Decisions, Decisions

We have a new car. Buying it was a difficult decision, one a long time in the making. We decided for no real reason, or rather, for "squishy" reasons. We still need two cars. One of ours was 17 years old (the other is 8). Roy and I connected with a particular sales person who sold a particular kind of car we already knew we wanted. Et cetera.

Similarly, I will no longer be blogging here. Quitting was a difficult decision, one a long time in the making. The reasons are similarly squishy. Nothing horrible has happened. It's just time.

So of course I will now squish about those reasons.

One reason for quitting is that I sometimes feel, walking into a bookstore or surfing along the dewy strands of the Interwebs (to mix metaphors), as if people are clutching at my lapels (more mixture, more metaphors!), begging me to listen to their stories.

I am suffering a surfeit of memoir, a plethora of personal essay.

Actually, that last isn't quite right. I do like to read personal essays. But I am ready for them to be less personal and more essay. I'm very happy for a personal thread to guide me through a topic. I just want more emphasis on the topic and less on the feelings and impressions of the writer.

All of which is a tad hypocritical, since I have written very personal essays and can't promise I'll stop. Someday, a subject will capture my attention, and when I'm ready to consider it in the light of learning, I will. However, given that blogs are a form of personal essay, I can at least stop writing this one, which is more personal and less essay. As it happens, my writing for the foreseeable future will be less essay-ish and more fict-ish (and work-ish).

So the bigger reason for quitting is that others have far more learned things to say than I do about Canada as seen through the eyes of the U.S. and/or Americans (and sometimes vice versa). In the next month or so, I expect to be tidying up in here a little, and I'll include links to some of those people who are doing those "real" things, like collecting and analyzing accents and doing real research into the nuances of that relationship.

It's been an interesting adventure. I am aware that some semi-public mock has been made of me and my opinions. That's unsurprising, given that putting an opinion into a public space like a blog invites responses, of which mock is one form.

But it's also completely surprising, because really, who cares what I think? In the words of The West Wing's Toby Ziegler, "I'm just the guy who does the thing." (Another metaphor: I have apparently run out of pie!)

The point: I am not an expert. Not even a representative opinion. Just a writer. A sometimes cranky fly on the wall. (Stopping with the metaphors now.)

Far more important than all that is this: I am most grateful for those who have engaged me (in real life, given that I am the kind of person who doesn't allow comments here) in discussions about everything from "Of course it's pronounced "ash-phalt"; what are you talking about?" to the wistful "Really? they don't think about us? Not even a little bit?"

I am still find-able. I have a website. I am on Facebook.

In closing: Thank you, everyone. See you across the border.

Obscurity

How come I can labo(u)r away in obscurity but most of the people who belong here can't seem to find it?

I like obscurity, by the way. I have lived my whole life in Flyover Country, on both sides of the border, by choice (after the first 18 years). You can't get more obscure than that and stay on this continent.

In public life, the concepts of "shame" and "inappropriate behavio(u)r" seem to be disappearing. How come? They've served a useful purpose. Redemption stories can't exist without a fall from grace from which the protagonist has to recover. But it seems that today, people who misbehave, even criminally, are not allowed to fall.

Drunken, abusive actors may trip, but celebrity gossip outlets are right there to catch them and keep parading them in front of me--and I have only 2.5 channels on the TV. I don't look at online gossip. I'm relatively protected from the insanity, and I'm still overloaded!

It's not just celebrities. Politicians (on both sides of the border) are ever-more willing to tell whopping lies with a straight face, and idiots train cameras on them, and other idiots buy advertising. It's not just about media market share, though. In Canada's Question Period (no advertising, not a commercial venture), the bigger the lie, the more vociferous the defense. The volume is set at 11. Nobody blushes.

I don't get it.

Anyway, I'm starting a list of people who should join me in obscurity:

* any actor who invites the descriptor "bad boy"
* the former and present cast of Celebrity Apprentice (including the host/producer/progenitor)
* any person photographed not wearing appropriate undergarments
* any public figure who lies on purpose
* any politician who thinks he's smarter than anyone else he knows, especially if he isn't shy about showing his disdain

These people should all be banished.

Or maybe not.

Come to think of it, obscurity could become awfully crowded, and not with the kind of people I enjoy spending time with.

As you were. Strip off your undergarments (not the politicians, please!) and resume your lying, disdainful abuses of power. I'll just be over here, enjoying my elbow room.

Welcome, Here's Your Test

A recent story in the Globe and Mail, by the gifted and talented Joe Friesen, reports on a European survey of immigration policies. Thanks to new efforts to recognize immigrants' professional credentials, Canada now ranks "just short of the best in the world." How very Canadian (pre-podium-owning, of course).

According to the story, one area in which Canada could improve is in political engagement of immigrants--an odd area for Canada's political systems to overlook, because the story indicates that immigrants are known to be politically active.

While cruising around on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada site, I recently discovered that immigrants aged 55 and over are NOT required to take a citizenship test.

I've written before about citizenship and citizenship tests. And yes, I am on record as saying the discussion of the citizenship test on The Agenda was "yawn-inducing," and yes, I now wish I had paid closer attention to the issues. (Sorry, TVO!)

Because here's the real question about citizenship tests. What is the point?

Is it to ensure basic literacy about cultural and political customs and traditions? Okay: who needs this basic literacy--only immigrants, or everyone? Then why are only immigrants tested? You can say that people who grow up in Canada are tested as part of their experience in the school system, but not all participation in school is equal. (Some 48% of Canadians over the age of 16 don't demonstrate "desired" literacy levels for navigating life.)

Yet testing people before allowing them to enter polling booths is discriminatory, according to the US Voting Rights Act; tests kept African-Americans from voting for 100 years. But how far before an election is it OK to test people? Non-citizens are not allowed to vote in this country, so any test immigrants take will be, technically, before a vote.

A second question: Who gets to decide which cultural and political customs and traditions are tested? Are Canadians tested on persians as well as poutine and donair?

And are these tests educationally valid? Do these tests conform to known "best practices"? Can a kinesthetic learner choreograph and perform a dance to demonstrate the hundreds of federal ridings? Are visual learners encouraged to submit dioramas demonstrating their understanding of the role of the Queen in Canadian foreign policy?

Stepping back from the abyss of absurdity, it's still valid to recap this basic question from two years ago: How many current Canadian citizens can pass their test? (This goes for you, too, Americans.)

And now, the new wrinkle: new citizens over the age of 55 don't need to be tested. Why not? According to the Canadian Business online life expectancy calculator, if I were 55 (which I am NOT), all things remaining equal, I'll live to 85. (Note that none of the questions asked where I was born, which demonstrates either that immigrants can be expected to live about as long as Canadians born here, or that the magazine's test is limited.)

So, if I were to become a citizen at 55, I'd have 30 years of voting ahead of me. It would be good for Canada if I, too, had some basic understanding of this country I'm moving to.

If people over 55 are exempt from testing because of potential language difficulties and/or because learning new material is "hard"--well, what favours are you doing these people to expect less of them because they've lived X years? In fact, mental stimulation is still cited by the U.S. NIH as one way to stave off memory loss.

So wouldn't it make the most sense to require all Canadians over the age of 55 to to continue learning? But then we're back to testing everyone before voting.

Worst of all, I'm afraid I have only questions, no solutions. I do think people entering a country should demonstrate a basic knowledge of the country they're entering--but I believe those who live there should have that same basic knowledge. Yet it's discriminatory to deny citizens the right to vote based on the results of any kind of test.

I am also not convinced that citizenship tests are the best way for immigrants to demonstrate the desired understanding of their new country.

And I don't think that something magical happens in a brain at the age of 55 that should exempt people that age from having the basic knowledge required for citizenship.

So...what is the role of the citizenship test again? Never mind. I'll start studying.

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.

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.

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.

What's it All About?

As other attacks (Moscow) and shootings (Florida) take over the news internationally and in the U.S., Tucson is getting a bit of a reprieve from the spotlight.

It's been interesting to hear what Canadians tend to discuss in relation to the shooting, as opposed to what the discussion seems to be about in the U.S.

Canadians tend to want to talk about gun control. To a lesser extent, Canadians relate the Tucson shootings to mental health care, which (as with the rest of the U.S. healthcare system) is bewilderingly different and obviously inferior to Canada's.

The most public exception to this perspective is an opinion "writer" for Maclean's who I prefer not to name out of respect to those who actually write well-thought-out opinion pieces for that publication (even though I frequently disagree with them). This "writer" actually believes that if someone else in the Safeway parking lot had had a gun, fewer people would have been shot. (Aside from the other obviously ridiculous aspects of that statement, here's a question: How does she know no one else in that parking lot was carrying a gun?)

This is a storyline I've heard around the wires in the U.S. as well, which is as close as Americans can come to addressing issues of gun control. Because in the U.S., this event is not about gun control. It can't be. No discussion can be had about gun control, because a discussion that is a hollering match across a divide as wide as the Grand Canyon is not a real discussion.

Instead, the event in the U.S. has apparently become part of the storyline of the new, Republican-"led" Congress, what President Obama will say tonight in the State of the Union address, and whether he will win re-election in 21 months. It's all about the winning and the losing, folks.

Even the attempt to foster better communication (or appear to) by encouraging Democrats and Republicans to sit together, instead of in partisan groups, for tonight's speech has become all about "who's sitting by whom." Politics as high school.

Meanwhile, in Tucson, people are quietly trying to go about their lives. They are paying attention to their own mental health. Regular folks, along with political and religious leaders, are reclaiming the space in which the shootings occurred. The "I know someone who was there" and "I was across the street" and "an injured person is my neighbor" stories are working themselves out in their telling and re-telling.

As days become weeks and months, each person will make choices. They'll change, or not, based on what happened that day. Some may choose to continue to discuss guns, ethnicity, citizenship, mental health, public service, engagement, community.

But one thing Tucsonans know: the shooting is not even remotely about winning and losing. In Tucson, that small city, everyone is connected in some way to that event. They know all too well that real people lost their lives that day; their community lost a measure of innocence. A respected, vibrant Congresswoman struggles to recover. And no one--no one--won.

Food for Patriotic Thought

Temporarily suspending my Monday tradition (since March, anyway) of posting Today's pictures here. Instead, here's a thought or two for my friends on both sides of this border.

Canadians: Peace, order, and good government? Yep. I love the fact that I have access to healthcare here. I love that I can choose the most appropriate medical care for my unique situation, without limits. Why does this country not extend this right to the women in countries to whom it gives aid? The maternal health bill presented at the G20 summit does not allow women in countries WHERE ABORTION IS LEGAL to receive abortions if the organization providing it receives Canadian aid dollars. Maternal health initiatives should cover a full range of maternal health options. Good policy? No. Good government? No.

Americans: Liberty and justice for all? Well, almost all. For all who aren't gay or lesbian and want to commit to a relationship, that is. If you're gay or lesbian, you can't enjoy the same legal and human rights and responsibilities as the non-gay non-lesbian population. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be told that you are not fully human, that the self-evident truths people wave flags about and get misty-eyed over and shoot fireworks about AND GET KILLED FOR don't apply to YOU. I cannot imagine what people demonstrating against marriage rights will tell their grandchildren--what they tell their children and grandchildren now, some percentage of whom are gay or lesbian. I mean, I know what they say; you can read it far too many places. I just can't belive that they say it.

And so, to paraphrase Shakespeare: if we are poisoned, do we not die? And if you poison these people, do they not die? And if they die, do we not die a little, also?

Come on. Every woman, not just the women in Canada, is entitled to all the healthcare that's legal in her country, and Canada should be helping her fight to be sure she gets it, not holding her back. And about that right to marry--can we please just let every adult (yes, even the stupid prejudiced ones) get married?

Why are we even having these fights? In both countries, we need to move on. We are playing Russian Roulette with oil and drilling and the environment (and in this Canada with these gun laws, that's some feat, let me tell you), but until we (in both countries) love our neighbo(u)rs, both those next door and those on other continents, we will be spiteful and distracted and unable to focus on solutions. So put away the flags and facepaint. Start improving the world instead of bragging about it.

Okay, putting soapbox away now. Pictures will resume soonish.

Likes and Dislikes, Edited in Red (Happy Canada Day)

Like: Turning the page on the calendar over to the new month. Dislike: The alarming frequency with which I am doing it. Dislike #2: Realizing later that what I mean is rapidity, more than frequency, though frequency is no picnic either. Still, either is better than not turning pages at all.

Like: Pageantry, ritual, pomp, and ceremony. Dislike: Smug unthinking patriotism. It's a tough time of year for one as suspicious as I am.

Like: Writing and playing, paying bills and contributing to the greater social fabric. Dislike: Deadlines and having enough mental capacity to give only to them, not to share with the rest of the possible ways to write and play.

Like: Working when everyone else is on holiday. I get a lot done. Dislike: Working when everyone else is on holiday. I feel I should be more fun. But hey, I like it.

Real Crisis? or Fake?

In this country, a cabinet minister was fired yesterday. Or rather, her resignation was accepted and she was kicked out of the Conservative party. The RCMP has been called in. This is a really big deal.

Why? Dunno. Don't even know when we'll know.

Why? Because the Prime Minister didn't say, "We've referred the matter to XYZ organization, and more details will be forthcoming as we know them," it was "We've referred the matter to XYZ organization, and that's really all you need to know."

Sorry, Mr. Prime Minister--you don't get to decide what we know. And thanks to his instinct to control news and determine what people do and don't know (about things that aren't even directly connected to himself), he's created a fake crisis situation.

Contrast that with what's now happening in Poland, where one plane crash has taken out all of the senior government officials. All of 'em: financial, political, military. THAT's a crisis. One can ask why they were all traveling on the same plane, but still. They're facing something horrible, difficult--REAL. It's not manufactured by someone trying to retain power by withholding information.

Even though this particular minister has long been a resignation just waiting to be tendered, the Prime Minister tolerated her. Praised her, even. So this about-face and closed mouth is startling. And speculation is rampant. In fact, the very LACK of information may be creating Himalayas out of the Niagara escarpment.

People always talk about Prime Minister Harper's intelligence and political instinct. They must mean only that he's book-smart and goes for the jugular. They can't mean that he understands the power of human imagination.

If he did, his announcement would have been quite different. It would have been open and responsible. And he would not be in the midst of a self-made crisis.

Two Rs, Two Ss, Two Countries: Embarrassment

Honestly, people.

In Canada

• Stephen Harper "releases documents" about Afghan detainees--a disorganized crapload of redaction. Two boxes of deliberately NOT what the Opposition requested. A cheap political stunt.
• A University of Ottawa right-wing politician (there is one in Canada, yes) (a) invites Ann Coulter to speak as a political analyst, and (2) sets up a scene so that she imagines some grounds for filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
• Canadian media cover the event as if she were a legitimate political analyst while labeling her a political entertainer. She claims she's using satire and being funny. Her presence in the world is to entertainment as championship wrestling is to Olympic wrestling. As in, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

In the U.S.

• As healthcare is debated and addressed in Congress, demonstrators hurl epithets at everyone from legislators to the president. I don't understand why anyone imagines name-calling is at all helpful. You think anyone you call "babykiller" is going to be interested in anything else you say?
• Democratic lawmakers get death threats and their offices are vandalized. It's not a political "statement": it's a crime. Do they not understand that?
• Republican lawmakers wait a day or two to speak out against the violence. Why is that? Do they support it? And by the way, as long as I've already mentioned Ann Coulter in this post, how do Republicans feel about how she represents the current administration, Muslims, and camels? Anyone willing to say publicly that she does not speak for you? I thought not.
• John McCain defends Sarah Palin. If he could only admit he was wrong and that she is now wrong, he'd regain the respect of 2/3 of the country and could contribute something of value to the country he claims to love so much. But he's always been the North Wind, not the Sun.

It's no wonder I'm crabby. I'm embarrassed by events and people on both sides of this border. I've had to name both Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin in this, my own space, where I try to keep the poison to a minimum. Grr.

For some people, apparently, spring is just a time of change--not hope. I'm trying not to be one of those people. I'm trying to look for a reason to smile in the insanity. Failing that, I guess I'll just have to smile anyway. Just don't tell me I have to.

The Ick

...has invaded our home. Fortunately for me, I'm still well. However, my husband is not.

When I got s-ick with any kind of gastroenteritis thing in the U.S., I knew that resting at home and replacing fluids were my treatments. For one thing, that's all that ever worked. And for another, it was extremely expensive to go to the doctor to be told to rest at home and replace fluids. Especially when I already knew that.

But here, going to the ER (or what is called Emerg [pronounced emerge] in this country) isn't guaranteed to cost a small fortune. It's an actual feasible thing to do, if you don't mind being triaged with a bunch of other sick people.

So because it's an option, I wonder: when do I go (or drag Mr. Sick)? I know what they will say: stay home, rest, replace fluids. So we don't go. And I hope that if/when I am really coping with something beyond my medical experience, I remember that I can get help without concern for cost.

Sorry to rub it in, Americans. But I have to say, that peace of mind is worth paying taxes for.

Clarifying the National Anthem

Yesterday was the Speech from the Throne. Americans: It's somewhat analogous to the State of the Union Address in that it's a general statement of vision, with some bullet points. The more specific info comes today at 4, with the budget speech in the House of Commons.

Dilettante alert: I don't pretend to do a close analysis of either speech. I wait to hear what the news people say about it and read it if I hear something interesting. So here's what I looked at this morning: "Our Government will also ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral English wording of the national anthem."

I was pretty interested in this. What with all the Canadians singing it at the Winter Olympics (ahem: owning that podium, one might say), the anthem has been on my mind lately. And frankly, I've always been curious about what exactly I'm supposed to do when I "stand on guard." It's all over the anthem. But what is it?

Alas, that remains a mystery. Apparently the phrase in question is "True patriot love in all thy sons command." The original, pre-WWI wording: "True patriot love thou dost in us command." Proposed: "True patriot love in all our hearts command."

Okay, whatever. Obviously, this anthem issue isn't the most important problem Canada faces. Obviously, changing the wording of the anthem hurts no one--and doesn't particularly improve the status of women, either. Still, symbols are important.

And if symbols are important, what IS all this about standing on guard? It's military. Is that what Canada the nation is--a primarily military construct? The role and definition of peacekeeping, and Canada's strong identification with peacekeeping (vs. what? war-waging? ah: war-mongering!), has been under discussion (one might say "under attack") since Afghanistan.

The anthem's Wikipedia entry, which is likely not the repository of all official information about the anthem, lists many revisons to the anthem through the 20th century. They seem to be responses to changing social conditions, not real changes in Canada's self-definition. I was interested to learn that the anthem once had even MORE standing on guard.

Meanwhile, south of the border, Americans stoutly sing their national anthem despite its inherent melodic challenges without knowing the words beyond the first and last phrases. The American anthem supports a cottage industry of people writing new popular patriotic songs, particularly in the country music world, as Americans search for a song that (1) they can sound good while singing and that also (2) makes them feel good (even better!) about themselves.

Maybe that's what Canada needs: A Lee Greenwood-style, "God Bless the U.S.A."-type song.

Or, hmmm, maybe not.

But in the post-Vancouver-Olympics, post-Copenhagen, mid-Afghanistan, mid-economic crisis world, here's the real question: How can Canada best participate as a responsible world citizen while supporting its own people: citizens and residents?

Specifics to follow, today, at 4.

Canadian Content at Christmas

The original words to this Christmas carol are in Wendat, the language of the Huron people; the tune is a traditional French folk song.

It was written in the 1600s by a Christian missionary, Jean de Brébeuf, at Saint-Marie among the Hurons. It has since been translated into French and English, of course. However, the English translation is relatively recent -- the best-known translation was in 1926. In this version, you get to hear all three languages.

I learned all of this more or less against my will. Last night, I was driving home from a late coffee with a pal and CBC radio was keeping me company. One of my least-favourite programs, The Vinyl Cafe, came on.

(The Vinyl Cafe is similar to Garrison Keillor's radio stuff. For me, a little goes a long way. And yes, I realize that feeling ambivalent about The Vinyl Cafe makes me un-Canadian. I am okay with that. I also dislike Jimmy Stewart, for the most part, which makes me un-American, especially at this It's a Wonderful Life time of year.) (Blech. Ptooey. Just trying to get that saccharine taste out of my mouth.)

I nearly turned to CBC Radio 2, or another station, or silence. But I didn't. And my reward for keeping an open mind about The Vinyl Cafe was hearing a lovely version of this carol and learning all this Canadiana.

I suspect I was already supposed to know this, but some information just doesn't stick until you hear it late at night, at the end of a long day, while driving in the frozen darkness toward your warm, love-filled home.

It's nice when "life lessons" like "keep an open mind, already!" bring immediate rewards like this. And if you find yourself singing "Jesous Ahatonhia" later today, don't be surprised. It's catchy that way.

Who, Indeed?

Did you hear the one about how The Government can track your location based on the currency you carry?

I did, and I live in the very last house on Paranoia Lane so everyone else must have heard it by this time. There are strips in $20 bills that tell the government where you are at any given time. It's true. It was on The X Files. Seriously. (Or maybe not so seriously. It was on The X Files, though.)

Here's a new twist. Now, FOREIGN Governments can track your location through radio frequency transmitters embedded in their money. If you happen to be carrying one of these poppy quarters, that is.


The quarters were issued to commemorate Canada's war dead. Apparently the coating over the red poppy was designed to protect the poppy from rubbing off as the coins circulated. Or to hide a radio transmitter, according to widespread rumors in 2006. Depending on your level of paranoia.

Here's the AP story. Note this part:

"I don't think it is an issue of the Canadians being the bad guys," the Pentagon's counterintelligence chief wrote, "but then again, who knows."

"Who knows"? Seriously, that's the response? In 2006, five years after 9/11 and amid the ongoing mistaken belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, U.S. officials at the Pentagon still didn't have a sense of Canadian security?

I'm not necessarily saying that Canada is as serious about border security as the U.S. I have no idea -- but then again, I don't work for the Pentagon (as far as you know). Surely U.S. security officials, whose job it is to protect U.S. borders, have some idea of the policies and attitudes in Canada, the country that shares the much-touted longest undefended border.

You'd think, anyway. I know I'd expect that.

But then again, who knows?

P.S. Can I also mention that perhaps the U.S. does NOT grossly underestimate Canadian intelligence forces? It's entirely possible for Canadians to be as bad as the next bad guys (in an extremely polite way, of course). Perhaps Canada designed this tracking system to see which Americans actually hang onto their Canadian currency after it's slipped to them accidentally in casinos.

No doubt CSIS worked with the keen minds in charge of security at the Royal Canadian Mint, which last summer lost $15.3 million in gold. That's actual gold, not $15.3 million in value. The stuff they show in blocks in the movies. The real thing. And thank goodness that they're pursuing this investigation "rather vigorously," according to the story.

Finally, stories like this one remind Canadians that the U.S. really doesn't understand that it is NOT the centre of the universe. Or center, either.

Thursday Miscellany

Because none of these is really a topic unto itself.

• Pronunciation: I have heard two people up here (one famous and one no so much) pronounce the first syllable of "frontier" to rhyme with "prawn." Or as if the person is saying "frond-tier" without an audible d. I realize that it's irresponsible to generalize when n = 2, so I'm keeping my ears open.
• American gate-crashers: In West Wing World, Chief of Staff Leo McGarry would use the incident at the recent U.S. state dinner as further evidence that his staff can't even eat a pancake breakfast without screwing up somehow. I wonder how many low-level staffers crowd around to watch old episodes to see what is coming. You'd think they'd expend some effort trying to prevent easily preventable foul-ups. Though truthfully, if they're watching West Wing episodes, they probably let the couple in because the wife is a ringer for Donna Moss. Only more superficial. And with worse hair, speaking of superficial.
• Canadian politics: Oh for crying out loud. I agree with Paul Wells in the recent print edition of Macleans. Torture, harmonizing (raising) sales taxes, Copenhagen and climate change -- up here, it's not about the issues. That would require discussion of, well, torture, taxation, and climate change. No, Wells says, and I agree, that it's all about the polls: what does this issue mean to the government? Will this issue inspire the Liberals to cause this government to fall? If so, will Harper win his majority?
• Culture: Today's aria from the opera Harper in China is entitled, "I know you are but what am I?" It opens, "It's been too long since the Canadian Prime Minister came to Canada, and oh by the way how dare you lecture us about human rights, you torturer of Afghan detainees?" to which our hero(?) replies, "And how long has it been since Chinese leaders visited us, purveyor of lethal baby formula and false visuals from YOUR Olympics?" It closes with a unison chorus of "Hello, pot? This is kettle. You're black."

Yesterday the bay outside our house was clear. Today it has ice floes, the first of the season. Plus snow, on an otherwise sunny day. Life is good, in other words. (Except for the torture, taxation, and climate change parts.)

A Good Beginning

What the heck is going on in Afghanistan these days? Are Canadian forces "coming home" in 2011 or not? What does "coming home" mean, anyway?

Enough with the questions. Here's a new site to help give Canadians, and anyone else who looks, a chance to learn more about Afghanistan and what Canada's forces are doing there: Learn the Facts: Afghanistan.

It's a new site, just finding its feet, its experts, its content. It wants to "provide objective information from credible sources in a clear, deliverable way." It was founded and is managed by two civilian students at the Royal Military College of Canada.

The site may not now be, and won't be, perfect. However, the idea -- providing a place for learning and discussion, when media coverage is superficial and driven by politics -- is excellent.

One hears a lot of claims about "new media." But if this site, like Factcheck.org (also not perfect but better than nothing), is an example of "new media," I'm all for it.

What's Up with the Yanks?

No, this has nothing to do with baseball. Not those Yankees. I'm talking about the rest of them--all 300 million who live in that big country south of here.

Here's something I never thought I'd say: I miss watching Regis and Kelly.

Now I have to back-pedal. The show used to come on after Canada AM, at 9 a.m. On occasion, I slept late and could still find myself sitting dazed on the couch downing coffee at 9, and I would watch their morning "host chat."

I never watched the show when I lived in the U.S.--I didn't need to. However, now that I'm in this "whole other country," I found Regis and Kelly to be a really useful way to keep up with popular culture in the U.S.

Sure, I could find other ways to find out what's on the mind of the Average American. But what else popped into my living room conveniently at 9 a.m. for 15 minutes? Nothing, that's what.

Instead of showing R&K, the local channel bumped the Christian morning show (brrr) into the 9 a.m. slot and runs The View at 11. I have tried watching The View. Too much shrieking and direct sales. Whoopi isn't worth it.

So that leaves me with Entertainment Tonight, which is nauseating about half the time. Plus the internet, plus various other social media.

But geez. No Regis bewailing the performance of his Notre Dame football team of a Monday morning? No Kelly to talk about her shoes and her family and her dog and the production assistant's upcoming wedding?

OK, it was never particularly fascinating. But I was used to it, darn it. Farewell, acquaintances-I-never-really-liked. See you on Facebook.

A Tale of Two Doctors

I've seen a few medical professionals lately. I pretend it has nothing to do with getting older. In fact, it doesn't; it has to do with having checkups.

Tuesday, I went to a physician's office. I flashed my health card and was ushered in to talk with the physician. When we were done, I made an appointment for my physical and left with an order for routine blood tests. No money exchanged hands. I had no co-payment. I will not receive a bill for 20% of the charge up to some amount.

This is the kind of health care Canadians like to talk about, and with good reason. When you're sick, you get care. However, when you're healthy, as I am, and you live in an area where family physicians are scarce, as I do, getting regular medical care requires jumping through hoops. Still, I get by with a little help from friends...and now I have a doctor.

Wednesday, I saw the dentist. At the end of the appointment, I went to the desk and made an appointment for a repeat in 9 months. I also received a photocopy of the form they're submitting to my insurance provider. When the insurance company pays for everything it pays for, there will be a balance left to pay, and I will be expected to pay it.

If this process sounds familiar to you Americans, it should. Routine preventive dentistry is exempt from the "free" medical care. So are routine hearing health and routine eye exams. For those health professionals, you need deep wallets or insurance. And insurance determines what treatments are covered (fluoride is not) and how often I get cleanings (every 9 months; other insurance I've had allows cleanings every 6 months).

Some issues with hearing, vision, or teeth are considered "medical" and therefore would be covered. If you suddenly lose hearing and see your physician, she may order a test from the audiologist to determine what hearing is lost and refer you to an ENT specialist or neurologist. Those kinds of problems are deemed to be "medical."

But if you're losing hearing and it looks like routine aging, you're outta luck. What about the fact that if you can't hear what your physician says, you won't follow instructions? Maybe you take two pills at bedtime instead of one pill at a time, 12 hours apart? And if you have a mouthful of decayed teeth, your overall health is at risk. That stuff isn't addressed as well up here.

Medications are also not covered. So, for example, your pharmaceutical insurance might allow you to receive chemotherapy at home. Or it might not. It might defray 80% of the cost of some drugs, and leave you on the hook for the full price of others.

Of course, that state of affairs is "normal" in the U.S. Hearing aids are expensive; many boomers should have them and can't afford them. Your insurance may not cover an experimental chemotherapy, even though your participation may benefit not only you but the entire population who has the same cancer.

When I was having my teeth x-rayed, I heard a young woman talking with a hygienist. She said, "When you don't have dental insurance, you're obsessive with the floss." I would submit that those of us who do have dental insurance can also be obsessive with the floss, and that floss isn't the answer to all dental problems. Of course, her point is that not all medical care is free even on this "socialist" side of the border.

And as I have said before, medical systems are systems, with emphasis on the word system. No system is perfect.

But this system has advantages, I have to say. I really wish Americans weren't so afraid of it.

Twenty-Five Hours, and a Bonus Later!

We've had a bit of a windstorm here, with trees down and power lost. News reports indicate that thousands of people in and around the city lost power for some varying amount of time.

Here in paradise, we were without power for more than 25 hours--from 2:45 on Monday afternoon to 4:30 yesterday. In the country, as in the city, electricty provides for functions such as heating and refrigeration/freezing of food. But out here, when the electricity goes out, the water pump and heater also go out. That means no flushing, no washing of hands, no warm water, no showers.

I spent much of the time huddled in a chair--reading something without necessarily paying attention, eating cheap cookies, and wondering when oh when the power was coming back. When it got dark, we sat in candlelight and envied people across the bay who seemed to have power.

OK, I did that envying part. My husband took the whole event pretty much in stride. In the daylight, he got the chainsaw out to clear our driveway of the huge spruce tree down across the end. To do that, he had to mess with various chainsaws and eventually build one of parts. Last night he fixed all the problems and we now have either four operative chainsaws, only one of which is wonky to start. During dark hours, he tried to engage me in chat. Good man.

His aplomb makes me wonder now why it was so hard for me to just go with the flow. Oh, sure--the sound of the wind is eerie. Plus it's worrisome, to say the least, to see very very tall trees all around you bending 45 degrees in one direction and 45 degrees in the other. It's almost worse at night when you can't see it but still know it's happening.

Normally I'm pretty calm and reliable in an emergency/crisis/difficulty. I can figure out what's important and focus on that. I let the back of my mind work on other eventualities but don't lose track of the here and now.

But in this case, I dithered and crumbled. Part of my problem was that I had no idea what time period I was working with. I didn't know what problems needed solutions and what could just go by the wayside.

For example, coffee. At the house, we have no provision for making coffee without electricity. However, at the camp, we have a couple of ways to do it. When I got up yesterday morning, I wondered whether I should walk down to the camp (10 minutes), make coffee there, and bring it back--our equivalent of a run to a coffee shop for a to-go mug. As it happens (we discovered later), nine large trees block the path between here and there, so that solution wouldn't have been quite so easy. However, I abandoned that idea early on because SURELY THE POWER WOULD COME ON SOON.

We also have a generator. We plugged the basement freezer into it for a time, in the hope that that much power would keep its contents from spoiling. I'm not sure it did, but it helped. But anyway, by the time we had that freezer set up, I had moved past finding a solution to having morning coffee, and it didn't occur to me to plug in the coffeemaker. All of which made rest of the day less pleasant than it might have been. Even though we were making plans in case the power didn't come on soon, SURELY IT WOULD.

I didn't even have to be cut off from the world. I own two battery-powered computing devices and our phone line worked, so theoretically I could get online. But I didn't, and I didn't see the point in trying, because SURELY THE POWER WOULD COME ON SOON. We don't have a battery-powered radio, though of course we could sit in the car to hear news reports if we needed to, but I didn't really think I needed to because (all together now) SURELY THE POWER...well.

I like to think that if someone had said to me, "You'll be without power for 25 hours," I'd have been able to cope better. But I'm not sure that that's true, given my bonus lesson.

After we got our power back, I used electricity like a woman possessed. I flushed toilets. I dried clothes. I turned lights on and off in rooms as I needed to: flick, the magic of light! of dark! light! dark! I washed dishes and myself. And yes, I made coffee. And then supper. Ahh, normal life.

And then, as we were drinking coffee and watching the sunset stain the sky and lake pink, the power went out again.

I wish I could say I cheerily lit candles and we counted our blessings, grateful for the gift of the few hours of power that would surely give us the fortitude to soldier on through the dark evening.

Instead, I put my head down on the plastic placemat, trying to avoid getting drips of candle wax in my clean hair, and said words I try to avoid saying aloud. Eventually, yes, we re-lit candles. Roy built the fire in the stove; the temperature fell with the night. He took a drive to assess the extent of the outage. I phoned the power company and heard their automated voice predicting that we would have power back by 10 p.m. I crossed my fingers.

I did rally. I returned to dull resignation, a step up from the semi-annoyed semi-comatose cookie-eating state. I wasn't being a particularly good sport, but I did force myself to be vocally grateful for the fact that I was clean, warm, fed, and dry.

The power came back on much sooner than predicted--this outage lasted only an hour. Even I am not egotistical enough to think that the relatively brief duration was a cosmic reward for my minimal effort to behave like a reasonable adult when faced with a minor difficulty. But I was sure grateful for it.

And I have tried to be grateful today--aloud. Often. And I wrote down the whole "plug the coffemaker into the generator" idea in case I lose my problem-solving ability next time, too.

Because there will be a next time--there's always something. And I'm already grateful that I have the chance to handle it with more grace.