Which gives me an excellent pretext to again show you this!
Categories for Musings
Au revoir, separatists. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
OK, OK, we know. We shouldn’t get too cocky about the Parti Quebecois’ decisive loss in Monday night’s Quebec election. The so-called “sovereigntists” have been here before, in 2007, and they came back. Like a stain in the carpet that won’t go away, they’ll return to bedevil Canada, eventually.
But they lost! The separatists lost, and they weren’t supposed to! A month ago, an arrogant, detestable, smirking Pauline Marois called an election, because she (and everyone else) was convinced the PQ was an election away from a majority government. And then, a campaign happened.
Campaigns matter, I always like to say, because they do.
When distilled down to its base elements, a campaign is just a great big job interview. You put on some nice clothes, you get a haircut, and you go out with a CV touting your accomplishments. And at the job interview, you talk about the stuff you think your employer wants to hear.
That’s why the Parti Quebecois lost on a historic scale: they talked about stuff Quebec voters didn’t want to hear. Another referendum? Non, merci. A racist “values charter?” Laisse tomber! The conspiracy to assist a few hundred McGill students vote in the provincial election? Vous etes fou! [Ed. That’s “no thanks,” “drop it!” and “you’re crazy,” in that order, folks. You’re welcome.]
The problem, for Marois and her hapless gang of Canada-wreckers, wasn’t so much that the Liberals’ Philippe Couillard ran a great campaign. He didn’t, really; he oversaw a competent, workman-like campaign. The separatists’ problem was they didn’t talk about the issues important to Quebecers.
To wit: the last Ipsos poll issued before Monday night’s vote. Ipsos is a real, reputable polling firm (unlike that shall-not-be-named bucket shop that gets covered in the media a lot, but also gets things wrong a lot).
“What Quebecers want,” Ipsos wrote, “are bread and butter issues to lead the way. [They want Quebec’s government to] roll up their sleeves and get to work.”
And what the vast majority of Quebecers wanted – nearly 80% of them, like every other Canadian – was a focus on jobs, the economy and health care. A referendum, a values charter and Manchurian Candidate-like McGill students didn’t even make the list. Said Ipsos: “The top four [issues] are creating a better economy and jobs (41%), followed by providing better health care (36%), ensuring debt repayment and balancing the budget (24%) and lowering taxes (23%).”
See that? What Marois and her cabal were talking about incessantly didn’t even make the list. Couillard, on the other hand, was so message track he could talk about the economy and health care in his sleep, and probably did.
A few other things helped, along the way. No idiots in Brockville wiped their feet on Quebec flag. No federalists provided “humiliation” fodder. And the three federal leaders – Messrs. Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau – smartly kept a low profile during the campaign. Way to go, boys.
Campaigns matter. So, too, talking about the things that matter to voters.
Couillard did, Marois didn’t. Voila!
Here. But it gives us a flimsy excuse to re-post the fun PacMan video! Wheee!
This little exchange doesn’t need any context-setting. Says it all. Oh, and we need new mayor for a better city.
Ten years ago this month, the coughing started and it never stopped. It got worse, and by June that was it.
I can’t believe ten years have gone by.
Remember that old Sixties line? You know, the one from the hippie subculture that became a movie, and even a lyric in a Monkees tune? To wit: “suppose they had a war, and nobody came?” It was a nice thought, then and now.
Well, with some minor tweaking, it’s a line that can be applied to a “scandal” now raging, er, in one-block radius in downtown Toronto. Here goes:
“Suppose they had a scandal, and it really wasn’t one?”
Now, admittedly, at Queen’s Park, some media and some Opposition politicians are in a spit-flecked fury about the alleged deletion of government emails about the decision to move some gas plants in the 2011 Ontario election. You may have read about it in the papers, even in far-flung places like Whitehorse or Witless Bay. (I doubt it, but you never know.)
So, before we get started, three things. One, we use so-called flying quotes around the word “scandal,” up above, to notify you that the “scandal” really isn’t one. At all. Two, we use the word “alleged” about deletion of emails because, well, emails weren’t actually deleted. At all. Three, full disclosure, I proudly helped out former Premier Dalton McGuinty, and I remain friends with all of his former senior staff. And I hope that disclosure gives McGuinty-haters heart arrhythmia.
Scandals, real or imagined, have a way of taking on a life of their own. Even though the voting public aren’t nearly as preoccupied with scandal as the media and politicians are – Exhibit A, the Clinton/Lewinsky “scandal” – selfsame media and politicians are undeterred. They love scandal-mongering more than, you know, talking about boring stuff like “policy.” (There’s those flying quotes again!)
As no less than the most-famous-ever Canadian, Rob Ford, will tell you: voters hear about scandals too much. They’re skeptical. And, until they see a perp being frog-marched to the Longbar Hotel in an orange pantsuit and handcuffs, they don’t care much, either.
But that’s psychology. The reality of this “deleted email scandal” (Flying quotes! Drink!) is this: none were. Don’t believe me? Take your smartphone, and pop it right now in the toilet, where you already keep your old Blackberry. Now, flush.
There! According to the Ontario Provincial Police, you’ve now deleted emails and, er, committed a serious offence, Your Honour!
Well, not quite. As we all know, if you lose your smartphone – or if your PC or Mac blow up, or if (as in the Queen’s Park case) someone wipes a few hard drives to make way for a new employee – your emails aren’t gone, at all. They all still exist on a server in Cupertino, Calif., or Guelph, or somewhere else. They haven’t been deleted. At all, at all.
That’s why the whole Mother of All Scandals now gripping, um, a few dozen folks at Queen’s Park is so bloody ridiculous. The thing the Keystone Kops (a.k.a., the OPP) are investigating isn’t a crime, or even a violation of a ticketing offence. They’re investigating missing emails which aren’t, you know, missing.
Check your toilet, if you don’t believe me. Your device may be long gone, and so too your Miley Cyrus MP3s and some cherished pix of your kitten. But your emails aren’t.
Now, I know that this stunning revelation – to wit, emails exist on servers, not individual computers – is a shock for the geniuses in the OPP and at Queen’s Park. But for the rest of us living in the new millennium, it’s kind of not-news.
So too this “deleted email scandal.” It isn’t news, either. In fact, it is the biggest pile of crap to plop on the Canadian political stage since “Justice” (Drink!) John Gomery turned the sponsorship inquiry into a taxpayer-funded ego circus. And that’s saying something.
Thus, our new song: Suppose they had a “scandal,” and it really wasn’t one?
I deliberated about jumping into this morning’s Kurt Cobain media orgy. You know, dead 20 years, voice of a lost generation, grunge sociology, I-remember-where-I-was-when-He-died, blah blah blah. There are stories and thumbsucker columns everywhere.
I didn’t ever interview the Nirvana front guy, or even see the band live. My brother did, twice, and he said they weren’t anything to write home about.
When they were together, I thought they were okay, but I didn’t listen to them as much as I listened to the Stooges, or the Pixies, or the Breeders (who were the bands Cobain liked best, by the way, and in that order). Personally, I thought Nirvana was kind of derivative, and insufficiently punk (two of the criticisms Cobain had of Nirvana himself, by the way).
So why even acknowledge today? Well, for a good thing and a bad thing.
The good thing about Cobain was that he did what Johnny Rotten and Joey Ramone did, 18 years earlier: he saved rock’n’roll. In the Seventies, as I wrote in Fury’s Hour, rock had become “self-indulgent, technically-perfect, coma-inducing arena rock that offered up bands with about as much emotional commitment as an annual report.” Rotten and Ramone killed corporate rock’n’roll in 1976 or so. And then, when rock culture started getting evil again, Cobain did the same thing – in 1993 or so.
That’s the good thing, I think. The bad thing about Kurt Cobain is he was just another junkie who killed himself with junk. Like Elliott Smith (who was a greater songwriter, and who I still miss very much), Cobain came to love the sting of the needle more than he loved the writing of a really great song. So he died. That’s it.
I could say something, at this point, about the hypocrisy of the 40-and-50-somethings who condemn Rob Ford for his substance abuse issues – but who previously regarded Kurt Cobain as sort of cool for his – but it’s a waste of time. People are always going to be highly selective about the facts they rely upon to justify the bullshit of daily existence.
The facts about Kurt Cobain, as selected by me, are these: he saved rock’n’roll.
But he didn’t, or couldn’t, save himself.