Yeah, tonight was federal election night here in Canada, and my guy lost! Though it looked pretty likely that Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party were not going to reign victorious, there was still some slight hope over the last couple weeks that they might pull ahead just enough to squeeze by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Alas, it was not to be, but I'm not particularly perturbed about the outcome. You see, I am that rarity of voters: the guy that refuses to see any of the Canadian party leaders as villains. Though they may have different ideas on what's best for Canada, I'm convinced that they all come to the job of public service with good intentions. Though I'm not keen on some of Harper's policies (especially his seemingly low regard for the arts), I can't say I'm displeased with how he's handled himself in office the last two years. In fact, I think he's a very bright, articulate man who makes Canada look pretty good on the world stage. And with a second minority government, he will not be able to do anything too radical now that he's been re-elected.
And even though Stéphane Dion was not elected, my vote was not wasted, as my local Liberal candidate, Bonnie Crombie won this riding. Life will go on just fine here in Canada. My congrats to Mr. Harper on his re-election.
PS: I'm still wondering if the main reason I voted for Stéphane is because he sort of looks like me. Maybe I've just taken so-called "Identity Politics" to the next level!
Thank goodness!
ReplyDeletePete, I really appreciate your positivity in this post.
I agree completely that there really aren't any villains, and frankly, the fear peddling that goes on can get a little out of hand! Keeps a voter from thinking clearly sometimes.
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI'm a guest here, so I can't comment on Canadian politics...but it DOES appear that all of the candidates are sane, have actual positions on actual issues, and are not relying on single-issues or religious prejudice to get ahead.
Too bad I can't say the same about the American election.
Thats a great sketch.
ReplyDeleteHahahaha, totally awesome. Dion was my guy too. But, guess that's politics for ya.
ReplyDeleteCrombie? Wow you live closer to me than I thought. Personally at this age I've never noticed a difference no matter who was running the country. From what I remember I really liked Cretien, as he was a pretty funny, down to earth guy (who didn't need secret service to protect himself).
ReplyDeleteHopefully now Crombie doesn't pull a Wajid Kahn and flip parties.
Kevin - I guess we're practically neighbours! I seriously wondered how Wajid Khan was going to do in this riding, given his conversion to the Conservatives after returning home from his Harper appointed, fact-finding mission in the Middle East. I was hoping there'd be plenty of constituents angry enough to vote him out the door this time around. Looks like that was the case.
ReplyDeleteNancy - Fortunately for we Canucks, Canada is pretty much a country of moderation. Social conservatism doesn't fly here - we don't really care much about a candidate being a person of faith or not, as that's a private matter and a moot point as far as the issues go. Though there are undoubtedly those who don't agree with rights to abortion or gay marriage, no Conservative government would dare to repeal those laws, as the majority of Canadians believe we've done the right thing there.
Conservatives here are mostly of the fiscal kind, and I don't have too much of a problem with that, so long as our social safety net is well maintained. Ironically, it was our previous Liberal government under Prime Minister Chretien, with a highly capable Finance Minister in Paul Martin, who had enough fiscal conservatism in the mix to conquer our deficit and start putting a healthy dent in the national debt. I think they did an admirable job. I don't really have any great fears about Stephen Harper. I don't agree with everything he stands for, but I believe he's generally done a good job over the last two years on both domestic and foreign issues.
Reading your post was like having an announcer in my head giving a play by play of who made the first goal. ha ha.
ReplyDeleteYeah kinda feel cheesed in regards to the outcome...though Im surprised at how few a students I spoke to voted...seems to be that they don't realize that being away from home doesn't mean they can't vote.
anywho nice drawing.
You DO look like Dion! I'm so glad it's not just me.
ReplyDeletehey pete! i'm sure i'm not the only one thinking this, but i was wondering that if you have time in the near future, i would absolutely LOVE to see ur take on sarah palin, the most gorgeous creature on this planet :)
ReplyDeletedid u catch the snl clip with her?
Hiya Pete!
ReplyDeleteI apologize in advance, but this comment has nothing to do with your candidate losing, though my condolences.
It's about a comment you made over on John's blog regarding Kelly vs. Eisenberg.
I really don't think it is due to any visual shortcomings in Jones' work, so much as a basic no win situation in trying to adapt the liberties that Kelly deliberately took in his own art to then making the characters adhere more to the rules of animated design
I wonder if I disagree with you or not, that is to say, I don't know if I completely understand what you're on about. While I wouldn't call Charles Schulz as gifted an artist as Kelly, I would say that he, like Kelly, took liberties that the print medium afforded him. And Schulz's work definitely had been converted to animation.
Where my possible disagreement comes in is here: I think it may actually be Chuck's shortcomings in his work that make the animated version of Pogo so discomforting to watch.
It's my understanding, as a big fan of Chuck, that this period of his workmanship left much to be desired due to the more restrictive environment of MGM and also that he was much more interested in putting his own style on things than he was about preserving the original creators' style ( read: The Bear That Wasn't, The Dot and The Line and The Grinch ).
On the flip side, Bill Melendez, who instead of developing his own style, but rather, had spent years catering to existing styles ( being a much more accomplished animator than Chuck ) did a stellar job of taking the world of Peanuts and putting it on screen.
Mike Peters ( of 'Mother Goose and Grimm' fame ) once told me a funny story about the first time Bill had to design the Peanuts characters for Schulz. He said that Bill had made a number of drawings of Snoopy and then Sparky ( as he's referred to in the comic community ) came over to the animation desk to check them. The first one was good, he said, the second one was okay, and the rest were, in Sparky's estimation, 'dreadful'.
Bill, in frustration, handed him the pencil and said, "Well then you draw it, hot shot". Sparky then looked at the poses and said that he couldn't draw them because Snoopy would never be in that position. It was then that it was decided to only add on to existing positions and profiles from the comic and not invent new ones ( there was a similar argument about whether the audience would understand that Snoopy's dog house is 3-D and he wouldn't simply roll off the other side ).
I think part of the reason why Chuck failed and Bill succeeded is because Chuck tried too hard to take it out of the world of the comic strip and make excuses for it.
There was also talk of Kelly's excellent line work being ignored in the television version of Pogo. Now, obviously Melendez didn't have to worry about that with Peanuts, but what if he had?
Chuck maintained that it wasn't possible to have a thick line on the characters, and I'm curious as to what his logic was. This was also a question that I'm sure was posed to Mike Peters when Grimmy and the gang had their own Saturday morning cartoon. Since Mike introduced me to Chuck, I wonder if they ever talked about it.
But obviously, with things like Mother Goose and Grimm ( the show ), Ren and Stimpy and even that gawdawful Ed, Ed'n Eddy, we know a thick line can be done. Plus, Bill's old boss Clampett had successfully done thick line work with Beany and Cecil, so I don't get it.
Overall, I could've misunderstood your point, but I think, as much as I love Chuck, his ego ruined another man's art, and my intent was to prove that a good Pogo cartoon could've been achieved with the knowledge and technology that was available at the time.
Oh, and who told Chuck he could do voice work?
- trevor.
I'm just glad Bill C-10 was dead and buried before the polls opened. If that had been passed we'd ALL have had something to worry about.
ReplyDeleteI like it! You gave him a Grinch-like mouth.
ReplyDelete