Politics

Violence as Protest

I read a story this week about a young man being arrested for defacing a famous painting in Canada’s National Gallery. He was protesting Climate Change and picked a painting by the famous Canadian painter Tom Thompson as the image shows here.

I find it troubling to see a public protest - even an individual one- resorting to violence. When the man did this, he knew that there was protective glass covering the painting and assumed he would still be arrested, but not guilty of actually damaging it. But would any other youthful protester know the whole story and simply imitate the practice with lasting consequence. My guess is that this will not please the visual artists who spread the message of climate through displaying depicting of the tragedies of our human impact on the natural world.

I’m more impressed by those who use non-violent methods - though some of them risk arrest as well. A young woman working as a barmaid in New York travelled to Standing Rock to support the Lakota people in their opposite to the Keystone Pipeline. The experience prompted her to run for the US Congress and Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez won the election to become the youngest person ever to be seated there. From there she went on to sponsor the Green New Deal in 2019, her first year of office. It took a while to for that bill to succeed but finally much of the best of it was incorporated in more recent legislation and passed.

The young man wanted to attract attention to something worthwhile - but how it is done also counts. I hope he learns to have bigger dreams of how he will change the world.

Truth & Facts

What is Truth?, said Pilate. And indeed we might ask. I’m hitting the Oxford English Dictionary for a history of the word over time. Here are some definitions

Year 1734 - God’s Truth:. The absolute truth (also with the and as a count noun); also God's honest truth; (b) int. used as an oath. (Interesting that use in an oath still seems to apply in 2023)

Year 1833 -A fundamental truth. Also: the real or underlying facts; information that has been checked or facts that have been collected at source.

Year 1977 -Ground Truth. A fundamental truth. Also: the real or underlying facts; information that has been checked or facts that have been collected at source.

Year 1982 -Post Truth. Originally U.S. Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping political debate or public opinion. (Aha. Has it really been that long that we have been living with this meaning and are we just waking up to it now? )

2023 Smith Indictment. “The defendant, like every American, had the right to speak publicly about the election and even to claim falsely . . . . . . “

If all Americans - and because we Canadians are frequently copycats - have a perceived right to claim things falsely - as a right, is there any way back to truth definitions of earlier times? In my country as well, we see politicians of all stripes claiming questionable things, but generally we are willing to consider rebuttals. But if adherence to law depends on the evidence of facts - and “alternative facts” are permitted outside the law, how and when will be move toward justice? Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.Is the arc getting longer?

Hot Enough Yet?

We are featured today in Bill McKibben’s New Yorker Article - we being Canadians and he’s asking the question about our politicians. You can guess the answer. While the temperature breaks all records, how are we responding?

  • Polls show 75% of us are anxious about climate change - and we are a liberal democracy, so that should help.

  • The Arctic is warming faster than any other place and we have a front seat to watch that.

  • Wildfires have burned the most forest ever.

  • Air quality related to fires made ours the worst in the world.

This should result in some good political action. What is happening?

  • We’re building a natural gas exporting terminal - and we may count exports as part of the carbon tax.

  • Politicians say we are making progress - but we don’t want anything to change locally because that would upset too many people and mean not get re-elected.

  • We’re not alone. But we are absolutely the poster child for how these things work. Will any radical solution break through even with democratic societies who suffer the least?

Language reveals us

Through the years I have watched Peter Baker on PBS and read him in the New York Times - as well as his wife Susan, who writes for the New Yorker. When the couple recently produced a book on the Trump era it looked like an interesting read. Rather than buying it I put a hold on it on Libby to read on a tablet - and assumed that since it has just recently been published, there would be a long wait - I certainly wasn’t at the top of the line.

And then it arrived. It was some 1200 pages on the device with a limited time to go through it, but I have persevered. I’m not surprised that those waiting for it an anticipating learning something new have given it a rather quick read and are somewhat happy to be freed from it. It would never have been a keeper that I would want to return to for either facts or inspiration. This is what stands out.

The Trump era has mostly been in plain sight, so there is surprisingly little that an American politics obsessive like me didn’t know already from reading or watching the New York Times, PBS, Washington Post and even Canadian news and the Globe and Mail. The main takeaway from their comprehensive reporting is the perpetual use by all the key players is - the F word. It must occur in quoted conversations in the book at least as many times as Trump’s 30,000 plus lies. I suppose there was a time when such quotations were shocking but now it’s just banal.

The authors never comment on this. I have no idea how they feel about it, though they are quick to pass judgment on many other issues in the book. But I will. I grew up in an era when the use of profanity was a shocker when it occurred; it was rarely used even in private. Get on any bus now and the F word has actually replaced “like” as something to amuse one’s self counting.

But words do say something about our society. Occasional profanity in the past suggested that the sacred actually mattered. Using the F word in every sentence means we have moved way beyond obscene - and any kind of violence is okay now. Civil society used to demand something better. It suggested a world of citizens who were polite to one another because others were human beings. There was such a thing as civil rights. Civil law had to do with things that had different implications than criminal law. Those who worked at any level of government were described as civil servants.

As Americans head into mid term elections, our own little news cycle here notes that the provincial government has withdrawn its use of the Notwithstanding Clause of our constitution - due to a good deal of backlash to shut down a strike - and the union has called off its strike of school support workers and custodians - those who support the lives of our children. It’s a small consolation that both will at least return to the negotiating table. I have no desire to be a fly on the wall in that room. But let’s hope for even a small degree of civility. When tempers flair, no amounf of use of the F word is going to make things better. It’s always arrogant because the speaker is always responding to the other. I echo my fellow octogenarian Ursula LeGuin in her wonderful essay in the book, No Time to Spare. “Would you please just F-cking STOP.

Turning up the Heat

People throughout the world are baking in the heat and occasionally there is a faint recognition that this has something to do with climate change. The country that puts the most carbon emissions into the atmosphere is nevertheless stymied by one key player.

  • One politician, Senator Joe Manchin, says he will not support his party’s climate change initiatives

  • The US Supreme Court has limited the ability of the government to curb emissions from power plants

  • The opposition party is against any climate legislation.

  • The US loses its ability to influence other major emitters, like China. India and Brazil.

  • The US is not on track to meet its goals for the Paris Accord. It doesn’t provide a great example to other countries.

  • One man’s action has severely limited the role of the party in power leaving it dysfunctional in a democratic system.

    It’s no wonder that E. M. Forster suggested only two cheers for democracy. He expressed his concern for the individual in a world facing totalitarianism, as well as extremism from both the left and the right. He claimed at the time that the title was a joke when his writings included material going back to 1936, the year of my birth. One writer evaluating the collection suggests that it has worn well. He was looking ahead at the time to the rise of Nazi Germany.

    Leadership demands morality for the public good. We need it now more than ever.