The road less cycled

Wednesday morning I woke up, as did most of us, to a blanket of white draped over everything. I’d read that a Northern Hawk Owl had been seen up around the McKee area early in December, so it looked like a perfect place to go for a holiday excursion – accessible by car and not something that would take up my entire day (I had to work and run some errands yet that day). I hadn’t, however, counted on this much snow.

Getting up McKee was a difficult drive; the snow was still fresh and it’s essentially one big hill. It’s called McKee Peak for a reason. If I thought the drive was difficult, finding parking was another story altogether, as all the roadsides were no more than deep snowdrifts. Eventually I parked, somewhat dangerously, on the shoulder but a little too close to traffic for my liking.

Open Woods

The hike itself was fairly short, but stunningly beautiful. There were “private property – no trespassing” signs everywhere, but I was fairly certain that this was in fact a legitimate mountain bike trail, so I kept on marching.

Perhaps marching isn’t the world. Galumphing might be more appropriate. Stopping and starting with my head pointed straight upwards, scanning treetops for owls. So far only the persistent din of a flock of Black-Capped Chickadees, and a Downy Woodpecker. Somebody had been here already this morning, as there were some partly snowed in tracks leading the way. Some fourty-five minutes in, I turned around, only because by now I was afraid that somebody would call a towing company over my park job, and I hot-footed it down at breakneck speed, knowing that in my desperation to find a parking spot, I’d probably pushed the limits a little bit. I really need a jeep.

On the way down, I decided I wanted a shot of snow-covered Abbotsford from the viewpoint on Mckee Road, which again necessitated the finding of a parking spot. This involved much driving and spinning and verging on getting stuck in snowdrifts, after which I gave up and and drove down the hill a ways and parked on  a sidestreet, from where I found a trail heading back up the hill. Halfway up this trail I found the following gem:

Giant Rhododendron

By the time I reached the top, heavy flurries had re-started and the view had disappeared. It hadn’t really been a view of Abbotsford at all; more Matsqui Prairie, but exquisite all the same. While there, I decided to visit the rhododendron grove at the corner of McKee and Whatcom. Not many people know about this patch; here there are 100 year old rhododendrons that were planted by Dr. McKee. They have trunks up to 60 cm across and tower over your head. I’ve never been here in the winter before; only in summer and fall. Neither have I ever visited the grove in bloom.

Inside the rhododendron grove

These rhodos are threatened by development; there are plans to develop either housing or commercial on the site, something I’ve fought against, but to date the city has only agreed to move one or two of these amazing plants, citing cost and previous decisions by council.

And no, I never did see the Northern Hawk Owl.

My first experience with him was quite some time ago now, probably last spring. The CV shafts in my ‘86 ‘Lude had been creaking something awful ever since I’d bought the vehicle in November ‘07 from my brother. This is a situation of more urgency than I thought at the time, so I didn’t get around to having them replaced until I’d driven the vehicle for a half year or so, but eventually I did decide to reluctantly sink some money into my car.

My dad recommended talking to a fellow named Jim who apparently worked for cheap – cheap being $30/hr. So we went down to his place, then on the Fraser Highway halfway to Aldergrove, to see if he could do the job. He was home, and had obviously just completed a job for another client, because as we pulled in, we were treated to the rather odd sight of a man tucking bills into Jim’s pockets, saying that Jim wasn’t going to get away with it this time. Jim obviously didn’t want the money, but reluctantly accepted it.

He ended up doing the job for me as well – both CV shafts, for which I bought the parts and he installed them. Afterwards, I was elated, because although the job had taken longer than he’d estimated, he wouldn’t take much money for it! I think I paid him around $150 for it; far less than a repair shop would have charged.

Then, just a couple weeks ago, the car overheated while my dad was driving it. Turns out it had lost its coolant solution; there was a leak in the block heater, Jim diagnosed after coming out on the same day to have a look. So I cycled out to Lordco to pick up a new one; a block heater is something you can usually do without in temperate southwest BC – it keeps your water lines warm at night if you plug it in during cold nights.

Anyway, Jim ended up replacing the block heater for me. It took about four hours, yet all he would take was $40 that I gave him. Tried to give him an extra $50, as it was easily worth that, but when I handed him the envelope he looked at me in horror. “What’s that?! No no no. You’ve already paid me.” And with that he was gone. For $40 he gave up a good chunk of his Sunday so I could be back on the road in time for work.

So this post is a tribute to Jim, and all men and women around the world like him. They’re people to whom money is no object, not because they’re awash in it, but because they only want what they need to get by. What’s more, they think nothing of working long and odd hours. To Jim, I’m sure, life is full of frivolities; there are so many distractions and pursuits that can fill up your time if you let them, but at the end of the day, they don’t necessarily bring happiness. For that, I’ve a feeling Jim would say, all you need is a good day’s honest work to do, sufficiently compensated, a wife, husband, or lover, and some basic comforts are really the main ingredients.

The way things are going however, some of those might be in short supply. How much time is left to prepare for what’s coming? Problem is, it’s people like Jim, and more than likely you and I, who pay the price when people like another Jim I could name bungle up our economy. To be fair, the seeds for our current harvest were planted decades ago.

Mighty poor seeds they were.

5:00 a.m. seems to be my writing hour. Got home from work about an hour ago, and I’ve decided not to sleep yet because I need some work done on my car and if I sleep I’ll never get up in time to make sure it gets done. It’s how I function – if I know I’m going to

a)not hear my alarm or

b) hear the thing but ignore it no matter how often it goes off

I just don’t sleep until after what I have to do is done. My holidays, essentially, are all about work. I’ve yet to really take any time for myself, though I am tremendously looking forward to Dec.27, on which morning I will arise at 6:30 a.m., extricate my binoculars from whichever cranny they have been left to languish in for far too long now, and proceed to spend the entire morning and part of the afternoon scouring Downes Bowl, Fishtrap Creek, and Willband Creek, for birds, writing down every little winged, feathered, marmel which so much as dares to flit across the range of my binoculars. This is part of the annual Christmas Bird Count, in which I have participated for several consecutive years now. I will wear gloves, and I will not eat Chinese afterwards.

The other event of significance is the Michael Franti & Spearhead concert, either New Year’s if I’m free or the night before if I’m not free for the New Year’s One. It will be epic, because I do not go to many concerts, and it is Michael Franti.
Other than those, I will make a shitload of money so I can enjoy NOT paying tuition next January. That’s right; I will not be in school, nor will I be writing for the Cascade, nor will I be on the Student Union, nor Students for Sustainability. I will however be joining the “I’m single and making way more money than I really need to live on because I don’t pay rent” club, and squirrels and Steller’s Jays will play a much bigger role in my life than they ever did before, as I’ll be putting to practice my naturalistic skills and emulating their behaviour.

And who knows, with the economy nosediving like this, maybe there’ll be squirrels and hazelnuts on the dinner table as well.

I have not slept well of late, at least not by my standards which typically involve drifting off within milliseconds of my head hitting the pillow and not stirring for eight to ten solid hours – more if I’m short on sleep for whatever reason (exams come to mind).

Tonight has been a particularly poor night. Admittedly, my rhythms are completely out of sync – I slept from around nine a.m. to eight p.m. today as I spent the night elsewhere and didn’t arrive home until 8 in the morning. So I was up and about for around five hours tonight before retiring once again to try and get my rhythm back on track. Now I’ve been tossing and turning for around three hours, a bajillion thoughts coursing through my head, so instead of continuing that exercise in futility, I thought I’d make myself a cup of tea and do some writing instead. So here I am, at five a.m., sipping rooibos and trying to transfer some thoughts from the maelstrom that is my brain to the thought absorbent medium that is the Internet, where they will soon be made public for all to access as they wish. Frightening.

This weblog, in recent weeks, has taken on a definite political bent, as welcome developments in Parliament offered the prospect of a change of government, and with the extreme disappointment I feel in our current federal government’s absolute failure to address climate change, this is something which seized my complete attention and interest while it lasted. I felt, and still do, that a centre-left progressive coalition government would be the best thing that could happen for Canada politically speaking at the current time.

My thoughts around politics are, however, not that well organized. I remain unconvinced of several things: the potential for politics to truly enact lasting change; the legitimacy of a state that has consistently and horrifically marginalized Canada’s First People’s since before Confederation; and finally, with my current state of limited worldly experience, minimal knowledge of Canada’s political history, and partial understanding of the macroeconomics and financial structure on which our country is based, my suitability to overly engross myself in public life. I firmly believe there is room and need for youth in politics, but this should not come at the expense of personal development, and I fear that for myself, this would be the result. If and when I overcome those obstacles, and feel myself suited for active participation in government, be it as a citizen or as a representative, then and only then will I “re-enter the fray”, so to speak. I make this resolution only because I know how susceptible I am to directing more attention and time than is healthy to political debate and discussion.

I also know only too well how in politics everything that you make public can come back to bite you; should you ever become an elected representative, someone, either a media hack who needs a story or a political opponent who wants to take you down, will rifle through pretty much everything you’ve ever written or said to try to dig up some dirt, or worst of all, take something inoffensive and legitimate out of context so that it sounds offensive or ignorant. One need only look at how many times the things Garth Turner has written on his blog have been taken out of context by his opponents. At best, his online verbosity has given his opponents barrels of ammunition forcing him to too often be on the defensive, even when what he actually said was relatively innocuous.

Now it’s not as if I am constantly spewing out slurs, harshly denigrating those whom I disagree with, or in any way taking risks with my writing. Most if not all of what I write is completely palatable and unlikely to land me in hot water in the future. Nevertheless, it never ceases to amaze me how words can be twisted to suit an agenda or an unsavory purpose, and bearing that in mind, this blog is more intended as a thoughtful record of the clearest parts of my thought processes than it is a medium through which to vent and blow off steam. Having written here for around one year now (my first post was, in fact, on Dec. 3 of last year), I’m quite pleased with the volume and regularity of my writing, the level of readership, and actually, the quality as well. (for those reading on Facebook, these notes are automatically imported from my blog at www.streamrambler.wordpress.com). I’ll continue not hesitating to make this somewhat personal, but not overtly or shockingly so, and I stand by the original purposes I outlined for this weblog in my initial two or three posts. I feel, in fact, that to date it’s been personal enough that it’s possible to get a fairly solid idea of what I’m all about just by reading it.

Now that the furor over who exactly will govern Canada has subsided for the moment, I want to take a moment to discuss a very interesting point that was raised by a panel of pundits on The Globe and Mail.

To summarize briefly the line of conversation that took place among this panel, Jim Stanford defended the coalition, saying that that the roughly 1/3 support that the Conservatives received hardly amounted to a mandate to govern, and that the coalition, by virtue of collectively having the backing of 62% of Canadians, had more governing legitimacy.

This view was sharply rebuked by William Gee, who pointed out that by extension, this line of argument means that the governments of Pearson, Trudeau, Chretien, and Martin were also illegitimate, as each received in the neighbourhood of 40% support and were therefore outnumbered in terms of popular vote by the opposing parties.

Specifically, he writes the following:

“Jim Stanford’s argument that the Conservative government is illegitimate because the other parties combined got more votes is breathtaking.

Every government since 1953, when the Liberals got precisely 50 per cent of the popular vote, has been in the same position.

Lester Pearson formed minority governments in 1963 and 1965 with 41.7 per and 39.8 per cent of the vote respectively. Was he illegitimate?

Pierre Trudeau led a minority from 1972 to 1974 after winning 38.5 per cent of the vote. Was he governing against the will of the people?

Jean Chrétien won three majority governments with 41.3, 38.5 and 40.8 per cent and Paul Martin won a minority with 36.7 per cent, less than Stephen Harper’s 37.6 per cent.

I suppose they should have handed power to the opposition parties, too.

Come on, Jim. The practice in our system is that the party that wins the most seats gets a chance to form a government — period, end of story.

As one clever blogger pointed out, having the losing parties gang up to form a government is like having the three runners-up in the NHL playoffs claim the Stanley Cup because they scored more goals and won more games combined than the winner.”

Ignoring the fact that William Gee is wrong on one key point – the Conservatives were given the chance to form government and flubbed it – it’s my belief that Gee is absolutely correct; Stanford’s claims are breathtaking in that they accurately reveal the flaws in our current first-past-the-post political system. Under this system, all of the governments Gee mentions were legitimate, as is Stephen Harper’s, as would be a coalition government.

However, one has to question whether a government representing barely more than 1 in 3 Canadian voters should in fact be considered legitimate. The Canadian public in general appears not to have too many qualms with such a belief, but perhaps they should question this situation a little further. Democracy champions the principle of majority rule; yet 1 in 3 voters does not even approach a majority. That 1 in 3 votes can translate into 1 in 2 seats in the House of Commons is merely political sleight of hand that results in false majority after false majority, creating a political ideology roller coaster as power jumps back and forth from the left to the right. Under such a system, politicians and political parties do not compromise, or take each other’s ideas into account. Rather, they criticize and deride each other while acting unilaterally. Sound familiar? Welcome to politics in Canada.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The fact that too many Canadians seem to labour under the impression that we elect Prime Ministers and governing parties suggests that they would have a difficult time coming to terms with a new political system. That, however, is precisely what I would like to lend my support to. Calls for proportional representation in Canada are growing ever stronger as Canadians realize that what we are doing is not working. Opposition parties, having realized that cooperation is the answer to Harper’s right wing amalgamation, will continue to threaten to band together to overthrow the government if they do not obtain significant concessions. Coalitions are a part of Canada’s political landscape for the foreseeable future, and Canadians need to evolve their views to take this into account.

For decades, centuries in fact, Canada has been governed under a system that only works because it distorts fractions. Some Canadians vote for parties, some vote for their MP, some vote for the Prime Minister, some vote strategically against another party or a PM. Proportional representation, though not a perfect system, enables the accurate representation of diverse political viewpoints and puts an end to false majorities.

Breathtaking Stanford’s argument is. What is even more breathtaking is that mainstream media is acknowledging that our political system is in serious need of re-examination. Stephane Dion may not have become Prime Minister, but nevertheless he’s made his mark on Canada. Let’s hope Iggy can finish what Dion started.

This I wrote in the heady days of Grade 12, a time that teeters on the boundary between the real world and juvenile academia. I dug it up while browsing through old work. I think it might be time to restore the prose/poetry balance.

Life: The Choice

commit yourself

to institutions

to women and statesmen, money and ideals

bow to nations, constitutions

submit, and give what is demanded

give your days to man’s creation

wring out the bills

to suit your nation

be ill at ease

for you have forsaken

that which breathes your heart to awaken

sleep at night with knowledge sure

that once your days lived fully were

your days are lifeless, but for a cat’s purr

you have forgotten

that which is pure

Go! and leave me

for your heart’s devices

wander not my fields so free

spend your days in man’s good vices

far away from cloud and tree

for you cannot

abandon me

How can anyone still support this Harper government having seen what Harper is capable of? To accuse a member of the House of Commons of lying is considered unparliamentary; yet Stephane Dion did so without repercussion. That suggests that Conservatives know that Harper lied.

First Harper accused the Progressive Coalition of being photographed without a Canadian flag because a member, Gilles Duceppe, did not believe in the nation. Lo and behold, photographs and video of the event show not one, but two Canadian flags behind the three leaders. If that’s not a deliberate lie, I don’t know what is.

Then Harper said that Stephane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election. This too, is a lie, unless Harper really doesn’t understand how our parliamentary system works either. The Conservative government has not the confidence of the House; therefore the chance to govern can be granted to an alternative government having a majority.

As if that wasn’t enough, Harper then lambasted the coalition for catering to the seperatist Bloc, saying that his party would never consider such a thing. This too, is laughable, because on two seperate occasions, the Conservative Party made plans with the Bloc to form a coalition government, once with the intention of propelling Stockwell Day to the Prime Minister’s seat, and again in 2004. Finally, for Harper’s government to survive, it must gain support from the Bloc itself, because the NDP and Liberals won’t offer it. Another lie.

At any rate, Harper has blown his chances of a majority, having completely alienated Quebec. The anti-seperatist rhetoric has come across as very anti-Quebec, and the Conservative’s chances of gaining seats there should there be another election are virtually nil.

Our political system might be flawed in that it distorts the popular vote to create false majorities, but it retains the flexibility to accomodate a change of government without a $300 million election. This, of course, is something Harper will never admit, knowing that such an acknowledgement could keep power in the hands of the NDP and Liberals for years to come.

Canada’s political system is not designed to accomodate five major parties. It’s designed for the incessant revolution of power between two dominant parties. With the Bloc and NDP thrown into the mix, as well as a million people voting Green, Canada might see minority governments for quite some time.

We’d better learn to deal with it.

This blog’s gotten more political than it has been historically of late. I don’t expect that to continue – politics is not my forte and I am far from a political expert – I’m just an ordinary university student with an interest in how my country is governed and the gumption and urge to speak out now and again.

This is, without a doubt, a historic time in Canadian politics – a time that will be remembered for the precedent it sets for generations to come. It has exposed the weakness of our first-past-the-post parliamentary system. It has seen the resuscitation of a maligned, atypical politician who many had written off. It has seen the Governor General rush back to the country to make what might be the most important decision of her career.

Perhaps most of all, it has revealed that many, many, people do not understand how our democracy works. I’m no expert; not a political science student, not affiliated with any political party. Yet even I can see that there is something wrong when a party that lacks a majority of votes, lacks a majority of seats, and has managed to alienate not only all of the opposition parties, but many Canadians as well, tries to cling to power by spreading falsehoods about the democratic nature of his party’s impending loss of power.

This is a very simple formula that people need to understand. None of the opposition parties proved to be particularly popular with the Canadian public; still, together, far more people support them then support Harper’s Conservatives. The Canadian public fundamentally leans toward the left. This is the case and has always been the case, and that the left is uniting is merely a response to Harper’s uniting of the right (in backhanded fashion, many will recall).

This week has seen Harper expose his own hypocrisy, denouncing the very same tactics he himself explored in 2004. It has seen Harper once again call in the vaunted Conservative media machine in hopes of once again buying public opinion to favor him.

Let us hope this crisis ends with Harper accepting that his party has been given no mandate to govern and that the majority of public opinion still rests with the opposition parties. Let’s hope that next week, Stephane Dion is Prime Minister, the Liberals and NDP are calling the shots, and that our democracy is left intact, because if the coalition doesn’t happen, it won’t be.

As I feared, the Conservatives are blitzing the country in a public relations campaign aimed at riling Canadians up in anger at the proposed coalition government. It doesn’t seem to matter that the campaign seems to be based on the assumption that Canadians don’t really understand our political system. The fact remains that Stephen Harper’s government is unable to muster the majority that it needs to pass legislation, as the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc will not support his government. Therefore, according to the results of the recent election, Harper cannot govern. Hence, the door is opened for a majority coalition to form government, and that is exactly what is happening.

Strong federalist Stephane Dion, who has fought harder for Canadian unity than Stephen Harper ever has, has cut a deal with Gilles Duceppe that he is happy with. Would Dion really cut a deal that isn’t in the best interests of the country when he worked so hard to keep Canada united?

Harper should step aside, allow Dion and Layton to govern, and stop trying to plunge Canada back into another $300 million election campaign.