Gotcha: The Roads Not Taken

This week, several candidates from various parties in Canada are learning of the power of search engines and a motivated populace. Their past statements, mis-interpreted or not, taken out of context or not, have come back to haunt them. At least one has been "fired" from her party.

So, is this what the Prime Minister dismissed as "gotcha journalism," and therefore unfair? Or is it simply due diligence on the part of print reporters and bloggers? Shouldn't all public figures be held accountable for previous actions and statements?

Anyone without a youthful indiscretion, go ahead and throw that stone. My own behavior in my late 20s pretty much guaranteed that I wouldn't be spending my life in the public eye--even if I wanted to, and even if the public wanted me to, which were perhaps the larger stumbling blocks. (By the way, though I am sorry for causing pain, I don't necessarily regret what I did [though I wouldn't do it again] or missing out on the roads I was therefore unable to take.)

Further, it should also be possible for people to change their minds without having to play verbal Twister. Remember "I smoked it but I didn't inhale"? (Doesn't one require the other?) Recent semi-famous verbal Twisters include "I was for it before I was against it" and some form of "I based my vote on the lies I was told."

The proper follow-up to both of those statements is a very serious, respectful "WHY?" Why did you change your mind? Why didn't you try to find out the truth yourself? Both are legitimate questions that let the candidate explain the process of critical (or uncritical) thinking. Go ahead, change your mind or vote inconsistently--but be able to explain why. It's entirely possible to mature in outlook, to decide that a course of action obviously isn't successful, or to change your mind because of a personal experience. Just tell us.

And now we're back to the follow-up question, the kind of question that Stephen Harper dismissed as "gotcha journalism"--a double pejorative to him. But follow-up questions--indeed, all questions about actions, platforms, and behavio(u)r--to public figures are legitimate. I'm glad Katie Couric asked Governor Palin how "being able to see Russia" equates to "foreign policy experience." I'm glad the public called Senator Clinton on her "phone call at 3 a.m." ad when she was the one who got to roll over and go back to sleep.

People running for office often claim that they want to get out and hear what the people in their riding or district are saying. They want to be known to their constituents. Fabulous. Whatever. But don't put on a v-necked sweater and expect to be done with it.

To be a public figure, you have to be answerable to the people who loan you their power. We can't all be there, so we let journalists ask you questions on our behalf. And you have to treat us, and our journalist proxies, with respect.

So--go journalists and bloggers. Use those search engines on our behalf.

And the rest of us--if you don't already know this, you should. All conversations, even by email or text messaging, are now public conversations. So behave with the civility public discourse calls for.

Mark Your Calendars

Sunday, September 28, is World Rabies Day. Is it OK if I choose to skip this celebration?

Not to pick nits, but, well, okay, to pick nits. A "Rabies Awareness Day" or a "Rabies Elimination Day" or a "Help Stamp Out Rabies Day--sign me up. But just "Rabies Day"? What kind of celebration is that?

Now that we're all lice-free...

I truly was surprised to hear that one person dies of rabies every ten minutes--55,000 in a year, half of whom are children under the age of 15. (Stats from the site linked above.) It's preventable, it's treatable (though prevention is better), and it affects Asians and Africans in disproportionate numbers. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control confirmed just one human case of rabies in 2007.

Yet another great reason to not keep wild animals as "pets." And to get your own pets vaccinated.

The things you learn from morning television shows.

Is this Fair?

So, I am all ready to vote in the U.S. election. I can't vote in Canada because I am not a citizen. Yet.

Over the weekend, I met a man who was born in the U.S. and has lived in Thunder Bay for 30+ years. He became a dual citizen in the 1990s. He travels on a Canadian passport. This is the first U.S. election he's voting in since he moved here and fortunately, our votes won't cancel each other out.

The thing is, he's also voting in the current Canadian federal election.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I have imagined I will pursue dual citizenship, now that it's no longer "duel citizenship." (You don't have to renounce U.S. citizenship to become a Canadian.) I have to be resident for 3 years before I can start the process, and I have other paperwork I want to finish up before I take on another project, so I'm not in a huge hurry or anything.

But I still wonder--is it FAIR to vote in elections on both sides of the border, just because it's LEGAL?

I know another dual citizen (U.S/Canadian) who votes in Canada and doesn't vote in the U.S. elections. She says she doesn't have to watch the elections or the ads in the U.S. and doesn't have to deal with the fallout from elections, other than the way the entire world has to deal with the fallout from the U.S. elections.

That seems more fair to me. Vote where you live.

On the other hand, how fair is this: My vote will disappear. Technically, I will vote in Oklahoma. That means the impact of my vote will likely disappear in the Electoral College, since the state will likely go for McCain. (Don't ask me to explain the Electoral College. My father spent significant time after the 2000 and 2004 elections explaining to the League of Women Voters in his hometown the reasoning behind and impact of the Electoral College throughout American history. He loved institutions generally, but even he wasn't completely "sold" on its relevance today.)

But back to me and my vote: is THAT fair? That my vote basically "disappears" because my last U.S. home, technically, was in a state where I was one of about eight Democrats, the remaining seven or so of whom are my relatives?

In this election, it doesn't matter. I'm voting. So there. It probably won't matter in future U.S. elections, either--I'll vote.

Unless I'm a dual citizen and I decide to vote here. Because I'm not really sure about voting on both sides of the border.

On the other hand, we're talking about politics. If politics were fair...I don't really have an ending for that sentence. Well, if politics were fair, the first woman this near the White House (sorry, Geraldine Ferraro, but you didn't have a real shot) would be...um...sane. Or, like, intelligent.

Though it's definitely NOT FAIR to expect women to be MORE qualified to serve than its current--male--incumbent.

And it's also extremely NOT FAIR to allow him to serve as the new yardstick against whom we measure the fitness of future candidates. That's not fair to us--or anyone.

Wrong Question

A new government-sponsored ad is receiving a lot of play these days (although less since the start of the federal election goofiness). It's about education, sponsored by the government of Ontario.

The ad is intended to show that kids are all different and all have a chance of succeeding in Ontario's schools. That part is fine. Here's the text:

THERE ARE THOSE WHO JUMP RIGHT IN.
AND THOSE WHO PREFER TO PONDER.
THERE ARE DOERS, THINKERS, WATCHERS AND READERS.
MATHLETES. ATHLETES. AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.

So far, so good. Then the ad goes off the rails.

SO HOW DO YOU HELP THEM ALL GRADUATE?

Whoa. Wrong question. It's entirely possible that not all of them SHOULD graduate. Have they learned what they need to know at that level of education?

Right question: SO HOW DO YOU HELP THEM ALL LEARN?

You can see the ad itself here.

As with most government-sponsored ads up here, the production is great. The variety of students is pretty good, though they all look cleaner than the kids I see here, as do the school facilities. The ad has a lot going for it. Except its assumption about the purpose of education, of course.

Yes, I know--I've never been in front of a classroom, I'm not a trained teacher, I don't even have kids in school. But we all have a vested interest in education and in what "kids today" learn. (On both sides of the border.) And the point of education is not to graduate--it's to learn, which requires taking risks and making mistakes. We can't fault students for not knowing things (like where Canada is, or how the U.S. electoral process differs from Canada's) if we make them focus on safely getting through, not learning things.

And now that I have improved the management of Ontario's educational system, I'm going to go see if any of my funds hold AIG stock.

Remembrance

I didn't post anything yesterday. Partly, I remained silent to show respect to all who died and lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks in 2001, and partly, it was in tribute to those who die every day from acts of terrorism, in relative obscurity. I was silent in part because I hear no sense in sentences that refer to the "war on terror" or demand that I "support the troops." I hear no sense and have no answer.

But I did something yesterday that I am pleased to talk about today. I requested my ballot for the U.S. federal election. I printed the forms that will allow me to vote if my ballot doesn't arrive in time. I marked my calendar so that I can send my ballot in time for it to be counted.

There is a time for silence and a time to speak. I have remained silent in the past and I will choose silence in the future. But I will speak in this election.

Crapture, Eh?

I've been afraid to say anything about the Canadian installment of The Crapture, or as we will call it, The Crapture, Eh?

Part of my fear is that the final acts of Crapture won't happen before snow flies and we'll be looking at all the stuff under snow all winter and watch it emerge in the Brown Season (aka pre-spring, aka April). However, it's also possible that I will be able to schedule a bin this month.

See, here's the deal. We have structures on this property. One has a new roof, and the old roof had to come off to put that on. Both structures have storage places. The larger structure had a basement. In these storage spaces were large containers full of CRAP. Crap from my grandparents. Crap from the wonderful couple who shared our summers here from about 1970 through the mid-1980s. Crap from my parents.

Crap like this. A plastic bag (stiff and crackling) full of margarine tubs. Dirty torn bedding. Old ice chests. Plastic water containers, broken, with the broken bits in a plastic bag carefully tied to the handle. A billion glass jars (empty, thanks be), some with lids but some without. And (shudder) evidence of mice and squirrels. Brrr.

No more. Now it's all piled next to our woodpile. Well, all except the mouse-infested contents of the work shed back of the bigger house. That's a project for this weekend. It's very satisfying.

But honestly. Look at that pile. No wonder the working title for The Crapture, Eh? was Clampetts in Shuniah.

And if all goes well, I will be able to get a bin out here. Then the last ritual can begin--the winding down of The Crapture. It will feel good.

There's Nothing Like Political Rhetoric

...to make me grouchy. At least today.

I really do have a great life and I am extremely grateful to be able to live where, when, and how I live.

Normally, here are the kinds of things I get grouchy about.

The basket of Ontario peaches I bought Tuesday were a trifle hard, so I set them on the counter, but now they're rotting, not ripening.

I'm chilly in my basement office today, in spite of fleece, and it's just too early in the season to be chilly.

Yeah, woe is me. Boo and hoo.

In August, I got to eat several baskets' worth of fabulous Ontario peaches. The view from my basement office is great and I can always turn on the heater if I get cold. Besides, the weather will likely warm up before it turns cold for good. I mean, life is fabulous.

Except for the politics. Really.

In 2004, I was barely starting to move here and could blissfully ignore most of the U.S. political activity, since my mind was made up and the acrimony of the administration showed that real debate wasn't going to happen. I spent my birthday sick with the flu and got even sicker when it became apparent that I wasn't going to the birthday gift I most desired--a new president. There wasn't an election in Canada at that time. If I'd had a TV, I could have found solace in Canadian Content (a topic for another post someday).

Since then, Canadian provincial and federal elections have come and gone. The Liberals also picked a new leader, in a multi-day theatrical festival. I was interested in these events because I wanted to learn about Canadian politics. And if I hadn't been, I could always have retreated to American Idol and Fear Factor (except, being me, I'd have found a good book instead), because Canada is a non-entity on U.S. television stations. ("Wow, they have elections up there? What's up with that? Our elections aren't good enough for them?")

But now, I'm getting it from both sides of the border at the same time, and I feel trapped.

Stephen Harper is a stand-up guy. (I don't like to think about that.) Stephane Dion is a bumbling Mr. Peepers and the Liberal party is divided about the best way to run this election THAT HASN'T BEEN CALLED YET, PEOPLE. Sarah Palin is an attack dog, showing by her delivery of one ghostwritten speech that she is equal to the task of sitting one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Barak Obama is only an empty promise. Joe Biden is a has-been. John McCain is a principled maverick.

All of those things might be true. I doubt it, but I don't know. Nobody does, especially those saying things like that. They're guesses, predictions based on limited, surface-scratched images that don't take into account the candidates' previous actions. And actions are where it's at.

As Eliza Doolittle said in My Fair Lady, "Don't talk at all--show me!"

I realize that political advertising is an art form unto itself. It's hard to convey substance. Polls show that people (who, incidentally, lie to pollsters) SAY they vote based on a candidate's image. So selling the image is important. I know this. And sometimes I find it interesting.

But I'm not liking it right now. I have nowhere to escape. Except, of course, being me, I have good books.

Maybe it's not the political rhetoric, really. Maybe I'm really grouchy about the weather, and the peaches.

But I will be glad when November has come and gone. And at least there will be apples between now and then.

Wackiness Ensues

I am, of course, speaking of the political conventions south of 49 and the whole political situation up here.

Down south, we have dueling "God's on my side and let the weather prove it" stories. We also have people in clay shoes, which isn't a problem; we're all human and all that--except that you invite criticism when you run on the "holier than thou" platform.

Up here, we have attention span issues. the Prime Minister claims that the opposition parties won't cooperate, when they have rolled over for him on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. And he's getting away with this claim. It's very perplexing, especially because "everybody knows" that "nobody wants" an election.

In light of these oh-so-serious events, I would like to discuss something near and dear to all of us: television. Specifically, two TV shows from the U.S.; therefore, everyone can follow along. (Canadian television wouldn't afford us this same luxury. My sister had never heard of Little Mosque on the Prairie before this summer. Nobody I tell about the Maria show can believe it. But that's a different issue.)

First, The West Wing and the whole "Gee, Obama sounds like Matt Santos" (the guy played by Jimmy Smits) thing. I can't give you the source, because I read it in a column by the local TV guy, who said he'd read it somewhere but didn't say where, that the lead West Wing writer saw the 2004 Democratic Convention, looked at Obama, and went, "Hey! What if this relative unknown came outta nowhere to be a contender?"

In the West Wing Universe, Santos ran against an elder statesman/moderate Republican senator, played by Alan Alda. I think Alda is taller than McCain, but the casting was pretty obvious. I won't tell who won but honestly, if you don't know by now, rent the show. Start with Season 1. There's some excellent writing. Have your encyclopedia ready to refresh your memory about Smoot and Hawley.

In a sad case of life imitating art, John Spencer, who played Santos's vice presidential candidate, died of a heart attack partway into the last season. The death was written into the show.

So yes, Obama is much like Matt Santos, with some differences. Obama is a senator, where Santos was a member of the House. Obama is African-American; Santos was Hispanic. Both have small kids. Both are relatively unknown. Both depend on the experience of their running mates to give them credibility in the eyes of the public.

Now for the other TV shows. The Republican convention, before it was hijacked by Gustav, seemed to be paying closer attention to Commander in Chief, a short-lived series from 2005. In this program, Geena Davis played a formerly Independent Congresswoman who was chosen as the running mate of a Republican president, who wins. She finds herself in the Oval Office when the President dies of a cerebral aneurism in office.

So, the similarities: Mackenzie Allen/Sarah Palin? Who's that?

My real point is this: in both shows, important people on the ticket die. I hope Biden and McCain are paying attention. Yes, they've both trotted out living mothers. And I would be the last person to play down the relative vitality of today's 60-somethings--one spent the month of July replacing the roof on our yellow camp.

But I do hope they, and the American public, are paying attention. Honestly. Is Sarah Palin someone you can trust as President? And it's a serious question--we should all be doing some homework. After all, the last relatively unknown governor to become President was...

Yeah, that's why.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled wackiness.