Tuesday, November 16, 2004
It's the way you look to a distant constellation as it's dying in the corner of the sky
If "blog" comes from "weblog", it seems to me that this space ought to be called a "klog" these days - not the shoe, but as the result of the application of the "weblog/blog" formula to "backlog". I have yet to explain to all of you, in that delightfully patronizing tone of mine, why Trudeau is the worthiest of the ten finalists for the CBC's "Greatest Canadian" series, nor have I recounted my adventures with Premier Ralph (tentatively titled "Clowns, Press Secretaries, and Bullshit"). Then, of course, I've been knee-deep in some pretty self-inflicted angst, which might warrent a cryptic entry or two. Today, though, I will post on none of these things, opting instead to give my impressions on the St. Albert candidates' forum that occurred last night.
The highlight probably occurred before the forum even got going, as I was having "dinner" (the term is used loosely, hence the quotation marks - I am not in the habit of throwing meaningless quotation marks about all willy-nilly, as wildly amusing as that admittedly sounds) with Close Personal Friend of Mine (TM) Gillian Hansen. Since I'm not sure I've mentioned her here before, I should note that Gillian is an old-ish friend of mine whose counsel I've relied on countless times over the course of this life of quiet desparation, despite the fact that she is, as they say, a few seats short of a majority.
Anyhow, Gill (pronounced, but for some reason not spelled, "Jill") and I were sitting in the St. Albert Inn with our respective vittles, when who should walk by but St. Albert provincial Green candidate, and former Edmonton-St. Albert federal Green candidate, Conrad Bitangcol. He alerted me that he was still reading this space (hi, Conrad!), saying that it was probably his best source of political commentary. Now really, how can I vote against somebody who considers my blog to be among the best sources of political commentary out there?
Highlights of the forum itself:
1. Conrad announcing, to my surprise, that after having been born and raised in St. Albert he now resides in Red Deer. He later clarified that he had intended to say "Deer Ridge" which is a St. Albert subdivision.
2. Of the three written questions I'd submitted, only one - "If you were not running, for which of the other four candidates would you vote, and why?" - was actually asked. The most surreal moment of the debate came as NDP candidate Travis Thompson and Alberta Alliance candidate Michaela Meldrum cross-endorsed each other.
3. In response to the same question, incumbent Tory Mary O'Neill endorsed Bitangcol (just as Liberal Jack Flaherty had), but then followed it up with "I am, in all seriousness, here to earn your support and your vote." This lead to a large groan coming up from the crowd, which was quickly drowned out by the cheering section that Ms. O'Neill had seen fit to import.
4. In response to the fact that most of the questions that were being asked seemed to be of the softball variety (sample questions: "Being an MLA is a seven day a week, twenty-four hour a day job. Are you prepared to make the commitment necessary?" "Mr. Flaherty, what is the Liberal Party's commitment to reducing waiting times in Alberta's health care system?"), Gill and I invented a game wherein each question would be reduced to a simple "for or against" proposition. For example "What would your parties do about Crystal Meth addiction?" became "Crystal Meth: for or against?"
5. Not really a highlight, but how come candidates never answer stupid questions sarcastically? For example, if any candidate had responded to the "twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week" question with "No, if you should be so foolish as to elect me, I plan on spending most of my time drunk in a hot tub with attractive members of the opposite sex," I would have immediately decided to vote for them, regardless of the stance they took on any of the so-called "issues".
6. The candidates' syntheses of their platforms: Ms. Meldrum advised us that a vote for her was a vote for us, while Ms. O'Neill stuck with a vote for her being a vote for St. Albert ("St. Albert: for or against?").
7. Conrad following up on Mr. Thompson's assertion that the Tories had unwittingly "woken the giant" with "there's only one giant, and that's the Green one." It doesn't seem that funny until you appreciate how nervous Conrad's appeared on stage in the past, and how uncharacteristic of his past performance an impromptu joke was.
8. My conversation with Ms. O'Neill at the break, which went something from this:
Steve: Hello, Mary.
Mary: Hi Steve, it's good to see you.
Steve: I was wondering about a comment you made during your opening remarks. You said that the present government enacted policy that place limits on tuition fee increases. While this is technically true, given that it only did so after initiating the removal of legislation that placed still-stricter limits on tuition fee levels, wasn't that a little intellectually dishonest?
Mary: Well, the regulations are in place, and they do limit tuition increases.
Steve: I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that I think your comments, whether deliberately or not, created an impression that was false, and that it might be a good idea to clarify.
Mary: You know, Steve, the government already pays more than two thirds of the cost of your education.
Steve: Yes, I know. I'm not trying to instigate a debate on the merits of the present tuition policy, I'm just suggesting to you that your earlier comments, while tehchnically accurate, were not entirely honest.
Mary: The cost to the government of funding Universities and Colleges is increasing rapidly.
Steve: With respect, Mary, I don't see what that has to do with what I've been saying.
Mary: Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
At this point, a volunteer with a Mary O'Neill button took Ms. O'Neill's place in the conversation so the latter could go off and answer some tough questions from a group of Girl Guides.
Volunteer: Are you a University student yourself, Steve?
Steve: I am.
Volunteer: And are you on the Council? Because a lot of your rhetoric sounds familiar to me.
Steve: What rhetoric? I just asked Mary if she thought her comments were honest.
Volunteer: Well, I think you made your point.
Steve: Then why didn't I get some sort of coherent response to my question?
Volunteer: You know what you should do? You should schedule a meeting with Mary after the election.
Steve: See, the trouble with that is that Mary just made a comment publicly that gave an inaccurate impression. If I get an acknowledgement of this that occurs privately and after the election, this really does very little for the cause of public discourse.
Volunteer: And who are you here to support today?
Steve: I'm an undecided voter.
Volunteer: I'll bet.
Steve: No, I really am. Though I have narrowed the field somewhat.
Volunteer: Well, I do believe that it's good that we have a choice.
Steve: I'm pleased to hear somebody wearing that kind of button say that. Sometimes I have occasion to wonder.
9. The moderator, Ken Jones, attempting to read a question submitted by a member of the audience:
KJ: How would you alienate the hardships faced by seniors?
Audience:
KJ: I'm sorry, how would you deviate the hardships faced by seniors?
Audience (in one voice): Alleviate!
KJ: Um, right. How would you alleviate the hardships faced by seniors?
My voting decision to follow.
|
If "blog" comes from "weblog", it seems to me that this space ought to be called a "klog" these days - not the shoe, but as the result of the application of the "weblog/blog" formula to "backlog". I have yet to explain to all of you, in that delightfully patronizing tone of mine, why Trudeau is the worthiest of the ten finalists for the CBC's "Greatest Canadian" series, nor have I recounted my adventures with Premier Ralph (tentatively titled "Clowns, Press Secretaries, and Bullshit"). Then, of course, I've been knee-deep in some pretty self-inflicted angst, which might warrent a cryptic entry or two. Today, though, I will post on none of these things, opting instead to give my impressions on the St. Albert candidates' forum that occurred last night.
The highlight probably occurred before the forum even got going, as I was having "dinner" (the term is used loosely, hence the quotation marks - I am not in the habit of throwing meaningless quotation marks about all willy-nilly, as wildly amusing as that admittedly sounds) with Close Personal Friend of Mine (TM) Gillian Hansen. Since I'm not sure I've mentioned her here before, I should note that Gillian is an old-ish friend of mine whose counsel I've relied on countless times over the course of this life of quiet desparation, despite the fact that she is, as they say, a few seats short of a majority.
Anyhow, Gill (pronounced, but for some reason not spelled, "Jill") and I were sitting in the St. Albert Inn with our respective vittles, when who should walk by but St. Albert provincial Green candidate, and former Edmonton-St. Albert federal Green candidate, Conrad Bitangcol. He alerted me that he was still reading this space (hi, Conrad!), saying that it was probably his best source of political commentary. Now really, how can I vote against somebody who considers my blog to be among the best sources of political commentary out there?
Highlights of the forum itself:
1. Conrad announcing, to my surprise, that after having been born and raised in St. Albert he now resides in Red Deer. He later clarified that he had intended to say "Deer Ridge" which is a St. Albert subdivision.
2. Of the three written questions I'd submitted, only one - "If you were not running, for which of the other four candidates would you vote, and why?" - was actually asked. The most surreal moment of the debate came as NDP candidate Travis Thompson and Alberta Alliance candidate Michaela Meldrum cross-endorsed each other.
3. In response to the same question, incumbent Tory Mary O'Neill endorsed Bitangcol (just as Liberal Jack Flaherty had), but then followed it up with "I am, in all seriousness, here to earn your support and your vote." This lead to a large groan coming up from the crowd, which was quickly drowned out by the cheering section that Ms. O'Neill had seen fit to import.
4. In response to the fact that most of the questions that were being asked seemed to be of the softball variety (sample questions: "Being an MLA is a seven day a week, twenty-four hour a day job. Are you prepared to make the commitment necessary?" "Mr. Flaherty, what is the Liberal Party's commitment to reducing waiting times in Alberta's health care system?"), Gill and I invented a game wherein each question would be reduced to a simple "for or against" proposition. For example "What would your parties do about Crystal Meth addiction?" became "Crystal Meth: for or against?"
5. Not really a highlight, but how come candidates never answer stupid questions sarcastically? For example, if any candidate had responded to the "twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week" question with "No, if you should be so foolish as to elect me, I plan on spending most of my time drunk in a hot tub with attractive members of the opposite sex," I would have immediately decided to vote for them, regardless of the stance they took on any of the so-called "issues".
6. The candidates' syntheses of their platforms: Ms. Meldrum advised us that a vote for her was a vote for us, while Ms. O'Neill stuck with a vote for her being a vote for St. Albert ("St. Albert: for or against?").
7. Conrad following up on Mr. Thompson's assertion that the Tories had unwittingly "woken the giant" with "there's only one giant, and that's the Green one." It doesn't seem that funny until you appreciate how nervous Conrad's appeared on stage in the past, and how uncharacteristic of his past performance an impromptu joke was.
8. My conversation with Ms. O'Neill at the break, which went something from this:
Steve: Hello, Mary.
Mary: Hi Steve, it's good to see you.
Steve: I was wondering about a comment you made during your opening remarks. You said that the present government enacted policy that place limits on tuition fee increases. While this is technically true, given that it only did so after initiating the removal of legislation that placed still-stricter limits on tuition fee levels, wasn't that a little intellectually dishonest?
Mary: Well, the regulations are in place, and they do limit tuition increases.
Steve: I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that I think your comments, whether deliberately or not, created an impression that was false, and that it might be a good idea to clarify.
Mary: You know, Steve, the government already pays more than two thirds of the cost of your education.
Steve: Yes, I know. I'm not trying to instigate a debate on the merits of the present tuition policy, I'm just suggesting to you that your earlier comments, while tehchnically accurate, were not entirely honest.
Mary: The cost to the government of funding Universities and Colleges is increasing rapidly.
Steve: With respect, Mary, I don't see what that has to do with what I've been saying.
Mary: Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
At this point, a volunteer with a Mary O'Neill button took Ms. O'Neill's place in the conversation so the latter could go off and answer some tough questions from a group of Girl Guides.
Volunteer: Are you a University student yourself, Steve?
Steve: I am.
Volunteer: And are you on the Council? Because a lot of your rhetoric sounds familiar to me.
Steve: What rhetoric? I just asked Mary if she thought her comments were honest.
Volunteer: Well, I think you made your point.
Steve: Then why didn't I get some sort of coherent response to my question?
Volunteer: You know what you should do? You should schedule a meeting with Mary after the election.
Steve: See, the trouble with that is that Mary just made a comment publicly that gave an inaccurate impression. If I get an acknowledgement of this that occurs privately and after the election, this really does very little for the cause of public discourse.
Volunteer: And who are you here to support today?
Steve: I'm an undecided voter.
Volunteer: I'll bet.
Steve: No, I really am. Though I have narrowed the field somewhat.
Volunteer: Well, I do believe that it's good that we have a choice.
Steve: I'm pleased to hear somebody wearing that kind of button say that. Sometimes I have occasion to wonder.
9. The moderator, Ken Jones, attempting to read a question submitted by a member of the audience:
KJ: How would you alienate the hardships faced by seniors?
Audience:
KJ: I'm sorry, how would you deviate the hardships faced by seniors?
Audience (in one voice): Alleviate!
KJ: Um, right. How would you alleviate the hardships faced by seniors?
My voting decision to follow.
