Rss

In Praise of Taxes

Thanks to the Princess of Quitealot, I just rediscovered a favourite column that I thought I’d lost track of. It came just in time, because here in Ottawa, the city is going through its annual budget wrangle, this time under the leadership of a Mayor who promised to ban tax increases. Meanwhile, the dollar buys less and many fine social programs are on the chopping block, not to mention the rising costs of policing and an aging infrastructure that, like every city, Ottawa has in abundance and will someday have to pay for…

It all has me muttering about politicians, particularly the stripe whose popularity is mainly based on an appeal to our greed and sense of entitlement. You worked hard for that money and if you elect us we’re going to put an insignificant but apparently sweet portion of it back in your pocket. After all, why should you care about anyone else? Besides, government stinks, and that’s why I’m running for it. Um, so it’ll, ah, stink lots less or something. Drives me nuts, but I know who they’re talking to. There’s no shortage of folks complaining about having to pay taxes. I’ve heard so much grousing about not getting anything from all the taxes we pay, and I don’t even get out of the house that much.

Anyhow, my bride found me exactly what I was looking for, an answer to all those death-and-taxes and woe-is-me whiners. I’m with the hard-working immigrant Canadian – he was an entrepreneur, and good at it – who told me, “Hey, if I’m paying taxes, that means I’m making some money. And it also means that I can give something back to a country that has given me so much.” You go, guy. The rant in question came from a 2004 article by Heather Mallick in the Globe and Mail. (And where have you gone, Ms. Mallick?* I couldn’t always agree with her, but she was opinionated and strong and often funny. She likely still is.)

She argues that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, and that we should consider that price a privilege; after all, the opposite of civilization is no picnic. Here’s part of what Mallick wrote in 2004, seeing the effect that Stephen Harper was beginning to have on Canadian popular thought. (Mr. Harper had become Conservative Party leader after having led the anti-taxation National Citizens’ Coalition.) I’ll spare you most of her partisan commentary, but here’s a précis of her column:

 How I dislike that remark about the only sure thing being death and taxes. Death is a hateful dragnet, except when it’s a blessed release. But Canadian taxes are great….I’m a fan of civilization and, you see, taxes enable civilization. To put it another way, taxes grease the skids of living well.

Other people say loudly, endlessly, tediously that they hate taxes…. Mr. Harper has many obsessions, but his main one is taxes….To him, taxes are tapeworms — “double, double, toil and taxes,” as Shakespeare’s witches didn’t put it — sneaking into your home to steal all that is good….

This is absurd. I pay taxes. I love taxes. When you work, the government yanks them off your paycheque…The government uses it to do all the stuff I’d rather not think about….[T]ruly, the word “tax” trails clouds of glory. Taxes ease our daily lives in ways we take for granted.

 They pay for traffic lights, sewers, garbage pickup, nicely dressed diplomats so we don’t show up at the G8 in golfing shorts, ferries, fish in general, nuclear power plant inspection, protecting the provincial flower (“Leave that wild rose alone, ma’am”), libraries, white-coated people who spring into action when you contract flesh-eating disease, building codes, schools, dangerous-toy advisories, keeping cable companies in line, clean air, truck inspections for airborne wheels, loan forgiveness, autopsies, campgrounds, divorce, licence plates so you can track the guy on the cellphone in his Humvee who hit you, fluoridation, teacher training, privacy, universities, fair elections, fire trucks, child guardianship, hazardous-waste control, name changes, hostels, museums, protocol (see golfing shorts), trees, zoning, high-tech passports, standards in general, notaries public, noise control, organ donation, human rights, disability, drainage, bingo permits, boating safety, French-language services, neighbour encroachment, aboriginal business aid, art galleries, adoption, jury duty, cemeteries, soil quality, spills response, tattoo parlour inspection, bank deposit insurance, street lighting, commercial ship registry, victim assistance (“there, there”), social insurance numbers, joint rescue (water and land, nothing to do with knees), aerial mapping, pesticide disapproval and savings bonds.

Without taxes, you would have to do all of the above yourself…. Fine, cut my taxes, and I’ll pick a task. I’ll take “spills response” and use recycled paper towels. Oh, you say the spill covers 2,000 hectares and it’s sticky, oily and toxic? I thought you meant coffee. Somebody call the feds. I’m a taxpayer!

Here in Canada, we believe in the public good, as in “good for all the public.” We don’t believe in private affluence and public squalor. We like to balance those two things.

Whenever you get upset by taxation, egged on by HelmetHead [Harper], think of an ill-considered purchase. Then figure out what that cash could have contributed to, had it been in government hands. A gleaming new hip for my mother? An extra season of Da Vinci’s Inquest? An ice rink for kids on the reserve?

Paying taxes is a means to a good end. Can we do it with a lighter heart, please?

(* Good ol’ Wikipedia informs me that Ms. Mallick is writing a book, and still knocking out columns for Chatelaine and writing commentaries on the CBC website.)

Citizenship at the Centre

I wrote yesterday about two significant Canadian anniversaries and neglected a fascinating third. On July 1st we’ll be celebrating the country’s 140th birthday, but it was only 60 years ago yesterday that the first formal Canadian citizenship was granted. (Pour maple syrup on absolutely everything if you can name the first citizen to be formally recognized as such. *Answer below.) I may have heard this before, but was still lightly startled nonetheless to be reminded that it was only in 1947, 80 years in to the Great Northern Experiment, that we were regarded technically as anything other than British subjects. Imagine how French Quebeckers felt about that, when the thought crossed their minds. Or the Chinese or Ukrainian immigrants. Or the Irish.

And so our blazingly attractive Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, herself an immigrant from Haiti, spoke to new citizens yesterday. They gathered in the halls of the Supreme Court, welcomed by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s frosted beauty and class. They came from all over Canada, and they came from all over the world – the usual Canadian story, at least for the last 40 years or so. Their smiles were wide, and their comments afterward were uplifting and sweet. But even 60 years on, as they followed Madame Jean in reciting their citizenship pledge, they said one jarring thing before promising to obey Canadian law and fulfil their duties as citizens. The Oath begins with the affirmation “that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors…” I shuddered, just slightly, though there are elements of our civic structure that are much more harmful than this small anachronism. Yet symbols do matter.

I stand with those who suggest that quietly, upon the death of the Queen, in a dignified and quintessentially Canadian way, we should end the designation of the top British royal as our Head of State. There is value, however, in separating “pomp from power”, in having the symbolic head of the country distinct from the leader of the government. The institution of the Governor General fits this bill beautifully, and maintains valuable ties to traditions both deep and more recent. (We may need to revise our selection method, which despite its partisan potential has sent some marvellous Canadians to Rideau Hall, including but certainly not limited to the last two.)

Former GG Adrienne Clarkson, for whom I wrote during the last years of her mandate, was honoured Thursday at Rideau Hall with the unveiling of her official portrait. Prime Ministers past (Mr. Chrétien) and present (Mr. Harper) were there, along with most of the chief politicos of Ottawa, but more interesting to me were the artists and the throat-singing Inuit sisters; I’d never heard a live rendition of this eerie, sometimes guttural, viscerally powerful vocalizing before. I also got to hang out with my ol’ buddies and colleagues from the days when I left my house (and my sweatshirts) to go to work.

The Clarkson portrait is striking, a combination of nostalgia and toughness. She is calm and just a touch defiant, actually, as she stands on a frozen Canadian lake and stares down the horizon, or dares the future. It is the first vice-regal portrait to have snow in it. (Only in Canada, you say?) The warmth in it comes from a deep and sturdy friendship between Ms. Clarkson and the painter, Mary Pratt – the photo on which it was based was taken over 20 years ago – and also from the soft blue parka that she wears. I’d seen it (and that steely gaze) before. She has worn it since it was hand-made for her by an Inuit women’s collective thirty years ago, and she swears she always will.

It’s a good day to think a little about being a citizen. It reminds me that I need to flood our Tiny Perfect Backyard Rink® tonight, maybe just after seeing the legendary Willie P. Bennett and the ukulele wizard James Hill play their music tonight at the National Library and Archives. But first, a little Saturday afternoon hockey — good for the northern soul.

* And get those crèpes cooking if you somehow knew that Canada’s then-Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, was the first official citizen of this evolving country on February 16, 1947.

Icing on Kyoto

Two years ago today, the set of greenhouse gas-limiting Protocols agreed upon at Kyoto, Japan in 1997 officially came into force. Russia had just ratified the agreement, which brought the level of world participation to the necessary level for it to become internationally binding. Hmm. “Binding.” In a world political environment like ours, it’s an interesting adjective. Consider that the country which hosts the United Nations, ostensibly one of its biggest supporters, is hundreds of millions of dollars delinquent on its membership fees (which sounds like a lot of money, until you consider that the annual U.S. military budget is over 600 billion dollars). Consider that our current Prime Minister argues that because a previous government signed on to Kyoto, his need not follow through on it. Nationalism, and even partisan struggles within nations, continues to trump shared global necessities.

Meanwhile, it’s also two years today that the National Hockey League formally suspended its entire 2004-2005 season. Coincidental? Well, yes, but I’m going to draw a connection anyway, ‘cause I couldn’t flood our backyard for a rink until the end of January. Climate weirdness threatens northern sport, especially the sweetest kind, where children can romp on ice and snow for hours. (A YouTube video amusingly highlights the threats to pond hockey in Canada. Two minutes long: please click here to see it.) And Friends of the Earth says that several NHL players have joined to declare February 16 as “Save Hockey Day” across North America. (Presumably the gorgeous and endangered outdoor variety).

So the Kyoto Accord is two years old today. It’s a cute little toddler, shambling about in that charmingly unpredictable way and saying just the darnedest things. (We should pay attention to children.) May it grow stronger. May it survive its infancy.

Even Stephen?

Had there been any doubt in my mind about the most important issues facing the world, it would have been dispelled yesterday morning by what I heard on CBC Radio. The Current is more than just a saucy, growling intro from The Voice, and before 9 am I had heard from two of the greatest voices of advocacy and awareness that Canada, that anyplace, has ever had: David Suzuki and Stephen Lewis. When these two get together, what do they talk about?

(Allow me to pause and hereby notify the Nobel people. For all his eloquent education and pleading and all that he has given to those suffering through the Great Pandemic in Africa, the former U.N. Special Envoy for AIDS in Africa has my nomination for the next Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Lewis should be the second Canadian¹ to join a club that includes Mandela, Teresa, King, Schweitzer and Matthai. The Peace Prize has been awarded since 1901, and will be until, well, until we have world peace, I suppose, but even then there will be milestones and heroes who bring ingenuity, progress and life to the world once war has been politically restrained or banished.)

These particular warriors of peace didn’t have long on the air, but as it so often is these days – and this is a good thing – climate change was the subject. David Suzuki, of course, was far ahead of the public curve on climate change, and has been a passionate defender of the environment for decades. His current campaign has him flying around the country (and, be assured, buying carbon offsets for all that plane travel) asking Canadians what they’d do if they were Prime Minister. Something I hadn’t known was that the first climate conference in 1988 – instigated by the Mulroney government and gathering scientists and leaders from around the world – was chaired by Stephen Lewis. This was several years before the famous Kyoto meeting and the Protocol that resulted from it, and Suzuki and Lewis were blunt and indignant: If we had done what we said we were going to do then, we wouldn’t be in the bloody mess we are today!

It was a superb (if too-brief) conversation with two mighty men, and a trip to The Current‘s website might allow you to play the interview. (It didn’t work for me.) One thing startled me, though: after all the wrenching speeches, tears (his and his audiences’), anguish and exhausting commitment he gave to the cause of African AIDS (and the resultant societal breakdown), I heard Lewis refer to climate change as the single biggest threat the world faces. (Especially to the already-ravaged African continent, not to mention all the low-lying islands and seashores that could be submerged by rising sea levels. Bangladesh.) Imagine the humility and detachment implicit in choosing this environmental threat over the ferocious pandemic he has been fighting from up-close, tongue and tooth and claw…

And there’s more: as big as these two issues are in their human toll – and you may be as worried about war, terrorism, bird flu, poverty, human rights, ethnic struggles – they are still symptoms of one fundamental problem facing the human race. It was elaborated in the 19th century by Bahá’u’lláh: “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.” I’ve been thinking about this astounding statement for many years, and I am all the more convinced that this is the heart of the matter. The argument is simple but the implications are gigantic: DISUNITY is the underlying disease of humanity, and beneath all the greatest global problems lies our difficulty in recognizing the essential oneness of the human race.

It’s an awfully big idea to get my head around on a Tuesday afternoon, but I offer it for your consideration all the same.


¹ Buy yourself a milkshake if you knew that Lester B. Pearson, before he was our Prime Minister, won the Nobel for his peacemaking efforts in the Suez Crisis.

The Earth is Bipolar (but we all have to live here)

‘Twas the night before Valentine’s, and most guys were frantic,
It’s so hard to recall how to be faux romantic…

VD is a harsh little pocket of cynicism for me, despite having a smart and attractive date every year. Thanks for allowing that wee poetic vent, but that’s SO not what I want to talk about. I’m actually thinking about IDEALS. Most of us seem to agree on what they are: that the whole world could know the peace that we enjoy; that our children might inherit a cleaner, flourishing natural environment; that the whole human species might realize its inner sister-and-brotherhood; that kindness rule, that all are befriended and feel useful, and God bless all the nations…

As humanity gropes erratically toward these sorts of goals – and we are – the confusion can be overwhelming. I’ve learned to distinguish, though it’s rarely crystal clear, two simultaneous processes at work in the world. One is destructive, and appears designed to undermine any hope we might have of achieving our social ideals. The other, sometimes harder to see because Fox News doesn’t report it, is a process that builds resolutely toward our collective dreams. I’ve run across two news stories that perfectly illustrate these processes. The world is bipolar, in more ways than one.

First is an astoundingly scary set of numbers, recounted in an article in Saturday’s Globe and Mail by Lawrence Martin, about the level of defence spending by the American government. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t so dreadful. To a man with a hammer, it is said, every problem looks like a nail. To a fear-obsessed nation with trillions invested in the machinery of war, international problems appear solvable by force. (Shock and Awe. Remember? Wow.) The piece isn’t linkable for free, so a brief excerpt follows:

“Overwhelming” won’t do. “Staggering” doesn’t quite cut it. The United States now spends more [$622 billion annually, doubled in the Bush II years] on military might than all the other countries put together. Its nearest rivals, Russia and China, spend less than $100-billion each. Put them on a racetrack with the Americans and you get the picture: The Russians and the Chinese are lapped by the guys in stars and stripes more than six times over.

That still isn’t enough, it seems. When you’re equipped with the greatest arsenal ever known and you’re taken down by a bunch of goat herders with pen-knives, you have to forever prove your manhood — even if the new tonnage in armour is barely relevant to the fight. Of course, it wasn’t lack of U.S. military power that resulted in the 9/11 calamity. It was lack of intelligence. Nevertheless, the terror hit has given the green light to the runaway military industrial complex Dwight Eisenhower warned about. Boeing needs the money…

This week’s sign that hopefulness is possible is not (surprise!) such a loud, vulgar and pricey proposition. It’s a bit of environmental optimism that arises from an amazing development in tiny, poor Niger. Along with Kenyan 2004 Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai and her tree-planting miracle-in-progress, this is one of those stories that we don’t hear often enough. This is a revolutionary encounter of the inspiring kind. It was on the New York Times front page, and you may read it here.

It’s Lonely at the Top…

…of this page, where a pale head on fuschia shoulders floats in a cold cerulean sea… (It’s just up there, top right corner — the disembodied Spirit of Semi-Constant Scribble. A couple of my nieces have found this site too funny to read, because of that ghostly noggin hovering there. But I swear the shirt was red when the photo was taken.) Even Writing Heads Get the Blues. But in contrast to the rude (and rhyming) epithet so common these days, I have only one thing to say to all of you out there in CyberLand: you can just WRITE me! A couple of you have noted the lack of ready-made comment space on JH.com, but you shouldn’t let that discourage you. At the bottom of that eerily glowing yellow box at left is a Write Me! (don’t bite me) button that gets you to my email address, and the rest is as easy as falling off your front porch.

For one thing, I’m a bit of a grammar-and-spelling freak and am occasionally horrified to see that something sub- or semi-literate has been set free to further corrupt the corridors of cyberspace, placing yet more of the misery of psoriasis on the unsightly shoulders of the information highway, sullying the glistening filaments of the world-wide Web. (Or you may object to overheated metaphors.) I’d be grateful for your help in eliminating errors of grammar or fact, but would welcome even more your reflections, commentary, or a simple “hello from Guadeloupe (Vancouver, Detroit, southern Caledonia…)”. ‘Sall good, as those spunky youngsters (spongy yunksters?) love to say.

 No hiding, now. My little stat machine tells me that there are a few of you out there now, and while I’ve been known to talk to myself, it’d be nice to know that there’s somebody out there who can read. And who does.

Meditations on Livelihood

“What is the supreme virtue for a warrior?” Leonidas, the King of Sparta, was asked.

“Contempt for death,” he replied.

(A writer asked himself the same question about his own artistic struggle. His answer, in the manner of Leonidas, was this: “Contempt for failure.” Is this not the heart of all noble work?)

In the Hindu scripture known as the Bhagavad Gita (Song of God), Lord Krishna speaks to a companion about his work.

“You have a right to your labour,” he says, “but not to the fruits of your labour.” Holy detachment! And how can one work actively and yet remain at peace?

Krishna sings:
Give the act to me.
Purged of hope and ego,
Fix your attention on the soul.
Act and do for me
.

(And I am reminded of what Bahá’u’lláh, also from the Divine point of view, wrote over 4000 years later: “Ye are the trees of My garden; ye must give forth goodly and wondrous fruits….It is incumbent on every one of you to engage in…arts, trades and the like. We have made this – your occupation – identical with the worship of God, the True One.” Work as worship. Spirit first, even on the assembly line.)

Retroactive Virtue: "At Least We’re Better Than THEY Were"

I wrote a micro-review of a late-90s book and a 2001 movie the other day, and in the spirit of stale-dated opinion, I remember a conversation I had not long ago. It started off with impressions of a 2006 film called Glory Road, and you can be assured, gentle reader, that my not having seen it did nothing to stop the sociohistorical rant that followed.

Glory Road recounts sporting history that made a societal impact. In 1965, what was then called Texas Western College fielded a basketball team coached by Don Haskins, a young coach who would go on to a Hall of Fame career. (Fear not, sports-loather. This post is not really about basketball.) The remarkable thing about that small-conference team was that it had had black players for several years, in a time when many of the major athletic conferences were still completely segregated. Unranked at the beginning of the year, Texas Western had a wonderful season, and American sport reached a great “tipping point” in the 1966 NCAA final: their all-black starting lineup faced the all-white members of traditional powerhouse Kentucky, and defeated them.

My high school coach and longtime fellow whistle-blower and friend, The Don, saw Glory Road when it came out on video. “Not the greatest movie of all time, but watchable,” he reported. I had avoided it to that point mainly because it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer for Disney and the trailer showed a mid-60s basketball team throwing alley-oop passes off the backboard for splashy, 21st-century reverse slam dunks. Never happened, kids. (Sorry. Nobody was doing that stuff in 1965, least of all when playing for Don Haskins. Sports films so often drive me nuts because they so seldom understand and show the athletes realistically. Argh. But Field of Dreams and Bull Durham were pretty good, so maybe I should actually see the thing. And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.)

And enough about the jockstraps. What was really interesting to me was The Don’s second comment: “Parts of the story make it hard for me to believe and accept that people were treated like this.” On this score, I could only say that I didn’t doubt the racism at all. Remember Birmingham, George Wallace, Dr. King, the freedom riders for integration, the police dogs, the fire hoses, those enraged white faces? Many of us have seen those grainy news images even if we were too young to directly recall the bitterly fought racial crusades of the 1960s, especially. And pockets of that white resistance/”supremacy” still exist, 40 years later. In ways less blatant and extreme than they once were, we are still deeply racist as a society; North America still behaves as if it is natural for Blacks to live in poverty (or in prison) at tremendously higher rates than those of European extraction do. (It may be that, in Canada, we don’t see quite the graphic evidence of this that Americans can, though our own house is far from tidy; check the stats on our First Nations peoples and the conditions in which many of them live.)

In the public domain in North America, the economic and social disparity is sometimes masked by the high number of African-Americans we can see among the millionaire musicians and especially athletes. However, all we have to do is glance at the crowds to see that those with the money to watch pro sports are almost exclusively white. My observation, far from scientific, is that most of them (like most white home owners) still live in nearly lily-white neighbourhoods. (So do the millionaire black athletes, for that matter.) My buddy noted that the Kentucky coach, while not characterized as a slobbering bigot, was “not painted as a saint”. Adolph Rupp (an unfortunate name, in this context) is a legend in the sport, but should we be surprised if his attitudes reflected what many, perhaps most southerners believed and did in those days?

One of the wisest things I’ve ever heard is apparently the opening line from a novel by L. P. Hartley: “The past is another country; they do things differently there.” I think one of our biggest and most complacent errors is to judge historical figures negatively because they believed and/or acted like ‘most everybody else did at the time. Southerners who could rise above the racist structure of their society weren’t average – they may have been quiet ones, but they were rebels, contrarians, even heroes. People today who look back on a time like that and think, I wouldn’t have been like that in those circumstances are kidding themselves. I hope I wouldn’t have been a bigot in 1960s Kentucky, but I don’t assume it. That would have required remarkable luck and unusual parents. Some of our retroactive virtue comes from ignorance, but it also stems from arrogance. Many of us imagine that we are “self-made men” and women, and implicitly take credit for material and psychological advantages and perspectives that others have made possible for us: attitude pioneers and educational agents on whose metaphorical shoulders we stand, which includes our own ancestors, of course.

In the same way, I’m sure many of our children and grandchildren will judge us harshly and perhaps unfairly. I never, they will probably say, would have gotten stupid on drugs and alcohol for entertainment. Addicted to television? What was that about?! How could they have been so short-sighted and materialistic? Can you imagine people being obsessed with portable telephones and the ringtones that went with them? Or with, oh, what was her name, she was famous, Britney Spears? And tongue-piercing? And smoking tobacco in order to belong? And shopping like it was an Olympic sport? And three-car garages? Listen to me, I never would have driven everywhere in petroleum-burning vehicles that led to catastrophic climate change. And I never would have put my country’s luxuries ahead of the welfare of the whole world…

Things Fall Together: Retro Reading

While writing the long rant earlier today, I figured out where that wonderful quote — “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there” — came from. What I read about the novel and its author prodded me to order it from the wonderful Ottawa PL. A terrific retro-review for L.P. Hartley’s The Go-Between is yours for an accurate click.

(You’re welcome. Anything else I can do for you?)

Cold and Bright

We woke up to minus 30 degree temperatures in Ottawa this morning, and ever since local warming ended on about January 15, it’s been crackling cold here. (We were sorry to have missed two weeks of skating and skiiing, but Guadeloupe had its compensations. More on that warm adventure is still to come.)

And because of a small obsession of mine, our Tiny Perfect Backyard Rink™ was ready this morning, and my frisky critter spent nearly an hour wheeling and falling and apple-cheeking before I dragged him in for breakfast and we ran for the school bus. Sam doesn’t know much about hockey, but he loves it. He is six. Everything is amazing except WAITING. (So should it be for all of us.)

I had a great long walk in the chill, bright sunshine, finishing my second reading of The War of Art before returning it to the library. Great stuff, and more on that to come, as well. (It will further my backsliding “don’t buy it ’til you’ve read it” resolution.) After milk and cookies with Wendy, I came home to read about another fine prairie woman, Pamela Wallin. She was Canada’s Consul-General in New York for several years, and I was struck by her assessment of Canada/U.S. relations and why we get so prickly:

We are obsessed with the Americans, and they are not obsessed with us.”

Ah. Right. There was more, but I found that pithy and complete.