Canada's having an election. It's silly season up here. By mid-morning, the election was officially happening; by 2, we'd had a call about putting up a yard sign, out here in the boonies.
But here's something that's cool. This tool is a window into Canadian political parties: the VoteCompass survey. The developer, based on published statements from the political parties, has prepared sentences. You register how strenuously you agree or disagree with those statements. At the end, you can see which party your views are closest to.
The graph at the end is very interesting. Lots of options in the "socially liberal, politically liberal" quadrant. One in the "socially conservative, politically conservative" quadrant. The other two are empty of parties.
And yes you can take it even if you're not Canadian.
Watching the political theatre unfold over the last few days has erased, once and for all, the illusion that Canadians are polite -- unless Canadian politicians don't count.
It's one thing to know that your job may well end after the vote on the first Tuesday in November, 2012. It's another thing entirely to have all the other people you have been working with stand up and vote that you're impossible to work with. Then you have to go to the Governor General and admit as much. It seems a little humiliating.
Not that I feel sorry for the former Prime Minister. If you treat Canadians' elected representatives with contempt, and then demonstrate only bitterness and irritation for getting called out on it, you don't really care about the Canadian people. Saying that you do, no matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it true.
Too bad the humiliation hasn't taught him humility. Perhaps the voters will.
Showing posts with label myth-busting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label myth-busting. Show all posts
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
A Boot? A Boat?
Everybody knows Canadians say "aboot" for the word "about." Well, at least all Americans who have seen Bob and Doug McKenzie know that.
But wait! From a fascinating blog that looks at all kinds of accents comes the assertion "Canadian Raising: Nobody Says Aboot."
I suspect it's dangerous to say that "nobody" says "aboot." However, it's obviously accurate to say that "not all Canadians" say it. And possibly more Canadians don't than do.
Similarly, not all Americans say "y'all" and "all y'all," even though they are extremely useful as gender-neutral ways to convey "you guys."
But hey, what a site! He has clips of Canadians speaking and everything! And introductory material explaining the International Phonetic Alphabet! And maps of accents!!! Go look, but beware: Hours of procrastination ahead!
But wait! From a fascinating blog that looks at all kinds of accents comes the assertion "Canadian Raising: Nobody Says Aboot."
I suspect it's dangerous to say that "nobody" says "aboot." However, it's obviously accurate to say that "not all Canadians" say it. And possibly more Canadians don't than do.
Similarly, not all Americans say "y'all" and "all y'all," even though they are extremely useful as gender-neutral ways to convey "you guys."
But hey, what a site! He has clips of Canadians speaking and everything! And introductory material explaining the International Phonetic Alphabet! And maps of accents!!! Go look, but beware: Hours of procrastination ahead!
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.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Wikileak Worthy
I've been trying to come up with something to say about the Wikileaks "revelations" about Canada. I'm feeling a little...torn, I guess you could say.
Here's what my Canadian half has to say.
Here's what my American half has to say.
I don't mean to make mock. Well, maybe a little mock.
But hey, World, here's the deal: Diplomacy is not the same as honesty. They have a separate word for it and everything.
Now, isn't there something else we could all be doing? Like maybe not bombing each other?
Here's what my Canadian half has to say.
I don't know, I just wonder, maybe, I guess I'm saying that what I think I might want to say, isn't really, you know, very...pithy or interesting or...valid. It's not as good as what Americans say about Canada, that's for sure.
Because they think we have an, um, inferiority complex? Like, we are so inferior, because of being, um, smaller and not-American, as a country, that is (because we are waaaay bigger in square miles, really, and three coastlines to contend with), and sometimes we show how bad we feel about ourselves by overcompensating and pretending to act all superior and smug.
Like when we make the U.S. the bad guys on our TV shows, and I might add those are based on real-life stories like Maher Arar, but maybe, you know, that's out of line.
Or maybe when we point out that we're actually, like, BIGGER than the U.S. as well as a whole separate country, and therefore, not-American is pretty much exactly how we should feel.
I'm sorry. Was I too loud? Just...I need a moment. Thanks.
Here's what my American half has to say.
Canada. Yeah. Hmm. They're like, north of Alaska? We don't really need them, not for anything important like oil or building materials or minerals or anything. Wait, let me check my BlackBerry...C-a-n-a... Oh, the Olympics, right. Like that hockey game meant something. They speak some French up there, don't they, and have a lady on their money?
I don't mean to make mock. Well, maybe a little mock.
But hey, World, here's the deal: Diplomacy is not the same as honesty. They have a separate word for it and everything.
Now, isn't there something else we could all be doing? Like maybe not bombing each other?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
My Birthday Gift
Today I am older--by one day, yeah, but also by a year and that year ends in "0" and I am now officially a crotchety old lady.
In that spirit, here's what I want for my birthday this year.
Americans: Vote. I don't care how angry or disillusioned you are, go vote. Then stop focusing on what "the government" is or isn't doing, did or didn't do, will or won't do. If you have a job, work and be glad. If it isn't the perfect job, work and be glad and learn what you can. Feed your soul and exercise your body. With the rest of your time, be with your kids instead of fretting about what you can't buy them--have them read to you or tell you a story. Go visit old people--smile at the chronically ill. Clean up the trash on the highway. Volunteer somewhere, somehow. There is always something that needs doing. So stop talking and go do it.
Canadians: Let go of the smug. The Canadian economy is barely hanging on and Canadians are getting more deeply into personal debt. An election is coming, sooner or later, and you'll have the opportunity then to choose your leadership. Meanwhile, you can also stop complaining--about the Harper government's disdain for scientific expertise and basic honesty, perhaps; both issues well worth complaining about--and work with your chosen party to research and propose some alternatives. But mostly, don't bother feeling superior to your neighbours in the U.S. Complaining about the government that's in power but refusing to clamour for its removal is its own form of insanity.
Don't make me come back there, y'all. Just smarten up and we'll get along fine for the next several decades.
In that spirit, here's what I want for my birthday this year.
Americans: Vote. I don't care how angry or disillusioned you are, go vote. Then stop focusing on what "the government" is or isn't doing, did or didn't do, will or won't do. If you have a job, work and be glad. If it isn't the perfect job, work and be glad and learn what you can. Feed your soul and exercise your body. With the rest of your time, be with your kids instead of fretting about what you can't buy them--have them read to you or tell you a story. Go visit old people--smile at the chronically ill. Clean up the trash on the highway. Volunteer somewhere, somehow. There is always something that needs doing. So stop talking and go do it.
Canadians: Let go of the smug. The Canadian economy is barely hanging on and Canadians are getting more deeply into personal debt. An election is coming, sooner or later, and you'll have the opportunity then to choose your leadership. Meanwhile, you can also stop complaining--about the Harper government's disdain for scientific expertise and basic honesty, perhaps; both issues well worth complaining about--and work with your chosen party to research and propose some alternatives. But mostly, don't bother feeling superior to your neighbours in the U.S. Complaining about the government that's in power but refusing to clamour for its removal is its own form of insanity.
Don't make me come back there, y'all. Just smarten up and we'll get along fine for the next several decades.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Of Asphalt and Potatoes
I'm back from a brief sojourn in Winnipeg, where I collected charming examples of all the funny ways in which people in this fine country pronounce their words.
Like, for example, asphalt. Note the spelling: a s p h a l t. NOT a s H p h a l t. So why do they say it "ash-fault"?
Answer: they just do, okay?
And then there's potato. Which I have recently heard pronounced "puh-DAY-duh." I was informed that Red Green, a faux person I had to look up, says it this way. Well, so does an otherwise veddy proper CBC radio guest who sounded as if she affected it for some reason unknown to me.
Not that I say, precisely, "poe-TAY-toe." More like "puh-TAY-doe."
And then, as I am about to pontificate about asphalt, I discover this Wikipedia entry for Canadian English. The fine folks at Wikipedia have been compiling alongside me. And a fine job they have done, too.
But remember, Canada is a big place. Rather like the U.S., where I grew up saying neither "soda" (affected Yankee-ism) nor "pop" (pff, that baby word), but "coke." As in, "What kind of Coke do you want? We have 7-up or Dr. Pepper." And this was a universal usage in my hometown, not one of those "your family talks funny" usages.
The point is, as I have mentioned before in relation to Canada and Canadians, beware of too-broad brushstrokes.
And now, I'm off to steam a pudayduh on the ashphalt. It's just THAT hot 'n' muggy here.
Like, for example, asphalt. Note the spelling: a s p h a l t. NOT a s H p h a l t. So why do they say it "ash-fault"?
Answer: they just do, okay?
And then there's potato. Which I have recently heard pronounced "puh-DAY-duh." I was informed that Red Green, a faux person I had to look up, says it this way. Well, so does an otherwise veddy proper CBC radio guest who sounded as if she affected it for some reason unknown to me.
Not that I say, precisely, "poe-TAY-toe." More like "puh-TAY-doe."
And then, as I am about to pontificate about asphalt, I discover this Wikipedia entry for Canadian English. The fine folks at Wikipedia have been compiling alongside me. And a fine job they have done, too.
But remember, Canada is a big place. Rather like the U.S., where I grew up saying neither "soda" (affected Yankee-ism) nor "pop" (pff, that baby word), but "coke." As in, "What kind of Coke do you want? We have 7-up or Dr. Pepper." And this was a universal usage in my hometown, not one of those "your family talks funny" usages.
The point is, as I have mentioned before in relation to Canada and Canadians, beware of too-broad brushstrokes.
And now, I'm off to steam a pudayduh on the ashphalt. It's just THAT hot 'n' muggy here.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Claustrophobia
In October, Delta-which-bought-United-Northwest-whatever will suspend its air service between Thunder Bay and Minneapolis.
The service has apparently been faltering for some time. It's inconvenient, scheduled apparently without regard to matching the schedules of incoming flights, so that connecting from Tucson requires either a multi-hour wait or a sprint. It doesn't fly in bad weather, which I suppose is understandable, but summer flights are always iffy and nerve-wracking. It's not dependable service.
And it's hugely, hugely expensive, relative to the cost of other legs of a flight: $400 easily. Recently, a day's drive to Minneapolis, a night at a motel, and a drive home--repeated--has won out over this crappy service.
And I wonder: aren't most of these complaints about the TB/Mpls route applicable to other routes? The primary difference is that Delta was the only option. And now it's going away.
All of which makes me extremely claustrophobic. I feel trapped here.
It makes no sense. I have chosen not to use the service, so really I shouldn't complain if the service goes away. PLUS not using the service has given me first-hand experience in getting out of this country. (I drove across! Both ways! Twice! In the past two weeks!!) AND it's not like the Thunder Bay airport is shutting down. I can always get to Toronto!
Not only that, but I'm here in this country by choice. I really really WANT to be here. And I have a difficult time leaving, even to go on vacation.
But then, that's why they call it a "phobia": the fear has no basis in logic. Mentally, I'm standing under a transparent bubble at the airport, pounding on it: "Let me ouuuuuuut! Let me ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut!"
So much for what "they" say: that Canadians have stronger ties to their U.S. neighbours than to other Canadians. Try flying to Minneapolis from Thunder Bay.
Because I'm curious, I did some research. Minneapolis, you recall, is a city as close or closer to me than Winnipeg. Yet to get to Mpls from TB, I'd have to fly to Toronto (or Winnipeg AND Chicago). One of my favourite return routes would take me from Minneapolis through Houston (that's Texas, y'all) and THEN Toronto before bringing me back here.
Lest you think that "flying to Toronto" from here is equivalent, say, to flying to Phoenix from Tucson (a half-hour journey): The TB-Toronto flight is 1:42, 900km. As a drive, it's 18 hours or so (allowing for summertime construction). And all the connections were more than $500.
So, let's review: I'd be flying to a city easily twice as far away as Minneapolis to get, eventually, to Minneapolis. Possibly through scenic Houston, another 2000 km out of the way. Time elapsed: 3 hours Toronto/Houston, 3 more hours Houston/Minneapolis. Plus the 1:42. Add in connection times and an hour for time zone change: 12 hours.
Driving. That's the answer, as it is so often, when one doesn't have the luxury of staying here. Argh.
P.S. Because I know that Minneapolis is not often the final destination, I also checked into a flight to Tucson. There are no 1-stop routes. I can fly Toronto/Denver/Tucson, home Denver/Edmonton/Tucson. Other routes include stops in Phoenix or LA. Touring the U.S. through its airports: now there's a reason to visit my sister.
P.P.S. Yes, I should appreciate the miracle of flight. That it's possible at all. Et cetera. And I do. But I'm human, and we don't respond well when options are taken from us.
The service has apparently been faltering for some time. It's inconvenient, scheduled apparently without regard to matching the schedules of incoming flights, so that connecting from Tucson requires either a multi-hour wait or a sprint. It doesn't fly in bad weather, which I suppose is understandable, but summer flights are always iffy and nerve-wracking. It's not dependable service.
And it's hugely, hugely expensive, relative to the cost of other legs of a flight: $400 easily. Recently, a day's drive to Minneapolis, a night at a motel, and a drive home--repeated--has won out over this crappy service.
And I wonder: aren't most of these complaints about the TB/Mpls route applicable to other routes? The primary difference is that Delta was the only option. And now it's going away.
All of which makes me extremely claustrophobic. I feel trapped here.
It makes no sense. I have chosen not to use the service, so really I shouldn't complain if the service goes away. PLUS not using the service has given me first-hand experience in getting out of this country. (I drove across! Both ways! Twice! In the past two weeks!!) AND it's not like the Thunder Bay airport is shutting down. I can always get to Toronto!
Not only that, but I'm here in this country by choice. I really really WANT to be here. And I have a difficult time leaving, even to go on vacation.
But then, that's why they call it a "phobia": the fear has no basis in logic. Mentally, I'm standing under a transparent bubble at the airport, pounding on it: "Let me ouuuuuuut! Let me ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut!"
So much for what "they" say: that Canadians have stronger ties to their U.S. neighbours than to other Canadians. Try flying to Minneapolis from Thunder Bay.
Because I'm curious, I did some research. Minneapolis, you recall, is a city as close or closer to me than Winnipeg. Yet to get to Mpls from TB, I'd have to fly to Toronto (or Winnipeg AND Chicago). One of my favourite return routes would take me from Minneapolis through Houston (that's Texas, y'all) and THEN Toronto before bringing me back here.
Lest you think that "flying to Toronto" from here is equivalent, say, to flying to Phoenix from Tucson (a half-hour journey): The TB-Toronto flight is 1:42, 900km. As a drive, it's 18 hours or so (allowing for summertime construction). And all the connections were more than $500.
So, let's review: I'd be flying to a city easily twice as far away as Minneapolis to get, eventually, to Minneapolis. Possibly through scenic Houston, another 2000 km out of the way. Time elapsed: 3 hours Toronto/Houston, 3 more hours Houston/Minneapolis. Plus the 1:42. Add in connection times and an hour for time zone change: 12 hours.
Driving. That's the answer, as it is so often, when one doesn't have the luxury of staying here. Argh.
P.S. Because I know that Minneapolis is not often the final destination, I also checked into a flight to Tucson. There are no 1-stop routes. I can fly Toronto/Denver/Tucson, home Denver/Edmonton/Tucson. Other routes include stops in Phoenix or LA. Touring the U.S. through its airports: now there's a reason to visit my sister.
P.P.S. Yes, I should appreciate the miracle of flight. That it's possible at all. Et cetera. And I do. But I'm human, and we don't respond well when options are taken from us.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Own the Podium
For my American friends, "Own the Podium" is the push in Canada to...brace yourself...WIN MEDALS AT THE OLYMPICS.
It's true! Seriously! Canadian athletes want to win medals. The Canadian Olympic infrastructure supports them in that by doing things like using science and technology to improve performance and paying athletes' living expenses. Isn't that SHOCKING?
And this part is true, too: the program is controversial in Canada.
Granted, part of the controversy is whether it makes Canadians too much like, um, Americans. Not that anyone characterizes it in that way. Too polite and all that. But trust me, that's what they're thinking.
After the first week of the Olympics, Canada is doing just fine in the medal count, not that that's the best yard/metre-stick for measuring the value of a country in the world or anything. Are Canadian athletes winning more medals than U.S. athletes? NO. Is every athlete with a shot at the podium getting there? NO. Does this mean the program is unsuccessful? NO. It just means that it takes awhile for investments to pay off.
As to whether "Own the Podium" is somehow un-Canadian--honestly, people. That attitude leaves me nearly speechless (and yet I will keep typing). In the U.S., wanting to achieve excellence in athletics is about as controversial as getting out of bed in the morning. And if you think South Korea and China don't have comparable programs for their athletes, you're delusional.
If you want to talk about un-Canadian, let's consider Canada's "leadership"--or lack thereof--in addressing climate change and protecting the rights of its own citizens around the world. Let's discuss the war in Afghanistan, and the possibility of abuse of detainees, as we celebrate Canada's response to the earthquake in Haiti. Let's consider other ways we could have spent the "Own the Podium" funding. All of those are legitimate questions, so let's debate.
Oh, wait. We can't. The Harper government prorogued Parliament, suspending the democratic process. None of those discussions can take place.
Now that is un-Canadian.
It's true! Seriously! Canadian athletes want to win medals. The Canadian Olympic infrastructure supports them in that by doing things like using science and technology to improve performance and paying athletes' living expenses. Isn't that SHOCKING?
And this part is true, too: the program is controversial in Canada.
Granted, part of the controversy is whether it makes Canadians too much like, um, Americans. Not that anyone characterizes it in that way. Too polite and all that. But trust me, that's what they're thinking.
After the first week of the Olympics, Canada is doing just fine in the medal count, not that that's the best yard/metre-stick for measuring the value of a country in the world or anything. Are Canadian athletes winning more medals than U.S. athletes? NO. Is every athlete with a shot at the podium getting there? NO. Does this mean the program is unsuccessful? NO. It just means that it takes awhile for investments to pay off.
As to whether "Own the Podium" is somehow un-Canadian--honestly, people. That attitude leaves me nearly speechless (and yet I will keep typing). In the U.S., wanting to achieve excellence in athletics is about as controversial as getting out of bed in the morning. And if you think South Korea and China don't have comparable programs for their athletes, you're delusional.
If you want to talk about un-Canadian, let's consider Canada's "leadership"--or lack thereof--in addressing climate change and protecting the rights of its own citizens around the world. Let's discuss the war in Afghanistan, and the possibility of abuse of detainees, as we celebrate Canada's response to the earthquake in Haiti. Let's consider other ways we could have spent the "Own the Podium" funding. All of those are legitimate questions, so let's debate.
Oh, wait. We can't. The Harper government prorogued Parliament, suspending the democratic process. None of those discussions can take place.
Now that is un-Canadian.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thunder Bay: My Home Town
For people who think Thunder Bay is the back end of nowhere, here's a counter-story.
On February 4, the video below was posted on YouTube.
Since its posting, more than 200,000 people have watched the video. That's twice the city's population.
Jordan Burnell (from TBay) is currently a university student in Toronto. Matt Popowich runs Westfort Films, based here in Thunder Bay. Good on you guys.
An interview with them on CBC's morning show, the Great Northwest, is available here.
Shh! Can I have some peace and quiet for the Sleeping Giant?
On February 4, the video below was posted on YouTube.
Since its posting, more than 200,000 people have watched the video. That's twice the city's population.
Jordan Burnell (from TBay) is currently a university student in Toronto. Matt Popowich runs Westfort Films, based here in Thunder Bay. Good on you guys.
An interview with them on CBC's morning show, the Great Northwest, is available here.
Shh! Can I have some peace and quiet for the Sleeping Giant?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Happy Patriotic Holiday Week
I've said before that Canada lacks patriotic songs, and I lived to regret saying it.
And yet, here's the topic again. And here's why: I've found what might serve as Canada's answer to the schlocky patriotic songs, most of which happen to be country music, that are played ad nauseum in the U.S. during the days leading up to July 4. Frankly, I consider these "my country, right or wrong" songs more than schlocky--I find them dangerously ignorant. Therefore, I won't be getting any more specific.
So, Canada's answer: Stompin' Tom Connors. He's "country," mostly in the sense of "folk," and "folk" in the sense of Pete Seeger. He's written about Canadian historic tragedies, about potatoes and tomatoes, and hockey. He received six Juno awards--Canada's version of the Grammy--and sent them back because Juno awards are now given to artists who may be Canadian but whose careers are American.
In other words, he's a bit of a contrarian. And he's not even from Alberta, which some call the Texas of Canada. He's from PEI, a cross between Maine (picturesque, Anne of Green Gables) and Idaho (potatoes).
In any case, here's what made me think of this:
But can I just say that I don't know of any American patriotic songs that mention Canada? Yes, I know, "Blame Canada," blah blah. But it's a novelty song. And it's not going to be played this coming week.
And yet, here's the topic again. And here's why: I've found what might serve as Canada's answer to the schlocky patriotic songs, most of which happen to be country music, that are played ad nauseum in the U.S. during the days leading up to July 4. Frankly, I consider these "my country, right or wrong" songs more than schlocky--I find them dangerously ignorant. Therefore, I won't be getting any more specific.
So, Canada's answer: Stompin' Tom Connors. He's "country," mostly in the sense of "folk," and "folk" in the sense of Pete Seeger. He's written about Canadian historic tragedies, about potatoes and tomatoes, and hockey. He received six Juno awards--Canada's version of the Grammy--and sent them back because Juno awards are now given to artists who may be Canadian but whose careers are American.
In other words, he's a bit of a contrarian. And he's not even from Alberta, which some call the Texas of Canada. He's from PEI, a cross between Maine (picturesque, Anne of Green Gables) and Idaho (potatoes).
In any case, here's what made me think of this:
But can I just say that I don't know of any American patriotic songs that mention Canada? Yes, I know, "Blame Canada," blah blah. But it's a novelty song. And it's not going to be played this coming week.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Practice Brings Mastery
What the CBC unrepentantly calls swine flu is still in the news. I think that's a good thing, but I may be alone. Lots of people are simply bored. Others are bewildered by the attention this flu gets. Their reasons include, but are not limited to, "it's tiresome" arguments.
Here's the context. In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell cites studies from the early 1990s about achievement. (Say whatever disparaging things you like about this Canadian's books, and people do. He's still extremely good at finding interesting scientific studies and musing about them.) These studies show that world-class violinists practice more than those who are average violinists. Further studies show that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to master any skill.
Ten thousand hours. That's five YEARS of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year (two weeks of vacation). More realistically, it's ten years of 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year (still two weeks of vacation). That's focused, attentive practice with the intent to improve.
Five years, ten years--hours of practice, every single day. A lot of time.
And how much time do epidemiologists, public health officials, policy-makers, and virologists get to practice handling pandemics? How many chances?
This outbreak is an opportunity for all of them to practice. We should applaud that, because when another outbreak of disease does occur, especially if another outbreak is more lethal than this virus seems to be, we want them to be skilled. We want them to have mastered their work.
We want them to be able to track the disease accurately and find its source. We want them to be able to find and explain the risk factors, the transmission routes, the possible and necessary steps. We want them to be able to predict useful actions governments and individuals can take, evaluate those suggested actions, and recommend different ones if the suggested ones don't work.
Scientists have computer models. But biological creatures, like viruses and humans, also behave in unexpected and essentially unpredictable ways. Ask any computer scientist--she spends a lot of time tweaking her model's assumptions and algorithms.
And guess what? We, the public, have a role here, too. This outbreak represents a chance for us. We can listen as specialists tell us information; we can ask clarifying questions. We can learn to assess risk more accurately. We can also evaluate the media coverage--is it hype? what is being downplayed? how big a leap are they making to get to that conclusion? And we can give them useful feedback that will help their performance--and ours.
Furthermore, we can extend that learning beyond the science to international relations, the role of government, even to history. For example, why might China be extra-sensitive about this flu outbreak--to the point of quarantining Canadians simply for being from Canada? Would a group of American students have submitted to a quarantine (while presenting no flu symptoms) as cheerfully? Why or why not?
The good news for us is that we have the chance to practice these skills every day, far more often than the epidemiologists et al. can.
So let's do that, instead of moaning about how boring it is, or ignoring the story, or freaking out. Please?
- This flu is less lethal than the "regular old flu," and trying to correct those factual misconceptions is tiresome.
- The media is hyping the flu as a sign of the apocalypse and is desperate for someone to blame (Mexico, anyone? porous borders?) and that's tiresome.
- The public is getting het up and freaked out and that's tiresome.
Here's the context. In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell cites studies from the early 1990s about achievement. (Say whatever disparaging things you like about this Canadian's books, and people do. He's still extremely good at finding interesting scientific studies and musing about them.) These studies show that world-class violinists practice more than those who are average violinists. Further studies show that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to master any skill.
Ten thousand hours. That's five YEARS of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year (two weeks of vacation). More realistically, it's ten years of 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year (still two weeks of vacation). That's focused, attentive practice with the intent to improve.
Five years, ten years--hours of practice, every single day. A lot of time.
And how much time do epidemiologists, public health officials, policy-makers, and virologists get to practice handling pandemics? How many chances?
This outbreak is an opportunity for all of them to practice. We should applaud that, because when another outbreak of disease does occur, especially if another outbreak is more lethal than this virus seems to be, we want them to be skilled. We want them to have mastered their work.
We want them to be able to track the disease accurately and find its source. We want them to be able to find and explain the risk factors, the transmission routes, the possible and necessary steps. We want them to be able to predict useful actions governments and individuals can take, evaluate those suggested actions, and recommend different ones if the suggested ones don't work.
Scientists have computer models. But biological creatures, like viruses and humans, also behave in unexpected and essentially unpredictable ways. Ask any computer scientist--she spends a lot of time tweaking her model's assumptions and algorithms.
And guess what? We, the public, have a role here, too. This outbreak represents a chance for us. We can listen as specialists tell us information; we can ask clarifying questions. We can learn to assess risk more accurately. We can also evaluate the media coverage--is it hype? what is being downplayed? how big a leap are they making to get to that conclusion? And we can give them useful feedback that will help their performance--and ours.
Furthermore, we can extend that learning beyond the science to international relations, the role of government, even to history. For example, why might China be extra-sensitive about this flu outbreak--to the point of quarantining Canadians simply for being from Canada? Would a group of American students have submitted to a quarantine (while presenting no flu symptoms) as cheerfully? Why or why not?
The good news for us is that we have the chance to practice these skills every day, far more often than the epidemiologists et al. can.
So let's do that, instead of moaning about how boring it is, or ignoring the story, or freaking out. Please?
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Attention! Yo, Napolitano, McCain, and other Americans
Those responsible for the 9/11 hijackings did NOT enter the U.S. through Canada.
Seriously.
They didn't.
Read your own government's report about the 9/11 attacks, available for download from this archived site. Unfortunately, the report does not include an index. However, in pages about 200 to about 300, you can read multiple reports of pilot trainees and the muscle hijackers merrily to-ing and fro-ing into and around the U.S. on student and other visas.
They entered the U.S. more than once at Newark, San Diego, New York, Miami and Orlando, and at Dulles Airport in Virginia. And Czar Napolitano, take note in this report of the extensive flight training they received in Tucson--your back yard. Nowhere near Canada.
And may I just also point out that even if the 9/11 terrorists had visited Canada--which THEY DID NOT--Canada does not catapault people across the border into the U.S. Nobody, not normal folks nor terrorists. That is to say, U.S. immigration officials would have had the opportunity to prevent their entry into the U.S., just as they had the opportunity when the terrorists arrived at U.S. airports.
After all, that's what happened in 1999. A single terrorist, Ahmen Ressam, was caught crossing from British Columbia to Washington State with bomb-making materials in the trunk of his car, reaportedly heading toward LAX to create mayhem. He crossed by ferry and his was the last car off, which gave officials plenty of time to note how nervous he seemed. So U.S. officials did a thorough inspection and found the materials and took him into custody.
Scary? You bet. Worrisome? Oh yeah. Do immigration officials need to be more vigilant and share information better? Sure. But do you know why Ressam was a lone terrorist? Because, according to the 9/11 report (page 81), his colleagues COULD NOT RECEIVE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS TO ENTER CANADA.
Huh. So the 9/11 terrorists got into the U.S. easily. The confederates of the 1999 sole THWARTED terrorist could NOT get into Canada easily.
And still, somehow, high-ranking officials in the U.S.--on both sides of the aisle, I might point out--continue to imagine that Canada must be responsible for the 9/11 terrorists. It's a jaw-dropper.
Senator McCain, you could have been president. Turns out you were unqualified to lead the U.S. even before you chose Sarah Palin as your possible backup. Seriously, you were running on a platform of making America more safe?
Czar Napolitano, how are you qualified to hold your position? I have said before that the Border Czar position and anything related to NAFTA really are all about Mexico, not Canada. I was serious, sorta. But now I'm just appalled.
Holy smokes, people. This kind of ignorance, this high up in leadership circles, has GOT to stop.
And I thought Billy Bob Thornton was embarrassing. Turns out "ignorant and proud of it" is more embarrassing than "immature and celebrated for it." Wish I hadn't had to find THAT out.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Awkward...
The United States could not have a better friend and ally than Canada.Barak Obama said that on February 19 to a cheering throng of Canadians. A Nanos Research poll released earlier this month shows that nearly 90 percent of Canadians agree or somewhat agree with this statement.
But don't get confused. Here's what he's NOT saying: Canada and the U.S., BFF. (That's Best Friends Forever, for the less happ'nin' among us.) Nope.
I really don't know how to say this, so I'm just going to come right out and say it. This "best friend" thing: it's not mutual. To the rank and file American, Canada is like that person they have to be nice to.
You know. The guy you have to go to the dance with because he is the son of someone who works with your parents, and anyway, the guy you really like didn't ask you to the dance. And this Canada guy is fine. Polite, even. Funny in a quiet way. Lives next door and keeps the yard tidy. Apologizes if he has to come over and say your party's bothering him. Nothing wrong with him. But...meh.
So, who do Americans think their country's best friend is? Some would say it's England. England is that ex with whom you share all that history. Americans think England is a great country, really, except for that time 200+ years ago when it got a little over-controlling. But we showed them what's what, and now that we all know where we stand--yeah, we're close.
A few Americans who have traveled would say America's best friend is Australia. Aussies are like Californians--laid-back and friendly without the weirdnesses. And hey, Australia has some of that same shared history, too. And they talk funny. Americans love that.
But you know what? Americans don't really think of themselves as having friends. America, to Americans, is the world leader. Leaders really can't have friends. A friend is someone you can disagree with, and you do disagree openly with that friend, yet you still chat and you exchange perspectives and influence each other's ideas. A friend's happiness is almost as important to you, ALMOST--almost, as your own happiness is. Almost.
Sorry, Canada. And sorry England and Australia and the rest of the world's countries, too. America doesn't have friends. Not even close.
Instead, America has allies, as President Obama said above. America likes its allies a lot, especially when those allies agree with the American perspective. But an ally's well-being ranks nowhere near America's. An ally's interests are clearly subordinate to America's interests. America will sign an agreement with you but if the agreement turns out to cost them money (*cough* softwood lumber *cough*), they'll tell you how the world is. And you'll go along. Because America is a leader.
Of course, everything I've written above (after "Nope.") is a gross generalization.
Some Americans do appreciate the friendship Canada has shown. Some understand that true friendly relationships--beyond alliances drawn up decades ago--among nations are necessary. It's important to have those relationships in place when conflicts of interest arise.
And, thankfully, one of those Americans apparently lives in the White House.
But I hope Canada doesn't depend too much on that friendship. Because, Canada: America just isn't that into you.
I know. We were all waiting for that line, weren't we?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Who's the Canadian?
Have we learned … that courtesy ranks with courage? Do we know how to be good losers? Do we know the power of kindness, the joy of work? Do we appreciate the influence of example, the worth of character?Sounds positively Canadian, doesn't it? As if the person who said it came from a country and tradition that celebrates peace, order, and good government. A country with an international reputation for politeness, multiculturalism, dependability.
Only it's not Canadian at all. It was written by a real all-American boy, a sixteen-year-old from rural Illinois.
It's from my father's high school valedictory address--Odgen, Illinois, 1933, a small farming community in the middle of corn and soybean fields. And this quote pretty much describes his approach to life. As the twig is bent and all that.
My mother was the one born on this side of the border, in what was then Port Arthur and is now Thunder Bay. But perhaps I'm also "Canadian" from my father.
The photo below is one of my favorite pictures of my father. Extended family assembled in Oklahoma to celebrate his 90th birthday. It rained.
Theodore Lee Agnew, Jr.
December 21, 1916 - April 15, 2007
He was a gentleman and a gentle man. Smart. Methodical. Reliable. Always aware of the example he set, and he set a fine example most of the time.
And best of all, he could irritate me exponentially: his behavior could annoy me beyond all proportion to his actual crime. But not only that, other people thought he was uniformly fabulous--so cute, such a sweetheart, what would we do without Ted?--and that made me feel bad about being irritated while exacerbating the irritation.
He was a real person, living proof that courtesy isn't unknown in the U.S., just as it is not a uniquely Canadian trait.
So yeah, I'm half Canadian. On both sides of the family.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Friendly or Too Familiar?
I had to look at new cars last week. I therefore had to talk with people who really really wanted to sell me one.
Which is difficult because I really really don't like being sold to. Very few people can sell me things without tripping my BS detector. That's why I shop online so much. For the most part, in real life I have learned to shop and buy things and make small talk with sales people and just accept that we all know what we're doing there. They're selling. I'm buying.
But people who sell big-ticket items are different. They're harder for me to interact with. Of course they need to know what I'm looking for. That's a legitimate question to ask, perfectly fair information to elicit. No point in showing me an SUV, for example, because I'm slightly obsessed with fuel efficiency. I get that part.
But please don't pretend we're friends. Even if you're a woman. Even if you're a Canadian woman trying to sell me a car I am actually interested in. Don't pretend that you and I are exactly alike just because we both have ovaries and therefore must share some set of values you imagine me to aspire to. I will, and did, leave the lot without driving the car.
I can't pinpoint what she did, either. She didn't wink at me, though I felt as if she had. So I can't even help her back off. I just know I didn't want to buy a car from her.
I'm surprised, actually. I expected car salespeople in Canada to be different from those in the U.S. Perhaps they are; I haven't bought a car since about 1997 and that process consisted of walking onto a lot and saying, "I want a used Camry." (There was some negotiation about price. I'm not a total rube.)
So maybe U.S. sales folk are more egregious than I remember and this woman was mild in comparison. Regardless, there is a line between "friendly sales rep" and "overly familiar schmooze," and she crossed the line. Fortunately, I kept myself from rolling my eyes in front of her.
Truthfully, I'm not in the market for a new car. I just wanted to know what I would want to buy if I were suddenly forced to buy a new-to-me car. So it wasn't actually her too-familiar nudge-nudge that kept me from driving. But it didn't help.
Car shopping reminded me of something else about boundaries and borders. When I was a kid and we drove from Oklahoma to Thunder Bay every summer, crossing state lines was a big deal. It meant we were that much farther away from the oppressive heat and that much closer to heaven. We watched for landmarks like the first birch tree.
One year, I fell asleep somewhere in Iowa. I woke to cornfields stretching from horizon to horizon. My mother insisted that we really were in Minnesota, though it looked just like Iowa to me. It was the first time I realized that states had different kinds of terrain--Minnesota wasn't all evergreen/birch forest east-west-north-south.
It's that in-between state of being that still trips me up: between Minnesota-as-I-imagine-it and Minnesota-in-its-variety, between helpful-and-friendly and back-off-you're-trying-too-hard, between lots of things. Between winter and spring. Between "yes I need a new-to-me car" and "no I do not need a new-to-me car."
So until I can figure out where some of those lines actually are, I'll have to be like the deer are in the yard: just nibbling a bit while passing through. No thanks; just looking, but I'll take your card and call you if I change my mind. Sure I will.
Monday, March 23, 2009
It's Just Not Funny
Some "comedians" on Fox's overnight Redeye show made fun of Canadian forces in Afghanistan. Some might say they "had fun with" the idea that Canadian forces need a rest. But their "humour" was, at best, not funny. And I would not be alone in saying that their "joking" was in poor taste.
I wasn't going to write about this for a couple of reasons. First, I didn't want to spread the moron-icity any farther or otherwise publicize the network. I'd never heard of these people or the program before this, and now they're getting a huge amount of attention, and "no publicity is bad publicity." I hate that.
Second, they embarrass me. It's one thing for individual Americans to be ignorant but for ignorant Americans to get together in a pack and laugh about their ignorance is something else again. I know I have my own areas of profound ignorance, but I don't celebrate them in front of the world and go on to wonder "why do people hate us?"
Third, I am a bit of a starry-eyed idealist about "censorship = bad." While nobody likes hate-mongering on radio or television, the world has survived with the likes of these dopes for decades now. The more attention you give them, the louder they get.
And finally, I was going to leave it alone because it seemed that the show's timing was particularly unfortunate. The show was taped a week ago. It aired at a time when Canadians were wounded and killed in Afghanistan, and it's been covered in the same news broadcasts that showed flag-draped coffins. I wouldn't have liked the comments at any time, but they're particularly wince-inducing this week.
Though as long as I'm writing about this, I have to say that when armed forces are fighting, people die, and surely someone at Fox might have imagined that perhaps, just maybe, people would die at the same time that they were cracking these jokes, and perhaps, just maybe, these jokes were a Really Bad Idea.
But I decided to write about it because I kept thinking about the relationship between the shots of coffins and the "jokes."
And I wondered: What if Americans saw coffins covered with their flag carried into transport planes by weeping men in fatigues who were members of the same platoons as the dead soldiers? What if those coffins were repatriated on this side of the ocean by means of a motorcade on public highways?
Would the public--friends, veterans, perfect strangers--assemble to honour those in the motorcade, as happens here?
If the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were public events in the U.S., as the war in Afghanistan is in Canada, would Americans be so quick with the jokes?
Maybe it wouldn't matter. Americans--and Canadians, if it comes to that--can be plenty insensitive.
But maybe it would matter. Maybe if Americans saw the human cost of their wars regularly, as Canadians do, they would learn something.
I can always hope, anyway.
I wasn't going to write about this for a couple of reasons. First, I didn't want to spread the moron-icity any farther or otherwise publicize the network. I'd never heard of these people or the program before this, and now they're getting a huge amount of attention, and "no publicity is bad publicity." I hate that.
Second, they embarrass me. It's one thing for individual Americans to be ignorant but for ignorant Americans to get together in a pack and laugh about their ignorance is something else again. I know I have my own areas of profound ignorance, but I don't celebrate them in front of the world and go on to wonder "why do people hate us?"
Third, I am a bit of a starry-eyed idealist about "censorship = bad." While nobody likes hate-mongering on radio or television, the world has survived with the likes of these dopes for decades now. The more attention you give them, the louder they get.
And finally, I was going to leave it alone because it seemed that the show's timing was particularly unfortunate. The show was taped a week ago. It aired at a time when Canadians were wounded and killed in Afghanistan, and it's been covered in the same news broadcasts that showed flag-draped coffins. I wouldn't have liked the comments at any time, but they're particularly wince-inducing this week.
Though as long as I'm writing about this, I have to say that when armed forces are fighting, people die, and surely someone at Fox might have imagined that perhaps, just maybe, people would die at the same time that they were cracking these jokes, and perhaps, just maybe, these jokes were a Really Bad Idea.
But I decided to write about it because I kept thinking about the relationship between the shots of coffins and the "jokes."
And I wondered: What if Americans saw coffins covered with their flag carried into transport planes by weeping men in fatigues who were members of the same platoons as the dead soldiers? What if those coffins were repatriated on this side of the ocean by means of a motorcade on public highways?
Would the public--friends, veterans, perfect strangers--assemble to honour those in the motorcade, as happens here?
If the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were public events in the U.S., as the war in Afghanistan is in Canada, would Americans be so quick with the jokes?
Maybe it wouldn't matter. Americans--and Canadians, if it comes to that--can be plenty insensitive.
But maybe it would matter. Maybe if Americans saw the human cost of their wars regularly, as Canadians do, they would learn something.
I can always hope, anyway.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Health Care Takes a Holiday: A Comparison
Yesterday I saw a new side of the much-hailed Canadian health care system. People in Canada (at least those in my population sample, which consists mostly of women at the gym and at church) are quite proud of their healthcare system, even as they complain about being on waiting lists.
Many of my American friends say they envy me because I am living in this country with this "fabulous healthcare system." Others are horrified because I have to live in a country with this socialized medicine, which "everybody knows" results in inferior care.
I've written a few times about the healthcare system. Fortunately, I haven't had much reason to. I am healthy (knock wood) and have little need of the system. Which is good because I don't have a family physician. I go to the walk-in clinic when I get sinus infections. I've been maybe three or four times in my going-on-four years here.
Yesterday, I was just along for the ride. My husband had a minor skin irritation that became infected and suddenly swelled, and he obviously needed an antibiotic. His family physician recently retired, leaving him an "orphan," and in any case, it was something best treated at a walk-in clinic. And thus began a bit of an odyssey.
We had at least thought to check which walk-in clinics are open on Friday afternoons. However, as we drove around town from clinic to clinic while the afternoon waned, we discovered that all the walk-in clinics were closed. Why? March break.
I understand that physicians are people too. They have kids. They want to take holidays. But closing ALL the "open on Friday" walk-in clinics really does NOT seem like a good public health policy.
Our last option was the Emergency department at the hospital. It was a perfectly fine experience. I would have felt a little foolish for bringing such an obvious non-emergency to the hospital, but apparently none of the staff showed impatience.
When my husband was called to the inner sanctum to see the doctor, he explained the nature of his "illness," finishing with, "...and all the walk-in clinics are closed."
"Don't I know it," the doctor replied.
Apparently we were not the only ones surprised.
Still, it was only a three-hour adventure, including waiting around for the prescription and all the driving hither and yon.
I've been trying to imagine how this would have played out if I'd been the sick one at 4 on a Friday back when I lived in the U.S.
One option would have been phoning my family practice physician's office to see if (a) he could see me quickly to prescribe the antibiotic or (b) if he'd believe me over the phone and prescribe for me. Option A is more likely, but truthfully not likely at all. If I'd seen him, I'd have had a copayment of $15 to $25.
The next option would have been a walk-in-clinic equivalent--an Urgent Care Center, known as a "doc-in-the-box." The cost for this visit would be more than the co-pay for the family doc. Although the clinic might bill my insurance company first and bill me for the remainder, it's equally possible that I'd have had to pay and request reimbursement. Plus, my insurance would pay something like 80%, but only if I'd met a deductible (which was I think $500). So this option would be more expensive than the first.
The last option would have been the Emergency department at the hospital, which would have been the last resort. The costs there, too, would probably be covered (after meeting the deductible) at 80%. But an ER visit would have run into some money--probably hundreds out of my pocket.
And of course I'd have been paying monthly premiums for an insurance policy. If I had an employer other than myself, my employer would be contributing, too. So for a relatively healthy person, I'd have been paying what now seems like a lot.
Because up here, a swipe of the health card and you're done. The antibiotics cost only $13 because we do have a drug insurance plan with monthly premiums.
As healthcare goes, the whole experience was fine. As I've said before, healthcare systems are systems, which means that they are designed by one group of fallible people and run by another group of equally fallible people, and therefore they don't function perfectly. Each system has pros and cons.
I choose to live here and I can handle the system here. In fact, in thinking back over my options in the U.S. vs. what happened yesterday, I'm pretty glad to be here.
Many of my American friends say they envy me because I am living in this country with this "fabulous healthcare system." Others are horrified because I have to live in a country with this socialized medicine, which "everybody knows" results in inferior care.
I've written a few times about the healthcare system. Fortunately, I haven't had much reason to. I am healthy (knock wood) and have little need of the system. Which is good because I don't have a family physician. I go to the walk-in clinic when I get sinus infections. I've been maybe three or four times in my going-on-four years here.
Yesterday, I was just along for the ride. My husband had a minor skin irritation that became infected and suddenly swelled, and he obviously needed an antibiotic. His family physician recently retired, leaving him an "orphan," and in any case, it was something best treated at a walk-in clinic. And thus began a bit of an odyssey.
We had at least thought to check which walk-in clinics are open on Friday afternoons. However, as we drove around town from clinic to clinic while the afternoon waned, we discovered that all the walk-in clinics were closed. Why? March break.
I understand that physicians are people too. They have kids. They want to take holidays. But closing ALL the "open on Friday" walk-in clinics really does NOT seem like a good public health policy.
Our last option was the Emergency department at the hospital. It was a perfectly fine experience. I would have felt a little foolish for bringing such an obvious non-emergency to the hospital, but apparently none of the staff showed impatience.
When my husband was called to the inner sanctum to see the doctor, he explained the nature of his "illness," finishing with, "...and all the walk-in clinics are closed."
"Don't I know it," the doctor replied.
Apparently we were not the only ones surprised.
Still, it was only a three-hour adventure, including waiting around for the prescription and all the driving hither and yon.
I've been trying to imagine how this would have played out if I'd been the sick one at 4 on a Friday back when I lived in the U.S.
One option would have been phoning my family practice physician's office to see if (a) he could see me quickly to prescribe the antibiotic or (b) if he'd believe me over the phone and prescribe for me. Option A is more likely, but truthfully not likely at all. If I'd seen him, I'd have had a copayment of $15 to $25.
The next option would have been a walk-in-clinic equivalent--an Urgent Care Center, known as a "doc-in-the-box." The cost for this visit would be more than the co-pay for the family doc. Although the clinic might bill my insurance company first and bill me for the remainder, it's equally possible that I'd have had to pay and request reimbursement. Plus, my insurance would pay something like 80%, but only if I'd met a deductible (which was I think $500). So this option would be more expensive than the first.
The last option would have been the Emergency department at the hospital, which would have been the last resort. The costs there, too, would probably be covered (after meeting the deductible) at 80%. But an ER visit would have run into some money--probably hundreds out of my pocket.
And of course I'd have been paying monthly premiums for an insurance policy. If I had an employer other than myself, my employer would be contributing, too. So for a relatively healthy person, I'd have been paying what now seems like a lot.
Because up here, a swipe of the health card and you're done. The antibiotics cost only $13 because we do have a drug insurance plan with monthly premiums.
As healthcare goes, the whole experience was fine. As I've said before, healthcare systems are systems, which means that they are designed by one group of fallible people and run by another group of equally fallible people, and therefore they don't function perfectly. Each system has pros and cons.
I choose to live here and I can handle the system here. In fact, in thinking back over my options in the U.S. vs. what happened yesterday, I'm pretty glad to be here.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Who Are You Calling "Dodger"?
I've been wondering about another commercial. This one is a sort of public service announcement about energy conservation. The commercial, which you can see here (click on "TV-Habitat"), features David Suzuki visiting the natural habitat of a "draft dodger."
David Suzuki is like Canada's Al Gore, only with a better if sadder backstory (childhood in Japanese internment camps in Canada during WWII), more personality and credibility (he's an actual scientist), and fewer Oscars (though he is known for his TV shows). He also carries a bit of the legacies of Marlin Perkins and Jacques Cousteau (without the toque), especially in this ad.
The commercial shows Suzuki (sloppily) caulking the windows in a 60s-era bungalow, which is said to be the natural habitat of the "draft dodger." The dodger, when he appears, is a middle-aged schlub in a bathrobe who seems understandably confused by the man speaking in hushed tones in his living room (which has a surprising lack of furniture). Suzuki then sneaks out, giving the dodger the caulking gun along the way, presumably so as not to disturb the guy in his natural habitat. Which doesn't make sense, but hey, it's a commercial, so narrative consistency may be too much to ask for.
So here are the things about this commercial I understand. It's good to caulk windows. Also, we all know that David Suzuki intrudes on our consciousness with environmental messages and has been since Al Gore was just a privileged senator from Tennessee, so here he is again, that wacky David Suzuki, and he has a sense of humor, or humour, about his image even though his message is serious.
Also, I "get" it: draft dodger = person with windows that need caulking. Get it? Draft?
However, who else could a "draft dodger" be? Hmm. Canada last had a draft during World War II, so a draft dodger from that era would be 90 or older, and also probably wouldn't be living in Canada, given that he had to escape to somewhere else to dodge the draft. The commercial guy is middle-aged--about the era of someone dodging the draft during the 60s and early 70s, or the Viet Nam era. Which, would make him--an American!
Roy assures me that Canadians think of Viet Nam draft dodgers as guys who were doing the right thing--not necessarily heroes, but definitely people of conscience practicing civil disobedience. Fine. However, I agree with my mother, who pointed out that those who object to war have a process they can follow legally instead of fleeing the country, and I'm proud of my oldest brother, who followed that process and become a conscientious objector and stuck around in the U.S. to contribute from inside the country.
But back to the commercial. This draft dodger seems to be an American. And I can't help but think that the sub-subtext of the commercial is that bad as Canadians may be about drafty windows, Americans are worse.
That statement may be true--certainly Americans as well as Canadians are fortunate (read: wasteful) compared to people in the rest of the world. And "everybody knows" that the U.S. may have signed the Kyoto protocol but the U.S. did not ratify it.
And of course, that sub-subtext may be there; it may not. I may be reading too much into the commercial. I have been called "over-sensitive" before (by an American, though). And in a country with a reputation for "polite," in which writing a sternly-worded letter of complaint is a major step, one does wonder. One must.
David Suzuki is like Canada's Al Gore, only with a better if sadder backstory (childhood in Japanese internment camps in Canada during WWII), more personality and credibility (he's an actual scientist), and fewer Oscars (though he is known for his TV shows). He also carries a bit of the legacies of Marlin Perkins and Jacques Cousteau (without the toque), especially in this ad.
The commercial shows Suzuki (sloppily) caulking the windows in a 60s-era bungalow, which is said to be the natural habitat of the "draft dodger." The dodger, when he appears, is a middle-aged schlub in a bathrobe who seems understandably confused by the man speaking in hushed tones in his living room (which has a surprising lack of furniture). Suzuki then sneaks out, giving the dodger the caulking gun along the way, presumably so as not to disturb the guy in his natural habitat. Which doesn't make sense, but hey, it's a commercial, so narrative consistency may be too much to ask for.
So here are the things about this commercial I understand. It's good to caulk windows. Also, we all know that David Suzuki intrudes on our consciousness with environmental messages and has been since Al Gore was just a privileged senator from Tennessee, so here he is again, that wacky David Suzuki, and he has a sense of humor, or humour, about his image even though his message is serious.
Also, I "get" it: draft dodger = person with windows that need caulking. Get it? Draft?
However, who else could a "draft dodger" be? Hmm. Canada last had a draft during World War II, so a draft dodger from that era would be 90 or older, and also probably wouldn't be living in Canada, given that he had to escape to somewhere else to dodge the draft. The commercial guy is middle-aged--about the era of someone dodging the draft during the 60s and early 70s, or the Viet Nam era. Which, would make him--an American!
Roy assures me that Canadians think of Viet Nam draft dodgers as guys who were doing the right thing--not necessarily heroes, but definitely people of conscience practicing civil disobedience. Fine. However, I agree with my mother, who pointed out that those who object to war have a process they can follow legally instead of fleeing the country, and I'm proud of my oldest brother, who followed that process and become a conscientious objector and stuck around in the U.S. to contribute from inside the country.
But back to the commercial. This draft dodger seems to be an American. And I can't help but think that the sub-subtext of the commercial is that bad as Canadians may be about drafty windows, Americans are worse.
That statement may be true--certainly Americans as well as Canadians are fortunate (read: wasteful) compared to people in the rest of the world. And "everybody knows" that the U.S. may have signed the Kyoto protocol but the U.S. did not ratify it.
And of course, that sub-subtext may be there; it may not. I may be reading too much into the commercial. I have been called "over-sensitive" before (by an American, though). And in a country with a reputation for "polite," in which writing a sternly-worded letter of complaint is a major step, one does wonder. One must.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
