Undone

Unclasp the watch to write this rhythm;

photos of another place and time ---

this reverie is both yours and mine.

Our interaction on the side-street knows,

that the cold of the winter-wind blows

your whispers past the tip of my nose,

as the sign flips from open to close;

and you stand under the shadow of your choosing,

and I crawl away a casualty of your musing.

victims of a fight where both are losing,

junk-sick from the drugs we're using.

Photos of another place and time ---

this life is both yours and mine.

Can't wash this feeling from my hand,

of being tucked away in a foreign land,

reduced to the occasional family pity- visit.

(Not our creation or is it?)

Splashes on the blank canvas,

old water in the empty vase;

footprints in the frozen grass,

tear-tracks down your tired face.

Inside the wooden crate wrapped in lace,

trinkets warn from use before,

we ignited a civil war.

You stand under the shadow of your choosing,

and I crawl away a casualty of your musing.

victims of a fight where both are losing,

junk-sick from the drugs we're using.

It was done before it was over,

fields of fire now filled with clover;

a reminder of peacefully counting sheep

under skies too beautiful to miss for sleep.

A memory for down-the-road to keep,

no battle could ever be had or won,

those days have past,

we've come undone.

Playboy Magazine: Playing nice on the coffee tables of mainstream

It's been a theory of mine for a while that the once taboo men's magazine, Playboy, has shaken off its label as the bible of moral turpitude, to dawn the cloak of a respectful, mainstream avenue for literature, social commentary and critique.

This has happened for three reasons: the Internet has moved pornography away from still pictures and transformed that label to movies; the 'playboy' pose isn't something that's akin to pornography, but rather more closely relates to fine art, even promoting an almost overarching artistic merit. And lastly, its content has seen contributions from diverse sources such as stories by Margaret Atwood, to Marge Simpson as the newest cover model.

Hardly a surprise to the Internet-savvy, but people don't go to magazines anymore for 'the really good stuff.' NO. Save that for the plethora of websites that make you pass through a disclaimer screen asking you to make sure you're old enough to view the content. Nothing that anybody could put in a magazine could be as bad. More importantly, though, is the Internet has changed the medium of porn, replacing the once sought-after pictures with movies. (Note: pornography refers to how acts of a sexual nature are depicted, not actually the substance of what's being depicted.)

Second, the "Playboy" pose. I don't think high-gloss pictures of women posing in the country-side on fur blankets with elegant jewelry constitutes porn. The pictures look like fine art pictures, which do, by their very definition promote some sort of overarching artist merit. In a sense, these types of photos aren't about the women at all, but the quality of the photos. Real pornography has a grittiness to it that photo spreads in Playboy completely lack. The centerfolds look they've been touched up with an airbrush. That's fine, I think everyone knows about airbrushing by now, but the problem is the photos LOOK like they've been airbrushed. Polished is not pornography. If Playboy magazine were a girl, she'd be the type who wears makeup to the gym.

Above all, the content of the magazine promotes a more mainstream audience than say its traditional market penetration of the mid-40s white male. Many fine writers from Margaret Atwood to James Ellroy have published a story in Playboy: hardly headline writers for Penthouse.

In the end, Playboy has made a transition from the secret-porno-stash-closets of fathers, to the coffee tables of mainstream. Think I'm wrong, here's more proof. This past Friday I was in barber shop having my hair cut when I noticed the magazine rack. The two latest editions of Playboy magazine. Just sitting right there, in public. Not tucked away, out there where the world can see them. The part of this argument that makes it art is that this barber shop, is located in the basement of a government of Canada building.

No Access?

The issue of transparency always manages to surface, in one form or another, in democratic societies. Our Access to Information Act makes it possible for ordinary citizens like you and I to request information from the Government of Canada, and receive a reply shortly thereafter.

Seems simple enough.

Really though, the Access to Information Act was not designed as a simple query and answer forum. Rather, this access to information system was put in place so that the government would have a legitimate way to say: NO.

Firstly, the Access to Information Act had to be written in the first place! If our government was concerned about how uninformed its citizens were, all information, from all ministries would be available, all the time. There would not be an Act that prescribes the procedures for filling out an access to information request form because there would not be a request form. There would not be timelines for answering requests and processes to follow because the only answer would be, yes.

Secondly, the Act itself includes a measure that ensures the public-at-large never fully understands what information is available. Section 10 (where access is refused), subsection 1, states that:

“Where the head of a government institution refuses to give access to a record requested under this Act or a part thereof, the head of the institution shall state in the notice given under paragraph 7(a): (a) that the record does not exist.”

Looks pretty straight-forward.

You make a request for access, you are denied, end of the story, right? Maybe not. Subsection 2 states that, “The head of a government institution may but is not required to indicate under subsection (1) whether a record exists.”

When your access to information request is denied – and you are supplied with the reason: the record does not exist – there is no way of knowing if that is in fact the case. This logic is the reason why the request is being denied access, but the head of the government institution is not required to provide proof.

Sounds like no access to me.

Broken

This home is broken,
cut me open.
Give me an answer,
don't leave the cancer.

Liberal Homebase?

Canada might be on the verge of conservative reign for years to come: of course only time will tell if that's true. For what it's worth, I'm starting to feel like the Progressive Conservatives after the 1993 election that returned only two Tories to Parliament Hill: gearing up for a long stay in Opposition territory.

In the face of yesterday's by-elections in British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia, I am concerned for the fderal Liberals. In each of these by-elections, the Liberal candidate was not in the top two, rather, third. It's not only the finishing position that is cause for concern but that in each case, Liberals were severly trailing their competition in the number of votes. Using these numbers to project any type of outcome in a possible spring election, the results are less than desired.

One of the things I find uncanny about the Liberal party is how its own players (Parliamentarians and staffers) talk about their voters. When talking about the general public, they all seem to say the same thing: "We need to reach out to our base!"

I find this declaration interesting, and a little confusing because, there is no Grit base. For much of its ruling history, the Liberal Party of Canada has been a successful brokerage party, nothing else. It has been able to find success by pulling socially progressive voters away from the Tories, and has managed to make the argument that of the opposition parties, they'll be the ones to win power.

Not sure if that's true. If the recent elections in Canada have taught us anything, they have reminded us of the importance and necessity of a homebase. In this department, the Liberals seem out-gunned by the religous right and family values based voters of the CPC; the environmental activitist base of the Green Party; the Quebec Nationalist base of the Bloc Quebecois; and the socially progressive, workers-rights voters of the NDP.

So, when federal Liberals say, "we need to reach out to our base," who are they talking about? To be sure, the Liberal Party needs a real identity, not a stolen one, or a borrowed one. If the identity remains securely attached to being the middle of the road, then that's where they'll stay.