Hmmm...I haven't so much as looked at this blog for quite some time but the urge to write something has struck again (it was about time!) and so, here I am.  Since this blog had taken a political tone before I went on this extended break, perhaps a note or two in that vein is a good place to start.

It appears that the federal election of May 2011 was riddled with problems of the kind that would put Mr. Mugabe to shame.  All right, so that was a tiny exaggeration but it is no less serious.  I am  talking about the attempts to undermine the democratic process: the phone calls, mostly to Liberal Party supporters but also others, claiming to be from Elections Canada, and telling voters that their polling station locations were changed.  It just boggles the mind that someone, in a 21st century democracy would even attempt such dirty, not to mention illegal tricks...but then again, one thinks of this government's utter contempt for democracy as shown on numerous previous occasions and, well, ceases to be surprised.  Having said that, this issue has to be fully investigated, the perpetrators punished etc. if our democracy is to survive.  I have no desire to write anything more on this now.

Shifting gears, then, I shall now launch into a little rant regarding, of all things, the interpretation of literary works.  I am not interested in going on about the nature of interpretation - hermeneutics and all that though I suppose that would add to the discussion.  Then again, this is a rant, not a discussion! Ha!  It all started recently and with a movie no less.  Yes.  A movie.  A movie about a book club...well, I could do what it does to Jane Austen and leave it in that misinterpreted state!  Yes, a book club features prominently in the film (and I was so tempted to say "in the feature"...) but the film is about a lot more than that.  It's about human relationships, particularly of the romantic persuasion (yes, this, too, is deliberate), the trials and tribulations associated with them at different points of the human life span etc.  I actually found it a very watchable film ultimately but, and there had to be a "but," it was rendered a lot less so by the disservice it does to the audience, not to mention Jane Austen herself, and indeed, her devoted readers.

So what's the fuss?  Someone had a different interpretation of an Austen novel; big fucking deal!  Well, yes, it is a big deal.  How can anyone who claims to be a fan of Austen misinterpret the central point of Persuasion?  How can anyone claim, as they do in this film (and I believe the film is The Jane Austen Book Club), that either Wentworth stops loving Anne or that she stops loving him?  Yes, his ego takes a beating when Anne is forced to give him up but he never stops thinking about or loving her.  And, upon their meeting after several years, it is that wounded ego that doesn't want to show Anne that she is still loved by Wentworth.  The captain's behaviour is meant to show her that she made a mistake.  Anne, for her part, has never stopped loving him which is evident from the fact that she kept informed on his career etc., as well as her reactions to being in the same company as him, all those years later.  This is all very crudely written but it gets the point across.  I just can't understand how anyone can not see that...

Now on to the other novel so fundamentally misinterpreted that it makes my blood boil.  Well, not quite but again, I fail to see how any serious reader can get it wrong.  The novel is The Idiot by F. M. Dostoyevsky and again, we are dealing with very important relationships that are clearly misunderstood by someone who tried to interpret the novel for others on one of those websites (I don't recall exactly where I saw this particular analysis but it doesn't really matter).  So, what could be so offensive in the interpretation that I am about to talk about?  Well, let's just say that to misinterpret this is to misunderstand the whole book.

What I am talking about revolves around the relationship(s) between Myshkin, Rogozhin and Nastasya Filipovna.  The interpretation that so shocked me holds that Rogozhin loves Nastasya more passionately than does Myshkin.  That is all one needs to know about this interpretation.  It is immature and fails to see that Rogozhin does not love Nastasya at all while Myshkin loves her in a more platonic sense.  Rogozhin is infatuated to be sure but he tries (and I guess succeeds?) to buy her...to buy her for crying out loud!  He doesn't love her; he loves the idea of possessing her, a woman of great beauty whom other men want to marry (and indeed long to possess, as well).  It is about Rogozhin beating out competition because he can outspend them.  In this sense, he reduces her to the level of a prostitute, a misconception the St. Petersburg society already shares.  It is only Myshkin who sees things clearly and he is motivated by an innocent love and a sincere wish to help/save her.

As for Nastassya herself, she decides to go with Rogozhin both as an act of self-immolation and as a mockery of both the society and indeed Rogozhin himself.  She feels that she doesn't deserve any better, falsely blaming herself for the image the St. Petersburg elite have of her.  The only man she comes close to loving is Myshkin, who for all his understanding and compassion, is not in love with her but with Aglaya.  Something like that, anyway.  The point is, Rogozhin, for all his fire, does not love Nastasya.  He is simply not capable of it.  He is a small man whose petty jealousies and need to have somehting others don't, drive his actions.  He is infatuated with Nastya, but so is pretty much every man in the novel.  To interpret his madness as love is to miss the mark completely.  I think I'll stop there.

What Am I Missing?

Ok...so can someone (pretty please?) explain to me how something can be considered a valid referendum when the ballots are mailed in, in a "secrecy envelope" (ie. the one containing the ballot) inside another envelope containing the voter's name and address? And not only that, but the voter is required to sign the envelope and provide his/her date of birth. They might as well ask for picture ID and perhaps some fingerprints, while they're at it! Someone clearly doesn't understand some of the basic tenets of democracy (secret ballot, anyone?) or indeed what a referendum should look like. It is indicative of incompetence at best and...something more nefarious at worst...Either way, it is a poor example to those in other parts of the world who, we like to flatter ourselves, look to emulate us and learn from our successes with democracy. I was goign to add so much more but I'm too tired to do so at this point. Perhaps another time.

Another Election, Another Attempt at Recovery...

So, here we are. We have elected a Conservative majority. Despite the fact that Mr. Harper has shown dictatorial tendencies even in the minority governments he's lead (abusing the prorogation powers in order to shut down debate in Parliament and to avoid being defeated by a non-confidence motion; firing independent watchdogs for doing their job; attempting to muzzle people like Richard Colvin...and the list goes on), Mr. Harper somehow gets to lead Canada for at least 4 more years. This time, we do not have the luxury of an opposition that holds more seats than the government, meaning that, in effect, the government can rule unrestrained. In the case of Mr. Harper, a man who does not believe in our public healthcare system, or a woman's right to choose, or indeed in a free press, this is a very scary prospect indeed (errr...make that reality, now).

So how did we end up here? The most obvious answer is the FPTP electoral system which, unless one is in a two-party state, is fundamentally anti-democratic. I have talked about that before, so I won't waste time/space repeating all that. Another reason, and this perhaps should've been mentioned first, is the lack of political education of the average Canadian. Indeed, even with the current system, a politically educated/mature electorate which truly wanted to get rid of Harper and his hardliners, would have found a way to do so. They would not have bought Harper's character assassination ads or Layton's cheap one-liners and would've seen that, under the current system, voting for the NDP ultimately meant voting for Harper. Having said all that, the Liberals are by no means blameless in all this. They could've done a better job of defending their leader and platform against the attacks and indeed of attacking Harper on the economy, which despite Harper's claims, is not his strong point.

One of the more disappointing things in all this is the NDP's failure to recognize that a Harper majority, in any incarnation, is still a lot worse for Canada and the values the NDP supposedly stands for than a Liberal minority, even though in this case, it could have been and NDP minority, had Mr. Layton not wanted a Harper majority. He may have talked the talk, but Layton certainly did not walk the walk. In fact, ever since 2004, the NDP's actions have been of a lot more help to Mr. Harper, than to the opposition. Even in this campaign, the NDP spent a lot more time and resources, especially after the English language debate, going after the Liberals than going after Harper and his record of corruption and mismanagement. Seeing all this in the context of who got what in this election, one begins to wonder if there wasn't a resurrection of the 2004 Con/NDP/Bloc coalition...

I maintain that Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and M. Duceppe all got what they wanted this election. The first got his long desired majoity government; the second got his long-coveted promotion to leader of the opposition; the third, though he lost a lot of seats, will likely get his wish of an independent Quebec, even if it takes a couple of years.

Mr. Layton is banking on the fact that a Harper majority will mess up so badly, that Canadians will run to the NDP and give them a majority after Harper's done gutting the country. Mr. Duceppe is banking on the fact that Harper's inevitable excesses will make it a lot easier for the people of Quebec to vote "yes" in the sovereignty referendum which will be held sooner rather than later given the likelyhood of the PQ taking over provincially...And there I was, naively thinking, albeit for a second, that M. Duceppe sacrificed his career because he knew what a Harper majority means and didn't wish that on the rest of Canada, whatever his feelings towards the country (not that he's not aware, and I have no doubt he'd oppose it if it didn't mean likely separation of Quebec). Let's face it, Duceppe didn't campaign nearly as hard as he had in previous years, and, reading between the lines, he as good as encouraged people to vote for the NDP.

As for Harper, he is the biggest winner here. In one fell swoop he gets to destroy the Liberals (though I suspect they'll be back), get rid of Quebec (he never really does well there and when it's gone, it won't cost him a majority ever again and besides, he's not crazy about bilingualism anyway). Perhaps this is why he spent a lot more time and effort campaigning in seat-rich Ontario. Now, Harper gets to do what he always wanted: to dismantle the Canada we know and love and turn it into an unrecognizable mess and, quite possibly, into a fascist-style dictatorship. I also suspect that the NDP will not have nearly as good a showing in the next election as they did in this one; after all, all those Quebec seats will no longer be there.

Another issue that is quite worrisome is that this has by far been the dirtiest election in Canadian history. From the attempted theft of a ballot box at the University of Guelph, to the vandalism of political signs (strangely, most of them not against those of Conservative candidates), to the blatant disrespect of the electorate by canidates (again, mostly Conservative) in not showing up for all-candidates debates, to possibly breaking the electoral laws of this country (Harper campaigning on the radio on the day of the election) etc. And I have not even mentioned the automated phone calls telling voters (mainly Liberal supporters, it seems) that the locations of their polling stations had been changed, when that was not the case. Finally, in one riding, it appears that a Conservative candidate accepted an edorsement and donation from a man who supports terrorism...

So...and NDP/Con/Bloc deal? It might just be the case. Usually when three parties get exactly what they wanted, even if it is not immediately apparent that that is the case, it is not a result of mere coincidence. For example, the NDP ran very strong candidates in ridings where they could only be third. This was, of course, to split the vote and help out the Conservatives; the Conservatives didn't campaign hard in Quebec and the Bloc, too, allowed the NDP to pick up seats, keeping their eyes on the ultimate prize. The common goal was the destruction of the Liberal party. In Harper's case, because of some personal vendetta; in the case of the NDP, in order to take their place as the alternative to the Conservatives; in the case of the Bloc, to take away the strongest federalist option. Again, having said that, the Liberals are not blameless in all this. Still, it is a lot more difficult when the other 3 are all working together agaisnt you.

I sure hope all the regressive things Harper will do will be worth it, Mr. Layton. To some of us though, it appears to be too high a price to pay for your own promotion, especially since you now have less power than you did in the minority situation.

The one bright spot in all this is the election of Elizabeth May, the first ever Green MP. Granted, this may have the effect of splitting the progressive vote even further. Hmmm...perhaps it's time to consider a Canadian version of the Red-Green coalition...

Long Years, Short Post

Not in the mood for a proper post (yet again) so, in that spirit, an unfinished poem:

The long years that have passed
have created confusion
between reality and dream,
and over so many lives
a long shadow was cast,
and the rivers of hope
reduced to one narrow stream...

Precipices And Things

"Madame de Merteuil, though indeed a woman highly regarded, has perhaps only one fault: she overestimates her ability; she is a skillful driver who enjoys guiding her chariot between rocks and precipices and whose sole justification is that she remains unscathed." (Laclos, Les liaisons dangereuses)

Fait Accompli

As a wannabe writer, I never miss a good opportunity to 'people watch' (if I can help it) and take note of their behaviour etc. Recently (although this really stretches over a period of about two years), I have been lucky enough to be present at public gatherings involving people from all walks of life. The most fascinating, for me, proved to be people's peculiar behaviours when confronted with free food - and lots of it.

The following is a result of some of my observations and reflections.

The Grabber's Guide to SPGIFF (Successful Public Gathering Involving Free Food)

Objective:
Grab as much (food) as you can, as quickly as possible

Strategy:
It is important to remember that you are not at this gathering to meet people. It is a competition; "Survival of the fittest" rules apply.

Scan the competition. Look them in the eye in order to ascertain their intentions but always assume they're trying to reach the same objective as you are - consumption of large quantities of free food. Then, just as the enemy approaches the food, get in front of him/her/them. Make sure you smile. The flash of your pearly whites should blind them for a second. Then, strike! But, if at all possible, do so nonchalantly.

Grab a plate and ensure that you make your intentions clear. Plate in hand, it'll be much more difficult for the enemy to strike first because that...well...that would not be polite! They may be there to make friends but you're not! Stick as much food on your plate as can fit. That accomplished, you need to find a safe spot where you can enjoy your prize without interference. If this plan is to succeed, it is strongly recommended to scout potential safe areas prior to the food grab. If successful, you will not only enjoy the taste of your food but also bask in the glory of your strategic triumph...

It is important to note that circumstances may arise which could severely limit your access (to food) - from not enough food, in general, to the presence of too much competition. The wait for seconds may be unbearably long. In any event, you should be prepared. The proverbial "Plan B" should always be at hand. Bring bags and extra containers that you can stuff with your favourite snacks. Always assume that the enemy is as enterprising as you are...

If you follow these simple rules, success is virtually guaranteed. Whether at the gathering, or in the privacy of your own home, you'll be able to enjoy the spoils of your victory and be able to say with satisfaction: Veni, vidi, vici....Until the next time, of course!

Happy munching!

Insomnia Such As All Flesh Is Heir To

So, here I am...in the same old predicament. Sleep, though not the eternal kind, is devoutly to be wished. And boy, have I been wishing! I mean, all it'd take is a few hours...Is that too much to ask? Instead of the proverbial sheep, I've resorted to counting the raindrops that hit my window. But here's the rub: it's not actually raining! Now, before I start getting too worried about the mind being o'erthrown...auditory hallucinations and such, I'm going to chalk my raindrops up to a lack of sleep.

One thing I wish I were hallucinating about but, unfortunately, am not, is the upcoming animated film Gnomeo and Juliet. Gnomeo?...Really? Now, I am not averse to having some fun with ole Shake from time to time but this really seems over the top (read: scary). Normally, I'd reserve judgement until I've actually seen the film but honestly, I'm a little hesitant to take that step. Besides, I'm convinced that Travelocity is behind this! Heh... at this point, even a trip to th' undiscovered country seems more desirable...as long as Travelocity offers return trips!