Ten Minutes

I was asked the other day if I was having fun writing these ten minute bursts of words and my answer: yes, for the most part though sometimes they were hard work. But that’s a good thing too. I started these two months ago and have been able to write and post one everyday despite sometimes being far off the beaten path, on airplanes, even sick. It is a good exercise in discipline if nothing else.

I think some people find them amusing or interesting or thought provoking though it sometimes seems a bit futile when only ten or fifteen people bother to read them. But I think they are worth doing for their own sake.

Why do we ever write anyway?  There is no certainty of finding an audience and even if we do it will never be as great as we would like. Dan Brown sold 8 million copies of The Da Vinci Code but he was still beaten out by J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter (among others). If I sell 500 or 1000 copies of a book — I’m hardly in the same league.

So writing for a few people is okay since often I think I’m only writing for myself anyway.

Some topics, of course, lend themselves to more words than others — there are some I know have left people hanging and which I’ve flagged for longer treatment in other places such as my personal political blog over at Hayden’s Hubris. Other topics are too fraught to even attempt the ten minute treatment though, you never know, I may get up my courage to write some of them anyway. Since no one is reading it hardly matters if I write upsetting things, right? It’s not as if someone will come by and arrest me or shoot me or even call me bad names in the line at Starbucks.

Writing from where I sit is pretty much a privilege — like those bozos on Fox news who make pronouncements about war when you know not one of them has the guts to go anywhere near the front lines even in a non-combatant role.

Just rambling now so here are some statistics. I average about 425 words in these little ten minute bursts so I’ve now produced over 25000 since I began which, if it were fiction, would be 5 short stories or ¼ of a novel. Of course, writing fiction is a much more deliberate process. I can’t do 500 words of polished prose in 10 minutes though if I count the few minutes editing typos and the time it takes to post and insert the links I could get pretty close to first draft material. So, if I decide this is too much work or not enough fun I guess I could do that instead.

My friend, Joe Haldeman, writes 500 words a day every single day of the year except maybe his birthday and he produces a novel a year. Not a bad approach to things. 500 words and then a whole day to do other things. Hmmm.

But that’s ten minutes.

Democracy

Democracy is as fragile as a flower and as tenacious as a weed. It has appeared in the most barren of ground and been stamped out in its most fertile land. We need to guard it in every way we can.

But what is it? It is not confined to the legislatures or parliaments of the world; it is not the possession of politicians. It is certainly not the plaything of the rich.

As long as we think of democracy as voting, we are doomed to see it fail. Voting in a mass society is the pointy end of democracy but like icebergs, most of democracy is 90% submerged. If voting was all there was, it would be – to stretch a metaphor – a thin ice sheet ready to melt away in the slightest heat.

Democracy is a way of thinking, an approach to life. It should imbue all aspects of our life — our families neighbourhoods, work places. It should be based on mutual respect and the rule of law. It should, first and foremost, be based on the principle of equality. As soon as we lose that last one — as soon as we think that one person’s opinion is more valuable than another, the slide towards thinking those voices should be silenced or ignored becomes so very easy.

Make no mistake; democracy is hard — especially when the other side doesn’t play by the rules. When your opponents are disrespectful; when your opponents are willing to use every trick in the book to win their cause — or worse yet, win the cause they’ve been paid to win — it is hard to turn the other cheek.

Bought and paid for shills are the worst — both as people but also as threats to democratic society. They don’t even have anything invested in the arguments, just taking the 30 pieces and turning their aim on the enemy.

Some are so vile as to be ridiculous. Ezra Levant’s recent rant about the Trudeau family was repulsive. But it hardly does any damage either to Trudeau or to democracy because nobody but a brain dead Sun worshipper could take him seriously. The man’s greatest accomplishment was to publish someone else’s insult to Islam. Ezra has never had an idea that someone didn’t pay to put in his head. See — that’s how it’s done. An ad hominem argument that denigrates Mr. Levant without ever having to talk about what he said. Not that what he’s ever said is worth talking about (Whoops, did it again).

So be careful out there. The democracy you kill may be your own.

But that’s ten minutes.

Self Interest

I am told all the time that the world operates on self-interest as if that were a statement of fact rather than a statement of faith. I’ve had people engage in long tautological arguments which start with an assumption of this presumed behavior and conclude with see: enlightened self-interest. But where is the proof? Certainly market studies show that people make constant choices and that is what drives the market. But is that in fact self-interest; is it in anyway enlightened?

Other studies show that the most (quite possibly, all) people are very poor at assessing risk in modern times — modern being anything after we stopped being hunter/gatherers. When given choices they frequently underestimate true risks and over estimate low risk activities. This is why people who are afraid of flying are quite happy to drive their car down a crowded interstate. The facts, that should lead them to make the opposite choice, have no bearing.

Self-interest itself is a watered down and washed-out version of the original economic idea proposed by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham talked about people seeking to maximize their utility but what he really meant was that they seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. Because economists are seldom philosophers, this got simplified into something that could be measured — that is economic reward. Bentham was probably a lot more accurate in his original formulation but, in any case, in modern times utility became money.

But, of course, the two are not the same. For example, some studies show that there is a point when money no longer drives choice. Individuals will reach a point in their income earning where other things — leisure, hobbies, family, drugs — have more weight than more money. They will actively choose to limit their economic activities in order to maximize these other things. And when it comes to some of them — self-interest is hardly the driving factor.

One could point at people who choose to use drugs or alcohol to increase their pleasure. These acts are so far removed from what most people consider self-interest (health impacts, social disruption, loss of family relationships) that we need to use a different paradigm — addiction — to even talk about it. But addition is a tricky beast too. There is real physical addiction where dopamine levels are affected. There is even permanent addiction where the brain mechanisms that produce these reward chemicals are completely rewired. But most addiction is actually psychological and so a matter of choice. A similar but simpler thing is at play with extreme sports.

So where does that leave us? A topic for another day because…

That’s ten minutes.

Defeat

Defeat is a bitter pill — one most politicians have a hard time swallowing. That only makes sense. When you lose an election, particularly in a seat you hold, it feels like you’ve been fired by thousands of people. Most humans are not prepared for that kind of rejection. And the system does nothing to help them prepare.

I recall when I ran for office. I had no illusions about winning — it was the safest of Conservative seats (still is) but I thought for sure I would get my 15% and get some of the campaign’s money back. The response at the door was great and my workers kept telling me how good we were doing. So when it didn’t happen, I was devastated. I still remember the experience vividly after 35 years.

A friend of mine worked for a Cabinet Minister in the Mulroney/Campbell government in 1993. By Election Day, they knew the government would be defeated. The most clear-eyed among them knew they would be badly defeated. Internal polls said they would win fewer than twenty five seats. (In fact, it was much worse and the PCs were reduced to 2 members). But despite this, more than 80 MPs, when asked, were convinced that they personally would win their seat. They knew — KNEW — that their constituents loved them or at least respected them. They were sure that they were good MPs who would be rewarded for their hard work.

They were wrong. The impacts were personally devastating for many of them. Some became depressed, most took two years to get themselves back into the workplace. Not because they could afford to stay out of it (MP benefits aren’t that good, friends) but because of the recovery needed from this massive rejection.

Yet, it didn’t have to be that way. Politicians need to understand that it isn’t really personal. Voting feels like an intimate experience. After all we go behind a curtain to do it. But in reality, voting is a strange impersonal calculation. Despite the fact that everyone tells me they vote for the person, this is nonsense. Most people have no idea — really — who the person they are voting for is. They have met them once or twice but that’s it. Their perceptions are formed first and foremost by the party they are running for, secondly by the leader of that party and only peripherally by the person running (most studies put the weight at 60/30/10). Only in close national and regional races does the person make a difference. In blowouts, not at all.

The New Brunswick Conservatives are saying: hell, no, we won’t go. They point to delays in the vote count (not unusual delays, just a case of technology failing to live up to the hype – again) as a reason to question the results. The results weren’t close. Even if every close seat were overturned, the Liberal would still have won the election. But it’s natural. No-one likes to lose — even after they have.

But that’s ten minutes.

Visible

I see myself everywhere. In movies, on TV, in magazines, in every walk of life, every degree of success. No matter where I look, I see myself. That’s because I’m a white man. This is part of what is called male privilege. The ability to envision yourself as the absolute norm to which all others must be measured. Being visible is an important part of the pure raw assumption of being deserving – of power, wealth, status. Change what you see and you change what you are.

Not everyone is so fortunate. Some people only get to see parts of themselves or only get to see themselves in limited roles or places. Women, blacks, Asians, aboriginals all are excluded from this passage to ‘normalcy’. To a lesser or greater extent.

Perhaps those who never get to see themselves as normal, never get to see themselves as public personae are the disabled. We, grudgingly, may make accommodations in the form of wheelchair ramps or guide dogs being allowed in restaurants but tolerance is not the same as acceptance. It is definitely not the same as seeing people as people in every respect and aspect of their lives.

I spent a couple of hours at the Royal Ontario Museum yesterday. It was fun to see the dinosaurs and the art deco furniture but it was important to see the display on fashion. The exhibit showcased the work of a Canadian fashion designer who has spent the last number of years creating clothing specifically for people confined to wheel chairs. This clothing not only fits and is comfortable and easy to put on –all important – it is quite beautiful. It creates an image that is ‘tailored’ to the person, that acknowledges them for who they are.

The most amazing and moving part of the exhibit is a short video that documents the creation of store mannequins that represent people with disabilities – amputations, spinal curvature, dwarfism or other body differences. The models – each mannequin is designed for a particular person—were initially hesitant, embarrassed, fearful but when the final product was unveiled – literally – they were amazed and overjoyed. And when they saw themselves clothed and on display in the window of a high fashion store in London, when they saw others seeing them there, they were transported. And so was I.

And that’s ten minutes.

History

They say that those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it; those who do, doomed to watch others repeat it while they stand helplessly by. History explains so much and does provide hints as to possible solutions.

Many people look at the Middle East with a sense of utter futility. How did it become so mad; why are people so violent? What is at the root of it all? The common answer is oil. But the problems of the Middle East began long before the discovery of oil, certainly long before oil became vital to the world economy.

To some extent the roots go back to Roman times or before. While being on the main overland route between east and west created great wealth, it also created great trouble. Wars were fought to control that wealth and empires rose and fell in the process. Divide and conquer made it easier, though once the area became united under a single ideology/religion, Islam, the dynamic changed.

For a while the states created by the original Islamic expansion held sway and presented a united front to Europe. But divisions, natural due to linguistic and ethnic differences and exacerbated by growing schisms within the religion inevitably weakened their power. The last of the great Middle Eastern states, the Ottoman Empire slowly decayed and was finally destroyed utterly in World War I. Yet, powerful groups remained, along with frustrations over lost influence and wealth.

Enter Europe or more specifically England and France. All the borders in the current Middle East were drawn at a conference in 1921, a follow up to the Treaty of Versailles, where those two powers, with the United States – locked into one of its isolationist periods – standing by, quietly trying to advance its own interests without being willing to take an active role. Things might actually have been better if they had.

The boundaries between nations were arbitrary and took no notice of natural alliances or rivalries; it certainly did not bother to consult the local leaders let alone the people themselves. A Hashemite king was placed on the throne of Syria (he actually wanted to be the king of Palestine and had formed alliances with the Zionist movement to try to make it so). England took control (indirectly) of some states while France took the others.

And so it began. Even a proto-Israel was created in 1921, a sort of Jewish enclave around Jerusalem under British control. When you hear of IS trying to create a new Caliphate, the language they use derives directly from the decisions of 1921. And their tactics come from an even earlier much darker time.

But that’s ten minutes.

9/11

No one who wasn’t living in a cave (and even ones who were) will ever forget the horrifying image of planes flying into buildings on September 11^th. It was an outrageous act committed by men who clung to a deeply conservative ideology and wished to destroy the democratic countries of the west. They opposed progress; it is hard to say if there is anything they actually supported – except oppression and a narrow version of god.

But there was another 9/11, one that few people noticed when it happened and which has largely been forgotten except by those on the left. In 1973, a group of very conservative men overthrew the democratically elected Marxist government of Chile. Driven by a hatred of progress and inspired by what was, for them, a foreign ideology and a very narrow view of freedom, they marched their guns and tanks into Santiago and took power for several decades. President Allende died – either by murder or suicide – and Augusto Pinochet took over the reins of power.

As Kissinger said to Nixon: We didn’t do it but we helped. The CIA and, as it turned out, American corporate dollars aided and abetted an anti-democratic coup. In the years that followed, Pinochet killed and ‘disappeared’ thousands, filling mass graves and dumping bodies in the ocean. It was a brutal time as Pinochet and his friends filled their pockets with gold forged from their enemies’ blood.

At the time, little was said. The Vietnam War was grinding down to its bitter end and dictatorships were springing up all over the world. What was another military coup in Latin America? Worse would follow. The Iran Contra affair during the Regan years comes to mind – illegal arms sales to one of America’s sworn enemies to fund right wing guerrillas seeking to overthrow another in Nicaragua. (The irony: Ortega, the eventually ousted Sandinista leader, became president again, this time as a democratic socialist, governing with the tacit support of some of those who had previously opposed him). At least someone went to jail in that deal, though those at the top escaped any real punishment – as they always do,

Ancient history you might say. Pinochet is gone, his life ending in the disgrace of charges before the World Court. Democracy flourishes in Latin America – well, flourish might be too strong a word but it is there.

Still, lessons need to be learned. When you hear a right wing ranter call for the President’s ouster by force – even for his death, you need to ask yourself a question. Do I really want to live under a dictatorship run by a bunch of guys who have a twisted idea of freedom and no respect for human life? Well, do ya, punk?

But that’s ten minutes.

Space

Like most people who read and write science fiction, I would love to go into space. At my age and level of income, that isn’t likely ever going to happen but it’s worth thinking about. The venture into space, on a personal level, is really nothing more than the desire for an adventure that you can’t get anywhere else.

Sure, you can simulate the feeling of weightlessness in a diving plane or even in the moments of free fall during a bungee jump but you can’t escape the knowledge that you are really some place ordinary – within reach. Maybe that is the glamour of space travel – it is something beyond our grasp if not our imagination.

Beyond the personal, why do we want or, more precisely, need to go to space. It’s interesting to talk to people of different ages about the subject. Old guys like me can’t imagine the point of only sending out robots – there is nothing like the actual human experience of going to space or to another planet. Younger people seem to think robots are good enough – perhaps they think their phones are actually smart and not fairly dumb bits of programing that can do neat things but can’t think or innovate or deal with the unpredictable. That requires a human brain and likely will continue to do so for a long time to come. Artificial intelligence, like fusion power, is just twenty years away and always will be.

Going to space is not about adventure, it is about extending the range of human knowledge and understanding. It is also an important insurance policy. We have all our eggs in one basket right now and while I believe we can figure out a way that we don’t destroy our increasingly fragile planet – by willful actions or benign greedy neglect – it is a risk. And when there is risk we should take out insurance.

Space is that policy. It gives us a second chance. The trouble with space is that it is a risk in and of itself. It is a big risk with only a limited likelihood of return. That’s why it won’t be accomplished by entrepreneurs – no return. Which is exactly what may happen to the first mission to mars. They won’t come back. You can’t compare this to settlement of Australia or North America by Europeans. The first voyages were funded by governments for the purpose of extending their power and reach. Only when it was clear that you could come back did private investors get involved.

But space is big and expensive to go to – though not nearly as expensive as say, waging war in Iraq – and probably needs an international effort to get us there. Can we do that? I can only hope.

And that’s ten minutes.

Camera Obscura

While I was in Paris a couple of weeks ago, my digital SLR stopped working. One minute it was fine, the next the digital display was nothing but a pattern of black jagged lines on a white background. Sort of like an Apple ad. The camera still worked in a way, it would click and record data but I couldn’t see what I was taking right away. It was just like the old days, when you couldn’t see your pictures until after they were developed.

How retro. Of course the real problem was that I couldn’t meaningfully change the settings, turn the flash on or off, change the film speed and so on. Most frustrating. I was left with a couple of android smart phones (more useful sometimes as cameras than as actual talking devices) and a point and shoot digital. They did an okay job for some things — basically anything more than two feet and less than ten feet away. After that, the resolution and focusing is a bit off.

I also happened to have my forty year old Olympus OM-1 and a couple of rolls of film. I’ve been hauling this baby around for years. It was the first of the real light weight SLRs brought out in the seventies. Very low shutter vibration, easy to change lenses (actually easier than my brand-new Sony). Very nice lens resolution as well. But of course, it costs a lot of money to operate — about 50 cents a picture — so you have to approach picture taking in an entirely different way.

No more of just hold it up and shoot and shoot and shoot. Never mind if the picture is properly framed or composed, never mind if the light or exposure are right. If this one doesn’t work, I can always take another. And with instant feedback, I know right away whether I have to.

As a result, you spend your whole life looking at the world through the lens or on the screen of a camera. With film, you have to look at the world, really stare at it; you have to discern the patterns of surprise or beauty. You have to know the world before you can film it.

A lesson learned — the high tech digital camera is the real camera obscura, hiding the truth of things behind instant gratification. Am I now determined to give up my digital life for a more analog one, revert to film instead of pixels? Not bloody likely. Digital is too convenient, it is too cheap. But that doesn’t mean it has to cheapen my experience.

What I’ve actually decided to do — after I get that expensive display replaced or, just as likely, buy a brand new digital (that’s right it is almost as cheap to buy a new one as fix an old one) — I’ll treat the world as it deserves to be treated. With observation and thought and consideration of what it is I’m actually seeing.

And that’s ten minutes.

Wishful Thinking

I feel slightly guilty today. It’s Rob Ford. He’s dropped out of the mayor’s race in Toronto while he waits to find out whether his tumour is malignant or benign. Why do I feel guilty about that? Because in my darkest moments, perhaps in a drunken stupor when my outrage over his opinions and political style narrow down to simple rage, in my least humane moments, I’ve wished people like Rob Ford (and believe me the list is a lengthy one) would get cancer and die. No, seriously, I’ve wished these terrible things on those I find to be morally repulsive. As I said the list is long. At least irony isn’t dead.

But of course, my real self, my adult rational self does not wish any such thing. I’ve known cancer victims, lived with them. Some survived the ordeal, others did not. All of them suffered terribly. And none of them were to blame for their illness. No one, no caring feeling human being, could reasonably or rationally wish that on anyone. That was my four-year old self.

Besides, it wouldn’t matter if you did. Wishes are not fulfilled. Even a million people wishing — or praying — for something will make it happen. It’s been scientifically proven. Which, of course, is the only logical position an atheist could take.

A real atheist doesn’t only not believe in god; we don’t believe in the supernatural. Wishes or prayers, ghosts or goblins, magic or ESP — none of it is real. Well, except for ESP. They recently proved that you can transmit thoughts from one brain to another. But it takes a lot of equipment and the latest advances in brain scanning technology to do it.

So, while it is futile, I wish Rob Ford well. I hope his tumour is benign. Or, if it isn’t, that medicine succeeds in treating him and curing him.

And of course what I really wanted was to see Mr. Ford defeated soundly at the polls. I hope as fervently that his brother and surrogate is likewise defeated. These are toxic men, in themselves – if it doesn’t stretch the metaphor too far – a cancer on the city they inhabit.

I don’t know who will win in Toronto. I learned long ago that predicating elections, even as they draw to a close, is a mugs’ game. I wish it wasn’t so but there you have it. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. And I haven’t seen many of them on horseback lately. Have you?

But that’s ten minutes.