A new appreciation of sage

While I realized that some of the herbs I planted were perennials that would therefore come back the following year, I didn’t realize they’d come back as giants. The oregano and marjoram are sprawling, with much bigger leaves than last year. And the tarragon: I had no idea tarragon could get so tall. I wasn’t even completely sure it was tarragon at that size until I chopped it up for a recipe, which produced the distinct scent and taste of that herb.

But what I still have the most of, again, and now in a much larger size, is sage. It’s a virtual pasture of tall, stately plants with enormous. And as I’ve complained before, there are only so many things, culinarily, one can do with sage. Sage is not the parsely of herbs. Parsley is. (And parsely, sadly, is recently replanted annual that currently looks like a baby plant in there, fighting for a bit of space.)

And then… The sage started to flower. I don’t know if it just didn’t do that last year, or if it was diligently removing the flowers as they appeared in an attempt to get more leaves (not realizing I’d soon be overrun). But this year I let it be and… Wow. Sage is so pretty.

Photo of sage

(The tall leaves in the front-most of the image? The giant tarragon.)

And the bees just love all those flowers, and we’re supposed to encourage the bees. And yes, flowered sage does have fewer leaves, but with that number of plants…. Really not an issue. Plus, after I cut them and use the leaves in a recipe, I have a ready-made centerpiece for the table:

Photo of cut sage in vase

Movie review: Bridesmaids

***½ Bridesmaids (May 2011) – Theatre
Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph. Annie’s life is not going well, and having to serve as her best friend’s maid of honor only causes her to spiral deeper.

He says: That was good!
She says: Yeah, a lot better than I was expecting.
He says: Much! It was so funny.
She says: It was. But still not totally ridiculous.
He says: The cast was great. And I think it will hold up. That could become a classic!
She says: Could be. A comedy classic.

Movie review: Good Hair, Central Station

These two movies have nothing in common, except for having seen both recently…

*** Good Hair (October 2009) – Rental
Documentary. Inspired by his daughters, Chris Rock explores the world of black women’s hair.

She says: As a white girl, I had no idea what black women went through to achieve the look of shiny, full, straight(ish) hair. The expense! The time! The pain! It was really interesting. (Though if expecting big laughs because it’s Chris Rock, you’ll probably be disappointed.).
He says: They spend how much on hair weaves? That’s ridiculous. I’m going to bed.

*** Central Station (November 1998) – Rental
Fernanda Montenegro, Vinicius de Oliveira. A middle-age woman who writes (but doesn’t necessarily mail) letters for the illiterate becomes the reluctant custodian of young boy after his mother dies. Subtitled.

She says: It’s a moving story of how this fairly unpleasant older woman is transformed by her relationship with the boy who is left with no one after his mother dies. Great acting, nice cinematography, and enough twists of fortune to keep your attention. (And not really a depressing movie, though you might expect that.)
He says: I was able to get through it, but it was bit too slow and character-driven for me.

They’ll get away with it. But it’s still wrong.

This is about the Conservative Party of Canada, but it is not about the G8 spending (although they also got away with that, and that was also wrong). No, this is about phasing out the per-vote subsidy.

In 2003, the Liberal Party of Canada changed campaign finance laws to prevent unions and corporations from donating to political parties, and also capped the amount an individual could donate. To compensate the parties for that loss of income, they brought a per-vote subsidy. Every party that earns at 2% of the popular vote receives about $2 per vote earned.

The last time the Conservatives tried to get rid of this subsidy, it caused a revolt. The other parties banded together against them, formed a coalition, and tried to take over government.

This time, knowing that it’s resistance is futile against this dictatorship—sorry, majority government (hard to tell the difference)—the opposition is giving up without a fight. But opposed or not, what the Conservatives are doing is still wrong.

Official reasoning is spurious

The basic reason given for this is to save money. And sure, this will save about $24 million this year. But political parties, like anything else, take some amount of money to run, and it’s long been accepted that some of that should come from the public purse. If you’re looking to reduce in this area, why pick on this particular form of funding?

What about the fact that when you donate to a political party, you get back 75% of what you give (for the first $400). Whereas if you give to a charity like the Cancer Society, you get back only 25%. Does that seem right to you? The cost of the incredibly generous tax credit is about $21 million per year. Over four years, then? Around $80 million. And if you didn’t get rid of the credit completely, but just reduced it to the same level as what you get for donating to charities? Still about a $50 million saving.

The real reason is offensive

The Conservatives don’t need this subsidy. They apparently get so much money donated to them, they don’t what to do with it all. (In the 2004 election, they even tried laundering it through local ridings.) That’s why they run election ads all the time, not just during elections.

Other parties… Well, they do kind of rely on that funding.

So what’s this really about? Crushing their political rivals. Increasing the degree to which Canadians hear from the Conservative Party of Canada at the expense of other ideas. Trying to make their dictatorship majority permanent.

They’re also silencing voters

The Conservatives are not only hurting other parties here. They’re also getting rid of the only real way in which every federal vote (other than for very minor parties and independents) actually counts.

Because, in Canada’s ridiculous First Past the Post electoral system, most of our votes are wasted. If we had proportional representation, every vote would help form government. But under FPTP, only the votes for the winners do. All other votes have no effect on the makeup of government whatsoever. Whether your MP won by 10 votes or 100,000, he or she gets the seat and the other parties get bupkus. If you voted for anyone other than the person who won, you might as well have stayed home. The resulting seat count would have been identical, either way.

But… At least the party you voted for got funding. Your tax dollars went to them, to help them out next time. It’s not much, but it’s all we had.

Now, we have nothing. Now, most votes will be back to having absolutely no effect at all. Same as if you hadn’t voted at all.

What’s to be done?

Writing to your MP about this… would be a waste of time, I think. It’s in the budget; members of the Conservative Party have to vote for it. The opposition may or may not vote for the budget,  but whatever, it’s still going to pass.

Frankly, the only thing I can think of that would help is to take advantage of that juicy tax credit and donate to any and all federal parties—other than the Conservative Party of Canada.

 

The hot ticket: Hitchens / Brummett debate

The Theatre of Humanities at University of Waterloo’s Hagey Hall was the place to be last night as author Christopher Hitchens debated Professor Barry Brummett on the topic of Religion as a positive force in culture. Tickets for this event, in honour of the 50th anniversary of the English department, sold out in a few days, just from the email sent to students and alumni.

About a week before, we found out that Christopher Hitchens’ health would prevent him from attending in person, so he would only be on video. Refunds were therefore offered for those who wanted it, and I’m sure that moved some people from wait list into attendance, but it remained a sold-out event. They even set up an overflow room for people to be able to watch everything on video.

Q’s Jian Ghomeshi was the host. He’s an engaging presence himself, and did a good job of trying to get clarifications of certain points made by each man, and of managing the audience questions.

Both Hitchens and Brummet were very interesting to listen to, though both Robin and I felt the deliberate effort in having to “adjust our brains” to take in the flow of big ideas coming toward us. Once engaged, though, it was pretty easy to stay with that flow. Hitchens had some very funny lines, and some quite profound ideas. He admitted that religion had been behind some great works of art, but pointed out that these were often combined with atrocities. And that there was no real knowing how religious artists of the past really were, since they were not allowed to admit to doubt. Brummet had some provocative comments of his own, like the idea that capitalist ideals may overtake religious ones as a primary cultural force, but mainly argued for rhetorical training as a means for combating religious extremism.

Fundamentally, I don’t think these two gentlemen truly disagreed with each other, so I’m not sure how much this was really a “debate”. Brummett never really said whether he was an atheist or not, but it was clear he was no big fan of organized religion. He just said that people had a tendency to want certainty, to have something greater make the decisions for them, and a need for spirituality. This could lead to dangerous religious extremism unless people learned to think critically.

Hitchens was less interested in how people could avoid the lure of giving themselves over to religious faith; only that they must. He talked about the wonders of the natural sciences, of the cosmos, advanced physics, blacks holes… How could a burning bush compete with any of that?

So mainly, we were just being intellectually entertained on both sides, though clearly Hitchens was the star attraction. He looked and sounded good, considering his state of health (stage 4 esophageal cancer). At one point Ghomeshi suggested they take two more audience questions before wrapping up, but Hitchens requested more. “I don’t really have any other plans for tonight,” he said. So the event took a good two hours in all.

There’s no way I can properly recap the evening, religion and culture both being very large areas, resulting in a wide-ranging discussion. But if you want a sense in 140 characters or less, the Twitter hash tag is #uwdebate.

If Canada Post strikes, will you notice?

It may seem strange
How we used to wait for letters to arrive.
But what’s stranger still
Is how something so small could keep you alive.

“We Used to Wait” by Arcade Fire

Canada Post delivered my Victoria Secret order today, just ahead of their strike deadline. I thought that was great of them, considering I’d placed the order just on Saturday, and didn’t select the fast shipping options.

I get abnormally delight about having things delivered to my house. As a result, I have a bunch of stuff showing up here on a regular basis. A daily newspaper. A biweekly basket of local organic produce. A bimonthly order of organic fair-trade coffee. Several monthly or bimonthly magazine subscriptions. Music and movies on plastic discs, not just in digital bits! Books on dead trees! And the percentage of my wardrobe deriving from Victoria’s Secret is probably unusually high.

Of course, that doesn’t all get here by Canada Post. Having heard about the strike threat on Monday, I got to wondering what I’d actually miss.

The bulk of the mail I get, of course, is just advertising and requests for donations (with “free gifts”). That stuff just tends to sit around unopened for quite a while. So, I dare say I’m not going to miss that too much.

I used to get mountains of catalogs; the number is way down now. I’ll usually flip through the ones that still arrive: Vintages magazine, the discount books, exercises videos, Lee Valley. And naturally, Victoria’s Secret (once Jean’s done with it). But still, I don’t see missing that stuff too desperately, either.

Now, the disruption to my Rogers Video Direct DVD rentals will be a little annoying. Hey, I’ve just realized that the copy of Central Station that has apparently been shipped to me hasn’t arrived yet! OK, see, I am definitely somewhat annoyed about that. Especially since they’ve already received the copy of Good Hair that I returned. Plus, TV is mostly reruns now.

But, what else. I can still order from Amazon.ca, because they use UPS. Ditto Lee Valley. Ebay, Chapters, VSC are out but, hey, I think I can do without those for a bit. Magazine subscriptions will be disrupted, but I’m always behind on reading those anyway. A chance to catch up.

As for me actually mailing things, well, it has become a pretty rare event to mail personal letters and cards. I do have to send in a cheque for my high school reunion thingie by the end of the month, so if this drags on, I’ll have to use UPS or something for that. But my biggest use of stamps is for insurance companies. Because Jean and I are with different companies, we can’t submit everything electronically. To get the full refund, we have to send in paper forms and paper receipts.

It’s a huge pain that I won’t miss at all, but I do like getting the actual money back. Of course, the Sun Life office is local. I could probably just drop off the paperwork in person.

So wow. A postal strike is hardly the big deal it used to be, eh? Even for those of us still nostalgically tied to old media forms and the thrill of getting a package.

I’m not going to join in on the union bashing here (although, bankable sick days? Probably I’m just jealous, though, since I’d likely have accumulated a year or two off by now if I could do that…), but this could certainly be a tough fight for them. If due to strike, people keep finding other ways around Canada Post, that’s not good for either side.

Maybe I’ll just have to try them new-fangled online movies…

We used to wait for it. We used to wait for it.
Sometimes it never came.
Sometimes it never came.

LRT referendum: My two cents

I totally agree with the featured letter to the editor in the KW Record today:

Mayor should show some leadership

🙂

(And for what it’s worth, I’m in favor of moving ahead with LRT. We just can’t afford to keep building and maintaining more roads, and I think a train system will be a more effective alternative than buses.)

Restaurant review: King Street Trio

King Street Trio has recently moved back to King Street. It’s now right in uptown Waterloo at 40 King Street South, basically across the street from Rude Native. Recently, we had dinner there.

The new space is quite a bit smaller than their old location on University—it’s a very narrow restaurant. They’ve dressed it up nicely, though, with hardwood flooring, wood tabletops, black chairs, making for a modern look overall. And even as it filled up, we didn’t find it got too loud—though still perhaps not your ideal location for a romantic dinner.

Our waitress was professional and friendly. She seemed quite disappointed that we weren’t celebrating any special occasion (making me wonder what they would have done if we were). And she made a point of asking if we had any time limit, which we did. That resulted in the food arriving a little faster than expected, and in one case before the wine, and was the one “bump” in the otherwise great service. But we did get out on time, after having a full meal, and that was definitely the main goal.

The menu didn’t include any daily specials, which apparently will be added later, but we didn’t have much trouble selecting from the main menu. The appetizers included a fair number of seafood offerings, but I couldn’t resist the oysters. Here, unlike at sister restaurant King Crab and Oyster Bar, you get only one type of oyster, but they were delicious. They came with three dipping sauces. I wasn’t crazy about the mango one, but both the ginger and the cucumber were great.

The two gentlemen had the Angus beef flatbread with shitake, goat cheese, and roasted tomatoes. That was also very good (though both my gentlemen and I preferred the oysters). The fourth diner took a chance on the Suppli di Riso, which was a fried risotto balls stuffed with mozarella. The outside was quite crisp—a bit of challenge to cut through—and the inside, naturally, kind of starchy. Though not bad, she said she likely wouldn’t order it again.

As mains, I stuck with the seafood and had the jumbo sea scallops with green beans and risotto. The scallops were delicious, perfectly undercooked, and the beans also had a great snap and taste. The risotte was fine, but nothing special. The gentlemen continued with their paired ordering, each having the rack of lamb with mashed potatoes and vegetables. Both were impressed with the meat and spuds. Apparently the vegetables were a little less successful. And, now I can’t remember the fourth order–maybe the veal? [I was subsequently informed it was indeed the veal! And quite delicious.]

The wine list included quite a few offerings by the glass and half litter as well as by bottle, most at quite reasonable prices. Those having red meat mains shared a bottle of Chilean Merlot that was a hit all around. I started with a glass of delicious Oyster Bay Sauvignon Blanc, then an Italian Pinot Grigio (fine but not exciting).

Though my items seemed fairly light and the portions were not huge, I was still too full for dessert. I just had a decaf mochaccino. But, a couple of us were able to fit in the vanilla creme brulee, and seemed pleased with that.

All told, it was a very pleasant evening out. I would certainly go there again.

Movie review: Polytechnique

*** Polytechnique (February 2009) – Rental
Karine Vanasse, Sébastien Huberdeau. Looks at the Montreal Massacre through the eyes of two survivors, a man sent from the room, and a woman who had to stay inside. French with subtitles.

She says: I don’t know the best way of tackling this subject matter. This movie was very arty—black and white, moments of banal quiet suddenly interrupted by moments of terror. The killer is never named, not glorified. The focus is on the victims—that day, and some months afterward—and they get all your sympathy. At a taut 70 minutes, the movie certainly keeps your attention.
He says: Can I sit here and watch this with you? [A little later] Oh God, I don’t want to see this. I’m going on the computer. [A little later, having returned] Are you expecting to sleep well after this? [After it was done] Well, that was depressing.

Movie review: Greatest Movie Ever Sold

**½ POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold (April 2011) – Theatre
Morgan Spurlock documentary looking at product placement in movies, by trying to finance this movie through product placement.

She says: The meta-nature of this documentary was interesting, but it seemed as though it should have gone further. The movie just seemed to end, without really addressing the questions it was raising.
He says: I think his sponsors got in the way of his message.