Hockey Night at the Old Boys Club

Hockey is pretty much the only thing I will watch on t.v., other than, sometimes, the news. Oh, and of course, elections. I have been known to watch hockey for 12 consecutive hours. Hey, it’s my Saturday, I’ll do what I want! Let’s just say it is something in which I take delight.

I certainly don’t watch hockey for intellectual stimulation—the way the Leafs have been playing, there is not much dumber out there to watch—but, being an intellectually-minded guy, I like to listen to the commentary between periods. I find Don Cherry entertaining (some do not—feel free to vent in the comments section), but I find the guys on the “Satellite Hot Stove” to be, for the most part, complete idiots. And Ron MacLean, sorry buddy, but you only make things worse.

By the second intermission of the Leaf game (Ottawa and Habs fans, I don’t want to hear your whining about how it is always a Leaf game. I’m not listening! Lalalalala!), if my vision hasn’t blurred from Aki-Berg-induced tears (poor guy, he’s done all right lately, until the injury), I am often enticed to blind rage by fools like John Davidson, Eric Duhatschek, and Jacques Demers. Sometimes, an intelligent commentator like Stephen Brunt makes an appearance, (and Pierre Lebrun seems ok, too), but this Saturday night, the aforementioned three just about made me lose my temper. I have a very well-placed temper.

The first thing that got to me (bear in mind, this is all relative—it’s only hockey, I realise, but let’s just work within the paradigm here) was Demers’ comment that Christobal Huet, the Habs back-up goalie, had not yet proven he was a “number one goalie.” Ok, Demers is not the first to utter this inanity. Would somebody please tell me what it takes to “prove yourself” as a number one goalie? Do you have to be involved in loan sharking? Be enough of a prima donna to refuse to leave the net after you’ve let in 5 goals in one period? Actually the answer is that you have to be overpaid, and you have to under perform.

Peter Budaj (who I have slagged before, but won’t anymore, lest his sister get to me!) is the “back-up” goalie in Colorado. Both his goals against average (2.73) and his save percentage (.901) are much better than that of the supposed number one, David Aebischer (3.17 and .894). Ok, you say, maybe Aebischer is not yet a proven number one, either. Well, how about Eddie Belfour (3.45, .887)? Those numbers are horrific compared to Toronto’s “back-up” Mikael Tellqvist (2.79, .906).

Tellqvist has played enough games that one might reasonable expect those stats to remain constant. How about the case in question: Jose Theodore (3.36, .885) vs. Christobal Huet (2.88, .915)? Huet has played in ten games for the Habs this year, and played half of the games in LA last year, with similar numbers. Why has he "yet to prove himself"?

The other topic on the “hotstove” was that of Scott Niedermayer’s knee injury. The big question was should he play in the Olympics and risk his career, or have surgery and save himself for his team, the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. To a man, the hotstovers agreed that he owed it to his club team, who are paying him millions of dollars, to make sure he was healthy for them.

Now, I know that hockey is a business, just like any other, and Scott Niedermayer is lucky enough to already have an Olympic gold medal, but if it were me, and I had the millions Scott probably has stashed away from being the best defenseman in the NHL, I would probably want to play in the Olympics. Then again, if he really loves playing hockey, the smart thing to do would be to have surgery and get healthy for next year. But he should do it because he loves playing, not because he “owes” anything to his team. He brings them revenue. He’s got to think of himself first—if he wants to play in the Olympics, he should. If he doesn’t want to risk his career, then he should get surgery.

Finally, it was Ron MacLean, in his segment with Cherry (I forget if it was Coach’s Corner, or post-game), defending the linesman for not preventing Aaron Downey’s broken face, that got me hot. Now, if you get in a fight with Zdeno Chara, you might end up in with a few broken faces, but Don Cherry’s point, that the linesman needs to tie up the fighters’ punching arms first, is still valid. I am not one of those who thinks Don Cherry is a great Canadian intellectual, but neither do I think he is a stupid man. He knows hockey pretty well. Part of the official’s job is to stop fights. Knowing what hand to tie up first is something he needs to know.

MacLean’s excusing the linesman for not doing that is lame. It is a circling of the wagons (MacLean is an official, too), and makes professional hockey (or maybe the entire sport of hockey) look like an old boys club, where one’s value is based on who one is, rather than how good they are at their job. The same is true of that infernal “hotstove.” Davidson and Demers are on there because they are “insiders,” not because they are intelligent hockey minds. Last week Murray Wilson, from the Habs radio broadcast was on. He is another guy who seems to have grown up on a cliché farm--he had absolutely nothing of substance to add to the discussion. At least Don Cherry, who is, at times, more than anyone, all about the code, is not afraid to say the unpopular thing.

Maybe I’ve just exerted too much mental energy over something meaningless. After all, I usually fall asleep half-way through the Vancouver game, which is usually much more exciting than the Leaf game (apparently last night I slept through a power outage. Who knew?). When I am awake, delighting in squinting at fuzzy black and white images of hockey players (and Leafs), I’d just like to not be annoyed by the talking heads. Maybe the problem with the talking heads is that they’ve got all the rest of their organs squished in there, and there is no room for the brain.

Canada elects Dead Fish Eyes with Lemony Smile (thanks to Russ and Katia for the colourful description of Stephen Harper)

So, the election. This will be a very unedited post, as I've got to get on with things this morning, and you know, in the NEW CANADA, things are efficient. No more bureaucracy, etc. Down to business…



Seriously though, what gives? This guy is really the Prime Minister? Can’t Michaelle Jean do something about it?

I guess not. But really, I don’t think it is so bad. History moves forward, not back, and despite cries of Bush-North, Harper is really not that scary a man. An American poet, Joshua Beckman, was recently in town, and he noted that if Harper had to back peddle like mad for just suggesting that judges might be activist, then we are going to be ok. There are dangers, yes, but the make up of Parliament is such that if Harper tries to whip out any kind of agenda he’s got stashed up in the right-wing of his ass, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP will shut him down. The only problem is that the opposition may not be willing to send him back to Calgary any time soon. Another election is the last thing we need.

I think Harper will be reasonable for the first two years. His democratic reforms could be very good news for Canadians who think they are not represented by the government. Since the coffers are overflowing, his fiscal policies may not be too harsh. The area of concern (for pinkos like me, and maybe you) remains his lack of interest in social policy, and in some cases, his vested interest, which may be that of the idiot Rev. Ray De Souza.

I really think that in the long run, Canadians won’t stand for right-wing moralizing. An oft quoted credo: “If you aren’t a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative when you are older, you have no brain.” Indeed, as this applies to finances, I agree. But morals move forward. Even the looney-left, if it even existed in, say, the 1950s, wouldn’t have dared stump for pro-choice. Abortion wasn’t even mentioned then. Gay marriage? At that point, society wasn’t even ready to come to terms with people just being gay. So, even as our generation starts to get old (gasp!), and we become the conservatives of the 2020s, we won’t hold on to the morals of this Conservative crew.

It seems like, in the last century, the last three decades specifically, the world is moving right in terms of finance, but we are moving left on moral issues. The Conservatives did not win because more Canadians espouse their values. They won because the Liberals fucked up royally. Lucky for us, they didn’t fuck over the country, they just fucked over themselves. Politics are cyclical. We bounce back and forth to get the best of both worlds. A little discipline never hurt anyone. The country will be fine in the long run. We know this.

64% of those who voted voted for left-leaning, social-democratic candidates. Some of the 36% who voted for the Conservatives are probably more centre than right on social issues. Our system doesn’t reflect that in the government, but Stephen Harper seems to understand that. He seems ready to compromise. For the left to refuse to do so would be to commit the same sin of which we accuse our right-wing opponents: being dogmatic, unmoving, my-way-or-the-highway. How uncanadian that would be. With apologies to Jack, let’s hope this Parliament works. Together.

The right to bear flags (or flag bears?)

Don Cherry is in trouble again, this time for being too patriotic. No, it’s not last-minute electioneering. Grapes reacted to certain Canadian winter Olympians asking to have their names taken from the list of potential flag bearers so they could focus on their events and avoid distraction. In his typical loud-mouthed fashion, he claimed those athletes don’t care about Canada, and pointed out that “in the U.S. they don’t have that problem.”

Speed skater Catorina Le May Doan expressed her disdain for Cherry, saying he doesn’t understand what it takes to be an Olympic athlete. Nancy Greene, a former Olympic skier, also chimed in, saying it is harder to win an Olympic gold medal than it is to be the NHL scoring leader.

While I appreciate the athlete’s need for focus, I think it is a bit harsh of everyone to attack Don Cherry’s enthusiastic patriotism. He means well, I think.

Amateur athletes often feel neglected because we are under-funded. I paid my way to New Zealand to represent Canada. I got $100 from my MNA, but that’s it in terms of the “public” support that we are supposed to be so thankful for. To be fair, I am far from being an Olympian, and I would gladly pay my own way again. I appreciate public support for elite amateur sport, I think it has a positive effect on the health of the nation, but I don’t feel entitled to it.

The support-related adversity we face is in some respects a motivating factor, but really, it comes down to being willing to sacrifice your life for the sport. That sacrifice is what separates the winners from the losers, not money. Money provides opportunity, but the best athletes will seize whatever opportunity they have and make the most of it.

In terms of an Olympic gold medal being harder than winning an NHL scoring title, as much as I respect the efforts of all the amateur athletes out there, I believe being the best professional hockey player in the world is just as tough being the best luge slider—maybe harder, but it is tough to judge. There is one scoring leader a year in the NHL, four each Olympiad. There are many more gold medals than that to win. Just because the NHLers are professionals doesn’t mean that they have an easier ride than under-funded amateurs. As AC/DC like to say: “It’s a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.”

Millions of Canadians (never mind Americans and Europeans) dream of making it to the NHL (never mind winning the scoring race). Not too many dream of bobsled gold. Heather Moyse, the new brake-woman on Canada’s World Cup-winning team, has not worked all her life for this chance to win Olympic gold. She was recruited last summer at a retirement party for her university track coach. I was there. Before that she had never done bobsled. She has played soccer and rugby and run track. She is an immensely talented natural athlete, and a wonderful person. I hope she wins.

—as an aside, it is very interesting to read the comments of Canada’s driver, Helen Upperton, regarding the team’s recent success:

“I got to the bottom after the first run and I was actually kind of frustrated,” she said. “I’d had a couple of little hits on the way down and skidded a bit out of the first corner.

“Then I looked up at the clock and I was amazed. It was a new situation for me and I was so nervous going into that second run. The one thing that’s good is I know I can always count on a rocket-fast start.”

Yeah, because Heather is pushing. Does it say something about the sport that someone so inexperienced can have such an impact as to make her driver one of the best in the world?

Anyway, I hope they win. I think they will. Just sayin’, that’s all—

There is no doubt, though, that Ilya Kovalchuk (or Simon Gagné or whoever) will have put in just as much, likely much more work over their lives than Heather has to win her potential gold medal. It is hard to compare across sports, and probably it is best to say that all are equally tough, but to imply that professionals don’t work as hard as amateurs is just plain wrong.

In terms of carrying the flag, I guess Charmaine Crooks is right: every athlete is different. Don Cherry would jump at the chance. Becky Scott would not. I know that if I were competing in the Olympic Marathon (big if!), and it were the day after the opening ceremonies, I would have a tough decision to make. That said, Cherry made the very good point that Alex Bauman carried the flag in 1984 and won gold the next day. In 1988 Carolyn Waldo also won gold. In 2000 Carolyn Brunet won silver. At the winter Olympics, since 1984, Gaetan Boucher, Brian Orser, Sylvie Daigle, and Catorina Le May Doan (!) have all won medals after carrying the flag for Canada.

I think, ironically, some of those athletes who have asked to have their names removed are just looking for publicity. Either that, or they aren’t too confident in their abilities. I think the opening ceremonies are likely the most exciting part of the Games for many athletes. Olympians I have known have all said that those opening ceremonies are the best part of the whole experience. It is really all about the experience. There will always be some regret (world records and gold medals are rare, and even then, knowing elite athletes, there would still be a bit of “woulda coulda shoulda”), and I would rather regret .1 seconds than regret the cultural experience. World records can be broken, gold medal titles change hands, but the experience can never be taken away.

My pick for flag bearer would be Lascelles Brown, the newest Canadian citizen on the team. Or Heather Moyse because after less than a year in the sport she is going to single-handedly (or two-leggedly) bring Canada a gold medal in the women’s bobsled. Either way, I can’t wait to waste a lot of February mornings watching the Olympics on tv. Woohoo! ‘Lympics! 'Lympics!

What do newspaper editors look for when they go to the track in Oz? An endHORSEment of a different colour.

So all the big papers have made their endorsements, and they’ve all endorsed the Conservatives. Talk about closing the barn door…Way to go out on a limb, guys. The Globe, the Post and La Presse have all decided to “endorse” Stephen Harper’s party, which means, I guess that they are encouraging their readers to vote for that party, or, perhaps it means they think that it wouldn’t be so bad, after all. At this point, it seems the editors will get their wish.

I thought I should endorse a party, too. I’m no Marcus Gee, but I will take a shot at this. I endorse…get ready for it…the NDP.

Blink. Blink.

Silence.

Ok, so no surprise there. Maybe a bit of a surprise considering what you might call my earlier endorsement of the Bloc, but strategic voting and endorsement of policy are two different things. If my MP weren’t the indomitable Gilles Duceppe, I would vote strategically for the Bloc. Gilles has a lock on Laurier-St. Marie, though, so I can afford to give my $1.75 to Jack’s crew.

The NDP gets a bad rap in Canadian politics. They are accused of wasting money, of being idealistic and, of late, being too big for their britches, taking the blame for bringing down the Liberal government. Most of this is untrue, yet normally sound-minded Canadians (for example my mother) fear an NDP surge in the polls.

Jack Layton offered an unprecedented deal to voters: vote for the NDP, just this once, he says. Try us out. The Liberals are in the shop for a while; take the orange and green for a spin (more on the colours later). This may seem foolish of the leftish leader, but I see the method to his grovelling. As the old cliché goes, a week is a lifetime in politics. By the next election, no one will remember this particular plea. Can you remember any particular slogans or promises (other than the ones that we are so often reminded have been broken) from the last election? Of course not, and that was 18 months ago. Imagine if the Conservatives get a majority. It will be four years!

Jack knows that if he can increase his seat count, the NDP will take a big step back towards respectability. That fear some Canadians have of an NDP powerhouse in Ottawa will be allayed if the party can make a large, strong contribution to the next Parliament, as they did in the most recent, truncated mandate.

Why would a strong NDP be good for Canada? Well, it comes down to your opinions on two questions. The first is that of the role of government. If you think government is meant to help people, and to maintain a certain standard of living, and that is should do so by being actively involved in people’s lives, congratulations, the NDP may just be for you (Thank you Paul Barry, grade 10 history, for the details behind this very simplified notion).

The second question is how smart do you think people are? Can Canadians think for themselves? I would say: no. This is perhaps more of a right-wing idea, at least in terms of law and order, but it is also the dirty little secret of the left: people are too stupid to use those Conservative tax cuts wisely. They’ll spend them on beer and popcorn, instead of saving up for health care user fees. An economy can’t run on beer and popcorn alone, so better to save people money by paying for the things they need, so they can spend what they have on the things they want.

The NDP would spend money on what people need: health care, the environment, and housing. The NDP thinks long term. Environmental policies, for example, may in fact hurt business’s profits this year, but they may allow those businesses to exist years from now, by forcing them to change.

The national child-care program, which Stephen Harper would replace with a paltry $1200 a year, could do wonders for the economy. As much as I think the best place to raise a child is in his or her own home, the economic reality is that parents (both parents) need to work to pay for the kid(s). If a national program can be created to allow parents to go back to work sooner, that would certainly help the old economic engine. $1200 a year doesn’t even pay for diapers.

The Liberals make a big deal of their debt-reduction, but really, the fear of debt is unfounded. Now, I’m no economist, but I get by in my little economy of one. I am in debt, but it isn’t hurting me. I could be spending an extra $400 a month on stuff, spurring the economy and so forth, but all in all, being in debt is not so bad, and considering my debt has paid for two degrees, which allows me to teach and write books, I would say it was a good investment.

The NDP supports these sorts of things. While they may not be strong enough yet to form the government, a seat near the front of the table (as opposed to the back of the barn) would help force the hand (if not in terms of parliamentary confidence, at least in the court of public opinion) of the Conservatives and/or Liberals. Harper’s recent comments about Liberal checks, while perhaps unorthodox, speak to this ideal situation: a balance of ideas in government is the best way to give Canadians what they want.

As Jack Layton likes to say, the NDP are a positive choice. It is a fancy campaign slogan, but it is true. I have no problem with those voting Conservative or Liberal because those parties’ values are the ones they themselves espouse –only those who vote for one to punish the other. In Quebec, as I’ve said, for the sake of balance, the Bloc is better. Yes, that is a protest vote, but, until recently, there hasn’t been much of a race here. That has changed, and so, too, perhaps, should my thoughts on the matter. (Il y a seulement les fous qui ne changent pas d’idées.)

There you go. Delight has endorsed the orange and green (more after the election on why those colours are a bad idea), matched up with the moustache, leaned left, as it were. Good luck on Monday! Everyone vote!

Ideology and party politics: inefficent and obsolete.

The Conservatives have learned that the party that casts the widest net will catch the most voter-fish. Good for them, but is it good for Canada? I don’t mean: "Are the Conservatives good for Canada?" I mean: "Are a bunch of centrist parties, all touting the same thing, good for Canada?" Party politics, in an odd way, has become obsolete, while at the same time remaining a monolith on the Canadian democratic scene.

The problem with party politics is that voters are forced to choose from a slate of not necessarily compatible policies. Among ideologues there is a tendency to assume that if you believe in one policy, you’ll believe in a list of others under the same banner. But people are more complex than that.

I offer myself up as an example: though I may get slapped for this somewhere along the line by someone who takes partisanism and ideology too seriously, the issue of abortion is a good way to demonstrate my point. I believe that abortion should be a legal choice for a woman, and that if she should choose to have one, it should be paid for like any other medical practice under the Canada Health Act. If asked for my advice or opinion by a female friend on whether or not she should have one, I would, I am confident, always answer: no, don’t have an abortion.

So, somehow, I’m both pro-choice AND pro-life. For some reason, instead of eliciting support from both sides, this opinion usually leads both the right-wing religious crazies and the left-wing feminist crazies to condemn.

Thankfully, I have not had to deal with this particular situation in my own life. A friend once confided in me that if she ever got pregnant she would “kill that little parasite so fast.” Funny thing, she got pregnant not soon after, and had the kid. Let the choice be there, but educate people (men and women, who, hopefully, are making this decision as a couple, though the circumstances leading to such a choice often involve, I think, a lack of a prospective father) on the options available.

This is not meant to be a post about abortion. But you see how a seemingly black/white issue is far more complex. This is why governments fall: we sway back and forth between one package and another, tolerating cuts to social programs in order to benefit from tax cuts for a time, then paying more taxes and enjoying an active government for another. The problem is that instead of pursuing ideology in a coherent plan for the nation, governments focus their energies on staying in power, while the opposition, instead of providing useful criticism and balance, attack the government out of a need to get power for themselves.

How might we have a more effective government that wouldn’t be run based on power-plays and partisan slates? I have postulated a theory once before over at MediaScout that was perhaps a little more extreme, in that it precluded any current MP from seeking office. That theory resulted in holier-than-though invective from political science graduate students claiming that party politics were the basis of democracy. Here’s an idea: let graduate students run the country: they clearly know everything! Seriously though, a full-scale purging of the political ranks is neither likely, nor the best idea. But a nation-wide, grass-roots collective of independents, beholden together only by the promise that they would put the issues of their community first, could work.

This may sound like a de-centralization movement that might cause even Gilles Duceppe pause—if Canada can be divided, can Québec as well? It’s not. National parties are important and useful in setting federal policies that define us as a nation. Otherwise, what are we but a group of 308 town-ish sized blobs? A federal MP’s job is to make the country work as a whole. The candidates’ allegiances to their party first, however, and to their constituents—Canadians!—second is what is causing all the trouble.

I am happy with many of the policies my incumbent MP supports in Ottawa, with the exception of at least one, a pretty big one at that: he wants to take my riding out of Canada. I don’t like moving to begin with, and though Gilles Duceppe would have me emigrate from Canada with the advantage of not having to pack my bags, this is one resident of Laurier-Ste. Marie who does not give full-support to the man.

It is impossible to make everyone happy. Canadians want certain things from their MPs, but in the current system, you have to take the bad with the good. In the hotly-contested Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina, Liberal Tony Ianno is in tough in the face of backlash against his party, and the hard-charging NDP first lady, Olivia Chow. But the issues go deeper than that, locally. Residents support Ianno because he is a member of their community, and they want HIM to be their representative in Ottawa. They might not trust the Liberals, but they trust Chow even less: her party has been putting up signs, without permission, in front of the houses of elderly immigrants who don’t speak English well enough to protest. While it might be advantageous to have the wife of a party leader as your MP, many locals are making the choice between Tony and Olivia, rather than between Liberals and NDP.

So it is already happening, to an extent. The problem is that, as good a guy as Tony Ianno might be, he has no choice on how he votes in Parliament. He can’t represent his constituents on an issue-by-issue basis (neither, for that matter, can Olivia Chow, or, the cannon-fodder Conservative candidate, Sam Goldstein). One solution to this problem would be to allow free votes on more bills. That wouldn’t change partisan pressures, and would bring up the complicated matter of confidence. Take out the parties, though, and all the votes become free. Add in Stephen Harper’s proposal of fixed election dates (there is something the Conservative Party and I agree on), and you’ve solved the problem of confidence. As it is now, committees work together on drafting proposals, and on drafting the laws later. An elected Senate adds to the democracy (though also, to be fair, to the bureaucracy of elections). Who gets to be Prime Minister? Let the Commons decide in a convention-style vote that requires the support of 50% of the House. It would only take a day or two. His or her role would be more like that of head of state, as opposed to head of government—and we could ditch the Governor General, too!

All this may sound far-fetched and simplistic, but such individualism is happening elsewhere in our culture. And what did Calvin’s dad say about Thoreau? “Simplify, simplify.”

Montréal Metro Riders More Polite Than Politicians (how hard can that be?)

So, thirteen days in, has anyone kept to their New Year’s resolution? Diets, exercise, good will… all are available at a surplus in early January. Hold on to what you can find, though, because they will be collectors’ items in a few short weeks.

The change of the calendar by no means endows us with any more will-power or discipline than we had in months previous. Yet, there is something about a whole new year that can inspire people to take that step. One would hope that with so many good intentions out there, society might change for the better. A tall order, you say? A grandiose suggestion? Indeed. We’re all so hell-bent on self-improvement, so why does it seem people are getting more and more individualistic, hiding under their ear-pods, shuffling by becoming experts on sidewalk construction, grunting like pre-historic pre-teens? We need to make a species-wide New Year’s resolution—to resolve to be more polite.

Even in a city like Montréal, where everyone is mostly perfect, or pretends to be, there is always room for a civic upgrade. In general, I find this town to be pretty communal. People smile on the street, they say hi, or bonjour, hold doors open, and are generally agreeable. The one vice Montréalers seem to have is the impatient habit of not waiting for people to get off the metro before they crowd on. It is the oddest of phenomena in this supposedly-better-than-Toronto, European-minded city. Even in the grumpy Big Smoke, riders wait for their co-patrons to exit the subway car before moving in. Not so in Montréal! Until now.

For that has been the Montréaler’s resolution—to resolve to not push into metro cars before everyone else has got off. It seems that our collective will has decided that this is to be the year. And, so far, so good. It is as if some force has overcome us. My fellow commuters look as surprised as I do when, as the doors open, we stand aside and…wait. Those exiting the train peer curiously from the doors, elbows raised. Where is the crush? They put out a tentative foot: tap, tap, tap…what’s that? The platform! And then the rush from the rest as we, the embarkers, stand, amazed at our own adhesiveness in the face of those open doors.

Really. It’s weird. I’m glad to see it though. A better world, one metro stop at a time.

English Election Debates--Majorly Conservative

Here’s a little summary of the four leaders’ performances last night in the English debate:

Overall, the format was good. The moderator, Steve “you want in on that” Pacon, followed the flow of the debate, let them go at it as much as he could. The lack of one-on-one debates was disappointing in some ways, but it also avoided having to watch Duceppe and Layton tell each other how much they like each other. I would like to see Martin and Duceppe go at it on national unity, though, because that was the most entertaining topic. I’d even be willing to host it in my living room. Best question was to Duceppe: if we shouldn’t revisit same-sex marriage, why do we need to revisit sovereignty? He answered well, too: because one is about assuring individual rights—a universal—and the other is a test of the collective will—changeable over time.

Gilles Duceppe: I take exception to Andrew Coyne’s post-debate comments on the CBC that Gilles doesn’t belong on the English debate. Gilles Duceppe may be a separatist, but he still represents Canadians as a leader of a party, and as an MP (my MP, in Laurier-Ste.Marie). He has the right to send his message to English-speaking Quebecers. Besides, his English is better than Harper’s French. I thought he got that message across well enough, though not as well as in the debate last June (the December debate was, to quote my friend Stephen, more of a “joint press conference”). He looked haggard, and it took him a while to get going. That said, once he did, he used his nothing-to-lose position to take shots at Martin and Harper, and was strong, I thought, in defending his nation’s right to sovereignty. He was confident, and, though he was careful not to make predictions, his “optimistic” assessment of his fortunes in Québec this time around is likely accurate. One CBC viewer commented that they would vote for Duceppe, were he running in Ontario—a comment I have heard before. I will reiterate: Gilles Duceppe would make the best Prime Minister of the four party leaders. Too bad about that separatism thing…
Best Line: (to Martin) “You are a living democratic deficit”
Most like: Tie Domi. Effective at what he does, but a one trick pony.

Jack Layton: A changed man, he was very calm this time around, sticking to his message. Many viewers, in their post-show comments, thought he sounded like a commercial. I agree, though I think someone watching the debates who does not follow politics as closely as some of us might find that at least informative, and perhaps even refreshing from the personal attacks the rest were firing off. Also, Layton and the NDP are the only party that have actually done all the things they’ve said they’ve done. I felt like Jack was the only one up there (other than Gilles) who was telling the truth. Sadly, I think, an election campaign is no time for the truth. The NDP leader did look strong when he turned to challenge Martin, and he was, in fact, best, when he was reacting, rather than just reciting his platform. He did avoid the question about swingers’ clubs, but really, what kind of question was that, anyway?
Best Line: calling Harper’s tax cuts “a shell game.”
Most like: Matt Stajan, last year. He’s up and coming, playing smart and safe. Last year he was Darcy Tucker on uppers, pretty much gnawing on Martin’s lapels every chance he got. This year was better, but he’s still not quite ready for the big time.

Paul Martin: He came out strong, took control, and tried to create an “intellectual debate.” Fat chance, Paul. Despite being the target most of the night, he managed to elevate himself, and push his vision for Canada. He was the only leader to look prime ministerial, and his closing statement offered much more to the casual viewer, saying all the right things. He mentioned working together, looking long-term, and, not in so many words, a welfare state. Martin tried very hard to differentiate himself from Harper. On the passion scale, he clearly did, but I don’t know if it will be enough. I thought he did well to tackle the sponsorship and other scandals: he said he reacted as he should have. Well, what else is he going to say, really? The policy announcement of taking away the notwithstanding clause was desperate for a couple reasons. First, because it only really appeals to the pundits and political junkies. Most Canadians probably don’t care. Second, because, as those pundits pointed out, he’s the only one who has really been in a position to use it (to save Churches from having to perform marriages they don’t want to). Despite my aversion to his corrupt party and to the arrogance of a big government, he did well.
Best Line: Didn’t really have one, so I’ll resurrect “Voyons donc!” from the French debate in December.
Most like: Mats Sundin, post-eye injury, post-lockout. He is still the natural leader, or at least, he wants to be. But does he still have it?

Stephen Harper: Like the rest of his campaign, slow and steady wins the debate for Harper. He was quite upfront about his position, admitting to not being outwardly passionate, and only started to do the “Harper bobble” towards the end, perhaps when all that smiling was making him tired. He made his case. The problem is, his case is pretty much the same as the Liberals’, and in some cases the NDP’s and the Bloc’s. The other parties made sure to point out that Harper and the Tories voted against many of the proposals they claim to want to implement. Doug Saunders wrote in Saturday’s Globe about conservatives trending towards the left, but found quiet reassurances to traditional right-wingers that once in power, it would be business as usual.
Two moments stuck me, one good, one bad. He made points against the NDP by saying how tax cuts to large employers (like the auto companies) would help workers; however, his child care benefit ($100 a month to every family with a child under six) is just ridiculous. The government’s job is to redistribute the wealth to those who need it, not just give it back to everyone. Westmount and Rosedale parents don’t need an extra hundred bucks a month. That’s a tip for the nanny. Sorry, he’s got to be more creative than that. Mostly, Harper is doing and saying the right things, but should we believe him?
Best Line: Didn’t really have one. The barb about the auto workers was good, but not exactly catchy. To his credit, he didn’t say anything stupid, either.
Most like: Eric Lindros, at the moment of signing. He is on the verge of getting what he has most wanted. Will he get the chance, and can he deliver? Or will Canadians be scared off by his party’s moral “concussions”?

What is a blog anyway?

What is a blog? No, really. The response I got when I told people I was going to start a blog (do a blog? blog a blog?) was mostly, “oh, no, not another blog.” They fear, perhaps, embarrassment on my behalf for when I make public some intimate thought that I shouldn’t have expressed for the world to see. I am well aware of this, and I don’t plan for this to be a diary, or merely a compendium of musings on quotidian happenings. It may interest some to know that my sister has shaved her head, or that I’ve just bought a new guitar, but that is the stuff of conversation, not of blogification.

Now, the blogophiles among you might jump up at this point and say, “no, for the blog is the new conversation; the internet is the new water cooler, etc. etc.” While this may be true, there is one distinct difference between a regular conversation and one that takes place on the internet. When we are talking, face to face, the words are fluid. They exist, then evaporate, staying only in our memory, and are quickly covered by more words, and thoughts that go with them. We naturally filter the parts of the conversation into areas of our brain: throwaway jibes, off-colour comments, inside jokes. Sarcasm is easily detected and taken in context.

When we have a conversation on the internet, whether in a chat room, message board, forum, instant messenger, or blog, the words remain. They are solid, not fluid. Also, they are public. What might be meant for one or two people can be read by one or two hundred, or thousand people. The intentions of the speaker/writer (a significant difference) are easily misinterpreted, especially upon reinterpretation, the luxury of which we don’t have in regular conversation.

The difference is that between speaking and writing. The internet, with its instantaneity, has tricked us into thinking that writing is speaking. But it is not. As a writer, and more importantly, as a teacher of writing, the most important aspect of my work is revision. I tell my students that the difference between a good writer and a poor one is not necessarily natural ability, or education (though these obviously come into play), but patience, and the ability to revise. In essence, it is experience. A good writer is one who has experienced what he or she is trying to tell you, not only in terms of the story, but one who has experienced the work itself, several times over. I tell my students that the more they revise their work, the better their mark will be. It is a hands-on version of think before you speak.

Alan Ginsberg’s philosophy of first thought, best thought seems to have caught on with the bloggists. Not all of them, I’m sure, but among angst-ridden teenagers—the Live Journal set—and young people on some of the track and field message boards I frequent, for example, the idea of revision is completely lost.

What this amounts to is a lot of unfiltered thought. More professional blogs (like the Star’s hockey blog, or Maisonneuve.org’s columnists, or the Pun Gents, to take examples close to me) avoid this trap because they are heavily edited. They aren’t just thinking out loud. There are plenty of good blogs out there, and they all have this in common. I am trying to avoid this trap as well, by filtering myself. As I write this it is Thursday morning. It probably won’t see the light of blog until tomorrow afternoon. If nothing else, it gives me the time to spell check (don’t get me started on that—another post regarding r u l8 and lol and the like is coming, too) Perhaps this takes some of the edge off. Well, edgy is not really the goal. Thoughtful, insightful, even wise is the goal. That takes time. Time is something we have plenty of, though the instant online culture tries to make us believe that it is scarce. It’s not. Every minute we get sixty more seconds to fill with distance run, or whatever else. Think about it.

Part deux of Why Anglophone Quebecers should vote for the Bloc Québecois

Here are some more thoughts on this matter...

Anti-Liberal Anglo-Québecers, either of a Conservative or NDP bent, would be wise to join immigrants, those traditional liberal voters who supposedly cost the Yes side the vote, who are now siding with the Bloc. The truth of the matter is that the sovereigntist issue is a red herring—on both sides. According to an article by Jon Montpetit at www.maisonneuve.org, the immigrants who are turning to the Bloc have no illusions about who they are voting for; Francois-Pierre Gingras, a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, suggests that this support might be “soft,” that is to say, while immigrants might vote for the Bloc in a federal election, they would not necessarily vote for sovereignty in a referendum.

But the threat of separation is really no threat at all. The seriousness of separatism can be seen in the Bloc’s recent campaign platform, the most newsworthy part of which was a proposal to give Québec a national hockey team . Is this the fear that is driving Anglo-Quebecers to hold their noses and vote for a party that has knowingly deceived them? That we might lose Vincent Lecavalier to Team Québec?

The sovereignty movement is an industry—and the Bloc are the federal lobby group. Anglo-Quebecers might stop to think about this: we live in Québec too, and benefit from the Bloc’s efforts to get the best for our little corner of Canada. As Trudeau said, separatism is a form of blackmail. But Anglo-Quebecers are reaping the benefits of this hold up, too.

The main fear of the Anglo-Quebec voter is that a strong Bloc with strengthen the separatist cause, make the timing right for a referendum, and the vote will go against Canada—the apocalypse! Anglophones of a left-of-centre kind living in Quebec know that it is the best province in which to live—we have our own personal lobby in Ottawa, and, other than Quebecor, the corporate shadow leaves us alone. Until the provincial Liberals “re-engineered” the province, day-care, support for the arts and culture, healthy living and job security were top notch. The situation is still pretty good, and with the less corporate-minded Parti Québecois electing a new, young leader (yeah, Frank, that's right, the gay coke-head), chances are good they will bring their social-democrat platform back to Quebec City.

Again, this strikes a chord of fear with the Anglos: a strengthened Bloc, a renewed PQ, immigrants flocking to both parties—this time the No-side could win. But Boisclair is not as hard-line a sovereigntist as Landry. The story will remain the same: he will hedge on calling a vote, saying the time is not right until he is forced out by the hardliners who want a vote now, even though they will lose. The support for these parties is not support for sovereignty. Immigrants to Québec (and therefore to Canada) know where their bread is buttered. They will vote, strategically, for the best party for them, but not for separation.

Separation would ruin Quebec economically. The working class would be hurt most, property values would fall, and there would be a decade-long (at least) economic slump. Only the deeply emotional separatists will deny this—but what they want, they already have. Quebec is a distinct society. The accents on my keyboard prove this. The sprinkles of French in my speech prove this. My love for poutine and Les Cowboys Fringants proves this. Culturally, Quebec is a nation. Luckily, we have Canada to pay for it. Why do we want to throw this away? Are the separatists so foolish? No way.

I’ll acknowledge one moral dilemma, and leave it at that. Sovereignty is essentially a racist doctrine. The idea that a certain ethnic group wants to create a nation of “pure” (purlaine) citizens is a little scary. Yes, the Anglo-Quebecer is a minority, and he/she is oppressed, in certain ways. But we have it pretty good, too, much better than most minorities. So what to do? To vote for the Liberals in an effort to “save” Canada is a vote for corruption, sure thing, because such a vote will only allow that party back into a position of majority rule where it will cease to be accountable to Canadians of all ideologies. A vote for the Conservatives or NDP or Greens, while commendable, is, under the current system (more on that another time), a waste. Those candidates are going to lose, it’s more than likely. A vote for the Bloc will serve to equalize Parliament, and give all parties a strong voice. And that, ironcially, will make for a better Canada…I hope.

By the way, I would like to have more links, but I guess working from a Mac makes that difficult. Also, yes, only two posts in, and already the folks at Google have their hand in the game. They made me an offer I couldn't refuse. So give those ads a click...you know why.

Next up...why does my mom think blogs are so dangerous?

Why Anglophone Quebecers should vote for the Bloc Québecois

Ok, so not to set the tone to be too political or anything, but I’m going to begin that way. This is something I've been thinking about lately.

Let me start by assuring you that I am not a separatist. I love Québec. Oh, yes. It is the best province in which to live if you are, like me, an amateur athlete and an independent artist. Housing is cheap, government funding for my various endeavours is generous, the culture is diverse and vibrant, and, most importantly, appreciated. As Katia likes to say, Québec is the only place in Canada where you can say you are a dancer and not have people think you are a stripper. Oddly, it is also probably the only place in Canada where stripper is a respected profession. See how good it is here? I am neither a dancer, nor a stripper.

Regardless, it is important to note that while most of this great Québequois living comes from the distinct (yes, distinct) culture of the place, it is mostly paid for by the rest of Canada. Québec does have some pretty high taxes, but in terms of transfer payments and government programs, well, Gilles Duceppe is doing a bang-up job of making sure Ottawa is as asymmetrical as possible, while he’s not plotting the demise of the country as a whole. Talk about eating the hand that feeds you…anyway.

So, Anglophone Quebecers are faced with an uneasy choice this January. Despite anger over the sponsorship scandal, and notwithstanding their party allegiances, les anglo-quebecois are looking at a two-horse race in most federal ridings. We can vote Liberal, and swallow what little pride we have left, or vote for the Bloc Québecois, and perhaps be forced to swallow a whole country. Or so Liberal strategists would have us believe.

Given the current system of voting, and the political reality in Quebec, there are only two choices in the upcoming election for the Quebecois voter: the Liberals or the Bloc. The Conservatives have been unable to create enough of a viable anti-Liberal option in La Belle Province to warrant votes, and the NDP, while their policies are agreeable to many Quebecers, can’t compete with the Bloc’s Quebec-first socialism. A vote for either of these two national parties may contribute to a Liberal victory, presumably something those potential voters would not be agreeable to.

It seems as though we are in for a run of minority governments, and so this is a good time to bring up the idea of a proportional representation system of voting—the main counter-arguments of instability and minority rule are already here; the change would be seamless.

In the meantime, Canadian voters must cast their ballots strategically in order to get the Parliament they desire. It seems to me the idea Parliament is a minority along the lines that we just had, though with a bit less Liberal power (i.e. they would have to work harder to work with the other parties). The best way for an Anglophone federalist to achieve this result is to vote for the Bloc Québecois in the next election.

Voters of either right- or left-wing stripe believe that the best government for Canada involves fewer Liberal seats, yet in Québec, fear of separatism drives us to throw the bums back in. But a stronger Bloc means fewer seats for the Liberals, and a stronger voice for the Conservatives (with whom the Bloc share ideas on decentralising Ottawa’s role with the provinces) and the NDP (with whom the Bloc share many ideas on social policy). Separatism aside, the Bloc is the ultimate umbrella party.

To be continued...

Joining the blogosphere

Well, here it is. I've decided to join the 21st century and do this blog thing.

My New Year's resolution for 2006 is to take delight in all things. So, that is what this will be. Part MediaScout, part Masochist, part just me...that's what this will be.

I often delight in being grumpy, but I also delight in sharing good things.

Welcome to Delight--the blog!