CRITTER
      It seems like a good idea, I tell myself, to pour water on the rat, perhaps squelch the smoke and bring the rat around. Oh, yes -- here's a shoebox, the rat will fit into it, and I can pour water into the box, cover the rat, then pour the water out and the rat will revive. (I had not the slightest thought of what on earth I was doing trying to save a rat. But we must try to remember that this was "just a dream.")

      I begin to implement my rescue plan. And after I've poured the water out of the box, the rat is far from conscious. Seems clear to me now that it is not going to revive. It is just a drowned, dead, rat.

      Somebody in the crowd that this rat drama has attracted says of my hesitation, "Forget it -- bury the goddam thing."

      I look around for a possible grave site, but it strikes me that I ought not to be burying a rat in these historic fairgrounds.

      I am mystified, and a bit forlorn, at being incapable of finding a rat grave.  I realize I have an impossible problem here . . .

      And thus ends, or fades out, that weird, crazy dream.               
                                                             ------

                              LEAPS OF FAITH CAN BE OVERDONE
      The second dream I relate in this chronicle (which will have future chapters, I do believe, of other dreams) begins with my walking among the streets of huge and tall office buildings, hotels and apartments -- I suppose somewhat like those of downtown Vancouver.

      But then, all of a sudden, I am no longer on the street, but on the top of one of these buildings, very, very high.  How I may have found my way up there is of no concern to me whatever. And, once on top, it is my feeling that I am and have been for some time walking and jumping from building-top to building-top, from flat roof to flat roof,  all of which are very close to one another, making each leap relatively easy.

      Each leap provides an exciting and joyful feeling.

                            PERHAPS IN A DREAM IT MATTERS NOT
      Except that, because I have been making all these easy leaps continuously, I have formed something of a habit with this series of jump-jump-after-jump. And, so, I find myself unable to stop the pattern; it just seems very natural. I am more or less invincible in my jumping, and there is no jump too difficult for me to make.

      Unfortunately it is only when I am in the midst of the last one that I realize I have taken one leap that is over a distance too far for me to be sure of covering. I naturally come up short.

       As I find myself falling rapidly from many storeys high, I say to myself -- calmly, as if I am a mere observer -- "You know, you are quite a sorry idiot . . . "

       At that exact moment I awaken, terribly glad to find out I had not been in the real world. Letting out a huge exhalation of air, I am secure in the realization that I have been experiencing only a dream.

       And yet I also realize in that moment that I have one hellish headache . . .

                                                                  ------

     P.S.   Re: the Rat Dream: Perhaps in a future dream I could "bury" the rat corpse in a novel way -- say by leaving it on the roof of a skyscraper, instead of worrying about finding it a burial place in the ground. No, just kidding. Anyway, one would think that different dreams on different nights can't "communicate" with each other in such a way. Or can they . . . ?
      P.P.S. Re: both dreams described above. Any comment on or analysis by readers of the dreams I've reported -- you know, your take on "symbolism," theme, underlying meanings, and all of that -- may be inserted in the comment space below, and will be welcomed. Think of it as a chance to exercise your inner psychologist.

                                                                  ------

PRINCE CHARLES RIGHT ON GRAVE DANGERS TO ENVIRONMENT, AND TO OUR SURVIVAL

                                    CHARLES TELLS IT STRAIGHT


      Royalty and its often idle pursuits are not something I have been inclined to warm to. My view has long been that royalty doesn't fit any genuine democracy, and ought not to be revered by one.

      Not that Canada is what you might call a total democracy, of course. For one thing, we have a Queen, a member of an historically non-democratic institution, though a modern-times "reformed" and "symbolic" one; for another, and completely aside from the question of royalty, we have in our country electoral laws that rarely produce democratic representation (a fact I have discussed in the past and will do again in the future, but not in this piece).

      I am now forced to admit, however, that my jaundiced attitude toward monarchy has lately been tempered by a noteworthy entry into matters of the common good by Prince Charles. He has shown, as he has in past offerings, that he accepts a positive public role and will not shrink from delivering rather arresting, even non-establishment, opinions to the world.

      And I would say he has earned special credit with his latest offering in acceptance of the position of president of the World Wildlife Fund-UK. He has been an environmentalist for a long time and has used his position of fame to further the goals of the WWF.

                                                    * * * * * *

      IN HIS SPEECH TO THE WWF, HE USED some of the most dire words that have been heard by his members concerning human use of nature and its resources, even warning as possible the extinction of humanity if it doesn't change its ways.

      Of special interest to Canadians was one sharp caution on global warming, and it's consequences for Canada's arctic, referring to the "terrifying" possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean. If it happens to the Arctic it will happen in the Antarctic, as well, he intimated, and we will have horrendous global warming.

      Although that Arctic warning didn't, from what I've seen, draw particularly large space in the Canadian news media, the rest of his speech drew great attention and coverage internationally.

      The UK's Guardian, for example, showed intense interest in the prince's "impassioned plea for humanity to safeguard the natural world for future generations." And the Daily Telegraph provided extensive coverage.

      All media were taken, as they should have been, by Charles's claim that the world is already in the "sixth extinction event," faced as it is with global threats of climate change, rainforest destruction, widespread droughts and loss of fish stocks.

      "History will not judge us," said Charles, "by how much economic growth we achieve in the immediate years ahead, nor by how much we expand material consumption, but by the legacy we leave for our children, grandchildren and their grandchildren.

      "We are sacrificing what is rightfully theirs by sacrificing long-term progress on the altar of immediate satisfaction and convenience. That is hardly responsible behaviour."

                                                    * * * * * *

      AFTER HEARING OR READING ABOUT the Prince of Wales's speech, how many of us are of the opinion that the world's industrialists and resource-extractors, and political leaders, will take more urgent action than they have, so far, to head off the environmental consequences of what is happening in the pursuit of consumption -- or over-consumption, mostly in the so-called First World?

      Deep environmentalist concern has been sounded frequently for years about such things as:

      -- The massive output of chemicals, and their entry into the environment, with lack of sufficient knowledge about their effects on humans and the environment, with not much political angst about it.
      -- Control over and elimination of such toxic substances as plastics (to be found in almost every corner of the globe, and polluting the oceans by the millions if not billions of particles).
      -- Still inadequate limits on carbon emissions.
      -- Corporate resistance to environmental controls, and at times actual denial of any global warming, positions taken out of more concern for balance sheets than for the health and survival of humanity.
      -- The weakening of the soil and the oceans as buffers against global warming, according to recent European studies.
      -- Continued threats of lowering ozone levels. (Just wear lots of sunscreen, you say? Well, it ain't that simple, bub.  For example: The U.S. department of Agriculture on Aug. 30, 2011, worried about a possible 10 per cent drop in soybean crops as a result of ozone reduction.
      -- And then there's the longer-range environmental issue of what's to be done about safe storage of nuclear wastes from the worrisome expansion of the nuclear-power-generating industry.

                                                    * * * * * * 

      YET, IN SPITE OF THOSE PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS, we have great, greater and greatest threats to the environment, and to humanity's future, still confronting us.

      Now, I'm not an expert on the environment, though I do try to keep track events and issues in that field.  But I don't have to be an expert. Prince Charles is authoritative when he speaks of the environment, because he has been a champion of the need to clean it up for many years. He has, I have no doubt, studied it well, and has the best advice from some of the best experts there are.

      I am therefore confident that the environmental facts are what Prince Charles says they are,  and I'm not going to fault him for making his case in as dramatic a way as he wishes. My confidence, in fact, grows greater with the knowledge that another high-profile personage, UN secretary-general Ban Ki Moon, is on the same message. A couple of months ago he warned the UN Security Council that human-generated climate change, as one headline declared, "threatens world peace." He put it this way:

      "Extreme weather events continue to grow more frequent and intense in rich and poor countries alike, not only devastating lives, but also infrastructure, institutions, and budgets -- an unholy brew which can create dangerous security vacuums." Thus, he found, concerted actions worldwide to counter climate change are vitally essential.

      All of the above quite definitely makes me more environmentally concerned, and supportive of environmental-protection efforts, than I may have been in the past.

      And I would like to add that I believe I will have to rethink my previous attitudes toward British Royalty (which is really Canadian royalty, too) -- and must offer thanks to Charles, Prince of Wales, for the work he is doing on the environment. He is a credit to that often-controversial institution known as royalty.

                                  ______________________________


       

LET'S HAVE MORE NEWS MEDIA DISCLOSURES ABOUT . . . THE NEWS MEDIA THEMSELVES

  
 
      IT HAS MORE OR LESS FALLEN OUT OF THE HEADLINES, but the Murdoch-News Of The World scandal did raise some questions related to the trustworthiness of "The Press" in general -- and they are questions that I believe need to be explored.

      Since that revealing UK parliamentary inquiry last month into the now-deceased News Of The World's morbid cellphone-hacking caper, there have been few, if any, proposals from within the conventional mainstream press for reforms in the field of news gathering and publishing -- even though the conventional press is not always shy about about wandering into scandal sheet territory itself.

      I mean, sex and scandal sell well in all forms of popular information dissemination, don't they, and not just in the tabs. Yet, somehow, that reality has been overlooked in the handwringing over the Murdoch press.

      The mainstream press, of course, is always eager to adopt a lofty position and treat the trash press as by definition unworthy of being taken seriously, saying in effect, "That's not us -- we are responsible."


      THE PRESS IS A BUSINESS THAT IS NOT especially comfortable with the idea of criticizing or investigating its own methods and practices, while at the same time reserving to itself the right to pry into everyone else's business.

      I've been retired from the game for more than 20 years, but I'm still a news junkie, and over those years I've thought quite a lot about how easily the news media get by without being called to account that much.

      So, today, I'm going to throw out, in a helpful, speculative way a few suggestions that might contribute to improvement of public trust in The Press. (Surveys show, by the way, a relatively low rating for public trust of the news media, aside entirely from the Murdoch thing.)

      Just before I get into my suggestions, however, I'll repeat one of my biggest complaints, which I never tire of voicing -- and that is my objection to the relentless concentration of ownership in the conventional news media, seemingly just about everywhere in the English-speaking world. The sad part of it is that the general public doesn't seem to notice, or else doesn't really care, so muted are any protests. Oh, that's right, I just remembered -- the mutes are operated on the whole by the concentrating forces themselves, aren't they? But the good news is that we do occasionally see the on-line "press" taking the ball away from the big boys, and this is to the public benefit.


      A LONG TIME AGO the Canadian government commissioned an inquiry into the monopolizing trend in Canada's news media. The upshot was a report, based on complaints and suggestions to the inquiry by many concerned citizens, containing a number of constructive recommendations, including legislated limitations on concentration of ownership. The idea was to encourage competition in news, the better to inform the pubic.

      Nothing came of it, the concentration continued.  I suppose there weren't then (as now) many politicians who wanted to arouse the hostility of news media owners, managers, and publishers intent upon diminishing competition in news coverage and thus improving their profits.

      Okay, that battle seems to have been lost, at least for now. But let us not despair -- there are other ways in which improvements can be made with the objective of making The Press more reliable and trustworthy, and that's what I'm on about here.

      What I have to suggest would go under the heading of "conflict of interest," a topic that does engage the interest of the news media, because it is one major activity of news gatherers. Looking into conflicts of interest, mostly in politics and business, and the publicizing of it in its news spaces, is a significant part of the bread and butter of news-gathering-and-publishing businesses.

      Therefore, I propose, that same principle ought to be one that is equally applied to those who do the news gathering, including news commentaries and editorials. And applied as well, where it might reasonably be applied, to publishers, managers and other news media executives.


      FOR EXAMPLE:

      * The business-news editors and reporters should have to disclose what investments they own, in what companies, if any; or at the every least disclose whether, on any given story they have handled about any given company or class of business, they hold any personal interests.

      * Ditto for political reporters and commentators on where their personal political -- and business interests too -- may rest, if any. Do any of them hold a publicly undisclosed membership in any political party? And, if a political story or government policy affects a company or class of business, have they any personal interest in any of those businesses? It might even be fair to ask how they vote.

      * Ditto for the writers and editors of the sports pages, where any personal interest might involve any of the sports or teams or athletes or personalities written about (including animal racing).

      * Ditto for the writers and editors of the entertainment pages.

      And so on and so forth, for culture, for religion, and for all the other sections and content of a newspaper (TV or radio station).


      NOW, WOULDN'T YOU AS A NEWSPAPER READER,  TV viewer or radio listener feel more comfortable, and enlightened, if you knew those personal things about the people you pay to keep you informed?

     And, knowing those things, wouldn't you feel a good deal more trust toward them and view them as more reliable as well?

      All right then, the people of The News Media have to act: they should suck it up and give us the lowdown on their personal selves and interests, and their relationship to the news. If there's conflict, they need to own up to it, and get rid of it. Create a better-informed readership. We are entitled to that information. It could be a fascinating part of many a story.   

   

DISSERTATION ON MURDOCH'S MELODRAMA

                        
                              DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH
     
      Pardon me if I sound a little cynical here, but having spent most of my working life in the newspaper business,  I have to say that I suspect Rupert Murdoch and his "journalistic" empire will emerge from their current troubles without suffering much long-term damage.

      So, okay, the News of The World is gone. But as Murdoch himself suggested, that was virtually peanuts, less than one per cent of his holdings. Everything else, it appears, is intact within his empire, and no doubt the byword in his organization worldwide is something like, "Onward and upward, the sky's the limit," and so on.

      The time element in the probing of the Murdoch empire's shenanigans, both in the UK and the U.S., is such that he and his minions will be able to keep on doing for months and months, perhaps even years and years, what they have been doing, before any serious or deep  changes and reforms are imposed, if any can be.

      What I'm saying is that the whole thing shows every sign of being such a long and drawn out affair that people will have lost track of it before a lot gets done.

      Sure, some stock market dip in the Murdoch companies' shares did occur, but that's unlikely to be serious or lasting. The thing is, Rupert, already worth about $7 billion, has a keen knack for making money (although there's a question mark over certain iffy ventures he's attempting in China). But, let's face it, anyone who controls $7 billion isn't likely to suffer anything approaching heavy-duty financial penalty. For someone like Rupert, suffering a little embarrassment -- "the most humble day of my life" -- can't hurt much within the context of his entertainment empire.

      The situation is the following:  An extensive UK police investigation has been ordered into a particularly goulish and gruesome example of Murdoch press cellphone hacking. That's good, except that the best estimate of the inquiry's duration is one year, which probably means it will take longer, especially since some highly questionable links between the Murdoch people and cops in the UK are involved.

      And only then, we are told, can the promised judicial inquiry begin.  How long that will take, only Murdoch's maker knows. And of course there's talk of a probe by the U.S. Congress concerning allegations involving his large U.S. operations, but what might happen there is uncertain, given the conservative-dominated, Murdoch-ideology-leaning House of Representatives.

                              AFTER THE PROBES, WHAT THEN?
      What might then happen? Perhaps some criminal and/or civil charges against any lawbreakers. There might be quite a few of those, in light of reports that as many as 12,000 people were victimized by telephone tapping and other "blagging" incidents allegedly perpetrated by a UK branch of Murdochs' News Corp.

      Fortunately for the Murdochs and the News Corp., the mysterious death of the chief whistle-blower in the Murdoch  phone hacking scandal, Sean Hoare, evidence-gathering is severely compromised -- unless, that is, Hoare left behind well-protected notes and documents in support of his allegations.

     Hoare was a totally key figure in the whole story, having worked for the Murdoch scandal sheet, News of The World, where he gained first-hand knowledge of phone hacking.

      Rupert Murdoch and his son were the very picture of sincerity and contriteness before the UK parliamentary hearing yesterday, protesting complete innocence of these nefarious practices in their empire -- and they still refused to take responsibility for the misdeeds of their trusted executives.

     This to me was sheer evasion, to put it mildly.  It made me think of the U.S. president, Harry Truman, a gutsy guy who had a sign in his office that said: "The buck stops here." I guess the Murdochs don't know about such things.

      No -- my impression of the Murdochs is that they have a sort of understanding with their empire's executives that they, the executives, operate on "principles" perhaps expressed this way: "Get audience, get readers, expand market-share, do whatever you need to do to improve the bottom line. But don't do anything illegal in your news and information-gathering. And keep me out of it, I don't have time for all the details of every operation. If you do anything illegal, it will not be with my approval, I will deny all knowledge and disown you." Just speculating, that's all.


                              A BIG POINT IN MURDOCH'S FAVOR
      I watched a great deal of the five-plus-hours testimony before the UK parliamentary committee inquiry on July 19, and there was one matter that I never heard mentioned, even in passing, but it is something that must be discussed.

      It is the question of freedom of the press. All democratic societies, to my knowledge, advocate and support freedom of expression, whether by oral or printed or broadcast means. Without the embracing of that principle there can be no democracy.

      I wish to point out that freedom of speech and the press does not mean it can only be freedom of a "responsible" or "ethical" or "principled" press or speech. No, it is simply freedom of speech. You say and write what you like, and you take your chances as to whether you are guilty of libel or slander. There are laws against those, and it can cost you and hurt you a lot if you break them.

      Information-gathering takes many different forms, most of them legal, but not all of them perhaps "ethical" by puritanistic standards. During my career, I had my own moments in that regard, but my lips are sealed. In the news business, you get your news where you find it, we always used to say.

       Just to clarify, though: I never was involved in or ever heard of any other reporters being involved in telephone tapping. But I can't say that I never did gain possession of purportedly "confidential" documents or make them public in an "unauthorized" way; and I can't say I never eavesdropped on what were supposed to be confidential meetings. The results of such actions usually turned up good news stories, all of them in the public interest (to the chagrin of many a politician), and I apologize in no way for any of those activities.

     If the News of The World or other Murdoch news outlet violated some other law than laws against the admitted cellphone-hacking -- such as laws against libel and defamation, or of theft or blackmail, and so on -- then the perpetrators ought to be charged and tried on the evidence. Those laws exist and are sufficient, I say, to deal with any of the problems covered by the heading, "journalistic misdeeds."

      Other than that, though, it's fair game. If the Murdoch press wishes to produce mostly sleazy news of scandal and crime, or political and economic propaganda (as many of the Murdoch interests have been characterized as doing) then that is its choice, and it is perfectly free to do so.


                              THE MORE COMPETITION, THE BETTER
      People will either purchase its publications, or listen to or watch its broadcasts, as they please. It is the people  -- in the marketplace of ideas and information -- who will decide the success or failure of that news endeavor.

      My own view of the matter is that the more competition in the news marketplace there is, the better for society. So, yes, I do have criticism of the Murdoch empire for its clear efforts to build monopoly-like holdings that can overwhelm the print and broadcast world with one particular point of view -- in the Murdoch case predominantly conservative and right wing ideas and interests. Its critics are strong in their  claims that Rupert's empire uses political influence through its media to improve its profitability.

       Concentration of ownership in any industry, in my view, is bad for society. It is especially bad in the information media. (Canada, unfortunately, has seen examples of that that.) And I hope Murdoch is not given the necessary government permission to further concentrate his UK empire in broadcasting.

      Much as a lot of British politicians might wish to bring down the hammer on Murdoch, I'm not sure the UK parliament can do much -- other than prosecute actual breaches of the law, and prevent concentration of ownership -- to otherwise "curb" the Murdoch press there, without infringing on freedom of speech generally.

      And, after all's said and done, I believe it's a good thing that they can't.

    
    

    
    

          

REFLECTIONS ON AFTER-HOCKEY ANARCHY

              
       FIRST, LET'S DEAL WITH THE CULPRITS -- I say the perpetrators of the Vancouver vandalism ought, at the very least, to be severely spanked and sent to bed without supper for at least 30 nights (and days) in secure, steel-barred rooms.

      Those who performed physical violence on other people in that post-Stanley Cup idiocy should, of course, get more appropriate penalties, according to the severity of their crimes.

      All convicted rioters should also have to undergo training, while in jail, in how to write on a chalkboard, a couple of thousand times:  "I will be a good boy (or girl) after all future sporting events, win or lose." (None of the rioters could be called a boy or a girl, admittedly, because they are people in grown-up bodies -- but it seems their skulls still contain infantile brains.)

      On their release, the culprits should be facing big bills for the damage they caused in Vancouver's downtown region with their rampaging, all such bills to be ascertained by the courts and/or the "searching" public inquiry we almost certainly now can expect to see launched by our political leaders here in British Columbia.

      In the meantime, we non-rioters can sit back and soak up the advice and reflections we'll find it hard to avoid from editorialists, columnists and other sociological "experts" on the toilet-training, parenting, possible educating and social and economic status of these only-marginally-civilized rioters.

      We also need to consider other factors related to the rioting and its aftermath, and I will now contribute to that debate,  but mainly in one particular only -- and that a somewhat political one.


      THE RIOTS HAVE BROUGHT AN OLD TERM TO THE FORE:
      "ANARCHISM!"
      Except that in the newspapers they didn't put it in italics and caps, or follow it with an exclamation point, in the way I have here, or in the way it was done frequently many, many decades ago.


      Our Vancouver police chief, Jim Chu, led the way in using the word "anarchists" to describe the sources of the rioting. Commentators have being using it as well. So it is out there and must be given some attention.


      "Anarchism" is a word loaded with political and economic meaning -- and it has been used in the past by entrenched interests against people working for social, political and economic justice and change aimed at improving life for citizens.


      Women's suffrage activists a hundred years ago got the anarchist label. So did people who worked for broader representation generally in elected bodies. People struggling for improved working conditions in sweat-shop days (still far from gone in many parts of the world) were "anarchists." People who demanded workplace bargaining power and unions, to improve wages and get better and safer working conditions, were given that appellation.


      In short, it has been a convenient term for those seeking to protect economic, political and other self-interest -- an all-encompassing pejorative aimed at denigrating someone or something.




      
      THE ANARCHISM MOVEMENT HERE, in Vancouver and B.C. generally, seems to be more or less non-existent.  I know -- there is an Anarchist Party of Canada, but I don't believe we can view it in the serious way that our law enforcement chief does. Here's why: it is called the Anarchist Party of Canada (Groucho-Marxist).  It is supposedly a dadaist sort of group. (You can look up "dadaism" on the web, if you like; it's kind of kooky, but too damn complicated to detail here.)


      Every once in a while the Groucho-Marxist anarchists have been in the news for pushing pies into the faces of well-known people, including onetime prime minister and opposition leader Joe Clark, and Bill Vander Zalm, before he became B.C. premier.


      About the only notice taken nowadays of this group, if it actually is one, is by Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. One of its mottos has been "vote with a pie." Wikipedia says it was loosely affiliated, or shared many members with, the short-lived Rhinoceros Party of Canada, which championed the legalizing of marijuana, among other things.


      In the interests of balanced reporting and commentary, I have sought to make contact with somebody associated with the Anarchist Party, for a statement in response to the allegations about the riot and the "party's" part, if any, in it. So far, I have been unsuccessful, but will keep on trying.




      THE OXFORD UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY says an anarchist is someone "who admits of no ruling power, (is) an advocate of anarchy," or "one who upsets settled order."


     Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary says about the same, but also describes "anarchism" as "the theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished." Funk & Wagnalls also says anarchy is: 1. Absence of government. 2. Lawless confusion and political disorder. 3. General disorder.


      Another interesting definition of anarchism is to be found in the Great Encylopaedic Dictionary of the Reader's Digest, which states: "Political doctrine standing for the abolition of all organized authority and state machinery, and advocating the creation of a society in which men will be expected to live together in harmony on the basis of voluntarily respected mutual contracts."




      THOUGH IT IS SIMPLISTIC AT TIMES, I'D SAY IN THIS CASE that the Reader's Digest has given a pretty useful and concise definition of anarchy. It and the other word authorities combined would seem to give credence to Police Chief Chu's conclusion (except, I guess, for that "harmony" bit in the Reader's Digest definition).  I do wonder, however, whether the chief has given much, or any, thought to the idea that anarchism is a political concept, and not just violent, unlawful activity.

      I will study carefully anything he might say about anarchy in future. I do, however, have this question for him now: Is the chief making a suggestion that an actual organized group, who style themselves a political anarchy movement, started this riot by intent? If so, I think he ought to give the public the facts of the matter as soon as possible. Any time the police interest themselves in political matters, lawful or otherwise, we ought to be told.

      Although Chief Chu was not precisely accurate in his remarks about anarchy as a political concept (because, as we've seen, it theoretically does aim at societal harmony, cooperation and peace), he certainly was on the mark to state the Hockey Riots were a good sample of what anarchy can be like, perhaps in a non-political form, as in a breakdown of law.

      It might even be fair to say that what we witnessed in downtown Vancouver on the night of June 15, 2011, probably went far beyond anarchy.


      JUST ONE LAST THING -- a sort of sociological note. About all those car-burnings in the riots.  Surprised by that? Well, you shouldn't be.

      Don't you know? It's a cultural thing, learned behaviour, I think it's called. Take a look at movies and TV. How many dramatic programs and crime programs, and "action" and "adventure" movies are there that don't have at least one car-burning in 'em?

       Now, there's something for Chief Chu and our coming commission of inquiry to examine.