I was driving two of my boys to school yesterday morning, and a poet came on CBC Radio to recite an old Canadian poem (anyone also hear it, have it?), and talk about the Griffin Trust Awards, and my boys were absolutely attentive. It was utter silence in the car; they were transfixed. When the poet was done, the youngest asked me why poetry – Roethke, cummings, Yeats, Auden – was so important to me. “It’s words that sing,” I said.

Someone else must have said that before, and I remembered it. But anyway – here is some verse to get your day started right, and what I say to my children I feel about them:

i carry your heart with me by E. E. Cummings

i carry your heart with me(i carry it in
my heart) i am never without it (anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing, my darling)
i fear
no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet) i want
no world (for beautiful you are my world, my true)
and it’s you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that’s keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart)

Comments (11)

Hebert:

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien feels a Liberal/NDP coalition is a concept worth exploring. “If it’s doable, let’s do it” he told CBC television last week. Former NDP premier Roy Romanow agrees. In an interview on the same network this week, he said the two parties should at least be “bold” enough to discuss the notion.

In his own days as a minority premier in Saskatchewan, Romanow experimented with a governing coalition and found it a constructive experience. In a recent op-ed piece, Bob Rae – who as an Ontario NDP leader signed on to a pact that allowed David Peterson’s minority Liberals to govern the province from 1985 to 1987 – used the 25th anniversary of the event to write it up as a worthwhile exercise.

Among the three of them, Rae, Chrétien and Romanow command a larger audience than current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

That may explain why, despite efforts on the part of Ignatieff and his palace guard, the idea of coalition-building will not go away.

The forces of the status quo, however, are reduced to personally attacking the likes of Jean Chretien, which tells you all you need about them and the quality of their argument: “…the few Liberal advocates of such an alliance are most at fault…Those who would sacrifice [the Liberal] legacy with so little spirit should be greeted with skepticism. Or worse.”

Get that? “Or worse.” Perhaps they plan to tar and feather us.

Meanwhile, I hear that Bob Richardson – the influential and respected head of Red Leaf – was on CBC national radio last night to say we should look at what Chretien and others have to say, and not ever dismiss it out of hand.

Better get a lot more tar and feathers, tough guy.

Comments (24)

The Munk Debate guys asked Andrew and I to debate whether Canadian politicians were afraid to debate the health care system.  Always being one unafraid to have my keester kicked by a superior mind, I said sure.  The bloody results can be eyeballed here.

Comments (6)

Yep.

Comments (10)

Harper in Opposition, then: “The opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation…consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options.”

Harper in power, now: “Losers don’t get to form coalitions.”

That is, he wanted a government led by conservatives, even if it involved the “separatists,” because it would get them power. But he’s against “close consultation” for the federalist centre and left, because – among other things – it means conservatives would lose power.

Starting to get the impression he doesn’t want a coalition to happen, perhaps?  That it worries him?

I am.

Comments (60)

When the current crew in Ottawa shut down Liberal election readiness, the Reformatories noticed.  They knew, among other things, it meant that the Liberal Party would not be seeking to defeat the government for a long, long time – however much they planned to huff and puff about bogus stimulus cheques or women’s reproductive freedom.  In politics, when you throw it down, you have to be prepared to back it up.

In the context of a minority Parliament – where you can be plunged into an election at any time – shuttering your war room and sending your election team home is also highly, highly risky.  Readiness means being ready; that is, being fully prepared for a national, multi-million-dollar election campaign that lasts for weeks isn’t something that can be turned on like flipping a like a light switch.  When you are in Opposition – where, let’s face it, you are not running much of anything – there is no excuse for lack of readiness.  None.

Thus, my friend Ian’s op-ed in today’s National Post. I’m delighted that he’s back swinging, and I’m in agreement with much of what he has to say.

A sampling is below.  Check it out:

There is no way of predicting the duration of a minority government. The current composition of the House suggests that the Conservatives might be tempted to engineer their own defeat before the other three parties align themselves. The rule of thumb, then, is to be ready to go at any time. Liberals need to move expeditiously on election readiness. That means being fully prepared, with money in the bank and the team and the leader set.

Comments (19)

There’s quite a bit of coverage of this issue today, so I thought I would put together another one of my Highly Scientific and Fair™ online polls.

I’m counting on you being a Liberal.  Reformatories aren’t allowed to vote, because we know all of them are against it.  (Because the prospect of a unified Centre-Left scares them shitless, among other things.)

Comments are open, naturally.  Beer and popcorn are gratis if the “no” side somehow wins!

Comments (125)

Some folks have asked me whether I disagree with Ontario politicians – of all stripes – who voted to reappoint the Ombudisaster.

Yes, I disagree with them.  All of them. Among other things, the solipsism and hypocrisy and recklessness of this egomaniac makes John Gomery look like a publicity-adverse chartered accountant.

Oh, and look!  From today’s Toronto Star:

André Marin, in his previous job as Canadian military ombudsman, created a dysfunctional workplace rife with complaints and 150 staff departures from the small office during his tenure, a federal report says.

Marin, who has served as Ontario Ombudsman since 2005, was re-appointed for another five-year term yesterday…

The federal report, commissioned by Marin’s successor Yves Coté, and based on interviews with 46 staffers, found that staff expressed an “overwhelming relief . . . to see the new leadership take its place.”

The human resources department was a “failed” and “woefully inadequate” system that “may actually be contributing to inefficiency in the organization.” There was confusion surrounding job descriptions due to few standards or policies. “People have real difficulty not knowing what is expected of them in the workplace.”

The lack of standards is also a problem in Marin’s current job as ombudsman for the Ontario government. A half dozen current and former employees have told the Star that policies and standards were shelved when Marin took over and that staff no longer had rules to guide job performance. Some have said they were condemned for actions that others were applauded for. The sources say this lack of standards allowed managers to criticize and fire employees on a whim…

The mass exodus of federal staff — 150 during his tenure — in the “relatively small organization” was “far in excess of the sort of staff transition one should expect.” A review of the Defence Ombudsman’s annual reports from Marin’s tenure shows his organization staff levels ranged from only 14 people in his first year to 50 in his last.

Star sources have said that under Marin’s leadership, about 70 Ontario Ombudsman’s workers have left.

The turnover has been expensive to taxpayers. A review of Ontario public accounts shows $780,000 in severance payments since 2005. Williamson said this number does not only reflect money paid to those who left involuntarily but also those who get paid upon resignation or retirement.

Many of the employees who received severances were fired. They were paid out by the ombudsman’s office after hiring lawyers to complain about unfair termination. One condition of the severance package was the former employee sign a gag order, agreeing to not publicly or disparagingly speak of the ombudsman’s office.

And this! From today’s Globe:

…there was also hard evidence he had spent money in ways that, while technically allowed under the rules governing his conduct, very clearly didn’t meet the current standard.

This was a public servant making more than $200,000 annually, and expensing toothpaste, body wash, shaving products and a shopping list of other toiletries. Meanwhile, he was using public money to accessorize his Ottawa home with a new TV, while the government was paying for a second residence and a per diem in Toronto.

One of my closest Ontario Liberal friends told me other day that some political folks think I’m “crazy.”

On days like this, I admit, I feel like I must be crazy.  I mean, I clearly am missing something in the Kid Kodak farce that everyone else sees.

Am I?

Comments (3)

And now, the next time this guy has anything to say about workplace harassment, or prejudice, or bullying of others, or reckless spending of other peoples’ money, or arrogance, or hypocrisy…well, people will laugh.  It’s a joke.  He’s Gomery Lite (and I’m familiar with the species).

This is the self-described “watch dog” the Opposition wanted?  This? Well, now they’ve got him.

And, with his conduct and his arrogance, the “dog” has neutered himself.

(And, boy, do I now have a story to tell about him.)

Comments (10)

At Jean Chretien’s portrait unveiling, on right, former Liberal MP Paul Zed. On left, deranged unidentified street person.

(Source.)

Comments (11)