Something about the view really impressed upon me just how ephemeral we are. It's all be here since long before any of us, or even our kind, and it'll be here long after we're gone, too. Enjoy the moment and live in it.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Way back in 2006
If it weren't for the chainlink fence, you might be forgiven for really thinking this was a shot from long ago. Well, one day, it will be. But as of January, 2007, well... this was last summer. :)
Elysium
A graveyard in Glen William. This was taken with an 18mm lens and an 0.42x wide angle adapter.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
B&W Lakeside moment
Sort of related to my work in infrared, lately I've gotten interested in seeing what monochrome treasures might be lurking in my colour photos. I've been learning a little about channel mixing, trying to tease strong images out of the extremes and subtleties of the red, green, and blue channels. With a little help from curves, I've been delighted with some of my results. This one in particular appeals to me. Hope it appeals to you too. This is a small lake in a park in eastern Markham.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
ABSOLUT-ly In Blue
Not sure this is the kind of ad Absolut would appreciate, but it's honest. I found this bottle posed exactly as you see it here in a parking lot in North York... on my way to a Russian supermarket, ironically. :)
I think the yellow cross, reminiscent of Sweden's flag, is another nice ironic touch.
Thought I'd touch it up a little to bring out the flaggy goodness. :D
I think the yellow cross, reminiscent of Sweden's flag, is another nice ironic touch.
Thought I'd touch it up a little to bring out the flaggy goodness. :D
Thursday, January 11, 2007
A moment with Her Majesty
Bonnie looking vaguely imperial... actually, she's just guarding her eyes from the camera flash.
Digital watercolour - Countryside storm front
Faux watercolour produced from a photograph I took last summer on Duffy's Lane. The technique comes from How to Wow Photoshop for Photography by Jack Davis and Ben Willmore.
Smoke and mirrors
Front Street at Church Street, facing west; Saturday night, Jan. 5, 2007. The lights in the sky are spotlights.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Bipartisanism, here and there
This weekend, I went beyond basic cable for the first time in 6 years or so. I'm watching A&E, and I've just seen a commerical in which President Bush I and President Clinton, sitting side by side, ask for citizens to review emergency preparations online.
Given that there are only two 'real' parties in the US, I've always found it interesting that American policitians do this kind of thing so regularly. It's very rare in Canada.
A case in point: "Liberal MP Wajid Khan crossed the floor to join the Conservative party Friday... after Liberal Leader Stephane Dion urged Khan to choose between his Liberal caucus membership and his role as special adviser to the prime minister on the Middle East and Afghanistan."
I'm glad Dion won the Liberal leadership, but this was an ass-hat move. I can't imagine a better lever going into an election than "we have the resources and the governing party had to borrow them from us, and we acquiesced", and Dion just pissed it away, Canada's version of the jealous God of the Old Testament. Yeah, this makes the Liberal Party look soooooo good. Wajid Khan was putting Canada first. Apparently, that's not in the interests of the Liberal Party.
So is voting Liberal in my interests as a Canadian? Just a thought.
Given that there are only two 'real' parties in the US, I've always found it interesting that American policitians do this kind of thing so regularly. It's very rare in Canada.
A case in point: "Liberal MP Wajid Khan crossed the floor to join the Conservative party Friday... after Liberal Leader Stephane Dion urged Khan to choose between his Liberal caucus membership and his role as special adviser to the prime minister on the Middle East and Afghanistan."
I'm glad Dion won the Liberal leadership, but this was an ass-hat move. I can't imagine a better lever going into an election than "we have the resources and the governing party had to borrow them from us, and we acquiesced", and Dion just pissed it away, Canada's version of the jealous God of the Old Testament. Yeah, this makes the Liberal Party look soooooo good. Wajid Khan was putting Canada first. Apparently, that's not in the interests of the Liberal Party.
So is voting Liberal in my interests as a Canadian? Just a thought.
An idle happy wish :)
You know, it's probably not going to happen in my lifetime (I'm 38), but I'd like to live long enough that just before I die, they're able to transfer my personality and experience into a robot. After a lifetime of "the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to", a long retirement as a wisecracking robot in the mode of Crow from MST3K would be "a consummation devoutly to be wish'd". I'm banking my karma towards it, at any rate. :)
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The sun between the earth and sky
The sunset on the drive home this evening. Hard to believe it, but supposedly the days are getting longer now...
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Hurray for the Allies!
US admits: Operation Blow Shit Up "not 100% effective"
Operation Blow More Shit Up being drafted planned
WASHINGTON / LONDON / OTTAWA — In a public statement today, officials of the US Defense and State Departments admitted that the program of blowing shit up, lately focused on Iraq, has not been completely effective in re-ordering the world in the image of the United States and laying the world prostrate at its feet forever and ever and ever. "Frankly, we may have made a slight miscalculation," admitted one State Department official, who confessed herself "disappointed that people in other countries seem to be possessed by a strange, unanticipated stubbornness that almost resembles pride and patriotism — except that those are, of course, uniquely American virtues."
Asked how the war in Iraq could be brought to a successful conclusion, a Defense Department spokesman said, "Obviously aerial bombardment, troops on the ground, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians is not the answer. The answer is more bombing, more troops, and more civilian deaths. Operation Blow More Shit Up is on the drawing board as we speak. As a result, I think we can safely say the war will be over by Christmas, or maybe even Thanksgiving. We've never been wrong before. I mean, after all, once we finally unleashed the Tet Offensive, we won Korea just like that."
This attitude is finding a warm reception across the pond. In a massive effort to increase sucking up, the United Kingdom is matching the US effort by stepping up Operation Kill Wogs with Operation Kill More Wogs. According to a functionary attached to the Ministry of Doing Whatever America Says, "The policy did wonders for building and securing the British Empire. It will be every bit as effective for the American Empire. Ah, I mean, for the process of enhancing global security."
Meanwhile, in Canada, government officials and high-ranking military officers expressed bemusement that Canada's ongoing Operation Spoonful of Maple Sugar Helps the Cyanide Go Down in Afghanistan is not reaping the desired results, other than getting Canadian soldiers killed in order to free up American soldiers to get killed in Iraq. "Why can't these people understand that we're there to keep the peace? They have no right to hate us; we're peacekeepers. Canadians do not fight wars, they keep peace. I thought everybody knew that. It's been that way, since, like, forever. It's in our Constitution, I think. Or maybe it's the Bible. But the point is, everywhere a Canadian steps, peace springs up around his feet. If we flatten their villages, it's peacekeeping! If we smear their families like peanut butter across the plains, it's peacekeeping! If we burn their crops, atomize their infrastructure, and eviscerate their government, it's to keep the goddamn peace! How many of these idiots do we have to kill before it sinks in? They never had peace till we arrived! We invented peace! We own peace! Peace peace peace peace, peace peace peace!"
Canadian officials, while discouraged by the failure of Afghanis to grasp that the destruction of their country and traditions at the hands of the West is entirely for their own good and that they ought to be happy about it, nevertheless expressed determination to "stay the course" with the operation, as well as with Operation Bomb Them to Democracy. When asked how people would vote with their limbs blown off, officials explained that Afghanis would be fitted with special voting prostheses that would enable them to mark an "X" with virtually no excruciating pain, "once the terrorists have been routed and the peacekeeping is over". Pressed to speculate as to when that might be, officials responded, "Oh, Christmas, probably... Maybe even Thanksgiving." When asked "of what year?" they replied, "No comment."
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Yes, no, no
Some quick thoughts this morning, prompted by a quick glance or two at The Globe and Mail...
Maher Arar has endorsed the report on the events leading to his deportation to Syria for torture, and recommending more oversight for the RCMP who, to the nation's shame, were instrumental in getting him there. "We live in a great country," said Arar. Truly, can there be any finer words, or a greater reward, than to know that your country hasn't just swept an inconvenient truth under the rug, but has acted on it, admitted its error, and put changes in the works? Can anything make you feel better about home than to know that human beings really do matter, and that the country has stood by its principles and stood by the people?
--------------------------
The Ontario Muncipal Board has approved the expansion of a private school in the Annex. Some of the local residents are upset. Apparently, the school caters to some 400 boys and they don't like the buses and traffic in "their" neighbourhood. This, despite the fact that Royal St. George's College has existed there for over 40 years (how many of the residents of the Annex bitching about it can say that, I wonder?).
This is kind of thing that really gets on my nerves about these people. We're not talking about a rendering plant or a missile factory or something here. We're talking about a school. It seems the the late, sainted Jane Jacobs, no less, opposed the expansion and suggested that sometimes institutions grow too large for their neighbourhoods and should move out. Who gets to decide this? What if the same people decide an institution's gotten too ethnic for their liking? After all, why stop at unsightly buses? Maybe you don't like seeing people in veils or yarmukles either.
The school and the people it serves have the same right to enjoyment of property and use of the neighbourhood as anyone else. The people and the Province of Ontario — to whom the neighbourhood really belongs — have made that clear. And if you don't like it, hey, it's a free country. Move. And take your speed bumps with you.
--------------------------
Murray Mollard of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association complains that new laws on voter ID go too far. It seems that having to produce a government photo ID or two pieces of approved ID that establish name and residency is asking too much of a voter. Canadians move around a lot, he says. Some people don't have drivers licences. Students and the homeless might be disenfranchised.
Clearly his heart's in the right place, but my God, is this some thin gruel. Producing a driver's licence in this day and age does not exactly qualify as a hardship or a disenfranchisement; virtually anyone can get one. And for those who can't, every province (as far as I know) offers a government ID card for just such eventualities.
If you move around, you better believe you'd better get your driver's licence in order... not to mention getting right with your bank, employer, creditors, and so on. Obviously, people manage this on a daily basis. If you happen to move during the one week (out of an average of 200-250 or so) in which a federal election falls and can't manage it, you probably have more on your mind than voting anyway. Showing up with your photo ID portion of your licence and your new temporary slip would probably suffice anyway. As for the homeless, how would they wind up on the voter's roll in the first place? Where would enumerators go to find them?
I agree that some people are bound to slip between the cracks. But voting is a right, not an obligation. And allow me to be blunt: it's possible to disenfranchise yourself. Given the electoral shenanegans we've seen going on just south of the border, I'm all for tightening the bolts a little. You need more ID just to open a savings account for your nine-year-old than this legislation asks for to decide the governance of an entire nation. If that means showing up with nothing more than just about everyone always have in his or her wallet anywhere, anytime, I'm fine with that.
P.S. Notice that neither a driver's licence nor proof of residency actually establishes the elector is even a citizen, though; anyone who's been in the country six weeks could produce this "proof". Amazing that citizenship is regarded that cheaply on such a practical matter in a land currently having bowel cramps over the fact that a prospective prime minister happens to have a second citizenship, isn't it?
Maher Arar has endorsed the report on the events leading to his deportation to Syria for torture, and recommending more oversight for the RCMP who, to the nation's shame, were instrumental in getting him there. "We live in a great country," said Arar. Truly, can there be any finer words, or a greater reward, than to know that your country hasn't just swept an inconvenient truth under the rug, but has acted on it, admitted its error, and put changes in the works? Can anything make you feel better about home than to know that human beings really do matter, and that the country has stood by its principles and stood by the people?
--------------------------
The Ontario Muncipal Board has approved the expansion of a private school in the Annex. Some of the local residents are upset. Apparently, the school caters to some 400 boys and they don't like the buses and traffic in "their" neighbourhood. This, despite the fact that Royal St. George's College has existed there for over 40 years (how many of the residents of the Annex bitching about it can say that, I wonder?).
This is kind of thing that really gets on my nerves about these people. We're not talking about a rendering plant or a missile factory or something here. We're talking about a school. It seems the the late, sainted Jane Jacobs, no less, opposed the expansion and suggested that sometimes institutions grow too large for their neighbourhoods and should move out. Who gets to decide this? What if the same people decide an institution's gotten too ethnic for their liking? After all, why stop at unsightly buses? Maybe you don't like seeing people in veils or yarmukles either.
The school and the people it serves have the same right to enjoyment of property and use of the neighbourhood as anyone else. The people and the Province of Ontario — to whom the neighbourhood really belongs — have made that clear. And if you don't like it, hey, it's a free country. Move. And take your speed bumps with you.
--------------------------
Murray Mollard of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association complains that new laws on voter ID go too far. It seems that having to produce a government photo ID or two pieces of approved ID that establish name and residency is asking too much of a voter. Canadians move around a lot, he says. Some people don't have drivers licences. Students and the homeless might be disenfranchised.
Clearly his heart's in the right place, but my God, is this some thin gruel. Producing a driver's licence in this day and age does not exactly qualify as a hardship or a disenfranchisement; virtually anyone can get one. And for those who can't, every province (as far as I know) offers a government ID card for just such eventualities.
If you move around, you better believe you'd better get your driver's licence in order... not to mention getting right with your bank, employer, creditors, and so on. Obviously, people manage this on a daily basis. If you happen to move during the one week (out of an average of 200-250 or so) in which a federal election falls and can't manage it, you probably have more on your mind than voting anyway. Showing up with your photo ID portion of your licence and your new temporary slip would probably suffice anyway. As for the homeless, how would they wind up on the voter's roll in the first place? Where would enumerators go to find them?
I agree that some people are bound to slip between the cracks. But voting is a right, not an obligation. And allow me to be blunt: it's possible to disenfranchise yourself. Given the electoral shenanegans we've seen going on just south of the border, I'm all for tightening the bolts a little. You need more ID just to open a savings account for your nine-year-old than this legislation asks for to decide the governance of an entire nation. If that means showing up with nothing more than just about everyone always have in his or her wallet anywhere, anytime, I'm fine with that.
P.S. Notice that neither a driver's licence nor proof of residency actually establishes the elector is even a citizen, though; anyone who's been in the country six weeks could produce this "proof". Amazing that citizenship is regarded that cheaply on such a practical matter in a land currently having bowel cramps over the fact that a prospective prime minister happens to have a second citizenship, isn't it?
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
The lie that Canada told
Canada disappoints me sometimes.
Does that sounds arrogant to you? Well, a country full of immigrants, founded upon their labour and sustained by their industry, presuming to divide the wheat from the chaff by calling for Stephane Dion to give up his French citizenship sounds arrogant to me.
A number of Canada's earliest prime ministers were not born in Canada. Several were born in the UK. At the time, there was no distinction in law between a Canadian and a Briton. But that's beside the point. We have, in our history, entrusted the stewardship of this country to people not even born here. Our Parliament, our legislatures, our city councils abound with people who have come here from elsewhere, many of whom must still possess the citizenship of the lands from which they've come, all without issue... as recently at the 1980s, John Turner was leader of the Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition, and, briefly, Prime Minister. John Turner was born in Richmond, England. But even this late in history, I don't recall anyone taking issue with this or questioning where Turner's heart might lie, not even in Quebec. I find it astounding that the same few weeks that have seen Canada embrace the Quebecois as a nation within a nation have also seen it, in virtually the same breath, throw ice water on that sentiment by shrieking with francophobia on learning Stephane Dion's mother bestowed her citizenship on her Canadian-born son.
Perhaps the greatest irony of all has to be the teapot from which this tempest flows. As I understand it, we have a conservative scribe from Alberta, Ezra Levant, to thank for saving Canada from its eventual conquest by French fifth columnists. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suppose that Ezra Levant is Jewish. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's a guess. Can there be a nation on Earth that's been better-served by the broad acceptance of dual citizenship that's emerged in the past thirty or forty years than Israel? A land of four or five million people, cared for and aided by tens of millions abroad who feel they have a stake in the place. Is that what Ezra Levant fears? That Dion might feel for France what millions of Jews have felt for Israel? And if that would be wrong for him, isn't it therefore also wrong for them? Shouldn't they have to choose too? Because let's be honest — this is bigger than just Stephane Dion; we are, after all, hearing cries for Canada to conclude its policy of dual citizenship. But what of other lands? To the south of us, Michael Chertoff is Secretary of Homeland Defense, no less. Under Israeli law, Chertoff is an Israeli citizen. Does Ezra Levant lie awake a night, lashing in his own sweat in fear for the liberties of our American cousins, tormented by the thought that Chertoff's dual citizenship might undermine his ability to think and act in the best interests of the people of the United States? Call me jaded, but somehow, I doubt it.
And yet, it's perfectly fine for Ezra Levant to cast aspersions on Stephane Dion. And why? Because deep down, English Canada still really doesn't like, trust, or respect the French, here or abroad. Why mince words? It's just been made abundantly clear. Turner okay, Dion bad. The Quebec separatists whose jaws dropped a few weeks ago when Harper beat them at their own game must be rubbing their hands with glee that we've so quickly shown our true colours — Redcoats forever — as we treat Quebec in particular and a worldful of potential Canadian immigrant-hopefuls in general to the spectacle of millions (if the polls are to be believed) of Canadians demanding that a man who has dedicated the last ten years of his life to their service renounce his incidental but rightful citizenship in another country in order to demonstrate his loyalty to them. Yes, no less than The Toronto Star has made it plain that Stephane Dion, a French Canadian (in both senses), must abandon his birthright and heritage to assure us all that, as Prime Minister of Canada one day, he will not be unduly influenced by the President of France... because only then may we rest assured that he will comport himself as a true and loyal servant of the Queen of England.
Ladies and gentlemen... I give you the word absurd.
Does that sounds arrogant to you? Well, a country full of immigrants, founded upon their labour and sustained by their industry, presuming to divide the wheat from the chaff by calling for Stephane Dion to give up his French citizenship sounds arrogant to me.
A number of Canada's earliest prime ministers were not born in Canada. Several were born in the UK. At the time, there was no distinction in law between a Canadian and a Briton. But that's beside the point. We have, in our history, entrusted the stewardship of this country to people not even born here. Our Parliament, our legislatures, our city councils abound with people who have come here from elsewhere, many of whom must still possess the citizenship of the lands from which they've come, all without issue... as recently at the 1980s, John Turner was leader of the Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition, and, briefly, Prime Minister. John Turner was born in Richmond, England. But even this late in history, I don't recall anyone taking issue with this or questioning where Turner's heart might lie, not even in Quebec. I find it astounding that the same few weeks that have seen Canada embrace the Quebecois as a nation within a nation have also seen it, in virtually the same breath, throw ice water on that sentiment by shrieking with francophobia on learning Stephane Dion's mother bestowed her citizenship on her Canadian-born son.
Perhaps the greatest irony of all has to be the teapot from which this tempest flows. As I understand it, we have a conservative scribe from Alberta, Ezra Levant, to thank for saving Canada from its eventual conquest by French fifth columnists. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suppose that Ezra Levant is Jewish. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's a guess. Can there be a nation on Earth that's been better-served by the broad acceptance of dual citizenship that's emerged in the past thirty or forty years than Israel? A land of four or five million people, cared for and aided by tens of millions abroad who feel they have a stake in the place. Is that what Ezra Levant fears? That Dion might feel for France what millions of Jews have felt for Israel? And if that would be wrong for him, isn't it therefore also wrong for them? Shouldn't they have to choose too? Because let's be honest — this is bigger than just Stephane Dion; we are, after all, hearing cries for Canada to conclude its policy of dual citizenship. But what of other lands? To the south of us, Michael Chertoff is Secretary of Homeland Defense, no less. Under Israeli law, Chertoff is an Israeli citizen. Does Ezra Levant lie awake a night, lashing in his own sweat in fear for the liberties of our American cousins, tormented by the thought that Chertoff's dual citizenship might undermine his ability to think and act in the best interests of the people of the United States? Call me jaded, but somehow, I doubt it.
And yet, it's perfectly fine for Ezra Levant to cast aspersions on Stephane Dion. And why? Because deep down, English Canada still really doesn't like, trust, or respect the French, here or abroad. Why mince words? It's just been made abundantly clear. Turner okay, Dion bad. The Quebec separatists whose jaws dropped a few weeks ago when Harper beat them at their own game must be rubbing their hands with glee that we've so quickly shown our true colours — Redcoats forever — as we treat Quebec in particular and a worldful of potential Canadian immigrant-hopefuls in general to the spectacle of millions (if the polls are to be believed) of Canadians demanding that a man who has dedicated the last ten years of his life to their service renounce his incidental but rightful citizenship in another country in order to demonstrate his loyalty to them. Yes, no less than The Toronto Star has made it plain that Stephane Dion, a French Canadian (in both senses), must abandon his birthright and heritage to assure us all that, as Prime Minister of Canada one day, he will not be unduly influenced by the President of France... because only then may we rest assured that he will comport himself as a true and loyal servant of the Queen of England.
Ladies and gentlemen... I give you the word absurd.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Recognition of Independence
Today, as it turns out, is the 75th anniversary of the passing of the Statute of Westminster (Dec. 11, 1931). This was an act of the British Parliament that recognized the "white" dominions (Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa at the time) as the peers of the United Kingdom. Effectively, this was date that Canada (et al.) took full control and responsibility for its own foreign policy, laws, and government. No longer could or would London legislate in any manner that applied to us (without our consent), nor could it any longer nullify our laws, or send us to war, or interfere or intercede in our negotiations with other lands. Not strictly analogous to the US Declaration of Independence, it might better be described as the Recognition of Independence. For each dominion, the price was the blood shed on battlefields of the Empire in the First World War, and demand afterward that that should mean something.
The day will pass in Canada without observation or recognition. I don't know if that will be the case elsewhere in the "white" Commonwealth, but I suspect as much. It's a real shame the low-key embarrassment felt in modern Commonwealth countries about our imperial past should rob us of an opportunity to feel pride in a very key moment in our development as independent nations on the world stage, particularly when that final acknowledgement came at such a cost to a whole generation.
The day will pass in Canada without observation or recognition. I don't know if that will be the case elsewhere in the "white" Commonwealth, but I suspect as much. It's a real shame the low-key embarrassment felt in modern Commonwealth countries about our imperial past should rob us of an opportunity to feel pride in a very key moment in our development as independent nations on the world stage, particularly when that final acknowledgement came at such a cost to a whole generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)