POSTING #9

FORECASTING THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The Guru and I were sitting on the patio of the Restaurant of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Golf Club, looking at the historic Fort Niagara just a few hundred yards away on our right, across the mouth of the Niagara River, and at the sail boats tacking back and forth on our left in Lake Ontario. We were in the midst of a heat wave but there was a pleasant breeze off the lake, and we had some cold beer and delicious sandwiches.

I should make it clear that the Guru and I are not golfers---we both subscribe to the Mark Twain view that ‘Golf is a good walk spoiled’---but the Club kindly lets the non-golfing public use its restaurant.

The Guru had lent me a copy of a book by Jim Kenney, “Thriving in the Crosscurrent: Clarity and Hope in a Time of Cultural Sea Change”. He said he had been impressed with the book and was thinking of discussing it in his monthly newsletter but he first wanted to get an historian’s view of it.

We had agreed to discuss the book over lunch but first I wanted to get the Guru’s latest assessment of the US presidential election.

“The first thing is that I was right that the Supreme Court would find Obamacare constitutional. The decision was closer than I had thought---5 to 4 instead of the 6 to 3 I had predicted---but a win is a win. And Obama should be pleased.”

“So, you still think he is going to win in November?”

“I do, but now I am wondering if he is going to have a landslide victory.”

“A landslide! I wonder if this heat wave is getting to you. No one’s predicting a landslide.”

“And that’s why the clients I consult for pay me the big bucks. To see things that others don’t see.”

“How long have you thought that a landslide might be possible?”

“A few months ago, I started to get these feelings of ‘déjà vu all over again’, to quote Yogi Berra. I lived through the unpredicted (by me and by other forecasters) landslides by Diefenbaker in 1958, Rene Levesque in 1976 and Mulroney in 1984 and I began to sense that something was happening in the US that was similar to what had happened before those victories. At first I dismissed the thoughts but part of my brain kept sending messages saying I was missing something. At first, I gave a landslide a probability of only 10% but now I think there is a 35% chance. It’s far from a sure thing but the point is that the likelihood is increasing.”

“This is astounding! What are the factors, trends, intuitions that make you think there might be a landslide?”

“Could we hold that until we have discussed Kenney’s ideas? This is really an important election, not just for the US but for Canada and the rest of the world, and it is easy to get angry or worried as you listen to the daily news reports. It pushes up my blood pressure---just ask Gloria, who keeps track of it. The best antidote I’ve found is to focus on the big trends that are shaping society. And that’s what I am going to be recommending to my newsletter readers. So, what did you think of Kenney’s analysis?”

“You know’, I started, “I’ve always been skeptical of writers who try to see patterns in history and then project from those patterns into the future. Whether it’s a Gibbon, a Marx or a Toynbee. But that said, I found myself agreeing with Kenney’s analysis of major cultural shifts, or waves as he calls them, throughout history: the shift from hunting and gathering, to farming, and then the shift to science, which is where we have been for the last few hundred years. I liked his description of the attempts to reject cultural changes, for example the Roman Catholic Church’s punishment of Galileo and Copernicus, and today the evangelical churches which reject evolution. I found his notion of eddies in which the people who can’t accept change go round and round in ever-decreasing circles until they gradually learn to accept the change.”

“Yes, I liked the idea of eddies, as well”, the Guru smiled.

“But then,” I continued, “we have to deal with his argument that a new wave is engulfing us with new values. First, there is ‘peace’---according to Kenney, nations will find it harder and harder in this new era to profit from war. And then there is ‘fairness’---human rights will become paramount, no more literal or metaphorical slavery in the treatment of different genders, races, sexual orientation and so on. Finally, there is ‘ecological sustainability’---humanity will have to end dumping poisons into the ground, sea or air in what he calls ‘ecocide’. It is an enticing picture but I wonder if it is a little too rosy, too optimistic.”

The Guru responded, “I understand what you are saying but when you look around it begins to made sense. Think of the US invasion of Iraq, which was ostensibly because of weapons of mass destruction but was really, in my view, engineered by Cheney and his pals to get oil reserves for American companies. Years ago, the war would have been wrapped up in a couple of weeks. Instead it took nearly a decade and almost bankrupted the US.”

“And I suppose Kenney would argue that the people today who deny climate change are twirling around in eddies, like the ‘flat-earthers’ in the 15th century.”

“Exactly!”

“Well”, I said, “I want to think about it some more, but it does seem that Kenney is on to something.”

“OK”, the Guru said, “let’s agree that Kenney seems to be describing a complex of trends that if valid must be factored into any forecasts we make about the future.”

I nodded.

“Well, let me outline some more trends and issues that need to be considered when we try to look ahead. One is that the way we have carved up the pie---the wealth of a nation--- no longer works. Nations continue to get wealthier and wealthier but thanks to technology, automation, globalization etc. there will not be enough traditional, living-wage jobs to absorb all the workers. We have to find new ways of sharing the wealth.”

“I can hear the wealthy, whirling around in their eddies, shouting that you are a socialist who is proposing ‘tax and spend policies’.”

“Sure”, the Guru agreed. “Let me finish with my final trend. An American political scientist, Pendleton Herring, argued 60 years ago that the US oscillates between periods of Innovation and Conservatism. For example, the social legislation of Kennedy and Johnson was followed by the conservative policies of Regan and the Bushes. It can be argued that the election of Obama may have ushered in a new period of Innovation with a turn away from war and a turn to policies like health care, the environment, and the rights of women, gays and minorities.”

“Kenney’s thesis and these other trends don’t seem to be very congenial to the Republican Party as it’s presently constituted”, I said.

The Guru beamed broadly, “My point exactly. Can you see any of today’s Republicans campaigning on a platform of ‘peace, fairness and ecological sustainability’, or of searching for new ways of sharing the nation’s wealth?’

“No, I can’t. So it is these ideas that make you think that a landslide could happen?”

“Remember I am not yet predicting a landslide, I am just saying that it is likely that Obama will be re-elected, but that there is a probability of around 35% that it could be a landslide.”

“Despite the massive amounts of money that the millionaires and billionaires can deploy for negative ads---the kinds of ads that destroyed Perry, Gingrich and Santorum?”

“That’s a fair point, and it needs an answer. Let’s shift from what has been a bit philosophical to the practical. The Republican Party is terribly fractured with its social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians and assorted interest groups such as the National Rifle Association. It would take a political genius of the highest order to paper over all those cracks and present to the public a party that appears to have an agreed-upon and coherent platform that can address the problems the nation faces. And Mitt Romney is not a political genius.”

“I agree”, I said, “He is not even a ‘B’ grade politician. He has hidden himself away on Fox News until that disastrous interview with Bob Shieffer on CBS when he couldn’t come up with a response to Obama’s immigration policy on the children of undocumented immigrants. Newt Gingrich would have just confused Shieffer with bluster and bellicosity, leaving poor Bob speechless.”

“And he has tubs of baggage with his taxes and his off-shore and other investments that the media are only now starting to address.”

“I sometimes think”, I added, “that Romney must be counting on gaining the presidency through a catastrophic economic crash, coupled with latent racism.”

“Another telling point is the recent behavior of Rupert Murdoch. He now seems to be distancing himself from Romney, as though he expects that Obama will win and he and his News Corporation will have to deal with a Democratically-controlled Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Internal Revenue Service etc. Murdoch made that kind of calculation in Britain when he shifted support from the Conservatives to Tony Blair. Murdoch can’t openly support Obama, as he did Tony Blair, but he can hobble Romney.”

“And”, I joined in, “Murdoch’s statement that Romney needs to bring in a new team of advisers is like trying to prop up an inadequate quarterback with better cheerleaders.”

“So”, the Guru smiled as he lifted his glass of beer, “you can see why I think Obama is going to be re-elected and why it could be a big win, not a squeaker.”

“Could you let me know when you raise the probability of a landslide to more than 50%? I might want to place a little bet on one of those online betting websites.”

“Will do”, the Guru said as we paid our bills and prepared to leave the cooling breezes of Lake Ontario for our hot cars.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears on a more regular basis.



 

Guru #8

Talking  About Politics and Religion

After a spectacular meal at the Hillebrand Winery Restaurant in Virgil, the Guru and his wife Gloria, my wife Paula and I were settled in the Guru's living room enjoying a post-dinner glass of---what else---his latest icewine.

We had been talking about the US election and I asked the Guru whether he agreed with most of the pundits that the Supreme Court would strike down the Health Care Mandate.

"It's hard to say, but if I were a betting man I would wager that it won't. My guess is that Justice Kennedy will decide that the health care problem in the US is so great that the administration's attempt to fix it should be allowed to stand. He will, however, insist that the wording of the decision include a 'broccoli barricade'."

"A broccoli barricade?"

"That's what I call it. Scalia and Alito argued that by approving the Mandate the Court would open up the Commerce Clause of the Constitution so that one could drive the proverbial Mack Truck through it, forcing people to eat broccoli, own cell phones, get their hair cut, whatever. The arguments were nonsense, of course, but Kennedy could meet their concerns by suggesting that the wording of the decision should limit the use of the Commerce Clause in future to truly exceptional situations. I think the Chief Justice would then join him so the Court's decision would be 6 to 3."

"Interesting point. I hope you're right!"

Then Paula shifted the conversation to the role that the evangelical churches and the Catholic church have been playing in both the choice of a Republican presidential nominee and in the general election. She burst out, "I can't stand the way religion gets mixed up in politics, especially in matters like birth control."

Gloria, whose academic background was the sociology of religion, said, quietly, "It is not religion, it's theology."

"But aren't they the same?', Paula asked.

"Most people use the terms interchangeably  but when I was studying religions I gradually decided, in my own mind at least, that 'religion' and 'theology' were different. Let me go back a bit.  I grew up in a devout family in California and when I was a teenager I started to rebel against some of the rules and customs, especially those that I felt discriminated against females. When I got to university I was a mixed up kid, part of me clinging to my parents' faith and part of me rejecting it. I think that was why I ended up studying religion when my friends were going into mathematics, economics, art history, languages and so on.  I wanted to resolve the 'internal civil war' that was going on in my head."

"So", Paula said, "how did deciding that religion and theology were different help you bring peace to that civil war?"

"It didn't happen quickly but as I studied religions from around the world I realized that they almost all shared a common belief in what Christianity calls the Golden Rule---do under others as you would have them do unto you. The formulations were different but the meaning was the same. It occurred to me that successful cultures need a belief, a value, that restrains individuals from killing, robbing, raping each other. If a culture doesn't find a way to limit selfishness and aggression, it will die out. About the same time, I found an article that said that while the origin of the word 'religion' is unclear, some experts believe that it comes from Latin words that mean 'hold back' or 'restrain'. I decided that if that was what 'religion' meant I could subscribe to that, I could consider myself a 'religious' person.

"But", I joined in," you haven't told us what in your view distinguishes 'religion' from 'theology'?"

"I'll come to that, "Gloria replied, "but let me stick with my thoughts about 'religion' a bit. The more I thought about religion as the notion that we should treat each other as we would want to be treated, the more I questioned the need for all the rules, and customs that most religions---but not all---have built on that simple idea. If you believe in that idea then you don't need to be told that you shouldn't kill someone, steal from your neighbour, or bear false witness. Someone who had internalized that idea wouldn't think of treating others in that way. I started to call all that extraneous stuff that cluttered up that simple idea, 'theology'. I realized that my rebelling against 'religion' wasn't a rebellion against the idea of treating each other as we would want to be treated, but against the stuff that cluttered up the idea. And especially, as I said before, all the rules and customs that placed men on a pedestal, with women occupying an inferior place. But it wasn't just the gender discrimination, it was all the rules that I thought were unrelated to the core belief. What you can eat, what you can wear, what you have to believe about god, about the hereafter, heaven, hell and on and on."

"And all that 'stuff' is what you call 'theology'? What did your professors think of that distinction between religion and theology", asked Paula.

"The professors of divinity weren't happy with me at all. I'm afraid I was a bit brash. I told them that promoting the Golden Rule didn't need church hierarchies, or tenured professors of divinity. It just needed people who believed in it and lived by it. As far as I could see, theology, on the other hand, was all about certain people using---actually misusing---religion to gain status, power, influence or money."

I looked at the Guru who had remained silent during Gloria's comments but it was clear that he was listening carefully. " What do you think", I asked.

"This whole discussion reminds me of how Gloria and I met."

"You were giving a talk at UCLA, weren't you?"

"Yes, it was just a prosaic lecture on how to promote economic development in what we used to call under-developed countries. Then an intense young woman attacked me in the question period about not paying attention to the role of organized religion in keeping the countries poor. She argued that the church hierarchy made deals with the political and business leaders, deals that kept workers  quiet, docile---and poor."

"I was nasty to the Guru", Gloria said, "but then we went for a drink, and he agreed that I was probably right, and I decided that I liked his eyes and his hands."

"My eyes are fine but my hands are a bit arthritic", the Guru said, rubbing his hands together.

"You're just fine", Gloria smiled. "While we were having our drink after the lecture, the Guru argued that he had seen devoted church workers providing education and health care in poor countries. After some discussion, I convinced him that they were motivated by religion but the people at the top of the church weren't. They were into theology, not religion, and their deals with business and political leaders kept the poor, poor."

"So", I said, "Gloria, you would argue that the church leaders who oppose contraception are practising theology while the priests and nuns, who turn a blind eye to poor women who are using birth control because they can't afford any more children, are practising religion?"

"Yes", replied Gloria. "And I would argue that countries that treat the poor and disadvantaged well are religious even if most people don't go to a church, synagogue, mosque or whatever. So, this means that the Scandinavian countries are by my definition very religious even though few of their citizens attend places of worship."

"All this reminds me", Paula said, "of a visit I made recently to my granddaughter's daycare centre, which has children from every corner of the world and many religions. At the end of the morning, the children sat in a circle while the leader read to them and led them in songs. Before they broke up, the leader asked them to 'look after each other' until they met again---in effect she was asking them to practise the Golden Rule. Now, that's the kind of 'religion' one can teach in school and no one will object!"

"Exactly," Gloria said.

Thinking of the Posting (this one!) that I would have to write, I tried to summarize the discussion. "So, we started by saying that there was too much religion in politics but then we decided that one should make a distinction between 'religion' and 'theology'. We now seem to be saying that 'religion'---defined as treating others as we would like to be treated---is not a problem in politics, but should, in fact, be encouraged. On the other hand, "Theology'---defined as all the rules, customs, sacred texts, beliefs in a deity and so on that are part of an 'organized religion'---are personal and have no place in politics. Have I got that right?"

"That's it", Gloria said, and Paula and the Guru nodded agreement.

I couldn't help but bring up an historical allusion. "You know we have just agreed on something that the British accepted in the 18th century after spending a century  of bloody fighting over 'religion'. It seems that we have to keep re-learning the lesson that politics and theology don't mix."

"I hope and believe", the Guru said, "that we will see a sharp decline in the involvement of theologians in politics. The shrewder leaders are now realizing that they have been 'used' by the greedoholics and their minions like Karl Rove."

"And so say all of us!", Gloria, Paula and I joined in.


000

Gloria mentioned that when I was recording the discussion for this blog I might want to mention a poster that the Scarborough Missions has prepared showing how each of the main religions expresses the Golden Rule. Here is a copy of the poster:

This image is courtesy of the Scarborough Missions. To order a poster click here

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears every Sunday morning.

Guru #7

  

Barack and Birth Control

The Guru had invited me to help him prepare a speech on the future of employment in the US and Canada, which he was to make to a prestigious American business group.

We were sitting in antique, maple rocking chairs in his large office/study/boardroom. Through the windows we could see rows of vines that had been stripped of their icewine grapes during a brief cold spell in early January.

Before starting on the employment speech, I asked him about the contraception issue in the US. "Did you see Michael Gerson's column in the Washington Post  in which he argues that the While House has committed an 'epic blunder'.  Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan claims in Newsweek that the controversy wasn't a fumble by Obama but a cleverly constructed trap for the Republicans? Which was it? A trap or an epic blunder?"

"The first thing to say is that it was intended, it wasn't an accident that the White House just happened to blunder into."

"So, it WAS a trap?"

"No", the Guru said, "I didn't say that. I prefer to think of it as an Obama Teaching Moment."

"You're going to have to explain that to me."

"Glad to. Let me set the stage a bit. Years ago, there was a rock group in Peterborough, Ontario---Reverend Ken and the Lost Followers---which put up posters advertising their concerts on the town's light poles. Peterborough charged them with an offense under a town bylaw that prevented the attaching of posters to light poles. The Reverend Ken appealed on the grounds of freedom of speech, and the case went all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. When the Court agreed with the Reverend Ken, journalists asked him what he thought of the town council. He said, 'It's too bad that ignorance isn't painful.'.

"Whoa", I said, "I'm not sure I see the connection between your Rev. Ken and contraception."

"Obama spent a lot of time in academia. He values reason and has always done his best to lead students from ignorance to understanding. He carried that goal into the White House where he hoped that he could have rational discussions with the Republicans about their policy differences. He hoped that working together they could come up with policy compromises that would best serve the needs of the country. But the Republicans stonewalled him, figuring they could make him a one-term president. He then moved to what I call his 'make-ignorance-painful' strategy. For example, remember the debate over his birth certificate? He could have released the long-form certificate at any time but waited and waited. When he finally released it, his critics faced laughter and ridicule. They suddenly understood that ignorance can indeed be painful."

"All except Donald Trump."

"As my grandfather used to say, 'No sense, no feeling.'!"

"So you're saying that Obama allowed the birth control issue to develop so it could become a teaching moment."

"Exactly. There were several health care examples in state legislation on how to treat religious organizations, examples that could have been used to defuse the issue. He chose not to bring forward a compromise until the Republicans and some rightwing Bishops had exposed their ignorance. Phone calls, letters, Facebook and Twitter messages from women across the country swamped the ignorant, and they felt the pain. And perhaps learned a thing or two."

"From the pleased look on your face, you seem to feel that the controversy in addition to inflicting some pain on the ignorant may have actually helped Obama politically?'

"Yes, the controversy will have important benefits for the White House. It gave a big boost to Obama's most precious initiative, his health care plan. Most voters, and especially women, didn't realize that the plan would mean free contraceptive care---no deductibles, no co-pays. So that's another attractive feature of the plan in addition to the ruling that children can stay on their parents' plan until age 26, plus insurance companies can't refuse people on the grounds of pre-existing condition, nor can they drop people who develop a major illness like cancer, and so on."

"Good point."

"And how can the Republicans promise to repeal Obamacare without trying to find some way to preserve these attractive features?"

"And", I commented, "continuing those benefits isn't possible without a mandate rule that requires everyone to be insured in order to pool the risk. The Republicans are going to have a tough time arguing against the mandate idea, which of course was theirs to begin with."

"And that", the Guru continued, " will make it hard for the Supreme Court to rule that the mandate feature of Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Court is supposed to be above politics but legal scholars have always known that its decisions are influenced by public opinion."

"So you think that through allowing this controversy, Obama has sent a message to the Supreme Court?"

"Sure, but not just to the Court, he has sent a message to the Catholic hierarchy. While the US Catholic Bishops were opposing the White House compromise, Sister Carol Keehan, the head of the Catholic Health organization, immediately supported it. She is widely respected by Catholics and by other nuns for her dedication to helping the poor and disadvantaged."

"Another good point", I said. "You know, I haven't been able to understand why the Bishops rejected Obama's compromise. Trying to defend a medieval policy on contraception that is ignored by over 90 percent of your flock is bad enough, but why compound your problems by denouncing a compromise that your own health organizations and the majority of the population feels is fair?"

"Perhaps Obama isn't the only one sending messages. Is it possible that the Vatican reminded the bishops that the Pope is elderly and won't last forever, and that the next pope could be American (one of them, in fact) but only if the US bishops are seen as being 'more-Catholic-than-the-pope' in matters of contraception?"

"But surely," I added, "the bishops are going to pay a price for their 'ignorance'. The stereotype of plump, self-satisfied, out-of-touch MEN who flubbed the issue of sex abuse by paedophilic priests is not going to be enhanced by this fight against full coverage of contraception---especially among women."

"Yes, they'll feel some pain. Turning to the Republican Party, it is interesting that many of its leaders basically acquiesced in the Obama compromise although they issued some perfunctory comments about Obama's attack on religious freedom. But some of the Neanderthals in the party want to continue the fight by passing a law that would allow any employer to refuse health care coverage for any treatment that they are morally opposed to, thus gutting the health care program. I'm afraid that ignorance runs deep in parts of today's Republican party and there is a lot more pain to be felt before they come to their senses."

"So Obama's 'teaching moment' strategy has been successful?"

"In my view, yes, and the success of it was partly due to the clever tactics employed by the White House. For example, the President announced the compromise at noon on Friday, February 10th. That afternoon, Romney and Santorum made crucial speeches to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Guess what news was featured in the print and digital media that day? Obama's compromise."

"And some pundits seem to feel that the contraception issue gives Santorum an advantage over Romney among conservative Republicans."

The Guru grinned, "Surely you don't think the White House would do something that would make life more difficult for Romney, do you?"

"Look', I said, "you may call it a 'teaching moment strategy' but the more I think about it and the more I listen to you, the more I think Andrew Sullivan is right. That it was a trap."

"Perhaps it was both!", the Guru smiled. "A teaching moment, AND a trap---he is from the Chicago school of politics, after all."

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears every Sunday morning.

Guru #6

Year-End Thoughts from The Guru

The server at the Pie Plate Bakery and Cafe in Virgil set two coffees and two slices of pie in front of us---apple for the Guru and pumpkin for me. 

As I looked at the pieces of pie, I thought it was wrong to refer to the Pie Plate's pie as 'pie'. It is like referring to a filet mignon as a 'chunk of beef'. 'Pie' is what you get at a normal restaurant. The scratch-baked, flaky-crusted and deep-fruited creations of this restaurant deserve some better appellation.

Probably a French name starting with 'tarte'---something that conveys the ambrosial nature of the restaurant's desserts.

The Guru brought me back from my reverie by pulling a package from his pocket and carefully unwrapping it.

"What's that?", I asked.

"It's 6 year-old cheddar from  the Maple Dale cheese factory. When you have apple pie as great as this, you have to combine it with a cheddar that is equally great."

He  placed the cheese on the plate beside the apple pie, and then combined a small piece of cheese with a forkful of pie.

I said, "Looking at your obvious pleasure, I'm tempted to say to the server, 'I'll have what he's having' "

"That was a great movie!" 

My pie was delicious as well---the same crust with a smooth, creamy pumpkin filling, subtly seasoned, and topped with a generous mound of real whipped cream.

We were meeting after the Guru had emailed me a draft of his year-end newsletter to his subscribers and asked if we could discuss it over coffee and pie at the Pie Plate---his treat.

How could I refuse?

"What did you think of the draft newsletter?", he asked.

"I liked it a lot, but I have some comments and questions."

"OK, shoot".

"I thought the first part, on the events of 2011, was very strong. Your analysis of the Arab Spring was excellent---its causes and the reasons for its remarkable success. As were your forecasts for the Arab Spring's impact in other countries, for example the likely outcome of the events in Syria, the Occupy movements and the recent protests in Russia.

I carried on, "I also liked your section on the Republican primary campaign. Let me read part of it:

" 'Pundits are asking why the field of Republican candidates is so weak, when Obama continues to face terrible economic problems. Why aren't leaders like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels or others running?

"I think there are three reasons. First, anyone in the While House has a built in advantage and Obama, as a powerful campaigner, is likely to use that advantage with great effect.

"Second, the four years from 2012 to 2016 are going to be tough, economically, as the country climbs out of George Bush's financial crisis. Why not let Obama slog through all that misery, and then run in 2016 when the economy is getting back to normal?

"The third is perhaps the most powerful. Strong Republicans understand that Obama is running not against the Republican Party, but against the greedoholics---whom I have written about before (see Posting #1). The greedoholics have controlled the GOP for the last couple of decades and have made it a party where---as Bill Clinton has joked---if you want to run for office you have to pretend to have an IQ in single digits. You have to deny or be sceptical about obvious truths such as climate change, evolution, and the income gap. The strong Republicans are sitting back hoping that Obama will defeat or at least weaken the greedoholics, and thus give them back their party.' "

I paused, took off my reading glasses, and said, "I thought your third point was really telling. Just think if Obama is able to restore a functioning two party system in which the parties can disagree on their philosophy of government but still be willing to compromise! No more ridiculous pledges to never raise taxes! No more filibusters based on irrational ideological arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!"

"Yes, if Obama can accomplish that he would deserve a place on Mount Rushmore. Other comments?"

"A couple. Your comments on the Republican attacks on Obama's so-called 'leadership deficiencies' were well done. You point out that leadership is not always about being in front of the troops, leading them into battle. Rather it is about carefully selecting the style of leadership that is appropriate for a particular situation. The Republicans are just frustrated at how skilful Obama has been in choosing the right leadership style, whether it is in the slaying of Osama bin Laden, the removal of Khadafy, or getting payroll tax changes through Congress."

The Guru nodded, "As I said in the draft, the Republican attacks on his leadership are just politics---they don't believe their own 'talking points'---but what bothers me is that media pundits get sucked into responding and into discussing 'What's wrong with Obama's leadership style?'; or, 'Is he a weak leader?'.

I agreed, "You know I have thought for some time that media commentators need some kind of accreditation so that readers or listeners can judge whether they know what they are talking about. My thought is that a bipartisan group would be set up to develop three tests: one on national politics; another on international affairs; and one on economics. Taking the tests would be voluntary and pundits who successfully passed would be able to display a symbol after their by-line on columns or blogs. On television, the symbol would appear after their name in that little box beneath their image."

"I like that idea, May I steal it for this newsletter?"

"Be my guest," I said. "My last comment was about your prediction for the 2012 Presidential race. I agree with you that at the moment it looks like Obama will be re-elected. I notice that Ladbrokes has him as the odds-on-favourite at 4/5, while Romney and Gingrich are both at 7/2 . I also agree with your newsletter that a lot can go wrong between now and November 2012. Could I just suggest that you consider changing the quote you use, 'A week is a lifetime in politics'? The quote is actually from Harold Wilson who said, 'A week is a long time in politics'.

"It doesn't have the same punch but let me think about that."

"A similar comment was made by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. When asked by a journalist what was most likely to blow his government off course he replied with that Etonian, upper class accent, 'Events, dear boy, events'."

"MacMillan was right---he was obviously thinking of the Profumo scandal---but who can know what impact 'events' will have on the 2012 race."

The server brought our bill.

After grabbing it, the Guru went back to scraping his plate with his fork, trying to get every smidgen of pie and cheese.

"Watch", I joked, "you'll take the glaze off that plate!"

He smiled, "It's so good!"

As we got up, he said, "Thank you for your help with the newsletter".

"Anytime."

We wished each other a Merry Christmas and promised to get back together in February, after he has finished picking and crushing his icewine grapes, and I have returned from a research visit overseas.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) normally appears every Sunday morning but will be on holiday until February 12, 2012.

Guru #5

 

Are Canadian Politics Dull?

(A political science professor liked to tell his first year students that there was a key question about politics that they would have to answer. Which is correct: "Politics is dirty", or "Politics are dirty"? Leaving aside the question of whether I agree with the premise that politicians are crooks, I opt, on grammatical grounds, for the plural, "Politics are dirty".)

The Guru and I were on the Go Train from Toronto to Burlington having spent the day at the Metro Centre where the Guru had been judging an icewine competition.

I had driven us from Virgil to Burlington early in the morning so we could catch the Go Train and avoid the hassle of Toronto traffic and parking.

A reader of the Icewine Guru blog had asked me why the Guru and I hadn't yet talked about Canadian politics. Did we find it too dull? Or was it beneath us? So, I had suggested to the Guru that on our way home, we should spend some time chatting about Harper, McGuinty, Charest et. al. He agreed.

But first, I wanted to get a little update on how he thought the US presidential race was going.

"Very well!", he beamed.

" So", I asked, "you think that Obama's secret plan that I agreed not to write about (see Posting #4) is unfolding as you expected?"

"It is, but one thing that has surprised me a little is how quickly public anger about the income gap has turned into a protest movement. We talked about the income gap in mid-August but it wasn't on the radar of the mainstream media back then."

"Are you worried about criticism that there is no clear leadership for the movement and no clear statement of demands?"

"No, not at all. Are you", he asked me.

"No, I'm not. I've studied the history of social movements, and the ones that ultimately have a major impact often start off the way the Occupy Wall Street has. Over time, leaders emerge, and the demands become clarified. It is interesting that often movements throw up two leaders, one with strong views and good organizational skills, and the other with strong presentational and negotiating skills. There is often a tension between the two leaders but in successful movements they learn to work together. I'm waiting to see who will emerge."

"Good points. I agree with you. What do you think about the Republican primary battle?"

"I'm enjoying it", I replied, "I love to see two groups of greedoholics---to use your term---throwing their money around, the Wall Street one supporting Romney and the Energy one supporting Perry or Cain or whomever."

"It's getting nasty", the Guru chuckled. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice effect that I talked about back in August is driving the adult Republicans crazy. Funding the Tea Party helped the Republicans win the House of Representatives in 2010, but now the Tea Party crazies won't let the adult Republicans do what they must do to counter Obama's re-election strategy.  Jeb Bush, Karl Rove and others can see what is happening and but their protests aren't having any effect, at least for the moment."

"Yes", I added, "the Republicans should be trying to engineer a discreet flip-flop on their no-increase-in-revenue policy (that would of course have to be presented as something other than a flip-flop) but instead the crazies are trotting out flat tax proposals that are going to make the income gap worse. It's truly bizarre!"

"Agreed. Perhaps in one of our future conversations, we should discuss how one would go about reducing the income gap. It is not going to be easy."

"A good thought", I said, " but can we change the subject, and talk about Canadian politics. We have a fan of our blog who believes that we have been short-changing 'our home and native land'.

"Well, politics that spring from a philosophy of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are almost certainly going to be more exciting than those that have their roots in 'peace, order and good government'. But we have had our moments, moments when Canadian politics were pretty damned exciting. Think of the War of 1812, the 1837 Rebellions, the Riel Rebellion, Conscription in both World Wars, the Quebec Separation movement."

"True, but at the moment there are no great issues dividing Canadians. The greedoholics tried to inject the virus of right-wing political philosophy into our discourse but I think the body politic is rejecting it. The Reform Party took over the Progressive Conservative Party but I sense that Harper's victory this year may be the high-water mark for the that mix of Ayn Rand, regional angst and evangelical religion. We are facing terrible international economic problems and challenging domestic problems such as the rising cost of health care and of other social programs. This is a time when the Canadian DNA calls for cooperation and negotiation, not my-way-or-the-highway."

"I agree", the Guru chimed in.

"What do you think of Harper?", I asked

"Well", the Guru responded, "I thought at one time that he had great potential but once he became Prime Minister I started to change my mind. I've now come to the conclusion that while he has some of the attributes of a successful Prime Minister he lacks some important qualities. He has ambition, stubbornness, a touch of paranoia and an authoritarian streak---it is tough to succeed in politics without those. But he doesn't, in my view, have a first class mind and the mind that he has is not well trained. He seems to have a disdain for facts, witness the stupid decision about the census forms, the decision to build more prisons despite statistics that show crime in Canada has been declining and that longer jail sentences have not worked in the States, and the decision to abolish the long gun registry, which the main users---the police---say has been working well."

"Yes", I added, "those decisions seem to have been made on ideological grounds, not on any analysis of the facts."

"In addition he appears to lack highly developed political antennae. How could a politician with any sense of what was going on in Toronto and Ontario publicly talk this summer about a likely 'trifecta' in which a Hudak victory would complete the sweep of elections by conservatives---Hudak, Rob Ford and himself? Rob Ford was so unpopular in the Greater Toronto Area, that Harper's remark helped re-elect Dalton McGuinty."

"Are you worried about the legislative changes he can make in the next four years with a majority government", I asked.

"A little bit, but the provinces will limit his actions in key areas like health care. But his biggest problem is that he is trying to run everything from the Prime Minister's Office, because he doesn't trust his ministers or the public service.  As I've said, a little bit of paranoia and a little touch of authoritarianism are necessary in a PM but he is showing too much of each. John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney suffered from the same problem and tried to run things from the PMO. Look what happened to them---huge majorities followed by humbling defeats. No one can run a modern government with all its complexities from the Prime Minister's office. Serious mistakes are inevitable. As his popularity polls drop, and as we get closer to the next election, enemies in his party will start to conspire against him."

"A Tory 'Night of the Long Knives'?"

"That's it, and Harper will either be deposed or badly wounded. The new Prime Minister will be from either the Liberal Party or the NDP, most likely from the former. I have no idea who the Prime Minister will be but someone will emerge."

"So, you're saying, Guru, that anyone who thinks that Canadian politics are dull should just wait until the knives come out?"

"Exactly!"

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) appears every Sunday morning.

Guru #4

 

Is Obama a Wimp?

The Guru and I were in his winery's bottling room gluing labels on his attractive, dark green 375 ml icewine bottles.

"Those damn people at the Liquor Board held up the bottling by three weeks", he complained as we readied the bottles to go under the filling spout.

He explained that the wineries can't print their labels, which have to show the alcohol content, until the Board has tested and ruled on the amount of alcohol in the wine.

"My lab equipment is as good as theirs, in fact it's probably better, and I knew it was 11.4%. But I couldn't get the labels printed until I had their results---which came in at exactly 11.4%. I can see the need for government testing to keep everyone honest, but why should it take three weeks?"

After we had finished bottling ten cases, we sat at a table in the sunny lab, overlooking his vineyard. He poured glasses of a charming Riesling wine---not icewine---from a neighbouring winery and we began to talk.

"What happened to that Op-Ed you were going to send to the New York Times on community employment programs?", he asked.

"They told me that they get dozens of Op-Eds a day and they can't print them all, etc. etc. etc. Nice letter, though."

"What did you think of Obama's Jobs Act?", he asked.

"I liked it, especially the component for summer jobs for youth. And I liked how he plans to pay for it, with revenue from the wealthiest. But he's taking a beating from both the left and the right. All those claims that he's a wimp."

"He's no wimp. It's just that people don't understand his secret strategy for re-election."

"And you do?"

"Of course." The Guru is nothing if not self-confident.

"Could you explain it to me?"

"I will but first you will have to promise not to publish it in that blog you're writing. You don't have a large readership (not like my monthly newsletter!) but I would hate to have someone leak the strategy to Obama's enemies. I want to see him re-elected, not because I like him particularly---I never got caught up in the Obama frenzy---and not because I like the Democrats, a hapless lot most of the time. But because he seems to be the only adult in Washington, and the only person who fully understands the danger of the income gap. So don't publish, OK?"

"Agreed."

I am used to being amazed at the Guru's capacity for analysis and exposition but the next 15 minutes left me in awe.

"It's a brilliant strategy, but will it work?", I asked.

"That's hard to say, it depends on the greedoholics"

(In Posting #1 in this blog, the Guru defined what he means by the word 'greedoholic': "That's what I call the billionaires and special interest groups who are so hooked on greed that they have lost all sight of what is good for the country---if they ever had it. And they have also lost sight of what is in their own self-interest as capitalists, but they are too hooked on greed to see that."

( Later, I asked him this question: "You aren't saying, of course, that all wealthy people are greedoholics?"

(And he replied: "No, certainly not. Take Warren Buffett. He has a good bit of greed about him but you wouldn't see him upgrading his yacht (if he had one) because it has just one heliport and he needs 'his and her' helicopters, like the hedge fund manager he plays golf with. I think Buffett is sincere when he complains about a tax system that means his secretary pays federal tax at a higher effective rate than he does. He's a Democrat but there are wealthy Republics who aren't greedoholics---some of them are my clients---who understand that the income gap is dangerous, but they are afraid to stand up to the greedoholics. It's sad---they know that an income gap this huge is bad for the country and bad for capitalism.")

(Although he didn't name any of the greedoholics he is worried about I think it is clear that the brothers whose family name sounds like a popular drink would be included.)

The Guru continued, "The greedoholics  have many advantages---we've talked about that before---and the economic situation inside and outside the US is so bleak that even a brilliant strategy may not be enough. But think of Eisenhower on June 5th 1944 as he pondered what would happen the next day when hundreds of thousands of troops would cross the English Channel and try to invade France. He had put together a daring and ambitious invasion plan but so much could go wrong. But it turned out well. Success has to start with a clear goal and a brilliant plan, and I think Obama and his people have both of those."

"Is there anything at all that I can tell my readers?", I asked.

"Well let's see. You could tell them to study Sun Tzu, and also read up on the Ground Sparrow".

"I'm not sure that would be very helpful to my readers, as intelligent and discerning as they are. Can you elucidate a bit, without giving away the essential features of the strategy? Perhaps by starting with Sun Tzu and his "The Art of War", which I know you keep on your bedside table."

"Well, Obama's strategy that I just outlined shows that Obama has read and absorbed "The Art of War". Let me choose one lesson that your readers might like to think about. Sun Tzu argued back in about 400 BC that a wise general will always choose the battlefield that he wants to fight on, not the one his enemies want him to fight on. Now, think about Obama and how he bypassed several possible battlefields, for example the Republican threats to close down the government in December 2010 and April this year, or the Debt Ceiling issue in August. His enemies taunted him and tried to get him to fight on those battlefields. Instead, he compromised and his enemies and even some of his allies called him weak, and a wimp."

"You talk about 'his enemies'. Who are you referring to?"

"Oh, the greedoholics, they have the money, and they pull the strings. Not the Republicans, they do what the greedoholics tell them. By the way, isn't it tragic to see some of the 'adult' Republicans being forced to grovel and recant by the greedoholics. As for the Tea Party members, they are unwitting pawns of the greedoholics."

"So, if the greedoholics are the enemy, are you saying that Obama's goal is not just to win re-election but to trounce the greedoholics?"

"That's it. The US can't begin to correct the income gap until the greedoholics are beaten, or at least have their wings clipped."

"So that brings us back to the questions of a battlefield. Are you saying that Obama has chosen a battlefield?'

"Yes, and he's fighting on it right now. The Jobs Act, the components of which the majority of Americans support, is part of it. The other part consists of the deficit and debt proposals set out in his speech in the Rose Garden on Monday this week, in which he said that he will veto any deficit/debt plan that doesn't include tax increases on the wealthy.  That's again a policy that most Americans support."

"That's not a battlefield that the greedoholics would have chosen, some pretty tough terrain for them." I added.

"Exactly, and that's why you see such weak, ineffectual attacks on Obama's proposals. 'The plan is too large' or 'It's just another stimulus program', or "It's class warfare'---the last from people who have been stealing money for years from the working and middle classes through lobbyist-inspired tax loopholes and concessions!"

"But aren't some Democratic representatives and senators opposing Obama's proposals?"

"The greedoholics are powerful, and it is understandable that some Democrats are frightened of, or beholden to them."   

"How long will the battle last, do you think?", I asked.

"That's the beauty of this as the battlefield. The greedoholics could decide in the next few months that they are being beaten and decide to retreat to fight another day. The Obama proposals could then be adopted by Congress, which would be good for the country---and by the way, give him a victory he could take into the election. It is more likely that the greedoholics will see the proposals as the thin edge of the wedge and opt to battle them right to the election in the hope that they can defeat Obama."

"And by that time", I added, "you hope that the American people will have made a choice about what kind of country they want. And the battle will have stripped away the camouflage and the subterfuges that the greedoholics have used, thus permitting the public to see how they have been manipulated by people who are only interested in lining their own pockets. "

"That has to be Obama's hope. But the greedoholics are tough, with tubs of money and many influential allies, so the battle could go either way. Closer to the election, I will be warning my readers that if Obama loses the election, the 'lame duck' period from November 6th to the inauguration of a Republican president on January 20th, 2013 is very likely to be a time of great social unrest."

"That's a sobering thought. So, getting back to what I can report in the blog, I will not discuss what you covered in our private talk but will cover the conversation we just had. OK?"

"Agreed".

"Now what's this about the Ground Sparrow?"

" When I was a kid, there was a vacant field next to our home. Sometimes when my friends and I walked through the field a little sparrow would appear and then limp ahead of us. Thinking it was injured, we at first tried to catch it to help it by fixing its wing or its leg. But it always stayed just a little ahead of us. After we had gone a hundred yards or so, it would fly away, in a perfectly healthy way. We learned that the Ground Sparrow, the Killdeer and some ducks use this ruse to lure people away from their nests and fledglings."

"So what does that have to do with Obama?"

"Think! What is Obama's most important legislative achievement, his baby, his fledgling?"

 "The health care reform."

"Exactly, and 'his baby' is getting stronger by the day, with regulations being developed, agreements with states and insurers being formed, and so on. All of this while Congress is being distracted by discussions of debt, deficit and jobs."

"So you don't think Obama is a wimp?"

"Like a fox!"

"I hope you are right, but even foxes sometimes get outwitted."

"We'll just have to see, won't we?"

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The Icewine Guru postings will appear from time to time---when I have something on my mind. The Letter from Virgil postings (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) appear weekly, on Sunday mornings.

Guru #3

 

Covered Faces

The Guru and I and our wives had just been seated at the Grill on King, a restaurant in Niagara-on-the-Lake that the Guru had recommended.

It was our first visit and my wife and I looked around.

I said, “It has a warm ambiance and is surprisingly busy for mid-week.”

The Guru nodded, “We have been here once or twice and enjoyed it.”

When a waiter asked if we would like drinks, I looked at the Guru and asked what he was going to have.

The waiter cut in, “Mr Guru will be having a small draft Stella Artois.”

Grinning, the Guru said, “Maybe we have been here more than once or twice.”

We gave the waiter the other three drink orders.

Before I describe our meal, perhaps I should introduce our wives, the Guru’s wife, Gloria, and mine, Paula (These are not their real names---and to help keep everyone straight, I have chosen pseudonyms that have the same first letter as the husband’s. So, Gloria for Guru, and Paula for the Professor---the Professor, that's me.)

I met Paula while we were part of the Oxford University contingent at a huge ban-the-bomb protest in London in the 1960s. At one point the police charged the parade and Paula was knocked to the pavement, spraining her ankle. Her Oxford friends got carried away by the crowds and it was left to a fellow from the colonies to help the pretty damsel in distress.

I managed to get her to an A and E (Accident and Emergency) department of a nearby hospital and then to the Oxford train.  (Paula comes from a prominent London wine merchant family---Tories the lot---and she didn’t want to call them for help and have to admit she was ‘a ban-the-bomber’.) We talked all the way to Oxford, and have kept on talking ever since.

After she got her doctorate---in biology---we married and returned to Toronto where she joined the biology department at York University.

The Guru met his wife, Gloria, in the 1960s during a lecture he was giving at UCLA on the reasons behind the tumultuous happenings on the streets and campuses of the US at that time. In the question and answer session, she told him he didn’t know what he was talking about.

After the talk, she came up to carry on the argument. He invited her for a drink to discuss their differences, and they discovered they had a lot in common. The rest is history.

Gloria is a sociologist---she writes articles and lectures on her specialty, the sociology of world religions---and helps manage the Guru's consulting business.

As we finished our drinks the waiter came back for our appetizers and entrees. Gloria said that everything on the menu was good but she could recommend the lamb shanks, which were slow cooked and served with garlic mashed potatoes.

Salads and lamb shanks sounded good to all of us.

The Guru laughed and told the waiter, "We are all going to be sheep and have the lamb".

I imagine---or at least hope---that Gloria gave him a kick under the table. He tends to get carried away with his little witticisms.

I asked the Guru and Gloria about their recent trip to France---the Guru had given a lecture in Paris and then they had gone to the Bordeaux Region to sample the wines.

He said they had had a fine time, the speech had gone well and the weather had been great.

Gloria agreed but said she was upset at the tensions between the French nationals and the Muslim immigrants, which had become focused on the face coverings worn by some of the Muslim women. Right-wing political factions were using the face-covering issue to win support among French voters and it seemed to be working.

Gloria said she was deeply opposed to forcing women to cover their faces but was troubled by the government’s efforts to pass legislation banning the wearing of face coverings. She wasn’t sure that legislation was the right answer, either in France or  in Quebec, which she noted has also been flirting with the idea of banning face coverings.

The Guru said, “But the wines in Bordeaux were great and the vintners expect that this year’s crop will produce truly remarkable wines.”

“You’re trying to change the subject”, Gloria blurted, “I hate it when you do that!”

“But”, the Guru responded, “if we carry on discussing Muslim rules about women’s dress we’ll end up talking about San Francisco's attempt to stop rabbi’s snipping bits off new-born boys.”

“Look, we are talking about Muslim dress not circumcision!”

I noticed that the people at nearby tables were tuning into our conversation.

But, the Guru protested, "Muslim dress and circumcision are both based on religious tenets. They are based on faith and belief, not rational thought, and I don’t find it very useful to try to have a productive discussion of them.  If you try to argue with adherents, they will point to a book they consider sacred---the Koran, the Bible or whatever---and for them that’s it. The matter is settled. Case closed.”

“But I agree with Gloria’, Paula joined in, “that forcing women to cover their faces is awful. Why can’t we cut out talk of circumcision---the pun is intended---and focus on face coverings?”

“Thank you, Paula!”, Gloria said. “I keep thinking of that Harvard philosopher, John Rawls, and his book, “A Theory of Justice: Justice as Fairness”. You remember how he argued that when people were considering whether a law or behaviour was just and fair, they should imagine themselves behind a 'veil of ignorance'. Behind this veil, they should imagine that they were not yet born and that the details of their eventual birth were unknowable, details such as their gender, time of birth, location of birth, wealth of parents and so on. In that ‘pre-birth’ state, people should ask themselves what sort of laws and societal rules and customs they would consider just and fair”

“Your point’s  a good one”,  I said, “if we honestly played the ‘behind-the-veil-of-ignorance’ game no one at this table, and probably no one in the restaurant would want to be born into a situation in which they were  forced to wear facial covering, no one would agree that that was just and fair. But the issue we should be talking about is: what should be the role of government, if any, in trying to correct that?”

“Now, that’s something we can have a rational discussion about’, muttered the Guru who had been playing with his salad---a little peevishly, I thought. “It’s a really complex issue and to make it easier to discuss, can we agree that we are talking about women who have moved to a ‘Western’ country----Canada, the UK, France, Australia etc--- and continue to wear face coverings, and that we are not talking about women in the Saudi Arabia’s of this world. What if anything we should do about those women in their countries of birth is another matter. Can we agree on that?”

“Agreed, dear”, said Gloria, “now can we just discuss whether the wearing of face coverings in Western countries should be made illegal?”

I felt I had to join in, “I’m not sure I should be commenting on something in your sociology bailiwick, Gloria, but it seems to me from my study of the history of the integration of immigrants in Canada that there is something at work that is similar to what physicists call entropy---you know when systems break down. I call it 'social entropy'. We have taken in Doukhobors , the Amish, the Mennonites and other groups who came with highly ordered, even rigid beliefs and behaviours but gradually most have shed them. Can I give you an example of what I mean by social entropy? Recently, Paula and I were in a waiting room in the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga, a hospital with many Sikh patients---and Sikh donors!. We watched as little family clusters went by. There would be an elderly couple, who looked as they would have looked back in their native countries---men in their turbans and women in long tunics and matching trousers. Then there was the next generation, probably the original immigrants to Canada, who had sponsored their parents. Some of the men in this generation wore turbans but some didn't. In the third generation, few of the men wore turbans and their wives wore designer jeans.”

Gloria responded, “Are you saying, Professor, that we shouldn’t do anything, just let time and this social entropy do their work, and in the meantime, we let thousands of women be forced by men--- their fathers, or husbands---to swelter in the heat, and be unable to participate fully in the opportunities our society offers?”.

“No, I’m not ruling out legislation, but I am saying that governments should be careful not to hinder the working of social entropy. Legislation that looks mean-spirited and discriminatory can create resistance and martyrs, and slow down beneficial changes that are already taking place.”

The waiter took away our plates and asked about dessert. After the richness of the delicious lamb shanks we chose light desserts---two champagne sorbets, and two small caramel crème brûlées.

The Guru picked up the discussion, “When looking at legislation to change social behaviour, everyone points to Prohibition. 'Temperance' groups and some churches forced the passage of legislation that was, to use the Professor's phrase, ‘mean spirited and discriminatory’. They denounced drinkers as immoral and unchristian. In the end they got their way, booze was banned, many people got criminal records, some people died of poisoned hooch, and some bootleggers got rich enough to create wealthy and socially respectable dynasties. And then the law was repealed because the voters decided that it was causing more harm than good."

"But", Paula said, "what about smoking in public places like this---those laws have worked?"

"It's marvellous", Gloria said, "to enjoy a meal like this without smoke. Compare it with Asia, especially China, But there was a lot of softening up of society before laws were passed---public service announcements about the dangers to your health etc---and then the laws were phased in. First there were non-smoking zones and when everyone realized how ridiculous they were, full bans were imposed."

"That's true. Is there any way we could use that approach to deal with face coverings?", Paula asked.

"When we started talking about this" Gloria responded, "I said I wasn't sure whether law was the answer. I guess I'm becoming convinced that it isn't. If we ban face coverings in public, then we ban those women from an education, a career, a life outside the home. We keep them locked in a ghetto. I'm wondering if the government could encourage a change. Could it have public service messages that have the theme, 'Welcome to Canada. We want to get to know you and want you to have a full role in our society. But that can't happen when people can't see your face." And have pictures of smiling Muslim women in head scarves."

"I'm not sure about that", Paula said,  I feel so sorry for those women who are being dictated to by men. But when I think about it, I get just as angry at our media and fashion industry that are objectifying women. I honestly don't know how teenage girls can grow up with any self-esteem with all this emphasis on boobs, bums, beauty and sexiness. In a sense face coverings and western objectifying of women have the same source---the need to reinforce the male ego. And that's so wrong. But at least with western objectifying, women have a choice, if they choose to exercise it---women can decide not to play the 'T and A game'. In the case of face coverings, it is men who decide, men who have the power.  I still think there is a place for a law that bans face coverings, perhaps after some public relations campaigns---as in the case of smoking---to win public support."

The waiter took away our dessert plates

The Guru said, " I'm not sure we have settled anything, but it's been a fine discussion. In honour of that I would like to suggest we end the meal with some coffee and a glass of icewine." He whispered to the waiter.

The waiter appeared with coffees and a bottle of the Guru's latest vintage.

I had helped the Guru bottle the icewine and having, of course, sampled it as we went, I knew it was excellent, full of subtle fruit flavours---apricot, peach and apple. 

We tasted the wine and raised our glasses to the Guru, "Superb", we said.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear on September 25th. The next Letter from Virgil posting will appear on September 18th.