Canadian author Margaret Atwood (can I call you Marge? Ok. Margaret it is) is so appalled with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's misunderstood cuts to the arts she'd vote for the Bloc Quebecois - a party dedicated to the destruction of Canada. Now that's realpolitik! Talk about the ends justifying the means. How Kissingerian! How Machiavellian! I love it.
My personal favorite part of this article is where she is quoted as saying Gilles Duceppe "understands the economy better than Harper." I must have missed it but when did Atwood become an expert on economic matters? It's one of those weird glitches of Canadian culture when Atwood, Duceppe and even Layton all apparently understand economics better than a PM who possesses a Masters in economics!
Is her rationale an example of arts subsidies at work? I hope not.
I'll go out on a limb and conclude the three comrades know squat about economics. Call it a hunch.
One would think Margaret would have taken a deep breath, sip some Orange Pekoe tea and pondered this a little harder. She had time to analyze the arts fund. Cutting $45 million out of $4 billion represents a tiny fraction. Most cuts took place, as I understand it, in the electronics media area. Overall, it doesn't seem this merits the reaction it's getting. In fact, it's borderline infantile.
In my opinion, government shouldn't be involved in the arts. It's shallow and superficial to believe subsidies drives our artistic creativity and integrity.
Furthermore, most in the arts community in Quebec believe in an independent Quebec (they're dreamers after all) but are more than ready to accept a cheque from Ottawa. A little too willing for my taste. Perhaps she should come and live here and see it for herself?
Ironic, but methinks Marge, erm, Margaret is pushing for her own version of the Republic of Gilead. How poetically and majestically devilish! Come to bed with me, bay-bee! There's an opening in the Republican and Conservative parties. She's a natural.
On her wiki bio Atwood is described, among other things, as a prolific "critic." Perhaps (and she has indeed given much to Canadian literature) but if this is what makes her "prolific" then all I can say is: yeesh.
Not her finest moment for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.