Hindsight is sometimes Foresight

I admit to a habit that I know is a little odd. I sometimes buy magazines and put them into a pile in the bathroom to read months or years later. I do this with magazines like Harpers, The Atlantic, The Walrus and The New Yorker - publications that I feel have a particularly accurate, in-depth or interesting take on current events. And I do it to save articles about issues that I think might interest me a year down the road but aren't quite there yet, issues that I think will "ripen".

It's proven to be a valuable tool for looking at the political landscape and also for tracing back the roots of crises like the impact of the exotic mortgage market in the U.S. and trends and problems concerning North American Immigration and Oil.

Yesterday I was reading one of these old articles; Cold Rush by McKenzie Funk was published in the September 2007 edition of Harper's and it reminded me of one of the reasons why I was so unhappy at the election of Stephen Harper and so concerned about this most recent Canadian election.

True to form - Harper's does not allow the full piece to be published online. It is archived and could, no doubt, be hacked but I lack the skills and the moral flexibility to do that.

I will say that as a writer who has seen her work reproduced online and has never earned one cent from its reproduction, it does annoy me that Harper's could be so mean. I do not know for certain that they don't have a payment scheme so that the author will benefit from keeping his work for subscriber's only but I thinking it highly unlikely that Funk is gaining much from this policy of restricted access for two reasons: first, Harper's advertises annually to hire interns that they expect to work pro-bono while living in New York City and second, publishers who "hire" interns and expect them to work for free usually think the only player in the magazine business who deserves to turn a profit is the magazine itself. I suppose they believe there are plenty of passionate academics and dedicated writers to go around and only a few venerable print organs to publish their work. Of course this is part of the reason we're all only too happy to abandon print when any opportunity arises but I digress. suffice it to say, in my opinion, Harper's sense of social justice should be taken with a stiff drink and a salt lick. Even if it is only by happenstance the result is the same, it's all about keeping the rich rich and the poor quiet.

(If authors at Harpers do earn a residual for electronic reprints - I will soften my view somewhat but hiring only those who can afford to live without an income in New York City for a year is still comletely elitist and inexcusable)

Regardless, this essay is alarming, the scene it describes is beyond nationalistic, it describes a nation-state with a view of sovereignty and a sense of environmental disregard that belongs in a book by George Orwell. If this is what it means to be Canadian, count me out.
Here is a link to a discussion of the piece:
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000855

The article describes a practice run by the Canadian military for the purposes of protecting the Northwest Passage by force. By Force - with guns - against the Americans.

Now I will grant you that none of the other candidates available to Canadians in this election were fit to lead the country. I acknowledge that even if we did have a worthwhile leader in Canada the electoral system would probably thwart his (and at this point it would have to be his - Canada is more sexist than even the U.S., when was the last time you heard of a female Premier?) ability to have positive impact on the country - just the same, the thought that we now have a man sitting in office who is not only happy to entertain thoughts of engaging in a miliary stand-off with our largest ally but who has actually practiced it, is literally making me queasy.

And don't get me started on the damage done by dumping untold rounds of lead filled ammunition into the ocean without giving the matter a second thought...