Life inside the F-Bomb

“This is a fucking disgrace … closure again. And on the Budget! There’s not a democracy in the world that would tolerate this jackboot shit.”

Pat Martin’s words, as if he had read them from a teleprompter inside my own brain. He got me absofuckinexactly.

What I regret, to a measure, is that I haven’t dropped any f-bombs myself (nor have I used any words at all to express what I think about the world of Canadian politics) for a goodly while now. I’ve let Polygonic go quiet. I’ve turned my mind to other things entirely.

But there’s a reason for it. I was going absolutely bonkers.

Living all the way over in the UK means I live through none of Canada’s particular pleasantries – the rivers, the mountains, the wholesome, giggly demeanour. Yet, by following its political discourse as closely as I can, I do live through everything unlikeable about Canada – the lapdog media feeding its politically-lobotomised audience, the neurosis, the tall-poppy tendencies, and the apathy that allows a government to go from Contempt of Parliament, to winning a massive majority mandate.

I used to think Canada was clued-up and progressive. Now I just see Harper’s lipless smile as he sets about boiling the live frog that Canadian political society has become. (cue sound of me roaring at the moon)

And so, after too much time on the Globe and Mail and too much time crafting ripostes on Polygonic, I finally realised something was going wrong – I had become a self-hating Canadian!

The descent was swift. I now see backpackers here in London with little maple leaves stitched on, visible from every possible angle, and I think to myself what has become an inevitable thought: “what a complete shit.” For theirs is not some brash, bombastic conceit – it’s just a naive, slightly gormless kind of conceit, which I think is far worse. What do you expect people to do when they see your stitched-on leaves? Hug you? Thank you for something nice you are bound to have recently done for the world? Sorry, kiddo, it just doesn’t hold water anymore. Please wake up and smell the rancid Harperian syrup.

I don’t actually hate that neurotic nationalism per ce – what I hate is that so many continue to invest belief in all these dying myths of Canadian exceptionalism, of some ethereal progressive, positive, cooperative approach to life, our inherent sense of fairness. Things people might hug you for.

That warm-fuzzy self-image bears zero resemblance to what we’ve allowed Canada to actually become. What’s so nice about assenting to Harper’s dismantling of our democracy – watching him shut down committees, stuff the Senate with his failed would-be MP candidates, stifle Parliamentary debate, and retreat into this sub rosa, in camera, closed-door presidential system that stinks of unconstitutionality? What’s nice about jets, jails and dirty oil?

So, right, clearly there’s been a fair amount of maple-scented rage welling up inside me. But I’m re-learning how to control it, focus it, like a maple-scented laser beam of goodness. Time to fire off some more words of protest against the saddening decay of a democracy.

Though I’m sure occasionally, as Pat Martin knows too well, there is often only one word that comes to mind.

Filed under: Canada, Politics

Baird’s Korea rhetoric leaves us in the cold

North Korea, despite its flagrant flouting of nuclear non-proliferation conventions, shall nevertheless chair the UN’s disarmament conference for four weeks – just like every country at the convention does. Imagine, a vitriolic loudmouth making an ironic mockery of the whole diplomatic system, eh John Baird?

Once in a while, the UN system throws up a scenario that can read as farce, it’s true. Libya had its stint chairing the UN Human Rights Commission, just as the DPRK now has its chance at the nuclear non-proliferation convention. It is silly on the surface. The United Nations, though, as a universal organisation, includes everyone. It’s a greater merit of the UN that we at least have a space where mortal enemies can at least purport to sit together resolving things. There are no surprises that governments we find distasteful have a kick at the can as well as our biggest trading partners. That is how the world works.

Canada’s having none of it, though, boycotting the convention over the course of Pyongyang’s four-week presidency. To what aim? This occasion could be one of the most important, if not the only, opportunity of the year where North Korea finds itself in the nuclear spotlight. It’s a chance for a framework besides the moribund six-party talks for the international community to roll up their sleeves and compel some kind of negotiation with the world’s most erratic nuclear power. The Six-Party Framework is, after all, rather a “superpower framework,” plus the two Koreas. Where do middle powers fit? What role can countries like Canada play in strengthening non-proliferation norms on the Korean Peninsula, and how might middle powers elicit a different type of response from a Pyongyang reared on anti-super-imperalist mythology? This could be just such an opportunity for us to build an agenda there, but Ottawa’s turning its back.

Baird’s case will be that he thinks the whole of the UN system has become preposterous, and that he’s trying to embarrass the organisation into reform, beginning with its convention chair rotation policy.

You know, if the Conservatives haven’t learned it yet, I don’t know that they ever will. You cannot effectively contribute to reforming an organisation that you repeatedly ignore and abandon. We have little sway there anymore. Our participation has not been valued for years anyway.

Canada in the UN these days is just like the underperforming whinger on a hockey team – the one who refuses to come to practice, who lobs insults at the bulk of his teammates, who spends more time in the donut shop than the gym, and then threatens to walk out on game day. In the hockey world, the team would say “goodbye!” And in the UN, I assume the response will be the same.

There are plenty of countries in the world not to our liking, and the UN system includes us all. Suck it up is what I’d advise the Baird Ministry. Diplomacy requires something more subtle than feigned outrage followed by the silent treatment. Sticktoitiveness and sleeverollupitiveness is a much more important part of the job, however much Baird can’t stand the smell.

Filed under: Canada, Korea, Politics , Baird, DPRK, north korea, nuclear, pyongyang, six party talks, un, united nations

If only we’d trained Karzai’s assassin into ‘loyalty’

That Hamid Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali “Mr. Kandahar” Karzai, has been killed by the head of his own security forces, is one more violent expression of the single greatest Afghan challenge: getting to grips with loyalty.

Bob Rae and Stephen Harper alike maintain the naive conceit that the Afghan army is largely ineffective because they need our training. The Canadian Forces have some nifty fighting techniques that Afghans simply haven’t thought of or been able to employ. Once we show them how to shoot straight, we can leave the job of national defence to Afghans themselves.

Really? Really now.

I’ve posted this way again and again, but to repeat, Afghanistan is a mercenary landscape. Consolidating loyalties and lasting allegiances in the country is, at once, the greatest challenge to Afghan peace, and also the area in which international forces have the least sway and the least understanding. The suggestion that Karzai’s assassin, Sardar Mohammed, could have been trained out of his true allegiance by the Dutch and Canadians etc. would be laughable, if lives were not at stake.

Filed under: Canada, International, Politics , Afghanistan, assassination, kandahar, Karzai, military, Taliban, training

A novel project

Finally, I give birth to a novel. Now, who can I give this crying muck-ball away to?

It isn’t a political thriller, despite the nature of my bloggings, nor is it a story about a purely-fictional conservative prime minister named “Sterling Hopper.” Though if it were, there would be a scene where he crashes into a manure truck.

The backflap is likely to say something such as:

“a thrilling, mysterious escapade; a baroque madhouse brimming with murderous intrigue and alien sex! In a world so inscrutably surreal, you shall be left gasping for a breath which you dare not breathe – lest it infect you in your soul!”

That might be a mite misleading, but hey. It’s basically right.

Next exciting steps for me will include the hunt for an agency and publisher, which is going to be something rather new to me. An exciting process, but also one that will demand infinite patience, and will require me to thicken my already-tortoise-like skin. If you have any advice, I’d definitely welcome it.

I’ll ask you to also be patient, and indulge me in an occasional non-political (and non-dinner) post about these upcoming tribulations, how it’s going, and any interesting bits of news about bookish progress. And, should the day come when I can provide means for you to acquire the story by way of a credit card, you can be certain I will do that.

Thanks everyone – keep on truckin.’
(Or cyclin.’ Or takin’ the train).

Filed under: Uncategorized , fiction, literary agents, novel, novelist, publishing, writing

Pollo del Awesome

Long promised, and finally here. It is my distinct pleasure to present a bit of a dinner photo.

Now, I realise that chicken is not supposed to turn out black, and so this picture may indeed be a “turn off.” It shouldn’t be so. This thing was so bloomin’ tasty, such a harmonious symphony of sweet hotness, I would happily raze an entire village of hobbits just to have it one more time.

The recipe was largely made up on the fly, that’s my problem with effectively repeating it. Roughly, I mixed up a spicy breading of jerk (quite a bit), thyme, ground ginger, sesame seeds, paprika, black pepper, a pinch of naga jolokia (super hot) and fine breadcrumbs. Then, wisked an egg, dipped the chicken breast in aforementioned wisked egg, coated it in the breading (pressing a few whole peppercorns in there for the fun of it), and then pan-fried it in sesame oil at a searing heat for two or three minutes. Then it was bunged in an oven-friendly tray with pomodoro cherry tomatoes, and a glug of orange juice, lemon juice, soy sauce, and a couple of dots of butter. Baked for 20 minutes or so. The juice in the tray thickens into a goo you can drizzle over it, and the tomatoes collapse into succulent globs of heaven itself. Jesus, the lord, almighty, hallelujah, jamon. Very simple, but when the balance of spices is just right, wow. It’s neat.

Also featuring on plate, a double-carb extravaganza! Jollof rice and peas, and boiled-then-grilled corn with butter and garlic pepper. Not South Beach friendly, perhaps, but nor am I. In fact, I even had a beer with it, making this a true multigrain meal. Surely that’s supposed to be healthy, according to someone?

Thanks all. Also, for your advance knowledge, I’ll soon be posting some other news which, while equally redundant, it’s hopefully (at least in my view) much more exciting than even this chicken breast. Suspense. Uncontainable.

Filed under: Politics , chicken, dinner, jerk, naga jolokia, nonsense, pollo, yum

Insincere Encounters of the Dopey Kind: the Ed Miliband Loop

In case Ottawa’s summer recess is leaving you with a shortage of inane, lobotomised robots parroting meaningless spin through your television, here’s a treat I think you’ll like. Britain’s Labour Leader Ed Miliband demonstrating exactly how to do media manipulation in the worst possible way.

ITV’s Damon Green asks Miliband a series of questions regarding last week’s public sector strikes. The questions are different, but the answers are positively identical. Recited, insincere non-responses, memorised in advance, and bleated out regardless of the nature of the question.

It’s part hilarious, and part extraordinarily depressing. Much like life, I guess.

It’s caused a very welcome fuss over here in Angleterre, about the nature of plastic politics and how much dopey insincerity the public should be expected to swallow.

Read Charlie Brooker’s fantastic take on the Miliband Loop, which pretty much says everything I would have said here, so I’ll save myself the typing time, and just direct you to Mr. Brooker. Also, read interviewer Damon Green reflecting on his experience of confronting an unimaginative robot with zero media engagement skills, save for the unashamed willingness to try on a speak-and-spell soundbite mantra in place of a conversation.

Filed under: Politics, UK , 30 June, Ed Miliband, labour, media, public sector strikes, rhetoric, these strikes are wrong

Who owns socialism?

With a shrug and a sigh, the NDP have delayed a decision on whether they are socialist, or social democratic. I shrugged and sighed too – this decision was to be a fascinating moment, and they kind of let that pass.

Sure, it’s only language, and a single word-change at that. But the biggest question seemed to me to be, who was motivating this change? Who do the NDP believe owns the word socialist? Is it them, and so what they do with it is very much their own decision? Or is it the Conservatives, who have appropriated it like a weapon with which to beat Layton up over the next four years?

I remember the 2004 U.S. election particularly well, not only for its result (I’m reminded of Dubya’s victory in the face of total incompetence whenever I contemplate Harper’s new majority), but also for one of the more effective political grenades the Republicans were able to lob – the word liberal. Every chance George W. Bush got to call John Kerry a liberal, he would. He’d sneer it. Liberal. Nothin’ but a fancy-pants liberal.

Now, any dictionary definition of liberalism will correspond pretty well to the philosophies at the heart of every Western democracy, with fuzzy margins, but that simply doesn’t matter in electoral campaigns that are more blunt bludgery than nuanced debate. By taking the word liberal and infusing it with satanic undertones, proud patriotic American liberals were left reeling. Their identity had become illegitimate. They scrambled for words like progressive to try and claim territory that wasn’t tainted, and that mad scramble suited (and suits) the American right just fine.

I always found that a uniquely American problem, but clearly it’s North American all told. We heard Dimitri Soudas bleating End-Is-Nigh-style “socialists and separatists” warnings for the best part of two years as Harperian Ottawa set about its root-to-tip demonisation of all opposition. And so, it’s understandable that the New Democrats may want to adjust to the new reality: the word socialist is passé, problematic, and out of their control any longer. The word belongs to Harper, so just let him have it.

In defense of socialism, though, look to Europe. Socialism isn’t just a single word buried in left-wing party constitutions, it is a word worn proudly, out in front, on campaign buttons and ballot papers. The main French Opposition is the Socialist Party. The Germans pre-Merkel were governed by the Socialist Party. Spain is governed by the Socialist Party, as is Greece and, till lately, lately Portugal. The second largest bloc of European MEPs in Brussels is the Socialist bloc. Even Tony Blair called himself a socialist, and he wasn’t an angstrom further to the left of Michael Bloomin’ Ignatieff.

The right may point to Europe’s woes as the product of all this damn socialism, which is mostly wrong and also besides the point. Modern European “socialism” is really no more radical than anything advocated by Canada’s Liberal Party, or Obamaesque wings of the American Democratic Party. The word doesn’t need cotton padding, because Europeans aren’t cowed by dark nightmares of Young Pioneers, or snooping Stasi, or state management of love lives and sugar intake, every time a socialist takes to the stump. The scare-mongering doesn’t work as well, perhaps because Europeans know what actual authoritarianism looks like – and Ségolène Royal ain’t it.

North America’s left has a greater challenge to manage its identity in the face of a more broadly suspicious media and a more brutalist political class. That’s a reality, and it leaves me torn on the NDP’s big question. I am all for New Democrats doing what they can to get MPs in seats and to encourage steady fundraising, and cleaning up their constitution can be a part of that.

But they must be careful to ensure it is they who define those changes, and they who define their language. Reclaiming language from those who use it negatively may demonstrate greater confidence than reaching for the Thesaurus of Friendly Words. It’s sensible to do what you can to beat back a Right which will inevitably come snarling with accusations of radicalism. But perhaps a reclamation of socialist virtue is still a way to do that.“Socialists? Maybe we are. And here’s what it means.”

Filed under: Canada, International, Politics , layton, ndp, new democrats, socialism, socialist

Happy bloggoversary

Cor, I forgot my own birthday! Turns out that the Polygonic blog has been going for one whole year (and a day). What better excuse to start drinking at work?

Woooooooooo

Thanks to all readers and commenters for a year of memorable memories. In the coming days (once I find the time to cook something!) I’ll post a celebratory photo of my dinner, as I am wont to do when I feel warm inside.

Filed under: Uncategorized , birthday, nonsense

What’s so wrong with the rough and tumble?

From Canada’s blushing outrage at Brigette DePape’s stop sign, to the House of Commons’ brand-new heckle-bans, it seems there’s little more important these days than the skin of respectful politesse. Any concern, though, for the health of the deeper corpus?

The British House of Commons, for example, is not a place characterised by decorum, but most would say it works well. It is indeed a raucous chamber of loud hoots and heckles, brazen browbeatings, laddish one-liners, and disparaging quips. Teasing “yeas!” and “whoas!” are bellowed from the backbenches, in support or in attack, of leaders’ proclamations. Each session of Prime Minister’s Questions truly feels like trial by drunken fraternity, and both Labour Leader Ed Miliband and PM David Cameron dish out, and receive, the kinds of bruising blows that would absolutely liquify Stephen Harper et al.

Watch yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions for a sample.

But what’s telling, and it came up in yesterday’s session, is that, in both the Canadian and British Parliaments, one thing you cannot do is accuse another member of lying. Because that’s impolite. Cameron made the mistake of accusing Miliband of “misleading the House,” which led the Speaker to demand a retraction.

Cameron said median (hospital) waiting times had gone down and claimed Miliband had misled the house about the issue two weeks ago, prompting an intervention from the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, who urged him to withdraw the remark in line with protocol.

Cameron said: “What I meant, of course … he gave an interesting use of facts in terms of waiting times, which are down in the NHS (National Health Service).”

Miliband responded: “The whole house will notice he didn’t withdraw that, and obviously he is rattled about the health service.”

“After a year, he’s proved the oldest truth in politics – you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.”

Such protocol is one component of a broad effort to maintain a some semblance of dignified decorum in the House, and fine. But I do find it a cruel irony that, while a Parliamentarian can be admonished by the Speaker for accusing another of lying, they are not similarly admonished for doing the actual lying.

John Baird earlier this year claimed, in the House of Commons, that allowing Emirates Airlines three more landing slots at Canadian airports would cost “tens of thousands” of Canadian jobs. Remember that? Tens of thousands! Jeez Louise, John. There really aren’t more than 90,000 Canadians employed in the Canadian aviation industry all told, so far as I can figure, so any labourers counted in the plural units of 10,000 implies up to a quarter of the sector. They were all at risk of unemployment? Because of Emirates? Three landing spaces? If our aviation industry is so imperilled, then let’s get talking about that!

Decorum, deschmorum, Baird deserved a routing for peddling patently vacuous lies in the House of Commons, but even in the 40th Parliament, for all it’s “roughness,” he didn’t get one. He should have been mocked and hollered at, torn a new one, politically discredited and accused – indeed – of lying. Because that’s what he did, and that ought to be considered the greatest affront to good government.

The self-policed Parliamentary politesse that everyone seems interested in is a skin-deep solution that does not cure the rot in politics. It’s never been the roughhousing that turn citizens off politics – we’re hockey fans, remember? No, it’s the lies. Brazen dishonesty, without reprimand or consequence, is the real sin that’s ailing our politics.

Civility is nice, and there is nothing to admire in personal attacks or irrelevant insults. But the tone of Parliamentary debate is a secondary concern to the substance of it. The real game misconducts should be reserved for outright lies.

Filed under: Canada, Politics, UK , Baird, brigette, Cameron, decorum, depape, Harper, heckling, House of Commons, layton, Miliband, ottawa, parliament, protocol, senate, westminster

Libya exists. Is that our policy?

I’ve been very keen to see how John Baird handles his massive new brief (I did not say massive briefs) and, with the 41st Parliament’s first Question Period now behind us, I’ve already got a question. Enter this short exchange:

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, France and Italy have recognized the Libyan National Council as that country’s legitimate government. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs clarify Canada’s position on this?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Canada we recognize states, not particular governments.

Uhhhhh….. I may not have ascended to Bairdist thinking on the concept of sovereignty, but I worry that he’s talking borderline impossible here. It’s akin to saying “In Canada, we recognize marriage, not husbands or wives.” Sorry, but unless you recognise the role of husband or the wife, then where in the world is the marriage?

When Canada refused to recognise the presidency of Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast, after challenger Alassane Ouattara had won the election, we were taking a position on legitimacy. It wasn’t saying “We think the Ivory Coast exists.” It was saying “We think the responsibility for running this territory falls to Government X.” Making those decisions and determinations is at the heart of what Foreign Policy is.

It’s not easy. States are not like the Canadian Shield, or the Moon, which exist whether you like them or not, and which exist outside human institutions and imagination. States explicitly require government, and this means the entire establishment of governance. The civil service, the armed forces, the whole elaborate apparatus of collective control. When two separate sets of this apparatus vye for overall control of a recognised territory, it does not do for us to suggest that we “recognise Libya to exist.” Eh? So what?

States require governance, and legitimate statehood requires both the consent of the governed, and the assent of other, peer governments, such as our own. Sometimes the balance there isn’t fair – often it’s not realistic. But that’s the big question Dominic LeBlanc was asking, and Baird fluffed it.

Filed under: Canada, International, Politics , Baird, Canada, Foreign Policy, Gaddafi, Libya, Libyan National Council