Home

Saturday, August 5, 2017

On a guilty pleasure


This post marks the end of what I would refer to as 'radio silence.' Since the last entry, life has pursued many twists and turns - all of which have pulled attention away. In addition to my family, work, my duties in municipal government, and work on a 12th anniversary re-issue of 'The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade', I said goodbye to my father. For those who have dealt with loss of this nature, it is easy to appreciate the process required to find a 'new normal.' In some ways the selection of this topic, while out of keeping with other posts, fulfills this need.

This Monday evening, I will be sitting in a local arena watching professional wrestling.
From experience, this admission will elicit one of three responses – admiration, hostility or indifference.
For those who are fans of wrestling, or ‘sports entertainment’ as it is often called – little needs to be said. Fans of anything share an unspoken affinity, like two people driving the same sports care or motorcycle giving each other a smile and a knowing nod. For those who are indifferent, even less needs to be said.
Critics of the sport, on the other hand, do not content themselves with taking a polite pass - a ‘thanks, but no thanks’. Any indication that you are a fan or are even mildly curious about the whole thing, and you are treated to a litany of catty, passive aggressive shots that start with the ‘fakeness’ of it all, but quickly degenerate into a critique of educational level and socioeconomic standing that are none too complimentary. Given my dislike of eating liver, it would be akin to me launching into a litany of ad hominem invectives against those who might enjoy the dish with a side of onions, or attempting to organize a protest to shut down any restaurant within a 30 mile radius that deigns to cook and serve the delicacy.
It is not within my power to persuade anyone of anything they vehemently oppose, nor should I feel the compulsion to defend what I honestly enjoy as a fully legal public pursuit. I do, however, want to share some thoughts about wrestling, and why I am a fan.
To begin, I am simply in awe of the men and women who are part of it all – that rarest of combinations, of brawn and brains, of spirit and determination, of personalities larger than life. Consider what those at the top of their profession need to do in order to be just that.
You are required to have the physique of a professional body builder, the toughness of a rugby player, the endurance of a marathon runner, the acrobatic skill of a Cirque du Soleil performer sans wires or nets, and – after you have spent fifteen to twenty minutes exerting yourself, you are required to then grab a microphone and address a cheering (and jeering) crowd numbering in the tens of thousands with the timing and delivery of a comic who learned improve at Second City. Furthermore, if you are a WWE wrestler, you are doing it 300 nights a year – across North America and around the world.
The nature of the contest may be ‘scripted’ (or ‘fake’ in the less charitable view) but it is rather difficult to use computer graphics or green screens to replicate this action – particularly under the klieg lights of a live event. And yes, wrestling fans suspend disbelief for a period of time during a performance, much like many of wrestling’s critics suspend disbelief that Robert Downey Jr. does not have a flying metal suit or that British actress Emilia Clarke is not, in fact, the ‘Mother of Dragons.’ Wrestling is escapism, like a Hollywood blockbuster, video game or an engrossing novel or television show. It might not be your preference for escapism, but to rest your critique on the ‘authenticity’ of it is to suggest that you live your life free of the encumbrances of indulging your own imagination.
To succeed in this milieu, you have to be in peak physical condition. Gone are the days where a tall guy with a large girth and a bad attitude could be a star. You need to be muscular, flexible, and the master/mistress of endurance. When I was a kid, the only wrestler that would climb to the top of the corner ropes and do a mid-air somersault was Edouard Carpentier. Now, you would be hard pressed to find any who don’t. In the case of a wrestler like Adrian Neville, you see mid-air moves reminiscent of an Olympic diver doing a half-pike off the 5 metre board. Of course, the diver has water to land on, as opposed to Neville who has a combination of the mat and an opponent for their soft landing.
This goes to another point, related to both the mental and physical conditioning, of wrestlers ‘playing through the pain.’ In a WWE match that inaugurated the ‘Universal Championship’, the Irish wrestler Finn Balor prevailed to win, despite fighting a third of the match with a dislocated shoulder. It reminds all that as tough as these individuals are, and as easy as they make their moves look, it is a serious business that has resulted in many an injury. Having said that, injuries that would routinely have the rest of us book of work for weeks on end result in temporary absences and rehabilitation, if that.
Of course, like a musician, actor, or comedian, you need to pay your dues. Listen to the interviews of any top star in the field, and you hear stories all too familiar. It starts with the young boy or girl who grows up as a fan of an individual wrestler, or of the sport itself, and the dream to succeed. There are the years of taking on low paying jobs in order to pay for wrestling school and training, the requisite time in the ‘indies’ where you are just as likely to be selling tickets and t-shirts, sweeping floors, and helping crews put up and take down the ring as you are to actually wrestle a match. You stay in cheaper accommodation and share with the others. You travel from town to town in a van, trading off on the driving and dealing with rain, mud and snow.
After years of the circuit, smaller companies, or wrestling in Japan or Mexico, you get your shot to join the WWE at their Performance Center, which is akin to a professional team’s spring training camp for a college athlete. If you don’t get cut, you find yourself on the roster for their NXT brand – and months or years proving your metal – until you get the chance to perform in one of the two marquis brands, Raw or Smackdown.
From the moment a budding wrestler comes out of a training school to the moment they walk out on the main stage, ten to twelve years can pass. Not ten to twelve easy years – years of sprains, injuries, fatigue, loneliness and, most likely, self-doubt.
To rise to the top of the industry requires a mixture of physical and mental prowess, and no shortage of personality. It comes as no surprise, then, that these athletes excel at pursuits beyond the ring.  More than a few have sought, and/or attained, political office (namely former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura), have pursued higher education and advanced degrees (Harvard law graduate David Otunga and PhD candidate Xavier Woods), stand-up comedy (Mick Foley, Dolph Ziggler), or leading roles in Hollywood movies (Dwayne Johnson, John Cena, Dave Bautista).
For those who haughtily dismiss those in the profession as knuckle-dragging thugs, consider the case of Glenn Jacobs, who in his ring persona ‘Kane’ dons a leather facemask and appears to be a 7-foot tall hybrid of Friday the 13th protagonist Jason Voorhees and a minion of a Mad Max villain. His Wikipedia page reads, in part, that:
“Jacobs … is actively involved in libertarian politics and publishes his views via a blog. Jacobs supported Texas Congressman Ron Paul for President in 2008. He is a member of the Free State Project and delivered a speech at the organization's 2009 New Hampshire Liberty Forum. He has also spoken at the Ludwig von Mises Institute… promoting the Austrian school of economics…Outside of wrestling, Jacobs also works as an insurer and he and his wife own an Allstate agency in Knoxville, TennesseeIn March 2017, Jacobs announced that he was officially running for the mayoral seat of Knox County as a Republican.”
He has appeared on CNBC and referred to himself as a ‘Rothbardian.’ Ironically, I would venture to guess that a great percentage of the very people who cast dispersions on the intellect of a man like Jacobs would have to look that term up on Google to know what it even means!
But the critique against professional wrestling is as likely to be leveled at its fans as much as its luminaries.
When one attempts to speak for a large number of people, you can easily get yourself into trouble. It is far better to speak for yourself.
Modern society, to a large extent, is one dominated by shades of gray. Every day, whether it is in our home life, our careers, or our relationships or in our civic engagements, we are exhorted to seek out and promote nuance. It is a world where every thought, idea, preference or predilection is subjected to codicils and qualifiers.
Grey is not a primary colour. To get gray paint, you need to mix white paint with black. Grey exists as a compromise between the two, giving just enough to satiate, but never enough to fully satisfy.
Professional wrestling is athletic skill and prowess wrapped up in a Manichean parable of good and evil, of ‘face’ and ‘heel’. In the ring, there is black and white. In the seemingly brutish pantomime, we see the kind of contest we are deprived of in other parts of our lives. We see the contest, and we either see the triumph of good or of evil. If we are duly emotionally invested, we are either happy or disappointed, but we are never frustrated. Frustration comes from a lack of resolution, and in the ring things do get resolved – if not at that moment, one soon to follow.
Two of the most popular television shows in the world are ‘Game of Thrones’ and ‘The Walking Dead.’ The worlds they paint do have a fair amount of grey, but whether you are Jon Snow or Rick Grimes, you are all too often presented with challenges and dangers not resolved by a committee meeting. Like wrestling, they provide the viewer with the kind of clarity and definition that the modern world often does not.
In my political writing, I am often frustrated by the level of nepotism and cronyism that has infected our private and public institutions. While the children of poor and working class families scrape and claw to get a chance at a better life, we are all too often treated to stories of the son/daughter/nephew/niece who is parachuted into some sinecure. The idea of paying your dues seems to be an endangered ideal.
Wrestlers, by contrast, succeed by paying their dues – night after night. This even extended to the son of the WWE Chairman, Shane McMahon, in Wrestlemania 32. In the ‘Hell in a Cell’ match, McMahon jumped off the top of a 20-foot steel cage and landed on a table, which promptly collapsed, earning him a trip out of the arena on a paramedic’s stretcher.
Was it an extreme act? Yes. Was it dangerous? Extremely so. But in a world where the ‘boss’s son’ is often an overpaid, overworked, obnoxious lout who looks down on the front line staff with haughty disdain, it was the ultimate portrayal of ‘lead by example’. Just as soldiers are fiercely loyal to the commander who fights alongside them rather than sitting in the base camp, people respect the matching of words with deeds. Nicholas Nassim Taleb has written extensively about the concept of ‘skin in the game,’ and the tendency of elites to insulate themselves from the consequences of their policies and decisions. In wrestling, no one is exempt, and in that knowledge is a harsh beauty.
In a world where many of the people at the top seem to exempt themselves from the rules, regulations and edicts they put in place, there is a clear and visceral attraction to a world where no one gets a free pass.
Beyond all of the larger themes, though, it is also a touchstone for me.
As a kid, when the Maple Leaf Wrestling circuit used to come to the area, I would go with my father and my grandfather. We would sit in the stands of the old arena and watch the stars of the time – Killer Kowalski, Edouard Carpentier, Mad Dog Vachon – compete. My most enduring memory was during a match involving the iconic Andre the Giant, when an irate spectator leaped out of the audience and grabbed him by the back of his trunks. From that moment until the security officials intervened, Andre calmly began walking around the ring, pulling the older, slender man like a boat pulling a waterskiier. It took about ten seconds for my grandfather to exclaim “Hey, isn’t that so-and-so?!” naming a character who lived a couple of miles up the road from us, who I would see on a rocking chair on his front porch every day as my school bus passed by.
Wrestling was an outing – but it was a bonding experience as well. Those who have known all three of us as adults could be forgiven for believing that very little common ground existed. We lived different lives, pursued different goals, and had very definite personalities – but there were things we shared, and wrestling was one of them.
My grandfather left us in 2006, and it has been scarcely six months since my father has passed. As for me, I fell away from watching or even following wrestling for the longest time. And yet, next week’s show will be the second one I’ve attended in less than a year.
Like the last time, I won’t be alone. I’ll be with my own son.
Wrestling, for me, is like bringing together various threads and strands. It ties the past to the present, the departed with the living. It connects 1977 with 2017, and reminds me of a time when the world was a lot less complicated and nuanced than it has become. It is also a world with clarity and definition, where there is a connection between cause and effect, where hard work and sacrifice meet reward, where the good guy or gal stands a chance of winning the day. For a brief period of time, it is a world that corresponds not to your head, but to your heart and your gut. It is a world of no excuses – where the BS that often confounds and complicates our lives can go down for the ten count.
Of course, I am doubtful that anything I have written would dissuade any individual that ‘professional wrestling’ is some cultural shibboleth for low-brow or uncouth predilection. Of course, I’ll be too busy having a good time with my son and cheering on Shinsuke Nakamura to worry about that.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

International Propriety Day



Mark your calendars!

On August 11th, 2017 - one year from today - I would like one and all to celebrate ‘International Propriety Day’. 

Now, I understand that this may not make any sense to anyone, so I’ve prepared a brief FAQ section to explain:

Q: What is ‘International Propriety Day’ anyway?

A:  First, thank you for asking. ‘International Propriety Day’ was borne out of one middle-aged man’s frustration with a world that is increasing self-absorbed, nay dare we say ‘narcissistic’? When the founder was a child, there were only 4 television channels on the dial. Today there are at least double that number dedicated to 24 hour programming involving a cast of characters who seem to marvel at how beautiful, etc. they are. That doesn’t count social media where people revel in posting ‘selfies’ and regaling the world with tales of how sexy they are, how nice a car they drive, and guess where I went on my vacation.

Q: Quite frankly, he sounds a little cranky to me.

A: He is, and the combination of a bran muffin and a good night’s sleep should fix that, but there remains the broader question of whether or not the constant parade of flaunting one’s good fortune, nice clothes, etc. in a world where not everybody is lucky is a bit tone deaf. In his defence, he’s only asking for one bloody day for people to tone it down, for pete’s sake. It’s not like he’s asking people to donate a kidney…sorry…what was your next question?
Q: Okayyyy…. So what do we do if we want to ‘celebrate’ – if I can call it that…

A: Well, you can if you want. Actually, do nothing.

Q: Nothing?

A: That’s what I said. Is there an echo in here?

Q: We celebrate ‘International Propriety Day’ by doing nothing? I don’t follow…

A: Don’t post glam shots on Facebook or Twitter. No faked poses or pictures of you and your friends and partner trying to look like Beyonce and Jay-Z at the Vanity Fair post-Oscar partay. No triumphant “Look at me and my well-toned body as my sexy spouse and I get in our luxury automobile and head to an exclusive bistro and drink expensive Cabernet derived from grapes stomped by vestal virgins before hopping on a plane to Martinique and allow the gentle rays of the sun to bronze my thong clad arse that is as firm as that of a 20 year old on account of my multiple hot yoga sessions”…okay, that was a tangent.

Q: Moving on, so no vanity pictures or bragging of any kind?

A: Yes.

Q: Doesn’t that eliminate a lot of social media posts?

A: Nobody has a precise number, but I would say 75%

Q: So, what’s the alternative?

A: You are allowed – and strongly encouraged – to simply post a line from the David Bowie song “Ashes to Ashes”

Q: Which is?

A: “I’m happy – hope you’re happy too.” It says you’re okay, you hope others are okay and it fits in less than 140 characters.

Q: What about pictures? People are likely to post pictures as they are text.

A: Flowers.

Q: Flowers?

A: You heard me – flowers.

Q: Why flowers?

A: Because they’re beautiful and natural.

Q: Any flower?

A: A-ha – that’s the thing – not just any flowers…Wildflowers.

Q: Why wildflowers?

A: Because we’re all about simplicity and a lack of ego. Prized orchids and long stem roses are as much a symbol of ego and showing off as anything. In the cosmic sense, a flower is a flower, but with those you are saying “Look at how much money and trouble I went to” as much as anything. Wildflowers grow on their own, with only nature to depend on. They are the epitome of natural beauty. They are simple, and they exist with or without us.

Q: Ok – so next year, pictures of wildflowers and a quote from a David Bowie song. That’s it?

A: Rome wasn’t built in a day. I’m about realistic expectations.

Q: What else?

A: Probably a Facebook page, if I get around to it. Maybe people can take the money they save on their elegant dinner and kick it to a food bank or a charity. That would be really nice.

Q: Do you think people will embrace this?

A: Don’t know. I will. Hope people join me.

Q: One last question – why ‘propriety’?

A: Because if I called it ‘International Humility Day’ people would think they should be crass and insulting to others and ‘humiliate’ them. If I called it ‘International Modesty Day’, it would sound like I was the Preacher in ‘Footloose’, telling the town kids they weren’t allowed to dance. I can’t dance, but I like it as a theoretical construct. Propriety seemed to capture the intent without a lot of confusion.

So, that's it. The hashtag, by the way, is #IPD2017

Enjoy!

Friday, July 15, 2016

Familiarity Breeds Respect?



It seems as though one cannot watch a stretch of television (at least in North America) without catching a commercial for some online dating / matchmaking service – and no, I am not speaking of the late night spots where some attractive young lady wants to gossip with you for $5 a minute. The commercials I’m talking about target people who profess to having trouble meeting that special someone who could be ‘the one.’

Whether or not it’s a scholarly grandfather figure, a man doing interviews on the street, or a winsome figure telling the camera that they are seeking a soulmate, the inference is the same – compatibility is what counts. With the divorce rate in most developed countries approaching 50 percent, who can dispute the appeal to such logic?

And yet…

I bring this up not because I am an expert at dating advice or marriage. I have been married for the better part of twenty years and have managed to stay out of jeopardy – which may owe more to my wife’s patience and my dumb luck than anything else. I mention it because the arguments that seem so basic and intuitive to determine who our partners in life should be do not seem to translate elsewhere.

I’m talking trade, of course.

When countries seek out trade agreements, they often remind me of people who cruise bars for a hook-up. You may find that a bit unfair, but is it?

A leader talks about doing a deal with Country X. Okay, so why? Well, they have tens of millions of consumers and billions of dollars of GDP. But isn’t that the equivalent of saying you want to hook up with someone because of their looks and the contents of their bank account? Furthermore, what if you don’t like the same music, or books or films? What if you don’t like the same food, or you can’t agree on whether or not to have children? How long can a relationship last when the best thing you can say about it is “they look great naked and their father’s filthy rich”?

Population and GDP get you noticed. Population and GDP are, to borrow the phrase from the Kelis song, the “milkshake that brings all the boys to the yard.”  But if population and GDP were enough, then why isn’t trade working better? Why are people angry? Why do they protest against the TPP? Why did Britons vote to leave the EU?

Because there is a difference between quantity and quality.

Take, for example, the United States. Its two largest trading relationships are with China and Canada. If you are the superficial type, you look at both and say “China’s got a billion people and Canada has only 35 million. To hell with the Canucks – I’m heading to Beijing with a bottle of bubbly, some flowers and a Barry White CD!”

That is a strategy, but before you uncork the Reunite on ice (very nice) and place that red gauze scarf over the lamp in order to get some mood lighting, consider the following:

According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, the total amount of two way trade between the US and China in 2015 was $599.32 billion while the amount with Canada was only $576.76 billion. China is still more impressive by this measure, but look a little further.

The United States runs a trade deficit with both countries. With Canada, the trade deficit is $15.55 billion. With China, however, the deficit is $367.17 billion.

In layman’s terms, for every dollar of trade the US does with Canada, it’s losing about 3 cents. For every dollar of trade the US does with China, it’s losing 61 cents.   But hey – a billion people…

Okay, so you say ‘that’s not fair – you’re comparing apples to mandarin oranges’. Fine, then let’s look at another country with a billion people and a comparable low wage workforce. Two way trade between the US and India over the same period was US$66.24 billion, and the deficit was $23.34 billion. But that means that for every dollar of trade, the US loses 35 cents – almost half the loss as the trade with the PRC.

Let’s look at the US with Britain. Two way trade in 2015 was US$114.08 billion. Deficit was US$1.85 billion. That’s a loss of a little under 2 cents on the dollar.

But they’re in the European Union (for now), right. Okay, so let’s take another equally large EU country, say Germany, and look at the numbers. Two way trade was US$174.8 billion, deficit was US$74.85, totaling a loss of 42 cents on the dollar.

But, but but…Germany is an industrial powerhouse. That’s not fair! How about…France? Yeah, France! Okay – two way trade was US$77.92 billion, deficit was US$17.71 billion, for a loss of 22 cents on the dollar.

Seriously, folks – I can go all night here….What? Just one more? Well, okay – since you asked nice.

Italy. Two way trade was US$60.36 billion, deficit was US$27.95 billion, for a loss of 46 cents on the dollar.

Quality over quantity, folks. Quality over quantity.

Understand that many free trade deals are about the volumes – the two way trade. When it gets big, certain people make money. They are usually the ones on your TV and in the financial papers who are telling you that life has never been better. Of course, if your pay packet is largely a commission on transactions, how could it not be better? A couple of late night’s in the corner office, and then some quality time with the secret…oops, I mean, wife…as you broil you buns on the beaches of Ibiza.

Surplus, deficit - it doesn't matter. You get paid regardless of the direction the money flows.

Problem is that the overwhelming majority of people don't. They only get paid when the money is coming in. You may not have noticed, but they are the ones who made Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump's candidacies the topic of much kvetching on the news channels. They are the ones who made Brexit a reality. They are the ones who question the value of free trade altogether.

This is unfortunate, and admittedly short sighted. Just because the store managers pay themselves a fortune, or a few people dip their hands in the till doesn’t mean that the business model is flawed. It means there is a greed and graft problem.

It’s interesting to note that long before Canada and the US ratified their free trade deal in 1988, there were other trade deals between the two – dating back as far as the 1850’s and right up to Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s ill-fated attempt in 1911. Funny enough, none of them were called ‘free trade’ treaties. They were called ‘reciprocity’ treaties.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘reciprocity’ as follows: "a situation or relationship in which two people or groups agree to do something similar for each other, to allow each other to have the same rights, etc."  Of all the cases of two way trade with the US I've listed, the ones that approach what one would consider to be 'reciprocity' all have something in common. They are fellow Anglosphere jurisdictions.

To be clear, speaking English helps, but in a world with Google Translate and Rosetta Stone CD's, it should not be overstated. After all, in nearly 100 percent of divorce cases, both the respondent and the plaintiff can understand the words each are speaking.

Like in a more intimate relationship, it is about the intent behind the words, and not the syntax itself. It's not what is said, but what is meant.

The Anglosphere means a certain type of law, a certain type of government, and a certain type of relationship between individuals and civil authority. It makes a difference - even when geography and ethnicity vary. The common reference points that define what is right and what is fair have a tangible effect. 

Just look at Canada’s trade with the European Union. According to Statistics Canada, our total exports to the EU in 2015 were C$39.47 billion, but of that fully C$16.60 billion were destined specifically for Britain. That means that Britain took 42 percent of our products while the other 27 countries combined to take the other 58 percent. Of course, among the others you find Ireland and Malta, who took C$1.55 billion of our products in the same time period. That means that the 3 Anglosphere members among the 28 nation bloc accounted for C$18.15 billion, or 46 percent of the total of Canada’s exports to the EU.

In the decade that I have been advocating Commonwealth free trade, I have had people tell me that I was wrong - and sometimes in not the politest way either. That may account for some portion of my current sarcastic tone. Back then, it was 'Britain would never contemplate leaving the EU', followed by 'Well, even if they left, nobody would have anything to do with them.'

A little over two weeks - fourteen days, including weekends - since Brexit, we have the US and a dozen other countries clamoring for bilateral deals with the UK. We have not only offers of trade from Australia and New Zealand, but offers to 'lend' Britain their trade negotiators to work on the UK's behalf. As I write this, my country's International Trade Minister is in London, briefing Liam Fox on how Canada cut our own deal with the EU!

We also learn that as President Obama was giving his famous 'back of the queue' speech, his trade representative was working on a proposal for a US-UK treaty.

Our crowd has not been proven right because we possess some extraordinary intellect or power to define the future. We got it right because we know that in international affairs, as in our personal lives, compatibility still counts for something.

Some people may think 'familiarity breeds contempt.' In this case, however, maybe familiarity breeds respect.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Thoughts on Father's Day



According to the philosopher Plato, Socrates said “The unexamined life is not worth living.” That may be true, but I think that the problem is not so much in the living, but in the examination – or lack thereof. That’s been the thought foremost in my mind as we approach Father’s Day.

I’ve been a dad for a little shy of 16 years. My kids are the both the greatest frustration and the greatest source of pride for me. You would think that the day would mean a lot to me. To be honest, I don’t think about it much – or at least that much where I am concerned. For all the length of time that I’ve been a father, I’ve spent much longer being a son. Maybe that’s why I view it all from that perspective.

My dad is 79 years old. Despite years of hard work, heart attacks, strokes, and surgeries, he is still the same man – albeit at a reduced speed.

In thinking about him, I also think about the quote about ‘unexamined lives’. You see, I think he is a great man, and I’ll even go so far as to say a better one than me. That said, I have my writing, this blog, my political comings and goings to ensure that somebody, somewhere will know who I am and what I’m about. He doesn’t have that, and because I believe that his life has been – and continues to be – one worth living, I will offer an examination of my own.

He was born in the latter part of the Depression into a poor family that would eventually number eight kids. It was not a good situation. Wearing hand-me-downs from cousins and taking a lunch to school that consisted of a slather of lard between two pieces of bread was commonplace. I do not wish to go into a detailed examination of how and why things were that way. There were a confluence of events before my father and his siblings entered this world that set the stage, and that both alcoholism and mental illness played their part.

At age four, he was given to my grandfather’s nephew and his wife to raise, and for a while, that worked well. It was when that couple, not having children of their own, wished to formally adopt him that things changed. While not in a position to raise my father, and not having actually done so for more than a couple of years, my grandparents could not accept this and demanded his immediate return.

Living in a household with a family he barely knew, and in – to be diplomatic – less than ideal conditions, my father made a fateful decision.

One day, while walking to school, he threw his school books in a creek and with no money and just the clothes on his back, he set out to hitchhike to Toronto. He told me that the first person to stop for him ‘tried something’ but he managed to get away, and another person stopped to help. That stranger took him to his destination. 

Once he arrived, he found work as a hand with a moving company. As he had no money, he saved as much of the meal allowance he was given, and slept in either the warehouse or one of the trucks. The owner of the company would take him home on weekends and invited him to join his family for Sunday meals. Eventually, he managed to save enough that he could rent a room in a boarding house.

At the time this was happening, my father was the ripe old age of 12.

Over the years he would find himself back in the vicinity, and doing all sorts of jobs – from construction, to piling lumber, to working as a hand on some of the steamships that would haul coal and other materials between Kingston, Ontario and Oswego, New York.

He would eventually marry, helping his in-laws with their dairy farm when he wasn’t working another job. He would go back to school and get his papers to become a Stationary Engineer. For a spell, he would have his own modest haulage business, with two trucks and a backhoe.

When the economy turned and prospects dimmed, he and my mother would sell the house and part of the farm and, with everything of value loaded into a station wagon and a U-Haul trailer, make a trek to Northeastern BC, 2800 miles away.

Life often makes a person hard. It makes them cold and callous. You would think that under the circumstances, living under the same roof would have made for a less than pleasant childhood.

I lived in a home where I was never hurt or abused. I lived in a home where I was never witness to abuse either. I lived in a home where I was encouraged to think for myself, and where nothing I said, or did, or dreamed of doing was discouraged.

I was raised in a family where a mortgage payment might be late because the money went to paying for either my sister or I to go to something because ‘it would be good for us.’ In fact, he probably quit smoking a thousand times over the years, because if he had a choice between buying a pack of cigarettes and giving his kids money for lunch, we never went without a carton of milk.

I was raised by parents who refused to declare bankruptcy for their haulage business because it meant that local businesses would not get paid, and their reputations meant more than a quick out.

I lived in a home where strangers who needed a bed and a hot meal were never refused, even if my folks had been taken advantage of for the umpteenth time.

I lived in a home where I always heard my dad say that he loved me and was proud of me. For the record, he still does it.

When I was about to graduate University, I was asked how I wanted my name to appear on the diploma. I asked that my middle name, Hugh, be included. You see, that’s my father’s name and to have it written on that paper was important to me.

When I took a hand at writing fiction, I adopted the pen name ‘B.H. Cameron’ and often use the ‘H’ when I identify myself. When my son was born, the name Hugh was also included in his full name.

My father is not a complicated man, but he’s not a stupid one either. He wears his heart on his sleeve and does nothing by half-measures. He’ll embrace what he thinks is right, and not be shy about calling out things he feels are wrong. He is generous (to a fault) and is willing to hold a grudge to his dying day, but is equally willing to forget the whole thing upon hearing the words ‘I’m sorry’ – even if they were not offered in sincerity.

He would never place himself above others, but he’ll be damned if he’ll allow himself to be placed below either.

I’ve had the chance to build a life free of the hardship, deprivation and abuse my father suffered in his childhood, but that owes less to the choices I’ve made than to the ones he did. After all, I have his example of being a father to follow. He had to wing it. It reminds me of something a read in a book about the Bronfman family. When reportedly asked about building their fortune, Samuel Bronfman commented that turning a million dollars into a billion was not all that difficult. The hard part, he said, was getting to a million from just one dollar. I see fatherhood in very much the same light.

In a very real sense, I am my father’s son.

I’m neither impressed by how much a person has nor repelled by how little they may possess. I believe that family and friends are your most prized possession, and loyalty is the price you pay to maintain them. I believe that there are better people than me, but that’s based on the content of their character and not their bank account or how many dusty sheets of paper line the walls of their house.

I believe that the difference between a wealthy person and a poor person has more to do with luck and providence than any intrinsic ethic of labour or integrity.

I don’t have a role or station to fulfill, but I have a job to do, and affectations are merely the shiny wrapping paper and pretty ribbons that adorn it.

I believe a friend is someone who would feed you if you were hungry, clothe you when bare, and offer a place from the wet and cold. Everyone else is an associate or an acquaintance – including yourself if you’re not prepared to help when called upon.

I have a rather indelicate sense of humour, and will take time from the weighty matters of life to be a complete imbecile and butt of my kids’ jokes.

I will hold a grudge for longer than what my wife considers healthy, and yet, with a simple ‘I’m sorry’ the matter is put to rest.

All of this, I got from my dad.

In writing this – in ensuring that my father’s life is not ‘unexamined’ – I lay open a great deal. Like many families from our little part of the world, people keep things private. Such candidness is not common. Having said that, I don’t believe that any bit of this account represents a poor reflection of anyone. 

My grandparents lived complicated lives and had histories of their own to overcome. If there was a failure, it was that they were unable to do that, leaving those problems as an inheritance. In my youth, I could never understand this, but time teaches you that life isn’t simple, and that they were not the exception, but the rule.

We are born into this world naked and unaware, wholly dependent and wholly vulnerable. In that regard (and with apologies to those who believe in karmic reincarnation), being born a pauper is no more an indication of unworthiness than being born a Rockefeller is one of some intrinsic virtue. It means that our fate lies in the hands of those whose care we are placed in.

My father’s situation owed to the choices his father made. Everything I have – or will ever have – owes to his decision to do differently, to be different – even if he didn’t know what that was or how to achieve it.

My father was the ‘best man’ at my wedding. In truth, he’s been the better man all along.