As anyone who watches Stephen Colbert knows, there's Chaos in Chaonada because of the election.
It's interesting to follow election coverage on Twitter. You really do get a sense of the campaign world. Journalists are sequestered with candidates to travel all over the country; they have to find and file stories from veeerry scripted photo ops and canned announcements.
It's interesting, but in many ways, it's not real life. Not even for the journalists. Which is probably why it's interesting. (To watch, that is.)
Meanwhile, other political stuff is happening. The provincial fiscal year is starting soon, and a new budget was announced. Income tax season is here -- filing date is May 2, which happens also to be the date of the election. One might wonder whether the attention to personal income during the election will change how voters view the issues and thus influence how they vote.
But that assumes that regular people consider themselves to be voters. In the 2008 election, fewer than 60% of eligible voters did.
It's easy to think that political news is boring, that the rarefied air around candidates during an election separates "them," those politicians and journalists, from "us," the real people.
And sometimes, the scope of your world changes. It really does. Everything that's important to you is happening in just one hospital room, or just one uterus, or just one manufacturing plant (the one that happens to employ you), or just one University or Grade 5 classroom.
The thing is, what happens in those smaller spaces is still affected by what's said on those buses and planes, what's caught on camera and put online. All that political stuff is translated to policy, or isn't, and is included in the budget, or isn't, and then it affects "real life."
Access to pre-natal care, the cost of power to run a plant, the number of health professionals working in that one hospital room, the qualifications of person teaching in that classroom -- all are determined by stuff happening in politics.
Really: vote. It is "real life."
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
A Window
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Attentive Electorate
Such doings in Canadian politics! Or maybe not.
The House finds the Harper Government in contempt of Parliament. This seems to be the official version of a head-shaking finger-wagging "tsk tsk," because it doesn't launch any other action. Rather like the non-governmental fallback, the sternly worded letter.
Or, I guess, a censure of a President in the U.S.
And then, the Harper Government proposed a budget that nobody likes. It sure seems like this government is no longer functioning with any pretense at effectiveness.
Still, an election is not absolutely positively certain. More meetings this week. Motions put forward. Votes. Amendments. Et cetera.
This household would probably qualify as "moderately interested" in Canadian federal politics. And here's the conversation during Peter Mansbridge's live interview last night with Finance Minster Jim Flaherty about the budget.
In this upcoming election (maybe! or just more finger-wagging!), half of this household will vote. Given the calibre of attention to the issues evident in the conversation above, what are the chances that the Canadian government will look radically different after the dust (maybe!) settles in some ten or so weeks?
Yep. We can, however, hope that they'll take care of the noodle issue.
The House finds the Harper Government in contempt of Parliament. This seems to be the official version of a head-shaking finger-wagging "tsk tsk," because it doesn't launch any other action. Rather like the non-governmental fallback, the sternly worded letter.
Or, I guess, a censure of a President in the U.S.
And then, the Harper Government proposed a budget that nobody likes. It sure seems like this government is no longer functioning with any pretense at effectiveness.
Still, an election is not absolutely positively certain. More meetings this week. Motions put forward. Votes. Amendments. Et cetera.
This household would probably qualify as "moderately interested" in Canadian federal politics. And here's the conversation during Peter Mansbridge's live interview last night with Finance Minster Jim Flaherty about the budget.
R: Does he [Flaherty] look funny to you?
M: Well, he's orange. See how orange? And now, how blue Peter Mansbridge looks? Wow, I hope they switch back and forth again. Look at that: Orange. Blue. Orange. Geez.
R: It's not just that. It's his hair.
M: He's wearing a ton of makeup.
R: But doesn't it look like he's wearing black-and-silver noodles on his head?
M: Yeah. Eww. Hey, did he say anything?
[crickets]
In this upcoming election (maybe! or just more finger-wagging!), half of this household will vote. Given the calibre of attention to the issues evident in the conversation above, what are the chances that the Canadian government will look radically different after the dust (maybe!) settles in some ten or so weeks?
Yep. We can, however, hope that they'll take care of the noodle issue.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Obscurity
How come I can labo(u)r away in obscurity but most of the people who belong here can't seem to find it?
I like obscurity, by the way. I have lived my whole life in Flyover Country, on both sides of the border, by choice (after the first 18 years). You can't get more obscure than that and stay on this continent.
In public life, the concepts of "shame" and "inappropriate behavio(u)r" seem to be disappearing. How come? They've served a useful purpose. Redemption stories can't exist without a fall from grace from which the protagonist has to recover. But it seems that today, people who misbehave, even criminally, are not allowed to fall.
Drunken, abusive actors may trip, but celebrity gossip outlets are right there to catch them and keep parading them in front of me--and I have only 2.5 channels on the TV. I don't look at online gossip. I'm relatively protected from the insanity, and I'm still overloaded!
It's not just celebrities. Politicians (on both sides of the border) are ever-more willing to tell whopping lies with a straight face, and idiots train cameras on them, and other idiots buy advertising. It's not just about media market share, though. In Canada's Question Period (no advertising, not a commercial venture), the bigger the lie, the more vociferous the defense. The volume is set at 11. Nobody blushes.
I don't get it.
Anyway, I'm starting a list of people who should join me in obscurity:
These people should all be banished.
Or maybe not.
Come to think of it, obscurity could become awfully crowded, and not with the kind of people I enjoy spending time with.
As you were. Strip off your undergarments (not the politicians, please!) and resume your lying, disdainful abuses of power. I'll just be over here, enjoying my elbow room.
I like obscurity, by the way. I have lived my whole life in Flyover Country, on both sides of the border, by choice (after the first 18 years). You can't get more obscure than that and stay on this continent.
In public life, the concepts of "shame" and "inappropriate behavio(u)r" seem to be disappearing. How come? They've served a useful purpose. Redemption stories can't exist without a fall from grace from which the protagonist has to recover. But it seems that today, people who misbehave, even criminally, are not allowed to fall.
Drunken, abusive actors may trip, but celebrity gossip outlets are right there to catch them and keep parading them in front of me--and I have only 2.5 channels on the TV. I don't look at online gossip. I'm relatively protected from the insanity, and I'm still overloaded!
It's not just celebrities. Politicians (on both sides of the border) are ever-more willing to tell whopping lies with a straight face, and idiots train cameras on them, and other idiots buy advertising. It's not just about media market share, though. In Canada's Question Period (no advertising, not a commercial venture), the bigger the lie, the more vociferous the defense. The volume is set at 11. Nobody blushes.
I don't get it.
Anyway, I'm starting a list of people who should join me in obscurity:
* any actor who invites the descriptor "bad boy"
* the former and present cast of Celebrity Apprentice (including the host/producer/progenitor)
* any person photographed not wearing appropriate undergarments
* any public figure who lies on purpose
* any politician who thinks he's smarter than anyone else he knows, especially if he isn't shy about showing his disdain
These people should all be banished.
Or maybe not.
Come to think of it, obscurity could become awfully crowded, and not with the kind of people I enjoy spending time with.
As you were. Strip off your undergarments (not the politicians, please!) and resume your lying, disdainful abuses of power. I'll just be over here, enjoying my elbow room.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Some Things Are Just Bad
And I don't want to write about them today.
But before I don't write about them, I have to say that governments in both the U.S. and Canada are on double-secret probation, as of this moment. Cut out the monkeying around with other people's jobs and livelihoods and make sure you're doing your own job. I just deleted examples because I really really don't want to write about them, but they're happening in the state of isconsin-Way, and all over the newly christened arper-government-Hay, the one that used to be Canada.
Pop culture is also full of dreadful things. I will refrain from making the obvious connections between Gadaffi and Lady Gaga. (You thought I was going to name a bad-boy actor, didn't you?) Because the imperiled fashion-impaired dictator is nothing to laugh about.
I also don't want to write about a former governor (male) who might or might not be taking potshots at another former governor (female) by forgetting the lessons of Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown to talk about a pregnant unmarried actor (female) whose uterus is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS, by the way, SHEESH.
See how good I am at not writing about those bad things?
But not writing about bad things leaves me staring out the window for something to say.
Thank goodness for wildlife. The ravens have started nesting on the cliff. I have no idea where they're finding nest materials, since the dead stuff is under a couple of feet of white stuff, but they are.
Spring must be coming.
And that's very good.
But before I don't write about them, I have to say that governments in both the U.S. and Canada are on double-secret probation, as of this moment. Cut out the monkeying around with other people's jobs and livelihoods and make sure you're doing your own job. I just deleted examples because I really really don't want to write about them, but they're happening in the state of isconsin-Way, and all over the newly christened arper-government-Hay, the one that used to be Canada.
Pop culture is also full of dreadful things. I will refrain from making the obvious connections between Gadaffi and Lady Gaga. (You thought I was going to name a bad-boy actor, didn't you?) Because the imperiled fashion-impaired dictator is nothing to laugh about.
I also don't want to write about a former governor (male) who might or might not be taking potshots at another former governor (female) by forgetting the lessons of Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown to talk about a pregnant unmarried actor (female) whose uterus is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS, by the way, SHEESH.
See how good I am at not writing about those bad things?
But not writing about bad things leaves me staring out the window for something to say.
Thank goodness for wildlife. The ravens have started nesting on the cliff. I have no idea where they're finding nest materials, since the dead stuff is under a couple of feet of white stuff, but they are.
Spring must be coming.
And that's very good.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Welcome, Here's Your Test
A recent story in the Globe and Mail, by the gifted and talented Joe Friesen, reports on a European survey of immigration policies. Thanks to new efforts to recognize immigrants' professional credentials, Canada now ranks "just short of the best in the world." How very Canadian (pre-podium-owning, of course).
According to the story, one area in which Canada could improve is in political engagement of immigrants--an odd area for Canada's political systems to overlook, because the story indicates that immigrants are known to be politically active.
While cruising around on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada site, I recently discovered that immigrants aged 55 and over are NOT required to take a citizenship test.
I've written before about citizenship and citizenship tests. And yes, I am on record as saying the discussion of the citizenship test on The Agenda was "yawn-inducing," and yes, I now wish I had paid closer attention to the issues. (Sorry, TVO!)
Because here's the real question about citizenship tests. What is the point?
Is it to ensure basic literacy about cultural and political customs and traditions? Okay: who needs this basic literacy--only immigrants, or everyone? Then why are only immigrants tested? You can say that people who grow up in Canada are tested as part of their experience in the school system, but not all participation in school is equal. (Some 48% of Canadians over the age of 16 don't demonstrate "desired" literacy levels for navigating life.)
Yet testing people before allowing them to enter polling booths is discriminatory, according to the US Voting Rights Act; tests kept African-Americans from voting for 100 years. But how far before an election is it OK to test people? Non-citizens are not allowed to vote in this country, so any test immigrants take will be, technically, before a vote.
A second question: Who gets to decide which cultural and political customs and traditions are tested? Are Canadians tested on persians as well as poutine and donair?
And are these tests educationally valid? Do these tests conform to known "best practices"? Can a kinesthetic learner choreograph and perform a dance to demonstrate the hundreds of federal ridings? Are visual learners encouraged to submit dioramas demonstrating their understanding of the role of the Queen in Canadian foreign policy?
Stepping back from the abyss of absurdity, it's still valid to recap this basic question from two years ago: How many current Canadian citizens can pass their test? (This goes for you, too, Americans.)
And now, the new wrinkle: new citizens over the age of 55 don't need to be tested. Why not? According to the Canadian Business online life expectancy calculator, if I were 55 (which I am NOT), all things remaining equal, I'll live to 85. (Note that none of the questions asked where I was born, which demonstrates either that immigrants can be expected to live about as long as Canadians born here, or that the magazine's test is limited.)
So, if I were to become a citizen at 55, I'd have 30 years of voting ahead of me. It would be good for Canada if I, too, had some basic understanding of this country I'm moving to.
If people over 55 are exempt from testing because of potential language difficulties and/or because learning new material is "hard"--well, what favours are you doing these people to expect less of them because they've lived X years? In fact, mental stimulation is still cited by the U.S. NIH as one way to stave off memory loss.
So wouldn't it make the most sense to require all Canadians over the age of 55 to to continue learning? But then we're back to testing everyone before voting.
Worst of all, I'm afraid I have only questions, no solutions. I do think people entering a country should demonstrate a basic knowledge of the country they're entering--but I believe those who live there should have that same basic knowledge. Yet it's discriminatory to deny citizens the right to vote based on the results of any kind of test.
I am also not convinced that citizenship tests are the best way for immigrants to demonstrate the desired understanding of their new country.
And I don't think that something magical happens in a brain at the age of 55 that should exempt people that age from having the basic knowledge required for citizenship.
So...what is the role of the citizenship test again? Never mind. I'll start studying.
According to the story, one area in which Canada could improve is in political engagement of immigrants--an odd area for Canada's political systems to overlook, because the story indicates that immigrants are known to be politically active.
While cruising around on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada site, I recently discovered that immigrants aged 55 and over are NOT required to take a citizenship test.
I've written before about citizenship and citizenship tests. And yes, I am on record as saying the discussion of the citizenship test on The Agenda was "yawn-inducing," and yes, I now wish I had paid closer attention to the issues. (Sorry, TVO!)
Because here's the real question about citizenship tests. What is the point?
Is it to ensure basic literacy about cultural and political customs and traditions? Okay: who needs this basic literacy--only immigrants, or everyone? Then why are only immigrants tested? You can say that people who grow up in Canada are tested as part of their experience in the school system, but not all participation in school is equal. (Some 48% of Canadians over the age of 16 don't demonstrate "desired" literacy levels for navigating life.)
Yet testing people before allowing them to enter polling booths is discriminatory, according to the US Voting Rights Act; tests kept African-Americans from voting for 100 years. But how far before an election is it OK to test people? Non-citizens are not allowed to vote in this country, so any test immigrants take will be, technically, before a vote.
A second question: Who gets to decide which cultural and political customs and traditions are tested? Are Canadians tested on persians as well as poutine and donair?
And are these tests educationally valid? Do these tests conform to known "best practices"? Can a kinesthetic learner choreograph and perform a dance to demonstrate the hundreds of federal ridings? Are visual learners encouraged to submit dioramas demonstrating their understanding of the role of the Queen in Canadian foreign policy?
Stepping back from the abyss of absurdity, it's still valid to recap this basic question from two years ago: How many current Canadian citizens can pass their test? (This goes for you, too, Americans.)
And now, the new wrinkle: new citizens over the age of 55 don't need to be tested. Why not? According to the Canadian Business online life expectancy calculator, if I were 55 (which I am NOT), all things remaining equal, I'll live to 85. (Note that none of the questions asked where I was born, which demonstrates either that immigrants can be expected to live about as long as Canadians born here, or that the magazine's test is limited.)
So, if I were to become a citizen at 55, I'd have 30 years of voting ahead of me. It would be good for Canada if I, too, had some basic understanding of this country I'm moving to.
If people over 55 are exempt from testing because of potential language difficulties and/or because learning new material is "hard"--well, what favours are you doing these people to expect less of them because they've lived X years? In fact, mental stimulation is still cited by the U.S. NIH as one way to stave off memory loss.
So wouldn't it make the most sense to require all Canadians over the age of 55 to to continue learning? But then we're back to testing everyone before voting.
Worst of all, I'm afraid I have only questions, no solutions. I do think people entering a country should demonstrate a basic knowledge of the country they're entering--but I believe those who live there should have that same basic knowledge. Yet it's discriminatory to deny citizens the right to vote based on the results of any kind of test.
I am also not convinced that citizenship tests are the best way for immigrants to demonstrate the desired understanding of their new country.
And I don't think that something magical happens in a brain at the age of 55 that should exempt people that age from having the basic knowledge required for citizenship.
So...what is the role of the citizenship test again? Never mind. I'll start studying.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Disservice to the Discourse
I've already tipped my hand about What Is America, by Ronald Wright.* (To recap: I'm not a fan.) But after hearing comments about this book at a book club meeting over the weekend--a book club that contains perfectly lovely, educated people--I want to explain why I think this book does a disservice to American-Canadian political discourse.
For those of you who haven't read the book, here's what you're missing. The author, born in Britain and now a writer and lecturer in Canadian universities, puts forth the following argument: “[T]he New World made the modern world and now threatens to undo it” (p. 1). After a short introductory chapter, he chronicles the various waves of European contact, colonization, and/or settlement of North America through the centuries. Written before Barak Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and published before he won the 2008 election, the book ends with the suggestion that the best hope for real leadership now comes from the European Union.
Wright tells an ugly story. The continent's history is one of greed, conquest, and relentless domination of the indigenous people. It is a story of people--Europeans, some Spanish but mostly British who become Americans--who use and abuse natural resources until they are spent, and then move on to take advantage of the next resource. It is, in short, a story of people. And it's a story that can't continue in this way. There are precious few “new resources” left on this planet.
I don't dispute the story Wright tells, even as he moves into recent events. I agree that George W. Bush was a disastrous leader and that his “war on terror” has been terrifying indeed. Two years after Wright finished his book, we're watching President Obama struggle with an obscene tangle of economic, political, and social consequences of the Bush administration.
But I still say that this book does not provide any benefits to the political discourse in Canada about the U.S. and the Canadian-American relationship. I think this book, and others written on this same pattern, in fact harms that discourse, for four reasons.
1. Readers deserve a book based on scholarship they can see and trust. This book doesn't make its case. It is set up to look like a carefully researched history--but it's not. The subtitle, “A short history of the new world order,” also suggests history. The book includes 226 pages of text and 142 pages of notes and bibliography. It has all the earmarks of a history, but not the substance. On close inspection, the book doesn't add to the base of knowledge. The information in the text itself was part of the university courses I took in 1982 and before. The notes show that many of Wright's “sources” are not original; they're quoted in someone else's analysis of empire in the U.S. (for example). That's not good, convincing scholarship. Other notes fail to provide a source for the statement in the text. Many contain information of only distant relevance to the material it's supposedly supporting. Many statements of statistics have no footnote at all.
Therefore, it's not a book that can be taken seriously for its scholarly approach to its material, even though the information in the book may well be new or shocking to Canadians. In fact, because the information may be new to Canadians, it should be available in an academically rigorous (yet, ideally, readable) book. Canadians readers would do better to take Wright out of the loop completely and read a few of the books cited in the bibliography.
2. Readers deserve to be told the truth about themselves. The kind of “history” in this book just allows Canadians to feel smug--mistakenly so--about their own past. Although Wright says “the America of my title has two meanings: the great republic most of the world simply calls 'America' and the American landmass as a whole” (p. 12), he focuses mostly on the “great republic,” and secondarily on ancient civilizations in what are now Central and South America. Precious little of his attention goes to Canada--though comments at the book club discussion suggest that perhaps it should have.
One comment at the meeting: “I've always been proud that my ancestors came from England to North America in the 1600s....and now [after reading this book] I'm so glad I don't have dual citizenship.” But until 1815 (or arguably 1776), Canadians and Americans were all British (except for those who were Native or from another European country). In fact, you could argue that Canadians weren't truly Canadians until 1867, by which time the pattern Wright describes--killing off or exploiting Native peoples and taking their wealth and land--had been in full force for nearly 400 years. The 140 to 200 years in which the two countries have had decidedly different histories total only two-fifths to one-fourth of the total time Europeans have been taking advantage of this continent.
Another comment: “I don't know how they [Americans] live with themselves.” The context for this statement was the treatment of native Hawaiians, particularly the last monarchy in the 1880s. Nowhere in the book does Wright mention Canada's 20th-century residential schools for Natives. And he dispatches Canada's history of western expansion and its relationships with Native peoples, including the war against Louis Riel, in two sentences with the remark that the processes in both countries “were all quite similar,” although there was “less fighting” in what is now Canada (p. 166).
Although Canadians are apparently Wright's intended audience (given the Canadian publisher), Wright does not effectively address his Canadian readers. He doesn't actively engage them in reflecting on their own history as part of the North American continent. Canadians could perhaps learn about their own history from the new biography series at Penguin Canada, Extraordinary Canadians.
3. Readers deserve a thorough, useful discussion of the major themes in a work. Yet Wright is ignorant of the history of religion in North America, beyond reading about (not direct reading of) the Puritans and beyond extensive quotation from Jon Krakauer's recent book about Mormonism.** Although Wright correctly identifies religion as a major cultural force in the U.S., he allows for no nuance in religious belief. “One in two Americans rejects the evidence for evolution; the rest of Christendom gave up fighting Darwin a century ago” (p. 16). I suspect this statistic comes from a general survey about religious belief, not specifically about evolution, but it's impossible to know--Wright gives no source for this statistic. (It's not even footnoted.) Wright seems not to understand that it is possible for (North) Americans to identify themselves as BOTH Christians AND scientists. He doesn't even acknowledge, much less explore, the deep divisions in mainstream Christian denominations in the U.S. For the past 150 years, progressive believers have struggled with fundamentalists, like those whose views Wright dismisses as archaic, over issues such as racial equality and marriage rights. These struggles form an important part of the culture and politics of the U.S.--but to Wright, they don't exist.
Another comment at the discussion: “What scares me is that someone who believes in an afterlife has his finger on the trigger of a nuclear device.” Wright's dismissal of nuance in religion lets his readers conclude (or continue to believe) that anyone who believes in an afterlife necessarily holds Earthly life less dear and is thus on the verge of annihilating the planet. Wright, like anyone else who writes about culture, politics, or society, had the opportunity to challenge the fundamentalist atheism of this comment, yet he didn't. Instead, he limits his consideration of the religious history of the North American continent to those aspects of Christianity that he seems to find puzzling or frightening.
Without a more complete picture of the role religion plays in the U.S., across faiths and denominations, and considering how each intersects with political and social perspectives, readers can't fully understand North America's present, much less engage in its future.
4. Which brings us to the future. Readers deserve a book that goes beyond fingerpointing. But in this book, Wright offers no real solutions--he doesn't even offer questions. Yes, Bush's administration was a nightmare for Iraqis, Afghans, and uninsured Americans, for starters. Yes, the North American continent has a long and sordid history. To which I ask: Now what?
Wright offers very little in response. The positive alternative he cites as the next possibility for “the world's best hope,” the European Union, is “discussed” in less than three full pages (pp 223 – 226).
The sad thing is, Wright missed a golden opportunity to speak meaningfully about the future to Canadians--who live in one of the countries that still has, arguably, a “frontier.” Canada's economy depends largely on its natural resources. Technology will continue to make it easier to extract oil from tar sands and to find and extract natural gas and minerals from previously inaccessible regions. In the next half-century, climate change could drastically alter the Canadian landscape, expanding the amount of arable land and triggering an influx of settlers from the south.
What if Wright had, from his expertise on the perils of colonial expansion, considered explicitly how Canada could create a different future? How could Canadians apply his accumulated knowledge, and the knowledge he draws on, and avoid perpetrating the mistakes of the past? Would it be possible for Canada to be the next “world's best hope”? Wright apparently didn't even entertain the notion.
Another comment from the discussion: “Why should we read books like this, that just offer apocalyptic views of the past and no hope for the future?”
My answer: we shouldn't. Instead, we should demand rigor from our writers, avoid national smugness, embrace nuance, and look for solutions instead of endless analysis. We should should read original sources, learn our own history, reject fundamentalist beliefs in whatever guise they come, and apply what we learn from the past to the future.
That's the biggest disservice Wright did to the Canadian-American discourse: He had the opportunity to write that book. And he squandered it.
~~
* Wright, Ronald. What is America? Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2008. Page references are to the hardcover edition.
** Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. Rev. Ed. New York: Anchor, 2004.
For those of you who haven't read the book, here's what you're missing. The author, born in Britain and now a writer and lecturer in Canadian universities, puts forth the following argument: “[T]he New World made the modern world and now threatens to undo it” (p. 1). After a short introductory chapter, he chronicles the various waves of European contact, colonization, and/or settlement of North America through the centuries. Written before Barak Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and published before he won the 2008 election, the book ends with the suggestion that the best hope for real leadership now comes from the European Union.
Wright tells an ugly story. The continent's history is one of greed, conquest, and relentless domination of the indigenous people. It is a story of people--Europeans, some Spanish but mostly British who become Americans--who use and abuse natural resources until they are spent, and then move on to take advantage of the next resource. It is, in short, a story of people. And it's a story that can't continue in this way. There are precious few “new resources” left on this planet.
I don't dispute the story Wright tells, even as he moves into recent events. I agree that George W. Bush was a disastrous leader and that his “war on terror” has been terrifying indeed. Two years after Wright finished his book, we're watching President Obama struggle with an obscene tangle of economic, political, and social consequences of the Bush administration.
But I still say that this book does not provide any benefits to the political discourse in Canada about the U.S. and the Canadian-American relationship. I think this book, and others written on this same pattern, in fact harms that discourse, for four reasons.
1. Readers deserve a book based on scholarship they can see and trust. This book doesn't make its case. It is set up to look like a carefully researched history--but it's not. The subtitle, “A short history of the new world order,” also suggests history. The book includes 226 pages of text and 142 pages of notes and bibliography. It has all the earmarks of a history, but not the substance. On close inspection, the book doesn't add to the base of knowledge. The information in the text itself was part of the university courses I took in 1982 and before. The notes show that many of Wright's “sources” are not original; they're quoted in someone else's analysis of empire in the U.S. (for example). That's not good, convincing scholarship. Other notes fail to provide a source for the statement in the text. Many contain information of only distant relevance to the material it's supposedly supporting. Many statements of statistics have no footnote at all.
Therefore, it's not a book that can be taken seriously for its scholarly approach to its material, even though the information in the book may well be new or shocking to Canadians. In fact, because the information may be new to Canadians, it should be available in an academically rigorous (yet, ideally, readable) book. Canadians readers would do better to take Wright out of the loop completely and read a few of the books cited in the bibliography.
2. Readers deserve to be told the truth about themselves. The kind of “history” in this book just allows Canadians to feel smug--mistakenly so--about their own past. Although Wright says “the America of my title has two meanings: the great republic most of the world simply calls 'America' and the American landmass as a whole” (p. 12), he focuses mostly on the “great republic,” and secondarily on ancient civilizations in what are now Central and South America. Precious little of his attention goes to Canada--though comments at the book club discussion suggest that perhaps it should have.
One comment at the meeting: “I've always been proud that my ancestors came from England to North America in the 1600s....and now [after reading this book] I'm so glad I don't have dual citizenship.” But until 1815 (or arguably 1776), Canadians and Americans were all British (except for those who were Native or from another European country). In fact, you could argue that Canadians weren't truly Canadians until 1867, by which time the pattern Wright describes--killing off or exploiting Native peoples and taking their wealth and land--had been in full force for nearly 400 years. The 140 to 200 years in which the two countries have had decidedly different histories total only two-fifths to one-fourth of the total time Europeans have been taking advantage of this continent.
Another comment: “I don't know how they [Americans] live with themselves.” The context for this statement was the treatment of native Hawaiians, particularly the last monarchy in the 1880s. Nowhere in the book does Wright mention Canada's 20th-century residential schools for Natives. And he dispatches Canada's history of western expansion and its relationships with Native peoples, including the war against Louis Riel, in two sentences with the remark that the processes in both countries “were all quite similar,” although there was “less fighting” in what is now Canada (p. 166).
Although Canadians are apparently Wright's intended audience (given the Canadian publisher), Wright does not effectively address his Canadian readers. He doesn't actively engage them in reflecting on their own history as part of the North American continent. Canadians could perhaps learn about their own history from the new biography series at Penguin Canada, Extraordinary Canadians.
3. Readers deserve a thorough, useful discussion of the major themes in a work. Yet Wright is ignorant of the history of religion in North America, beyond reading about (not direct reading of) the Puritans and beyond extensive quotation from Jon Krakauer's recent book about Mormonism.** Although Wright correctly identifies religion as a major cultural force in the U.S., he allows for no nuance in religious belief. “One in two Americans rejects the evidence for evolution; the rest of Christendom gave up fighting Darwin a century ago” (p. 16). I suspect this statistic comes from a general survey about religious belief, not specifically about evolution, but it's impossible to know--Wright gives no source for this statistic. (It's not even footnoted.) Wright seems not to understand that it is possible for (North) Americans to identify themselves as BOTH Christians AND scientists. He doesn't even acknowledge, much less explore, the deep divisions in mainstream Christian denominations in the U.S. For the past 150 years, progressive believers have struggled with fundamentalists, like those whose views Wright dismisses as archaic, over issues such as racial equality and marriage rights. These struggles form an important part of the culture and politics of the U.S.--but to Wright, they don't exist.
Another comment at the discussion: “What scares me is that someone who believes in an afterlife has his finger on the trigger of a nuclear device.” Wright's dismissal of nuance in religion lets his readers conclude (or continue to believe) that anyone who believes in an afterlife necessarily holds Earthly life less dear and is thus on the verge of annihilating the planet. Wright, like anyone else who writes about culture, politics, or society, had the opportunity to challenge the fundamentalist atheism of this comment, yet he didn't. Instead, he limits his consideration of the religious history of the North American continent to those aspects of Christianity that he seems to find puzzling or frightening.
Without a more complete picture of the role religion plays in the U.S., across faiths and denominations, and considering how each intersects with political and social perspectives, readers can't fully understand North America's present, much less engage in its future.
4. Which brings us to the future. Readers deserve a book that goes beyond fingerpointing. But in this book, Wright offers no real solutions--he doesn't even offer questions. Yes, Bush's administration was a nightmare for Iraqis, Afghans, and uninsured Americans, for starters. Yes, the North American continent has a long and sordid history. To which I ask: Now what?
Wright offers very little in response. The positive alternative he cites as the next possibility for “the world's best hope,” the European Union, is “discussed” in less than three full pages (pp 223 – 226).
The sad thing is, Wright missed a golden opportunity to speak meaningfully about the future to Canadians--who live in one of the countries that still has, arguably, a “frontier.” Canada's economy depends largely on its natural resources. Technology will continue to make it easier to extract oil from tar sands and to find and extract natural gas and minerals from previously inaccessible regions. In the next half-century, climate change could drastically alter the Canadian landscape, expanding the amount of arable land and triggering an influx of settlers from the south.
What if Wright had, from his expertise on the perils of colonial expansion, considered explicitly how Canada could create a different future? How could Canadians apply his accumulated knowledge, and the knowledge he draws on, and avoid perpetrating the mistakes of the past? Would it be possible for Canada to be the next “world's best hope”? Wright apparently didn't even entertain the notion.
Another comment from the discussion: “Why should we read books like this, that just offer apocalyptic views of the past and no hope for the future?”
My answer: we shouldn't. Instead, we should demand rigor from our writers, avoid national smugness, embrace nuance, and look for solutions instead of endless analysis. We should should read original sources, learn our own history, reject fundamentalist beliefs in whatever guise they come, and apply what we learn from the past to the future.
That's the biggest disservice Wright did to the Canadian-American discourse: He had the opportunity to write that book. And he squandered it.
~~
* Wright, Ronald. What is America? Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2008. Page references are to the hardcover edition.
** Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. Rev. Ed. New York: Anchor, 2004.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Juxtapositions
Lots of back and forth, this week--the cultural equivalent of the weather this February. One day the temperature is above freezing and everything in sight is melting; twelve hours later the temp is 11 below C or 11 above F, the winds are howling, and it's snowing again. Go figure.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
So here are three other pairings.
High tech: In Canada, several federal agencies--Finance, Treasury Board, and Defense Research and Development Canada--are under cyberattack. The attackers are sophisticated enough to make it look like they're working for China. Employees of those agencies who require internet access have been authorized to work in cafes and from home (because those internet connections are so much more secure??). This has been going on for some six weeks but came to light only recently (did a cloaking device fail?).
Low tech: Minister Oda hand-drawing a caret (like this ^ ) and writing "not" to deny funding to an NGO. Here's a picture. My earlier take is here (hey, the "not" jokes used to be funny). Political commentators, and not especially left-leaning ones, either, are still talking about this, with ever-heightening rhetoric.
Haves: In the U.S., the Obama administration extended the Bush tax cuts for those whose income is more than $250,000 (for a couple, $200K for a single). Reason: people who pay taxes in the U.S. (and those of us U.S. citizens who legally DON'T because we PAY PAY PAY in another country but are still forced by U.S. tax law to justify EVERY SINGLE YEAR why we don't pay in the U.S. TOO, not that I'm bitter) are still voters. In the U.S., voters hate "tax increases," even if they are technically just cuts that are expiring, and even if they apply only to people who make a whackload more than you.
Have-nots: The new budget in the U.S. includes a $5.50 (Canadian? The loonie is worth more these days!) surcharge on people entering the U.S. from Canada by air and sea. This will net $100 million or so in revenue, a tiny blip on the screen of their need for revenue, especially compared to what they could have made had they reversed those tax cuts on the wealthy, but like whatever. Reason: Few paying the $5.50 vote in U.S. elections. I say "few" because Americans travel from Canada into the U.S. at times, too. However, I won't be paying this surcharge because flying from Minneapolis cuts the cost of travel significantly, even with gas/hotel/time factored in.
If you like shouting: read What is America, by Ronald Wright (Alfred A. Knopf Canada). Written in 2008 before the election, it's full of sloppy scholarship and polemic. In fact, the title could use a caret: What Is ^ America; at the caret, insert Wrong With. His thesis seems to be that "America," a term that changes meaning several times in the book, is and has always been a horrible, exploitive place and that the neoconservative fundamentalist approach to life and the world is wrong. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just don't think shouting is the same thing as making an effective case. Also, he's lazy in his research and writing, and he has no solutions. (Yes, some of the shouting related to this book came from me as I read.)
If you like muttering: read Doing the Continental, by David Dyment (Dundurn Press, Toronto). Full disclosure: I have only been able to dip into this book. However, I heard him speak, and he claims his book was aimed at the regular, nonspecialist person riding the ferry or the subway. If that's true, his editors should have had him try another pass, especially at sentences like this one: "The Americans are so much a part of our reality that they contextualize us" (p. 16). However, what I appreciate about this book and the writer is that 1. he claims a new type of relationship between the two countries is possible and 2. that Canada holds the power to effect this change.
That's enough whiplash for one week, eh.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Intelligent Move, NOT
Yesterday, one of the government's Ministers admitted to altering a legal document after it was signed.
The document awarded funding to Kairos, an ecumenical group of Canadian churches that advocates for international peace and justice. Or rather, the document apparently offered that aid when the bureaucrats signed it.
Then Bev Oda, International Cooperation Minister, or someone for whom she is now taking the fall after two years of obfuscations and denials, hand-wrote "not" in the award statement. As in, a particular amount is NOT awarded to this group.
Sheesh. It's been, what, 20 years since it was thought "funny" for adolescents say things like, "I like you...NOT" or "Here's some money...NOT."
Here's what happened after she admitted to inserting the "not" yesterday. Here's an article from last week that gives a little more context.
Time for two disclosures. First, I am a (sometimes bewildered but generally supportive) member of Trinity United Church in Thunder Bay, which is part of the United Church of Canada, which is a denomination that is a member of Kairos.
Second, Bev Oda was born in Thunder Bay but is not in government to represent either Thunder Bay riding.
But back to this "not" clause. I knew about the "notwithstanding" clause, which lets the federal government and provincial governments pick and choose among the freedoms granted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Generally, they don't (though some have tried), but they could.
In the U.S., the only thing I know (not that my knowledge of political gamesmanship is vast) that's similar is the Executive Order. The U.S. President (and state governors) can determine the actions of federal (or state, if a governor) employees by issuing one. Executive Orders can be relatively minor (e.g., protecting rivers) or they can do things like effectively set foreign policy by preventing federal employees from interacting with representatives of specific international groups. Here's a list (you can pick years).
In any case, here's the deal. This "not" stuff is junior high. If Bev Oda, or someone else in the Conservative government, is going to go against the recommendations of the people whose job it is to develop expertise and make recommendations, she should make those decisions in public.
And then, she should not lie or mischaracterize or spin them when asked about them later.
And she should be prepared for an exodus of expertise from the civil service. But that's one of the hazards of making ill-considered decisions.
This reprimand by the Speaker, this hoop-de-doo from the opposition, all this STUFF--this never had to happen, had she only behaved like an adult in the first place.
Meanwhile, buy your "Kairos is ^NOT going away" t-shirts here.
The document awarded funding to Kairos, an ecumenical group of Canadian churches that advocates for international peace and justice. Or rather, the document apparently offered that aid when the bureaucrats signed it.
Then Bev Oda, International Cooperation Minister, or someone for whom she is now taking the fall after two years of obfuscations and denials, hand-wrote "not" in the award statement. As in, a particular amount is NOT awarded to this group.
Sheesh. It's been, what, 20 years since it was thought "funny" for adolescents say things like, "I like you...NOT" or "Here's some money...NOT."
Here's what happened after she admitted to inserting the "not" yesterday. Here's an article from last week that gives a little more context.
Time for two disclosures. First, I am a (sometimes bewildered but generally supportive) member of Trinity United Church in Thunder Bay, which is part of the United Church of Canada, which is a denomination that is a member of Kairos.
Second, Bev Oda was born in Thunder Bay but is not in government to represent either Thunder Bay riding.
But back to this "not" clause. I knew about the "notwithstanding" clause, which lets the federal government and provincial governments pick and choose among the freedoms granted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Generally, they don't (though some have tried), but they could.
In the U.S., the only thing I know (not that my knowledge of political gamesmanship is vast) that's similar is the Executive Order. The U.S. President (and state governors) can determine the actions of federal (or state, if a governor) employees by issuing one. Executive Orders can be relatively minor (e.g., protecting rivers) or they can do things like effectively set foreign policy by preventing federal employees from interacting with representatives of specific international groups. Here's a list (you can pick years).
In any case, here's the deal. This "not" stuff is junior high. If Bev Oda, or someone else in the Conservative government, is going to go against the recommendations of the people whose job it is to develop expertise and make recommendations, she should make those decisions in public.
And then, she should not lie or mischaracterize or spin them when asked about them later.
And she should be prepared for an exodus of expertise from the civil service. But that's one of the hazards of making ill-considered decisions.
This reprimand by the Speaker, this hoop-de-doo from the opposition, all this STUFF--this never had to happen, had she only behaved like an adult in the first place.
Meanwhile, buy your "Kairos is ^NOT going away" t-shirts here.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
National Anthems
So there was a big sporting event recently (Canadians: not hockey) and somebody flubbed the words to the U.S. National anthem in front of bazillions of people and one kid in a Darth Vader costume.
I am not an apologist for overhyped, overexposed divas. However, here are some thoughts about THAT whole thing.
1. Americans, you're highly offended that said diva doesn't know the words to the national anthem. Do YOU? Really? "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the" what? Night? Fight? Either might work. Don't think about it. You'll have to go look it up if you think too much.
2. Musically, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is damn near impossible to sing UNLESS you're an overhyped diva. Not that overhyped divas sing it at all musically.
3. Canadians, your national anthem is easier, except when Conservatives try to deflect attention from issues by "fixing" words, which I wrote about ad nauseam a year ago.
4. Also Canadians, I still don't get that whole "stand on guard" bit. However, at least when you forget some words, you have a fallback phrase that's got a good chance of being accurate.
5. Is the whole "she flubbed the words" worth getting bent out of shape over? I don't think so--but it is useful to wonder whether some other professional singer might be worth hiring next year, even if they aren't starring in an overhyped, overexposed, underdelivering movie.
6. Here's an idea: Maybe pick someone who's an actual professional SINGER, as opposed to an entertainer. Maybe have a "no diva" policy.
I'm gonna ask that Darth Vader kid to work on THAT.
I am not an apologist for overhyped, overexposed divas. However, here are some thoughts about THAT whole thing.
1. Americans, you're highly offended that said diva doesn't know the words to the national anthem. Do YOU? Really? "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the" what? Night? Fight? Either might work. Don't think about it. You'll have to go look it up if you think too much.
2. Musically, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is damn near impossible to sing UNLESS you're an overhyped diva. Not that overhyped divas sing it at all musically.
3. Canadians, your national anthem is easier, except when Conservatives try to deflect attention from issues by "fixing" words, which I wrote about ad nauseam a year ago.
4. Also Canadians, I still don't get that whole "stand on guard" bit. However, at least when you forget some words, you have a fallback phrase that's got a good chance of being accurate.
5. Is the whole "she flubbed the words" worth getting bent out of shape over? I don't think so--but it is useful to wonder whether some other professional singer might be worth hiring next year, even if they aren't starring in an overhyped, overexposed, underdelivering movie.
6. Here's an idea: Maybe pick someone who's an actual professional SINGER, as opposed to an entertainer. Maybe have a "no diva" policy.
I'm gonna ask that Darth Vader kid to work on THAT.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Borderline Yawn
So, Mr. Harper goes to Washington. He and President Obama talked about border security. They made some announcements about increased security and free trade and more cooperation.
This is the kind of announcement that should provide something interesting for me to say. So I keep waiting for something from this trip to be really earth-shattering and important.
[crickets]
These days, the U.S.-Canada border isn't particularly interesting, at least not in comparison to borders in other places...Gaza, for example.
And hey, after the last two weeks of unrest in places like Tunisia and Egypt, at least President Obama got to talk to a leader who's NOT facing a challenge to his leadership.
Right, Mr. Layton? Mr. Ignatieff? Bueller? Anyone?
[crickets]
Uh-huh.
This is the kind of announcement that should provide something interesting for me to say. So I keep waiting for something from this trip to be really earth-shattering and important.
[crickets]
These days, the U.S.-Canada border isn't particularly interesting, at least not in comparison to borders in other places...Gaza, for example.
And hey, after the last two weeks of unrest in places like Tunisia and Egypt, at least President Obama got to talk to a leader who's NOT facing a challenge to his leadership.
Right, Mr. Layton? Mr. Ignatieff? Bueller? Anyone?
[crickets]
Uh-huh.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
News Flash: Guns, Health Insurance DIFFERENT
Perhaps this should be called "Essential Differences Deux." Here's what we were talking about before. But just when you think the U.S. has chosen to focus on the weather, somebody somewhere does something bizarre.
A state representative introduced legislation in South Dakota that would require each adult over the age of 21 to own a gun.
He acknowledges it's a stunt, designed to show that federal legislation requiring everyone to own health insurance is unconstitutional.
Apparently the logic is this: if the federal government can require everyone to buy health insurance for protection, why can't the state require everyone to buy a gun for protection?
Because, they say, protection is protection is protection, right?
Is it? Because last time I checked, guns are really NOT the same as health insurance. My ability to shoot someone is NOT the same as my ability to receive and pay for an operation or other health care that preserves or restores my health.
And the appliance that moves the computer's cursor is not the same thing as the little brown rodent in the fields or the white rodent that lives in laboratories, even though the word "mouse" describes each one.
Also, stunts like this don't contribute to the conversations about healthcare and gun control that could fruitfully happen in the U.S. They're disrespectful and a big waste of time.
It's this kind of stuff that mystifies me about the U.S.
But don't get smug, Canada: I'm not hearing any letup in the "omigod, we don't want an election!" rhetoric, either.
A state representative introduced legislation in South Dakota that would require each adult over the age of 21 to own a gun.
He acknowledges it's a stunt, designed to show that federal legislation requiring everyone to own health insurance is unconstitutional.
Apparently the logic is this: if the federal government can require everyone to buy health insurance for protection, why can't the state require everyone to buy a gun for protection?
Because, they say, protection is protection is protection, right?
Is it? Because last time I checked, guns are really NOT the same as health insurance. My ability to shoot someone is NOT the same as my ability to receive and pay for an operation or other health care that preserves or restores my health.
And the appliance that moves the computer's cursor is not the same thing as the little brown rodent in the fields or the white rodent that lives in laboratories, even though the word "mouse" describes each one.
Also, stunts like this don't contribute to the conversations about healthcare and gun control that could fruitfully happen in the U.S. They're disrespectful and a big waste of time.
It's this kind of stuff that mystifies me about the U.S.
But don't get smug, Canada: I'm not hearing any letup in the "omigod, we don't want an election!" rhetoric, either.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
American/Canadian: My Essential Differences
Apparently there's a book that posits something important about the Essential Difference between male and female brains. I am not touching that discussion with a ten-foot piece of softwood lumber.
I'm also not talking today about a way to tell Canadians from USA-ians. The world is more nuanced and subtle than that, thank goodness.
No, because it's all about me here, this is about how I am essentially different from both Americans and Canadians.
Before we start: yes, I know I'm using stereotypes for the "American" and "Canadian" roles, and I know I'm not unique in being different from those norms.
So. The essential difference between me and "Americans": the whole gun thing. As a Canadian said recently, "I don't get how 'guns equals freedom.'" Me neither. I don't own weapons; I've never shot a weapon (unless you count archery in Grade 8 for four weeks, and that was shooting at targets). I don't get it. I will say I also don't know that the equation "gun control equals increased safety" is true, either. I am all for studies that examine the efficacy of gun control legislation. And I won't be owning a gun while they're going on, either, and I do not feel un-free about it.
The essential difference between me and "Canadians": I LOoooooove elections. Love love love.
For the Americans reading this, some background: Canada's Conservative Prime Minister is loathed by many and merely tolerated by most (the man has apparently NO FANS), but evidently the prospect of an election is far more frightening than allowing a man who disdains science to run the country.
Nothing makes me feel more American than listening to this week's political discussions up here (and note that criticism comes to him from both sides): "We hate Harper and everything he stands for. For the past five years, he has shown time and again how irresponsible he is [in spending so much money to end the recession] [in callously disregarding the real needs of the people in favour of his conservative social agenda] [in continuing to sing and play the piano in public] [insert your favourite Harper egregiousness here]. But, gasp, we don't want an election. The Canadian people don't want an election."
WHY NOT???? I love elections. Okay, no, I haven't voted in every single election I was eligible to vote in--when I lived in the U.S., I let some of the city council elections slide. And nowadays I don't vote in Oklahoma-specific elections, because I don't live there and it's not fair for me to inflict my opinion on those who do. (Also because it's a big waste of time, since I'm so far out of synch with the state.) And I'm sad that I now no longer vote every two years (representatives) and every six years (senators).
Because in the US, Canadians, we get to vote every two years. Two years!! And senators--well, first, unlike you, we get to vote them in. Then, yes, six years later, we get to vote them out, if we want. We know when. We can start countdown clocks to election day.
And the president, the big guy, the commander-in-chief--four years. That's all he gets. Sadly, Americans gave Bush 8 years, but the point is, they were given the opportunity to come to their senses. You know how? Through an ELECTION.
Canadians, if you dislike elections because (in the words of the wise yet mythical Leo McGarry, as scripted by the genius Aaron Sorkin) you're sick of voting for the lesser of who cares, I hear you. If you look at the leadership of opposition parties and shudder or say "meh," I get it.
But that's not the fault of the ELECTION. That's a cultural thing. If I were going to be mean, I would say it's your own fault, for accepting crappy leaders. For not expecting more from politicians, and for not holding them accountable for their actions. For imagining that the status quo is all you can hope for, that the unknown is necessarily frightening.
So I'm not saying that, because I'm Canadian enough to not want to be mean.
I'm also not saying that frequent elections sometimes don't result in mistakes. In 1980, the people of Arkansas elected Frank White as governor because a young and gifted politician named Bill Clinton had irritated them by raising the cost of car registration. (I could not make this up.) For two years, Arkansans endured idiocy, but they managed to survive it, and so did Mr. Clinton. And several Arkansans recognized that hey, their votes counted, so maybe they want to vote FOR candidates instead of "teaching a candidate a lesson" by voting AGAINST him. (Plus they were so chastened they changed the state Constitution to give governors four-year terms, like most states did in the 1800s.)
In conclusion, I urge Canadians to embrace elections, and that starts at home. Raise your argumentative, intellectually curious, and caring children to become politicians or at least civil servants. Your government could use a few more of your best and brightest.
For Americans--I don't know what to say, because I don't want to talk about guns. I have the right to not talk about guns because my freedom of speech is guaranteed. And isn't that true freedom?
Finally, in our "we're more alike than we are different," kum-ba-yah moment, I will demonstrate how truly Canadian AND American I am by complaining about the weather: Brr.
I'm also not talking today about a way to tell Canadians from USA-ians. The world is more nuanced and subtle than that, thank goodness.
No, because it's all about me here, this is about how I am essentially different from both Americans and Canadians.
Before we start: yes, I know I'm using stereotypes for the "American" and "Canadian" roles, and I know I'm not unique in being different from those norms.
So. The essential difference between me and "Americans": the whole gun thing. As a Canadian said recently, "I don't get how 'guns equals freedom.'" Me neither. I don't own weapons; I've never shot a weapon (unless you count archery in Grade 8 for four weeks, and that was shooting at targets). I don't get it. I will say I also don't know that the equation "gun control equals increased safety" is true, either. I am all for studies that examine the efficacy of gun control legislation. And I won't be owning a gun while they're going on, either, and I do not feel un-free about it.
The essential difference between me and "Canadians": I LOoooooove elections. Love love love.
For the Americans reading this, some background: Canada's Conservative Prime Minister is loathed by many and merely tolerated by most (the man has apparently NO FANS), but evidently the prospect of an election is far more frightening than allowing a man who disdains science to run the country.
Nothing makes me feel more American than listening to this week's political discussions up here (and note that criticism comes to him from both sides): "We hate Harper and everything he stands for. For the past five years, he has shown time and again how irresponsible he is [in spending so much money to end the recession] [in callously disregarding the real needs of the people in favour of his conservative social agenda] [in continuing to sing and play the piano in public] [insert your favourite Harper egregiousness here]. But, gasp, we don't want an election. The Canadian people don't want an election."
WHY NOT???? I love elections. Okay, no, I haven't voted in every single election I was eligible to vote in--when I lived in the U.S., I let some of the city council elections slide. And nowadays I don't vote in Oklahoma-specific elections, because I don't live there and it's not fair for me to inflict my opinion on those who do. (Also because it's a big waste of time, since I'm so far out of synch with the state.) And I'm sad that I now no longer vote every two years (representatives) and every six years (senators).
Because in the US, Canadians, we get to vote every two years. Two years!! And senators--well, first, unlike you, we get to vote them in. Then, yes, six years later, we get to vote them out, if we want. We know when. We can start countdown clocks to election day.
And the president, the big guy, the commander-in-chief--four years. That's all he gets. Sadly, Americans gave Bush 8 years, but the point is, they were given the opportunity to come to their senses. You know how? Through an ELECTION.
Canadians, if you dislike elections because (in the words of the wise yet mythical Leo McGarry, as scripted by the genius Aaron Sorkin) you're sick of voting for the lesser of who cares, I hear you. If you look at the leadership of opposition parties and shudder or say "meh," I get it.
But that's not the fault of the ELECTION. That's a cultural thing. If I were going to be mean, I would say it's your own fault, for accepting crappy leaders. For not expecting more from politicians, and for not holding them accountable for their actions. For imagining that the status quo is all you can hope for, that the unknown is necessarily frightening.
So I'm not saying that, because I'm Canadian enough to not want to be mean.
I'm also not saying that frequent elections sometimes don't result in mistakes. In 1980, the people of Arkansas elected Frank White as governor because a young and gifted politician named Bill Clinton had irritated them by raising the cost of car registration. (I could not make this up.) For two years, Arkansans endured idiocy, but they managed to survive it, and so did Mr. Clinton. And several Arkansans recognized that hey, their votes counted, so maybe they want to vote FOR candidates instead of "teaching a candidate a lesson" by voting AGAINST him. (Plus they were so chastened they changed the state Constitution to give governors four-year terms, like most states did in the 1800s.)
In conclusion, I urge Canadians to embrace elections, and that starts at home. Raise your argumentative, intellectually curious, and caring children to become politicians or at least civil servants. Your government could use a few more of your best and brightest.
For Americans--I don't know what to say, because I don't want to talk about guns. I have the right to not talk about guns because my freedom of speech is guaranteed. And isn't that true freedom?
Finally, in our "we're more alike than we are different," kum-ba-yah moment, I will demonstrate how truly Canadian AND American I am by complaining about the weather: Brr.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
What's it All About?
As other attacks (Moscow) and shootings (Florida) take over the news internationally and in the U.S., Tucson is getting a bit of a reprieve from the spotlight.
It's been interesting to hear what Canadians tend to discuss in relation to the shooting, as opposed to what the discussion seems to be about in the U.S.
Canadians tend to want to talk about gun control. To a lesser extent, Canadians relate the Tucson shootings to mental health care, which (as with the rest of the U.S. healthcare system) is bewilderingly different and obviously inferior to Canada's.
The most public exception to this perspective is an opinion "writer" for Maclean's who I prefer not to name out of respect to those who actually write well-thought-out opinion pieces for that publication (even though I frequently disagree with them). This "writer" actually believes that if someone else in the Safeway parking lot had had a gun, fewer people would have been shot. (Aside from the other obviously ridiculous aspects of that statement, here's a question: How does she know no one else in that parking lot was carrying a gun?)
This is a storyline I've heard around the wires in the U.S. as well, which is as close as Americans can come to addressing issues of gun control. Because in the U.S., this event is not about gun control. It can't be. No discussion can be had about gun control, because a discussion that is a hollering match across a divide as wide as the Grand Canyon is not a real discussion.
Instead, the event in the U.S. has apparently become part of the storyline of the new, Republican-"led" Congress, what President Obama will say tonight in the State of the Union address, and whether he will win re-election in 21 months. It's all about the winning and the losing, folks.
Even the attempt to foster better communication (or appear to) by encouraging Democrats and Republicans to sit together, instead of in partisan groups, for tonight's speech has become all about "who's sitting by whom." Politics as high school.
Meanwhile, in Tucson, people are quietly trying to go about their lives. They are paying attention to their own mental health. Regular folks, along with political and religious leaders, are reclaiming the space in which the shootings occurred. The "I know someone who was there" and "I was across the street" and "an injured person is my neighbor" stories are working themselves out in their telling and re-telling.
As days become weeks and months, each person will make choices. They'll change, or not, based on what happened that day. Some may choose to continue to discuss guns, ethnicity, citizenship, mental health, public service, engagement, community.
But one thing Tucsonans know: the shooting is not even remotely about winning and losing. In Tucson, that small city, everyone is connected in some way to that event. They know all too well that real people lost their lives that day; their community lost a measure of innocence. A respected, vibrant Congresswoman struggles to recover. And no one--no one--won.
It's been interesting to hear what Canadians tend to discuss in relation to the shooting, as opposed to what the discussion seems to be about in the U.S.
Canadians tend to want to talk about gun control. To a lesser extent, Canadians relate the Tucson shootings to mental health care, which (as with the rest of the U.S. healthcare system) is bewilderingly different and obviously inferior to Canada's.
The most public exception to this perspective is an opinion "writer" for Maclean's who I prefer not to name out of respect to those who actually write well-thought-out opinion pieces for that publication (even though I frequently disagree with them). This "writer" actually believes that if someone else in the Safeway parking lot had had a gun, fewer people would have been shot. (Aside from the other obviously ridiculous aspects of that statement, here's a question: How does she know no one else in that parking lot was carrying a gun?)
This is a storyline I've heard around the wires in the U.S. as well, which is as close as Americans can come to addressing issues of gun control. Because in the U.S., this event is not about gun control. It can't be. No discussion can be had about gun control, because a discussion that is a hollering match across a divide as wide as the Grand Canyon is not a real discussion.
Instead, the event in the U.S. has apparently become part of the storyline of the new, Republican-"led" Congress, what President Obama will say tonight in the State of the Union address, and whether he will win re-election in 21 months. It's all about the winning and the losing, folks.
Even the attempt to foster better communication (or appear to) by encouraging Democrats and Republicans to sit together, instead of in partisan groups, for tonight's speech has become all about "who's sitting by whom." Politics as high school.
Meanwhile, in Tucson, people are quietly trying to go about their lives. They are paying attention to their own mental health. Regular folks, along with political and religious leaders, are reclaiming the space in which the shootings occurred. The "I know someone who was there" and "I was across the street" and "an injured person is my neighbor" stories are working themselves out in their telling and re-telling.
As days become weeks and months, each person will make choices. They'll change, or not, based on what happened that day. Some may choose to continue to discuss guns, ethnicity, citizenship, mental health, public service, engagement, community.
But one thing Tucsonans know: the shooting is not even remotely about winning and losing. In Tucson, that small city, everyone is connected in some way to that event. They know all too well that real people lost their lives that day; their community lost a measure of innocence. A respected, vibrant Congresswoman struggles to recover. And no one--no one--won.
Monday, January 10, 2011
What it Takes to Really Learn Something
Since moving to Canada, I have learned that if I wear a coat with Velcro fastenings, I should avoid wearing knit scarves (meaning the muffler variety of scarf, a use of the term "muffler" which is apparently out of fashion). Knit scarves invariably get caught in the hook side of the velcro.
That's two rabbit trails in two sentences. "Muffler" is something you read about in books, but most people (around here) tend not to say anymore. "Hook-and-loop fastener" is the generic way to refer to Velcro. Sheesh.
MY POINT is that I should have learned this sometime in the early 1990s, when I moved to the mountains of Northern New Mexico and got to buy serious coats. Failing that, you'd think it would have become part of my explicit learning at some point during the ten years I lived in Colorado.
But no. Now, some five-plus years into living here, I finally can verbalize that the fleece muffler (crap) scarf goes with my black Velcro (crap) hook-and-loop fastened coat.
This is really about the shootings in Tucson on Saturday. (Trust me.) I have known for some time that I am grateful to be away from the relentless political rhetoric in the US. I am no more a fan of Keith Olbermann than I am of any of those on the right who also shriek and froth at the mouth. I have a low tolerance for people shouting past each other. So I am glad to have missed so much of it.
My heart is heavy from the shooting, in part because I've spent significant time in Tucson--in fact, at the Safeway and the bird food store and the La Salsa restaurant in that shopping center. Tucson is a lovely community, where many kinds of people make lives together. So the shootings there are not much farther from my thoughts than is my brother, his physicians, his family, his blood cells.
And, as is true with "knit mufflers don't go with Velcro," I am finally able to say, explicitly about politics and rhetoric, "I know all I need to; now I move on." I'm so very glad to live here, where I am away from the relentness ugly rhetoric.
This morning, while running errands, I was in the car during a CBC newscast. CBC calmly reported actual news of Tucson: arraignment, suspect, a recap count of injured and killed. Nothing breathless. No "breaking news" that isn't actually NEW. CBC reports that people are searching for blame, but it's a ten-second summary, not a rehash of "he said, she said." And then we return to regular programming: a gardening show.
And for me, for now, that's what I need: regular life. I can drop off a box of books at the library, take papers to a lawyer, go to meetings. I can prep for other meetings, do laundry, and review drafts of written stuff. At some point, I may even be able to research and revise policies, and tease out creative writing, with the focused attention they require (and deserve).
Later, when I have run out of "little things" and "regular life," ha ha, I will look again at the "big picture" and apply what I have learned. Specifically, when I have the opportunity to vote again, I will pay attention to more than political party, campaign promises, and voting record. I will look at how the candidate ran for office, and I will not reward flamethrowers.
To recap what I have (finally) learned: Wear fleece scarves with coats that have that hook-and-loop closure.
After you find out the facts, return to regular life as much as possible.
Oh, and: Deliberately incendiary rhetoric is vulgar at best and destructive at worst.
Let's hope many in the US have learned that last lesson.
That's two rabbit trails in two sentences. "Muffler" is something you read about in books, but most people (around here) tend not to say anymore. "Hook-and-loop fastener" is the generic way to refer to Velcro. Sheesh.
MY POINT is that I should have learned this sometime in the early 1990s, when I moved to the mountains of Northern New Mexico and got to buy serious coats. Failing that, you'd think it would have become part of my explicit learning at some point during the ten years I lived in Colorado.
But no. Now, some five-plus years into living here, I finally can verbalize that the fleece muffler (crap) scarf goes with my black Velcro (crap) hook-and-loop fastened coat.
This is really about the shootings in Tucson on Saturday. (Trust me.) I have known for some time that I am grateful to be away from the relentless political rhetoric in the US. I am no more a fan of Keith Olbermann than I am of any of those on the right who also shriek and froth at the mouth. I have a low tolerance for people shouting past each other. So I am glad to have missed so much of it.
My heart is heavy from the shooting, in part because I've spent significant time in Tucson--in fact, at the Safeway and the bird food store and the La Salsa restaurant in that shopping center. Tucson is a lovely community, where many kinds of people make lives together. So the shootings there are not much farther from my thoughts than is my brother, his physicians, his family, his blood cells.
And, as is true with "knit mufflers don't go with Velcro," I am finally able to say, explicitly about politics and rhetoric, "I know all I need to; now I move on." I'm so very glad to live here, where I am away from the relentness ugly rhetoric.
This morning, while running errands, I was in the car during a CBC newscast. CBC calmly reported actual news of Tucson: arraignment, suspect, a recap count of injured and killed. Nothing breathless. No "breaking news" that isn't actually NEW. CBC reports that people are searching for blame, but it's a ten-second summary, not a rehash of "he said, she said." And then we return to regular programming: a gardening show.
And for me, for now, that's what I need: regular life. I can drop off a box of books at the library, take papers to a lawyer, go to meetings. I can prep for other meetings, do laundry, and review drafts of written stuff. At some point, I may even be able to research and revise policies, and tease out creative writing, with the focused attention they require (and deserve).
Later, when I have run out of "little things" and "regular life," ha ha, I will look again at the "big picture" and apply what I have learned. Specifically, when I have the opportunity to vote again, I will pay attention to more than political party, campaign promises, and voting record. I will look at how the candidate ran for office, and I will not reward flamethrowers.
To recap what I have (finally) learned: Wear fleece scarves with coats that have that hook-and-loop closure.
After you find out the facts, return to regular life as much as possible.
Oh, and: Deliberately incendiary rhetoric is vulgar at best and destructive at worst.
Let's hope many in the US have learned that last lesson.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
What It's Like
Most Canadians have only a vague idea of (and vague-r interest in) where Oklahoma is. I usually explain it's "Texas lite."
What is impossible to explain is what it's like to live there. How you can have regular conversations with people who are so kind and generous, and then hear them say that they hate people whose skin is a slightly different color. People who are polite and thoughtful but wonder why you don't drape your life in the stars and stripes--are you not patriotic?
What's impossible to understand is how easy it is to give up hope. It's easier to not speak up, because speaking up isn't successful, and it makes you a target. Because money, especially oil money, wins over people every. single. time. That truth, and it is TRUE, leads people, especially those who are liberal politically, to be very good at analyzing problems and not so good at finding solutions. Lots of dinner table complaining to those of like minds, less effort to change minds and policies.
So when I run into someoneo who can express this mixed bag of feelings, I share.
Here, watch this.
Here are some of my favo(u)rite lines:
"billboards with hate-sized font"
"looking for a sign" "a fish with feet"
"where the sunset stretches its arms wide as forgiveness across stolen plains"
"do not apologize for your presence"
Here's one I'm not sure I believe, but I'm glad she does.
"Oklahoma is worth the wait."
Did you also notice what she does in this piece? She gives those who live there--those with family there, those who are staying there for work or to raise children--coping strategies. Hono(u)r Woody Guthrie, learn your history (you'll note that the plains are stolen), show others you love them even though you don't understand them. She shows them a way to hope, a way to take action to support that hope.
Go Lauren! For more of her poetry (which is excellent), go to www.laurenzuniga.com.
What is impossible to explain is what it's like to live there. How you can have regular conversations with people who are so kind and generous, and then hear them say that they hate people whose skin is a slightly different color. People who are polite and thoughtful but wonder why you don't drape your life in the stars and stripes--are you not patriotic?
What's impossible to understand is how easy it is to give up hope. It's easier to not speak up, because speaking up isn't successful, and it makes you a target. Because money, especially oil money, wins over people every. single. time. That truth, and it is TRUE, leads people, especially those who are liberal politically, to be very good at analyzing problems and not so good at finding solutions. Lots of dinner table complaining to those of like minds, less effort to change minds and policies.
So when I run into someoneo who can express this mixed bag of feelings, I share.
Here, watch this.
Here are some of my favo(u)rite lines:
"billboards with hate-sized font"
"looking for a sign" "a fish with feet"
"where the sunset stretches its arms wide as forgiveness across stolen plains"
"do not apologize for your presence"
Here's one I'm not sure I believe, but I'm glad she does.
"Oklahoma is worth the wait."
Did you also notice what she does in this piece? She gives those who live there--those with family there, those who are staying there for work or to raise children--coping strategies. Hono(u)r Woody Guthrie, learn your history (you'll note that the plains are stolen), show others you love them even though you don't understand them. She shows them a way to hope, a way to take action to support that hope.
Go Lauren! For more of her poetry (which is excellent), go to www.laurenzuniga.com.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Two WikiThoughts
So, Wikileaks. So what?
1. News flash: DIPLOMACY REQUIRES TACT.
2. As the World High School Turns: Episode summary.
Chris, the crusading and/or conniving editor of the school newspaper, found a diary containing the most personal and private thoughts of Usa, the most popular girl in the school (just ask her).
Chris, being the crusading type, or possibly the connving type, plans to publish the diary in the school newspaper, page by page, thus drawing out the drama all week long.
The school is all a-twitter. (Twitter: See how au courant I am?) What does Usa think of us? Of me?
Those in the Asia club huddle to gossip, but then North Korea pokes South Korea in the eye and China says, "Don't make me come back there" and they lose their focus.
The members of the African club try not to be concerned. Australia and New Zealand shrug and go surfing with their Pacific Islander friends. Central and South America pretend to go about their business but hang out in the hallway outside the newspaper office.
Two groups of loners (yes, it's oxymoronic)--the Middle East and India/Pakistan/Bangladesh--brace themselves for the publication of nonsense about them (though Israel and India secretly think they'll come out looking relatively good).
Poor Haiti. It's home sick. (Seriously. Haiti deserves a better 2011.)
The Scandinavian Club remains aloof, as usual. Somone in the former Soviet club insults a former Baltic state and a scuffle ensues. Russia officiates.
The groups disband and reform: the History club (members of the former British Empire) meet to share rumors, then report back to their home continents. The former Soviet republics touch base with Turkey, the Middle East loners, and north Africa, then drift back.
Even the European Club, focused though they are on ekeing out each other's allowances, can't pretend they don't know that Usa's most secret feelings are going to be made public.
Meanwhile, Canada sits at the window, staring out into the evening. What will Usa say about me? Will Usa recognize my loyalty? Will she compliment my mission in Afghanistan, my compliance in trade negotiations, my leadership, uh, followership, uh, "being there"-ness in environmental and security issues? Will Usa go on record and tell everybody we're really best friends?
A horrible thought crosses Canada's mind: what if Usa doesn't say anything about me at all?
Tune in tomorrow, when Canada is forced to write her pal Usa a sternly worded letter (in invisible ink) in As The World High School Turns.
1. News flash: DIPLOMACY REQUIRES TACT.
2. As the World High School Turns: Episode summary.
Chris, the crusading and/or conniving editor of the school newspaper, found a diary containing the most personal and private thoughts of Usa, the most popular girl in the school (just ask her).
Chris, being the crusading type, or possibly the connving type, plans to publish the diary in the school newspaper, page by page, thus drawing out the drama all week long.
The school is all a-twitter. (Twitter: See how au courant I am?) What does Usa think of us? Of me?
Those in the Asia club huddle to gossip, but then North Korea pokes South Korea in the eye and China says, "Don't make me come back there" and they lose their focus.
The members of the African club try not to be concerned. Australia and New Zealand shrug and go surfing with their Pacific Islander friends. Central and South America pretend to go about their business but hang out in the hallway outside the newspaper office.
Two groups of loners (yes, it's oxymoronic)--the Middle East and India/Pakistan/Bangladesh--brace themselves for the publication of nonsense about them (though Israel and India secretly think they'll come out looking relatively good).
Poor Haiti. It's home sick. (Seriously. Haiti deserves a better 2011.)
The Scandinavian Club remains aloof, as usual. Somone in the former Soviet club insults a former Baltic state and a scuffle ensues. Russia officiates.
The groups disband and reform: the History club (members of the former British Empire) meet to share rumors, then report back to their home continents. The former Soviet republics touch base with Turkey, the Middle East loners, and north Africa, then drift back.
Even the European Club, focused though they are on ekeing out each other's allowances, can't pretend they don't know that Usa's most secret feelings are going to be made public.
Meanwhile, Canada sits at the window, staring out into the evening. What will Usa say about me? Will Usa recognize my loyalty? Will she compliment my mission in Afghanistan, my compliance in trade negotiations, my leadership, uh, followership, uh, "being there"-ness in environmental and security issues? Will Usa go on record and tell everybody we're really best friends?
A horrible thought crosses Canada's mind: what if Usa doesn't say anything about me at all?
Tune in tomorrow, when Canada is forced to write her pal Usa a sternly worded letter (in invisible ink) in As The World High School Turns.
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.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Intermission
A ku-hai for your contemplation
It rains, yet the house leaks not.
No bears lumber by.
I breathe: inhale, exhale, in-
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
What I Mean to Say Is
I know I've written about the Governor-General and the Queen before last Saturday.
What I don't seem to be able to "get over, already!" relates more to what I was talking about last Saturday.
People in Canada walk around internally okay with someone they didn't elect (or at least have the opportunity to vote against) representing them internationally as their head of state. They're OKAY WITH IT. It's status quo. Normal. NORMAL.
Not that they generally think about that kind of thing. Americans don't, either. But if you scratch the surface of your average American, she or he would say, quickly, that we-all want our official representatives to be elected. (Insert offhand reference to W's first term here.) It's the default assumption: we may not vote, we may not believe that our vote matters, but hey, we believe in the concept of voting. (Also Botox and gun ownership.) (Not me, so much, about either of those.)
Anyway. That's what I mean when I say that the default settings in each country are different, and the default settings of Americans are more familiar to me than those of Canadians.
All of which are the kinds of ideas and questions one ponders at times like these:
What I don't seem to be able to "get over, already!" relates more to what I was talking about last Saturday.
People in Canada walk around internally okay with someone they didn't elect (or at least have the opportunity to vote against) representing them internationally as their head of state. They're OKAY WITH IT. It's status quo. Normal. NORMAL.
Not that they generally think about that kind of thing. Americans don't, either. But if you scratch the surface of your average American, she or he would say, quickly, that we-all want our official representatives to be elected. (Insert offhand reference to W's first term here.) It's the default assumption: we may not vote, we may not believe that our vote matters, but hey, we believe in the concept of voting. (Also Botox and gun ownership.) (Not me, so much, about either of those.)
Anyway. That's what I mean when I say that the default settings in each country are different, and the default settings of Americans are more familiar to me than those of Canadians.
All of which are the kinds of ideas and questions one ponders at times like these:
and these:
Ahhhhh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
