This speech, delivered by Michael Ignatieff on the Friday of the convention, really sums up the whole affair. We loved it. I loved it. I felt like I could cry. My job during the speech was to sit at the front--near the stage--and, with a radio in my ear, direct the crowd on when to clap and when to stop (it's a big deal to not clap too much when the candidate only has 23 minutes and looks bad when the go over).
I was terrible at my job, becuase I was too enthralled with the speech. But here's the facinating part. When Michael hit the big points, the barn burners, the things that people really can't disagree with--the environment, helping the poor, education--we exploded in applause.
And when we looked around, we were the only ones.
No one else in the hall was clapping. Few in our camp noticed, as there were over a thousand of us. But it was there, like a blanket of quiet repudiation.
As signs go, that's not a good one.
As for the speech? It's one of the best I've heard, and quicly and concisely sums up what I loved about my candidate. Let's just hope the Party ends up espousing something close.
Oh, and I completely turned "tous ensemble!" into a cheer.
THE SPEECH
**********************************************************************
Merci beaucoup, mes amis.
My friends, tonight's the night the Liberal Party begins again.
To embrace a new agenda.
An agenda of hope.
An agenda for all Canadians.
Un agenda d'espoir pour tous les Canadiens et les Canadiennes
We have come to this place to make an historic decision. Together. After tomorrow, we will leave this place together.
Renewed. United.
Nous repartirons de Montréal, unis et inspirés d'un seul message pour les Canadiens et Canadiennes d'un océan à l'autre.
We will be united coast to coast to coast with one message for all Canadians.
With this team, the future of the Liberal Party has never been brighter.
To every volunteer in every single campaign in this room tonight: thank you. You have worked so hard over many months. Vous avez travaillé si fort au cours des derniers mois.
Together, we are building a better Liberal Party.
A party that once again knows what it believes.
Nous sommes debout.
Coude à coude.
Pour défendre nos idées et nos valeurs.
Notre parti est un grand parti.
A la prochaine élection, tous les Libéraux au pays, tous les électeurs, sauront ce que nous défendons. All Canadians will
know what Liberals stand for.
A Canada where hope is shared not squandered.
Where promises are kept not betrayed
A Canada that leads
That inspires
We are the party that built this country and we built it on four cornerstones
Social Justice.
Sustainable economy
Unity
International leadership.
Quatre pierres angulaires: justice sociale, économie durable, unité, leadership international.
Quand nous défendons ces valeurs fondamentales, nous gagnons à coup sûr.
When we stand on these foundations, we always win!
I say tonight what I have said throughout this campaign. We must be the party of hope.
Nous devons être le parti de l'espoir.
And hope begins with opportunity.
Opportunity for low income families.
For Aboriginal Canadians.
For immigrants.
Opportunity for our farmers.
La possibilité pour les femmes de vivre sans pauvreté et sans violence.
And if hope begins with opportunity, opportunity has to begin with education.
We must be the party that says to every young Canadian who wants to go to college or university: "you get the grades, you get to go."
An opportunities agenda means faith in our future.
Pour un avenir où l'air et l'eau sont pures.
C'est aujourd'hui que nous devons relever le défi de l'environnement.
Environmental sustainability must move to the heart of everything we do in government.
We must put a price on pollution and on carbon emissions!
And we will!
Les changements climatiques sont la. Il faut agir maintenant afin que nous puissions dire à nos enfants et nos petits enfant :nous avons agi à temps; nous avons fait ce qu'il fallait faire.
So we have met the challenge of climate change and can look our children and grandchildren in the eyes and say:
We did not fail you.
A party of hope
Un parti d'espoir.
Non seulement pour nous, mais pour le monde entier.
Its World AIDS Day today. We want a Canada that leads in the international fight against AIDS.
A Canada that promotes peace, democracy and human rights
A Canada that invests in women's literacy, primary health care and good government.
Look around this hall tonight!
Anglophones et francophones, tous ensemble!
Men and women of every faith and race: tous ensemble !
First Nations, Métis, Inuit peoples, tous ensemble!
Les gens de l'ouest et de l'est, les gens du nord et du sud, des villes et des villages: tous ensemble!
We're the party that holds our country together. Tous ensemble!
Nous avons construit le pays ensemble.
Nous le garderons unis. Tous ensemble !
My friends, national unity is the Liberal Party's most important work. Always has been. Always will be!
Mais nous pouvons en faire davantage.
Réduisons l'écart entre les grandes villes et les régions.
Let us embrace the surging might of Western Canada.
Let's win some seats in Alberta!
Redonnons de la confiance et de la fierté aux Québécois qui croient au Canada.
Gilles Duceppe et son parti n'offrent que des illusions et des déceptions.
Nous devons et nous pourrons les battre à la prochaine élection.
The Liberal vision is of one Canada held together by a spine of citizenship:
Equal rights, equal responsibilities and shared experience so that we truly feel we are one country.
An equality of citizenship rooted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Nous partageons les mêmes valeurs, les mêmes croyances, la même histoire.
Nous partageons le même avenir.
Un avenir ou tous seront égaux et tous auront les mêmes chances.
That's not what Stephen Harper believes.
Here's a politician of conviction who has all the wrong convictions.
Stephen Harper loves power, but hates government.
Canadians understand that good government helps to bring us together.
Stephen Harper thinks differently.
He has a mean-spirited vision.
He pits rich against poor.
Region against region.
Province against province.
Bit by bit, he is reshaping Canada.
Into a country that is less progressive,
Less fair
Less just
And less equal.
And you and I are going to stop him!
We Liberals have a different vision.
A Canada that is just, and compassionate.
And generous of spirit.
We Liberals love this country, but we long for it to be better than it is.
So:
When people ask: where's the best health care in the world? The answer will be Canada!
Where will aboriginals live as equals? Canada!
Who will lead the world in environmental sustainability? Canada!
Quel est l'endroit au monde ou la différence est la plus respectée. Canada !
Where will young people have the biggest dreams and fairest shot at life ? Canada!
We have long been a beacon to the world. But we can shine so much more brightly.
We have the resources. We have the know-how. We have the courage and compassion.
What we need is the leadership.
Ce leadership, seul le Parti liberal peut l'offrir.
Leadership that only the Liberal Party can offer.
Hope that only the Liberal Party can offer.
If we become the party of hope in the country of hope, no one can defeat us.
Si nous devenons le parti de l'espoir dans un pays d'espoir, personne ne pourra nous battre!
We are Liberals of a new generation in a new century.
Tonight, we have a choice to make
Let us choose unity over division,
Direction over drift,
Courage over fear, and compassion over indifference.
There is the Canada we live in today.
There is also the Canada of our dreams.
We Liberals are the party that will take us there.
Fellow Liberals, give me the chance to lead you.
A chance to inspire. A chance to serve.
I will make you proud. I will give you victory.
Tous ensemble.
Pour le Canada!
Pour notre Canada !
Merci!
Monday, December 11, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Meeting People (and Rick Mercer, who also counts as a person)
I met tones of people at this convention from all over the country. Some of them were famous, but most were not. Interestingly, I think it's the not-famous ones that I'll remember for some time to come. That said, here's the list of famous ones.
Spoke To:
Michael Ignatieff
Sen. Grant Mitchell
Jeffrey Simpson
Rick Mercer
Justin Trudeau
Was Spoken To By:
No one, really.
Was Spoken At By:
Bill Grahm
Was Very Close To At One Point:
Sen. Roméo Dallaire
Bob Rae
Stephane Dion
Pierre Pettigrew
John Manley
Lloyd Axeworthy
Saw From A Distance:
Paul Martin
Jean Chretien
Saw Eating Sunchips and Apparently Trying To Pick Up Girls From A Distance:
Global's Kevin Newman
You've read the Jeffrey Simpson story, and the Rick Mercer one is similar. I walked into a hotel bar between ballots and saw my friend (and former USC Presidential rival) Mike Liebrock sitting at the bar. I was pretty excited to see Mike, and started talking to him. It was only after I was engaged in conversation that I noticed he was hanging out with Rick Mercer. Now, I don't watch his shows, but I recognize that he's kind of A Big Deal. That said, I hadn't slept in three days and was already focused on talking to Mike, so I didn't really care.
I said "hi" and then turned back to Mike.
Oh well. We all ended up talking, and I'm still glad I got to talk to Mike. In fact, let's add him to the list.
Spoke To:
Michael Ignatieff
Sen. Grant Mitchell
Jeffrey Simpson
Rick Mercer
Mike Liebrock
Justin Trudeau
Note: Mike's above Justin Trudeau.
Spoke To:
Michael Ignatieff
Sen. Grant Mitchell
Jeffrey Simpson
Rick Mercer
Justin Trudeau
Was Spoken To By:
No one, really.
Was Spoken At By:
Bill Grahm
Was Very Close To At One Point:
Sen. Roméo Dallaire
Bob Rae
Stephane Dion
Pierre Pettigrew
John Manley
Lloyd Axeworthy
Saw From A Distance:
Paul Martin
Jean Chretien
Saw Eating Sunchips and Apparently Trying To Pick Up Girls From A Distance:
Global's Kevin Newman
You've read the Jeffrey Simpson story, and the Rick Mercer one is similar. I walked into a hotel bar between ballots and saw my friend (and former USC Presidential rival) Mike Liebrock sitting at the bar. I was pretty excited to see Mike, and started talking to him. It was only after I was engaged in conversation that I noticed he was hanging out with Rick Mercer. Now, I don't watch his shows, but I recognize that he's kind of A Big Deal. That said, I hadn't slept in three days and was already focused on talking to Mike, so I didn't really care.
I said "hi" and then turned back to Mike.
Oh well. We all ended up talking, and I'm still glad I got to talk to Mike. In fact, let's add him to the list.
Spoke To:
Michael Ignatieff
Sen. Grant Mitchell
Jeffrey Simpson
Rick Mercer
Mike Liebrock
Justin Trudeau
Note: Mike's above Justin Trudeau.
The Last 36 Hours
This was one of the best experiences of my life. Granted, it could have been a little better at the end, but I have no regrets and a tonne of people that I'm indebted to.
There's a lot to talk about and, as I'd prefer not to make posts that are ten pages long, I'll break them up. We'll do it a little backwards: I'll give you my initial thoughts, and then run through how everything worked starting with Friday morning. Kind of like an after action report. If you could care less about what it's like on the floor, don't worry about future posts.
I'm disappointed in the result. I believed--and continue to believe--in Ignatieff as a person and as an idea. His policies may live on in a future cabinet, but the idea of the man was clearly repudiated by the party on the convention floor. It's an interesting feeling. Look at it this way: of the 5400 delegates there, to say nothing of the thousands of volunteers, 3/5 backed Dion on the last ballot. 1/5 backed Michael from the beginning. Of the 8 leadership teams, 7 ended up backing the leader in the end.
We, those who worked for Michael all the way through, were really the only ones that couldn't claim victory in the end. That'll get anyone down. Of course, there's party unity and all that. But I joined the party to turn it into something I could believe in again.
That'll be tougher now.
Interesting point, though: while lobbying delegates NOT to vote for Dion, I would bring up the argument I first raised in this blog. Here it is again:
"The Conservatives have done a great job of "branding" the Liberal party as a corrupt, out-of-touch party whose goals amount to little more than staying in power or, now, getting back into it. And if that happened, say the Tories, it would only consist of "more of the same": patronage, old ideas, and not looking out for average people. Just look at their slogans: "Canada's New Government" and "Getting things done for all of us". All government press releases begin the same way: "Canada's New Government to VERB ----> ELECTION CANDY ---->NOUN".
Rest assured, the next election will not be about what the Tories have done; it will be about what their new government has done that the Old Government didn't do for average people. Worse still, the concept of the Liberal party has been turned into a general pejorative: people don't need to have reasons for not liking the Liberal party, they just don't. Liberal=Bad/Old. That's what the Tories have done. And that's what we are up against.
In order to even start, we cannot have a leader that can easily be painted with the traditional Liberal brush. They can't be an institutional politician. They can't be dismissed with a "more of the same" attack. Worse still, they must be radically different. The corrupt Liberal image has, in my opinion, become such a basic assumption that the best way to fight it is to do so radically."
We didn't quite do that and, sure enough... BEHOLD!
Let's just hope the strategy doesn't take off. There's hope, however: Dion's reaction to the whole strategy was quick and concise: "Like my father used to say when he was not impressed: 'Weak, mister, weak.' They have to find something a little better, I think." Perhaps there's hope.
It's nice to be able to breathe again, to sleep more than four hours, to sit periodically and to eat regularly. That said, I miss the constant energy, passion, and to-ing and fro-ing of the convention floor. Everything feels... slower, somehow. I'm sure that'll pass.
There's a lot to talk about and, as I'd prefer not to make posts that are ten pages long, I'll break them up. We'll do it a little backwards: I'll give you my initial thoughts, and then run through how everything worked starting with Friday morning. Kind of like an after action report. If you could care less about what it's like on the floor, don't worry about future posts.
I'm disappointed in the result. I believed--and continue to believe--in Ignatieff as a person and as an idea. His policies may live on in a future cabinet, but the idea of the man was clearly repudiated by the party on the convention floor. It's an interesting feeling. Look at it this way: of the 5400 delegates there, to say nothing of the thousands of volunteers, 3/5 backed Dion on the last ballot. 1/5 backed Michael from the beginning. Of the 8 leadership teams, 7 ended up backing the leader in the end.
We, those who worked for Michael all the way through, were really the only ones that couldn't claim victory in the end. That'll get anyone down. Of course, there's party unity and all that. But I joined the party to turn it into something I could believe in again.
That'll be tougher now.
Interesting point, though: while lobbying delegates NOT to vote for Dion, I would bring up the argument I first raised in this blog. Here it is again:
"The Conservatives have done a great job of "branding" the Liberal party as a corrupt, out-of-touch party whose goals amount to little more than staying in power or, now, getting back into it. And if that happened, say the Tories, it would only consist of "more of the same": patronage, old ideas, and not looking out for average people. Just look at their slogans: "Canada's New Government" and "Getting things done for all of us". All government press releases begin the same way: "Canada's New Government to VERB ----> ELECTION CANDY ---->NOUN".
Rest assured, the next election will not be about what the Tories have done; it will be about what their new government has done that the Old Government didn't do for average people. Worse still, the concept of the Liberal party has been turned into a general pejorative: people don't need to have reasons for not liking the Liberal party, they just don't. Liberal=Bad/Old. That's what the Tories have done. And that's what we are up against.
In order to even start, we cannot have a leader that can easily be painted with the traditional Liberal brush. They can't be an institutional politician. They can't be dismissed with a "more of the same" attack. Worse still, they must be radically different. The corrupt Liberal image has, in my opinion, become such a basic assumption that the best way to fight it is to do so radically."
We didn't quite do that and, sure enough... BEHOLD!
Let's just hope the strategy doesn't take off. There's hope, however: Dion's reaction to the whole strategy was quick and concise: "Like my father used to say when he was not impressed: 'Weak, mister, weak.' They have to find something a little better, I think." Perhaps there's hope.
It's nice to be able to breathe again, to sleep more than four hours, to sit periodically and to eat regularly. That said, I miss the constant energy, passion, and to-ing and fro-ing of the convention floor. Everything feels... slower, somehow. I'm sure that'll pass.
Lack of Updates
Sorry for the lack of updates, everyone. The last 48 hours really haven't afforded me any time to post, and anything that I did throw up would really just have been monosyllabic. Needless to say, things are sad. I was pretty upset last night, more in the "thousand yard stare" way than the "yelling at the clouds" way.
Erin and I are about to see Nick off to the train station, and then I'll make a more lengthy post tonight.
Erin and I are about to see Nick off to the train station, and then I'll make a more lengthy post tonight.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
The Short One
Must sleep. Tomorrow's the big day. I wasted all my spare energy in the Atlantic hospitality suite with three Dion delegates and Ashley MacIsaac. More later.
For a brief intro into tomorrow's hell, read this.
In the meantime, these two pictures are for Kendra:
For a brief intro into tomorrow's hell, read this.
In the meantime, these two pictures are for Kendra:
One Member, One Vote
There's a lage debate going on right now about abolishing leadership conventions and giving every member a party a vote on issues and leadership candidates. Both sides make good arguments, and there's a lot of yelling. Best part? I'm watching it on TV from the cafeteria where it's cool and there's a veritable Horn of Plenty of coffee.
There's not much point in being in there, as the line-up to speak for or against is longer than the MacDonald's breakfast line at 10:55 am. Still, the vote's coming up so I'd best get inside.
There's not much point in being in there, as the line-up to speak for or against is longer than the MacDonald's breakfast line at 10:55 am. Still, the vote's coming up so I'd best get inside.
Update
I just came from a morning of Ignatieff campaign meetings, followed by a "youth" ralley (apparently I look young enough), a lunch, and then the Biggest Damn Ralley you've ever seen. I'll upload some pictures later (although I suspect that you can watch the news tonight or check out the papers tomorrow).
Now, I'm taking a moment to do this and maybe sleep a little. It's going to be a long day yet.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
A Summary of Tonight
Hey all, it's late and I have an early meeting so I won't write a lengthy entry.
Tonight was the opening speeches, complete with one from Howard Dean. It was interesting, but not really worth waiting two hours to hear. I missed half of it because Kennedy and Dion had way more kids with signs in the room than we did, which is the convention equivalent of... I dunno. Poor planning. Anyway, I ended up in hallway waiting for some guy to show up that could unlock the room with more signs in it. He eventually showed up, and there were no signs in the room. Poor planning.
However, I ran into John McCallum in the hall and thanked him for calling our fundraising party. Oh, and Bill Grahm liked my 80 gallon-cowboy hat.
There's quite a bit of media in the hall, and it's kind of cool to see their booths looking over the floor. I'll try to take some pictures of it later to post here. That, or you could just watch it on TV. I ran into my buddy Aaron Wherry who's now writing for Macleans. I hadn't seen him since I was running for President, so that was pretty sweet.
Turns out that another old Gazette guy--Tait Simpson--is working for the Liberal party at the convention. I was trying to track him down, and ran across his dad, noted political author and Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson. I stopped him in the hall and he turned around with a look that screamed "Oh god, another person about to ask me about my opinions on the convention." I don't think he took well to my stopping him and saying "Excuse me, aren't you Tait Simpson's dad?" and asking if he knew where Tait was.
Most of the night was spent at hospitality suites (the good one's, with booze. Not the online kind) trying to convince other delegates to vote for Michael. It was... Interesting.
There was one Kennedy delegate, though, that had attended Western as an undergrad and who's only memory of Western's student council was Operation Massive.
And that was before he knew who I was.
Tonight was the opening speeches, complete with one from Howard Dean. It was interesting, but not really worth waiting two hours to hear. I missed half of it because Kennedy and Dion had way more kids with signs in the room than we did, which is the convention equivalent of... I dunno. Poor planning. Anyway, I ended up in hallway waiting for some guy to show up that could unlock the room with more signs in it. He eventually showed up, and there were no signs in the room. Poor planning.
However, I ran into John McCallum in the hall and thanked him for calling our fundraising party. Oh, and Bill Grahm liked my 80 gallon-cowboy hat.
There's quite a bit of media in the hall, and it's kind of cool to see their booths looking over the floor. I'll try to take some pictures of it later to post here. That, or you could just watch it on TV. I ran into my buddy Aaron Wherry who's now writing for Macleans. I hadn't seen him since I was running for President, so that was pretty sweet.
Turns out that another old Gazette guy--Tait Simpson--is working for the Liberal party at the convention. I was trying to track him down, and ran across his dad, noted political author and Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson. I stopped him in the hall and he turned around with a look that screamed "Oh god, another person about to ask me about my opinions on the convention." I don't think he took well to my stopping him and saying "Excuse me, aren't you Tait Simpson's dad?" and asking if he knew where Tait was.
Most of the night was spent at hospitality suites (the good one's, with booze. Not the online kind) trying to convince other delegates to vote for Michael. It was... Interesting.
There was one Kennedy delegate, though, that had attended Western as an undergrad and who's only memory of Western's student council was Operation Massive.
And that was before he knew who I was.
Ben's...
My buddy Brett from Edmonton insisted that the best Montreal smoked meat to be had could be found in a nice little deli called Ben's in downtown Montreal. I just happened to be walking past it today.
Now, an apt aside: when my friend Danna was in France a while back she told me how everything was closed because everyone was on strike (museums and whatnot). Everything. Me? I thought it was hilarious, in an "it's funny because I wasn't there" sort of way.
Ben's? On strike.
Now, an apt aside: when my friend Danna was in France a while back she told me how everything was closed because everyone was on strike (museums and whatnot). Everything. Me? I thought it was hilarious, in an "it's funny because I wasn't there" sort of way.
Ben's? On strike.
Gender Equity
I think I'm the only person sitting in this policy session that thinks that requiring 52% of Liberal candidates to be women is a bad thing. I mean, who are we to say that one cannot stand as a candidate just because one's a man? This isn't admission to an American university. This is choosing who represents us in an election.
There are clearly reasons why there are more men in politics--both elected and as candidates--and those ought to be studied and addressed. However, benchmarks and standards are not the answer.
I just don't know what is. Now, let's see if I get yelled out of the room.
Running Into People
I'll do a more detailed post later with my experiences in the policy sessions and how my meeting with the prospective PhD supervisor went.
For now, consider this:
I was talking down the street trying to find the convention centre, listen to The Killers on my iPod and just looking around at the architecture when I almost run into someone on the street.
It was Michael Ignatieff. Whoops. We talked for a few moments (he seemed to remember be from the few previous meetings we'd had) and then we went our seperate ways.
Later, I was sitting in a policy session on social issues. I eventually got bored and started to look around (periodically posing for the video cameras that are ubiquitous here, taping the events for a "best of" DVD and recording the votes) when who do I find sitting behind me?
Bob Rae.
I didn't see how he voted on the resolution to decrease the age of consent for anal sex, though.
For now, consider this:
I was talking down the street trying to find the convention centre, listen to The Killers on my iPod and just looking around at the architecture when I almost run into someone on the street.
It was Michael Ignatieff. Whoops. We talked for a few moments (he seemed to remember be from the few previous meetings we'd had) and then we went our seperate ways.
Later, I was sitting in a policy session on social issues. I eventually got bored and started to look around (periodically posing for the video cameras that are ubiquitous here, taping the events for a "best of" DVD and recording the votes) when who do I find sitting behind me?
Bob Rae.
I didn't see how he voted on the resolution to decrease the age of consent for anal sex, though.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
My First Day In Montreal
First off, I'm really sorry for the email that everyone's gotten. I hit the wrong button on my mac, and next thing I know it sends an email to eveyone that's ever sent me an email.
I really feel like an idiot. Whoops.
That kept me up most of the night and, as a result, I slept pretty well on the flight to Toronto. I had a two hour lay-over, which was extended by an hour because the flight to Montreal was delayed. That would have been annoying, except that Kendra (my finacee, for those that don't know me) was there to meet me, which made it all manner of fantastic.
When I arrived in Montreal I went straight to the convention centre via my small knowledge of the French language ("Parlez vous anglais?") and the good humor of taxi drivers. Upon arriving, I was told that the Liberal party was--as far as it was concerned--missing $400 of my delegate fee.
Right. That's a problem.
Turns out that there's a "delay" in the Ignatieff team getting its forms processed by the party, so I'm told that we ought not to fret. I'm heading back to the convention tomorrow morning to sort everything out. Needless to say, if that doesn't happen there will be a ruckus raised. A mighty ruckus, indeed.
Erin (whom I'm crashing with) took me around and we bought wine, drank it in an Indian restaurant and then wandered through The Plateau (?), eating bagels, drinking coffee and looking at expensive clothes and kitchen furniture.
Tomorrow, I'm off to sort out this fee business, meet with a prospective McGill PhD supervisor, attend some policy sessions and maybe go for a run.
Tonight, I sleep.
And don't bother telling me about the emails. I already know.
Sorry.
I really feel like an idiot. Whoops.
That kept me up most of the night and, as a result, I slept pretty well on the flight to Toronto. I had a two hour lay-over, which was extended by an hour because the flight to Montreal was delayed. That would have been annoying, except that Kendra (my finacee, for those that don't know me) was there to meet me, which made it all manner of fantastic.
When I arrived in Montreal I went straight to the convention centre via my small knowledge of the French language ("Parlez vous anglais?") and the good humor of taxi drivers. Upon arriving, I was told that the Liberal party was--as far as it was concerned--missing $400 of my delegate fee.
Right. That's a problem.
Turns out that there's a "delay" in the Ignatieff team getting its forms processed by the party, so I'm told that we ought not to fret. I'm heading back to the convention tomorrow morning to sort everything out. Needless to say, if that doesn't happen there will be a ruckus raised. A mighty ruckus, indeed.
Erin (whom I'm crashing with) took me around and we bought wine, drank it in an Indian restaurant and then wandered through The Plateau (?), eating bagels, drinking coffee and looking at expensive clothes and kitchen furniture.
Tomorrow, I'm off to sort out this fee business, meet with a prospective McGill PhD supervisor, attend some policy sessions and maybe go for a run.
Tonight, I sleep.
And don't bother telling me about the emails. I already know.
Sorry.
Monday, November 27, 2006
I'm An Idiot
I was watching the lastest episode of Heroes (which, by the way, is amazing) and a commercial came on for Global's coverage of the Leadership Convention. Quick cuts, suspenseful music, pictures of... old men sitting in chairs. Granted, that was kind of anticlimactic.
But still, it looked pretty badass. It ended with Keven Newman in front of his newsdesk and an announcement that the coverage would start at 7:00am on Saturday.
Damn, I thought. I'm going to miss that. That would have been cool to watch.
Seriously. I'm an idiot.
But still, it looked pretty badass. It ended with Keven Newman in front of his newsdesk and an announcement that the coverage would start at 7:00am on Saturday.
Damn, I thought. I'm going to miss that. That would have been cool to watch.
Seriously. I'm an idiot.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
I'm Told It's Not This Cold in Montreal
If Hoth had apartment buildings, a post-industrial system of highways and the odd conifer, it would look like this.
You'll notice that in the picture, there is little actual snow. That's because it's currently -22º right now in Edmonton, and it's too cold for snow. Whatever ambient moisture that exists in the atmosphere has touched the ground, frozen into ice, and now lays buried beneath a thin veneer of white powder.
I think scientists call the ground in Edmonton "permafrost".
If understand the process correctly--and I like to think that I do--the ice, dirt and hares that have been flash-frozen overnight will turn into oil. That oil will then be converted via an enormous device of Rube-Goldbergian proportions into "Prosperity Cheques" that the Government of Alberta will send to me just for living here.
Apparently in Montreal it's going to dip down to just below zero as we approach the Leadership Convention. And I will take solace in the fact that no matter how snowy, drizzly or cold it gets in the land of smoked meat and gendered nouns, it will still be about twenty degrees warmer than it is in Edmonton.
Unless, that is, it gets unseasonably warm in Alberta and climbs above zero.
Which I'm pretty sure is exactly what will happen. And then the Snow Troopers will just look stupid.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Academics in Politics
There are people that are worried with Ignatieff being an academic. Now, I don't want this blog to be a sycophantic fanboy list of reasons why "my guy is the bestest." No, I'll try and keep this about me and politics. But this one cuts right to the heart of it, because I'm also an academic, and I worry about this whole line of reasoning.
Here's why.
Ignatieff is an academic; no one's denying that. I don't think that's the issue: the idea that university professors are incapable of forming broad policies or working within reality is a stereotype that isn't apt in this instance. And I won't even get going on what's wrong with a society that thinks that they can have a leader "too smart" for them. Intelligence cannot be the issue. I refuse to believe that we've become that conditioned to distrust the Academy, and would rather have someone "we can relate to", like George W Bush, whom I'm sure is a lovely man to drink with, except that he doesn't.
The real issue, I think, is that academics, by virtue of being academics, not a seasoned politicians.
And therein lies the best thing about Ignatieff from a marketing standpoint. In fact, I think it might be the best thing for the Liberal party (see post below for why that's important).
The Conservatives have done a great job of "branding" the Liberal party as a corrupt, out-of-touch party whose goals amount to little more than staying in power or, now, getting back into it. And if that happened, say the Tories, it would only consist of "more of the same": patronage, old ideas, and not looking out for average people. Just look at their slogans: "Canada's New Government" and "Getting things done for all of us". All government press releases begin the same way: "Canada's New Government to VERB ----> ELECTION CANDY ---->NOUN".
Rest assured, the next election will not be about what the Tories have done; it will be about what their new government has done that the Old Government didn't do for average people. Worse still, the concept of the LIberal party has been turned into a general pejorative: people don't need to have reasons for not liking the LIberal party, they just don't. Liberal=Bad/Old. That's what the Tories have done. And that's what we are up against.
In order to even start, we cannot have a leader that can easily be painted with the traditional Liberal brush. They can't be an institutional politician. They can't be dismissed with a "more of the same" attack. Worse still, they must be radically different. The corrupt Liberal image has, in my opinion, become such a basic assumption that the best way to fight it is to do so radically.
Who better than a leader that is not a seasoned politician? A leader that has the intellect and the vision to guide the country, and the support to do so effectively? With our neighbours to the south it's easy to assume that any lack of experience will manifest as verbal fumbling on the order to Bush-esque quotes that involve sentences without nouns. Clearly, that's not the case.
Instead, we have someone that give us the greatest chance to saying to the Canadian people "we are a new LIberal party. A party driven by vision and a goal for the country, rather than simply staying in power. We are the apotheosis of what it means to be Canadian: a party driven by the desire to do well by one another. Driven by ideals. By reason. By passion. And by vision. That, and budget surpluses earmarked to debt-repayment."
To dismiss this possibility because a man might be too much of an academic?
That would be worrying.
Here's why.
Ignatieff is an academic; no one's denying that. I don't think that's the issue: the idea that university professors are incapable of forming broad policies or working within reality is a stereotype that isn't apt in this instance. And I won't even get going on what's wrong with a society that thinks that they can have a leader "too smart" for them. Intelligence cannot be the issue. I refuse to believe that we've become that conditioned to distrust the Academy, and would rather have someone "we can relate to", like George W Bush, whom I'm sure is a lovely man to drink with, except that he doesn't.
The real issue, I think, is that academics, by virtue of being academics, not a seasoned politicians.
And therein lies the best thing about Ignatieff from a marketing standpoint. In fact, I think it might be the best thing for the Liberal party (see post below for why that's important).
The Conservatives have done a great job of "branding" the Liberal party as a corrupt, out-of-touch party whose goals amount to little more than staying in power or, now, getting back into it. And if that happened, say the Tories, it would only consist of "more of the same": patronage, old ideas, and not looking out for average people. Just look at their slogans: "Canada's New Government" and "Getting things done for all of us". All government press releases begin the same way: "Canada's New Government to VERB ----> ELECTION CANDY ---->NOUN".
Rest assured, the next election will not be about what the Tories have done; it will be about what their new government has done that the Old Government didn't do for average people. Worse still, the concept of the LIberal party has been turned into a general pejorative: people don't need to have reasons for not liking the LIberal party, they just don't. Liberal=Bad/Old. That's what the Tories have done. And that's what we are up against.
In order to even start, we cannot have a leader that can easily be painted with the traditional Liberal brush. They can't be an institutional politician. They can't be dismissed with a "more of the same" attack. Worse still, they must be radically different. The corrupt Liberal image has, in my opinion, become such a basic assumption that the best way to fight it is to do so radically.
Who better than a leader that is not a seasoned politician? A leader that has the intellect and the vision to guide the country, and the support to do so effectively? With our neighbours to the south it's easy to assume that any lack of experience will manifest as verbal fumbling on the order to Bush-esque quotes that involve sentences without nouns. Clearly, that's not the case.
Instead, we have someone that give us the greatest chance to saying to the Canadian people "we are a new LIberal party. A party driven by vision and a goal for the country, rather than simply staying in power. We are the apotheosis of what it means to be Canadian: a party driven by the desire to do well by one another. Driven by ideals. By reason. By passion. And by vision. That, and budget surpluses earmarked to debt-repayment."
To dismiss this possibility because a man might be too much of an academic?
That would be worrying.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
You're so cute, Justin Trudeau
One of the things I liked about Ignatieff was his take on nationalism and Quebec. Long story short: there's a difference between a state and a nation. Canada's a state, with many nations inside of it. An anglo nation, a french nation, an aboriginal nation... You get the idea.
Now, as nationalism theory goes, that's pretty standard. Most scholars just take it for granted.
But not Justin Trudeau. Justin, son of Pierre Elliott, had this to say when asked what about Quebec nationalism: nationalism is "based on a smallness of thought."
Now, Trudeau's chestnut locks certainly entitle him to his opinion, and his pedigree guarantees a degree of media coverage. However, I'm not as sure that the boy's prognostications on matters of academic and sociological theory ought to be weighted equal to a human rights scholar, given that the formers experience in the matter stems from research pertaining to his Masters thesis in Geography.
Alas, it's gotten quite a bit of play in the media. There have been retorts, such as Alfred Apps cogent arguments--couched within an 11000 word tome--in favour of the Ignatieff position supporting a multi-national Canada. And the Prime Minister's actions intended to undercut the upcoming Bloc motion have taken most of the wind out of the debate.
Still, the whole thing annoys me. The fact that people equate "nation" and "state" annoys me. What gets to me even more than that conflation is the fact that people insist that the two words "effectively mean the same thing in English". Well, really they don't. People just think they do. And what would you rather have: politicians who make policy based on the misconceptions of the public? Or rather on the actual meanings of terms?
See what you've done, Justin Trudeau? You've forced me to pen a political rant! And be slightly alliterative!
Oh, I'm sorry, Justin. I can't stay mad at you. Every time my icy heart gets close, it's melted by your radiant curls.
Also: Booyah.
Now, as nationalism theory goes, that's pretty standard. Most scholars just take it for granted.
But not Justin Trudeau. Justin, son of Pierre Elliott, had this to say when asked what about Quebec nationalism: nationalism is "based on a smallness of thought."
Now, Trudeau's chestnut locks certainly entitle him to his opinion, and his pedigree guarantees a degree of media coverage. However, I'm not as sure that the boy's prognostications on matters of academic and sociological theory ought to be weighted equal to a human rights scholar, given that the formers experience in the matter stems from research pertaining to his Masters thesis in Geography.
Alas, it's gotten quite a bit of play in the media. There have been retorts, such as Alfred Apps cogent arguments--couched within an 11000 word tome--in favour of the Ignatieff position supporting a multi-national Canada. And the Prime Minister's actions intended to undercut the upcoming Bloc motion have taken most of the wind out of the debate.
Still, the whole thing annoys me. The fact that people equate "nation" and "state" annoys me. What gets to me even more than that conflation is the fact that people insist that the two words "effectively mean the same thing in English". Well, really they don't. People just think they do. And what would you rather have: politicians who make policy based on the misconceptions of the public? Or rather on the actual meanings of terms?
See what you've done, Justin Trudeau? You've forced me to pen a political rant! And be slightly alliterative!
Oh, I'm sorry, Justin. I can't stay mad at you. Every time my icy heart gets close, it's melted by your radiant curls.
Also: Booyah.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
T-Minus One Week
Buried within a Globe and Mail article about Michael Ignatieff's unfortunate run-ins with the English language of late, was this:
"At his last public event in the city before the Dec. 2 Montreal convention, the first-ballot front-runner delivered a rousing call to his party to make Canadians believe again that governments and politics can build a better country.
The purpose of politics for Liberals, he declared, is not self-interest but “hope, faith, belief, patriotism. ... We don't do this for ourselves. We do this for our country.”
And that's why I'm going to this convention. It's why I've asked my friends to give up money they don't have; to participate in a system a lot of them aren't fans of. It's why I'm heading to Montreal and missing the Calgary Deal or No Deal auditions (not that I've been invited to participate... yet).
This man is offering me something to believe in.
I'm left of centre, ideologically. There's enough out there that I believe in that could be considered "right-wing" that I essentially end up in the middle. That either makes me a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative. But that's always been a default assumption on my part. It's not like I "believed" in the Liberal party--or any party, for that matter. It's pretty tough to do when they don't actually offer anything positive, and instead either coast from policy to policy or just snipe at the opposition.
Maybe it's Ignatieff's background as an academic, a profession that constantly demands the formulation of opinions and encourages the development of overarching theses. Maybe it's because he's written books that stem from a common centre: human rights and respect for others. I don't know what it is.
But he offers something; something to believe in. And he could make the Liberal party something I could believe in; and if, with any luck, such a party were to take power in this country... well then.
That would be a country that stood for something. A country fueled from coast to coast to coast by hope, faith, belief, patriotism.
And people call me cynical.
"At his last public event in the city before the Dec. 2 Montreal convention, the first-ballot front-runner delivered a rousing call to his party to make Canadians believe again that governments and politics can build a better country.
The purpose of politics for Liberals, he declared, is not self-interest but “hope, faith, belief, patriotism. ... We don't do this for ourselves. We do this for our country.”
And that's why I'm going to this convention. It's why I've asked my friends to give up money they don't have; to participate in a system a lot of them aren't fans of. It's why I'm heading to Montreal and missing the Calgary Deal or No Deal auditions (not that I've been invited to participate... yet).
This man is offering me something to believe in.
I'm left of centre, ideologically. There's enough out there that I believe in that could be considered "right-wing" that I essentially end up in the middle. That either makes me a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative. But that's always been a default assumption on my part. It's not like I "believed" in the Liberal party--or any party, for that matter. It's pretty tough to do when they don't actually offer anything positive, and instead either coast from policy to policy or just snipe at the opposition.
Maybe it's Ignatieff's background as an academic, a profession that constantly demands the formulation of opinions and encourages the development of overarching theses. Maybe it's because he's written books that stem from a common centre: human rights and respect for others. I don't know what it is.
But he offers something; something to believe in. And he could make the Liberal party something I could believe in; and if, with any luck, such a party were to take power in this country... well then.
That would be a country that stood for something. A country fueled from coast to coast to coast by hope, faith, belief, patriotism.
And people call me cynical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)