Babel’s Snow White left the dwarfs in the lurch,
Take that any who did his character besmirch.
Now he’s Dick Whittington, for a cat we search.
__________________________________
#109 – Bob Rae continues to look for political opportunities.
What makes this person more successful in politics than another person? It’s an age-old question. There are so many variables to answering that question that there must be many good answers to it. If we took one person with both successes and failures throughout his career, we might not produce a clear answer but it might help in understanding the complexities. Take, for example, the career of MP Bob Rae.
While from 1990 to 1995, Bob Rae served as the NDP Premier of Ontario, the question has never been satisfactorily answered: What are his politics? As the son of Canadian diplomat Saul Rae in the Pearson era and brother of Jean Chrétien’s right hand man John Rae, he can easily talk and walk as a liberal but it was the NDP that first attracted him into federal politics.
As a Toronto MP for the New Democrats in the 1980s, Rae initially chose the foreign affairs portfolio as an area of expertise. He learned the words of foreign affairs at his father’s knee and his socialism while studying at Oxford.
But the effete English socialism of Oxford and London is not the Canadian socialism of Tommy Douglas’ wheat fields of Saskatchewan or David Lewis’ industrial Ontario. The principles and the style clash.
Bob Rae looked for political opportunity and it arrived when he saw the opening in the leadership of Ontario’s NDP. Opportunity was then the deal made with David Peterson to include NDP planks in the Ontario program when the long-serving Conservatives fell. He was there when Peterson over-reached and angered the voters in 1990. It was another opportunity for Bob.
While some might have considered this as Rae’s greatest opportunity, he found he had little room for creativity or to manoeuvre among a cabinet of socialist misfits, naysayers and nitpickers who had never expected to be on any side of the cabinet table. He knew enough about economics to be frightened of the financial quagmire left to him by desperate latter-day Conservatives and the brief spree of Peterson’s Liberals.
It was finally Canadian business leaders who lead him in the path of righteousness and fiscal restraint. He took up the cause of economic Puritanism while forgetting who had elected him and why. While many of the labour movement enjoyed their ‘Rae-days’ off work, the public conclusion was that Bob Rae was anti-union. He could kiss his Socialism International membership card goodbye.
For a politician to forget who elected him is unforgiveable. In addition, Bob Rae left Ontario politics with Mike Harris and his ilk freely raping and pillaging Queen’s Park. Bob really needed a new opportunity.
After tending to the fields of appointments and honours for a decade, Bob Rae became a born-again Liberal. He did not waste time with getting the voters to send him to Ottawa first but went directly for the federal Liberal leadership at the 2006 convention. With the weight of support delivered to him by his brother John and fellow Chrétien loyalist Eddie Goldenberg, Bob came an easy third behind Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. They made up an academic triumvirate of leadership of questionable political judgement.
Today, Bob Rae has gone full circle and sits in Parliament as the Liberal foreign affairs critic. As a Toronto MP, he pays blind obeisance to support for Israel while attempting to balance his stance with support for the corrupt government of Afghanistan. He recently suckered his leader into supporting Stephen Harper’s extension of participation in the deadly Afghan fiasco. He is still waiting for further opportunity.
– 30 –
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]
Comment for today.
WikiLeaks is giving American diplomats conniptions,
Shouldn’t the diplomats check their own convictions?
_____________________________________
Comment for today.
Saw the Ten Tenors at Rama last night,
Their performance was really a delight.
___________________________
#108 – The lost art of political oratory.
Listening to a speech by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff earlier this year it was obvious that it was built on slices from earlier speeches that were pulled together into the requisite Leader’s Remarks that were a highlight of the program. It was not that he was tired or the words not fresh enough in his mind. He got a passing grade. He made the point that the Liberal Party is a big tent party with room for all of us. He got the requisite interruptions for applause and it was obvious he was liked but he failed to inspire.
Mind you, memorable political speeches are hardly a frequent event in our society. Even the early promise in President Obama’s oratory on health care has devolved into highly partisan and predictable speeches in defence of his liberalism. His speeches have become a ghost of past promise. The man appears to be tiring and he might lack the stamina for the eight year course that can assure him a proper place in the history books of the world.
Having written more than a few political speeches over the years, it is amazing to note how few people understand the structural needs of an effective speech, or how to involve and build empathy with the audience, how to breath with the flow of the words, recognizing the critical timing needed to bring out audience response and how to end the speech on a crescendo of approval. And that is only part of the challenge.
Whether you are Shakespeare writing a funeral oration for Marc Anthony, Abraham Lincoln penning a few words for a talk at Gettysburg or Winston Churchill ruminating on the threat to England of Hitler’s forces for Canada’s Parliament, you realize that it is the ability of the speaker to be of like mind with the audience that is essential to the development of the speech. Oratory without that vital identification is just that: oratory.
Any American school child above the sixth grade can tell you how President Lincoln identified himself with his listeners by reminding them of what happened Fourscore and seven years ago… Marc Anthony had to quickly align himself with an angry mob of Friends, Romans and countrymen, and there was no question to his listeners in Canada’s Parliament and on the radio who it was that Churchill was referring to when he commented: Some chicken! Some neck!
It is once you have figuratively taken yourself off the podium and planted yourself firmly with your audience that you can reveal where your speech is going. Martin Luther King said simply that I have a dream. The speech was longer than that but it is that essence that will be long remembered.
Too many people think of a speech as one-sided. There are two elements: the speaker and the audience. First we have to understand what the audience wants from the speaker. That must be satisfied first. Then we can deal with what the speaker wants from the audience. Think of it as a quid pro quo.
A speech also has to have a rhythm. As in composing an aria for the performer, the speech must follow an easy breathing pattern and that essential ingredient of both comedy and pathos, timing. This means bringing sentences to a high ending. It is opening appropriate space for applause and audience reaction and contemplation. It is as simple as asking the audience for their commitment as well as their agreement—once you know it will be affirmative.
And when does a speech end? There is no magic timing. You know when they are too long. You know they are good when they leave you wanting more. As the American school children will tell you, the Gettysburg Address is mercifully short. The length of a speech should be as Mr. Lincoln said to the person who asked how long a man’s legs should be, Long enough to reach the ground.
– 30 –
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]
Comment for today.
Chief Blair says the police at the G20 were not responsible,
Then we should fire Mr. Blair, someone has to be culpable.
_________________________________________
#107– Counting coup on the political scene.
In the oral histories of North American plains indians, counting coup was how they measured the honour of the warrior. It is a tradition passed on through the generations and today is part of the folklore and practices of North American politicians. There are many ways of counting coup and each one is a bigger time waster than the one before.
Counting coup is how our national politicians while away the long hours of tedium in the longhouses of Ottawa and Washington. Likewise in our provincial and state chief wigwams, we see the riposte of the jibes across the floor that can wound more cruelly than the weightiest of coup sticks. Even in our municipal teepees, the apprentice politicos practice their coup skills and tally their eagle feathers so that they might too, someday, play in these silly senior games.
The objective of a successful coup is to take honour from your opponent and escape unscathed from the field of battle. The greatest of coups is to steal your opponent’s favourite pony—while he is sitting on it. It is the same in politics. Causing discomfort, embarrassment, a loss of prestige and a (figuratively) bruised backside to your political opponent is good for lengthy recounting, much hilarity and free drinks in the alehouses of the nation.
But the only problem is that only other politicians and their hangers-on who give a damn. Voters are not into nuance. It is like at the lowest of political levels, people actually believe in letters-to-the-editor. They are a coup that you can count only on the day it runs. Yesterday’s letters wrap the garbage. Anyone who has ever perused readership studies knows that these letters are a terrible waste of time. The only thing worse than getting your letter-to-the-editor published is winning the endorsement of the publication’s editorial board. The board has, in a single thoughtless move, not only made everything written about their choice suspect but they have laid aside their credibility for everyone who disagrees with their choice. It is a no-win.
An interesting example of taking political coup noted by the media the other day was the very public complaint of Dr. Carolyn Bennett, Member of Parliament for St. Paul’s to House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken. It seems that Dr. Bennett is in possession of information to the effect that the MP for Babel has abused his parliamentary mailing privileges to send out a flyer in support of a municipal candidate in Babel.
Speaker Milliken is well aware that Dr. Bennett is wasting his time. Never the less, he must do his job and investigate the allegation and rule on whether or not the MP for Babel has been—once again—wasting the taxpayers’ money. The MP might even be told not to do it again. He might also have to (snicker, snicker) assure the Speaker that he will not breach the rules again. In the very worst case, he will have to reimburse the House of Commons for the cost of the mailing.
What Dr. Bennett has done is make another small contribution to the widely held opinion that having the current MP represent Babel in Ottawa is wasteful. There are few politically knowledgeable people in Babel who would not know that Michael Prowse, the municipal candidate for whom the literature was sent, had no need for the assistance of the Babel MP. The Babel MP was hoping, by committing this breach of privilege, that some of Mr. Prowse’s political success as a city councillor would rub off on him.
But in counting coup for Dr. Bennett, this is a quite minor coup.
– 30 –
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]
Comment for today.
Fantino found Vaughan wasn’t a walk in the park,
The Liberal win in Winnipeg is important to mark,
Ignatieff needs to lead from the left or disembark.
__________________________________
Comment for today.
Is Babel going through a youth movement?
Councillor Nuttall wants in on the moment,
Ward 10 voters will want to have comment.
______________________________
#106– Surviving the communications age, part 8.
If there was ever a major divide between generations in our society, it is the division caused by the cellular telephone. If anything could convince seniors that the world is passing them by, it is the prospect of getting carpal tunnel thumb from texting.
You think: Good God, why not talk to the person? Why is texting taking over from talking? You would swear that people developed texting so that they could still make out in bars where you are unable to hear a damn thing. And why do they put a poor quality camera on this cell phone when I have a perfectly good digital camera? Is it so the news media will no longer need photographers or professional camera operators? People with cell phones must do the crime scene photos and recordings for free.
Have we reached some point in human evolution that we believe we do not need direct contact with other people? The human race is never going to continue this way.
Is texting making it easier for us to send our tweets to Twitter? And as for facebook, any senior knows that if we think we have more than five friends, we are deluding ourselves.
Frankly, this whole social media business must be for pre-adolescents. Later in life they will learn that nothing will ever replace the wonder of looking into the eyes of someone to whom you are sexually attracted over a cooling cup of coffee.
And as for the loneliness of blogging? Hah. It is still more fun than self abuse. People not only read your musings but it seems there are people out there who count your typos!
But back to cell phones. We hear that Canadians think they pay too much for their cell phone. If you think that, then stop using it every ten seconds of the day.
Having recently ended a three-year contract for $25 per month, in favour of just $15 per month, it can be noted that it need not be all that expensive. The grandsons have been told that Grandpa’s cell is in a ‘no text’ zone. They have also been told that cells are for emergencies only. If you want to talk to Grandpa, he is always delighted to talk on his land line. You can talk for hours there at no additional cost.
You still shake your head when you hear that there are people who forego the delights of land lines, in favour of only using a cell. The last operational vestige of our civilization is the land line that is connected through a 24-volt direct current from a central office to your household. It is a priceless life line that saves lives in many disasters.
Conversely, cells fail. You forgot to charge your battery. Power lines are down. There are too many causes of cell failure.
And you can still refuse to walk around with a thing stuck in your ear and talking to yourself. It is neither dignified nor do people give a damn about your side of the conversation. Just leave a message on our land line. We will get back to you.
– 30 –
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]