Margaret Atwood hits the nail on the head

The post below is not my work (unfortunately!) but expresses thoughts I think she's right about our current government's distaste for arts and culture. The arts are not elitist. They're what keep us from eating grey cardboard cereal and living in grey cardboard houses and painting grey cardboard pictures and worst of all, thinking grey cardboard thoughts.

But enough outta me....

What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we? At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).”

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called “ordinary people” didn't care about something called “the arts.” His idea of “the arts” is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an “ordinary person.” Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. “Ordinary people” pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for “the arts” in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. “The arts” are not a “niche interest.” They are part of being human.

Moreover, “ordinary people” are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all
kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels.

“Ordinary people” have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and “ordinary people” will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is “ordinary.” It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of “ordinary people.” He's the “niche interest.” Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is “ideologically motivated.” Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!

Adapted from the 2008 Hurtig Lecture, to be delivered in Edmonton on Oct. 1

So many elections, so little time...

For me, politics is like watching a soap opera, except in real time and with metaphorical deaths and resurrections (for the most part). So, with the Canadian and U.S. federal elections, and soon a new PC leader in NB, I can't even keep up, and that's the way I like it.

The Canadian and U.S. elections could hardly be more different - there is a LOT at stake south of the border, and everyone can sense it. The fact that young people, women and voters of colour will decide this election (between an inter-racial ticket or an inter-gender ticket, no less) shows that slowly, the face of politics is changing. To what end, the debate remains.

In Canada, nobody is particularly fired up. It seems we are always going to the polls, and the choices offered for PM this time are lacklustre. A choice between a fractured Liberal party, the mean-spirited Harper Conservatives or tossing your vote to left-wingers or separatists suggests that most votes will be "protest" votes, but for what or against what, we're not exactly sure. Maybe part of the problem is that few Canadians know where they want the country to go next.

So, a couple of interesting links for the political junkies: an interactive map about female politicians in the world . Canada isn't doing so hot, nor is most of the G-8, for that matter. And New Brunswick is one of the worst provinces for female MP's.

Finally, Paul Well's excellent piece on exactly how calculating Stephen Harper is. He's not the ideologically driven man that a lot of critics would have us believe. He's driven by winning, and holding on to power long enough to change Canada. So read this-I wouldn't be surprised if Harper's people are running Census figures on every riding in the country, figuring out exactly whose votes he needs to gain a majority, and focus-grouping the heck out of those demographics to see what promises will win them.

It's almost like the "market-research" mentality has taken over the PMO. In this respect, Harper's campaign bears a remarkable similarity to the debates over how to win swing ridings in Ohio, Pennsylvani and Florida. Whether McCain's selection of a female running mate will turn that tide, we shall see.

The party that wrecked America

If the whole echoes-of the Great-Depression, who-took-the-capital-out-of capitalism thing is catching your attention, continue reading here. It's hard to believe the meltdown going on south of the 49th parallel, except when you stop and consider how long the system has been corrupt.

Consider the scenario of the last few weeks:

1. We are continually being told that high oil prices are a result of "supply and demand."
2. A major hurricane invades the U.S. refinery coast (Gulf Coast, sorry) and the price of gas jumps. Fine.
3. The week after historic and prestigious banks seek bankruptcy protection, the price of oil goes back down. The justification is, 'we need to keep the economy growing."

So, which is it? Is the price of oil controlled by psychological reasoning (ie. what is supposedly 'good' for the economy) or is it actually controlled by supply and demand?

Answers, please, because this rational economy is looking more schizophrenic every day.

If it's broke, don't fix it

That's right. Because soon, it looks like only the dealer who sold you the car will have the knowledge necessary to fix it. Apparently auto makers are trying to restrict access to diagnostic software and chips necessary to maintaining newer cars. So small garages can forget about working on newer cars.

Boys, my '88 Camry is looking better all the time. Metaphorically, of course.