Memories of my Past

Tuesday 26 March 2013

The Cult of History


History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.   - Edward Gibbon

I love history.  I have seriously read about it since I was in college, even although I studied engineering.  Having a military background, I read a lot of military history, but I try and balance that with reading about the peaceful times and what life was like for ordinary people.  It is all pretty fascinating stuff.  And of course, I have added my own little bit of history having written the book “We Are as One” (http://www.weareasone.ca), the story of the worst peacetime disaster in the history of the Royal Canadian Navy (sorry for the self-promotion). 

Along the way, I have come to some truths about the uses and abuses of history, and about what history has shown us. 

Truth #1 – history is made by ordinary people and their society, and can only progress as fast as these people can be moved.  Kings, Presidents and Emperors may try and influence the advancement of society but it will only move at the pace set by the ordinary man.

Truth #2 – history does not necessarily repeat itself, as some people expect, but it does show us what can happen in similar circumstances.

Truth #3 - You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. Jeannette Rankin.      This obviously depends on what you consider by “winning” a war.  In general, both sides lose something during a war, whether it is wealth, resources, territory or, most tragically, the lives of its young adults.  The old men who make the decision for war hardly ever lose their lives, they send their young for that.

Truth #4 – In every war, one side fights to save the status quo.  They never succeed.  War inevitably changes society on both sides, whether it is changes in government, scientific discovery or the way we view ourselves and the rest of the world. See also idea #2 above.

Truth #5 – you cannot judge the past with the rules of the present.  There are great movements in revisionist history going on these days, whether it is the resurrection of figures like Louis Riel, apologies to nations for past wrongs, or condemning our ancestors for the way they lived their lives.  This is a travesty to the memory of those who made our world through the ages.  The men who found Louis Riel guilty of treason truly believed, given their education, fears, prejudices and life experience, that he was just that. And we can never understand them because we do not live in the same era, have the same education or life experiences.  This applies to those who made war with other nations and took whatever steps they thought they were necessary to protect their own citizens and win the war.  Someone who has not lived in a country in the middle of a war can understand this.  Our ancestors lived the way they did because that was all they knew.  They did not have access to our knowledge of medicine, the environment, philosophy, critical thought or any of the other ideas that we now use to condemn them.  Nor could the people of the past have foreseen the consequences of their decisions any more than we can today.

Truth #6 – in every war, look for the economic reason.  Whatever rationale is espoused for a war, there will be an underlying economic reason.  No warlord, country or group is going to undertake a war unless they think they see a profit in it.  The opposition may have to fight to save its existence, but one side at least is after the spoils.  Although the Crusaders went off to save the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, they also had in mind new lands and riches.  Many of the early Crusader knights were second and third sons who needed to find their own estates in order to prosper.  Hitler, for all his rhetoric about master races, really wanted to expand the size of Germany in order to enlarge the population, and increase the raw materials available to Germany.  By winning hegemony of Europe, he also gained economic hegemony.  Iraq was all about saving oil resources.  The various rationales that are spouted to justify war whether it be religion, “honour”, patriotism or power, are primarily used to rally the foot soldiers that will not necessarily benefit from the economic advantage gained.  The economic advantages will mainly accrue to the old men who send the foot soldiers off to war.  I sound cynical, don’t I?  Well, I am when it comes to war.

But I am also optimistic, because my study of history has shown me how much progress we have made over the centuries.  How men, and now women, have overcome their prejudices and limitations, and have really improved our lot.  And I don’t think so much of the material progress; the machines we have invented, the medicines and cures we have discovered, the wired (and wireless) world we have made.  I think of the advances in the human condition; of the intellect, of overcoming prejudices, of allowing us to express ourselves more fully.  Not just a small intellectual elite, but practically every member of society can now benefit from this type of advancement.  As long as we can balance human progress with material progress, and I admit that may be more difficult the faster material progress develops, we should be optimistic about the future which will soon enough become history.

Sunday 10 March 2013

Retirement Age

A work of Fiction . . . for now.

I’m an old man now, something that is becoming rarer and rarer in this country.  I am what is called a “baby boomer”, one of the most despised generations in recent history.  It wasn’t always so.  When I was born in the 1950s, I was part of what was seen as a wonderful and hopeful phenomenon known as the baby boom.  We were part of a world of hope and affluence after the poverty of the 1930s and the ravages of World War II.  But that’s not true anymore.  We are now the blight; the generation everyone wants to see die, including some of us.  As for me, I’m glad and lucky to be alive.  Glad because it is interesting to watch this process and to be able to record it.  Lucky because I have had no significant illnesses that have required me to try and get medical help.  My wife, Anne, wasn’t so lucky.  I lost her to what was normally described as a routine illness about eight years ago.  Anne was only 60, but by that time, nobody paid much attention to a sick 60 year old.
 
            It all started about ten years ago, I guess, about the time I turned 60.  Studies were produced that showed that we were going to bankrupt the social security system and the health care system.  At the same time, younger folk realised that this large bubble of humanity ahead of them was slowing down their chances for quick advancement in business and industry.  They had been brought up to expect instant gratification, and they had no patience of anyone that stood in the way of that. 

            It might not have gone further except for the condition of politics.  One party in the US and one in Canada had been out of power for too long in their estimation and to rectify that, they discovered the constituency of the young. Interestingly enough, it was the more liberal party in one country and the more conservative in another.  But they both had the same idea that if they could grab the imagination of the younger generation, the Gen X’ers and the Gen Y’ers, and give them what they wanted, the young would come to roost in their party and hopefully stay for a good long time.  It worked too.

            The first to succumb was Canada.  The opposition party had tried everything to get in power, and finally succeeded in that year’s federal election thanks to their seduction of the younger voters.  But, once in power, they discovered that their constituency wanted their due, and they wanted action now.  Instant gratification again.  These younger folk could read the various reports and studies, and had a bunch of other gripes against their elders to go along with them.

            Among their other complaints were that we had destroyed the environment (probably to build things that they wanted); screwed up the world, particularly the Middle East;  made “their” cities ugly;  practiced discrimination against just about everyone (a touch of irony here considering future events); caused terrorism and wars  (forgetting that wars had been here long before me and my generation ever got here); and just about messing up everything we had ever done (although they did seem to enjoy the computers and internet which my generation invented).

            When the election was over, my friend George asked what it meant.  I said, “George, don’t you worry.  This election isn’t going to make any more difference that any of the others.  The young ones will get a couple of environmental laws to keep them happy, and our life will go on pretty much the same.”  Not one of my more brilliant predictions.  Old George was one of the early victims of the new politics when they cut out the old age “security” and reduced government pensions.  George had worked most of his life for the government without getting much above the mediocre level so his pensions were about all he had.

            In fact, the old age pension was about the first to go.  It was reasoned that we all should have worked hard all of our life and saved enough for our “golden” years through retirement savings plans and 401Ks and the like.  So the small amount that folks got from their pensions wouldn’t be missed, and besides, it would save the government all kinds of money that could better be used for the new agenda.  The pension went in the first budget that the new government brought down.  Cutbacks in other government pensions came later when this new agenda needed even more money than anyone thought. 

            It wasn’t all about money, however.  As the younger folks got into the swing of things, it was noticed that more and more companies were “retiring” workers at younger and younger ages.  “Not able to cope with new technology” became the standard phrase to describe and justify this.  Sixty became the norm, and then fifty five.  Some companies then started to think that even fifty was too much.  Then came health care.  Oh, they didn’t take that away.  They just started implementing a policy that made treatment priority in order of age, youngest first.  The reasoning was that children deserved good health care so they would grow up and be healthy and productive.  Then working age people had to be looked after so that they could remain working and productive.  Since everyone knew that old people were not productive (particularly since most of them had been forcibly retired), why did they need any priority in health care.  Also, everyone knew that they would bankrupt the system.

            Then came the great constitutional debate.  After all, age discrimination was supposed to be against the law.  So a debate raged with the “young” party pointing out that none of the new measures said anything about age or prevented service to older people.  The health care system was only setting priorities to husband scarce resources, and what private industry did with its people was their own business. So the courts upheld the new agenda.  But just to make sure, an amendment was pushed through on the constitution that removed age as a discrimination factor.  Got pretty quick approval, too.  This, of course, threw open the doors for all kinds of new measures and practices. 

            So where were our sons and daughters to look after their parents’ interests?  Well, they were the ones behind most of what happened.  They justified this by pleading that, as parents and grandparents, we must understand that their welfare and the welfare of our grandkids must come first.  And of course, what parent could argue that.  If you asked the kids what they were going to do when they got older, most of them hummed and hawed. But a few would come right out and tell you that when it was their turn, they would reverse everything they had done, because by that time they would have saved the country and could afford to be looked after properly.  I found this pretty brazen, but I guess I couldn’t blame them.  I guess even the most committed of them probably recognized that there was something not quite right and fair about what was going on.  Anyway, said some of our kids, we’ll look after you in your old age.  But that became more and more of a burden.  My two kids tried to help when Anne was alive, but after she passed, I’ve been pretty much left on my own.  Differences in our outlook on modern politics keeps us apart physically and emotionally.  I haven’t seen any of my grandkids for over five years.

            So what happened to us old folks?  Well some of them died prematurely like my Anne from “deferred” health care.  Others got stuck in poverty they never planned for and couldn’t cope with.  Either disease or despair caught up with them.  The result was about the same in either case – premature death.  From that point of view, the new policies have worked.  There sure are a lot less baby boomers than there used to be.  I’ve even heard a few - a very few - people express some sympathy for those of us that remain.  Not that they advocate any changes, mind you; they just say something sympathetic.

            In most ways, the hardest hit were older women.  Once women got beyond child-bearing age, they were considered totally non-productive and a drain.  Women going through menopause found it almost impossible to see a gynaecologist or get any relief from their discomfort.  I knew at least two women, one widowed and one divorced, who could get no assistance whatsoever either for health or monetary problems.  They both eventually took their own lives.  They were not unique.

            Some people tried to hitch their fortunes on younger people.  Some celebrities tried to make themselves “icons” to the young.  One older actress stretched out her career by making pornographic movies with young actors, but that didn’t work for long.  The rich were pretty immune from the economic and even public health impacts, but they still started to keep pretty low profiles.  Face lifts and plastic surgery didn’t change what was on your birth certificate.

            Attempts at May-December and December-May romances were popular for a while.  Older men had always had an attraction for some younger women, but the phenomenon of older women courting younger men became much more popular.  The ideal, of course was to find someone who was both young enough to “mask” your age and rich enough to get you the medical and other care you may need.  Not too many of these romances lasted.  They were too transparent.

            So how have I survived?  Well financially, I was one who didn’t put much stock in pensions and the like.  I worked hard to build a nest egg of my own that governments couldn’t touch.  So I never had any worries that way. And like I said earlier, I’ve been lucky on the health front.  No sicknesses that have killed me yet.  Oh, I’ve got some arthritis that bothers me, and I sure could use a good foot doctor for my fallen arches.  But I can live with them with some good strong aspirin and they aren’t going to kill me.  I’ve still got this small apartment that I’ve had since Anne died and I sold the house.  Fortunately, it hasn’t been designated as “Families Only” yet, so there are some other old folks in the building who keep me company, including old George.  Somehow, he hangs in and manages to keep his apartment and a bit of food on the table.  I help him out now and then, but I suspect that he also gets help from some of his kids.  He has five of them, and a couple are apparently fairly well off.  Still, he doesn’t get to see them very often either.

            George and I were talking a while back about the government budget that was recently announced.  He said, “Did you see that new thing in the budget?”  I asked him what thing he was thinking about.  There were quite a few new wrinkles in this one, just as there has been in most budgets in the past few years.  I used to remember when government budgets were dull.  Not anymore.  So I asked what thing he was talking about.

“The one where they’re going to provide free termination treatment for older folks.”

            Termination treatment is the new euphemism for euthanasia.  Up till now, it was one of the few treatments that older patients could get priority on, but you had to pay for it since it was considered to be “elective” treatment.

“Now that you mention it, I did see that, but I think it applies only to those people who are badly sick.” I said.

“No” replied George, “I see’d it in the paper this mornin’ that they’re going to offer it to anyone who applies.”

“Are you interested?” I asked.

“I might be. I’ll be seventy five on my next birthday and nowhere much to go.  What little money I got is running out, and I’m scared I’ll catch some really lingerin’ sickness.”

“Will you tell anyone like your kids before you do it?”

“Don’t know.  They’ll probably make some half-hearted effort to talk me out of it, but they were pretty strong on the new laws when they were passed.  So I don’t think their hearts will really be in tryin’ to stop me.  Fine state of affairs we’ve got ourselves into, ain’t it?”

“Won’t you even tell me, George?  Maybe I could go with you, or something.  Provide a bit of support.  I’ve still got a car so you wouldn’t have to take the subway or anything.”

“No.  I appreciate it, but I would probably just want it to be me and my thoughts.  You’ve been a good friend, Ray, but I think it would be pretty hard on you.  You’re not getting’ any younger, you know.”  He chuckled.

I sighed a sigh of relief, but went on, “Well, don’t worry about me.  If you change your mind, you just let me know, okay?”

            Last night I heard from a neighbour that George had gone and had the “treatment”.  No goodbye.  No fanfare.  No regrets, apparently.  Just a notice that George’s apartment was available to rent.  I miss him.

            Now George has got me thinking about the treatment.  I don’t know how much longer I can go on putting on a brave front.  I’m lonely and scared about what they will do next.  I don’t want to get sick and I don’t want to die alone.  Maybe I’ll try and get hold of my children before I do it.  If I go soon, at least I can tell them there will be some money left over for them and their families.  I know how to get hold of one of them – my daughter Judy.  Maybe she can tell me where I can reach Ian.  Yeah.  Maybe I’ll do that.  I hope I can do it soon.  I don’t want to think about this for long.  Something might happen.  Where did I put Judy’s number?

[Six months after Raymond Johnson partook of termination treatment at his local general hospital, surrounded only by the hospital staff, a new government was elected.  They were elected on a platform or “reviewing” many of the measures that had been passed in the past few years that affected the elderly.  It seems that the party that had been in opposition for many years had discovered that many of the “younger” members of society were now getting older.]

© James Gordon Forbes, 2013

Tuesday 5 March 2013

And the Winner is . . .


We’re having a leadership contest for the Liberal Party of Canada.  Well, some of us think it is a contest, but many think it is no contest at all and that the party should just go ahead and anoint Justin Trudeau as the new party leader.  How can you deny this post to the son of the great Pierre Trudeau?  Surely dynasties should prevail.  After all, the Americans have done it with the Bushes, father and son, and look how that turned out.  By the same logic, the next Conservative leader should be Ben Mulroney, son of the great Brian.

The media is all excited about the prospect of Justin being the next leader.  Look how young and charismatic he is.  Surely he will lead the Liberal Party to greatness, and what great press he will make.  Of course the press that seems to be the most excited tends to be the more conservative pundits.  They see the poor Justin as the perfect target for denigration and attacks.  I’m sure the Conservative (Oh excuse me, the Harper) government are just as anxious for Justin to be selected.  They also see a prefect bull’s-eye for their attack ads and debates. 

You can imagine the subjects now,

“Poor little rich boy”

“Too little experience”

“Can fight in the ring but not on the floor (of the House of Commons)”

“Only there because of his father’s name”.  This will be followed by attacks on his father.

Yes, there they are just licking their lips in anticipation.  Let the anointing happen and then let the bloodletting begin.

Or we could select someone who has more experience, is not afraid to air his ideas and who would be hard to target for attacks.  That and the fact that I know the man personally is the reason why I would pick Marc Garneau for the leadership.

Sunday 3 March 2013

Toward Efficiency – Democratic Reform


We talk much these days about Senate Reform and Electoral Reform, but what we really need is democratic reform that will make our government more efficient.  Why does it take the government so long to make decisions?  Why do we have to have so many public consultations for just about everything?  Why can’t we get laws passed faster, when they are really needed, not months or years down the way when the need has receded? Why do we even need a Senate to hold up so many bills?  We need more efficiency in our government!

We need to be able to get our government to move quicker on these things.  We need them to be more efficient.  We need to get rid of anything that gets in the way of efficiency. 

Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.
  -
Harry S Truman

Well there you go.  Harry Truman had the answer.  But let’s not call it a dictatorship.  That word has too many negative connotations.  Let’s call it a Focused Democracy, the focus being on the leader.  We can call him the President, or Prime Minister, or anything else we want.  After all, isn’t that the way that government is becoming now?  All decisions have to be made or approved by our Prime Minister.  The rest of the cabinet members and MPs are there only to endorse those decisions, right? 

In our Focused Democracy, we can get rid of all of these legislators, both in the House and the Senate and just let the leader lead.  He can quickly proclaim new laws and make decisions without the bother of committees and hearings.  Oh, it could still be called a democracy.  We could have an election every four or five years, or whenever the leader decides.  But we would only have to elect one person.  The illusion of democracy would be upheld.

Of course the President or Leader would need advisors.  He would need a cabinet to run the government departments.  But rather that having to choose from political hacks and rivals, he could pick from the best and the brightest.  He could take his pick of business leaders and military leaders; men and women who had proven themselves as executives.  They would have tenure.  There would be no calls for their resignation every time they made a mistake.

Think of the money we would save in election costs alone.  Not to mention the money we would save in members’ salaries and benefits, plus all their staffers and office expenses.  Of course we could get rid of all those old Parliamentary buildings that house the chambers and the offices of all those members which will no longer be used.  They all need so much work to refurbish them and maintain them; we could save a few billion dollars right there.

Perhaps we could talk some eminent Canadians to run for the office, military leaders like Lewis McKenzie or Rick Hillier.  Or business leaders like Conrad Black.  Oh wait.  He’s not a Canadian any more.  Well, he can fix that when he’s President.

Of course, the chaos and arguments that now go on in the House of Commons would come to an end.  There would be no Opposition to argue with.  The government could save millions more by not having to run constant attack ads.  The leader could just get on with his job of running the country.  It would be a very business-like approach to government, something businessmen have been asking for for years.

So why don’t we get on with this reform of our government.  A lot of people would be happy to save money, streamline government, get rid of the pesky Senate and ensure that political wrangling would be absent until the next election.  Come on folks; let’s get on with this.  Let’s really get behind this efficient government idea . . .

 . . . NOT!

Winston Churchill said something about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest that have been tried.