Tag Archives: Canada

LOSS AND GRIEF

After the absence of several years I have returned to my blog.  The absence was triggered by my wife’s lung cancer diagnosis and her death three years ago from the cancer  spreading throughout her body.

 

The posts that will follow [probably on another site to which there will be a link] will deal with personal loss, grief and the difficult path to recovery. It will be my story and also talk about the tools which I learned to use to get my life together again after the loss of my wife of 46 years.

 

My hope is that  somebody might benefit from my experience and will discover that there is  life after experiencing one of the most traumatic events in anyone’s lifetime – the loss of a loved one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, cancer, death, grief, Uncategorized

Who Owns Your Life?

Just how valuable is human life and to whom? Is choosing our own time to die an acceptable option? Or is human life sacred and the option to die is not in our hands? What about abortion and the woman’s right to her body?

Priests and politicians want to retain the ownership rights over everyone’s, including the fetus’s life, because they say there is something very special about human life and it needs to be preserved at all costs.

But aren’t we just one of many life forms that inhabit this planet? As well, as a location in this universe our planet takes up an infinitesimally small space. It is hardly dominant, perhaps hardly relevant in the big scheme of the universe, so why do we consider ourselves so special? Especially now that we have found the building blocks of DNA scattered in gas clouds among the stars and discovered solar systems perhaps not unlike our own.

Well, according to the Bible, God gave us supremacy over everything on earth. But that’s hardly surprising since in all likelihood we created our gods in our own image to begin with. Then these gods or god – regardless of what name he, she, it or they go by – told us that we were special. Some gods went further – they said that some tribes were more special than others – the chosen ones. Way back when, it was probably a reasonable way to lay claim to territory and inspire the tribe to protect it.

But even supernatural beings needed administrators and business managers on earth, so men became special because it was men who became witchdoctors, shamans and priests . And when the gods gave us “dominion” over all the beasts of the earth, the managers of the religion business included women in the general category of beasts. Now, grudgingly, we have given women some rights in the western democracies, but there are still many, many places where women are not only second rate people but even chattels, without the right to run their own lives.

Isn’t it bad enough that we literally torture someone with Huntingdon’s or Lou Gehrig’s disease until the body finally gives up and dies? We deny them the right to choose to die with dignity at a time they choose. And don’t lecture me with the “slippery slope” argument. There is always a slippery slope somewhere for somebody because it is an effective scare tactic used by those who lack a rational argument.

The “slippery slope” argument is, of course, also used by those who oppose abortion. And, oddly, most of the violent and very vocal opponents of abortion seem to be men! So are we back to the same old story that women’s rights exist at the discretion of men?

I can’t think of many things more basic than a person – man or woman – having the right to decide the course of their own life. That to me includes a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body, of which the fetus is a part. So if the woman decided for what to her are sound reasons for an abortion, there should be no law standing in her way.

Is she ending a life? I don’t know and to the best of my knowledge nobody yet has come up with a clear and logical definition of when exactly human or other life begins. So I think that any religious based definition should be left out of the equation because it is purely arbitrary. The claimed sanctity of life should apply only to those who claim it – the rest of us should be allowed to do as we see moral and ethical.

Theoretically, in Canada, a woman has the right to an abortion on request within some limitations, such as how late in the term it is. But in practice there are publicly funded hospitals and clinics that refuse to carry out what would normally be a legal procedure.

Not so long ago Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, an active abortion rights promoter and activist here in Canada, was reviled by anti-abortionists for having been granted the Order of Canada, one of the highest honors in the country. While it hardly recompenses him for the time he spent behind bars in the same Canada and not so long ago for the assistance he gave to women, it does show that we are slowly moving ahead.

I have no problem if someone believes in and practices his or her religion. It’s totally OK with me, provided they don’t interfere in my life and don’t subjugate any other part of humanity either – whether it is women, those with different beliefs, nonbelievers or just the average Joe or Joan on the street who only want to get on with their lives. And no matter if those lives are lived in Toronto, L.A., Berlin , Kabul or Baghdad.

We could arrive at a better future for everyone in only a lifetime or two if the priests and the politicians would only do what they claim to do – put people ahead of dogma and ideology.

1 Comment

Filed under church, government, Leadership, politics, religion, Uncategorized

The Pope Knows A Sin When He Sees One

There can be little doubt that sooner or later we will outgrow our food supply – literally f— , sorry, copulate ourselves into overpopulation. We could go the way of Easter Island which supported a thriving civilization until the islanders ran out of resources and their civilization died.

Today the world’s population stands at around 6.5 billion, projected to rise to at least 7.2 billion in 2015. Just imagine how many of us will be here in 2050! This kind of population growth can’t be sustained but less sex is hardly the answer. The only problem with sex is that sometimes it causes children and too many kids without adequate resources means more ignorance, hunger and more kids. The cycle continues.

The basic tools for slowing or stopping population growth are simple: contraception, vasectomy, tubal ligation, sex education and education in general. Simple for us common folk but is it simple for the Catholic Church? Nope, the Pope and his priests know a sin when they see it.

Of course, eating meat on Fridays used to be a sin too, but the Pope looked at that one and said – what the heck , the farmers need to eat too. That was a good decision for the oceans, so how about now making a good decision for the world’s resources?

Unfortunately the Catholic Church remains a major stumbling block when it comes to any kind of population control involving birth control. It maintains abstinence is the only sinless way, but even a small army of priests have found that hard to follow. Some churches are literally going broke trying to pay for the sins of their past and present priests.

An organization that spans the globe and is still powerful in underdeveloped areas of the globe is a prime stumbling block in the fight against overpopulation. In doing that it inadvertently promotes hunger and continuing ignorance.

Pope Benedict even claimed in a recent speech that the use of condoms is not only a sin but also increases the incidence of AIDS! Benedict, oh Benedict, you’re really misfiring on this one! You must have failed your elementary science pretty badly to say that.

Fortunately for the world the Catholic church has lost some of the iron grip it once had. Even so, its sway in some of the poorest regions of the world is formidable and troubling.

It would be nice if dogma fed people, but food is better.

The popular, politically correct, solution is to grow more food and improve the distribution network. Good plan, but we’ve been talking about that for years and the hunger is still there, only more of it. What’s that definition of insanity again? Something about doing the same thing but expecting different results?

A far more practical and ethical solution is to decrease the world’s population through free birth control devices and education. While birthrates in most industrialized countries are already falling, they are more than counterbalanced by population growth elsewhere, especially where there is endemic poverty.

Will supply of condoms and education in birth control interfere with some cultural practices? I certainly hope so, if that will result in less ignorance, subservience and poverty. “Culture” is not cast in stone, it evolves and adapts to changing needs like everything else does.

Western women have the vote today, and their husbands get sent to jail if they’re caught beating them. These are both recent changes among many in our western culture, so where’s the problem?

History tells us that societies disintegrated through the destruction of resources. Easter Island is just one example where only huge, inscrutable human statues are all that remain of a once thriving civilization. The end came when too many people exhausted the island’s limited resources.

We could literally fornicate ourselves out of house and home… but what a way to go!

2 Comments

Filed under Canada, catholic, Christianity, church, government, politics, religion

Brian Mulroney – Misunderstood and Persecuted?

Canada’s one-time Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is not stupid. He may be arrogant, slick and self-serving, but he’s not stupid. Like any professional lawyer/politician he’s all of those things and more, but not stupid. But is he clean?

After over a week of testifying in the Karlheinz Schreiber inquiry some of the Teflon that he has been wrapped in has become a little smudged. A light coating of mud seems to be sticking and the gist of his testimony reminds me of another national leader’s proclamation: “I am not a crook!”.

I met Mulroney when I lived in Whitehorse, Yukon. He came to speak there before he was elected Prime Minister and I was invited to go by a lawyer friend who also wanted me to become active in the Conservative party. I was impressed by what Mulroney said, how he said it and how he answered questions. I thought to myself that this guy’s really got what it takes. I’ll work for him and vote for him. Mea culpa.

Today I say this guy’s had it. At best he’s a very tarnished ex-Prime Minister. As elicited point by painful point by Mr. Wolson, the Oliphant inquiry’s counsel, if Brian Mulroney is not outright dishonest then he is the next legal thing to it.

“Smarmy” is probably a good description of his overall performance in the witness chair. While there are discrepancies in his testimony with others testifying and with the public record, it’s all history anyway, so what’s the big deal? I agree, but the money he received from Mr. Schreiber still intrigues me.

He received a total of $225,000 in cash in three brown envelopes, split among three occasions, in hotel room meetings with Mr. Schreiber. Then he stashed them away for six years out of sight in a safe and a safety deposit box. Why squirrel the money away and admit only under pressing circumstances that he received it? What’s the problem If everything was above board, clean and without fault?

Hmmmm….. Reminds me of other, earlier testimony by Mulroney. Wolson asked him why he had not mentioned the money then – it was pertinent to the line of that inquiry. Mulroney answered that the lawyer who did the examination had not asked the right question, so he was technically correct in not mentioning the money. Hmmm… again. What happened to the concept of “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?

Ok, maybe it was all technically legal as Mulroney claims, but does that make it right for an ex-Prime Minister to get into a situation where he gets tarnished with a major whiff of scandal? Shouldn’t an ex-Prime Minister deport himself in a way that his actions are always not only legal but also above reproach? Maybe I expect too much. After all, he was a politician…

If you boil the money part of the Mulroney/Schreiber affair down to a few key points, then this is what remains:

1. ‘Way back when, Brian said he had hardly heard of Mr. Schreiber.
2. A little later in testimony on another, earlier occasion, he claimed that he never had business dealings with Mr. Schreiber.
3. Later yet, he admitted that he may have met Schreiber several times over a cup of coffee.
4. During the present inquiry it turns out that very shortly after he left public office he met Schreiber three times in anonymous hotel rooms, where Schreiber gave him a total of $225,000 in cash, bundled in brown envelopes. A bunch of thousand dollar bills, no less.
5. Mulroney then put this cash in his cottage safe and into a safe deposit box in New York and let it sit there for six years. Even in an ordinary savings account, he would have made a minimum of $50,000 in just five years. Invest it for a reasonable return of around 10% and that’s a whole different, several-hundred-thousand-dollar-ballgame. I guess he wasn’t interested in money….. Or was there more at stake?
6. Then, when he heard that Schreiber might raise a stink and claim that Mulroney evaded taxes, his lawyers hurried to make a deal with the taxman where Mulroney paid taxes on only half of the amount. The money finally came out of the closet six years after being paid.
7. He also sort of claims that he should have had to pay zero taxes on the amount because this was just a retainer and he did no work for it. Whether he did or didn’t do work for it, as well as exactly what that work might have been, is unclear. It is, however, completely clear that he must have given something in return. The only question is what.

So was Mulroney dirty and underhanded? We don’t know, and the hard evidence is missing. Would I trust him? Not likely. Would I hire him as my lawyer/advisor? Absolutely, if I had to wiggle out of something and had lots of money.

Am I sorry that I voted for him? Not really, because several good things happened under his administration. To name just a couple, he presided over the implementation of the NAFTA and he introduced the GST, a very sensible tax on consumption and not income.

My opinion of Brian Mulroney has certainly hit the cellar, but overall, my opinion of politicians has not changed. The profession attracts the slickest of the slick – did yesterday, does today, and probably always will. That’s politics and that’s Brian Mulroney.

© Copyright George Salmins 2009

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, government, Leadership, politics

Canada Must Stay In Afghanistan

Yesterday Canada lost four more soldiers in Afghanistan to Taliban jihadists.   But is that a reason to abandon the Afghan people and pull our troops out of Afghanistan?

The loss of a Canadian soldier is always an occasion for sadness.  Unfortunately, there are  those Canadians who will climb up on their emotional soapbox and demand that we bring our soldiers home.  They say we are accomplishing nothing, the war cannot be won, that the loss of life is too much to suffer for the sake of a country which they believe should be left to its own devices.  At latest count in the polls, well over 50% of Canadians think so. 

I can’t buy into the idea of abandoning Afghanistan and Afghans to the “tender care” of the Taliban.  Yes, our soldiers’ lives are precious and should never be offered lightly.  But I also believe that we made a commitment to be a part of Afghanistan’s solution and commitments must be honored.   If we can’t or won’t fulfill our promises to the Afghan people then we lose some of our humanity and certainly our right to criticize others.

We would lose our humanity by tacitly agreeing that the Taliban way is OK for the Afghans – especially their obscene belief in the total oppression and subjugation of women.  To the Taliban zealot women are no more than slaves or the livestock he keeps.  Girls must not be educated, women must be hidden behind burkas.  If this way of life is something the Afghans deserve, then I suggest you take another good look at yourself.

The Taliban held daily executions on the Kabul soccer field, forcing everyone to watch.  Do you want this  for Afghanistan?  

The Taliban invited Osama Bin Laden’s gang to train their terrorists in Afghanistan.  Do you want a repeat performance of that?  Another 9-11 or worse?

How would you like to live under Taliban rule? No?  Then how do you justify abandoning the Afghans to the Taliban? 

 There’s more, but you get the idea.

I don’t believe for a minute  that military action alone will solve Afghanistan’s problems or will eradicate the Taliban.  Yes, parts of  the Afghan government are corrupt.  It is also true that many Afghans dislike the West and its consumerism.  But so do many Westerners.

But there is also no denying that there are many Afghans who have and will give their lives for the future of Afghanistan without the scourge of the Taliban and who recognize what we and other Western nations are doing for what it is:  a helping hand to help them get out of decades of warfare, executions, reprisals and oppression of one sort or another.

There is also no denying that without exception, all Canadian soldiers  who have served in the country believe they have made a significant contribution toward a better future for Afghanistan.  They have stated  this very emphatically in many interviews.

Unfortunately our mass media trumpet every death, near disaster and disaster to the exclusion of good news that are actually plentiful  in  Afghanistan.  We don’t hear about the roads and schools that are being built or the alternatives to a poppy culture.  We seldom hear about the honest Afghans who put themselves in jeopardy  to make a difference.  All we get is the bad news.

So let’s stay the course.  Let’s keep our promises.  Let’s help the Afghans find a  future that does not include  Taliban atrocities.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Canada, politics, Taliban, Uncategorized

Jails To Help Canadian Economy?

Opposition Wants to Know Why There is  Crime

At a news conference the Minister of Gangs, Laws and Investigations Bureau (GLIB) announced stiffer penalties for all gang related crimes, prompting the Opposition’s concern that there won’t be enough prison space. Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Canada, humor, politics