Conservatives Just Have that Schizophrenic Tendency

This is not anti-Tory rant; my neighbour is a PC, he's a good guy but, well, timing. Stephen Harper, former conservative, endorsed Pierre Pollivere as new conservative party leader. Literally, the day after the endorsement, 70% of Canadians polled said they would NOT support him as Prime Minister should he win party leadership. The same week, Doug Ford, Ontario PC Premier, TOLD his cabinet members via the House Leader whom to vote for Government Speaker. Instead, everyone, opposition and government members, united and selected the current Speaker for another term. conservatives are clearly NOT united philosophically; not in terms of how they want the country's largest province governed, not in terms of how they want the country governed. Stephen Harper was an advocate of Fredrich Hayek, a German economist who won the Nobel Prize for economic theories which became the foundation of neo-liberal economics currently in vogue. The philosophy has been proven to be a spectacular failure, most obviously in Medicine, but it infected the Canadian conservative political party and caused a rift between old PC type conservatives and Stephen Harper conservatives. Pollivere of whom is one, Ford another. Neither of them has ever run a successful business nor been independently employed. Pollivere has been in government since he was 25 and prior to that worked for a conservative think tank; Ford has always worked for the family business, ultimately failing in leadership of its expansion south. Stephen Harper has also only worked for think tanks or been in government. The point being for a political philosophy that advocates the market govern everything, it has consistently been led by people only ever employed by government. You'd think that would be a sign. The Progressive Conservatives, PCs, were the forerunner of the conservative party. Whereas the best Prime Minister Canada never had was a PC Judge who believed in Women's Suffrage, current conservatives are socially conservative people whose idea of business is the current privatization of Canada's Healthcare system. The evolution of political economy included the recognition that for business to function best healthcare and education had to be the responsibility of the government; the free flow of capital does not happen with Medicine for the simple reason illness is not a choice. A Medical responsibily is not a chosen financial burden; the fact it has become a way to profit means most current economic thinkers are ideologues, not at all familiar with why supply and demand work in balance. Someone with a chronic illness is ALWAYS in need...that has become equated with demand in a free market. An ill person is not free, so the whole premise of balance cannot be achieved and it is ridiculous to act as though it can. Hence, the Ford government's attempt to privatize Healthcare follows on the Medical catastrophes the pandemic wrecked on Seniors' Long Term Care Facilities; it's not like there is an example of a successful business in privatized Healthcare. Need is constant, so money is never made. But, Ford like Harper and Pollivere is an ideologue and believes financial balance can be achieved in Medicine because he's never had to face the consequences in business of when it can't. The free choice of conservatives choosing NOT to follow Ford's government speaker choice is a forshadow of Ford's ineptitude in business. Rather than recognition there is a problem in cohesive party support, Premiere Ford has chosen to punish government caucus members via mandatory Queen's Park attendance and reduction in interational travel for their disobedience.PUNISHING people is not likely to ENCOURAGE fidelity. Ford does not know or understand the value of earning respect. It's a dividing factor between people who actually work and theorists who think they know what to do. People representing business interests do not understand business. Why Hayek was a failure, why the conservative party is.

I Think David Graeber Would Find it Ironic

David Graeber was a very important anthropologist; I really admired him. He's deceased, and I have read 2 of his most popular books, 'BS Jobs' and 'The Dawn of Everything.' Graeber was an anarchist, very political; he was involved with the American MMT movement and 'Occupy Wall Street.' The thing is 'anthropologists' staff a lot of think tanks. Left wingers identify them as CIA agents trying to drive the political agenda; apparently, right wingers see them as credible staff for economic and social policy research institutes. I suggest both see the career as inocuous. Hence, deceptive? Anthropologists by definition observe human society, past and present; they don't predict human social behaviours, but like historians investigate what human beings have already done. So, it's kind of funny to see them as staffing for think tanks which advise governments on future policy trends. Graeber would see it as ironic and clearly indicative of the reality think tanks are always wrong. People invested in the past are not interested in where the future is going; they are hardly predicators of what it will be. They're simply not interested. So, it's kind of funny both political groups identify them as harbingers of it. Graeber would find that ironic. But, also, in and of itself, indicator of where the world is going. Golden Age? Pre-Industrial Revolution? Crafting? I suspect a lot of corporations are in for a shock.

The Thing about Values

Frank Stronach was in the Globe today advocating Canadian values be taught in schools. I wonder what he meant? I have to be honest and reveal I homeschooled my kids from grades 5, 3, and 2 because I thought I could do better; our family is not overtly religious and I don't know if I actually did better, but they all made it into university, if that's a measure of success. I don't know if it is. Did my children learn Canadian values from me? I don't know. What are they? They did learn Canadian history. That means they know the story of this country, the colonial changes, the value of French, and its Military history. Is it a value to treasure Indigenous history? Is it a value to consider the affects of colonialism, good and bad, on Canada? Is teaching the difference between French exploration of Canada and British domination a value? The Canadian Military did a lot in World War One and had Indigenous volunteers in the fight against nazis in World War Two. Everybody fought nazis in World War Two. Is that a value? Certainly, it is an easy principle. nazis hate and hurt everybody; Canadians fight them. Hence, our government and opposition parties are an embarrassment, right now. Ukraine has a lot of good people; unfortunately, till this Military action, Canada recognized it also had a nazi problem. Now, in contrary to our own history of fighting nazis, we are allied with them against Russia. Despite the fact they hate people of all religious faiths not Catholic, all non-heterosexual people, all non-abled people, including those with mental challenges. They are not nice people; so, it's weird Frank Stronach is advocating Canadian values be taught at this moment. Our government and opposition parties currently advocate for a group, our history has always fought against. What is a Canadian value? We're milquetoasts? Why have this discussion, now? Would people really be glad to look in the mirror knowing for whom our soldiers are fighting, our monies are supporting? Do people understand what we stand for? It's good to have a clear notion of what's important and define a Canadian value. But, now is definitely not a good time because I don't think Mr. Stronach would like what we are doing and what it means.

The Thing About Oil

This topic gets tiring because I keep posting about it and people just think I'm crazy. Before Christmas, oil was anticipated to hit $500 a barrel, in February estimates were $200; Bloomberg just wrote about Goldman Sach's anticipating $110 oil barrels, this year. The issue isn't oil demand collapse or too much of it around; the market has changed. Immediately, because of electric cars. Electric cars do not need an energy; some brands will need charging, but brands like Aptera can self-charge, for as long as 7 months, and this is the new reality oil companies don't want considered. Believe it or not, oil companies came up with climate change as a way of controlling the market focus on cars that needed oil rather than the idea to an alternative energy. Remember the film 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' Oil companies did.Car companies knew this was coming hence the development of subscription services for radios, heating. Heck, even offerring services to drive. Without a service to offer, oil companies cannot survive. If no one needs oil, why should fossil fuel companies exist? It's interesting to listen to the rhetoric about Taiwan and what China or the US is up to. China has 10 big EV companies, a network of electric trains, a substantial charging network. Taiwan is the world's largest semi-conductor maker (needed for electric vehicles) and has 1 large, domestic EV maker, so far. While the US has some, it is falling behind in the development of EV vehicles. Common sense, if you think about it, China, Taiwan, North and South Korea, most of Asia, invest in education. Actually, everybody else does--Africa, India. The Americans, just don't. While there are all kinds of justifications of why Americans are dumbed down, the consequent result is fewer Doctors, Writers, Scientists and Engineers. There are just fewer smart, American people around, and less of each apt to choose to develop a business, or develop skills likely to be beneficial to a business. I am not saying Americans are stupid, just ignorant. So, smart enough to know everyone else is smarter. And, that takes on exponential effects when demographics are added to the mix. There are just more Asians, Africans, Indians than Americans. Anyhow, more everybody else just means more of them are developing electric cars for the simple reason, oil cars, internal combustion engines, are too expensive. Car companies can handle change; fossil fuel companies cannot. It's so weird to argue the fact that the oil market is getting smaller, but that's what is happening. And, I don't think the oil companies like it. And everyone else is paying for their fury.

In Media Res

Having been locked out of mt other blog, I am back on this one. 76 Books read, so far, this year. Perk of disability. I read, exercise or do languages. Fluent,so far, in French and English, learning Chinese and Russian by myself,and impressing my neighbour, and my Nursing Assistants are teaching me Spanish and Tagalog. I am learning a lot about Phillipine History because Spanish influences Tagalog for colonial reasons. Hence, they're a lot easier to learn than you'd think. I was learning Yoruba but NO ONE in Nigeria seems to be fluent, anymore, which sucks because I was picking it up! Anyhow... The writing bug is upon me... Let's call this an on-line journal of sorts. I am middle-aged with progressive MS which also sucks! I can't do much but I observe and comment on a lot. Most days begin with exercise and languages or languages and exercise. And, then I read, usually for about two hours a day. My body is useless but I am keeping my mind sharp. I am really trying. I promise! I am not supposed to be political but, obviously, I am going to be and not tell my husband and adult children. I will not support nazis, and I question any government that endorses them. It's not religious. I know unequivocally they are bad; I was taught Canadian History and I think it's disgraceful we have a political intelligentsia that legitimates them and an uncritical press that supports them. Not one political party in this country said it was wrong to support the endeavours of such an odious ideology. Canada used to criticize Ukraine because of its nazis; now, Canadian Soldiers are going to Ukraine and training them? That is shameful! Anyhow, that means I can criticize all the political parties because none of them have a principle to stand on. Very liberating that! No more soap box. Also, I am tired of writing. But, I am going to try to editorialize my observations.

So How Does a Book Work?

"Freedom" by Jonathan Franzen is a well-written, interesting story; unfortunately, I didn't like it and it came clear to me the other day why.  My daughter had printed a list of books that a well-read person should have read over the course of their life-time.  One of the books on the list was Carson McCullough's "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter."  I picked it up, read it, and it is a brilliant book.  "Freedom" is no way near as good and to consider the two books reveals why so many writers fail to grasp what is happening to literature; why so many writers fail to understand what is wanted by the reading public.

Francine Prose wrote a brilliant book "Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them".  In the introduction, Ms Prose talks about trying to teach a class of graduates in a Master of Fine Arts class about writing and coming to the realization few of her students were good readers.  It was clearly a disappointing moment for Ms Prose.  I hunted down and read most of the books Ms Prose criticized in her work; some I understood, some I had great difficulties with, all were challenging.  But I am a good reader; I struggle to understand a story; I, in fact, like to work a little bit, think, even, when I read a book.  Not everyone does, of course; some people like to skim more than read which is okay; but, a lot of people, especially good readers, like to be drawn into a story, want to be attracted to a work like a bee to honey.

This is my point about Franzen's book; it is unattractive in this sense.  As much as the plot may have a gem of a good idea within it, a good idea needs the work of language to somehow make it attractive.   Franzen's grammar is polished; there are few, if any, editorial mistakes; the characters are scripted, constant, and realistic.  But, as I told my daughter, it is a cold work; it almost looks the right way but has none of the warmth or character of a genuine piece of literary fiction.  The only way I can explain my realization of these deficiencies is to compare the work to Carson McCullough's.  Some might say it is an unfair comparison but Franzen is considered a genius in contemporary fiction and McCullough is a recognized genius.  I don't think the comparison is between apples and oranges, but the results most certainly are.

McCullough's story is about the loneliness of various people in the Thirties of the American South and evolves around a silent character; he is a deaf mute who attracts various people for their individual reasons and somehow enables them to find comfort within themselves.  It is the story of the struggle of every individual; it is an universal quest, an universal desire.  That universal commonness of the story is appealing and timeless.  The thoughts and needs of people are explored and, as much as the setting is important to the story, it is not requisite to advance the plot.  The whole structure could be moved to a township in South Africa or to a village in Ireland.  Tensions between father and child evolve whether they are Black, White, Moslem, or Hindu.  Every person in the world, every individual, wants to be understood and to not be alone. McCullough's concern is with this very human sense of isolation.

Franzen's work is definitely set in the United States; one of its main characters is obsessively concerned with bird habitats and their destruction.  The whole story is rooted in the geography of the United States; characters travel between States; the story evolves in a particular neighbourhood.  The sense of place, rather than expanding the story, limits and defines the structure.  It also makes the story very American.  One could argue Franzen tries to identify America with the struggle of the various characters; it is as though the very freedom of which the characters seek is the soul of the American dream.  Unlike McCullough, however, the American dream is not universal; if anything, it has become a trite parody of itself because it has become so unrealistic.  Franzen may be trying to illustrate this but his characters evolve through individual wants and satisfactions; their consumptive nature defines how they are illustrated.  The whole plot is predicated on an exploration of the American psyche; to be honest, the characterization of America is not appealing but, more importantly, it leads the reader nowhere.  Franzen offers no hope and no explanation for this dream; there is, therefore, no universal salvation.  It is not as though the threads of Franzen's story could happen anywhere; they are mired in their American-ness, that unique sense of entitlement so common in American advertising, and there is no escape offered.

This failure of Franzen to explore beyond the boundaries of American geography reveals his ignorance of cultures beyond his nation; McCullough's work explores ideas constant throughout the world, Franzen's views are limited.  I think the reason for this is an ignorance of literature; Ms Prose suggests people no longer do a close reading of difficult works, that they are, in fact, intimidated by the thought processes involved.  It is so much easier to have a strong opinion rather than an acute awareness of word structure, imagery, and metaphor usage.  Franzen is almost characteristically American in the stereotypical sense; one would never compare his writing to American greats such as Hemingway, Fitzgerald or Mark Twain; one could never imagine his plots arising from the inspiration of Homer, Chekov or Kleist; the story in "Freedom" is typical America and does not illustrate any great universal truth.  It doesn't even attempt to portray an American truth as somehow relevant to those outside its borders.  Consumption is viewed, perhaps, as an American ideal but the idea is hardly universal, novel, or criticized.

Ignorance of the Classics is demonstrated in the uniqueness of Franzen's story; it is about one culture, at one time, and it has one point.  Though, to be honest, I am not sure I get it; I am not an American.  In order for stories to be attractive, they must draw like to like; they must develop similarities between people or decry differences. Ultimately, readers want a good story with an universal truth to be revealed--be it the sameness at the heart of all human beings or an exploration of human difference.  Sadly, Franzen is a better example of what is happening to literature; it has become demonstrative of consumption, a book is read quickly but not thoroughly; and literature has become illustrative of the vast domination of opinion rather than consideration.  What is truly sad, though, is the reality so many writers fail to read but expect their stories to be read.

Third Book: The Passage by Justin Cronin

The review was supposed be on Sebold's "The Lovely Bones," however I just finished Cronin's "The Passage" and was inspired to write quickly while thoughts were still in my head.

Justin Cronin is an English Professor and has written 3 novels; "The Passage" is his third and most anticipated. It is another vampire novel but not in the style of Stephanie Meyers melodramas; think more Robert Ludlum meets Bram Stoker. The first third of the novel is quick paced, interesting and written with a particular direction in mind. Its narrative is seductive and the reader is engaged with the plot and the machinations of the various characters. The characters, quite a number of them, are well-developed individuals; they are unique with perspectives explained and motivations coherent. The first parts of the book are intriguing.

The second and subsequent parts of Cronin's novel are more questionable. It becomes a post-Apocalyptic world of vampires subsisting on scattered humans and squirrels; there is a nation of Texas complete with oil supplies; and a tremendous, if somewhat oblique, faith in God, home and the American dream. But the focus of this review will be on garbage. Cronin's novel is replete with garbage. Survivors travel the country carrying with them 93 year old cans of food; humans don't starve because they can subsist on ancient, tinned food. And, they dump cans they no longer need. They encounter homes with clothing still packaged and wearable; colonies are almost built on the remnants of shopping malls; heroes are made in the galaxy of consumerism. Although gardening and farming are taken as a necessity, the various characters of Cronin's world struggle in a material world still dominated by the curiousities of the American culture. Books are not explored; although, some characters encounter Melville's "Moby Dick" and various children's books. They are amazed by the moving pictures on a movie screen and the Texan Army still uses the obvious tools of the trade: tanks, walkie-talkies, and bombs.

Cronin's novel world is built upon that which is easily disposable and, thematically, mirrors, the ease with which humans are overrun by the vampire virus. It is questionable whether Cronin did this on purpose; it does not appear deliberate. That fact makes the reviewer consider the influence of consumerism on Cronin's writing. In a sense, the world he creates is almost Disneyfied: vampires eat squirrels and live in the dark. Wouldn't rats be more likely and more available? Mice scurry about the empty houses and vehicles are left in stasis for miles upon miles of traffic; but, there are no descriptions of the horror that would have occurred upon the dead. There are implications about vampire attack, but not about rodent. It wouldn't be so noticeable except it becomes bothersome. The new world, post vampire infection and Texan dominance, seems so clean; travelers can almost drink from streams, plumbing still works. After 100 years. Cronin's novel becomes not just a post-Apocalyptic fiction but almost a fantasy. Worse, and this implication arises more because of the book's timeliness than its storyline, oil still seems like a huge necessity. The Louisiana oil spill is still happening as this is being written and Cronin's work anticipates a world still dependent on crude. Worse still, his narrative fails to consider the possibility of oil accidents although the novel is based upon the arrogance of the American military and its failure to consider accidents. Perhaps, the eventual departure of the Texan citizenry predicts the exploration of the ramifications of an oil spill in a post-Apocalyptic world?

Finally, "The Passage," somehow, is supposed to mirror themes developed in the biblical story of Noah and the Ark. Cronin fails completely to explain the reason why the heroine of the story is connected to the Noah story; she carries the cure to the virus? She is the cure? At one point, the heroine has the cure to the virus and burns them. It really doesn't make sense. Nor does the conclusion. Either Texas is over-run by vampires or the remaining citizens of the world move to New Zealand; for some reason, the heroine disappears and the story concludes in a set of documents presented at a conference. It makes for a less than fulfilling conclusion. If Cronin had been able to maintain the tight, fluid narrative with which he had begun "The Passage," it would be an exceptionable book. Much better than Stephen King's "The Stand" with which it shows similarities. However, the story line seems to dissolve in traveling motifs--characters walking to Wisconsin, to Utah, being driven to Texas. It is reminiscent of J.K. Rowling's final book in the Harry Potter series in which the three main characters are set adrift in a series of camping expeditions that make no sense at all.