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