Xmas Xcess

In case you were wondering, the Christmas holiday in Canada is very similar to Christmas in the U.S. Families get together. Some of those who attend also misbehave, thus ensuring story material for myriad future family get-togethers. (Not MY family, of course.) People exchange gifts, often in excess. People eat, ditto. At the end of the day, at least one someone, sometimes more than one, has a meltdown--too many noisy toys, too much candy, too many buns (American: rolls) with butter.

Again, not in MY family, of course. Except for the buns with butter. (Hello, I'm a woman. I have food issues. Also the same on both sides of the border. Get over it.) Which is what I thought of yesterday, in church.

Backing up: The United Church is a low-key kind of church, full of people who try earnestly and imperfectly to do the right thing in the world. Yesterday was a particularly low-key kind of Sunday. Our minister said he'd been thinking of a hard-hitting topic but decided instead to read a story at sermon-time. Fine.

But he also mentioned the hard-hitting topic, which was something along the lines of "What does Santa have that Jesus doesn't?"

So during the sermon, that's what I thought of instead of paying attention to what was actually happening around me. (That trait IS typical of my family, but that's another story.)

Some answers to the question are fairly obvious, not to mention sacreligious and actually not fair to Jesus. But here we go.

Santa's bag is full of toys, not guilt.

Santa's all about the "ho ho ho," while Jesus is about the "no no no!"

Santa's story ends with everybody getting presents; Jesus' story just starts at Christmas and goes on to include betrayal and death, which is hardly mitigated by resurrection and ascension (he's still GONE, after all).

But I was also thinking about the buns and the butter at the same time that I was pondering the Santa vs. Jesus debate. The thing about the buns and butter is that I haven't been eating much bread in the past year or so. It's not on my food plan. Mostly, I don't miss it. Seriously. I feel so much better physically (and wear clothing two sizes smaller, too) that it's totally worth allowing butter to be a special, planned event in my life. Which it was for Christmas. Which is all well and good.

And yet, I sat in church mentally focused on the last four buns and the stick of butter softening in its crystal dish. The food was at home in the kitchen, 20 miles away, but there in the choir loft, I could practically smell those buns, feel the squishy springy yeasty yum between my teeth, taste that salty fatty buttery...butter.

Well, okay, it may not sound as good as it felt yesterday. Still, here's the point: Those buns and the butter were as important to me in that moment as if they were the last buns in the world. As if no baker anywhere (or, say, Safeway) would ever make buns again. As if that one stick were the last butter on earth. As if I would be deprived of food--in fact, deprived of all things good--for the rest of my natural-born days.

None of which is true. There is plenty of food in my world, and I'm aware of and extremely grateful for that fact. My life is fabulous, overall. And yet, my brain includes wiring that fixates on these buns and butter. This part of my brain is not interested in logic; it's a reptile. It's interested in surviving the next famine. It doesn't care that it has never experienced famine in real life. Someone, somewhere in my ancestry must have. My brain stem remembers.

Which brings me back to Christmas. What if the excess of the holidays is part of that same reptilian wiring? What if we need the feeling of excess, of gluttony, of "TOO MUCH!" once a year, at the (literally) darkest time of the year? What if our inner reptile needs the excess to prepare for the future famine?

Especially in a year like this, when our future deprivation feels inevitable and won't be caused by any New Year's resolutions, but because the economic downturn has come in our own front doors.

Overall, I was pretty pleased with that thought. Yippee! Wiring is responsible! Too many toys, too much of a good thing, too many buns 'n' butter--all good!

But then came this thought: So what? So what if excess is inevitable? So what if we're biologically programmed--not just socially and culturally programmed--to over-do the end-of-year celebrations? Even if that's true, we don't get off the hook.

Because we can get around the wiring. We learned how in kindergarten. Civilization is all about learning to share, to protect and help each other, to balance our individual needs with the needs of the community, to postpone gratification in favo(u)r of a long-term goal.

In other words, civilization is the guilt, the "no no no!", the full story of Love (betrayal, sacrifice, death, resurrection, ascension) in all its messy, three-dimensional glory.

A scholar of religion might say that civilization is about Jesus, while the brain stem is about Santa. Or maybe not. Or in more precise language. But something like that.

To recap yesterday's sermon: Excess may be pre-programmed, but we can learn to short-circuit the wiring. Wanting the buns 'n' butter is a different thing from eating them. It is possible to celebrate holidays without credit-card-induced hangovers.

And here's today's status report: the buns are safely eaten by someone else. The butter is back in the fridge, right next to the Nanaimo bars. Oh man, Nanaimo bars are...hey...hmmm.

(Cue Schmaltz) The Best Gift

Last night, my husband said something I've been mulling over since: "If you're a parent, the best gift you can give your child is the gift of your own independence."

He was thinking of adult parents and near-adult children, the ones who are trying to leave the nest but to whom the parents are clinging in the guise of "being supportive."

In fact, we had been talking of my father, whose birthday would have been yesterday and who had given me the gift of his own independence.

At 90, my father was the kind of man that nurses and university administrators referred to as "cute." At 70, he was likely called a "funny little man" or "Mr. Peepers," but I didn't happen to hear it. Years after his classroom days were over, he wore suit jackets and hush puppies. In a group, he'd sit back observing before he shared an observation from left field. He was obsessive, if that is possible, about moderation and routine, and in general he made my recent adult life a lot easier than it could have been. Sure, I worried about him, all alone in that big house, but I knew that it was my choice to do so.

But last night, we weren't thinking only of my father. We talked of other parent/child and peer/peer relationships and the reasons why the clinger holds so tightly to the clingee.

Partly, it's habit: from the moment a child shows interest in standing, parents hover to keep the child from falling. It's a physical reaction that becomes a powerful metaphor. But there's something else at work.

It's fear, of course. While the clinger might be saying aloud, "I'm keeping you from failing," she actually means, "Without you to depend on me, what value do I have in this cold, harsh world?"

So, because this forum is a bully pulpit, I'll use it to toss out a challenge. This holiday season, give someone you love the best gift of all: your own independence.

The benefits are two-fold. Facing your fear--finding or renewing your own independent purpose in life--could be the grandest adventure you've ever had. Lord knows there's plenty for everyone to do these days.

And think about this: You may believe that your care has prevented your loved one from falling. But what if--what if?--without you hanging onto her, she flies?

Happy holidays, everyone.

Time Sink

Courtesy of The Week magazine, which was courtesy of my father, who loved keeping me in reading materials, I share with you these websites.

Language lovers, beware: you may find entire days missing from your life.

First is www.urbandictionary.com: a compendium of hip-speak. If someone in your household has used a term with which you're unfamiliar, look it up here. I recently looked up "jones," a term that I have understood in a general way to mean "craving," as in, "I'm jonesing for Nanaimo bars, so let's go by M&M's to pick up some." What I didn't know was that "jones" originally referred to heroin.

If U R a Noob to acronyms and slang, see www.noslang.com. It has separate tabs for British Slang and Drug Slang. You can take quizzes!! It's also a translator: type in the mystifying combination of letters and receive enlightenment.

Those who feel so "out of it" should check www.onlineslangdictionary.com for reassurance. One of its best features is a map that shows who uses a term and where that person lives. So if you don't use the term "snoogy" for "hoodie" (hooded sweatshirt), take heart: it's really just one guy in Massachusetts.

These sites may or may not be useful for translating between American and Canadian. The urban dictionary does list "toque," or as we called it in Oklahoma, "stocking cap." However, you have to know how to spell it--it's pronounced "too-k," not to be confused with "took," like "I took your stocking cap." It's also not how you spell "toke." Not that I know that, like, personally or anything.

Enjoy!

Changing Seasons

Today is a snow day: schools in town were cancelled. That's a pretty rare event in these parts.

I'm not sure that we got all the centimetres of snow we were promised (something like 6 inches' worth--nothing to those who get Lake Effect storms). Still, the wind blew across the lake, and it brought some snow and blew the new stuff and what was already there into funky drifts. Plus the roads weren't completely cleared from the three or four inches we got on Wednesday, or was it Friday...the storms run together.

And we've officially entered the "complain about the weather" season. For some folks, that extends year-round, but most people succumb about this time of year.

The complaining thing doesn't make sense to me. We all have maps. We all know we live in a northern climate.

So why is it an annual surprise that winter is here? And hey--it's cold, too. Again! Just like last year! And guess what--it's snowing, or just about to snow, or just finished snowing. There's a shocker.

At the same time, I notice winter. I grew up with Breezy/Humid, Hot as Hell/Humid, Windy/Humid, and Icy as the primary seasons. (Those could also be nicknames for my siblings, come to think of it, but that might be a thought best pursued another day.)

And I admit it--"Just how cold is it?" is a question I still find irresistible. I monitor the thermometer outside the kitchen window several times a day. I still compare F and C to see just how cold that temperature is. It's all fascinating to me.

For example, I remain astounded at the fact that 0F is pretty darn cold in any situation, while 0C may feel cold in the fall or spring but is pretty balmy when you're getting dressed for skiing. Pile on too many layers and pretty soon your glasses are fogged and you're sweating to the point that you're making yourself colder.

So when does "paying close attention to the weather" become "complaining about the weather"?

If memory serves, around the end of March, I think, when I'm expecting crocus and the snow has become less fun. But at least now, I'm singing "Baby It's Cold Outside!" with gusto.

The Scorecard

Alas, or perhaps not so much, the era in Canadian politics of "two white guys named Steve" is over. Stephane Dion is out, and the new presumptive leader of the Liberal party is Michael Ignatieff.

If the name "Michael Ignatieff" sounds familiar to Americans, it's because he was at Harvard for some time. He came back to Canada a couple of years ago, sucked back home by a power vacuum in the Liberal party. He's served his penance for his American credentials--as Deputy Liberal Leader to Dion (a smart man without an ounce of political charm who bears an odd resemblance to my father, but that's another story).

Now that we know who the players are, we can go back to the message.

So attention, coalition or splintered members thereof: here is your message.

In times like these, Canadians deserve politicians who work together to get things done. We propose these concrete measures that complement the actions of the U.S. "car czar" and these others that will ensure that Canadian pensions are protected. To protect what we consider to be fundamental human rights, we put into place these incentives and investments in healthcare and safe water. And while we're at it, we'll fund incentives so that individuals and companies that re-tool their lives with green technologies get a tax break.

And here's what you don't say, even though it's true: Stephen Harper's divisive rhetoric and "us vs. them" mentality is so five minutes ago. (Rather like the phrase "five minutes ago.") Both main parties have made mistakes in the past, and even the Ontario NDP didn't perform too well when it woke up and found itself in charge. Sure, we would be in better fiscal shape if Harper hadn't spent the surplus, but the Liberals didn't invest a whole lot in infrastructure or energy research. Let's just say that fingers can be pointed all day.

Seriously, we don't have the time nor the energy to care about the past.

These past few weeks have been difficult for Canadian politicians in Ottawa and in the provinces. But compared to the rest of us, you've had it easy. We gave you guaranteed jobs. Now do them--get to work for us.

Rick Mercer's Best Rant Yet

I was going to give the NDP and Liberal parties their new talking points for the next six weeks, but they're busy ousting leaders and yapping like Jack Russell terriers and whatnot.

Instead, here is Rick Mercer's take on the political shenanigans.

Just one highlight of many quotable quotes:

With leaders like this, we shouldn't be blamed for asking, "Why bother?"

Rick Mercer is like Jon Stewart, only smarter, funnier, and more Everyman, without a trace of irony. On his weekly political humour show, he does a "rant" in the alleys near the studio. It's one shot, the camera is tilted for a little extra artsy flair, and the commentary itself is articulate and pointed.

Much like this essay. Go, Rick.

Men Behaving Badly

The title of this post describes Canadian politics during the past couple of weeks. I exempt the Governor General from the title because she's a woman but also because she really had little choice but to award the "time out" the Prime Minister requested. Her job is to not insert herself (an unelected official) into the governing process--and granting the Prime Minister a "do-over" is perhaps the least intrusive thing she could have done. But I hope she yelled at him a little and told him this was his last chance.

In any case, I find myself in an unusual position: I now feel more proud of a U.S. politician than the politicians in Canada. I'm not sure I have ever felt this way before.

Before I moved here, I made no pretense of understanding or really following Canadian politics, other than trying to keep up with the name of the person in charge. I paid attention during the NAFTA negotiations, and during the leadup to the Iraq war, and other times when American allies were in the news in the U.S. However, parliamentary politics is all new to me in the past three to four years.

Nevertheless, I was like other liberals in the U.S. in holding a slight envy for some Canadian values that have translated into public policy. Like universal healthcare as a human right. Like limits on gun ownership. I figured Canadian politicians were probably more enlightened and competent, too.

And the venality of American politicians has increased. As you know or can imagine, actions of U.S. politicians--and I include the Senate and House, Democrats and Republicans--during the past eight years have been difficult for me to believe. I started to list examples and it turns the stomach.

But those thousands of days are already beginning to fade, though I won't forget their lessons. And now, I see a lot of pleasing news from the U.S. The President-Elect is surrounding himself with diverse opinions. He is clear about his role until the end of January--there's just one President at a time. However, he also understands how important it is for the electorate to see him doing something, anything, to show he will hit the ground running. And he's doing a lot of good things.

It's amazing for me to say this, but...politicians in Canada could learn from the example of their incoming neighbo(u)r to the south. There. I said it.

So folks who recently fled Ottawa, use this time wisely. Stop telling Canadians that you deserve to govern or that others are going to destroy the country--our sky is falling all around us. We don't have time to worry about your manufactured crises; there are plenty of real ones out there.

Instead, remember the arguments you should be making--that your ideas will help solve the impending economic difficulties while protecting the least able among us. We want, and need, to hear about those.

Peter Brady Wants a Time Out

As you recall from yesterday's episode, Peter Brady was elected Prime Minister, but he acted like a jerk. All the other kids banded together and demanded to form the family government. Then everyone had to wait for Carol Brady to get home to referee.

The Prime Minister today asks the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. News outlets nearly uniformly refer to this as a "time out," but whether they mean it in the sports sense or in the family discipline sense is unclear. And it doesn't matter. Either way, it's a time for all involved to cool off and plan some strategy. And Lord knows Canadians deserve politicians who act like adults. Now that there's one in the U.S., waiting in the wings, we're all resting easier.

Even if I liked the Prime Minister, and by now we all know I don't, last night's address to the nation would have irritated me. He spent some four minutes talking in what he must have thought was a calm, rational voice about the sky falling and the world going to hell in a handbasket. He was quietly patronizing--a radical departure from his normal loud and sneering forms of condescension--and continuing to talk about the wrong things.

Oh, the missed opportunity. He could have shown himself to be an adult and a statesman last night. He could have talked about specific economic plans. He could have reassured Canadians that he and his party know the seriousness of job loss, unemployment, hunger, homelessness, and deficits. He could have inspired Canadians to band together to address the country's growing issues.

But he continued to talk ONLY about how TERRIBLE AND AWFUL Bobby, Cindy, Marsha, and Greg are--to say nothing of that awful Jan, who AS WE ALL KNOW has gone on record as wanting to be an only child and THEREFORE THREATENS THE UNITY OF THE FAMILY, WHICH CAN'T BE GOOD FOR CANADA. You know there's no hope for serious action when I break out the ALL CAPS.

I'm making light of this, but it really is a serious issue. What the opposition parties are doing is analogous to impeaching a sitting President of the U.S. in that it is an orderly succession of power in the face of wrongdoing by the chief executive. It's not an action of the same seriousness, though. Harper isn't guilty of offenses as serious as those that can bring on impeachment--breaking the law. Harper seems to be guilty mostly of making decisions in the midst of what seems to be a perplexing, uncharacteristic attack of stupid.

Fortunately, a "time out" is an option here. Canadians will likely then have another election in January. Unfortunately, unless someone else marries into this Brady Bunch, and quickly, Canadians won't have any new choices. No wonder Canadians just want to change the channel.

Leave for a Week

...and the government changes, with perogies for everyone!

OK, not exactly.

You remember, of course, the Canadian election in October. It was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY because the Prime Minister claimed Parliament had become dysfunctional, because they passed everything he proposed. Although that is indeed a sign of dysfunction, it's not dysfunction in the way Harper meant. But that's a separate story.

What Harper meant was, "I think I could get a majority government now, so I'm going to call an election even though I previously passed legislation making it illegal to call an election for another year." I've said before that Harper is learning some lessons by looking to the snide and condescending attitudes of executives in the U.S. He's obviously been studying their power grabs, too.

I suspect the election was motivated in part by a wish that Canadians were interested in their own election as much as they were interested in the U.S. election. Or else it was motivated by the belief that Canadians wouldn't notice there was a Canadian election, given the feisty, maverick drama playing to the south.

But anyway, there was a completely unnecessary election in which Harper achieved not a whole lot, to great expense.

Then the U.S. election happened. Although Canadian news organizations are following President-Elect Obama's every move as breathlessly as the U.S. news organizations are, that still leaves plenty of time for dead air.

So someone decided to make things interesting. And the biggest surprise is that that "someone" was Stephen Harper! He decided to cut off financial support for political parties. The Liberal Party was already weakened by the election and in the middle of a leadership crisis. Although some Canadians may indeed be happy that electoral reform is on the agenda in Ottawa, this seems like an obvious "kick them when they're down" strategy.

And speaking of arrogance and cockiness, Harper made this bill a confidence motion. Voting against it brings down the few-week-old government. So here's the choice for the opposition parties: vote to cut off your right arm, or tell Canadians it's time for another election. Talk about "rock" and "hard place"!

So the three parties in opposition--the New Democrats, the Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois--got together. They're now planning to go to the Governor-General and ask her to let them form a government, since Harper is unable to form one. Although rumor said that Michael Ignatieff was going to be the PM, recently it looks like Dion would be PM, with Jack Layton (the NDP leader) as Deputy PM.

The Bloc, which is against Quebec being in Canada at all, would of course be prevented from having a role in this government. Why? Because their party exists for the sole purpose of extracting Quebec from this country. (For Americans: It's like people running for federal office on the "Big Government is Bad" platform and then legalizing spying on the public and spending epic and wasteful sums on the miliary, leaving huge debt and running huge deficits. Sound familiar?)

It's also just like in The Brady Bunch, when one of the kids does something stupid and the rest of them gang up on him or her, and then Carol Brady has to explain that we're all in this together because we're one family now. Only the Governor General wears more stylish clothing and is more substantive all around.

But it's a dilemma, all right. Do you pick Peter Brady even though he confuses wearing a blue sweater with having family values and goes back on his own laws? Or do you hope for the best with the rest of the squabbling bunch of kids in charge? Do Bobby and Cindy have the economic experience to help the family weather their financial woes? Greg and Marcia may be making out in the tent in the back yard now, but how long will that alliance last? And that Jan--she's always a wild card.

Let's also keep in mind that in the recent election, Dion inspired even less confidence than the previous Liberal leader did in the previous election, and less confidence in his ability to run the country than Stephen Harper did. The Liberal party lost seats in the October election. Voters obviously didn't think Dion could lead the country. So, even though Jan ran in the recent election and more of the country voted for Peter, Jan would end up as the leader. How is this fair? Mom? Dad?

On the up side, I'm learning new vocabulary very quickly. Recently, Harper announced something that I thought was about perogies, those tasty mashed-potato-pasta morsels smothered in mushrooms, onions, and sour cream. Even I would vote for that!

But it turned out he said "prorogue," which means that he'd suspend Parliament until January sometime. I assume he's hoping that the Canadian economy will hold on until then and that by the end of January, President Obama will have enough details in place that Harper can develop something for Canada.

Never mind that Canada is a separate country. Never mind that Harper is an economist and could be expected to have his own programs. Never mind that the holidays would be far less merry in a power vacuum like that. "Blue Christmas" must be the PM's favourite Christmas song.

Truthfully, I think a lot of this is inspired by election envy. "Boring? Who says Canadian politics is boring? We got our colo(u)rful characters up here, too! See?"

But to get back to my main point, which seems to be my life's refrain: This is serious, people. It's not time for hi-jinks, for wackiness ensuing, for Learning Valuable Lessons in 1970s California. I can joke about the Brady Bunch, but that's really not fair to Canadians, or Americans, for that matter.

This is a real situation. Real people are losing jobs. They're supporting families; they have serious debt and no employment prospects. Relief agencies are working overtime. However this situation is resolved, the people in charge had better be ready. If now is not a good time for Harper to make a power grab, it's not a good time for the opposition parties to, either.

Instead, it's time for real leadership. And in Canadian politics today, the Governor General seems to be our best hope.

And the best of luck to her, too.