« November 2006 |
Main
| January 2007 »
I have a friend who likes to get together with another friend for a few beers and talk politics. Now, for some time I've been fomenting Revolution in my head but I've never been able to articulate what needs to be done to meet Corporate Greed head on. But these two guys came up with something that, if it doesn't get them on an RCMP hit list or land them in Guantanamo - I don't know what will.
But let me backtrack to The Agenda. It's the new TVO Studio Two minus Paula Todd double plus Steve Paikin. I occasionally think to catch it and the other night, Carol Off was on (heheh - off/on) talking about Chocolate. She's written a book, a political book, about the dark side of Chocolate (oh dear... I really DON'T intend all these puns - I HATE puns). Chocolate, it turns out, is a lot like everything else Corporate. Nasty and brutal for the people at the raw end of the market, cheap and ubiquitous for the consumers in the middle, rich and unconscionably profitable for the Corporate Cartel Owners.
Okay, that was one show. Another show was about our economy - wages, the cost of living, who's really middle-class/who's faking, taxes, retirement savings, debt loads. One of the panelists was a Globe and Mail business thingy, Brian somebody, expressing some very honest-sounding and candid opinions about how stressed the Middle Class actually is in terms of wages versus other economic factors in society. Particularly striking - all of a sudden to me - was the extreme profitability of the "Folks" (gawd I hate that gawddamned word) at the top of the Corporate Heap. To the point where, they weren't even connected to the Heap anymore. They have their own Stratosphere.
Also on the panel was a TD Bank President or somesuch, somebody Drummond. He reeked of privilege. Monetary, academic - you name it. And, of course, he thought everything was fine, looking good, up even. People should just invest more in the Stock Market. Poor people. 'Cause that's how you got Rich. Investing in the Stock Market. He even made a pitch for education, claiming pretty much that the poor were stupid not to stay in school.
Gee, go bowling much, Richie Rich?
So yeah, I'm middle-class with a university degree and I make a basic clerk's salary. I don't think I'm faking, but I might be. Oh - and several years ago I switched a small pension from a guaranteed G.I.C. to a balanced mutual fund on the advice of the Bank and it is only now back up to where it was in 1990.
Yeah. Banks. Folks...
In the meantime, while my little pension has been struggling its way back to pre-1990 levels, the Banks have netted historically unprecedented Profits. Grotesquely huge, bigger'n heads, Bonuses have been paid out to CEOs of Corporations. The kinds of Bonuses that could buy Disney World homelands for all the world's refugees.
My friends believe only a Labour Revolution can bring an end to this madness. The madness that sees wealthy Corporations locate plants in poor countries so they don't have to pay living wages to the people who work in them and can extract huge profits at the other end while the economies they live in go without the manufacturing part of the whole process - the part that makes for a sound economy - and the middle class they live above supports their luxurious lifestyles buying stuff made by what are essentially slaves because there is no alternative.
The Corporations have squeezed out all the alternatives. Act local, think global is reversed. The economy is turned on its head. The good for the few is the New World Order.
This is where the organized labour part comes in. The thing is, with my friends, it's not the labour we've all come to know and see coming before it even turns the corner. They are talking about - NEO-labour. A neo-labour that plays by mercenary rules. A neo-labour that fights back. Literally. A neo-labour that goes to those same poor countries where people have no protection from these Corporate Nihilists and organizes the workers - and this is the part where you may want to avert your eyes, gentle reader - using whatever works (i.e. well... think of what works for the Corporate thugs who locate plants in these poor countries in the first place) - TO SAVE OUR ECONOMIC LIVES!
Think about it. How can we not force Corporations to at least pay living wages to workers in poor countries to prevent the entire manufacturing sector of our economy from relocating to the third world? Hardly anything is made here anymore as it is. How can we possibly compete with what is essentially slave labour when we have Richie Rich doing just fine, thank you?
And we are so beyond the time to stage boycotts - don't even go there sister. We can't boycott EVERYTHING. And we shouldn't have to, anyway.
We have landed in mercenary territory. Yup. Organized Neo-Labour needs to meet Corporate Greed head on. With mercenaries. Hired guns. Thugs. Lowlifes willing to do what Corporations are willing to do - except worse. Lower lifeforms - if that is humanly possible - to guarantee workers EVERYWHERE a living wage and regain our competitive advantage without being reduced to penury ourselves.
Radical? Not to my friends.
Okay. And not to me. So, arrest me. My pension won't last out a year of old age anyway.
Smash the State!
Oh - and Support Public Broadcasting!
So I was watching CBC the other evening when this asshole comes on the screen ranting about how nobody says, "Merry Christmas" anymore. That it's always, "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings". Or somesuch generic Christian culture eliminator.
Now, not to be a multiculturalist, or "terrorist", but he was on the national broadcaster, given a prime evening news slot, to shriek at viewers, "Merry Christmas!!" several times. The irony completely escaped him, I'm sure - since I assume he was paid for his efforts - but, really. You can co-opt the national broadcaster to shriek, "Merry Christmas!!" at the entire country and you're the holiday underdog here? YOUR culture is under siege? By whom? Private broadcastors who won't air your, "Merry Christmas" rants?
I was thinking about writing a letter, actually. Until I heard some of the letters written to CBC by its viewers on other stories. Yikes. I had no idea the national broadcaster had an audience of almost exclusively crabby old people. I mean, it seems to FEATURE a lot of crabby old people - especially on its political panels, but then - so do the private broadcasters. And Michael Coren has Claire Hoy on his show - and they don't get much crabbier and older'n Claire Hoy. What bug is up THAT guy's ass, anyway? Cripes, a well paid hack who has nothing but contempt for the system that made him everything he is today.
Oh.
But back to The Ranting Man. His name, apparently, is Earl McRae. I don't know how relevant that is because I'd never heard of Earl McRae until he showed up on Warren Kinsella's Top Ten List of people Warren Kinsella doesn't like. And, in spite of HIS efforts to make a name for himself, I don't really know much about who Warren Kinsella is, either.
What I do know, is that he's white and Christian, Earl McRae is white and likes shrieking, "Merry Christmas" at viewers from the safety of the national broadcaster, and Claire Hoy is white and very bitter about everything - although probably not about being white.
I'm white, but I'm a woman. A feminist, actually. On the left. So I don't see this erosion of the world around me. I only see more opportunities. For me and mine. NOT that I'm anywhere NEAR having a five minute rant spot on our national broadcaster - I'm juss sayin', "Life is lookin' good fo' bitches." We've got a pink book and everything.
And I know a lot of people who feel the same way. None of us have much in the way of power, though. At least, not the power to communicate our views that Christmas, Merry Christmas, is the new black. Yes indeed, far from putting the Christ back in Christmas, the Christmas brigade has leapt right past that bullcrap to making Merry Christmas the new black.
It's true. I've had several people say, "Merry Christmas" to me already this year and it started last week - a good two weeks before Christmas. I've been tempted to respond with, "Christmas? What the fuck is Christmas?" but I'm wondering if a simple, "What's that supposed to mean?" or, "Are you on drugs?", or "Fuck off, wiseguy - can't you see I'm a Secular Humanist?!" would do.
Because really, I think even, "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" are an infringement on my personal space. What about people who don't have holidayS to be happy about because they only get Christmas day off because they're working right through YOUR holidayS because they work in the service industry. Or whatever.
"Season's Greetings"? What if you have seasonal affected disorder and everytime someone says, "Season's Greetings" it's like a slap in the face. Another reminder that you don't cut it in today's world. That you can't even adapt to the joy of winter. That you are merely taking up space until spring.
Anyway, I thought all this until I got my "Holiday Greetings" card from Rogers. Then I wanted to smash in my TV and toss my computer out the window and just take my life right off the grid. Say goodbye to Christian culture once and for all. Alas, I have teenagers. And I don't want to risk sending Rogers a "Fuck Off" greeting back because I figure it will end up on my file somewhere and the next time the service goes down for no apparent reason, I'll hesitate to call and ask, "So... what... I'm paying for Ted Rogers to get richer by not even having to provide services now?"
Say... is Ted Rogers a Christian? He looks white enough.
Anyway, this year, to get even with the "Merry Christmas" brigade (those poor holiday underdogs) I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas by pronouncing it, "CHRIST mas". I mean, if you're going to compete with the really big holidays, like Ramadan, Hannukkah, Diwali, etc. - ON A CULTURAL LEVEL - you're going to have to de-trash, de-tackify, de-trailor park Christmas. I mean nothing - NOTHING - says - NO CULTURE - like our modern day Christmas. Afterall, who CAN'T go buy a bunch of crap once a year and wrap it up and give it out? Eh? Well? Let's face it - it's not that you CAN'T shriek, "Merry Christmas!!" anymore - because obviously you can - on the national broadcastor, no less. It's that ANYBODY can shriek, "Merry Christmas!!"
But, "Merry Christ mas. Not so much.
Ottawans made a really bad decision recently. They elected a new Mayor. A Mayor so shiny and new - he could be The Love Boat. Instead, he's just a rich guy on the Right of the political spectrum who got the job on a "0% tax increase" promise. Oh - and also because his main competition was a seasoned City Councillor on the Left.
Stupid voters. Will they never learn? Taxes will always go up. That's life. It costs money. And the politician who tells you that it won't, that life will be CHEAPER under his watch, is not someone you want running Government services. Because when he says "life will be CHEAPER" - he means "YOUR life will be cheaper". That's because it's already pretty worthless to him - he's rich.
And I say Larry O'Brien is on the Right, not just because he's a fly-by-night rich guy on the Right (which he is - thanks to lots of Government contracts, too, I might add), but because he strikes me as the kind of guy I wouldn't trust to hold my mother's purse. That's how I feel about Politicians on the Right. Leery. Very, very leery. How do I feel about politicians on the Left? Dismayed. Very, very dismayed. Because I know - Canadians, by and large, are short-term voters and will never commit to a Government on the Left.
Otherwise, "Act Locally, Think Globally" would be our motto. Instead of, "We Always Get Our Man" or "The True North Strong and Free" or "But It's a Dry Cold".
Anyway, how we vote got me thinking about this Left/Right divide. There were a few stories in the news recently that made me realize why, as a socially progressive/fiscally socialist Lefty (and it's literal, too - Lefthanded R Us), I have such an intense distrust of the Right. The main one involves the late Tommy Douglas and the RCMP:
Cripes, We Can't Even Get Our Lefty
Why am I not surprised that the RCMP wasted our money and its time spying on Tommy Douglas? Why are you not surprised? Because we know now, that the Right is the enemy of Democracy. The Right values Order, the Establishment and the Establishment of Order - OVER Democracy. Read the National Post editorial board's Eulogy of Pinochet if you don't believe me. In fact, read any article in the National Post and you will soon realize that the owners of the media chain on down are champions of Private Healthcare - to the point where I am quite sure that if Tommy Douglas were alive today to be pilloried in the press, the National Post would be leading the charge with cries of, "Deport Him to Syria! He's wearing Lenin glasses!"
And yet, who claims to be all about freedom? The Right. Would they approve of the RCMP spying on Tommy Douglas? Of course they would. He's on the Left. Do people on the Left think the RCMP should be spying on those THEY see as "Enemies of Canada". No. No they don't. People on the Left don't trust the RCMP. The RCMP represents the interests of the Right. ALL police forces represent the interests of the Right. Remember Toronto cops campaigning in uniform for Mike Harris? On our dime? They got a raise out of it, too. The "Taxfighter" gave it them after he got elected.
People on the Left believe in social progress. People on the Right want to go back to a simpler time. A simpler bigoted time, as it were.
Because yes, I watched the Michael Coren Show last night featuring Ottawa's own Hate Radio host, Lowell Green. Now, if you don't know who Lowell Green is, think Rush Limbaugh with a couple of bankruptcies. Literal bankruptcies. Lowell Green, of course, is on the Right of the political spectrum. And what he was saying on the Michael Coren Show last night was the stuff of southern lynch mobs and elderly British tea parties. I won't bother re-iterating his ranting here. Afterall, if we haven't all danced naked with our Grandmothers, we've at least all heard Gramma McRacist say of Pearson International Airport after a trip away to visit rellies, "I hardly knew I was in Canada!"
It was that sort of ranting. With lots of finger wagging at the Left. "You guys are responsible for this mess!" And "Look around - they've ruined everything" And "Canada used to be a great nation and now it's a joke".
I mean, where to begin? A) I don't see the "mess"; B) The Left has never formed the Government of Canada; and C) Define "great nation". So, with regards to A) and B) I'd have to say - if there's a "mess" (and I don't see what Lowell Green sees) I'd have to say it was made by the Right. With a lot of help from the Center. The Center being that bulk of political inevitabilities that Democracy brings. With regards to C) well, "the more things change, the more they stay the same"? I dunno. I should add here that when people phone in to Lowell Green's show to not vent their hatred alongside him, he hangs up on them. It's true. And yet - people still phone in. ??? Ah, the wonders of modern technology and leisure time at work. Unless all the callers are out-of-work layabouts...
But back to the "inevitabilities that Democracy brings". Democracy. Remember? That's the thing that leads to a more inclusive society. Where more and more people have rights previously denied them. The good thing. The good thing that the Right really doesn't want at all.
And I think I've got it figured out. The Right doesn't want Democracy to grow because it figures that the more Democracy spreads itself around (i.e. "thin") the less Democracy there is for them. That their lives are CHEAPENED (see opening paragraph for full circle picture) by Democracy because - if everybody has it, it can't be worth much - can it.
No wonder the Right is so angry about Democracy. They believe Democracy is at work/play cheapening their lives.
So, why isn't the Left angry about Democracy? Oh yeah - because the Left understands that the more people are empowered by Democracy - the more Democracy there is. For everybody.
There.
What is it about Pundits on the Right that they feel the need to express their solidarity with Dictators on the Right? In case you hadn't heard, Pinochet, the former Dictator of Chile, responsible for the torture, disappearance, murder of thousands of civilians in that country - is dead.
Good - right?
Welllll, not if you're on the Right, it seems. Because apparently all that Strongman Thuggery resulted in the trains running on time in Chile. I'm not making this up. The National Post editorial board - admittedly, not the brightest lights on the planet, probably not even the brightest lights in a room with a 20 watt bulb - took great pains to bring us the good side of Pinochet in its editorial today,
BooHoo,Pinny'sGone
This is my favourite line from the eulogy (But read the whole thing - it's quite unbelievable - as in, UNBELIEVABLY WHACK!!):
"But as we contemplate the man's life, it is important that we examine the full picture, and not just the black-and-white villain image that the Western media too often promotes."
What the fuck?! You ARE the Western media you Peabrained Eedjits! Good Gawd in Hell! Has the world turned UPSIDE DOWN?!
But remember when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher weren't in power yet and General Augustus Pinochet was a brutal Dictator who murdered thousands of people? And then they WERE in power and he was the darling of the Right's "Jellybeans and Tea" set? I mean, it's not just that a democratically elected leader was murdered to make way for a Fascist Thug, with the American C.I.A. playing a lead role in the actual murder part, it's that... no wait... IT IS THAT A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER WAS MURDERED TO MAKE WAY FOR A FASCIST THUG!
Imagine, if the brave men, women and children who had protested that reality then, knew that this would be our reality now. That one of our - Canada's - National Newspapers - the editorial board, no less - would be eulogizing their Oppressor, a Murderer of Thousands, because they JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES!
He's not "on the Left", therefore - he can't be ALL bad. Let me ask you, and I'm serious - should there be a ban on editorial board commentaries? Because I really don't think people that stupid should be allowed to take up oxygen someone less stupid could be breathing - let alone take up space in a newspaper. It's a wonder we can't hear the thousands of tortured and murdered rolling over in their graves.
But yes - Pinochet made the trains run on time. I guess that's what matters to the National Post editorial board at the end of the day. Order.
Nevermind the Peace and Good Government part of the ballgame. Well, heck - what am I saying? All George W. Bush needs is a little Order brought to the American economy and he'll be right up there with General Augustus Pinochet, I guess.
Rest in peace. I'll just be here in the corner having an ANEURISM!
So, I guess Stephane Dion has French citizenship, eh? Why don't I care? Honestly. I'd care plenty if Stephen Harper had American citizenship. Or if Jack Layton had Chinese citizenship. Could it really be because I'm an Anglo-Canadian and figure, having beaten the French bastards once - we could do it again if need be?
I dunno. And I mean I dunno because I dunno if that's why - or that we could beat the French bastards again if need be. I don't even know which French bastards I'm talking about - the France French bastards? Or the Quebec French bastards.
But speaking of France's French bastards reminds me of England's English bastards. I'm Scottish/Irish, so I really don't care for the English. Not to put too fine a point on it, but - they're gay. In fact, I think I'd be way more bothered by a Canadian political party leader with dual Canadian/British citizenship than I am by Stephane Dion's Canadian/French dual citizenship. I dunno, again. Maybe it's because this is Stephane Dion we are talking about? I really don't know. I mean, even now if I found out that Lucien Bouchard had Canadian/French citizenship I'd want to kick ass. Then kick his cane out from under him. And then bonk him over the head with it.
Okay, okay. I'd want to kick his cane out from under him and then bonk him over the head with it, anyway. Whether he had Canadian/French dual citizenship or not. In fact, I'm all for revoking his Canadian citizenship altogether. With a good swift kick to his traitorous old ass.
Sayyyyyy... instead of Stephane Dion bothering to revoke the French half of his dual citizenship, how about Gilles Duceppe have his uni-Canadian citizenship revoked. That makes more sense to me. In fact, how about ALL the Bloc MPs have their Canadian citizenship revoked. Afterall, they're traitors. Advocating Quebec's secession from Canada. Why not give them a taste of NO CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP FOR YOU - right now. Head them off at the pass. If Stephen Harper can pull a Nation Resolution out of his Alberta Nationalist ass - why can't he turn the other cheek and pull a Canadian Citizenship Review of Bloc MPs Resolution out of his Canadian Federalist ass.
Oh yah - BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE A CANADIAN FEDERALIST ASS!
And THAT'S why Stephen Harper having dual Canadian/American citizenship would bother me more than Stephane Dion having dual Canadian/French citizenship. That and the fact that the United States is already RIGHT NEXT DOOR! And - A SUPERPOWER. And a Prime Minister with Canadian/British citizenship would bother me more than a Prime Minister with Canadian/French citizenship BECAUSE WE ONLY JUST PATRIATED OUR FRIGGIN' CONSTITUTION FROM THE TOFFEE-NOSED TWITS!
French citizenship? Who cares about French citizenship? They don't want us anyway. We've got Quebec. They think of Quebec the way we think of Americans. Not highly. And obviously, a Prime Minister with Canadian/Chinese citizenship is out of the question. We might just as well chain ourselves to mining machinery and start working for day passes. Cripes - Canadian/Chinese citizenship? I don't even think Canadian Prime Ministers should get Chinese Visas. Forget it. The further away from China we stay - the more likely there will still be a metre of Canadian owned ground by the year 2020.
Canadian/French citizenship? Who cares?
Unless... Sayyyyy - maybe instead of Stephane Dion revoking his dual Canadian/French citizenship, he could get THE REST OF US dual Canadian/French citizenship. You know, like when you bring gum to class - bring enough for EVERYBODY.
I like it - I like it a lot.
I was watching the news the other day and who do I see commenting on recent New Conservative Party of Canada policy initiatives but Mahar Arar. You know Mahar Arar. He's that guy everybody thought was a Terrorist because he got deported to Syria to be tortured in a Syrian prison. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on whether or not you were pointing the finger or having the finger pointed at you - he turned out to be just some Arab guy with a beard who knew a guy who knew a guy and so on and so forth down the line to a Training Camp somewhere in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is bad, by the way, because the Americans bombed it after 9/11, which they never would have done if the Terrorists responsible for flying American planes out of American airports in to American buildings hadn't been mostly from Saudi Arabia. It's a winding road to the Bad Countries sometimes, just as it's a winding road to the Bad Guys. And sometimes you end up in the ditch with your underpants on your head and sometimes you don't. But it's important to make decisions about good and bad and stick to your guns. Heck - stick to your guns? Start firing them. You just never know.
And to be fair, in the Mahar Arar case there was plenty of speculative innuendo backed up by quiet hysteria passing back and forth between herd instinct bureacracies to make the vague but dogged assumption that he was a Terrorist. And let's face it - being deported to Syria to be tortured hasn't done his career any harm, so I don't know why he's suing the government now. I mean, when was the last time you saw a once suspected Terrorist leap into a Policy Analyst gig - on national television, no less. If anything, the government should be suing him - $500 million for making it look bad after it made him look good.
So, lest we go soft on this whole "alleged terrorist/possible crimes against humanity tempest in a teapot/needle in a haystack slippery slope to a live minefield", contrast Mahar Arar's star treatment with an incident that happened at the Liberal Leadership convention. And no - I don't mean the incident where some French Poindexter nobody had ever heard of until it turned out he had French citizenship, had once belonged to the Parti Quebecois and owned a dog named Kyoto - came up the middle to knock out the two front runners - an essentially American professor at Harvard and an essentially socialist former New Democratic Party leader and one-time Premier of Ontario. Who could have guessed - WHO? - that the guy in the middle would sneak up to part those two stellar, baggageless front runners to win the day. Surely THAT has never happened before. The quiet guy coming up the middle to knock out the "Excuse me Ma'am, But You're Blocking my Ego's View of Myself" front runners? Never. I can't think of a single time such a thing has happened at a political convention.
No. Not THAT incident. I mean the incident (and when I say incident, I mean "Arab Anti-Semitic Smear Campaign") that happened to Arlene Perly Rae at the Liberal Leadership convention a couple of weekends ago. Apparently, at some point during the convention, a guy from an Arab association of one kind or another sidled up to Ms. Perly Rae to say something to the effect of, "Don't vote for Bob Rae. His wife is Jewish. She's so Jewish she's even a Vice President of the Canadian Jewish Council." To which Ms. Perly Rae replied, "I'm Bob Rae's wife." Then, instead of recovering his composure to casually quip, "Er... that's funny.... you don't LOOK married..." or somesuch, the Arab Anti-Semite Smear Campaigner just slithered off into the convention to join all the other Arab Anti-Semite Campaigners in passing around a flyer that said pretty much the same thing.
To complicate matters, a group, possibly an army, of New Conservative Party of Canada Government Operatives had meanwhile infiltrated the Liberal Leadership convention to carry out an "Anybody but Bob Rae" Smear Campaign of their own. They bragged later that they were successful because Rae, who could have wiped the floor with Stephen Harper in a National Election, had lost to some French Poindexter nobody had ever heard of until these same New Conservative Party of Canada Government Operatives turned National Patriots found out that he had French citizenship, etc etc. The fact that he also had a Mom who spoke for him - in French - and made him seem a little bit like a survivor of the Bates Hotel was just icing on the cake. For everybody, really. Because now we get to freshenup/deracistify a debate in Canada about dual citizenship that started when the New Conservative Party of Canada Government decided to rescue scads of Lebanese-Canadians stranded in Lebanon when Israel responded to Hezbollah's kidnapping/capture of two Israeli soldiers by bombing Lebanon's infrastructure and killing thousands of civilians.
Instead of sending Israel the bill, unfortunately, the New Conservative Government of Canada sent it to us. Canadian taxpayers. Which, to be fair, I suppose includes at least a handful of the rescued Lebanese Canadians.
Thankfully, no one is suggesting that the New Conservative Party Operatives didn't want Bob Rae to win because he's Jewish. At least, I assume not. Since they'd hardly have bragged so loudly about their successful Smear Campaign to see him defeated - would they? No. No they would not. If anybody is going to take credit for smearing Bob Rae, it's going to be their boss, Stephen Harper. Afterall, he was first up to call the whole lot of Liberal Leadership contenders "Anti-Israel". And he stood by his smear, too. No apologizer is Stephen Harper. Not on your life. CJC Vice President wife or not. Stephen Harper does NOT play favourites when he smears a group of people.
On another bright note, the Arab Anti-Semite Smear Campaigner seems to be sufficiently ashamed that he isn't coming forth to say, "Yah. It was me. I did it." All we get are denials. So. There's that, at least. Denials. No bragging. Just denials.
Meanwhile, in the middle of this morass of Hijinks and Anti-Semitism there was a flyer in circulation telling delegates not to vote for Bob Rae because of his views on Israel. Now, Stephen Harper called Bob Rae "Anti-Israel" so we know for sure that it wasn't him circulating the flyer. In fact, the finger pretty much points to the Canadian Arab Federation. It would appear that, even while New Conservative Party operatives were carrying on an "Anybody But Rae" Smear Campaign because they feared that if he won he would wipe the floor with Stephen Harper, IRONICALLY, the CAF was carrying on its OWN smear campaign, from WITHIN the LIberal Party, because it feared that if Bob Rae won he would... ... ... be... less... Anti-Israel... than... Stephen Harper had led them to believe he was...
Anyway, if there is anything good at all to come out of any of this, at least we know that Mahar Arar is the new go-to guy on the New Conservative Government of Canada policies regarding Terrorists, that the New Conservative Party of Canada sends Operatives to get up to hijinx at Liberal Leadership conventions and that even Anti-Semites are ashamed enough of their blatant Anti-Semitism to NOT own up to Perly Raegate.
I asked a question the other day, apropos of abortion, "Who said having a baby was better'n not having a baby, anyway?"
Even I thought it sound pretty sacreligious. Then I remembered God's words, "Go forth and multiply". That's why it sounded sacreligious - because it IS sacreligious.
In any case, the question came about because I was contemplating actual motherhood versus the version of motherhood presented in abortion debates by anti-choice consumers, er, I mean, citizens - and I realized that for all its seeming glory and importance to the well-being of all, it's pretty shittily paid. I mean, for a society that measures a fellow's worth in monetary terms....
Aha! "A fellow's worth" - that's it! Mothers are women! Always and forever! THAT'S why the pay is so shitty!
And the reason I'm mentioning pay in the context of motherhood is because even people (men, in this particularly section of the debate, I've noticed) who aren't necessarily anti-choice, believe abortion, legal though it may be, should not necessarily be covered under our public healthcare system. Or, if it is, it should have conditions attached. Because abortion isn't cancer or even a sports-related injury. It's different. It's a choice. Women CHOOSE to have abortions.
(I could say that maybe birth shouldn't be covered under our public healthcare system either, then. Since women CHOOSE to have babies. In fact, maybe babies shouldn't be covered. Or kids. Or adults. Since people who choose NOT to bring new life into the world are being penalized by those who do.)
(And don't think privatizing healthcare would change THAT argument. After all, insurance rates would still be predicated on what it costs to PROLONG life. Clearly, the childless get hosed no matter the system.)
On the other gender hand, women who are anti-choice, I've noticed, are anti-choice for religious reasons. They believe abortion is a sin. Sometimes, they believe that the life of the unborn zygot, fetus, baby is more sacred than the life of the mother. That it is without sin and therefore more promising a life. Innocent. Everything.
Now, I've known practicing Catholic mothers whose daughters have had abortions. They are invariably practical people, Catholics. And I say "Catholic" because I happen to know lots of Catholics and they are the group I associate most with the abortion issue because their Church is so demonstrably ruled by men. It is a top down hierarchy with the entire top level being all male and there being no other level. Really. Nuns being a separate pink ghetto altogether - completely missing out on the money angle of Church life. (And I realize all religions are Patriarchal, I'm just using Catholicism because it's the one I know best, although I'm from a United Church family, myself.)
These girls had abortions IN SPITE of the fact that the stigma of teenaged pregnancy is largely a thing of the past. Gone are the days when the daughter had to be hidden away, when the ensuing baby was just shameful evidence of a genetically flawed morality. I know baby boomer parents of indeterminate religion - they may be Catholic, I don't know - who are raising grandchildren - quite happily. I know - I actually know - a father - a father - who is secretly harbouring the hope that one of his daughters will get pregnant - out of wedlock - and that she'll give the baby to her mother and him to raise. They want grandchildren, you see. Just not a son-in-law. Or even, really, their daughters hanging around the house, anymore. They want a fresh, new baby with whom to get it right. As he jokes, "The girls are okay. But I could do better if I had another shot at it. I was too young the first time 'round. And now the old ball and chain is too old to have one of our own."
Adoption is out of the question. They've lived lives too wild to pass any kind of an adoption agency test. Oh sure, they could lie. I mean, anybody who has successfully adopted a baby that I know has lied. Lied through their teeth. It's the only way to get a baby through adoption. My God, we'd have babies piled up for adoption from the 1930s if people didn't lie. And our society makes liars out of adoptive parents because we pretend that Motherhood is the most valuable of valuables.
So valuable we simply cannot put a price on it. You'd just better be one freakin' holy consumer, er, citizen if you want to adopt a fresh clean baby in this society.
Or a damn good liar. (Which you're going to need to be anyway, since parenthood seems to me to be an ever-increasing lie pile. Unless that's just me...)
So, back to the funding angle. While anti-choice women don't seem to argue much about the funding angle - their starting and finishing point is that abortion is wrong because God says it's wrong - men, anti-choice and "pro-choice-with-conditions", will often argue the funding point like some men will argue the finer points of bass guitar vs guitar. As in, abortion shouldn't be funded under a universal healthcare system. That it's not just a medical procedure. It's... more. al...
It's MORAL! Aha! It's a moral issue. Not a medical procedure. Well, it's that, too, they'll concede. But with conditions attached. Moral conditions. As defined by health boards, committees, tribunals. Inquisitions even, maybe.
Hm. Well, well. Let's see here. It's legal. We have a universal publicly funded healthcare system. Policians are overwhelmingly male. Hospital administrative boards are overwhelmingly male. Abortion is...
Oh, it's a FEMALE medical procedure. A female medical procedure that translates into "No Baby". Now... why would Man X care if Woman Y has Man Z's baby or not? We know for a fact that Western anti-choice people aren't throwing themselves down in Tiannemen Square to protest China's mandatory abortion laws. We know there are plenty of crack babies born in North America who aren't being adopted by people desperately wanting a baby of their own to nurture and raise. We KNOW that there is an incredible and historically unprecedently human population competing for limited Earth resources.
What gives? Well, even the most cursory reading of almost all of our rightwing male pundits will reveal a touch of tribalism at play in the argument that abortion is an abomination to humanity. Yes. Of course. Especially.... white humanity. These are the same pundits who believe motherhood is the most valuable of valuables. So valuable that... yaddayadda blahblah... quit being so mercenary Mom - a baby is its own reward.
Because isn't it all just so much mumbo jumbo? God said, "Go forth and multiply". He didn't say, "Have an abortion if you don't want a baby. All those birth control pills you ladies are taking are destroying marine life and turning boys into girls. And hey guys - vasectomies really aren't all that reversible - and they hurt like a bitch - if you weren't such putzes you'd demand at least a couple of days stay over in the doctor's office. Hey kids, latex condoms can lead to latex allergies - a nasty lifelong affliction which will expose your hands to the caustic aging elements of dishwashing detergent - oh, and STD's when you take them off because if you're like every other kid, you're probably pretty stupid and 'in the moment, man' and think you can't make a baby your 100th time, anyway."
Or did He? Because in the absence of Patriarchy (which I am slowly but surely eliminating all vestiges of from my life - and you'd be surprised how much Patriarchal debris haunts the life of a Fatherless girl) - I find it hard to believe that God DID NOT say the above. I mean, how much do we REALLY know about the guys - GUYS - who took down His - HIS - every word?
That's right. Not much. All I know for sure is that a lot of people feel they should have the right to tell me whether or not I should have to carry a pregnancy to term, and that even those people who feel they shouldn't REALLY have the right - TOTALLY, like without the backup of a Committee or somesuch Group of Superiour Beings - to tell me whether or not I should have to carry a pregnancy to term, DO believe that they shouldn't have to pay for my choice - IF, and this is important - IF I choose to NOT bring the pregnancy to term.
Otherwise, they're probably okay with it. Even though babies cost WAY more than abortions.
Hm...
I am pro-choice. That means I believe Canadians must fund abortion services in hospitals all across the country in the same way that we fund other medical procedures that require no out-of-pocket patient expenses or special consideration by hospital administrative boards or the running of a gauntlet of picketers.
In spite of what we may believe is so, the above is not. Access to abortion is an issue. A really big issue and it is not getting the attention it deserves.
In my world, women should be able to say to their employers - whether Butcher, or Baker, or Catholic Priest candlestick maker, or even New Conservative Government of Canada Prime Minister, "I can't come in to work today because I'm going to to the hospital to have an abortion" and not risk being fired or censured in any way by said man (because, let's face it, most butchers and bakers ARE men - just not in the home). Sure, the boss can go into his closet and secretly sentence her to burn in hell for all etenity, but he can't fire her - or shouldn't be able to fire her - if, in fact, he can. I don't know. Maybe one of my legal beagle readers can run a check on that one.
Because I've come to the point in my pro-choice stance where I believe only a class action lawsuit by women who believe they have suffered unduly from having had an abortion because of this well-funded and anti-democratic ongoing campaign by anti-choice crusaders (as opposed to anything to do with having had an abortion) - will silence this subtly and not so subtly approved form of fascism.
Standard Disclaimer: Sooey has never had an abortion and isn't likely to require one any time soon. Sooey was lucky in childbirth and although she feels empathy for women who haven't been so lucky, she does not believe that she owes them a baby, either. A kidney, maybe - she's got two good ones and only needs one. But not a baby.
Now, I know it's harsh to the ear, but tough nuts, I'm going to say it anyway because in all this standard disclaimer abortion rights talk: "last resort", "nobody wakes up one morning and says I think I'll get pregnant today so I can have an abortion later", "tough decision no one wants to have to make" - something essential to the debate about abortion rights is missing. Here it is: Abortion isn't the problem. It's the solution. Abortion is just a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. To my mind, you either support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Or you don't. (And the people who argue that abortion should be allowed only in cases of incest or rape rank right up there with abusive nuns and nose-picking car drivers in my books. Mostly because anybody who would argue that incest can't fairly be assumed to be rape in 99.9% of cases is probably harbouring some pretty sick delusions of what little girls want - sexually - from Grampa. I mean, think of it. They think that's a compromise: "Only in cases of incest or rape". Girls and women having to prove Grampa or a violent criminal did it before they have the shameful right to abort the fetus.)
Sick much? The Reform Party's health critic believed that nonsense. Dr. something or other. Do you believe it? It's a fact. A Canadian fact. Ask Vic Toews his views on abortion. Tony Clement once famously said on the provincial campaign trail right here in Ottawa that he's "51% in favour of abortion, 49% opposed". He's Canada's Minister of Health, by the way. Yeah. I know. Well, SOMEBODY voted for the New Conservative Government of Canada.
And this is an aside, but I wonder why all the white male Christian pundits who want feminists to GET MAD about the Islamic Fundamentalist Menace and who vehemently oppose women's rights to legal abortions (ESPECIALLY legal abortions that are publicly funded under our healthcare system) don't understand that, yes, if and when the Islamic Fundamentalist Menace paddles over to our shores and takes over our political system and denies women the right to abortion we will get mad but right now - YOU ARE THE ENEMY! A highly hypocritical enemy, I might add, since I notice these same fellows aren't devoting their lives to saving the unborn over in China. Where women are FORCED to have abortions. EVERY SECOND OF EVERY DAY!
But no - it's the Islamic Fundamentalist Menace I'm supposed to worry about. Why? Because it'll re-criminalize abortion? I know it will. So will you if you have your way. And once you take away my human rights - because reproductive control over my body is a human right - the rest is just more of the same. Geddit?
Another aside - how in the hell do these anti-choice campaigners suppose the government will enforce the re-criminalization of abortion? Will pregnant women be strapped to gurneys until the fetus is brought to term to prevent them from seeking illegal abortion services? How would this system work, exactly. Like the reverse system works in China, perhaps? Every pregnancy brought to term would certainly feed our pundits' fantasies of a white Christian fighting force to counter-act the ever present Islamic Fundamentalist Menace. I'm not sure what they'd do with the Muslim babies being born to Canadian women. Maybe they haven't got that far yet in their plan to prevent the Islamic Fundamentalist Menace from taking over our world. Or is it their world. Because their world certainly isn't my world.
And quite frankly, I don't know what they're so afraid of anyway. All of those guys would do very well in an Islamic Fundamentalist Menace society.
But the real reason I am posting about this in such a "going off half-cocked" way is because the Ottawa Citizen (it has a fundamentalist Christian editorial board - of all things journalistic) is reporting on a decision by the Carleton University Student Association to not fund an on-campus anti-choice group.
Oh really? And why was it funding an anti-choice group before? Because THAT makes ME mad. A group campaigning to take away human rights was being funded by a student association? For how long? Who approved THAT decision?
For shame. Thank gawd the new President has put a stop to such irresponsible nonsense. In fact, said anti-choice group just sent a lawyer around to the latest meeting of the association. The President, a feisty gal, reportedly said to Mr. Strongarm, "You want to bring on a lawsuit? Go right ahead."
Good for her. Because that brings me back to the beginning of this entry. I started thinking about the reality of abortion services in this country and the language used by Christian fundamentalists and others - lots of others - about abortion - a perfectly legal medical procedure - and as far as I am concerned, they are inciting hatred against a group of people. A specific group of people. They speak of women who have had abortions as murderers deserving to burn in hell. They - just like the people who don't seem to disagree with Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists - don't condemn and often tacitly approve the murder of doctors. And I say doctors because that's what these victims of homicide are. People who provide abortion services are doctors. Anti-choice "crusaders" have created a climate of fear for doctors providing abortion services, women who are in need of abortions and people who campaign for better access to abortion services for all women in Canada.
Anti-choice crusaders seem to be completely free in our society to actively whip people up into a frenzy of hatred against a specific group of people at rallies and campaigns across the country. Why?
Should they be allowed to do this? I'm just asking. Because I support the right to free speech. But abortion is legal. Why are women having to put up with these hate-filled diatribes and attempts by people to take away their rights as people? Is it time to fight back in the courts against the demagogues who want the state to take control over women's reproductive rights? At what point does society stop saying, "Just ignore them. They'll soon get tired and go home." Because they don't get tired. They win elections. They even conceal their agendas to get elected. Once in power they take away funding for women's legal rights groups and stack the judiciary with anti-choice advocates. It's happening right now. Here in Canada. Look at the changes Stephen Harper has made in just a few months.
Like I said - I'm just asking. But when do we fight back? Or do we just keep taking this constant assault on our rights as people?
Abortion is a legal medical procedure provided by our universal publicly funded healthcare system.
It's time we started defending it.
Louder.
THANK YOU!
I feel like Stephane Dion.
Thanks to all my faithful readers, friends, colleagues and cousins who voted over at the Canadian Blog Awards.
Congrats also to my pals Tod Maffin (Inside the CBC) as well as my guys at the Galloping Beaver, Matthew Good, Peace, Order and Good Government, Eh? ... and nominee Sheenavision who shoulda won dammit.
Unfortunately, for this blog, this may well be a posthumous award. Until that decision is made, my treeware columns are here.
I know. I know. Paper. Ewwwwwwwww.
P.S. Note that comments were closed only on that last post. The comments had once again drifted far off topic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. She should be feeling more like Michael Ignatieff - IF he'd won the Liberal leadership. Because there was never any doubt that she'd not win Best Media Blog in this years Blog Awards hosted by this Cool Blogger:
Robert McLelland
But speaking of Robert McLelland, this entry is going to be about the last two lines of Ms. Zerbisias's entry: "P.S. Note that the comments were closed only on that last post. The comments had once again drifted far off topic."
Now, if you follow Ms. Zerb's Blog at all you know what she's really talking about - she's talking about every single one of her Blog Entries becoming a polarized debate about Israel vs Everything and Everybody Everywhere. It was uncanny. One minute commenters would be telling pet stories, the next minute there'd be that plaintive plea: "The Jews! The Jews! What about The Jews!"
"The Jews", by the way, means "Israel" in the context of Blogging. That way, when the Commenters show up who don't agree with Israel's "discrimination" against the Palestinians, or its "war crimes" in Lebanon, or its "threats" to nuke Iran - the Commenters who DO agree with Israel's "defensive" policies regarding the above three "agent provocateurs" - can call them "Anti-Semites".
You know, in the same way Stephen Harper called all of the Liberal leadership candidates "Anti-Israel" when Michael Ignatieff referred to Q'ana as a War Crime. Even though you'd have thought it was only fair commentary after having said he wasn't losing any sleep over the deaths of civilians (i.e. "Human Shields" if you are Pro-Murder, er, I mean Pro-Israel) in Lebanon due to the defensive (i.e. "indiscriminate" if you are Anti-Semitic, er, I mean Anti-Israel, er, I mean, Anti-Murder) bombing of Lebanon by Israel.
So, you can see how exasperating it would be if you were Blogging about your dog and within two or three Comments, your Commenters were flinging poo - Joo poo, really (if you're, well, gawd - either/all of the above, I guess - i.e. Anti/Pro Israel/Murder and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.)
Yes, indeed. You'd be some exasperated. You'd also be drawn into the debate (i.e. "Bore-a-thon" if you have no interest in the Middle East but do enjoy Entries about dogs) and find yourself torn between trying to reason with PsychoFascistDementoids ("Pro-Israel Nutters") and trying to get your Sane Commenters ("Not Pro-Israel Nutters") BACK ON TOPIC!
Unfortunately, that old saying "The Political Is The Personal" was never truer than it is on Blog Comments sections. And for some reason - the Middle East just seems to trump everything - decency, decorum, democracy. And I say democracy because even the most generous of Bloggers ends up having to delete Comments and ban Commentators because it is all just so over the top.
Yup. That's right. I've had a few Comments deleted, myself. I had a running "Bitch" gag going that Ms. Zerbisias eventually tired of - thank gawd, since I really push the envelope, sometimes. To the point where even I want to delete me, but being a bit of a Technotard - don't know how. So I can't imagine what it's like for people who don't think I'm funny. (I know, I know - you're thinking, "Is that even possible, Sooey?" Yes. Yes, it is, Dear Reader. Especially if you're a Pro-Israel/Murder/Fascism PsychoMcSquirrelbrain CrazyMcNumbnuts PooPooHead.) I also asked once in a Comment if we could still say "Israel Sucks Ass!!!" after Ms Zerb had had enough one night and deleted a bunch of scurrilous posts from both sides of the "Debate". That got deleted. Probably more because it was in a thread about Normal Spector. You know, the old Tory whore who called the middle-aged Liberal whore, Belinda Stronach, a "Bitch". (And, by the way, he's apparently suing some media outlet for claiming he defined "Bitch" to suit "Belinda" and not the other way around, or something - so don't tell him I called him an "old Tory whore" because I'm not sure how to define whore. Brian Mulroney, maybe?)
Anyway, in the midst of all this I've noticed that something is different. (And here's the part of my entry where I try to convince Ms. Zerbisias to keep her Comments section on her Blog - IF she even keeps her Blog - but that's another entry.) George W. Bush is a Lame Duck President. And by that I mean - the Middle East isn't the Grand Poobah of Politics anymore. Because none of the above really had anything to do with Israel. It all had to do with the polarization between the Political Right and Sanity. Sanity being Everybody Else. Without this polarization, suddenly Israel is just another country the rest of the world needs to keep an eye on - whether you're Pro-Israel or just a Normal Decent Human Being.
Yes, indeed. Call me Pollyanna Sunshine, but I think the storm has passed. And it passed with the election of a Democratic Congress and Senate. Balance is restored. The moon and the stars are in alignment. All is as it should be, or will be, when the Moron Chimp is gone and replaced with a Democrat. Or, at least, a Human Biped.
It is, once again, safe to have a Comments section, Ms. Zerbisias.
I was raised in one of those died-in-the-wool political families. Liberal, in my case. And I don't know if people from non-political families realize this, but died-in-the-wool politics within a family is all consuming. It's pervasive. It's dominant. It's everything.
Combine that with a widowed mother and you get adult children who rebel by, by, by, spoiling their ballot instead of voting for David Peterson when they work for Bob Rae.
Because, yes, I worked for Bob Rae when he was Leader of the Third Party or Opposition (I can't remember which) and was on maternity leave when he won the Big Prize (at that time) and became the first NDP Premier of Ontario. I was happy for him, but a bit alarmed, too. I wanted to stay home with my baby and had been planning all along to hand in my resignation once my maternity leave was up. His win changed all that because I had to field calls from family and friends who said, "Get back there and hustle for an Executive Assistant gig!" when I knew that the (probably) $60,000 I'd be foregoing in not doing that would be worth it in the long family run.
Still, it was hard. It would have been a lot harder, though, had I known I'd be separated from my husband several years later and facing the same worry of Bob Rae winning the Liberal leadership and having to leave my ill-paying but flexible and easy job to do the hustle up on Parliament Hill. (I figured Bob Rae would have a hard time saying, "But aren't you an NDPer?")
I could pretend I feel a bit bad that he didn't win, but I don't. I guess I'm just not ambitious.
But back to politics. I was never much of an NDPer. I liked Bob Rae and my co-workers, but it's a hard thing to shake off a Liberal mother. Especially a Liberal WIDOWED mother. Probably not a day went by when we weren't expected to thank the Liberal Party of Canada for something or other. And we didn't need God because we had Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
It was like that, too. I'm not exaggerating even a bit. Sometimes I wonder if maybe my mother when she was a child had been in a near drowning incident and The Liberal Party of Canada happened by in a boat to save her. Or perhaps she had wandered off from her parents on the farm and was lost in the woods and The Liberal Party of Canada showed up in a Forest Ranger jeep and rescued her. Or maybe she was starving and penniless on a city street, having just graduated from Teacher's College, and The Liberal Party of Canada drove by and picked her up and took her to Headquarters for a hot meal before dropping her off at an elementary school that had a sign in the window, "Looking to hire a starving and penniless recent Teacher's College graduate who's just had a hot meal at The Liberal Party of Canada's Headquarters".
So watching the Liberal Leadership Convention on Saturday was fun - if a bit nerve-wracking (see above concern about Bob Rae possibly winning). But a little confusing for my kids - who think of me as an NDPer. A socialist. And a real free-thinker. Because there I was cheering on Stephane Dion like he's a good thing instead of Jack Layton's worst nightmare. My kids were like, "So, Mom? Will Jack Layton beat him?" And I was like, "Who?"
I really think they're very confused by the whole experience. And it's not that I'm any less socialist today than I was last week. It's just a happy thing for anybody who was raised in one of those died-in-the-wool polical families when the guy not backed by the Party Establishment wins the day. That's fun for people like me. It puts the Oomph back in that tired partisan game where winning the Big Prize is all that matters and Party Principles get put in the back seat. There was something akin to being a rebellious kid that had me enjoying Stephane Dion's win. It was like being eight years old and back in Sault Ste. Marie dumping the Trudeau flyers in the garbage instead of handing them out at the door and telling steelworkers who always voted NDP why they should vote Liberal instead.
I dunno. It was liberating. I won't vote for him - I've decided to commit to the NDP in hopes of the same renewal down the road of a great big fat backlash to great big fat Labour and the election of a grassroots Leader from the Prairies. Maybe even Alberta. Imagine a Calgary area rancher turned organic farmer heading up the New Democratic Party of Canada.
Ooh. Now THAT'S politically exciting. THAT'S a guy for whom I'd re-invent myself to do the Hustle on the Hill.
Anyway, whatever your politics, it's a good thing when the Anti-Establishment guy wins the Leadership of the party. There's nothing quite like knocking the Big Blue Machine off its game with the grassroots election of a big old thug like Mike Harris. Or spitting in the Old Conservative Party of Canada's eye with the election of a Christian Evangelical Zealot like Stephen Harper. And now - putting the boots to Power Corp AND Quebec nationalists and electing a French federalist poindexter pretty much unknown to the entire rest of the country as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
As former Prime Minister (aka, "The Old Monster") Jean Chretien said, "It's all about winning elections."
NOT! - old man.
It's all about the political grassroots electing the Party's leader.
Bottom's up.
Last night at my book club we discussed "Suite Francaise". I had put off starting it until last Sunday night, then had to read 100 pages on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday as it turned out to be a 400 page book. I really wish somebody had told me it was about occupied France and NOT the Holocaust, because I would have started it much sooner than I finally did. An occupied France doesn't bother me. I could read 1,000 books about occupied France and not lose any sleep at night. The Holocaust gets me everytime. I hate books about the Holocaust. And movies. I mean, what kind of sadistic pervert makes a movie about THE HOLOCAUST?! Gawd. And who goes to see such movies? Cripes. Re-enacted images of the Holocaust I simply don't need seared into my memory. Just knowing that the Holocaust is out there is enough for me, thanks.
Anyway, like I said, Suite Francaise is about occupied France. And not to be mean, but I can't think of a more deserving people to be occupied. Except maybe the Germans. Although, I'm not sure how you could have occupied the Germans during the Second World War more effectively than they occupied themselves. Still, even though Suite Francaise was about occupied France and not the Holocaust, there are Appendices at the end which are pretty sad, particularly the letters written by the author's husband to assorted lilly-livered and duplicitous authorities in an attempt to trade his life for hers. In the end, they both get sent to concentration camps where they die in fairly short order. Thankfully. Their daughters survive, primarily due to a loyal maid (their maternal grandmother turns them away at the door - IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT!) and eventually, some 65 years later, the one daughter realizes that her mother, who was a famous author in her day, had left a finished manuscript of a novel about occupied France in a suitcase this same loving daughter had been carrying around all her life under the assumption that is contained a bunch of diary notes.
And yes. Truth be told, it DID cross my mind that the daughter, in fact, wrote the book and is perpetrating an elaborate hoax on us all with the miraculous tale of finding a completed manuscript, long neglected, in her mother's old suitcase, some 65 years after she died in Auschwitz. But when I posited that theory at my book club meeting last night, it was met with horrified indignation (we all loved the book - a first, I think) and the point was made that it had merely been polished up recently, first in the typing out of the manuscript by the daughter, and second in the translation from French to English and that therein lay my suspicion that we had just read something written quite recently.
I'm still skeptical and intend to test my theory with a reading of the long dead author's most famous book, "David Goldar".
Anyway, because we all liked the book, there was much chatter about it - as opposed to much chatter about husbands, kids, neighbours, schools, work, food, politics, movies, and so on and so forth. (Hilariously, we all agreed that occupied France didn't bother us much at all - one of our group lived in Paris for three years and try as she might - coming up with a good thing to say about the people of Paris is something she finds very hard to do. Still, it's pretty clear that the author had no idea of what Germans are like, since she portrayed them quite favourably, not knowing, of course, that she was doomed to die in Auschwitz, so... it is possible she just didn't have much of a handle on national stereotypes and portrayed the French as worse than they actually are. I know, I know - HOW?)
As the conversation moved on to different characters in the book, we settled on some of the older ruling class types and suddenly, for some reason related to something, I'm sure, one of our group, a younger member, said, "Hey, make sure you guys tell me I SOUND old if you hear me say something one day like, 'Oh, I can't possibly do anything on Tuesday - I have to pick up my suit at the Dry Cleaners." Then she looked at the rest of us quizzically to say, "How old do you have to be before you think you can't possibly do anything else on a day you have to go pick up your suit at the Dry Cleaners?"
Well, there was much laughter as everyone recounted different things they'd heard old people say to that effect but sitting there laughing right along with the crowd I realized that I'd complained ALL this week to my young man that I was busy every night and would barely have time to finish the book - the book I hadn't started until Sunday night on account of I thought it was about the Holocaust and not merely occupied France.
And to be painfully honest, Sunday and Monday nights were actually quite free. I just thought I was busy Sunday night because I like to do a little vacuum and tidy on Sunday nights. And Monday nights I like to make a nice supper so I can start off the week with tasty leftovers to bring to work for lunch since eating out is SO expensive and waitresses - even the snippy ones - expect a tip EVEN if you've just had a bowl of soup! Tuesday night I had a meeting at my son's school for an hour. (I had to go. Someone has be there to make sure he sits up straight and remembers to take off his hat while the lady principal addresses the audience. And I say lady, advisedly, since she clearly hasn't had her hair done anytime recently and I'm not sure why a nice suit can't make an appearance on a professional every once in a blue moon, but there you go - nobody pays attention to the details, anymore. It's all "do your own thing" and "whatever" - which I have to point out I don't know how many times a day is NOT a proper answer - let alone a proper sentence.) Wednesday night was my French class. It's two hours long so I have to make a little snack to bring in case I get a bit peckish but I believe in keeping up with the political times.
I finish work at 4:00 p.m.
I go to bed some time after 11:00 p.m.
So...
WHY DID I THINK I WAS TOO BUSY ALL WEEK TO READ A BOOK?! I used to go out and party every night of the week and still managed to get through all my university reading. For years I would go out after work, hither and yon, up to gawd knows what, and yet - I'm quite sure I managed to read two or three books a week. I mean, I don't even spend time reading the newspaper anymore and I used to read three of them - cover to cover - EVERY MORNING!!
Anyway, I didn't say anything at the time (my book club is a little Lord of the Flies-ish) but now I'm wondering, "Those hussies didn't think to tell me that I've been and gone already - did they"...
|
