O! Politics

I served on my first constituency association executive when I was 14, more years ago than I care to count. I attended my first provincial party convention at 17 and ran for federal office when I was 24. I served on provincial party executives, managed finances for federal campaigns and eventually spent most of my working life advising politicians and formulating public policy.

I guess you could say politics matter to me. You shouldn’t be surprised that politics play a significant role in my new mystery novel, In the Shadow of Versailles. Set in Paris during the negotiation of the treaty to end World War I, the book is populated by characters—both real and fictional—embroiled in the complex and often treacherous schemes and dreams that filled Paris during those critical six months.

Oddly, enough, the main character is far from political. Max Anderson saw more than enough of what bad politics would forge in the trenches of France and now just wants to get well and find some personal peace. He knows he can’t find it at home, not when he suspects his father was murdered and the crime covered up, so he tries to blend into the background of the City of Light, just an ordinary man doing ordinary things.

Unfortunately for Max, he had a strong moral sense, a need to defend and protect the underdog and to do the right thing, the just thing. With no political agenda of his own, he strives to forge a path that takes no sides except justice.

It’s not easy. Everyone has an angle. Agents of minor powers are playing what cards they have, including violence in dark alleys, to achieve their own ambitions—whether it is a homeland for their people, the restoration of the French monarchy or ideologies, both left and right, that would tear down the established order to create their own version of utopia.

I had a lot of fun researching the history of Parisian (and world) politics of the period. The treaty negotiations themselves were fascinating, with world leaders gathering in the city to barter borders and create new orders not only in Europe but through related treaties across the world. The impacts of some of those deals continue to impact European, Middle Eastern and African politics to this day. But you can do the research yourself, maybe inspired by reading In the Shadow of Versailles, which you can find at your favourite eBook vendor, right here.

Ah, Paris!

When most people think of Paris in the 1920s, if they think of it at all, they might think of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Stein and the lost generation or, perhaps, Josephine Baker and the hot jazz scene (both of which played a role in the resistance during WWII). A few might recall the successive waves of modernism in art, sculpture and music, much of it driven by Russians and Spaniards and Germans but all of it grounded in Paris.

Paris was all of that and more. Even before the Great War, Paris had been the centre of Europe. While the other great cities of the continent shone in their own particular way, Paris sparkled, it dazzled, and its light became a beacon of civilization in a darkening world. While the city was well-known for its fashion, its art and music, its literary giants, it also excelled in science and technology (the first neon lights, the first moving sidewalk, early breakthroughs in aviation and automotive that equalled and even excelled what was happening in America) and in the complex social arrangements of a multi-ethnic city.

Of course, I didn’t know all that when I first got interested in Paris. I admit it; like a fair number of white male writers of my generation, I was attracted to Paris because I was a fan of Hemingway, an aficionado, if you will. Hemingway led me to Fitzgerald and Gertrude Stein, who led me to Monet and Picasso and Stravinsky and…

But the pivotal influence that led me to Max Anderson, my displaced Canadian detective, was Margaret MacMillan and her book Paris 1919, the in-depth story of the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended world war one and presaged much of modern history (I’ll defend that statement in the next post). Once I began to think about the tumult caused by that process, especially for those around the edges, the small players from the Balkans, from the Levantine, from Indochina, the idea of a novel—a mystery novel—seemed obvious.

The deeper I delved into Paris (including a weekend visit across the Channel while I was travelling in England), the more fascinated I became. The Paris police long eschewed the use of fingerprints (possibly because they were invented by the British) because they had their own system of identification, called the Bertillon system, which had been used since 1879 to keep track of dangerous elements in France. Combined with an extensive pass system and laws requiring people entering Paris to keep the Prefecture informed of where they were living (and when the moved), Paris developed one of the first and most effective surveillance systems in the world, which police from all over (including England and the USA) came to study.

Despite this seemingly authoritarian control system, Paris had been before the war, and was, even more so, after it, the most welcoming place in Europe for refugees, artists, outcasts, entrepreneurs and dilettantes. People poured into the city from across Europe (and, later, from around the world), seeking respite from persecution or just a jolly good time. The Parisian French (unlike their more rural cousins) were tolerant of almost all comers, embracing the eccentric and turning a blind eye to behaviors that were technically immoral or even illegal. In the1920s, no city or country accepted more immigrants, with the exception of New York and the USA. Given their comparative size, perhaps France merits the gold medal on points.

Despite their interest in all kinds of technical advances and innovations (as displayed at the various Paris expositions) Parisians were surprisingly reluctant to adopt the telephone which they viewed as a warranted interference in their private life. (What goes around, comes around. Calling people unannounced is taboo with most people under forty these days.) Of course, despite the size of the population, the city itself was quite compact. Mail was delivered three times a day and you could always find a messenger to hand deliver a note across the twenty arrondissements. Anyone who wanted to stay on top of things could grab one of the twenty or so newspapers published each day, picking and choosing the political viewpoint that suited them best: anarchist, communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, reactionary, fascist, you could find them all on the pages of Paris broadsheets.

Which raised an interesting question for me: how, despite a large, and frequently violent, ultra-right movement and a strong, and equally aggressive, communist party, did France resist the siren call of authoritarianism that slowly swallowed all of its continental neighbours?

But that’s a topic for another day. In the meantime, you can visit Paris and meet Max Anderson in “In the Shadow of Versailles,” available most places ebooks are sold.

I’mmmmm baaack!

Well, it’s been a while, for sure. Months, years, surely not decades?

In any case, I’m sure you missed me. Don’t expect to see me everyday. I’m a busy guy, after all. Between writing and editing, reading and studying Spanish, rediscovering the joy of poetry and the torment of serving on a condo board, the hours just fly by. It doesn’t seem to matter how much I’m told to stay at home, there just doesn’t seem like enough time to do it all.

But I’m here for a purpose. A couple of weeks ago I published the ebook (print copy to come) of my mystery novel, In the Shadow of Versailles, and I want to tell you all about it. Let’s start with the book blurb:

“The Great War has ended. From all over the world, politicians and diplomats gather in Paris to negotiate the Great Peace. But Max Anderson, former lieutenant in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, cares for none of that. With no home waiting back in Canada, he is determined to make a new life for himself in the City of Light. But soon he finds himself immersed in intrigue and the political turmoil of the treaty negotiations. The war may be over but the city is full of violent men pursuing violent causes, and when no one else seems willing to do the right thing, Max has no choice but to act.”

Of course, my most sincere wishes are that you rush out and buy the book, enjoy reading it as you’ve never enjoyed a book before and then write a rapturous review on multiple sites. But I’d be satisfied with the first one.

Of course, it’s not that simple. I need to persuade you that this might be a book for you. It’s not enough to tell you that my three SF detective novels were nominated for prizes because, like they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee of future results. After all, it could have been the science fiction part that got me the nominations and there is definitely no SF in this one. Plenty of politics, intrigue, action, murder and mayhem but no SF. Romance, history, philosophy, food, music, yes, all of those, but no SF. Plenty of Paris, absolutely no cyborgs.

So over the next few weeks, I’ll explain how it was I came to fall in love with Paris and the journey I took to write the first (but not the last) of the Max Anderson Mysteries.

Stay tuned. Oh, yeah, and go here to find the book:

https://books2read.com/In-the-Shadow-of-Versailles

It’s Not You

Are you the you you were when you first began to wonder who you were?

It has been claimed that every cell in the body is replaced each seven years. Like most dramatic claims, this one is false (or, at best, only partly true). While some cells of the body have a fast turn around (colon cells for example last about four days before they are replaced by new ones), others pretty much stay with you from birth to death. For example, you get to keep most of your brain cells – although your personal mileage may very on that one.

However, even the brain does get partly replaced. There is good evidence to suggest that new neurons are generated in the hippocampus, especially when you are under pressure to learn new things. These new cells—generated from the body’s stem cells—start out fairly undifferentiated as they move out of the hippocampus to where they are needed, usually the frontal cortex. Then, hopefully, they turn into the specific type of cell needed for the task.

Of course, even if most of your cells are replaced, you are still you, right? Each new cell (these produced by cell division rather than stem cell differentiation) has the same DNA and general structure as the parent cell that they replace. Up to a point, this is true. But cell replication errors do occur as well as cellular degradation over time. Skin cells produced later in life do not have the elasticity of those when you are young (hence wrinkles) and mutations can lead to discoloration and deformation (brown spots, moles, skin tags are all the result).

But aren’t we more than a cluster of cells working cooperatively (and not only with other of our own cells but with the multitudes of bacteria that live in happy symbiosis inside of us)? Presumably what we really mean when we talk about our identity is the accumulation of memories, thoughts, emotions that we are in the continuous process of adding.

But there’s the rub. The net loss of brain cells, which goes on from childhood, does impact how and with what degree of clarity we remember things. Moreover, whenever we learn a new skill, we reprogram existing neurons and neural connections (in addition to those new cells mentioned above) often at the price of old pathways. Take, for example, the typical way many people learn tennis. Most simply pick up a racket and start to play—or, at most, have a few lessons before thinking they know enough. In the process they learn lots of bad ways to serve, back hand, etc. The day comes when they want to get better. Now, lessons are not enough—they need coaching and supervised practice because only then do the old pathways get destroyed and new ones constructed. They literally become a different tennis player.

Then there is brain damage. Sometimes those travelling neurons wind up in the wrong place or don’t get properly integrated. Some scientists suggest that this is the root cause of Parkinson’s disease or, even schizophrenia. There is a well documented case of a brain tumour that caused a man to become a pedophile. When it was removed in prison, he lost the urge. When the urge came back, the doctor’s checked – a new tumour had grown.

All of this is more than idle scientific speculation. Our entire legal and social system is predicated on the idea of the continuity of human existence. Long-term contracts (like mortgages) are based on it, as are presumptions about people’s past behavior being something they have to be held to account for. If some made a racist (or xyz) remark, thirty years ago they need to be held to account today. While an actual crime remains a crime, is a thought or opinion or nasty remark also immutable? And if so, can no-one ever truly be rehabilitated or reformed? Because the possibility of moral redemption is also central to our social order. Just a few thoughts on a weekend dedicated to death and resurrection.

And that’s a little more than ten minutes.

Burn, Baby, Burn

Currently a war is being waged in Canada over something that should be a unifying proposal. The Canadian public, who overwhelmingly believe that climate change is one of the major issues facing the country, must be confused. Almost everyone agrees it is happening and most of those also accept that human activity is a major factor in causing it. Scientific studies show that is so and, moreover, that there are specific things we can and must do about it.

Now before you link me to the phony web-sites denying all this or trot out your long-debunked theories about WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, let me tell you I’m not interested – that ship is sailed. You have been relegated to the trash heaps of voodoo history, along with anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers. I can’t waste my precious time debunking that which, on the face of it, has no merit.

Besides, I want to get back to that which should unite us. The Carbon Tax, hereafter referred to as TCT.

Oh, I can already hear the gnashing of teeth—on both the left and the right. What’s that you say? You thought TCT was nothing but a leftist plot to destroy business and fund their crazy progressive programs. Well, not quite. A fair number on the left prefer a cap and trade system or a regulatory regime that gets at the real culprits of climate change, that is, large corporations, while protecting the innocent victim, ordinary folks like you and me. TCT is not sufficiently punitive to industry and governments, especially non-left ones, can’t be trusted not to keep the cash rather than use it to help taxpayers (which oddly is what those on the right say, too). What’s more, industry will simply pass the tax on to consumers. Bad all around.

Certainly, cap and trade worked pretty well for getting rid of sulfur (and hence acid rain) and regulation took care (mostly) of ozone-killing chlorofluorocarbons, which is why I, too, used to think they were the way to go for carbon emissions. Then I realized that not only was the chemistry different, the distribution of emitters was different, too. Everybody produces carbon emissions and, when the law of large numbers kicks in. individual emitters are collectively very significant; everyone must be engaged in reducing carbon. And the simplest way to do that is to put a tax on carbon. Of course, that reeks of market economics, also anathema to those on the left. Phooey, I say; I’m proud to use the tools of the enemy to advance good causes. Policy shouldn’t be designed to punish bad behavior but to change it. And people respond to price.

Which is why many real conservatives (and most of industry, including the oil industry) support a carbon tax. It is simple, requires little government intervention or bureaucracy, can be designed to be more-or less revenue neutral (put simply the government gives back in tax credits or rebates, all –or in my preferred scenario, most—of the revenue it collects) and creates a level playing field where individual choice moves the market from carbon-heavy to carbon-light alternatives.

Then why do so many so-called conservatives (Scheer, Kenny, Ford and the other camp followers) oppose it? The simple answer is that Trudeau and the Liberals support it. That pretty much sums it up. It is not principle or fighting for the little guy or, even, ideology that motivates these guys – it is pure partisan politics.

And when the quest for power (which they want so they can cut taxes for the rich and tell the rest of us what we can or cannot do with our hearts, souls and, mostly, our bodies) is the only motive, facts and rational arguments cease to mean a damn thing. Appealing to our most venal instincts (Damn taxes! I like shiny trucks! I don’t want to change! It’s someone else’s fault!), they will say and do anything to gain it.

And when the world burns to the ground, they can always say: I never knew!!! But, of course, they do.

And that’s 10 minutes (or somewhat more – I’m a bit rusty, but I’ll improve)

Liberal (Mis)fortunes

Yesterday, voters in Nova Scotia, one of Canada’s smaller provinces, gave the governing Liberals a reduced majority, marking the first time since 1988 that a government has won back to back majorities. It was a close thing though, with the government losing 6 seats and two cabinet ministers. When the final tally was made, they held on to 27 seats compared to 24 for the two opposition parties. That is a workable majority – even after electing a Speaker (almost certainly a Liberal), they can afford to have one member down with the flu and still hold onto power.

Not so in British Columbia, where, a week after all the votes were counted and nearly a month after the actual election, uncertainty continues over the form of the next BC government. There, the Liberals were one seat shy of a bare majority, winning 43 of 87 seats. When they failed to find common ground with the 3-member Green party, the latter turned to the NDP (41 seats) to form a governing pact (though not a coalition) to run the province for the next 4 years.

Of course, it’s not quite as simple as that; the outgoing Premier is notorious for not giving up and has the track record to prove it, coming from behind twice to win the most seats when trailing at the start of the campaign. She hasn’t yet definitively said she will step aside and allow the NDP to form the government. She may insist on facing the House with a Throne Speech (or possibly ask the Lieutenant Governor to call a new election) and the newspapers have been rife with speculation that she would try to tempt one of the opposition members to cross the floor so she can hold onto power. This, however, seems unlikely. Both the NDP and Greens have been seeking power or influence in BC for 15 years and every one of them knows that the fate of floor-crossers is seldom rosy.

Besides, a bare majority for either side would be fraught. The Speaker – supposedly impartial – might be in the situation where he or she constantly has to vote for the government to keep things going. A single MLA becoming incapacitated before a crucial vote could bring down the government in a hurry.

Oddly enough, I’ve seen little speculation about a Liberal agreeing to either cross the floor or, more likely, run uncontested for the Speaker’s job. While their fate is not likely to be any different than that of another party, the Liberals have been in power for 15 years; there must be at least one backbencher who would be willing to end his career on a high note with all the pomp and perks that the Speakership holds. If they lose their seat in the next election – well, they will still have a pretty good pension. The NDP-Green government would then have a working two-seat majority to implement their shared agenda.

It should be an interesting few weeks on both coasts as the Liberals appoint their new Cabinet in Nova Scotia and as British Columbia finds out who exactly will get to do that job for them.

And that’s ten minutes.

Rigged

Donald Trump has expressed concerns that the upcoming Presidential election may be ‘rigged.’ I thought originally that he was making an elaborate metaphor about the apparatus of government – you know the ropes and pulleys required to drive forward the ship of state.

But no, he means it in the sense given by the urban dictionary:  to describe situations where unfair advantages are given to one side of a conflict.

He provides no evidence as to this claim – nothing new for Mr. Trump – so I guess we’re just supposed to take his word for it. Like we should accept his claim that there is nothing wrong with his tax returns (move along, nothing to see here) or that his small hands are no indication of anything else.

I suppose in a way he might be right. Clinton does seem to have some distinct advantages. She’s sane for one thing – though it is just my opinion that Trump is not. But she does seem to have more money, a better organization, and a substantial lead in the polls. And those are all unfair advantages: a form of systematic discrimination that Donald Trump – if he were anything but an old white man – might readily recognize.

It’s hard to know where Trump’s latest claim comes from – it is increasingly suspect that the things he says come from anywhere. He may well simply have impulse control and a supreme belief in the rightness of his own, well, beliefs. Who needs evidence when you know you are always right?

If I thought Donald Trump were capable of being self-aware and able to see the writing on the wall, I would say he is trying to prepare his supporters for an epic defeat – and it could well be truly epic. If current numbers hold up and Clinton wins the election say 50% to 42% with 8% going to third parties, it will rank in the top ten of the worst thrashings in modern American presidential races.

Nothing like the election of 1936, of course, where FDR got more than 60% of the vote and took all but 8 of the Electoral College votes. Or even Reagan and Nixon’s best performances when they beat very left wing Democrats (do I hear an echo?) by substantial margins. But it could be similar to the crushing of Barry Goldwater who was the worst performing Republican since the 1936 vote.

Of course, it might be simpler than that. Trump may simply be trying to change the channel – anything to get away from his attack on a Muslim American war hero and the subsequent close examination of his own draft deferments during the Vietnam War. It worked for him when he got into trouble accusing a judge of bias against him, why not now?

Because now, we are into the real race. Now, there is only him and Clinton (with apologies to third party supporters). Now, nothing will go away and the self-inflicted wounds of the GOP campaign threaten not only Trump’s defeat but maybe the destruction of the Republican party for the next 20 years.

And that’s ten minutes.

The Future of Energy

This morning I woke up to the news that the first round-the-world flight of a solar-powered plane was completed. There were a lot of technical difficulties along the way as one might expect when something is done for the first time and I don’t expect to be flying to Yellowknife in a solar plane anytime soon. Still, it was still a remarkable achievement and a probable signpost of things to come.

On the same day, another news report talked about the dramatic decline in the number of oil rigs operating in North America. Since last year, the number has been cut in half. Despite persistently low oil prices, demand for the black goop continues to moderate. While bad news for oil producing regions, it may be excellent news for the rest of the world.

While oil is decried for its polluting qualities (250,000 liters are currently fouling the waters of northern Saskatchewan) and for its contribution to climate change, it is its impact on global politics that may be the most pernicious. Oil fuels the terrorist activities of ISIL and has led to social, political and military conflict across the globe. While North Americans haven’t actually come to blows on their own soil in recent years – they have been sent to fight in the oil wars in the Middle East for years. Conflict in the South China Sea, with Beijing ordering the construction of fake islands to spread its influence, is completely about access to oil reserves that lie under those waters.

The end of oil would create massive social disruptions (these are already occurring in Venezuela and Nigeria where falling oil prices have placed strains on governments and economies) and would undoubtedly impoverish some countries – though not Norway who cleverly banked their oil revenues. Even the Canadian economy would not be immune to the long term decline of oil prices – but we have the advantage of diversity and while some regions would lose out, others would stand to gain from shifts in energy consumption away from oil and toward solar, wind, hydro and other alternatives.

Energy use is likely to continue to grow over time and in the past that has always meant the growth in the consumption of oil. But as alternatives to oil like solar (and, by the way, you can thank Obama in large part for that) gain ground, we may be able to raise the standard of living of people across the world without the price of pollution or global conflict. After all, the sun shines and the wind blows wherever people live on this planet – with equal distribution a major irritant for global conflict will disappear. And oil will cease to be the bankroll for dictators and terrorists.

That would be a sunny future indeed. And that’s ten minutes.

Builders and Wreckers

There are two types of people: those who separate the world into categories and those who don’t.

Seriously though, I’ve found in my years of observing them that politicians often do fall into two categories: builders and wreckers. It is not really an ideological vision – I can name plenty of conservative builders. John A. MacDonald, for example, or Robert Borden. More recently, John Diefenbaker and even Brian Mulroney (who started to look good after the wreckers took over his party). You can find conservative builders in every country. These are men and women who have a particular vision for the world that is expansive and constructive. You might not agree with their vision but you have to acknowledge that it’s there.

There are wreckers on the left as well – though they often masquerade as builders. I suspect history will judge Hugo Chavez as a wrecker, rather than a visionary. He didn’t build a true socialist society but rather squandered the nation’s resource wealth to pay for populist projects. When the money was gone, so was the state. He could have taken a more prudent approach – like Norway which has secured its long term security under both left and right wing governments.

Canada has recently changed governments and a lot of people have suggested that it has taken little time to do away with the previous PM’s legacy. I would argue that is because Mr. Harper had no real legacy. His party was a party of the small – they had no vision for the future but only a determination to tear down what previous generations had built – peacekeeping, an open society of expansive human rights, social safety nets, environmental protections. It left a lot of rubble to clean up but there was nothing there to get in the way of rebuilding.

It’s too early to judge what Mr. Trudeau will be. He is certainly an activist and seems to have a specific vision – quite clear when you wipe away the hype over selfies and public relations – of the Canada he wants to build or, at the very least, restore. But he needs to go beyond restoration of previous glories and do something new and big. Restoration is always a conservative project and often lapses into a subtle form of wrecking, called petrification.

Like making America great again. While Mr. Trump claims he wants to build a wall, it doesn’t appear that he plans to build anything else. Indeed he has all the hallmarks of a wrecker on a grand scale – certainly his legacy of corporate bankruptcies and a failed university would suggest that. But more importantly he wants to tear down social safety nets and environmental protections – elements that provide the only protection most Americans (including the vast majority of his supporters) against rapacious capitalism.

I might have some doubts about Ms. Clinton’s builder credentials – though I think they’ve improved because of a push from Mr. Sanders – but I know she will at least keep what America has built. And maybe keeping America great is better than some vague promise to make it great again.

And that’s ten minutes – back again for an indeterminate run.

Right to Die

Yesterday, an 81 year old man suffering from terminal cancer and in terrible pain that could not be relieved or mitigated was assisted in dying by his physician. This came one day after a judge ruled that the procedure could go ahead. This was the first individual, outside of Quebec, to use the Supreme Court ruling of last year to end his life.

Quebec and the Supreme Court have long been critical to changing the law to reflect the changing social mores of Canada. It was Quebec courts – or more specifically Quebec juries – that initially struck down the provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting abortion. The Supreme Court ratified those decisions and when the Canadian Senate refused to pass new laws proposed by the Mulroney Conservative government, Canada became the first country in the world to have abortion a matter of public policy rather than of the law.

Once again it was case law from Quebec that led to the Supreme Court to strike down the criminal code provisions against physician assisted death and establishing the court-approval process in advance of a new law being passed by Parliament to regulate the process. This law is expected to pass (as required by the Court) by the end of June.

What is most striking about this decision is that it is a reversal of the decision the Court made twenty years ago in the Sue Rodriguez case. Then, in a split ruling, the Court ruled that assisted suicide would remain a crime and that those suffering an inevitable and painful demise had no recourse.

There are those who argue that this is a slippery slope and that it is immoral. There is no evidence for the former and the latter is a matter of debate – a debate that will undoubtedly occur in the House of Commons and the Senate. The government is likely to create a system of approval rife with safeguards and oversights. It is critical that the right to die remain an individual right – with decisions made solely by competent individuals free from family or institutional coercion.

The right to die decision – like the abortion one before it – was based in a legal argument that the law, including constitutional law, must evolve and may change as society changes. The Courts in Canada have not always been so liberal in their interpretation – we had to send a case to the Law Lords in London to recognize that women were persons back in the 1930s – but have grown more flexible when Canada adopted its new Constitution along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is quite different from the debates that rage in the United States where some believe the Constitution should be interpreted as the founding fathers intended (though the same jurists made an exception for Second Amendment rights in the greatest example of judicial activism ever). They accept – barely – those amendments that outlawed slavery and gave women the vote, but otherwise want to lock America into a past that has long ceased to be relevant to most modern Americans.

Yet another reason I’m thankful for being born Canadian.

And that’s ten minutes, eh?