Baby Needs New Shoes

Canada's Finance Minister brought the budget to the House of Commons on Tuesday. The day before, he went to a men's clothing store, where instead of buying the traditional new pair of shoes, he had his old ones re-soled. This was a huge media event.

Pundits analyzed the "re-soling instead of purchasing," proclaiming it as a harbinger of the budget to come. In fact, the whole event was as serious as the Canadian groundhog day event (and of course they have their own groundhog, though they also monitor the U.S. rodent). On February 2, anyone who looks at a calendar and a map knows two things: yes, spring is inevitable; no, it won't feel like it for awhile. Why even ask a rodent?

But back to the shoes--quaint custom, eh? It's stuff like this that makes Canada seem cute, like one of those small European countries, maybe the one in the first Chocolate Factory movie--all turrets and red tile roofs. And let's not forget the abject poverty and four grandparents sleeping in the same bed to stay warm. Canada has that side, too.

Which the budget doesn't much address. Tax cuts for "ordinary Canadians," coupled with corporate tax breaks, have drained the surplus. The Conservatives bailed out the auto industry but left forestry high and dry. Still, the Liberals don't think it's worth bringing down the government for this budget.

It's snowing today, and my calendar confirms that it's still winter. So although Canada may be ready for a change in the season--weather or political--they have a few more weeks, at least, to wait.

Priorities

My own priority for the last few days, and for the next few as well, is unpacking. I suppose a better umbrella term would be "finishing the move." That includes a thorough cleaning of the apartment, ugh. Not my favo(u)rite thing to do.

Last night, I caught a bit of the CBC Sunday evening news. They end with a wrap-up of stories they want us to be sure to be aware of in the coming week. Here are their top three:

1. Today, the House of Commons starts its debate on the role of Canada's troops in Afghanistan. It looks as if the government won't fall based on any Afghanistan-related action, but things can change in this wacky country.
2. Later in the week, the Finance Minister will release the government's proposed budget. It is another topic that could trigger a federal election.
3. Also, late this week is the deadline for hockey trades. Teams across the country will be looking to improve their chances of winning the Stanley Cup.

I'm actually surprised that hockey was as low as #3.

I had lunch yesterday with three ladies I know from church. After many disclaimers about how little they enjoy watching curling and how they wish something else had been on, they analyzed Saturday's playoffs in excruciating detail. They had even picked their favo(u)rites for yesterday's finals. Or whatever they were.

In any case, last night I was relieved to know two things. First, that apparently nothing of importance happened while I was on a news blackout for the past few days. And second, it's great that the intrepid CBC reporters will be watching the hockey trades. I'm sleeping better already--but that's because I'm back in a wonderful bed, the box spring of which came through the window of the upstairs bedroom. We set up the ladder on the snow-covered deck, tied a rope around the box spring, and shoved while our friend in the bedroom pulled. It was ugly, but it worked.

Meanwhile, last night people who make obscene amounts of money to wear makeup and speak someone else's lines took home gold statues. Speaking of absurd-istan.

Anyone want some fabulous, sturdy boxes?

Consolidating

For the past three-plus years, I've had an apartment in Thunder Bay proper. That's a morning view from my balcony, left.

This week, I'm moving what my mother used to call "goods and chattels" to my husband's house just outside town and giving up the apartment.

It's time. At this point in our lives, the apartment is an extravagance. Of course, it's had its advantages. It's still sometimes nice to have a place to shower in town between hitting the gym and going to a meeting. I had thought it would be nice to stay in town on winter nights that we have evening events. It is nice, but it's not necessary. I've been tempted exactly twice this winter, and renting even a luxury hotel room twice in a winter would be far less expensive than renting an apartment for a year.

In this hemisphere, February is not the ideal month to move. However, what with one thing and another, that's the way it's worked out, and we seem to have lucked out, weather-wise. It should be in the teens tomorrow, our moving-truck day. Better than yesterday, when the high was in single digits F with double-digit wind chill.

In any case, that's where I am--moving box after box of what??, shouldering a mattress and box spring set upstairs, trying not to slip on icy sidewalks.

At this time next week, we should be finished. Everything I own in the world will be in one place for the first time since my first dorm room thirty years ago. I'm crossing another boundary. More adulthood. Sigh.

Happy Whatever

Today is a new holiday in Ontario: Family Day. Yes, there's plenty of kvetching that winter isn't the best time for a holiday with one's family because sometimes it's just too cold to do outdoor fun things.

It's also Louis Riel Day in Manitoba (for the Wikipedia version, check this out), a new holiday this year. Saskatchewan and Alberta are also celebrating the family today, Alberta for the 18th time. And in the U.S., it's Presidents' Day, and my sister is thinking of baking a cherry pie.

Last night, people across our (frozen) bay were having enough fun to light fireworks. Today, it's 25 F degrees colder, down near 0F, with a blustery wind. Nobody's out on skis, being towed behind a snow machine; nobody's sitting huddled over a hole in the ice, praying for fish. Nobody (this "nobody" would be the only "nobody" that might be us at some point) is out on cross-country skis, enjoying the scenery.

In fact, all I've seen so far today are eagles. Bald ones. Flying high in their own form of celebration or supplication. For which country? Possibly both.

Apathy? Antipathy?

An editorial cartoon this week shows a beaver (an explanation for those whose minds head elsewhere: the beaver is a symbol of Canada) turning off a TV reporting on an impending national election in Canada; the beaver then turns its attention to a TV reporting on the impending national election in the U.S.

Is the cartoon true? Certainly to some extent. The primary process seems to fascinate people up here, partly because they can't believe they understand caucuses. (If you're used to anonymous ballots, the caucusing "process" really is kind of hard to get your mind around.)

So why are Canadians interested in our political life? Perhaps Canadians believe that the election in the U.S. is important and will have far-reaching consequences to us up north. Perhaps economic fears up here (strong dollar = loss of manufacturing jobs) make anything important to the health of the U.S. economy more riveting. Maybe Canadians aren't willing to give up their schadenfreude: they have felt joy in watching the agony of U.S. politics for so many years, and they can't pretend their lives are better if they acknowledge that they may soon be embroiled in the same.

Or, gee: is it because any election this spring in Canada would be a contest between two forty-something, wonky white guys named Steve?

That's my personal theory--when the contest is between "something different" and "more of the same," the "something different" is more compelling to watch. To me, anyway.

And yes, I did notice that I used "us," "we," and "our" to refer both to Canada and to the U.S. Nothing like politics to make one straddle the border.

Snake Bites Own Tail

Every so often, politicians try to understand why more people don't want to be just like them.

You can stop laughing now. Seriously. They do. In fact, in Canada, the very little-l liberal NDP wants House meetings, particularly Question Period, to be much more civilized so that more women will feel safe enough to become politicians. I hate what that implies; it's so pre-1970s. Men aren't beasts. It's not the job of the female gender to "tame" or "civilize" men. Sheesh. But it says something that the party has that mission as an ongoing part of their platform.

However. I'm still a little stunned over something I saw on TV last week. It's about Afghanistan detainees, although (you're relieved, I'm sure) the details aren't important. In any case, the Liberal party had asked a question relating to Afghan detainees. And then the man I love to dislike, Peter Van Loan, showed why he is so eminently unlikeable. In fact, as my family would say, he's...he's...hate-able.

In his response to the question about detainees, he said that the Member of Parliament who asked the question, who is a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition*, was an operative for the Taliban.

Yes. The MP is accused of treason simply for asking a legitimate question. Terrorism, indeed. Other members of Van Loan's party laughed and cheered. My stomach churned.

Michael Ignatieff, Deputy Leader of the Liberals, later pointed out to the media that that statement wasn't an auspicious beginning to the negotiations about the future role of Canada in Afghanistan, which the Conservatives claim to want.

Naturally, CBC showed the remark, and the laughter, and the response. Fortunately, they showed it as evidence of the truth of Ignatieff's statement--that partisan spirit in the House is as nasty as ever. (Who needs the scathing, loathing diatribes like those of the Fox pundits when you have Peter Van Loan?)

We all know plenty of people who are disagreeable. Most people know a person or two who is downright hateful. Sometimes, disagreeable or hateful people think they're being funny; sometimes, they're normal people having a bad day. Generally, they're not rewarded for being hateful--they lose friends, loved ones give them a wide berth, they drown in their own unhappy isolation. Whatever. They pay a price.

But what continues to bug me about this guy in this situation is that nobody says "the guy was out of line." They say "the guy is making his life more difficult." But apparently this kind of (pick one) (a) grandstanding, (b) slander, (c) name-calling, (d) playground hijinks, (e) all of the above (the mind boggles) is business as usual.

Well, hell. No wonder few people of intelligence go into politics. No wonder politicians' statements about "bringing more civility into politics" ring so hollow. They obviously love this stuff. Politicians in Canada, perhaps like some of those in the U.S., are ten-year-olds on a Lord-of-the-Flies playground. The gang with the biggest bullies wins. No wonder people consider them to be scum. Untrustworthy. Unreliable.

So, let the Young Sharks and the Miniature Jets of the North Side Story fight it out (stay cool, boy). Meanwhile, long live the bureaucrat. Long live the person who works, day in and day out, to serve her country regardless of which political party is in power.

Unless you're Linda Keen, of course. Sometimes bullies have a very long reach.
_________
*By the way, isn't that an excellent way to refer to the party out of power?! Just because they didn't win enough votes to form the government doesn't mean they are worthless--they have an important role to play. They're patriots, still loyal to Queen and country. I just love that.

Tick-Tock Taxes

I get lots of mail at this time of the year--none of it particularly fun. I'm getting more than ever this year because my father had funds at a dozen different investment companies, portions of those funds transferred to me on his death, and now some of them require tax reporting. I keep thinking, "Next year won't be so complicated" but "next year" seems always to bring its own complications.

I file income tax in Canada. I also file a form--a fully filled-out income tax form--with the U.S., saying that I pay Canada taxes so don't owe anything. It makes for a lot of paperwork.

Although Canada gives you till April 30 to file, they make up for it in another way. You have to contribute to your retirement package by February 28. None of this "set up an IRA on April 15" stuff. You have to commit ahead of time. So meeting with an accountant is like getting a pedicure the week of Valentine's Day--you can do it, but it might be rushed.

Sometimes I feel as if I'm drowning in paperwork. I think longingly of the days when I lived all on one side of the border. Actually, I never did--my heart was always here, though my body and the paperwork were in the country down south.

But this morning, a red fox trotted past, intent on dinner. Yesterday afternoon, a pair of yearling does kept me company (outside the sliding glass doors) while I emailed in my office. Later this afternoon, we'll head out on cross-country trails that start just outside our door and keep us busy for an hour.

So yeah, that's worth a bit of paper.

Because Nothing is More Important than Hockey?

If you're a news junkie, it's been quite the week. Unless you're the CBC, apparently.

Seriously--Super (Duper) Tuesday, along with results that show different kinds of support for the various potential candidates for President. The resurgence of conservative stupidity (cough Huckabee, cough) in the U.S. and Romney subsequently "suspending" his campaign. Ultimata in Vilnius over NATO involvement in Afghanistan. Grandstanding in Parliament by nearly everyone--though my favo(u)rite story was yesterday's.

Briefly, I promise: Harper's Conservative government wants a crime bill passed. It's through the house and under review by the Senate. The Senate is primarily Liberal. The government accuses the senate of stalling on this crime legislation because the senate is obstructionist and what else do you expect from Liberals. The Senate says they received the bill for study just before the end of the session in December, after Parliament dinked around with it for 18 months, they've been meeting extra hours since coming back, and they'll finish when they finish.

That's not enough for the Conservative government, which is desperate for an election this spring. The Conservative government wants to give the Senate a March 1 deadline to pass the bill or not. They've made it a "confidence motion," which means that if the Senate doesn't meet this deadline, the government will ask the Governor-General (the Queen's repesentative in Canada) to dissolve the government and call for an election.

The thing is, Parliament doesn't have the right to dictate the Senate's operations and timeline. The Prime Minister certainly doesn't. Besides, the Prime Minister already set the next election for the fall of 2009. Constitutional lawyers, and possibly the Governor-General's staff (she doesn't have to dissolve government just because the Prime Minister asks), will be scratching their heads over their law books this weekend, I suspect.

But here's my real point--where is the CBC in all of this? Normally, they have an analyst panel, called At Issue, once or twice a week to debate the finer points of leadership and political spin. At Issue has talked about smaller--and impossibly larger--issues than any one of these. However, this week's events are apparently not worth calling in their experts for.

Instead, the CBC broadcast Monday and Tuesday from LA, the "hub of Super-Duper Tuesday." OK, the CBC understood that that was a big deal. Sorta. The host, Peter Mansbridge, got to wear shirtsleeves and squint into the sun. For the rest of the week, they're broadcasting from Winkler, Manitoba--the small town that won the right, this year, to host the official celebration of "Hockey Day in Canada."

As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

First, isn't every day "hockey day in Canada"? Seriously. When does a day go by that someone somewhere in this vast country isn't taking out his false teeth and hopping into the rink? But the CBC has this special event yearly where small towns send in videos that "prove" that they're the hockiest. Woo. Go, Winkler.

Second, are you kidding me? This week? When the Conservative government is tabling its third promised confidence motion? When the Conservative government is tinkering with Constitutional matters? When the Canadian Defence Minister, who begs to be called "boyishly charming," is making his lower lip quiver about getting more troops from Europe?

What, CBC can't convene a remote At Issue panel? It must be technically possible--so they're choosing not to? Why?

CTV, the "other" "national" Canadian network, does sloppy news. They have interviewed all the usual suspects on camera and allowed them to breathlessly repeat hits on the "Liberal Senate" ad nauseum. If political discourse in Canada falls to the Limbaugh/Fox News level of U.S. political discourse (and please, NOOOO), CTV will be leading that charge.

I expect better from the CBC. I at least expect the CBC to participate in public discourse. But late this week, unless it happens on ice, I guess the CBC isn't interested.

An Election of our Very Own

Oh, deer. (Sorry; couldn't resist.) And this one for sure I won't be able to vote in, not being a Canadian citizen and all.

However, it looks increasingly likely that the Conservative government will fall over Canada's role in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Harper is playing chicken with Opposition Leader Stephane Dion. So far, he's won every time.

This time, Harper is as well-prepared as ever. Last fall, he appointed a bipartisan commission to investigate, for three months, Canada's role in Afghanistan and to develop recommendations for future involvement. The Manley Report, as it's being called, was delivered a couple of weeks ago. John Manley is a former Liberal bigwig who served as head of the commission, hence the name. But the report itself is also quite manly, in a manly-manly way.

Canada's leadership in the south of Afghanistan is due to expire in a year. The Prime Minister, and others, want to extend the mission in its current form--which has evolved from peacekeeping to a combat role--beyond that time. The Manley Report urges the government to put limits on that, such as requiring NATO to cough up 1000 more troops and more equipment to support Canada's involvement.

The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, the other opposition parties, are against extending the role beyond January 2009, period. This leaves the Liberal party, and Dion as its leader, in the decisive role.

The leader of Canada's forces, General Rick Hillier, chimed into the debate last week to say that there really isn't a non-combat role that Canadian troops can play. The state of Afghanistan is such that any time you're working on building roads, schools, bridges, or other infrastructure elements, you're putting troops at risk and they need to be defended.

So, let me get this straight. Hillier seems to be saying that the "peacekeeping" role, which UN and NATO forces have adopted for some conflicts in some countries and which Canada agreed to adopt in Afghanistan, basically doesn't exist. But is it just in Afghanistan, just this time? Or is it everywhere, every time that a non-combat/peacekeeping role is nonexistent? Or something in between?

If Hillier says that peacekeeping everywhere involves combat, then he should say so. If it's just in Afghanistan, just this mission, he should say that, too.

I hope Dion's people are gathering information like that, and I hope they're consulting other experts on the ground. General Hillier has made it plain that he wants troops to stay. What advice would one expect him to give in such a situation?

If the Liberal Party agrees to support extending the mission in Afghanistan--and Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff is said to be in favor of it--then Canada will enter an Iraq-like situation. Who will hold NATO to any promise it might make about contributing more troops or equipment? What if, in a year or two, NATO hasn't lived up to its share of the bargain?

It's a reasonable expectation--Afghanistan was supposed to be secure for peacekeeping years ago. It hasn't happened, as Canadian forces on the ground can tell you. So what would make NATO forces any more successful in the coming year? What country will send more troops to support Canada?

And if NATO can't or won't live up to those conditions, then what? What does the Prime Minister think Canada will do at that point? Will the Prime Minister commit to pulling out of Afghanistan if NATO lets Canadian forces down again?

It's all well and good, in theory, to put conditions on Canada's future role. But when conditions contain only an "if" statement, with no consequences for failing to meet the conditions, then conditions become empty threats. Ask any parent.

Or ask the Bloc and the NDP to explain. They seem to understand.

Coulda, Shoulda--but Woulda?

After complaining for awhile that I'm not eligible to vote in primaries, I read an article in the newspaper that says otherwise. Apparently both Democrats and Republicans have an official arm for party members who live abroad. This year, these citizens are allowed to vote in primaries.

Unfortunately, unless I can get to Winnipeg sometime today (the closest polling place), I can't participate after all. Registration for online and fax voting closed last week. However, I did start looking at the looooooong process I'll have to undertake to vote in November's general election. Sheesh.

So now I could have voted, and I should have voted, in some primary somewhere. But I'm not sure I would have. I have recused myself from caring about the primaries because I thought I couldn't participate--so I haven't made up my mind about any of the candidates. With the responsibility of actually participating in the process resting on my shoulders, I wouldn't be able to say "what the hell" and cast a vote. This time, my primary vote would have mattered to me as much as the general election vote always does.

I knew only because of an AP wire story on the back of the first section today. If only I'd known before!

Obama-Rama

On CBC's Thursday evening news show, The National, their news analysts tried to figure out why Barak Obama has been so popular in the U.S.

Here's a link to the video.

And here's the text of a comment I posted:

In your analysis of Barak Obama's allure, don't forget that he's a Democrat. Voters in his party—some half the U.S. population—have been out of power for eight long, dispiriting years. During this time, political leaders have committed so many shocking, horrifying acts that it’s hard to feel anything but numb. Many people stopped, or never started, participating in public life because genuine debate on serious issues was usurped, and demeaned, by the likes of the “analysts” at Fox News.

Now Obama promises “change”—and lets people fill in a lot of the specifics themselves. Who from the disenfranchised part of the population wouldn’t want to believe in this candidate? Who wouldn’t want to participate in that future?

Meanwhile, Republican candidates still cast about for an inspiring message. Apparently "I'm not George Bush" isn't enough to unify their party.

I’m an outsider to Canadian politics—as a U.S. citizen and relatively recent landed immigrant, I can't vote in Canada and don't have the deep perspective that develops with years of daily exposure to specific politicians and parties.

Still, it seems to me that a similar scenario played out up here two years ago. In bringing down a largely unpopular government, Stephen Harper led a once-fragmented Conservative party with a unifying message based on “change.” The Liberal party was—and to a large extent, remains—unsure of its message, mission, and role. Apparently “I’m not a crook, like that last batch of Liberals” isn’t working for Stephane Dion.

Harper has found it more difficult to win a majority, and thereby effect some of his more controversial changes, than it was to campaign on "change." That’s a lesson Senator Obama should keep in mind, should today’s momentum carry him into the White House.

What everybody seems to be curious about, of course, is why Obama seems to appeal to younger voters. I think that's harder to pinpoint. But I do think that everyone responds to a positive message, and if some Democrats are positive that Senator Obama--or Senator Clinton, for that matter--has good leadership potential, then their teens or their students or their sales clerks or the neighbo(u)rs feel that.

See? No detainees or isotopes.