Voting for Vision: How I wish I could have

Barak Obama’s victory, less than two weeks ago, and indeed the election itself, was a stunning defeat for Politics… in Canada.

Over the past few months (years), I, a Canadian, with no impact on the US Federal Election, was completely engaged in the US election process. So, it seems from Facebook status updates and blog posts, were most of my friends and peers.

While the same was true for the Canadian Election the previous month, with posts and blogs, newsletters, calls to action and more, we were all voting against Stephen Harper far more than we were voting for Stephane Dion, for Elizabeth May, or for Jack Layton. Had any of these others won, I don’t think I would have been, as I was the night of November 4th, dumb-struck and in awe, eyes welling with tears, as the networks announced President Elect Barack Obama. No, I would have sighed, declared it a victory for nobody and gone to bed. Just like it did do on our (Canadian) Election night.

I HATE voting against something. It makes me sick. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and churns my stomach. When I cast a vote that is against, I do so knowing I must, knowing that to not vote against a party, platform, or person who stands for so many things with which I disagree is akin to voting for that person. I vote against knowing that to not vote is not just akin but fundamentally the same as voting FOR this person or people with whom I disagree (not voting is actually quite abhorrent to me – too bad that about 40% of Canadians think not voting is just fine, thank you). And so I vote, as I must, against that person. But not FOR someone else. Not really. My votes become strategic, like so many others. Strategic to keep someone else out of power. Strategic to keep a lid on ideas fundamentally different from mine. Strategic to cripple in some small way one party’s ability to rule without check or balance. But, not, sadly, not for a different vision, and not really, for the person or party beside whose name I place my “x”. Certainly not, as so many US voters were lucky to have, for a vision of a new, rejuvenated, Canada.

All through the day, November 4th, so many people stood in long lines to vote FOR Barack Obama or vote FOR John McCain. True, some voted for McCain perhaps out of racially based fear, or other fears promoted by the McCain team and perhaps also some people voted for Obama out of anger stemming from the economic meltdown, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or otherwise. But so, so many people voted for a vision, and they were offered visions from which to choose. They were offered options and choices. And they were able to walk into their polling stations, exercise their civic duty, and vote for one of those two visions. And they did.

How I wish I could have voted for a vision of Canada on October 14th that I believed in. How I wish I could have shared with my friends and peers that feel of comraderie, of collective hope for the future. Instead, we were all “faceless for the arts” and promoting letter campaigns, and supporting a vision of Canada that was “Anything But Harper”.

That is so fundamentally sad that I am ashamed now to admit it and put in it writing. Oh, it worked alright. But it was Stephen Harper, mostly of his own doing and not a much more than a pinch of ours, who kept himself from the majority he so desperately wanted. Had he not blown his chances in Quebec with his stupid cuts and comments on arts and culture, he stood a good chance of winning the few extra seats he needed for that majority. Instead, his appeal to a perceived western base that centred on knocking the arts lead to a resurgence in support for the Bloc leading to the saving of the nation from a conservative majority by the one party whose constitution seeks the separation of a big chuck of that same country. How, my fellow Canadians, did we manage that?

So here’s my call to action. If you are not a member of a political party, please consider joining one. I don’t care which one, but all the party platforms are available online. Read them, understand them, and pick one that is reasonable close to what you believe.

Then, take part in that party’s programs and consultations. Make your voice heard, and share your thoughts and opinions. Make yourself part of any leadership races or reviews. Help pick someone in whom you believe and for whom you will volunteer to spread a message or vision you honestly support. Do your civic duty, and on the day when you are called to that duty and get off your sofa go vote. Maybe if we all do that, we’ll be able to walk into our polling stations at the next Canadian election and make our mark beside a name and party in which we believe, and not feel sick or disgusted, but smile as we leave the ballot box because we know we’ve voted for something.

Like they did.

Arts Cuts, Social Conservatism, and very different versions of Canada.

Hello Everyone,

For today's post I decided to try my hand at a video blog post or "vlog". Please ignore my ugly mug.

Darrin.

Culture Spending Cuts - CCA Bulletin

Dear Island Artists,

You may have heard, or read, about recent cuts to certain Federal Arts and Culture funding programs. It goes without saying how I, and I'm sure you, feel about this. I've written in my blog, been in touch with the press, spoken directly with MP Wayne Easter's staff, written to the PM and Minister Josée Verner, and been quoted in the Guardian. All good in terms of raising awareness, but all of little consequence compared with what you all could do if you did the same things.

I am urging you, imploring you, to please take action on this matter. Please read the clear and succinct bulletin below from the Canadian Conference on the Arts then make your voices heard.

Darrin White
Executive Director

CCA Bulletin 27/08

August 20, 2008

Culture Spending Cuts

Part One: Trade Routes and PromArt Cuts in Context

 

While many of us were enjoying the summer, the federal government has announced a series of cuts of around $40 million to cultural programs and the elimination of others. Today, the CCA is publishing a comprehensive list of the programs that are affected by those cuts and we will be providing further information on these measures in the next few days. Today, the focus will be on the elimination of the PromArt program at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the phasing out of the Trade Routes program at the Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH).

 

Just the Facts

There has been a steady stream of criticism about the recently announced budget cuts to the TradeRoutes Program and PromArt program. The vast majority of newspaper, radio and television commentaries have been negative regarding these decisions.

 

The Department of Canadian Heritage has said that the decision to abolish TradeRoutes was based on the results of a value for money review. The program resources ($9 M) are largely consumed by the salaries and living expenses of cultural trade officers stationed across Canada and various major cities around the world. While a relatively small amount of money was actually dedicated to making grants and contribution, artists, producers and arts professionals who use their services have indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the assistance provided.

 

The DFAIT PromArt program ($4.7M) is also abolished without explanation, apart from the curious spin the government decided to give to the announcement. It follows the initial 2006 cuts to the program of $11.8 million over 2 years. 

 

The often relatively small amounts granted under both programs have had a leverage effect for many artists and organizations as they sought support to develop markets abroad, contribute to our national image and lend valued support to other general trade development efforts of our missions abroad.  At the time of writing, there is no clear indication that the government intends to replace these programs with more performing ones.

 

Tell me more

When the Hon. Sheila Copps, former Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced the TradeRoutes Program, she outlined specific outcomes that program would achieve – targets for export increases of television, film, sound recording, etc. The value for money review likely assessed actual program performance against these anticipated results as a part of the decision-making process. If that is indeed the case, it is surprising that the government did not refer to such reviews to explain its decisions.

 

While theTradeRoutes Program may have had some design flaws, the objective of developing international markets and audiences for Canadian cultural goods and services is an entirely worthy one consistent with the role of the federal government. With the Vancouver Whistler 2010 Olympics on the horizon, the need for a strategy to capitalize on the huge world audience for the Games both before and after the event should be apparent. Australians have noted that the lack of a follow-up strategy to their hosting the Olympics was a serious strategic error that could not be corrected.

 

Preoccupied with the impact of the cancellation of TradeRoutes, the CCA has invited the Chair of the Standing Committee on Heritage to call Minister Verner to provide much needed information on the reasons of the government to cancel the program and on its intentions, if any, to continue supporting the development of cultural markets abroad, as it does for almost any other sector of the Canadian economy.

 

The PromArt program at the DFAIT is another matter entirely. Ever since the 2006 severe cuts, rumours have persisted that the program was headed for the scrap heap. Over the past year, the CCA has been addressing the issue of public diplomacy and the role of the arts and culture sector in any national strategy. It is not a purely Canadian idea: amongst other nations, the United States and Great Britain have renewed their commitment to supporting the arts as an effective tool of public diplomacy.

 

Government spokespersons have mentioned groups like “Holy Fuck” and commentator Gwynne Dyer or filmmaker Avi Lewis as indications that the recipients of support from the program may not reflect well on Canada internationally.

 

There are two critical errors in this rationale. First of all the program is operated by public servants who make funding recommendations to senior officials and all such decisions are ultimately made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is not a case of some “wonky” peer assessment process deliberately trying to be outrageous or casting the Department in an unfavourable light. If the recipients appear controversial, it is not their fault – they did not jerry-rig the system to receive support. Secondly, it has been established that with a number of the “outrageous” examples quoted, recipients had not in fact applied for the travel grants but had responded specifically to an invitation made to them by the Department itself!

 

Just as unexplainable is the fact that the Department has also signaled that it will no longer contribute to the Canadian pavilion at the Venice Biennale, leaving the National Gallery and the Canada Council for the Arts to foot the bill out of their existing budgets. This international event is one of the most prestigious visual arts exhibitions in the world and Canada made a very forceful impression at the 2001 Biennale when Janet Cardiff and Georges Bures Miller has been awarded the jury special award. Similarly SweaterLodge, a project by Pechet and Robb Studio of Vancouver, drew a lot of international attention at the 2006 Biennale. Foreign Affairs now seems to be content to leave the task of building Canada’s reputation and image abroad as a creative nation to other players who are apparently expected to make the difference out of their existing funds.

 

Furthermore, whatever has happened to our much-vaunted commitment to cultural diversity? The ability of Canada to demonstrate not only racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity to the world must also include creative and artistic diversity. DFAIT has always had some discomfort with the arts and with Ministers such as the Hon.Lloyd Axworthy, the Right Honourable Joe Clark and the Hon. Flora MacDonald who were champions of engaging the arts in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives.

 

It is clear that some serious thinking is required to facilitate the promotion of Canadian artists, creators and arts professionals on the international state. The CCA is calling upon the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to urgently address the issue of the arts and culture in foreign policy and public diplomacy.

We have too much to lose if we merely shrug our shoulders – the real value for money in these programs cannot be measured without an appreciation of how our artists, creators and arts professional enhance the image of Canada as a sophisticated, diverse and creative nation.

 

What Can I Do?

 

Please consider a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs   and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage asking them to urgently address this issue. This is clearly not a question we can afford to lie fallow.

 

You can also write to  Prime Minister Harper, to Heritage Minister Josée Verner and to Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson

 

The CCA is also contacting the leaders of the other federal political parties to determine their position on this issue. You might also consider doing the same. If rumors are correct we are headed for a fall election – let us now ensure all political parties understand the importance and urgency of this matter.

 

You can also contact your MP to register your opinion, and if you are in one of the four ridings where by-elections have been called, you can ask each candidate to clearly state where they stand on the issue. Follow this link to find contact information for your MP. 

Artistic Insanity at 80 Wellington Street

80 Wellington Street (Ottawa) is where you’ll find Stephen Harper’s Office. In this office, or in offices near to it, some painfully wrong-headed decisions are being made regarding the arts and culture in Canada. At the same time, the Stephen Harper version of the Tories appear to be setting the stage for an election. This is scary folks. Really scary.

I’d been typing for the past few days trying to find the right words to portray my utter dismay at these recent decisions, but, this morning, I came across a wonderful column by Heather Mallick who says it all far better than I was going to. So, "shift delete" to my stuff and send you all off to read Heather's.

Here’s an excerpt (reproduced without permission from CBC or Heather… sorry) – PLEASE go read the whole column here http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/15/f-vp-mallick.html.

Heather writes:

It isn't hard to figure out why a government wouldn't like documentaries. They're about facts, and facts have a liberal bias, as the satirist Stephen Colbert constantly points out.

But it is hard to understand why Ottawa is making the cuts in such a shyly vicious way, not even announcing them but merely posting them on obscure web pages, breaking hearts quietly.

Again, do yourself a favour and go read the whole article.

Then, send a copy of the link to your MLA, and your MP and voice your disgust.

Somebody said, "Fair Warning! Lord strike that poor boy down!

Don’t be drinking a hot beverage when you jump to CBC and read this (I don’t want you to choke or burn your lap):

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2008/06/25/vanhalen-charlottetown.html

So... the Government was considering $1.6 million to bring a bunch of aging (aged) American rockers to the Island in the same year that they provided less than 10% of that amount to Music PEI that assists Island musicians? Big events should run on tickets and merchandise. If we're going to spend money on musicians, let's spend it on our own. I can hardly imagine what our Island Musicians could accomplish with $1.6 million dollars helping them with recording, marketing, promotion and more. Who knows, maybe the next Van Halen is right here right now.

Of course, maybe that's the Government strategy, force our musicians to leave, get famous (maybe) somewhere else, then, if you've made it big (preferably in the US – à la Aerosmith and, apparently, Van Halen) the Government will pony up hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Yeah... that's it.

As I read it, the Government was seriously considering the $1.6 million, pulling back only when the amount escalated. Even considering the $1.6 is utterly ridiculous.

Now, I must be clear. I was a huge fan of Aerosmith back in the day. I hand-painted the back of my demin jacket with the Aerosmith logo. I saw them three times in concert. I saw Van Halen pre-Sammy Hagar, then again with Hagar (oh, the humanity), and saw David Lee Roth as a solo act (mostly to see Steve Vai who was on guitar – awesome). I was, and suppose I still am, somewhat (1981's "Fair Warning" remains an incredible album), a fan of those two bands. For those who are curious “the day” I refer two was back in the mid-eighties where both these bands probably belong. I don't listen to either except for the rare, nostalgic, moment. Want to hear some incredible contemporary music? Here you go:


(If your reading this on Facebook follow this link to YouTube)

Or you could watch this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=S02bqXuntE0
or this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=orJw7N9gRDM ...and so on, and so on, and so on...

Now, to be even clearer, as I note some of my blog posts are becoming more strongly worded when referencing this current Government, I AM a member of the Liberal Party. Seriously. Got a card and everything. “Wow” you’re saying. “Really?” you wonder.

Yep. Really. Don’t even really know why anymore.

So what’s up with me then? I’m gobsmacked, flabbergast, and many other two and three-syllable words, with where Arts and Culture have fallen this past year. Let’s face it, the funds for Music PEI were generated under the last Government, the agreement to assist with the Council’s property tax mess was achieved under the last Government. The Council’s 2006 Community Consultations report was mentioned on the floor of the Legislature by the, then, opposition critic Carolyn Bertram (now the Minister responsible for Culture)…

…now… well, what now? A few extra dollars for Music PEI. No increase at all for the Council. A $50,000 program that came out of nowhere to partner artists with Seniors (not a bad idea but this did come out of left field, we have no idea where it’s going and – to put not too fine a point on this one – there is already an organization, the Council, who is rather expert at implementing programs and who has, in our strategic plan, to promote “Lifelong learning in and through the Arts”). Yes, there’s now some in-kind partnership to move ahead with one of our own projects – appreciated but clearly nowhere near what is needed as a comprehensive set of supports and programs for the arts.

Back to the Music. If the Government has any plans, and I mean any plans at all to spend money on artists, PLEASE let it be on, or in support of, our own artists. How will we ever know if there’s a super group in our midst? Who will be the next Lucy Maud? Is the next Robert Bateman packing their bags right now, leaving for Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, never to return? Probably.

Implicit message from Government: We value Island Music at 10% of the value we place on American super groups.

Message from me to Government: Support your artists here on PEI at 10 times the value you place on American super groups.

Van Halen… are you kidding me?

Don't shoot the philanthropists!

Shayli Vere forwarded a comment to me (you’ll find it in the “comments” for my post “Free Art” from a few days ago) that is a message from Carl Phylis to Marty Murphy of Saltdance Productions. Carl is clearly angry, and I understand where he’s coming from.

This model we’ve come to adopt of artists donating their art to raise funds for other things, receiving little in return (if anything at all) has got to be rethought, revised, remodeled, revisited. BUT, and yes, this is a shouted "but", we have to remember that we (artists) have been just as complicit in the model and those on the other side. I know I’ve donated pieces, and I’ll bet you have too. And when you did, if you’re like me, you probable muttered something like “Well, it’s for a good cause… I’m happy to support it.” all the while, you were probably thinking something like “Maybe it’ll get my name out there/drum up some interest in my work/lead to a sale…” and maybe it did and maybe it didn’t. Point is, you/we/I participated in the scheme. Now, you/we/I are rethinking the scheme.

Rethinking the arrangement is abundantly possible, and, given the philanthropic nature of most, if not all, of the fundraising types, it’s a conversation I’m sure they’re willing to engage in. I’ll bet we could come to a general understanding, and, as I write this, I’ll just bet that if we arranged a formal meeting between level headed members of the arts community and equally level headed members of the fundraising community, we could hammer out some commonly accepted principles. Most of the fundraisers probably are unaware of the low average incomes of Island artists and have never intended to worsen the situation. What would be the point of that?

What I’d suggest we need to do is work with, not yell at, the fundraising community. We’ll find some who are happy to agree and implement changes right away. Those people will find they have easy and pleasant access to the arts community and the artwork they seek. Those who don’t will not have the same access and will soon realize the benefits of working together.

What we absolutely cannot, as a community, afford to do is alienate this group of people who have excellent pull and contacts in the public sphere, good if not excellent access to the decision makers in their local and provincial political spheres, and remarkable support from their communities.

How much better would it be to CONVERT (and yes that’s a shouted "convert") them to supporters and advocates for the arts, to have them understand the plight of artists, and to promote the fact that the art being sold/auctioned/raffled is being done so in partnership with the artist who made it who will be donating part of the sale proceeds to the cause in question through the organization holding the event.

If we’re angry, then let’s express that in ways that don’t widen the already wide chasm between our understanding and the fundraising community. Let’s extend a hand or two, invite them into the conversation, and make some friends. We can mutually benefit from working this out.

Summer is a busy time for everyone and for me, it’s my time to take some vacation and then catch up on work. So, I’ll propose that this September, once the kids are back in school and things have started to settle down, the I/the Council, will host a discussion on this topic. I’ll send out a date and time once we have a space booked. This will be an initial discussion to sort out and appropriate model that we can then try, first, to get the arts community to endorse, then, second, get the fundraising community to adopt.

Are you with me?

Fathers Day and a $25.00 Challenge to Dads

Today is Fathers Day. I’ve been pretty lucky in the “Father” Category. My own dad, Gary White, is still around – a number of my friends can’t say the same thing. As far as fathers go, I think he ranks right up there. Didn’t drink, didn’t swear, didn’t use violence or intimidation to run the household. We all grew up knowing right from wrong and knew we were safe at home. Thanks Dad - you're still a source of sound advise and wisdom, and much of what I know about being a father came from you.

Me, well, I never thought I’d be a dad, although it was always something I truly wanted. Thanks to Gail, I have two fantastic little boys. Loudon (who turns 5 later this month) and Brennus (who is a raging 2 and a half). Fatherhood is both glorious and terrifying. I understand now that expression “I never knew what fear was until I had kids”. At the same time, the kids bring absolute joy (well, mostly – Brennus just got sent to time out for defiantly marking on our new chairs).

For this Fathers Day I got a new Batter Bowl (made by the wonderful Ellen Burge - if you follow the link you can see my bowl, it's the one with the spout), a new whisk, two beautiful hand-made cards – the first containing an orange hand-print that Loudon made a school, the second made by the boys and “Taunte” our nanny extraordinaire – and a touching card from Gail. I also got a great “me-sized” dad-apron and mitt for BBQing.

As I sat down thinking about my great day (sipping on some nice fresh-ground coffee from Burundi care of the Farmers Market) I starting thinking about the other Dads I know and wondering how their mornings were going. There’s John, Michael, Stephen, Peter, Bill, Matt, my brothers Kevin and Brad and many more, all of us with small or smallish kids. Just as I did, an email popped up from KIVA. It was notifying me that a payment had been made by one of the people I’ve been a microloan lender to. In this case, it was “Identity Protected” who is trying to run an electronics shop in Kirkut. You can see his profile here.

“Hmmmm” I thought. KIVA. KIVA, for those of you who don’t know it, is a microloan coordinating organization. You create a profile, and make loans into third-world business, typically at around $25.00. KIVA takes your $25, and the $25’s from other lenders, and makes the loan through a development agency on the ground. I’ve made it my policy to make my loans to dads – dads who seem, to me, to be doing there best to support their families in far worse situations than mine. And so, in honour of this Fathers Day, I picked out a dad, Siyavush Shukurov, who, according to KIVA:

“…is a 38-year-old father of three living in the Imishli region of Azerbaijan. For nearly two decades, he has earned a living by breeding cattle for beef. Meat is a staple in the Azerbaijani diet, so Siyavush has many regular clients.

He has earned a good profit, but prices for supplies have increased dramatically recently. To expand his business and support his family, Siyavush has applied for a loan of $1,000 to purchase a dairy cow and two calves. He is confident that he will be able to repay the loan.”

Then I thought, I wonder if I could get some of the other dads I know to dish out $25.00 today and make their own loan. Perhaps, too, there’s the odd mom who’s still looking for a gift for their fellow. So, Dads, please consider pulling out your wallet and going here:

http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses

You can sort be any number of criteria to find a person who needs your help. It’ll feel almost as good as a hug from your kid to allow another dad to keep feeling hugs from their kids.

If you're curious, here's my "Lender Page":

http://www.kiva.org/lender/darrin7313

And Siyavush, as I right this, still needs $550.00 for his loan to go through.

Free art (well... from the artist) and Co-ops

A day or two ago, I received a very interesting email message from Island Artist and Entrepreneur Shayli Vere. Here it is, included with her permission:

I have been asked many times to donate art to local charity/nonprofit fund raisers.
I've just got to pass on to you my concerns about this practice. We are asking OUR POOREST people on the Island to give and support all the charities on the Island. Many artists work sell for hundreds more than they would ever get themselves. In such a small population, we have only so many sales of art all year. IF our paintings are being sold to our 'elite' in charity auctions, I doubt they would buy another painting all year! and our artist have no sales and are just continually asked to work for nothing and give all the artwork away.

Please. We need to be heard!!

What about a yearly 'Support Local Arts and (maybe Prince County Hospital) auction where a percentage/predetermined amount goes to the artists and all monies over this amount goes to the charity?
Artists are givers, and want to support their community but we need to also be supported.

What about creating a job here where the arts administrator's job is to help artists market and sell their work???

As for the first point – I couldn’t agree more. While it seems nigh on impossible to garner proper support for the arts (a plug for more arts council funding), artists seem to be the first people that communities turn to when help is need. Someone has an illness, let’s have a fundraiser – who will play the fiddle? Some building needs renos – let’s have a fundraiser – who’s art will we expect to get for free and sell for money? I’ve not often seen a free roofing job up for auction. And when was the last time you saw a free root canal and crown on the auction block?

Exactly how do we shift perceptions and engage the “requestors” in our overall advocacy? How do we ensure artists work is valued by those who make these requests and how do we ensure that artists see SOMETHING in return? I don’t rightly know – but I’m so glad that some has started the discussion.

This just in (and right off the top of my head), Island artists could donate works for charity, when requested, through a central body (like the Council) who, in turn, makes the arrangement for, upon sale, X% to come back to the artists and Y% to the charitable event? …? I like the idea BUT would anyone go for it…. Essentially a way for artists to take one step back from the process and donate (for example) 70% of the value of their work to the charitable cause, instead of 100%.

Moving on to the idea of someone to market work for Island artists…

I think what you’ve proposed is a great idea and matches well with some other conversations I’ve been having recently with other organizations and partners. It’s certainly something to pursue over this next year, and I look forward to some support from the arts community for this measure.

There are a few different ways to implement this type of idea regionally, nationally, and worldwide. The model that seems to work best is that of a cooperative (and there are positively brilliant examples out there – I was blown away by a UK cooperative for music that was the subject of a paper last year). The reason I like the cooperative model is that it firmly rests the control in the hands of the users, not Government directors, or non-profit execs (like me). At the same time, it doesn’t preclude support from the agencies, and doesn’t preclude the hiring of someone reasonable expert in the area. Europe is already well down this path, and let’s not forget the Canadian Francophone experience. Of course, the biggest reason to use a coop model is that it can be as exclusive or inclusive as the coop participants desire – something very difficult to do if you are a Government employee, or an non-profit exec (like me). Don’t like someone’s work? Don’t include them. Love someone’s work? Invite them it. The power of the cooperative model.

If anyone is interested, there is a coop model working now in Fredericton (based around a gallery) with a paid staff to market and promote. I’d be quite happy to look at a road trip and take a few people up for a discussion.

What think you all?

Darrin

A quiet day for a budget (maybe)

Today, maybe, is budget day on PEI. I say maybe, because Opposition MLA and Critic for Agriculture, Fisheries & Aquaculture, Tourism, Environment, Forestry, and Provincial Treasury Jim Bagnall, is in the midst of delivering his response to the speech from the Throne. I suppose he has every right to do so, that’s the point of the legislature, and I do hope that his lengthy reply is not a move intended simply to hamper the smooth running of the place. (Having been the target of a filibuster myself, last year, I know it can be frustrating. The opposition says this is not a filibuster, so, let’s all tune in for ourselves and make our own judgments.)

Budget… budget, budget, budget. Will this be the budget I’ve been looking for and working towards for four years, or will this budget be the one of been dreading for an equally long time. For today, I’ve done what I can do. Like you all, I’ll sit here in my office and wait (watching streamed from the leg). About half-way through, I’ll start drafting my email to the Dept. of Community and Cultural Affairs, and Labour, and ask the Director for confirmation on this years allocation. At some point, he’ll respond, I’ll share his response with the Board of Directors, then after their feedback, draft a message to the membership, the general arts community and anyone else who will listen. I imagine we’ll have a press release or two to go with that. I’ve got great staff for that part.

All of this, even with the potential for great things, for (and I know this seems like hoping beyond hope) a budget increase that will allow the PEICA to do what it wants to do, what it needs to do, what its been tasked and asked to do, I am, today, quite tired. I’ve got pneumonia, for the second time since January – the antibiotics are starting to kick in and I am feeling a bit better thanks.

So, while I hope to god (small “g”, I know, I’m an atheist so I’m not really “hoping to” anything) we see good news, I’m preparing for a fight. If you’ve read my “I am an angry man” post, you’ll already know the basis for the argument. Today though, today I’ll rest a bit. Listen to some good music, go find a quiet spot in a coffee shop, and read my second-hand copy of the “The Outsider” by Albert Camus (also known as "the Stranger").

If you’d like to join me in some metaphysical music sharing, please take a listen to my musical pick for a quiet day. I love this guy – Justin Vernon. Sometimes you just need a guy and a guitar. For those who read this on Facebook and can’t see the embedded video here, you can travel to my blog to see this post in it’s proper format here: http://mudderings.blogspot.com.

I am an angry man.

I am an angry man, although, probably not for the reasons you might think. I recognize also that I may be angry prematurely. That said, I have a sinking feeling, a deep seated suspicion, and that, my friends, is the root of my discontent.

I am not angry that the Council of the Arts will probably not see the funding increase we've asked for and so desperately need. No, I'm not angry. That leaves me feeling sad. Sad for the Island, sad for the arts and artists, sad for the cultural community, sad for the diverse and under served communities we'd created programs for, sad for the children who we'd hoped to start forming into artists, or more creative thinkers, or appreciative audiences (and leaders) for the future. No, that would just make me sad. Sad and tired, for, with each passing year that these areas are not addressed, the job becomes harder, so much harder.

I am not angry that those programs we (and I mean the collective we) worked so hard to create will play second fiddle to programs created elsewhere - momentary responses to perceived immediate needs. Surely, there will be happy people here and there, some progress may be made. I will not be angry, but I'll be experiencing something that grows close to outright cynicism. I'm starting to see this province (to use a health care analogy so as to make the point more meaningful) as a patient riddled with cancer who's treatment has been to cover the visible signs of disease with band-aids. Oh look, there's a Sponge Bob band-aid... how cute.

What will make me angry, indeed furious, will be this:

For four years I have told the creative community on Prince Edward Island that we need to collaborate, we need to discuss, talk, communicate, and partner. I've told my successive Boards of Directors that we need to consult. Where people are willing to engage in productive, results based discussions we must leap at the chance.

I've said that we must research, we must become local experts in regional, national, and international best practices. We must innovate. We must not be afraid to toss out old paradigms and mechanisms. We must not be afraid to embrace new ideas and new models.

I have all but promised the arts community that, by working together, by being responsible to and for ourselves, by acting out not with shouts and angry letters but with thoughtful, considered, reports and plans, we would see success and our accomplishments would have to be recognized.

What makes me angry now is that, after doing it all a manner that bespeaks of professionalism, of quiet incremental, cooperative progress, of incredible responsibility and competence in this community, it will come to naught.

What makes me angry is that, after consulting across the province, after starting from scratch and building a Strategic Plan that was resoundingly supported here and drew nods of approval from our national peers, after building an implementation plan that directly addressed that strategic plan and also directly addressed the Province's own Cultural Policy, we will have achieved somewhere between little and nothing.

In effect, the message from Government becomes:
1) We say we want communities to work together and present common goals and needs but we don't really mean that. What we will respond to is loud squeaking voices and opportunities we perceive will bring more instant gratification.
2) The health of the arts on a Provincial level mean less than the health of a specific group or organization in a specific town, region, riding, that we like or someone we know is supporting.
3) We're quite happy to see you take up a few years of busy work if it keeps you off our back - care to return to that?
4) Shut up already. Here's a little bone. Don't like it? Maybe we'll take all the bones.

My friends, what makes me angry is that I made you all a promise. A promise that, by working together and presenting to Government a set of commonly agreed upon priorities and a set of commonly agreed upon initiatives, that we would see success - that we simply had to see success. What makes me angry is that, as we'll find out shortly, I was wrong.

Let's all wait for Budget day and see... Have a misspoken? Have I gone off on a rant where none was needed? If there is anything I'm wrong about, please let it be that. I'll gladly eat crow.

The Gallery is full… for you.

As I write this, the Government is preparing to deliver the speech from the throne, and I’m just back from the Legislature where I had planned to hear it delivered.

I suppose I wasn’t surprised to walk in and be told “We’re sorry, the Gallery is full. You’ll have to watch from the Theatre.” by the security guards. I’d left it a little late, it was 2:30 and the show was to begin at 3:00. What did surprise me was that, for the group behind me, the Gallery was no longer full. For the couple behind them, it was full again, and for the group of six behind them, there was again room.

I suppose also, that it could be, however unlikely, that the Gallery was expanding and contracting rather randomly (due perhaps to some Star Trek like anomaly in the space/time continuum), and that someone else was observing the moment-by-moment expansion and contraction and was also, by some secret means, sharing that information with security who, in moments of expansion, would then allow a few more people in. I presume that, in this scenario, I had the misfortune of arriving during a contraction and was barred. Had I taken a moment longer to greet the Mayor outside, I would have, instead, arrived at a fortuitous moment of expansion and been granted entry.

Perhaps, though, there were some other criteria in play (however likely my spatial contraction/expansion theory) at play and, for whatever reason, I didn’t merit admittance to the Galleries. Of course, such a suggestion borders on the ridiculous, but, on the very off chance that it is, indeed, this second theory, I’m left to wonder what criteria were used to bar some, and allow others.

Bill C-10 - Who gets to decide?

Enough people are saying all the right things about bill C-10 which proposes to, among other things, withhold important tax credits for project that are contrary to public policy - veiled censorship if there ever was any.

It comes as no surprise that this government, "Canada's (not so) New Government", is following on the heals of some old US legislation that was led at the time by none other than Jesse Helms, right-wing, republican, who tried the same thing back in the 1980's. Those of us old enough will probably remember that. C-10 doesn't quite go as far as that bill, but it certainly is a giant step in that direction.

It got me thinking about an old Loudon Wainwright III song, "Jesse Don't Like It" from the album (yes, it was an album) Social Studies. Here's a pretty messy version (I mean messy - some guy filmed it in his hotel room on his TV - lyrics are here) on YouTube. If I had the skills, I'd re-record it and change "Jesse" to "Stevie".



Boo to you Stephen Harper. Stuff like this isn't suppose to happen in "my" Canada. And the last thing I want is for you to be in charge of the moral/good-taste federal police squad.