Today, it snowed a little in the morning--just topping up the couple of inches we got yesterday and last night. Now the sun is out and we're heading toward a high above freezing. It's Delusions of Spring Day in Thunder Bay.
Today is the day I wash all the now-baggy-elbowed heavy sweaters I've been wearing as "top layers" for (too many to think about) MONTHS. Because when the days are sunny and the temperature is above freezing, it is obvious that I will NEVER need to wear these heavy sweaters EVER AGAIN. (Or at least until November.)
I do wash these throughout winter, of course, but when water is always the issue it is in the country, I let them get good and baggy in the elbows first. Plus, today I'm washing them all at once, trusting that I won't need one this afternoon.
When I was growing up in Oklahoma, a crocus or two usually popped up to bloom in late February. Certainly gardens had brave daffodils by mid-March. A late-season freak snowstorm might give you a couple of good "daffodils in the snow" shots in early April, but basically, you could see some signs of spring in the flora any time after Valentine's Day.
In contrast, we have new snow. It's shiny and pretty. But snow.
Body clocks, however, are hard to reset. Thus Delusions of Spring Day.
Because, I know, I WILL have to wear these sweaters again. Except maybe for the 100% wool Eddie Bauer sweater, which I wear on days that require serious artillery. A very serious day requires both the wool sweater and flannel-lined jeans. So possibly not that one. But the others, yes. And I'll be doing this same "wash all the sweaters" thing in May or June.
And in between, we have April (the brownest month) and the "something shiny" season, when I tend to buy electronics because I am tired of everything being brown and dirty with crusty old ice and snow everywhere.
But that's still in the future.
Today, just give me my delusions, okay?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Disservice to the Discourse
I've already tipped my hand about What Is America, by Ronald Wright.* (To recap: I'm not a fan.) But after hearing comments about this book at a book club meeting over the weekend--a book club that contains perfectly lovely, educated people--I want to explain why I think this book does a disservice to American-Canadian political discourse.
For those of you who haven't read the book, here's what you're missing. The author, born in Britain and now a writer and lecturer in Canadian universities, puts forth the following argument: “[T]he New World made the modern world and now threatens to undo it” (p. 1). After a short introductory chapter, he chronicles the various waves of European contact, colonization, and/or settlement of North America through the centuries. Written before Barak Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and published before he won the 2008 election, the book ends with the suggestion that the best hope for real leadership now comes from the European Union.
Wright tells an ugly story. The continent's history is one of greed, conquest, and relentless domination of the indigenous people. It is a story of people--Europeans, some Spanish but mostly British who become Americans--who use and abuse natural resources until they are spent, and then move on to take advantage of the next resource. It is, in short, a story of people. And it's a story that can't continue in this way. There are precious few “new resources” left on this planet.
I don't dispute the story Wright tells, even as he moves into recent events. I agree that George W. Bush was a disastrous leader and that his “war on terror” has been terrifying indeed. Two years after Wright finished his book, we're watching President Obama struggle with an obscene tangle of economic, political, and social consequences of the Bush administration.
But I still say that this book does not provide any benefits to the political discourse in Canada about the U.S. and the Canadian-American relationship. I think this book, and others written on this same pattern, in fact harms that discourse, for four reasons.
1. Readers deserve a book based on scholarship they can see and trust. This book doesn't make its case. It is set up to look like a carefully researched history--but it's not. The subtitle, “A short history of the new world order,” also suggests history. The book includes 226 pages of text and 142 pages of notes and bibliography. It has all the earmarks of a history, but not the substance. On close inspection, the book doesn't add to the base of knowledge. The information in the text itself was part of the university courses I took in 1982 and before. The notes show that many of Wright's “sources” are not original; they're quoted in someone else's analysis of empire in the U.S. (for example). That's not good, convincing scholarship. Other notes fail to provide a source for the statement in the text. Many contain information of only distant relevance to the material it's supposedly supporting. Many statements of statistics have no footnote at all.
Therefore, it's not a book that can be taken seriously for its scholarly approach to its material, even though the information in the book may well be new or shocking to Canadians. In fact, because the information may be new to Canadians, it should be available in an academically rigorous (yet, ideally, readable) book. Canadians readers would do better to take Wright out of the loop completely and read a few of the books cited in the bibliography.
2. Readers deserve to be told the truth about themselves. The kind of “history” in this book just allows Canadians to feel smug--mistakenly so--about their own past. Although Wright says “the America of my title has two meanings: the great republic most of the world simply calls 'America' and the American landmass as a whole” (p. 12), he focuses mostly on the “great republic,” and secondarily on ancient civilizations in what are now Central and South America. Precious little of his attention goes to Canada--though comments at the book club discussion suggest that perhaps it should have.
One comment at the meeting: “I've always been proud that my ancestors came from England to North America in the 1600s....and now [after reading this book] I'm so glad I don't have dual citizenship.” But until 1815 (or arguably 1776), Canadians and Americans were all British (except for those who were Native or from another European country). In fact, you could argue that Canadians weren't truly Canadians until 1867, by which time the pattern Wright describes--killing off or exploiting Native peoples and taking their wealth and land--had been in full force for nearly 400 years. The 140 to 200 years in which the two countries have had decidedly different histories total only two-fifths to one-fourth of the total time Europeans have been taking advantage of this continent.
Another comment: “I don't know how they [Americans] live with themselves.” The context for this statement was the treatment of native Hawaiians, particularly the last monarchy in the 1880s. Nowhere in the book does Wright mention Canada's 20th-century residential schools for Natives. And he dispatches Canada's history of western expansion and its relationships with Native peoples, including the war against Louis Riel, in two sentences with the remark that the processes in both countries “were all quite similar,” although there was “less fighting” in what is now Canada (p. 166).
Although Canadians are apparently Wright's intended audience (given the Canadian publisher), Wright does not effectively address his Canadian readers. He doesn't actively engage them in reflecting on their own history as part of the North American continent. Canadians could perhaps learn about their own history from the new biography series at Penguin Canada, Extraordinary Canadians.
3. Readers deserve a thorough, useful discussion of the major themes in a work. Yet Wright is ignorant of the history of religion in North America, beyond reading about (not direct reading of) the Puritans and beyond extensive quotation from Jon Krakauer's recent book about Mormonism.** Although Wright correctly identifies religion as a major cultural force in the U.S., he allows for no nuance in religious belief. “One in two Americans rejects the evidence for evolution; the rest of Christendom gave up fighting Darwin a century ago” (p. 16). I suspect this statistic comes from a general survey about religious belief, not specifically about evolution, but it's impossible to know--Wright gives no source for this statistic. (It's not even footnoted.) Wright seems not to understand that it is possible for (North) Americans to identify themselves as BOTH Christians AND scientists. He doesn't even acknowledge, much less explore, the deep divisions in mainstream Christian denominations in the U.S. For the past 150 years, progressive believers have struggled with fundamentalists, like those whose views Wright dismisses as archaic, over issues such as racial equality and marriage rights. These struggles form an important part of the culture and politics of the U.S.--but to Wright, they don't exist.
Another comment at the discussion: “What scares me is that someone who believes in an afterlife has his finger on the trigger of a nuclear device.” Wright's dismissal of nuance in religion lets his readers conclude (or continue to believe) that anyone who believes in an afterlife necessarily holds Earthly life less dear and is thus on the verge of annihilating the planet. Wright, like anyone else who writes about culture, politics, or society, had the opportunity to challenge the fundamentalist atheism of this comment, yet he didn't. Instead, he limits his consideration of the religious history of the North American continent to those aspects of Christianity that he seems to find puzzling or frightening.
Without a more complete picture of the role religion plays in the U.S., across faiths and denominations, and considering how each intersects with political and social perspectives, readers can't fully understand North America's present, much less engage in its future.
4. Which brings us to the future. Readers deserve a book that goes beyond fingerpointing. But in this book, Wright offers no real solutions--he doesn't even offer questions. Yes, Bush's administration was a nightmare for Iraqis, Afghans, and uninsured Americans, for starters. Yes, the North American continent has a long and sordid history. To which I ask: Now what?
Wright offers very little in response. The positive alternative he cites as the next possibility for “the world's best hope,” the European Union, is “discussed” in less than three full pages (pp 223 – 226).
The sad thing is, Wright missed a golden opportunity to speak meaningfully about the future to Canadians--who live in one of the countries that still has, arguably, a “frontier.” Canada's economy depends largely on its natural resources. Technology will continue to make it easier to extract oil from tar sands and to find and extract natural gas and minerals from previously inaccessible regions. In the next half-century, climate change could drastically alter the Canadian landscape, expanding the amount of arable land and triggering an influx of settlers from the south.
What if Wright had, from his expertise on the perils of colonial expansion, considered explicitly how Canada could create a different future? How could Canadians apply his accumulated knowledge, and the knowledge he draws on, and avoid perpetrating the mistakes of the past? Would it be possible for Canada to be the next “world's best hope”? Wright apparently didn't even entertain the notion.
Another comment from the discussion: “Why should we read books like this, that just offer apocalyptic views of the past and no hope for the future?”
My answer: we shouldn't. Instead, we should demand rigor from our writers, avoid national smugness, embrace nuance, and look for solutions instead of endless analysis. We should should read original sources, learn our own history, reject fundamentalist beliefs in whatever guise they come, and apply what we learn from the past to the future.
That's the biggest disservice Wright did to the Canadian-American discourse: He had the opportunity to write that book. And he squandered it.
~~
* Wright, Ronald. What is America? Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2008. Page references are to the hardcover edition.
** Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. Rev. Ed. New York: Anchor, 2004.
For those of you who haven't read the book, here's what you're missing. The author, born in Britain and now a writer and lecturer in Canadian universities, puts forth the following argument: “[T]he New World made the modern world and now threatens to undo it” (p. 1). After a short introductory chapter, he chronicles the various waves of European contact, colonization, and/or settlement of North America through the centuries. Written before Barak Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and published before he won the 2008 election, the book ends with the suggestion that the best hope for real leadership now comes from the European Union.
Wright tells an ugly story. The continent's history is one of greed, conquest, and relentless domination of the indigenous people. It is a story of people--Europeans, some Spanish but mostly British who become Americans--who use and abuse natural resources until they are spent, and then move on to take advantage of the next resource. It is, in short, a story of people. And it's a story that can't continue in this way. There are precious few “new resources” left on this planet.
I don't dispute the story Wright tells, even as he moves into recent events. I agree that George W. Bush was a disastrous leader and that his “war on terror” has been terrifying indeed. Two years after Wright finished his book, we're watching President Obama struggle with an obscene tangle of economic, political, and social consequences of the Bush administration.
But I still say that this book does not provide any benefits to the political discourse in Canada about the U.S. and the Canadian-American relationship. I think this book, and others written on this same pattern, in fact harms that discourse, for four reasons.
1. Readers deserve a book based on scholarship they can see and trust. This book doesn't make its case. It is set up to look like a carefully researched history--but it's not. The subtitle, “A short history of the new world order,” also suggests history. The book includes 226 pages of text and 142 pages of notes and bibliography. It has all the earmarks of a history, but not the substance. On close inspection, the book doesn't add to the base of knowledge. The information in the text itself was part of the university courses I took in 1982 and before. The notes show that many of Wright's “sources” are not original; they're quoted in someone else's analysis of empire in the U.S. (for example). That's not good, convincing scholarship. Other notes fail to provide a source for the statement in the text. Many contain information of only distant relevance to the material it's supposedly supporting. Many statements of statistics have no footnote at all.
Therefore, it's not a book that can be taken seriously for its scholarly approach to its material, even though the information in the book may well be new or shocking to Canadians. In fact, because the information may be new to Canadians, it should be available in an academically rigorous (yet, ideally, readable) book. Canadians readers would do better to take Wright out of the loop completely and read a few of the books cited in the bibliography.
2. Readers deserve to be told the truth about themselves. The kind of “history” in this book just allows Canadians to feel smug--mistakenly so--about their own past. Although Wright says “the America of my title has two meanings: the great republic most of the world simply calls 'America' and the American landmass as a whole” (p. 12), he focuses mostly on the “great republic,” and secondarily on ancient civilizations in what are now Central and South America. Precious little of his attention goes to Canada--though comments at the book club discussion suggest that perhaps it should have.
One comment at the meeting: “I've always been proud that my ancestors came from England to North America in the 1600s....and now [after reading this book] I'm so glad I don't have dual citizenship.” But until 1815 (or arguably 1776), Canadians and Americans were all British (except for those who were Native or from another European country). In fact, you could argue that Canadians weren't truly Canadians until 1867, by which time the pattern Wright describes--killing off or exploiting Native peoples and taking their wealth and land--had been in full force for nearly 400 years. The 140 to 200 years in which the two countries have had decidedly different histories total only two-fifths to one-fourth of the total time Europeans have been taking advantage of this continent.
Another comment: “I don't know how they [Americans] live with themselves.” The context for this statement was the treatment of native Hawaiians, particularly the last monarchy in the 1880s. Nowhere in the book does Wright mention Canada's 20th-century residential schools for Natives. And he dispatches Canada's history of western expansion and its relationships with Native peoples, including the war against Louis Riel, in two sentences with the remark that the processes in both countries “were all quite similar,” although there was “less fighting” in what is now Canada (p. 166).
Although Canadians are apparently Wright's intended audience (given the Canadian publisher), Wright does not effectively address his Canadian readers. He doesn't actively engage them in reflecting on their own history as part of the North American continent. Canadians could perhaps learn about their own history from the new biography series at Penguin Canada, Extraordinary Canadians.
3. Readers deserve a thorough, useful discussion of the major themes in a work. Yet Wright is ignorant of the history of religion in North America, beyond reading about (not direct reading of) the Puritans and beyond extensive quotation from Jon Krakauer's recent book about Mormonism.** Although Wright correctly identifies religion as a major cultural force in the U.S., he allows for no nuance in religious belief. “One in two Americans rejects the evidence for evolution; the rest of Christendom gave up fighting Darwin a century ago” (p. 16). I suspect this statistic comes from a general survey about religious belief, not specifically about evolution, but it's impossible to know--Wright gives no source for this statistic. (It's not even footnoted.) Wright seems not to understand that it is possible for (North) Americans to identify themselves as BOTH Christians AND scientists. He doesn't even acknowledge, much less explore, the deep divisions in mainstream Christian denominations in the U.S. For the past 150 years, progressive believers have struggled with fundamentalists, like those whose views Wright dismisses as archaic, over issues such as racial equality and marriage rights. These struggles form an important part of the culture and politics of the U.S.--but to Wright, they don't exist.
Another comment at the discussion: “What scares me is that someone who believes in an afterlife has his finger on the trigger of a nuclear device.” Wright's dismissal of nuance in religion lets his readers conclude (or continue to believe) that anyone who believes in an afterlife necessarily holds Earthly life less dear and is thus on the verge of annihilating the planet. Wright, like anyone else who writes about culture, politics, or society, had the opportunity to challenge the fundamentalist atheism of this comment, yet he didn't. Instead, he limits his consideration of the religious history of the North American continent to those aspects of Christianity that he seems to find puzzling or frightening.
Without a more complete picture of the role religion plays in the U.S., across faiths and denominations, and considering how each intersects with political and social perspectives, readers can't fully understand North America's present, much less engage in its future.
4. Which brings us to the future. Readers deserve a book that goes beyond fingerpointing. But in this book, Wright offers no real solutions--he doesn't even offer questions. Yes, Bush's administration was a nightmare for Iraqis, Afghans, and uninsured Americans, for starters. Yes, the North American continent has a long and sordid history. To which I ask: Now what?
Wright offers very little in response. The positive alternative he cites as the next possibility for “the world's best hope,” the European Union, is “discussed” in less than three full pages (pp 223 – 226).
The sad thing is, Wright missed a golden opportunity to speak meaningfully about the future to Canadians--who live in one of the countries that still has, arguably, a “frontier.” Canada's economy depends largely on its natural resources. Technology will continue to make it easier to extract oil from tar sands and to find and extract natural gas and minerals from previously inaccessible regions. In the next half-century, climate change could drastically alter the Canadian landscape, expanding the amount of arable land and triggering an influx of settlers from the south.
What if Wright had, from his expertise on the perils of colonial expansion, considered explicitly how Canada could create a different future? How could Canadians apply his accumulated knowledge, and the knowledge he draws on, and avoid perpetrating the mistakes of the past? Would it be possible for Canada to be the next “world's best hope”? Wright apparently didn't even entertain the notion.
Another comment from the discussion: “Why should we read books like this, that just offer apocalyptic views of the past and no hope for the future?”
My answer: we shouldn't. Instead, we should demand rigor from our writers, avoid national smugness, embrace nuance, and look for solutions instead of endless analysis. We should should read original sources, learn our own history, reject fundamentalist beliefs in whatever guise they come, and apply what we learn from the past to the future.
That's the biggest disservice Wright did to the Canadian-American discourse: He had the opportunity to write that book. And he squandered it.
~~
* Wright, Ronald. What is America? Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2008. Page references are to the hardcover edition.
** Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. Rev. Ed. New York: Anchor, 2004.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Juxtapositions
Lots of back and forth, this week--the cultural equivalent of the weather this February. One day the temperature is above freezing and everything in sight is melting; twelve hours later the temp is 11 below C or 11 above F, the winds are howling, and it's snowing again. Go figure.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Intelligent Move, NOT
Yesterday, one of the government's Ministers admitted to altering a legal document after it was signed.
The document awarded funding to Kairos, an ecumenical group of Canadian churches that advocates for international peace and justice. Or rather, the document apparently offered that aid when the bureaucrats signed it.
Then Bev Oda, International Cooperation Minister, or someone for whom she is now taking the fall after two years of obfuscations and denials, hand-wrote "not" in the award statement. As in, a particular amount is NOT awarded to this group.
Sheesh. It's been, what, 20 years since it was thought "funny" for adolescents say things like, "I like you...NOT" or "Here's some money...NOT."
Here's what happened after she admitted to inserting the "not" yesterday. Here's an article from last week that gives a little more context.
Time for two disclosures. First, I am a (sometimes bewildered but generally supportive) member of Trinity United Church in Thunder Bay, which is part of the United Church of Canada, which is a denomination that is a member of Kairos.
Second, Bev Oda was born in Thunder Bay but is not in government to represent either Thunder Bay riding.
But back to this "not" clause. I knew about the "notwithstanding" clause, which lets the federal government and provincial governments pick and choose among the freedoms granted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Generally, they don't (though some have tried), but they could.
In the U.S., the only thing I know (not that my knowledge of political gamesmanship is vast) that's similar is the Executive Order. The U.S. President (and state governors) can determine the actions of federal (or state, if a governor) employees by issuing one. Executive Orders can be relatively minor (e.g., protecting rivers) or they can do things like effectively set foreign policy by preventing federal employees from interacting with representatives of specific international groups. Here's a list (you can pick years).
In any case, here's the deal. This "not" stuff is junior high. If Bev Oda, or someone else in the Conservative government, is going to go against the recommendations of the people whose job it is to develop expertise and make recommendations, she should make those decisions in public.
And then, she should not lie or mischaracterize or spin them when asked about them later.
And she should be prepared for an exodus of expertise from the civil service. But that's one of the hazards of making ill-considered decisions.
This reprimand by the Speaker, this hoop-de-doo from the opposition, all this STUFF--this never had to happen, had she only behaved like an adult in the first place.
Meanwhile, buy your "Kairos is ^NOT going away" t-shirts here.
The document awarded funding to Kairos, an ecumenical group of Canadian churches that advocates for international peace and justice. Or rather, the document apparently offered that aid when the bureaucrats signed it.
Then Bev Oda, International Cooperation Minister, or someone for whom she is now taking the fall after two years of obfuscations and denials, hand-wrote "not" in the award statement. As in, a particular amount is NOT awarded to this group.
Sheesh. It's been, what, 20 years since it was thought "funny" for adolescents say things like, "I like you...NOT" or "Here's some money...NOT."
Here's what happened after she admitted to inserting the "not" yesterday. Here's an article from last week that gives a little more context.
Time for two disclosures. First, I am a (sometimes bewildered but generally supportive) member of Trinity United Church in Thunder Bay, which is part of the United Church of Canada, which is a denomination that is a member of Kairos.
Second, Bev Oda was born in Thunder Bay but is not in government to represent either Thunder Bay riding.
But back to this "not" clause. I knew about the "notwithstanding" clause, which lets the federal government and provincial governments pick and choose among the freedoms granted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Generally, they don't (though some have tried), but they could.
In the U.S., the only thing I know (not that my knowledge of political gamesmanship is vast) that's similar is the Executive Order. The U.S. President (and state governors) can determine the actions of federal (or state, if a governor) employees by issuing one. Executive Orders can be relatively minor (e.g., protecting rivers) or they can do things like effectively set foreign policy by preventing federal employees from interacting with representatives of specific international groups. Here's a list (you can pick years).
In any case, here's the deal. This "not" stuff is junior high. If Bev Oda, or someone else in the Conservative government, is going to go against the recommendations of the people whose job it is to develop expertise and make recommendations, she should make those decisions in public.
And then, she should not lie or mischaracterize or spin them when asked about them later.
And she should be prepared for an exodus of expertise from the civil service. But that's one of the hazards of making ill-considered decisions.
This reprimand by the Speaker, this hoop-de-doo from the opposition, all this STUFF--this never had to happen, had she only behaved like an adult in the first place.
Meanwhile, buy your "Kairos is ^NOT going away" t-shirts here.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Eight Canadian Actors* Americans Think are American
Because it's awards season. And in no particular order.
1. Mary Pickford (born Gladys Marie Smith in Toronto)
2. Donald Sutherland
3. Kiefer Sutherland (born in London but to Canadian [actor] parents; grandson of CBC's Greatest Canadian Tommy Douglas) (full name: Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus Sutherland)
4. Pamela Anderson (sometimes Lee)*
5. Michael J. Fox
6. Jim Carrey
7. Enrico Colantoni (formerly of "Just Shoot Me")
8. William Shatner
Bonus! A Canadian that Americans think is British: Christopher Plummer
* In this list, "actor" = "celebrity" = "entertainer"
1. Mary Pickford (born Gladys Marie Smith in Toronto)
2. Donald Sutherland
3. Kiefer Sutherland (born in London but to Canadian [actor] parents; grandson of CBC's Greatest Canadian Tommy Douglas) (full name: Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus Sutherland)
4. Pamela Anderson (sometimes Lee)*
5. Michael J. Fox
6. Jim Carrey
7. Enrico Colantoni (formerly of "Just Shoot Me")
8. William Shatner
Bonus! A Canadian that Americans think is British: Christopher Plummer
* In this list, "actor" = "celebrity" = "entertainer"
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
National Anthems
So there was a big sporting event recently (Canadians: not hockey) and somebody flubbed the words to the U.S. National anthem in front of bazillions of people and one kid in a Darth Vader costume.
I am not an apologist for overhyped, overexposed divas. However, here are some thoughts about THAT whole thing.
1. Americans, you're highly offended that said diva doesn't know the words to the national anthem. Do YOU? Really? "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the" what? Night? Fight? Either might work. Don't think about it. You'll have to go look it up if you think too much.
2. Musically, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is damn near impossible to sing UNLESS you're an overhyped diva. Not that overhyped divas sing it at all musically.
3. Canadians, your national anthem is easier, except when Conservatives try to deflect attention from issues by "fixing" words, which I wrote about ad nauseam a year ago.
4. Also Canadians, I still don't get that whole "stand on guard" bit. However, at least when you forget some words, you have a fallback phrase that's got a good chance of being accurate.
5. Is the whole "she flubbed the words" worth getting bent out of shape over? I don't think so--but it is useful to wonder whether some other professional singer might be worth hiring next year, even if they aren't starring in an overhyped, overexposed, underdelivering movie.
6. Here's an idea: Maybe pick someone who's an actual professional SINGER, as opposed to an entertainer. Maybe have a "no diva" policy.
I'm gonna ask that Darth Vader kid to work on THAT.
I am not an apologist for overhyped, overexposed divas. However, here are some thoughts about THAT whole thing.
1. Americans, you're highly offended that said diva doesn't know the words to the national anthem. Do YOU? Really? "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the" what? Night? Fight? Either might work. Don't think about it. You'll have to go look it up if you think too much.
2. Musically, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is damn near impossible to sing UNLESS you're an overhyped diva. Not that overhyped divas sing it at all musically.
3. Canadians, your national anthem is easier, except when Conservatives try to deflect attention from issues by "fixing" words, which I wrote about ad nauseam a year ago.
4. Also Canadians, I still don't get that whole "stand on guard" bit. However, at least when you forget some words, you have a fallback phrase that's got a good chance of being accurate.
5. Is the whole "she flubbed the words" worth getting bent out of shape over? I don't think so--but it is useful to wonder whether some other professional singer might be worth hiring next year, even if they aren't starring in an overhyped, overexposed, underdelivering movie.
6. Here's an idea: Maybe pick someone who's an actual professional SINGER, as opposed to an entertainer. Maybe have a "no diva" policy.
I'm gonna ask that Darth Vader kid to work on THAT.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Borderline Yawn
So, Mr. Harper goes to Washington. He and President Obama talked about border security. They made some announcements about increased security and free trade and more cooperation.
This is the kind of announcement that should provide something interesting for me to say. So I keep waiting for something from this trip to be really earth-shattering and important.
[crickets]
These days, the U.S.-Canada border isn't particularly interesting, at least not in comparison to borders in other places...Gaza, for example.
And hey, after the last two weeks of unrest in places like Tunisia and Egypt, at least President Obama got to talk to a leader who's NOT facing a challenge to his leadership.
Right, Mr. Layton? Mr. Ignatieff? Bueller? Anyone?
[crickets]
Uh-huh.
This is the kind of announcement that should provide something interesting for me to say. So I keep waiting for something from this trip to be really earth-shattering and important.
[crickets]
These days, the U.S.-Canada border isn't particularly interesting, at least not in comparison to borders in other places...Gaza, for example.
And hey, after the last two weeks of unrest in places like Tunisia and Egypt, at least President Obama got to talk to a leader who's NOT facing a challenge to his leadership.
Right, Mr. Layton? Mr. Ignatieff? Bueller? Anyone?
[crickets]
Uh-huh.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
News Flash: Guns, Health Insurance DIFFERENT
Perhaps this should be called "Essential Differences Deux." Here's what we were talking about before. But just when you think the U.S. has chosen to focus on the weather, somebody somewhere does something bizarre.
A state representative introduced legislation in South Dakota that would require each adult over the age of 21 to own a gun.
He acknowledges it's a stunt, designed to show that federal legislation requiring everyone to own health insurance is unconstitutional.
Apparently the logic is this: if the federal government can require everyone to buy health insurance for protection, why can't the state require everyone to buy a gun for protection?
Because, they say, protection is protection is protection, right?
Is it? Because last time I checked, guns are really NOT the same as health insurance. My ability to shoot someone is NOT the same as my ability to receive and pay for an operation or other health care that preserves or restores my health.
And the appliance that moves the computer's cursor is not the same thing as the little brown rodent in the fields or the white rodent that lives in laboratories, even though the word "mouse" describes each one.
Also, stunts like this don't contribute to the conversations about healthcare and gun control that could fruitfully happen in the U.S. They're disrespectful and a big waste of time.
It's this kind of stuff that mystifies me about the U.S.
But don't get smug, Canada: I'm not hearing any letup in the "omigod, we don't want an election!" rhetoric, either.
A state representative introduced legislation in South Dakota that would require each adult over the age of 21 to own a gun.
He acknowledges it's a stunt, designed to show that federal legislation requiring everyone to own health insurance is unconstitutional.
Apparently the logic is this: if the federal government can require everyone to buy health insurance for protection, why can't the state require everyone to buy a gun for protection?
Because, they say, protection is protection is protection, right?
Is it? Because last time I checked, guns are really NOT the same as health insurance. My ability to shoot someone is NOT the same as my ability to receive and pay for an operation or other health care that preserves or restores my health.
And the appliance that moves the computer's cursor is not the same thing as the little brown rodent in the fields or the white rodent that lives in laboratories, even though the word "mouse" describes each one.
Also, stunts like this don't contribute to the conversations about healthcare and gun control that could fruitfully happen in the U.S. They're disrespectful and a big waste of time.
It's this kind of stuff that mystifies me about the U.S.
But don't get smug, Canada: I'm not hearing any letup in the "omigod, we don't want an election!" rhetoric, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
