Feeds:
Posts
Comments

On bowing very low

Editor’s note: This is a guest submission from another Philip Lee (my Dad), who writes under the byline Philip J. Lee, otherwise known as the older, wiser and more well spoken Lee.

There has been much negative comment about President Obama bowing from the waist, no less, before the Japanese Emperor. The critics found it unseemly that a President of the United States should actually bow before anyone. After all, Americans are republicans and therefore not in favour of monarchs and emperors; Americans are democrats and therefore of the opinion that government should derive from the will of the people rather than from the tradition of an hereditary monarchy. So, bowing is somehow a betrayal of American values, not to mention degrading when practiced by the American head of state.

Several things come to mind. First there is the simple matter of manners. Didn’t our mothers tell us that when we’re in someone else’s house we respect their customs and lifestyles? If they are accustomed to taking off their shoes as they enter their house, so do we. If they say grace before meals, we bow our heads. If they do not say grace before meals, we do not embarrass them by bowing our heads and waiting for the blessing.

Manners have to do with showing respect for, as in this case, Japanese hosts. In Japan, the Emperor is venerated. By bowing before him, wasn’t the President merely showing his good manners? Can’t Americans and all who wish them well be proud that Mr. Obama’s mother brought him up the way she did?

As for the very low issue, would a half-hearted bow have been better? Perhaps a nod would have been the North American answer. Then the impression might have been that we know we’re to show some respect for the Emperor, but let’s not overdo it. We don’t want to act like an actual oriental and get carried away with this deferential stuff. A cool gesture might be more appropriate, letting the world know that Americans don’t really revere this foreign potentate. Again, can’t Americans and their friends be proud that the President not only showed respect to his hosts, but also was schooled enough to show respect in the proper way?

Then there is in the United States the question of humility. We have all been through eight years in which humility was not considered an admirable trait. The strut was in. In Texas, we were told, that strut is just called walking. The President’s posture embodied the Neo-conservative mindset, that since the United States of America is the one great superpower, there should be no bowing and scraping to anyone anywhere. No discussions, no compromises, “you are either for us or against us.” Never show weakness; never show respect. All the others are weak compared to mighty US! Let the respect come our way.

There is some concern among educators and other social scientists that many young people in North America have come to believe that any form of respect is a sign of weakness. Saying “thank you” and “please” has become difficult. Addressing elders with the words: “Mister” or “madam”, “sir” or “ma’m” would be absolutely degrading. We all have come a long way from the practice of the first President of the United States and other founders of the Great Republic and the Fathers of our Confederation who ended their letters with the a phrase like: “your obedient servant, George Washington.” But when humility has been socially ostracized and politically banned, won’t we miss it?

One other practical note, even if a low bow is a bit old fashioned, even anachronistic, what did the President’s bow cost the American taxpayer? So many gestures these days seem to run into rather big money. Recent bailouts to show one another and the world that the System is really strong and that our way of life is really not going under have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. Bowing from the waist to show respect for a valued ally and trading partner may have lost a few votes for President Obama, but the American citizens came out light and standing tall.

Philip J. Lee

The Globe and Mail’s lead editorial today offers much deserved praise for the clear-headed leadership of New Brunswick’s chief medical officer of health, Eilish Cleary. Despite the struggles of the H1N1 vaccination program across the country, New Brunswick has been fortunate to have Dr. Cleary in our corner. She has more than risen to the occasion.

Salty Ink

Check out the new blog that celebrates Atlantic Canadian writing. There’s lots to celebrate.

Frank McKenna writes in support of the NB Power sale to Hydro Quebec.

David Campbell explores the alternatives to the NB Power to Hydro Quebec sale. This seems to me to be a key question: if we are going to reject the deal with Hydro Quebec, what is the alternative? Is there a better deal out there? Or is this an opportunity that we better not pass up?

We welcome comments at the Mysterious East. The only requirement is that you sign your name. I know this runs counter to most web comment sections that allow anonymous comments. I may be an old school newspaper guy, but I think people should be accountable for what they say. And the beauty of living in a country like Canada where speech is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that you can express your opinion and we respect your right to do so. Say what you think, respect the laws of defamation, sign your name, and you can join the discussion here. I know this policy has not always been followed to the letter. We are doing our best, and will try to hold the line in the future.

Philip Lee

Kelly Shotbolt, president and CEO of Flakeboard, writes about the NB Power deal and the importance of lower energy costs for industry in the Telegraph Journal: “No deal can be perfect and address every constituent, but this one comes very close… the province reduces its debt and tax burden on future generations, power generation becomes immediately greener, industrial manufacturers and commercial users have competitively priced electricity, and the residential consumer will enjoy power rates well below those possible if NB Power maintained ownership.

“Politicians that are faint of heart and unwilling to challenge the status quo are most often rewarded in our political system.

“This bold initiative by the premier and his government demonstrates true courage, and in the face of intense opposition, they are attempting to do what is right for all New Brunswickers.

“In a word, it’s called leadership.”

And David Ganong says don’t link residential rates to inflation.

“As long as elephantine, debt-ridden provincial power utilities are taking over other elephantine, debt-ridden provincial power utilities, why should New Brunswick have all the fun?” Andrew Coyne of Macleans weighs in on the proposed NB Power to Hydro Quebec sale and suggests Ontario should get in line.

Meanwhile, The Globe and Mail reports on Hydro Quebec’s plans for a new bond issue to raise $7 billion dollars in 2010, the bulk of which will be to pay New Brunswick for NB Power.

New Brunswick Tory leader David Alward continues to toss about red herrings as he mounts his opposition to the proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro Quebec. This is a time when an effective Opposition could play a major role in one of the most important public policy debates in the province’s history. To date, we are not encouraged by Mr. Alward’s performance.

Here are some of the points he and members of his team have made in recent days:

• Red herring #1: The New Brunswick government hired Brian Levitt, the co-chair of the Bay Street law firm Osler, to help negotiate this multi-billion-dollar deal. Mr. Levitt is one of the leading lawyers in North America in the area of mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Alward is puzzled by this hire because Mr. Levitt has an office in, wait for it, Montreal. For the record, Mr. Levitt also has an office in Toronto.

“I can’t imagine that there was no lawyer in New Brunswick available to represent his or her province at the bargaining table,” Alward said in a press release. “The Premier seems to have no faith whatsoever in the people of this province. Simply put, the Graham government is adding insult to injury by hiring a Québec-based lawyer to oversee a New Brunswick-Québec deal. While we don’t question the lawyer’s professionalism, many would wonder if the Québec lawyer would have New Brunswick’s best interests at heart.”

It seems to me that hiring Mr. Levitt was a prudent decision, in fact a responsible move in that we managed to retain one of the leading deal-making lawyers in Canada who also has an office in Quebec. It is difficult to even respond to this kind of mealy mouthed “many would wonder” language. The Opposition leader can oppose the substance of the deal without questioning the premier’s faith in the people of his province or the professionalism of a lawyer (yes, Mr. Alward you are questioning his professionalism) who we presume is doing what he was hired to do.

• Red herring #2: Tory MLA Jeannot Volpé is questioning the connection of former premier Frank McKenna to the deal. Mr. McKenna, who is vice-chair of TD Bank, has apparently acted as a sounding board for Premier Shawn Graham about the sale. He may have recommended Mr. Levitt as a legal advisor (Mr. McKenna once worked for Osler). However, the former premier is not being paid as a consultant, and TD Bank is not involved in the deal.

Mr. Volpé noted that there are a number of people connected in various ways to the deal who played a role in the McKenna government. Several of them returned from careers in the private sector to work as public servants in the Graham government. This is true. However, Mr. McKenna left office 12 years ago. There is a lot of water under the bridge since then, including two terms of Bernard Lord’s PC government. What Frank McKenna and people who long ago worked with him have to do with the merits of the proposed sale is beyond me. Are we to think that because former McKenna advisors are involved it is by nature a bad deal? Am I missing something here?

Mr. Alward is warning New Brunswickers to beware of Liberal spin about this deal. Sure. We’ll grant him that. However, I think New Brunswickers need to guard against cynical populism and demand that this debate focus on the pros and cons of the deal at hand.

The proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro Quebec is testing the ability of our political parties and provincial media to manage this debate in a reasonable way. This is a huge public policy question, and the debate in the Legislature that will begin in two weeks is not going to be enough to explain the pros and cons of the deal to the people of New Brunswick, and to relieve the very real fears of many New Brunswickers. In my view, one solution would be to convene an all party select committee on NB Power that will tour the province, hold public meetings and report to the Legislature. The Memorandum of Understanding would be the starting point for a discussion of what we are to do about the problem of NB Power. Both political parties have contributed to the problem. The NB Power sale is one way out of this corner we’ve been painted into by the mismanagement of successive governments, by the circumstances of our geography, by our industrial base and population size.

The Liberals should be flexible on the March 31 deadline (three per cent residential rate increase? who cares given the vast implications of the deal) and proceed with a final agreement only after a full and transparent picture of what we are getting ourselves into has been presented to New Brunswickers. That full and transparent picture is not there now.

Here are some areas that need clarification:
• What happens to power rates after five years, during which time residential rates are frozen? We need a clearer picture of the regulatory process that will manage future rate increases. Where are the financial models to explain how the process will unfold? Give us a variety of scenarios, the good, the bad and the ugly.
• What happens if and when we exceed the “heritage pool” of power we are now using? Under the proposed deal, we are guaranteed a supply of power for the 14.5 TW of power we now use, but when we exceed this amount, what does this mean for rates? What happens if we exceed the heritage pool during the first five years of the deal? How will those adjustments be made? Where are the models projecting the various scenarios related to power usage inside and outside this so-called “heritage pool”?
• What happens if the Point Lepreau refurbishment fails? We may have already signed the deal by then. You might say this is a foolish question, but my faith in anything AECL says about Lepreau and timelines and costs etc. is weak.
• What will happen if Hydro Quebec decommissions the St. John River dams? This is one of the potential hidden benefits of the deal as far as I am concerns. Beechwood and Tobique would immediately become marginal players on the Quebec Hydro grid and I would suspect a Mactaquac refurbishment many years down the road would be at least a subject of debate. How would the removal of the dams be managed?

Part of this debate should involve discussion of what happens if we retain ownership of NB Power. CEO David Hay’s assertions that everything is fine and the debt is no big deal is just not good enough. This is how bad it is now. Industries in this province are now burning biomass (ie. trees and parts of them) to generate power because NB Power rates are so high. The least productive thing we can do with our forests is to burn them to create power.

NB Power rates are hindering economic growth in this province, and the corporation’s debt, which is measured against to a series of assets of questionable value (ie. aging hydro dams and a non-functioning nuclear plant), is a liability that our children and grandchildren will have to face.

The only real deadline for the Liberals is the September 2010 election. The election could turn into a referendum on the proposed deal. The effect of such an election/referendum, is that it would become an entirely partisan affair (Tory leader David Alward vowing never to sell NB Power, to keep all of the dirty fossil fuel plants open, to offer David Hay a lifetime contract as CEO, to guarantee every NB Power employee a job for life; Shawn Graham offering up the proposed sale to Hydro Quebec and then having to renegotiate the whole thing after the election should he win) with the effect of stalling progress on any kind of energy policy or direction for years to come. The all-party committee might be a start in transforming partisan rhetoric into a public policy debate.

I appreciate the Liberals putting a bold strategy on the table for discussion. Now we are asking our politicians, news organizations, and citizens to rise to the occasion and make this a real public discussion, to lead us carefully into these potentially greener pastures without stepping in a big cow pie.

Older Posts »