Lament After Lament

I say this with no pride but the United States is done, finished, kaput. It is broken. We have nothing to do but watch its inexorable decline. Watching may not be appropriate, for its demise will not be pretty; it may even be dangerous. A country that is highly armed, romanticizes war(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCAjAVsM_E), is in steep economic decline, has both an obsession with its own exceptionality and a political system that no longer functions, is ripe for demagogues and tyrants to move in.

Nothing can stop this decline. There is no savior. (Obama’s election healed a national wound and that was a significant gift to the Republic. After that? Yes we can, but only if everyone wants too.) Some time ago—who knows exactly when?—politicians learned that while you speak to the people, you listen to the money. Some time ago—who knows exactly when?—the dumbing down of the citizenry went too far. Some time ago—who knows exactly when?—the role of government stopped being about serving its citizens and became about serving those who run its machinery and grease its wheels. Some time ago the press stopped trying to be a courageous and honest voice, and surrendered. Some time ago conversation and compromise packed up and went home, leaving theatre and spectacle and sound bites to claim center stage. Some time ago the Supreme Court wasn’t politicized, the ads weren’t written by pit bulls and civility had a seat at the table. Some time ago—who knows exactly when?—the United States could still turn things around.

Despite all of this, I have no deeper hope than being proven entirely wrong.

And here’s an equally cheery lament from Christopher Hedges author of Death of the Liberal Class:

The lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, which looks set to make sweeping gains in the midterm elections, is the direct result of a collapse of liberalism. It is the product of bankrupt liberal institutions, including the press, the church, universities, labor unions, the arts and the Democratic Party. The legitimate rage being expressed by disenfranchised workers toward the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted or did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years, is not misplaced. The liberal class is guilty. The liberal class, which continues to speak in the prim and obsolete language of policies and issues, refused to act. It failed to defend traditional liberal values during the long night of corporate assault in exchange for its position of privilege and comfort in the corporate state. The virulent right-wing backlash we now experience is an expression of the liberal class’ flagrant betrayal of the citizenry.

The liberal class, which once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible, functioned traditionally as a safety valve. During the Great Depression, with the collapse of capitalism, it made possible the New Deal. During the turmoil of the 1960s, it provided legitimate channels within the system to express the discontent of African-Americans and the anti-war movement. But the liberal class, in our age of neo-feudalism, is now powerless. It offers nothing but empty rhetoric. It refuses to concede that power has been wrested so efficiently from the hands of citizens by corporations that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty are irrelevant. It does not act to mitigate the suffering of tens of millions of Americans who now make up a growing and desperate permanent underclass. And the disparity between the rhetoric of liberal values and the rapacious system of inverted totalitarianism the liberal class serves makes liberal elites, including Barack Obama, a legitimate source of public ridicule. The liberal class, whether in universities, the press or the Democratic Party, insists on clinging to its privileges and comforts even if this forces it to serve as an apologist for the expanding cruelty and exploitation carried out by the corporate state.

Populations will endure repression from tyrants as long as these rulers continue to effectively manage and wield power. But human history has amply demonstrated that once those in positions of power become redundant and impotent, yet retain the trappings and privileges of power, they are swiftly and brutally discarded. Tocqueville observed that the French, on the eve of their revolution, hated the aristocrats about to lose their power far more than they had ever hated them before. The increased hatred directed at the aristocratic class occurred because as the aristocracy lost real power there was no decline in their fortunes. As long as the liberal class had even limited influence, whether through the press or the legislative process, liberals were tolerated and even respected. But once the liberal class lost all influence it became a class of parasites. The liberal class, like the déclassé French aristocracy, has no real function within the power elite. And the rising right-wing populists, correctly, ask why liberals should be tolerated when their rhetoric bears no relation to reality and their presence has no influence on power.

The death of the liberal class, however, is catastrophic for our democracy. It means there is no longer any check to a corporate apparatus designed to further enrich the power elite. It means we cannot halt the plundering of the nation by Wall Street speculators and corporations. An ineffectual liberal class, in short, means there is no hope, however remote, of a correction or a reversal through the political system and electoral politics. The liberals’ disintegration ensures that the frustration and anger among the working and the middle class will find expression in a rejection of traditional liberal institutions and the civilities of a liberal democracy. The very forces that co-opted the liberal class and are responsible for the impoverishment of the state will, ironically, reap benefits from the collapse. These corporate manipulators are busy channeling rage away from the corporate and military forces hollowing out the nation from the inside and are turning that anger toward the weak remnants of liberalism. It does not help our cause that liberals indeed turned their backs on the working and middle class.

To read the rest of it: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_world_liberal_opportunists_made_20101025/P100/

Having Successfully Ended the Long-form Census but Failed to End the Long-gun registry, Conservatives Determined to Ban Long Johns

Yesterday sources learned that the Conservative government under Stephen Harper is eyeing a ban on long johns. A Canadian tradition, long johns have not previously attracted the attention of the federal government. Minister of Natural Resources, Jim Prentice, stated that long johns are no longer necessary, given the rise of global warming, particularly in the Canadian arctic. Such a strong admission of global warming is rare for the Harper government, but given their determination to stop all things “long”, even deniers of global warming have apparently been thrown under the bus.

A government spokesperson, without confirming or denying a ban on long johns, tried to correct Prentice’s gaffe by acknowledging global warming while questioning whether it is manmade. He added that “long johns are becoming less critical in Canada, and whether we should put our manufacturing and textile industries to such use is an open question.” When asked directly about the ban, he acknowledged that all options are on the table, and admitted that “rural regions may find it more difficult, but the government believes our urban manufacturing base needs support to adapt to change, particularly in the current economic downturn.”

In a related note, some members of the Canadian Olympic Committee have expressed concern about the stability of funding for Canadian long jumpers heading into the 2012 Olympics in London. Long-track speed skating, always one of the best Canadian teams at the Olympics, has already secured its funding for the Winter Olympics in Russia.

Air-conditioning and Toll Roads: Solving America's Energy Crisis

We head down to the Jersey shore for vacation, to a quiet bit of beach far from the boardwalks and miniature golf and arcades. We lay on the beach--ahhh, the sound of the ocean, the warm sun, the…wait, what’s that? A small propeller plane towing a flying advertisement for—but of course—a cosmetic surgeon! Then here come three planes in a row for an internet provider, the three planes offering--in order--a fast, a faster, and a fastest internet connection. Last but not least a plane putters by towing a sign for-–am I reading correctly?—Dick Cheney at the Atlantic City Hilton. Who knew he planned to retire and go on the comedy circuit? America. Empire and carnival for the price of a single ticket.

Driving down we were caught in traffic jams. Were there accidents? Too many cars? No and no. The frequent slow-downs seemed to be caused by the presence of tolls. Lots of tolls, and cars slowing down to figure out which lane to go to—EZ Pass, Cash, Cash with Receipt. I admit I am no longer accustomed to toll roads. Canada doesn’t seem to have them. When I check out details in Wikipedia, it says that most toll roads in Canada are actually bridges to the United States. Is that perfect or what? Canada pays for its roads by something known as taxes. The U.S., on the other hand, makes the user pay—once at the toll and once by sitting in the traffic jam all the tolls create. Sitting in the traffic jams, I couldn’t help but think of how much gas was being wasted; it was like a miniature blowout of an offshore platform in the Gulf—day after day traffic jams waste gas all in the name of a refusal to tax sufficiently to build and maintain infrastructure.

So here’s part one of my solution to solve America’s energy crisis: eliminate toll roads. Here’s part two: lighten up on the air-conditioning. I mean, really, is air conditioning supposed to cool things down so much that your testicles retract? Someone ought to do research on the comparative use of air conditioning. Whether you're in a mall or a home, everyone seems to want to put their bodies on ice. Why not pass a law that says all air-conditioners need to be set to no cooler than 75? Because, duh, that infringes on our fundamental freedoms, you ex-American, law-abiding, government-loving Canadian. Oops, sorry, I forgot. Well, okay, how about if someone makes it a very strong suggestion? You could still chill out, but just not quite so thoroughly. And you’d do the planet a world of good in the process. Think about it America.

My Gift to the U.S. on July 4th: fairy tax dust

An email from a friend from last week:

In the US the state of gov't finances is really grim, massive budget deficits that by law have to be balanced - talk of states like California going bankrupt unless bailed out by the Fed gov't which would unleash a floodgate. Warren Buffet spoke about this last week, saying that after the feds bailed out Wall Street banks it would be inconceivable that they would refuse to bailout a state - good point. And many US voters, in their populist uprising wisdom, have voted in laws essentially giving legislators no decent options for raising revenues, so it's cuts cuts cuts. Not long ago I read that US voters have been convinced - by the Tea Party, Republican types (and then embraced by a lot of Democrats) that they pay high taxes and don't get enough from their government when in reality they have one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world - so there is a huge ideological wall they have to climb before they can deal with this mess they have created. As Buffett quipped, he pays less tax than his secretary.

After reading this cheery email, I came upon a remarkable article in the NY Times titled Illinois Stops Paying Its Bills, but Can’t Stop Digging Hole.
Two paragraphs:
For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession. Now Illinois has shouldered to the fore, as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state’s bills and refuses to take the painful steps — cuts and tax increases — to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half the state’s budget.

...From suburban Elgin to Chicago to Rockford to Peoria, school districts have fired thousands of teachers, curtailed kindergarten and electives, drained pools and cut after-school clubs. Drug, family and mental health counseling centers have slashed their work forces and borrowed money to stave off insolvency.

My gift to the United States is an unlimited supply of fairy tax dust. When you toss it over lawmakers, it gives them the courage to raise taxes. When you toss it over the electorate, it gives them the wisdom to accept what is necessary.

Without this gift, you can launch all the fireworks you want but the country will still go nowhere but down.

For the complete article go here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business/economy/03illinois.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

Happy Birthday Canada!

You don't look a day over one hundred and fourty three. Okay, so maybe the arctic ice is melting and the permafrost is turning to mud, and yes, it's true, the tailing ponds from the Tar Sands are a bit of an eyesore(or is it birdsore?), and we can't deny that the CN Tower is no longer the world's tallest structure, but morally we don't send more asbestos that's banned here to the third world than they can use, and we did just host the G-20 that accomplished (what DID it accomplish? anyone know out there?), and people are admitting that the Parliament that just went home for the summer was one of the most useless on record and--wait, wait a minutes, THAT'S GOOD! they all went home for the summer: Parliament is not in session!
Ah, something to celebrate.

And may you have another one hundred and fourty three to grow kinder, gentler and wiser than you are now.

Psssst, American Companies, Move Up Here

The Director’s of one of Canada’s MBA programs recently had this to say:
“Never in the history of our country have we been ahead of the United States. The United States has always been richer, more powerful, more aggressive, more dynamic, more successful, more entrepreneurial. And right now they’re going off the cliff. Their banking is a mess. Their real estate is a mess. Their tax system is a mess. The place is going bankrupt before your eyes.” He actually thinks “we have the opportunity to steal some of their business” and get American companies to relocate up here.

Think again. Capitalizing on an opportunity happens because you’re aggressive, dynamic and entrepreneurial. And THAT is the essence of Canada…not! Actually, because things are fine up here, why bother, eh? Isn’t it Canada’s low risk-tolerance and conservative banking culture that saved the country’s butt in the first place. Where exactly are these new traits going to come from to capitalize on the opportunity he sees? And besides that, it’s the height of the NHL play-offs. Business opportunity? What opportunity? Pass the chips and dip, and break open the Molsons.

Notes From The Nanny State

THAT would be Canada, at least according to Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (is there an oxymoron buried in there by chance?), he said in his keynote, “You need to understand something here folks, we’re not in a nanny-state induced coma, like Europe and Canada.” My young teenage son, listening along with me, started up a conversation that went something like this:
“What’s that mean dad?”
“Well, a nanny state is a state that takes care of its citizens, it has things like an old-age pension for its citizens, universal healthcare, maybe generous parental leave policies, perhaps national daycare, things like that.”
“But that sounds good, why does he think it’s bad?”
“He thinks it’s bad because it means people will get lazy, and they won’t work hard because the state will take care of them, like a nanny.”
“But if that’s true, why are Americans so lazy? They live in a country that doesn’t take care of them.”
“Why do you say Americans are lazy?”
“Well, geez dad, you’ve been down there, they’re the fattest people around. You get fat when you’re lazy, right?”
And so there, you have it at last—a metric for measuring the degree of Nanny-statism. The U.S. wins by a landslide! No wonder they have that show called The Biggest Loser. France, on the other hand, deep in its nanny-state coma, has citizens known for their thinness. And how about those socialist Scandinavians—aren’t they a bunch of fatties? Wait a minute, they’re actually pretty damn fit….I could get to like this metric.

* * * * *

Parity

That’s been the big word here this past week. Parity. It means the Canadian dollar is of equal value to the U.S. greenback. “Parity” is said with a kind of pride. If the Loonie is of equal value, than the country must be as well. Another metric. Canada, in other words, is finally as good as the U.S.! Right? Aren’t we? I mean, is it okay to say we are? Is that Canadian? Okay, maybe we’re not really as good. But almost, eh?

Truth is, the northern Nanny-state is actually outperforming the U.S.in most economic measures. Take that, Michael Steele. You would think that Canada coming out of the global recession stronger than any other G8 country would also be a source of pride, and it is, but, and this is a big butt, Canada knows its economy is completely tied to the U.S. Canada would actually be better off in the long run if the U.S. were coming out the strongest. It’s why Canada, as much as it may like to see itself as better than the States, can never wish the U.S. anything other than good fortune.

* * * *

The Southern Republican Leadership Conference and Ann Coulter Revisited

Underlying the content of the remarks of those at the conference is a reminder again of the breakdown of political discourse in the U.S. Newt Gingrich described the current administration as “a perfect, unrepresentative left wing machine dedicated to a secular, socialist future.” Sarah Palin was saying the kinds of things Sarah Palin says. Give her points for consistency; then take them away for accuracy…Imagine being fed a constant diet of this stuff, as many Americans are.

Think of political rhetoric as food; given that you are what you eat, perhaps Americans need to eat something more nutritionally balanced. Eating primarily the empty calories of emotionally-charged language is no healthier than eating cheap, overly-processed foods. One is satisfied only temporarily, before one needs to return for more. The reason Canada and Canadians ought not to partake of the words of Ann Coulter and her like is not because of any issues of freedom of speech, but rather because it makes sense to pay attention to what you take in—whether its food or rhetoric. A diet of nothing but twinkies is only good for the producers of twinkies, just as consuming right-wing rhetoric only benefits the producers of that rhetoric. Junkfood is junkfood. Don’t take it in. It’s bad for your health. Eat your vegetables, said your mother. And she was right. The reasonable (and reasoned) language of civil conversation may be a diet that’s a bit bland but it’s good for all of us. Canada still has some of it; the United States, none.

Bringing in those American chefs to listen to their recipes is folly.

Ann Coulter Comes to Canada

Ann Coulter, the conservative American pundit, came to Ottawa to give a speech at the University of Ottawa a few day ago. Protest ensued. The speech was cancelled. Coulter leapt on the opportunity to bash Canada, the U of Ottawa, and the poor Provost from the University who sent her a letter explaining that certain types of speech in Canada can lead to criminal charges (I’ve included the letter in full below).

The kafuffle has created a veritable potpourri of punditry here. What’s not available to talk about—Canada vs. the U.S., left vs. right, freedom of expression vs. hate crime legislation, the role of the University. Everyone is chiming in, and the mean-spirited wit of Coulter has the True North Strong and Free in her sites.

In all the noise, I’ve been wondering what’s really at stake here. What’s at the heart of the matter? Does Coulter’s politics threaten Canada in some way? Her political positions—government is evil, love your country and its Christian heritage, go after your enemies, the State isn’t your mommy—are not new here, though certainly they are not prevalent. Her ideas are, in fact, completely secondary to why she garners such attention. Coulter is not a media phenomenon because of the originality of her thinking but because of the biting style in which her thinking is delivered. Could the mere style of her discourse, rather than her ideas, threaten well-meaning Canada?

Coulter’s rhetoric is mean-spirited and personal. She has honed the art of the humorous dig that has one laugh and say ouch at the same time. For Coulter, vulnerability is opportunity. Her deepest joy is pushing buttons. The living and the dead are equal targets. Witness a recent remark, “The fact that a Republican is in the late Senator Kennedy's old seat probably must have him rolling in his grave, probably spilling his drink.” Coulter not only doesn’t seek to rein in her mean-spiritedness, it is a central aspect of her brand. Of the Provost who sent here the letter, she says he “didn’t even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night,” and that his name, Francis A. Houle, is “French for Frank A. Hole.” The put-down with a nasty bite is her stock in trade.

So what? Why should we care about the language of an American pundit? On one level, we shouldn’t; let her take her travelling road show around the country and then return to the States. On another level, to the extent one believes civil discourse is a key ingredient of a democracy, perhaps her rhetoric isn’t so innocuous after all. One need only look to the January State of the Union address, when a Congressman shouted out that the President was a liar, to know that Americans are fast losing the ability to talk reasonably to one another about issues that matter.

This decline in civic conversation has been going on for some time, though I would claim it first appeared as a significant media phenomenon during the seventies when 60 Minutes introduced its Point/Counterpoint segment, a three minute sound-bite that sought to agitate viewers emotions with ideological positions that refused to be reconciled. Those brief harangues were famously spoofed on Saturday Night Live; unfortunately, those comedy sketches look all too prescient: how much distance is there between that famous line from Saturday Night Live, “Jane, you ignorant slut,” and Coulter’s “Frank A. Hole”?

The health care debate in Washington is only the most recent example. From shouts of “baby killer” to “nigger” to calling the President a “fascist,” the exchange around the issue of healthcare left little to admire. And now the chickens have come home to roost: Americans, following the examples of their elected officials, are calling in death threats to those politicians who took a stance they didn’t like. Coulter threatens democracy because her way of engaging with ideas and people feeds a virulence that prioritizes intransigent opinion over informed dialogue. And though she might, all tongue in cheek, demurely say, “why, you mean little ole me? threaten democracy?,” she is, I think, a seed carrier of this type of discourse and those seeds gets dispersed on the winds of the media.

Coulter, of course, brushes off the charges that she is mean-spirited or promotes hate by claiming she’s merely a satirist. She no more wants to kill all the Muslims than the 18th century satirist, Jonathon Swift, in his “A Modest Proposal,” wanted to sell babies so the rich could use them as food. She might like to imagine herself as a political humourist, in the American tradition of Mark Twain or Will Rodgers, and she’s simply updated the tradition for the 21st century. The problem with such self-dismissal is that context is king, and Coulter appears on the news circuits as a commentator, not in stand-up clubs and not on the Comedy Channel. Her base, the audience she most speaks to, is tuned—in both their politics and their faith—more towards the literal, unfortunately, than the satirical. Words, after all, shape thinking, and thinking shapes actions.

At the end of the recent Olympics, Brian Williams, the host of the Games for NBC, wrote a “thank you note to Canada” in which he thanked the country “for reminding some of us we used to be a more civil society.” The belief in Canada is that it always lags five years behind the States in most everything. If so, the country doesn’t have long to strategize how to keep this crass discourse of American political life from crossing into Canada as easily as an unregistered handgun. However, I prefer to believe that, in the matter of civility, Canada is far ahead of the U.S., perhaps a good twenty years ahead, as the country was, for example, with fully integrating Gays into the military. Canada’s profound need to insure it is “not the United States” is likely its strongest protection against the further encroachment from the sad political exchanges in the U.S. Perhaps as Americans continue to become more unable to talk effectively across their differences, Canada will continue to strengthen its civil discourse, and perhaps, one day, find a way to export that vital asset to its southern neighbour.

(an article providing a relatively brief overview as to how the U.S. electorate became so unable to talk with one another can be found here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/godfrey-hodgson/great-american-refusal)

Below is the Letter from the Provost at the University of Ottawa:

Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa

Canadian (?) News

Some days I listen to the news in Canada and wonder if I’ve really tuned the radio to a Canadian station. Maybe I’m actually getting a feed from the U.S. For example, yesterday morning the lead story in Canada was about Obama appearing on Fox news to talk about health care. The 2nd story was about the tensions between the Obama administration and Israel. Finally a Canadian story appeared—the Prime Minister has promised to focus the G8 meeting in Canada on the health of women and children in the third world, yet without any money going to family planning. With that last news item, we know it can’t be a U.S. feed because U.S. news is generally about the U.S. 24/7—all U.S. all the time! So it IS Canadian news but…it’s mostly about the States.

Why’s that? Here we have the Prime Minister of Canada taking his strategy to woo women voters by instituting some policies supporting third world women and children, and then dashing his strategy on the rocks of his conservative ideology. It may not bleed, but it ought to lead, certainly over Obama appearing on Fox news.

And yet, Obama leads. Could it be because the quality of healthcare in the United States matters to Canadians? Only to the extent that it allows Canadians to differentiate themselves and feel a wee bit smug about having a system they consider more humane. Are we captivated by the wars between the right wing Fox channel and the centrist administration ? I think not. Is the Prime Minister’s third world initiative irrelevant? No.

The truth of the matter is simply that Stephen Harper cannot compete with Barack Obama any more than I can compete with Brad Pitt. Harper, even in his more compelling moments, is slightly more colorful than curd cheese. And Canada is so infatuated with Obama that even the biggest sports story yesterday focused on him. Yes, it’s hard to believe in the land of hockey-is-OUR-game, but the big sports story yesterday was Obama’s picks for the Final Four! I nearly gagged on my cereal when I heard it. Most Canadians think March Madness refers either to a series of snow storms, or a bit of unseasonably warm weather. U.S. college basketball as the main sports news in Canada! They even played the sound bite of Obama talking about his picks and being able to watch the games on Air Force One. The sportscaster sounded thoroughly enamored with the Prez.

Clearly, this counts as another “get a life, Canada” moment. Fortunately, by the end of the day, the lead story was Harper’s third world initiative. He’d pulled back from completely ruling out a focus on family planning. Harper, however briefly, had seen the light; sometimes Canada’s attraction to practical solutions and not ideology can carry the day.

Final Thoughts on the Olympics

As much as I may hold the Olympic movement in contempt and the International Olympic Committee in low regard, what the athletes bring to the Games has always been, and will continue to be, moving and memorable. The Games are—when we get our national ego’s out of the way--for them, first and foremost. May they each cherish their experience in Vancouver.

Canada, the political entity, desperate to do well, did well. And Canadians, who largely did not care about winning—only 8% of Canadians, according to an Angus Reid poll, considered first place their criteria for success--enjoyed all the Gold nonetheless. Vancouver can now return to being one of the world’s loveliest cities.

Here then, in no particular order, are some closing thoughts:

--Did Gretzky have to be the torch lighter? Wasn’t that a bit too predictable? It was a choice made by central casting.
--I’m not sure which is sadder: that the opening speech by the head of Vancouver Olympic Committee contained no French, or that people reacted with a “stop your whining” attitude when it was pointed out.
--Am I wrong or did NBC never, NEVER, interview athletes from countries other the U.S.? Canada seems more ready to let Canadians know and appreciate athletes from elsewhere.
--Back in 88, when I was 100% American, I remember watching the Battle of the Brians, and thought the Canadian chap deserved the Gold. In fact, if the current criteria were applied to that skate, Brian Orser would’ve beaten Boitano. It was good to see Orser finally earn one as a coach.
--Can somebody please point out to Canada’s most public idiot, Don Cherry, how beautiful a game hockey can be when goons don’t play and fighting isn’t included?
--To the Canadian athletes who didn’t “live up to expectations” and feel they let down their country, you didn’t. Canadians never bought in to the trip laid on you by the COC. Thank you for trying your best.
--To the Canadian woman athlete—I wish I could remember her name—who won Gold and didn’t feel that good about it because she knew she could have done better, you embody what it’s all about. And to the many unnamed athletes who turned in a personal best and weren’t on the podium, so do you.

Finally, let’s take a couple of weeks to decompress, to put sport into proper perspective, and begin to turn our attention to the work that matters. Canada has had a unique injection of patriotism. Wouldn’t it be grand if it could find more legal injection sites for patriotism through taking the lead on climate change perhaps, or building more social housing or caring for its elderly? They may not be games, but I’d cheer for any one of them.

Have a nice day...Canada-U.S. Hockey

Have A Nice Day
I’m staying at an upscale hotel in Manhattan. I’ve been getting a lot of “you have a great day, sir.” I don’t consider myself a “sir,” that’s a title reserved for the Paul MaCartneys and Sean Connery’s of the British Isles, and the weather has offered little more than a cold, grey rain. Still, what strikes me in this endless delivery of have a nice day and its variations—“you have yourself a great day sir, ” “make it a good one,” “have a terrific morning, sir”—is the earnestness behind them. The tone of voice is without a hint of irony or sarcasm, the look in the eye is direct and honest. Now I know it’s possible that everyone could simply be well-trained employees of the service industry and they’re all, in fact, worthy Oscar winners for conveying the belief that they really, REALLY want you to have a nice day, when they’re actually thinking “slip on the curb and get hit by a taxi, you f..in tourist,” but I don’t think that’s the case.

No, I think there’s something quintessentially American in this offering of wishes for your day. I don’t hear such earnestness in the Canadian service industry. A day is a day, and though we don’t at all wish each other ill, we don’t go out of the way to send out wishes that you exceed your daily allotted quotient of happiness and success either. Is it possible that the Americans, on the other hand, genuinely see each day as part of pursuing the dream of success? If you're staying with us in Manhattan, you’re obviously successful or you’re going to be successful or you’re planning to be successful, and in America, where everybody thinks you make your own success, of course we want you to have a remarkable day because, as Reagan liked to think, a rising tide lifts all boats, and if your ship comes in, our boat will benefit, my boat will benefit. Have a truly fantastic day, Sir, kick butt, bring home the bacon, hit it out of the park.


Canada-U.S Hockey
I drive down to the States the day Canada is going to play the U.S in hockey. I’m thinking how interesting it will be to watch the game on U.S. tv. I turn on NBC, who owns the right to broadcast the games and…NO game. It’s not on! The single biggest event of the Olympics so far, say Canadians, doesn’t matter to the Americans. Apparently, I learn later, there are other events that draw in more of the female demographic, and NBC would rather showcase them. Poor Canada, most of America doesn’t give a rat’s ass for hockey and yet their national team is every bit as good as Canada’s.

Since the plight of their hockey team doesn’t really matter to Americans, why don’t we make a side deal (like figure-skating judges used to do as standard practice) where they agree to throw any hockey game against us. In exchange, we’ll cut them some slack when it comes to the curling competition. We can’t throw it utterly, because Canadians ACTUALLY CARE about curling, but we can spot them a few points. Is that what they’re called in curling? Points? Or do we spot them rocks? Or brooms? Here’s a few brooms America, we emptied out our closet just for you; now, can you PLEEZ let us win the hockey gold?

And if that doesn’t work, we can always ask the Prime Minister, a serious hockey fan, to call up Obama: “Hey Barack, if we commit to a couple of more years in Afghanistan....”

The Drought Is Over!!!

What drought? You know, the one where Canada was the only country not to have won gold at its own games. Hadn’t you noticed the parched tongue of the nation? Hadn't you felt, these many years, the endless Canadian thirst that began at the Montreal Olympics and that was finally quenched when Alexandre Bilodeau won gold in Vancouver at the men’s Moguls. What? You haven’t! Shame on you.

I haven’t felt it either, but this kind of hyperbole is everywhere in the press. Canada seems to have invented a syndrome for itself, call it a flu—O3G0 (three Olympics with zero Golds)—and now it’s been cured. I don’t know anyone who actually felt the thirst or had the flu, but if you declare it loud and long enough, everyone starts thinking it must be real.

Canada is only too ready to believe reasons why it’s not worthy(see blog post of Feb. 13, 09). This "drought" was as good a reason as any to haul out so the nation could flog itself once again, but with the added bonus of having the potential to create more viewers: watch, as our national shame will be lifted right before your viewing eyes! Hallelujah…we once were lost, but now we’re found.

Canada Post, not to miss out on the occasion, is going to issue a stamp to commemorate the lifting of the burden. For the first time in its history, Canada Post is commemorating something on the day it occurred. That’s right, for the very first time in its history. Wow, that must have been one huge scarlet letter, one immense weight on the bent back of the nation. Never mind how Canada has treated its aboriginals, or the internment of the Japanese, we never earned gold at our own Olympics! Oh the shame, the despair.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to appreciate sport for what it is, to simply admire Alexandre Bilodeau’s excellence, and leave it at that?

Canadians and the Tragedy in Haiti

Haiti has been a news story up here almost like no other. I suspect—though I have no research to support this—that it has received more coverage in Canada than the hurricane that devastated New Orleans, even more than the tsunami that swept away untold numbers in Southeast Asia.

The outpouring of concern, love, resources astounds me. The amount we have donated as citizens and as a government is extraordinary. We seem to have found an identity we have lost of late: global helpers, peacekeepers, good guys. There’s been some effort here, in the years we’ve been engaged in Afghanistan, to change Canadians self-image of their military from a bunch of blue helmeted U.N. supporters to a well-equipped and capable fighting force, but I sense it hasn’t fully taken hold. Canadians would much rather see their military as unequivocal do-gooders than mired in the morally confusing dust of Khandhar. The relief effort in Haiti allows Canadians to reclaim some of their good-guy mojo.

The attraction to supporting Haiti is natural for Canada. It is another French speaking land in the Americas. Canada, and particularly Quebec, has a large Haitian community. And perhaps, most importantly, at this particular moment in time, our head of state, Governor General Michaëlle-Jean, is Haitian. She has been an eloquent and emotional voice for the suffering of Haiti, unafraid to convey her deep empathy, as in this video of her singing a song of hope her mother taught her in Haiti: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/jeans-song-of-hope/%20article%201443391/.

One may have strong disagreements with her willingness to support Stephen Harper’s two requests to pro-rogue Parliament, but how can one not love her spirit? It is hard to imagine any U.S. President—or, for that matter, any other Governor General—willing to be so open-hearted and vulnerable with their feelings for the suffering of others. Bravo, Michaëlle-Jean.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Shhh, let’s all just pretend, can’t we, that we’re happy heteros in this barracks. Yes Sir, Sir! At ease, gentlemen.

That’s been the official policy in the U.S. Military towards gays since the days of Bill Clinton who, of course, had his own personal Don’t Tell policy. (There was a happy hetero!) But now, finally, eighteen years after Canada made homosexuality legal in its military, the U.S. is moving in that direction.

In Canada, gays and bisexuals can serve openly because, in 1992, a court declared that a ban violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Eight years later, a study from the University of California’s Palm Center did a study on the Canadian military to see the effects of that decision. Did the military fall apart? Was gay-bashing rampant? Hardly. The study was favourable, and had this as one of its key findings: Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.

There was, in other words, no negative fall out from coming out. In battle, we’re all a band of brothers. This is not to imply Canada is fully enlightened. We’re not all flag-wavers for ending sexual discrimination, but let's gloat a wee bit, shall we, for being ahead of the States. Now, if only we can make a dent in that last bastion of don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t even think about it: The National Hockey League.

Obama's State of the Union and the End of Move-Oppose

When a President uses The State of The Union to take the Supreme Court to task for a recent decision, you know not all’s right in the land below the 49th. When a President use The State of The Union to take his own party to task for having a majority and yet heading for the hills, you know not all’s right. And finally, when the President takes the other party to task because saying “no” is not leadership, well, while that’s politics as usual, it also reveals that not all is right in the U.S. of A.

The real message of Obama’s speech was the simple, unspoken and disturbing undiscussable that the structures of the American political system are no longer adequate to address 21st century problems. Poisonous partisanship has broken the back of the government’s spine that runs from the White House to the Senate and Congress. And guess what? It is the same in Canada. Pro-rogued, with opposition leaders giving speeches and teach-ins, with the Prime Minister seeking to look Prime Ministerial about Haiti and waiting for the bright lights of the Olympics, the Canadian government is not governing. It holds no pretense about tackling problems other than one’s political misfortunes. It is in absentia. Going, going, gone.

Is it possible that the long run of representative democracy that replaced the demise of monarchies needs to end because it cannot evolve sufficiently? (Bit of an ambitious question for a blog, eh?) Let me throw out a simple notion from my own work. For the past ten years at least, new ways of talking with one another are being explored in organizations, even the corporate kind. Democracies are stuck with the dysfunctional dance between the party in power and the opposition. Organizations, however, are free to avoid that structure, and governments could learn from it.

Being trapped in debate doesn’t move the agenda forward and, if it does, it leaves a wake of losers who will seek to win in the next debate. Winning, rather than arriving at the optimal solution, becomes an end in itself. Organizations, looking to avoid that fate, have been experimenting with dialogue, “Open Space”, circle conversations. One method of conversation, with its origins in family systems therapy, states that the structure of “Move-Oppose” creates dysfunction unless other roles modulate that dynamic.

Government, unfortunately, is little more than a space for playing the game of move-oppose. Some love the game, they play it for the sake of playing it, and they’re called politicians. The best ones simply win the game more than they lose. Now and then when compromise raises its nervous head and has the crown placed upon it, we see that as proof that move-oppose can work. It has been enough to delude us into honouring representative democracy as the pinnacle in the evolution of political systems. There’s nowhere better to go. Yikes! Hold on for a bumpy ride.

Is there a way out? Not yet. We’re as locked in to move-oppose in governments as we’re locked in to the QWERTY keyboard I’m typing on. (How locked in are we to that? Apple released its I-Pad yesterday, and you still have to write your email on the QWERTY keyboard that was created in 1873). The Move-Oppose system sustains itself, the architecture prevents us from questioning it (look at how they sit in the Parliament), the culture of competition reifies it. Alternative ways of engaging tough problems do exist; you can even be trained in them. But that doesn’t mean there’s a way to shift the system from within. I will let go of the political system healing itself. It will not happen, not in my lifetime.

What might happen in my lifetime is the rise of the web as a means for a new kind of democracy to appear. It is in its early stages right now. What form it will take, I can’t say. What particular dysfunctions will appear in web-based democracy, and they will appear, I won’t conjecture. As the State proves inadequate, humanity will follow the path of least resistance to solving its innumerable challenges. And that path, Dear Reader, leads directly to the medium which has you reading this.

God and Guns

Sometimes news items come out slightly below the radar that are simply too delicious to pass up...

And speaking of radar, the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan have learned that their gunsights, supplied by the U.S. company Trijicon, are inscribed with biblical references. That’s right, just as you’ve got a nasty Taliban in your sights, you can take comfort in the raised marking on your gunsight referring to the Book of John, Chapter 8, verse 12 (then spake Jesus again unto them, saying I am the light…) then BLAM! Shoot that infidel! Onward, Christian Soldiers. Amen. Thank you, JN8:12.

On its website, Trijicon lists it’s values. Standard ones, such as teamwork and honesty, appear and then its last one comes up, morality. It says: We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals. Obviously Trijicon is referring to that old biblical standard called an eye for an eye, because we know they’re not talking about turning the other cheek.

As to Canada, well, we’re ranked 13 in Arms Exports, so we do have an industry. When I look at an alphabetized list of the world’s arms manufacturers, the first Canadian company to appear is called Armament Technology. I go to their website and—I kid you not—they specialize in “professional-grade weapon sighting systems” just like Trijicon. Armament Technology does not have morality for a value. In fact, it has no values and no history, no pictures of people, nothing about Canada being great when…The website is, how should I put it, Spartan.

But suppose Armament Technology wanted to brand its Canadian values on is gunsights, what might it put on them? A reference to the Queen Canadians swear an oath to—QE2Apr21,26? A reference to the date of confederation perhaps—CaJly1,67. Wait, of course, I’ve got it—CaSu72G7:4-3. Now there’s a religious code only Canadians could decipher!

A Republican Sits On The Kennedy Throne

What just happened in my home and native land, the Republic of Massachusetts? The Kennedy Throne handed over to a Republican! Travesty! Say it ain’t so, Joe. However, given that the Bay State is usually out of sync with the rest of the country—offering up candidates like Dukakis and Kerry, for example, when the country wanted to nurse on the breast of Republican rhetoric—maybe Massachusetts voting for a Republican is a sign the country is turning Democratic! Then again, maybe not.

So why’d it happen? Four possible reasons I like. Take your pick:

Take 1—Coronations Don’t Cut It
Coakley got dumped the same reason Hillary lost the primaries to Obama (and it’s not about gender). Hillary thought she was entitled; a Clinton, she expected to breeze into the nomination like fresh air through the window. Coakley suffered from the same assumption. Why campaign? This is Massachusetts, I’m a Democrat, this is Ted Kennedy’s seat; I await my coronation. Ah, Americans, we never have been one for coronations. We are distinctly anti-coronation. Act entitled, and you’ll be taken down. (Now Canadians aren’t like that, are we? Coronations are cool. Wasn’t the current leader of the Liberals, the Honourable Michael Ignatieff, crowned. Of course he was. Fine with us. All hail Michael.)

Take 2—Fast Fix our pain, says the Fast Food Nation
Geez, give the poor guy a break; he inherited the biggest mess of any President taking the oath of office. The mess had been years in the making, and it wasn’t even one mess. It was like trying to walk through the leash-free doggie park: multiple messes. Unfortunately, they aren’t the kind of messes that can be cleaned up with a pooper-scooper. Right? Right. We know that. But in Fast Food Nation, we want it fixed yesterday. The vote is a kind of national holler: hey, things still suck out here, you’re taking too goddamn long, I need a paycheck; if you can’t do it, let’s give somebody else a shot.

I pray this one isn’t it. And if it is, I pray Obama learns how to convince Americans to pin the tail on the donkey he inherited the mess(es) from.

Take 3—We’re scared and you’re not holding our hand
Being scared was a national theme in the States during the ‘00s. No reason for it not to continue. Though Obama may not seem to be moving fast enough or thoroughly enough for those on the left, to others he’s a damn tornado, stirring up winds of change faster than they can dodge the debris. Healthcare, healthcare, the economy, healthcare, Aghanistan, healthcare, the environment, the economy, healthcare, healthcare. Let’s see, thats 20% on the economy, 60% on healthcare, and 20% on other stuff. (God I love statistics!) The real fear is—I don’t know how else to put this—I’m out of work and terrorists are out to get me. Americans are at war and people are out of work. In the past, war was a full-employment strategy. Not anymore. Not this time. Something’s different.

Take 4—What goes around comes around
Well, the Massachusetts legislature has to eat a bit of crow on this one. They worked too hard to insure the positions of Democrats and it all backfired. As a perpetual democratic majority, the Massachusetts legislature changed the rules for succession when Kerry was running for Prez. At the time, the Governor was republican Mitt Romney who, by law, could appoint a Senator to fill an unexpected opening—like Kerry going to the White House. Not wanting Romney to appoint a Republican, they passed a law requiring an election in 60 days. Of course, Kerry lost; the bill was unnecessary. If they hadn’t made the change, Governor Deval Patrick would have appointed a Democrat.

Several years later, Ted Kennedy dies and suddenly the legislature doesn’t want that election because if a Republican wins, there’s goes Teddy’s dream of universal healthcare. They pass a law pushing out the election by six months to allow Obama's healthcare to pass, which gives enough time for Coakley to run an inept campaign and for the voters to get to know Brown. The rest is history. Mess with the system, the system messes back.

The Winter Olympics

In thirty days, the Vancouver Winter Olympics begin. It seems there’s a familiar pattern happening—the financial promise that has cities beg to be awarded the games turns into a distant memory as the games approach. Will tourist dollars pour in so Vancouver can recoup its investment? Will local tax payers be paying for the games long after they’re over? And if that’s the case, might the Federal Government contribute? Ah the glory of sport…and then the bills roll in.

In all the hoopla over the task of staging the Games (and this is the Winter Games mind you, a fraction the size of the Summer undertaking), there’s not much talk over what the Games mean. And in the Department of Meaning, I fear Canada has fallen into the same mindset as the United States. The meaning of the games is contained in victory. In providing the largest showcase for winning on the planet, the Olympic movement has somehow seduced countries into believing their medal haul validates their worth as a nation.

Canada, however, seems to have become seduced only recently. Ever since I first watched an Olympics through the perspective of Canada (the ’92 Winter Games in Albertville, France), I thought Canada had a different take on the Games than the States. Its athletes--gracious in defeat, delighted with a personal best, not arrogant in victory—seemed to embody what I understand to be the ideals of the founder of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, as expressed in what some call the Olympic Creed:

The most important thing in the Olympics is not to win but to take part,
just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle.
The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Raised on a virulent strain of Lombardism,* I was shocked to see Canadian athletes unashamedly happy with a personal best that left them too far to see the podium or hear the anthems. Americans, on the other hand, would win bronze and bemoan their fate. (I hear voices claiming, “Well, that’s how it’s should be. Are you going to the Games just to lose? Set the bar high, or don’t show up.” Unfortunately, contained in that single-mindedness of purpose is an inability to acknowledge limitation, accept defeat or admire the capabilities of others, behaviors that seem to spill over into other areas of American life.) In the Games, America has always sought to deliver a general butt-whupping to the rest of the world and make good on its most fervent creed: We’re Number One.

That infection seems to have finally spread north. Canadian athletes aren’t quite on the bandwagon yet, but the Canadian Olympic Committee is all in. At the last Summer Olympics, Team Canada had no marathoners. Two had qualified but didn’t go. Why? Because they weren’t considered podium material. That’s right. It’s not enough to qualify by achieving the Olympic standard, you’ve got to meet the Canadian standard. Participation, it’s a bunch of hooey. The Canadian Olympic Committee started a movement called Own the Podium, focusing on athletes who had a shot at winning, dumping those that didn’t. The Committee announced that they would give cash to athletes who won a medal. Canada, like our southern neighbour, can now only be as worthy as its medal haul is large.

I am proud to say Canada’s athletes are less on board. Recently, Kurt Browning, one of Canada’s great figure skaters, said this about medal-hopeful Joannie Rochette, Canada’s current women’s figure skating champ: whether she gets a medal at the Olympics doesn’t really matter anymore because skating has made her into such a confident woman. And Kristina Groves, who has qualified for 5 events in long track speed-skating, said this: My expectations [for the Olympics] are virtually non-existent. I find expectations a negative approach to skating. I just go out to skate my best. Thank you, Kurt and Kristina. We’ll leave it to the athletes to remind us what sport is for and what the Olympics are meant to be about.

*Lombardism (origin: Am. football coach, Vince Lombardi)--the belief that winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Pro Rogue #2 and Cottage Life

Never mind the current Parliamentary vacation, even when Parliament IS in session I haven’t heard much about it working overtime. On the other hand, every now and then the U.S. Congress backs itself into a corner where they have to work all night to hammer out an agreement or to approve the federal budget, and if they don't, the President says something like “hell no, those boys aren’t going on summer break til they get ’er done.” (Does that sound like an odd mix of Lyndon Johnson and Sarah Palin?) Now that’s not something you’d hear a Canadian Prime Minister say. No sir, the Parliamentarians summer break would never be messed with. Ever.


That's because time at the cottage is sacred in Canada (second only to early evening ice time). Canadians even give their Prime Minister a cottage, a lovely setting on Harrington Lake not far from where I live. It’s a sort of “national cottage” that the nation loans to whomever happens to be Prime Minister. Whereas a new U.S. President is introduced to the button that controls the nuclear arsenal, a new Prime Minster of Canada is introduced to the national cottage, the national canoe and, of course, the national paddle (wouldn’t want the Prime Minister “up shit’s creek without a paddle” as they say, an expression I’m assuming has to be Canadian in origin). I’m also quite sure the Prime Minister is introduced to the National Donut, a French Cruller originally ordered by Laurier in 1898 and now preserved in a secret room at the National Archives(“and this, Mr. Prime Minister, is the French Cruller, lightly glazed and still bearing the teeth marks of Sir Wilfred”). Ah, but I digress.

I don’t know if the huge emphasis given to cottage life means that the States has more of a work ethic than Canada. The U.S. Congress might spend more time in session but the real question is do they get more work done, because we all know that time spent and work accomplished don’t necessarily correlate. Just ask any union member (ouch! okay, okay, I admit it’s a cheap shot). So how many bills went through the U.S Congress last year? In its 159 legislative days the U.S. 111th Congress passed 125 public laws; in the 130 legislative days of Canada’s 40th Parliament, 2nd session (Jan 26-Dec 30, 2009), they passed 31 of 64 bills. That comes to .81 bills passed per day in the U.S. Congress compared to .23 bills passed per day in the Canadian Parliament. So there you have it. Case closed. Canada can’t compete, and why should we bother. So let’s just get a keg and head up to the cottage. I say let's pro-rogue the country; we could all use a break.

Pro Rogue

Whaddya know, we’re back where we began. A little more than a year ago, I began BBM because the Canadian Parliament had been prorogued by its Prime Minister when a coalition was readying to boot him out of office. Well, we’re prorogued again. Parliament is not reconvening until sometime in March. Ya-hoo, time for the boys on Parliament Hill to hit the ski slopes, down a couple of brews, kick back in their local ridings and hobknob with real citizens. Prorogation is an extremely technical, parliamentary procedure that means “the ability of the governing party to declare a vacation whenever it thinks its ass might be on the line.”

Why, you ask, is its ass on the line? Because it seems the government might have knowingly handed over Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities who were likely to torture them. And that qualifies as a war crime. The opposition pushed for an inquiry and asked for documents. The government released the documents but they were heavily redacted, an extremely technical, parliamentary term meaning “there’s no way I’m going to let you read this shit.” The government made matters worse by trying to smear the diligent and capable bureaucrat who reported on the matter. Yes, if it’s one thing the Harper government is consistent about is its hair-trigger readiness to shoot the messenger. Is it any wonder they’re against gun control? Yessiree, Harper is one rootin-tootin, fast shooting rogue. He’s become a real pro at it. Wait! Come to think of it, doesn’t that make him a pro rogue?

Christmas in Quebec

It has been more than 15 years now that I’ve been fortunate enough to celebrate Christmas in Quebec. I’m quite sure those celebrations aren’t like anywhere else in North America (though I wonder if some folklorist could identify similarities with traditions in the French cultures of Louisiana).

It begins Christmas eve with a small meal. The table is set with small plates of homemade lightly salted, roasted almonds. A wonderful, spicy chicken broth leads in to some foie gras served with lightly toasted, thin slices of baguette (shown here with those anglo triangles called sliced toast). My late mother-in-law, who was a superb French cook, would work for days preparing the foie gras, cleaning and cooking it, coating it in a delicious layer of gelatin. I had never had foie gras before my first Christmas with my in-laws, but I quickly understood why the French had been torturing those baby ducks for years and seem unlikely to give up the practice. The foie gras (meaning fattened liver) is always served with a deliciously cold French Sauterne, a sweet white wine that adds to the delight.

Following the foie gras, the main course, if it can be called that, is served. Small crescent-shaped pouches of ground pork are served; the pork is cooked with onion and spices and then placed individually on dough that will becomes the lovely, lightly-browned pouches. Technically they are patè a la viande, though they are more typically called tortière (though technically tortières, I have been told, require potato), and these pouches are petite tortière. The tortières are meant to be eaten with tomato aspic, something jello-like which I think of as the French contribution to advancing beyond mere ketchup. Of course, the main dish is served with wine from France. My late father-in-law, a serious afficianado of French wines, would serve as sommelier during the meal. Now that both in-laws are gone, their children will allow wines from Australia or South American to find their way to the table, a mildly heretical act if for no other reason that French wines have been losing ground as of late and need all the friends they can get. If Quebecers don’t remain loyal, who will?

Dessert is the tipping point, where one can choose to keep the dining experience an exercise in light eating or descend into gluttony. Truffles, mocha, croquignoles, white cake, pudding de noel (a molasses and spice cake that serves as an excuse to pour on a addictive sauce made of sherry, sugar and eggs) are all available. Croquignoles are essentially donut balls coated in icing sugar, though they do take different shapes. The truffles are balls of ultra-rich chocolate. The mocha are lovely yellow cake-squares lightly sprinkled, if you're lucky, with coconut. I generally make a quick decision to choose gluttony rather than waste agonizing minutes trying to convince myself to eat lightly. It is after all—I tell myself—only once a year. My goal has always been to focus on the mocha and the Pudding de Noel, trying to scarf as much as the sauce as others will let me get away with. Of course what would dessert be without a dessert wine? Hardly worth eating, I’d say. Yes, I’ll have another glass.

All of this precedes the short walk to the church for Midnight Mass. The kids have long ago been put to bed and I would then accompany my mother-in-law to the church. Though not of the faith, I have a soft spot for Christmas carols and singing them out into the lofty architecture of the cathedral is a treat, as well as a means to alleviate the possibility of falling asleep from too much wine.

We come back from Mass to quickly put all the presents under the trees. My in-laws had six children, each of whom has children, so that’s a lot of presents. We’d wake the sleeping children and bring them downstairs to open the presents. It wouldn’t take long before the sleepiness left them and they would become as wired as fireworks. Then we’d all sit down to a little snack, put the kids back to bed and nod off to sleep sometime towards 4 a.m.

We all wake sometime late in the morning in various states of consciousness, wonder aimlessly about the house, nibble on left-overs from the previous evening for lunch, knowing the big Christmas feast was still to come. Wine was still available for lunch and oftentimes my father-in-law would take out a plate of cheeses, mostly disgusting ones from my point of view. Then again, my reaction to these foul-smelling oozing gobs of pus called cheeses would result in someone reminding me that I grew up in the states on individually wrapped slices of Kraft crap, er, I mean cheese. My father-in-law would spend a wee bit of time each Christmas day suggesting I try a stinky cheese. It was a waste of breath. I’ve always thought that calling those cheeses a delicacy is like someone leaving used athletic socks in a locker for a year and then, upon pulling them out, declaring them Haute Couture. Stinky cheese is the one area in which the French took a wrong turn and, somehow or other, never saw the error of their ways.

The Christmas feast starts at six or so and—here I think it takes on the typical cuisine of any Christmas dinner—after the almonds and the broth, out would come the turkey and cranberry sauce and potatoes. More French wines, desserts, dessert wines, conversation until we were all talked-out, then amble off to sleep. The remaining day was for recovery primarily: wake to Boxing Day, move about the house as slowly as a snail, consider the snow on the slate rooftops and trees, open the door to feel the cold air, sit down in some comfy chair with a book, have some tea, get dressed to go outside and walk to the local park so the kids can sled, push the sled, watch them fall off, get on the sled, feel the cold air on my face, gather the kids to walk back home, have a modest meal, decline the wine (thank god), appreciate all that you have, watch your kids run around the dining room table as the grandmother chases them (where does she get her energy), read more of the book, crawl off to sleep knowing it will all happen again next Christmas