Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2019-01-17, Page 5Michael Healey, who has graced the Blyth Festival stage in the past as both an actor and the author of plays such as the iconic The Drawer Boy, had a new play open in Toronto last week. Called 1979,the play is an examination of the last days of Joe Clark’s nine-month term as Prime Minister and Healey makes it plain, both in the play and in an opinion piece he published in The Globe and Mail prior to the play’s opening, that he has a much higher regard for this man, considered a failure at the time, than for many other politicians. The defeat of Clark’s minority government’s budget in December, 1979 led to the end of his government and, in the subsequent election, the return of Pierre Trudeau as Prime Minister. Healey argues that it was it was Clark’s principled decision not to use parliamentary tricks to delay the vote or to compromise on those measures in the budget which he felt were in the best interests of Canadians that makes him special. He notes that when Clark retired from politics in 2004 after serving as a respected foreign minister in the government of Brian Mulroney, a poll showed him to be one of the most respected politicians in the country. Ask most voters and they’ll tell you they want their leaders to be principled and steadfast in not compromising on important issues, but in real life a large part of the public just wants politicians to give them what they want. “Please,” they say, “don’t try to tell me the issues are complicated. I don’t want to have to think about that. Just make what I want happen.” I think back to the angry rallies in Alberta before Christmas when both the federal and provincial governments were blamed for not getting pipelines built that would get Alberta oil to ocean terminals from where it could be shipped to more lucrative markets. Many of the signs blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for the problem, even though there wouldn’t have been enough time to get a pipeline built even if construction had begun on his first day in office three years earlier. Then last week protesters in northern British Columbia were trying to prevent a natural gas pipeline from being built to supply a liquid natural gas plant on the B.C. coast from where it could be shipped around the world. One protester held a sign saying: “Trudeau sucks!” Now if anyone thinks about it at all, it’s not possible for the Prime Minister to be insufficiently supportive of pipelines and too supportive at the same time. But nobody thinks about it. They just want him to make happen what they want to happen. Angry Albertans also targeted Alberta’s Premier Rachel Notley for not doing enough to help the oil industry. All she did, of course, was to buy 7,000 rail tanker cars to ship oil to the coasts until the pipelines are eventually built as well as impose a 8.7 per cent reduction in the amount of oil produced so the price would increase. As for the federal government, apparently the fact that it used our tax dollars to buy the Trans Mountain Pipeline doesn’t demonstrate the government cares about Alberta. Those not actually in power look good by comparison because they can make promises without having to deal with the complicated realities. So Alberta United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney simply needs to keep his head down while lobbing the odd criticism at Notley. Likewise, federal Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer can criticize without having to explain how he’d get around such pipeline-stalling complications as court decisions that require high levels of consultation with First Nations near the proposed pipelines or stricter protection for the environment. The ultimate example of decision-making divorced from the reality of a complicated world is, of course, south of the border where U.S. President Donald Trump continues to live in a reality-free world. He played up to the fears of a significant proportion of the U.S. public about undocumented migrants entering the U.S. by promising to build a wall along the Mexican border. But people also worry about cost so he claimed Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico, of course, isn’t paying for the wall, so Trump is demanding taxpayers pick up the tab. Such is his genius at demonizing enemies, however, that the fears that murderers and rapists will invade the country if a wall isn’t built are deep enough that a significant portion of the public blames the Democrats in Congress for not giving him the money he needs. President Trump is the polar opposite of Joe Clark when to comes to principles and integrity. Still, when it comes to his approval rating he ranks ahead of Justin Trudeau. People may say they want principles and integrity but too many just want what they want. Other Views ‘Is this your hill?’ a good question to ask Keith Roulston From the cluttered desk Voters just want what they want Shawn Loughlin Shawn’s Sense This piece, questioning sticking to your guns, wasn’t the original column I had planned to pen this week. Originally, I had planned to tackle the clothing donation bins that have recently been demonized due to people dying as they tried to take items out of them. After some office discussion on Monday on an unrelated issue, I decided that maybe, just maybe, a discussion about Darwinism, Nietzscheism and used clothes donation bins wasn’t the hill I wanted to defend or the hill I wanted to die on. I asked myself, “Is this really your hill?”, then I wondered, why isn’t that a more popular saying? I mean, sure, it’s just a bastardized version of the military saying “not a hill I want to die on,” but I think it has a much deeper and important meaning than that. While that talks about conceding that an issue isn’t worth fighting for, my take on it is why don’t we ask each other, is this a cause you want to defend to the figural death? Is this the hill you want to die on? I know it’s a bit late for a New Year’s resolution, and I’ve already filled you all in on how I can’t really break my current resolution without suffering some pretty bad acid reflux, but I think that I may just adopt this as a second resolution. Ask around my office and people may tell you that I’m a bit stubborn when it comes to defending myself. They likely won’t qualify it as a bit stubborn. As a matter of fact, the term bullheaded, or a synonym for that, will likely be uttered here or there. So I may have come to this lesson a little later in life than my contemporaries. Maybe this is a pretty well known way to consider an issue. However, for me, it’s a brand new idea leading to a brave new world. Sure, some of the wisdom that has been passed down to me has involved getting out of bad situations when you can, but this is different: this is admitting that there are some battles that aren’t worth fighting. I’m not saying there aren’t causes that are worth fighting for and dying for, literally or figuratively, but as I’ve grown older, and seen the fallout from trying to hold hills I either should never have been on or wasn’t equipped to hold, I may have gained some wisdom. There are going to be some hills that I can’t hold that I try to because, well, that’s a big part of who I am. Sometimes it doesn’t matter if you win or lose the debate, the argument or the fight, what matters is that you did your best. The smaller hills, though, the mole hills to mix a metaphor, I may be able to walk away from. I’ll be able to ask myself, “Is this your hill?” Odds are the answer will be yes a lot of the time, but for the rest of the time, including talking about clothing donation bin deaths, I’ve decided that it’s just not my hill to die on. Rediscovering food A couple weeks ago, I explained my new dietary restrictions when talking about my New Year’s resolution and bemoaned how tough of a change it was going to be. Well, I’m here to tell all of you that I was right. It’s been a tough slog and I haven’t always stayed faithful. As much as I want to believe I may be a Green Lantern (a superhero who derives his strength from willpower), the truth of the matter is the chocolate-covered nuts and raisins that my co-workers thoughtlessly left in the kitchen have been too tough to walk by. Fortunately for me, where I may have failed to walk past those cocoa-infused raisins, I’ve actually been doing a pretty good job of holding my diet at home. I’ve traded in, for the most part, my typical diet of breaded chicken, lasagna, tacos and pizza for a lot more salads and simple sandwiches. While I’ve noticed that I’m able to eat a lot less and be full (no doubt in part thanks to the fibre supplements I’ve been forcing down my throat), I’ve also noticed that I have rediscovered the joy of making meals. I’m not sure when it stopped, but I used to like planning out meals more than a few hours in advance. My new diet, however, has forced me to reconsider my meals and that has led to things like pre-making salads, searching out better, healthier toppings for said sandwiches and driving past fast food restaurants because I know I have something ready in the fridge at home. Honestly, the last part is probably the best thing I could have done for myself. It plays into my innate thriftiness, which, being predominantly descended from Scots, I come by honestly. I can’t bring myself to buy a sub when I know I’ll end up throwing out lettuce I not only bought, but spent the time to clean and dice, when garbage day rolls around. Unlike my initial concerns, I’ve found ways to keep it exciting as well. Switching up the cheese on a cold sandwich can add a whole new flavour to it. Experimenting with new salad dressings can stop lettuce, cucumbers and celery from getting boring. Keeping it interesting is making it easier to say no to sliding into old habits. Denny Scott Denny’s Den THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2019. PAGE 5. Why not? When I was in high school, one of my English teachers relayed an almost mythical story of essay writing to us that, looking back, can’t possibly be true. He told us that while our essays had to be well-written (spelling, grammar, structure, etc.) the art of essay writing came down to making your point. If elements of the essay were weighted, he’d say, making your point would represent the highest percentage. Our teacher told of a university philosophy course and an essay question meant to stretch the limits of making a philosophical point. The question, he said, was simply, “Why?” It was meant to stimulate the students into lengthy, flowery prose extolling the virtues of positivity and answering in the affirmative. The best of the bunch, he said, answered the question with another question: “Why not?” Last week it was those two words that stuck in my mind when I contemplated the motivation behind two very stupid and very unpopular political decisions, justification for which don’t really pass the “Why not?” test. U.S. President Donald Trump insists on building a wall between his country and Mexico. He insists this task be done despite criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as border security experts who say it’s unnecessary. However, Trump’s flock of sheep want a wall, so a wall they shall receive – if he wants to be re-elected in 2020. Think of the work that could be done to fix the Flint, Michigan water crisis for the $5.7 billion the wall demands. No, it must be a wall. Why build a wall? Well, why not? However, we don’t have to look beyond our own home province for a problem no one asked the provincial government to solve. Doug Ford’s government is ready to go to court to defend its decision to roll back sexual education over 20 years, saying it’s perfectly constitutional to do so. The problem there, however, is that the government insisted that it wanted to hear from parents in regards to how they wanted their children to be educated and, let’s just say, the results don’t seem to favour Ford’s archaic rollback. It seems “government for the people” may just be a catch phrase. According to the Canadian Press, which obtained 1,600 fortheparents.ca submissions, just two dozen spoke in favour of rolling back the curriculum. For you math whizzes (and we know this includes Ontario’s teachers, because under Ford, all new teachers will have to pass a math test), that’s 1.5 per cent of respondents. (There has now been a total of 72,000 entries.) What an embarrassing indictment of a campaign promise. Not to worry, Ford has insisted the site was flooded by “certain groups” and that he knows better and it seems this might just be the hill he wants to die on. Not to mention the fact that he’s preparing to defend his government’s stance in court even before his beloved parental feedback has been tallied. Sounds a bit like that consultation might not matter as much as he says it does. And don’t look for comment from Minister of Education Lisa Thompson. She’s seemingly been removed from circulation in regards to speaking on educational matters. (Was there a line item in Ford’s budget for a Vaudeville hook?) In a press release, however, Thompson did say the feedback was thoughtful and meaningful. I guess we’ll see, but I wouldn’t hold your breath for actual democracy. We’re left with Ford and a kangaroo court where he consults with no one, keeping asinine campaign promises no one asked for while turning his back on most Ontarians. Why? He’s got all the power. Why not?