Beijing Winter Olympics 2022

 A confession.  My enthusiasm for the Olympics has declined with age.  This year politics is disgustingly more obvious.  There are more distractions:  surviving the pandemic, the Canadian truck convoy, evidence mounting regarding the January 6th insurrection, Russian/Ukrainian crisis, and some interesting blog projects:  Muhammad Ali, Caste, My Holo Love, A Thursday. 

Russia poised on the Ukrainian border.  Vladimir Putin visited Xi Jinping and attended opening  for Olympics to help offset  diplomatic boycott of some western nations including Canada.  Apparently China does have closer relations with Ukraine including a need for natural resources and students.  At time of writing it seems very possible an invasion will occur blatantly after the U.S. and others have promised severe sanctions.  Tensing up, even as the Paralympic Games start in Beijing in less than two weeks.

Russia known here as ROC (Russian Olympic Committee) caught cheating is able to give its athletes the opportunity.  A young 15 year old Russian figure skater identified having used a forbidden drug reminding us how Russians were forbidden to compete under their flag.   As I understand it Russians have been known for drugs that permit prepubescent women to boost their performance, but which also harm them after puberty.  This should not be permitted and used to extend and/or increase Olympic sanctions.  In the women's single she was expected to win, but under a lot of pressure she fell and placed fourth.  Despite weeping under the pressure was not consoled by her coach as other losers had been.  see http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/03/icarus.html

A few months prior a Chinese tennis star Peng Suai had made a charge of being sexually assaulted by a Chinese government administrator, but that action was ignored and withdrawn.  The Women's Tennis  Association wasn't buying the explanations and decided to withdraw from planned tournaments in China at great cost to themselves.  This prompted some athletes to boycott the Olympics and some governments to use what they call a diplomatic boycott, meaning they would not lend any political prestige to China by sending prominent elected officials.  During the games, Peng Shuai announced she would retire in a press conference staged during the Olympics.  Very obviously manipulated and not taken seriously. 

The Covid Pandemic had multiple effects.  Several athletes decided to boycott on that account.  Others were affected during their training or forced to withdraw because of getting it.  The NHL had major problems rescheduling games and decided not to allow players to participate to allow an attempt to make up the lost games.  This affected several teams, but in the end Finland won its first hockey gold medal defeating the ROC in the finals.

The ancient Greek tradition was to suspend wars during the games and enter the competitions in a peaceful mode.  But the Chinese announced freedom of speech restrictions.  Athletes were advised not to bring cell phones.

China (and other nations) wanting to boost their rankings lured foreign athletes to participate under their flag.  Some athletes were not able to make their residential team and jumped at the chance.  China was successful at winning a gold medal this way as well as trying to be more competitive at weaker sports like ice hockey.

It has been suggested that it would be better to have a permanent site for both the Summer and Winter Olympics.  That in itself would be a political decision, but everyone could probably agree that Greece would be natural for the Summer Games.  A northern country would be necessary for the winter Games and for its neutrality Switzerland would be acceptable.  Then how it would be paid for should be an international effort with media and ticket revenues to contribute.

The Facilities were very impressive.   It was a shame that because of Covd protcols small crowds were normal.  Officials, journalists, some team mates and support staff took up some space, but sadly relatives who in many cases were the biggest fans were not allowed.   There are complaints that the facilities often wasted after the games.  Some become training facilities and could be used for international competitions.while otherrs adapted for other uses.

Using artificial snow for scarcity of the real thing.  Artificial snow contains more ice, making it faster. and in some ways more dangerous.  The winter Olympics and skiing resorts are at risk because of global warming.

 It was pointed out that this was the most gender neutral Olympics.  A few events required both female and males on the same team. 

Now for a few hi-lites.  February 4, 2022  brought a creative opening ceremony.  For some of us the ultimate was a visual presentation of John Lennon's "Imagine" in Chinese and English.  Traditions were respected and creativity was on display.

For a new set of events (several years ago in attempt to modernize) were snowboard and ski acrobatics.  In a way they offer an alternative to the diving spectacle.  In diving they are short in time and demanding.  In the winter sports there is usually more time to perform and perhaps spectators can catch more of the fine points.  Heavier clothes probably inhibit motions, but in the future restrictions might be alleviated.

Short track speed skating is only a few years and definitely require different skills.   It is an outgrowth of Quebeckers adopting hockey rinks for speed contests, but is now well accepted around the world.  Relay races are handled differently than we are used in track events, but very interesting in their exchanges.  In track there are boundaries and of course the danger of dropping a baton.

Another event that deserves greater appreciation is the biathlon.  It requires intense speed and endurance, but the heart needs to slow down for shooting.  One of the events had to deal with inconsistent wind bursts that in effect handicapped some athletes that had to fight the wind in their shooting efforts.  

There were a few heroes from a Canadian perspective.  Max Parrot, from Bromont Quebec stands out winning gold in snowboard slopestyle, three years after undergoing chemo therapy for Hodgkins lymphona.  The women's hockey team with local goal maker, Sarah Nurse, won gold over perennial American rivals. The Canadian women beat the Russian women's team while wearing masks.  Isabelle Weidermann, won three medals including a gold for pursuit speed skating.  In the pursuit event Valeie Maltuis was a short track skater who is only the fourth athlete to win in both skating disciplines.  Isabelle became the Canadian flag bearer for the Closing Ceremonies.  

I misunderstood the tv. schedule and almost missed my favorite, the skating exhibition.  CBC showed after the closing ceremonies as I imagine they wanted to cover some actual events finishing up at the same time.

Learned of a personal connection.  Benjamin Coakwell, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan was part of the four man bobsled team that won a bronze medal.  I don't know how he is related, but have been assured that anyone named Coakwell is related to me, as the original immigrants to Canada had been called Cawkwell.  My mother was a Coakwell.

The Olympics is a major big festival that draws global attention.   It provides entertainment, but also encourages participation and awareness, not only for elite athletes, but also recreational. To a small degree it actually does promote world peace, but under present management falls far short of saving mankind.

Also although impressed with athletes on display, am somewhat turned off by an increasing circus atmosphere.   The Olympics has grown with inclusion of new sports and events.  I have sympathy for gender balance and recognize that more sports offer more opportunities for recreation as well.  The difference between gymnastics and circus is that one requires the athlete to make difficult things look easy while the circus performers make easy things look difficult.  The Olympics has gotten too money oriented and carnival-like.  This is not to distract from amazing athletic performances, but too much of a good thing detracts from value.

My lifelong passion for the Olympics will be tested.  In my early adult years I was obsessed with American style football and would watch over 10 hours a week during season.  A comment from a friend, about how football players are encouraged to injure their opponents turned me right off and I probably watch less than half an hour per year combining NFL, CFL and American and Canadian college games.    I do intend to watch the upcoming Paralympics with its unique aspirations but am also concerned for their future.

My last Winter Olympics blog:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/02/winter-olympics-2018.html

Evaluating negative movie reviews

A lot of us like to check out a few reviews before we actually buy a movie ticket or a DVD and a negative review can cause us to move to another option.  The negative review can come from a media source, a rating site such as IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes or an acquaintance.  Ironically I have found negative reviews sometimes motivate me to watch a movie that mostly turned out satisfying.  Why?

We all have expectations and all too often they are not met.  But the key is our expectations are not all the same.  Some crave happy endings and will be disappointed obviously with a sad ending, or even one that is ambiguous.  Some crave adrenaline pumping action and become bored without it.  Other groups crave explicit sex or romance and will begrudge being teased.  Of course there are increments for these issues and sometimes your comfort level might be stretched a bit.

Mood effects everyone.   Maybe they had a bad day or maybe they were overly exuberant.  Of course movies are supposed to take your mind off of reality and often it does work that way.

Political overtures can of course include actual election political issues, but can tie into whatever group an individual identifies with.  For instance, a union worker, a health care worker, older/younger, different heritages, biker,  church member, etc.  Al Gore's movies attract a lot of opposition that is usually something to be dismissed.

"An Inconvenient Sequel" has suffered from a politically tinged populace who want to minimize its message.  Out of ten stars many IMDB voters chose one.  Much of what was predicted in the first one has become more obvious.

"Miss Sloane" had good reviews, but probably was boycotted by a lot of people reducing its distribution.  Not so much a part of its plot but essential was a gun control theme as a sort of tool of the plot.  It required something controversial, but if you thought they took the wrong side you wouldn't want others to watch it (and be contaminated).  I took the script side, but have occasionally seen movies that didn't agree with my political philosophy, but if well done could be appreciated.  For more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/09/miss-sloan-under-rated-movie.html


"A Ghost Story" created a wide range of views.   One viewer's boring is another's profoundness.  Critics as aggregated at Rotten Tomatoes loved it, but much of the audience had less enthusiasm.  Many complained it was slow moving or pretentious.  IMDB voters were overwhelming negative.  This may make many viewers side against the critics, but may have been tempered by their viewing more movies than the average person sees and reading more about them.  Read what they have to say as it might hit a nerve or might reinforce your opinion of critics. This movie can mainly be enjoyed for its philosophy and psychology, but you do not have to accept the path the director has pushed; you can veer off in another direction.  The phrase I would choose is thought provoking.  If you are looking for action or a satisfying traditional romance this is not it.

"Thanks for your Service" got an ok rating, but seemed downgraded by too many viewers with expectations of more battle scenes and disappointed with the human drama of PTSD.  The trailer helped set up expectations, a common enough effort.  But the movie had a message and it also had a plot.  Sitting comfortably in our chairs we may pay obeisance to the flag, but mostly unaware of the feelings of returning combat soldiers.

Many people are sticklers for historical authenticity.  This can be a tricky one as the true facts (and dialogue) are often not really known.  On the other hand historical facts are often distorted for dramatic effect.  Do you demand it, or looking for a feeling.  Several years ago I heard a lot of positive hype for a movie about Rubin Carter who had overcome injustices to become a boxing champion.   It interested me and friends were recommending it,  however I heard a radio commentator saying there were a lot of inaccuracies in it and that he was not such an admirable character as portrayed by Denzel Washington.  At the time I felt the historical inaccuracies were offensive and refused to see it. Now I feel I might have enjoyed it.

Subtitles turn too many people off.  They might be poorly written or executed which can impede enjoyment of movie or cause you to miss a subtlety.  On the other hand don't let subtitles be a barrier   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/09/do-subtitles-scare-you-who-knows-what.html  There is literally a much bigger world out there.

"Ki and Ka"  also had discouraging low ratings.  From Bollywood I have come to expect a traditional male dominant culture.  This movie had a very strong (but humorous) feminist theme.  Not an award winning movie, but worth watching and enjoyable if you don't have any hangups.

"Crooked Arrows" had a personal interest angle for me.  I was interested in lacrosse and native cultures.   I reserved it and then changed my mind after seeing bad reviews.  Later, looking for a time filler I gave it another opportunity.  It was a low budget sports plot--but had an appreciation of native American culture.  Check my blog:   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/04/crooked-arrows-brings-back-memories-of.html   Bottom line don't deny yourself a similar experience but allow that maybe some movies can spoil your memories.

Movies have so many different aspects that most of us most of the time focus on only a few.  I have found otherwise inferior movies a great source of music or sometimes cinematography or even costumes.  Develop an appreciation of different factors involved in a film and you will get more out of good and bad movies.


Many watch a favorite movie star  and can be disappointed if their favorite has only a cameo or a role out of character.  Producers can predict profits if a big draw actor makes an appearance.  Actors are often looking to demonstrate versatility so they can obtain more roles.

Of course it is not only the opinions of the experts, but also of your friends.  Over a period of time one gets a feeling for the attitude of a reviewer.  With a personal acquaintance whether a close personal friend or someone at work or a neighbor you have a good idea of how they value things.  Of course in all instances if you haven't seen the movie you can only guess how suitable the movie is for your disposition.

I am no different.  Like all other movie viewers I bring my expectations and my understanding to each movie.  Maybe I should add that like others my attention is not always constant.  In other words I don't see things quite the same as you.  Hopefully my insights and reactions will overlap a bit with you and you can judge whether or not you want to pursue any further using my words as a guide.

If you can steer these sorts of factors into your evaluation you might benefit from reading more reviews.  What you are looking for and what you can appreciate are unique.  You can usually find a review to rationalize what you want to do or not do.

LIFE AND DEATH POLITICS AS ENTERTAINMENT

For many, politics is very boring.  Some will pay some attention during an election campaign and some think it is a waste of time.

A few of us don't think it is boring.  It is both about life and death and it does affect everyday life.  It does get buried in details.  What gets me excited is the power struggle between good and evil and the manipulation of minds.

Power is less based on merit, but more on marshaling social forces.  Decisions likewise often bear little resemblance to civic good. Manipulation is becoming more scientific--not only do they develop a message, but it is targeted. Under our present system it is not necessary to get 50%+1 so by accumulating niches that add up to enough to be first past the post you can win an election.

Money plays a big role, but surprisingly is not always decisive.  Part of my interest is similar to  basketball when the little guy overcomes the big guy.  Sometimes the less financed contender also overcomes the better financed, but usually the underdog is such for powerful logical reasons.

Most politicians say things they don't believe and reluctantly advocate for causes as part of a package. The best example is climate denialists, most of whom are well educated, but also know where their campaign funds come from.  They can bury their statements amongst other more appealing agendas.

Celebrity worshiping  "Dallas" glorified power manipulation and adultery.  Getting away with it was entertaining.  "House of Cards" drew a lot of attention, even Barrack Obama admired the machinations. Donald Trump's most famous line "You're fired" would devastate in person, but somehow seems tough. making us wish we had as much grit.

Not all political junkies share the same philosophy.  Some like the conservative agenda which boils down to the freedom of entrepreneurs.  They appreciate that social conservatism can be tied into the package and make victory possible.  check, http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/10/social-conservatism-is-pivotal.html   Others like myself feel those in power are stacking the deck against everyone else and that leads to a lot of unhealthy responses.  We think the "good guy" would win if more people realized the merits of the cause.  On either side are some who feel compromise is necessary while others feel it is to be avoided.  There are different consequences at the end of all this political manoeuvrings.

Boring?  Definitely not!

Pandemic

Sitting in North America we usually think of pandemics as something in horror movies or news from across the ocean.  They are a natural phenomena made more critical by modern life.  "Pandemic" could have been a very boring recital of scientific data, but Sonia Shah has made it very interesting, like a detective novel uncovering a variety of factors for past pandemics and predicting likely future configurations.

The pathogens that lead to epidemics and pandemics have always been in our midst, but modernization has provided new opportunities.  Mixing of animals with humans and poor waste management.  As transportation improved such as the developmnet of steam boats allowed spread of diseases that might previously have died a natural death.

It is not just humans that are effected, but animals can have their own episodes as well as cross contamination between species.  Amphibians were decimated in 1998.  Wild birds are not normally able to infect humans, however an overlapping with domestic birds and pigs sped up new variations that could and did infect humans.  Bats were another carrier of disease.

In Egypt in 2009 to combat a contagious disease over 300,000 pigs were killed.  They had been raised by the Christian minority and were responsible for dealing with about 60% of citizen trash, thus their demise led to other serious problems.

Political decisions play an important role.  One of the richest banks in the world, J.P. Morgan was connected to a cholera epidemic.  A more logical source of clean water for the city of New York was the Bronx, but using it was blocked to give one banking group an edge.  Cholera occurred with the less healthy water supply.

In south Florida during the 2008 financial problems, large numbers of foreclosures led to abandoned swimming pools which proved to be breeding grounds for mosquitoes.  In 2009 there was an outbreak of dengue.  As sea level rises due to climate change salt water mixes with fresh water complicating the situation.

Science establishment, like other establishments will ridicule new conceptions.  Some individuals had discovered the source of specific diseases and even cures, but they were not always taken seriously.

Quarantines were used effectively as early as 1374 in Venice, but efforts conflicted with trade interests.  Political authorities have too often tried to suppress information about infectious diseases for fear of hurting business.  Examples were given for Italy (1911), China (2002), Cuba (2010 and 2012), Saudi Arabia in 2010.  Poor communications compounded the spread of disease.

The Canadian discoverer of penicillin, Dr Alexander Fleming cautioned the medical establishment of the dangers of over dosing.  Microbes develop resistance to drugs.  Humans often imbibe antibiotics eating farm animals that have been injected to promote growth.

In Haiti after their earthquake disasters, the UN called in troops from Nepal (that were cheaper than alternatives) that had been in cholera infected areas.  The conditions in Haiti were ripe for a cholera outbreak.  Driving into work today heard that Haiti is trying to organize a vaccination campaign for 800,000 people and recognize that will not eradicate cholera, but will help control it.

Vaccinations to prevent spread of some diseases has proved to be very effective, but when resisted has less impact.  There had been a history of forced vaccinations in Asia and more recently a campaign to uncover Osama bin Laden with its success hurt other efforts for vaccination.  In North America and other parts of the world some people have falsely linked vaccination to autism.  With high levels of vaccination a  herd immunity develops that gives some protection even to those not vaccinated.

Contagious diseases have played a key role in history.  Malaria kept Europeans out of the African interior for many years.  Europeans brought smallpox to North America and significantly weakened native resistance.

Climate change is having an impact as warmer temperatures allow a variety of pathogens to spread further.  A scary possibility is presented by fungi that can carry some threatening diseases is limited by temperature.  They infect cold blooded animals much more than warm blooded animals.  But as temperatures rise and the environment gets more compromised, fungi could represent a future danger for humans and other warm blooded animals.

It is very common for the general population and often politicians to look for scapegoats.  Among them may be immigrants, poor people, pigs and Asians.  Sonia gives an example of the  SARS scare of 2003 in Toronto that found many Asians shunned as it was thought to have originated in China.   One of my favourite movies, the Bollywood production of "Kal Ho Na Ho" started filming in Toronto, but overlapped with SARS arriving in the same city.  Before too long the film crew was transferred to New York and the script revised.  You can still see bits of Toronto in the finished product as they had already invested a good part of their resources.

The author uncovered in her research a link between sexual reproduction and pathogen immunity.  Originally all reproduction was asexual such as simply splitting cells  Asexual reproduction had most of the advantages against our favorite recreational activity, but sexual reproduction would not have survived if it did not offer some protection against pathogens as bio diversity is critical.  This history was due to studies by William Hamilton in the 1970's.  It was suggested that even in human mating activities that an underlying factor is pathogen fighting complementaries.

Read more about the author:  http://soniashah.com

Politics and Climate Change sparked by the Fort McMurray fire

Read an article in Huffington Post reporting that Elizabeth May was criticized for pointing out a possible connection between the Fort McMurray wildfire and climate change and that charge was considered too political.  I am just amplifying the issue.

I agree it is necessary to concentrate on cleaning up the mess and restoring the displaced people back to normalcy as quickly as practical.

The article suggested the claim of being too political (Justin was one of the many accusers) would not have been made if a virus had been causing a problem in Fort McMurray.  We would all want to know the cause so we could prevent a future occurrence.  Climate change has been made a political issue, when it really should be a scientific issue.

My contention is that climate change has been established by reputable scientists as a major problem requiring international co-operation.  It should be considered the top priority for politicians, but unfortunately they are tied in too strongly to vested interests who can take advantage of basic ignorance and suspicion.

On Facebook I was disturbed to see one post stating that while the mess was being cleaned up the government should not spend one cent helping refugees.  The priorities are always changing, but a commitment has been made and until it has been fulfilled it seems to me that we are honour bound. After that it is logical to re assess our priorities, but I hope we would not base our decisions just on racially charged concerns and the overblown fear of terrorism.

Reviewing my thoughts on the refugee crisis.  We are complicit in it, one item of which climate change has been a factor.  We benefit from new blood while Syria suffers a brain drain.  Previous blog:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/11/the-syrian-refugee.html

Politics has always been about power.  Sometimes it is tied to the people's welfare, but too often it is a convenient cover for vested interests.  In the case of climate change the people's welfare has been taking a back seat to vested interests of those who control fossil fuels.  We are talking about literally trillions of dollars presently in the ground which can buy an awful lot of political power.

To read the original article in Huffington Post by G. Ellijah Dann of Simon Fraser University:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/fort-mcmurray-fire_b_9890178.html  Let's have that political discussion about a scientifically claim that affects everyone.

Lincoln Chafee has an interesting proposal for a metric future

How does a marginal candidate get more attention?  How do they transform their unique resources into something people can understand.  Lincoln Chaffee came up with advocating the metric system.

A little background.  One of his main assets is that he was one of the few Senators to vote against the invasion of Iraq unlike Hilary Clinton.  Although she has disavowed her vote it really does point out that she has a tendency to make a political vote, rather than a stronger moral one.  Lincoln is very unique in that he was a Republican at the time and it took more courage to go against a party leader that said "you are either with us or against us."

It is part of his campaign to "wage peace."  He points out that America has a credibility problem partly to do with the Iraq War and that metric conversion would be one step to improve international reputation.  Most candidate are trying to project a "unilateralist" role for the United States.  Many politicians find themselves restricted by the strong notion that United States is exceptional and does not need to follow the world.  Lincoln seems to have the idea that in many ways United States would do better by better blending in.

Metric is internationally normal.  The old imperial system used by Amercians actually causes engineering adjustments for all countries.  It is easier for everyone, because the basis is 10, a number most can count on their fingers.   The globe, except for Liberia and Myanmar already trades and researches in metric, so everything involving the rest of the world will go smoother, i.e. be more understandable and economical in the long run.

In earlier blog on this subject I commented on basketball.  The international standard was adapted from the height of the first peach basket which was approximately 10 feet--it was just a convenient place to place the basket on an overhead running track.  It was not exact until someone decided to standardize it.  The International authority has adjusted to 3.05 metres which might not be to the same exact millimetre as 10 feet, but in reality basketball players adjust their shots with every hoop.  Check my earlier post, http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/04/the-metric-system-needs-to-be-more.html

The Olympics is the biggest international event.  It is metric and Americans have accepted 100 metres, 200 metres, etc and trained with those exact distances in mind.   The NFL football may make an adjustment and it would be political.  An example would be the Ontario speed limit on controlled access highways went from 60 miles per hour to 61+ mph as that happens to be where 100 kilometres per hour converts.  I can see someone would round it up to make it better for defence and others would shorten downward to encourage more offensive excitement.

Of course a lack of exceptionalism will be thrown at Chafee and it is possible ridicule will shunt him to the side,   Thomas Jefferson advocated for metric.  Gerald Ford, a Republican  signed a bill to expand use of metric, but it ended up being voluntary.  I hope the voting masses consider the back story--US can increase its credibility, fit in the world better and actually make it easier to measure things

A few campaigns ago when the price of gas went up, the Democrats under Obama came up with the idea of how to lower the price of gas with a tire gauge.  It was ridiculed, but in fact it was  a very practical suggestion--lower the demand for gas (by being more efficient) and the price will come down.  Unfortunately the proof came with heavy unemployment.

There are a lot of issues in the election and ultimately the voters will decide on a package deal.  Right now Hilary has a commanding lead and a lot of resources to go all the way.  Bernie Sanders has an interesting package that will draw attention.  Perhaps the two men, plus Martin O'Malley can have their good ideas blended in the Democrat campaign and even force the Republicans to eventually accept the merits.

"You're unhappy because your guy didn't get in."

Years ago the title expression was used by a man who accused us proportional voting supporters as being unhappy because our guy didn't get in.  His comments stung a bit, but then I appreciated that he was truthful.  When we are reasonably content we don't question "the system."  After all whatever the deficiencies of the system it seems to work.

On the other side of the coin, the commentator was happy because his guy did get in or at least someone acceptable to him.  My contention is that in fact the system caters to the people who "got in" and does not reflect the true will of the people.  Furthermore because their will is not respected, they lose interest.  Yes, this is another diatribe about proportional voting.

What is the will of the people?  When it comes to shopping I think we have a clearer idea.  Some people like chocolate, some people like strawberry and other people like loud noises. How about you?  If enough people have a preference there is a market for it.  I might be peculiar but some of my preferences do not have a market.  Because I don't get along with caffeine, but do love cherry flavour I jumped at cherry flavored 7 Up on a vacation to Florida, but learned that the test results from Saskatoon did not justify setting aside shelf space in Ontario.  I like to think about looking for something better and when I find it look forward to enjoying it, but unless enough people share my passion it doesn't happen.

Voting is set up in many jurisdictions so that one person wins and everyone else loses.  It is true that a desirable candidate can attract a lot of support that can translate into volunteers and money.  Money is one thing that ought to worry us because although some people maintain that corporations are like people they have their own set of self-serving, profit-seeking priorities.  In our first past the post system a party does not have to get even half of the votes to be in a position of real power. They merely have to be the fastest or strongest of the other contestants opening a lot of different strategies.

Two issues in my history illustrate how this can be abused.  Free trade and the GST tax.  They were both set up with less than 50% of the support from the voters while at the same time the decision makers declared they had a mandate.  As it happens I agreed with both policies, but recognized there was not a true mandate. You could say my guy did get in.  It can be argued that many good things happen under our system and that it is simpler, but you cannot always prove the will of the people is really respected.

Any political party has a multitude of difficult choices to make.  They have to have a policy on everything.  In fact it is hard for any one individual to agree with any other individual when there is a large number of issues.  We usually just decide on a few priorities and accept that we might not get our way on everything.  Many people will claim they vote for the man (or woman), not the party, but it is hard not to notice that most actually do vote for the party they are comfortable with.

What all this boils down to is that on any one issue you would have people lining up on different, sides, but the issue will be decided by a party.  If more parties had a true voice, voters might be able to choose a party that more closely reflects their beliefs.  They might even find it worth their while to see if indeed there is a party more aligned to them than the practical choices offered.

What do I mean by practical choices?  In most elections there are usually not more than two or three real contenders.  Many voters worry more about who they don't want to "get in" and will vote their second choice.  Other voters will feel there is no chance they will have a voice and don't bother and in fact don't bother to study the matter.   Still others feel very confident their choice will get elected and don't feel an urgent need to actually vote.  They are all losers.

When the media comes out with its poll figures many people can see that their (wo)man will get in and they don't have to bother while others will see their (wo)man has no chance and it is not worth the effort.  Still others try to figure out how they can avoid a candidate they dislike.

There is another way and your voice can be heard a lot more clearly for a lot of different reasons.  Proportional voting is based on political parties, not individuals.  However individuals are indeed important and play a critical role.   The party is important because it takes money and a lot of effort to put across a point of view that can have real power.

Each party offers a list to the electorate.  The parties have the challenge of balancing different interests such as geography, gender, ethnicity, experience, policies, merit etc.  The electorate will be expecting that individuals with experience and intelligence are the most likely to be elected and so if they are far down the list voters will be discouraged from that party (every thing else being equal). There can of course be variations in how lists are presented.  In the end each party might find they are weak in a particular area (such as geography or ethnicity), but if they want to get more votes the next time around to have more power they will have to find ways to address the weakness.

One of the ways voters gain is that their little vote actually has more power.  In the old days their one vote was either not enough to make a difference or was not needed, but now regardless it will count towards the total votes of their party meaning more elected officials. that share their goals.  They need to be careful that they don't waste their vote.

Each party has a choice of either going after their niches or if they want to get the most power to appeal to a wider range of voters.

Many variations are possible, but the goal is that each vote counts.  New Zealand has a good system that reflects what people really want.

A criticism is that whacko groups will have power and that can be true.  But if they are more than 50% of the voters they in fact deserve to be in power and the voters deserve what happens.  Another criticism is that with so many diverse opinions to deal with nothing will get done.  That is a possibility, but there is another dynamic at play.  Do voters want inaction or not?  They now have more power and can take other factors into consideration.  Do parties accept they can't get their way or do they become willing to compromise?  Although I am not normally conservative I can see that new decisions might have to jump through more hoops before they are accepted.  It could go that I'll let you have your way if you let me have my way with something else, but budget concerns will become a voting factor.

An educated voter is really important and perhaps it is not enough that real power will encourage that in the long run.  Whoever controls the education system really has a lot of power.  If they feel ignorance helps them they can downgrade the budget, but if they feel they will benefit from an educated electorate the budget is more likely to increase with more attention paid to details.  For an economy to grow education certainly is a factor.  Human resources are not just something for companies to be concerned about, but even more so with the total community.

The low voting turnouts indicate elections are low priority for a lot of people.  They could well feel their vote doesn't make much difference or is not needed.   A sloppily thought out vote can be counter productive.  An educated voter should appreciate that their vote does matter and if given a real choice can really make a difference.  Elected officials should realize they work for the voters.

The photo was taken at the recent Mum show in Hamilton Ontario.

The Rural Urban Divide: Do you lock your doors?

The Royal Winter Fair in Toronto used to boast that this is when and where the city meets the country.  It is a good thing such opportunities still exist as many city dwellers have lost their connections to the land where most of our ancestors spent most of their time.  There is a feeling of superiority that each faction has towards the other, but too often misunderstanding hurts both.

Michael Ignatieff pointed out in a previous blog that he ultimately identified the rural urban divide as one of the most critical in Canada.  You can look at both Canada and the United States (really most other countries) and see similar patterns.  With increasing urbanization are we losing anything?  Read about Michael's view and more references to Haliburton:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/04/fire-and-ashes-by-michael-ignatieff.html

Most of my life has been lived in cities, mostly mid-sized, but my last two years of high school were spent in Haliburton, Ontario a touristy rural area.   I resented my parents for dragging me away from city life.  My city friends would sometimes complain about boredom, but they didn't realize the options they had that I didn't.  I went to the University of Guelph, primarily because I liked their semester system, but as it also included a major agricultural college I met a lot of "country hicks," only I learned they weren't "hicks."  Finally I got a city job and eventually ended up as a traveling salesman where I enjoyed working in small towns and rural areas. 

Paragraph added Apr 26/16: Some of the differences were one movie theatre with movies that had been shown in bigger cities several years before; a Junior D hockey team that became a Saturday nite habit,  a library that could easily fit inside a mid sized trailer; everybody seemed to know about everybody:

As a bit of a punk when living in Haliburton my brother Marshall and I used to watch the cottagers driving back home and thinking how ignorant they were.  To some degree this juvenile attitude was picked up from our peers.  We didn't appreciate that the cottagers did get a lot of enjoyment from the country and they did contribute significantly to our welfare. We knew we were different and of course there had to be some superiority that came with it.  Perhaps we were defensive.

What are city kids unaware of?  Food originally is not packaged.  Concrete and asphalt don't cover everything.   Of course today more and more kids rural and urban spend their time indoors, though I suspect rural kids still spend a little more outdoors.

A really peculiar phenomenon was friendships.  In the city I mostly had friends my own age and interests.  In Haliburton it was often the case that those my own age with reasonably similar interests might live a long way away.  I had never had to go on a school bus  (except school trips) and fortunately lived just one mile away from high school and walked it.  Most of my classmates came from different directions much further away and our friendships were mostly at school.  I found myself friends with those along my walk to school of different ages and interests as well as a few that walked from the opposite direction.  In cities it seems you can be choosier about who you hang out with, but maybe you don't appreciate that others are actually human too.

Coming from a city it was natural to lock our house and car doors, but learned our new neighbors didn't feel the need.  After awhile it seemed natural to forget about locking.  At the local high school dances you could find young couples "making out" not necessarily in their own cars.  As there are not as many street lights you get used to being outdoors in the dark.  This became unconscious for me, but was brought home by my city bred girl friend, now my wife who was alarmed when I casually walked outdoors at night.

Guns, at least in the country are normal for hunting. Most of my fellow students came from families where hunting was a very big deal.  Lots of businesses would shut down during hunting season.  You could feel excitement.  I was too far citified to understand, but couldn't miss observing (and keeping my mouth shut about it).

My brother Marshall and I noticed a preference for country music which at first struck us as being in a backward foreign country.  After awhile you gradually notice a few country songs that sound ok and then perhaps a few that hit home.  These days country music has infiltrated city areas and vice versa.

I got my driver's license at age 18 in Haliburton where the high school provided driver education.  I got used to driving the curvy hilly roads, but dreaded driving on four lane highways and city streets.  I did get used to city driving and learned that many city drivers were very nervous about driving on rural roads.  Many years later I found myself driving on similar roads that I used to enjoy in Haliburton, but this time in rural Nova Scotia near Windsor,  the home of Thomas Haliburton whose name was borrowed for the Ontario county and town I learned to drive in.

Many parents, likely my own, thought that moving to the country would avoid many of the problems associated with the city.  Drugs perhaps the biggest concern.  I avoided them in the city and was able to avoid them in the country.  Alcohol was very normal in both.  There were fights, but not common.

Today we live in a wired world and no one is far from the advantages offered by cities.  On the teaching staff at the Haliburton Highlands Secondary School were staff that some probably couldn't get a job in a city, but others who were very happy to live in the country.  I didn't quite make the cut for the Oshawa high school basketball team, but was surprised to see the coach switch to one of my Haliburton rivals in Lakefield.

My youngest sister, Jennifer was the only one born in Haliburton and her birth was one of the few times I visited the local hospital.  It filled its basic function, but was not much like what I had visited in Oshawa and more recently in bigger cities.  My father probably died unnecessarily because he wasn't diagnosed quickly enough in a small town hospital (not Haliburton).  Eventually he was taken to Kingston where university affiliated doctors figured out his problem, but too late.  This has squelched a former romantic notion of retiring to the country, but not the idea of it being a great place to breathe and enjoy life.  I am aware that modern technology is closing the gap between large cities and smaller centres where some serious surgical operations have been performed remotely.

The Canadian middle class dream of owning a home has driven many people to buy property miles from their job and commuting.  This often means living in a small town or even rural property.  For some this is an adjustment and many come to appreciate the benefits of living where you are more likely to know your neighbors and get some relief from city pollution.  As urbanization increases  and the population grows, commutes are getting longer in time even more than distance.  It is easy to foresee that in the future only the well off or those that can eke out a living nearby will spend much time in the country.  Others of us are becoming conscious of our short term greed hurting the environment.  In the future I see more  people will be living in high rises and taking public transportation to work.

City life suits me.  I am able to walk downtown, to the library, to a very pleasant lakefront park and have many entertainment choices.  Within a short drive I have many shopping options.  I still miss the country.  I am no longer able to justify making sales calls in the country, though I do talk to lots of country dwellers on the phone and I will be at the Royal again this year to soak in some of the country atmosphere.

In one of my high school classes a teacher asked us how many expected to live in Haliburton after graduation.  Only two held up their hands and both had fathers who owned local businesses.  My father did own a trucking business, but I wanted nothing to do with it.  For most of us the jobs are in the cities and so are a lot of other attractions.

Politically rural areas tend to be more conservative than cities and the deciding issues could be different.  Each group feels their priorities prove their superiority.  It would be helpful if they understood one another better.

There still is a big difference between country and city living, but each have their advantages.  As time goes by the two nations are merging and both becoming more diversified.  I would close by saying we are losing something as we seem to be losing a little more of the country each day. 

An earlier blog in a strange way illuminates some crucial differences between urban and rural thinking when it comes to animals.  Rural people have a closer connection to animals that produce food and are used for work.  City people tend to get more attached to their pets.  I learned about this when selling tooth brushes for dogs.  The blog post has deeper implications for the rural urban divide.  Read more here:    http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/06/rural-and-urban-contrasts-towards-pets.html

For an updated view check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/10/what-about-those-hicks.html

SUPREME COURT

Jeffrey Toobin has impressed me on tv and with a few of his books. After reading "The Oath,"I am  reflecting on some of the points brought up as well as my reactions to recent news on The Supreme Court.  There is a great deal of contention over the role of the Supreme Court whether it is really political or making technical legal decisions in a neutral manner.

We would all respect it more, even when we disagree if we felt they were making difficult decisions using only logic.  There are a lot of hard feelings to contend with and to me it seems obvious that often political factors play a deciding role.

People are elected for all sorts of reasons, but a driving force are these hard feelings.  Such ideas as we deserve protection, life is sacred, we deserve freedom.  Most people would agree in part with the three sentiments, but can get very concerned over the details.  To assure their details are given attention it makes sense to organize around implementing them.  The vast majority of us find our time taken up with survival and the pursuit of happiness.  We tend to let others make many decisions for us assuming that our wishes will be respected.

Leaving decisions to others always means that people with different motivations can force their concerns by focusing organizing efforts.  I have written ad nauseum elsewhere about defects of the electoral system and short-sightedness of politicians.

There seem to be just a few schools of thought.  One is that free markets are the basis for decisions. Another school feels corporations have too much power.  Another school is concerned about human rights.  Still another is concerned about fundamentalist beliefs that need to be forced on the rest of the population.  A bit oversimplified, but there are large segments of the population that stress the importance of one or more of these schools.

The American electoral system requires money, lots of it.  It is difficult to raise funds without obligations.  Organizing voters is tricky as there are many issues.  Many people boil their decision down to just one or two key issues.  Aggregating issues is a delicate art form.  The Republicans have found that wealthy people can supply the necessary funds, but most people realize their agenda is not favorable to the little guy.   However many voters are more focused on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, immigrants and find themselves voting against their own economic best interests.

One particular party was very critical of activist judges, but in retrospect it seems they meant they didn't have enough activist judges of their own.  If there were any doubts after the Gore vs Bush travesty there should be none left now.

The Supreme Court is only nine individuals who are selected through a political process.  They are appointed for life by whichever party is in power at the time of a vacancy.  The selection process has its own set of obstacles and the people selected are chosen not so much for their qualifications, but for their perceived ability to get through all the hoops.  The candidates have their own campaign and need to be careful not to offend.

A decision by the current Supreme Court in effect gave corporations the status of people at least as far as free speech in elections.  In a few senses this is incredibly ridiculous, but more importantly it is undemocratic.  Everyone's opinion should count equally or least have an equal opportunity to express it, but in reality money distorts that concept.  As corporations are really just an aggregation of people and capital they have a lot of power.  An individual can go outside and yell whatever strikes them worth the effort or to quietly try to persuade neighbors, acquaintances.   Theoretically with talent an individual might create a bigger personal audience, but to get a very big audience costs money and in one sense it is relative.  A minute on tv can be bid for, including the more desirable minutes and the more desirable audiences.  The inter-net has a leveling effect.  With talent and skill anyone's words can be read by millions although they may not possess wealth.  Corporations are trying to figure out how they can more effectively harness this new platform.

What is fair for one side, might be considered fair for the other, but the real concern is what is best for the people.  It would be acceptable if at least the decisions made were favored by the voters, but that is not always the case.  It is doubtful that many voters actually consider corporations as persons entitled to pay for election campaigns.

Western legal systems are considered one of the reasons our civilization is superior.  In truth every one benefits when there is true justice.  Unfortunately money tends to the will of those who have the most.  Although an American President is forced to retire after a maximum of eight years they can appoint a Superior Court judge for life that can have more effect on the citizen.  In effect electing a president (and the Senate that confirms judges) has an even longer impact than most voters assume.

If everyone got along and was content with how life was treating them there would be no need to make laws.  Unfortunately people at all points of the spectrum are taken advantage of and it might be said we need protection from ourselves.

The principle of appointment for life is supposed to protect the judiciary from political pressure, but it also locks in one set of perceptions.  Perhaps a compromise might be a reasonably lengthy appointed time such as 10 years.  It would be hoped that whatever time might be agreed upon it could be staggered so that the people do not have a drastic change in a short period of time.

I have been in many informal talks about politics and justice and we often joke at the end, "now that we have solved the world's problems."  Of course no one in power is even aware of our efforts, but it is still in our best interest that many people have these conversations so we can think out the serious issues and make an intelligent decision at that time that really counts or even better enter the discussion at a more thoughtful public level.  Your thoughts are welcome.

ANOTHER ELECTION--ANOTHER IMPERFECT RESULT

We just passed an election that in many people's mind resolved the dilemma of a minority government. The bottom line is that 60% of those who took the trouble to vote against the eventual winner will now live under the direction of the party who gained only 40% of the vote for the next four years. Is that really what we wanted when we went to the polls?

I think it might be fair to say that most voted against something. The four parties that lost have more in common with each other (well maybe one exception) than any of them do with the winner. Many people found themselves trying to guess who was the most likely to prevent one party from winning. Others tried to figure out which of the five main parties (and a few less successful parties) best matched their personal philosophy and vision of the future.

The results were not unusual in the sense that under our system one group by concentrating its efforts can gain disproportionate results. Those who win (or even almost win) under this system resist any changes, even ridiculing any suggestions to change. Most people just accept it, even though decisions are made against their preferences.

In a practical sense one way of dealing with the rules is for parties to join other parties with similar philosophies so that they can avoid "splitting" the vote. The Progressive Conservatives and Reform party took that route and it has worked out well for them. For the voter there were subtle, but significant differences which now are blended together and lost to the voter. There is talk that the Liberals should seek a union with the NDP and maybe the Green Party should join with one or the other. Under the present rules there is some logic to that idea.

The voter is often overwhelmed trying to decide who to vote for. In some ways it is easier if there are fewer parties, but in other ways that is not true. There are differences and voters have a wider range of choices when there are more parties.

A big concern is the large number of Canadians who didn't bother to vote. Are they all lazy? or stupid? Others found themselves not voting for their preferred choice, but rather strategically against a party they dislike. It is not always articulated, but most of us feel our vote is a waste of time.  In some cases we know our first choice is an overwhelming favorite. In other cases we realize our candidate really is very unlikely to win. You can argue that every vote counts for something (encouragement for the future, some added moral authority, maybe even the $2.50 given to the party), however that can seem not worth the effort  of rearranging our schedule.

Proportionate voting in its many variations has been ridiculed, but generally by those whose candidate won by being the first past the gate post. Some critics point out that if you have too many political points of view nothing important will get accomplished. Well under our present system it is very possible for a winning strategy resulting in one party ignoring the wishes of the majority of citizens and do so in a very self righteous way.

I feel more people would vote in the first place and more people would vote their first choice under a reasonable proportional system. At one end of the scale the Green Party finished last with only 3.9% of the votes, but got even less power, 0.32% of the Parliamentary seats. That means that they can be ignored by all the other parties who do not need to consider their concerns. Often a small party's power resides in raising issues of conscience that do force the other parties to adapt their policies. Still the results mean that many voters feel they are not being heard and it really wasn't worth the effort.

If I have hit a chord I would suggest you can explore this further at http://www.fairvote.ca You will find that people of all political persuasions see merit in proportional voting. Don't let those satisfied with the present system dominate the discussion.

I feel that more people would vote if they knew their vote could really make a difference and help put someone who shares their general feeling a voice where it really counts.