Can anyone tell me . . .

. . . did any of Justin Bieber, Jim Carrey, Anne Murray, Shania Twain, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Michael J. Fox, Robert Bateman, Paul Brandt, Sarah Chalke, Emily Carr, Lorne Michaels, Norman Jewison, Chantal Kreviazuk or Stompin' Tom Connors . . . receive any arts funding? Just wondering.

I believe that it's a good idea to encourage new artists, but hey . . . let's face it . . . Canada is a small market. No matter how good, how popular, how talented any artist is, the money is south of the border and only a few will stay ... and not because they aren't receiving financial support from the government.

And truly, no government gives grants to just anyone ... you have to be published, have credits, credentials. It isn't enough to make pretty pictures, you have to prove that you have a market . . . that someone has actually bought into your talent. Emerging artists should be encouraged, but realistically, there is no credible or fair way for the government to dole out money just because someone perceives themselves to be an artist . . . so it doesn't.

If talent is our #1 export as Charlie Angus says, it isn't because Justin Bieber didn't get an arts grant. Nothing the government can do is going to stop our best and brightest artists from seeking fame and fortune across the border or around the globe when that's where the real money is.

From the above link:

Short on specific numbers, the four MPs talked instead about the need for income averaging to help starving artists, whose average income is $13,000 a year – well below the poverty line.

Income averaging? I support my family by working a crappy job, for a crappy wage, but still pay my share of taxes . . . and the NDP thinks some of my tax dollars should go to *top up* the income of someone who fancies themselves an artist? Thanks NDP. I suppose a case can be made for a government bureaucrat to hand you cash to support you as you struggle with your craft, but realistically, the market decides if it will support you while you create. It's a drag, but if you can't draw the crowds, the fans, the readers, the buyers, then maybe you should get a day job.

canadianna

Teaching moments

*** This is not a political post. It's about a personal matter. Just so you know. **

Personal responsibility is an important issue to me. Cause and effect ... everything you do has consequences.

My 17 year old daughter won't be going to her prom in two weeks. It's a decision made by her school administration this week. They say that she is the author of her own misfortune and that she has to pay for the errors of her ways. I say she is a kid, learning her way in this world and their withholding this privilege is more about control than correction. I believe there was a teaching moment available, but that maybe, if they cared to think about it, the administration should be taking a lesson from my daughter, rather than the other way around.

You be the judge:

During grades 9 & 10 Mia (not her real name) was a typical highschooler. She was average B+ student, had a lot of friends, did her homework regularly, went to class regularly and generally, had a positive attitude.

Things started to change near the end of Grade 10. She had an uncharacteristic clash with a teacher. She ended up not turning in a key assignment, and despite having had 80s in that course in the first two terms, she failed the class by a couple of marks. I had some health issues and was unable to advocate for her. She was devastated. Other circumstances exacerbated things. My health got worse for a nearly a year before it got better and money became tight because I had to be off work. It caused stress for all of my kids.

At the beginning of Grade 11, Mia wanted to change schools because things didn't feel right. She wasn't happy, but she didn't know why. She didn't see it, but I knew the signs. Depression. She had started to withdraw from her friends, deactivating Facebook, appearing offline on MSN to all but a few people. We talked about it, but although she was sad, she didn't see it as a big deal. She started skipping school, not individual classes, but missing whole days just staying at home.

Over the next few months, my dad, who lived with us throughout her whole lifetime, died. He had been like a father to her. Shortly after, Mia left school altogether and tried one of those alternative schools so she wouldn't be losing credits. The kids were all *troubled*. Drugs, alcohol, etc. She didn't fit in that kind of environment but she managed to get a credit there and then moved to a semester school out of the area. She couldn't get out of bed in the morning. She tried for a little while, and got good grades on the assignments she did, but she missed a lot. When it became apparent that she wouldn't get the credits, she stopped going altogether.

She spent the summer mostly alone or with my other kids and my mother. I'd gone back to work, but I knew she spent most of her days in bed. She refused to go to a doctor or admit that there was anything wrong. She just thought she was down because she'd messed up her previous school year. She tried focusing on getting into another school, but because of her Grade 11 year, no other school would take her.

Last September, on the second day of school, she called her old high school and spoke with a Vice Principal who told her that she could go back, and to call Guidance the next day to make an appointment. When she called the next day, the Guidance secretary told her that no, she could NOT come back, that she had officially changed high schools the previous year and that this was no longer her home school.

Mia was devastated and she held onto that conversation for a few days before she told me. In the meantime, she missed the first week and a half of school. When things were finally straightened out and it was determined she COULD go back, it took well over a week to work out a schedule, and then, the administration refused to allow her to take Grade 12 courses, even when no Grade 11 prerequisite was required. I called. I went in. I tried to explain how emotionally fragile she was without Oprahfying things. Mia hates drawing attention to herself and she only shares her feelings with a select few.

They made a couple of accommodations, but very late. She'd already missed several classes because of their delays in changing her schedule. She still had trouble getting out of bed. She had trouble catching up on the work she'd missed those first few weeks and some of the teachers were downright snarky and would embarrass her in class. She started missing again, sleeping all day. She scarcely talked with anyone outside the house. The school knows this. By December, she'd pretty much determined she'd blown the year again. She knew she should care but she felt hopeless.

In February, something changed. She started smiling again. It was such a change, that you couldn't help but notice. I'd almost forgotten that smile. She bought a ticket for her school's semi-formal, and actually went. She started talking to more people and she started showing up at school -- not to go to class --that was futile, but during lunch or spares she'd see kids she'd kept in touch with while she'd been at home, and when no one had free time, she'd just go to the library and read. It got her out of the house. Sometimes the adult hall monitors would send her home, but she was still registered at the school, so she wasn't trespassing. Sometimes, they'd tell her to go to class, but she knew that would just frustrate teachers who knew she wasn't actually there for their class. Every once in a while the school would send home attendance reports, but we'd talked and they knew her situation.

In April, she reactivated Facebook. Many of the kids in her grade didn't even realize that she wasn't actually attending class, they just thought they didn't have any in common. The adult hall monitors began harassing her every time she went to the school, despite the fact that none of her friends ever skipped class to be with her and she never went anywhere besides the library, the cafeteria or the guidance office. She continued to go, but less often and when she saw them, she'd just leave before they could tell her to.

Prom tickets went on sale in early May. She bought her ticket and then came home and asked what I thought about her inviting her friend Emily as her guest. Emily used to go to the high school too, but she got pregnant and had a baby in January. Mia knew what it felt like to be on the outside and she wanted to give Emily the same brief night of normal that she was going to have. I thought it was a great idea. Ironically, her desire to give someone else a prom is what led to Mia being denied the privilege.

Turns out, guests have to be approved. Mia had her ticket, but she had to fill out a form for the administration to check out non-students before they were allowed to buy a ticket. It was really just a formality. Mia handed in the form and was told she could pick it up and buy the extra ticket in a couple of days, but when she went back to get it, a school secretary told her that she couldn't have a guest because she couldn't go to prom. Mia explained that she'd already bought her own ticket. The secretary said that since Mia didn't go to class, she couldn't go to prom. This conversation happened in front of a crowded office. Mia left the office, uncertain as to whether the woman was correct but angry that her personal circumstances were being voiced loudly in public. Anyway, turns out, the secretary was right. By asking a guest, Mia had drawn attention to herself and the VP in charge of the prom decided to disallow her participation because of her absences.

I called the school, left a message for the VP, but he never called me back. I was advised to try a different VP, which I was loath to do because I didn't want to seem sneaky like I was trying to skip him and get Mia in without him noticing. Finally, I gave up and tried the other VP. At the beginning of the school year when scheduling was the issue, she had helped. Not this time. She blasted me. Her attitude was hard and cold. She resented that I asked that she have compassion for a girl who was painfully aware of the difficult path she had ahead of her. She said she'd exhausted her compassion and that she'd been more than accomodating.

This is prom, not a trip to the museum. There won't be another one. Once it's over, that's it. The VP suggested that this would *teach her a lesson*. I asked, what lesson exactly, given that the girl wasn't truant, but depressed . . . apparently, without a doctor's note, that's impossible. Mia will learn that there are consequences.

Hmmm . . . she's 17 with a grade 10 education. She's no dummy. I think she knows. There will be many years of facing consequences. All Mia was asking for is one night of normal.

Anyway, when I got home from work and shared my conversation with her, Mia shrugged and thanked me for trying. Later, I was still stewing about it and I messaged her on MSN. I asked her if she thought she had learned anything.

She said:

"Jokes on me. They can’t teach me that there are consequences for my actions if i already knew that. Instead they’ve taught me that i'm still a kid. i was naive enough to believe that people do things for reasons other than to help themselves. i really thought someone would help, for the simple reason they are able to."

I asked her if she was okay, and she said:

"i talked to Cate and asked if she would make emily HER guest. She did, so at least emily still gets to go. i was so worried she wouldn't get to. lol."

I asked her if it bothered her. Her answer taught me something:

no it's okay. i don't really mind.

Whenever bad things like this happen to me. I figure that at least it happened to me, because I know I can deal with these sorts of things. Other people might not be able to.

i'm at least happy emily gets to go.

she needed it more.
i'd do it the same way again.

Compassion. Empathy. Sharing. Altruism. Friendship. Selflessness. She didn't learn those things at school.

canadianna

Give the girl a break

Ruth Ellen Brosseau admits she put her name forward so the NDP could field a candidate in a riding where they hadn't one. While I believe the NDP should be taken to task for allowing someone to *fill a slot* as it were, Brosseau herself should be cut some slack.

Voters don't always look at the literature. We don't read the pamphlets that are dropped in our mailboxes. We don't open our doors to people with clipboards. We don't bother to investigate our local candidate on the Internet. We trust the party has vetted people . . . gone through a nomination process and that a local riding association has nominated and/or voted for this person to fill the spot on the ballot -- obviously that was not the case here -- and apparently a lot of ridings in Quebec. But that's on the party. The candidates, even Brosseau, did what they thought was the right thing.

There's enough pressure on the new MPs without this kind of media scrutiny. I know it's slow news on the Hill, but the media is focusing on the wrong story -- not where was she, but why? Quebec voters trusted the NDP to field qualified, dedicated candidates and Brosseau may well prove to be both of those things --- but the NDP didn't know that either way. They just needed a name to fill the spot on the ballot. That's the news. Start questioning the process that allows someone to put their name forward because they aren't expected to win and no one else can be bothered.

The new MPs from all parties have a lot to digest. Putting so much heat on this one seems a tad unfair. Yes, I can read and I know her circumstances -- not much French, never been in the riding, away during the election. None of that means as much to me as will she do her job diligently and take it seriously -- and I don't plan on basing that opinion on how she handled an election in which she obviously didn't take her chances of winning seriously.

Press Jack for answers about all of his novice MPs, but leave Brosseau to adjust to her new life. Seriously.

canadianna

The most interesting thing to come out of this election?

You no longer need Quebec for a majority.

Makes you wonder, now that Quebec has chosen the federalist, socialist option, instead of the separatist one, do the rest of us still wag?

Don't get me wrong. I believe Quebec is a distinct society -- that's one of those truths that is self-evident. Its present colour compared to the rest of the nation is enough to prove its more European flavour. That said, I don't believe its language laws should be extended federally -- nor do I believe its distinct language should be imposed on people who chose a life in public service. I believe that's what interpreters are for.

Anyway . . . my point started out being . . . hey, you don't need Quebec to achieve a majority anymore. Cool.

canadianna

Ignatieff: Allow me to slag them . . .

. . . whilst I make my graceful exit.

No sour grapes for our humble prophet Michael Ignatieff. Naw, he's a loser, but not a sore loser:

“This is a Prime Minister found in contempt of Parliament. This was a Prime Minister where the accumulations of what we believed to be abuses of power led to a point at which it seemed to me absolutely my responsibility as the leader of the opposition to stand up for the sovereignty of Parliament,” he said (when asked if he miscalculated by forcing an election.)

Ignatieff went on to say that the *just visiting* ads were:

“absolutely unscrupulous campaign of personal attack.” and “I had a very large square put around my neck for a number of years.”

Sniffle.

But, not one to make a fuss, Michael said:

"The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser” and he is “leaving politics with “(his) head held high.”

No, Mike what we like less than a sore loser, is a sore loser who takes his parting shots but pretends his still travelling the high road. Today, and throughout the campaign, you accused Harper of contempt for Canadians, abuse of power, corruption, lies, secrets plans to . . . (fill in the blank with any number of scary scenarios) But you have my sympathy because you've endured being called a political tourist. That must've been painful. Why do you suppose that is. My guess? Truth hurts.

Michael, I think you stubbed your toe on the way out.

canadianna

Finally -- Stephen Harper's REAL agenda

Paranoid anyone?

Ignatieff thinks Stephen Harper's raison d'être is to *drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party*

Ignatieff told supporters “Mr. Harper has no vision for Canada, but he has a very sharp vision for the Conservative party of Canada, which is to try to drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party.”

Does that mean all those people who called him *Count Iggy* were right?

He went on to say:

"Their politics are a sustained attempt to destroy me and destroy the party,'' Ignatieff said at a final fiery news conference on Sunday.

Whoa! And I thought Stephen Harper was merely a power hungry despot demanding more time in power and bent on the destruction of the country . . .Wow . . . He really lowered his sights by aiming at the Liberal Party.

Silly Iggy. You wrecked it all by yourself..

Whatever the outcome, at least half the results will be the product of voter-fatigue. I'm sure tired of whiny Liberals.

canadianna

Why is Jack a HOAG?

Jack, he's the mack? So says Warren Kinsella, who has all the answers--- yet again. He knows why all you average guys and gals are in a Layton-lovefest. Turns out, Layton's a cool guy -- in Warren-speak a *HOAG* (helluvaguy) --the kind you'd swig beers with at a tailgate -- because of course, that's what we *average* Canadians are all about.

Funny, I don't see it. Jack is personable enough, but if you ask me, he's the kind of guy who'd have been a geek in high school, not someone you'd want to hang out with if you were cool. Not that geek is a bad thing in my mind. I wasn't cool and I did hang out with the geeks -- but let's not pretend he's a major hockey nut or that you'd find him right down there getting into the UFC stuff that's going on now. Jack Layton is anything but the average Joe. What he is, is an elite who passes. And the only reason he passes is because he is so well versed in the game.

Kinsella attacks Harper again as the angry man. Did any of you see that in this campaign? Seriously -- partisanship aside. Harper seemed innocuous to me. Bland, calm and as Kinsella said, uninspiring -- but hardly "an angry guy who doesn’t like the country, let alone the people who live in it." .... where'd that come from besides Kinsella's obvious bias?

I remember the Harper they called angry. Weren't you angry at the Sponsorship scandal and the Liberal sense of entitlement? Wouldn't you be more angry if the media then focused on your anger than the obvious waste, mismanagement and possible corruption within the sitting government. And then to be consistently accused of the *hidden agenda* fiction .... Defending against lies and innuendo makes most people come off as angry. As for *disliking the country (and) the people who live in it* --Harper has endured so many vicious character assaults from the media he must love his country and want to serve its people if he's able to suck it up and take it the way he has, because unlike Jack, Harper wasn't born to this.

The truth is, that Layton is a huckster-extraordinaire . . . the carnival barker . . . the lifelong politician who knows how to shill and Harper is that *regular guy* -- the guy who gets frustrated with the stupidity of people who will ask the same question three times in order to get the answer they prefer. Aren't you that kind of guy? Aren't you the kind of guy who shakes your head at the dramedy of politics? Wouldn't you find it hard to play that popularity contest game?

Anyway, what gets me is these puffed up Liberals who see us as a nation of donut eaters and beer swillers who'd use the same reasoning to chose our government, as we would to choose our drinking buddies. Way to under estimate your fellow citizens, Warren. Who was it that dislikes the people of this country?

Warren? He's gettin' borin'.

canadianna

Another Tory endorsement

This time, from the Toronto Star.

When The Star turns orange, there could be no better sign that the Conservatives are the best party to govern. The formerly scarlet paper has twisted crowbars into pretzels to sell the idea that smiling Jack deserves your vote.

This is not a shock, but the truth is, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that despite the crash and burn of the Liberal party, its very own little rag would be able to find a way to stay red. I figured maybe they'd pull the Time Man of the Year cop out ... you remember the year when the winner was *you* ... I thought the Star'd set out a little blurb about the evils of each party, focussing tightly on Harper whilst treading ever so lightly on Ignatieff and then say something like . . . so hold your nose and vote . . . but only you can decide which party's policies/behaviour horrify you least.

But no. They took the high road. At least, I figure they must be high . . . how else can they justify this radical piece of advice that would lurch the nation so far to the left it would become a socialist wasteland.

Okay. That's hyperbole, but come on, if The Star can keep a straight face and endorse Layton, don't expect me to keep a straight face. What a joke The Star is. And what a HUGE waste of paper. Literally.

canadianna

All things being equal -- booo

Did you hear Ignatieff today going on about equality?

I just hate it when the privileged classes start waxing on about equality.

Please, don't pretend that you're one of *us*. That's what makes people cynical. Ivy league, silver spoon, caviar eating elites.

Run around all the campaign events you want. Do a country-wide tour. No matter where you are it's not real. You don't even know who we are, don't keep pretending you have any idea what we want.

If you knew anything about us, you'd know that the people in Mississauga didn't boo because they'd had a couple of beers like you said, they booed because they knew that's what you'd think about them.

Canadianna

I've changed my mind -- I don't like Jack

I have to admit, I don't like negative election ads. Long before the shenanigans that brought about this most recent election, I despised the Conservative *He didn't come back for you* ads. They just seemed so unnecessary, plus, I don't like the voice of the guy they have doing the voice-overs on their negative ads.

Anyway, today I saw the new Conservative ad about Jack Layton and the NDP and I decided to go look it up on conservative.ca. I'm glad I did. It made me think. A couple of google searches and I landed on Stephen Taylor's pages where I found myself re-reading things I'd completely forgotten since I shrugged off politics and went back to real life.

I remember 2008. Back then, I still paid attention to politics in a way that I haven't since. I still got angry at the sanctimony and piousness of the left. Once the talk of the rancid coalition fizzled, I sort of dropped out of current events. Burn out, I guess. Many of us spent a lot of emotion from 2004/05 and by the beginning of 2009, I'd had enough.

There are a lot of people out there like I've been this past couple of years. Disengaged. When you stop paying attention, you're also inclined to forget. I'm glad the Conservative attack ad made me remember and prompted me to google NDP strategist, Brian Topp, and his smug little book *How we almost gave the Tories the boot*.

Jack says he's *ready to be PM*

Hopefully, the blue Grits will come on over . . . because given the choice between the Liberals with their bad policies like(cap and trade) and their regurgitated promises (national daycare) and Jack Layton with his socialist agenda and soft talk on Bill 101 while he flirts with destiny . . . you won't recognize Canada when they get through with it.

canadianna

Wake up time

This morning on the news I heard Jack Layton utter the words:

In the first hundred days of an NDP government . . .

And knowing, that not only is Jack serious, that sensible people are taking the notion seriously . . . you have to hope that people everywhere will remember Bob Rae and the protest vote that gave us the NDP majority in Ontario in the 90s.

Maybe Jack's sincere belief and reaction to the upswing in the poll is enough to make more rational people snap out it and not give in to knee jerk disdain for Ignatieff and the Liberals.

Truth is, I like Jack and respect the NDP for their sincere beliefs. I simply think their fiscal policy is ruinous. Hearing those words from Jack's lips, and knowing he meant them ... it was almost surreal.

canadianna

Okay, I'll play

Always love Kate's sign generator (title link). This time I decided to play. Here are a few of my tries:




canadianna

Libs have the answer, refuse to use it

The Liberals have no official policy on abortion. The Conservatives do. Anyone who's paid attention these past few years knows that at the policy convention in 2005, the Conservative Party held that:

58. Abortion Legislation
A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

The Liberals have never made such a promise.

Now, some would say that this declaration allows a private member to put forward a bill, and that scoundrel Harper would allow his MPs to vote their conscience. What trickery! This would mean the deciding votes to institute an abortion law would have to come from the Liberals (because the Conservative Party is not 100% social conservatives and you'd never get enough from the NDP or Bloc).

I think what bothers the Liberals most is that they know that it would be the votes of their members that have the potential to regulate abortion in Canada. Scandalous!

It is unlikely that the Conservative Party alone would ever have enough votes to change the status of abortion or same-sex marriage or any other socially contentious issue. That means they'd need support from members of another party . . . Maybe the Liberals should actually make it Liberal policy that they will neither introduce nor vote for any abortion legislation brought before parliament. In one fell swoop they could thwart the secret evil social-conservative cabal in government.

Oh damn. Too simple. How could the Liberals even have a chance if they couldn't scream *hidden agenda*? They might have to think up new policy or something novel like that.

canadianna

Is it over yet?

Here's what I think.

Some Liberal strategist who secretly likes Bob Rae and wants him to be the next Liberal leader/Prime Minister, is working hard on the campaign of Michael Ignatieff.

Everyone knows Bobby and Mike are long-time frenemies. Who do you suppose is gonna pick up the pieces after the Liberal's epic failure? I think I've heard Bob Rae's name once during this campaign. Hmmmmm . . .

Sadly, and though I hate to bring it up, during past campaigns, we've watched the Conservatives fumble in the last week and half before election day -- instead of recalling that, and savouring the possibilities, we've watched Liberals anticipating their own fall. And then, when you watch SUN-TV and hear Warren Kinsella talking as though he's doing a post-mortem on the Liberal campaign, you have to think there's a plan in the works -- a plan for the next election maybe?

The natural governing party of Canada as part of a humble and weak coalition in which a separatist party holds sway? I think not. Liberals are too arrogant. They're throwing the game. They must be.

canadianna

You won't recognize Canada . . .

I think we've heard this song before.

Click the title link and read, as Warren Kinsella pulls out the same worn and tired Liberal red herrings as in 2006. What a shock. I thought hope, not fear, won elections. Who knew?

When the Liberals grasped at straws in 2006, suggesting that a Conservative win would make the sky crash, I wrote this (links to the post -- Activist Judges? Never).

Funny how the Liberals silly bag of tricks never holds anything new. Whether it's their promises, like Universal Child Care or their tactics, like scaring Canada into hating Harper (links to the post -- Defending Stephen Harper) or worse, trying to vilify a whole segment of Canadians for their core values (links to the post -- Expressing my views and advancing my cause) Liberals never seem to get bored with the idea that Canadians are too lazy to think.

Despite Kinsella's regurgitating old canards, Stephen Harper isn't stupid enough to dredge up dead social issues like same-sex marriage or abortion despite his personal beliefs on those issues. I think he and Conservatives believe they're done deals and that Canadians have other priorities. As for the death penalty, if that was in his nefarious plans, why build more jails when you're just gonna kill 'em all? And many rational, centrist Canadians agree with Harper on the long gun registry -- so as scary as going back to the days when farmers and hunters were running amok with unregistered guns, a lot of Canadians are okay if we revisit that.

The only ones scared right now are the Liberals.

Warren, you're starting to sound like a dinosaur.

Canadianna