The Scene and Herd

Running around my old haunts last night, I saw a sign up outside Boo Radley’s that said “Welcome Back All!” Since it’s just after Labour Day, I figured they were talking to all the students moving back to the city and starting things up again. But there are no colleges or universities around Boo Radley’s and it’s definitely not a student hang out, not by a long shot (undesirable area, completely out of the way). Still, I think they thought they should say something about school starting, because the city changes in September. You feel different, optimistic and such. It’s a remnant of twenty years of Septembers when you were beginning something new.

I haven’t been able to begin much lately. I’ve kind of a writer’s block, I guess, and my days feel unproductive. I know what the problem is: I’m stuck on a style that’s starting to bore me. This has happened before. I know I have to wait for a new approach to strike, and then I can write like crazy. But until then, I’m going to feel sluggish. Yesterday I spent hours at the library and couldn’t write a thing. I walked home with Johnnie around dinnertime and the elementary kids were all coming home from school, tired and sweaty in new clothes, looking like they wake up with purpose each day, the little ragamuffins. I was jealous of them, sort of wishing that September meant something new for me too.

Perhaps Jack Layton shares my nostalgia. I noticed he chose to use a back-to-school metaphor to describe the likelihood of an election. “Mr. Harper has already decided that he’s gung-ho about going out into the schoolyard and having a rumble with Mr. Ignatieff,” he said, perhaps trying to illustrate the immaturity of the two men. I think that those guys over at parliament are suffering from a block (and a bloc? I’m sorry, but I couldn’t…) of their own. They’re stuck on this election business as a means of persuasion, communication. It’s become their default style and you can tell they’re bored stiff of the business (not to mention their readers), but a new approach just hasn’t struck.

Layton might be aiming to make Harper and Ignatieff look childish with his metaphor, but at least those kids rumbling in the schoolyard go back to their desks when the bell rings. We’d be so lucky if the government would sit quietly for a few hours every day, do some math or something. I’m willing to bet Harper and Ignatieff are as jealous as I am of the students around here, the ones getting up in the morning to get things done, the little ragamuffins.

I was pretty dissatisfied by all accounts of the Liberal leadership convention. Media put it down as ill attended, underwhelming and unnecessary. Many seemed to take issue with Iggy’s allusioin to the 1968 convention at which Trudeau was elected. That convention spouted Trudeaumania, they argued. This one was just boring.

Thing is, I read an account in the Globe and Mail that claimed the convention was all about free beer and raucous political debate. “That sounds really awesome,” I thought to myself. I would totally be manic for Ignatieff in that environment, not bored at all.

In the Globe today, Lysiane Gagnon writes that Ignatieff wants to be the new Trudeau, but Canadians would “rather have competent, pragmatic leaders than a visionaries.” Sigh. That certainly does’t apply to me. Trudeaumania could “never be replicated,” she writes. Trudeau came at a “specific moment in history, at a time when the youth movement was shaking the world and people were thirsty for new, younger faces. Mr. Trudeau was an elegant, unconventional man of 46, a sharp contrast with the boring political figures of the time.”

That specific moment in time seems to bear a strong resemblance to this specific moment in time (ie. South of the border). I’m usually thirsty for new, young faces in politics. I’m also usually bored with the political figures of my time (against whom Michael Igantieff appears quite elegant). What the hell is going on here? Am I missing something?

Or am I just the same age now as all these disenchanted journalist were then, when Trudeau was on the scene?

I wonder what people would have written about the convention if Iggy had left 1968 out of things. He had to go and remind all those old politicos that they were once young and idealistic, but they’d since aged and nothing is very exciting anymore.

The article concludes with the claim that “’Iggymania’ exists mostly in the imagination of those who are waxing nostalgic about Pierre Elliott Trudeau.”

But I wonder if those waxing nostalgic about 1968 are having the harder time getting manic about anything, now that they’re old and hate free beer with raucous debate.

Canada’s sensitivity levels have shot way up and out of control, ever since Iggy came on the scene a few years ago. You’d think a self-assured political character like Ignatieff would be good for us, but instead our collective self-esteem is all threatened and out of whack. Iggy has ushered in an embarrassing era where money, really good schools, and international travel appear to be the bane of the Canadian psyche.

 This article in the Toronto Star today is exemplary of our nation’s weirdo but typically Canadian attitude towards Ignatieff. As of this morning, we can all add “knowledge” to the list of really awesome things that Canadians are now wary of because they feel threatened by Iggy.

 ”Michael Ignatieff’s embryonic election platform – “a knowledge society” – is safe, smart and stylish. It can be stretched to include everything from basic literacy to advanced scientific research.”

That sounds great. I’m so glad he brought it up.

“But as the former Harvard professor and his brain trust flesh out their policy manifesto, there are a few realities to consider.”

There’s that H-word again. I see where this piece is going. The realities that Carol Goar (the author) is talking about are immigrants who can’t get certified in Canada, recent grads that can’t get a job, and skilled workers that might feel slighted by a “knowledge society.”

“The Liberal leader and his strategists may find the phrase ‘smart is the new black’ appealing, but to millions of hard-working Canadians, it sounds elitist and suggests they’ll be second-class members of the knowledge society.”

This is one of the worst things I’ve ever heard. It’s so childish I want to die. I seriously doubt that millions of hard working Canadians have such a fragile ego, and if they do, it probably doesn’t have anything to do with Michael Ignatieff’s election platform (and if it does… well then the nation is just doomed). Who are these millions anyways?

“Canada needs – and will continue to need – home care workers, tradespeople, cleaners, truck drivers, technicians, shopkeepers and labourers. Their jobs may not be glamorous, but they’re essential. Where do these people fit into Ignatieff’s vision?”

 I happen to know a cleaner and a shopkeeper and I think they would fit into a knowledge vision pretty comfortably. They don’t mind ideas and technology, and I think they might even understand the benefits of science.

 I suspect that Goar is projecting this “second class” mentality onto a particular demographic or two that she’s not even a part of. We’re all concerned about recent grads that can’t find a job, and immigrants that have been denied “the opportunity to use their skills.” These are definitely issues that need to be addressed and fixed, but all the immigrants and recent grads I know could really get behind the idea of a knowledge society…

Can’t we have a competent immigration system, a healthy job market and a knowledge society? (Personally, I think we should employ all recent grads in the poorly staffed immigration department. But nobody asked me.)

As we approach the inevitable election, finally with Ignatieff as Liberal leader, I look forward to fleshed out policies and ideas. So far, I like his optimism. I hope it doesn’t get sucked into the vortex that disappeared Canada’s tolerance for Harvard and … knowledge.

And I really wish we would let those hard working Canadians speak for themselves for once.

The suburbs drives you to all sorts of weird things; like bulk barn and town centres. Like video clips of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, a show you never thought was that funny aside from their Quebecois accent bit. But we were up until 1 am watching it, and this morning lo and behold! Iggy’s all over it. Hahaha. 

Oh, Iggy, I love.

And I love the suburbs and cars and town centres.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk041FoyipM]

Ignatieff announced he will run candidates in “all ridings!” including Elizabeth May’s.

I’d really like to know what prompted this announcement. Because I like to think that nothing prompted it. I like to think that Iggy just likes making announcements about how he’s changed his mind, about how the whole party has changed it’s mind… “We take it back!” 

This rumour that the Conservatives are planning to unleash attack ads about Iggy being a flip-flopper and an intellectual snob… I hope it’s true. Watching the Cons latch onto all that nonsense would be great fun. And I’m mos def going to launch my own counter campaign. 

Making Flippy Floppy. Oh Canada, I love you.

I really appreciate Iggy’s tendency to… go back on things. Seriously, I think it’s a valuable characteristic and I’d not apply the charming “flip-flop” term to it because it always strikes me as genuine. Okay, yeah,most of us were troubled with his stance on Iraq, but listening to him re-think it and admit he was wrong was refreshing. MI is so forward thinking. The past is in the past.

That said, the story of Beryl Wajsman pleases me for very different reasons. 

I really like that Iggy is “wooing” back into the party someone Paul Martin “banned for life” because it fits nicely with his forward thinking persona, but it’s more extreme. Ha. Because he’s sort of retracting on behalf of the whole Liberal party, past and present. And that’s just funny.

Furthermore:

Lapierre himself was at Montreal’s city hall in January while Wajsman was accepting the Martin Luther King Legacy Award for community service work. Wajsman saw him, cursed and proceeded with his acceptance speech. Lapierre sat and listened, clapped politely and quickly left the room before the applause was over.

That is funny. I could not be more serious when I declare that I want this man - the one that curses and proceeds with his speech - to be back, and active, in the Liberal party. So way to go Iggy. God bless.

Also, I was reading around wiki about Lapierre and came across this anecdote from 1990 (when I was eight and therefore have no memory of, but oh man would’ve had a field day with):

Lapierre’s group led a stir at the 1990 Liberal Leadership Convention in Calgary when Jean Chrétien embraced Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Clyde Wells hours after the latter had helped kill the Meech Lake Accord. Lapierre’s followers wore black armbands and yelled “Vendu!” (sell out!) at Jean Chrétien.

Kind of a troublemaker and I don’t really like him but damn, maybe we can woo him back too, just for a minute?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXMNpYMGyck]

I seriously thought for a second that Michael Ignatieff was the Prime Minister of Canada. I went onto cbc.ca this morning and Iggy is headline news on the Obama visit. Apparently, Barack “will listen to us” on Afghanistan. I’ve also read that Ignatieff will “speak frankly” with Obama… 

Shouldn’t Stephen Harper be saying crap like this? Where’s he at? Canada seems way more excited about Obama’s meeting with the leader of the opposition than the PM.

I feel like we’re in old tyme days and Stephen Harper is our embarrassing older son and we have to let him stick around for the visit because he’s the oldest but we really want Obama to hang out with Ignatieff because, well, we like him better.

“Hello, Barack! This is ouroldestsonStephenbut THIS! This is Michael.” And then we push Iggy over to greet Obama while whispering to Harper to keep quiet or go make a fire or something.

Allow me, for a moment, to make a metaphor using my favourite TV show at the moment; The Wire. For those of you unawares, The Wire is a wicked awesome show about Baltimore, corruption, cops and drugs.

There is this scene that stays with me: Carver pulls a corner boy (For those of you that are not from Bramps, a “corner boy” is a kid that stands on a corner selling drugs) down to the precinct and is questioning him, playing “good cop.” Carver is trying to get Bodie to spill it. “You remind me of me,” he says.

“Oh yeah,” says Bodie, “you came up hard?”

This is a game you play with delinquents. To gain their trust, you make them believe that you braved the projects, “the low rises,” if you will. 

This is a game that (some of) the Canadian people are trying to play with Ignatieff.

A google news search of Ignatieff turns up a raging plethora of rants and raves (some of them completely embarrassing). Americans like him (ignore the weird graph). It’s patronizing, the way they express it, but they like the guy. 

And yet this persistent trend over here, this bizarre demand for someone “down to earth.”

Okay, can I blame Orillia for a little while?

All this news over the weekend that Orillia really likes Iggy, “standing room only” etc. But what does Orillia have to say?  They like him… because… brace yourselves,

“the former Harvard professor was more like a cross between a folksy preacher and sympathetic high-school guidance counsellor.”

This is what impressed The Orillia Packet.

Shouldn’t The Orillia Packet be saying, “What the hell? I thought you were a Harvard professor. You sound more like a high-school guidance councellor.”

Points to Igntieff for his apt performance, but Orillia (among others) needs to get a grip. Iggy did not come up hard. And he’s not like you, thankfully.

Now stop acting like a bunch of needy delinquents.

The first paragraph is exemplary of all this “weakness” nonsense. Note the phrase in which it’s pointed out that Ignatieff “allowed” a “rebellion.” Is that even possible? You want me to grab a dictionary?

He doesn’t like the budget but he can’t oppose the budget and now he gets to…. have his cake and eat it, so to speak. All this business just confirms that things just… work out for Iggy. That, and Newfoundland Liberals are all troublemakers. I mean, how much noise can you make before the rest of the country gets fed up? (A lot… I don’t think anyone’s really listening.) 

And I don’t think it’s helping anyone’s case, except  Ignatieff’s, to say “this never even happened with Dion and this would never happen with Harper.” Who likes/liked those guys anyways? Isn’t the whole point that Ignatieff is different? 

Furthermore, might we have more fluid parametres to what a “good leader” is than “hard ass who lays down the law?”

I guess it takes The New York Times to shamelessly profile the old money coursing through Iggy’s veins in a positive light. Ha. I know nobody over here is ever going to do it. We like to keep quiet about all that, unless we’re crafting an attack ad.

Seriously, what is the problem everybody in Canada seems to have with wealth and Harvard? These are good things, no?

The ensuing response (the comment section - don’t miss the comment section) is hilarious. 

I’m not all that sure that the article is condescending, but even if it is, um, so? It’s The New York Times. It’s a really condescending newspaper. And yeah, I am happy that they’re talking about my favourite politician. Does that make me needy and pathetic? Or just honest with myself!

It’s more fun to be me than to be you, I swear.

Wouldn’t anybody be pleased about a write-up in The New York Times? Um, a New Yorker even? (wink)

We need to get over ourselves. I like Canada’s little, weirdo insignificant role in the world. Just makes it easier to sneak up into world cultural domination. BAM! No one sees it coming.