What is a work of art for?

Of course, this is a sort of a (deliberately) ridiculous question. People who love art understand that works of art aren't "for" anything - they exists for their own sake and on their own terms.

People who don't see the value of the arts will dismiss works of art as "pointless" or "frivolous" when confronted with something that is outside their comfort zone.

However, when you look closely, I think it's clear that works of art have their own "thing" happening. They're not like a hammer or a washing machine or antibiotics, which were all created for utilitarian purposes.

And yet.

Did you hear the story of the Iranian Canadian journalist who was tortured in an Iranian prison. I heard him on the radio while driving between Fredericton and Moncton, and it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Here's what he recounts:

Bahari said he felt the walls were closing in around him while in solitary confinement, but he was comforted as he hummed the words to Leonard Cohen's song, Sisters of Mercy. He said the title came to him in a dream about two women who both looked like his sister.

"And all of a sudden this universe was created, this universe that was guarded by Mr. Leonard Cohen, and it was just ridiculous to me that this old Jewish [man], and one of the most cynical poet songwriters in the world, managed to save me in the heart of the Islamic Republic."

How would Leonard Cohen have ever known when he wrote that song that someday it would be a lifeline for someone being tortured in prison?  There is no way to know that as an artist. And yet, by creating something with it's own meaning (ie. the song), in making a little 'world' in there, it went into the journalist's memory (somehow!) and stayed in there until it was really needed by him. And then, it reappeared when linked to the memory of his sister.

No part of the logical brain - no report, no spreadsheet, no strategic plan, no schedule, could ever provide this kind of sustenance at a moment like that.

And so, I think that's partly what works of art are "for" - to take on a life of their own, aside from the author and to go out into the world and become a part of some of the people who encounter them. To speak the heart, to be non-rational and yet significant.

I Second That Motion

One major problem I have with people's perception of politics in this day and age is: the idea that we will elect a leader and he or she will solve our 'problems.' 

This is an incredibly naive way of looking at politics and here is why.

First of all, political leaders don't accomplish change on their own - that's not how democracies are supposed to work. If we had a system where leaders could just change whatever they wanted at will, that would be a dictatorship. Changes are accomplished by legislation or by regulation. Boring, I know.

So, regulatory changes can be relatively straight-forward if you're the president of a large country, but still there will be push back from people who want the status quo to be maintained. The question becomes: who is building a more convincing case and/or building more public pressure? What are the consequences of saying "yes" or "no" to either side? Is a compromise possible?

When elected officials make decisions, they are keenly aware of who is paying attention, who is in attendance, who is checked out, and who is angry. People think that showing up or sending a letter or petition is meaningless, but they could not be more wrong.

They could not be more wrong.

Each person, each organization, that demonstrates support or opposition for an idea or policy change, is on the radar of the people who make the decision. Corporations know this, and that's why they have lobbyists, whose job it is to monitor regulatory and legislative changes, and to shepherd things through the process.

But, the other key element in making change happen, strange as it sounds, lies in the arcane practice of Robert's Rules of Order. And that is the fact that you can't vote on a motion until someone has seconded it.

So a Member of Parliament could stand up and propose a Guaranteed Annual Income for all Canadians, but unless another MP stood up to second that motion, no vote will ever be taken, and no discussion will ever occur.

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of politics, a voice in the wilderness is precisely that - one voice, alone.

Once a motion gets seconded, then it's time for debate, and eventually a vote.

So the question is: what kinds of change motions are we willing to support? Do we have enough people to create pressure? what kinds of change to do we value? And most importantly, is there someone to second the motion?

The idea that a leader accomplishes change with his or her magic wand could not be more harmful to our understanding of politics and the democratic process.

The truth is, in my view, that leaders create change once people have demanded it, and there is willing support among their peers in the deciding body.

Who those people are, and what those changes look like, depend entirely on the actors involved, their resources, their priorities and their relationships.

What's it like to be elected?

I admit it, I've been obsessed with politics since I was a kid.

Some of my earliest memories are of elections, campaigns and candidates.

Probably because of my family - my grandparents were staunch Robichaud liberals. They drilled into me the need for rural people to have an advocate who understood the need for "Equal Opportunity," as Robichaud's revolutionary centralization programme was called.

So, there was a very real sense in my parents' household, and in my grandparents' - they lived two houses up the road and I was there all the time - that politics mattered.

I still think politics matters, and although people are often demoralized by the current state of politics, this is why I ran for elected office (and am running again for re-election on May 9th).

But, on a day-to-day basis, what's is really like being elected ?  People ask me this all the time.

Nobody really likes to talk about these things. The pressure for elected officials to maintain a strong, authoritative persona is immense. 

We like to believe our leaders have all the answers. Or that they have a magic wand or a crystal ball. That they can be our knights in shining armour who control the weather and solve all our problems. And we do not hesitate to blame them when we are displeased.

The reality is that politicians are people elected by citizens to represent them.  And so we, your elected representatives, are really just regular people - we don't know what the future holds, and we try to solve problems by gathering information and using all the resources we have available.

This is a big task, and if it doesn't make you a bit nervous, it probably should. Being responsible for the water supply, policing, recreation, economic development and fire service for 5000+ people is a real responsibility. And then there's dealing with all the other levels of government - Provincial and Federal - who have a lot more power than municipalities do, and who may have completely different agendas that the Town you represent.

But in real terms, being elected means that when you go to the grocery store or post office, people will approach you with problems. Sometimes they will be angry.

It means you will not be able to rest on your laurels when you know that the future is not guaranteed. It needs to be shaped by people who have the best interest of the public in mind.

It means carefully considering how your decisions as an elected body will impact people - and how the unintended consequences of your decisions may achieve the exact opposite of what you hoped.

And it means listening to facts and opinions about why things aren't going well, and being able to set aside pride and defensiveness in order to make appropriate changes.

None of these things are easy. And people really don't realize their elected reps have willingly asked for a job with these tremendous responsibilities.

Ultimately, I believe that we are very lucky in Woodstock to have such a wide array of candidates, all of whom bring excellent ideas and experience to the table. And we have a very well-managed town, which I say with sincerity. Not every town is so fortunate.

But elected officials are really only one part of the ecosystem. Without the engagement of citizens - and by this I mean regularly, not only at election time - we cannot achieve the things people want to see happen. Sometimes that means organized and sustained pressure needs to come from the community.

And sometimes, in that regard, being elected can be lonely. You feel separate from the people who elected you. You have to keep some things a secret - and this is legitimate when delicate negotiations are happening. You can be under pressure from all sides. 

So, in short, being elected is the best of times and the worst of times. Ultimately, I do it because I believe that politics matter, and with the hope that I can use my voice to effect a positive change.

And then there was one

Car, that is.

We've been using only one car since Nick started his new job in July.  Sometimes it's a pain but mostly, it's been great.  I have been feeling lately that it's time for this decision.

Now, I average one cab ride per week - approximately $7 including tip.  This compared to weekly gas costs, yearly insurance and maintenance on a second vehicle - major savings.

Meanwhile, I have become an expert hitch-hiker.  My friends and family have been quite tolerant in taking me the short distances I need to go - mainly, home from work, or across the Grafton bridge for Town Hall meetings or choir practice.

I also have an incentive to walk more - when it's not -20 outside, of course.  I love being out in the fresh air, and while I'm strolling I have time to listen to music, which never happens when I'm rushing to and fro in a car. The walk is my time. No cellphone, no messages and no hurry. No irritation at slow drivers!

My life has slowed down considerably and I am now more connected to my friends and family - because I need them.  Being able to admit that one needs people's help is strange.  Our society frowns on this, telling us all we need to "be strong" and "stand on our own two feet."

But I really value the little chats I have with people on the way here or there.  How often nowadays are we in too big of a rush to enjoy a simple conversation?  And how many bonds are strengthened because people see a need and agree to meet it?  Is this not what friendship and kinship are all about?

Also, I struggle with saying "yes" to too many things.  Now that I can't have a car all the time, I am forced to say "no" because it simply isn't possible to get to all the places I might go.  So, my life is simpler and I have to choose carefully where I go and why.  This is an enormous blessing.

I don't feel as rushed, I'm not as broke, I get to talk to people I enjoy, and I feel better when I get a good walk. In the spring, I'll replace the broken tube in my bike tire and get rolling a bit faster.

Win. Win. Win.  Win. So long, second car.

***Also, this guy seems to feel the same.  An entertaining read about Car Clowns.

Tolerating Dissonance

In the music world, we have technical terms for things that sound stable and agreeable ("consonance") and sounds that create tension ("dissonance").

One of the things I learned in my university music studies was to tolerate dissonance.  In other words, to not lose myself emotionally or intellectually when subjected to a physical environment I found hostile, disconcerting, etc.  To deliberately endure, at least for a limited time, something unpleasant.

It was not easy.  I resisted it many times.  I do believe humans have a natural, instinctive love of harmony.  I believe that metaphorical "harmony" - ie. peace, love, waiting politely in line etc., is in some ways an offshoot of physical harmony - ie. the symmetries between sound waves, a gorgeously tunes choir, etc.

Tonight, I was at our Town Council meeting.  Some fractious discussions but done respectfully by people who agree that we are there for a common goal : to improve the lives of the people we represent. 

When it concluded, I ran away, hoping to catch the last few numbers of an internationally acclaimed Canadian choir - The Elmer Iseler Singers - and their special guests, our Woodstock High School Choir.

It too, featured occasional musical dissonance, sharp sounds, but sung by people who agree on a common goal. 

And it leads me to wonder - how much dissonance can people tolerate?

How often can they - or will they - sit in a room with people whose opinions disturb them? Will they bother to listen to the sustained tension, or simply close their ears entirely and retreat into more comfortable and well-worn sound?

Too much dissonance is hazardous to one's health.  People who work a lifetime in the clangour of a noisy environment tend to have shorter lifespans.  But I fear people who cannot tolerate any dissonance whatsoever.  They make me wonder what I have overlooked, and whether I should reconsider.

A postcard from municipal world

Just returned from a weekend away with UMNB - the Union of New Brunswick Municipalities.

Let me back up for a second:

One of the things I love most about New Brunswick (and there are a LOT of things) is that it is full of beautiful small places.  I know in this day and age it's the city that gets all the credit but when I drive through the small villages and towns, through the woods and along the river and by the coast, I really love how human-scale the settlements of New Brunswick are.  And how diverse they are. But I digress.

The UMNB is the collective voice for most, if not all, of the small towns and villages in New Brunswick.  The City of Fredericton is also a member.  This year at the annual conference, there were about 220 municipal reps - Councillors, Mayors and of course, Deputy Mayors.

It is really interesting to be in a room where everyone has put their name forward because they have a genuine desire to improve their local community, and to advocate on behalf of their hometown. We have a chance to discuss the major issues we face individually and collectively. Municipal politics is not glamorous or lucrative so it's nice to meet other colleagues who are working on similar issues year-round.

When I look around the room, I see a lot of folks at mid-age (heavily skewed male, of course), but also a number of younger folks and a good contingent of women overall.  Female mayors are becoming pretty common, which is great considering the incoming Liberal government elected only four women (one of whom is the Deputy Mayor of Miramichi).  It's fair to say that municipal politics is more diverse and representative of the general population.

I also see a group of engaged people who are keeping an eye on Provincial and Federal policy developments on behalf of their local communities.  You probably don't realize that municipalities are bound by legislation to have balanced budgets over a five-year cycle.  So when we see the out-of-control financial state of the province it really drives people nuts. As it should.

I guess this long and rambling post is to say that I think most municipal reps are working hard and their hearts are in the right place.  Living and governing in the same town also helps keep them honest and motivated.  When you know you are going to your day job with your constituents, and that you won't be able to get groceries or pick up the mail in peace if you screw up too many decisions, it's a pretty powerful motivator to "do the right thing."

I wish people realized what a good group of people are working on their behalf.  And I wish that the other levels of government could take a few lessons from the municipal folks.

Also, Donald Savoie explains what I am trying to put into words in his latest column, read it here.  I am about to read his book  "Whatever Happened to the Music Teacher: How Government Decides and Why."  Having been the music teacher for three years, I have some theories on this, but I look forward to reading it all the same.

Decisions, decisions

Today, the people of Scotland will decide whether or not to remain part of the UK. Here's a handy and fun background video for those of us not up on the particulars of that situation.

Monday, the people of New Brunswick will decide whether or not to give the Conservatives another chance.

Sometimes people ask me what it's like to be on Town Council.  I'm never quite sure how to answer that question, but as these two ballot questions approach I can say it's just like deciding how to vote on those issues.

At Council, we have a certain number of items on the agenda.  We consider the issues and inevitably, we vote for or against, according to our own logic.

Because we all see the world through slightly different eyes, we have different priorities and different justifications for voting the way we do.  But the end of the line comes down to YES or NO, and not choosing is still a choice that means the majority vote rules.

So, whether it's local issues or an independence referendum, somebody has to decide.  And as the handy Scotland video concludes, nobody really knows if they're doing the right thing, because the consequences are in the future.

The tricky part is, some people start to assume that when you get behind a council desk (or Premier's desk, or wherever), that you suddenly have a magic wand and a crystal ball.  Any reasonable adult knows this is not the case.

So, like the Scots voting today and the New Brunswickers voting on Monday, being in local politics is a lot like being in that ballot box and trying to make the best decision you can, based on an unknown future.

Trying to predict the future and make adequate decisions is not for the faint of heart. There are no guarantees.

Wishing you best of luck and peace of mind in your upcoming vote.

What is this election about?

In case you missed it, here's a good 30 minute panel worth watching*.  One candidate from each party and a more long-form discussion of what the election is and isn't about.

* I guess my original link didn't turn out and I can't seem to locate the previous one.  My apologies!

The invisible vote

We've heard it time and time again - young people don't vote.

And to a certain extent, it's true.  Young people feel disenfranchised, they see many problems with the political system, they don't feel voting leads to meaningful change, so they don't vote.

And to a certain extent, who can blame them?  Party politics force elected representatives vote a certain way on issues, against their conscience or against the express wishes of local people.

However, the flip side is: if the extent of your political involvement is casting a ballot in each election, is it realistic to expect substantial changes in our political system? Of course not.

If you had a house that needed major renovations, would you show up once a year, put on a coat of paint and leave feeling satisfied? Not likely.

If we want real changes, we must make a real effort.

This story illustrates precisely the problems that arise when a certain demographic doesn't show up at the ballot box: the needs of those people become invisible.

What are political parties promising?  And who is targeted by these promises?

Well for starters - EI and Seasonal workers.  Mostly older folks who have been working in these industries for a long time.  Most younger people can't afford to work seasonally, they have too much debt or the wages aren't high enough / regular enough to support themselves or a family.  Those young people have gone out west.  So their political priorities are invisible.

Moose hunt - An easy promise to make. Will pull well with rural votes, who tend to skew older as well.  But do we really think that the future of NB is suddenly going to be brighter because a few people in orange get to shoot a moose in the fall?  And if our forestry policy destroys their habitat, will there be enough moose to even have a meaningful hunt?

Pensions - Very controversial at the time, although the dust seems to have settled a bit.  Lots of retired teachers could be motivated to go to the ballot box on this.  And guess what - retired people have different priorities than young people.  No disrespect to them, they're within their rights to mobilize on the issue, it has a big impact on them.  But again, young people?  Invisible.

So, there you have it.  To win elections, candidates need to get the most votes.  Period. They are going to tailor their campaigns to win those votes. To do otherwise would be a waste of their time and make them vulnerable to their opponents.

But, by not participating in the political process, even at the most elementary level, ie. voting in general elections, you are effectively telling politicians that you see no need for change, that there is nothing government policy can do to improve your life or the society in which you live, everything is fine, carry on as you were etc. Good job, fellas.

Is that really the message young people in New Brunswick should be sending?

I think not.

Why you should throw gender role stereotypes in the garbage

Well, because they belong in the trash, for starters.

Let me back up a bit.  My husband and I are coming up on our fourth anniversary.  Time sure does fly.

When you get married, there are all kinds of lovely stereotypes people love to foist on you. A random sample of comments I've heard:

"Well, you're old and married now."
"When are you going to give your parents some grandkids?"
"Put that on the 'honey-do' list"
"Your husband will love these recipes"
"Nick can cook?"
"Remember, you're just one little girl"

In our house, we are share the work pretty equally.  For example, yesterday we were both home. I spent the majority of the day figuring out how to build a coffee table out of scrap wood and Nick spent most of the day making delicious tomato soup using our garden tomatoes.

I needed some help with setting up the saw, so he helped me and showed me how to change the paper on the belt sander. I pulled the nails, cut and sanded the pieces myself.

He didn't have any celery so I advised him that the Italian flat-leaf parsley we have on hand would substitute. He made a litre of the most divine soup, using a recipe that has been in his family for three generations. He also made an awesome curry out of leftover beef roast we had in the refrigerator.

We had a great day and got a lot done.  Why should this be a big deal in the 21st century?  In our house, it's really not.  Some days I'm in the kitchen, and some days he is.  Ditto for yard work, construction, gardening, snow shovelling etc.

I encounter a lot of people who make comments about their spouses' proclivities - wives who can or can't cook, and whether that make them 'good wives' or not, husbands who are endlessly messy, and need to be 'trained.' You get the picture.

I find the stereotypes behind these comments suffocating - they are demeaning to both partners and the only purpose they serve is to control men and women's behaviour according to ridiculous norms.

It's important for men to be able to cook and clean.  This is a major contribution to the household and gives the man a feeling of nurturing and also an understanding of how endless these tasks are.

It's important for women to have some experience with tools and saws and heavy physical work.  Because it's exhausting and dangerous sometimes, but seeing your work turn out well is rewarding and builds confidence.

Most of all, being free to do a variety of tasks helps you find new things you like, and helps you appreciate your partner's efforts. I think small things like the division of labour in a household are really big things, and when change like this begins at home, it is extremely powerful. And tasty.

Everybody wins. So ignore the gender-based foolishness and get on with whatever needs doing to make your house a home.

What's your story?

If you've got a bit of time, here are three great videos which I found very thought-provoking.

The first is a TED talk by a Nigerian woman named Chimamanda Adichie, called "The danger of a single story."  I recommend watching it and then subsituting "New Brunswick" every time she talks about Africa/Nigeria.

It has always been one of my major beefs that the only news we hear about our people and our province is bad news.  Nationally respected health centre in New Brunswick?  Ignored.  Fattest province in Canada?National news.  Don't get me started! (The reference above was to the Stan Cassidy Centre in Fredericton, in case you're wondering.)

The second is Charles Theriault's latest addition to the series "Is Our Forest Really Ours."  In this video, Charles goes through the numbers related to jobs and employment in foresty related to the Alward government's new deal with JDI.

I am a big fan of fact based decision-making, and the facts on this one are scary.  As a 32-year old New Brunswicker, I am shuddering to think about what the health and education sectors in our province will look like when I hit 50, if this deal goes through.

Thirdly, is a talk by Don Bowser, who is an international expert on transparency, disclosure and corruption and the relationships between governments, resource extraction companies, and citizens.  If you think we are getting all the information to which we are entitled, it doesn't take long listening to Bowser's talk before you start to question what is really happening here.

So, why am I here on this blog, only giving bad news about New Brunswick!  The fact is, there is a lot at stake, and as shown with the NB Power deal, the voices of citizens hold a lot of power when used collectively.  I think young New Brunswickers, in particular, have a big job to do to raise the bar for transparency, accountability, fact-based policy, and fair resource management in our beautiful province.

I will put some good news in the next post, but for today, here is a collection of videos that really made me think.  New Brunswickers are gathering this Tuesday, May 13th, in front of the Legislature in Fredericton to tell the government we do not support the deal they made without consultation or consent.  I will be there and I hope you will lend your support too.

Don't misunderstand me

I am glad that people in New Brunswick are discussing the closure of the Morgantaler abortion clinic in Fredericton.  We have been too comfortable for too long, with the Liberals and Conservatives in agreement that women seeking abortions must obtain 'permission' from not one, but two doctors, in order to receive a publicly funded abortion.

I would like to make a few comments on the issue, because I feel that not talking about abortions in New Brunswick is ultimately very harmful.

1. I know women who have had abortions.  So do you. They made this difficult decision because they thought it was best for themselves, and did not want to subject their child-to-be to a life of poverty, uncertainty, dysfunction or misery. It is a choice that weighs on them, and women carry this psychological burden even when they know they made the right choice given their circumstances.

2. None of these women used an abortion as a 'convenient method of birth control'.  Who would want their body being the site of such a power struggle, among their own emotions, and in the eyes of society?

3. We judge women much too harshly, given the hurdles that they have to overcome.  Many men (and other women too) do not treat them with respect, and put them in situations where the only choice is between bad and worse.  When a woman who has been mistreated much of her life becomes pregnant, with no support system, why do we blame her only, when her circumstances have created an endlessly complicated and heartbreaking situation?

4. Why are politicians in charge of the choices women make with their own bodies?  Do men need permission to have vasectomies?

5. I have pro-life friends and I greatly respect their positions.  It is sad that women feel they will not be supported during pregnancy and the post-birth period.  But the sad reality is, many women are alone.  So the choice to abort a pregnancy is one that must remain.

6. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

The forest and the trees (once again)

I've spent a fair amount of time dealing with forestry-related issues on this blog.  Forestry is the biggest sector of the economy in NB, and many people in my family have been involved in 'the woods,' as we call it.

The Alward government is getting ready for the election this fall. They have had an extremely difficult economic situation to deal with, no doubt about that.  When all those chickens from past years started coming home - Point Lepreau, NB Power, highway tolls (we're still paying, we just don't pay at the booth) - it sure wasn't pretty.  And with an aging population, poor literacy and health rates and a lack of new entrepreneurs, it's a tough sell to convince people that you're the party that will lead New Brunswickers to jobs, prosperity and health.

That being said, the elephant in the room provincially has been, and likely always will be, the woods. Europeans started coming here for the trees and Crown Land is still our greatest resource.  And like any resource, access is power.

We are currently in the midst of a very intense and long-running debate about who those trees are for and who should benefit from them.

Is it First Nations?  The people who scholars say still have legal title to land they have never ceded?  My feeling is that over the next decade, the Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to rule on this.  The treaties exist but my understanding is they presently are not being respected.

Is it the people of New Brunswick?  A few years ago, the government commissioned a new study about how people use the woods and found that people have a high recreational value for the woods, and that they believe Crown Land should be used for the benefit of communities, not only to create jobs but also to provide habitat for wildlife and a place for people to enjoy nature.  The (Graham) government didn't allow this report to be released, and cancelled the meetings that were supposed to be held so people could engage with this report.

Or is it for forestry companies?  It is so hard not to be cynical about this.  Especially after attending several presentations involving forestry execs who tell us patronizingly that if we don't find a way to change public policy, the big mills will have to shut down.  Like a parent wagging his finger at small children who just will never 'get it.'

They use the 'jobs' as a threat and a weapon, while conveniently ignoring that our forestry industry is one the most highly mechanized in the world, meaning it takes a whole lot of clear-cuts to create even a few jobs. The reality is that maple syrup, value-added products, furniture, wood pellets, all these "niche markets" have a greater potential to create jobs from Crown wood than more clear cuts.

What I would like to know is: how does the government of a province that is deeper in debt every year justify losing money on Crown Land?  The reality is, and several former cabinet ministers have publicly stated this, that our tax dollars are going to PAY companies to cut down the Crown Land, process it in private mills, and keep the profits in private bank accounts, some of which are offshore and not even subject to Canadian taxes.

New Brunswickers are probably not aware that the Irving family is one of the top five landowners in the world.  Meaning they own a bigger share of planet Earth than almost anyone, excepting certain royal families and American corporate kings.

This latest forestry announcement is terrible news for our province.  The jobs and investment being discussed here are going to cost the taxpayers piles of money, and do nothing to advance the values New Brunswickers have articulated, time and time again.  The impact on wildlife, public land and  the public purse will not be pretty. New Brunswickers need to get educated on this subject - no aspect of public policy will have a bigger impact than this.

Toronto, and Montreal

Don't worry, this isn't a hockey post.

I was fortunate to experience the miracle people call "vacation" last week.  It meant some time off - from emails, from obligations and set schedules, from housework and best of all from "the daily grind." They call it a grind for a reason, that feeling that if it doesn't stop soon you'll be ground down into a fine powder, untraceable forevermore.

Melodramatic?  Yes, a bit, but sometimes I can't help myself.  Especially when it's been years since I had a real vacation, with the luxuries listed above. So off we went, my sister and I, piled into the car with a list of friends to visit and nothing else particularly on the agenda.  What a beautiful relief!

First stop, Montreal.  La belle province.  Avec mes belles amies.  How wonderful to share time with intelligent women who are coming up in the world, who are a pulverizing combination of brains, beauty, hard work, wit, and charm . . . . the list goes on.

I am not convinced the world is fully ready for these women - educated and competent, ready to make an important contribution to society but still dealing with a society that thinks blonde doctors can't be in charge, or that you can't sound divine if you don't look perfect. But the world is going to have to deal with it, and while many people spend their time worrying about the effect Miley is having on their daughters, they are missing the myriad of role models right in front of their faces.  It's the glacier effect, slow-moving but inescapable transformation over time.

Montreal seems different to me this year.  We spent our honeymoon there in early fall 2010.  Maybe I'm exaggerating, maybe it's the long winter everyone seems to be cursing, but there seemed to me a black cloud hanging over the city this time.  My initial perception, being a political junkie, is that maybe this whole "Charter of Values" has really hit a sore spot, and people in Montreal are feeling the edge of a political wedge that is being driven into their city and the province as a whole.

On the street, I heard a random man say "I don't want to hear people in English," then switching to French. And although I was only there a short time, I couldn't shake the feeling that we were being judged as outsiders, and not quite measuring up. People seemed weary, and I couldn't quite put my finger on why.
The joie de vivre I have experienced so many times before seemed noticeably absent.

This all in contrast to Toronto . . . stay tuned for part two, hopefully this week.

Culture, despair, hope and change

Seems like lately I am reading a lot of (mostly justified) outrage on facebook: the senate, fracking, Rob Ford etc.  It's so easy to despair, with the constant stream of bad news.

Yet I also feel an undercurrent of small positive changes is taking place in how people relate to each other and the planet.  If you are sad about the state of the world, try reading the introduction to this book. It's a great perspective that holds the two in balance.

Yesterday, I listened to an audiobook about how to be more effective at work (hint: no meetings!) and one the things that jumped out at me was the author's statement about culture.  He said:

You can't create a culture.  Culture is formed from repeated behaviour.

He then went on to give the example that if you're taught to share when you're a kid, you grow up with a culture of sharing.  Which made me think: what kind of culture do I live in, and what kinds of cultures do I reinforce every day with my actions?

I was talking to a gentleman last weekend at Music NB about how difficult it has been for Saint John to support a live music venue.  He remarked that he didn't feel anglo culture was as "collegial" as Acadian culture, and I would tend to agree with that.

Part of what Tracy and I are trying to do with our business is to create a cultural space where people can be creative, and where ideas out of the mainstream can take root.  In practice, this is a very difficult task, one I will be puzzling over for a while to come.

One of the biggest questions I am dealing with right now is how to get people to work together, how to make it practical and natural for people to support each other and build a resilient community.  There is loads of potential, and I think these questions are on the minds of many people.  The journey continues.

Is the Internet really a game changer?

I realize the irony of putting this topic out for discussion online, but that's kinda the point of this one.

I've spent three of the past six weekends at various provincial AGM's - for ArtsLink NB, the Union of NB Municipalities, and Music NB weekend. At home, normally I'm on the organizational side of events, so it's been interesting to be a fly-on-the-wall at these meetings.

A few observations:

1. It's increasingly important to speak both English and French or at least have a decent working knowledge of both official languages.  Especially in the cultural sector, because the Acadian community is so organized and we in Anglo NB have much to learn from them.

2. The biggest challenges to our successes in NB - regardless of industry - are geography and communication.  It's extremely difficult to keep people in the loop, even with today's social networks and communication technology, in a province where people are so spread out.

Add to that the fact that most people go about their day-to-day routines trying to block out excess information in our media-saturated environment, and the result is that people who have common economic or organizational interests are frequently isolated from each other.

3. On the other hand, finding information is easier than ever, for people who go looking.  This means that challenging official narratives and information - shale gas being an important case in point - is being done more frequently.

At these events, I am often the only person from rural western New Brunswick. Sometimes I find people from the cities have a tendency to explain things to me that I am already aware of, because I read it online.  I read a lot online, mostly because I am too endlessly fascinated by how the world works to quit.

Sometimes I would like to tell these people that "we have the same Internet in Woodstock."

This leads me to wonder: is the internet really a game changer?  ie. Will having access to lots of information really help people in rural areas and small towns be more self-sufficient, better citizens, and create thriving centers of cultural and economic innovation?

Or is it the old maxim "it's not what you know, it's who you know" still true?

I have to admit, I feel like meeting two or three good new contacts accomplishes a lot more than being alone in a room, reading a screen.

I can see how people want to share information and work together, and the internet does facilitate those kinds of collaborations.  However, I don't think it can ever replace the social ties and weak social capital that come from random encounters with colleagues (I met someone I'd been trying to meet in an elevator at one of the conferences - finally) or being in the same room when a major announcement is made.

Does the internet help us build communities based on common interests?  Or does it just isolate us more?

Problem solvers wanted

We all have problems.  Sometimes, big problems.  And in my short 18 months on the Woodstock Town Council, I have noticed that we hear from people mostly when they have a problem.

Being an elected representative is pretty interesting, but you start to grow a thick skin, because you become a bit of a magnet for angry people.

I can identify with the 'angry person' camp, but now that I have a small role to play in local decision-making, I see how raw anger is really only the first stage in solving a problem.

It's a natural way for people to get motivated to speak up that something is wrong, but being angry on its own does very little to correct the situation and often serves to demoralize the other people involved.

Today I spent about five hours in various meetings related to how to improve Woodstock's downtown.  It was very heartening, despite the challenges that exist.  I find it really heartening to be in an environment where local people can speak frankly about problems that they see, with the goal of moving towards collective action and possible solutions.  If local people don't take responsibility for solving local problems, do we really think that higher levels of government can do a better job?  I have my doubts.

I wish our society had better methods of collective problem solving, and that we could value the process of getting together to improve things for the common good. We should encourage our young people to learn and practice good problem-solving skills.

It's not easy, solving real-life problems.  Most of the time, solutions can't simply be purchased, they have to be tailored to fit the particular local circumstances at hand.  This requires creativity, compromise, putting aside one's biases and learning to listen to other viewpoints.

The five hours I spent today are a fraction of the real time it's going to take to make a significant impact on the issues in downtown Woodstock.  But it's a reminder that change occurs when real people have a shared interest and are willing to set aside their differences and work together on something that matters to them.

Too often we forget that, and take our metaphorical toys and "go home" because we do not feel able to be part of a constructive proccess.  It's tempting to say screw it, but in the end, we all lose.  Anything worth having, is worth speaking up for, and is worth solving a few problems along the way.

Thirty-something and seeking change

Lots on my mind lately, not much time to digest those thoughts...so many tasks at hand.

But lately I am feeling a bit out of touch with the currents of change, which for some strange reason are very important to me.

I would really like to figure out a way to get the next generation of young people involved with cultural change in my community.  I can think of loads of things they might be interested in : starting a community radio station, contributing to the Dooryard Arts Festival music lineup, organizing a Freeschool event, the list goes on....the potential is limitless and I'm sure these energetic twentysomethings will have loads of other great ideas too.

I don't want to get stuck in a rut and always think the same thoughts and talk to the same people...

Losing Our Voices

We teach a lot of people to sing.

Which is to say, we attempt to assist a lot of people who claim to want to sing.

We give advice.  We cajole and reassure.  We demonstrate, and encourage, and smile, and give feedback in an attempt for our students to attain some knowledge about what they are doing (physically) and why they sound the way they do.

It's a very difficult task, for a couple of reasons.

First, the voice is the most personal of instruments.  You can't see it, you can't tune it artificially, and you can't trade it in for a newer, or older, or more expensive, or more 'vintage' voice.  You play the vocal cards you're dealt, friends, and sometimes that can be tough.  If you want to change your voice, you have to do the work.  The long, complicated, frustrating, joyful and oftentimes lonely work.

Second, our society, in my opinion, does not value authentic voices, and by that I mean "voices that are not contrived to sound a particular way that the performer assumes the listener will like".  We all have unique bodies.  Therefore we all have unique voices, because our voices are embodied.    We are afraid to stand apart from the herd, or to sound differently.

We now live in an era where women in popular music sing in a similar range to men - Carrie Underwood - and men rarely sing down in their lower registers - no more Johnny Cash. Sopranos (with the notable exception of Alison Kraus) and basses are a thing of the past.

Third, as a consequence of #1 and #2, people are so hesitant to sing.  They do not trust their bodies, and they do not trust their voices.  They are afraid to be heard, and to take the physical and emotional risks it entails to make a sound and have someone hear it.

It is heartbreaking.

We regularly see parents seeking music instruction for their children.  These people are lovely people whose intentions are heartfelt.  But they won't sing with their own kids, so their children never learn to vocalise in a manner that resembles singing, because the parents are too afraid.

I often wonder if there is a connection between this lack of singing and the larger public ambivalence we see - very few people will speak up when 'the powers that be' overstep their bounds, and people seem incredibly reluctant to add their voices to the public discourse on many issues.

It brings to mind sayings involving singing and birds.  The first is from a novel by Farley Mowat, which I have not read, and yet, somehow I seemed to know.  Apparently this novel is a fictionalized account of the Italian campaign to liberate Italy from facism during WWII:

 "I was staring down a vertiginous tunnel where all was black and bloody and the great wind of ultimate desolation howled and hungered. I was alone....relentlessly alone in a world I never knew....and no birds sang."

Lately I have been waking in the early morning hours, hearing the birds, and falling back asleep again.  Many composers (notably Mozart and Messiaen) were student of birdsong.  The second quote was often found at the bottom of one of my professor's emails during university.  This particular professor was eminently practical, and understood the beauty of choral music: the whole is more than the sum of its parts

  "Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang  best."  Henry VanDyke

More on college

Here's an update - an encouraging look at what happened when the kids mentioned below received a substantial amount of information about colleges, prices and application procedures.