Naomi Klein Talks About Coalition

Naomi Klien: We Can't Lose

Some key points in this interview with Naomi Klein: understanding what "Liberal" actually means and what histories and legacies it points to, holding the Coalition accountable in this very exciting moment, challenging our political process and the borders around democracy. She's right, talks of this coalition being a political coupe is bad Tory PR spin on the situation. Let's talk about the ways this exciting moment potentially opens doors for a truly progressive change in politics and nation-states like Canada. I don't think Harper even represents most conservatives (much less anyone else) in Canada--he's just their only choice.

The Article Here:

Kim Elliott: As you outline so well in your book and in various interviews in the U.S. media, the current financial crisis holds the possibility of being one of those moments when the shock doctrine can best be applied. Can you comment on both the Harper government's economic and fiscal statement introduced last week, and on the Opposition's response to that - that is, the formation of a coalition - in the context of the shock doctrine?

Naomi Klein: Yes, absolutely. What I think we are seeing is a clear example of the shock doctrine in the way the Harper government has used the economic crisis to push through a much more radical agenda than they won a mandate to do.

At the same time we are seeing an example of what I call in the book a "shock resistance," where this tactic has been so overused around the world and also in Canada that we are becoming more resistant to the tactic - we are on to them - and Harper is not getting away with it.

What I think is really amazing about this moment is whatever happens next - whether we end up with this coalition or not, we will have an extremely chastened Harper. So the attempted shock doctrine has failed. I think we can say that decisively.

Just to be clear, what I mean by the shock doctrine, as you know, is the use of crisis to push through unpopular pro-corporate policies. This bundling of a whole package of policies: denying the right of public sector workers to strike, the attack on public financing of political parties, with the economic program - that is what failed, and people were offended by the opportunism of it.

This is what so many of us were worried about during the election - the context of a Tory victory in an economic crisis, because we know that there is this pattern of using an economic crisis to push through policies that were nowhere during the campaign.

KE: This coalition gives us lots of opportunities, but it also poses some risks if it is successful. I'd like to ask you about that. In an interview you had on Democracy Now!, you said that part of the reason that Obama was appointing a host of neo-liberal economists was because there was a lack of "intellectual honesty" among progressives about the real legacy of the Clinton years. Does the Canadian left, in a Liberal-led coalition, risk losing our understanding of the neo-liberal legacy of the Liberals, who during those same Clinton years were ripping up Canada's welfare state, cutting social spending etc?

NK: I think it is really important to remember, and I've written about this in the book, and Linda McQuaig has written about it extensively, that it is the Liberals who actually implemented what I'm describing in Canada.

They were elected on an economic stimulus platform in 1993, with a huge mandate. The Tories were wiped out in those historic elections. And then they caved to pressure from Bay Street, from the corporate media and from the right-wing think tanks in the face of the debt crisis. They turned around and broke their election promises when it came to NAFTA, when it came to job creation, and the famous 1995 Paul Martin budget came down which did so much damage to unemployment insurances (which makes it particularly interesting that a key piece of the agreement for the coalition is about strengthening unemployment insurance). So we need to have long memories about the Liberals, because they have done exactly what Harper has just done, in terms of using an economic crisis for a neo-liberal about turn.

That said, what I find most exciting about what is going on right now - beyond just getting rid of Harper, which is exciting in and of itself - is that we have this opportunity to show what proportional representation (PR) would look like, because all of this talk that this is a coup is a joke.

What is being proposed by this coalition is much closer to representative democracy than what we have right now, which is a government that has [slightly more than] 35 per cent of the popular vote in a turnout that was historically low, of 59 per cent of Canadian voters, which means that even though the Tories won more seats they had fewer actual votes than in the last election.

I think it is really important to talk about democracy, about what it actually means in this period. In some ways I think it is even more important than talking about the policies, because our electoral system is broken. Because of the Tories' extraordinary opportunism and terrible calculation we now have an opportunity to see a better version of democracy and see more people represented in government.

To me the best case scenario that could come out of this is, one, you get the coalition, and, two, the NDP uses this moment to really launch a national discussion about why we need PR and that that becomes one of the things that comes out of this crisis.

Now, they don't have the mandate for that right now, but we could come out of this with a national referendum on proportional representation. People might actually like it, which would be really, really exciting.

KE: That is a very exciting possibility, and I wanted to ask you, if this coalition is successful, what are the two or three key issues that the NDP should focus on, the kinds of issues that were not covered in the agreement?

NK: They've put in writing what they've agreed to. I think it is going to maybe be up to the NDP to make sure that the EI improvements are protected.

KE: I'm thinking of those issues that were not in the agreement like PR, or like withdrawal from Afghanistan - those issues that were not nailed down in the agreement.

NK: Those issues weren't nailed down because there isn't agreement on them, and that I think it is not really about whether the NDP holds the line on these issues, but about how the NDP uses this platform. It is a historic opportunity, I think, to be very bold, not just because of what is happening in this country, but because of what is happening globally.

Another important role for the NDP, beyond putting proportional representation on the agenda, withdrawal from Afghanistan, is also the terms of the bailout. The bailout for the auto industry is part of their agreement, but we don't know what the terms of that agreement are going to be, and that is going to be really important in terms of negotiating a progressive automobile industry bailout - a green auto industry bailout, if such a thing is possible. So that is a very important role that the NDP could play.

I think the best analogy, in terms of the kinds of concerns you are raising in regards to the Liberals and neo-liberalism, of being the party that continued and deepened Mulroney's neo-liberal economic program, is to look at Gordon Brown. He was finance minister for Tony Blair, really the face of neo-liberalism in Britain. He is now overseeing what many are calling the death of New Labour, and the return to Keynesian economics in Britain. That is because he is fighting for his political life. That is because he was going down, until he started talking this way. That is really what is at stake for the Liberals, I think.

This is also why I think the issue of political financing for political parties is so key. The reason there is a little more latitude in Canada on these issues is because our political process is not massively owned by corporations as it is in the United States.

The way in which public financing for political parties has been presented in the press is "oh the politicians, they just got mad when they went after their money," right? This is another key point that I think is somewhat related to the issue of proportional representation. We need to be talking about our political process here, and the issue of public financing for political parties in elections is key to protecting and deepening democracy in Canada, and for keeping it out of corporate control. It is not for nothing that the Tories are attacking that. They see attacking public financing of political parties as a way to entrench their power.

KE: Should this coalition become government, what should we as progressive movements be doing in terms of using this as an opportunity to promote these kinds of progressive agendas, to support the NDP in a predominantly Liberal caucus?

NK: I think it is PR, I really think that is the way in. By pushing PR then it is not just about this one crisis. It is about leveraging this situation to have a more democratic system. It means that if the NDP does deeply disappoint us in this moment we could still end up with a better political system.

KE: Should the coalition happen what do you see as the long-term fall-out in terms of western voters in Canada?

NK: I really think that we need to fight back this strategy. We know what the talking points are from the right and from the West, and it is about playing up this idea of making a coalition with the Bloc, "with the separatists."

What to me is so extraordinary is the temper tantrum being thrown in Alberta right now at the prospect of having to be ruled by a majority - by a coalition of parties representing the majority of the people in this country. I really do think it is worth asking who the real separatists are, because of course the undercurrent of everything they are saying is that they will take our oil. So who are the real separatists?

KE: Do you agree then that we should be out there supporting the coalition? Attending rallies, mobilizing letter-writing campaigns?

NK: Absolutely. Listen, we've been given a second chance, after these elections. What is exciting about it is that a lot of people did get involved in the election to try to beat the Tories. Maybe it started a little bit too late. We were surprised a bit by how quickly the election happened, but you saw a lot of people getting involved in things like voteforenviroment.ca and the Department of Culture.

That was very much the spirit of it, it was anything but the Tories and it was kind of building a PR system without the cooperation of the political parties that got a lot of people excited during this election. It was about just doing an end-run around the political parties who were not cooperating to try to keep out the Tories.

So, what is exciting about this political moment, and how people can get involved, is that this is building on that. The political parties caught up with the grassroots movement that was happening anyway with those initiatives like voteforenvironment.ca, Department of Culture, and people like Murray Dobbin who have been making these arguments pretty steadily outside of the political parties. Now it is happening, and it is happening thanks to Stephen Harper and his extraordinary arrogance and over-reaching. We can't lose this moment.

I just want to emphasize this point: If even through smart tactics, Harper pulls this off, if he prorogues Parliament; if the Governor General lets him get away with it; if the Liberals lose their nerve over Xmas, then the Harper we will have in January will be a deeply chastened Harper.

What everybody agrees with is that he made a massive error, that he massively overreached, and his own party, his own base agrees with that. Worst case scenario we dodged a bullet here. Best case scenario, we leverage his overreach, his attempt to use a crisis to push through his ideological pro-corporate agenda to have a deeper democracy in our country, and to prevent forevermore a situation where a party with 35 per cent of the vote is government.

Stephen Harper

Harper got his prorogation. I'm not pleased about this. It just gives him a bigger chance to launch attack ads and be a jerk.

Hopefully, this won't stop the no-confidence vote from going through, and the much more respectable coalition government from coming into power in January, when parliament reconvenes.

(Feel free to use this image where ever you like!)

Bloody Poppies

So, it's that time of year again - that time when talk of the world wars suddenly rises from the ashes and we all wear poppies to support the veterans of those wars.

Last year I posted about why I don't wear a poppy. This year, again, I am not wearing a poppy, but still remembering. But I have noticed that the collective minds of the masses seems to have decided either in favour of my direction or to simply forget.

To reiterate what I said last year: Ever since September 11th rhetoric started to get mixed up with world war remembrance rhetoric the poppy turned just didn't do it. Even if you listen to the straight-up nothing but "remember the 'Great' Wars" rhetoric, we're getting into foggy territory. Yes, it is important to remember the terrible losses (by which I mean hundreds of thousands of deaths, not "casualties") but to what extent are we glorifying the very act of war with this remembrance? The poem that the poppy symbolism comes from states, very clearly: "Take up our quarrel with the foe:/ To you from falling hands we throw/ The torch; be yours to hold it high." (McCrae 1915). That's a pretty clear statement of "Keep this damned war going."

Another issue I keep taking with the Remembrance Day deal are our "new" modern wars. Sure, people said that World War I was "the first modern war" - but was it really? It seems to me that World War I and World War II were really the exception. Modern Wars seems to be the ability to inflict as much damage on the "enemy" with as little damage on your own troops - current wars, Afghanistan and Iraq as our primary example (where's the talk about these places, now that suddenly the US is in an era of progression?). "Our" side, the "good guys" have a death toll of something like a mere tenth of how many of "Their" side, the "bad guys" have had? Is that war, or is that a one sided slaughter with the victims doing their best to fight back?

YES, we must remember the lessons of World Wars I and II. But we've very obviously already forgotten them, and remembered absolutely nothing but the bloody poppy! Wars today are being fought for the same reasons they were being fought back then. It's very much colonialism under a vague flag of "We're democratic, let us free the victims of these totalitarian states" and "Bringing Free and Democratic Trade to the land of the oppressed!". But we are setting ourselves in the space of the oppressor, and maybe they can vote on their government, but these countries, set up as they are being set up - even if they were able to emerge peacefully (and I beg you all to remember that if Canada or the States were thrown down into a state of Anarchy by another country, we would not emerge any more peacefully than Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country has in history), World Trade sanctions and unfair trading treaties are already being placed on them - making it pretty much impossible for them to emerge in a state of anything but poverty.

So, again: I cannot wear a poppy that stands for "remembrance" of previous wars, when the bloodthirst of my own nation (and its closest ally) is so apparent. I repeat: we have not retained anything except this bloody poppy. So maybe it's time to start a new way of remembrance, one that ties itself to remembering why we shouldn't be invading other countries for colonial purposes.

Or maybe we should strip back this artificial veneer of pretending we remember and recognize the sacrifices of World War veterans and start actually remembering and recognizing their sacrifices - as well as the sacrifices of so many millions of innocent victims who did not fight in these wars, but were merely killed in them.

Blue Country - Post Election Notes

So, as was fairly predictable, Canada dropped the ball again and elected Stephen Harper, our ultra-conservative angry man, who really belongs more to the States than to us.

What wasn't predictable was Harper came very close to a majority government, and I spent a good deal of time thinking about all sort of things he was likely to go after, including, but not only: freedom of speech in the arts (oh, yeah, and the arts), gay marriage (he really never liked it), women's rights (who cut nation-wide services that fund women's shelters?), the environment (which to me, is actually the most important, doesn't matter how bad things get, the land can save you)...
I've never been happier to return to a status quo that I really don't like. All I can say is: Dion, Layton and Duceppe had better make good on their promises to stand up against Harper. Don't keep this parliament running longer than it needs to be; I know it's an unpopular decision to kill a minority, because no one likes an election... but hey.

For those of you who don't quite get Canadian parliament: We have a total of 308 seats in parliament. Any time a party wins 155 or more of those seats, they get a practical carte blanche to do whatever they like. Anything less than 155, they end up with a minority government, which can be toppled by the other parties by voting against a movement in parliament. I'm willing to bet that Harper's confident enough by his almost-majority (143 seats) to try to push the buttons of the other parties: If they topple the government within the first year, they'll be blamed for the ensuing election. He's going to push for things they don't want NOW. But, he will remain acting like HarperLite, because he doesn't have the power to push his more controversial agendas.

Anyway, checking voter turn-out this morning and guess what? Turnout is down to 59.1%. In other words - not so hot. That is a record low, according to CBC. A large chunk of that is Newfoundland, ConLand, where the Conservative Premier stated that Harper's Conservatives were not good for the province, suggesting the catchy "ABC" Voting Strategy - Anything But Conservatives. I expect a lot of people just didn't really know who to vote for.
The other place I expect (don't have anything to back this assumption up) voters didn't show was Alberta. Oh, Alberta. So many new people have moved there, but everyone who votes central-to-left seems to think that since they don't have a chance, they just don't need to try. Well... thanks a lot, left-of-right Albertans. Your lack of voting is really what's screwing the rest of us over on a national level. You need to take responsibility and just elect someone Lib or NDP or, hell, the Greens would have a big fight there, but them too! I know Alberta's not really a great place to live these days. We all know that. You could be making $20/hour and still not be able to afford a house... but you gotta elect a party that's going to help rather than encourage Alberta to degenerate into a cesspool of poverty, oil and crime.
Nevertheless, we're taking our right to vote for granted. It's pathetic.

Finally, remember last year, when all the young voters didn't bother on voting for proportional representation? If you had bothered voting for that, we wouldn't have such a big problem on our hands with the current government.

Popular Vote vs Percentage of Seats (ie. Real Power) in Parliament:
37.63% vs 46.42% Conservative
26.24% vs 24.28% Liberal
9.97% vs 16.23% Bloc Quebecois
18.20% vs 12.01% New Democratic Party (NDP)
6.80% vs 0.00% Green Party

Just bothers me some that almost 20% of voters aren't properly represented (Helps that I'm one of them).

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE TOMORROW!

THIS THANKSGIVING MONDAY IS THE EVE OF THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS IN CANADA.

THIS POST IS SERVING AS A REMINDER FOR EVERYONE TO GO OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW.

HENCE ALL THE FRIGGIN' CAPSLOCK.


DON'T FORGET!
OCTOBER 14TH, 2008 IS ELECTION DAY!
GO AND VOTE!

VOTE!VOTE!VOTE!VOTE!VOTE!

Last Post Before Election!

MORE IMPORTANT THAN READING THIS: GO OUT AND VOTE ON OCTOBER 14th. NO EXCUSES, JUST VOTE!

So, with just one day left until elections start, I'm going to give my personal run-down of each of the parties - something I meant to do, heh, a day or two after the Leader's Debate(s).

So. First off, I'm going to start with our current (crap-for) government. I'm trying hard not to let my own biases get in the way of sounding balanced and sane, but I hold a lot of hate for the Conservative Party of Canada. I hold a lot of hate for Stephen Harper, and I really hope that the majority of Canadians remain ever vigilant and cautious about this grade-A douchebag. Watching the debate, I really just wanted to smack Stephen Harper's smug "I-think-I-got-it-in-the-bag-therefore-I-won't-actually-debate" smirk off his face.

To start, here's a Conservative TV ad, swiped from the Con's channel on YouTube:

I chose this ad because it really stands as a shining example of why the Conservatives are a terrible choice for leadership: they assume that they don't need to worry about Canadians having enough brain power to want to hear about -what's it called...- issues. Hell, they figure, just smear Stephan Dion's name enough and all will be well.

For this entire bloody campaign, they have been smugly going on about how terrible the other parties are - how their economic plans are flawed, etc, etc. What they continuously forget to mention is that it seems that the Cons always give up the government just after they've used up the surplus that the Libs created. That's right, Libs and Cons may both be scheming, lying bastards, but at least the Libs balance the bloody budget. This year, the Cons also, oops!, forgot!, to release their platform until last week. At this point, I haven't actually made the time to go over it - it's a pretty basic Con platform.

It goes a little like this: tax cut here, tax cut there, give a little tax cut everywhere!!! Now if you're lower middle class or impoverished, you're saving something like $200 a year - but to afford these cuts that make your nobility (oops, I meant, the upper-middle class and the rich) lots of extra money... oh, yeah, about those arts programs, the environment, hell, even the whole job issue... let's just SLASH. Oh, yeah, good luck with the pending economic DOOM!

And, next up to bat, the Liberals! Oh, those good old classy Liberals, the ones who have provided my two favourite PMs in Canada's history: Pierre Trudeau for his policies, social reform, all round "good-guy" appearance in Canada's history (except when you remember that small occurrence in Quebec... ), and awesome sass: "The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation!", "Just watch me!" and so forth; and Jean Cretien for his absolute ridiculously inappropriate sass and willingness to mock himself on the Mercer Report, even if he was a corrupt bastard. (I'd like to see Cretien kick Mercer's ass, actually, but hey, can't get all my wishes). Stephan Dion might actually be my favourite party leader these days - well, he was, up until the Leader's Debate. Get into that later.

Here is the Lib ad that, for me, most summarizes what the Libs have been saying:

Now, some people say that this is just as smeary as the Cons' ads, but I'd argue that this is fact-based, rather than an all-out "Gamble on Dion and die" approach. Because these things did happen. I remember it happening - especially calling Ontario the last place in the world to invest. God, Ontario actually needs to start crucifying its Conservative party members, the way that they have been treating us. But, outside of Toronto and the other major cities, most people seem to have the ability to clamp fists on their ears and yell "LALALALA".
Nevertheless, to talk about the Liberals: I like the Green Shift plan. It's not perfect, no, but it's a step in the right direction, which is a hell of a lot more than the Con plan is (reduce 20% of emissions by 2020? Right, by then we've all asphyxiated already). And there really is no perfect way to reduce emissions, other than going back in time and stopping "progress" in this direction.
Now, social programs, not bad. Support for the arts? Not bad. Economy? Not the classic laissez-faire approach, but hey, that approach certainly didn't help the poor fools who elected Conservative governments in the 1930s, did it? It was the more left-wing, "socialist" approach that saved that day, and I strongly believe the same goes for this day. Most of this, however, can be applied to the slightly less corrupt NDP and Green platforms.

The other thing I'd like to say about the Libs is about their leader, Stephan Dion. I honestly believe that Dion is the best federal Liberal party leader since Trudeau. He might not be overtly heavy with the party whip, and keeping his party in perfect line, but that is what democracy should be, baby! Now, I don't think Dion has everything to be desired, etc, etc. But what has driven me crazy about this election is that he has been facing slander from all sides - and yet he slugs on. The Cons slander him. The NDP slanders him. The Green party... well, they really haven't insulted anyone except Stephen Harper, and I think it was just. Hell, even some members of his party have been insulting him (quietly since the election was called). Most of all, though, ALL THE MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS IN CANADA have been saying: "Stephan Dion is a weak, uncharismatic leader" constantly. And it changes people's opinions. I've heard people quoting, over and over again, these reports. And you know what? I think Dion's got charisma. And I think that he's shown fortitude, maturity (which many world leaders tragically lack), the way he continued to stand strong against this shit, and really hasn't whined about it. So, I say: "Stephan Dion, you have my respect."

On to the NDP!

I'll be honest. I like Layton's politics, I like Layton's party... I just have never really liked Layton himself. I don't know why. He's just never really captured my heart... Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Layton shares the same policies as his predecessor, and yet, he's not called names, like "Sausage Face" on talk radio. Oh, wait, she was a woman. This makes her policies unimportant, instead, her appearance takes precedence! (I'll add a full blog about this eventually, I've got a list of female politicians in this boat).

Anyway, NDP is the party I'm most likely to vote for. And here is an ad that, for me, summarizes the campaign. Enjoy:

The NDP is probably my favourite party in Canada. Unfortunately, they never win, and when they finally do win, they are far too surprised themselves to deal with their own political success. In fact, I think that they do best in coalition with the Liberals, because the Liberals keep grounded in the Capitalist reality.

Anyway, this election, they're yammering on about just about everything that I feel is important to me. Things like... oh, creating Canadian manufacturing jobs. You know, maybe Canadian companies, making Canadian goods? Instead of letting companies like General Motors fuck us over again and again and again? Oh, yeah, and doing things to help create a bit more social justice? Like, you know, closing the gap between the rich and the poor? Sounds good, don't it?

Oh- yeah - the cap and trade versus the carbon tax? Same policy, different phrasing. Layton, Dion and May need to get the fuck over it. They're basically all proposing the same thing - except the Liberals are, indeed, central rather than left wingers.

Well, try telling that to people in my riding...

Finally, last but not least, the Green Party! (I'm going to add - there is also the Bloc Quebecois, but they really only run in Quebec, which is roughly a 10 hour drive from my current location, speeding the whole way. Nevertheless, I respect them, and don't hate them for wanting to protect Quebec culture).

Anyway, the Green ads are really low budget in comparison, so... enjoy!

To start, Elizabeth May is probably my favourite party leader this time around. She approaches things in a level-headed way and responds intelligently. She seems to honestly believe in making Canada a better place, as well as the world.

The Green Party platform seems like a proposal to create Utopia. It is, unfortunately, absolutely impossible without the support from the entire world, by which I mean, most of all, the world's big "superpowers", ie, United States and China (yes, I think China is going to have its say in the future).

Last election, the Green Party almost stole my heart from the NDP, until I read their platform. Last time, it was a very Conservative platform, and I was angry at it leeching votes off of some of the NDP's less attentive flanks. I maintain, actually, that it would be for the best if the Green Party and the NDP merged - NDP keeping a strong focus on social justice and the Green half keeping a strong focus on environmental justice. And, yeah, slap May up there instead of Layton, because Layton's just never been an excellent speaker. He makes me cringe sometimes. (Although don't get me wrong, I do respect him... I just respect Elizabeth May more). It would be nice to have some measure of guarantee that the Green Party won't blur itself into the right wing end of things.

In conclusion, I'd like to see Harper lose by winning an extremely narrow minority, opening the show for a coalition between Dion and Layton's parties. I'd like to see May get a few more seats, but not if it means throwing off the NDP's base.

I feel, however, that I support the classic ABC Voting Strategy - Anything But Conservative. I'd rather have another Liberal majority and a Conservative one.

And to complete this, some messages from a not-quite major party contender: Neorhinos!



My French is not astute enough to understand all of this, but it's still awesome:
Neorhinos on CBC

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find their "Cubeq" ad, in which they propose to merge Quebec and Cuba to create a new national drink- lots and lots of Cuban rum with just a touch of maple syrup.

I love the Neorhinos!

And a wonderful reason to avoid the Cons:


More important than anything:

NO EXCUSES! JUST VOTE. Please, vote anything but conservative, but JUST VOTE!

(If you're an American, please, for the sake of the entire planet, just vote Obama. We all beg you.)

Sarah Palin's Literary Cousin

Although I really hate that Sarah Palin is the US media darling right now - the other day I realized something.

Sarah Palin is a real-life Serena Joy (a character in Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale).

Now, if you haven't read The Handmaid's Tale, I really can't paraphrase it so that you'll get it, but if you have read it, but can't remember: Serena Joy is the wife that Offred works under. The one who used to be an evangelist darling... and then may or may not regret the changes that have actually relegated her to her own home after so long...

If you're an innocent little American and you know all about Sarah Palin and nothing about Atwood's the Handmaid's Tale - you should read it! It's a wonderful book - an excellent satire and yet horrifyingly frightening possible circumstance. It's a great book to read concerning not just feminism, but totalitarian governments and fundamentalist religion - and how these things can pan out in the world. It's somewhat... ...erk... Orwellian..., but I prefer Atwood as a writer - even if Orwell gets things named after him more than Atwood does...

If you're lazy, you could always just watch the Playboy (!...?) endorsed movie from the early '90s. But the book is much better in its social commentary than the movie is. Really, it's an old, somewhat dated, book - but it's an excellent read.

A Word From Margaret Atwood In Defense of the Arts

This is a piece written by Margaret Atwood in response to Stephen Harper's cuts to the arts.

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

September 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM EDT

"What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we
already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector
accounted for an 'estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).'

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called 'ordinary people' didn't care about something called 'the arts.' His idea of 'the arts' is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand:
I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an 'ordinary person.' Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. 'Ordinary people' pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for 'the arts' in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. 'The arts' are not a 'niche interest.' They are part of being human.

Moreover, 'ordinary people' are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. 'Ordinary people' have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and 'ordinary people' will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is 'ordinary.' It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of 'ordinary people.' He's the 'niche
interest.' Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is 'ideologically motivated.' Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate
his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In
communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big
statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!"

I'd like to also add a point to those who tell the artists to quit whining, that the 4.6 million dollars of cuts only constitutes a drop in the bucket, that overall its not really that much. In looking at the bigger picture, you completely miss the little things, the everyday ways that are effected by this loss. I'm certain that four million dollars are not mere pennies to the 'ordinary' Canadian. Four million dollars would go quite the way for many an artist, musician, curator, director, actor, comedian, educator, gallery, workshop program, radio broadcaster, writer, and well, you get the picture. Most artists are not gala*-going, rich disconnected elitists. In fact, artists that do live comfortably could not have done so for the most part without grant support. It's very hard to work full-time on creation when you are out working in other jobs just to pay your rent.

And anyone notice that the programs cut from the budget are the ones that affect visibility and accessibility to Native populations? So much for that apology for Canada's historic (and current) treatment earlier this year, eh Mr. Harper?


*Galas, by the way, in which his wife attends. Galas which are thrown by big-wigs in order to raise money to supplement the grants. Galas, which do not compromise the majority of the time spent by artists. Galas, which I'm pretty sure none of the people directly affected by the cuts (which by the way involved pulling money out of already existing programs right from under their feet) are going to.

Vote, Damn You!

So, it's that time of... not quite four years again, and we've been asked to paddle our butts down to a polling office and cast our votes.

The available choices are something that I've been known to whine about. But the actual act of voting has always figured fairly high upon my list of priorities. It's not like it takes a lot of effort or anything... and when it comes down to it, it does make a difference... (a small part of a big difference?).

Once upon a time, back when I was ages 12 through to 18, I was so raring to vote... blame Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario for the larger part of the '90s. All's I really remember was: I was a gallery brat. Therefore, I knew the pains of the art communities during those years. The no-funding deals. Or, you know, the basic slash funding, programs.

But there was more. I remember my mom pointing out posters (they really made no difference in our small Ultra-Con towns) that stated: "Minimum wage $6.75, Monthly welfare payments $695, Mike Harris' political advisors' hourly wage $495". Or, you know, something along those lines. I might have forgotten the specific numbers by now (I think I have, because I remember the hourly wage being higher than the monthly welfare rate). Point is, at that age, I was already indignant and angry about PC Politics.

Oh, yeah, and to add salt to that wound... there was also that minor incident of the new curriculum. And the glorious day that we went to listen to Nelson Mandela speak at the SkyDome (now known horrendously as the "Roger's Centre"), and Harris came out to speak first. And a SkyDome full of angry 11 and 12 year old children booing him.

Long story short: while most of my friends were more into their Nintendo systems, I was so ready to cast my vote. I actually spent the 14-16 years reading books about Suffragettes (probably one of the reasons that people called me that dirty ol' f-word, you know... feminist). In Highschool Civics class (the bullshit "understanding the political system" class that Harris' new curriculum added) I railed against the unjust laws that required me to be 18 before I could vote - 16 was more than mature enough! (Of course, my classmates thought I was an utter nerd, and the teacher kind of hated me).

The point of this long, rambling story is that voting is a responsibility I feel is very, very, very important. And even if you're voting for the dirty Con Party and their head corporate robot Harper (can you tell I'm biased in favour of the the lefties?) the point is, you're voting. And that is important.

The sad thing is that I feel like most people in my generation are still no more interested in being involved than they were in highschool. I know numerous young, university educated people who refuse to vote because: "Oh, it just doesn't matter." "What has the government ever done for me?" and "My guy never wins." And we wonder why there are so few young people trusted in government. A mixture of laziness, apathy and plain old ignorance allows so many people to "justify" why they just shouldn't vote. One friend told me that she creates change through other actions. But activism, however important, shouldn't be constantly necessary. Instead, why not just try to elect a responsible government that responds to its populous? Hell, what's a walk to the polling office compared to having to organise protests or incite the revolutionary mob?

I'm sick of people who go on and on about how the world is going to shit and then, if you ask them if they voted, they say "Oh, well, my vote doesn't count for much". No, it doesn't count for much if you don't use it. It'll count for a hell of a lot more if you were to just use your vote.

I think that one of the reasons that the advertisements for the respective parties (*cough* Conservatives) have gotten so completely trashy (ie. no political message, just slamming the other guy, like, you know, the "Gamble on Dion" series?) is because people are just shutting off to actual issues. We don't want to talk about, don't want to deal with it, and don't want to take responsibility of it.

And don't even get me started on how the American Election '08 is going.

Arts Funding and the Election

So, I'm well aware that art funding is not the headlining "issue" for this year's election; in fact, usually the only people who really care about arts funding are... you got it... artists.

I was sent this video via my email - it is the husband of a friend talking there.


I just wanted to post this because it raises a reasonably good point.

If you can't watch it, it's just saying that Harper's not a big fan of arts funding. (Are you surprised?)

War on Terror - and disorganised rambling...

I actually stole this from a friend's blog:

US Army at its finest...

If you're interested, and can stomach a lot of complete stupidity, the comments are somewhat interesting in a "Holy shit, I can't believe you said that" sort of way. Every so often it seems someone says something intelligent in the sea of moron.

I'd like to stipulate that in essence, I don't see war as such an inherently bad thing: I think it is an outpouring of our territorial instincts as animals, and has become a worse problem than it should be because we have managed to create technologies that make killing far too easy for us. Killing someone should never be easy. I do not think that as a society, or even "civilization" we can ever manage to eradicate war. In a world where there is only a finite amount of resources, as well as a population too large for those resources, we must accept that war will be a reality. The problem I have with war as we know it right now is our level of technology. We have proven, time and time again, that we have the technology to kill thousands more of "them" than "they" can kill of "us". (And, yes, I am talking in terms of Us and the Others). It is the fact that we participate in unfair wars that make us such terrible creatures. It is the fact that the populations our armies are keeping down are already being kept down by politics, by economics, by our own actions in the past...

It is sad that although we are such intelligent creatures, we will still fall prey to the natural laws of populations: we have allowed our population to expand over the limits of resources available, and, as such, we are going to experience (eventually) an incredible population drop due to starvation, because we lack resources. Naturally, this is likely to affect those of us living in the West less than it will affect those people living in "third world countries" (and I don't think many of them would be "third world" if not for the economic sanctions that we use to keep them down). (This, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with the video linked to up above). Sadly, it is also likely that populations that are traditionally subjugated (like women) are probably also going to get the raw end of the deal.

I don't really have a solution, nor do I feel like going on about this for much longer right now. All I'm really trying to get across here is how sad it is that for all the intelligence, all the design, all the progression that our population has gone through, we are still animals. We must remember that we are still a part of the natural world, and we cannot remove ourselves from it. We can speak of enlightened ideals, of philosophy and art, of gods and spirituality, but when it comes down to it, we must eat and drink and breathe to survive, and we are creatures of the earth. What I am trying to say is that maybe we should accept that we are animals. We are not perfect beings, and anyone claiming sainthood is likely a hypocrite - we should recognize our own sins (not to suggest that I am a believer, I am, in fact, an athiest) and struggle to control them for the sake of ourselves as an entire population. If we have a defining intellect, why the hell can't we use it for something other than technologies that simply inflate our worst instincts (war, greed, being territorial) to a point where they are obviously uncontrollable?

Bad Politics

Sorry, this is yet another blog that really isn't specifically about feminism or women or anything except politics.

Now, I am not American, but I have American family, and through my family, I have received this email, indirectly from the Democratic Party. Now, before I copy and paste the body of this email here, I want to say that, really, I do think that the Democratic Party is shitloads better than the Republican. But... this is really dirty campaigning.

And so, commence:

Dear 'X',
I've got something for you.

For a few months, we've had Democratic Party "trackers" recording hundreds of hours of Republican candidates in the field. From event to event, we've got footage of some pretty revealing moments. Some are regular Americans putting a candidate on the spot with a tough question. Others are blatant contradictions. A lot of it is just the standard candidate stump speech.

The footage isn't high quality, but it's straight from the field -- and there is a lot of it. Since there's more than my team can realistically process, we've decided to throw it up on the web and put the Party's most powerful asset -- you -- to work.

As soon as a tracker leaves an event in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or wherever they're taping a Republican candidate, they'll head to a computer and upload it directly to a special section of Democrats.org called FlipperTV. That means you'll have a chance to go through the latest video the same time we do.

Nobody has ever done anything quite like this before, but with the Internet giving ordinary Americans like you access to the tools you need to change an election with the click of a mouse, we need to make sure you have everything you need to do just that. The video is yours -- you can just let us know what you find, or you can take it, re-mix it, add music, and make your very own ad out of it. It's up to you.

Take a look:

http://www.democrats.org/FlipperTV

Back in March, I told you about our program to hold the GOP accountable for everything they say on the 2008 campaign trail. We launched a website dedicated to the Republican presidential hopefuls, and created a rapid response group in PartyBuilder that people like you could join to get the latest campaign news.

This video is part of that program -- and part of the work that the Democratic Party is able to do because of your help.

Take a look at the video, forward your favorite clips to your friends, and make a contribution of $20 to keep this and other programs going strong through the 2008 election:

http://www.democrats.org/FlipperTV

What are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson telling voters in Iowa and New Hampshire?

I'll give you a hint -- it's not what they're going to say in tonight's Republican debate.

As the Democratic Party's Research Director, I spend a lot of time watching what the candidates say when they aren't on CNN or Fox News. Believe me, they're like entirely different people when they're speaking to just a few dozen people in Des Moines or Manchester and don't think the cameras are rolling.

But don't just take my word for it -- watch the video yourself, and let us know right away if you find something noteworthy:

http://www.democrats.org/FlipperTV

People like to say that Democrats have a tactical advantage because we're better at using the Internet. Let's show them just how far ahead we actually are.

Let's get started,

Mike Gehrke
Research Director, DNC

P.S. -- Be sure you join the PartyBuilder group on that page so we can get you the latest clips everyone finds.

Now the thing is, although I do think that people should be aware of some of the things right wingers say/do... because a lot of them are much more hypocritical than all that. But to do so much intense smear is just... I don't know... immature.

And I'm not saying this to point a finger at the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is just as bad (maybe worse). At least in Canada, the further "right" a party gets the more it seems to feel it can depend on smear instead of intelligence. And unfortunately, in ad campaigns, the public seems to really go for that.

I don't know what to say or do about this. I really don't. I feel, looking at it, like I'm looking at some really horrid moment in a highschool movie. Or else one of the ultra-low points of the girl-politics that happened in elementary school (because as much as I hate to generalize, most girls were fucking vicious at the end of elementary). One way or the other, this is far too immature for any potential world leader to be engaging in. Any potential leader should be a little more grown-up than that.

That being said, I'm very tempted to watch through and snicker in horror at some of the shit that this big right-wing douche-bags have to say. I can't admit that I'm not sort of very enthralled at the very idea of actually catching the really shitty crap they're saying.

Which makes me a hypocrite, yes.

But currently, I am in my early 20s. I smoke weed, drink alcohol and mess around when I'm not busy with school work (which I currently should be). Still... I am not running for office.

Our "leaders" need to grow the fuck up. Like, really, guys. Get passed that stupid adolescent phase where it's cool to make fun of the other kid. Grow up. This goes for both American parties. And all the Canadian parties also. Elevating immaturity like this to such a powerful level is not "rad" or "awesome" or "killer" (well, maybe it's killer, but not in the "really cool" meaning of the word).

Now, if only the voting public would realize that also.

Voting and not Voting

"The Daily Telegraph carries the results of a poll which suggests that more young people have voted in reality TV shows than are likely to vote in the next election.

The paper says fewer than 42% of first time voters think they will vote for a political party, yet 46% have already voted for contestants in shows like Big Brother and Pop Idol."
Source BBC News.

That is disgusting. But I think you could make an easy comparison to the US and Canada both.

I am meaning to write something about how our electoral system isn't working. It's not that voting doesn't work. It's just that our candidates all have somethings in common, with few exceptions: They are either businesspeople or they are lawyers. They are all living well above the median. There is something wrong with that picture. First off: I trust a businessperson less than I trust a lawyer, unquestionably. Second off: most of the time businesspeople and lawyers have about the least "hard life experience" in that they are rarely from impoverished backgrounds, single mothers, visible minorities, etc. Thirdly: most businesspeople and corporate lawyers (social lawyers are sometimes actually quite wonderful people) have vested interests. Bias doesn't disappear because it's not right on the surface. Friendships don't end just because So and So doesn't work directly for the company anymore... Businesspeople are trained to have one thing prioritized: the bottom line, at all costs.

I think that if we ever want real results in our government, we need to start electing educated people who have lived among the majority of people (ie. low income bracket). I think that we also need to stop electing businesspeople, especially. I think getting real results in elected government would stimulate the interest in actually participating in the electoral process. I think it would also begin to stimulate positive change within our society - we have to start deciding what's more important: the fullness of people's lives or the fullness of our "GNP".

Speaking of which, there was a interesting segment on CBC's national about Bhutan wanting to remain under an absolute monarchy rather than move towards a democracy. I won't make much discussion about this... I really don't know much about Bhutan at all, but the latter part of the video talks about the king promoting "GNH" (Gross National Happiness) rather than GNP (Gross National Product). Now, of course, issues are always more complex than that, and much more complex than shown within the video. But the idea of promoting the happiness of the people rather than the average wealth (which isn't a very good way of calculating how well people are faring within any given country. Here is a link to the video, if you're interested. It's only about four minutes long, and it's definitely worth discussion and attention. And of course, if (I reiterate the "if", I know nothing about Bhutan, and that little video was suspiciously happy-go-lucky) the majority of people are happy with traditionalism, why modernize? I ask that question, because, as a modern state, we are constantly finding that people aren't very happy - that things like depression are more frequent, etc. Of course, that's hard to tell, and possibly lost within "are more people depressed, or a more people being treated for depression?". But that's a whole other discussion that will have to wait until some other day.

No Poppy for the Forgotten

The year that I stopped feeling comfortable wearing a poppy was 2001. My change in attitude towards the poppy had everything to do with the “Post 9/11” political drama playing out under George Bush. It might have also had everything to do with reaching a certain level of maturity which solidified my political sympathies.

Immediately after 9/11, like everyone else, I felt shocked that the US had been attacked. I was amazed that such a thing had happened in my lifetime. It took, however, maybe two days (tops) before I started returning to my regular sentiment about the United States: serves them right.

Now, lest there be some poor survivor or family of a victim reading this, I’m not saying “serves the people within the tower right”, because it doesn’t, and yes, it was very tragic for people involved. I’m saying “serves the United States right” because of the way that they have been bullying around in the world arena. Conversely, the media’s sentiment on the attacks was “Everything changes now” about the rolling-back of rights in the United States (and, yes, up here in Canada too, for wherever big brother Sam goes, we must stupidly follow…) and, once the blame had been assigned, then the lead up to the attacks in Afghanistan, followed the very soon after by the attacks in Iraq.

How this all relates to me wearing (or not wearing) a poppy is that around that November there was plenty of “still we must protect our freedom” and “we still stand strong against the enemies of democracy” and, then, most despicably, the whole “axis of evil” bullshit. I do support wearing a poppy in remembrance of the veterans who went away to the World Wars. I do feel that, in the western world, the two World Wars were an incredibly large turning point in our history (although in hindsight, they really were just one war, weren’t they?). I have, since learning about the Holocaust, felt that World War II, in particular was a “just war”, if such a thing exists. I’ll even support wearing a poppy in remembrance of veterans from the war in Vietnam to an extent – because in the end, they got fucked almost half as bad as the Vietnamese did, and a great number of them weren’t there by choice. But I must draw the line when “remembrance” is extended to the current wars that the US (and, by extension, Canada) are involved in. And the propagandistic mix-up of rhetoric about these “wars”, as unjust as the Vietnam “war” was, and the World Wars and the connection to “protecting democracy and freedom” just ruins the poor poppy. Add the bullshit of the entirety of the Cold War to the mix - where western nations supported numerous brutal dictatorships over democratic socialist or communist parties to keep a death grip on the world - and I'm about ready to vomit.

I don’t classify myself as a complete pacifist. I do feel that war, however, should be avoided at almost all costs, engaged in under two circumstances: the first being when another country attacks yours, the second being when another country is engaging in genocide or other serious human rights infringements.

That really wasn’t the case… you could argue that the Taliban or Saddam Hussein were spitting on human rights, but the wars that followed were quite obviously about profit for big business. And it’s not exactly like the western countries involved (for it really isn’t all just Uncle Sam’s fault, we’re all as responsible) were being subtle when they ran straight for the oil wells. The US even lied to its own citizens to get people to support the war. And it’s not like the United States and its gang of back-up bullies are respecting human rights any better than the previous regimes (women may/may not be doing a little better, but our media really couldn’t care less about the civilian livelihoods whenever one or two of our home boys get killed). The sexually-charged abuse of prisoners-of-war by American soldiers ought to prove that. The fact that torture is an ongoing occurrence at Guantanamo Bay ought to prove that (why hasn't there been any real international outrage here?). Consider the death count of every single war waged in the middle east right now – although the media mourns wildly when one of our good boys from home gets killed, it forgets to mention that five or more people from [read Afghanistan, read Iraq, read Palestine in the case of Israel, read Vietnam if you want to be historical]. These are not equal wars. Our veterans were fighting wars where they had about the same risk level as their enemies. Today, our soldiers are fighting wars where they are in a considerably safer place. And, yes, they do still get killed sometimes. And that is hard on their families. But what about the people they are killing? Have we forgotten that Afghans and Iraqis are people too? Remember: wars are made for killing people. One should not be surprised if someone gets killed in active duty. It's WAR. That's the way war works!

How can I wear a poppy, then, without a hint of irony, the symbol of “lest we forget” when we have completely forgotten any lessons we claim to have learned from the past wars? How can I honour the achievements of old veterans when new veterans are knocking them down unceremoniously? There is no "honour" in any war, let alone a war where one side has a "smart bombs" and much deeper pockets.

The poppy itself isn’t so innocent a symbol as I once felt it was, either. Although it is a beautiful symbol, the poem, Flanders Fields does not reflect any real desire to somehow avoid war. Nay!, in the last stanza it so clearly states:
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from falling hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields. (McCrae 1915)
So, basically, the poppy is a symbol of a poem encouraging us to carry on the fight. And that distresses me. World War I was completely senseless. The only reason that World War II was not completely senseless was that it put an end to the slaughter of millions of people. Of course, however, not a single country stepped in on the behalf of the Jewish people, nor any other group victimized by the Nazis. Britain and France did not move until Poland, their ally was swallowed up by Germany. The United States, for all its flaunting ideals of “freedom” and “democracy” didn’t bother to lift a finger until it was attacked itself (and although the Japanese empire was not innocent of human rights violations, I do believe they were fully justified in attempting to take on the Americans at that time; the Americans were trying to bully them into submission).

Don’t tell me to remember the lessons you’ve already forgotten. The symbol of the poppy leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. The hypocrisy of it. How dare we wear such a symbol when we attack innocent countries? How dare we wear such a symbol when we allow genocide and human rights infringements to continue on unabated around the globe for our own profit? How dare we? How dare we wear this symbol, sport “support our troops” ribbons and proclaim that we need an army for protection when we have not needed to defend our own borders (not since our dear neighbours the States attacked us at least) for almost two centuries? When we do not use our army for useful things? Sure, the Canadian army says that it is a “peacekeeping” army, but our mission in Afghanistan is no longer “peacekeeping”. How dare we, when we allow our “friends” to ignore basic human rights, for example, the United States’ “secret prisons” where they happily submit suspects to a witch-hunt torture system to prove terrorist allegations? How dare we look the other way when our own economic system is reliant on stomping other nations down, looking the other way as our very own corporations take away the sovereignty of other countries, violating basic human rights in the process? (Don't look the other way when the World Trade Organization and the World Bank are involved, because they enable these atrocities, as well as give us a bloody leg up.) And Israel, the most bitter of all ironies, which has proven the trauma of Holocaust survivors by allowing them to treat Palestinians almost as poorly as the Nazis treated them? How can we still hold our heads up, let alone wear a symbol saying “lest we forget”?

How dare we, again: we remember our veterans, but have not a word to say to the victims: the survivors of not only the Holocaust, but both victims and survivors of the nuclear bombs. Yes, we have memorial days, but on no such scale as that for the veterans. And no, still, I am not saying we should forget our veterans. I am saying we should also remember that every war has its civilian victims. Not only military victims, but consequences for the unfortunate, and truly innocent civilians who were not fighting the war. Yet they are forgotten.

The final thing that really bugs me about Remembrance Day is the unfortunate timing of it. Ironically, the armistice signed on November 11th was not a very good armistice. It was an unfair treaty, condemning Germany to poverty; creating the sort of situation that allows for an extremist leader such as Adolf Hitler rise to power. Consider how impoverished desperate situations leads to extremism in much of the middle east today, especially. Do you think people who are leading comfortable lives will turn to such violence easily? People who are content are not easily swayed towards violence. People who have little to nothing to lose because of desperate situations, however, will turn to violent actions because they know they cannot continue living as they are. If we are to remember something on November 11th, perhaps it should be the dooming sentence we forced down upon Germany that ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II.

I do not want to downplay the role our veterans played in our history. I do, however, want to separate the differences between the wars then and the wars now. There is a difference. I want people to remember that there are two sides to every war, at least, often more, and there are always innocent victims. In fact, the number of innocent victims in any war has been going up continuously since the advent of "modern warfare" (pretty much World War I and after). While we honour our veterans, we should not forget: World War II was won only when the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a nuclear bomb on civilians, not soldiers. Today, we "remember" the lessons learned, but we still allow numerous countries to hoard nuclear weapons. We still look the other way in the case of genocides. We look the other way, for that matter, in the case of a much more mundane killer: the poverty that our own nations force upon many third world nations. We forget that "the other side" (and is there ever really an evil other side?) is being killed too. And we forget that in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are the aggressors. Sorry, guys. We're not the heroes anymore. We're not liberating people from concentration camps, we're not helping anyone any more. We've simply torn down the existing political structure and now we wonder why there is chaos and anarchy.

Remember that war is much more complex than "Lest we forget". Even World War I and II, it is far more complicated than the good "us" and the evil "them". And until we can figure that out as a society, I won't be wearing a poppy for Remembrance Day.

Angry Mulroney Rant

Ok, so I really should have posted this a few days ago when the article was in the paper, about how fucking "Right Honourable" Brian Mulroney swindled lawsuit money out of the federal government for alleging that he had a part in a fraud case that he said he didn't have a part in but turns out he did...

I really really want to start a petition to exile him. Like, force him to give up his Canadian citizenship and ban him from our country. He's a fucking traitor! He sold us out to the American corporations with the Free Trade Agreement. He swindles the government for his own monetary gain. At the very least he should lose the "Right Honourable" title granted to all Prime Ministers. I mean, GAWD, Jean Cretien started bar fights and is a more decent person! Stephen Harper is a fucking robot and scares the SHIT out of me, but I still hold more respect for him. (Well, respect in that we don't really know exactly what he's up to yet. He still really fucking scares me.) This is about as nationalistic as I will get: someone who so totally betrays his or her nation from a position of such power, should face consequences. But then again, I suppose it does not befit us to go up against someone who has so much money for lawyers, and therefore can get off of every charge thrown at him.

The other thing about this is the fact that if he was a liberal ex-PM and the Liberals were in power the press would be ALL THE FUCK OVER THIS. But here's a Conservative ex-PM doing fucking outrageous acts of ridiculous greed (he's already too rich for his own greedy-ass good) during a Conservative government and the media kindly turn head. I mean, this should blow up. Like, it should blow up like "Dumbledore's gay" big. 'Cause you know, what Dumbledore's doing in his fictional bedroom means more to us than what our Prime Minister is doing with our TAX MONEY. You know, the money that's supposed to somehow make its way to benefiting Canada. You know, our country.

FUCK. I hope Brian Mulroney regrets his life. Somehow, I hope he looks back and realizes: "Oh, I'm a greedy fucker. How terrible a person I've been." But we all know he has too much money for regrets.

So, instead, I hope he goes bankrupt and is forced to spend a miserable, lonely end to his life on welfare.

Shakesville MRA Post

The post that keeps on giving!

It came out a week or two ago, but the comment thread keeps on keeping on, and since it's a post that I both enjoyed and found made the arguments against the concept of the "MRA" (Men's Rights Activist: aka Patriachy aka Completely Nothing To Even Remotely Do With Even Those People Who Would Rather Claim To Be 'Humanists' Then Feminists')perfectly, I think I'd like a permanent link to the post on my blog. I know I'm not the only one who linked to it: so go check it out!

What's MRA?

So yes, I still haven't posted Ladyfest/Zinefest reviews, but I consider this a decent sidetrack, don't you?

Voting Day in Ontario!

P.S Everybody who can (and should!), go vote today!

It's Election Day for the provincial government of Ontario, fuckers! GO VOTE ALREADY! I'm on my way.

I myself am not particularly crazy about any candidate, but neither am I crazy about the idea of giving up the chance to have some sort of say.

Today is also the referendum over electoral reform: do we keep "first past the post" or do we switch "to mixed member proportional" (MMP)?

I've considered both: I realize that it seems like you're losing representation by not specifically voting in the officials who will make up the seats that the MMP takes up, but I've decided that the good of MMP outweighs the criticisms. With MMP, the popular vote will finally actually represent the way we voted versus with the number of seats actually won, and parties like the NDP and The Green Party may actually be given a real chance to truly mix up the government practice. A lot of people have decried that MMP means there will never be a majority government, but I'm okay with that. I'm for a government that works together with a cross section of beliefs and ideas; I've never been crazy about bi-partisanship, and hopefully we can get the best of every party this way. I know this idealistic of me, but any naysayers of electoral change in the form of MMP would do good to remember that we've yet to come across a system of government where corruption hasn't been a feature. So why be so fearful of something new?

Disagree with me?

THEN GO VOTE NOW!