Reflections on Easter Morning, 2017

It may be a function of your scribe’s limited intelligence, in not apprehending the depth, breadth and profundity of the geopolitical narratives that are spinning, seemingly out of control, across our television screens, twitter screens and newspaper headlines.

However, one has to wonder if the world, including all media outlets, and all political leaders of all stripes and ideologies, has not lost control of the management of the facts, the truths, and the integrated and substantive analysis of the many “boiling pots” of contention, either as individual pots or as a much more complicated and potentially interwoven “whole” which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Narratives have backgrounds, details of their impacting influences, details of the personalities who serve in official capacities, and details of “events” some of which are intended to grab headlines and the arrested attention of the world’s decision-makers, including their constituent demographics, or, as we used to say, their various “publics”.

Most people today have either abandoned, or never really possessed, a detailed memory of the various relationships between a single super power and the many ‘colony’ or daughter states, including the details of some of the more popular and well-documented historic events, like the Bay of Pigs, or the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Communism, the detested demonic political ideology of our childhood and early adulthood, is barely mentioned, except perhaps when referring to China or North Korea. Now, the world’s media focuses on individuals as the names and faces of the new “demons” with whom the world must tame, defang, or perhaps even depose.

Our memory, collectively speaking, like much of our comprehension and apprehension of most of the situations in our lives, is tissue-paper-thin. Our digital access to whatever question of fact we can’t quite remember enables such  a development. Our primary media focus on the hourly, daily and continual presentation of some headlined version of whatever seem to be positioned as the most important stories of the hour, with little if any reference to the comparative historic models that could be or are analogous. So we have much to feed our appetite for sensational and often frightening circumstances, as if the political headlines are imitating the extreme sport and thereby our collective appetite for the orgiastic.

Like last night’s overtime winning goals in the Stanley Cup playoffs, today’s news focuses on the Cecil B. DeMille production in Pyongyang to celebrate the 105^th birthday of the founder of North Korea. Unlike last night’s winning goals, the Korean build-up of nuclear weapons has serious implications for all the people of the world. Yet the media tends to treat the sensationalism of both in a similar manner: with the ideas of winners and losers infecting both stories. The current occupant of the Oval Office, however, seems to  consider his ‘tweets’ to represent what passes for a “foreign policy”….without an over-arching strategy, without the necessary personnel of brain and memory and strategy capacity, without a sense that more than a single individual is holding all the levers of power. For its part, the media serves too much as national cheerleader, rushing to call both the missile strike in Syria and the MOAB drop in Afghanistan as two acts that demonstrate how Trump is becoming “presidential” without demanding the decision-making infrastructure, and the long-range objectives that serve more than the immediate narcissistic and insatible need of adulation of the chief executive. Jack Welsh appears on Smerconish on CNN, testifying to the president’s “full engagement” with the CEO’s gathered in the White House to explore policy options from his high 1% tower, engaging in the relative importance and relationship of health care legislation to tax reform, the former supposedly generating $900 billion in savings that would then be applied to the tax reform package that would inevitably benefit his 1% peers.

The Secretary of State appears on television from Moscow announcing the relationship between Russia and the United States is at a very low ebb (duh!), while accusing Putin and Lavrov of either or both knowing about or engaging in the bombing of Syrian men, women and children with sarin gas, while the Russians use their Security Council veto to kill any sanction on the Syrian dictator for the bomb and then support an investigation of the incident. Even China, for its part, abstained from the former vote, while supporting the latter.

Even Fareed Zakaria’s GPS on CNN headlines the “threat of thermo-nuclear war,” a phrase trumpeted by the North Korean dictator, in his never-ending and never-moderating march to nuclear weapons, and the missiles with which to launch them, both at South Korea and the United States. For Trump to try another “deal” with the Chinese, linking a better trade deal with their compliance in pressuring North Korea to climb down from their nuclear weapon, after nearly forty years of some of the best minds and most incisive thinkers in U.S. administrations of both parties having failed to halt this brinkmanship march. How Japan and China really feel about the threat from North Korea, while superficially both anxious and potentially instrumental, remains much of a mystery to us being fed on a ‘western’ media menu. Where Russia will move, in its alliance with the Iranians in support of Assad, also remains a mystery. Whether the  Russians and the Chinese are or are likely to be linked in their positions on the threat from North Korea, is also out of reach of most western observers.

Will the model of operating as a single, solo highly motivated and infinitely self-assured actor in international relations, demonstrated by Trump, motivate others like Putin, Assad, Kim Jung Un, Assad and the Chinese leader to move in the direction of the Trump model, in the face of growing importance, increased complexity and enhanced need for collaboration, co-operation, and shared decision-making processes and outcomes?

Or is what we are watching merely a full expression of the historic reality that populations in even “educated” and “progressive” and “democratic” nations and cultures are fundamentally uninformed, and resistant to becoming fully informed, and thereby fully engaged in the political processes that extend beyond whether or not Trump releases his tax returns, for which massive protests took place this weekend in many U.S. cities?

The convergence of digital technology, 24-7-365 mostly for-profit news media empires, the rise of fake news as another actor in the political information culture, and growth in secularization in western cultures in collision with the clinging to a fundamentalist and violent interpretation and expression of radical Islam, plus the globalization of terrorist tactics and networks, simultaneous with the shedding of millions of formerly well-paid jobs and the mounting and indisputable evidence that human activity is choking our shared environment could well generate a spike in “irritable bowel syndrome” of proportions far exceeding what the medical profession and the pharmaceutical professions’ capacity to treat.

Confusion, anxiety, an appetite for credible and verifiable information compendium, and people in power, and a co-dependent  and obsequious news profession who fail to warrant the public trust…these are some of the obvious and cogent forces that generate more of the same confusion and anxiety.

There is a strong theme of paranoia that permeates our public consciousness and public debate, emanating from many of the leaders of nations, that tends to shove them into both rhetoric and actions that are inflated, over-promised and thereby adding considerable cynicism and scepticism that the world is spinning out of control.

Perhaps it is a more sophisticated and educated and sceptical public that can see through the charade of many of the lies, half-truths, denials, veto’s and posturing that cataract from the “message machines” that support the public posturing of those leaders. And, hopefully, a penetrating scepticism, supported by an activist cadre of protesters, in all countries, to the lies and the half-truths to which many leaders seem enmeshed at least, if not addicted, will help to enable the people to reclaim their governments and the trust they must have in those governments in order to continue to participate as willing and compliant citizens.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the dystopia that tends to magnetize both the official media and the large proportion of the public looms more embedded in our loss of hope and trust in all our institutions.

However, on this Easter Morning in the Christian calendar, when the Christian world remembers, and worships over the re-birth and resurrection story of the Risen Christ, some of us want to invest our minds and our bodies and our spirits in the possibility inherent in this story that not only individual human lives might be infused with new life and new hope and new visions of new life along with the prospect that nations too could be infected by a similar and life-giving renewal.

A clergy who had recently lost his sanctuary to fire faced a question that was premised on the re-birth, renewal, resurrection story: “How would you envision your ministry to emerge from the ashes of your recent fire, different, renewed, revived and resurrected?” He face told his reaction of surprise and hope. “That is the right and most challenging question of this moment! Thanks for asking it!”

Would that the leaders of the world’s nations, and also of the world’s terrorist gangs, drug gangs, power blocs, and thought leaders embrace the renewal, re-birth and resurrection story that remains imprinted forever on human history!

Our faith cannot and must not be eroded or removed by our fear of catastrophe, and apocalypse….although we sometimes fall into that dark space!  

"We treat ears here!"

Let’s take a look at some of the ways power is perceived and deployed.

Useful for this purpose is the model of the photographer: framing determines composition. The more narrow the frame, the more intense the image, and the reverse is also true: the wider the frame, the more interesting and more distant the image(s).

Medical science, one of the most dominant of intellectual models of perception, given the cultural and political importance of the practitioners. Everyone, at some time, will experience a specific pain, injury or infection. And, when the doctor “examines” the symptoms, s/he will focus on the most significant, the most obviously treatable and the most painful. Unless there is a legal requirement that they report a “cause” because they suspect foul play, they are almost totally disinterested in the “source” or the history of how that symptom came to be.

 As one ENT (Ear, Nose and Throat) specialist put it, when asked if a young female patient might be suffering allergies, given a history of ear aches and even “tubes” implants, “We treat ears here!” He simply would not even entertain the question, simply because it was “outside” his speciality. The family doctor’s referral to an allergist at Sick Children’s Hospital and resulting examination demonstrated unequivocally a long list of allergies.

The ENT’s “framing”  was confined to the ear canal, and all of its component parts. Even the family doctor had not mentioned allergies, prior to his referral to the ENT specialist; it took the mother to raise the question, and who knows how long the issue would have festered had the question not been asked when it was.

Management of the ear aches, thus, could not be restricted to the skills and the procedures available to the ENT practitioner. Nor should it have been. And the allergy hypothesis is only a single circle outside the range of perception and knowledge and practice of the ENT doctor. Even then, there was no discussion of whether or not anyone smoked in the home and whether or not that might have impacted the young girl’s earaches. (With deep remorse and regret, I smoked a pipe for all of the first eleven years of her life, only confining my smoking to an open-windowed study, following the allergy diagnosis! Some forty years later, I still question whether my smoking negatively impacted her growth and development.)

There is, admittedly, a degree of “focus” and intensity in the ENT’s approach. If successful, it produces measureable results. The ear aches dissipate or disappear. However, without the allergy diagnosis and ensuing treatment, a unique serum prepared by a respected allergist, who knows how long the ear aches would have persisted.

Let’s take a few steps back, with out “camera lens” and move the discussion to an issue in a school or another institution, where people are expected to resolve disputes. Of course, the immediate ‘intervention’ is designed and executed to bring whatever drama is occurring to a stop. And then, presumably, the next step is to work toward prevention of a similar incident. And here is where the issue gets murky. Of course, ‘he hit me first, no he bad-mouthed me first’ (or something similar) will confront the responsible authority. And if the incident generates blood, a broken bone, a concussion, or an unconscious body, then that symptom will require immediate attention.

However, school principals and teachers, unlike doctors and paramedics, are not “instant emergency responder”. They are there for the long haul, the whole year, or perhaps the whole decade. And the offending students will be there for an extended period. Right away we can see the short-term benefit and ‘down side’ of the medical intervention. It will not and can not provide the needed investigation into the motives, background, biography, family history and parenting style in which the student has been living (and mimicking or modelling) for several years. Nor will it provide much insight into preventive strategies that might help the student shift his or her “modus operandi” from pugilism to negotiation and compromise.

So far, we have looked only at single presenting symptoms and incidents. However, no matter who is responsible for “administration” or management or leadership in situations outside the doctor’s office does not have the luxury of relying on a single, pin-point (or scalpel) intervention as the solution to the problem. In fact, the medical model is not only counter-intuitive; it could prove to be completely or partially ineffective, as was the surgery by the ENT.

Complex circumstances invariably underlie most human conflicts, especially at the point when “outside” professionals are brought into the situation. Domestic violence, for example, does not start with the last “blow” when the cops and the paramedics are called and must intervene. And even after their investigation is completed, and their report written, there will be important details left off simply  because of a myriad of motives. Some might not disclose all of the intimate details of the relationship, while magnifying others they know will be socially and culturally acceptable and put the “witness” in a ‘proper’ light (often victim) representing the self-perceived image they have developed through their biography. Those having to make decisions about culpability, therefore have limited evidence on which to base decisions; hence, no fault divorce.

Yet, there are numerous situations in which ‘no fault’ does not and cannot apply.

 However, from an institutional perspective, adoption of the medical model, (reducing an incident to a single presenting symptom, and disciplining that symptom) will never resolve a much more complex human conflict drama. And here is where the medical model intersects with the institutional/law enforcement/ school administration/social welfare realities, often to disastrous results.

The interests of the “authority” in such circumstances, too often, take priority to the long-term resolution of the conflict. Like the ENT specialist, they too often want a minimal intervention to have a maximal impact. And, of course, their band-aid soon washes off, gets dirty, or simply falls off, ad the situation that originated the conflict returns, as it surely will. Only by then, someone else will have to “administer” the management/leadership/intervention.

Millions, if not billions, of dollars are poured down the drain by corporate leaders who subscribe to the minimalist diagnosis/minimalist intervention expecting maximal results, with little impact. Reduction of any conflict to a single “symptom” is like reducing a cancerous tumor to a scalpel, without investigating and intervening in the biographic details, the social cultural environment in which the patient lives and the need for significant changes outside of chemotherapy and radiation and surgery, and more recently, outside genetically-based therapies.

Or course, a more detailed research of the circumstances, the history and the environment will take time, and especially viewed in the short run, the preferred and exclusive purview, will cost money. And yet, rationalizing the scarcity of fiscal resources only supports a minimalist view of the “problem” and a ‘band-aid’ application that does not, cannot effect the kind of change that would expose the institution and their representatives for their complicity in the problem and thereby have the potential to lead to resolutions that would make all participants proud and committed to their sustainability.

One management text coming from M.I.T.,The Learning Organization, outlines the need to ask the question “why” a minimum of five (5) times whenever a conflict arises in an organization. The first four will provide only a superficial diagnosis of the problem, and the resulting intervention will be marginally effective. How often would the medical model, except in case referred to a “case management discussion” come under the “5-why” microscope? Probably not the majority.

There is a risk that this argument will be seen to be a condemnation of the medical profession. It is not so intended, only to demonstrate that it is often limited in both evidence and resources, including time and dollars. Of course, the preferred patients, friends and family of the medical profession are given more “preferred” treatment, given the human connections.

Individual responsibility, individual courage to ask the right/tough and often unwelcome questions are more and more required, and worker representatives, legal counsel and ethics professionals are often not available in situations in which they might impact seemingly minor decisions, that will ultimately have major impact.

It is not only the medical symptoms that require attention, by the patient first, then by the family and then by the medical fraternity. There is also a plethora of political, psychological, social, cultural and biographical details of every person’s life that need (and hopefully demand) a seat at the table when important decisions are being made.

 This is especially true when executives make “personnel” decisions. If people really are the most important resource in any organization, (and who is willing to risk challenging that premise?) whether for profit or not for profit, then mere single-issue decisions, without encompassing as complete a picture of the context as is available will continue to demonstrate the decision-maker’s need for immediate control, and for immediate resolution.

Some of the primary rationalizations for such a decision-making process include:

·      The relative insignificance of the issue at hand

·      The stuffed schedule of the decision-maker

·      The inexperience of the decision-maker and his/her need to impress superiors

·      The shortest and least unsettling “chess move” that will, at least on the surface, disturb the fewest people

·      Conformity with other decisions on the same file that were reductionistic and over-simplified in their design and execution

·      The organizational culture that is described as “efficient” and “uncomplicated” rather than “person-centric” and “patient centric”

·      The lack of formal and informal training and/or apprenticeship of the decision-maker

·      The cultural framing of personnel issues with a primary cost-saving/cutting demand on the decision-maker

·      The decision-maker’s fear of, aversion to, resistance to and abhorrence of any form of conflict and the emotional toll these conflicts take.

     Yet, none of the rationalizations justifies the kind of “single-issue focus of the ENT’s “We treat ears here!” that neither acquitted that practitioner nor will acquit any of his imitators. A microscope may be a useful and even optimal instrument for examining specimens; it is not an appropriate instrument or lens through which to diagnose an organizational issue of conflict.

Will Canada enable "the elephant in the room" too long?

It was a retired Canadian military man who, upon hearing the topic of the United States opened, blurted, “They don’t think global warming and climate change are real; they think it’s a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese…. And they also think ‘their shit don’t stink’,” a phrase Canadians use frequently  to describe people (individuals or groups) they consider arrogant, snobbish and inhabiting their own tower of status.

While the Canadian government is spending hours in cabinet meetings, attended by former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, who served as PM when the NAFTA treaty was signed, in preparation for negotiations with the American administration, individual Canadians share a both a contempt and a fear of the gang now in charge in Washington. Of course, at the street level, feelings are broad, generalized and a kind of inarticulate gestalt, that, if they were to be asked to paint their feelings about the Trump thugs, would likely grab a brush, dip deeply into midnight black and draw random strokes across the canvas.

We are, for the most part, a decent, civilized, orderly lot, as Canadians, and we do not tolerate either the unpredictable or the secret from our leaders, unless there is a new threat and no one really knows what to expect. We are normally patient when asked or expected to line up for services. We hate bullies, and there are too many stories about our children being bullied on line, too often leading to the suicide of the victim. We are currently engaged in an extradition of a bully from the Netherlands who allegedly targetted a Canadian co-ed. We do not have, and are not likely to acquire a large military fleet of planes or frigates, nor do we have a large cadre of military personnel.

 Our history, rather, has been focussed on peacekeeping, although yesterday the country celebrated the 100^th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, in the First World War, when some 3000 Canadian soldiers were slaughtered,  as they captured the ridge.

We are proud to send military and police trainers, peace-keepers, and communications experts to nations facing threats yet we go into open combat only very reluctantly, as in Afghanistan and through bombing fly-overs in Iraq and Syria. A small number of Canadians enlisted to join the Americans in Viet Nam, and a larger number fought in Korea.

We have abolished the death penalty, taken suicide out of the criminal code, legalized gay marriage, and more recently death with dignity with doctor assistance. The federal government will introduce on Thursday this week, their long-promised bill to permit the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes, nationally, targeting July 1, 2018 when the sale will begin. Our crime rate, thankfully, is relatively low, and our streets are generally safe, although there are  frequent incidents of shootings in our biggest cities. We are witnessing a growing opioid drug crisis, with too many deaths, in Vancouver and more recently in Toronto.

Our convention attitude to  provincial and national political candidates is neither star-struck awe nor violent contempt. Detached cynicism, insouciance, a carelessness head-in-the-sand approach, rolling our eyes, as if government of whatever colour or stripe is neither about to accomplish anything really big and important, nor is it likely to plunge the nation over a cliff are our probable attitudes. We are, politically and historically, a country of minimal increments, preferring slow and persistent evolution to radical storms.

Our storms come from our weather, especially in the last few years, with the obvious and indisputable influence of global warming and climate change. And these storms have increased in both frequency and intensity in recent years and months. And just as it was back in the 1980’s when the subject of discussion between the United States and Canada was the spread of what was then called “acid rain” from the mills and factories in the northeast U.S. being blown north-east over the Canadian landscape including our rivers and lakes, today reports again indicate a significant impairment to the water quality in the Great Lakes from the run-off of salt used to prevent or eliminate ice from winter roads.

So while Canada steps gingerly into the theatre of taxing carbon emissions, in a federation in which the provinces seek to take their  own steps to control carbon emissions, the United States administration moves to ‘deconstruct’ the EPA, rendering most of the Canadian efforts mute, given the tidal wave of U.S. emissions.

So these two neighbours are walking in opposite directions on the North American continent. We are also taking radically different approaches to the migrating masses of refugees: last year, under Obama, the U.S. admitted 12,000, while Canada admitted some 44,000. Canada is abandoning coal-fired electricity production, while the U.S. under Trump is “restoring coal” (with its mere 65,000 workers) to the production of electricity.

And yet, Trudeau and the Canadian government is twisting and turning in the wind of the Trump hurricane in its attempt to dodge, or at least deflect the wrath of the monster in the Oval Office:

· Ju mping to declare Assad has to place in a future settlement of the civil war in Syria,

·      declaring that Canada has a trade “surplus” with the U.S., (as compared with deficits with Mexico and other countries like China),

·      endorsing the recent missile attacks on the Syrian airbase,

·      today joining the ban on digital tablets and computers from the passenger compartments in aircraft (initiated by the U.S. in a blatant and perverse ruse to enhance American airline revenues from Africa and India without providing a single degree of passenger security, as these devices can still explode in the cargo hold)

·      reminding the U.S. administration of the $2B in trade that crosses the 49^th parallel every day, as a way to underline the fact that at least  9,000,000 American jobs that depend on the Canadian market

·      studying (without protest, in fact while pointing to the similarity to other years) the trickle of refugees seeking safe haven in Canada on foot to escape the potential threat that awaits them in the U.S.

·      investigating the refusal to permit entry into the United States of Canadian citizens who have made the same trip for several years, once again without the outrage and demand for justice felt by those rejected admission

·      sending troops into Latvia as a physical and fiscal step to support NATO in the face of Russian hegemony, to demonstrate that Canada is paying its fair share to NATO,  in the face of Trump’s “pay-up” demand.

Canada, different from the United States does not have or put a price tag on everything. Water is, for the most part, still a shared public resource (except the Nestle grab of stream water in southern Ontario for a mere $1.73  for a million litres, only to turn around and sell it in bottles for an exorbitant profit.) It is when the Americans come to Canada for our water that Canadians can only hope Trump is no longer in the White House and there are no co-dependent cabinet ministers in the Canadian government, including especially the Prime Minister. 300-plus thirst Americans could down the zillions of fresh water from the Great Lakes in a very short time and one has to wonder what is there in the way to stop or at least to slow them down.

And yet, Canadians continue to hold our nose, while we participate in an almost daily water-cooler conversation about the dangers of Trump, the threat of his unpredictability, the increasing threat of an accident  in Syria where Russian fighter jets and American fighter jets (and their respective crews) fly bombing missions, especially now that the Russians have abrogated the agreement to co-ordinate those flights, the statements from Medvedev in Russia that the recent missile strike increases the danger of Russia and the U.S. could be on a military collisions course.

We have no evidence, nor does the rest of the world, that the Trump gang of compulsive competitors have either the will or the intellectual capacity to design a strategy and to announce it to the world, really on anything, but this week on Syria.

 While Trump “trumpets” his obsession to maintain unpredictability, we are more and more convinced that this is just another ruse for not having to do the hard work of policy planning and execution. It reminds one of the senior English examination on which the student had written only these words, “There is already too much word pollution in the world; I do not intend to add to it.” Nifty dodge, for which he received a “0”. (True story, you really can’t make this stuff up!)

And you really can’t make the stuff up about the Trump dangers. As Canadians, we are watching closely, nervously and less and less optimistically every day. From this side of the 49^th parallel, we can see that he has not, and is not likely to “become presidential” in spite of the repeated echoes of that hollow hope by American pundits.

Calling out opportunists for our sake and theirs

Opportunists seek and demand adulation and they are addicted to power vacuums.

Opportunists do not play by the rules, the norms or the conventions of the “game”. They operate as narcissistic driven outliers. Let’s compare Wayne Gretzky’s opportunistic “being where the puck is going to be before it arrives” completely within the rules and the conventions of the game of hockey to Trump’s complete disregard of the political traditions, conventions and even the normal expectations of the constitution.

In their pursuit of power vacuums, they find such vacuums proliferating. These vacuums take many forms: failure to ‘show up,’ defaulting on legitimate responsibilities, walking away from telling the truth, especially after declaring “I have serious misgivings,” or merely repressing oneself whether in a professional or personal relationship. Relationships beset with power vacuums, because one partner simply defers to other, ultimately satisfy neither partner. One fails to show up, while the other is left wondering “where the other one really is”. Spinelessness, regardless of gender, is one of the more prominent power vacuums. Sometimes too, opportunists do “end-runs” around the legitimate measurement of their work. . In Atlanta, not that long ago, teachers in the public school system ‘rigged’ their students’ results on state-wide tests in order to pad their own resume, falling, finally on the point of their own sword, once they were “outed”.

While a limited degree of looking out for one’s self is clearly necessary in a competitive, ‘dog-eat-dog” business world. There is also competition among those vying for scholarships, bursaries, athletic awards and sales awards, and for each of these a level of seeking opportunity to demonstrate one’s talent, ability and proficiency makes sense, provided it does not do harm directly or indirectly, and certainly not willfully, to another. We have all heard of doctoral candidates who take months and even years to research and write their thesis, in the desperate hope that no one, from the far side of the world completes a clone thesis before they finish. However, to their best knowledge, neither candidate is usually consciously aware of his/her “competitor” and cannot be considered opportunistic in finishing first.

 Although opportunists seem to rush to the front of the line, and look like “drivers” and “full of initiative”, reliable and candidates for leadership, opportunists are the least appropriate occupants of executive office, where the important executive decisions are made. Opportunists, you see, are dedicated to finding and taking advantage of every opportunity for their own self-aggrandizement. They could not care less about the broad picture of the general good, the public good, the long-term interests, even the medium-term projections. They will not be around to worry about either the medium or long term; they will have imprinted their opportunistic signature, for better or worse, on the organization long before the memories of those serving as monitor to the long-term picture.

The corporate world is literally flooded with opportunists. Their modus operandi, it seems, has become holy grail for all others seeking to fulfil their shoes, upon their departure in retirement, or “advancement”…or death or long-term disability. Politicians, as an example, measure their life-span in seconds and minutes, often dependent on a headline, a vote, a resurrected memo, email, tweet or a U-Tube post. For every opportunist working in public service, there is an army of dark opportunists seeking and deploying ways to perform surgical and clinical (and recently anonymous) character dismemberment on the public servant.

Those visiting art galleries, especially the casual observers, focuses primarily on the “positive spaces on the canvas, where the light shines, the colours and shapes draw the eyes in, without taking as much notice of the ‘negative spaces’ where the shadows, or the reflections or the background taken together provide much of the impression of the piece. Similarly, orchestral and concert performances, for many, comprise the dramatic flourishes, the memorable melodies, the unique riffs in rhythm, while letting the pianissimo’s and the more complicated harmonies recede into the background of their consciousness, and there by into their memory of the experience.

Similarly, our public discussions, our news reports, and much of our commentary focuses on the “positive” evidence, thereby allowing little to no space/time/focus on the things not done, not said, or said in such a way as to be literally unobservable to the larger public. Statements made to burnish the reputation of those opportunists in power flow like raindrops in a storm from the printers and the emails of those serving as message-spinners for their bosses. Millions of dollars, in government, for example, are dedicated to the generation of torrents of “positive” press releases, all of them calculated to put the character from “central casting” (the star, the politician, the investment broker, the ‘firm,’ the leader) in the best possible light. 

So dominant is this public relations machine that rarely if ever do we hear a leader, a public figure say, “This mistake is on me!” (Just this week, the coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Mike Babcock did just that on his mis-handling of a compound and complex penalty killing situation.

And yet, Babcock’s entry into the “negative space” of his profession demonstrates both an integrity and a degree of self-confidence that has become extremely rare in the current culture. His players, his bosses (Manager and President) all can take heart in his acknowledgement of his need to grow, to learn and to ‘do better’ as he would put it. None of us is exempt from that requirement, not imposed by a heavy handed system, but rather generated from within, as a matter of self-respect and self-acceptance, independent of the kind of accolades that come exclusively from ‘the audience(s)’ in our lives.

Recently in talking with a hockey coach of a girls’ team (ages 9-10), I heard his strong endorsement of telling his players how they had to improve, rejecting the latest mantra that “everything you are doing is great” as the best teaching practice. Helping kids feel more confident need not exclude honest criticism and suggestions on how to do better. And yet, there is considerable evidence that at least one whole generation in the United States has been fed a steady diet of cheer-leading from their teachers and coaches, without acquiring the necessary complex and difficult skills in subjects like mathematics and science. In Atlanta, in the recent past, teachers in the public school system ‘rigged’ their students’ results on state-wide tests in order to pad their own resume, falling, finally on the point of their own sword, once they were “outed”.

 Falling into this trap, as the one seeking to become prime minister, Justin Trudeau, fed his campaign audiences a steady diet of ‘sunny ways’ exaggerate promises easily recognized as unlikely of fulfillment, and along with his continuing rock-star reputation on the international stage, his government is suffering from fatigue and delayed commitments or actual the inevitable confluence of events beyond its control.

And, from this desk, it seems as if the opportunists currently offering their names for public service have drunk the kool-aid of flattery, and obsequious and opportunistic promises that are dedicated primarily to their own career advancement. And all of this is, to put it bluntly, insulting to the rest of us.

Are we nothing more than little children desperately seeking and demanding affirmation, false promises and exaggerated visions of ‘never-never land’ in order to secure our few minutes of casting a ballot? Are we so easily duped that we do not see, or do not wish to see, the ‘negative spaces’ in every public figures’ character landscape? Has our gullibility, (or perhaps our desperation) reached such a profound level that like the drug and alcohol addicts whose lives have run off the rails of self-management and control, made us blind and/or powerless to rise above the sugar-coated, fast-food of instant gratifications?

Honesty takes guts, even among the closest of associates, especially among close associates whose respect we all desire, if not need, in order to feel and believe that we “belong”. And “belonging” for many comes at a very high price. No one, not the COO, the CEO, the CFO, the President, the principal, the headmaster, the priest, even the Pope is without ‘negative spaces’. Similarly, there is not a signal organization that is without flaws. And we are long past a shared realization and acceptance of that deep and inescapable reality. Why then do we continue to permit others to feed us bullshit, that is calculated to serve the others’ goals, purposes and aggrandizement at our expense? And we gobble it like starved animals, when we are a long-way from starving!

There is an old adage, “this is no way to run a railway” that came out of another era. And today, that aphorism springs to mind as we all watch generations of people consume things we don’t need, eat food that does not nourish us, find friends who do not tell us the truth, go places that do not fulfil our minimal expectations, indulge in thoughts that are not based in anything close to a shared reality, send tweets and facebook messages that attempt to demean the other for our immediate power needs, play champion fighter as the one reputable model of masculinity (both men and women does this), and then cower in the face of real criticism and refuse to accept responsibility (it’s not on me!)….

And when we look up? (or down? or across?) at the headlines that confront us every morning, as we witness the same kind of cultural abdication, we have to wonder if Edward VIII has become the role model for our time. Abdication of legitimate political responsibility for truth telling, for truth acknowledging, for confronting truth to power, no matter in what circumstances (and this includes men confronting women, as well as the reverse when appropriate) is a lesson more important to be embedded in our school curricula as well as our parenting manuals as the recent announcement of financial management skills, if not more important!

Shiny self-portraits, in themselves, are another form of avoidance of reality, denial of the dark, negative spaces in our psyches, our biographies, and our shared futures. So tainted, for example, have letters of reference and resumes become, that many hiring agents pay them scant attention, preferring a full “dig” into the biography of the applicant.

There has, for centuries, been a search for and an honouring of authenticity, the kind of self-confidence and self-respect that prompts an individual to look carefully and critically at his/her own motives, words, actions and interactions.

 Questions like:

 “Why do I seek to get revenge on that person?” require a close scrutiny.

 “ Why did that  student bring the pail of water to the interviews for the co-op program and pour the water on his competitors? (a true story from a Canadian university!) demand a full reflection about the nature of the competition, by both the candidates and the companies offering the work placement.

“Why was that candidate permitted to lie about the reputation of his opponent, with impunity?” point to a penetrating questioning of the kind of culture generates such an act.

“When does dissembling, distracting and lying to wriggle out of tight spots continue to work for that person?” demand a communal response that reflects individual and group acknowledgement of responsibility and accountability.

We can not afford to give a free ticket and a blank cheque to the opportunists who seek to take power away from both our history, conventions, protocols and even our laws. And our primary focus on the “positive” statements, the public relations gestures, the melodies and the highlights, while minimizing or ignoring, or denying those negative spaces on every canvas of every human being, will continue to prop up those least worthy of our public confidence and respect. 

"Blood and death on the hands of everyone"...only then will we demand hostilities in Syria cease

Outrage at the latest war crime, the dropping of sarin gas on the people, including women and children, in Syria, is so universal, and yet, the real power to put an end to this civil war seems out of the reach of the combatants and their allies. The impotence of the United Nations, given the veto of every member of the Security Council, the lack of both an international law enforcement arm and a military arm of the Council and the history of grievous errors of both commission, and more importantly omission (Rwanda comes jerkingly to mind!) is well documented.

The west is fed a steady diet of evidence pointing to the need for the removal of the Syrian dictator. Both the EU and the UN are holding meetings today, as we would expect, to discuss ‘the Syrian crisis’….the former focussing on refugees, the latter focussing on the latest incidence of nerve gas. Russia, on the other hand, continues to “have the back” of Assad, for reasons comprehended only by Putin and Assad. However, the co-dependence of each dictator on the other would suggest that they can find very like-minded political leaders to speak with.

The Russian report on the latest incident has been dubbed fanciful by some, given that the timeline in the Russian report does not coincide with the timing of the flight of the plane that dropped the sarin. Trump’s once again pointing the finger at Obama’s weakness is so lame as to make even the most casual observer fretful of his capacity to contribute anything relevant and meaningful to any serious attempt to untangle and to resolve the entangled war zone. Even his State Department is so bereft of memory and capacity that its relevance to the geopolitical discussions wanes by the hour. The “Art of the Deal” itself is so empty of intellectual gravitas and integrity that his presence on the world stage is more frightening than comforting.

Tweets, headlines, parental bullying and scapegoating, not to mention outright lies, are not the stuff of serious and constructive contributions to the ending of this civil war, nor to the many other ‘hot spots’ facing the global community. In fact, they are disturbingly adolescent and vacuous and they will only encourage others to leave the United States out of the significant conversations among serious leaders who really seek resolution, justice and a modicum of collaboration. Trump, in short, is a menace in geopolitics, at a time when the United States’ history and tradition (especially for the last eight years) is so desperately needed as leaven in a toxic cauldron.

Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley today announced a frightful prospect when referring to the chemical weapons drop in Syria yesterday: If the international bodies like the United Nations are not able to act, then individual nations will have to take action on their own.

Now there is a prospect for which no sane and sentient human hopes. That is all we need: to have individual nations taking action unilaterally, in a world, and war theatre like Syria already crowded with nefarious actors. Gorbachev’s essay in Time magazine only a few weeks ago, suggesting the world was moving inexorably toward war (and asking Trump and Putin to join in declaring war off the list of available options) seems more cogent and relevant every day.

Assad has convicted himself of also being a menace to the world, as has Kim Jong Il, he of the latest missile test into the East China Sea, on the eve of a visit by the Chinese leader to the Oval Office, as if to thumb his nation’s nose at both leaders. Putin, too, verges on such hubristic aggrandizement as to render himself menacing, notwithstanding his controlled high standing in public opinion polls.

With the complexity and ubiquity of digital technology, now walking the streets of Ottawa, outside the parliament buildings, being able to invade the private cell phones of anyone in  proximity (the authorities have no idea who is behind this), the capacity of the most insignificant “cell” to construct destructive weapons and to deploy them from a distance, on top of the proliferation of military materiel, largely manufactured, marketed and sold by American interests for their corporate profit… the world has essentially globally weaponized ordinary citizens bent on wreaking havoc for whatever nefarious motive that “blows their sails”. How can we expect dangerous individuals, so empowered, not to be emboldened while watching the parade of political leaders appearing both emasculated, inept and also dangerously pursuing narrow political agendas, at the expense of the global community?

Democracy works only if and when the people are engaged in pursuing common goals, in the interest of the public good. It is premised on such an ethical and agreed purpose, that we are all in this together and that our shared highest interests guide our debates, discussions and the methods we deploy in their realization. Whether we raise the taxes on a specific demographic, or product or service, or design and deliver a specific social program, or renew our legislation on worker rights, minimum wage requirements, individual comportment in public spaces including how we perceive and construct a justice system in which we all have confidence….these are some of the many complex and significant issues on which the public expression of opinion is both warranted and required. And as several jurisdictions pursue these goals, inside their boundaries, they are then able to share experiences, especially in a digital age of global communication, to make “best practices” available to every individual, including legislators, judges, public servants, teachers and professors.

While we have spread the ‘net’ of information and ‘best practices’ to every corner of the planet, we have also spread instant access to the latest depraved act of violence, despair and despondence in every corner of the planet. And ,on the very thin and superficial ‘surface’ this violence looks like a kind of instant “power” and “instant gratification” for those who truly believe their perceived enemies are “screwing them” whether personally or as perceived by a toxic ideology. And it will only be if and when the world’s headlines have surrendered their addiction to violence, conflict and the “attention” that those dynamics purport to attract, in the nano-second of an immediate, and insatiable need for power and control, that we might begin to expect some kind of broad based commitment to resolution, and to a different way of perceiving the operation of political power.

This is not so naïve as to envisage the elimination of violence, military conflict, cyber-invasions, or the end of terrorism. It is, however, a glimpse of a future in which the world’s people have come to our senses, recognized our shared complicity in the current pervasive violence, and our shared responsibility for having failed to establish international institutions for the purpose of pursuing international norms, in addition to the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court. Climate concords, for example, that speak of voluntary commitment to emission standards, when our ability to breath clean air and to drink clean water know no political agenda, no political ideology, and are attached to no political leader, nation or corporation.

Not only do we all share in the need for access to clean air and water, but we also share a human need for work with dignity, in a culture of mutual respect…all of these “agenda” items also know no political ideology…except that we are all complicit in permitting the violence of sarin gas to continue, in spite of the purported disposal of those very chemical weapons by Assad, after the agreement reached between Russia and the Obama administration. And only if and when our complicity and concurrence and responsibility come home to rest on our own shoulders in our own communities and neighbourhoods and families will we begin to both speak out and take political action to express our shared and most honourable truths.

The darkest demons demand acknowledgement, removal from the closets of our refusal to take responsibility, and confronting by our best capacities.

And, it will take a world of intense and concentrated effort to shift the balance of human power from the violent dictators to the more moderate and collaborative among us….and the clock is ticking!

Anhedonia: more prevasive than we realized..underreported and unreportable?

Anhedonia is defined as the inability to experience pleasure. I first found the word in a recent National Post story about the rising rate of suicides among doctors, in which the word was used to portray a flattened emotional state, the state one reaches to avoid having to confront a deep depression.

Among doctors, given the degree of commitment to patients’ recovery, and the attention to the details of each patient, and the dedication to fulfil the Hippocratic Oath, linked to the frequent “wrong turn” in procedures during treatment, the recipe is a blueprint for human tragedy. Add to the pressures within the practice of medicine the pressures to conceal any weakness or impairment, potentially to sacrifice “privileges” to operate and to practice in a given hospital or medical clinic, should those who experience a severe depression and or anxiety “go public” with their personal, emotional, psychological reality and the situation is especially fraught with danger, not only for the medical professional, but also for any patients under his/her care.

Faulty judgements, missed cues, inappropriate deployment of the scalpel, the over-or-under prescribing of medications…..these are all potential dangers for patients under the care of doctors who have come to the end of their “rope” and either refuse to seek help or deny they need it.

Another definition of anhedonia, the failure to experience pleasure, seems to have an inordinately high frequency in a culture in which extremes in bullying, public character assassinations on social media, the theft of private information, the invasion of one’s personal life by persons motivated only by greed and/or personal power and revenge prevail.

Coping with the full range of reality, at least that portion that seeks to harm us in ways that could pose threats from which one might conceivably not recover, requires a level of “detachment” and repression of the full depth and range of one’s emotions. “Flat-lining, as in the case of the doctors where it is profoundly dangerous, may not be the state to which most ordinary folks descend. However, there is a legitimate case to be made among many of the men of my acquaintance. If and when these men witness a tragic event, especially if they are attached to a fire and rescue squad and have gone through the trauma of such events, simply put the memories and the feelings away in a box somewhere in their private psyches. As one engaged in the fire/rescue process put it recently, “When you have seen twenty or thirty of these scenes, it is just one more to forget about and move on! After a while, it no longer registers on you.”

When asked if there are resources available for processing such traumatic experiences, the answer was that such a service is available to all public protectors. And when asked if any were known to avail themselves of such a service, the instant retort was, “If he did, he certainly would not tell anybody on the crew!”

Pride, especially pride in a kind of stone wall of emotional cryogenics, is misplaced pride, whether it is emitted by men or by women. Not only is it misplaced, it is downright dangerous. The Brits, especially exemplified by Churchill, are the historic model for “the stiff upper lip” during the battle of Britain, when bombs were falling over London many times with little or no warning. Fearless, unyielding, determined, disciplined, loyal and trustworthy….these are some of the traits ascribed to the British capacity to withstand the Third Reich.

When there is trauma, no matter the extent of the damage, for the moment when the victims are attended to, all thoughts and feelings have to take second place to the turbulence of the legitimate emotions that anyone would experience in such circumstances. Professional care, sound judgements, clinical proficiency and economic moves, along with the personal skills to diagnose, and to treat and to transport and to expedite processes to minimize the suffering are the ingredients required and expected at such moments of trauma. The recent military conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and even in Ukraine demonstrate, however, that there is a magnified impact on the mind/heart/psyche of those on the fronts of those wars. Reporting focuses on refugees, numbers of dead, especially women and children (collateral damage) and today, even the report of chemical weapons being used by Assad (AGAIN!) in Syria. Yet, months and even years after these battles, the memories will still be seared into the minds/hearts/bodies and psyches that will continue to impact the lives of those witnesses and participants.

The military, in most countries, has been very late to acknowledge the impacts of these PTSD “cases” probably because the cost of such acknowledgement would strain their budgets. Only with the rise of suicides, and attempted suicides from war veterans has the issue become a matter of public record and thereby less restricted in its search for fiscal support on all sides of the political spectrum. Similarly, police and fire fighters and their departments have been late coming to the support of their veterans whose lives have been negatively impacted by their traumatic experiences. And, it would now seem, that the medical profession itself, is also late to come to the table of acknowledgement that their peers are suffering and need help.

One of the questions that has to be posed, in this context, is whether the degree of masculine culture including masculine stereotypes is so dominant in North America in so many situations, including the military law enforcement, fire fighters, paramedics (also reporting anxiety and depression at high levels, given their exposure to trauma and abuse), the church, and the corporate world that “weakness” is defined as having an emotional issue, suffering a profound loss such as a death or divorce or job loss, and demonstrating emotional needs.

Of course, the profit margins would be inevitably impacted in the corporate world, if these legitimate needs were addressed by those inflicting the trauma in the first place. Also, to acknowledge that some of the training methods and expectations of many of these organizations would have to change radically, as well as the enhancement of support mechanisms, if and when personal PTSD experiences were to be acknowledged as legitimate and not as indications of weakness would be nothing less than a shock to many organizations.

Even some faith communities frown, sometimes openly and often secretly, on the overt expression of emotions, especially by those charged with responsibility for ministry. This “frowning” seems the height of hypocrisy, given the nature of the faith journey and its open embrace of the body, mind, spirit and soul, that concept that some consider the sum of all the other components. Alcoholic addictions, drug addictions, addiction to work….these are just some of the negative responses to pressures repressed, subverted and avoided or denied. And they are present among every class of professional.

Interestingly, most of the post-secondary education institutions do not include in their professional schools, training in emotional intelligence, emotional self-management and stress management. One practising dentist told me he hated the practice of dentistry, because he is always managing the pain of those patients in his chair. He deeply wished that he had enrolled in and graduated from optometry school, so that he would not have a steady diet of patients suffering pain. And, as a natural consequence, most of these professions do not subscribe to the notion of vulnerability, especially the kind of emotional vulnerability that accompanies trauma.

So with recent reports about veterans returning from war theatres, doctors and paramedics experiencing depression, anxiety and danger signs to report and seek help, and with fire and police encountering dangers, trauma and civil insecurity, including threats of terror, drug gangs and opioid deaths spiking, putting additional pressure on all public servants and pushing forward consideration of a psychic phenomenon for which the culture generally is not prepared to take responsibility.

Is it not long past time when the residual impacts of trauma, for all individuals facing its threats, to be able to access compassionate consideration by their respective professional associations, their peers and their insurance providers.

The Bell “let’s talk” campaign dedicated to reduce the stigma of mental illness is a very worthy first step. However, it is really just a first step, begging the larger questions:

Where does this stigma originate?

What is the research data that supports access to professional care?

How do we move beyond the watercooler in our conversations to make it legitimate and even responsible for highly trained and highly intelligent individuals to take responsibility for their psychic pain, resulting from their exposure to the rigours and the demands of their professional work?

When, if ever, will this male model of emotional anhedonia (shared by women professionals as well) be exposed for its sabotaging individual lives and the lives of people in the care of troubled professionals?

The notion, “it’s none of my business” is so pervasive in our siloed culture, that, in one psychiatrist’s case, only a phone call from a worried daughter, and another from a close friend, were enough to send him into counselling.

How many others are waiting for such a call?

And how many of us are keeping our concerns private, when expressing care and concern could open the previously locked door to the counsellor’s phone or office?

It says here, too many!!!