Does violence in your community offend you?

There seems to be something that Black Lives Matters are getting  that I'm not sure that the rest of us are.And that is that police violence deeply offends in the communities where it happens.I'm not sure yet if they are equally offended by non-police violence,or by violence among blacks,or violence perpetrated by blacks on others,but they've nonetheless taken the time to be offended.Being offended seems reasonable and it matters.

I now live in Toronto,which is Canada's largest city.I love it here.It's my second stint living here and for the most part I feel very safe in any community where I venture.I might feel differently were my skin black.Who's to say? Toronto may well be the most diverse city in the world,and while it has it's share of problems,some of related to race and violence,for the most part we get along amazingly well here.

When I lived here from 2010-2012,I lived in the west end,in a Portuguese enclave near Bloor and Lansdowne.While the Portuguese community can be a bit insular,they really are good neighbors.Their children don't hang out on the street corners spewing profanity and looking for petty crimes to commit.Their houses and yards are well kept.If there is a crime in progress you can be assured that someone will call the police.You see,they care about their community.And if the stories of my friends are true,most of the ethnic communities about town are similar in that respect,with  few notable exceptions.Most of the time I'm glad I live here.But police violence when it occurs in my community offends me.Not just police violence,but all violence offends me.Police violence though is especially offensive because it is a corruption of an agency that was meant to serve and protect us.Later this week,I will have more to say about a particular case here in Toronto that happened five years ago this week-end.It did not involve a black man,but it was nevertheless at least as disturbing to me as anything  in the news recently.

Bloor Street is one of the busiest streets in Toronto.It runs east and west through the city for a long distance.In the east end,it's called Danforth,but it's the same street.There are shops of any kind you might imagine along Bloor including many open air markets.You can purchase food at very reasonable prices at these markets.A walking trip down Bloor is always a unique and wonderful experience.You can purchase all manner of things at Honest Ed's ,at the corner of Bloor and Bathurst Streets.It's a large,very cheesy and cheap place to shop for nearly anything.Iconic here in Toronto.It's part of the Toronto experience,at least for the next few months.There is the lady that sells samosas at the corner of Lansdowne and Bloor as well.They are Hindu ans serve only vegetable samosas.I was looking for the chicken samosas I prefer when I first went into her shop,which she explained they didn't make.But she really was such a sweet woman that I often found myself going back for a vegetable samosa every once in a while just so I could say hi.Such is Toronto.I recall too the fall of 2011,walking down Bloor Street and seeing the hugest pumpkins I've ever seen, at a fruit stand in Korea town.Nobody bought them,they were just too large to move,so they just sat there adding to the charm of the city.

I remember a pizza party too,one August night at the corner of Bloor and Christie.That all came about because of that incident of police violence that so disturbed me.We all gathered around,maybe about eighty of us and laid out candles and slices of pizza at a memorial for Charlie McGillvary. Charlie was a disabled man that had been killed by police at that intersection a few nights before,in a case of mistaken identity.Charlie loved pizza.His story pointed out,and continues to point out the need to find a way to enforce the law without resorting to the same old business as usual approach.As the fifth anniversary of that event approaches,you may not here much about it in the mainstream media.In fact,I was hard pressed to find a lot about it on the internet.But you will hear about it here.Because it happened in my old hood,a part of town I love.And it offended the hell out of me.

A last stand for American Exceptionalism?

So what does it really mean when the Republican
Presidential  candidate shouts"let's make America great again",or some such closely related slogan.It would seem to suggest that America was great at some point,and that Mr.Trump has some preconceived idea of what made America great.Whatever that notion actually is,and I believe that Mr.Trump is less than completely forthcoming in revealing that publicly,the slogan in and of itself has the ring of an ideal commonly known as American Exceptionalism:American greatness based on a unique American history stemming from The American Revolution,and resulting in a break with European roots that was seen as being more or less complete in political terms.A new way of doing business ,if you will,based on new ,American ideals of  Democracy and freedom.As a related idea,this concept also expresses the idea that America bears the responsibility of being a role model to the world in living out democratic ideals.This is sometimes expressed as "A city on a Hill" which enlightens,informs and inspires other nations.And,from this springs an additional; idea,that of American superiority.

But can anyone truly believe in this notion today,in 2016?In fact,was American Exceptionalisn ever a valid idea?It might have worked well in a time when the American reality was that of geographical separation from the power of warring European nations,and at a time when it was forced to direct it's energies toward developing and molding it's own expanding nation.But those conditions hardly exist in today's world.American Exceptionalism seems less well fitted to today's world.


Still,I'm not certain the politicians of any stripe really get this.America is broken,fractured along all of it's social and political cleavages,and as a result is possessed of a malignant anger that's turned inward on itself.Politically,partisanship rules the day. Economically and racially,people have never been more divided.In some circles there is talk of another American Civil War,the only difference  being that this time around there is more than one fault line which could conceivably propel America in that direction.That "City On The Hill" is a shimmering mirage that no longer generates even enough light to illuminate it's own feet.


And so it's no real accident I suppose that the political slogans of the season all have to do with restoring American greatness.But we need to look very critically at those who are preaching this American Gospel.To be certain,these men and women are no John Adams or Thomas Jefferson,their ideals are not anywhere near as lofty.But could we reasonably think that they might ever resolve,or even improve what's ailing America today.So,when Mr.Trump says"Make America Great again" what does he mean?What form is that likely to take? Well,part of the idea of greatness is the idea of safety.So,I'm assuming that this implies some notion of "Law and Order" however ill defined that might be at present.It could include a lot of things,but in my mind I have to connect it to some of the ideas put forth by Mr.Trump,ideas based on some of his statements.Ideas like building a wall or a fence,or stopping immigration based on Muslim belief,or country of origin.Presumably it would have some bearing on the armed violence in America as well,on the social conditions which gave rise to groups like Black Lives Matter.Now "Law and Order" is something to be valued to be sure,but how does a potential Republican government intend to bring that about.I'm  guessing that it has more to do with a big stick with a lot of clout behind it than it does any notion of social justice.Lest we forget,Donald Trump once mocked a disabled man.And that speaks loudly on his ideas of what value he places on social justice.Yet social justice is foundational to law and order,but remains an elusive ideal in America today.

What does it mean to "Make America Work Again"? Does that mean "Employ Americans" and,if so employ them to do what,to serve whom? Does that mean restoring some hope that people might actually be able to achieve some valued goals,such as advancing themselves socially and economically and seeing their children aspire to a better life than they had?No,that seems far to progressive to suit an essentially conservative,elitist laissez faire capitalist mindset.And,speaking of capitalists,who was it that actually exported  American industry? So,does anyone really believe a right wing shift in government is going to be the solution to a problem that was caused in no small part by just such a mentality?

If ,on the other hand making America work refers to overcoming a deeply dysfunctional nature in all things American at the moment,I could hardly argue that this is a bad idea.But where does one start? Again the problem is one of social justice,and of putting off long entrenched ideals.America needs first to put it's own house in order.It needs to hold forth an ideal that offers something of relevance and value to it's own individuals and communities.It needs to rethink the idea of maintaining an military industrial complex,of tying economic well being to  the reality of permanent war,which cannot exist without omnipresent enemies even if those enemies have to be imagined or manufactured.It's a supreme irony that I quote a former Republican President in this regard:"Tear down this wall."

America also has to deal with legitimate enemies,in legitimate ways.Right by might is called for from time to time,and America needs to be adequately strong militarily,but it also needs to find other ways to deal with enemies both within and without.Right now it's too much like that athlete with all the physical prowess in the world that thinks there is no need for it to set a moral example,to be a role model of virtue.America needs to totally rethink itself in terms of what makes it legitimate in the eyes of others.Because hatred does not arise organically in a vacuum.So what could America do to offer others,with very different worldviews  ways to respect it?A great place to start would be to  assert the true status of The War on Terror.In other words,make it clear that this war is the function of terrorist behavior,not a war on Islam.Stop insisting on democracy at gunpoint in those countries that have no historical tradition of democracy.Insist instead that those nations articulate and achieve some acceptable human rights goals,and reinforce them economically and politically for doing so.And above all,make human rights a priority within Americas own boundaries.Reaffirm the ideals of American Democracy.Because any legitimate form of American Exceptionalism must be founded on the highest possible standards.Americas founding ideas were good ones.Not perfect,but some of the best, idealistically, the world has ever produced.But America needs to put a lot aside in the way of it's own hypocrisy and start living it's own ideals before it imposes any ideals on others.The crucial question is,are there any among it's leaders that are capable of and willing to do so? 

Dissent and the defining of legitimacy.

A long time ago I got very sick.For almost eight weeks there was a battle going on in my body,as a variety of nasty little bugs crawled about in my system.During that eight weeks I had strep throat,a cold,the flu,bronchitis and an ear infection.Not to mention the athlete's foot that I acquired as the result of having so many antibiotics in my system.For days on end I felt that I was at deaths door.But in the end it was my own body that took command and,since that time I have very rarely been sick.Whatever doesn't kill you... I'm told that my body produces antibodies,that it has an autoimmune system,for which I am eternally grateful.

All bodies need an effective auto immune system.In society,any society that function is provided by those who dissent.Those who stand up to government and social forces that are often stronger than they are for the sake of overcoming systemic disadvantage and achieving a higher level of social justice.No society can be healthy without dissent as a separate political movement,as a means of keeping the powers that be honest,of holding authority to account,so that it does not go beyond it's limits.That is why democracies articulate certain rights and freedoms to be the law of the land.But,there always remains the active debate of just how much those freedoms mean in terms of the right to dissent,to stand against power.

So what is dissent,exactly.More specifically,what is not dissent.I am not referring,for instance to the shooting of police officers as being dissent.It is,strictly speaking a dissenting form of action,but the dissent I'm referring to is  subject to legitimacy,just as are the powers to  which that dissent is directed at.Therefor proper dissent my involve itself,from time to time in civil disobedience,but not in the breaking of obviously just laws.I may,therefor be referring to actions such as marching on a political convention,even if that involves disrupting normal services and conveniences.But the whole point of dissent is about defining legitimacy,so that it is not defined only from the top down and perhaps by very coercive  means.

This,of course leads directly to the question of how healthy  the state of dissent is  in America today,in the light of a society that seems obviously frustrated and angry,with that anger and frustration coming from multiple parts of society.There is no doubt that the bounds of legitimate action need to be re-established in America and on many fronts,but how likely is that given the current rhetoric?



It is not necessary to put a gun to the heads of dissenters to greatly limit their effectiveness.All you really have to do is to pretend they have no voice.Pretend that you can insulate yourself from them simply by erecting a wall,mocking them, or being willfully ignorant of their presence.So does this sound like anyone on the current political front? When I see a politician,a billionaire,a seemingly healthy one at that mocking,openly and childishly a person dealing with disability,I have no doubt that that politician has no tolerance for the voices of those he considers to be beneath himself.And,more to the point,that only a narrow range of interests will be represented,that that politician lacks the means to Make America Great Again.

But just because that figurative gun is not typically pointed at the heads of dissenters,is not to say that it might not be.Consider the recent disclosure of Edward Snowdon,who suggests that the American  Government is undertaking wide spread surveillance of the cyber world in the name of national security.That disclosure obviously makes Snowdon  the most infamous of American dissenters,and I presume,reasonably that his life perhaps,and his freedom certainly is in danger.But he raised a valid question,that being,what is the point to all this spying if the current American authorities intend to allow a broad base of dissent.

Security of state is without any doubt a legitimate concern.But the post 9/11 world has become a place obsessed with the need of state,which promotes state over individual to an ever increasing degree.The awareness  of that enemy other becomes more and more obvious.ISIS.Mexicans.Muslims! Liberals,communists,Socialists! To be sure the state has very real enemies and that fact must be capably managed.But the direction of that management seems to be falling increasingly along racial lines,the perception of threat being based on stereotype.Hence the rise of Black Lives Matters,for now legitimate dissenters who point out a very real disparity among Afro Americans relative to the rest of society.And they are far from the most militant interest group.

Washington D.C. has long been a town of lobbyists.I'm told that there are more lobbyists than there are politicians.And every possible interest is there vying for the ear of any politician they can influence.I'm more or less willing to accept that as a given reality without passing harsh judgement on it,under one condition.That being that the structure and management of society be undertaken subject, at least in part to the general degree of discourse in that society.In other words,I would prefer the powers that be pay as much attention to the voices that emanate from places like Compton and Harlem,or rural West Virginia,as they do to those voices that inhabit Washington with fists full of dollars. Unfortunately that seems less likely in a beleaguered nation that seems to view extremity,of whatever variety as the solution to it's growing problems.

                                                Blyndpapaya

How was democracy intended to work?

For better or worse,the American Right has center stage this week as The Republican Party conducts it's National Convention in Cleveland Ohio.If that's not your preferred fare,The Democratic Party gets it's turn next week.But today I don't want to get bogged down in partisan politics,especially as it is traditionally laid out in most introductory Political Science classes:as ideas located along a left/right continuum.Instead I want to ask,what really makes Democracy work or,how should Democracy work?

We tend to define right and left as being representative of particular values.Generally right,or Conservatism is based on an appeal to tradition,while Liberalism is more progressive in it's outlook.Moreover,most of us tend to have a preference for one or the other of these ideologies in some degree.The classical continuum does not necessarily accommodate every degree of belief,at least not perfectly,but it is a useful if somewhat blunt reference.

So my question then is,preferences aside,is it any particular ideology that makes Democracy work? Again,most people would answer in terms of a preference,and insist that an insufficient degree of their particular ideology in practice renders any society dysfunctional.But doesn't society have a lot more moving parts than that?

In short,I am going to suggest that we ought to rightly take an ecological view of politics,because really,a properly functioning democracy  needs to work well as a whole system.It is then, a healthy interaction between and among a wide plurality of ideas that brings about a healthy society.Simply ,it is not sufficient  for  any political system to be so polarized that it represents one ideological view to the exclusion of all others,even with a wide base of popular support.Popularity is no guarantee of  moral rectitude,or the value of any particular ideology or regime,the National Socialist Party of  Nazi Germany being the prime case in point.

In a good society,as many people as possible are able to set goals and attain those goals.There has to be something in that society for everybody,some possibility of of self actualization.Those goals,that ability to be something of self actualized worth needs to be supported by governments of any stripe.It is not to say that governments cannot, or even should not proceed to rule with reference to ideology.But,in the exercise of so doing,they are not free to ignore the well being of any member of society.The best governments,then are ones that can provide those people who are least like them ideologically with something of value.Good government does not bog down in partisan ideas,portray dissenters as the enemy other and refuse to participate when it is not getting it's own way.It must participate,do what it has sworn as a matter of duty to do and believe that those of different ideological leanings are doing likewise.It should involve itself in a good,if not superior quality of debate.It should not stack the deck ideologically, using the structures and mechanisms of government to hinder the legitimate activities and undertakings of it's political opponents.All who undertake to govern should share enough of a common vision as to faithfully pursue a society that works on a healthy interaction of competing interests,to the betterment of as many individuals as possible.Blind promotion of a particular ideology for it's own sake comes perilously close to political nihilism.

So,in this season of intense political debate,I ask one single question.And you,as literate American voters should be considering the same question in relation to your political parties and candidates.It's report card time.How is America stacking up?

                                          blyndpapaya

An armed camp.

And so the Republican National Convention has begun in Cleveland,Ohio,in what seems to be the most frightening time I can ever recall.Forty nine bodies in Orlando have hardly grown cold.Five police officers in Dallas have been slain,perhaps in response to the killings of black suspects by police officers.Those deaths were followed only two days ago by three more policemen being killed in Baton Rouge,Louisiana.And ,not to be forgotten,we've just had another mass killing in France,perhaps as a result of terrorist ideology,but perhaps not.And there was the attempted coup in Turkey as well.All of this seems to be set in the general environment of hatred being directed at not just American,but western values.

American elections are never without controversy,and,I suppose they should not be.But this time around the atmosphere seems like a powder keg,and,as a fifty something,I don't ever recall such a dangerous atmosphere at election time.It seems as though everyone is rightly on edge.Because it is evident that America is very deeply divided,racially,politically and socially.So here I am,just a relatively short distance away,across two Great lakes,just waiting for the rising columns of smoke to make themselves visible.

I'm told the the theme of today's addresses at the convention is to be "Lets make America Safe Again". Very timely indeed if not somewhat ironic,given what appears to be going on in Cleveland as I write this.A view of several videos has made it clear that security is tight,perhaps unprecedented.Given the times that seems quite appropriate,but the picture really,with all things considered is hardly one of safety.

Making America safe is part of the slogan that Trump has been spouting for months now:Make America Great Again.True,I hardly think a nation can be great if it's not safe from threat both from without and from within.So let me ask.When has America ever been safe?When is the last time it's been safe? And,by safe,I mean safe from crippling fear as well,perhaps most especially from crippling fear.

We should also be asking,and,I'm sure it's not really being asked on the convention floor,for whom,or for what is America safe? Mr.Trump,do you mean to make America safe in every community nationwide or just in those gated communities in which people such as yourself inhabits?Or  does making America safe include Ferguson,Missouri,South Bronx,Compton and South Chicago as well?Because I could well argue that those communities have never been safe,are not safe now and don't look to be heading that way in these current time.Especially for African Americans.If it were,there would be no Black Lives Matter.So,if making America safe doesn't begin with an ideology that holds all life to be sacred,and affirms life as the right of all,it will not lead to safety.America will be on the road to Hell instead.

Take a look at who all has gathered in  Cleveland.There are,I'm told some fifty thousand people affiliated with the convention itself,Republicans,such as they are,divided though they may be.And every variety of interest or advocacy group imaginable.All this takes place in a state with open carry gun laws,and that is a huge concern.It's not so much Black Lives Matters,as anti police as they seem.Many are branding them terrorists,but I'm willing to wait and see for right now.I understand how they might hold the world view that they do,but I can't say as they appear to be active terrorists,at least yet.A far bigger concern to  me is The New Black Panther Party,a group that seems to articulate racial hatred with every breath and is committed to revolutionary ends,to establishing a separate nation characterized by "Black Power". Not only have they made it clear that they intend to attend,but also that they intend to exercise their second amendment rights.And it would be foolhardy to suppose that groups opposing them would not be present as well,also intending to take full advantage of their own rights.

And so Cleveland would appear to be an armed camp.It would be bad optics for Republicans to oppose open carry laws,or to ask that they be suspended,given the traditional alliance between the political right and the gun lobby.And certainly Republicans don't want us to think,or at least to think very hard about any possible erosion of rights in general under a Republican regime.But I fear that that may be the very real outcome of this particular convention.

Perhaps this convention will pass in orderly fashion.Perhaps dissent can be accommodated and there will be no serious incidents,no loss of life,no violent rioting.But to me,right now Cleveland looks more like the Tehran of the early 1980's than it does a modern and open American city.But go on and prove me wrong.Because making America safe again,means making the rest of the world safer as well.That's the challenge over the next few days.

                        Blyndpapaya.

Why non-Americans should be concerned with American politics.

With the Republican Convention coming up next week in Cleveland,you can expect a number of political rants in this blog over the next few days.Often I'm asked,and sometimes not too nicely to refrain from making commentary on American political issues.I'm certain I've lost a friend or two on social media over this incorrigible tendency of mine,but that's alright.And I've pulled the plug on one or two as well,not over a difference of opinion,but over the expression of extreme profanity,or lack of respect for others of different racial,religious,national or cultural backgrounds.Or,for just plain low or non-existent quality of debate.

Here's the deal.There are those out there that seem to feel that as a Canadian,I should not be involved in debate of the 2016 American election.It's the sole business of Americans.Well,that's true in that only Americans get to vote. And that is as it should be.But I would argue that anyone interested in living in a relatively free and decent world has a vested interest in being fully involved in the debate.Because,as goes America,so goes the world.

Ask yourself how America views itself.As the only true super power?As the worlds policeman? As something entirely unique in the history of the  world?

You see,I have a hard time buying into this idea of American Exceptionalism,especially in recent times.But that really is a subject for another blog entry.The point I was trying to make is that America casts a long shadow.So how is it reasonable to expect to be insulated from worldwide public opinion.You see,I,to some extent have to live in that long shadow.

American will seems to be all important to American politicians.Americans seem have such a high opinion of Democracy,for instance,that they often insist on it's institution worldwide,completely forgetting that Democracy is essentially a Western ideal with very little history of success east of the Mediterranean.Yet it hasn't stopped America from trying to force it's will upon other nation states.But,how many stable democracies exist in those nations today? And how many more people hate America today than they did just a few years ago? Did America have any role in the creation of those who today hold it to be an enemy? The reason I will not refrain from political comment is that in my eyes the world seems to be descending to a more perilous state,at a time when the seems to be a lack of adequate,ethical leadership in the big policeman to the south.It's terrifying at times.

Over the next few days there are a few issues that I want to touch on.Political Ecology.Dissent.Liberalism.And partisanship,perhaps the biggest problem in contemporary American politics.There may be others as well.

But let me start with the issue of dissent,because it plays right into that idea that only Americans should comment on American political issues.I'll deal with this issue in more detail later.Today I just wanted to note that there is a current of thought that says Canadians,Europeans,Asians,and certainly those in the nations most affected by American political/military ambitions have no say in what goes on in  America.Well,I say simply that these ideas are good for one thing:making the grass grow greener than it would otherwise.So count me as a dissenter,more or less believing in dissent for it's own sake.You see,I really do love America.So far I've found it relatively easy to respect America.Given the choice,there are few nations I would choose to live in such close proximity to.But part of loving America means holding it to a high standard.I want that huge policeman,that only remaining superpower that casts it's shadow over me,and everyone else on the planet to be all that it can and should be.And that means holding it to a high standard of accountability no matter where I live on earth.So,if American Democracy is the ideal,Americans will have to live with my dissent.

                                                                             blyndpapaya

Be careful what you wish for

Lately I've been hearing a disturbing sentiment both from current news and from persons I know personally here in the city where I live.Black people are saying that they do not want the police in their neighborhoods.They don't want community policing,they are no longer committed to developing strong relationships with law enforcement."Just stay away,You're not wanted here" one of my friends once said of police in 2011.Before the era of Black Lives Matter.

This year has been the year of the gun here in Toronto.A disturbing number of victims seem to be young black men in black neighborhoods.As a white person,I've walked in some of these neighborhoods and,for the most part I feel reasonably safe.Each there is another killing I'm assured "it's business.If you have no part of that business,you are not in danger." What I take this to mean is that it's come to be viewed as business as usual,to the point that those in certain neighborhoods would prefer that law enforcement just stay away,and let the situation remain as is.And,the reason for this preference is,in many cases that fear and mistrust of the police now outweighs fear of being violated by criminal activity within some communities.

But if you think the solution is to have police stay away,you'd better be careful what you are wishing for.Absence of law enforcement can only be called anarchy,and I'm hard pressed to understand who would choose to live under such a system.

To be certain mistrust of police would seem to be justified in some cases.The face of policing has changed in just the last few years,to a more impersonal,more militarized model.I used to see cops walking the beat nearly everywhere,stopping to talk to merchants and housewives,black and white alike.They were visible within the community,everybody knew them and their activities were based on respectful interactions with the public.To be certain the long arm of the law was there when needed to protect the rights and safety of all.But where has that model gone?Now,inasmuch as I've been able to observe, the typical police action seems to involve one or more police cars swooping down on suspects,or perhaps persons who are not even suspected of any particular.The presence is sudden and heavily armed,and there is nothing to be seen of the perhaps archaic idea of establishing good rapport within communities.Any emphasis on rights is not visibly apparent.

I live in suburban Toronto,far from those neighborhoods where most violence,either police or criminal is taking place.My neighborhood is a mix of white and Asian,mostly Korean,with smaller numbers of other visible minorities.It is not a predominantly black neighborhood,and,for that reason I'm sure my view is possibly skewed.I simply don't have the same experience relating to police as most young black males.But I can understand the growing mistrust.

However,a preference for anarchy is an unacceptable solution to a  very real problem.Those suggesting it,including some individuals involved in Black Lives Matter,are simply jumping to the most extreme imaginable solution rather than suggesting other,less restrictive means.And they have the obligation not to simply oppose,but to involve themselves in proposing ways of bettering their communities.Dissent and outright opposition to police are not remotely the same thing.

What might some of the solutions look like?Well,perhaps restoring the idea of community policing would be a place to start.Restore the storefront police stations,put officers in the schools,require community service of law enforcement officers in the communities in which they work.So,along with patrolling the streets,officers would be involved in such things as coaching basketball or teaching literacy as part of their duties.

Moreover,does it not seem reasonable to actively recruit police officers from the communities being policed,especially where those communities are the ones that have identified trust issues with the police.Far better perhaps that enforcement be done by neighbors,rather than some random response by someone from outside those communities.It would seem to me that trust starts at home.

Reducing the militarization  of police should be a higher priority as well.This seems to have come about in the post 9/11 era.Whether it's actually as result of a perceived danger of terrorist attacks or not really can't be established for certain.But I would note,that that perceived danger has grown into something other than a war on terror.It's grown into an undeclared war on Islam and on Muslims,many of whom are people of color living in those communities where police violence is most prevalent.Simply put,no government should be in the business of fighting an undeclared war,anywhere.Thus,heavily militarized police in some areas is going to be seen as existentially hostile.It's hard to view police as being there for your safety,as being someone to be trusted when it appears that you have been identified as an enemy.

Ideally  I would like to see organizations such as Black Lives Matter proposing constructive solutions to the current situation.But that means they will have to drop the posture of complete opposition and take up an approach of diligent dissent.But to declare a preference for anarchy is simply an abdication of responsibility for ones own community and ones own best interests.

                                                                                         Blyndpapaya

Paid Motherhood.

Some stories I've seemed to be hearing all of my life,or at least all of my adult life.Recently a friend of mine was lamenting how,in this day and age,in this expensive city we live in,that there seems all too little time to spend with her two children.She is employed in the IT industry,as is her husband.Both incomes are needed to get by in this economy.So,her children start their career early too,that career being daily attendance at a child care center.They are up at the crack of dawn,then hustled into a car and delivered to the childcare center before their parents are off on a rather long commute.By the time nine o'clock rolls around,both  parents and children have already logged about three hours.My friend seems to think there is something wrong with this picture.You see,she'd really like to be a full time mother.And just for the record,I'm with her.There must be a better way.

Now I know that my comments here are likely to be controversial There is a lot of truth in the old adage that "The hand that rocks the cradle moves the world". I'm likely to draw the ire of radical ,and perhaps some not so radical feminists as well.Fair enough.But I'm kind of stuck on the idea that the world would be a better place if children were raised by their mothers.That is,if the economic reality was such that mothers could be full time mothers,our society would be much better off.To be sure,I'm not saying that mothers should be compelled  to stay at home.I note that my friend has indicated a preference that may not be shared by all.The problem is that it's not a realistic preference.Working mothers have become the rule,not the exception even in most two parent homes.And the result is that kids don't really get to be kids.They are up early,separated from loving parents and left to learn their values from the daycare industry.From professionals rather than close family.

For years here in Canada,we've been hearing about a national childcare strategy,but nothing much ever seems to come of it.It's a hot topic at election time,then seems to find it's way onto a political back burner until the next election cycle.My question is this.Even if we agree that government should be involved in providing childcare,could it be that they are barking up the wrong tree? Instead of  supporting facility based child care and it's attendant heavily bureaucratized industry,funded by tax payers,why not simply compensate parents directly for remaining in the home and raising children?

I don't want to suggest that the state of the world,as we find it is the result of mothers not being at home with young children.To be certain there is very little that could be seen as a direct causal link.But the state of society,and we only have to briefly open any given newspaper to be convinced of this,is rather scary.It's simply time to try something radically different.It's time to try teaching values at home,simply to try to overcome a world that is increasingly hostile and disrespectful,even dangerous.So if we really believe that it's the hand that rocks the cradle that moves the world,it's time to start making it possible for parents to teach values at home. It's time that there was a viable alternative to having children learn in their early formative years,only those values that are available from their particular non-parental caregivers.

Raising children is an investment.Paid childcare staff,however good they may be cannot take the place of loving parents.So I'm simply suggesting that we pay mothers to stay in the home,if they wish to.Surely it's preferable to our current view of young children as being a commodity that drives the childcare industry.It really comes down to a question of value. In my world,the opportunity  to have a true childhood is to be valued over the existence of children as cogs in the industrial wheel that drives the childcare sector. Daily,ongoing interaction between child and parent is to be valued over hurried interactions dictated by the reality of the rat race,by children and parents both who are simply going through the motions of communications that are less than they could or should be.

So,it's time for government to step up and try to structure a better society.That starts at home,and it takes financial commitment,which we should all be calling on our law makers to make.I am convinced that it will be worth it,but it involves valuing family and,ultimately society over narrow corporate interests.

                                                                                       Blyndpapaya

What is the point behind "Black Lives Matter?"

I'll have to admit,I didn't intend to publish today.For reasons of my own,completely unrelated to current news,I'm not really fit company for any other living soul today,and so it would have been  better to hold off for a day or two. I've never really considered op-ed improv to be the best activity for a thoughtful writer.Just too much chance of getting something wrong.But I just feel compelled.

Yesterday I saw a video that I consider to be among the most disturbing things I've ever witnessed.I'm not going to describe it in any detail,as most of you have likely seen it too.It was a video of a cop shooting a black man.And,it was not the only incident of black death coming at the hands of law enforcement officers this week.We could hope and pray it will be the last.We'd be deluding ourselves.

I've tried hard to overcome that old cliche about the frog in the pot of boiling water,but it's time to jump out of the pot. I've just realized what is really happening to our society,and by that I mean American society,but not limited to American society.I wonder why it took me so long to realize...

I want to think about the idea that Black Lives Matter.Why would anyone be saying something that on one level would seem so profoundly obvious? My knee jerk reaction to this is that of course they matter.All lives matter. I've responded to friends in exactly those words dozens of times.And to right minded people,I'm sure it seems right.But are we really living that ideal out in modern society in our daily lives? Time to think.

Black Lives Matter,I believe must be understood as a response to reality,even if that is not my reality,or your reality.The reason that such an obvious belief is turned into a modern day crusade is that at some level,we've ceased to be a life affirming society.Perhaps at every level.

It's a bit hard to see where it all began.In the Jim Crow Era?Perhaps.With Roe V.Wade? Again,perhaps.We are some forty years down that road and the world today,right now seems worse than it's ever been,and yet it seems to be spiraling further downward,and I have the most profound fear of where this all will end.Jim Crow would seem to be making a comeback. And while I cannot logically connect our current predicament with Roe V. Wade,I believe it's no mere coincidence that they occur in the same general era.I could keep heaping eggs into this basket:the right to die,which is evolving into a responsibility to die,though that's still largely unstated but felt.It may evolve into a value. Islamophobia. Just the latest form of xenophobia.Let's just build a fence.The problem is that what that really does is that it reveals a very real intent to wish those who are not like us out of existence as an ideal.That could apply to homeless people,disabled or aged people,people politically dissimilar to us,people black,red,yellow or purple with green spots.Depriving anyone of the full rights of society,including their life is nothing less than wishing them dead,and,really,how dare any of us do that.What a completely sick and depraved world we've become.

So now there are numerous police officers shot down in Dallas.Shot at a protest over the killing of yet another black man.Another response to reality?Likely.I'm not satisfied that we can yet connect this incident to Black Lives Matter,though many today in my community are now calling them terrorists.For my part,I want to wait and see.But,let me say that either way,Black Lives Matter exists because somewhere along the line we've said individually or collectively,"life may matter,but not all life matters equally.Perhaps it doesn't matter very much." How much of the problem lies in the idea that life doesn't seem to make as much difference to us,or at least to as many of us as it once did? And yes,Police lives matter too.So do all lives.

Today,I find myself disenchanted,with particular events,and with the world in general.And disenchanted is a dangerous thing to be.We need to find a way to get something we once valued back,before this world changes our brains to the point where we can no longer recall why we ever valued life.Easier said than done maybe.Where do we start? Have you hugged your kids today? Have you told someone how much they matter to you,or have you just assumed they knew? Have you been kind to someone,or is that a little lacking? Have you been continually in prayer,even for those you despise? These are all life affirming activities,however small.If you see a Muslim family on the way to mosque today,smile at them.We used to believe in human kindness not so long ago.Can you imagine that a person,as  dissimilar to you as your mind will let you see is worth every bit as much respect as you or your closest friends? It's not going to make all the killing stop.But we've reached a critical mass of hatred,fear,distrust and lack of reverence for life.We may be pushing a boulder uphill,but if we don't make the effort,if we don't critically examine our ways,our secret thoughts,that critical mass will overcome us,change our values forever,maybe even destroy us all.Whatever our various beliefs,life was intended to be held sacred.I needs to be so again

                                                                               Blyndpapaya.