Skip to main content

...off and running?

the crowd goes wild
i messed up my neck today through a vigourous afternoon of sitting in an office chair (i'm not joking) and had to take a wee time out upon returning home to stay flat on my back and hope that the discomfort passed once i had laid supine upon the magical tempur-like material of my living room sofa. unable to hold a book at that angle, i opted to turn on the television to the first all-news channel i could find, only to be assaulted by an image of michael ignatieff bouncing up and down, announcing his platform and waving his version of the little red book.

as sad as it looks to see the liberal leader going back to the sort of blandishments that got his party elected in 1993 and that continued to work until they were crow-barred from office in 2006 by stephen harper's conservatives, i at least had some glimmer of hope that, finally, someone was going to start talking about issues. as far as i can tell, ignatieff's red book is a pastiche of educational funding, support for seniors and closing tax loopholes, but it really doesn't matter, because at least it's something.

it beggars belief that in a modern country with decisions to make about its wealth of natural resources, an aging population, an entire territory beset by poverty, and a serious problem when it comes to affordable and equitable access to telecommunications that the main issue that has emerged in the first week of a national election campaign is whether or not the leaders of the liberal and conservative parties should debate each other mano-a-mano in addition to debating with all the other national party leaders (except the green party leader, who wasn't invited again).

personally, i don't see why the two of them need to meet to debate things without the other leaders around, but if it'll make people stop talking about the debate as if it's important to the future of the country, the two of them can jello wrestle in my lobby for all i care.

politicians, please note:: everyone would be a lot more engaged and more likely to vote if you stopped talking about yourselves as being the issue. get over yourselves, you're not all that.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …