my pick for story of the day...

I'm not totally sure, but I think this is what democracy looks like. It's a short article and worth reading all the way through. I really do love Vermont...

talk about empty rhetoric...

The following is an entry I found on the Department of Canadian Heritage's website, a small article all about that most Canadian of ideals, "Peace, Order and Good Government," excerpted from the educational resource guide "Canadians and Their Government."

In light of today's top story, and the on-going dysfunction that has rendered our current Parliament utterly irrelevant to the business of governing Canada, I thought it was a good time to test the official rhetoric. I offer one particularly excellent excerpt from "Canadians and Their Government" :

Indeed, the phrase “peace, order and good government” has become meaningful to Canadians and defines Canadian values in a way that is comparable to “liberté, égalité, fraternité” in France or “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the United States. It is a phrase that truly articulates the journey toward peaceful accommodation throughout Canada's evolution as a nation. This process, in itself, is reason enough to feel proud of Canada's accomplishments since before Confederation.

Today, Canada is a world leader in peacekeeping and conflict resolution and is a model for democracy.

The high sentiment in the above quotation is even more laughable in light of our Federal Finance Minister's current vendetta against the Province of Ontario, and specifically its Liberal Premier. "Conflict resolution" does not appear to be a Conservative strong point.

I'd hazard that "Pot Shots, Tax Cuts and Libel Suits," is a more appropriate official slogan for the present Conservative government.

And when politicians resort to lawyers you just know things will not end well...

he can dish it, but apparently he just can't take it...

This is unbelievable.

this does not bode well...

BAD: That the Federal Conservative government is proposing a form of arbitrary censorship of the film and television industry.

WORSE: That evangelical crusader Charles McVety is claiming he's behind the whole thing.

A choice quote from the Globe and Mail article published in today's paper:

"Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign."

The italics are mine. And seriously, what's with the chronic conservative fixation on things that "promote homosexuality"? I'm pretty sure homosexuals aren't actively recruiting, so the idea that gay stories somehow endanger society, or risk eroding the fragile morality of the average young Canadian is pretty far-fetched.

Below is a further excerpt from the Globe article, this time a direct quote from Conservative MP for Palliser (Saskatchewan) David Batters, who is an associate member of the Canadian Heritage Committee :

"In my mind, sir, and in the minds of many of my colleagues and many, many Canadians," said Mr. Batters during a Jan. 31 meeting of the Canadian Heritage committee, "the purpose of Telefilm is to help facilitate the making of films for mainstream Canadian society - films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country."

Oh really? Is Telefilm Canada now the funding arm of Blockbuster Video?

Is it a bad time to remind the conservative pundits the reason why we typically label Canada a democracy and not an oligarchy? Oh right, it's because all people, even artists, are entitled to express their beliefs and share their stories without fear of censorship or state persecution, as opposed to living under the constant surveillance of a small committee of moral and cultural arbiters, which appears to be the preferred option of Mr. McVety and the Conservative Party policy makers.

Just imagine what a majority would be like...

with a whimper, not a bang...

Federal budget day...yawn. Apparently we're supposed to expect some surprises. How about properly funding our ailing social services and urban infrastructure this time around? What's that you say? Tax cuts? Right....

looking for clarity, imagination and some truth...

Canada has been involved in Afghanistan since October 2001. Almost seven years and two governments later and what exactly we're doing there, let alone what we've done, is not really clear. And further to this, why we're there, which is certainly related to what we're doing and have done, is not terribly obvious to the average citizen either. So you'll forgive me if I find the question of how much longer we plan to stay both a little premature and without purpose until we can get a handle on the present tense state of affairs. The future becomes a convenient distraction in this context.

But let's backtrack to the past for a moment. Last Remembrance Day I was in Ottawa and made it out to the War Memorial for the large national commemorative ceremony, accompanied by two friends, one who'd recently moved to Ottawa for graduate school, the other a visitor from Northern India. The out-of-town guest was in thrall to the whole spectacle, having never experienced such a ceremony in her part of India, she enthusiastically criss-crossed the periphery of the War Memorial to snap as many pictures as possible. My other friend is a committed advocate for peace, doing her PhD in an area directly related to peace-making. She and I were in what I can best describe as existential shock when the voice at the podium began to intone: "We love our troops, repeat after me, 'we love our troops'." And of course the large crowd did repeat after him. And everybody broke into loud applause. And that was the shocking part - it didn't take much to make a case for war.

As a nation we have essentially lost our right as citizens to criticize Canada's role in Afghanistan because to do so would be to launch a personal attack on the men and women in uniform. This is ridiculous logic, of course, because a person is capable of supporting our troops without supporting THIS mission. And no matter how many intelligent people point this out, the "repeat after me" mentality gets louder and more single-minded, making a clear understanding of our present role in Afghanistan extremely difficult, if not impossible.

There are some very good reasons for Canada to be in Afghanistan right now. Our traditional role as post-conflict peacekeeper, and our unique identity as a rich and non-European neutral power without any history of international conquest, makes us a strong agent for diplomatic compromise in a country that been the plaything of Empires for most of modern history. But we need clarity on our activities, the public should be informed of the actual objectives of the mission, our current capacity to realize them, and an honest representation of both our victories AND our losses.

We also need imagination. A vision of the future that is limited to legalistic bickering over an exact withdrawal date is a disservice to all the work we are currently undertaking, as well as a failure to support the independent nation we hope to leave behind. Our vision should be one broad enough to encompass hope for Afghanistan, and yet realistic enough to admit that a timeline for withdrawal may not yet be possible. Commitment to a vision, and not to an election cycle, is what Afghanistan needs from all NATO countries, and Canada especially since we maintain close relations with both the United States and Britain, the other key agents in this complex reality.

And we need truth. Without honest reporting, and up front political accounting, we will never be in a position to make a positive difference because we will be working from imperfect information which will inevitably lead to poor decisions.

And so I offer up a series of what I consider to be insightful pieces, all published in The Walrus magazine over the past year, which have greatly increased my understanding of the current state of the mission in Afghanistan, and some of the particular challenges we still face:

3D Vision by Taylor Owen and Patrick Travers (published July/August 2007 issue)
Road of Fire by Hugh Graham (published December 2007 issue)
Review of "Outside the Wire: The War in Afghanistan" by Ken Alexander (December 2007 issue)

"silly season", here we come...

Oh, it's on...

okay, so we're back...

Yikes, it's been over two seasons since my last post! Well, I'm back...I think.

I mean it's the start of a year-long election season in the US, and in Canada we're always on stand-by for one of those voting things. Also it's the middle of winter and I'm suffering from cabin fever, so going back to this bloggerly space seems like a good way to pass some time and save some sanity.

A special thank you to my three loyal readers who never lost the faith and haven't yet deleted me from their favorites. This relaunch is dedicated to you. And so we begin again...

cause for guarded hope?

A clearly articulated and comprehensive call to withdraw from Iraq was published today in the editorial section of the New York Times.

Although they have made similar, if more vague, statements to this effect before, it feels, for the first time in a long time, that a real movement is building to finally realize the project of extricated the US from Iraq. Let us hope this small and clear statement is a bellweather...

it's oh so quiet...

These things happen in cycles, and so once more I have let too much time past between postings to this little blog and feel obligated to formalize my absence. My lovely pleasant valley is in full bloom once more, and with absolutely nothing of consequence happening on the hill I'm turning my energies to quiet contemplation of the meaning of it all. Or maybe I'll just go for a walk. Either way, I will not be posting here for the next little while.

There is something to be said for silence after all...

just call her "beverley j. boondoggle"...

Another bad day for Heritage Minister Bev Oda and the stunningly unaccountable Conservatives.

Didn't you get the memo? "Opaque is the new transparent..."

the ever curious case of quebec...

I really don't know what to make of it all. A friend forwarded to me an excerpt from the Globe and Mail coverage, where a defeated PQ candidate mused that although the Quebecois are an "open minded" people (nation?), there are limits. Electing a homosexual premier being chief among them. What's that sound? Oh yes, the daggers sliding out of their sheaths...

Of course that these same people nearly elected a party into government with virtually no experience, zero concrete policies and a rather embarrassing streak of public intolerance among their ranks was arguably a stunning display of "open mindedness" on the part of Quebecois voters. Talk about leaping before you look...

And now the pundit class is frantically casting after federal election dates, drawing upon any number of pseudo-logical arguments for/against a spring/summer/fall/winter election. But nobody can quite say how Quebec will factor into this strange mix, which is perhaps why Canadian politics has suddenly become so interesting once again.

speaking of civil liberties...

This is a long article (but worth a read) about covert NYPD infiltration of a wide range of mostly left-leaning peace-seeking groups leading up to the 2004 GOP convention in NY, with some rather nasty consequences (unjustified arrests, among other things).

I doubt the same efforts would have been made in the service of a Democratic convention, but who knows, maybe the whole notion of civil liberties is so eclipsed by the present culture of pre-emptive fear in the name of national security that any major event can now be used to justify suspending citizen rights.

It now seems that peaceful dissent risks being conflated with terrorism, as lawmakers flirt dangerously with the idea of "guilty until proven innocent," a short cut that provides them with an easy fix to potentially embarrassing opposition from the people they govern. Why answer your critics when you can simply lock them up?

"Land of the free..." Is it still possible to sing that anthem in our time and keep a straight face?

human rights aren't just for the "good guys"...

This is upsetting. I wish I understood how, nearly a decade into the 21st century, the leader of our nation doesn't grasp that human rights are not something we can choose to discriminately bestow on certain groups at the expense of others, but are in fact UNIVERSAL. This is one case where "you're either with us or against us" can never apply.

Harper's "below-the-belt" tactics in the Commons I'm used to. His staggering indifference towards universal human rights, a pillar of global political stability and the last best hope of resolving many of the festering post-invasion messes left by the Americans, I'm not willing to concede as allowable in any way shape or form.

The press will likely contain this to a 'spat' between the PM and Dion, and largely under-report on the implications this episode will have on Canada's standing as international peace keeper and above-the-board diplomatic agent. We are fast losing all credibility on the world stage: Kyoto is a joke; bilateral trade agreements with the US are a mess; our positive/neutral approach to the middle-east is over; and now we are rolling back one of our greatest achievements - the concept of universal human rights. I'm not sure it can get much worse than this.

Sadly there is almost nothing to be done: we are living through a very dark political moment, not just in Canada but across the globe.

Economists still happily predict, after well over a century of doing so, that one of these days market forces will re-balance the systemic and rampant inequality that plagues the planet. Meanwhile politicians seem to have embraced pure demagoguery. The new politics is comprised of transparently false 'spin' and fanned by the cynical manipulation of a reactionary citizenry that seems satisfied with action of ANY kind (no matter how inappropriate) at the expense of well-conceived and considered approaches to major societal and global problems.

And so it goes...

dot, dot, dot...

I've not written anything in this space for over a week with only one excuse for my absence: simple exhaustion.

To recover my energies I'm taking a break from the world of current events and burying my head in a good history book with a bit of fiction on the side. Consider me "on hiatus for retooling" until further posting...

words, words, words...

A good friend forwarded the following quotations to me today, some lucid words by Gore Vidal, a man I consider to be among the most brilliant writers of our time. These are taken from a book of his collected non-fiction titled "At Home: Essays, 1982-1988":

"I have said very little about writers because writers have figured very little in our imperial story. The founders of both republic and empire wrote well: Jefferson and Hamilton, Lincoln and Grant, T.R. and the Adamses. Today public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books, and there is some evidence that they can't read them either."

"When Confucius was asked what would be the first thing that he would do if he were to lead the state -- his never-to-be-fulfilled dream -- he said rectify the language . This is wise. This is subtle. As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests. Finally, words must be so twisted as to justify an empire that has now ceased to exist, much less make sense."

to borrow some fine words from a friend...

I received an email from a friend today that to my mind perfectly summarizes the madness of our present political moment and the media's backwards approach to the whole mess.

I quote:

So after following the vote to restore our rights yesterday I'm still trying to wrap my head around the mentality of the Conservative voter. Let me get this straight, allowing the police to arrest you with no proof is good, but telling the police about your guns is bad. Along those lines, $200 million for Afghanistan reconstruction is good, but if any of those projects were good for the environment and counted towards our Kyoto target, that would be throwing our money away.

Also, I've noticed a new thing about the political media that I'm not liking. Both after the vote yesterday and the vote on the Kyoto private members bill, the pundits I saw commenting on it (Coyne, Hebert, Taber and Duffy) only discussed the implications for the parties. Like why would the liberals vote against the terrorism laws when it's splitting the party and making Dion look weak. Does anyone really care if the Liberals look weak? What I care about is my rights as a Canadian Citizen.

on the decline of the empire...

I came across this poem yesterday, and it continues to resonate strongly with me. I won't attempt to analyze the meaning, or draw links to our time, but simply offer it to any who happen upon my little blog, and leave it to you dear reader to make your meaning(s) as you see fit.

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are to arrive today.

Why such inaction in the Senate?
Why do the Senators sit and pass no laws?

Because the barbarians are to arrive today.
What laws can the Senators pass any more?
When the barbarians come they will make the laws.

Why did our emperor wake up so early,
and sits at the greatest gate of the city,
on the throne, solemn, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are to arrive today.
And the emperor waits to receive
their chief. Indeed he has prepared
to give him a scroll. Therein he inscribed
many titles and names of honor.

Why have our two consuls and the praetors come out
today in their red, embroidered togas;
why do they wear amethyst-studded bracelets,
and rings with brilliant, glittering emeralds;
why are they carrying costly canes today,
wonderfully carved with silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are to arrive today,
and such things dazzle the barbarians.

Why don't the worthy orators come as always
to make their speeches, to have their say?

Because the barbarians are to arrive today;
and they get bored with eloquence and orations.

Why all of a sudden this unrest
and confusion. (How solemn the faces have become).
Why are the streets and squares clearing quickly,
and all return to their homes, so deep in thought?

Because night is here but the barbarians have not come.
And some people arrived from the borders,
and said that there are no longer any barbarians.

And now what shall become of us without any barbarians?
Those people were some kind of solution.

Constantine P. Cavafy (1904)

notes from the conservative underground...

This tidbit culled from the NY Times was quite an eye opener. A secret council of conservatives handpicking the next Republican Presidential candidate; truly, a fine example of America's world-famous "democracy" in action. Grassroots, what? I'm sure it's not important...

what does "soft on terror" mean anyway...?

I enjoyed this post on commondreams.org a lot. The phrase "soft on terror" quite recently made its way into the Canadian political discourse, something that makes me more than a little nervous, especially as a federal election looms large...

beyond the pale...

A friend forwarded this story to me earlier today. I couldn't believe it. If it was only speculation before, I think this confirms it: Federal politics has officially filed for moral bankruptcy protection.

la belle budget...

Charest's Quebecois Libs unveiled their pre-election budget today. It's strange, but there are no shocking theatrics involved in this tidy fiscal plan, no mention of sparkling priorities, and quite frankly it seems strangely sober for Canadian politics.

Of course the PQ hate it.

But then again, firm rumour has it that the writ will be dropped tomorrow, so...election season is almost open! Strap in folks, it's going to be a bumpy few months...

war is over (if you're stoned enough)...

Who knew that Canada owes its claim to the second iconic John and Yoko "bed-in" at Montreal's Queen Elizabeth Hotel to "heat and marijuana." Fabulous. Now that's what Valentine's Day should be all about...

The video on the site shows a diatribe against John and Yoko by Al Capp, the celebrated American cartoonist and born-again Conservative, trying to bring the famed peaceniks down a few notches on their now famous bedpost. Le plus ça change...

(Taken from a special CBC Valentine's Day Archive page.)

the state of the state...

Jokers to the left of us, uninspired policy to the right, here we are stuck in the centre with...

The news is too depressing to chronicle at length. I'm going to pick up trashy fiction and pour a glass of red wine. I'm so very tired of the state of the state.

déjà vu...

Oh dear god...

worth a listen...

If you have an hour to spare, and the speakers turned on, click here. Not entirely unrelated to my last post...

(Taken from the excellent collection of mp3s on the CBC Radio Ideas website.)

why, oh why, do we pay taxes...?

This piece on arts funding got me all riled up... it's a long article by Andrew Coyne, originally published in Next City magazine, and very much worth a read. It basically counters the prevailing view among most media and elites that what Canada needs is more public funding of the arts if its culture is to survive the American behemoth in our back yard (or are we in their attic?), and continue to celebrate national identity and creative excellence.

I will admit up front, that while Coyne makes a compelling case for his point of view, I think he oversimplifies what public arts funding actually amounts to, and reveals a pronounced blue streak in his "individual-knows-best" approach to taxes.

Coyne argues that individuals should only pay for culture they directly consume, and therefore arts funding is unfair to people who couldn't care less what's happening beyond their local Blockbuster. This kind of argument, favouring individual "market-driven" choice, cites historical examples of excellence in artistic creation that made no use of the public purse, as though the only thing public subsidy of the arts was trying to do was discover another Shakespeare or Michaelangelo, by spraying a buckshot of cash at anyone with even the slightest inclination towards making something "great".

Public funding of the arts is a good deal more complex than the model Mr. Coyne presents, so his piece is more correctly viewed as a direct attack on the Canada Council (lord knows it's not the first one, and won't be the last).

Public arts funding in Canada is responsible for an impressive array of cultural public works projects over the last sixty years, including all of the major regional theatre centres, galleries and museums (both small and large), the maintenance and presentation of national collections, encouragement of cutting edge artistic and curatorial practice (recognized and celebrated internationally), the establishment of viable cultural industries, and the list goes on...

And despite all of this, many artists do still make a good living outside of the realms of public subsidy, in the (gasp!) commercial art world, that exists alongside and in fact benefits greatly from the creativity fueled (and funded!) by what Coyne sees as an onerous tax burden on average boors.

An example. Toronto theatre-goers need look no further than the Mirvish Theatre season: originally staged at the (publicly funded) Toronto Fringe Festival in 2001, Trey Anthony's da kink in my hair opened at Theatre Passe-Muraille, a mid-sized not-for-profit (also publicly funded) Toronto theatre, in a remount production in 2003 and did extremely well, boasting sold out performances, a rare achievement in the mid-range theatre scene. Two years later the play went on to a large-scale commercial remount at the Princess of Wales Theatre as part of the 2005 Mirvish theatre season. The production was a massive success, with sold out performances (again) and subsequent television and movie development deals. Was this a bad investment by the public purse?

On the flip side: Atwood on the underfunding of the arts in Canada (sadly, this is only available to Globe online subscribers). This one is a bite-sized opinion piece, a five minute read, and an interesting take on the state of the arts in Canada from one of our most recognized literary figures. To be sure, Atwood's been on the scene long enough to have something to say worth listening to.

heh, heh...

Just click here, and look for "Ken Dryden is not a goalie" posted on February 6. Full credit to my friend MA for this one...

zero means impossible...

Okay, it's a bit (or a lot) pedantic, but the Ottawa city budget, currently in the agonizing throes of council approval, is driving me crazy.

Our recently elected mayor, Larry O'Brien (or Mayor Larry, as he's sometimes called) promised if elected to balance the city books with absolutely no tax increases while guaranteeing no reduction in services. Umm, I'm no economist, but...

His budget proposal seems improbable if not impossible in reality, and the idea that an already cash-strapped set of services could continue to be offered without even a meager a cash infusion in line with inflation is ridiculous. It's citizens who will pay the difference through semi-hidden service fees and stealth taxes, like a proposed increase in transit fares to the tune of 9.5% (just over five times the rate of inflation), and the gutting of parks and rec maintenance budgets along with a reduction in law enforcement capacity. All this because an unelected candidate made a badly researched and irresponsible promise in order to win an election.

The downtown wards, those that stand to lose most in all of this, virtually shut out Mayor Larry, while the affluent suburbs who could quite easily afford the needed increase, enthusiastically voted for O'Brien, public good be damned.

No matter what happens, Ottawa is going to suffer for the sake of one's man's political pride/hubris, and pay a high price when the city starts to fall to pieces because of a new culture of chronic underfunding being led from the top down.

The man has never held any public office, had never attended a council meeting before running for mayor, and rode into power on the strength of his experience implementing "21st Century management practices" (whatever that means). Oh, and the mayor can't stop wearing his ceremonial chains absolutely everywhere he goes. Dark times...

this is so fun...

I told you, in a huff of resignation (with much pouting and sulking), that for the time being I'm ignoring politics, but Scott Feschuk's blog makes it fun again!

it's official...

The science is REAL. Oh, and it's totally our fault.