So what's new out there?
Not much with me. Anyone who's been around heard I've taken some leave from work, as my brain decided to stop sleeping nearly totally.
Prescription is for rest, diet, exercise... and Cymbalta, which is a little bumpy so far but we're getting along better since I discovered it should be taken in the morning. Cymbalta's an anti-depressant, but one of two clinically validated by the FDA to be effective for fibromyalgia, and possibly for sleep cycle disturbances. We'll see. I have 5 more weeks to adjust, ugh. Unfortunately, I can't get back to sleep clinic until AFTER I'm supposed to be back to work, so who knows if it's actually fixing the fact that I don't get deep sleep.
In other news, it's the May holiday weekend, and the spouse got called into work (boo!) so I'm hanging around home with all the windows open (yay!) and making healthy food. I wasn't sure how healthy it was, but I've been using LiveStrong.com to help keep me on track, and it does the math for me. One of my favourite make-tons-and-eat-all-week meals has 250-350 calories per serving, depending on which dressing you use and how big you decide a "serving" is.
So just for fun, I'll share:
Johanna's Fresh Rice'n'Lentil Salad:
MUST have ingredients:
4 cups cooked whole-grain (brown, black, wild, mixed) rice
1 can chick peas
1 can lentils
CAN substitute (but you'll change the whole nature of the dish):
1 big bunch of fresh coriander, chopped (hate coriander? basil, parsley, dill... herbs of choice)
1 brick of extra-firm tofu, braised and chopped (can sub hard-boiled eggs or chicken, if not vegan/veggie)
1 not-quite-squishy avocado - soft enough to cut easily, but not so soft it's automatically guacamole.
12 tbsp Asian Sesame or Thai/Lemongrass salad dressing (again - dressing of your choice but totally changes taste).
Ingredients to add, but which you may freely improvise/substitute:
A bell pepper of your preferred colour, chopped
1 english cucumber, sliced in rounds then quartered
12 brussels sprouts, quartered and lightly steamed and cooled.
.... really, any fresh, non-starchy vegetables can go into this. There are tons of low-cal, high-fibre summer veggies.
Baby corn, asparagus, broccoli, bean sprouts, chopped spinach, snow peas, etc etc. Just throw in a total of about 4 cups of cut fresh veggies.
Throw rice, beans, veggies in a big bowl. Toss gently. Add dressing, toss to coat. Serve at BBQ or picnic, or keep in fridge and scoop out a dish at a time. Serves 8-12 depending on how much you serve.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Special Delivery....
I got a box. (Sprout! thinks it's for her - NOPE)
squeeeeee! *happydance*
If you're not sure what this is, based on the return address, this is probably a very uninteresting blog post. Move along, I'll have better things to show off later.
squeeeeee! *happydance*
If you're not sure what this is, based on the return address, this is probably a very uninteresting blog post. Move along, I'll have better things to show off later.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Apples and Wine.....
I don't do these "forward to everyone you know" emails, but I've been in a mood lately and this one came by and tickled my funny bone. It was also sent as a graphic. So I'm using my blog to share, what the heck.
Click on it to biggify if your glasses aren't strong enough. Smile!
Click on it to biggify if your glasses aren't strong enough. Smile!
Monday, April 13, 2009
More Viral Joy
It's not news to anyone that I don't watch TV. Mainly because most of it is crap. I find these reality-talent shows, particularly the audition episodes, particularly loathesome. Watching pompous jerks like Simon whatsisface and friends humiliate struggling performers just makes my skin crawl.
Another reason I don't bother watching is that the exceedingly rare, shining moments will usually find their way out there without me having to bother giving the media machine the time of day. If it's really worth the attention, it'll go viral.
Just. Like. THIS.
It is so worth it just to see that skeezy sneer slapped off all their faces. Go, Susan.
Another reason I don't bother watching is that the exceedingly rare, shining moments will usually find their way out there without me having to bother giving the media machine the time of day. If it's really worth the attention, it'll go viral.
Just. Like. THIS.
It is so worth it just to see that skeezy sneer slapped off all their faces. Go, Susan.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Food for Knitterly Thought
Today I will refer the knitters among you, as well as those in related arts areas (for really - you sing songs at shows? make dresses on comission? Operate a cooking classroom? this could be so applicable....) to a thoughtful and troubling post by an enterprising knit designer.
Pamela of FlintKnits.
I don't think most of us will have much doubt where the right and wrong of this is - just maybe about how to approach it, and get everything going with the "right" of it.
As a designer - what can you do besides lock your work away, spend all your time policing it, or never contribute anything that doesn't have big-publisher backing? I really don't know the answer, but maybe someone does. You don't have to tell me, particularly, by the way, it's food fer thinkin'.
As a knitter? I suggested this in a comment on the author's blog: If you're paying money to take a class, ask about the sources. Be nice and assume the best: "Do I have to make sure I buy a legal copy of the pattern?" (hint, hint), or "Oh, wow, you've got so-and-so's permission to use her book? That's cool!" (you DO, don't you?). If met with blank stares, perhaps point out that the author has a fair-use clause on their pattern. Or maybe that working from a published work requires purchase of a copy unless special permission is obtained. In the full spirit of not assuming malice where ignorance will explain, there are some people out there who genuinely may not know, strange as that may be to ANYone who has come within 3 clicks of the word "copyright" on Ravelry.
As an aspiring knitting teacher - I know this is a challenge. People want to learn to knit, and they see these incredible designs they love and they're not sure they can do it all but would love to have someone teach them. We've got the skills and the interest in teaching and can share so much, but even approaching all the foofaraw around copyright is sooooo.... daunting. Distateful even , when you're a little bug like me in a big pond and can anticipate the headache of trying to, say, get a publishing house to allow you some right to a work. But really? We should be representing the best of the knitting world and sucking it up, and I think if we did we'd find it not that bad. If someone responds negatively, or wants 185% of your class revenues? Screw 'em, and move on, because there are gems like Pamela out there who'd love to help you out in exchange for acknowledgement and a little attention to her offerings. And even the LIKELY worst case? Someone's going to tell you to buy a copy for each student. Your students are able to pay about $50 for your class, and $60-$100 or maybe more for materials. It is NOT unreasonable to ask for a $5 contribution to a designer's livelihood, and to give a nod to all their hard work.
I've so far made my own class-pattern sheets, which are pretty basic and cover techniques, not any particular design. But even my toe-up sock recipe, which I presented with specifically-done photos (and my hubby-photographer's complete complicity), and a reference list, contained credit for so much as "here's a good example of this technique". I do not copy or even teach out of a specific book, though I go armed with with references for students who want good sources (hoping the LYS has copies to sell!) I even emailed other bloggers and youtubers to ask if they minded if I referenced their posts, something that would even exceed academic reference requirements, but I thought it would be nice to do. Admittedly - one didn't answer because the email bounced. All the others were enthusiastically affirmative.
Teaching is pleasing, though not easy work. If you're going to all the trouble to put together a really good class - this is an additional drop in the bucket. Do it, and you and any generous designer you support can both hold your heads higher.
Pamela of FlintKnits.
I don't think most of us will have much doubt where the right and wrong of this is - just maybe about how to approach it, and get everything going with the "right" of it.
As a designer - what can you do besides lock your work away, spend all your time policing it, or never contribute anything that doesn't have big-publisher backing? I really don't know the answer, but maybe someone does. You don't have to tell me, particularly, by the way, it's food fer thinkin'.
As a knitter? I suggested this in a comment on the author's blog: If you're paying money to take a class, ask about the sources. Be nice and assume the best: "Do I have to make sure I buy a legal copy of the pattern?" (hint, hint), or "Oh, wow, you've got so-and-so's permission to use her book? That's cool!" (you DO, don't you?). If met with blank stares, perhaps point out that the author has a fair-use clause on their pattern. Or maybe that working from a published work requires purchase of a copy unless special permission is obtained. In the full spirit of not assuming malice where ignorance will explain, there are some people out there who genuinely may not know, strange as that may be to ANYone who has come within 3 clicks of the word "copyright" on Ravelry.
As an aspiring knitting teacher - I know this is a challenge. People want to learn to knit, and they see these incredible designs they love and they're not sure they can do it all but would love to have someone teach them. We've got the skills and the interest in teaching and can share so much, but even approaching all the foofaraw around copyright is sooooo.... daunting. Distateful even , when you're a little bug like me in a big pond and can anticipate the headache of trying to, say, get a publishing house to allow you some right to a work. But really? We should be representing the best of the knitting world and sucking it up, and I think if we did we'd find it not that bad. If someone responds negatively, or wants 185% of your class revenues? Screw 'em, and move on, because there are gems like Pamela out there who'd love to help you out in exchange for acknowledgement and a little attention to her offerings. And even the LIKELY worst case? Someone's going to tell you to buy a copy for each student. Your students are able to pay about $50 for your class, and $60-$100 or maybe more for materials. It is NOT unreasonable to ask for a $5 contribution to a designer's livelihood, and to give a nod to all their hard work.
I've so far made my own class-pattern sheets, which are pretty basic and cover techniques, not any particular design. But even my toe-up sock recipe, which I presented with specifically-done photos (and my hubby-photographer's complete complicity), and a reference list, contained credit for so much as "here's a good example of this technique". I do not copy or even teach out of a specific book, though I go armed with with references for students who want good sources (hoping the LYS has copies to sell!) I even emailed other bloggers and youtubers to ask if they minded if I referenced their posts, something that would even exceed academic reference requirements, but I thought it would be nice to do. Admittedly - one didn't answer because the email bounced. All the others were enthusiastically affirmative.
Teaching is pleasing, though not easy work. If you're going to all the trouble to put together a really good class - this is an additional drop in the bucket. Do it, and you and any generous designer you support can both hold your heads higher.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Stirring the Pots, Spinning a Yarn....
Added some previews of stuff going into Etsy stock on my other Blog just now.
Other than commercial stuff, and my first wholesale order getting underway (yay!), here's another recent completion. My new favourite thing for kids, this Bootee pattern is the cutest. "Stripey Bootees" from "50 Baby Bootees to Knit" by Zoe Mellor. These are for Max, and are in the mail now!
And my progressing WIP, the March Sockdown! challenge (and YAY, I'm going to Shall We Knit's Cat Cafe! - These are New Pathways socks).
The most recent startup: April Sockdown! These will be knee socks, so I had to get right off the mark or I'll never get 'em done.
Off to tidy up more, and spin, too.
Other than commercial stuff, and my first wholesale order getting underway (yay!), here's another recent completion. My new favourite thing for kids, this Bootee pattern is the cutest. "Stripey Bootees" from "50 Baby Bootees to Knit" by Zoe Mellor. These are for Max, and are in the mail now!
And my progressing WIP, the March Sockdown! challenge (and YAY, I'm going to Shall We Knit's Cat Cafe! - These are New Pathways socks).
The most recent startup: April Sockdown! These will be knee socks, so I had to get right off the mark or I'll never get 'em done.
Off to tidy up more, and spin, too.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Finally, a FO!
Look, I finished something!
February Sockdown!, with a few hours to spare. Gotta start April's tomorrow. I had a bit of a panic because I lost March's somewhere, but I found it under a lamp in my room.
And now, due to the unexplained spectacular exhaustion I have again found myself suffering - I'm going to bed.
February Sockdown!, with a few hours to spare. Gotta start April's tomorrow. I had a bit of a panic because I lost March's somewhere, but I found it under a lamp in my room.
And now, due to the unexplained spectacular exhaustion I have again found myself suffering - I'm going to bed.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Closet Mayhem
So, today's adventure (after solo-teaching my very first exercise class of the new format I'm not quite ready for yet) has involved finding new, compact modular shelving to replace the pine board IKEA stuff that takes up more room than it provides in storage.
This has resulted in some minor reassembly injuries, and somehow my room looks even more like it has been suicide-bombed by militant punk sheep. Sprout! is licking fibre bunnies off the floor and Blue is missing though I'm pretty sure she's in one of the yarn bins.
There may be a bit more destashing to happen soon, for some rough calculations have led me to believe that at my current sock-knitting pace, I will only outlive the stash if I get into triple digits with my vision and all my fingers intact. And I'm slightly (only slightly) abashed to admit that an entire cube of the new shelf unit has somehow been filled with products labelled NORO. The Koigu still shares one with some other random handpainted sock yarn. Lace and anything by BMFA don't live in the closet anymore, they're renting a spot in the main room.
Yes, SABLE*. Admitting it is the first step, right?
*Stash Accumulation Beyond Life Expectancy
This has resulted in some minor reassembly injuries, and somehow my room looks even more like it has been suicide-bombed by militant punk sheep. Sprout! is licking fibre bunnies off the floor and Blue is missing though I'm pretty sure she's in one of the yarn bins.
There may be a bit more destashing to happen soon, for some rough calculations have led me to believe that at my current sock-knitting pace, I will only outlive the stash if I get into triple digits with my vision and all my fingers intact. And I'm slightly (only slightly) abashed to admit that an entire cube of the new shelf unit has somehow been filled with products labelled NORO. The Koigu still shares one with some other random handpainted sock yarn. Lace and anything by BMFA don't live in the closet anymore, they're renting a spot in the main room.
Yes, SABLE*. Admitting it is the first step, right?
*Stash Accumulation Beyond Life Expectancy
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Gratuitous Cats and Knitting....
Just to prove I'm still here. Been extremely fatigued and running out of hours in a day lately, it seems. But I had a normal-ish weekend (after the previous one involved way too much time biking my ass off) and did some knitting and spinning.
So, to prove I do still knit, here are some of the WIPS. March sockdown:
February Sockdown, they're a little farther along now:
And, more cute booties because my friends keep having kids faster than I can knit:
The girl-kitties were being exceptionally cute on my day off, too. Sprout! was trying to help with the knitting:
While Blue was downstairs guarding the spinning stash.
Off to work now, since I've been trying to get this to post since last night.
So, to prove I do still knit, here are some of the WIPS. March sockdown:
February Sockdown, they're a little farther along now:
And, more cute booties because my friends keep having kids faster than I can knit:
The girl-kitties were being exceptionally cute on my day off, too. Sprout! was trying to help with the knitting:
While Blue was downstairs guarding the spinning stash.
Off to work now, since I've been trying to get this to post since last night.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Helloooo, Backside.
Well, that was a humbling experience.
I thought I'd pick up some training, advance a bit... take my workouts up a notch.
I'm going to have to take them up a pretty damn big gap, that's for sure. I just attended a jam-packed weekend of training for RPM, the Les Mills Indoor Cycle program that my gym offers. I've taught Cycle for a few years. I can do this, thinks me. No problem, new stuff to memorize, LMI has a bit of "culture" to it where we all have to say and do the right things, but it's a good workout.
Holy crap, my head and my legs were ready to explode. I was trailing the pack by a looooong way. I usually feel like I'm in pretty good shape for a fat girl, but I climbed a mountain this past weekend and there's a bigger one ahead. By the end of the weekend, we had spent 16 hours in class and at least 6 of that was riding, relatively hard, on the studio bikes. The good news is no one failed, but wow, that 16 hours is really just the start.
I have to say, for gym training, it was a pretty top notch program, though. And I'm slightly encouraged by the fact that I was not as entirely crippled as I thought I would be this morning, only generally muscle-fatigued.
Ride hard - I will be!
I thought I'd pick up some training, advance a bit... take my workouts up a notch.
I'm going to have to take them up a pretty damn big gap, that's for sure. I just attended a jam-packed weekend of training for RPM, the Les Mills Indoor Cycle program that my gym offers. I've taught Cycle for a few years. I can do this, thinks me. No problem, new stuff to memorize, LMI has a bit of "culture" to it where we all have to say and do the right things, but it's a good workout.
Holy crap, my head and my legs were ready to explode. I was trailing the pack by a looooong way. I usually feel like I'm in pretty good shape for a fat girl, but I climbed a mountain this past weekend and there's a bigger one ahead. By the end of the weekend, we had spent 16 hours in class and at least 6 of that was riding, relatively hard, on the studio bikes. The good news is no one failed, but wow, that 16 hours is really just the start.
I have to say, for gym training, it was a pretty top notch program, though. And I'm slightly encouraged by the fact that I was not as entirely crippled as I thought I would be this morning, only generally muscle-fatigued.
Ride hard - I will be!
Monday, March 02, 2009
Escaping the Winter...
A brief reunion with some of our fellow Photo Cuba travelers yesterday reminded me that now that I'd culled and uploaded my photos, I should probably share!
So, I've created a new sub-gallery from my main page. If you're the sort who hates having others' vacation photos inflicted on them, do move along, I may say something interesting another day.
If you'd like to see a bit of why I'll probably be less tolerant of Ontario Februaries for the rest of my life, have a look over here.
Oh and for those who know I'm not the REAL photographer in the place - Adam's Cuba Photos are available too.
So, I've created a new sub-gallery from my main page. If you're the sort who hates having others' vacation photos inflicted on them, do move along, I may say something interesting another day.
If you'd like to see a bit of why I'll probably be less tolerant of Ontario Februaries for the rest of my life, have a look over here.
Oh and for those who know I'm not the REAL photographer in the place - Adam's Cuba Photos are available too.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Adios Sun, Hola February
How do two weeks disappear so fast?
Cuba was wonderful. Great weather (even though the locals didn't all think so), friendly warm people, new friends both Canadian and Cuban, and lots of good learning about both photography and culture. A very immersive trip - we were not simply sitting poolside sipping pina coladas, though there was a bit of that too. I could easily have filled two more weeks and still not been tired of it, I think, though possibly the accumulated bug bites would have cut into the comfort level a bit. If I could say anything negative, it would be about the food, which was plentiful but only fair-to-good. I think it would have been better had the resort chef been making Cuban food and not attempting "North American" food with pretty little familiarity with it. But BBQ pork, black bean rice, and fresh coconuts off the tree? Beautiful.
I'll scribble a bit more in the coming days, and add the photo essay that resulted from Trina Koster's Photo Cuba excursion to my Gallery soon. For now, there is much laundry and tidying before going back to work tomorrow. For now - the last photo my G9 took on the trip. Valentine's Day Sunset over Chivirico.
Cuba was wonderful. Great weather (even though the locals didn't all think so), friendly warm people, new friends both Canadian and Cuban, and lots of good learning about both photography and culture. A very immersive trip - we were not simply sitting poolside sipping pina coladas, though there was a bit of that too. I could easily have filled two more weeks and still not been tired of it, I think, though possibly the accumulated bug bites would have cut into the comfort level a bit. If I could say anything negative, it would be about the food, which was plentiful but only fair-to-good. I think it would have been better had the resort chef been making Cuban food and not attempting "North American" food with pretty little familiarity with it. But BBQ pork, black bean rice, and fresh coconuts off the tree? Beautiful.
I'll scribble a bit more in the coming days, and add the photo essay that resulted from Trina Koster's Photo Cuba excursion to my Gallery soon. For now, there is much laundry and tidying before going back to work tomorrow. For now - the last photo my G9 took on the trip. Valentine's Day Sunset over Chivirico.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Stampede of the Drama Llamas....
So, in reference to my last post, referencing the comment I had prior to that: A Raveller more resourceful than I has assembled a blog post outing what was going on.
SubWayKnitter got it sorted here, mostly. Most of which I found as well, by this time, but nicely written up. Seems that my commenter "Cynthia" is a fake persona of a pretty stupid marketing drone for an online craft-market pretender who is not behaving too nicely. In the end, I guess, we can thank her for the warning to stay away from that site.
Also breaking today (well, late yesterday) in the finest tradition of online sleuthing, certain segments of the fibre arts community are raging again, over our second "undead" indie marketer in a year. Yep, someone else has allegedly fallen through on biz deals, and decided to "die" rather than either honour sales or refund purchases. I'm sticking at the moment with "allegedly" and no names, until I have a good link to point you to. Fortunately I have no personal investment (financially or business-wise) as do some others, but I was totally taken in by the "loss" of someone who was held in rather high esteem, and the posts from her grieving friends and husband - holy cow. Who needs daytime soaps?
SubWayKnitter got it sorted here, mostly. Most of which I found as well, by this time, but nicely written up. Seems that my commenter "Cynthia" is a fake persona of a pretty stupid marketing drone for an online craft-market pretender who is not behaving too nicely. In the end, I guess, we can thank her for the warning to stay away from that site.
Also breaking today (well, late yesterday) in the finest tradition of online sleuthing, certain segments of the fibre arts community are raging again, over our second "undead" indie marketer in a year. Yep, someone else has allegedly fallen through on biz deals, and decided to "die" rather than either honour sales or refund purchases. I'm sticking at the moment with "allegedly" and no names, until I have a good link to point you to. Fortunately I have no personal investment (financially or business-wise) as do some others, but I was totally taken in by the "loss" of someone who was held in rather high esteem, and the posts from her grieving friends and husband - holy cow. Who needs daytime soaps?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Tricked, even for an old dawg....
Well, just goes to show however cynical I think I am about the net.... people can still prey on my goodwill.
No big harm done. Don't know if anyone who occasionally wanders by here reads the comments, but there's one on the post before this one that looks to be from a somewhat naive student researcher/writer.
I'm a little annoyed at myself to say I took the time to respond, assuming she was genuine. A couple days later, I noted Ravelry having another kafuffle on one of the main boards. Seems my blog commenter is not a naive but genuine personage, but a slimy and not very well prepared would-be marketer trying to scam the good-hearted online knitting community into providing SOME kind of market information - to what end we're still not sure because what's been found out about the whole thing makes no sense. Right down to the fact that, if other craft/art online sites want info about Ravelry, Ravelry's usually happy to share in response to open and above-board inquiries (they're quite amazing that way).
Anyway, "Cynthia" has been caught out and in the space of about 24 hours much of Ravelry has identified a company, parent company, press releases, other web sites, ad nauseum, associated with the organization behind this "shy" "college magazine" author. I suspect someone's boss might be getting an inadvertent performance review on their marketing staff, shortly.
I was just so happy to have blog comments. What a dupe.
No big harm done. Don't know if anyone who occasionally wanders by here reads the comments, but there's one on the post before this one that looks to be from a somewhat naive student researcher/writer.
I'm a little annoyed at myself to say I took the time to respond, assuming she was genuine. A couple days later, I noted Ravelry having another kafuffle on one of the main boards. Seems my blog commenter is not a naive but genuine personage, but a slimy and not very well prepared would-be marketer trying to scam the good-hearted online knitting community into providing SOME kind of market information - to what end we're still not sure because what's been found out about the whole thing makes no sense. Right down to the fact that, if other craft/art online sites want info about Ravelry, Ravelry's usually happy to share in response to open and above-board inquiries (they're quite amazing that way).
Anyway, "Cynthia" has been caught out and in the space of about 24 hours much of Ravelry has identified a company, parent company, press releases, other web sites, ad nauseum, associated with the organization behind this "shy" "college magazine" author. I suspect someone's boss might be getting an inadvertent performance review on their marketing staff, shortly.
I was just so happy to have blog comments. What a dupe.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Happy New Year!
My goodness, it's all come and gone again. January 5th and I'm still feeling like there's Christmas knitting lurking around here somewhere.
Just wanted to share a few of the Spousal Unit's snaps of one of my later 2008 projects that I hadn't yet posted.
Before:
aaaaannnd... After! The wonders of felting. It can even change the colour of your shirt.
And, not nearly so artistic a photo, particularly with my grungy feet, but may I present the first FO of 2009! True, started in 2008, but I count finishing date, otherwise I'd never have an incentive to finish if I let myself take credit for all the started projects.
Yoga Socks:
So far, 2009 is looking busier than ever. My To-do list by Jan 31 includes turning a fleece into a hat, or I'll be waaaay late with my last spinning project. I've only got blog-time now as it is coincident with some update-computer-time. Later!
Just wanted to share a few of the Spousal Unit's snaps of one of my later 2008 projects that I hadn't yet posted.
Before:
aaaaannnd... After! The wonders of felting. It can even change the colour of your shirt.
And, not nearly so artistic a photo, particularly with my grungy feet, but may I present the first FO of 2009! True, started in 2008, but I count finishing date, otherwise I'd never have an incentive to finish if I let myself take credit for all the started projects.
Yoga Socks:
So far, 2009 is looking busier than ever. My To-do list by Jan 31 includes turning a fleece into a hat, or I'll be waaaay late with my last spinning project. I've only got blog-time now as it is coincident with some update-computer-time. Later!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
(Almost) Back to Arts and Cats
Welllll... I am still watching and waiting to see what Parliament is going to look like when it resumes.
Seems we have a St. Michael to redeem the Liberals, the way has been cleared. I keep mentally composing nasty letters to my Conservative MP, who won this region by I kid you not, 17 votes, and he knows it. He won because 17 hockey parents had things to do with their kids and assumed their incumbent was secure. I want to demand that he be the voice of THIS constituent and tell his leader to smarten up.
CBC has this interesting musing, with no conclusions, but reflects alot of my thinking on a key decision that led us here://http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/05/f-vp-mallick.html
And, lest this blog wander off from the real world entirely, there is still some crafty stuff going on. Around Waterloo this weekend?
I'll be there, with yarn!
Seems we have a St. Michael to redeem the Liberals, the way has been cleared. I keep mentally composing nasty letters to my Conservative MP, who won this region by I kid you not, 17 votes, and he knows it. He won because 17 hockey parents had things to do with their kids and assumed their incumbent was secure. I want to demand that he be the voice of THIS constituent and tell his leader to smarten up.
CBC has this interesting musing, with no conclusions, but reflects alot of my thinking on a key decision that led us here://http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/05/f-vp-mallick.html
And, lest this blog wander off from the real world entirely, there is still some crafty stuff going on. Around Waterloo this weekend?
I'll be there, with yarn!
Friday, December 05, 2008
What Happened, What's Next?
This sure seems to be NaBloPoWe (NationalBlogPostingWeek) for us newfound political junkies. Tonight I'm posting about yesterday, and have ever more questions than answers.... I'm afraid I may have run out of articulate, as well, as most of what I've been able to do about yesterday is babble a little twitchily.
Yesterday, at the request of our somewhat ill-behaved Prime Minister, the Governor General of Canada prorogued, or suspended, the Parliament of Canada, ending its first session only two weeks in. This was one of several possible outcomes of the chaos which began, well, really, a couple years back with Prime Minister Harper's first term, but in the past week or so since the first economic statement of this Parliament.
As many have pointed out, by Constitutional Convention, the Governor General does not share her reasoning on this and the message is relayed by the Prime Minister advising of what decision she made. Thus, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean remains a bit of an enigma to many, in this. I am sure her thoughts were deep and she had the advice of the most educated minds on this topic that our country and possibly others could offer. I, like all our elected Members and the Party Leaders must accept the decision and we really cannot speculate about her reasoning and motivation. I was pleased to see all leaders display the decorum to accept her authority implicitly and offer no criticism of her or her office. But I'm not sure it was the best action for this time.
I had to agree with Jack Layton's statement in reaction, that this is a sad day for Parliamentary Democracy. The Governor General's powers in this matter are the highest power in our Government, and they can alter the very structure of our democratic model itself. Yesterday, they were applied in a way which allowed a Member of Parliament, who is also Prime Minister, who is acting in a very partisan manner, to postpone the democratic and legitimate censure by his peers in the House of Commons, which he knew was coming. It is my understanding from all the reading, watching and listening I have been doing that this use of the power to prorogue Parliament is unprecedented, which means this has never been done in a Parliamentary Democracy before. Thus, this in effect alters the nature of democracy as it is implemented in Canada, and I don't feel it is a good alteration.
What sort of functional Parliament can we have if an embattled Prime Minister who cannot garner the support of the elected representatives (for again, it is the MPs, NOT the PM or Government, who we elected) can just pack up, slam the doors, and not only avoid, but PROHIBIT the continuing operation of the Parliament of Canada just because he faces a challenge he may lose?
It is now a done deal. This is a matter which I feel warrants deep and serious study and reflection. In some ways, the trust of the office of Governor General is diminished in this, for this defends not the entity which is Canada and its democratic structure, but merely one dysfunctional and partisan government, the progress of which should be up to the elected Members. I am disappointed, and should it ever come to light that Her Excellency made this decision to save face (hers or anyone else's) I will be ashamed. It was a no-win situation and no one would have been able to satisfy all with any decision, but better for her to leave office in disfavour (as Governors General have, at times) having made a decision for the good of Canada and democracy than to have decided in Mr. Harper's favour out of any wish for self-preservation or to take the least challenging path. In most ways, the appointment of Governor General is ceremonial, but in these key, critical ways, it is to be a sacrifice to democracy itself, if needed.
Only time will tell if this is going to work out or not for the 40th Parliament of Canada, and only more time will tell what effect this precedent has on the implemenation of democratic Parliaments here and around the world.
One thing I hope is that this is not the end of our interest in the matter, and that the Canadian people use the time between now and January 26th to learn, examine, and reflect and hopefully realize what here is truly democratic and what is not.
Yesterday, at the request of our somewhat ill-behaved Prime Minister, the Governor General of Canada prorogued, or suspended, the Parliament of Canada, ending its first session only two weeks in. This was one of several possible outcomes of the chaos which began, well, really, a couple years back with Prime Minister Harper's first term, but in the past week or so since the first economic statement of this Parliament.
As many have pointed out, by Constitutional Convention, the Governor General does not share her reasoning on this and the message is relayed by the Prime Minister advising of what decision she made. Thus, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean remains a bit of an enigma to many, in this. I am sure her thoughts were deep and she had the advice of the most educated minds on this topic that our country and possibly others could offer. I, like all our elected Members and the Party Leaders must accept the decision and we really cannot speculate about her reasoning and motivation. I was pleased to see all leaders display the decorum to accept her authority implicitly and offer no criticism of her or her office. But I'm not sure it was the best action for this time.
I had to agree with Jack Layton's statement in reaction, that this is a sad day for Parliamentary Democracy. The Governor General's powers in this matter are the highest power in our Government, and they can alter the very structure of our democratic model itself. Yesterday, they were applied in a way which allowed a Member of Parliament, who is also Prime Minister, who is acting in a very partisan manner, to postpone the democratic and legitimate censure by his peers in the House of Commons, which he knew was coming. It is my understanding from all the reading, watching and listening I have been doing that this use of the power to prorogue Parliament is unprecedented, which means this has never been done in a Parliamentary Democracy before. Thus, this in effect alters the nature of democracy as it is implemented in Canada, and I don't feel it is a good alteration.
What sort of functional Parliament can we have if an embattled Prime Minister who cannot garner the support of the elected representatives (for again, it is the MPs, NOT the PM or Government, who we elected) can just pack up, slam the doors, and not only avoid, but PROHIBIT the continuing operation of the Parliament of Canada just because he faces a challenge he may lose?
It is now a done deal. This is a matter which I feel warrants deep and serious study and reflection. In some ways, the trust of the office of Governor General is diminished in this, for this defends not the entity which is Canada and its democratic structure, but merely one dysfunctional and partisan government, the progress of which should be up to the elected Members. I am disappointed, and should it ever come to light that Her Excellency made this decision to save face (hers or anyone else's) I will be ashamed. It was a no-win situation and no one would have been able to satisfy all with any decision, but better for her to leave office in disfavour (as Governors General have, at times) having made a decision for the good of Canada and democracy than to have decided in Mr. Harper's favour out of any wish for self-preservation or to take the least challenging path. In most ways, the appointment of Governor General is ceremonial, but in these key, critical ways, it is to be a sacrifice to democracy itself, if needed.
Only time will tell if this is going to work out or not for the 40th Parliament of Canada, and only more time will tell what effect this precedent has on the implemenation of democratic Parliaments here and around the world.
One thing I hope is that this is not the end of our interest in the matter, and that the Canadian people use the time between now and January 26th to learn, examine, and reflect and hopefully realize what here is truly democratic and what is not.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Commentary is appreciated, but I do wish to respond.
I had alot to do today, but have become aware that at least a few more people besides my blood relations and knitting pals have been by this way. This is cool! And I got another comment yesterday, also cool. But I feel this added something to my to-do list, and my intended blog du jour is now different because I want to respond to my commenter. Mary has added a new challenge to my blog, for I think this is the first comment seeking to argue with me and with which I, in turn, will argue.
Before I do so I wish to state clearly: I do so with all due respect to, and appreciation for, the comment because ABOVE ALL my engagement at this time is motivated by a drive to see more people inquire, think, discuss, argue, think, learn, think and evolve in their understanding of our Government. I will do my utmost to address the points of the comment and not in any way insult the commenter, and I beg your pardon should I fail.
You can read the entire comment attached to yesterday's blog, but I will, in my (probably hopeless) attempt at brevity just reproduce points I'm answering.
So, from Mary:
Both are correct....
Your inferred conclusion to the first two statement is incorrect. The Bloc is not part of the proposed coalition government. The proposed coalition, which would be the Government of Canada, would be a Government consisting of a Liberal PM, 18 Liberal Ministers, and 6 NDP ministers, and that is the extent of the entity that would be the coalition Government of Canada. The Bloc is not part of that. The proposed Coalition Government of Canada would indeed remain an effective minority government and would require the support of additional MPs to pass legislation as they still require approval of 50% +1 of the Members of Parliament. None of that makes the Bloc part of the proposed coalition Government of Canada any more than the Bloc became part of the Conservative Government of Canada when they voted in favour of any of the current Government's legislation this past year.
Absolutely right, so true! And... so what? Mary, this is what EVERY government wants and by any stretch of common sense should seek to have. Every MAJORITY government has this implicitly and has it for good stretch longer than 18 months. Every minority government seeks this, in all kinds of legitimate ways, one of which is in fact to form a coalition government with another party. Another way a minority can do this is to not form a coalition government, but somehow entice sufficient non-party MPs to support them either entirely, or on a vote by vote basis (I'll skip all the guesses at methods by which they could do this). Another way a minority could do this is by placing members from other parties in bad positions by attaching a confidence motion to every vote whereby members must vote against their conscience or better judgement in order to avoid the unpopular consequence of triggering an election they're not prepared to fight for whatever reason.
Again, this is a conclusion that does not follow from your entirely correct statment of fact. It is not unconstitutional and believing it so does not make it so. One could believe the sky is pink if one wanted, I suppose.
OK, some numbers. But you haven't cited a source so I can check. But everyone, please carefully read and think about what Mary wrote. To the above I answer again... yes (I assume you have checked your facts and are correct) but ... so what? You state this like it represents something significant about the Bloc. But all you have stated are two unrelated numbers. The fact that the Bloc receives 86% of its funding from taxpayers dollars is fine. Under our current laws all parties receive tax-funded subsidies as was one of the points of contention that started this. The fact that this legal means of aquiring funds provides 86% of the funds for the BQ is great! It means they only have to raise 14% of their budget from private donors. It sounds like something entirely different is being inferred from that statistic, as if you think it is stating "the Bloc receives 86% of the tax revenues of Canada yet they only represent 22% of Canadians". That would be an entirely different (and, um, incorrect) statement.
I respectfully submit: 100% of Mr. Harper's salary as Prime Minister is funded from the taxpayer's dollars, but he only received 37% of the voters' support!
A majority of ridings did not elect Conservatives. More ridings elected Conservatives than elected Liberals or NDP or Bloc or Independents, but it is still a minority of ridings - less than 50% +1 - that elected Conservatives. The Conservative Party leader was appointed Prime Minister by the convention that still holds that as the leader of the party with the most seats (not the majority of seats, just more than any other single party), he is the first choice. It is still required that the PM maintain the confidence of the House or be defeated, and if that happens other options are available in our model of Constitutional democracy.
Oh, no, ma'am, I do not believe that and I did not say that. I completely think that most Canadians vote with a preference for a party. What I said was "we vote for the individuals who will represent us as Members of Parliament". That is factually true, for that is the object accomplished by casting our vote. I completely believe that each individual choice is highly likely to be informed by the voter's preference for a Party platform or ideology, and they will therefore cast a vote for the individual representative associated most closely with that. But we still do not vote for a Party, a Party not being an entity which can sit in the House and represent constituents, we vote for our representative I am on a crusade to make people understand that, because the fact that we misunderstand what our vote does and doesn't entitle us to is one of the roots of this issue.
OK, I have to stand corrected on this, however I admitted I was off into a rant and I have long since lost any love for CTV. Keep in mind, too, CTV may have aired it on your local station and not mine, possibly. I watched it for about an hour after Mr. Harper's address finished and was subjected to ETalk Daily and part of that dance show when I found Mr. Dion's address had already come and gone and been broadcast on CBC and many others. In re-watching captures of the CBC version, the station ID included a timestamp of 6:38 pm Central at one point - 7:38 pm Eastern, when I was most certainly stuck with ETalk Daily. So if CTV did broadcast it, I am disappointed that they broadcast it so much later than other stations and indeed, were behind YouTube.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot see this. ANYone else? I've read the claims on some blogs, but this looks like viral rumour to me. I've just scrutinized 4 different uploads from 4 different sources and cannot see this. Where do you get this? Is it because I don't have BluRay? You did say the sound and video was poor, did someone mistakenly read the book located over M. Dion's right shoulder, the only one with big enough title text, which reads "365 Jours" as "Hot Air"? If true, someone point me at a verified, undoctored, picture of this.
If I am asking an opponent in argument ANYTHING in all this, I am asking that you check every statement you make or have someone else do so too. I am trying to do that, to my limits.
Thank you, again, for the time and effort in sharing your comments on my blog. I DO welcome you to do so and I appreciate the opportunity to hear and be heard.
Before I do so I wish to state clearly: I do so with all due respect to, and appreciation for, the comment because ABOVE ALL my engagement at this time is motivated by a drive to see more people inquire, think, discuss, argue, think, learn, think and evolve in their understanding of our Government. I will do my utmost to address the points of the comment and not in any way insult the commenter, and I beg your pardon should I fail.
You can read the entire comment attached to yesterday's blog, but I will, in my (probably hopeless) attempt at brevity just reproduce points I'm answering.
So, from Mary:
You state that the Bloc is not part of the coalition and yet without the Bloc, the other 2 parties do not have the numbers to defeat the government.
Both are correct....
To me that suggests that the Bloc is an integral part of the coalition whether they hold ministerial positions or not.
Your inferred conclusion to the first two statement is incorrect. The Bloc is not part of the proposed coalition government. The proposed coalition, which would be the Government of Canada, would be a Government consisting of a Liberal PM, 18 Liberal Ministers, and 6 NDP ministers, and that is the extent of the entity that would be the coalition Government of Canada. The Bloc is not part of that. The proposed Coalition Government of Canada would indeed remain an effective minority government and would require the support of additional MPs to pass legislation as they still require approval of 50% +1 of the Members of Parliament. None of that makes the Bloc part of the proposed coalition Government of Canada any more than the Bloc became part of the Conservative Government of Canada when they voted in favour of any of the current Government's legislation this past year.
.... the Bloc has promised not to defeat the government for 18 months. That means that a coalition government has 18 months to do whatever it wants with no threat of being defeated and in a time of economic crisis.
Absolutely right, so true! And... so what? Mary, this is what EVERY government wants and by any stretch of common sense should seek to have. Every MAJORITY government has this implicitly and has it for good stretch longer than 18 months. Every minority government seeks this, in all kinds of legitimate ways, one of which is in fact to form a coalition government with another party. Another way a minority can do this is to not form a coalition government, but somehow entice sufficient non-party MPs to support them either entirely, or on a vote by vote basis (I'll skip all the guesses at methods by which they could do this). Another way a minority could do this is by placing members from other parties in bad positions by attaching a confidence motion to every vote whereby members must vote against their conscience or better judgement in order to avoid the unpopular consequence of triggering an election they're not prepared to fight for whatever reason.
I believe that is unconstitutional
Again, this is a conclusion that does not follow from your entirely correct statment of fact. It is not unconstitutional and believing it so does not make it so. One could believe the sky is pink if one wanted, I suppose.
The Bloc receives 86% of its funding from taxpayers' dollars and yet they only represent approximately 22% of Canadians.
OK, some numbers. But you haven't cited a source so I can check. But everyone, please carefully read and think about what Mary wrote. To the above I answer again... yes (I assume you have checked your facts and are correct) but ... so what? You state this like it represents something significant about the Bloc. But all you have stated are two unrelated numbers. The fact that the Bloc receives 86% of its funding from taxpayers dollars is fine. Under our current laws all parties receive tax-funded subsidies as was one of the points of contention that started this. The fact that this legal means of aquiring funds provides 86% of the funds for the BQ is great! It means they only have to raise 14% of their budget from private donors. It sounds like something entirely different is being inferred from that statistic, as if you think it is stating "the Bloc receives 86% of the tax revenues of Canada yet they only represent 22% of Canadians". That would be an entirely different (and, um, incorrect) statement.
I respectfully submit: 100% of Mr. Harper's salary as Prime Minister is funded from the taxpayer's dollars, but he only received 37% of the voters' support!
You are right that all MPs were legally elected. But you miss the point. If a majority of ridings had not elected Conservatives, then the Conservatives would not be the government and Mr. Harper would not be the PM.
A majority of ridings did not elect Conservatives. More ridings elected Conservatives than elected Liberals or NDP or Bloc or Independents, but it is still a minority of ridings - less than 50% +1 - that elected Conservatives. The Conservative Party leader was appointed Prime Minister by the convention that still holds that as the leader of the party with the most seats (not the majority of seats, just more than any other single party), he is the first choice. It is still required that the PM maintain the confidence of the House or be defeated, and if that happens other options are available in our model of Constitutional democracy.
Do you honestly believe Canadians vote with no preference for which party will be governing?
Oh, no, ma'am, I do not believe that and I did not say that. I completely think that most Canadians vote with a preference for a party. What I said was "we vote for the individuals who will represent us as Members of Parliament". That is factually true, for that is the object accomplished by casting our vote. I completely believe that each individual choice is highly likely to be informed by the voter's preference for a Party platform or ideology, and they will therefore cast a vote for the individual representative associated most closely with that. But we still do not vote for a Party, a Party not being an entity which can sit in the House and represent constituents, we vote for our representative I am on a crusade to make people understand that, because the fact that we misunderstand what our vote does and doesn't entitle us to is one of the roots of this issue.
You are wrong about the CTV not airing his response because I watched it on CTV and
OK, I have to stand corrected on this, however I admitted I was off into a rant and I have long since lost any love for CTV. Keep in mind, too, CTV may have aired it on your local station and not mine, possibly. I watched it for about an hour after Mr. Harper's address finished and was subjected to ETalk Daily and part of that dance show when I found Mr. Dion's address had already come and gone and been broadcast on CBC and many others. In re-watching captures of the CBC version, the station ID included a timestamp of 6:38 pm Central at one point - 7:38 pm Eastern, when I was most certainly stuck with ETalk Daily. So if CTV did broadcast it, I am disappointed that they broadcast it so much later than other stations and indeed, were behind YouTube.
And someone stupidly neglected to remove a book behind him that read "Hot Air" on the spine (
I'm sorry, but I just cannot see this. ANYone else? I've read the claims on some blogs, but this looks like viral rumour to me. I've just scrutinized 4 different uploads from 4 different sources and cannot see this. Where do you get this? Is it because I don't have BluRay? You did say the sound and video was poor, did someone mistakenly read the book located over M. Dion's right shoulder, the only one with big enough title text, which reads "365 Jours" as "Hot Air"? If true, someone point me at a verified, undoctored, picture of this.
If I am asking an opponent in argument ANYTHING in all this, I am asking that you check every statement you make or have someone else do so too. I am trying to do that, to my limits.
Thank you, again, for the time and effort in sharing your comments on my blog. I DO welcome you to do so and I appreciate the opportunity to hear and be heard.
Addendum....
Further to the "separatist" accusation. Disclosure: it is a link to the Liberal Party web site.
http://www.liberal.ca/video_e.aspx?guid=0FB6D5B1-3DD1-41E2-8EEA-E8D6811DBD00
However, it is not propaganda or scripted, M. Trudeau is answering some tough challenges from the media on the issue, with facts and informed opinion. Agree or don't with opinion, he is well composed and admirably quick thinking at this. I will be very interested to watch M. Trudeau's career progress.
http://www.liberal.ca/video_e.aspx?guid=0FB6D5B1-3DD1-41E2-8EEA-E8D6811DBD00
However, it is not propaganda or scripted, M. Trudeau is answering some tough challenges from the media on the issue, with facts and informed opinion. Agree or don't with opinion, he is well composed and admirably quick thinking at this. I will be very interested to watch M. Trudeau's career progress.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
An Assembly of Statements and Resources
Wow, can I first say I'm flattered to find myself quoted and referred to, even in a small way, for being a competent information source for this. I am far from an expert and know only a fraction of what there is to know about this current situation, but I am making a huge effort right now to be sure of my facts, and avoid the mudslinging and rhetoric that so many bloggers and commenters are falling to right now.
I would refer you (those of you who didn't arrive here FROM there) to Ms. Stephanie Pearl-McPhee's post today, about the best citizen's primer I've seen on the reality of this situation. I have a few minor quibbles with how she phrased a few things, but she is essentially correct and very insightful, one of the key reasons I'm a fan of hers (the entertaining knitting stuff is bonus, but she is foremost an informed and insightful writer).
Second, here is a web site I've been using to check some numbers: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html. Good data if you really want numbers and breakdowns, bring your own calculator.
Third, given how little most of us seem to know about Canadian Parliamentary process, the web site of the Parliament of Canada, despite having a veneer of the present Conservative party leadership, should be a valuable resource. Given that politicians, and most of the sycophantic media hackery following them, all put their spin on it, something I have found particularly interesting is The Hansard, an obscurely-named but spin-free transcript of what was actually said during debate in the house. You can read the statements of all members and decide for yourselves what is being said. Frankly, it is not hard to find our MPs telling self-serving untruths, half-truths and spun truths where it suits them. I'm finding it increasingly hard to dismiss some of these where they are doing so to launch attacks not only on other elected members, but on the Canadian public and its understanding of our democracy. (I think that more than anything is really what has galvanized me in all this).
Now, a few (mis) statements that every Canadian should be examining very closely right now, in no particular order, and not just parroting glibly to hear themselves mouth off:
That a coalition government is "undemocratic", "unconstitutional", "illegal" or any such thing. Members who have made such statements in our House of Commons have lied, in the House of Commons. To the House of Commons, and given the public records of Parliament, to the Canadian people.
That this is a "Constitutional Crisis". No, no it is not. It is a political crisis, for at least the Harper government, the Conservative Party of Canada and its members, probably for the other parties, but this is NOT a Constitutional Crisis (which would imply that one or more parties are acting to alter the nature of our government in defiance of our Constitution). Our Constitution is quite secure in all this. The options are clear. I suppose it is arguable this could become a constitutional crisis if the current Prime Minister is granted a prorogue as he is expected to request, as that would be an unprecedented response to these circumstances and outside of Constitutional convention, though not letter.
That the Coalition is a "separatist coalition" or that the Bloc is a party to the proposed Coalition (implying that the Bloc Members of Parliament would hold ministerial positions and form the Government of Canada). The Bloc has agreed to support the Coaltion, but it is a Coalition of the Liberal and NDP members of the House of Commons. And it has no separatist agenda whatsover. Nor will it support a separatist agenda - it will dissolve first, because it will flat out have broken the unity that formed it.
That, as Mr. Harper stated in his speech this past hour (I took notes) a Coalition government is a threat to Confederation. That is utter crap. The WORST POSSIBLE result of a coalition government is that it fails a confidence vote and we are back facing an election - something we will be anyway if Mr. Harper's current government fails a confidence vote and the Governor General declines to offer the chance to the Coalition. If she defers on an election and gives the coalition a chance, we will have had a chance to allow a legal and democratic Coalition government a chance to govern with a primary focus getting Canada through the current economic situation (not crisis. Note that it is also not, yet, a crisis, though it is suiting the current government and opposition to style it so).
That anything about this is "overturning" or "invalidating" the results of the October election. If you think so, you need to review my previous post about what we voted for, and what we actually elected. Every elected Member of Parliament will remain the elected Member of Parliament representing their respective ridings, unless they resign or die. That is all they were elected to. Nothing about this can overturn the result of the election because nothing about this can remove any member from their seat in the House of Commons. We did not elect the Prime Minister, we did not elect the Conservative Party of Canada, and we did not elect the Government of Canada (formed of the appointed Prime Minister and his hand-picked Cabinet). We only elected 308 Members to sit in the House of Commons, and how those 308 form the Government is not a matter of election. The fall of this particular assemblage of the Government of Canada does not overturn any election result. I have degenerated into redundancy but this point is vital.
Finally, because I received such a considered compliment and question from a web-wandering reader, I would like to respond to Heather t from yesterday's comment. She asked: "Are people annoyed that the Quebecois party is involved when they don't even want to be part of Canada? "
Heather, I need to disclose here that I feel this issue is a smokescreen being wafted around by the Prime Minister and those seeking to undermine the Coalition for political reasons. I also disclose that, due to my first statement, I'm not so deeply and recently researched into the current policies and platform of the Bloc Quebecois. I do know that the Bloc Quebecois (lets go with BQ for ease of typing) is not, in fact, part of the proposed coalition though they have agreed to support it for a set period of time. Thus, they will have no seats in a new Government of Canada (the PM and Cabinet) thus their platform and policies will not be part of the coalition's platform and policies. They do, however, need to be heeded as they can prevent the coalition from proceeding on anything by voting against its legislative proposals. Well, this is the same as they, and any other party in opposition to the sitting Government, can do now.
The BQ is a few things. They are a legal and legitimate Federal party, but have the unusual attribute of being one which will field candidates ONLY in the Province of Quebec. However, every citizen of Quebec is a citizen of Canada and has the same right as we do in any other province or territory - to elect a Member to the House of Commons. Those members sit in the House of Commons representing their constituents from their ridings. It is entirely fair for constituents in the Province of Quebec to send members to the House who have the constituents' interests in mind. The fact that the BQ won a majority of the ridings in Quebec is fine. Good job. It's no different than an independent who supports a western secession doing so. The BQ is also a party which has had, with varying degrees of priority, an agenda including the renegotiation of the relationship between the Province of Quebec and the rest of the federation which is Canada. It has been at times unclear the exact model this would take, and I'm not informed as to the particulars, currently or historically. I am pretty sure that "separatist" is a quick soundbite spun by many that is inadequate to capture the true scope of all issues. I believe, in fact, they consider themselves "sovereigntist" which is semantically different. I do know one more thing based on repeated polls, commentaries, news stories and interviews: there are lots of BQ supporters who do not wish to see Quebec wholly separate from Canada, but they support the BQ as they see it as the party which best aligns with what they see as putting Quebec first.
We last broached the issue of Quebec renegotiating its position in Confederation in 1995 with a referendum, which was voted down, and Quebec achieved no change in status though it has received many acknowledgements since, with varying degrees of substance to them, of its position as a "distinct society", culturally and politically. Stephen Harper himself did this during his first term as Prime Minister though I would need to do the homework to refresh my memory of specifics. At that time he was courting them to support his first minority government. I think now there is a feeling that he has slapped them in the face with accusatory and hostile reactions to a coalition forming which is NOT in his favour.
As to whether or not people are annoyed that they have stated support for the coalition - I do not think I can speak for the collective people. I can speak for my point of view, and I'm not in the least annoyed. The Members elected from the BQ are agreeing to a limited term of support for a coalition which does not include them, but which they feel will be better for their Members (and by extension, the constituents they represent) than is the current Harper Conservative government. They are entirely within their rights to participate in this way, and they would have been within their rights to participate in 2004 in the coalition Mr. Harper was hinting at forming at that time. They are a valid voice composed of duly elected Members of the Canadian House of Commons and they are acting appropriately in how they are participating. The perceived "annoyance" is part ignorance, part fear, and part (big part) spin on behalf of the threatened government to discredit these elected representatives and perpetuate the ignorance and fear of the less informed. I've no doubt the Conservative upper echelons are entirely annoyed, for the support of the BQ does make the coalition proposal viable as it does still require the confidence of the majority of the House. I've also no doubt many citizens of Quebec, BQ voters and not, are very annoyed at Mr. Harper for the spin doctoring and fear mongering he is doing which is misrepresenting them as a Province and electorate.
One last thing(having concluded my comments on the Bloc participation, so to all readers): I've realized I need to follow my "finally" with something of a post script and I am going to resort to ranting here just because I would like to point out to everyone that CTV NEWS BLOWS DONKEYS. They hyped up a Special Report broadcast which was to include airing of the PM's speech and then Mr. Dion's response, but apparently couldn't dare pre-empt ETalk Daily and So You Think You Can Dance to respectfully wait for the Opposition Leader's response to be properly recorded and delivered, so they dropped it. I've been sitting here subjected to CTV drivel for over an hour after they promised they would pre-empt it when they got Mr. Dion's tape only to find Mr. Dion's address come and gone and posted on-line while they returned to regularly scheduled entertainment pablum. Our media is completely complicit in promoting one-sided spin of this issue and is utterly failing the people of Canada in presenting unbiased and unhyped review of this. They are ignorantly parroting the lies, spin, and half-truths issuing from the press offices of desperate politicians and letting the information fall through the cracks. CBC, our public national broadcaster, is only just a hair less complicit in this. Sensational headlines front and centre, with reasoned commentary and factual documentation buried in the web site with less profile than ignorant, vitriolic drive-by commenters. Everyone, again, I reiterate, get off your arse, turn off the tube, and start some reading and research of the facts to inform your opinion. This is not about partisan politics any more, it is about keeping enough of a grip on our understanding of democracy to have a foundation for keeping a grip on our democracy!
I would refer you (those of you who didn't arrive here FROM there) to Ms. Stephanie Pearl-McPhee's post today, about the best citizen's primer I've seen on the reality of this situation. I have a few minor quibbles with how she phrased a few things, but she is essentially correct and very insightful, one of the key reasons I'm a fan of hers (the entertaining knitting stuff is bonus, but she is foremost an informed and insightful writer).
Second, here is a web site I've been using to check some numbers: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html. Good data if you really want numbers and breakdowns, bring your own calculator.
Third, given how little most of us seem to know about Canadian Parliamentary process, the web site of the Parliament of Canada, despite having a veneer of the present Conservative party leadership, should be a valuable resource. Given that politicians, and most of the sycophantic media hackery following them, all put their spin on it, something I have found particularly interesting is The Hansard, an obscurely-named but spin-free transcript of what was actually said during debate in the house. You can read the statements of all members and decide for yourselves what is being said. Frankly, it is not hard to find our MPs telling self-serving untruths, half-truths and spun truths where it suits them. I'm finding it increasingly hard to dismiss some of these where they are doing so to launch attacks not only on other elected members, but on the Canadian public and its understanding of our democracy. (I think that more than anything is really what has galvanized me in all this).
Now, a few (mis) statements that every Canadian should be examining very closely right now, in no particular order, and not just parroting glibly to hear themselves mouth off:
Finally, because I received such a considered compliment and question from a web-wandering reader, I would like to respond to Heather t from yesterday's comment. She asked: "Are people annoyed that the Quebecois party is involved when they don't even want to be part of Canada? "
Heather, I need to disclose here that I feel this issue is a smokescreen being wafted around by the Prime Minister and those seeking to undermine the Coalition for political reasons. I also disclose that, due to my first statement, I'm not so deeply and recently researched into the current policies and platform of the Bloc Quebecois. I do know that the Bloc Quebecois (lets go with BQ for ease of typing) is not, in fact, part of the proposed coalition though they have agreed to support it for a set period of time. Thus, they will have no seats in a new Government of Canada (the PM and Cabinet) thus their platform and policies will not be part of the coalition's platform and policies. They do, however, need to be heeded as they can prevent the coalition from proceeding on anything by voting against its legislative proposals. Well, this is the same as they, and any other party in opposition to the sitting Government, can do now.
The BQ is a few things. They are a legal and legitimate Federal party, but have the unusual attribute of being one which will field candidates ONLY in the Province of Quebec. However, every citizen of Quebec is a citizen of Canada and has the same right as we do in any other province or territory - to elect a Member to the House of Commons. Those members sit in the House of Commons representing their constituents from their ridings. It is entirely fair for constituents in the Province of Quebec to send members to the House who have the constituents' interests in mind. The fact that the BQ won a majority of the ridings in Quebec is fine. Good job. It's no different than an independent who supports a western secession doing so. The BQ is also a party which has had, with varying degrees of priority, an agenda including the renegotiation of the relationship between the Province of Quebec and the rest of the federation which is Canada. It has been at times unclear the exact model this would take, and I'm not informed as to the particulars, currently or historically. I am pretty sure that "separatist" is a quick soundbite spun by many that is inadequate to capture the true scope of all issues. I believe, in fact, they consider themselves "sovereigntist" which is semantically different. I do know one more thing based on repeated polls, commentaries, news stories and interviews: there are lots of BQ supporters who do not wish to see Quebec wholly separate from Canada, but they support the BQ as they see it as the party which best aligns with what they see as putting Quebec first.
We last broached the issue of Quebec renegotiating its position in Confederation in 1995 with a referendum, which was voted down, and Quebec achieved no change in status though it has received many acknowledgements since, with varying degrees of substance to them, of its position as a "distinct society", culturally and politically. Stephen Harper himself did this during his first term as Prime Minister though I would need to do the homework to refresh my memory of specifics. At that time he was courting them to support his first minority government. I think now there is a feeling that he has slapped them in the face with accusatory and hostile reactions to a coalition forming which is NOT in his favour.
As to whether or not people are annoyed that they have stated support for the coalition - I do not think I can speak for the collective people. I can speak for my point of view, and I'm not in the least annoyed. The Members elected from the BQ are agreeing to a limited term of support for a coalition which does not include them, but which they feel will be better for their Members (and by extension, the constituents they represent) than is the current Harper Conservative government. They are entirely within their rights to participate in this way, and they would have been within their rights to participate in 2004 in the coalition Mr. Harper was hinting at forming at that time. They are a valid voice composed of duly elected Members of the Canadian House of Commons and they are acting appropriately in how they are participating. The perceived "annoyance" is part ignorance, part fear, and part (big part) spin on behalf of the threatened government to discredit these elected representatives and perpetuate the ignorance and fear of the less informed. I've no doubt the Conservative upper echelons are entirely annoyed, for the support of the BQ does make the coalition proposal viable as it does still require the confidence of the majority of the House. I've also no doubt many citizens of Quebec, BQ voters and not, are very annoyed at Mr. Harper for the spin doctoring and fear mongering he is doing which is misrepresenting them as a Province and electorate.
One last thing(having concluded my comments on the Bloc participation, so to all readers): I've realized I need to follow my "finally" with something of a post script and I am going to resort to ranting here just because I would like to point out to everyone that CTV NEWS BLOWS DONKEYS. They hyped up a Special Report broadcast which was to include airing of the PM's speech and then Mr. Dion's response, but apparently couldn't dare pre-empt ETalk Daily and So You Think You Can Dance to respectfully wait for the Opposition Leader's response to be properly recorded and delivered, so they dropped it. I've been sitting here subjected to CTV drivel for over an hour after they promised they would pre-empt it when they got Mr. Dion's tape only to find Mr. Dion's address come and gone and posted on-line while they returned to regularly scheduled entertainment pablum. Our media is completely complicit in promoting one-sided spin of this issue and is utterly failing the people of Canada in presenting unbiased and unhyped review of this. They are ignorantly parroting the lies, spin, and half-truths issuing from the press offices of desperate politicians and letting the information fall through the cracks. CBC, our public national broadcaster, is only just a hair less complicit in this. Sensational headlines front and centre, with reasoned commentary and factual documentation buried in the web site with less profile than ignorant, vitriolic drive-by commenters. Everyone, again, I reiterate, get off your arse, turn off the tube, and start some reading and research of the facts to inform your opinion. This is not about partisan politics any more, it is about keeping enough of a grip on our understanding of democracy to have a foundation for keeping a grip on our democracy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
