Yesterday's news took my breath away. Four weeks ago, when Jack Layton announced he'd be absenting himself from Parliament for the rest of the summer to focus on his fight against cancer I imagined his was a dire prognosis. But my God, it's been less than a month.
Even leaning on a cane, he didn't appear hampered by his condition. When his wife Olivia joined him on the platform, the two seemed to get hot and bothered just courting the public vote. The world loves a lover — well, I did anyway. On Facebook I opined that Layton was the only national party leader whose smile didn't creep me out. Friends quickly reported other, quite different, reactions.
I voted for Layton in this last election, as well as some of the previous elections. It's likely he got my vote when he ran for mayor of Toronto, but I can't recall. Having said that, my support was not without criticism or concern. This last time around, in fact, I was determined to hold my nose and vote Liberal. Front page news on the nation's Sun tabloids, put to press in the final days of the campaign and announcing that Layton had been “caught” (and subsequently released without charges) in a massage parlor of ill-repute nearly 15 years ago, changed my mind. Nobody's come out and said Stephen Harper had anything to do with the publication, but considering the man's notoriety for micromanaging his party's campaigns and fighting dirty on the Hill, I daresay I'm catching the whiff of rosewater from Harper's palms.
I think that sums up why Layton got my support with some consistency over the decades. He could court controversy of the sort that threatened to put me off, but when it was time to hash things out in the Commons I usually had a clearer idea where he stood than I did of the Grits or Tories. Jack Layton came closer to embodying the ideal of Loyal Opposition than any of the rest of 'em — including, especially, the sneak who's presently running the show.
Links: Jack Layton's final letter to Canadians. Layton claimed professor Charles Taylor was perhaps the greatest political influence in his life. If you're a twenty-something Canadian you owe it to yourself to get acquainted with this man's ideas — especially if you think Layton's policies were wrong-headed. Start here.
Addendum: Here is a short quote from Prime Minister Harper. It seems likely to be in reference to this episode. It gets me thinking I should perhaps ease up a bit on the innuendo — August 25, 2011.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Leadership You Can Trust — To #*@% You Up
I can't quite shake the feeling that if I don't engage in last night's Leader's Debate, I'm not engaging in my country's political culture. But really, what was there for a viewer to engage in? The three stooges in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition leveled their accusations against the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister serenely shrugged and said, They're wrong. I gave 'em exactly what they asked for, but they just want to call another election. Those three sad souls, oh me oh my, could only gawp in disbelief and repeat platforms that haven't exactly been selling themselves.
Any elementary school teacher could tell you exactly what's going on here. There isn't a classroom that isn't blessed with the presence of one smug, supercilious little prick (equal opportunists should feel free to substitute the female anatomical counterpart) who wheedles and whines, bullies and cajoles, threatens and presumes, pokes, pinches and gropes anyone of either gender within reach, and in general behaves execrably — in the playground. Back in class, should one of the victims be foolish enough to raise the issue with the teacher, said cretin will don the most innocent look imaginable, and say the same thing over and over again: that's not at all what happened. If you'll just review the facts, you'll see that I'm the one being put-upon here. It's just that nobody likes me because I'm the only one in class who's nice all the time. Everyone in the classroom, including the teacher, wants to string this kid up from the highest limb. At the end of the day, however, most will just give this stinker a very wide berth and manufacture what fun they can from the classroom resources he can't be bothered with.
If there's a weakness in my metaphor, it's in portraying the Opposition as victims. Although there were moments when I felt some pity toward the physically infirm Jack Layton, for the most part the only thing these jokers fell victim to was their incapacity to engage — the Prime Minister and his pathological evasions, or the voters and their very real desire not to let any one of these asshats call all the shots on Parliament Hill. If we have to deal with the people we're given, then we'll accept a minority government, thank you.
But we never want to see the “Who? Me?” kid get his way.
Any elementary school teacher could tell you exactly what's going on here. There isn't a classroom that isn't blessed with the presence of one smug, supercilious little prick (equal opportunists should feel free to substitute the female anatomical counterpart) who wheedles and whines, bullies and cajoles, threatens and presumes, pokes, pinches and gropes anyone of either gender within reach, and in general behaves execrably — in the playground. Back in class, should one of the victims be foolish enough to raise the issue with the teacher, said cretin will don the most innocent look imaginable, and say the same thing over and over again: that's not at all what happened. If you'll just review the facts, you'll see that I'm the one being put-upon here. It's just that nobody likes me because I'm the only one in class who's nice all the time. Everyone in the classroom, including the teacher, wants to string this kid up from the highest limb. At the end of the day, however, most will just give this stinker a very wide berth and manufacture what fun they can from the classroom resources he can't be bothered with.
If there's a weakness in my metaphor, it's in portraying the Opposition as victims. Although there were moments when I felt some pity toward the physically infirm Jack Layton, for the most part the only thing these jokers fell victim to was their incapacity to engage — the Prime Minister and his pathological evasions, or the voters and their very real desire not to let any one of these asshats call all the shots on Parliament Hill. If we have to deal with the people we're given, then we'll accept a minority government, thank you.
But we never want to see the “Who? Me?” kid get his way.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Canada! How Does It Work?
I've linked to it on my The Facebook page, but it bears a link here as well. Word for word, Michelle Dean gives the most incisive — and entertaining — survey and analysis of the current Canadian political quagmire, for The Awl, here.
Dean quite properly leads with this photo of our penultimate Conservative Prime Minister, Kim Campbell:
Dean quite properly leads with this photo of our penultimate Conservative Prime Minister, Kim Campbell:
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Let Us Construct Mythologies
(With apologies to Leonard Cohen)
I've been sharing food with my political friends, and the common lament from the would-be contenders for 24 Sussex is, "Despite the exponentially-increasing media platforms, we simply cannot get our message heard." They presume our politicians -- specifically Harper, Ignatieff and Layton -- have one or two ideas that can't be summed up in a tweet, but could potentially ignite voter response, if only these would-be voters made the effort to sit up and listen.
There is some truth to that observation, but not enough to fruitfully meditate on. I counter-propose that our politicians, particularly Ignatieff and Harper (Layton can't be considered a serious contender for PMO), have very clearly communicated their message to the public -- "I want power" -- and the public has responded appropriately. I suspect what they are unable to communicate is a sufficiently compelling mythology that the public can identify with and get behind.
South of the 49th, of course, we have a different story. Presidential contenders have to espouse their belief in the myth of American Exceptionalism right from the start. After that, it's a matter of identifying, then embodying which myth lies closest to the yearnings of the motivated voter. Right now the Tea Party myth is getting a face-lift. How the current manifestation differs from the earlier ones, or veers from the historical record, is part of another conversation; the important thing is that everyone who hears the words "Tea Party" has an immediate, visceral response.
Trudeau was a master at myth manipulation. He cut the secular-humanist cosmopolitan figure, occasionally canoing through the Canadian wilderness to reassert his ties of identity to our home and native land, before shaving and resuming his role as designated roué. Mulroney settled on a myth as well, albeit with a great deal less self-awareness. Alex P. Keaton (brought to life by another Canuck) was Mulroney's template; Canadian voters were assured that if they bought into the smooth-talker's Trade Agreements, they could reasonably expect to join the PM's family on their winter vacations in Malibu. Chretien might have implemented Mulroney's policies to a degree that made that great chin quiver with indignation, but he did so by bolstering the myth of Canadian exceptionalism and independence: although we were beneficiaries of US economic growth, we were decidedly not its "Ready, aye, ready" toadies.
Harper, I suspect, originally hoped to ride into office on the myth of the Pauline authority structure: kids subservient to parents, wife subservient to husband, family subservient to government, government subservient to last apostle's Christian God (and, above all, backbenchers subservient to Harper). In a population base that has become truly multicultural, that has been a hard sell, but he's tweaked the template enough to appeal to the conservative leanings of recently transplanted cultural groups hoping to keep their religious and family identities relatively intact. Alas for him, this tack only steers him over the shoals of Trudeau's Charter of Rights. The rights of the individual citizen might be so deeply assumed by the citizenry as to make arcane the notion of voting in its support; we now rely on our judges to remind the politicians to put away their caning rods, and no-one votes for a judge.
Early in the game, Ignatieff dashed off a book, a strategy that ought to have at least superficial appeal to the mythically inclined imagination. However, the only person who seemed to need reminding that Ignatieff was smart enough to write a book worth reading was Ignatieff himself. The book was a sentimental hash that virtually farted with a sense of entitlement every time a page was turned.
So here the Canadian voter sits, scrolling through tweets and watching silly cat videos while waiting for the next Knight In Shining Armour to ride up the hill, wielding Excalibur and pointing the way to Camelot. It wouldn't be such a bad predicament, if only the times were less interesting. As it stands, it is the politicians who are relying on their plebeian subjects to supply all the character, do all the sacrificing, and dutifully follow the hero's path -- while the Hockey Fan and the Poindexter wait for the moment to finally seize office and shape it in their image.
I've been sharing food with my political friends, and the common lament from the would-be contenders for 24 Sussex is, "Despite the exponentially-increasing media platforms, we simply cannot get our message heard." They presume our politicians -- specifically Harper, Ignatieff and Layton -- have one or two ideas that can't be summed up in a tweet, but could potentially ignite voter response, if only these would-be voters made the effort to sit up and listen.
There is some truth to that observation, but not enough to fruitfully meditate on. I counter-propose that our politicians, particularly Ignatieff and Harper (Layton can't be considered a serious contender for PMO), have very clearly communicated their message to the public -- "I want power" -- and the public has responded appropriately. I suspect what they are unable to communicate is a sufficiently compelling mythology that the public can identify with and get behind.
South of the 49th, of course, we have a different story. Presidential contenders have to espouse their belief in the myth of American Exceptionalism right from the start. After that, it's a matter of identifying, then embodying which myth lies closest to the yearnings of the motivated voter. Right now the Tea Party myth is getting a face-lift. How the current manifestation differs from the earlier ones, or veers from the historical record, is part of another conversation; the important thing is that everyone who hears the words "Tea Party" has an immediate, visceral response.
Trudeau was a master at myth manipulation. He cut the secular-humanist cosmopolitan figure, occasionally canoing through the Canadian wilderness to reassert his ties of identity to our home and native land, before shaving and resuming his role as designated roué. Mulroney settled on a myth as well, albeit with a great deal less self-awareness. Alex P. Keaton (brought to life by another Canuck) was Mulroney's template; Canadian voters were assured that if they bought into the smooth-talker's Trade Agreements, they could reasonably expect to join the PM's family on their winter vacations in Malibu. Chretien might have implemented Mulroney's policies to a degree that made that great chin quiver with indignation, but he did so by bolstering the myth of Canadian exceptionalism and independence: although we were beneficiaries of US economic growth, we were decidedly not its "Ready, aye, ready" toadies.
Harper, I suspect, originally hoped to ride into office on the myth of the Pauline authority structure: kids subservient to parents, wife subservient to husband, family subservient to government, government subservient to last apostle's Christian God (and, above all, backbenchers subservient to Harper). In a population base that has become truly multicultural, that has been a hard sell, but he's tweaked the template enough to appeal to the conservative leanings of recently transplanted cultural groups hoping to keep their religious and family identities relatively intact. Alas for him, this tack only steers him over the shoals of Trudeau's Charter of Rights. The rights of the individual citizen might be so deeply assumed by the citizenry as to make arcane the notion of voting in its support; we now rely on our judges to remind the politicians to put away their caning rods, and no-one votes for a judge.
Early in the game, Ignatieff dashed off a book, a strategy that ought to have at least superficial appeal to the mythically inclined imagination. However, the only person who seemed to need reminding that Ignatieff was smart enough to write a book worth reading was Ignatieff himself. The book was a sentimental hash that virtually farted with a sense of entitlement every time a page was turned.
So here the Canadian voter sits, scrolling through tweets and watching silly cat videos while waiting for the next Knight In Shining Armour to ride up the hill, wielding Excalibur and pointing the way to Camelot. It wouldn't be such a bad predicament, if only the times were less interesting. As it stands, it is the politicians who are relying on their plebeian subjects to supply all the character, do all the sacrificing, and dutifully follow the hero's path -- while the Hockey Fan and the Poindexter wait for the moment to finally seize office and shape it in their image.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Don Cherry, Exit Stage Right
Rob Ford, Toronto's new mayor, hasn't done much yet to change the shape of his office or the city he's taken charge of, but his mastery over a largely antagonistic media is truly remarkable. The coiffed heads holding out the microphones don't like him, and Ford is often his own worst enemy when he chooses to answer their questions. And yet this week he managed to come out looking sharp, by pulling a sleight-of-hand that completely hoodwinked the camera's (and public) eye. Ford craftily delivered on a flashy, one-time power-play custom-made for voters who'd grown weary of high-minded political prevarication (more later) while conscripting from the audience a loud-mouthed rube to further distract from the mayor's own less-than-appealing public image — one Don Cherry.
Cherry is always game to grab the spotlight, the mic, the camera, the audience member by the ears if he has to. With his pink double-breasted jacket — “For all the pinkos out there riding bicycles and everything” — and his sledge-hammer wit (ibid) Cherry performed to spec, explaining to City Council and the public exactly why Rob Ford “is going to be the greatest mayor this city has ever, ever seen,” specifically referring to the first act Ford did as mayor-elect: personally and publicly correcting a single instance of bureaucratic bungling that the Toronto Sun had taken on as a cause célèbre. “And put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks.”
I was in my car, listening to the broadcast on the radio, and when Cherry put the emphasis on “kooks” I burst out laughing. Ford took the mic next, and, thanks to this splendidly manufactured contrast, came across for the first time in his life as a gentleman of understated and considerate character. I wanted to stop the car and applaud, but behind my revelry was an edge of nervousness that kept me from truly enjoying the moment. Not for Toronto, mind you, or even for myself: left-wing kooks like me actually take a perverse pleasure in public humiliations that prove us, beyond all shadow of a doubt, completely wrong. Those giddy moments bolster what's left of our flagging faith in humanity. No, I was nervous for Don Cherry, because I think I'm watching him write his own final chapter. And it's looking pretty sad.
Don Cherry has paradoxically managed to charm his way into the hearts of millions of Canadian television viewers (including my own) simply by being who he is. He talks about what's important to him, and what's important to him is often what's important to the people watching him: chiefly hockey, of course, but also the fate of our soldiers, and other hard-working joes having a tough time making a go of it. Like many of the extreme-right blowhards to the south of us, Cherry is incredibly showy, but unlike many of the same it is never just for show. The impression most of us have, thanks in large part to the masterful massaging touch of Ron MacLean, Cherry's HNIC straight-man and long-time friend, is that Cherry will never say something he doesn't believe, or force himself to believe something he's been asked to say.MacLean, however, is carrying more and more of Cherry's weight these days. Cherry's age is showing, and the moments when MacLean has to feed or finish one of Cherry's lines are increasing. And that's just hockey. As for the politics, once the cheerful questioning of a respectful side-kick has been removed, Cherry's perspective on things starts to look shopworn or, worse, naïve.
Adding his bellow to the bullhorns wielded by Ford and Julian Fantino is unfortunate for Cherry. No doubt they're fine fellows at a backyard barbecue, but professionally they have already proven themselves to be slippery and frequently contemptible politicians. The lift Cherry gives these candidates will be temporary. Their final effect on him, on the other hand, could likely stick, and not smell nearly so sweet.
That's a lousy way for one of Canada's “national treasures” to go into that good night. But there it is: it's a sin to entice your sidekick into the grave with you, because the Longest Journey is inevitably a solo one. Cherry seems intent on taking those initial steps now.
Text and audio here. It's sheer speculation on my part, but I wonder if this isn't the piece Cherry was railing against — a must-read for any fan of "Canada's Game."
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
The Worst Form Of Government
In a curious twist of kismet, the Canadian parliament now appears to be modeling its behavior on that of the Israeli parliament. If Alberta and Quebec threaten to secede we may yet wind up with an environment that is as physically charged.
"What an unpalatable choice now beckons Canadians: a government led by a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, whose approach has disappointed so many; or a government led by Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Leader Canadians resoundingly rejected six weeks ago."
Amen to that, Jeffrey Simpson. When the nation's economic statement was being read last Thursday, I was listening in utter astonishment as the finance minister proposed the nation cut its way through the rising economic tsunami. Don't misunderstand me: I'm contrary enough to admire anyone who swims against the teams of money-minders from every single industrialized nation on this planet. I just want to hear an articulate defense of this particular strategy -- especially when said strategy is delivered with a heavy back-handed slap against the majority of seat-holders in our collective parliament. If the report hadn't been such a gem of hubristic folly, I would have hailed Harper's brand of realpolitik.
Ugh. We live in times that are too interesting by half.
"What an unpalatable choice now beckons Canadians: a government led by a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, whose approach has disappointed so many; or a government led by Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Leader Canadians resoundingly rejected six weeks ago."
Amen to that, Jeffrey Simpson. When the nation's economic statement was being read last Thursday, I was listening in utter astonishment as the finance minister proposed the nation cut its way through the rising economic tsunami. Don't misunderstand me: I'm contrary enough to admire anyone who swims against the teams of money-minders from every single industrialized nation on this planet. I just want to hear an articulate defense of this particular strategy -- especially when said strategy is delivered with a heavy back-handed slap against the majority of seat-holders in our collective parliament. If the report hadn't been such a gem of hubristic folly, I would have hailed Harper's brand of realpolitik.
Ugh. We live in times that are too interesting by half.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Some Words In Defense Of My Fragile Feelings Of Relief
The end of an Empire
Is messy at best
And this Empire is ending
Like all the rest
I've been told my taciturn response to the recent US election of Barack Obama is noteworthy. I naively imagined the overabundance of public chatter more than made up for my personal silence. But since silence on significant issues of the day is not something I want to be “noteworthy” for, here goes:
US Americans, I am happy for you. In fact I'm happy for everyone. I know the hip thing to do for those of us who take joy in Mr. Obama's victory is to forward a bunch of links from The Onion signifying that we know we know we KNOW this isn't as big a deal as we're making it out to be. Guilty as charged. But c'mon: this is a big deal.
Some observations from my perspective as Canadian solipsist: First, the issue of race seems like a non-issue, so long as I don't reflect on it. But if I thought of what my country might be like if our population had the moral fiber to give someone like, say, Elijah Harper the PMO, well ... that would be a very big deal, indeed. It would also be cause for considerable celebration. But things get thorny when we mull over these issues, so let's avoid them altogether and skip straight to politics.
I don't know which Canucklehead wag said it first, but the general consensus among the chattering classes up here is, “Things have finally moved from worse to bad.” Most observers of American democracy concede that in the main both parties seem to exist primarily to serve corporate interests and only secondarily to manage them. Even so, if there had been such a thing as a “global democracy,” and this fantasy global electorate had been able to exercise a vote eight years ago, George W. Bush would never have been given so much as a tourist's pass to the White House.
The rest of the world does not "get" Americans, it is true: one need look no further than the ill-fated letter campaign of four years ago for evidence of this. And I have to wonder just how deeply we comprehend our own democracies (those of us who live in them) and the leaders we elect. Last time I checked, Elijah Harper was still retired and our Prime Minister was dredging up dirty oil in his back yard. But I digress.
Jesus Christ it stinks here high and low
The rich are getting richer
I should know
While we’re going up
You’re going down
And no one gives a shit but Jackson Browne
For the last two years whenever anyone asked me who I thought the next president should be, I gave them the same formulated answer: I didn't think it mattered so much as that the next president be a clear winner. I figured the US could, and probably would, muddle through another administration of "business as usual" but I couldn't see how it would survive another hung or stolen election. This concern only grew in magnitude when Barack Obama won the Democratic candidacy.
But then John McCain brought forward his running mate, and I thought, “Just how much contempt can a person demonstrate toward voters before people start calling for the guillotine?”
Please. I hope the jaded and worldly-wise can forgive some of us our feelings of elation, even if said feelings are incommensurate with the grim “new” reality.
The man given charge of the last eight years seemed to take a special delight in tormenting not his potential enemies, but his friends: hectoring the Jew to join the Presidential Bible study, giving the German Chancellor a “friendly” shoulder-rub — and always with the nicknames. Eight years devoted to having his way with the nation that voted for and supported him, and taking the rest of the world down a peg ...
The new President will need something considerably more audacious than hope to rescue what tattered worthy scraps still reside within the catastrophe he's inherited. God help him. God help us all. And maybe, while we're at it, we can stow the God-talk for a bit and roll up our collective sleeves and do the real work for a change. Let us at least stop torturing our prisoners of war — that would be the Christian place to start, I think.
Lyrics courtesy of Randy Newman.
Is messy at best
And this Empire is ending
Like all the rest
I've been told my taciturn response to the recent US election of Barack Obama is noteworthy. I naively imagined the overabundance of public chatter more than made up for my personal silence. But since silence on significant issues of the day is not something I want to be “noteworthy” for, here goes:
US Americans, I am happy for you. In fact I'm happy for everyone. I know the hip thing to do for those of us who take joy in Mr. Obama's victory is to forward a bunch of links from The Onion signifying that we know we know we KNOW this isn't as big a deal as we're making it out to be. Guilty as charged. But c'mon: this is a big deal.
Some observations from my perspective as Canadian solipsist: First, the issue of race seems like a non-issue, so long as I don't reflect on it. But if I thought of what my country might be like if our population had the moral fiber to give someone like, say, Elijah Harper the PMO, well ... that would be a very big deal, indeed. It would also be cause for considerable celebration. But things get thorny when we mull over these issues, so let's avoid them altogether and skip straight to politics.
I don't know which Canucklehead wag said it first, but the general consensus among the chattering classes up here is, “Things have finally moved from worse to bad.” Most observers of American democracy concede that in the main both parties seem to exist primarily to serve corporate interests and only secondarily to manage them. Even so, if there had been such a thing as a “global democracy,” and this fantasy global electorate had been able to exercise a vote eight years ago, George W. Bush would never have been given so much as a tourist's pass to the White House.
The rest of the world does not "get" Americans, it is true: one need look no further than the ill-fated letter campaign of four years ago for evidence of this. And I have to wonder just how deeply we comprehend our own democracies (those of us who live in them) and the leaders we elect. Last time I checked, Elijah Harper was still retired and our Prime Minister was dredging up dirty oil in his back yard. But I digress.
Jesus Christ it stinks here high and low
The rich are getting richer
I should know
While we’re going up
You’re going down
And no one gives a shit but Jackson Browne
For the last two years whenever anyone asked me who I thought the next president should be, I gave them the same formulated answer: I didn't think it mattered so much as that the next president be a clear winner. I figured the US could, and probably would, muddle through another administration of "business as usual" but I couldn't see how it would survive another hung or stolen election. This concern only grew in magnitude when Barack Obama won the Democratic candidacy.
But then John McCain brought forward his running mate, and I thought, “Just how much contempt can a person demonstrate toward voters before people start calling for the guillotine?”
Please. I hope the jaded and worldly-wise can forgive some of us our feelings of elation, even if said feelings are incommensurate with the grim “new” reality.
The man given charge of the last eight years seemed to take a special delight in tormenting not his potential enemies, but his friends: hectoring the Jew to join the Presidential Bible study, giving the German Chancellor a “friendly” shoulder-rub — and always with the nicknames. Eight years devoted to having his way with the nation that voted for and supported him, and taking the rest of the world down a peg ...
The new President will need something considerably more audacious than hope to rescue what tattered worthy scraps still reside within the catastrophe he's inherited. God help him. God help us all. And maybe, while we're at it, we can stow the God-talk for a bit and roll up our collective sleeves and do the real work for a change. Let us at least stop torturing our prisoners of war — that would be the Christian place to start, I think.
Lyrics courtesy of Randy Newman.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
"Deeper" vs. "Urgent" Questions, vis-à-vis Milan Kundera
I heard an interview with one of the founders of London's School Of Life, a place that promises curious fun (home). She described the meals they hold, and among the questions "tabled" is: "When did you realize you were no longer a child?" My initial reaction to that question was, "I hope I am becoming more childlike (as opposed to childish) all the time!" After some consideration of Milan Kundera's past, however, I realized that there is at least one identifiable moment when I understood I was no longer a child: when I comprehended that most, if not all, of my favorite writers were anything but paragons of virtue.
I'm told the Cubans have a saying: "There are only two sorts of citizens: the innocent and the living." Certainly that is a motif that runs through the literature of dissident writers who witnessed Communism firsthand. This is not an uncommon motif in Western fiction either -- and properly so. Even so, revelations like these pose difficulties for readers who love their writers through their work.
Richard Byrne says, "The deeper question ... is how the reader should assess Kundera's approach to many of his pet themes -- memory, betrayal, and the defense of history against the violence done to it by our political leaders East and West." The Anabaptist Confessional side of me is surprised that Kundera's (and Grass's) "approach" wasn't more direct: begin with the worst of who you are, and proceed from there via concentric circles until you've worked out your salvation with fear and trembling, and the odd unexpected measure of grace. Of course, the fearful drunkard in me understands all too well why this approach is to be avoided at all costs.
Milan, Milan: God be with 'im, the poor sod. And perhaps while we're all pondering the deeper question we can address the more urgent one: how do we put a stop to our nation's policy and practice of torture?
I'm told the Cubans have a saying: "There are only two sorts of citizens: the innocent and the living." Certainly that is a motif that runs through the literature of dissident writers who witnessed Communism firsthand. This is not an uncommon motif in Western fiction either -- and properly so. Even so, revelations like these pose difficulties for readers who love their writers through their work.
Richard Byrne says, "The deeper question ... is how the reader should assess Kundera's approach to many of his pet themes -- memory, betrayal, and the defense of history against the violence done to it by our political leaders East and West." The Anabaptist Confessional side of me is surprised that Kundera's (and Grass's) "approach" wasn't more direct: begin with the worst of who you are, and proceed from there via concentric circles until you've worked out your salvation with fear and trembling, and the odd unexpected measure of grace. Of course, the fearful drunkard in me understands all too well why this approach is to be avoided at all costs.
Milan, Milan: God be with 'im, the poor sod. And perhaps while we're all pondering the deeper question we can address the more urgent one: how do we put a stop to our nation's policy and practice of torture?
 |
| "Except in accessories." |
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
"Worst Form Of Government": The Northern Edition
I've got to hand it to our PM -- no-one plays with public concern quite so adroitly as he. I only wish that was higher praise. Consider:
Day Two into a 36-Day election run, and what are the talking points for our three contenders for the PMO?
Stephane Dion (Lib): Carbon Tax (link). Is this playing well with anyone besides bicycle couriers? Speaking from my lofty rural perch, Dion's emphasis on environment has single-handedly removed him from the farming vote. Assuming for the sake of argument that the "Green Shift" is enforceable and sustainable and beneficial to everyone across the nation, Dion still doesn't have the first clue how to sell it. Farmers (and the rest of us) hear Dion saying he's got yet another tax to wallop 'em with. One alternative is to sell the "Shift" as a means to law-enforcement, punishing the nation's worst offenders. But no: it's a sophisticated package, conveniently summed up in 48 pretty pages for voters to give their most serious consideration before October 14. Lessee, that's slightly less than two pages a day ... what are the odds on a general populace LOC?
Jack Layton (NDP): Halt Alberta Tar Sands Approvals (link). That's just Hogtown-stupid. Even if Layton, by some miracle, garnered a landslide victory into the PMO a "halt" simply would not happen because it cannot happen. Jesus could return in clouds of glory over the skies of Alberta and personally command a halt to tar sands approvals and nobody would lift a finger. Oil is the god we're bowing to at the moment; Jack and Jesus will just have to wait their turn until we run out.
Getting back to Layton, his platform demonstrates not just a personal unwillingness but a genuine incapacity to speak seriously about what central power can and cannot do. The man is determined to keep his party in the fringes of power. Voters will decide for themselves if this is a good thing.
Finally, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (PC): Cut Excise Tax On Diesel (link). We have a winner!! Since most of Canada's goods are shipped by truck this will mean a temporary halt on across-the-board inflation, and a gentle upward nudge on an economy fated for a downturn. That should help voters forget all this foolishness about the environment.
Oh, also this: The Pooping Puffin (link). Harper's party came up with it, and he saw fit to apologize with a shrug and a "It's beneath me." Dion, on the other hand, spluttered with indignation and took aboard the maximum amount of umbrage. Winner: Mr. Pink*. That is, uh, Harper.
Oy: 34 more days of this....
Day Two into a 36-Day election run, and what are the talking points for our three contenders for the PMO?
Stephane Dion (Lib): Carbon Tax (link). Is this playing well with anyone besides bicycle couriers? Speaking from my lofty rural perch, Dion's emphasis on environment has single-handedly removed him from the farming vote. Assuming for the sake of argument that the "Green Shift" is enforceable and sustainable and beneficial to everyone across the nation, Dion still doesn't have the first clue how to sell it. Farmers (and the rest of us) hear Dion saying he's got yet another tax to wallop 'em with. One alternative is to sell the "Shift" as a means to law-enforcement, punishing the nation's worst offenders. But no: it's a sophisticated package, conveniently summed up in 48 pretty pages for voters to give their most serious consideration before October 14. Lessee, that's slightly less than two pages a day ... what are the odds on a general populace LOC?
Jack Layton (NDP): Halt Alberta Tar Sands Approvals (link). That's just Hogtown-stupid. Even if Layton, by some miracle, garnered a landslide victory into the PMO a "halt" simply would not happen because it cannot happen. Jesus could return in clouds of glory over the skies of Alberta and personally command a halt to tar sands approvals and nobody would lift a finger. Oil is the god we're bowing to at the moment; Jack and Jesus will just have to wait their turn until we run out.
Getting back to Layton, his platform demonstrates not just a personal unwillingness but a genuine incapacity to speak seriously about what central power can and cannot do. The man is determined to keep his party in the fringes of power. Voters will decide for themselves if this is a good thing.
Finally, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (PC): Cut Excise Tax On Diesel (link). We have a winner!! Since most of Canada's goods are shipped by truck this will mean a temporary halt on across-the-board inflation, and a gentle upward nudge on an economy fated for a downturn. That should help voters forget all this foolishness about the environment.
Oh, also this: The Pooping Puffin (link). Harper's party came up with it, and he saw fit to apologize with a shrug and a "It's beneath me." Dion, on the other hand, spluttered with indignation and took aboard the maximum amount of umbrage. Winner: Mr. Pink*. That is, uh, Harper.
Oy: 34 more days of this....
Monday, September 08, 2008
Whither "The Worst Form Of Government (Except For All The Others)"?
I have gone out of my way to ignore the circus to the south of us, but this is becoming an increasingly difficult proposition now that McCain has moved himself out of the picture and pitted a lovely young hockey-mom against the coherent (and lovely) young black man. "Young" ... there was a time when kids couldn't trust anyone over 30. Now we can't trust anyone under 70. Are these, by any chance, the same "kids" making up the rules of the Trust Game?
The chattering classes up here guess as to why Canuckleheads are so resolutely in favor of the Democrat candidate when it is a matter of record that Republican presidents have been better for our economy. I think there are two reasons for this trait. First of all, Republicans leave the impression with the rest of the world that they are more trigger-happy than those soft-hearted, soft-headed liiiiii-brul Dems.* This matters to Canadians, not just because we're likely to follow our American neighbors on at least some of their military misadventures, but because ... well ... we took this country by force ourselves. It's only reasonable to assume that sooner or later someone is going to do unto us -- right? And who is better equipped for it than the Americans?
The second reason only became clear to me this morning, when I woke up to see that our government had called a "snap election" for this October. You don't have to look too long and hard at the candidates for Prime Minister's Office to realize that the most capable of the bunch is Stephen Harper. How pathetic is that? This guy likes short election campaigns because the less he has to explain himself the better he sounds. I sometimes wonder if most Canadian voters don't look at how sweet things have been for the province of Quebec, and secretly wish the Separatist Gilles Duceppe was running for PM.
But the truth of the matter is we want Barack Obama for Prime Minister. His youth, his brains, his skin color and ability to communicate are no impediment so far as we're concerned. The only thing keeping him from the PMO is his citizenship. So, my American readers, please consider: should you actually send the hockey mom to Washington, could you please forward Mr. Obama up this way? We need him -- now more than ever.
*Post-script: on this issue too the public record suggested otherwise -- until Iraq.
The chattering classes up here guess as to why Canuckleheads are so resolutely in favor of the Democrat candidate when it is a matter of record that Republican presidents have been better for our economy. I think there are two reasons for this trait. First of all, Republicans leave the impression with the rest of the world that they are more trigger-happy than those soft-hearted, soft-headed liiiiii-brul Dems.* This matters to Canadians, not just because we're likely to follow our American neighbors on at least some of their military misadventures, but because ... well ... we took this country by force ourselves. It's only reasonable to assume that sooner or later someone is going to do unto us -- right? And who is better equipped for it than the Americans?
The second reason only became clear to me this morning, when I woke up to see that our government had called a "snap election" for this October. You don't have to look too long and hard at the candidates for Prime Minister's Office to realize that the most capable of the bunch is Stephen Harper. How pathetic is that? This guy likes short election campaigns because the less he has to explain himself the better he sounds. I sometimes wonder if most Canadian voters don't look at how sweet things have been for the province of Quebec, and secretly wish the Separatist Gilles Duceppe was running for PM.
But the truth of the matter is we want Barack Obama for Prime Minister. His youth, his brains, his skin color and ability to communicate are no impediment so far as we're concerned. The only thing keeping him from the PMO is his citizenship. So, my American readers, please consider: should you actually send the hockey mom to Washington, could you please forward Mr. Obama up this way? We need him -- now more than ever.
*Post-script: on this issue too the public record suggested otherwise -- until Iraq.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"I say: can you chaps play, 'Nearer My God To Thee'?"
I saw the news today.
Oh boy.
From the minute I was old enough to comprehend that the United States had a two-party system, I have been awestruck at the Dems' capacity to shoot themselves in the foot. At this moment, from my lofty perch in the Canadian Peanut Gallery, I cannot conceive of a larger caliber bullet for the job than Hillary Clinton. My wife has a co-worker in North Carolina who summed up US' voter response thusly: Americans vote for who they like, and if we were to rank the three current candidates in terms of "edge (abrasiveness) factor" there is no contest: the crown goes to Hillary, with McCain cinching up second place.
This deceptively simple maxim goes a long way to explaining every presidential race within my living memory (Ford/Carter to the present). Run this theory by a voting Democrat, though, and watch 'em bristle. "The presidency isn't a congeniality contest! You have to consider experience, character, their personal record on major policies, their ability to negotiate, blah de blah." Yeah, well -- keep trying to persuade yourselves of that. If the melange of what it takes to select a presidential candidate truly required such reasonable qualities, Dennis Kucinich would have won by a landslide. But he's not popular enough. He isn't a professing Christian, for one thing. On this and other crucial fronts he shows a damnable incapacity to speak anything but what he truly thinks.
Nope. My wife's co-worker has it right: the presidency is a congeniality contest. And he didn't hesitate to add that if it ever came down to McCain and Obama, the latter would win. (Did I mention this observation was made by someone from North Carolina?)
Oh boy.
From the minute I was old enough to comprehend that the United States had a two-party system, I have been awestruck at the Dems' capacity to shoot themselves in the foot. At this moment, from my lofty perch in the Canadian Peanut Gallery, I cannot conceive of a larger caliber bullet for the job than Hillary Clinton. My wife has a co-worker in North Carolina who summed up US' voter response thusly: Americans vote for who they like, and if we were to rank the three current candidates in terms of "edge (abrasiveness) factor" there is no contest: the crown goes to Hillary, with McCain cinching up second place.
This deceptively simple maxim goes a long way to explaining every presidential race within my living memory (Ford/Carter to the present). Run this theory by a voting Democrat, though, and watch 'em bristle. "The presidency isn't a congeniality contest! You have to consider experience, character, their personal record on major policies, their ability to negotiate, blah de blah." Yeah, well -- keep trying to persuade yourselves of that. If the melange of what it takes to select a presidential candidate truly required such reasonable qualities, Dennis Kucinich would have won by a landslide. But he's not popular enough. He isn't a professing Christian, for one thing. On this and other crucial fronts he shows a damnable incapacity to speak anything but what he truly thinks.
Nope. My wife's co-worker has it right: the presidency is a congeniality contest. And he didn't hesitate to add that if it ever came down to McCain and Obama, the latter would win. (Did I mention this observation was made by someone from North Carolina?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)