"In Tuesday's radio interview, Royal said she was not referring to "institutional reforms" but that Quebecers are free to decide on their own future."
- from the CBC
"Questionnée sur l’exclamation «Vive le Québec libre», employée par le général de Gaulle en 1967, elle a répondue que c’était «une belle phrase». Assurant toutefois assuré qu’elle ne le dirait «pas de cette façon là»."
- Ségolène Royal, doing damage control (!) in Liberation after apparently revealing her sympathy for an independent Quebec
My French has admittedly become shockingly rusty, but isn't MSR (as she is apparently termed in the lingo) saying that while she might quibble with the semantics, she would endorse the sentiment of de Gaulle's barnburner? I guess we know which version of the future MSR wishes Quebeckers would decide for...but then, I guess we knew that already...
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Female of the Species, Mark II
The ratio of men to women in the Liberal caucus is approximately 5:1. The ratio of men to women in the ranks of Liberal critics is approximately 3:1
I suddenly have a sneaking suspicion that Stephane Dion pulling a trick that, as an academic, he probably learned in infancy...at my alma mater, when there's something (or someone) we'd like to see out of harm's way (our harm, not vice versa), we send it to committee.
I suddenly have a sneaking suspicion that Stephane Dion pulling a trick that, as an academic, he probably learned in infancy...at my alma mater, when there's something (or someone) we'd like to see out of harm's way (our harm, not vice versa), we send it to committee.
The Female of the Species
The ration of men to women in the Liberal caucus is approximately 5:1. The ratio of men to women in Stephan Dion's new caucus committees is approximately 7:1. The ratio of men to women contesting the leadership of the Liberal party in 2006 was 7:1.
I suspect Stephan Dion's decisions surrounding his caucus committees were closely connected to that last statistic. If the Liberals don't field 103 female candidates in the next election, then there'll be reason to worry - for now, everyone sit tight and keep an eye on Marlene Jennings.
I suspect Stephan Dion's decisions surrounding his caucus committees were closely connected to that last statistic. If the Liberals don't field 103 female candidates in the next election, then there'll be reason to worry - for now, everyone sit tight and keep an eye on Marlene Jennings.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Beware of Geeks, Bearing Gifts
"For my part I entertain a high idea of the [their] utility... I consider such vehicles of knowledge more happily calculated than any other to preserve the liberty, stimulate the industry, and ameliorate the morals of a free and enlightened people."
That's George Washington on the newspaper in 1788. It could as well be Paul Wells on the digital media in 2006 (though Paul Wells' prose style is considerably more punchy than old Georgie's, and that's a good thing.)
I only have a small quible with Wells' characteristically intelligent and prescient account of how we're all freer with the Net. And it goes like this:
Are consumers really the beneficiaries of the shift of power and influence to the digital domain? Or, perhaps the more pertinent quesiton might be: are citizens (yes there's a difference, Maxime Bernier) are truly empowered by the Internet Age.
The problem with the Internet, like any other media (or human activity for that matter), is that its adepts still exist in a series of concentric circles, much like Dante's famous Nine Circles of Hell. The Internet does not through its intrinsic formal nature necessarily promote intelligent debate, discussion and engagement any more than a newspaper or a magazine does - it just structures debate (or lack of it) in a different way.
What the Internet does do is present the potential for infinite choice, just as it presents the potential for consumer empowerment. The problem here is that both of these things are, thanks to the power dynamics of the "real world," illusions.
If as Paul Wells writes, "no fact is necessarily obscure" on the Net, then therefore every fact is potentially obscure - insamuch as if anything can be brought to light and the light that shines is finite, something else will remain in darkness.
This is the problem: believing in their unlimited ability to choose, net-izens either ignore the necessity of making choices (be it good, moral, immoral, whatever) in their digital content, or proclaim that all choices are equally good/bad/interesting/disinteresting, which is essentially the same contention. Why? Read on...
The phenomenon of apparently unlimited choice would be insidious enough,but it is symptomatic of a larger danger. Broadband internet costs money, as do modems, routers, monitors, webcams and the rest of the Web's physical paraphenalia. If all the moving and shaking in political circles is on the Web, it simply means a new kind of literacy and illiteracy in society; a new kind of elite exclusion; a human wolf in new pixellated clothing. So without realising, net users are directed and their activities proscribed by the same old actors: the rich (how many cool startups are now owned by Google?) and the powerful (sayonara Alliance Atlantis: hellow Global).
I'm not saying that the forces at work here are at all different from any that have shaped human history. But nor can I call all this citizen or even consumer choice. I call it rule by a class who only needs to type to control, a new paradigm in which all the old evils (greed, power, lust, and shortsightedness) will persist, and even thrive in ways which we as a species are quite unprepared for: a digitarchy. Paul Wells is right about one thing: the biggest danger would be to ignore what is going on.
That's George Washington on the newspaper in 1788. It could as well be Paul Wells on the digital media in 2006 (though Paul Wells' prose style is considerably more punchy than old Georgie's, and that's a good thing.)
I only have a small quible with Wells' characteristically intelligent and prescient account of how we're all freer with the Net. And it goes like this:
Are consumers really the beneficiaries of the shift of power and influence to the digital domain? Or, perhaps the more pertinent quesiton might be: are citizens (yes there's a difference, Maxime Bernier) are truly empowered by the Internet Age.
The problem with the Internet, like any other media (or human activity for that matter), is that its adepts still exist in a series of concentric circles, much like Dante's famous Nine Circles of Hell. The Internet does not through its intrinsic formal nature necessarily promote intelligent debate, discussion and engagement any more than a newspaper or a magazine does - it just structures debate (or lack of it) in a different way.
What the Internet does do is present the potential for infinite choice, just as it presents the potential for consumer empowerment. The problem here is that both of these things are, thanks to the power dynamics of the "real world," illusions.
If as Paul Wells writes, "no fact is necessarily obscure" on the Net, then therefore every fact is potentially obscure - insamuch as if anything can be brought to light and the light that shines is finite, something else will remain in darkness.
This is the problem: believing in their unlimited ability to choose, net-izens either ignore the necessity of making choices (be it good, moral, immoral, whatever) in their digital content, or proclaim that all choices are equally good/bad/interesting/disinteresting, which is essentially the same contention. Why? Read on...
The phenomenon of apparently unlimited choice would be insidious enough,but it is symptomatic of a larger danger. Broadband internet costs money, as do modems, routers, monitors, webcams and the rest of the Web's physical paraphenalia. If all the moving and shaking in political circles is on the Web, it simply means a new kind of literacy and illiteracy in society; a new kind of elite exclusion; a human wolf in new pixellated clothing. So without realising, net users are directed and their activities proscribed by the same old actors: the rich (how many cool startups are now owned by Google?) and the powerful (sayonara Alliance Atlantis: hellow Global).
I'm not saying that the forces at work here are at all different from any that have shaped human history. But nor can I call all this citizen or even consumer choice. I call it rule by a class who only needs to type to control, a new paradigm in which all the old evils (greed, power, lust, and shortsightedness) will persist, and even thrive in ways which we as a species are quite unprepared for: a digitarchy. Paul Wells is right about one thing: the biggest danger would be to ignore what is going on.
How Conservative are you?
From "How Canadian are you? Visible-minority immigrants and their children identify less and less with the country, report says" (Globe and Mail, Jan. 11):
"We need to address the racial divide," Prof. '[Jeffrey] Reitz said. "Otherwise there is a danger of social breakdown. The principle of multiculturalism was equal participation of minorities in mainstream institutions. That is no longer happening."
Oh yeah? Just ask Stephen Harper...
"We need to address the racial divide," Prof. '[Jeffrey] Reitz said. "Otherwise there is a danger of social breakdown. The principle of multiculturalism was equal participation of minorities in mainstream institutions. That is no longer happening."
Oh yeah? Just ask Stephen Harper...
Friday, January 05, 2007
Jack on the Rocks
As several outlets have noted, today's shuffle in the House of Commons now means that the NDP hold the the power in the current Parliament - crunch the numbers yourself here.
I wrote a month or so ago that the NDP needed to take some action to avoid being blended into a pulp by pressure from the Liberal and Green parties. One might be tempted to suggest that the NDP could now use their newfound clout to make themselves look good on the national stage by propping up some of the relatively scummy (as opposed to plain ol' repugnant) pieces of Conservative agenda, and then taking credit very loudly.
Conventional wisdom says that this strategy would be a good idea, for the NDP if not for progressive Canadians (who are watching the country go down the drain). Sometimes conventional wisdom is even right.
Here is the problem though: the NDP's influence with the Conservative party lacks credibility. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - but its existence reeks of such partisan self-interest that, for a party keen to take the moral high ground, such a dissonance between professed values and how they're put into practice might be too much to for its long-suffering supporters to bear.
Simply: if Jack Layton does a deal with the devil, there are gonna be a lot of people who will be very unhappy, and also very unimpressed. Including, to some extent, the national media. The NDP got a lot of positive coverage when it was playing roadie to the Paul Martin Farewell Tour. But Stephen Harper makes Kurt Cobain look like Shirley Temple. And for the NDP, I'm not sure that the adage that "there's no such thing as bad press" is gonna hold water.
I wrote a month or so ago that the NDP needed to take some action to avoid being blended into a pulp by pressure from the Liberal and Green parties. One might be tempted to suggest that the NDP could now use their newfound clout to make themselves look good on the national stage by propping up some of the relatively scummy (as opposed to plain ol' repugnant) pieces of Conservative agenda, and then taking credit very loudly.
Conventional wisdom says that this strategy would be a good idea, for the NDP if not for progressive Canadians (who are watching the country go down the drain). Sometimes conventional wisdom is even right.
Here is the problem though: the NDP's influence with the Conservative party lacks credibility. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - but its existence reeks of such partisan self-interest that, for a party keen to take the moral high ground, such a dissonance between professed values and how they're put into practice might be too much to for its long-suffering supporters to bear.
Simply: if Jack Layton does a deal with the devil, there are gonna be a lot of people who will be very unhappy, and also very unimpressed. Including, to some extent, the national media. The NDP got a lot of positive coverage when it was playing roadie to the Paul Martin Farewell Tour. But Stephen Harper makes Kurt Cobain look like Shirley Temple. And for the NDP, I'm not sure that the adage that "there's no such thing as bad press" is gonna hold water.
No Khan Do
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Lost in Space...
...is where we've always known the Conservatives stashed any of their ideas that weren't short-sighted, grasping or just plain ruinous. Danger, Rona Ambrose, danger!
This CBC story suggests that yet another brilliant move by Stephen Harper's government is going to send Canadian aerospace dreams crashing back down to earth - apparently Maxime Bernier's "strict adherence to free market principles" extends to pissing off the Americans AND the EU at the same time (no mean feat, that). I guess anything involving reaching fo the stars just smacks of being too Liberal - or is it simply that the Conservatives don't want anyone taking a bird's eye view of the sorry state of the country any time soon?
In other news, it looks like sober second thought is going to give way to cheap party tricks.
This CBC story suggests that yet another brilliant move by Stephen Harper's government is going to send Canadian aerospace dreams crashing back down to earth - apparently Maxime Bernier's "strict adherence to free market principles" extends to pissing off the Americans AND the EU at the same time (no mean feat, that). I guess anything involving reaching fo the stars just smacks of being too Liberal - or is it simply that the Conservatives don't want anyone taking a bird's eye view of the sorry state of the country any time soon?
In other news, it looks like sober second thought is going to give way to cheap party tricks.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Grapeshot
Do you the remember the Mike Harris "Common Sense Revolution"? 'Cause I do.
I remember making a deal with God the day before vote in 1995- if I managed to get my last project of the year finished early, then the Conservatives wouldn't win, and my parents would stop looking so upset and worried. I guess God doesn't like presentations about Star Trek.
I remember marching up University Avenue with 10,000 people during the Days of Action; I remember Dudley George, shot because Mike Harris wanted "the fucking Indians out of the park"; I remember the 7 people who died in Walkerton because "common sense" meant cutting 700 jobs from the Ministry of the Environment.
I remember the homeless who froze to death on Toronto streets. I remember the suburbanites paralyzed by West Nile virus because the Conservatives refused to allow the Ministry of Health to warn people about mosquitos in 2002. And I remember Kimberley Rogers, who was 8 months pregnant and who died because the Conservative government refused her welfare.
Remember friends: John Baird and Jim Flaherty and Tony Clemente, all ministers under Harris, all serve a new master now. Remember that our federal government of vicious, cunning ideologues has the putative support of perhaps 30% of the population, but is doing 100% damage to the national fabric of Canada. And remember why it's called a revolution - because there's already been blood, and the casualties continue to mount.
I remember making a deal with God the day before vote in 1995- if I managed to get my last project of the year finished early, then the Conservatives wouldn't win, and my parents would stop looking so upset and worried. I guess God doesn't like presentations about Star Trek.
I remember marching up University Avenue with 10,000 people during the Days of Action; I remember Dudley George, shot because Mike Harris wanted "the fucking Indians out of the park"; I remember the 7 people who died in Walkerton because "common sense" meant cutting 700 jobs from the Ministry of the Environment.
I remember the homeless who froze to death on Toronto streets. I remember the suburbanites paralyzed by West Nile virus because the Conservatives refused to allow the Ministry of Health to warn people about mosquitos in 2002. And I remember Kimberley Rogers, who was 8 months pregnant and who died because the Conservative government refused her welfare.
Remember friends: John Baird and Jim Flaherty and Tony Clemente, all ministers under Harris, all serve a new master now. Remember that our federal government of vicious, cunning ideologues has the putative support of perhaps 30% of the population, but is doing 100% damage to the national fabric of Canada. And remember why it's called a revolution - because there's already been blood, and the casualties continue to mount.
Their Ancient Custom
"I don’t have to remind Quebecers of this, but all Canadians need to realize that when they hear Mr. Martin talking...it is all just to cover a record of scandal."
- Stephen Harper, December 19, 2005
"In one of those you-gotta-be-kidding moments too typical of this capital, Harper's government declared full confidence in Giuliano Zaccardelli just minutes after the RCMP Commissioner admitted keeping silent publicly about Maher Arar's innocence.... Think about that. A party that fought and won an election on accountability is now saying it's acceptable to do next to nothing about a Canadian citizen rotting in a Syrian prison, ultimately provoking a needless and pricey public inquiry."
-James Travers in the Toronto Star, October 3, 2006
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed "concern" over RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's conflicting Commons committee testimony Tuesday about the Maher Arar affair....
"You can't just go out and fire someone without due process," Harper said. It's the first time Harper has expressed anything other than full confidence in the embattled commissioner."
-CBC News, December 5, 2006 (italics mine)
"[Wheat Board CEO Adrian] Measner, who supports the current [single-desk] system, received a letter from federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl last month saying his position is under review and he will likely lose his job... Strahl told CBC Tuesday he hasn't fired Measner yet, but has asked for a response from Measner outlining why he should continue as president. 'That's a position that serves at the pleasure of the government,' Strahl said. 'Obviously, I'm not pleased right now at what's going on at the wheat board.'"
-CBC News, December 5, 2006 (italics mine)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight, O Righteous Rulers - you're allowed to fire someone whom you disagree with (although he doesn't actually work for you), but you can't fire the nation's highest law enforcement official who has perjured himself to the House of Commons?
There's nothing like talk to cover up scandal. But Steven Harper already knows that, doesn't he.
- Stephen Harper, December 19, 2005
"In one of those you-gotta-be-kidding moments too typical of this capital, Harper's government declared full confidence in Giuliano Zaccardelli just minutes after the RCMP Commissioner admitted keeping silent publicly about Maher Arar's innocence.... Think about that. A party that fought and won an election on accountability is now saying it's acceptable to do next to nothing about a Canadian citizen rotting in a Syrian prison, ultimately provoking a needless and pricey public inquiry."
-James Travers in the Toronto Star, October 3, 2006
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed "concern" over RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's conflicting Commons committee testimony Tuesday about the Maher Arar affair....
"You can't just go out and fire someone without due process," Harper said. It's the first time Harper has expressed anything other than full confidence in the embattled commissioner."
-CBC News, December 5, 2006 (italics mine)
"[Wheat Board CEO Adrian] Measner, who supports the current [single-desk] system, received a letter from federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl last month saying his position is under review and he will likely lose his job... Strahl told CBC Tuesday he hasn't fired Measner yet, but has asked for a response from Measner outlining why he should continue as president. 'That's a position that serves at the pleasure of the government,' Strahl said. 'Obviously, I'm not pleased right now at what's going on at the wheat board.'"
-CBC News, December 5, 2006 (italics mine)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight, O Righteous Rulers - you're allowed to fire someone whom you disagree with (although he doesn't actually work for you), but you can't fire the nation's highest law enforcement official who has perjured himself to the House of Commons?
There's nothing like talk to cover up scandal. But Steven Harper already knows that, doesn't he.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Someone find that man an airport...
My hunch about all this is that we've just been through something that is a lot closer to the 1958 Liberal leadership convention than the 1968 one. That's not to say Dion won't be more successful than Pearson, because I hope and think he could be. But there's a similar kind of instability in the current climate, and I don't just mean global warming.
It would be interesting to examine Pearson and Dion comparatively - both well-respected academics with international reputations, both possibly a little shaky getting off the ground (Liberals: remember the 1958 election? You don't want to), both (in my view) doomed to a lot of minority governments. Yet Pearson shaped this country into what it is, and into what most Canadians ( I think) want it to be. Dion could do the same. And as everyone noted this weekend, there's no shortage of young blood (Gerard? Is that with one R or two?) hovering in the wings to carry things on.
Memo to the NDP: do something. Now. Or else you're gonna get creamed into pumpkin pie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum - one place where 1958 and 2006 have NO similarity whatsoever is in the actual convention voting pattern - Lester got it in a landslide. If only Paul Martin Jr. had avenged his father's loss by being more like Mike....
It would be interesting to examine Pearson and Dion comparatively - both well-respected academics with international reputations, both possibly a little shaky getting off the ground (Liberals: remember the 1958 election? You don't want to), both (in my view) doomed to a lot of minority governments. Yet Pearson shaped this country into what it is, and into what most Canadians ( I think) want it to be. Dion could do the same. And as everyone noted this weekend, there's no shortage of young blood (Gerard? Is that with one R or two?) hovering in the wings to carry things on.
Memo to the NDP: do something. Now. Or else you're gonna get creamed into pumpkin pie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum - one place where 1958 and 2006 have NO similarity whatsoever is in the actual convention voting pattern - Lester got it in a landslide. If only Paul Martin Jr. had avenged his father's loss by being more like Mike....
Unconventional Wisdom
A few questions/queries about Canadian politics, in the wake of this weekend's seismic shift in the landscape:
- Isn't Jean Charest supposed to be a federalist? Just how Liberal are Quebec Liberals anyway? I know they need to be a little more autonomous than they might...but surely the definition of supporting federalism implies a federation of more than two actors? Maybe they could annex New Brunswick before they go?
-Conservative Cabinet ministers sure do throw a lot of stones for people whose houses aren't just glass, but air-conditioned as well.
- Wouldn't you expect Jacques Parizeau to spin Stephan Dion's election as good for separatism? Why should anyone take this as anything other than partisan rhetoric? Only because it's being repeated by every journalist from Moncton to Manitoba...
- Ed Stelmach's victory was even more improbable than, though eerily similar to, Stephan Dion's.
- Let me get this straight just once: Dion won't attract votes in the West because he's from Quebec, even though he's hated in Quebec because he's not nationalist enough. What to make of this? Completely irrational region-based xenophobia? Well, stranger things have happened I guess...but don't Albertans like the Clarity Act? Or would they prefer a flamethrower?
- People in British Columbia are rumoured to care quite a lot about the environment. Especially when bits of the environment are putting food (and turning up as food) on the table. Come to think of it, doesn't this sustainable economy thing involve some sort of rural policy?
- Dalton McGuinty sure did look sour on Saturday evening.
- Isn't Jean Charest supposed to be a federalist? Just how Liberal are Quebec Liberals anyway? I know they need to be a little more autonomous than they might...but surely the definition of supporting federalism implies a federation of more than two actors? Maybe they could annex New Brunswick before they go?
-Conservative Cabinet ministers sure do throw a lot of stones for people whose houses aren't just glass, but air-conditioned as well.
- Wouldn't you expect Jacques Parizeau to spin Stephan Dion's election as good for separatism? Why should anyone take this as anything other than partisan rhetoric? Only because it's being repeated by every journalist from Moncton to Manitoba...
- Ed Stelmach's victory was even more improbable than, though eerily similar to, Stephan Dion's.
- Let me get this straight just once: Dion won't attract votes in the West because he's from Quebec, even though he's hated in Quebec because he's not nationalist enough. What to make of this? Completely irrational region-based xenophobia? Well, stranger things have happened I guess...but don't Albertans like the Clarity Act? Or would they prefer a flamethrower?
- People in British Columbia are rumoured to care quite a lot about the environment. Especially when bits of the environment are putting food (and turning up as food) on the table. Come to think of it, doesn't this sustainable economy thing involve some sort of rural policy?
- Dalton McGuinty sure did look sour on Saturday evening.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
"Canada First, Canada Last, Canada Always"
The line was Bob Rae's, but the victory was Stephan Dion's.
I watched the final ballot of the Liberal Leadership Convention with a number of family members. They live in Scarborough, and tend to vote Liberal, or Progressive Conservative in the old days. Some of them still vote Conservative, even without the Progressive part attached.
They were spitting mad when Stephan Dion won. Not so much because of what he represented (though my grandmother's "milquetoast" comment wasn't expecially flattering) but more because he, in their opinion, wouldn't be able to beat Stephen Harper's government. There was despondency because Dion didn't seem "winnable," wasn't likely to win over the legions of Canadians who voted Conservative. "He's from Quebec," someone said, Quebec apparently turning into a four letter word.
I didn't ask if any of my relatives would vote for another party because Dion had won. Maybe I should have. All I know is that there's a good chance that I will vote Liberal in the next federal election.
People who know me well are going to be aghast, jubilant, or scornful at this news. Or maybe they won't. Maybe I'm falling into the same trap that Bob Rae once came into, only in reverse - sacrificing principle for practicality. I don't know - I'm going to have to ponder that for a while in private.
Canadians, if any of you are reading this: remember the kilometres of railway track that were laid, foot by laborious foot, between Halifax and Vancouver. Those tracks meant we were all going from somewhere, to somewhere else, be it Montreal or Calgary (two places, incidentally, that my grandfather spent quite a lot of time). The contention that a man from Quebec cannot speak with, to and for all Canadians is calumny. After all, a man from Alberta currently claims to be speaking for all of us.
Just remember those railroad tracks, and think about what else binds us all together. One Stephen would have you believe that all that Canada should be is a firewall, a stripmall, and a garage. The other has a bigger, better view.
I watched the final ballot of the Liberal Leadership Convention with a number of family members. They live in Scarborough, and tend to vote Liberal, or Progressive Conservative in the old days. Some of them still vote Conservative, even without the Progressive part attached.
They were spitting mad when Stephan Dion won. Not so much because of what he represented (though my grandmother's "milquetoast" comment wasn't expecially flattering) but more because he, in their opinion, wouldn't be able to beat Stephen Harper's government. There was despondency because Dion didn't seem "winnable," wasn't likely to win over the legions of Canadians who voted Conservative. "He's from Quebec," someone said, Quebec apparently turning into a four letter word.
I didn't ask if any of my relatives would vote for another party because Dion had won. Maybe I should have. All I know is that there's a good chance that I will vote Liberal in the next federal election.
People who know me well are going to be aghast, jubilant, or scornful at this news. Or maybe they won't. Maybe I'm falling into the same trap that Bob Rae once came into, only in reverse - sacrificing principle for practicality. I don't know - I'm going to have to ponder that for a while in private.
Canadians, if any of you are reading this: remember the kilometres of railway track that were laid, foot by laborious foot, between Halifax and Vancouver. Those tracks meant we were all going from somewhere, to somewhere else, be it Montreal or Calgary (two places, incidentally, that my grandfather spent quite a lot of time). The contention that a man from Quebec cannot speak with, to and for all Canadians is calumny. After all, a man from Alberta currently claims to be speaking for all of us.
Just remember those railroad tracks, and think about what else binds us all together. One Stephen would have you believe that all that Canada should be is a firewall, a stripmall, and a garage. The other has a bigger, better view.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Fairy Tale
"Where have you been," you might well ask. Well, I'll tell you.
I go every morning to le palais du bureaucracie. It is a great and prominent building, with long colonnades and high walls. Inside, the passageways are made of gorgeous marble, flawlessly set so that patterns repeat themselves down hallways that seem to never end. There are huge paintings and mosaics intersperced among the stone, by many famous artists, lit cleverly with recessed lights.
I have le palais almost to myself, but I cannot linger too long. I must daily do a task, without the completion of which many powerful men and women would be brought low, and would become confused and powerless. My task is to stare into a glowing glass and conjure words out of the ether - I must direct these words hither and yon, and countless mandarins hang on every one. Moreover, these words concern the life and death of millions of people, and their stories are indeed a heavy burden.
Alas, I may only enter le palais du bureaucracie under the cover of darkness - if I failed to do so, I would be banished from the palace for ever.
I go every morning to le palais du bureaucracie. It is a great and prominent building, with long colonnades and high walls. Inside, the passageways are made of gorgeous marble, flawlessly set so that patterns repeat themselves down hallways that seem to never end. There are huge paintings and mosaics intersperced among the stone, by many famous artists, lit cleverly with recessed lights.
I have le palais almost to myself, but I cannot linger too long. I must daily do a task, without the completion of which many powerful men and women would be brought low, and would become confused and powerless. My task is to stare into a glowing glass and conjure words out of the ether - I must direct these words hither and yon, and countless mandarins hang on every one. Moreover, these words concern the life and death of millions of people, and their stories are indeed a heavy burden.
Alas, I may only enter le palais du bureaucracie under the cover of darkness - if I failed to do so, I would be banished from the palace for ever.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Rona Ambrose should have a talk show
She could replace TV's current It Girl, Rachel Ray. It couldn't possibly get any worse.
Actually, that's not true, Rona Ambrose might start speaking French. I do not know if Rachel Ray knows how to speak French. Frankly, I am afraid to find out.
Actually, that's not true, Rona Ambrose might start speaking French. I do not know if Rachel Ray knows how to speak French. Frankly, I am afraid to find out.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Phobias are for phuckwits
phuckwit n. [var. of fuckwit]
a person whose foolishness or idiocy is specifically caused by bigotry, narrow-mindedness or prejudice and its resulting behaviours (eg. islamophobia, homophobia)
ex: That girl who called my friend a "Moooooslim" was a grade A phuckwit.
a person whose foolishness or idiocy is specifically caused by bigotry, narrow-mindedness or prejudice and its resulting behaviours (eg. islamophobia, homophobia)
ex: That girl who called my friend a "Moooooslim" was a grade A phuckwit.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
The History of Errors
Perhaps he was having trouble with his Oxford Book of Quotations or whatever the equivalent compendium of encyclicals, bulls and learned writings of the Roman Catholic Church happens to be called. In any event, the Pope has put his foot in it.
I'm not often one to defend His Holiness. I emphatically disagree with most Roman Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuals, birth control and abortion; I think that priests should be allowed to marry if they want to; and I'm generally unimpressed by the conservatism of church leaders. All this being said, the overarching message of the Pope's address, as noted by Jewish Studies Chair James Diamond, is an overwhelmingly positive and balanced one (well, for the Pope): Benedict's conclusion - that to act without reason in any religion is to contravene divine will and law - is both pertinent, timely, widely applicable to everything from consumerism to nuclear proliferation, and to my belief, true.
What's just as distressing as the Vatican's inept editing skills is the fact that every news outlet I've seen has made a hash of the Pope's befuddled, crypto-Orientalist (but not I think malicious) point, including its context both within the history of Christian thought, and in the current climate of world events.
His former Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is a conservative, highly doctrinaire Roman Catholic (if he weren't, this guy might be the Holy Father right now.) As such, when Benedict XVI hit the stage at his alma mater, the good ol' U of R Theological School, I have to assume he decided to get all erudite on the Faculty's ass - and being well-regarded as one of the world's foremost conservative Catholic theologians even before he became Pope, he might have disappointed the crowd if he hadn't been. So the Pope dug up what I can only assume is a fairly obscure reference in a very obscure book to an even more obscure historical figure - Manuel II Palaeologus, the second last Byzantine Emperor.
Manuel's position in the winter of 1391 was an exceedingly awkward one, involving heavy dynastic infighting with his own family, not to mention the fact that the Byzantine Empire was the 14th century equivalent of Vietnam, with less communism and more sand - European powers jockeyed for interest and territory, fighting the indigenous (in this case Turkish) forces and playing politics with the powerless Byzantine rulers while wasting huge amounts of treasure and manpower in what was truly a quagmire. Manuel was, at age 41, living in the court of the Ottoman Sultan, and licking boots as part of the game of power politics. Sounds suspiciously like another epoch I could mention, doesn't it.
Something I read the other day claimed the whole document was made up. It's not implausible. There have also been a number of reports that the Pope, unlike his predecessor, has had little use for the opinions of his advisers on sensitive topics, particularly Islam. That's not implausible either. What's hardest to believe is that in our future imperfect, dialogue with Muslim interlocutors is perceived by the essentializing powers that be to be more difficult, and less necessary, than in our civilization's "semi-barbaric" pre-Renaissance.
Evil, indeed.
I'm not often one to defend His Holiness. I emphatically disagree with most Roman Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuals, birth control and abortion; I think that priests should be allowed to marry if they want to; and I'm generally unimpressed by the conservatism of church leaders. All this being said, the overarching message of the Pope's address, as noted by Jewish Studies Chair James Diamond, is an overwhelmingly positive and balanced one (well, for the Pope): Benedict's conclusion - that to act without reason in any religion is to contravene divine will and law - is both pertinent, timely, widely applicable to everything from consumerism to nuclear proliferation, and to my belief, true.
What's just as distressing as the Vatican's inept editing skills is the fact that every news outlet I've seen has made a hash of the Pope's befuddled, crypto-Orientalist (but not I think malicious) point, including its context both within the history of Christian thought, and in the current climate of world events.
His former Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is a conservative, highly doctrinaire Roman Catholic (if he weren't, this guy might be the Holy Father right now.) As such, when Benedict XVI hit the stage at his alma mater, the good ol' U of R Theological School, I have to assume he decided to get all erudite on the Faculty's ass - and being well-regarded as one of the world's foremost conservative Catholic theologians even before he became Pope, he might have disappointed the crowd if he hadn't been. So the Pope dug up what I can only assume is a fairly obscure reference in a very obscure book to an even more obscure historical figure - Manuel II Palaeologus, the second last Byzantine Emperor.
Manuel's position in the winter of 1391 was an exceedingly awkward one, involving heavy dynastic infighting with his own family, not to mention the fact that the Byzantine Empire was the 14th century equivalent of Vietnam, with less communism and more sand - European powers jockeyed for interest and territory, fighting the indigenous (in this case Turkish) forces and playing politics with the powerless Byzantine rulers while wasting huge amounts of treasure and manpower in what was truly a quagmire. Manuel was, at age 41, living in the court of the Ottoman Sultan, and licking boots as part of the game of power politics. Sounds suspiciously like another epoch I could mention, doesn't it.
Something I read the other day claimed the whole document was made up. It's not implausible. There have also been a number of reports that the Pope, unlike his predecessor, has had little use for the opinions of his advisers on sensitive topics, particularly Islam. That's not implausible either. What's hardest to believe is that in our future imperfect, dialogue with Muslim interlocutors is perceived by the essentializing powers that be to be more difficult, and less necessary, than in our civilization's "semi-barbaric" pre-Renaissance.
Evil, indeed.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
1 gazillion miles to the gallon
Most of my friends seem to have jumped on the blogging bandwagon. This of course is a very large wagon (hopefully a hybrid, perhaps built by Toyota), but I am proud to say that I was second among my immediate circle of friends to start blogging it up. Well, maybe third....
Happily, I'm lucky to know so many dynamic types with such a varied set of interests: Aldous on food, Simon on fashion, David on photography, Nick on painting and urbanisme, Eric on spirituality, Stephanie on living in Scotland, Andy on...miscellaneous topics.
What is my blog on? I am not sure. Perhaps I should review cultural events. Or music. Or fish. Any thoughts?
Happily, I'm lucky to know so many dynamic types with such a varied set of interests: Aldous on food, Simon on fashion, David on photography, Nick on painting and urbanisme, Eric on spirituality, Stephanie on living in Scotland, Andy on...miscellaneous topics.
What is my blog on? I am not sure. Perhaps I should review cultural events. Or music. Or fish. Any thoughts?
It's dusty, not to mention heartwrenching
Speaking of memory lane, I spent a good deal of today at a task I always have mixed feelings about: cleaning my closet.
The closet in my room is actually quite small, and has some queer angles, if you'll pardon the joke. Yet it's astonishing how much of the detritus of my youth is still crammed into it. Or rather, how much of the detritus of my family's collective past is jammed into its dusty expanse - in our house, perennially low on storage space, it's always a temptation for my siblings and I to stow things we can't bring ourselves to part with in the closets and corners of the next room down, and return to our own with the clutter of yesterday safely out of sight and therefore out of mind. So sorting through my brother's stuffed animals, my mother's summer dresses and my father's old shirts, I had a fairly full account of the last twenty years, written in that revealing and moving language, Clutter.
The motivations for preserving some of the momenti I'd stashed away along the line seemed, blessedly, entirely meaningless - what on earth possessed me to keep a cassette walkman from 1989? Or my American history notes from second year? By and large however, the contents of my closetmoved me not with their emotional obsolescence, but with their continuing resonance, their hold on my heart's history.
For instance, the piece of green plastic emblazoned with the image of a smiling frog, cut from my plastic wading pool before it was thrown away when I was nine. Or the photo album filled with my Grade One and Two pictures, taken with my first camera. And the book my mother made to give structure to my father's departure for several months in Cameroon, when I was two. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the physical reminders of the past ring so clearly. I do have some pretensions towards being an historian in embryo, after all.
Still, that green plastic frog almost made me cry.
The closet in my room is actually quite small, and has some queer angles, if you'll pardon the joke. Yet it's astonishing how much of the detritus of my youth is still crammed into it. Or rather, how much of the detritus of my family's collective past is jammed into its dusty expanse - in our house, perennially low on storage space, it's always a temptation for my siblings and I to stow things we can't bring ourselves to part with in the closets and corners of the next room down, and return to our own with the clutter of yesterday safely out of sight and therefore out of mind. So sorting through my brother's stuffed animals, my mother's summer dresses and my father's old shirts, I had a fairly full account of the last twenty years, written in that revealing and moving language, Clutter.
The motivations for preserving some of the momenti I'd stashed away along the line seemed, blessedly, entirely meaningless - what on earth possessed me to keep a cassette walkman from 1989? Or my American history notes from second year? By and large however, the contents of my closetmoved me not with their emotional obsolescence, but with their continuing resonance, their hold on my heart's history.
For instance, the piece of green plastic emblazoned with the image of a smiling frog, cut from my plastic wading pool before it was thrown away when I was nine. Or the photo album filled with my Grade One and Two pictures, taken with my first camera. And the book my mother made to give structure to my father's departure for several months in Cameroon, when I was two. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the physical reminders of the past ring so clearly. I do have some pretensions towards being an historian in embryo, after all.
Still, that green plastic frog almost made me cry.
Memory Lane
Well, that took a while.
For those of you still occasionally reading this, my apologies. Real life (in the murderous-clown-wielding-a-hatchet guise of the University of Toronto's Student Administrative Council Orientation Day) intruded on my thoughts, actions, and nightmares for about a month, and didn't give me much time to hone lengthy expository screeds for the net to read.
Happily, as I'm now unemployed, I have MUCH more time on my hands.
For those of you still occasionally reading this, my apologies. Real life (in the murderous-clown-wielding-a-hatchet guise of the University of Toronto's Student Administrative Council Orientation Day) intruded on my thoughts, actions, and nightmares for about a month, and didn't give me much time to hone lengthy expository screeds for the net to read.
Happily, as I'm now unemployed, I have MUCH more time on my hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
