Mental Life in the Metropolis

Alright, look, I’m going to say it: Good riddance to the “management” team at the Canadiens hockey club. I put management in quotes because what they really did was mismanage a franchise that had excellent talent, cutting limbs off, piece of by piece, until it exsanguinated. Let’s look at the major blunders:

Kirk Muller: Who in their right mind let him leave the club for the AHL, then NHL, as a head coach? Who? Kirk was known to be the player’s favourite, the man they could approach to vent and voice concerns and displeasure. While the GM, Pierre “the Ghost” Gauthier and Jacques Martin are known to be aloof and not necessarily open to discussing decisions with the players, Muller acted as their liaison and offered them a voice to management. Letting Muller effectively broke ties between management and the players. Why would you do that? Oh, on top of that, he’s talented. You retain talented people….

Jacques Martin’s “System”: When you have a team, as the Canadiens did, that is heavy on defensive talent but weak in offense, you don’t mire yourself in further defensive tactics. Ever hear that old axiom: “A good defense is a strong offense?” The Canadians should have kept Roman Hamrlik, which would have given them Hamrlik, Subban, Jaroslav Spacek, Hall Gill, all talented players, and three of them with enough collective experience to nurture a new generation of young defensive talent for the Canadiens. Instead, we got a system that saw Montréal’s SOG drop dramatically with players recording far fewer points than previous seasons. You don’t win games by stopping the other team (or at least trying to). You win by scoring. Once they started to screw with lines and once they ditched Hamrlik, then Spacek and then Gill, our defensive talent dwindled. Carey Price was left to hold the bag, and we still weren’t scoring any points. Brilliant system there, Jacques.

Andrei Markov: Yes, he is indeed one of the best players in the league. That is, when he’s playing. After his run-in with Eric Staal on November 13, 2010 Markov was again out of the lineup and we didn’t see his pretty face until March 10, 2012 a year and a half after his accident. He was injury prone before the Eric Staal incident, so people were sure they weren’t going to re-sign an aging, injury prone star. Well, we were all wrong. 5,75 million a season was what he signed for (3 years, 17, 25 million). There’s a roster of talented NHL players who are productive and play for less. Another dome scratcher of a deal, if you ask me. My guess is that they felt the medical tests were conclusive enough to sign him, but either the medical staff are terrible, or there were unforeseen consequences because he was still injured. We paid the better part of a year’s salary (plus an undisclosed sum on medical treatment, flights to and from various specialists in the U.S., etc). Was it worth it? At 33, he’s getting old. He may not have the talent by 36 that he did in 2000. He’s put in an impressive 12 year career with the Canadiens. But it’s time to let him go.

Scott Gomez: Enough has been said about him in the last 2 seasons. Look, the guy is getting older, he’s had a great career, but that’s all she wrote. Either the AHL or buy-out. Your choice.

La langue de Randy Cunneyworth: Do you know how to spot a spineless leader? He leaves you out to dry, as Pierre Gauthier did to Cunneyworth, in front of fans and the media. Yes, Montreal should hire a bilingual coach, but let’s face some facts. 1. Most people in the NHL aren’t bilingual. 2. There isn’t a huge pool of talented Francophone coaches willing to work in Montreal (BECAUSE WE UNNECESSARILY FIRED MOST OF THEM…..) and 3. People can learn French. So, with Cunneyworth being promoted to head coach, you’d think Gauthier would have gotten behind him. No, instead he held him out to dry, claiming that things would be reassessed at the end of the season (read: he would not be kept on). If that isn’t a way to motivate the troops, I don’t know what is. Such an issue was made of this and no one at the club’s management level did anything to deal with it. This was a turning point in the season. It went from bad to dismal.

Mid-season trades: Was there a team that made as many moves as Montreal did (alright, fine, there were, but let me complain)? Spacek, Gill, Kostitsyn, and Cammalleri were all moved during the season, and while I understand it in some respects, I don’t in others. While I recognize that Montreal is going to attempt to rebuild the team, it seems to me that breaking off pieces and selling them at rock bottom prices was probably not the best strategy. In exchange for Cammalleri we got Rene Bourque. Okay, fine, we opened up a few million in cap space. But so what? The manner in which Cammalleri was traded was asinine, further damaging the reputation of the Club, a club where NHL players already dislike coming and further slaughtering moral. Who thought that was possible? Cammi brought a lot to the team and I’m sure he could have been moved in the post season. He was easily among the best players we had and I think there were a number of players who should have been moved before him.

It all boils down to this: a failure at the top. Since 2003, Gainey and Gauthier have had tremendous sway over the club. While I have no doubt they laboured with the best of intentions, Montréal faces unique challenges. In no other city is hockey as political and religious or as manic. In my view, they were unprepared to stand up and do what was necessary which was rebuild the team. We signed a number of aging stars to long-term contracts that would see them long outlive their productive years. This is a storied franchise; but, it has become broken and dilapidated. Like a theme park rusting in the summer sun, Montreal’s leadership kept on, letting the rides fall apart and the park become a shadow of its once great self. Everyone harkens back to their last Stanley Cup victory, but this isn’t the 1990s and much has changed since then. We can’t have a revolving door of coaches, of assistant coaches and of players.

So, with the sad/glorious/triumphant/scary news that Snooki is not only getting married but also having a child, I felt it important that I wade into this quagmire. Everyone from radio personalities to legitimate news sources have dedicated their time to discussing this rather ‘momentous’ occasion, so why shouldn’t I? My feeling on all of this is as follows: Snooki is a hell of a lot smarter than you.

Wait, what? Yep. Smarter. Snooki, the much maligned gremlin from MTV’s Jersey Shore actually appears to be one smart cookie. Leaving the show at its zenith is brilliant, a Seinfeld-esque move that keeps people wanting more. She’s walking away from a new deal with MTV now saying she is going to stay away from JWow and the entire cast, as she doesn’t want to be a pregnant club-going monster. While other cast mates have blown their millions of dollars, or never reached the same level of fame as Snooki and thus need the Jersey Shore to keep them in the limelight, she’s free to move on. Always in the media for the wrong reasons, people ignored the fact that she was quietly amassing millions of dollars through endorsements, appearances and through the show. Unlike Mike “the situation” Sorrentino, she didn’t blow her money on a Ferrari and other extravagant expenses. She can walk away from the Jersey Shore and never need to work another day in her life.

But, she’ll be back. While the other cast mates will no doubt hang on to the Jersey Shore until it less-than-gracefully sinks in a storm, Snooki will avoid the very public downfall of the ever (horrific) popular Jersey Shore-brand. She can, and will, reinvent herself. It may be an MTV program about being a mother, or quite probably as a TV host in the New York/NJ area, a Rachel Ray-esque character (maybe Anthony Bourdain can go on a segment cooking with snooki… authentic Italian food the way Bourdain likes it) or even a lifestyle program. People who don’t watch the Jersey Shore know Snooki. She was a popular meme for a long time. There are endless possibilities for a new career, but because she doesn’t have the pressure of trying to make fast money, she can be selective and wait for the best opportunities. Snooki will be on TV for a long time because she was smart with her money and can thus make smart decisions about her future. Instead of ragging on her, let’s congratulate her. She seems to be one of the more functional among the Jersey Shore cast of characters, has a long-term partner, made millions of dollars and wise business decisions. She’s smarter than all of us. And a hell of a lot richer.

Québec voters are fickle, often vacillating between parties and leaders so quickly that there is a perpetual limbo at the upper echelons. Nowhere is this truer than at PQ headquarters where leaders are replaced more often than ideas and with them an exodus of the PQ faithful aligned with the out-going leader. On May 2^nd, 2011, the fickle voter sent Gilles Duceppe and almost the entire Bloc Québécois packing, many with gold-plated benefits packages that will pay them six figure salaries for life. As the Bloc wave crested and went back out to sea, a new tide came in, bringing the orange of the NDP. I’ve spoken about this before, and it has been a topic of conversation for months now. So what could I possibly add?

The NDP’s leadership campaign (which has been going on far too long) is swinging into its last couple of weeks. It’s been generally overshadowed by everything from Robocalls to cats in trees, as the NDP leadership campaign has been about as interesting as a full reportage on the paint which dries on basement walls. The candidates are too similar, unwilling to step out from a timid point of view and too timid to break with NDP orthodoxy. What really is the difference between Nash, Dewar and Mulcair? On the whole, minor variations in policy and rhetoric. One area they all seem to be in agreement on is Québec language politics.

Given the overwhelming evidence of the failure of various language bills to protect French in Québec, it would seem obvious (to some) that there needs to be a change in approach. If laws barring people from learning English and preventing English signage have been erected and a direct consequence of these laws is the decrease in the proportion of French speakers in Montréal, it might be time for a new approach. Yet the NDP hopefuls are all on the same bandwagon, supporting laws that are not much more than reactionary policy written more than two decades ago.

Why? The NDP cannot lose Québec. Without Québec the NDP would fall back to within a few seats of its original standing and would again be in third-party status. Much of the reason the NDP swept Quebec was the popularity of Jack Layton combined with Gilles Duceppe’s apparent Montréal-bias in dealing with ridings outside of the city. Québecers had enough and protest voted en masse. To keep their place in Parliament, the NDP will need to say anything and everything to keep the fickle votes on their side. The problem now is growing discontent with the NDP. Anglophone voters who felt side-lined in Québec provided much needed support in Montréal, but have been rewarded with nothing. English Canadians across the country perceive a Quebec-bias in the NDP platform, and are seething with resentment. Failing to heed Paul Dewar’s warnings that growth must be sustained (politically) in Western Canada, it appears that the NDP, heralded for being on the vanguard has begun turning to old tricks to secure votes. The once long-held belief that a government simply needed votes from Ontario and Quebec to govern is no longer a reality. Yet they refuse to change that strategy.
More than the wishy-washy stance on issues like energy, taxation, free trade, their downfall will be found in the fact that they put all their eggs in Québec’s basket, while calling themselves a federalist federal party seeking a united Canada. Once the opposition has the chance to expose this in an election, I doubt very much they’ll hold on to many seats either in Quebec or elsewhere. People don’t like being played for a fool, but even worse is fooling yourself to think you can control the vicissitudes of life, especially through the lowest form of pandering.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Democrats+cover+tune/6253648/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/18/pol-ndp-paul-dewar-profile.html

Justin Trudeau is back in the media. No, he didn’t liken Peter Kent to excrement again. This time he denounced “Stephen Harper’s Canada” by warning that if Canada began to reflect the collective values of the Conservatives, that he would consider joining the Québec sovereignty movement. Initial public reaction to this trial balloon has been overwhelmingly negative with everyone from Ezra Levant to interim NDP leader Turmel giving their two cents. Generally this isn’t news: opposition MPs are always out to crack the government in power. But this was different. Trudeau played the boogeyman of sovereignty in a Radio-Canada interview and then back peddled by saying that sovereignty isn’t a boogeyman. Then, Mr. Trudeau, why use it?

I’ll go ahead and answer. It’s a trial balloon. Trudeau needs to gauge public opinion on a possible leadership run; but, without the backing of the party or influential supporters, Trudeau cannot pay for the proper surveys and reports. So, use the tried and true trial balloon. A trial balloon is when the government releases information, either covertly or expressly, to study the public’s reaction. It’s used to test support for bill packages and upcoming legislative sessions. In this case, he’s getting the Brand “Trudeau” out there, testing the waters, as it were. Calling Kent a piece of….tish… and now talking sovereignty is an ideal way of getting a backbencher with a famous father into the media.  By assessing how the public reacts and to what degree, he can get a sense of his popularity more broadly. No doubt he knows the uphill battle a Trudeau would face running for PM, so it’s not all that out there for him to want to test the waters. The next Liberal leadership convention is scheduled for the spring of 2013.

Knowing that he could square-off against an aging Bob Rae who is about as popular in Ontario as the norovirus, Trudeau faces the prospect of becoming the leader of the Liberal Party. There aren’t “superstar” contenders as there were when Ignatieff ran. Trudeau is the only really recognizable face among what will surely be a dull race. That would be great, except he’s never held a government portfolio, hasn’t worked in the private sector,  and is a millstone around the neck of the Liberal Party looking to break into Alberta after decades of being shut-out. I’m sure Justin could bring his New Economic Policies for 2015 (NEP 2015) to Alberta to sell-out crowds…….. because as we all know, the name “Trudeau” in Alberta means: “Don’t vote for me, I’ll destroy your economy and damage relations with the U.S. while not getting eastern Canada off of Middle Eastern Oil… which they continue to import even in 2012 and I’ll tax you to death because I hate Western Canada.”

Justin has officially declined to run, but the party really has no other option. Possible contenders that have been mentioned include Mark Carney. A man whose politically affiliations are unknown. If Trudeau will be running against unknowns from across Canada, or a man whose political affiliations are unknown, it might in fact be the time to step into the ring. And there’s no better way to do that than by warning Canada you’d consider sovereignty if you don’t like the direction of things.

I have been watching the Republican primaries very closely. And I have to stay it hasn’t disappointed. The idea of a ‘primary’ isn’t foreign to most Canadians who know that in their system the party holds a congress of all members and after a series of votes they have a new leader. It can last from a few hours to a few days to a few months, but unlike the U.S. it does not spend millions of dollars in television placements, demographers and campaign strategists. Nor is it half as caustic as their U.S. counterpart. Many candidates in the U.S. spend over a year fending off blinding attacks by members of their own party.  And this, I feel, is the ultimate weakness of the primaries.

Let me first return to the 2004, the Democratic primaries. They turned very ugly very quickly, leaving no candidate unscathed. Dean, Clark, Kerry and Edwards all used very personal attack ads to bring candidates down. Howard Dean was destroyed by the infamous “Dean Scream” at a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa. Re-broadcast by every single candidate (and news outlet) it was credited with ending his campaign, despite the fact that it was a microphone problem that caused him to scream after having suffered a severe flu. Candidates took pains to construct searing attacks on one another. Kerry was painted as a dithering know-it-all who married money and had no ability to talk to the average citizen. And by the time Kerry faced George W. Bush in the election, Kerry had been dissected by every Democratic opponent, opening deep wounds that Karl Rove could further exploit. The Republicans didn’t have to dig deep to find dirt on Kerry. His own party had done that for him. It wasn’t the youth vote or the lack of ethnic votes that sunk Kerry. The Democrats sunk Kerry. It meant the Republicans could focus on campaigning while letting Kerry exsanguinate from Democrat inflicted wounds.

Fast forward 8 years: Good Morning, Newt! Billed as the “anti-Romney,” Gingrich has been building political fires to burn candidates that have more money and are better organized than he is. Far from being the best candidate, Gingrich has taken to a guerrilla war, coming out with scathing criticisms of Romney and Santorum. Despite a victory in South Carolina, it’s not likely that he’ll win. He’s relying on money from cash-strapped Las Vegas, and has been seen in California trying to squeeze money a quarter of a year in advance of those primaries. In doing so, he’s traipsing around the U.S. bashing his opponents in the hopes he’ll get the nomination to take-on Barack Obama. Ok……….

The system of primaries in the United States gives each party equal opportunity to destroy their own candidate before the other team has a chance. The massive Republican in-fighting has given Obama ample opportunity to prepare for November, 2012. He doesn’t need to take pot-shots at the Republicans because they are doing it for him. David Axelrod (and no doubt Rahm Emanuel) have a dossier the size of Volkswagen on the character flaws, black market dealings and poor antics of every Republican. My guess is that Romney and Santorum will run (Santorum as VP), and they will have a very uphill battle against a President whose campaign was insulated by the opposition (that there folks is irony). The longer Newt attempts to fight for the nomination, the less likely a Republican victory will be. The more divisive and acrimonious it becomes, the better for the Democrats.

I’m not endorsing the Republicans or the Democrats, here. I’m simply pointing out that their primaries are flawed. It gives the opposing team such a distinct advantage, particularly when their President is seeking a second term. Each party wants to govern, but they go about it by bringing their candidates to the brink of oblivion, when voter polls show a wide margin of ambivalence or dissatisfaction and then turn on the opposition. We wouldn’t apply for jobs by trying to assassinate the character of other people, but by building ourselves up. Yet, politics seems to have missed the boat. They’re standing on the shore hitting each other with sticks trying to sell you something you know is untrue. So vote for them! The other guy is a hell of a lot worse!

Last week the Liberal Party of Canada endorsed a measure that would see them attempt to legalize marijuana during a future legislative session (read: after the Conservative mandate). Legalization of marijuana has been a galvanizing issue in Canada for at least a decade when former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien indicated it should be decriminalized, and that if it were he too would light-up.

In the decade since, we’ve heard very little about marijuana in Canada, partly because shortly after Chrétien’s departure, the Conservative party took control and have thus shifted gears, putting the brakes to drug liberalization and instead cracking down on distributors, dealers, importers and the lot. Their Bill C-10 deals with a number of drug measures, and it is believed that the Liberal Party, looking to establish a “Liberal doctrine” has chosen this issue as a lightning rod. Whether you agree with marijuana legalization or not, I doubt the willingness of Canadians to legalize or decriminalize marijuana.

Marijuana legalization is a policy of legitimizing the growing, sale and distribution with the appropriate tax laws enforced at each level; while, decriminalization is a policy whereby it is no longer an arrestable offense to possess a certain amount, but may remain a fineable offense. The major problem regarding decriminalization is that the supply chain remains in effect, meaning the cartels and local growers are still dealing drugs. This is not a likely key to success. It give the impression that the government capitulated to drug cartels.

However, legalization has its own very real set of problems. An oft-cited goal of drug legalization would be the decrease in the expenditures on the “war on drugs” (A U.S. term applicable to Canada). Would this ‘war’ continue? Of course. It is highly doubtful Canadian officials would broker some god-awful, stone stupid deal with Mexican and Columbian cartels. Beyond the human rights violations, dangerous conditions and dozens of nightly murders, they are a criminal organization. Canada would need a legitimate source. And that means Canadian growers. So, let’s dispense with the “cost-saving” rhetoric and admit that the war on drugs is going nowhere. Criminal syndicates that feel their drug supplies will be diminished are not going to capitulate, and aren’t going to be thrilled at the success of drug culture. No, they’re going to fight harder to protect their share. That alone will eat up any savings there once were. And we have to recognize that the drug war isn’t fought on Canadian soil to the degree it is fought in countries like Columbia, Honduras and Mexico where millions of people are adversely affected. The on-going fight in northern Mexico has cost tens of thousands of innocent lives and is costing Mexico billions of dollars. Caribbean and Latin American countries have expressed the desire for Canada to increase aid in the drug war. How would legalizing marijuana positively affect our allies knee-deep in a conflict with drug lords?

In that same vein, a major source of consternation and influence comes from the United States. When Chrétien made those comments, then-President George W. Bush was very vocal about his opposition and threatened the fluidity of the Canadian-US border. This was enough of a threat to back-off and drop the subject. Do we really think any President would be different? Look at the U.S’s “liberal” President Obama. His border policy and drug policy are no different. The US has invested billions in drug efforts that have not been as successful as they hoped. Will they be ready to admit defeat by allowing a close ally to legalize marijuana? It’s highly doubtful U.S. interests would not spread across the border, and threats of trade blockages would be enough to send any political organization in the opposite direction. We share a continent with the U.S., we have to be cognizant that no matter how sovereign we are, we have to share our part of the world.

Countries that have decriminalized, such as the Netherlands, have faced problems with border area drug tourism, crime and violence.  It has led to the instituting of a ‘drug passport.’ Has this been the success they hoped for? No. My central criticism rests on the often knee-jerk reaction of those interested. The pro-marijuana camp seems to see no possible negative with legalizing marijuana, while the anti-legalization camp can see no positive. There is no mature discussion on the subject by individuals in a position to be authoritative. Being an incredible pothead is not necessarily the requisite skill of professional knowledge, nor is never having smoked a joint. There should be discussions that include drug experts, police officials, intelligence officers, tax experts, horticulturalists, US and Mexican officials, etc. It should not be done during a gathering of Liberal Party hopefuls who want to re-establish a moribund party.  Maturity and information are key to the success of any idea and the legalization of marijuana is no different. But, as with many things, the overly politicized nature of the drug will cloud the judgement of some, and the air of others.

Many people I talk to see the CAQ as the “PQ-lite” or a party for disenfranchised Québec sovereigntists to spend time before returning to the separatist ranks. It has been attempting to break this image, most recently by courting Anglophone politician Marlene Jennings to run in the next election. But still there seems to be a great amount of fear in the anglophone came that the CAQ is just a nationalist party looking to follow a similar path to the PQ but couching it in rhetoric more palatable to the current state of politics in Québec. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. The CAQ is still a fledgling political movement only now having any real presence in the Assembly. But what I would take issue with is the conflation of “nationalism” and “sovereignty.”

The idea of nationalist movements gained significant traction in discourse on anti-colonial movements where self-determination by formerly subjugated people became paramount in academic discussions and publications. Nationalist movements were often sovereignty movements, where clearly defined ethno-geographic boundaries were drawn and ‘new’ states emerged. The result was that many former colonies turned into nation-states or more precisely a state that is defined predominantly by its place and people. The care with which journalists and academics took to their subjects helped define a highly nuanced language that remains very murky to those who haven’t lost years in the confines of the theoretical lexicography.

François Legault’s movement, I feel, is handicapped by a very real fear many anglophones and allophones have of nationalist movements. Québec politicians, who often uses the words interchangeably, are now in the uncomfortable position of having to unpack that term for broader consumption. Legault undoubtedly used similar language during his years in the PQ, and so now, to court Anglophones, he must do more than offering a token. He has to explain the idea behind nationalism and sovereignty and be clear where he and the party stand. Unfortunately, years of muddled political dialogue will cloud the debate and we will be left with another harrowing mess in Québec politics. C’est la vie.

Selah

9 New Members

Marlene Jennings CAQ

I watched a clip on the CBC where Chantal Hébert discussed the popularity of Jack Layton and the effect he had on support for the party. It was her contention that his personal popularity, rather than party politics, were the main factor for the surge in support the NDP had. While I should note that Hébert may not be a strong supporter of Layton, prognosticating a leadership change back in 2009 during the meteoric rise of his popularity; I don’t doubt her analysis. Any party whose leader is personally very popular is faced with a double-edge sword. While it may be easy to get relatively contentious legislation passed in Parliament, for example, it can also lead the party to disaster when the leader leaves, falls ill or is faced with damage to their public image.

For the NDP, the worst-case senario happened– the leader died. Politically the NDP is at the left of the spectrum in federal politics (for federalist parties) but equal in many respect to the Bloc. The key difference lay in sovereignty where the NDP has a very murky stance  (being careful to avoid the pitfalls of bellowing their federalist tendencies). There was then no real exchange value with the Bloc or NDP. Both were never going to form government and neither had much say on national affairs. So why vote NDP?

Jack Layton. Let’s be honest, the fact that the Bloc had all the provincial political infrastructure and monopolized political commentary on provincial television gives them a strong advantage over any party intending to enter the province as a serious contender. And for those who’ll nit-pick at very minor differences in campaign rhetoric, I would direct you to the voting histories of NDP and Bloc members prior to the current parliament, where you’d notice a very similar pattern. The fact is, the Bloc was the NDP with a strong stance on nationalism. There was no key reason to support the NDP over the Bloc unless you had a strong stance on nationalism. So, when the pendulum swung to the Orange, did that in fact signal a shift towards federalism? No. But, as polls indicated, Layton was personally popular, and that attracted votes.

When the Orange Crush became a reality, Québec sent four McGill undergraduates (one of whom had never been employed prior to their election) and a young woman who had not visited her own riding, to Ottawa, earning six-figure salaries. Did Québecers really vote for a someone who couldn’t speak French and vacationed for a portion of the campaign? Or did they vote for ‘Team Jack?’

A poll released recently indicated that the support the NDP enjoyed on the May 2nd, 2011 election is now starting to erode, while the support for the other major parties is increasing. This has some in the political community slamming polling methods or writing the political obituary of the NDP (in French). The most bold and common voice among bloggerss and political pundits seems to be bellowing “wait” in regards to calling the NDP
toast in Québec, noting that an underwhelming leadership campaign is under way, the results of which may return NDP fortunes in the province. My take is: don’t be foolish. The Bloc released a report just prior to their election defeat that indicated their main weakness was its Montréal-centric mentality, where most of the party was based in actuality. They will have learned and developed new strategies. From their inception in 1993 until 2011, the same tried-and-true formula worked for the Bloc. Until it no longer worked. And they lost everything including the kitchen sink. That gives them the opportunity to develop and re-emerge as a much stronger political party. They have a new leader, and will have learned from Legault’s CAQ and the NDP how to tackle the nationalism issue in keeping with Quebec’s interests and their own philosophy. An emboldened Bloc will be a formidable foe, one that could seriously erode NDP support. Will McGill students with little tangible experience and language ability out-debate star Bloc candidates that will surely be running against them?

If you have read the Globe and Mail since 2003, you have effectively read Harperland: The Politics of Control by Lawrence Martin. I was eager to read the book given the glowing reviews the book has earned, and to possibly get a clearer picture of our Prime Minister; but, unfortunately, I have no greater depth of understanding now than then. Who is he? Where did he come from? How has he really changed Ottawa? The reader is left wondering whether or not this is the true face of Harper, or one cobbled together by quotes from opposition members and those whom he has crossed. There is no greater understanding of Harper other than the veiled secrecy of his blue eyes. It harkens back to the “hidden agenda” that haunted the Reform Party (and later Alliance) lobbed by their Liberal foes. Is it real, or an apparition created to haunt the enemy?

While this book has been lauded as one of the most important books on Canadian politics of the last twenty-five years, I found it dull and suffering from its own brand of egotistical information control. It raises more questions than it answers and fails in many instances to really bring any background information to light. While I understand that a book needs to remain readable, I would have loved to have known more about the Ottawa pre-Harper that has supposedly changed a great deal. I would have loved to have had clear examples of how Harper is supposedly different from previous governments other than ham-fisted throw-backs to Chrétien and R.B. Bennett.

First and foremost among a list of criticisms is this: who is Stephen Harper? Valedictorian, mail room clerk, University of Calgary graduate, president of the NCC. The author’s accounts of his life prior to the post of Prime Minister are simple vignettes that are intended only to explain behaviour in the post of PM. The author goes to great pains to set-up single events long in advance, but the Prime Minister himself remains, unfortunately, an enigma. We hear that he is a fighter, but is prone to defeatist tempers. He can impress a crowd with his impersonations, but is dull and overly cerebral. We hear he has cunning political instincts, but is socially awkward and naturally shy. This then reads like a book with a very distant knowledge of the titular character, learned only from enemies and distant associates. Interviews with close associates like Beardsley, Ian Brodie and Tom Flannagan only re-iterate what has been in the media for five years. The author constantly refers back to centralization and Harper’s “goons” but again, directives, decisions and policy changes are only attributed to him. There is never a ‘smoking gun’ in which the author has uncovered incontrovertible evidence of any malfeasance. Even in the ‘attempt’ to centralize communication with Sheila Frasier does the author have to admit that Sheila Frasier herself doesn’t seem to think anything was going-on.

So, what do we know then, truthfully? Harper keeps an arms-length from journalists, he has a strong command of his caucus and he is careful to avoid the pitfalls that have taken down governments in the past. Unfortunately the author has no memos, no anonymous interviews, no documents so any action taken by the Privy Council or PMO can only be attributed to him. Building the theme of centralization then associating events does not prove that he had green-lighted anything, it simply is a tactic. While I am not arguing that he’s wrong, I’m simply stating he hasn’t made a case. All we know for sure is that Harper will ‘do anything.’ We think….

Dear Neighbours,

I want to offer my profound apologies to the community minded “neighbours”  who felt it necessary to call Westmount Public Security regarding our curtain installation. I know that there are strict community guidelines regarding public behaviour in Westmount; but, had not known of the degree to which we were policed in our own homes. While I applaud Westmount for taking initiative in creating a family-friendly environment, I believe it to be important to recognize that people cannot all live by the same schedule. I have things to do and unfortunately Sunday is one of the few days that I have free. As one who works five days a week and prepares for management exams in the evenings, I must admit that I am often very busy on the weekend with tasks I am too tired to carry-out during the week. Did I install my curtains early? No. Late? No. It was done at noon. Did it require massive demolition? No. Contractors? No. There were no delivery trucks, no leaf blowers and no property was defaced. It took less than 10 minutes. I’m sorry that I could not conform to your 8:00-6:00 standards, and that my sin was being just too busy. I’ll remember for next time.