candy floss and hawkers vs. fresh fruit and veggies...Nov. 8 beckons

Spending an hour with Rachel Maddow last night turned the presidential race into nothing short of frightening.

That is not melodrama. 

The host played footage of the recent Alt Right convention in Washington D.C. in which various speakers proudly declared two things:

1     1)They are at root a racist organization seeking a pure white United States

2     2)They support and are supported by Donald Trump and his campaign for the presidency.

They have adopted a graphic of what they call a “smug frog” they call Pepe, as their logo and Ms Maddow’s team dug up a piece of video from a recent Hillary Clinton speech decrying the Alt Right in which, at a quiet pivotal moment, someone in the back of the room cries out “Pepe!” attempting to stick the finger of the Alt Right in Ms Clinton’s eye.

And these disclosures come on the same day that Trump attempts to wash his hands of the “birther” movement, his signal card in his rise to political prominence, by heading the racist sabotage that Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore was not a legitimate candidate for the presidency. Only rather than apologize for the racist defamation of Obama, he blamed Hillary Clinton and her 2008 campaign against Obama for starting the smear, just another of his many lies.

It is the same day on which the Black Caucus came out to the microphone to demand an apology from Trump to the president and to the American people for his racist “birther” movement. One by one they drew a deep line in the sand of American history, openly calling for the electorate, black, Latino, Asian, and white, not to walk but to run to the polls to defeat Trump. Cogently, these speakers, all of them elected members of Congress, pointed out that Trump would never have done to Romney, or McCain or any other ‘white’ candidate for president what he did to Obama. They called Trump sinister for having the gall to pin the birther movement’s origin on Hillary Clinton, in spite of the fact there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

As Ms Clinton put it, the Trump political rise started with his call for the president to produce his birth certificate, and even when it was produced, Trump was still not satisfied, demanding his transcripts from Harvard and pouring scepticism on the veracity of the birth certificate itself. Today, still, a majority of Republican voters believe that Obama was not born in the United States, illustrating how, if a lie is repeated often enough, there will be a large number of people who come to believe it.

And that fact, that people are gullible, especially to lies that tie in with their perspective on the world, lies that support and sustain their fears, and lies that complement their angst about whatever dramatic change has occurred, especially something as historic as the election of the first black president in the history of the union, is also at the core of the Trump campaign. It is not only outrageous statements, it is also complete fabrications and even threats that are the currency of the Trump campaign.

Yesterday too, Trump called for the disarming of the secret service detail attached to Ms Clinton “and then see what happens to her”…and afterward denying any threat was implied. (His statement was based on her proposal to restrict gun ownership.) For the last 120 days of a presidential campaign, candidates from the major parties are assigned secret service details, following the death of Robert Kennedy in the throes of his own presidential campaign in 1968.

Racism, lies, a tax scheme that demonstrably favours the rich, more lies, a wall to keep immigrants out, more lies, hollow promises, more lies, unveiling his new hotel amid the presidential campaign while committing never to use the presidency to grow his business, another blatant lie, cheerleading Vladimir Putin, while disavowing knowledge that he was appearing on a television show (with Larry King ) that would air in Moscow, another ruse, a shock of died hair to cover a bald head, another act of deception, encouraging the Russians to hack the emails of his opponent, denouncing the viability of NATO, denying the science of global warming and climate change….these are just a few of the many insults the Republican candidate for the most powerful office in the world has inflicted on the world, and especially on the electorate.

And, to add more insult to injury, he has done it all without a moment of shame, or remorse, or reflection, or retraction or even humility….of course no humility. It is at the core of his being that he demonstrates no humility, even breaking the accepted ground rules of no overt campaigning in the black church in Flint Michigan, and then having to be reined in by the female pastor.

And what is truly shocking is that the race is “tightening” with people around the country lauding his “take no prisoners” approach (right out of Pepe’s playbook), refusing to take in and to reflect upon the kind of presidency Trump would offer, and “straight talk” being considered “leadership” and not bullying…

Will yesterday be the watershed moment that wakens millennials, that turns suburban women away from Trump and back toward Clinton, that celebrates the entry of both Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders into the campaign as Clinton surrogates and that finally witnesses the sabotage of Trump by Trump in the eyes of a large majority of the electorate?

The debates, in ten days, will likely generate a “huuuge” audience, (with a nod to Bernie Sanders), giving the voters yet another opportunity to see through the façade of the most dishonest, the most deceptive and the most arrogant candidate, as well as the least prepared and least ready to commit to the kind of preparation needed to serve as president.

Can the Black Caucus, the First Lady, the President, the former president, the Vice-president, the military and national security establishment, the major newspapers and a large cadre of Republican leaders all united in their denunciation of Trump and in their support of Ms Clinton be enough to overcome the addiction of the American people to reality television, and the reality television candidate? Can this election demonstrate the strength of will of the American people to reject “fast food” for a “healthy diet” of political nourishment?

The girth that straddles television screens when the cameras pan many streets in urban centres across the land would only generate scepticism and fear and angst that the appetite for “sugar and salt” will continue to ‘trump’ the need for fresh vegetables and fruit.

That would be the “change” in this “change election” that would offer hope and health for the children and grandchildren of the electorate. It is, however, a very hard “sell” in a country awash in pink candy floss, effete blond hair, hollow promises and anti-hero fixation. And Ms Clinton will need all the help she can muster to overcome the cultural odds against her winning.

Truth: the first casualty in war and in the current presidential campaign

The American media are failing in their attempt to deliver on “balanced reporting,” the mantra on which the education of journalists is based, in their coverage of the presidential race.

And the reason is obvious.

Trump has so trashed the normal definition of civility, professional deportment and even truth telling while trashing the Republican opponents in the primaries, with the help of the media who stood mouths gaping and jaws dropped, along with the rest of the world, that they have been forced into what really amounts to a “false equivalence.”

There is no way to compare, effectively and objectively, the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, or the candidates themselves.

As Joe Scarborough put it yesterday morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, “Donald Trump is running on the strength of his personality!” And then, Trump runs off at the mouth, yesterday afternoon in Iowa, with words that depict the precise opposite of what is really going on: Hillary Clinton is running a campaign based exclusively on fear, while I am presenting detailed policies and you can go to our website for those details.

Talk about projection: pouring onto the other precisely the contempt with which you are treating the electorate. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton remains in Chapaqua resting and suffering from bout of pneumonia, at first undisclosed, then dismissed as “being overheated” and finally acknowledged. Trump, then, in what is obviously another attempt to change the channel, announces some vague notion of reducing the costs of child care, a phrase calculated to generate at least a passing notice from the millions of young parents, especially single parents, of whom there are many. But it is only the mention of the idea, “reduced cost of child care” that the Trump campaign hopes will stick, in a campaign so overflowing with “bullet words” that really no articulate policy debate can or will occur.

Mired under the political firestorm of her uttering “basket of deplorables” that comprise “half” of Trump’s supporters, Ms Clinton has retracted the word “half” and not the rest of the mis-step. This latest brouhaha has prompted news talking heads to ask the Trump surrogates if they will use the word “deplorable” to describe David Duke, a Trump supporter and leader of the KKK. Trump’s running mate declined to use the word deplorable, preferring “civility” in political debate. Doubtless, the Pence-lipstick cannot and will not cover up the Trump “pig” of the lexicon of contemptible and contemptuous utterances that have poured out of Trump’s mouth, without causing even a mere breeze, let alone the fire storm that ensued following Hillary’s mistake. And this dynamic, of firestorm compared with silence and calm is at the heart of the dilemma facing both reporters and voters.

Trump is not Teflon. Trump is not and must not continue to be immune from the kind of public contempt for his vile mouth, and the attitudes and beliefs his mouth attests to, and President Obama is trying to make that case. As the “surrogate-in-chief” for Hillary, (topping both Bill and Chelsea) Obama scorns Trump’s appearance on Russian television, lauding Putin, as his “strong leader” role model. Obama then turns his attention to the comparison of the two candidates on foreign policy: Hillary having travelled to more countries than any previous Secretary of State, while Trump is “in no way shape or form qualified to represent this country and be its commander in chief.” And then, comparing the Clinton Foundation with the Trump foundation, the one saves hundreds of lives, the other sees Trump taking money from people and buying a six-foot portrait of himself.

It is far from a continuation of the Obama presidency that Obama is pursuing so vigorously; it is the stability and the reputation of the country itself that is at stake. And, yet, the national polls have Hillary Clinton holding only a 4-point lead over Trump, with the gap closing. And why there are any Republicans of note supporting Trump is question the party will have to answer for years.

Treating Trump as Teflon, however, rather than smothering him with his own words, as the media has Clinton, leaves many unanswered questions about the adaptability, the integrity and the credibility of the fourth estate. Each of his Republican opponents in the primary tried, and failed dismally, to bury Trump with his own words, his own attitudes, his own vacuity, and lack complete lack of any real qualifications for the White House. The media has also mounted a highly transitory and forgettable attack on his candidacy. Little wonder the president rhetorically asks his Philadelphia crowd yesterday to “let me vent” about how the media has covered the two candidates….

There is clearly a large dose of misogyny in the electorate, reflected by the Trump candidate, as well as by the media. But there is also a large dose of “convention” about how to treat anyone who has secured the nomination of his/her party for the top job. Negatively comparing the campaign for the presidency to a “reality tv show”, while accurate and compelling is still not enough. The man so exceeds even the most basic requirements for the office, that some leading Republican party members have been willing to state the obvious, on television, and those statements have been aired as pseudo- or quasi-surrogates for Clinton. However, whoever risks attacking Trump is immediately punched in the face, the mouth and the character by Trump himself, as a “loser” or as “unqualified” or as a “racist” or “low energy” or “look at that face” or “corrupt” or “dishonest” (the last two now reserved almost exclusively for Hillary.

The national media has, thankfully, never adopted practices and policies and approaches that would be relevant and applicable to a grade nine election for class president. They have analysed the words, the ideas and the overall presentation of candidates including their gaffes, but, for example the “health of the candidate” or the source of the reporting, or the venue for the reporting (tomorrow on Dr. Oz for Trump, without any embarrassing questions) have never been so microscopically managed and discussed in any presidential debate, while the president seems the only one whose credible castigation of the Trump candidacy holds up under scrutiny.

That may be Hillary’s best campaign strategy: to let Obama be Obama, defending her character, her record, her strength, her steadiness and her “qualifications better than anyone who has run for the presidency”. Trump’s charge, “Why isn’t Obama doing his job rather than campaigning for Hillary?” acknowledges the impact of the Obama defense.

Nevertheless, as in war, where the “truth is the first casualty”, so too in especially this campaign, there are so few facts, facts on which the candidates can based their respective positions, and holding the candidates to a respect for both the fine print (literal) and the spirit of the facts, has apparently become impossible. As a result, the electorate is being fed a diet of “character assassinating bullets”. Trump obviously does not have respect for the kind of homework, the preparation that demands a command of the details over which the next president will have to preside, nor, apparently does he respect the electorate enough to  honour them through such preparation, and the accompanying commitment to an intellectual apprehension of how the mountain of information can be managed, and how the country might be led, should the candidate be successful. All of those conventional features of a presidential campaign are aspects to which Hillary Clinton has paid considerable attention, through inordinate discipline, strategic planning and policy development. So on that basis alone, along with so many others, she deserves the respect of the media, and the electorate.

Are we ironically watching one of the many impacts of our technological revolution, through the collection, compilation, storage and even the digital manipulations of data, and the drowning of public and social media and the people being served, resulting in the complete disregard for and apprehension of the meaning of that tidal wave of information? Has the digital age helped to produce Donald Trump’s candidacy, and the “reality television” foundation that has total disregard for the other, and for the facts?

It was not long ago that Senator Patrick Moynahan from New York famously said, (a statement quoted elsewhere in this space) “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts!” His expectation, even requirement of his political debating competitors, although reasonable, professional and minimal, it would seem, especially in the competition for the highest office in the United States, seems to have dissipated into the shadows of history.

It is the facts that are missing from this episode of presidential electioneering….and Hillary stands, as do we all, to lose, if this pattern continues.

Although it may seem pretentious and certainly unseemly for a Canadian to think out loud about how a minimal standard of public access and knowledge of at least a primer of basic facts, so that public debate would have some agreed-upon data and the electorate could then, at least conceivably, make judgements on both how the candidates have done their homework, and what proposals they have offered, in their pursuit of votes.

The current shouting match, essentially each candidate’s “throwing mud at the other” has brought politics itself, the media, and the competition for the world’s most powerful office down to a mere caricature of what it could be.

Ironically, perhaps both Republicans and Democrats could agree to what could be termed the “trump law” that requires all presidential candidates to submit their campaigns to a minimum standard of verifiable information, objectively and scientifically derived data, to which all candidates could and would subscribe and then any treatment of those facts could comprise the roots of the differences in debate. Spending millions on fact-checking, similar to the heavy burden of surveillance and intelligence in the national security arena, and padding the profits of private insurance companies through health care policies are all costs that impede the effective functioning of democracy.

Or course, it is a radical idea that has no chance of getting traction in the U.S.  based on its naivety, its “state control” of the facts and its “failure to support the “openness” of the liberal democracy. However, somehow, the existing agencies, and their absolute dependence on ratings and advertising dollars, in a highly competitive marketplace are not functioning in support of the long-term interests of the nation, and even of the world. And without a minimal standard of public data, the media has fallen into the trap of the “sensational extreme battering” (in pursuit of predictable ratings!) without the deployment of what was once considered some of the most exemplary thinking, imagination and rhetoric by candidates who wanted to be leaders of the world. 

Resisting the bobble-heads of contemporary history

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDF party is defeated in her home state of Mecklenberg-Western Pomerania by the AfD, an anti-immigrant, anti-austerity party.

This is a quote from Merkel, while speaking to the Bundestag, following the vote this week:

"If we seek to get the better of each other for short-term gain … the ones who'll win are those who depend on slogans and simple answers," she said. "I am quite certain if we bite our tongues and stick to the truth then we'll win back the most important thing that we need, the trust of the people." (From Don Murray’s piece, Germany anti-refugee vote leaves Merkel in a Mess on CBC News website, September 09, 2016)

One has to wonder if her words are not applicable to the world community. It seems that Trump’s whole campaign is based on the latest dishonest, “trumped-up” tweet. In fact, one enterprising and creative report, MSNBC’s AMJoy, ran the sound of a bird tweeting through a narrative overview of Trump’s evolving slanderous “birther” history, denouncing the eligibility of Obama as president, because he was not born in the U.S.

It is not only Merkel’s political future that is in a “mess”.

On the same newscast announcing the agreement between the United States and Russia for a cease-fire (what number is this?) in Syria, the Russians were expressing scepticism that it would hold, and since the announcement, another 90 people have been killed by cluster bombs in the conflict. And this cancerous war has been spewing carnage for FIVE years, not only without a let-up, but the conflict has grown even more complicated with both Russia and the United States flying missile-dropping sorties over the country, without even a joint agreement to refrain from interfering with each other’s manoeuvres. Their declaration that, should this ceasefire hold, they will jointly attack ISIS, is one only a fantasy-addict would trust.

Afghanistan provides nearly daily headlines of another bomb and more deaths. Iraq’s headlines are black with the ink of (it seems) almost weekly suicide bombings and resulting deaths.

That nuclear device, tested underground by the North Koreans this past week, nearly equal to the device that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, killing some 150,000 and leaving thousands more deformed, sick and dying, has catapulted the world into yet another layer of both frustration and angst.

And of course, not only can we as individuals, it seems, do anything to change the course of tin-pot dictators like Kim Jong Un, it would seem that sanctions imposed by other countries without serious implementation and monitoring have or will do much to “dry his powder” and the threat of North Korea’s growing capability to produce and “missilize” smaller devices that could reach the United States increases daily.

Trump’s rhetoric, irresponsibily, sounds like Kim’s actions. Just yesterday, reports surfaced indicating that Trump would attack the Iranian fleet if they harassed the United States ships in the Strait of Hormuz. This is precisely the kind of situation that Obama has worked so hard to de-escalate, to ‘talk-down’ and to bring to a more hopeful and more long-standing resolution. And it is precisely the kind of diplomacy for which his political opponents continue to revile him and his presidency. And it is precisely Obama’s political discipline that is underlying the anger and the threat posed by Trump himself. Kim’s bombast, just like Trump’s bombast, while they may be headline grabbing, and media manipulation, cannot be trivialized because each man is so unpredictable and so volatile and so ego-maniacal and so fundamentally unworthy of TRUST, (ironically, Trump’s primary attack on Clinton is that she cannot be trusted!). And giving Trump the nuclear “codes” (simply the most dangerous military machine in this history of humankind) linked to his not-so-whispered hints that he might agree to Japan’s acquiring nuclear weapons, and his “bomb the hell out of ‘em” rhetoric, enmeshed with his deport, exclude, “purify” and “isolate” goals as his method of “making America great” scares the heaven out of anyone’s imagination, whether they live in the U.S. or not.

Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment, referring to the hatreds she painted half of Trump’s supporters as embodying, (sexism, racism, Islamaphobia, homophobia) may not have been politically savvy. It certainly gives talking points to Trump surrogates (really sycophants!) and injects a buzz into the media’s work schedule. By comparison, however, it demonstrates a kind of “reality check” for which her opponents are categorically unprepared and pathologically denying.

Fear of the “other” is another element in the political fuel of the current world ‘mess’. The AfD party in Germany is saying “enough” to the immigration policy of Merkel. And the Trump gang is saying “enough” of the moderation and the open-door policy to granting immigrants, both Latino and especially Muslim, a welcoming to their newly adopted homeland. In both cases, these “unwanted” people are either striving for a better life for themselves and their families, and/or fleeing conditions which no American or German would tolerate. Racism, stoked in the United States, by a contempt for the first Black President, and enflamed by an army of refugees crossing seas and land boundaries in Europe provokes calls for “walls” both in Calais and on the Mexican border. It has already produced wire fences along some European borders.

There is a sanitized and detached quality to the rhetoric of people like Justin Trudeau, when speaking at the close of the G-20 Conference in China, advocating free trade and a pushback against isolation. However, there is a rising tide among the Trump supporters and the anti-immigrant parties in Europe of hatred and fear and isolationism that has already morphed into the very dangerous nationalism that lies at the centre of groups like the KKK, the Nazi’s and the current far-right parties that are seeking power in many quarters.

And their political ambitions cannot and must not be sanitized, rendered objectively clinical and thereby rationalized or normalized. They are dangerous; they are determined; they are well funded; they are well organized; they are media-savvy; and they threaten the kind of geopolitical as well as national stability in many areas of the globe. They are, in short, parties of collected resentments and bitterness and they are based on racial hatred and contempt.

Clinton’s hosting the “intelligence and national security” seminar, and then following the bipartisan meeting with a sombre and sober and very “quiet” press conference provide a graphic, and for those really listening, a hopeful political shift in the narrowing opinion polls. As one insightful Democratic analyst put it, on Smerconish on CNN yesterday, it is not that Trump’s numbers are rising; it is that Clinton’s have been falling.  

Bombs, and by inference, explosive rhetoric, are neither fruitful nor determinant in healing the wounded pride of an individual, or of a nation. And when frustration and anger reach a “boiling point” then reason and diplomacy and the physical and emotional and intellectual act of listening and really hearing one’s adversary slip out through the crack under the door, or out through an open window, leaving the most important and most effective options out of reach.

And facing this kind of “one-up” game of geopolitics that takes its timing and its ‘thrill-seeking’ from the massive video-gaming universe, and the accompanying “wipe-out” extremism, any attempt to counter this “culture” of extreme and instant “victory” through such longer-term agreements for ceasefires, reminds us of the punishment of Sisyphus condemned to pushing a rock uphill only to find it descending upon him with every thrust.

The cornerstone of their political rhetoric and their advertising is “slogans and simple answers” (just as Chancellor Merkel says above) and they are feeding an insatiable appetite for quick, simple and devastating answers to very complex and tightly knotted enmeshments of competing and unyielding interests, foes really. The ‘silver bullet’ is a cliché because it is both true and deeply and profoundly desired. And the more angst the people feel, the more intense is the desire for a quick and facile, (and of course glib and flippant and superficial and uninformed and unwilling to become informed) answer.

Kim’s silver bullet is a missile-launched nuclear warhead, pointed straight at both South Korea and the United States. Trump’s silver bullet is: a wall, a deportation order, a missile into an Iranian ship, another verbal projectile into the mid-section of Hillary Clinton, another ‘firing’ of another opponent….and they are all of the same immature mind-set. These silver bullets generate headlines; they generate fear and they are the minimalist vocabulary of the most naïve and dangerous minds that seek to lead.

And together, we ordinary people must reject both their methods and their ambition to take positions of responsibility. And in order to discharge that responsibility, we must shake off our own  fears and our resistance to accept the short-term fix, the silver bullets, and to bear down for the long-term, sustainable and  durable resolutions. Our own reservoir of patience, our own reservoir of tolerance of ‘the other’, our own reservoir of resistance to violence in all forms as the preferred solutions and our resistance to “political tranquilizing pills” of these glib and hollow sales pitches from opportunists like Kim and Trump are being stretched and will continue to be tested so long as the dollar drives the media machine of the instant entertainment drama.

We cannot permit the power-driven, politically opportunistic bobble-heads to seduce us, with their persons nor with their hollow promises.

Celebrating a Rise in Literacy Rates on Literacy Day, 2016

“Literacy is essential for the success of the new global agenda. It provides men and women with skills to shape the world according to their dreams and aspirations,” UNESCO's Director-General Irena Bokova told the two-day anniversary event, titled Reading the Past, Writing the Future, which is also this year's theme for the Day.

“In a world under pressure, literacy is a source of dignity and rights. In a world changing quickly, literacy is the foundation for inclusive and resilient societies,” she said. “Literacy is a transformational force, to combat poverty, to advance gender equality, to improve family health, to protect the environment, to promote democratic participation.”

Worldwide there are 758 million adults who cannot read or write a simple sentence, two thirds of them women and with the greatest bottlenecks to progress in Africa, according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

The event will review achievements and lessons learned over the last half century and identify challenges and fresh solutions.

She said that considerable efforts countries made with partners had raised the global adult literacy rate from 61 per cent in 1960 to 85 per cent in 2015 and that global youth literacy had reached an encouraging 90 per cent in 2014. But, she added, much work remained to be done. (From UN News Center, September 8, 2016)

Separated from the rest of the  many conflicts around the world, these statistics are commendable. Linked to the many conflicts, however, one has to wonder whether the rise in literacy brings with it a new and much higher benchmark for world leaders, given the much higher expectations of those who can read, who can express their deepest hopes and fears, and who can also make a significant contribution to the way the world works. That is not to say that there should be any let-up in the efforts to generate a 100% literacy rate. It is rather, an acknowledgement that with growing numbers of literate citizens there is far less wiggle room for political leadership to seek and find impunity from obvious and completely understood lapses in governance.

While it is an axiom of public discourse that the publlc has a very short memory, and politicians have ridden that axiom for centuries, both through the timing of the disclosure of less than positive results in the delivery of campaign promises, and through the swamping of bad news with stories that push bad news to the sidelines of the front pages, and the main newscasts, there is also no doubt that increased literacy generates a larger and more articulate and more demanding citizenry. It doesn't mattter whether the story emerges from Montreal with the illicit contributions to political campaigns from subsidized employees of SNC Lavelin, or from the capitals of a developing African country where corruption through the application of public funds to private ambitions, the corruption is the same, and the public understands that it is unacceptable,and that those who pilfer have to pay a price.

A literate citizenry also reads beyond the headlines. A literate citizenry reads for connections of people, of events, of how stories are connected, although the first glance would not provide adequate support for such connections.

A literate citizen is more likely to read the hidden agendas of the most upright public servants as well as to more fully experience and realize the import of reasonable and articulate positions advanced by credible and authentic leaders. Literacy, while amenable to statistical measurement in numbers, is also far more significant than statistics can demonstrate.

Literacy in a community raises the level of debate among the people at their workplaces, in their coffee shops, and in their kitchens. It also imposes a different standard on those writers, actors, directors and producers who seek to create films, documentaries, literate magazines and websites. Propaganda is much more likely to be exposed as the fraud it really is in a more literate community or nation, whether or not the political opportunities are available and accessible to make changes to the agents of such propaganda.

So with the rising level of global literacy, it is even more puzzling and disappointing that in some of the more "developed" countries (thinking here of both the United States and Russia) the political debate has devolved into a mud-wrestling kind of competition. Trump, for his part, has so driven both the language and the volume into the gutter, making people around the world shake their heads in disgust that he could have captured the nomination for the presidency. Putin, for his part, is also a highly manipulative agent of  the public information and so successful is he that his level of public approval, according to opinion polls that he probably controls, remains surprisingly high.

From a technological perspective, there is no doubt that these laptops and pads and cell phones have played and will continue to play a large role in the evolution, even revolution, in the rise in literacy around the world. No longer does anyone who can afford the least expensive device have to stay in the "dark" of ignorance, and thereby of innocence, as to what is going on in his near environment as well as across the world. Just yesterday, when asked what he would do about "Aleppo" if he were to become president, the Libertarian candidate for the White House instantly disqualified himself when he responded, "What is Aleppo?" Knowledge that Aleppo is a city under seige in Syria is known around the world, and a failure to be able  to respond by one seeking high public office is a sign that the candidate is simply not paying attention where attention must be paid. It was a highly publicized piece of information that, when then Governor's wife, Hillary Clinton began investigating the education system in Arkansas at the time her husband was Governor, she found teachers teaching students about World War ELEVEN, simply because the teachers did not comprehend the Roman numeral II, for World War TWO.

These are such glaring example of a failure to read, from sources upon whom the public places an expectation of literacy, as a sign of both comprehension and of competency to grapple with the issues required address in the respective arena, that they demonstrate a level of public expectation in all public figures.

Poetry, too, can and will flourish in a culture in which literacy abounds. The linguistic devices that provide the spice, the colour, the flavour and the evidence that the writer/speaker has an intimate grasp of the nature of the culture from whom s/he has emerged, and to whom s/he "speaks" are simply unavailable to the illiterate. Indeed, in some quarters, the use of irony, paradox, metaphor and simile along with onomatopoeia, along with literary structures like balanced sentences is considered a sign of intellectual snobbery. It is such reverse snobbery that is fueling Trump's political rise, along with other factors such as the "awe" of a stunned media that even while breaking all the conventional rules of the presidential campaigns in two hundred plus years of American history, he has still "defeated" a large slate of opponents. In the United States, the "east" is considered snobs, in much of the "west" (the frontier) in that country. So there is definitely a dark side to a rising literacy rate, especially among those who consider a less than nuanced vocabulary and world view, (remember George W. Bush's, "I do not do nuance!") to be more "salt of the earth," and "less high-fallutin'".

It is the art of those writers like Steinbeck and Hemingway (in the U.S.) who thread the very fine needle in their work finding a "sweet spot" that expresses timeless and profound truth in language that speaks to a very wide range of both intellects and educational backgrounds. In Canada, writers like Margaret Atwood, Margaret Laurence, and Raymond Souster have also found a large audience for their sophisticated fiction and poetry, where the literacy rate has remained relatively high for many years.

There is a real danger too in those tech devices, especially with the reduction of many communications to a minimal 140 characters. While such communication may make itself accessible to a large population, the nuance of those messages has to be omitted. And so, while literacy in its raw form gathers more people into its welcoming fold, we also have to guard against a potential decrease in readiness and in willingness to READ and to reflect on what is being read and to check out what one has read with others who are themselves committed to a full comprehension of whatever has been read.

Reading then, while a worthy goal for those engaged in enhanced literacy numbers, is also a responsibility for those who have acquired the ability to read. It means that we all continue to use language that expresses our most profound and compelling truths; it means that we continue to read and to talk to our circle about what we are reading; it means that, in effect, we are all teachers and agents and propagators of a literate culture. And that responsibility is one that is often derided but a large segment of the population especially in developed, and therefore also "literate" cultures.

Sound bytes, and headlines and tweets and four-letter belches, while all forms of communication and part of the arsenal of "literacy" are never going to be adequate to express the many complexities and subtleties of so many situations, especially as we more fully realize and accept that there is nothing that is not connected to everything else. And so, as academic disciplines' boundaries and languages merge in the academic analyses of issues from the biochemical lab to the political-economic theories to the history and the culture of music, art, literature and even theology, the need for the capacity and willingness of all people to integrate multiple forms of literacy far beyond the basic literacy that is needed simply to function grows.

So, our grandchildren will hopefully have measuring devices that probe the depth and the sophistication of world literacy that include various levels of language acuity, grace and flexibility. Northrop Frye's little work, The Educated Imagination, pointed out the difference between the language of "practical sense" and the language of "literature"...The former greases public discourse; the latter unites all things, through the linguistic devices of the simile and the metaphor. And the openness to these vast yet overlapping levels of language, including the freedom that can come only from a discernment of their relative importance and appropriateness, and an appreciation of the richness of both is a gift as valuable, if not as hotly pursued as clear water, air and land. That is the freedom that gives and enhances and sustains the life of the human spirit.

And it takes a whole world, not only a dedicated and honourable institution like the United Nations, to honour the access to that freedom through every communication no matter the device, the culture or the historic period. 

Retired Bishop urges us to "pray with your feet"

Spirituality of the barricades

Most mainline religious communities wallow in stale liturgies and rituals, what he calls theatrics, and have become socially, politically and culturally irrelevant. The dwindling numbers of these congregations rarely leave their houses of worship—which often are little more than social clubs for the elderly or the elites—to join the struggle in front-line communities or in groups such as Back Lives Matter or Occupy. He calls the outreach by most religious institutions largely meaningless, little more than a “patina of social service.” (Chris Hedges’ column, “Pray with your Feet,” speaking with retired Episcopal bishop, George Packard, Truthdig.com, originally posted November 15,2015 reposted August 30, 2016). Packard had joined a “foot protest” against another energy drilling project, near a nuclear waste storage site.

Hedges continues:

It is only the outlaws who will save us. And it is only among outlaws that Packard’s religious faith makes sense. The bishop in his church in the streets, worships surrounded by many who do not consider themselves religious, but who he sees as carrying the spirit and passion for justice and commitment to life that embody the essence of his faith and mine. Spirituality, he knows is found on the barricades.

The “spirituality of the barricades” may be something of an American initiative. Their country, founded and raised on rebellion, continues to see street protest as an integral arrow in its political quiver. Free speech, including even the most venomous speech, constitutes the staple in Trump’s political rhetoric. In Canada, on the other hand, born of smaller conflicts, and raised under a constitution that enshrines “peace order and good government”, we tend to prefer (or at least have for most of our history, with notable exceptions, including the recent physical and verbal protest of the National Energy Board hearing in Montreal) more moderate, less physical and more modest means both of celebration and also of protest. Nevertheless, the question of taking our spirituality to the barricades, where we will inevitably meet and get to know those who fit Packard’s description of fellow protesters, hangs over us.

It was former Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, The Right Reverend Ted Scott, who stood shoulder to shoulder with First Nations people when the logging companies threatened to clear their land. His example, model of leadership and foresighted courage, “his spirituality” to stand with the voiceless, has not found many followers in either Canada or the United States. We did not hear many church leaders complain publicly when Dudley George was murdered at Ipperwash. We do not hear many religious leaders speak publicly when the rivers flowing out of the tar sands in Northern Alberta are flooded with toxins in support of the First Nations communities whose water has been compromised. In fact, we have heard barely a whimper of protest from religious leaders about the literally hundreds of First Nations communities that live under “boil water” restrictions and have for decades. It is, in Canadian parlance, “not seemly” to become so politically vociferous. It would, perhaps, or maybe certainly, outrage the corporate suits who write the cheques that pay for the stained glass windows, the new organs, and the heating bills that keep the pews warm.

And perhaps even retired bishop Packard feels so compelled to join the foot protest following his formal retirement, when the pressure from peers is no longer a major factor in his decision to protest. 

There is a kind of separation, in many religious communities, between the activities of the “church” including the liturgy, the eucharist, the hymns, the church education program, the choir and its rehearsal of the music of Handel’s Messiah, for example, and the activities of the citizen as political citizen. There is a history of community leaders, many of them “deeply churched” who have also been the publishers of local community newspapers. And their editorial judgements have clearly been scarred deeply by their conviction of “not unsettling the establishments” in those very communities, thereby contributing significantly to a “conservative” and one could argue, “passive, resistant and compliant” political culture.

 And there is also a history of church leaders who rise in prominence in local community “respect” simply because they are “good church people” for attending and taking leadership roles in their churches. Many of these virtuous local icons, however, can be found leading protests for justice, although the public knowledge begging for such protests is widely disseminated, and they would have to be living under a rock not to know how serious those issues are, were, and likely will continue to be, without their taking concerted action.

I recall, with disdain, one church lay leader of my acquaintance, who proudly led the “No” campaign on a plebesite to determine whether alcoholic beverages would be served with meals in local dining rooms. That was 1961; as you have already guessed, the “Yes” side won. For decades now, I have waged a personal campaign to reduce both the numbers and the ferocity of the born-again fundamentalist crowd, cloned, at least in my view, as models of the late, and not-so-great Ian Paisley, he of so much infamy as leader of the protestants against the Roman Catholics in the “great troubles” as they have become known. In different space on this blog, the case has already been argued against the perverted theology of one of his clones, the clergy in whose church I was, I am ashamed to admit although long before his arrival, baptized. The church leaders of his “watch” were local businessmen whose reputation only grew after their conversion.

Inspired by Archbishop Scott, I naively ventured off in search of an inner self, thinking that I might be helped by a stint in both seminary and in pastoral relations, considering the obvious and demonstrated need, especially or men at forty-five who have been emotionally shut down since childhood, and who, inspite of working at least fourteen-sixteen hours each day, did not experience the kind of satisfaction and “meaning” they considered worthwhile and achievable. What I found were more conflicts between the “fundies” as they were the known, and the “liberals” as we were insulting dubbed, There were also some cursory looks at both scripture, including Greek and Hebrew, some philosophy of religion, a little psychology of religion, a little church history, some “holy hand-waving” as we called it, and along with a few stints as interns in parishes. There was no course or any attention given to conflict resolution/management, no celebration of the prophetic voice of ministry, no comprehensive examination of the current cultural issues facing both the church and the political culture and nothing even close to resembling the kind of praying with your feet being championed by both Hedges and Packard.

I do recall one homily in the Trinity College Chapel, delivered by Stephen Lewis, formerly leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, and also Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations, more recently leading his own foundation working feverishly to stamp out AIDS in Africa. I also recall spending an evening at Holy Blossom Temple listening to the recently deceased Jewish survivor of the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel. Another memorable evening occurred while listening to Sister Mary Jo Leddy who has spent much of her life and ministry helping refugees from war-torn, disease-stricken, poverty-ridden countries find a new home in Canada.

I was not familiar with the Paul Tillich scathing criticism of churches as fundamentally evil, so fixated on their own survival, growth and reputation until quite recently. However, since graduating and serving inside the church for a decade-plus, I have worked in parishes whose trust account had, in one case, a half-million dollars, without an active parish ministry to the poor, the voiceless, the homeless, all of whom were living within a stone’s throw of the gothic building where people worshipped every Sunday. I have also served in churches where a bare minimum of that “patina of social service’ was considered historic. One such example, was a project to collect soft and cuddly toys, animals to be shipping to war-torn Bosnia, in the late nineties. It was the first such “social justice” ministry undertaken by that small mission for decades if not forever and they proudly told anyone they met the total of some 2000+ stuffed animals were donated, collected and transferred to an agent for shipping overseas. Another act of prophetic ministry I was honoured to witness featured a near-homeless man purchasing unsold and out-of-fashion stock from a shoe retailer for 25cents a pair, and then selling them on the street corner at $.50/pair, and giving the proceeds to the church. The other members of the parish were dumbfounded at the sight of this little project.

There are countless examples of phone calls of commiseration, sympathy, comfort and empathy that are exchanged every day between and among church-goers, most of whom have know each other for decades, if not life-times, as they have clustered close to their ancestral neighbourhoods. However, millions have moved far from their ancestral homes, leaving their circle of neighbours, friends, business and professional colleagues and some have tried to penetrate the strongly gated communities known as parish churches.

“Gated communities” is not a phrase used flippantly. In every church in which I have worshipped or worked, there are gate-keepers, guarding the mostly cultural conventions of that church community, from how to fold the linen for the eucharist, to how to serve the eucharist, to how to collect and count the money, to how to greet and to welcome newcomers….a skill, by the way that can make or break a parish’s future growth.

And future growth, that corporate profit and loss stereotype, underpins every church parish on the continent, if not on all continents. And the way to measure “growth” is the normal corporate method of counting both dollars and numbers of seats in pews each Sunday morning. Churches that are mired in such a superficial “accounting” are, by definition, committing themselves and their futures to the control, the policies and the perspectives of the accountants. Money rules in such a culture, and anyone who think that ministry should be the primary goal is considered “airy-fairy” and out of touch with reality. So it is a very long stretch from a small local parish to a spirituality of the barricades given the fear that, if the people of the parish take a stand,  especially by protesting a local issue supported and sponsored by the establishment, and thereby offend that establishment where the money is housed, that their stream of cash will slow to a trickle or perhaps even dry up, and the church doors will close.

Churches “siamesed” to the corporate establishment in Canada at least include both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican. In the United States, the Episcopal church certainly holds a prominent positon in the footings of the U.S. corporate establishment. And, it is from this ‘establishment’ background that Bishop Packard emerges. Most would not think of linking people like Bishop Packard to the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England who fought so vigorously for miners when their working conditions and pay scale were being threatened.

There has been considerable contamination to the concept of the “prophetic voice” of the social gospel, the former having been suborned by the right-wing fundamentalist evangelical churches in the United States. And there is a considerable divide between the ‘christians’ who speak of being “saved” through grace, and those who hold that no one is ‘saved’ unless and until all are free from any of the many shackles both inherent and imposed…and these people are also among those who think one “livs” one’s faith. Praying with one’s feet would be a commendable even honourable way to practice such a faith.

The other difference today from previous decades, and more importantly centuries, (and the churches are stuck in their own history and tradition more than even the academics and the banks) is that we are far more aware of the issues facing the planet, the issues contaminating every stream and river, in each parish, and the evidence of the breakdown in corporate integrity that are snakes in the grass of every family, every town, and every country….whether we like to admit it or not.

Faith and ministry, then, takes on a whole new and different face, meaning and justification. There is a Biblical adage that holds “surrender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, surrender unto God the things that are His…..and that line is quickly and unshakeably blurring…given the ethic that one’s life carries responsibilities that bridge the public and the private domains of one’s life.

Whether or not Bishops like Packard would even be able to penetrate the conscience of the corporate “suits” whose obsession with corporate profit and personal ambition have no limits, is a far different proposition from the one he is pursuing in “praying with his feet.” And, for the record, the former goal is a subject that ought to be the curriculum of every seminary and theological school on every continent. Seminary postulants need to be guided in the mysteries and the theories of conflict resolution and also in the ministry of transformation, not only of social and economic and political structures, but also of the human heart and mind.

The priests who taught “Liberation Theology” in the fields of South America, basing their instruction and their lives on those passages of scripture that so directed their transformative political theology. Of course, the Vatican objected, fearful that their ministry would offend the political and economic establishment. This is not a new nor an insurmountable conflict.

And the sooner the churches abandon their enmeshment with the corporate culture and its mercenary values and aspirations, the sooner the churches will return to the work for which they were intended. However, once again, let’s not hold our breath waiting for such a metamorphosis. It will take, quite literally and metaphorically, an act of God, for that to happen….and those acts of God will take an army of Bishop Packards and Chris Hedges and thousands of others to being to fruition.

Are conservative thinkers putting lipstick on a pig again?

In an insightful piece in the current "The Atlantic,"* Peter Beinhart links two publications.  One from 1953 entitled, "The Captive Mind" by Czeslaw Milosz describes how Polish intellectuals came to embrace Stalinism....primarily because they wanted to belong to the masses. The other, a phantom website lasting only four months, entitled, "The Journal of American Greatness," written by pseudonyms making the case "for overthrowing Americas existing political order and replacing it with the raw, dynamic, intoxicating energy of Donald Trump.
Declaring liberal democracy 'dead' current commentators, like former George W. Bush speechwriter, Peggy Noonan is quoted by Beinhart:

The Beltway intelligentsia of the conservative movement continues to be upset about Mr. Trump's coming nomination and claim they'd' support him but they have been able to sleep at night. They slept well enough through two unwon wars, the great recession, and the refusal of Republican and Democratic administrations to stop illegal immigration.

Beinhart quotes from "The Journal of American Greatness," "Decius" (a pen name) distinguishes between "tyranny" and "Caesarism", the former taking absolute power by overthrowing a constitutional republic, whereas the latter takes absolute power but only when a constitutional republic has already collapsed on its own. (This distinction is borrowed from political theorist,  Leo Strauss.)

Putting lipstick on a pig, is a phrase made vernacular when a Vice-presidential candidate, the former Governor of Alaska, took the stage in the 2008 presidential election. And to attempt to justify Trump by using the distinction between whether  a constitutional republic has been overthrown or collapsed on its own  makes an assumption that challenges reality.
First, if the American republic has failed, over the last two decades, the evidence points to the Republican Party as the principal agent for the failure: first George W. Bush's worst mistake in American diplomatic history, the War in Iraq, and second, the Republican-controlled Congress' commitment to oppose and to thwart each and every proposal made by President Obama. The deregulation of Wall Street, while begun while President Clinton was in the White House, was enhanced and furthered by Dubya and the chicanery and deception that shrouded the instruments of the 2008-9 recession played a significant part in the mess Obama inherited. However, the 9/11 attacks, and the wars that ensued, starting from the moment Bush declared to the world, while standing on the rubble of the twin towers, "The whole world will hear from all of us soon!" plus the billions that have been spent on the seemingly mandatory "Homeland Security Monstrosity" left Obama and the country in a highly precarious position.
So now to champion Trump as the "Caesar' coming in to rescue the country from its own peril, because the constitutional republic as failed on its own not only trashes the truth. It makes one wonder if deception, lies, innuendo and propaganda have not replaced any semblance of integrity, at least in the Republican camp now led by Trump. Do the political operatives and the conservative intelligentsia really believe the Kool-aid they are drinking, that Obama and Clinton, whom they have married as the two-headed monster of their imagined dystopia, are the reason for and the evidence for their concoction of a failed constitutional republic, simply so they and Trump together can ride the wave of anger that has festered in the chests of 'grumpy old men' for years?
Projecting "dishonesty" and "untrustworthiness" on Hillary Clinton, for her failed and misleading statements and 'corrections' and 'forgetfulness' and for the potential, yet unproven mis-steps of the Clinton Foundation, says more about where the real culpability lies: within the conscience of the Republican/Trump party leadership.
They have to know that their secret meeting on the night Obama was first elected in 2008, to decide and to plan to thwart him at every turn, plus their impenetrable obstruction and defiance of every proposal and certainly of Obamacare itself, along with their refusal to give a hearing to and and up or down vote to Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court, plus their more recent refusal even to fund research to work toward a Zeka virus antidote is the pig on which they are attempting to paint this very thick and hopefully effective layer of lipstick. Their own agency in the stagnation and stench that has become "Washington" (the establishment) and then projecting that responsibility on Hillary Clinton, merely for her thirty-plus years in public life, (aided and abetted, unfortunately by Clinton herself, in her default 'legalese' language) is a step too far.
Although Trump cheerleader, Newt Gingrich, says "Trump is like the boy who says the emperor has no clothes", and while there is a kind of naive energy about such an impetuous observation and veneer of truth, it is the Republicans themselves who have no clothes.
Listening to Obama this morning from China, in his last press conference from his last G-20 Conference, one cannot help but note with awe and admiration his grasp of the subtleties of each and every issue, his command of the world stage, the respect he both has and has shared with other world leaders, (even though trust with Putin, for example, can never be taken for granted). His moderate, measured, balanced, far-sighted and 'well-tempered clavier' statesmanship is so far beyond anything the Republican leadership has, can or will offer in the next decade or more, that not only the United States but the whole world will be the lesser for his departure from office,
And while Hillary Clinton has the almost impossible task of attempting to fill Obama's shoes, while always being compared unflatteringly with her husband's ability to "explain" the most obtuse of issues in language everyone understands, she is nevertheless highly intelligent, in command of each file, (if slightly obsessive about the fine details), and a beavering if not over-achieving and committed hard worker whom every chief executive would want in his stable of talent.
Does she "connect" with the people with Obama's charisma, or even the charisma of her husband? No.
Does she have a hill to climb to surmount the political obstacles of debates, and the potential of more hacked emails being released?
Yes.
Is she aware of the many obstacles in her path to the White House?
Yes.
Does she have the promise and the guts and the fortitude to face both the obstacles and the many gordion knots that come to the President's desk every day?
Yes.
Is there any reason why ordinary people cannot discern between a monumental propaganda machine that distorts both micro and macro reality for political gain, and a somewhat 'under seige' first female candidate who must never ask people to vote for her because she is a woman?
Uncertain.
Will the world be more safe should Hillary become president, than should Trump ride his vacuous parade to victory?
Of course, of that there can be no doubt.
Will the American people see that their future and that of the world, not only their petty grievances, are being litigated in this campaign?
November 8 will tell the answer.












*Trumps' Intellectuals, Why are some conservative thinkers falling for Trump?, The Atlantic, September 2016

Some reflections on workplace bullying

Let's talk about bullying!!

Everyone knows that on-line bullying has resulted in suicides among teens in too many countries.
Everyone also knows about school-yard bullies, for whom vice-principals have a variety of sanctions.
Everyone knows that Trump is the biggest and the loudest and the most offensive bully on the political stage...helping to set a tone that makes bullying not only tolerable but also the "preferred option" in any conflict. And with some 700+ military bases around the planet, the United States is, without question, the most virulent military bully in world history....if and when they choose to deploy their "might".

However there are a growing number of scenarios at much lower and much less likely to be on the radar screen on any public daily newspaper, or any national or regional television set.
Bullying has, just as have many of the other instruments of  the many types and scenes of conflict, including racism, ageism, sexism and bossism, that kind of bullying that finds people in positions of responsibility in organizations taking liberties with their supervisees.

Some of the ways in which these dramas play out include a scene recently recounted by a friend.
It seems that an employee of a retail outlet, while off duty, was in search of service at that outlet, onyl to have to wait several seemingly endless minutes for that service. After a considerable interval, the now-customer spoke to those workers behind the counter who seemed to be otherwise occupied than waiting on the presenting customer: "Is anyone working here tonight!"  blurted out of her mouth in a less than "professional" tone.

The person behind the counter, new to the store, and the customer/employee were not known to each other, having had no opportunity to be introduced. After the completion of the transaction, the next morning when the worker who had served the customer the previous night learned who that customer really was, an employee in another department, she demanded of management that she be fired immediately.

Of course the other management personnel took up the issue with the "offending" customer, (who really only spoke up when normal and decent and reasonably expected customer service was not available) and the requisite apology ensued. At the scene of the apology, the recipient blurted, "It is a matter that is now closed!" when all present knew and agreed that such a closure was neither feasible nor truthful. The "signature" of the offending customer/employee had already been permanently and indelibly imprinted on the consciousness of the "behind-the-counter" employee, who, everyone knows will be on the lookout for an opportunity to get her revenge.

And, in this culture, such pursuit of personal revenge is not only condoned; it is in fact encouraged.
Whoever has the power to abuse, because he or she can, will abuse that power!

There will be no thought, discussion, policy implementation, or training, for the reluctant employee who refused to offer service when the customer appeared. That employee will proceed, superior in the knowledge that s/he has done nothing "wrong", has no record on his or her personnel file, and knowing full well that the person who was compelled to apologize would have that "black mark" on his/her record for the duration of his/her employment in that outlet. Furthermore, should that employee seek alternative employment, and request a letter of reference from the original employer, that letter might well contain the evidence from this scenario, thereby nullifying or at least impeding the next opportunity for that employee.

In effect, we have just witnessed an unstated, but nevertheless real, "ZERO TOLERANCE" option implemented by a single employee on another employee, without having to earn the inclusion of such a policy in the terms of employment at that outlet. Raise your voice, whether justified or not, is simply an act with which the contemporary employment culture will not tolerate. The person raising the voice, while legitimate, has nevertheless abdicated his right to fair treatment by raising his voice.
Of course, there is more than a little wrong with this picture.

 It leads to another equally, but almost imperceptible incident in which a transportation worker is delayed from loading his vehicle long past the normal deadline for departure, simply because those responsible for providing, assisting and monitoring the loading of the vehicle are engaged in a social visit, laughing and joking on the loading dock while the worker waits in silence. This is not a silly choice on the transport worker's part. Any protest would inevitably result in an "incident report" pointing to the unprofessional behaviour and attitude of the delayed driver, meanwhile exonerating the laughing and joking and delaying colleagues on the loading dock.

Another more inauspicious and potentially explosive, as well as highly complex both to investigate and to sanction, if not curtail, is the issue of "scent free workplaces". This has become especially troublesome in large organizations when chemicals heretofore unknown and certainly not injected into the hairsprays, the colognes, the deodorants and even the soaps we all use in our normal, professional daily lives. If and when a worker whose sensibilities to various scents is especially acute, to the point of generating migraine headaches, nausea, lack of concentration and virtually the inability to conduct the work assigned, encounters an offensive scent, not only will there be the inescapable personal symptoms, there will also be the inevitable political and organizational symptoms. These latter include the denial of the any knowledge or responsibility for the offending scent by all employees, the confusion of the health and safety department to find, isolate and determine the source of the offending scent, and the relationship wrinkles scattered or even rifle-shot directed toward the suffering worker.

And if and when the deniers learn when the complaints are coming from, there is a strong temptation to push back even harder with scents known to be offensive, in another act of scurrilous bullying, with the obvious and predictable impunity that no one will ever know the source of the offending scent, and will be unable, and certainly unwilling to impose sanctions on the responsible scent-bearing offender.

Once again, the person suffering from the situation, though no fault of his or her own, is the symptom-bearer of the organization, left to wonder if and when the next encounter with offending odours will occur.  And because any really effective remediation of the situation will require the expenditure of both time and resources to, it represents another "cost" to the organization, another symptom the organization seeks to avoid, through whatever approach works, to control costs.
And so, the suffering victim of the scent is, once again, without "due process" while the offending scent-generators go on their merry way, without having to address the issue.

Of course, this is another form of subtle yet highly disturbing bullying, especially when the one who is suffering from the offending scents in the first place, is also the one who is doing a professional job, while those bringing in the offending odours may be doing a reasonable and perhaps slightly less professional job with similar duties. Incipient and almost unchallengeable jealousy can be playing such a scenario, without those in positions of responsibilty being able to identify the attitude, and the bullying it generates.

And so, the "politics of the workplace" becomes an incubator for illness, depression, conflict and reduced levels of both performance and attendance. And only the symptom-bearer suffers. The others are rarely, if ever, required or expected, or even encouraged to change their cologne, their deodorant, their after-shave lotion.

And the bullying continues.
And the clock keeps ticking, just as it has done for centuries when people in power abuse that power through the most subtle and seemingly innocuous criticisms, like "that copy needs to be re-written" because it might offend one of our most generous advertisers, even though the content of the piece is both accurate and beneficial to the community. The journalist who wrote the piece does the editing and the re-write, at the beck and call of the publisher or the supervising editor, all the while knowing that his truth and his professional integrity have been compromised. and the argument from the Publisher will be, "If you do not like the editorial policy here, find somewhere else to write"

And it is this last attitude that is most offensive, especially in an economy in which there are literally thousands of highly qualified graduates driving cabs, and performing tasks far below their capability, their training and their vocational dreams. And there is no worker support or advocacy when employers, especially workplace owners can and do call their own shots in whom they hire and fire, without worry or even concern about being challenged on their decisions.

Never before in the last half century plus have workers been more open and vulnerable to abuse, in ethos in which the need for such advocacy and support is most needed. Unions, by definition, have absolutely no power to "grieve" workplace injustice or abuse, and most employers have so emasculated the unions in their workplace that the worker support is merely a papier mache facade.

And the hypocrisy therein, along with the attitude among people in positions of responsibility that "I can take whatever actions I wish without having to be concerned about the implications" add up to an intolerable workplace culture in hundreds if not thousands of workplaces where wages are flat-lined, unions are either outlawed or emasculated and the employment lines are growing.

To say "this is not a pretty picture" is at best an understatement, at worst a tragedy, with little or no hope of any change on the horizon.