YOURS TO HOLD IT HIGH...

With 2 young children at home, my movie-going hobby has become a mere ghost of what it once was. No double-dip treats at the mega-plex, nor late evening escapades to the city to see a classic on rare display.

But this past week, I made time to catch Passchendaele.

It's not likely to become a timeless classic but it does have incredible value, as both a historic lesson and a heart-wrenching entertainment. The passion of director/writer/co-producer/song writer/actor Paul Gross is there, perhaps maybe a touch too much, but I applaud him for a thoughtful, impressive retelling of a time and people that are long forgotten. That Remembrance Day is just around the corner made it a timely must-see; and the film adds another candle to some very strong Canadian films of late. The memories of cardboard tax dodges with lame laugh tracks and tinny soundtracks is so 70s ish.

Gross stars as Michael Dunne, which is a personal tribute to his own grandfather, a WWI soldier. We witness early the ravages of war that sent him home a broken man (although my main complaint is that Gross' ability to express/display the soul-numbing experience seems underwhelming) and now a recovering shell of a man in Calgary, expected to trade on his valor medals by enlisting the young and shamed. A nurse, passionately unveiled by Montreal's Caroline Dhavernas, deals with her own pain by comforting the damaged. Her brother (Joe Dinicol) meanwhile labours as a teenager in love and a shamed survivor. The cast is by and large terrific. My quibbles with Gross may be an overreaction; he is the centre of the film, after all. Along with the patriotic and powerful who attempt to wield their way over the rest, these fragile people seek means to survive.

The war becomes their recourse.

There are moments of great emotion, of delicate and skillfully played sincerity, and some truly frightening scenes of war. It made me wish that, as a young man, I had ventured out to thank the dwindling survivors of that conflict when the opportunity was still possible; now, the chance to show my appreciation for soldiers of the second world war (my mother, born-and-bred BCer, was stationed in Quebec while my prairie-raised father in Europe) is drawing closed. Whether you see this film or not, I recommend you take the time, somehow and somewhere, to tell a veteran that you care about the sacrifices they and their friends made, for us.

It should not be just a one-day-a-year type of thing.

By John McCrae

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow

Between the crosses row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Post note: I had a brief moment during the film where I imagined, how would a Canadian version of the classic American war film be made? You know, the kind that were star-studded, cameos of everyone, and would it be successful? Of course, its to be debated whether many of those US war films were successful, but just imagine the cast:

Keanu Reeves, Gordon Pinscent, Keifer Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, William Shatner, Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams... maybe it's better as an idea in my head.

One partisan reflection from the film: At one point we are briefly introduced to the sister and brother's neighbour - a large, slovenly man with a brutish dog at his side. He is at first unfriendly and later at best a boorish bully. I don't know if there was even a need to identify this man by name, because he's just the neighbour. But Gross has the brother address him and maybe, just maybe, it was a wild slapshot at a fellow Calgarian: "Hi Mr. Harper."

KINGSTON REDUX...

The embers of Tuesday's election are still warm, and for some of us the sting remains.

Unlike some, however, I do not wish or want a hasty decision from Stephane Dion.

He wears the burden of the result but should not shoulder it alone. There remain many questions but the aim should be to decipher the right answers that will carry the Liberal Party forward, and not into the depth of despair, bigger debt and denial that our opponents are hoping for.

I am certainly disappointed but not disillusioned -- except mainly in the attention and focus of some members of the media. That may be a subject for another post, however it should be noted that few members of the U.S. media ever faced the music or examined with integrity their own roles in the build-up and unleashing of the Bush Iraq War boondoggle. So let's not hold our breath.

Instead, while some prefer to prompt an argument over leadership, I'd rather aim the march to the critical re-birth that the party needs in these times. Just as Lester Pearson, who had suffered a humiliating defeat in 1958, including some almost tramatizing embarrassments, rolled up his sleeves along with the party braintrust and many of Canada's elite thinkers, I feel that is the direction we need to move.

We need to discover our brand again, unearth our purpose for governing and what we envision Canada's future to be. Is that through some large, public spending policies like national pharmacare or a guaranteed income, or updating Canadian democracy through abandoning first-past-the-post heritage that has for the most part served our party well over the past decade? Does it require a shift back to the centre, or a ambitious embrace of more centre-left ideals? Or other multiple options and proposals yet to be debated? Then there's our own machinery that is direly needing updating. The party does not serve it's grassroots well. Here in BC, a creaky, uncoordinated apparatus at the Vancouver office continually fails to respond to the riding executive's needs, whether it be providing quick and current funding reports or membership information, or responding to specific requirements, like producing and supplying information for members. I don't know how it's done in other provinces, but if it is as ineffective as BC's model, then that explains a lot.

Should Stephane Dion want to stay and fight both the backroom battleaxes and the dirty politicking of Harper and his henchmen, I will support him 100 per cent. If he chooses to step down, I will again support him. While I didn't vote for him at the 2006 convention, I have developed an immense appreciation for him, a man of rare integrity, warm intellect and awkward but certain passion.

It's incumbent on all members of the party to face one concrete fact -- the Liberal Party is not equipped currently to survive a long and entrenched battle against a wealthy and unethical foe, who has the ear and weight of the main stream media at its beck-and-call.

We need funds and we need ideas, however we seem to be chasing them in the wrong order. Let us create a platform, through debate and discussion just as Pearson and his team did during the famous 1960 Kingston conference, to lead the party into the challenges ahead. A template has already been created, by Tom Axworthy, that offers a launching pad for renewal.

Great leaders have been attracted to the Liberal Party because of that tradition, not the other way around.

Let's work together on making the party stronger.

ROOK TO BLOCK...

Stephen Harper may not be a chess master, but he's certainly demonstrated some talent at malevolent manipulation, especially when it comes to the Cadman affair.

With members of his party accused of offering financial considerations -- confirmed in Harper's own words on a taped interview -- to a dying MP for his vote, he knew that this sticky mess could dampen his pitch for all-encompassing power on Parliament Hill. It would be a virtual death blow to a man who campaigned (and quickly shed) on ethics.

So, he did what a shrewd, win at all costs general would do on the battlefield -- he attacked before his opponents could launch their best shots. Harper tried first to ignore it, deny it, then with his own voice asking "is this for publication?", he chose to aim his barrel at the author who penned the book, and his chief opponent. A lawsuit proved to be adequate enough to remove the issue for what was certainly long enough for an election. Well, it turns out it wasn't. Those darn abstaining Liberals. He had to request, beg almost, for the judge to hold off his case against the Liberal Party due to an election he said he wouldn't call.

Now, after imposing his own lip-lock on the final few days of the hustings, Harper managed to squeeze out a few answers in an exclusive interview Monday night just before the election coverage blackout -- thus eliminating any opportunity for follow-up questions or counter-spin. What a leader.

While even his own tape expert has contradicted Harper's main defence, that the interview tape was doctored, he still has an ace in the hole. That ace was Cadman's widow, who was the prime witness for the author's claim that a $1 million insurance policy offer was made to secure the MP's vote. With his own cold, calculating blue eyes, Harper somehow gained the trust of Dona Cadman, whom some may call a well-meaning, if somewhat unsophisticated lady, telling her that he knew nothing of a million-dollar offer.

Completely inadmissable, but aren't the similarities between the Cadman case and the Gurmant Grewal affair, where the CON MP attempted to sting the Liberals by feigning interest in crossing the floor, cause to prick up thy ears, oh media?

Dona chose to run for the CON party in this election, thus giving Harper another alibi for his own actions. She hasn't changed her story -- Chuck was approached by men from the CON team. Now, that ugly incident that nearly stained her husband's legacy is water under the bridge. But I'm betting she didn't come up with the idea on her own. What if Harper planted a seed with the widow, of continuing her husband's work, and carrying the torch for the CONs in Surrey North? Wouldn't that be just what Chuck would have wanted? Who said a snake has no charm?

These things we do know: Mrs. Cadman has shown little skill as a politico but has followed the Harper campaign strategy to a 'T'. In other words, she's eluded the media, and refused to explain the situation -- it is before the courts, so-to-speak.

But it seems to be like that court-room tactic of where the chief witness suddenly can't testify because she's since wed the accused. If it works on Boston Legal, why not on Ottawa Improper?

Let's get this straight: Dona Cadman will only go as far as the party brand can take her tomorrow. She is not the type of person who wins over the electorate, she has none of her husband's charm, nor delivers any kind of passion for the job. While he entered politics as a one-issue candidate, the maverick earned his stripes by walking the walk, demonstrating integrity above so much callous and shallow political games. Through no fault of her own, that's not Dona. But it's as though she's a cypher for someone else, doing this marathon of hide-and-seek, likely believing in her own cause, but not seeing that she's a pawn being played.

That Harper has pulled the eyes over the media on this is without a doubt. You could even say that they've been derelict in their duty in pressing for more answers on this character-revealing case of subterfuge and distortion of democracy (question- Dona still sticks by the story that there were two meetings, despite the party's denial. Who were the men?). It's the equivalent of George W's war record. But that Harper has tarnished the reputation of the one hero in this whole affair, and used his widow to cover his tracks, is a signal that he can never be trusted. But will the real story ever be told?

TIME TO TALK TURKEYS...

Progressive voters have a lot of power heading into Tuesday's federal election. The CON team, led by head cheese Steve Harper, remains within striking distance according to some polls, yet holds an edge that could result in what the so-called leader said is a "stronger mandate" and send a "pretty severe warning" to the opposition parties. Yep, that means 14 year olds in adult prisons, continued governing behind closed doors, and using fear as a wedge on all kinds of issues, from economy to the environment. Oh yeah, and it means science takes a back seat to paranormal dressers and gut instincts.

But that draconian result doesn't have to be, if we put our heads, hearts and votes together to put some Tory turkeys out to pasture.

To do that, we need to park our partisan hopes to one side and look at key battlegrounds. While the rationale behind strategic voting will be a work in progress until parties begin to trust their rivals, there are a few key ridings where it is incumbent that we unite to rock the CONs.

In the following six ridings, Canadians who believe in the ideals and achievements of Douglas and Pearson, Trudeau and Broadbent can send a Harper minister/heavyweight packing, need to get their acts together and support the best option available to bounce a CON.

HALDIMAND-NORFOLK : The wife of Harper's right-hand hatchet man Doug Finley, Diane has been getting a little heat for her non-appearances around the riding. She raised the ire of both farmers and citizens of Caledonia for not helping solve a heated battle over land claims. The immigration and citizen minister wouldn't be in trouble in this solid conservative riding if not for the popularity of independent candidate Gary McHale. But the real challenge for Finley falls in the form of Dr. Eric Hoskins, a physician who has travelled the world working in war zones, becoming the youngest recipient of the UN's Lester Pearson Peace Medal.

If Ndp and Green supporters get behind Hoskins in what could be a close battle, the region would replace a Harper bobblehead with a tremendous talent.

VOTE HOSKINS

REGINA-LUMSDEN-LAKE CTR : Famous for his open-lapel, anti-gay slur in a dusty old video, Harper henchman Tom Lukiwiski made an almost teary-eye apology that was followed by complete indifference for his actions. His caveman-attitude is reflected in a lot of ideas that pass as proposals by this CON corps, so a true message should be delivered, and thankfully Fred Kress, NdP candidate, is the man to deliver it. It's a close battle where the margin of victory was less than 4,000 votes. Liberals and Greens should put their 'X' beside Kress.

VOTE KRESS

EDMONTON-STRATHCONA : Although he has shed his profile as Parliament hill lothario, due to the engagement with fellow CON Helena Guergis, Rahim Jaffer has built up a reputation as an underwhelming but loyal presence in Harper's squad. However, he is the rare Tory who doesn't have his constituents unblinking devotion, thus opening the door for the NdP's Linda Duncan, a renowned advocate and environmental lawyer. It's critical that good Liberal and Green supporters give their support to Duncan to bump this CON duffus.

VOTE DUNCAN

PARRY SOUND-MUSKOKA : Not much needs to be said, other than Mike Harris retread Tony Clement is a meddling moron. By voting for the Liberal's Jamie McGarvey, Clement can be removed from a position where he can do much harm.

VOTE MCGARVEY

SAANICH-GULF ISLANDS : Once again, Harper has thrusted a dangerous imbecile in over his head, with Gary Lunn having already made nuclear safety a risky option in Canada. And what do you think is the CONs' hidden answer to Canada's energy future? You guessed it. All the more reason for NdPers (who lost their candidate just after the deadline) and Greenies to back Dr. Briony Penn of the Liberals. This is a must-do.

VOTE PENN

OTTAWA-WEST : Here's another ugly reminder of that Harris regime, Johnny Baird. He so happens to be the environment minister, or manager of regressive faux outrage. To knock this redundant greenhouse gas producer from his seat, progressives must move behind Liberal David Pratt. Your wife will thank you, your kids will thank you, as will all God's creatures upon Baird's extinction from the House of Commons.

VOTE PRATT

I'M ALL RIGHT JACK...

Imagine, how happy Jack Layton and his brothers and sisters will be if they crack the 33-seat barrier reef -- that'd be their second-highest total in party history.

It's why he's so adamant that strategic voting is more evil than Harper's haste. A Liberal government is in Jack's mind the biggest obstacle to his road to 24 Sussex Drive.

No, he doesn't want you NdP voters to think about what could be -- afterall, we've already sacrificed universal child care, a working plan and commitment to the First Nations people of our country, and two years of possible action on Kyoto. Instead, he wants you to sit at the kitchen table and understand that only he, Jack of all parades, can deliver from the back row of the house.

To reach his goal, he will need some tight battles to fall his way, a few from the CONs but more from the Liberals, in both Ontario and B.C.

If the electorate is as puzzled heading into the voting booth as some polls suggest, you have to wonder just what hill Jack's hoping to climb. If for a second election he plays a large role in a Harper government, this time many of his own supporters may really feel the pinch.

That's because part of the CON unspoken plan will hit home -- and hard.

Never mind having put his commitment to the environment on hold, because we all know it can wait for an NdP government in 2019, but good ol' Jack is ready to let the public sector feel the price of his own pride.

It's pure deduction, having witnessed it here in B.C. during the last left-right hand-over. We saw what an empowered, mean-spirited right-wing government will do to cut costs in troubled times. Rip up contracts, chop services, shift government jobs to the private sector - with deep slashes to wages in the process. And while the hard working people who rely upon those jobs, from Revenue Canada, Health Canada and Parks Canada, to name a few, will take the hit, Jack will have his handful of extra seats. A closer view of the catbird seat, where his pal Steve will cheer him on.

Naturally, the only way to block that tragic trajectory is for NdP supporters to vote Liberal in ridings where it's between a CON and Liberal candidate. I also endorse the idea of Liberal supporters lending Jack a vote in battles where it is the NdP with the best shot to knock off a CON. But you won't hear that from Jack. He's all about the plan.

And if Canada's middle class, the working poor and disadvantaged have to take a few punches for his prize, it's part of the game.

You go Jack. Just don't tell your followers what the exact cost will be.

TRIED AND TRUE...

Well, it should be tried, at least. True? Stephen Harper can't handle the truth. The veracity of it all stretches plausibility from someone who's control-freakiness includes tightly scripted photo ops, thorough vetting of his caucus' schedules, warring with the media, and a need to create a puffed-up perception of his intellect.

Funny, there's plenty of similarities of this to this... A man who has studied the field of intellectual property, who has done the rigors of higher academia, a person who understands the rights and wrongs about stealing someone else's ideas and words... Oh right, being a CONservative that niggling ethics thing wouldn't apply.

When Harper asks someone to fall on their sword, does it come with a golden parachute?

Do all those CON donors know exactly what they're subsidizing - the Harper Apology Agency?

Or does this give Lippert more time to finish that Harper book on hockey?

WELCOME TO POTTERSVILLE...

Like a scene out of Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, people of normal
calm were tossed into a bank-run frenzy Monday when the US House of Representatives
voted down President Bush's $700 billion parachute for the buckling American
financial industry.
Politicians of all stripes turned to the easiest response, of pointing
fingers. On this side of the border, the reactions from the campaigning
leaders were predictable -- Smilin' Jack wanted an immediate hootenanny to
talk about possible WPA programs; Sweater-wearing stiff Harper dug into his
pockets and offered the equivalent of belly-button lint ("Here, these tiny
tot tax credits should keep your mortgage afloat another day").

"We cannot pretend that Canada will not be affected by what George Bush said (Wednesday) night. And he said that our entire economy is in danger...(Harper) has allowed our economy to hit a brick wall," (Stephane Dion) said. "Canadians have to ask themselves, do we really want more of this? Can Canadians afford more of this?"

Harper's whole routine has been that of pretending first that he smells no smoke. Then, he covers his ear and says 'What siren?' As he walks out of the burning building, he asks 'Do you feel warm?'
His strategy behind breaking campaign promise #34 is fairly obvious now, even to thick headed CON rubes. Beat the meltdown and then ride it out. And an economic recession will create the perfect scenario for the rumoured 'slash and burn' agenda that he keeps hidden under that sweater.
But the signs of trouble have been around for over a year. To help prepare us for the possible financial genesis, Harper began spending like Paris Hilton. Nothing was too good for his 'boys'... Soon, that big fat contingency fund was mere wallpaper money for the focus-group room. Does he deserve some blame, despite the roots of the collapse coming during the Bush error? As Austin Powers would say, Oh Yeah Baby!
There are plenty of suspects that fingers should be pointed to, lest the
ghosts of R.B. Bennett and Herbert Hoover (Calvin Coolidge, you're off the
hook again!) shake their jacob marley-esque chains in defiance.
Thanks to those Bush economics, much of the problem has created a
firetrap for pensioners, mortgageholders and investors, big and small.
Banks across the globe are scared to look in their files, aware that bogus 'wobbly mortgage' bonds lurk.
And Harper's answer, at least while his job remains on the line? "What me, Worry? I'll leave that to the rest of you suckers."