When listening to gun advocates talk about their opposition to gun control many of them are occasionally candid enough to expose the real reason they want their guns. Behind the points about more guns reducing gun violence and whining about the Second Amendment (both of which have feeble or non-existent rational basis) there lies the real shadow driving their beliefs. Every once in a while the expose the fact that their real reason that they want their guns is to repel what they feel is an imminent attack coming to change their way of life. Sometimes it is Russian infiltration, sometimes the U.N., and currently it is Sharia Law, but more often than not it is their own Federal Government that they fear. Take, for example, the recent ridiculous fears about Jade Helm. The right to bear arms originated and still has a firm root in the fear that tyranny will creep into their lives.

Why do these people have a fear that there are those in government that are conspiring to oppress them? Why do they fear that the government will come and take away their guns and try to tell them what to do? I believe that it stems from two related sources.

The first is that on some level they truly understand that what they are doing is seen by the rest of the world as ridiculous, and as a result their beliefs are a defensive stance.

But secondly, and more importantly, the idea of oppression and telling other people how to live their lives seems to be a characteristic that this brand of right wing thinking seems to be very comfortable with. These are the same people who want to tell other people how to live their lives, who are intolerant of other cultures, who have an unjustified sense of exceptionalism and who are prepared to break laws in order satisfy what they believe are the dictates of their own personal values. They truly exhibit all of the worst characteristics that they are claiming to want to protect themselves from with their guns.

This is classic Shadow behaviour, and in this case seems to be operating on a cultural level. They are projecting their own negative characteristics onto whatever “bogeyman” is handy. Right now a lot of the projection is against the Federal Government, which, I think, has a lot to do with the victory of a black president for not one but two terms. The very things they seem to be afraid of are the very things that they prolifically exhibit themselves.

This, then, poses a problem as it reveals that this passion for guns (what some have cleverly labelled ammophilia) is actually a type of personality disorder. I’m not saying that just to provide a handy label for it, or to pigeon hole it, but to emphasize how difficult it is going to be to change. Changing these people’s attitudes towards gun control is going to be hampered by three problems:

  1. You’re not going to get meaningful change until you address and resolve the underlying Shadow elements. This happens very slowly as a result of social evolution.
  2. Any attempt to resolve the problem unilaterally will only result in the underlying Shadow becoming stronger and more determined.
  3. Any kind of rational discourse is going to have no effect. Looking at studies about gun control vs violence is of no value, as the root cause is an emotional and psychological one.

Understand that I am not making the case here that this analysis applies to all gun owners.  I am looking at those who have an emotional and irrational opposition to any kind of reasonable gun control.

I’m not sure where that leaves us as a society. I do think that in the Canadian political landscape you can see a bit of the same thing happening, though not nearly as extreme as you see in the U.S. One thing that we can learn from this way of looking at the problem is to be very vigilant that we, in Canadian society, don’t allow the development of these cultural Shadows to ferment, and that we take whatever steps are necessary to nip in the bud anything that might foster or bolster those Shadows.

Once they are in place, they’re very difficult to shake loose.

The Canadian federal election is just around the corner and the polls seem to be characterized by each of the three main parties having about one third of the popular vote. The balance shifts a few percentage points each week, and the seat tally shifts depending on how the vote is distributed, but in the final analysis it seems that Canadian voters are pretty well evenly strewn among the three parties. A minority government is almost certainly going to be the result and old questions about coalition governments are rearing once again.

The interesting thing about Canadian political parties is that the left is split between the Liberals and the NDP, while the right is in the hands of the Conservatives. That’s a little deceptive as examining recent history will show you that the current Conservatives are the result of a merger between the old Progressive Conservative party and the western based Heritage party. The current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, actually came from that Heritage party. (It is interesting that they solved the name issue by dropping the word “progressive”.) The Conservative party, which embodies the politics more right of centre, is therefore already a coalition that has simply been formalized with an actual merger. The Liberals and the NDP, who embody the politics more left of centre, are still maintaining their individual identities, even though they have far more in common with each other than either has with the Conservatives. Clearly, if the Liberals and the NDP were to merge (and maybe even include the Green Party), and create a two party system in Canada similar to what they have in the U.S., the Conservative Party, at least as it exists now, would never win another election. Two thirds of the voters are currently supporting parties that sit left of centre. (That’s not to say that the Conservative Party wouldn’t change its nature if the political landscape changed drastically.)

Admittedly we have a lot of independent voters that see themselves as centrist in their political views. They often bounce back and forth between the Liberals and the Conservatives. They have a dilemma to deal with in the current election seeing as the Liberals and the NDP have sort of swapped places, with the NDP trying to take the more central role and the Liberals being forced more to the left. It makes the centre and left territory a little more fuzzy.

So, it is no wonder that the Conservatives are strongly opposed to the idea of a coalition government and the other two parties are more open to it (in spite of the overt Liberal policy). Each party has its own interpretation of the Westminster system of Parliament, on which our elections are based. The Conservatives insist that our electoral system says that the party with the most seats should form the government. The other parties have a differing view.

The reality is that the Westminster system gives the incumbent party first shot at forming a government. It seems to me that this, itself, is a vindication of the idea of coalition governments. If a sitting government were to lose an election, only by forming a coalition would they be able to retain power. I’ve only heard of one situation where this was even considered in Canadian federal politics, but it is not that unusual in European countries. The second shot usually does go to the party with the most seats, but there is a harsh reality there. If that is a minority government, it could last as long as the first vote of confidence. If they were to lose that important vote, it could potentially trigger another election immediately. So, it is the case that if a coalition of parties approaches the Governor General after the results of an election are in, they could be given the right to form a coalition in Parliament, even though the parties separately haven’t gotten the most votes. The idea of a confidence vote in our system creates a situation where it is the elected Parliament which determines the Prime Minister and the ruling party. Whether you feel that is right or not, that, in fact, is the way our system works. Protests from the Conservative party that coalitions are “unfair” are not based in fact.

Our “first past the post” system of elections has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, with many vying for alternative electoral systems. In my opinion this seems like a good idea and worth examining. A system where 10% of the people can vote for the Green Party, only resulting in 1 seat, or where 40% of the voters cast their ballots for the Conservative Party and they end up with a majority government, is just not representative government. In a country where between 60% and 70% of the voters are making a statement that they want change, re-electing a Conservative government, even if it is a minority, seems unfair. Those wanting to change the electoral system are looking at some more whole scale changes to the system, which I’m not going into here, but a coalition government formed to provide a clearly desired change does not seem to be a bad idea at all, -except for the party that can’t manage to retain power even though they don’t represent anywhere near a majority of Canadians.

Canada is not like the United States, where there are only two parties. If you look at world governments where there are more than two major political parties, coalition governments are not uncommon. In fact, if the Green Party were to build support and garner more seats, coalition governments might become an absolute necessity.

It is hard to understand why this amazing film is heading to Netflix rather than the big screen. I guess partly because they optioned to produce it in the first place, although I’m sure that it would be very successful (other that the fact that it is partly subtitled) in a theatre run. It is every bit as well made and relevant as Twelve Years A Slave. It will undoubtedly be an Emmy contender and is worthy of an Oscar nomination. This is the second great Netflix film I’ve seen at this year’s festival, both strong social commentaries. Good on them!

I was extremely impressed with the photographic direction and the actual direction of the film. It is a richly shot film with all kinds of effects that one would expect from the same director responsible for the first season of True Detective. This is the screen adaptation of the book of the same name by Uzodinma Iweala, about the abduction and service of a young boy as a child soldier. Its big name star is Idris Elba who plays the ruthless and manipulative Commandant, but the real star is the boy soldier played by Abraham Attah, who won the best actor award at the Venice Film Festival. The movie is so intense that people around me in the audience were visibly shaken, cringing and averting their eyes. It is a naked look at what it means to be a child soldier in Africa (or probably in the Middle East as well). This film has it all, from strong action scenes to great acting performances, to a depth and empathy of the political situation.  It works on many levels.

I would give this film an A. One way or another when this is released you have to see it, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

PS:  For those of you with an Integral Theory leaning, you will find this film very enlightening  in showing the ways in which Amber controls Red and Orange controls (though not always successfully) Amber.   …It made me think of how possibly Green controls Orange. 

This documentary covers the three months of protest against the government leading to the flight of President Yanukovych. It bears truthful witness to the struggle, although critics might say that it is somewhat one sided. Little is said about the pro-Russian side. However, the film gives testimony to the betrayal of the people by the government and the inhuman police brutality. There is little disputing that. It is a testimony to commonplace heroism. A comment from the audience after the showing was that every politician should see this film to remind them that they are responsible to the people.  After the film was screened it was announced that Netflix picked up the movie and will be making it available on Oct. 9 of this year, -a fantastically quick delivery time. Well worth watching. B+

It is difficult to come up with a new, original story about WW2, but Land Of Mine sheds light on a chronicle that has previously been shrouded. In the middle of the war Hitler was convinced that the allies would invade Germany through Denmark, landing on the west coast of that country and moving south. To prepare for this he directed German troops to bury thousands of land mines on the beaches of western Denmark. Of course the invasion never landed there and at the end of the war these landmines still littered the beaches. After the war, German POWs, who in Denmark were mostly older teenagers, were conscripted to clear the mines. That is the context of the movie, but the film is more about the evolution of one hard nosed offices who hated the Germans developing respect and compassion and coming to realize that everyone deserves to be treated as human beings.

The film was made in Denmark in German and Danish languages, with the director saying that his goal was to shed some light on the darker episodes of war in that country. It is a gruesome film. When people are diffusing mines, they sometimes get blown up. Very well acted and shot. A great film worth watching but it’s one of those foreign films that you’ll probably have to hunt to find, and may eventually appear on Netflix or the History Channel in several years. I would give it a B++ rating.

Good Interview with Director

Watching the debate on this issue, it becomes crystal clear that a lot of people just don’t understand the concepts of perspective and context.

The question of removing the Confederate flag from its perch atop a flagpole over the Charleston state capital buildings has morphed into a debate of whether the movie “Gone With The Wind” should be banned. This demonstrates the lack of understanding of the deeper and more important aspects of the issue.

“Gone With The Wind” as an artistic statement, presents a world view not only of the period it is depicting but also of the period it was made. Like Huckleberry Finn, its use of racist material is historically instructive and expressive. That’s a lot different from a Confederate flag being displayed at a government building or even on a license plate. The latter has no artistic or instructive merit, and in fact can be interpreted as a statement of pride.

Comparison to the Nazi flag is appropriate though not perfect (because the ideas of the Confederacy linger more strongly in the U.S. than do Nazi ideals in Germany or Europe). It is OK for the Nazi flag to appear in war movies. It is OK for it to appear in museums. It is OK for Nazi SS dialogue to appear in historically revealing books or movies. It is not OK for the Nazi flag to fly over government buildings in any way. It is not OK for descendents of Nazi war criminals to demand respect for their descendents as good soldiers whose achievements should be admired in any way. If swastikas are included on gravestones, it should be seen as a symbol of condemnation, not pride, -although whether they should be removed or not is a more complex question.

And so it is with the Confederate bars and stars. The flag was a symbol of treason against the government established by an accepted constitution. In comparison, the constitution of the Confederate States had the acceptance of slavery as a precondition for membership. There is no question that this flag is a statement of racism and a glorification of a painful period for many people. Its further glorification or legitimization should be simply abolished. However that doesn’t mean that it should be erased from history. Inability to tolerate historical perspectives and place them in the proper context of understanding is a hurdle for social evolution. A knee jerk, black and white (sic) reaction to a flag shows the same shallowness as does racism in general.

The ability to include perspective and context in your understanding of historical ideas and contemporary conflicts is essential.scross

Placing the flag in the space above is an intellectual reference, nothing else.

I’ve said this before, but I’m ready to repeat myself because I just think it is a really effective idea.

Indiana’s new “Religious Freedom” law actually allows private businesses to post signs saying that they will discriminate in their service on the basis of sexual orientation.  It is being widely criticized as a blatantly bigoted law, which of course it is.  This article in The Atlantic does a good job of pointing out exactly how bad this law is.  Much to the chagrin of many people with religious beliefs, it is fueled and rationalized by right wing Christian extremist views and beliefs.  So, how should someone who doesn’t fit into that category, whether religious or not, respond?

One way is to launch a campaign of signs in businesses that say something to the effect of “ALL ARE WELCOME TO DO BUSINESS HERE, REGARDLESS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION!” Make some kind of a catchy symbol to go with it.  Make them available to stores who abide by that policy, and then put forward an awareness campaign encouraging like minded people to only shop in stores displaying and living up to that sign.  Those willing to support the campaign have a chance to show their love of freedom and human dignity.  It could be civil rights organizations, large businesses and, yes, even some churches.

Even in the most redneck parts of the U.S., there are large proportions of rational people, often approaching or surpassing 50%.  It is often a vocal minority that pushes this kind of ignorance, -or at least one can hope it is.  Regardless, those who do not post the sign, or who post a contrary sign, would be making their beliefs clear and the discriminating public would be free to exercise their right of choice and withhold their business.

These signs would not be meant for those being discriminated against, although it would have an added benefit of showing them not only in which stores they are welcome, but also how many stores would actually support them.  They are, moreover, meant for the rest of the public, many of which would actually prefer not to financially support a store that so strongly differs from their own ethical views.  I know that I would avoid a store that had a policy that I found repulsive.

I’ve said before that this seems to be a very positive way of solving the problem in a manner that supports tolerance rather than condemning bigotry, -not that that doesn’t have its place as well.  In time, singled out by omission, the stores who chose to retain their redneck ways would more than likely suffer financially, that being one basic way to force them to recognize that it may not be to their benefit to try to shove their outdated religious beliefs down the throats of others.