Wild About Writing

Fenelon Falls is a pretty village in central Ontario that embodies everything traditional in Canadian life: an orderly main street, lots of churches, and 1,800 largely Conservative-voting residents who are almost entirely white and mainly of British descent.

I went there on a November Saturday for the launch of Barbara Wiliams’ updated edition of A Gentlewoman in Upper Canada (University of Toronto Press), the classic (1950) compilation of Anne Langton’s pioneering letters, watercolors and sketches covering life in the Kawartha Lakes area in the mid to late 19th century. The book was originally edited by Hugh Langton, one of Anne Langton’s nephews.

Ms. Williams, who has spent years studying Langton’s life, has updated this beautiful book with an explanatory introduction and more of her subject’s artwork and her writings on family life, women’s role, and rural and social life.

The launch was held in the Immanual Baptist Church, a tidy outpost of faith in this secular age, with about a hundred people in attendance. The ladies of the church had baked cookies and these were served with tea after Barbara’s talk.

This was a quintessentially Canadian affair, reflecting the traditional values of home, community and church that no longer represent the mainstream of Canadian life. These are the people who know the answers to questions like what countries were on the other side in World War I, what did the Canadians do in that war, and so on. They’re now a vanishing minority, due partly to the disinclination of the Canadian education system to teach Canadian history and values, and partly due to the large scale immigration we’ve had over the past thirty or forty years.

I make these comments in a purely non-judgemental manner. I ascribe neither good nor bad to these changes. It’s simply the way things are.

Anne Langton arrived in Upper Canada in 1837. She came here to join her brother John on his farm near Sturgeon Lake. Her parents came after, economic refugees following the demise of the family business.

John Langton went on to a successful political careeer, becoming the MP for Peterborough and later Auditor General of Canada under John A. Macdonald. He also was one of the earliest vice-chancellors of the new University of Toronto.

The book Barbara Williams has edited makes it clear that Anne Langton was of tough pioneer stock. Raised in upper class comfort, she chose to join her brother in the Canadian wilderness rather than take up a comfortable teaching job near London. Once in Canada, she set to looking after her parents, her brother, his wife and many children. They named their homestead Blyth Farm after Blyth Hall, the spacious residence the family had owned backin Yorkshire.

Blyth Farm – Anne Langton, Fenelon Museum

Anne was a highly skilled artist. Her sketches, watercolors and miniatures that adorn the bookprovide a precious insight into wilderness Canada of a century and a half ago.

In Anne Langton’s time, Fenelon Falls and its neighbor village of Bobcaygeon were surrounded by vast pine forests. Farmers who had to clear the land cut the trees and burned them, there being no local market for surplus wood. When a lumbering industry sprang up fortunes were made shipping wood to the U.S. and Britain. By the First World War, the land was mostly logged out of the big trees and what were bustling villages settled into the placid routine that still applies today — expect in the summer.

Today, Fenelon Falls is a bustling summer vacation town serving tourists and boaters who come through lock 34 of the Trent-Severn Waterway. It calls itself the “Jewel of the Kawarthas.”

Barack Obama’s first press conference brought to mind the news conferences that John F. Kennedy presided over after becoming President in 1961. I remember them well.

Yesterday’s occasion carried much of the anticipation and intensity that surrounded JFK’s appearances, but without the air of electric excitement that used to accompany the Kennedy events.

The world has moved on since then but remarkably, there are distinct similarities in both the nature of the issues and the responses from the President (or President-elect). There was humor in both, whether it was Obama comparing himself to a shelter “mutt” on the question of a puppy for his children, or Kennedy, on being asked about the influence of the press, admitting that he was “reading more, and enjoying it less.” 

There were other, more troubling, points of similarity.

In Kennedy’s first press conference as President, a gentleman of the press (there were only male reporters in attendance) asked JFK why he dealt only with “America’s position in the world” in his inaugural address. His reply was “because the issue of war and peace is involved, and the survival of perhaps the planet, possibly our system, and therefore this is a matter of primary concern to the people of the United States and the people of the world.”

Barack Obama, in his Chicago news conference, warned that Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon “is unacceptable. We have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”

As President, Obama wil doubtless face many tough questions as he meets the media during his time in the White House. None, however, are likely to be as difficult as Kennedy’s appearance the day after having taken responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

“I do not think that any useful national purpose would be served by my going further into the Cuban question this morning. I prefer to let my statement of yesterday suffice for the moment.”

That was probably the low point of Kennedy’s term, but it was not the only setback he faced during his first year in office. Soon after, Kennedy found himself out maneauvered by Nikita Khrushchev at the Vienna Summit. This was followed by the erection of the Berlin Wall. It led to Kennedy’s visit to Berlin where he made his famous speech, “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

The big difference in the political scenario facing the two Presidents is the economic crisis that Obama will inherit. Kennedy came to office at a time of great international tension, but of relative economic tranquility at home.

In 2009, Obama faces potential setbacks at every turn:

• What if whatever new aid package he pushes through Congress fails to blunt the economic downturn?
• What if the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan merely deepens the quagmire that NATO forces seem to have gotten themselves into?
• What if either the U.S. or Israel become enmeshed in war with Iran?

In looking over the transcript of the early JFK news conferences, I shivered when I read the last question asked of him at his first meeting with the press in the White House.

Had he given any thought, he was asked, to the “problem of succession in the case of injury, illness or some incapacitation.” Kennedy answered: “Nothing has been done on it as yet, but I think it would be a good matter which we could proceed on.”

Congress has since dealt with this matter, refining the process of Presidential succession. It best be left there.

I’ve smoked one marijauana cigarette in my entire life, and it didn’t do a thing for me.

So while the world hails President-elect Obama, I’m glad to view a little-noticed proposition that won approval in Massachusetts as another straw in the wind of America’s ability to change.

Voters there approved, by a margin of 65 to 35 percent, Proposition 2 that will decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Massachusetts thus becomes the 12th American state to take such action.

Considering the hypocrisy that has stigmatized marijuana in a society that relies heavily of drugs for recreational purposes (alcohol, tobacco) and alleviation of medical symptoms (pharmaceuticals) while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge its relative harmlessness, this is a quite encouraging turn of events.

The Attorney General of the state, Martha Coakley, and all 11 district attorneys had oppoosed the proposition. As usual, they argued that pot use is a gateway to hard drug consumption.

Now they’re busy trying to figure out how to implement the new policy, as state law requires anything approved by the voters to become law within thirty days.

Possession of small amounts of marijuana in the state is now punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $500 fine.

Once the new law takes effect, those caught with an ounce or less of pot will face a civil offense punishable by a $100 fine.

And it means that the conviction and jailing of marijauna users (mostly young people) will become a thing of the past.

In so many ways, the United States is a harsh and vindictive society. It imposes penalties at levels far beyond what can be considered reasonable, which not only cost the public a great deal of money in law enforcenment and incarceration, but cause great damage to individual lives.

Perhaps the gradual decriminalization of marijuana in the United States will encourage Canada to take similar action. A royal commission recommended Canada decriminalize marijuana more than thirty years ago. The cry against such action has been led by fear of disapproval in the U.S., and consequent retaliation at the border by American authorities.

Come on Canada, show some guts — especially when our neighbors to the south are moving ahead to humanize their legislation.

The aim of laws on substance abuse should be to find medical, not criminal solutions. By and large, the greatest danger to the public is not from the consumption of illegal drugs, but from the crimes people commit to find the money that fuels the profits of the illegal drug trade. Get rid of the profits, and we’ll get rid of most of the problems.

The world is looking differently today at the United States. This new attitude may prove to be the most significant result of Barack Obama’s victory in yesterday’s Presidential election. A sample of front pages, courtesy of Newseum:

Vancouver, Canada, Province

Belgium

Greece

Indonesia

China (Hong Kong)

9:25 p.m. Fox News has just given Ohio to Obama, putting his Electoral College number up to 183 to 81 for McCain. On that result, I’m ready to say it – Barack Obama has won the U.S. presidency.

8:20 p.m. – How is the CBC able to allocate far more electoral votes than any of the U.S. networks? The CBC is showing Obama with an edge of 117, and McCain only 21. Yet, the U.S. networks are more cautious — CNN giving Obama a 77-34 edge. Is an Obama sweep shaping up?

The big win so far is Obama’s victory in Pennsylvania. At the same time, he’s very competitive in indiana.

7:40 p.m. – The polls are closing in more states, and Barack Obama is showing a slight lead in the popular vote. CNN has McCain ahead 8 elec toral votes to 3, on the strengtrh of carrying Kentucky, while Obama has taken Vermont.

Wolf Blitzer keeps referring to “real numbers” that show McCain well ahead in Georgia and holding onto a narrow lead in indiana. Yet apparently the Democratic districts haven’t been heard from.

CNN shows a huge crowd gathering in Grant Park in Chicago. How will they behave if their hero doesn’t win? I don’t think I’d want to be there!

CBC will be on the air at 8 and I’ll switch there to see a Canadian perspective.

I’m wandering around downtown Toronto in the bright sunshine of this November 4th, thinking that if the weather’s anything like this in the U.S., there’ll be a record turn-out at the polls. Could even hit 66 per cent.

Then I heard the news from Dixville Notch, the tiny village in New Hampshire where they open their poll at midnight and everybody troops in to vote. The result: Obama 15, McCain 6. They say it’s the first time since 1968 that Dixville Notch has gone Democratic. The makings of a landslide?

I’ll be watching the returns tonight with my buddy,Michael Callaghan. If you’re interested, check in here to see how we’re taking the news.

The final hours … the last desperate appeals by both candidates. In another 40 hours (from time of writing) we’ll know whether it’s President Obama or President McCain. Gallup, the pre-eminent pollster, gives Obama an 11-point lead, even as polls in the states of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio are reported tightening.

As early voters lined up in ever greater numbers, Obama’s Florida lead reportedly shrank to 2 per cent, perhaps on the strength of ads like this.

But let’s suppose, as most polls suggest and most observers predict, that Brack Obama is able to hold his lead and gain the Electoral College magic number of 270, thereby becoming President.

Obama will come to office filled with promise. Millions of Americans, especially blacks, will view his victory with such high expectations that he is bound to disappoint. Therein lies the peril of his presidency.

Consider the issues he will have to deal with in the next four years:

• Withdrawal from the costly, traumatic war in Iraq and a settlement, in one form or another, of the equally unwinnable military struggle in Afghanistan.
• Restoration of financial stability and economic order, at a time when the U.S. government’s $10 trillion dollar deficit suggests that its only recourse will be to print more money.
• The rising costs of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, to say nothing of the need for comprehensive and fair health insurance across the board.
• The need to rebuild respect for America around the world, now at an almost irreducible minimum, the result of an out-of-control foreign policy and a blind refusal to act on the problem of global warming.

Bill Clinton, in his most prominent platform appearance with Obama, declared “Our country is hanging in the balance. And we have so much promise and so much peril.”

Supporters of John McCain see peril in Obama’s promise. Peril that he will raise taxes, encourage terrorism through a softer foreign strategy, and shape domestic policy with alien, unfamiliar ways.

David Gergan, White House advisor to both Presidents Reagan and Clinton, doesn’t put much stock in John McCain’s charge that Obama will be a “redistributor” of wealth. He points out that a great redistribution of wealth has been going on in the United States for the past 20 years. Except that it’s been a transfer from the bottom 80% to the top one percent. Perhaps it’s time to rebalance.

This run of wealth to the rich is just one of the ills of America as seen by John Tirman in his book, 100 Ways America is Screwing Up the World  (Harper Perennial 2006).

This book is a damning indictment of Bush-Cheney America and its recent predecessor administrations, a country that wages war against innocents abroad, demonizes its scientists and best thinkers, dumbs down its youth with ”intelligent design” propaganda, curbs civil liberties and wire taps its citizens, repeals laws that protect investors and consumers, and encourages selfish consumerism at the cost of public good.

The author of “Screwing Up the World” is Executive Director of the Center for International Studies at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It’s not a profound book. But it is on target when it dissects, in its hundred short essays, both domestic failings and such almost forgotten foreign misadventures as these: the “six splendid little wars” of Guatemala, 1954; Dominican Republic, 1965; Grenada, 1983; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1991; Somalia, 1992-3.

It is the promise of Barack Obama that he will begin, in everyday argot, to “turn the country around.”  And therein lies the peril, to the status quo with which so many millions of Americans are entirely comfortable, and to himself, as he sets out to bring to America the most dramatic change it has seen since the days of FDR and the New Deal.