Author Archives: Jesse

What’s in between?

I was sitting on the train platform today, staring off into the distance of tracks waiting for the train to come. No train. Yet. Then I looked down at the tracks in front of me. A glass bottle sitting. Waiting. It might shatter when the train arrives. Then I look off into the distance of tracks that I will soon hurtle down. And then… for a brief, fleeting moment, I am a philosopher, scientist, astrophysicist, mathematician, and poet. So is life. The train track is quite possibly the most obvious symbol of the existence of time. And the platform is where we live our lives. At some point or another, the train comes hurtling into the station. We get on the train, and are whisked off to another platform where we await another vehicle to come down another line of existence.

So time travel exists. All time always exists in all places. It’s just a question of which tracks and trains we make our homes for fleeting moments.

It occurred to me today that there is an entire pantheon of books that I have not read.

And at some point or another, I will read some of them.

They exist at varying points in the past. They will exist – stretching indefinitely – into the future. And at some fortuitous point, we will intersect in a literary space-time nexus. These books exist in the past, present, and future. And when I pick one up to read it, I will inevitably travel through time.

I was thinking all this in the course of ten minutes or so as I waited for a train back to New York from Chappaqua. Two different worlds existing at two different speeds. No wonder I feel nauseous when I get off the train at Grand Central. I was thinking all of this as I sat, waiting for a train, holding a book in my hand. A book I have never read. Up until that point.

The night before, in a bookstore where I gave express instructions to my companions not to let me spend money on books (I have something of an uncontrollable literary fetish), I picked up Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. I’ve never read it. But I’ve been meaning to. A work of the past, it existed in the future for me.

And so, today, on the track, I was whisked into the future, or the past of this book came forward to me, as I opened it and began to read.

Listen:
Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time…
All moments, past, present, and future always have existed, always will exist.

There are eerie moments in life. Slightly beyond coincidence, but most certainly not nearing fate. In between, there exists a plane of eeriness that is loaded with meaning and significance. Eerie that I would ponder such time travel literally seconds before opening a book that focuses on it.

Can it be said that it was fate that I should buy that book and choose to read it on that train platform at that moment in time? If it was, then the entire notion of choosing which path to travel through time is negated. I’m not a fan. Or can it be said that it was entirely a coincidence? If it was, then there’s no meaning in the crossing of paths. If it’s just chance… there’s no bigger picture.

I’m a fan of the bigger picture. Of trying to see it. Of trying to paint it. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it’s just a little too big. Our field of view is never large enough. It seems we can only ever see just so far in either direction down the tracks.

So not fate that Vonnegut should finally enter my life today. But not coincidence, either.

Something in between.

What is that something in between? I suppose that’s what Sartre, Kierkegaard, Kafka, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Plato, Kerouac, and Dostoyevsky are doing on my bookshelf. Trying to figure out what’s in between.

Train

Sundays are spent on the train heading out of the city. New York is really a collection of hundreds of little cities, and riding the train outside of it helps you realize that… Trees and suburbs and rocks – beautiful, but less diverse. More to life in 3 blocks than in 3 acres. I’m always amazed at how quickly it becomes forrest after leaving this island. Delightful to escape for a little while each week.

One reason, and one reason only…

“Nuclear (pronounced ‘nuke-you-lar’) war would be the be-all end-all of too many people and too many parts of our planet.”

~Sarah Palin

My American friends: even if you forget the fact that she doesn’t understand the complexities of the economy, and even if you forget that she doesn’t understand the complexities of foreign policy, and even if you forget the fact that she doesn’t know the name of the American in charge of soldiers in Afghanistan, PLEASE, for the love of God remember that she doesn’t have a grasp of basic English sentence structure.

Remind you of anyone?

That’s all I’m asking. So, thanks…

“Stephen, the arts is the economy, stupid…”

So says Karl Pruner, president of ACTRA Toronto to PM Stephen Harper. Well said, Karl.

In the midst of Harper’s sniper fire at Canadian Arts and Culture, it is easy to forget that arts and the economy are greatly intertwined. See what I mean here and here and here. And especially here. Or maybe if you want a clear visual of the inseparable ties between the arts and the economy, just whip out your wallet. Find a twenty dollar bill and take a look at the back of it…

Harper and the Conservatives have created a black and white scenario where it’s arts and culture vs. the economy. This is typical conservative polarizing at its worst. But let’s pretend just for a moment that this is actually how life works… The Arts vs. The Economy… What would you choose? Actress Leah Pinsent, has this to say:

“We don’t visit Rome, Japan or Africa to learn about their economies. We go to experience their culture… It is culture, not economics, that truly makes a nation. If we as Canadians are left only with other people’s stories .. then what can we be proud of? There will be nothing left to be proud of…”

The only thing that Pinsent misses is that the arts are part and parcel of the Canadian economy. And yes, the economy should clearly be of paramount importance. But arts and culture – like every other industry – are entitled to be supported by the very government and country that they themselves support. Canadian music and theatre are no more part of a niche industry than the Ford auto plant in Windsor is. Pruner bluntly evokes the question that I’ve been pondering:

“Why is it we talk about investing in the auto sector, investing in the energy sector, and handouts to the arts? Are we tired of this? I think so.”

So while Harper would like you to believe that “ordinary folks don’t care about arts,” (his words) let’s stop pretending that arts and culture aren’t intermingled in the genetic makeup of Canada’s economic infrastructure. Let’s stop pretending that this is a black and white issue and that Harper’s already made the right choice for us. And while we’re at it, let’s stop pretending that there’s such thing as an “ordinary” Canadian. Because there isn’t, anymore than there’s such a definable thing as “Canadian arts” or “the Canadian economy.”

Mr. Harper: Canadian arts, the economy, and Canadians themselves are complex things, not reducible to single lines in a budget as you would have the electorate believe. Try expanding your mind a little.

Penniless for the Arts

An addendum to my previous post on Arts funding in Canada. Lest you think I’m just a raving “artsy” lunatic upset that government “handouts” are being scaled back due to “budget” constraints… look at this August 2008 report from the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board is an economic and corporate research organization. They are not a government organization. They are not a lobby group of any sort. They are objective and non-partisan. This is what they have to say:

The Conference Board estimates that the economic footprint of Canada’s culture sector was $84.6 billion in 2007, or 7.4 per cent of Canada’s total real GDP, including direct, indirect, and induced contributions. Culture sector employment exceeded 1.1 million jobs in 2007.

I’m not a numbers guy (remember I failed math), but this is pretty compelling. Arts and culture industries play a vital role in attracting people, business, and investment, and in distinguishing Canada as a dynamic and exciting place to live and work. Apparently these just aren’t issues the Conservative party seem to be concerned about.

Faceless for the Arts

Normally, I’m not one to jump on social cause bandwagons. I find that wristbands, ribbons, buttons, stickers, car magnets, and the such are often really more about making individuals feel good about themselves than enacting real change. If people really wanted to make a difference, they would get out of their cars and use their feet. But today, I joined a group on Facebook called “Faceless.” Along with that, I replaced my profile picture to an icon which states “Faceless for the Arts.” This is all a part of a campaign to protest the rapidly declining support of Canadian arts and culture by the federal government.

Before clicking on the “Join Group” button, I hesitated for a moment, but then realized that Facebook is actually the exact place where this type of protest should take place. It is an ironic paradox that our world has become increasingly interconnected, yet at the expense of actual face-time. One of the greatest realms that has been affected by this paradox is arts and culture. In Canada, our current government has decided that if artists want to connect with people, they should do so without any of the support they have traditionally enjoyed from the government. Arts and culture has become an increasingly isolated enterprise in Canada on the federal level, with a lack of recognition of its importance and centrality in our otherwise banal national identity.

The Conservative Party of Canada has shown a blatant contempt for the vitality of Canadian arts and culture. In two and a half years, the Conservative Government has eliminated over $34 Million in funding from Cultural and Heritage Granting Programs. The programs affected were designed to assist artists, arts institutions and not for profit charitable organizations in the creation, development, promotion and dissemination of Canadian art both nationally and internationally. And more cuts are anticipated in the coming weeks as part of Harper’s campaign.

So I joined a Facebook group and changed my picture. Sure, on its own, this measure is not going to make a concrete difference, it’s a symbol. But coupled with a thoughtful vote against the Conservatives in the upcoming elections, it’s more than just a symbol.

I hope and pray that people realize how serious these cuts are, and how they are part of a greater negative ideology on the part of the Conservatives. Things are changing in Canada, and the worst part is it’s not just about how we see ourselves. Just read what Slate has to say about us, in an article titled “What’s the Matter with Canada?”:

…Canada’s political system is in turmoil. Since 2004, a succession of unstable minority governments has led to a constant campaign frenzy, brutalizing Canada’s once-broad political consensus and producing a series of policies at odds with the country’s socially liberal, fiscally conservative identity. Canada is quietly becoming a political basket case, and this latest election may make things even worse.

Make no mistake, these policy changes and funding cuts are radically changing Canadian society.

Seething in an Apathy of Olympic Proportions

We’re getting closer to the start of the Olympics. Which means we’re getting closer to the start of my self-imposed boycott of anything Olympic-related. Here’s a rundown of what I’m (not) doing:

I won’t be watching the games or any of the related ceremonies.

I won’t be purchasing or using products/services from any of the Olympic sponsors.

I won’t be taking joy in Canadian or Israeli medal wins… as unlikely as they may be.

Why all this? This is no empty-threat, hippie bandwaggon protest of anything China-related. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the significance of how we personally relate to something like the Olympics, and I believe that corporations, governments, some celebrities, and a very select group of organizations can affect a tangible change. Outside of that, very few individuals can look forward to making a noticable difference. So I admit that my personal boycott isn’t going to have worldwide ripples. Even as part of larger boycotts, these protests won’t have the necessary politcal ramifications that I wish they could have. There’s just too much worlwide tether to China, and people don’t seem to want to bite the hand that feeds them… no matter how tainted the food is.

But I don’t eat foods that I think will disagree with my body, and I’m not going to injest any part of these games. I’m no apathetic cynic, and I’m not going to resign myself to sit back and let things be the way they are “just because.” I humbly suggest that you don’t either.

Here’s a short recap of why I’m taking a political stance on this one… As I noted a few months ago when I came to this decision, it’s based on a few personal realizations and decisions:

1. The olympics are inherently a political event. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. They were formed out of political motivation, and remain a nationalized institution. To that extent, they merit a political response.

2. It is fair to hold our athletes to a higher standard. I believe that the Canadian olympic team should have withdrawn from these games. By participating, they are making a tacit statement that protesting human rights violations and the neglect of civil, social, political, and labour justices takes a back seat to the advancement of personal goals. It’s just plain egotistical.

3. My tax dollars have gone to fund the Canadian team. This is not where I want my government money going.

Intriguingly, our Prime Minister has decided not to attend the Games, and will be joined in his absence by the British PM and German Chancellor. Also, since being elected in 2006, he hasn’t travelled to China, and has decreased our trading relationship with them. I’m no fan of the Conservatives, but the dude’s got it right.

Among all this talk of boycott, President Bush spoke up from his cave and said that a personal boycott “would be an affront to the Chinese people.” Nu? Isn’t that the point? China’s abuses are an affront to the world; the least we can do is step up in their faces. Props to Harper for at least getting that much into his head.

Outside of my mildly apathetic disdain, you can find a humourous look at these olympics, check out Dawn Ponders, who, among other things, has this to say:

…Let me get this straight – The Olympic Games are supposed to celebrate the best in sport and fitness and two of it’s major sponsors are McDonald’s and Coca Cola? Together, these two companies have added more inches to the waistlines of the world than any designer I can think of.