Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2011-04-28, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011. PAGE 5. Mostly I try to use this space in the newspaper to amuse you folks. I like to make people smile, even chuckle on a good day. If I can find something funny in the headlines and give it a spin until it does a pratfall or a face plant, that’s what I’ll do. But sometimes the news coughs up something that is so deeply unfunny it moves me to take off my jester’s hat in favour of something more appropriate. Like a HazMat suit. I’m thinking particularly of a front-page story written by Doug Saunders, The Globe and Mail’s Chief European correspondent. It took up the entire front page of Saturday’s Globe a few weeks back, when Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant was approaching full melt-down. The gist of Saunders’ commentary: what a shame that this catastrophe should occur just when we need to build more nuclear plants than ever. (Italics mine.) I read it three times to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating. Nope, that’s what the man wrote. He argues that nuclear power is far cleaner, and hence more beneficial for the planet, than coal-fired power. And he’s not alone. He quotes George Monbiot, a world class environmental activist who is greener than the Jolly, verdantly-hued Giant and who writes, “Even when nuclear power plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally.” To which I can only respond: Gimme a break. We haven’t seen ‘horribly wrong’ yet. Three-Mile Island? A hiccup. Chernobyl? A belch. Fukushima? Well, we don’t know yet, but pundits are already declaring that the global alarm and arm waving was ridiculously hysterical and over the top. Our tech boys can handle this stuff. Always have. Of course, ‘always’ is a relative term. Spent nuclear fuel – of which we already have 250,000 tons tucked out of sight around the planet – will remain poisonously radioactive for the next 100,000 years. How long is that? Well, 100,000 years ago your relatives and mine were crouched behind boulders throwing rocks and jabbing pointed sticks at ground sloths and woolly mammoths. But never mind a 100,000 years or even 10,000 years, let’s go back just 1,000 years – one-hundredth of the lifespan of a spent fuel rod. One thousand years ago my kin were gnawing turnips, molesting sheep and ducking Vikings. That’s a mere 10 centuries and I’m guessing your kin weren’t doing much better. With spent nuclear fuel we’re talking about substances that will be fatal to all life forms for a thousand centuries. Try to fathom for a moment the colossal arrogance of anyone – newspaper columnist, scientific spokesman or government flunky – confidently making plans to deal with containment of the deadliest of poisons that will remain toxic for the next 3,000 generations of humankind. What could go wrong in a 100,000 years – I mean aside from earthquakes, tsunamis, world wars, terrorist attacks, empire collapses, plagues, meteor strikes…. Well, there’s always polar shift. There is a theory out there that from time to time the earth’s crust suddenly shifts, like the skin of an apple moving around the core. It is, as I say, a theory and not a widely-held one because there’s no real proof. Still it would go some distance to explaining the discovery of mammoth carcasses in Siberia perfectly preserved – flash-frozen, as it were – their mouths and bellies full of grasses and buttercups never known to grow in Siberia. National Enquirer-style hogwash? Well, somebody thought well enough of scientist Charles Hapgood’s 1954 book “Earth’s Shifting Crust” to write an enthusiastic foreword. Chap named Albert Einstein. Time is the problem. We have a planet that unfolds in epochs, politicians that think in four-year cycles and pundits that salivate to 24 hour deadlines. Einstein got it. His most famous contribution boils down to three words: time is relative. Perhaps Einstein’s friend Erwin Schrodinger had the best handle on it. “Love a girl with all your heart,” he advised, “and kiss her on the mouth: then time will stop and space will cease to exist.” Sure beats dodging abandoned nuclear fuel rods. Mind you, Doug Saunders, George Monbiot, and all the other nuclear power cheerleaders are absolutely right – nuclear power really is the safest, cleanest, most reliable energy source we’ve got. Until it isn’t. Arthur Black Other Views Columnist gets serious about nukes We’ve come a long way over the years. We’re taught not to judge people by their colour, their race, their religion or economic standing. What about the team they root for? Well no, that’s alright. And so goes the final frontier of prejudice, judging someone based on the sports team they cheer for. Earlier this month I walked into a breakfast joint with my mom and girlfriend only to be greeted by dozens of rabid Liverpool FC fans watching their beloved Reds play Arsenal. As I had just rolled out of bed, I hadn’t given much thought to what I was wearing. Perhaps I should have, because let’s just say it didn’t fit. It didn’t fit into the setting of Liverpool fans (it was a Bayern Munich jersey) and I heard about it. And all I wanted was some eggs. The only other article of clothing that has been known to spark such hatred might be fur, but even then, I’m not sure the paint-throwers can hang with sports fans. If I wear a Rolling Stones shirt to a Paul McCartney concert, would I get booed? Would I get beaten up? Unlikely. But in sports, that’s exactly what happens. Ask Brian Stow, a young father of two, a paramedic and a San Francisco Giants fan, except that you can’t. He’s in a medically- induced coma after being beaten to within an inch of his life. His crime: wearing a Giants jersey at a Los Angeles Dodgers game. I was at a game between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees at the new Yankee Stadium two years ago when an elderly couple wearing Red Sox hats were yelled at all game by Yankees fans. Some of the choice phrases were “Ted Williams was a child molester” and “I hope you get divorced”. So much for gentlemanly competition. I didn’t wear my Red Sox hat that night because I know this stuff goes on. In an playoff game last year between the Texas Rangers and the Yankees, prized Texas pitcher Cliff Lee’s wife was harassed in the stands by Yankees fans. They yelled at her, spit on her and threw beer at her. In the off-season, Lee was most attractive free agent pitcher on the market. He would make any team an instant contender and the Yankees came to Lee with the biggest cheque for his services. He didn’t go. I wonder why. For years in soccer, firms (groups full of fans of one soccer team) have staged planned brawls with one another prior to a game for no reason other than the crest on their jerseys. Just last month parcel bombs meant for Celtic FC coach Neil Lennon were intercepted by the Scottish postal service. Over the last two months, bombs have been sent to Lennon and two of the team’s most prominent supporters. It is assumed that these bombs were sent by supporters of the rival Glasgow Rangers. That rivalry, however, runs much deeper than soccer, with Celtic supporters being largely Catholic and Glasgow supporters being largely Protestant. On a slightly less-deadly note, I shouldn’t have to endure jeers and endless competitive banter every time I wear my Red Sox hat, or anything really, out in public. For whatever reason, it is accepted as fair game when it’s sports, because I wouldn’t get yelled at by a guy wearing Reeboks on a day I wore a pair of Nikes. The moral of the story is that in North America, where people of all colour, race and religion are welcomed, people shouldn’t have to be afraid of what might happen to them, should they decide to wear something supporting their favourite sports team. Pledge of allegiance Canada lacks leadership. A bold statement, but, as far as I’m concerned, a true one. In my youth, I heard stories of Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau. Unfortunately for my own life experiences, he resigned mere months before my birth. Trudeau, whether you loved him or hated him, lead the country as a whole from what I’m told. Detractors may have criticized his economic decisions, authoritative federal style or arrogance, but if you say Trudeau, people know exactly who you are talking about. While in office he suppressed riots, dealt with Quebeçois separatists and created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Liberals talk about him the same way that athletes talk about their youth and their heydays. Fast forward through his successors; Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. None of them seem to inspire the same kind of confidence from supporters, although many of them inspire similar feelings from contenders. None of them will be as memorable as Trudeau, in my opinion, and few of them will be remembered more than Arthur Meighen 90 years after their terms are complete. (Go ahead, look him up. The only reason I know of Meighen is because, starting from Sir. John A. Macdonald’s second term, he was the first Prime Minister (PM) not knighted in nearly 50 years.) I grew up under the reign of Chrétien. For my formative years, he, followed by Martin, shaped what I knew of Canadian politics. And yet I can’t help but feel that they were both better leaders (regardless of party) than Harper. Harper hasn’t had a majority, yet he acts as if he does, and that, in my mind, is not a good leader. A leader of a divided force would do well to remember that at least as many people want to see him fail as succeed. Ignatieff doesn’t have the market cornered on leadership or memorable-ness either. Layton may, but I don’t think we’ll get the chance to see an NDP PM (in my lifetime). Don’t take any of this as suggestion. I’m just looking at personalities, not the parties, platforms and politics behind them, and, as I’ve said before and will again, I’m certainly not telling you how to vote. A PM needs to know how, and when, to cross party lines in my opinion. They need to play nice with others to get what they need, especially in a minority government. And regardless of the outcome, I think the next government will be a minority. Sure, when they’re not in power, party leaders can work with others and attempt to form coalition governments (which, despite the Conservatives’ urgings, is not a term so heinous it needs to be added to George Carlin’s Seven words you can never say on television bit). As a matter of fact Harper (Yes, Harper tried to pull a quicky coalition before he came to power, which he seems to have forgotten), Ignatieff, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe have shown they can work together, but not for the country, for the good of their own parties. But maybe my view is skewed. Before the set of elections that originally saw our current MP Ben Lobb put into power, Huron-Bruce had, from what I’m told, a truly unique situation. We had a representative on The Hill that most people liked regardless of party affiliation. Regardless of whether they were right or left, people respected our previous MP, Paul Steckle. I’ve had discussions with members of many communities, both those we cover here at The Citizen and those we don’t, and I’ve come to the conclusion that someone should have been taken notes from Steckle’s term in office. The ability to talk to people from both sides while maintaining their own party connection should be a requirement for party leaders. We shouldn’t have the strongest members of a party vying for power, we should have the most logical, those who realize that nothing is accomplished through the constant in-fighting, out-fighting and bitter insults that are flung across the floor in today’s government. Don’t get me wrong here, I know it’s a lofty ideal, and accusations will always be thrown across the floor, but a PM needs to realize when a mistake has been made and nip the problem in the bud. They don’t need to try and hide problems, or throw members of their party “under the bus” to deal with issues. Canada’s next great PM, if we ever have one, needs to be a person who can work with all parties. They need a quick tongue, not a forked tongue. They need to be smart, but not a smart- alec. They need to be to the point, and they need to refrain from saying things like “but my opposition would have you believe...”. The next memorable PM of Canada needs to remember that Parliament is a body - a divided body, but a body, and that no body can work when one half is trying to shut it down. Shawn Loughlin Shawn’s Sense Denny Scott Denny’s Den Party leaders need to step up or down