Once in a while, reading STEYN is like having the veil of ignorance, stupidity and complacency lifted from my eyes. Why accept the status quo? Why accept political ideology as gospel? Here is an excerpt from one of his latest articles, from The Western Standard:


(...) what’s fascinating to me is that, no matter how inept the nanny state is, no matter how bad the health care system gets in reality, Canadians are still unwilling to give up on its utopian virtues – universal lack of access, equality of non-care. We believe it’s more moral to take poor government health care than to make arrangements for our own.

The Canadian system is supposedly designed for the weakest in society - the unfortunate person who needs medical treatment but, without the state, would have difficulty gaining access to it. But, by treating all of us as the weakest in society, the state softens us – and softens itself. When health care is the government’s responsibility, it becomes its principal responsibility. Imagine if we had as many high-profile conferences on national security as we do on health. But we don’t. Because the minute you make government the provider of health care, you ensure that, come election time, the electorate identifies health as its number one concern. Thus, in a democracy, the very fact of socialized health care seduces government away from its prime responsibility – the defence of the realm. In the Canadian cabinet, the Health portfolio is more prestigious than Defence. Think Donald Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health?

You may not agree with his view... but it certainly makes you think....

I watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind last night --alone and exhausted from a crazy week of picket-line duty and 10-hour days. The Public Service Alliance of Canada was on STRIKE this week, and I ain't a member... I'm considered part of the excluded "management" category right now. That means I had to do employee liaison duty --basically stand outside my building with a bright orange panel vest from 6 am to 10 am, and stop people from sneaking into the building. Anyway, after the week I had, perhaps I wasn't in the right frame of mind to watch a movie like Eternal Sunshine, because I can't say I enjoyed it. Incidentally, I also rented The Punisher. It brought back fond memories of reading the nihilistic comics as an angry teen and it was right up my alley.

The bizarre cinematography and quirky style of Eternal Sunshine got on my nerves after a while, but more annoyingly, I couldn't figure out why Joel, Jim Carey's character, became so desperate to hold on to his memories of the character played by Kate Winslet. I guess it was the sentimentality of the character, and the realization that he really didn't want to forget his "Tangerine" after all, once he recovered from the sudden trauma of the breakup... but Clementine, as portrayed by the usually lovely miss Winslet, seemed to me to be an insufferably obnoxious, selfish and pretentious hippy slob with a real mean streak, not at all worthy of the male lead's heartfelt devotion. There must have been something special about her, but I think that the filmmaker failed to show enough of her sweet side to make her seem like someone worth hanging onto. Maybe I'm just a cynical bastard (OK, I admit it, I AM a cynical bastard), but, having taken the extreme step of decided to erase memories of his ex-girlfriend from his head (OUCH!), and seeing how most of the memories seemed pretty bad anyway, I couldn't figure out why the despondent Joel changed his mind halfway through the memory-erasing procedure, particularly since Clementine had had the procedure done first! --In the movie this cruel decision on her part is supposed to be excused because she is "impulsive"... excuse me? Jetting off to New York City for the weekend is impulsive... deliberately erasing someone from your brain is... well, something else entirely.

More to the point, and I speak from personal experience now, a person may indeed have many good memories of someone after a breakup, but sometimes, if there are enough bad memories, the bad ones can colour the whole experience, even taint the good memories enough so that in hindsight, the entire relationship may come to be viewed with some degree of ambivalence. That isn't to say you end up despising the person for all time... just that you can be philosophical about the whole thing and say "Well, on balance, that was a pretty lousy experience..." In time, you may come see the benefits of having had the experience, because you learn from it, don't you? And it makes you the person you are today. Still... what you don't do is look back and say "Wow, I'm really glad I have all these memories of this person!"...at least I don't-- you just try to salvage something good and do your best not to dwell on the bad. By that measure, the idea of rapid memory-erasing in order to accelerate the healing process, which is the central conceit of the story, isn't an entirely illogical one... although it is probably grossly unethical to tamper with peoples' brains the way they do in the movie.

I have had people ask me if I have any bitterness or rancor towards an ex girlfriend that treated me particularly shabbily some time ago... and I can say with some degree of pride that I do not. You see, I underwent some memory-erasing of my own. Not through some unnatural procedure... just by the slow passage of time. I lost contact with that person completely and somehow, whether it happened by design or by accident, both good and bad memories of that time in my life, so raw and painful for some time after the break-up, have faded to the point that I scarcely remember our relationship. Viewing the period now with the clinical detachment of hindsight, am I sad that I can't really remember much? Not really. I guess that is just the way my brain works. I have a vague sense that I may be depriving myself of something by either having repressed the memories or having lost them quite by accident, but then again, my head is always full of other good memories, because I try to make them every day.

Paloma and Mila are at work, so the rest of the Ellard clan spend time loitering in the streets of Windsor on Thanksgiving weekend. 

Joe and T-dogg 

yours truly and kid brother George, who insists on making a funny face. 

Speaking of memories... here's a pic of the Ellard family and guests, Thanksgiving 2004. 

Watching George and John in matching suits and ties rounding out the trilogy of debates. Will this be "Return of the Jedi"; the crappiest installment of the three and a letdown to the fans?... or will it be "Return of the King", a fitting climax to an epic conflict? (end of cheesy analogy) Since I missed the second installment (the townhall, widely seen as a draw), I am really struck by the different tone of this one... Bush has his face under control, for one... no more grimaces on the split screen. He also seems less angry, almost subdued. Johnny-boy is still doing the smug grin. He has the look of someone who has this thing in the bag, and who knows it... not so fast, Jack... polls have the race at a dead heat... and we know that the Republicans traditionally poll low compared to their election night numbers.

At one point, George talks about the importance of religion in his life. It is a poignant moment... but I suppose the sneering intelligentsia will gobble this up as one more example of his irrationality. But wait, Kerry is talking about religion too? Oh, OK, now he is talking about schools... he had me confused for a second there! Nice segue.

George and John seem a bit more relaxed... Bush even makes a crack about his scowling and slouching ... Kerry jokes about "marrying up" and taking himself too seriously. They have played it safe and sober.

Some may have found the debate dull, but I was impressed by some of the thoughtful comments I heard tonight... it is almost enough to make you renew your faith in the inherent goodness and rightness of the Great Republic, as Churchill called the U.S. Sure, some of it might be just be campaign trail boilerplate, but I'm impressed by the rhetoric all the same. More than ever, I fail to understand some of the instinctive anti-americanism to which I am constantly exposed. Canadian politicians, who seem to wallow in the petty brinksmanship of their profession, and seldom show true leadership, could take a page from the yankee book.

We'll see what happens with the undecideds. After tonight, I must admit I am optimistic. I am also convinced that whichever of these two guys wins the election, America will be in pretty good hands. In a sense, from my point of view, John Kerry has won a major victory... he may just have convinced people who think like me that he wouldn't make such a bad commander-in-chief.

But lets just see how this thing plays out...