Thursday, July 4, 2019

Happy 4th of July!


I first came to the United States when I was 18, arriving at Harvard as a particularly clueless freshman from a provincial town in interior British Columbia. Some exposure to America is inevitable no matter where you are, but I had scant first-hand experience - I didn't know any Americans and day-for-day, I think I had spent longer in Germany than in the US. America was big and somewhat scary unknown, the homeland of McDonald's, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex.

I figured I should rectify that knowledge deficit and saw in my classmates a golden opportunity to get smart about the country quickly. Meeting people for the first time, they would often lead with where they were from. Of course, some places were over represented - you'd meet New Yorkers by the bushel, New Englanders (which usually meant Boston + college towns) by the score, Bay Area Californians by the gigabyte. But Texans weren't uncommon, and the more exotic states (meaning Nebraska and Kentucky, not Alaska and Hawaii) popped up in ones and twos. I'd tell them I was from Canada and didn't know much about the States, and they'd be more than happy to tell me all about their country. Here are some of the answers I got (recovered from long passed memory, so apologies if you were one of my informants and I'm remembering it wrong):

America is all about the hustle. You can come from anywhere, be whoever you want to be, do whatever you want to do, and nobody cares as long as you keep up, work hard, find your opportunities and break through to become successful and really be somebody. (New Yorker, but I also heard this from Chicagoans)

America is a place where you know your neighbors, you look out for one another, you build up your community and you always have time to help. It's small-town sports teams and going to church just to say hello. (Small-town Minnesotan) 

America is a place where no one can tell you what to do. You can stand your ground and do things your way and you don't have to bow and scrape to anyone if you have a place of your own - and there's room for everyone, because the space is boundless and the sky is high and big. Also football. (Texas, obviously)

America is about diversity, about multi-culturalism, about eating sushi for lunch and pho for dinner. You can put together your own values and have whatever lifestyle you want and everyone can do their own thing as long as they respect the others around them. It's about getting out in nature, whether you're hiking or surfing or just lying down in a park. You don't have to follow traditional rules because America is about the future and not the past. (California)

America is barbecues with your family, fireworks on the 4th of July, being an Eagle Scout, believing in something larger than yourself and being willing to sacrifice for it, like your grandfather's did back in World War 2. It's about being able to have a good life - two cars, a nice house, money enough not to worry about it - and being willing to work for it and protect it. (Oklahoma or basically any non-coastal suburb)

America is about getting up if you've been kicked in the teeth. It's about not taking no for an answer and being willing to fight for everything you have. It's about doing it yourself, because no one will help you. (Native American)

You might expect people from different parts to give different answers - different experiences breed different perspectives - so then I'd ask them about the other answers I got. I'd ask the New Yorker about what I heard from the Texan, the Texan about what the Californian told me. Almost universally, the response was a dismissal, sometimes polite (Midwesterners would say, "oh, well you know, those guys are different") sometimes less so ("rednecks don't count," "Californians aren't really Americans") followed by a double-down that their particular definition was what it REALLY meant to be American. 

This felt like narrow-mindedness at the time. It started making more sense as I spent more time in the US and seeing different parts of the country. The same flag flies everywhere, but life is very different from place to place, each region with its own accent, its own food, its own skyline, its own pace. A country is a very abstract thing - some symbols, some laws, some shared stories and a distant government that you ignore until it does something to get you mad. Looking back, I realize that when I asked about America, my classmates weren't describing a country, they were describing their home, which was the thing about America that they really felt connected, really treasured and really loved. And all of their homes were different.

With this realization came the awareness of a bigger question - if America means all these different things to all these different Americans, than what keeps them together? What keeps all these people, with all of their different ideas about what their country is or should be, together?  

Enter Waylon Jennings:


"America" is his patriotic national ballad (if not obvious from the name), and both the song and video are remarkable. This is an old song, from 1984, inspired by the Los Angeles Olympics among other things, and Jennings claimed it was one that he was particularly proud and fond of. 

For the millenials reading this over their avocado toast, Waylon Jennings is old-timey country. He was born on a farm outside Littlefield, a nowhere town in West Texas.

This is the google image - a tiny church (Baptist, of course) and a lot of nothing

His father started as a farm worker before opening a grocery. His mother changed his name to spite a Baptist preacher. He dropped out of high school. He wasn't an early Billy Ray Cyrus - he didn't move out to LA, he didn't Hannah Montana his children, he didn't do reality TV, but he did do the voiceover for the Dukes of Hazzard. What I'm getting at is that he's about as perfect a red state cultural figure as you can get, but just think about the song, just look at the video. 

"Well I come from down around Tennessee, but the people in California are nice to me," he sings. "My brothers are all black and white, yellow too, and the red man is right to expect a little from you, make a promise and then follow through, America."


The video features all of the usual country imagery - cowboys and tractors, vistas and crop fields - but to illustrate who he means by his brothers it shows an urban basketball game, bringing in young men that, in a different red state production, might just be extras mowed down by a righteous Charles Bronson. And this right before he acknowledges that America still owes a debt to the Native Americans.

Unlike other patriotic ballads, there's no glorification of the military - instead, you have a line recognizing the grace and decency of the United States in granting amnesty to those who left the US to avoid the draft during the Vietnam war. 

The countless different places - the countless different homes - that make up America belong together only when they believe they do, and "America" shows how you build up that belief. Don't deny your own identity or your own culture, but reach out to bring in everyone else and that means showing the patience, understanding and generosity to take them as they are before asking that they do the same for you. This song isn't woke or politically correct, it's not an exercise in virtue signaling. In 1984, political correctness wasn't yet even a sparkle in a liberal professor's eye, and some people will be quick to pounce on his terminology (to borrow from a great movie, Red Man is not the preferred nomenclature - Native American, please), and every note drips with American pride and sincerity.

This sentiment feels absent from contemporary America, where it feels as though different national subcultures are at each other's throats all the time, eager to dominate or purge those who disagree with them. But things may not be as bad as all that. A few years after I graduated college, I found myself in grad school at Berkeley (I know, even worse) at a 4th of July barbecue. We were all critical of American policy, and there was a lot to be critical about - the Iraq war was raging, the Patriot Act had just been passed, and George W. Bush had won reelection, with all of us feeling acute frustration and disappointment. As we waited for the hamburgers to grill, someone suggested something to mark the holiday - given that we spent the rest of the year complaining about the US, maybe each of us should name one thing we admire or appreciate about America. We stood awkwardly in a circle waiting for someone to start, inhibited more by social anxiety than by lacking anything to offer. As soon as some one made the first move, things went quickly. The question went around the circle once, then twice, then three times, a mounting inventory of America's virtues that was only interrupted when someone started an argument about football teams. 

On this 4th of July, wherever you are, I hope you can feel some of that Waylon Jennings spirit.

Happy Independence Day!  

Monday, July 1, 2019

Theses on Canada Day

I know nobody asked, but this year I felt it was my grown-up duty to share some thoughts about our country on Canada Day.




Canada is doing enviably well



It’s important to maintain a sense of proportion – by any comparative standard, Canada is a functional and decent country. Canada’s economy is prosperous and dynamic, its society is tolerant and inclusive, its politics are responsive and responsible and its state is gentle and restrained. This is worth recognizing and preserving.

Don’t assume things will stay that way

Please don't vote for her, ever

There’s nothing locked in about Canada’s relative success. Canadian political institutions are young and only half-formed – leaders strengthen them when they respect their democratic, inclusive spirit but can also undermine them by exploiting technicalities and loopholes to win political fights. The first time a leader pulls off a dirty trick – whether proroguing the Parliament or going around a Supreme Court decision – it comes off as a dick move, but it can rapidly become just another political tactic, with Canadian democracy permanently compromised.

The rule of law is a big deal

They're like nine nerdy Santa Clauses. Their present for you - your rights.
Governments control armies. They can give orders to police. Put differently, they have power. Corporations and rich people have a different kind of power – they control the livelihoods of their employees and impact the lives of consumers, especially if their business involves essential products or creates pollution and waste that the public has to deal with. They have the money to buy influence and run roughshod over individuals. Law exists to control power to prevent, or at least limit, its potential for abuse. When the law is optional, especially in regard to powerful actors, regular people lose the only civil, peaceful protection they have against abuse.

Some people don’t get to be selfish



There’s an argument that you hear all the time – everyone is selfish, everyone is only doing what they do for personal gain, everyone is a sell-out only in it for the money. When you hear this you can be 100% confident that it applies to the person making it and 0% confident that it applies to person being accused. There are professions that are so important to public life that those serving in them cannot just be in it for themselves without everyone suffering. Doctors have a responsibility to their patients that cannot be traded away. Lawyers must put the law before their bottom line, police officers must respect the public. Scientists and intellectuals must put intellectual integrity above profit opportunities. Politicians… well, those guys are pretty selfish but at the very least they must defend the political institutions that give us responsible government and individual freedom. And they usually do (except maybe the politicians)! Picking anyone of those careers involves years of work, training and embracing a code of ethics. Even if they come with an attractive paycheck, the calling must always come first, and when it doesn’t it’s not a trivial matter to be waved away with “well, everyone is selfish” but a cause for investigation, censure and punishment.

Multi-culturalism is a remarkable achievement, a great benefit, and absolutely essential for Canada…



Multi-culturalism is presented as one of Canada’s greatest social achievements – and it is! From its inception, Canada included people from different ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds and the fate of the country hinged on finding a way to develop solidarity and unity between groups of vastly different backgrounds. Incrementally, beginning with the imperfect and unequal accommodation of French Canadians into a British colony, Canada increased the inclusiveness of its society, first bringing in white ethnics from other European backgrounds, then non-white immigrants from around the world. To create a sincere, unifying national feeling among Canadians from such diverse backgrounds is a unique accomplishment that eludes countries like the US and Australia. The benefits that Canada and Canadians gain are immeasurable – Canada has gained economically, culturally and socially. The food is better, there’s more choice and diversity in the arts, companies have larger talent pool to draw on and an easier time connecting to international markets. Leaders and official media celebrate these gains, urging Canadians to celebrate multiculturalism – and they are right!

…but it can also be a pain in the ass.
But, while (I reiterate) multiculturalism is an overwhelming positive force for Canada, what media and political officials never admit is that it can be a real pain in the ass. I know, because every time I meet someone – whether it’s a customer service rep or a new acquaintance – I see how they have to struggle with my Polish surname. It can feel alienating to walk into a neighborhood cafĂ© and hear every conversation carried out in a language you don’t understand, or to deal with a friend’s religious dietary restrictions, or (especially if you’re older) to have to avoid saying “Merry Christmas” to strangers just in case they don’t celebrate the holiday. One of my closest, dearest, oldest friends married a wonderful woman that has also become very dear to me – I was not allowed at the wedding ceremony because it was a religious event of a faith to which I do not belong. That stung, though they did host a wonderful reception that was open to everybody. Another friend became strongly Christian as an adult, and suddenly board game night at his house involved Bible trivia. Multiculturalism means putting up with this kind of shit on a continual basis and it can only work as long as Canadians continue to extend patience, understanding and tolerance to everyone, even when there are particular beliefs or lifestyles or practices they don’t understand or approve of.

Living in a free society can be just as much of a pain in the ass

It isn't either/or...
...you have to tolerate both.
Individual freedom for ourselves is an unmitigated good – in Canada, you can pretty much live however you want, as long as you can afford your lifestyle and you aren’t abusing anyone else, and those around you have to put up with it. Individual freedom for everyone else can be a real drag – you have to put up with their choices, which might be annoying or even offensive to you. It takes more than liberal laws to make a country free – people also have to put up with (constantly) other people’s choices that they don’t like with grace and maturity. This means not only Christians dealing with gay pride parades and blasphemous entertainment (The Life of Brian then, Good Omens now), but also LGBT activists and atheists putting up with the disapproval and moralism of conservative Christians, without trying to invoke official power – be it the government, the courts, or (ugh) Twitter – to punish the other side. So long as disapproval and distaste don’t practically constrict individual freedom or threaten force, they are just expressions of the freedom of the other side. Squeezing out the space for different groups to disagree and dissent peacefully without reprisal won’t change any minds – it will just lead to an escalated conflict with worse and worse sanctions, one which your group (whatever it may be) has no guarantee of winning, and everyone’s individual freedom ends up undermined. As long as the other guy is willing to put up with your shit, the tolerant, inclusive, decent, dare-I-say Canadian thing to do is to put up with theirs.

It’s not wrong to be proud of Canada…



I think Canada is a pretty great place, all the more so since I live abroad. When I return here, I feel at home, at ease, if not optimistic than a little less despairing about the future. There are many Canadians who feel a great sense of pride for their country and its history – and they are right! The creation and construction of this country and its unique society are accomplishments worth celebrating.   

…but Canada is not an innocent country

There's a reason they aren't smiling...

There are also many Canadians who believe that Canada as a state has perpetrated great injustices, including genocide, and continues to do serious harm to individuals and communities it is supposed to represent and protect – and they are right! I can prove it with a single, simple question – is Canada a country? History is a bitch – countries are created through war (in Canada’s case the colonial wars between the French and English as well as the much more destructive, undeclared war against indigenous Canadians). They expand through treachery and violence. They grow rich through exploitation, both of workers and the environment. They tear up unspoiled wilderness to create cities, farms, mines and factories, dumping pollution and trash into the land, air and water. They become strong through repression and the patronage of powerful private institutions (corporations, religious hierarchies, coalitions of rich people). Countries behave honorably only when their people intervene against those trends to force change. Otherwise, governments take the path of least resistance, which usually involves a bulldozer and police in riot gear.

Indigenous Canadians are right to be angry



The strength and wealth of Canada has gone together with ruthless policies towards the indigenous Canadians who were once the sovereign masters of this land. For Canada to become what it is, they were disposed, displaced, disenfranchised and discarded. While enlightened governments were institutionalizing multiculturalism and making lives better for other Canadians, indigenous Canadians experienced forced assimilation, neo-colonial paternalism and (often malign) neglect. They are the last group to be fully included in Canadian society and the awareness of the damage that Canada has inflicted on their communities has made it weird. Most of the historical crimes against them occurred far enough in the past that no one is alive that could be held responsible, and the scale of what happened dwarfs any realistic restitution. The murder and disappearance of thousands of indigenous women and girls was labeled a genocide in an official report, a loaded term but how else to describe the destruction of a community on such a scale without justice or accountability? I don’t know what can be done about the past, but for Canada to keep becoming a more honorable and more decent country, non-indigenous Canadians must acknowledge that past and pressure the government to work equitably and fairly with indigenous leaders to ensure that indigenous Canadians have the same security, opportunity and freedom as everyone else.

Democracy only works when we acknowledge fact, even when it complicates our beliefs



A fact is something that’s real whether you believe in it or not – a belief is only real when you embrace it. There are questions – is drinking wrong? Does God exist? What happens when we die? – that cannot be answered with facts, only beliefs. Most questions – what causes climate change? How do we pay for Pharmacare? Are energy sector jobs worth the environmental and economic cost? – come down to facts that can’t be believed away. You can influence the future of Canada with your vote, but unless you take the time to learn some facts you’ll just be shooting in the dark.

Some people know more facts than you do



I don’t know how a car works – magic? Something something pistons? A different kind of magic? – but I know that there are people who do and I go to them with my car questions. Other people can answer other types of questions – where did all the cod go? What’s going to happen when the Earth heats up? What’s going on in the Middle East? – because they’ve spent a lot of time and energy mastering the related facts. It can take a lifetime to master a difficult subject and it can involve a great deal of sacrifice. A research scientist is someone who is smart enough that they could have become a lawyer or succeeded in business, but they gave up that income and those opportunities to pursue complicated knowledge through years and years of study. If they have reached a conclusion – especially if thousands of them agree on a conclusion, with the data and analysis to back it up – you should listen to them and not a meme on facebook from someone peddling a quack cure or an industry-supported policy change.

This may all seem like a lot of work – putting up with cultural practices you don’t understand, tolerating other people’s terrible life choices, checking your beliefs against actual facts and having the humility to learn from people who may know more than you. Maybe it is, but that’s what it takes to be a responsible grown-up, and the pay off is incredible – we get to keep Canada as the remarkable country that it already is and make it even better for the future.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Happy St. Nicholas Day!

First Memories

Often I will ask people about their first memories. There are several reasons why I do this, not all of which are devious. It's a relatively unusual type of question, especially as an ice breaker, so it gets people to lower their defenses; likewise, few people have a pat answer, so they have to think, to recall, and then they provide you with a genuine anecdote, which may not always be interesting but is usually true. It also asks them to remember their early childhood, so it regresses them to a time where they were more open, more direct and more trusting. The result is sometimes amusing, occasionally memorable, but always an insight into the character of your companion. I can still remember on of my friend's stories, of riding around in a grocery cart along with the shopping, a few items in easy reach. Her distracted mother was focussing on other things, so she completely missed her toddler devouring all of the florets off of a bunch of broccoli, that is until she arrived at the check out and pulled a bundle of gnawed green stems from out the trolley. There is also, of course, Louis CK's first memory, of a childhood bowel movement so epic and intense it booted his conscious mind online in the middle of it. From those beginnings, it's difficult not to identify a touch of inevitability to the course of his life and career.

The reason why first memories are of particular interest to me is partly because of my own early childhood. I have lived through grand adventures and momentous events, most of which occurred while I still a drooling, gurgling baby and therefore have no recollection. I was born in late Communist Poland, a year or two before the first outbreak of the Solidarity movement, as the old system spiraled down in terminal political and economic decline and the benighted Poles began to mobilize against it in massive, non-violent protest. My parents tell stories of the lives ruined by blacklists and repression, of cities made grim at night by austerity-induced power cuts that blacked out cities of millions, and of sad socialist stores offering nothing to their long-queuing customers but salt and vinegar. I remember none of this. Nor do I remember the scheme my parents hatched to deliver us from that system - one which they believed would go on forever or, at the very least, outlive all of us - by gaining passports to work in Nigeria. I imagine the scene of my mother screaming at the immigration official who initially withheld the documents for my sister and myself, or the first flight to Lagos where we changed planes in Tripoli where, as a result of a spat between Qaddafi and his erstwhile Soviet allies, bearded Libyan storm troopers, bandoliers of ammunition slung over their chests, formed a wall to block the untrustworthy Eastern Bloc passengers from the domestic side of the terminal. I know that I fell seriously ill in Nigeria, probably with malaria, and that my father flattened our VW bug in a major car accident that he, mercifully walked away from, and that my sister was once stranded at school by a negligent neighbor and had to walk across a completely unknown suburb with only three words of English, picking her course through instinct and desperation. I know this, but I do not remember any of it, any of Nigeria at all - not the markets, not the riots, not the rains, not the call of the muezzin. We returned to Poland after I had turned three, but this was to a brief and final visit before we left the Eastern Bloc a final time, illegally and irreversibly. My parents wanted to say farewell to their families, to see them one last time before what they believed would be a life-long separation. It was summer in Krakow, and I remember none of it - not the castle, not the oak trees, not the protests and lamentations of my grandmother who accused my father of abandoning her and his homeland for that woman, as she called my mother. Poland would loom in my life as the source of my culture and identity, but I took none of it with me when we left, my infant mind still innocent and clean. Nor do I recall our anxious escape - our papers were in order, thanks to a return ticket to Nigeria via Vienna, so in theory nothing should come up. In practice, the train ride from Krakow to Vienna through Czechoslovakia was a torment of tension for my family, hearts jumping each time the compartment door opened, panic mounting as border guard in the middle of the night patrolled the corridors - with dogs! Snarling, angry hounds - rousing people to check documents, occasionally demanding passengers off of the bus to unknown fates. It was tense for my family, but not for me - I remember none of it, and apparently I slept through the worst of it, snoring cozily in my seat while guards barked orders and a German shepherd growled at my sister. And then we arrived in Austria...

Herzlich wilkommen!

Austria I do remember, though not all of it. I do not recall our arrival into Vienna, and I do not know all of the details of our reception there. The choice of Austria was deliberate and crucial. The passports my parents had finagled for us by working in Nigeria were our ticket out of Poland, but the visa regimes in Western countries were then - as they are today - strict and remorseless for poor-country nationals who had not gone through proper channels. As fugitives from communism, proper channels were unavailable to us, so we had to rely on asylum to protect us from repatriation. The Austrians, witnessing the brutality of the suppression of Solidarity right on their doorstep, had announced their willingness to extend asylum to any Polish citizens who arrived on their soil. This wasn't a painless process, however - the first step was getting to Austria, thankfully now behind us, and the second was to present yourself to Austrian authorities for processing and evaluation. This was conducted, with the famous German sensitivity and consideration, at Treiskirchen, a massive holding center that had previously served as a prison and a Soviet army barracks. Dutifully we arrived there, presented our papers and stated our case, filling out the appropriate paperwork and answering questions through my father's deeply imperfect German. Once processed, we were assigned to a room - more of a cell, really - that we shared with another family. Of them I know nothing, where they were from, how long they had been there, what became of them. All I do know is that were there when we arrived, and remained there when we left.

We waited in the cell as the bureaucracy scrutinized our case and decided our fate. I do not know what the rule of Trieskirchen was like - this was still before I had any memory - but I know we were locked in at night, and our freedom severely curtailed. We did not know how long we would remain there - some people, even ones with perfectly reasonable cases, would languish in detention for months, uncertain if they would be sent back or not. One day passed, and then a second, and then a third and we were mercifully delivered from detention - asylum had been granted, and we were restored to liberty, even provided with housing, food and a small daily allowance in a refugee center in Baden, a spa town at the outskirts of Vienna, a delightful toy box of a village, complete with parks and castles and palaces and strudel. This was strictly temporary - the Austrians were generous with refugees but had no appetite for immigrants, and the rules of our status required us to find a third country that would accept us permanently. Even if temporary, though, Baden was a lovely and welcome refuge, and the beginning of a new life of freedom and opportunity.

I want to pause here to underline that fact - it was the Austrians who welcomed us into the fold of free and prosperous nations. My whole subsequent life - growing up in Canada, where I could learn French and English at school but still be proudly Polish; pursuing my education in the United States, where the best university in the world extended me a scholarship to put that degree within reach; the countless opportunities for travel, for creativity, for work and for joy that followed - is a consequence of that Austrian decision to take in this nervous and awkward, close to penniless Slavic family that had no friends or family in their country, no connection at all beyond (perhaps) a common humanity and a few European cultural ticks. If they had opted to reject our application - which was certainly within their power - the consequences would have been as grave in the other direction. My family would have been deported to the untender mercies of an sympathetic Communist government, with prison inevitable for my parents (possibly, though not probably, at a camp), leaving my sister and myself to drift between relatives, raised, in all likelihood, by elderly grandmothers made even frailer by their heartbreak at the fate of their children. I am prone to irony, sometimes bitterness, and there are hatreds I cherish in my heart, but even I am not so churlish as to deny the incalculable debt of gratitude that my family collectively and I personally owe to Austria and the Austrian people - thank you. That is all the reward I can realistically offer, but the appreciation and the gratitude is pure, and deep, and sincere.

That said, the Austrians are a f*cked up people.

Dungeon Daughters

Reductio ad Nazium is a rhetorical tick best avoided, but allow me to briefly point out that Austrians were over-represented in both the Nazi party and the SS, and that the government overthrown to make way for the Anschluss was not a cuddle-worthy liberal democracy but a nasty and repressive fascist despotism that disagreed with Hitler only about the relative centrality of the Roman Catholic Church and specialness of the Austrians with respect to the rest of the German Herrenvolk. So I'll put that aside, although Jörg Haider, the deceased Austrian far-right political leader (whose movement won 28% of the vote in the last election), did not when referred to SS veterans as "fine fellows," and enumerated a list of felonies with a perfect correspondence to Slavic and Balkan ethnicities. But I'm better than that, just as I'm too good to flush my colon with vodka-enemas before speeding off to visit my mom in my Volkswagen sports car (even his automotive taste had hints of the Third Reich), predictable killing myself in a speed induced car accident as I gun through Alpine passes at twice the already generous 70km/h speed limit.

But let us leave politics and instead concentrate on family, that most wholesome of institutions. Since 2008, not one but two cases of dungeon daughters were discovered in Austria, and I'm not even including Natascha Kampuscha who, though held captive and abused for more than 8 years, it was by a man who was not her father. Two different fathers were found to have raped, beaten and I prisoner their own daughters in their own homes. The Fritzl case is more famous, as Joseph Fritzl build an actual dungeon to imprison his daughter for 24 years, and then went on to father a clutch of children with her, half of whom he raised in the regular home, while the other half spent their whole lives in a dark, windowless cell with their sister-mother. No less horrifying but less well know is the case of Gottfried W., who kept his two daughter locked in the basement for 40(!) years, subjecting them to violence and sexual abuse until he became too frail to force himself on them. Now go and watch the Sound of Music.

But putting aside politics and incest, let us turn to Christmas, that unifying, European celebration. Though the whole continent celebrates the season, individual cultures do it in different ways - some limit festivities to Christmas Day, others celebrate on Christmas Eve, while most Catholic countries join the holiday to the feast day of St. Nicholas (December 6th). While British children are used to having Santa Claus descend down their chimney December 24th to put gifts in their stockings, Catholic kids on the continent have him pay a visit to deliver gifts on the 6th. Other variations abound - in Poland, we eat carp, while Scotts have Christmas puddings. Christmas trees are Scandinavian, while bells and chimes come from France and Italy. Every country has its own Christmas foods, Christmas songs and Christmas decorations. But only one country, Austria, has a Christmas demon.

Enter der Krampus

If you are imagining a naughty elf, pointy-eared and mischievous, playing pranks around the Yuletide holidays, you are wrong. If you are imagining a grumpy goblin, fattened on stolen cookies and cakes, pilfering presents and tracking snow into the house, you are wrong. If you are imaging a full-on devil, horned, cloven-hoofed, sheathed in coarse black hair, pornographic tongue lolling through needle-fangs, congratulations! You're on the right track. You just missed the birch switch he carries in his hand to beat children, and the iron basket on his back for storing them and dragging them back to Hell. There is nothing cute or harmless about der Krampus - he is a predator straight from the nightmares of the European barbarians, preserved as a punisher-God by a uniquely perverse Alpine people, who decided that he would fit in perfectly with the festive and giving spirit of Christmas. In Austria, you see, he is Santa's companion, traveling with him to scourge the naughty children even as the virtuous ones are rewarded. And the Austrians love der Krampus - while he shares December 6th with St. Nicholas, the nit of the fifth - Krampusnacht - is his alone, and men throughout Austria don their Krampus-clothesen to run amok spreading holiday terror. In Austria, apparently, it really doesn't feel like the Christmas season until the hills ring with the screams of children.

We had arrived in Vienna in late Autumn, when I was three and a half. We were processed and settled in Baden, where the fall and early winter were resplendent in their beauty, though for this I have to take my parents word. The Austrians were generous and thoughtful, and only became more so as the Christmas season approached. As a Christian gesture towards the refugee families, they arranged a celebration for Saint Nicholas Day, with mulled wine and cognac for the parents, and free child are and a visit by Santa Claus for the kids. Predictably for a three-and-a-half year old, I was ecstatic at the prospect of meeting Santa Claus, who I knew as a magic-working Father Winter, who would arrive, dispense avuncular cheer, and deliver presents for all of us. No one briefed me about der Krampus. The other kids had been briefed - maybe they were older, maybe a little more in tune with the local culture, but for one reason or another they just knew. I did not.

My parents were seated in the lounge area, canoodling over a mug of spiced wine. I was with the other children, huddled by the door, waiting for our promised visitor. The Austrian staff were very good at stoking our anticipation. There were false alarms just designed to keep us on edge, and then an announcement - Santa Claus was getting close! I strained up on my little tip-toes hoping to peep him through the windows. The other children crowded another few inches in, and hushed. Another announcement - he had arrived at the building! More straining, and an even more intense quiet. Then, with a violent suddenness, the door was flung open, and through it leapt -

- a goat horned, cloven-hoofed, coarse black-furred Devil beast, brandishing a birch switch at us, bellowing through a fang-toothed jaw. My world became very still, though I was aware that I was surrounded by cheering, jumping, laughing children, as horror and terror dueled for primacy in my child-mind. The terror was the simple, animal fear of being devoured by a superior predator, and it was fierce. The horror was more abstract but no less real - I had not forgotten about Santa Claus, and the fact that this infernal abomination strutted and jabbered before me could only mean one thing: it had murdered, and possibly devoured, Father Christmas, and if the magical personification of holiday generosity could not withstand this monstrosity, what hope could I have? That is what I thought. This is what I did: I spun on me heel and launched myself away, running (toddling?) as fast as my chubby child-limbs could take me.

For a moment, let us shift perspectives - don't worry, the terror will return - and consider the scene from inside der Krampus-suit. A young man, in the seasonal spirit (and I mean schnapps as much as cheer) and looking for a bit of excitement volunteers to do some kid and entertain das refugee-kinder at the asylum center. Tipsy, hopped up on performance adrenalin, he leaps inside the meeting room and launches into character. The kids love it, screaming and hopping, pretending to be frightened, running around, begging for attention. And there's this one, right in the middle of the group, a fair-haired, cherub-cheeked Polish boy, who seems to be getting in the spirit more than the others. A natural actor, he's managing to look genuinely terrified - what a great improv partner! We have the makings of a memorable scene here! So when the boy turns and bolts, what do you do? Why, you go after him of course!

I looked over my shoulder and with existential fear that rose from bowls through my limbic system, that I felt in my lungs, in my heart, all over the surface of my skin, I realized that der Krampus had fixed his gaze on me, and gave heavy-hoofed chased as I tried to run away. I felt increasingly desperate, hysterical. What chance had I if Santa Claus had fallen to this creature? A precocious awareness of mortality settled over, physically numbing my nerve endings. This, I thought, was it, this was how it ends. But at that moment a sliver of hope breached the terror - my parents! Mom and dad! I knew they were in the adjacent room - perhaps if I found them, they would succor me from the beast, with parental powers that eclipse even those of Father Christmas. That is where ran, out of the children's room and into the parents lounge, filled with impossibly tall adults that blocked my view, with der Krampus still hot on my heels. I picked my way past people, though to me all they were were obstacle-legs keeping me from my destination, until I found their table, and sprinted as fast as I humanly could (so really not very fast) until I was close enough to throw myself beneath it, and wrap my arms around my mother's knees. Eyes closed tight, I had reached my last best hope for safety. Der Krampus had followed me, and I could hear him growl and hiss, I could sense him circling the table, threatening me, unbanished and unafraid. He would even duck down to snarl and threaten me in his hideous Krampus-voice. That was bad, but I could hear something else as well - laughter, the unmistakeable cadences of maternal mirth and paternal guffaws. It dawned on me that, far from challenging der Krampus, they were laughing along with him, finding a source of great amusement in my inevitable dismemberment and devouring. All hope fled, and the hot fear that propelled me to their table was superseded by the cold certainty of death. It was then, probably that I began sobbing, and those tears alerted my parents that this wasn't - had never been - play to me, but genuine shock and horror. Wiping tears of mirth for their eyes, they patted my shoulder and asked the nice young man in der Krampus-clothesen to maybe go back to the other kids - this one had had enough.

For this part of the story, unlike the rest of my account, I do not need to rely on second-hand sources but can write it entirely from memory. Indeed, this is my first memory of the refugee center, of Christmas - of life.

Life - it's where you're promised Santa Claus only to be delivered into the paws of of Austrian devil-beast while your parents laugh.


Merry Christmas! 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

So... Someone asked me about Ayn Rand...

Ah... Ayn Rand. Well, I'm glad you asked. My feelings about Ayn Rand are a little conflicted. On the one hand, I hate her. On the other hand, the hatred is so pure, so righteous, so complete and so entirely justified that it energizes me, brightens my mood and fuels a rich, satisfying inner life of revenge fantasies so baroque in their cruelty and lurid in their detail that I would feel a little diminished without them. 

Which is to say that I consider her to be not so much a terrible writer or a bad thinker (though she certainly is those) but a uniquely monstrous human being, a soul so bereft of the basic empathy and compassion necessary for a healthy emotional life that I am certain she never truly loved anyone, not even herself, and was certainly incapable and undeserving of receiving love from another person. 

However, my sentiment towards her would be pity and contempt if that were the extent of her offences, but rather than living out a bitter, solitary life as an empty husk passing as a human being, she produced this massive corpus of literature which went on to become enormously and destructively influential, kind of like an entire library of economic-political Mein Kampfs. She is famous for declaring altruism to be evil (indeed the root of all evil), selfishness to be good (indeed the root of all good), capitalist-entrepreneurs to be hero-saints from whom all progress emanates and whom we should all venerate, coddle and flatter. Note that this is not a utilitarian argument, but one she makes from first principles, so that by definition anything that plutocrats do is noble, even if their business plan calls for poisoning babies, destroying the Earth's climate or trafficking in sex slaves (because, after all, if the free market didn't want you to be chained to a bed raped by passing truckers for $30/throw, Samantha, then you wouldn't be here) then it is just, while conversely everything that the state does, be it provide healthcare and education, build and maintain public works, or enforce standards for consumer protection, is a monstrous tyranny on par with the Holocaust. Her ideal government would consist merely of a powerful military to keep out other meddling states and a court system where business could hash out contractual disputes. Everything else would be provided - or withheld - at the whim of the ultra-wealthy, who would render to the rest of us with what they saw fit, and which would certainly be more than we deserved, gaggle of "moochers and looters" that we are. 

If any of this seems familiar, it is because she has become the official philosopher of the capitalist-libertarian strain of American Republicanism, as well as asshole bankers 'round the world. Rand Paul, Republican senator from Kentucky, is named after her. Alan Greenspan, intellectual fraud/Wall Street crony/got-away-with-it corrupt Fed chairman, was a personal disciple of hers, spending years attending meetings of her cult-like inner circle, and referencing her work throughout his public career. 

As a bibliophile and a lover of knowledge, I find this an odd thing to say, but I wish that her books would all be burned and her ideas suppressed through brutal, vicious, exemplary violence. I am imagining auto-da-fĂ© of fraudster bankers dragged up in chains to be burned on pyres of Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is a terrible book, incidentally, with absurdly rendered characters that resemble human beings in the way that the moon crater Petavius resembles the Great Rift Valley; over-wrought turgid prose whose misanthropy almost qualifies it as hate speech; sex scenes that read as celebrations of anal rape; and all this spread over a flabby and self-indulgent 1000-page expanse. 

So... yeah. That's what I think of Ayn Rand. If I could wish away the existence of a single historical figure, it would be Adolf Hitler. If I got two, it would be Hitler and Ayn Rand. 

much love (but not for Ayn Rand),
Kuba Wrzesniewski

Sunday, January 8, 2012

The Great Debate


As part of my catch-up homework on the leadership race, I recently sat down and watched the first NDP debate, from December 4th. In its entirety. In French, and English. See what I put myself through for you, gentle reader?

The large number of candidates meant that each was limited to a few minutes speaking time, and could do little more but introduce themselves and give a taste of their personality and policy preoccupations. Echoing that brevity, here are two-line assessments of debate performance before I go more in depth on the debate. I am listing candidates in reverse order of debate impressiveness.

Robert Chisholm - No French, already out, 'nuff said.
Romeo Saganash - English was a problem for him, and I got the sense that the language barrier limited him to repeating platitudes about working together and looking out for everyone. Then I heard him in French, where, very eloquently, he said the same things.
Martin Singh - Not as crazy as I expected, given that he came from nowhere and has never held office. Still not really qualified though.
Paul Dewar - Turns out he's not a great public speaker, and lost it a bit when Topp went after him.
Niki Ashton - Poised, attractive, confident, young. A little too Tracy Flick for me.
Brian Topp - Good in French and English, comes off as issue-smart and straight-talking. But when he went after Dewar, he looked a little thuggish.
Nathan Cullen - Young MP from BC, not Niki Ashton young but at 39 still a little youngish for leadership. Great energy, policy smarts, wicked humor (calling the prisons bill "Stephen Harper's housing plan"). Keep taking those French lessons though.
Peggy Nash - Composed, polished, made a case based her record and showed she knew her issues. A little cautious, like a female Thomas Mulcair.
Thomas Mulcair - Composed, polished, stands on his record, really knows his policy. Good at looking leaderish, and avoiding misstatements. A male Peggy Nash, but in this race tie goes to the Quebecer.

The theme of the debate was "Building an Inclusive Economy," which the candidates took as an invitation to shoehorn in the word "inclusive" as often as possible in the first five minutes of the debate, and thereafter drift from issue to issue based on their individual strengths and favored talking points.

As is typical in Canadian debates, language proficiency was front and center, coloring the rest of a candidate's debate performance. It turns out that Romeo Saganash can't debate well in English, which hurts him a lot. Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar, Nathan Cullen and Martin Singh can't debate well in French, which hurts them, but a little less. Robert Chisholm, to speak ill of the departed can't debate well in English or at all in French, which prompted him to withdraw his candidacy by the end of December, specifically citing his lack of French as the reason.

Otherwise, the collegial atmosphere (at one point Cullen emphasized that he was in "violent agreement" with his rivals) and large number of candidates made this a superficial, low-impact affair. The only hint of conflict all night was a run that Brian Topp took at Paul Dewar, implying that Dewar was relying on deficit spending to fund his proposal for an East-West energy grid. Dewar was baffled by the question, and shocked at the breach of the peace. He was also kind of right - no one had even implied deficit spending until Topp brought it up. From pure theatrics, the episode was probably a wash - Topp looked like a bully, and Dewar looked flummoxed.

The debate helped sort candidates into tiers, and add an element of live testing to the war of position within the party as they vie for endorsements and the support of established constituencies. Based on both factors, the only three viable leadership candidates seem to be Topp, Mulcair and Nash. Dewar has a solid party profile, but he'll need a strong performance in the next debate if he wants to convince members that he can lead a national campaign against Stephen Harper. Nathan Cullen has great potential, but seems too young and lacks a base inside the party. Niki Ashton is too young - 29 is young even for an MP, and it would be unprecedented for a leader of a major party. Romeo Saganash needs some more seasoning - he just entered Parliament in 2011, and needs to grow into national politics and improve his English public speaking. Martin Singh needs to go back to Nova Scotia and win his riding - he hasn't made his bones yet in party politics, at least not on the national level.

For those interested in watching for themselves, here's the link: CPAC - Video on Demand

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Gambare, Koara kacho!


I am a well-informed, well-traveled, highly educated individual, rarely surprised by anything anymore. Coming across this movie (it's an ENTIRE movie), my crust of jadedness cracked and once again I realized anything is possible in this world.

Note that just because he's an adorable koala doesn't mean he doesn't have to deal with real executive problems, like a cheating wife. But it does mean that he can totally get away with public urination.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Crowded Field...

With the exit of Nova Scotia MP Robert Chisholm from the leadership race (it turns out that learning French might, you know, take a while), the field drops to a still crowded eight. This includes five veteran MPs from across Canada (Niki Ashton, Nathan Cullen, Paul Dewar, Thomas Mulcair, Peggy Nash), another freshly-minted MP coming out of the 2011 Orange Wave in Quebec (Romeo Saganash), the current president of the NDP Brian Topp, and activist, Nova Scotia pharmacist, Sikh community leader and overall no-chancer Martin Singh.

Some of these figures are political veterans with decades of experience in NDP politics - Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar especially - while others are relatively new (Niki Ashton is 29, meaning that her time on earth is shorter than Nash's union experience. Fascinatingly, Ashton wasn't an orange wave MP, but made her way in 2008). None of them are household names in Canada, and many are completely unknown outside of diehard NDP circles. Over the next week, I'll be looking in to their records and their statements to give you a sense of who they are.

This will be an interesting contest - every segment of the party has its champion among the candidates, and individual rivalries will play out in the context of generational ones (NDP membership skews young and old - idealistic students and retirees - giving younger candidates a shot at top posts) and in the sudden prominence of Quebeckers in what was until recently an anglophone, prairie-and-union political party. Finally, with the chance at governing more of a reality than ever before, candidates will have to convince the rank and file that they will not only represent their interests in Ottawa, but that they can beat Stephen Harper at the polls. So stay tuned...

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Revival from Obscurity

Around this time, blogs and newspapers like to run retrospective features, often lists enumerating what the editorial staff considers to be the most significant developments of the past year. The Guardian did one based on reader nominations, here's one from fox news and finally, to end on an obscure note, here's the CBC's Saskatchewan list of web stories. In Canada, the number one story, according to a news poll, was the death of Jack Layton, which, coming as it did after the NDP's best electoral performance in history, combined human tragedy with political consequence. However, that very real consequence - a leadership scramble within a radically transformed NDP - rapidly vanished from anyone's view, and a lively, bickering horse-race among a surprisingly large and colorful pool of hopefuls is taking place largely out of view. So I step up, gentle reader, to help guide you through the contest, introduce you to the contestants, and hold your hand until the Canadian left has chosen its latest contender for the leadership of Canada.

And to those who doubt that the internal leadership contest of a political party could be fascinating stuff, I refer you here, where you can watch Francis Urquhart make his bid for the Tory leadership.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Multiculturalism and its Enemies - Part 1



If you take a look around North America, the case against multiculturalism seems baffling. The most multicultural cities on the continent - New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles in the US, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto in Canada - are also the most economically vibrant, the most dynamic and generally considered the most desirable places to live. Crime rates are not particularly low, but they aren't particularly high either, with some more "national" cities much more dangerous, to defuse one of the most common reservations. Also, even in the multicultural world city, no one can force you to get close to those you don't want to get close to, or eat a type of cuisine you dislike, or observe some holiday you disapprove of - you can always decline the invitation, eat elsewhere, opt out.

Multiculturalism just means more flavours of sexy

But the problem that people have with multiculturalism isn't about the present, and can't be found by looking at present conditions. It's about the past - an imagined past - and a future, usually a dreaded one.

Before Multiculturalism

The rational approach to questions of policy is guided by utilitarian considerations, cost-benefit analyses on a grand scale that are meant to capture all the effects that a given policy change may have on the welfare of individuals. Arguments concern the premises for your analysis, or its coherence of its model, or its predictive power, but no one, the recent Onion piece notwithstanding, challenges the utilitarian framework. To argue that policy should be formulated for a purpose other than benefiting the public - or at least some segment of the public, or to remove some injustice being done to the public - would be crazy. And not even bad crazy, but incomprehensible, weird crazy. Imagine trade policy being debated on non-utilitarian grounds. Or environmental policy. Or health policy. But when it comes to multiculturalism - or other issues deemed "cultural" - the frame breaks. Practical considerations are put aside, and support can be mobilized for policies that make no one better off and some people - the multis, to coin a term - much worse off. For committed liberals, libertarians, and conservatives that just care about money, that type of nativism is ugly and confusing, and tends to be chalked up to racism, homophobia, resentment or some generalized repugnant atavism. Once psychologized, the nativist reaction against multiculturalism can be dismissed as an irrational derangement. I think this is a mistake. This thing is deep, and it's smart.

Multi-culturalism week

I'm writing this from the balcony of my apartment in Vancouver. I live in the West End, a neighborhood of low-, mid- and hi-rise apartment buildings, 90% of which consist of rental units. Also, it's right next to the gay village. Like a block away. And the Gay Pride parade is tomorrow. This alone foregrounds the idea of diversity, but when you add in the ethnic and racial mix of Vancouver - a dozen languages on every street corner, improbably ethnic combinations of romantic couples, fusion food that God never intended - you end up with a paradigm multi-cultural city. Drawing inspiration from my new (though likely temporary) home, this week I'll be writing about multiculturalism, diversity, and their enemies. Actually, mostly about their enemies. Enjoy!


Blogging Again...

Readers,
Dear, special, wonderful readers.
I always intended for this blog to be an everyday thing - an exercise in writing, and in thinking through certain issues. After the convention, I fell off the wagon for a while. I offer no excuse, but here I am again. Incidentally, my four followers, blessed be your cyber-hearts, may spam never breach your filters, is there anyway we can get a few more people reading this? I have no aptitude or appetite for self-promotion, which would be my Achilles heel were it not for a dozen other character defects, and so I worry that I'm hiding my light under a bushel, and keeping my wisdom from wisdom-starved, Kuba-deficient readers. So I'm going to incentivize you to do this for me. I'm assuming that if you're following the blog, you appreciate Kuba prose, so here is the deal:
Anyone who brings in two or more followers will receive, from me, a quill-written letter suitable for framing (frame not included) on stolen hotel stationary describing the superhero or villain that I imagine they would be, if they were a superhero or villain. It will include a name, description of powers, origin story, etc. and I'll put like a whole day's worth of thought into it. If you don't like superheros and villains, then I can supply a list of book/movie/music recommendations. Two or more followers!

And with that, I start again...

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Conventioneering: Conclusions

Here is a Jack Layton bobblehead, hand-made out of great Canadian plaster in some Quebec riding, available for a limited time for the low introductory price of $20. I did not buy one.

The convention was a fascinating experience - it was my first time seeing one live, and I had no idea of the centrality of Robert's Rules of Order and how much damage a vaguely composed agenda could cause. I also got a lot of insights into the institutional configuration of the NDP as a party - there is no pool of federal members, but instead the party is stitched together from subsidiary organizations, like the riding associations, youth groups, unions, and vulnerable identity representation (for aboriginals, gays, women, the disabled, and visible minorities, though I may be forgetting something). Therefore, if you join the party outside of these constituent groups, you're kind of on your own, which is a tough place to be.

Are the NDP ready for prime time? Smartly dressed Quebecois parliamentary aide wearing hipster glasses and acknowledging the need for compromise says yes, but elderly man in tie-dye handing out leaflets on marijuana legalization says no. The balance is not yet on the side of the former. The usual knock on the Conservatives is that they are out of touch with regular Canadians - it could be said that the NDP is out of touch with reality. There's truth to both statements, which places voters in a tough corner.

Also, there is no one to replace Jack Layton.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Conventioneering: Day 3 (Stephane Dion)

Stephane Dion, former head of the Liberal party and current schadenfreude superstar after his successor's colossal defeat, attended the convention as an observer at the behest of Bob Rae, his new boss. The big story here is that he was very warmly received - when his presence was announced, he got a round of applause, and name-checking Dion - the former head and current MP of a rival party, mind you - would get you another smattering of hand-claps. When the hipster socialist caucus were busy getting their Marat-style denunciations out during the debate on the merger clause, they were careful to distinguish him from those they were targeting. And when the anti-anti-merger side gave him credit for proposing the green shift, he received a standing ovation. I doubt he could be any more popular at the Liberal convention.

Conventioneering: Day 3 (Substance)

I arrived late, and missed nothing - the first session was dedicated to passing feel-good resolutions promising do-gooder solutions to all the world's problems, payable once the NDP took power. Most passed uncontested (the only controversial ones, related to Israel-Palestine, had been banished to the end of the list, the convention equivalent of the land of wind and ghosts, whence they would never reach the convention floor).
Then a funny thing happened - the debate got interesting. The second session was about internal party affairs. Normally, given the homogeneity of PC-thinking among NDP delegates, the hipster socialist caucus can do little damage - they complain that resolutions don't go far enough, the forward paranoid conspiracy theories, they overreact. This time, it was different - the ballot resolution forbade any merger talks with the Liberals. For the hipster socialists, this was an opportunity to be leftier-than-though, and stick it to the moderates and the pragmatists, insisting on a vow of political chastity. They were all there in line to speak - beardo, dreadlock dude, keffiyeh guy, all insisting on purity of essence. They received fitful applause, and booed the speakers for the other side, twice getting reprimanded by the chair. Also, this was when the crowd showed some ugly, with the term Liberal getting tossed around like a slur.
It ended up being the only close vote of the convention, which required a real stand-up-and-be-counted resolution as volunteers passed through the crowd to tally up the delegates on either side of the issue. The resolution was defeated by an approximately 60/40 margin, wide enough so that the yes side didn't insist on a paper ballot.
Then they dodged the other big, soul-of-the-party resolution, about dropping "socialist" from the party constitution. It got referred back to committee.
Then Jack Layton gave a speech and we all got to go home.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Conventioneering: Day 2 (The Speeches)

There were a number of important ones today - I only remember two, one very good and the other very bad.

The bad: Andrea Horwath, leader of the Ontario NDP. Ontario has a provincial election scheduled this year, and so they have brought her to speak before the party faithful. She went on for about 10, 12 minutes, but in terms of effectiveness the speech was front-loaded - the only goal she managed to achieve was to inform non-Ontario NDP that Ontario has a provincial election scheduled this year. What followed was a positively anachronistic feminist speech celebrating the breakthroughs of women in Canadian politics, and insisting that she would challenge the "old boys club" in Parliament. It would have killed at a suffragette convention, but this is 2011, and the NDP convention to boot - the party has already had two female leaders, while Canada has had a female prime minister and dozens of prominent female politicians. This antique message was also poorly delivered, with the forced levity and cheer that comes from a mix of terror and loathing. Her big applause line was a penis joke.

The good: Stephen Lewis, former leader of the Ontario NDP. This guy had soooooooo much charisma. He opened with a joke comparing himself to Castro, and then proceeded to dominate our hearts much like Fidel. He also gave a feminist speech, but a timely one, about the prevalence of sexual violence (he said "rape" like a dozen times. It was a very rapey speech, disconcertingly so) throughout the world, commending the NDP for insisting that a quarter of Libya-related aid go towards victims of rape. Arguing that violence against women had reached devastating proportions world wide, he called this epidemic "femicide." I doubt that will catch on.
He also says he knows how to eliminate AIDS - a program called treatment-as-prevention, which demonstrated that if HIV carriers are given anti-retroviral drugs, their likelihood of spreading the disease drastically decreases (by 96%). So, there's also that. Between style and substance, his was an impossible act to follow - you'd need Obama-in-2008 levels of charisma and the cure for cancer. Good luck with that.

A Much Better Conspiracy Theory

This one is my own.

Hypothesis: On reason for the ambitious, long-term spending plans of the Conservatives (fighter jets, militarizing the Arctic, prisons) is that they want these things. Another reason is that, once begun, these projects get locked in and cannot be scrapped without significant penalties for the government, which must either continue to spend to get them finished (and thus bankroll projects they don't actually want) or be seen to throw money away. Further, the spending commitments eat in to the budget, meaning that there is much less room for a possible future NDP government to enact its expensive social democratic reform agenda without raising taxes. If they don't move on their agenda, they lose party stalwarts - if they raise taxes, they lose everyone else.

Harper, you diabolical...

Conventioneering: Day 2 (The Postal Conspiracy)

Ah, hipster socialists. Red keffiyehs wrapped around your necks, Trotsky glasses wrapped around your eyes, Che beards scraggling from your chins... It would not be an NDP convention without you.

One of these gentlemen, stalwart of the socialist caucus, peddler of tract-filled magazines, brought me up to speed on the evil conspiracy against the striking postal workers union. This union had sought a resolution in support of their strike, and a condemnation of the Conservative governments back-to-work legislation. One had originally been introduced through the economic committee, but had been withdrawn because an understanding was reached that it would be introduced as an emergency resolution instead. But, when a union activist tried to make an announcement about the strike, she was ruled out of order and her mike cut off! Quelle horreur! This was clearly the result of a nefarious campaign by party moderates to stab the union movement in the back. Careful comrades, NEP men, former aristos, bourgeois sympathizers, foreign agents - enemies of the people are everywhere! Enemies of the people are among us! Clearly this is a plot by infiltrators to steal the party from the union movement! Unless it's a procedural issue related to the fact that emergency resolutions were slotted for day three, when they would get great prominence between speeches by Jack Layton and Stephen Lewis (a well regarded former party leader). I guess it could be that. Could it be that? Yeah, that was it. Still, infiltrators!

Conventioneering: Day 2 (Procedure)

I had spent the night before blogging about the day before, which left me exhausted and irritable the next morning. I slept in, arrived late and it didn't make a difference - judging by the empty seats in the formerly-packed hall, many other people did the same thing. The most significant consequence of this was a damping down of the debate and, as a result, a much more productive session, with resolutions being passed every five to seven minutes, allowing us to get through three or four times as many per topic area as the first day, despite each session being shorter. If you want to ram something through, put it to a vote on a Saturday morning.

On a tangentially related note, the NDP may want to tighten up requirements for delegates. Right now, any jackass who signs up for the party and pays his registration fee can come in and vote on the party platform, and in the internal elections. Given that turn out at the convention was approximately 1,500, and that youth (under 25) and unwaged early-bird registration was down around $50, an opponent with deep pockets (cough... Harper) could theoretically stack the convention floor with a majority of their own supporters for $75,050 in registration fees + $30,020 in membership dues. That's a pretty penny, admittedly, but you'd get to vote for the treasurer responsible for spending it, and pick the leader of the party receiving it. Not that anyone in Canada would do anything so underhanded for political gain (like proroguing Parliament, say).

All total, something like 70 minutes was lost in procedural bickering, similar to yesterday, including challenges to the chair. It was no longer interesting to me, and I will not elaborate on it, except to say that the chairs (Steve Morin and Maura Parte, btw) had that shit under control this time, and the challenge didn't stand.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative

It occurs to me that in the post marked (substance) I didn't actually get to the substance (the procedure being pretty awesome to write about). There was one proposal that got through which represented some new and potentially constructive thinking. Andrew Cash (MP Davenport) introduced a resolution that would extend the CPP and other benefits to workers with "precarious occupations," meaning those on contract, the self-employed, entrepreneurs, etc. There's the problem of how to pay for it, of course, but if this is a move towards decoupling social benefits and protections from formal employment, then so long as it's somehow indexed to net tax contributions it could be a politically viable path towards the generalized welfare state.

Which would be awesome.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Conventioneering: Day 1 (speeches)

Here is a simple fact: if you are committed to universal respect, if you value the dignity of every human being, if you seek consilience and chase the elusive middle-ground so that everyone can feel well-treated, you will not be funny. For a reason I cannot fathom, they began the convention by bringing out two MPs - one anglophone, Kennedy Stewart, and one francophone, I can't remember her name - who, alternating language, delivered what seemed like a stand up routine, but minus all of the punch lines. The most hilarious exchange between the two:
Anglo: In Quebec, it's very cold.
Franco: But here in Vancouver it rains more.
Anglo: But we have the Rocky mountains
Franco: ....
Anglo: We did very well in the last election.
If there were any hint of edge, this could have been a wickedly dark discomfort anti-comedy routine. Instead, it was just two of the more photogenic MPs exchange lines that seem drawn from an unsuccessful Mormon first date. Or an undiscovered Beckett play, set for some reason in the furthest Canadas.
Then there was a First Nations welcome ceremony. I snickered when it was first introduced - Kennedy Stewart reminded us that we were on unceded Aboriginal land, and that he was grateful for the hospitality and welcome of the local First Nations. I then realized I was the only one who thought it strange, and felt immediately guilty, especially when the ceremony - delivered by a local chief of a band whose name I cannot remember (take better notes tomorrow) turned out to be very lovely, a musical chant in his people's language expressing welcome, long enough to be mesmerizing and memorable but not so long as to drag. He had great teeth, and the kind of glow that happy old men carry when they've outlived their enemies. Really commanded the stage too.
We then got the deputy mayor of Vancouver, who tried some words in French earning the muttered contempt of the Quebec table, and a greeting in Chinese that only the BC people cheered. The real mayor was busy apologizing for the riots.
The head of the BC NDP delivered a speech-shaped pitch for our labour and money. I didn't like him.
And then Jack Layton spoke. He came in without a cane, smiling, waving, springing across the stage. His energy was there, he ad libbed some improvements to the text on the telepropter, and he nailed it. He's the show - the charisma and the charm and the gravitas of the NDP, all of it, while the others on stage were gavel wielding would-be tyrants who couldn't quell a revolt of rules dorks or some vanilla-flavored rice cakes talking about the weather. I'm worried about what happens when he's gone, because he can't last forever - he's already old and, you know, cancer. Oh well, maybe we can get the Native chief. I bet he smells good, like sage and saddle leather.