My fellow Canadians may not be aware of this, but our own Heather Mallick’s “Viewpoint” column (CBC, September 5, 2008) has been creating quite a stir south of ‘49’ during the past few weeks.

The main objective of Ms. Mallick’s article was to ridicule the Vice-Presidential hopes of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Palin was chosen to be the running mate of Senator John McCain with the intention of complimenting his own self-professed “Maverick” persona.

I’ve read Mallick’s article, and I must confess that I found it to be in poor journalistic taste. It trashed Palin primarily on personal grounds, a forum that is beneath meaningful political discussion. Palin’s family, (which Mallick orders to “Turn your guns on Levi…! in reference to the expected parenthood of Palin’s teenaged daughter and her boyfriend, Levi) Palin's appearance (which Mallick describes as a “toned-down version of the porn actress…) Palin's character, (which Mallick defines as “vicious and profoundly dishonest…) and Palin's supporters, (who were referred to as "white trash") have all been attacked in this article.

In my opinion, Ms. Mallick’s article does more to define her own character than it does to reveal Palin’s. It tells the world that Mallick is not a serious political journalist, but rather an opportunist who will jump rudely and loudly onto any bandwagon that will enhance her own profile, at the expense of her target and to the embarrassment of her own countrymen and women. To me, this defines Ms. Mallick clearly as a “Reactionary” of the most cynical kind.

I’ve never met Governor Palin. I know nothing about her family, character or appearance except those things which the media and her own advisors would like me to know.

I do know that I do not agree with Governor Palin's policies.

Mallick’s article is not completely without merit. She does raise several important questions that have been troubling many of the people I’ve spoken with. For example: Why is it that so many voters, especially women, are willing to accept Palin based solely on the fact that she is a woman?

As women, many of us were disappointed when it became clear that Hillary Clinton was out of the presidential race. Ms. Clinton is representative of the very best that we want to see in ourselves. She is intelligent, informed, capable and fearless. She holds all women to a higher standard, and in 2008, we are ready for that challenge.

However, it can be argued, and I will argue it here, that America is ready for a VISIBLE change. With Hillary, that change would have taken the form of the “First Female President of the United States of America” .
With Obama, that change will take the form of the “First President of Colour of the United States of America” – except that, of course, south of the border they will spell it as “Color”.

Aside from America’s need and great desire for change, and its need to show the world at large that it is ready to enter the new millennium, there is also the matter of “Policies”.

Ladies, I know that many of you have been disappointed to lose Hillary in this round. However, PLEASE do not lose sight of the policies, both foreign and domestic, that she so competently presented in her campaign. Those policies have not lost their shine, and they remain as important as they ever were.

In last night’s Presidential Debate, I was deeply impressed by Barack Obama’s presentation of those same policies. We cannot kid ourselves. A McCain/Palin ticket is no substitute for thoughtful, caring leadership, and both America and the world have never been in greater need of that kind of leadership.

Obama has been acused within the US of not being quite “American” enough. He isn’t seen as someone who can “Shoot from the Hip”. It has been said that Obama is too much a “man of the world”.

I fully understand our American cousins’ romantic love for the Maverick, and their desire to defend all that they see as representing what is best in themselves.

However, as undisputed world leaders, Americans need to open their eyes. We still need you at the helm, my friends. And we need you to show us a leader that we can trust, believe in and respect. We need to know that you have not regressed, and that you are up to the challenges of change.

The McCain/Palin ticket is, simply put, one more example of the “Old-School, Mostly White, Reactionary” front that has been offered by the far-right and fostered by the religious fringe for far too long. Palin, in particular, with her female chromo-zone, stands to throw women back in time more than fifty years with her “politics of religion” and her stand of “No-Choice” when it comes to family issues, expressly those regarding abortion.

As a girl growing up in small-town Saskatchewan, I was already aware of women’s struggles. Particularly being raised in a violent, abusive, male-dominated home, women’s issues have always been near and dear to my heart.

To see Palin threaten all that we have fought for, and to see her potentially succeed by virtue of wearing a skirt, is galling on so many levels….

Some American Media have taken Mallick to task for her article. They argue that, as a Canadian, her viewpoint is at best "irrelevant", and at worst “meddlesome”. They wonder how a Canadian can have the nerve to express such volatile opinions about their quest for leadership.

For hundreds of years, Americans have led the world’s fight for freedom: freedom of religion, of expression, of the pursuit of happiness. At the centre of that fight has always been the pivotal “Freedom of the Press”. This freedom is also enjoyed by Canadian journalists, and we must never doubt or question the right of any journalist to express his or her opinion, no matter what our PERSONAL viewpoint might be regarding the content.

As to the question of whether a Canadian can possess a relevant viewpoint when it comes to US policy and leadership, this is really a “No-Brainer”. My friends south of the border need to understand: When you sneeze, we catch a cold. Everything that you do, large or small, affects the rest of the world. And we Canadians, with our close geographic proximity to you, are affected more than anyone by your actions and decisions.

You may not be aware of us to any large degree, but we are very aware of you.

At the moment, we are trembling over your economic woes, which we know will soon have an inevitable and negative impact on our lives.

Nevertheless, we will always remain your friends.

One comment made was to the effect that if we, as Canadians, have such strong opinions, maybe we should become part of the U.S.A.

Please understand – Here in Canada, we are as proud of our heritage as you are of yours. We are as proud of being Canadian, with all that entails -- our love of Multiculturalism, our carefully constructed Mosaic, our freedoms, our natural landscapes and protected wildlife, our relatively low incidence of crime, our gun controls, our universal access to quality medical care -- as you are of being American. Please, put yourselves in our shoes before you throw out such remarks.

Do we, as Canadians, have a right to express these viewpoints?

Not only do we have the right, but as proponents of freedom and allies to the greatest nation on earth, we have the RESPONSIBILITY.

We Canadians are in an ever-awkward position. We are sort of like the plain but sensible girl who is asked to accompany her beautiful but wayward cousin to the prom, only to realise that her role is one of "chaperone".

She must watch with growing trepidation, even alarm, as her lovely cousin flirts and giggles, trying nervously to offer inoffensive and unwelcome advice – trying without success time and again to reign her beloved relative’s behaviour in.

Of course, what our “Plain Jane” really wants to do is to shake the girl to within an inch of her life and shout:
“For Pete's sake, Nellie, straighten your skirt and close your legs!
You’re making a damn fool of both of us!”

Donna Carrick, September 27, 2008

Let me say right up front, in the interest of honesty, that I did not watch the Canadian Prime Ministerial Debate. Like many Canadians, I opted to tune instead to the US Vice-Presidential Debate on Thursday, October 2.

No doubt this was an unforeseeable scheduling error on the part of CBC executives and behind the scenes campaign managers. The date for our debate was probably set long before the schedule was fixed for Palin Vs. Biden. Nevertheless, common sense would dictate that, once the date for the US debate was known, our leaders would insist on a re-scheduling of the only English Language Canadian debate.

Perhaps the people at the CBC are sending us a message: We will show you what you SHOULD be watching, and to hell with what you WANT to watch. Hence the flipping back and forth of Canadian televisions between debates, resulting in many a well-formulated argument missing its mark, a concern that was remarked upon by Moderator Steve Paikin when he attempted to reign in a loud exchange between the leaders.

The few moments of the debate that I did witness (after the Vice Presidential Debate had ended) were a shock to the sense of aesthetics. Having just listened to two polished US leaders guided by a moderator of extreme professionalism, tuning into the less-than-formal Canadian “round table” discussion was akin to being doused by a bucket of cold water.

Of course, there is something to be said for the heightened realism offered by Canadian politics, as opposed to the spit-and-polish, ‘coached-and-scripted’ scene south of the border. At least we Canadians are offered more than the occasional glimpse of the true agendas of those who would be our leaders.

As incumbent, Conservative Leader PM Stephen Harper needed to appear “like a Prime Minister”, and my friends, who caught more of the debate than I did, assure me that he managed to do that. He remained calm, refusing to give in to his usual habits of “bully and bluster”.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, whose policies and platforms were so eloquently presented in the French Language debate on Wednesday night, was all but incomprehensible on Thursday, according to my trusted sources.

NDP Leader Jack Layton displayed his understanding of the issues and kept up the attacks on Mr. Harper, but failed to present an image of leadership that is sorely needed within Canada’s left-wing. Gone are the glory days of Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis and Bob Rae, any of whom one could imagine holding the highest public office in the land. Nevertheless, what Mr. Layton lacks in ‘image’ (I have heard him described as a Mississauga High School Teacher) he does make up for in integrity and policy.

Green Leader Elizabeth May confronted Harper aggressively on his environmental program, calling it a “fraud”. Ms. May was said to display a great deal of knowledge on those important environmental issues. On the other hand, it seems clear that a broader balance of knowledge and experience is required to become Canada’s Prime Minister. In addition, Ms. May suffered from her lack of language skills during the French language debate. Historically, our top office is a bilingual one. Anglophone and Francophone leaders throughout our history have worked hard to honour that tradition of mutual respect. It is doubtful that a unilingual contender will have much impact in this Election.

We face a growing basket of critical issues in this country, ranging from economic peril (despite Harper’s head-in-the-sand assurances to the contrary) to foreign policy to environmental and domestic social issues that spring from our determination to foster a mosaic-style multi-culturalism within our urban areas. These are all matters that are near to the hearts of Canadians, and together they comprise our challenges of the future.

If we are to maintain our historic strength as a nation, we need to understand our place on the world stage. In particular, faced with the extreme globalization of our planet, it is crucial that we recognise that our country’s success is closely tied to that of the global community, most especially to the fate of our American neighbours.

Being honest about our stature does not diminish us – to the contrary, our global influence can be heightened by integrity and sense of realism. However, if we continue to present gross displays of ego (such as the airing our own English Language Debate directly opposite one of the most anticipated American debates in recent history) then we will suffer the results of our misguided arrogance.

So, like many Canadians I did not watch the debate. As a result, I was left scrambling in an effort to conduct my own mini-poll, in the hopes of developing a more-or-less informed opinion as to its outcome. Sadly, most of the people whom I spoke with were among the ranks of the “channel-flippers”. In fact, I was not able to find a single person who admitted to watching the Canadian debate in entirety.

The general consensus, though, among those I polled was clear: Voters seem to be taking the “ABC” stand this time around – ANYONE BUT CONSERVATIVES.

As a long-time NDP supporter, I am wrestling with my own conscience. Do I want to be responsible for possibly splitting the left-leaning vote and handing PM Harper another term?

Donna Carrick, October 3, 2008

Wow! Was that ever interesting!

I am, of course, referring to the riveting force of nature that hit Prime Time on Thursday, Oct. 2: the debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin.
Most political analysts are in agreement that Joe Biden won the debate, thanks to both his skilled, passionate presentation and his singular knowledge of the key issues.

Unlike his opponent, Senator Biden – hell, let’s call him “Joe” – was able to answer all of the questions. To his credit, his answers clearly rose from a wealth of knowledge and experience.

Governor Palin, on the other hand, often found it necessary to evade the questions, artfully tossing out “folksy” phrases and changing the subject with a “wink and a nod”.

Palin appeared to be outmatched in most of the key areas. Indeed, each time that an issue arose for which she was unprepared, she deftly shifted her focus to an earlier question that was more familiar to her.

True, there were no major gaffs on the part of either speaker, despite the somewhat titillating anticipation leading up to the debate. No doubt in the aftermath of the “Couric Disasters”, which brought to mind the antics of Reece Witherspoon in “Legally Blonde”, Palin has received a thorough dose of much needed coaching.

Like all successful public personalities, Palin is being taught to lead with her strengths, which do not seem to lie in the areas of knowledge or competence. Palin’s “edge”, for want of a better word, lies in her “down-home charm”, a gift that may prove to be as dangerous as it is seductive.

While Biden clearly outscored Palin in the Debate Proper, it can be argued that Palin took home the “battle of the soundbites”, with her “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” and her “You Betcha!” (insert wink here)

It must be extremely frustrating for someone of Biden’s experience and stature to find himself engaging in such a critical public debate with an opponent who possesses the undeniable charisma of “Gidget Goes to Washington”. This seems to be symptomatic of the ever-diminishing standards in our society.

How does Biden, for instance, deal publicly with Palin’s obvious lack of credentials without appearing to be harsh or judgemental? This is indeed a high-wire act for Biden, who needs to maintain his solid connection to voters while distancing himself from Palin’s “easy answer” style.

Experience stood Biden in good stead. He handled himself with grace and great restraint, unfailingly answering the questions, refusing to “talk down” to his less qualified opponent, and even reaching out to viewers with a moment of personal insight in reference to the tragic loss of his first wife and child. Biden remained direct and concise, leaving it to the nation to judge who is most worthy of the office of “Second in Command”.

Now we wait for the results. Will Biden’s knowledge, experience and passion be enough to undo the colloquial charm of the “Artful Dodger”?

Donna Carrick, October 4, 2008

It was with a sigh of relief that I watched the closing of the polls in Toronto. “Election Night in Canada” has come to an end, without the 6-month-long turmoil and anxiety-inducing fanfare that we have been witnessing south of the border.

True, we spent a lot of taxpayers’ money with very little in the way of return – Harper’s Minority Government is still a Minority, to the great disappointment of many die-hard Conservatives, who were sure going into this that they would acquire a resounding mandate for their policies.

Let me say right up front that once again I followed my conscience and voted for Mr. Layton’s NDP. Initially I had thought that I would vote Liberal this time, in an effort to minimize the all-too-common “split vote” that we see on the moderate left in Canada.

With an economy that is tilting under the threat of world collapse it would seem sensible to support the Conservatives, and indeed many of my most respected friends are doing just that. They argue, quite rightly, that the Conservatives have historically presented the most feasible solutions when faced with economic crisis. Too often we point fingers of blame, instead of looking toward reasonable solutions.

My reasons for voting NDP were simple. In the end, it came down to this: in times of economic crisis, all too often our hard-won Canadian ideals come under attack. I believe in Medicare and universal access to a world-class educational system. In our country, these beliefs are best represented by the New Democrats.

Perhaps a Minority Government is not really a case of the “glass half empty". Maybe it truly is the best of both worlds: a Conservative government, though never my favourites, at the helm as we enter economic turbulence, and a strong and always vocal Liberal and New Democratic opposition, to keep our ideals alive and to ensure that the common person never has to suffer in this country.

From a number of viewpoints this could be argued to be a win-win-win-win-win situation, with Mr. Harper increasing his overall seats for his Conservative Party, M. Dion’s Liberals maintaining a firm opposition, Mr. Layton’s NDP Party gaining well-deserved respect and trust of the Canadian people, M. Duceppe’s Bloc Québécois retaining a strong voice in Quebec. The lovable “underdog”, Green Party leader Elizabeth May, ran a strong albeit doomed (this time) campaign, and raised public awareness and support throughout the country.

The Minority mindset that we seem to have developed in Canada is somewhat of an enigma wrapped in a mystery. If you ask any handful of people why they think we keep doing this, you will get any number of answers. Perhaps it isn’t even a Canadian anomaly so much as it is a North American one, (witness Florida’s November, 2000 case of Bush vs. Gore, which darn nearly split the State as well as the country down the middle) or even a Global one. The world is becoming more polarized by the day, it seems, and that strong division, while not felt on a physical level here in Canada the way it is in many other countries, is becoming more and more pronounced.

Lines are being drawn in the political sand, my friends, and with the world’s economy taking a swan dive, it will be prudent for all of us to find a way to step over those lines to work for the common good.

Thankfully here in Canada, at least, we still enjoy the “many shades of grey”. We are used to expressing a broad spectrum of political views, as evidenced by the fact that 5 – count ‘em, 5 – major parties plus assorted Independents share in our popular vote.

Other countries could take a lesson in cooperation from Canada. With this many viewpoints, we learned long ago to work together despite our differences.

The mud-slinging and name-calling that we’ve seen in the US 2008 Election Campaign never happens here.

Well, hardly ever…..

Donna Carrick, October 15, 2008

Take a deep breath. Close your eyes. Imagine, for a moment, that you are part of history.

Now open your eyes. Guess what? We are part of history! We are participants in a season of change that is as irrepressible as it is necessary. We are passengers on a world class train that is careening forward. Where we are headed we are not certain, but we are sure of one thing at least: from this place and time there can be no return.

Firstly, congratulations and ‘Thank you’ to the force of courage and integrity that is Barack Obama. This is your day. Your hard work, idealism, and unfailingly thoughtful manner have made this wonderful moment possible.

Secondly, thank you, Mr. McCain, for your gracious speech. In the days and months to come, it will be essential for Americans to begin their healing process.

Look at what you have done, America! Study it and be proud! Never again will the population believe that only rich white men are capable of being leaders. Never again will the world point a finger at the USA and accuse it of being behind the times, of maintaining the status quo, of ignoring the face of its own population.

From this day forward, Americans will expect, no, they will demand, diversity within the upper echelons of their leadership. From this moment on, the world will view the USA with the respect that it deserves, and will accept it as a partner on this earth, and not as an antagonist.

If, like me, you harken to a liberal drummer, then you will be pleased to see that the USA will now begin to implement policies that are more in keeping with your conscience.

However, many of those with more conservative ideals will no doubt be pleased to witness the tearing down of this last great colour barrier. No longer will people of colour be forced to accept a secondary role in American and world politics. Now, thanks to the courage and visionary thinking of the American majority, people of every nation will realise that neither gender nor colour can be used as an excuse for political segregation.

A moment like this comes along only once in every generation – a moment of such sheer greatness and history that it makes one shake with chills.

This is our moment, friends. And we have made it happen!

Donna Carrick, November 4, 2008

I posted this image of Niagara Falls, Canada several days ago, because it stirs something in me. However, I wasn't sure at the time what I wanted to say about it, or why such a simple and recognizable image should excite my fancy the way it does. After all, almost every Canadian family has this exact photo in their album. As scenes go, it has become a visual cliche, almost meaningless in its immediacy.

Nevertheless, there is something both elegant and timeless in the classical movement of mighty water over majestic rock. The world shifts and governments fall, the economy crumbles, and religions become more or less fervent, jobs are lost, and families break apart, but this water keeps falling over this rock with the force of the ages, defying description and compelling its viewers. It isn't exotic, and it isn't ethereal. It is rugged and Canadian and fresh and cold, and it doesn't give a damn whether you like it or not. (Puts me in mind of some Canadian authors whom I am honoured to know...)

But then again, really, how can anyone not like it?

Donna Carrick, December 6, 1008

For up to the moment news on the Economic situation in North America, my husband, renowned Economist Alex Carrick, is offering an excellent resource of insight and information. Be sure to drop in -- his style is accessible to financial "wizards" and lay people alike. D

With the spectacular inauguration ceremony earlier this week of President Barack Obama, I find myself diving backwards in time. As the world plunges headlong into an uncertain but hopeful future, I seem to have an undeniable urge to study my own version of the past.

Change is slow to come. We all know the truth of this statement. We do not need it explained to us. At the best of times, change is a bear meandering on a twisted path through the woods. It is ponderous. It is often painful. Sometimes it does not seem to be in our best interests at all. However, in the broader span of time, history tells us that change is necessary.

My friends in the sophisticated and dazzling metropolises of Toronto, New York, Montreal and Washington, to name only a handful of western population centres, like to believe that they alone are responsible for change. They might be surprised to learn that the small-town in Saskatchewan where I grew up was on board with the concept of visible leadership diversity LONG before it was fashionable to say so.

I can remember, as a very young girl, spending exhilarating hours in discussion with my friends on this very subject. We would dare to speculate, in those enthusiastic tones that can belong only to the young or the insane, how long it would take before the first black western leader would be elected, or the first female Prime Minister or President, or BOTH!

I must confess with a measure of embarrassment that we really did believe it would happen sooner, rather than later.

And now, nearly 40 years after those wondrous, hopeful days of youth, here we stand. We have, briefly at least, boasted a female Prime Minister here in Canada, and Hilary Clinton posed a highly plausible potential President south of 49.

After all of the debates and all of the speeches, the music and fanfare, pomp and ceremony, AT LAST we have come to the other side of time’s gilded bridge.

We can finally say that the barriers that seemed to be so impenetrable were only self-imposed, and that they CAN be and HAVE been lifted, and that the will of the people is indeed strong.

Dear friends of mine have viewed Barack’s campaign and election with less idealistic pleasure than I have. They argue that the West needed a female leader. They harbour a sense of bitterness over the loss of Hilary in the campaign.

Of course, as a woman, I do understand that lament. For far too long, women have ridden in the back of the bus. But we were not alone back there, as I’m sure history will attest.

Personally, I didn’t really care whether the 44th President of the United States of America was a woman or a person of colour, so long as he or she was representative of those of us who have for too long been oppressed. Now that the colour barrier has been removed by Barack’s courage and determination, I DO believe that he will be followed by a female leader.

Historically speaking, this seems to me to be inevitable.

Beyond the colour of Barack’s skin, I also believe in his message. Like my more sceptical friends, I understand that he is just a man, just a human being like the rest of us. He cannot “walk on water” and he cannot single-handedly pull the world from the bed of nails it has made for itself.

However, he can, and I hope he will, remind us that we are all in this world together. As the elected leader of the most powerful nation on earth, it is imperative that this be his message.

As girls, we dreamed and spoke of an end to war, an end to discrimination in all of its forms, an end to persecution, murder, abuse of power, hunger…. You get my drift.

If ever we are to realize these dreams, even fractionally, we must start believing in the power of change. We must begin to see ourselves as the vehicles for this change, as well as the mirrors.

Rather than bemoaning how long this particular dream took to become a reality, let us instead take a moment to peer backward into our own mirrors.

Let us applaud how far we have come!

Donna Carrick, January 23, 2009

It really is remarkable what a vast array of devices we now have at our fingertips, in this enlightened year of 2009!

Why, I can remember not so very long ago (well, maybe a little long ago) growing up in Saskatchewan and getting 2 -- count 'em, 2 -- channels on the television set, and having to wrestle with an unruly set of rabbit ears to get those! And one of those 2 channels was CBC francais!! (Let's not even remember that the other one was CBC's English channel. I'm sure many people would prefer to block that painful memory!)

Of course, reading books for pleasure was a favourite pastime in those dark days. How could it not be, under the circumstances? I can remember my mother calling out to me "Donna, get your damn nose out of that book and come here when I call you!" (Mrs. Cleaver she was NOT!)

And now it's all 'Kindle' and ‘Blue Ray’ and ‘Home Cinema’ and ‘i-Phone’ and ‘Blackberry’ and ‘Wireless’ and ‘DVD’ and ‘Playback’ and 'mp4’ and ‘mp3’ and so on and so on......

Even I have joined in on the fun, loading a slew of language cd's onto my 80 gig I-Pod! When I'm not listening to Mandarin or Spanish, I'm re-discovering classic artists like Leonard Cohen or getting acquainted with the youngsters like Vampire Weekend.

With so many choices out there, is it any wonder that we authors have to fight tooth and nail to drum up readers for our beloved work? And yet, I can't help but think (and I know this will draw ire from many a writer) that maybe, just maybe, all of these choice are really a GOOD thing.

At the end of the day, we all just want to enjoy ourselves. And there is nothing like a great story to entertain us.

Our two children aged 10 and 6 are both readers, and have recently discovered the joys of reading for pure pleasure. Nothing makes them happier than a trip to Chapters to drool over their favourite fiction series, especially if it’s followed by a stop at Tim Horton’s for chocolate milk and a quick peek inside the covers of their latest treasures.

I'm thinking maybe a pair of matching KINDLES for Christmas - don't tell!

Donna Carrick, March 11, 2009

...that, when viewed from the outset, they seem to stretch on forever. So many plans and resolutions, so much to accomplish! There are Chapters to write, curtains to sew, sweaters to knit, meals to prepare, and hey, that bathroom's not gonna clean itself!

This weekend I set up a new computer/sewing table at the cottage, so I finally have a somewhat more private place in which to write. Of course, by 'private' what I really mean is that yes, I CAN shut the door, and yes, the kids will still keep knocking on said door and calling out "Mom!"

The whole concept of a weekend is something that never loses its appeal, even as I age. It still means "Freedom!", just like it did when we were twelve and class was letting out for the last time on Friday afternoon. Of course now it's the after work commute, shopping, dinner and the long drive to the cottage. We don't actually settle in for the night till nearly Leno-time.

Just the same, Friday is Friday. It's good on mere principal.

Saturday morning is theoretically the heart of 'writing time'. Did I write yesterday morning? No. Instead the family and I took the car for a much-deferred oil change, bought my new writing/sewing desk, and then I spent the balance of the day re-arranging the small room at the cottage where the desk was to sit and constructing the desk itself.

One extremely aching back and case of severe exhaustion followed this process, which took me straight to time to prepare dinner for the family. After dinner, the only thing I was capable of was collapsing on the couch to watch a couple of terrific movies while knitting.

Which leaves only Sunday for writing. Sunday morning in our house is invariably filled with reams of homework. With two school-aged children, the dining room table is barely visible under the stacks of workbooks and language dictionaries. Mandarin, French, Science, Math, -- all you parents out there will know exactly what I mean.

By noon, I am even more ready to pack it in than our kids are! How do you say "Just shoot me!" in Mandarin? Then it's time to get lunch for the family.

Of course you've probably caught on by now to the fact that this 'blant' (blog-rant) is a thinly disguised evasion tactic to avoid finally settling down to churn out those Chapters. By now my poor brain is so pummeled that it seems impossible that it might manage to actually latch onto a 'creative thought' and get down to work!

Yes, the true nature of weekends is a tragic thing. They are all too brief in their splendour, and all too manic in their hawking promise of 'relaxation'.

That being said, it's time to write!

Donna Carrick Sunday, May 3, 2009

Just a quick note to wish everyone a Happy Canada Day, despite it's falling mid-week in this inconvenient fashion!

To those who managed to finagle a long weekend out of it, even better! Enjoy...

One of the most interesting groups that I belong to is an on-line collection of Crime-Writers who gather on something called “CrimeSpace”. The group was developed by a man by the name of Daniel Hatadi, whom I consider to be nothing short of brilliant. Here, writers from all over the world get together virtually to discuss everything from ‘plotting’ to ‘character development’ to ‘manuscript marketing’.

Recently a question was raised on the group’s Forum that sparked a great deal of discussion. The “conversation” took a number of turns, and at one point it became a friendly debate on the issue of ‘gun-control’.

Having been around for awhile, and crediting myself with what I believe is an open mind, I’ve heard many arguments both for and against the control of handguns in North America. I don’t think that my own “pro-control” opinion springs solely from the fact that I am Canadian. After all, I was raised in a military family, and my father did hunt for meat to feed us when I was growing up.

The bloom of youth and naivety has long since left me, and I realise that there are few topics that present only one correct point of view. The world is not painted in black and white alone, but is drenched in every colour of the rainbow, including an endless range of grey.

Just the same, when it comes to this particular topic a peek at the facts can help one to form an opinion. For decades now, experts have been conducting studies into violent crime within developed nations. It has become glaringly obvious that if the objective of a civilised society is to allow its people to live in peace and free from fear, then gun controls are absolutely necessary.

I am not anti-American. My ex-husband, a gentle man, was born in Louisiana. Despite his non-violent nature he believed, as do many Americans, that an armed population is a free population, and that only by remaining armed can a population expect to remain free.

Of all the arguments against gun control, this one is the most compelling. In my opinion, it is the only one of merit. However, this attitude was formulated within the American civil population at a time when it was warranted – when New England had newly thrown off the yoke of British rule, and when the West was a wild and unruly place, best governed by the business end of a Colt.

History is history. The world we live in today is not the world we first took by force hundreds of years ago. The “Annie, Get Your Gun” mentality no longer has a place on the streets of our modern cities.

Also, when we discuss gun-control, it is not the rifle used by the hunter or the gun used by our police force that we are targeting

No, it is specifically “handguns”, the weaponry of the masses, which inspires the most heated debated.

After all, what is the purpose of a handgun? It can’t be used for hunting the way my father used his rifle when times were hard for us. It can’t be used by our armed forces to defend our nation from tyranny.

A handgun has only one purpose – to offer one citizen a physical advantage over another. Whether that citizen is a criminal or a civilian, the objective is the same. The handgun, by its very nature, says “I can force you to comply. I can remove your sense of freedom.” Or, more simply, “I can kill you.”

But that, of course, is rhetoric. Back to the facts…

Studies have shown that in nations who impose strict laws to control the possession of handguns, the incidence of violent crime is much lower per capita. This is especially true when we measure the incidence of crimes resulting in death.

In the course of my business I often speak with people south of the 49th. These are educated business people, who want only to raise their families and take the occasional vacation free from worry. In short, they are much like me.

I will never forget a conversation I had a couple of years back with an “American cousin”. He was appalled to learn that I live and work in a major North American city and yet do not own a single firearm.

“Aren’t you afraid?” he asked. “What if you are attacked on the way to work? At the office? In your home or car?” Then he proceeded to inform me that he personally owned three handguns – one he kept in his home, one in his car, and one in his desk drawer at the office.

He was prepared to confront nearly any eventuality. I wonder how he would deal with an attack by aliens? Hmmm – maybe he never thought of that. Hope he doesn’t read this and add to his already heavy burden of worries!

In North America a large portion of our population seems to be living in constant fear. That anxiety is not being alleviated by the market saturation of handguns. Of course, it can be argued that the swollen “bottom line” of companies who manufacture and sell guns goes a long way toward reducing anxiety among their Boards of Directors.

Personally, I feel confident walking in the streets of my city knowing “only the criminals are carrying guns”. After all, they are a relatively small and, I hope, manageable part of the population.

It’s the rest of the nut-cases out there, the one who pass for “normal”, that scare the bee-jeepers out of me!

Donna Carrick -- July 25, 2009
Donna's Books are available through Amazon.ca and Amazon.com

For a darkly humourous look at this issue, visit Alex Carrick.com.

During my recent cyber-travels, I encountered a Website featuring the Coalition for Gun Control. There I found an “Interview with Wendy Cukier” posted on July 29 by Elizabeth Mandelman. The article discussed the impact of heightened gun control and registration on the incidence of gun-related violence against women in Canada.

It was the replies to this article that I found to be most disturbing. They were posted by persons in disagreement with Ms. Mandelman and Ms. Cukier. However, rather than expressing respectful debate and dissent, their overall wording showed a blatant disrespect and even, in some instances, personal attack. The replies argued it was not guns that were responsible for the 1989 Montreal Massacre in which 14 women were killed and another 10 were injured. Instead, it was the perpetrator’s Islamic beliefs that were a direct cause of these deaths.

On the subject of Domestic Violence, I have some first-hand knowledge. My father was a Military man here in Canada, and, in most circumstances, a “law abiding citizen”. He was also a collector of hunting rifles and subscriber to many outdoor and gun-related magazines.

In later years, when he had long been sober, we were able to love and honour him as a parent. I’m proud of the fact that in his final years when he was dying of cancer I took excellent care of him and saw him through the pain, as any daughter should.

However, when I was young he was extremely abusive and violent. On many occasions he threatened to shoot my mother and even myself and my sisters. I don’t know how my 95-lb. mother survived those years of physical abuse. My older sister did not survive – I lost her to suicide when she was only 19. This was as a direct result of the childhood abuse.

My mother once confided to me that during those years she had lost all concern for her own well-being. She was determined to stay alive, not for her own sake, but to protect her children. I consider it to be a “long-shot” we were not all killed by one of his rifles. The number of times Mom was bed-ridden due to extensive physical abuse and too ashamed to face doctors or neighbours was beyond comprehension. Even now, years later, I find it hard to discuss these truths.

During his intermittent moments of sobriety and remorse, my father reluctantly agreed to allow my mother to lock away vital parts of each firearm. It was probably this insistence on my mother’s part that saved our lives.

In my humble opinion, an advanced and civilised society has no place for guns, other than in the military and for use by our police. Obviously there will always be men like my father who are violent, with or without access to firearms. However, studies show that heightened control and registration of guns coincides directly with a reduction in the number of deaths related to domestic violence. I am for anything that keeps women and children MORE SAFE, so they can finally grow past their fear to live happy and productive lives.

As for blaming the entire Muslim population for the recent incidences of abuse against women in Canada, I would like my readers to know that, while I abhor these so-called “honour killings”, (can there be any honour in the slaughter of defenceless women and children?) my own family were, to all outward appearances, as Christian as any you are likely to meet in a Canadian Church.

It’s time for humanity to take the next critical step toward enlightenment. Ladies and Gentlemen, please put down your weapons.

Only reason and respectful dialogue will take us where we need to go!

Donna Carrick July 29, 2009

Donna's Books are available through Amazon.ca and Amazon.com

For a darkly humourous look at this issue, visit Alex Carrick.com.

Quote from humorous Economist Alex Carrick:
Disturbed people with access to guns kill people.
Disturbed people without access to guns are less disturbing.

With so many social networking sites available on the Internet, I thought I’d do some research to discover the emerging Do’s and Don’t’s of Self-Promotion. After all, one doesn’t want to become known as a Dreaded Spammer. On the other hand, we all know that “Bench Advertising Works”, so in that spirit, I set out to uncover the mysteries of Global Networking.

According to the experts, the following are the “10-Commandments” of on-line self promotion. I have to admit, they leave me feeling somewhat perplexed. See for yourself if you don’t come away scratching your head.

(Disclaimer: Yours truly may have paraphrased or even blatantly made up some of these rules.)

1- Try to ‘stir things up’. Controversy is interesting. Initiate debate and commentary to encourage an intelligent exchange of ideas.

2- Beware of controversy. Keep your biases to yourself. No one is interested in your personal opinions, except maybe for a bowl-full of salty nuts, and they just want to use your forum to vent their own brand of craziness.

3- Learn to view every site and discussion group as an opportunity to gain exposure for your work. Add links to your comments and mention your product or service in every post. Remember, you are trying to create your own cyber-footprint, so be bold.

4- Avoid obvious attempts at self-promotion, especially blatant references to your product or links to your own site. These could be perceived as “spamming”, and may result in your being barred from some social networking arenas.

Besides, your SSP (shameless self-promotion) really pisses people off. They have their own crap to sell, and you are using up valuable face-space!

5- When using tools like Facebook and Twitter, get to know your base market group. Work towards acquiring a following that shares your interests. These are the people who are most like to buy or cross-promote your product.

6- Cast a wide net. Take care not to restrict your networking group. Don’t “preach only to the choir”. After all, that Indonesian Fisherman might be interested in joining your Toronto Librarians’ Book Club. You never know!

7- Be respectful in your posts and comments. Even when disagreeing, remember to use your “indoor voice”. No SHOUTING, name-calling, or general “dissing” allowed.

8- Be aggressive in sharing your opinions. No one likes a “wussy-cat”. People are drawn to strength. Employ the “Simon Cowell” approach to every golden kernel you care to share.

9- Be warm and ‘folksy’ in your communication. Don’t be afraid to connect with strangers. Remember to show an interest in their comments and posts, not just your own. This will build a loyal following.

10- Don’t reach out to strangers. Some find this to be intrusive. I recently read an article about the 15 most annoying types of Tweets on Twitter. In the comments section below the story, one person took the opportunity to complain that complete strangers were “following” her and were annoying her with “Tweets”!

Go figure, eh? I have nothing to add to such a blindingly brilliant observation…

Regarding #10, I came up with the following thought on “paranoia in the modern world”:

A patient Tweets to his on-line Psychologist, “Doctor, I think I’m being followed!”
Donna Carrick, August 22, 2009

Well, folks, here we are again, 1 day away from the anniversary of a dark mark on our history. If you're like me, you will remember quite vividly where you were on that fateful morning.

I work for a large multi media firm, and on that awful day I was at my desk, as usual. At 9:05 one of my staff members call to say she was held up in traffic on the highway.

"But Donna," she added, "there's something really wierd going on. Everything's really quiet out here, and the radio says something bad happened at the Twin Towers."

I ran up the atrium stairs -- me and about fifty other people from various departments in our building on Don Mills -- and got a spot where I could see the huge video screens in the newsroom.

Keep in mind, at that critical point we all, in fact the whole world, still believed there had been a terrible accident. (I can't believe the power of my emotions as I write this.) We watched the news man as he stood in horror with his back to the first building, which had just been struck. We could all plainly see the damage. It was tragedy in the making.

Then the unthinkable happened, right before our eyes. As the newsman spoke about the unofficial reports, the second plane flew behind his head and straight into the second tower.

You could have heard a pin drop in the atrium of our building. By this time, nearly 200 people had gathered on the stairs and in the halls, and there was not one sound. There was a beat, then another, as the newsman slowly understood what was happening -- as the dreadful realisation came over us that this was no accident.

Others have described this event with far more eloquence, and others have been touched by it on a far more personal level than I was. I was fortunate to be in Toronto when it happened, and to have no loved ones in the tower.

Having said that, it's clear to me that no one was un-touched that day. As report after report came flooding in, the world changed before our very eyes. We all changed.

We can't deny it. We are no longer the people we were before that day.

But here's the question that needs to be answered: Can we somehow move past the horror and make our way toward a better, more unified world?

I hope we will find a way. I noticed a "Tweet" by Yoko Ono ( @yokoono ) asking for signatures on a petition. The petition was very general in nature: it is asking for our leaders to work toward a more unified global society.

Big ambitions. I'm no longer as young as I was in the 60's -- I lost my rose-coloured glasses some years ago.

Just the same, one does hope...

Like so many others, my heart went out earlier this week to the victims and families of the violence at Fort Hood. I’m reminded as I set out to write this blog entry that ‘adversity’ is a relative term.

We all have troubles. There is no getting around this most basic fact of life. I tell our children when they bicker not to waste their energy being jealous of each other. No one enters this life and gets a free pass. Each one of us, before our time is up, will know what it is to bear real pain.

I’m not talking about the rejection slip that arrives in the mail, confirming the writer’s fear that yet another work will go unrewarded. I’m not talking about the missed bus – the sale item that was out of stock – the casual thoughtless word spoken and hopefully forgiven just as casually.

No. Anyone who has lost a loved one, suffered with the sick or from their own sickness, or struggled to guide a relative who is lost to addiction – in short, anyone who has encountered any of the million real heartbreaks that lie in wait for all of us – will know exactly what I’m talking about.

Let me be clear. I am an artist. But I’m not ‘first’ an artist. I am first a wife, mother, sister, friend. I have been a daughter, a niece, a cousin. I have worked throughout these 49 years to build a life that was better than the one I was born into. And I have lost – much – often.

As have we all.

This week was a hard one for us personally. We try to keep it in perspective, remembering always the profound sorrow of others. We try to enrich our art through learning to understand and cope with human failings.

Sometimes we succeed.

Best in writing, everyone. And more importantly, best in living.

Donna Carrick November 8, 2009-11-08

Follow me on Twitter.
Join me on Facebook, too.

Like most adults, I woke today filled with memories of that other morning, ten years ago, almost to the moment.

It had been a period of loss for our family. First my mother, unexpectedly at the age of 69 in early 2000. Next a dear aunt, then another -- sisters of my mother. Then, on September 3, 2001, my husband Alex lost a beloved aunt, follwed the very next day, September 4, by his father, Donald Carrick.

We returned to work on the morning of Monday, September 11 after a week of funerals. Already saddened, but relieved, at least, to put the heaviest of our grief behind us and get back to our normal routines.

It was just past 9 am. My office phone rang. It was one of my staff, a young lady, calling to say she would be a little late. "But Donna," she added, "there's something wrong in New York City. I don't know what, but something's happened at The Towers."

I won't pretend her first words chilled me. I had no idea, after all, what they meant. But her next sentences gave me pause. "It's really scary," she said. "Everything here is too quiet. There are no planes in the air -- none."

I put the phone down. I work for a major media organization, and at that time we were still connected with Canwest at the 1450 Don Mills Road building. I ran from my office on the 2nd floor up a half flight toward the big news screen on the 3rd floor.

Within moments, almost 200 of my friends and co-workers had joined me. In absolute silence we watched the newsman as he struggled to make sense of the first impact. He, and we, thought it must have been an accident. He spoke in reverence, pausing to find the right words. Clearly it was not a typical news report. He was just a guy with a microphone and a camera, trying to tell the world what had happened.

And then, before our eyes, in one flash of horror, the unthinkable occurred. The second plane. As he spoke, facing the camera, behind his head we saw it pass, turn, and collide with the second tower.

And we all knew.

There was no cry of horror in our building. No stifled collective gasp -- no outrage spoken in words.

There was only a deep, unbroken silence as the knowledge flooded us.

During the days that followed our hearts broke time and again, with each new discovery, each fresh image that was presented to us. We were filled with an unprecedented grief, and a love for our brothers and sisters in New York City.

The phrase "Ground Zero" came into the language. But we know the damage of that day was not isolated to the towers. Not at all. Its impact ripples to this day through the hearts and minds of people everywhere. None are left untouched.

So here we are in Canada on a beautiful Toronto morning. What has changed in our world?

Ten years have come...and gone. A heightened sense of security worldwide has restricted our freedoms in ways we might never have imagined. We've suffered suspicion... against our neighbours, from our neighbours. Friendships have grown, or have been set aside. Babies have been born, and loved ones have died.

But that moment, standing with hundreds of my co-workers, friends all, entrenched in the silent horror of first awareness, before even the newsman knew for sure.....

...that was a pivotal moment.

A moment that cannot be erased, nor can it be trivialized, nor should it ever be.

All that has come to pass since that day has been acted on an altered stage.

And now, ten years later, we still seek peace. Too elusive. Too vague a concept. Our global psyche too cluttered with offenses given and received, too filled with suspicion and hatred. Forgive us our trespasses, as we will forgive those who trepass....

Instead of a day committed to reliving that horror, as if anyone could or would ever forget, I pray we will dedicate this day to seeking peaceful solutions to our differences.

That's my fervent wish on this day, ten years to the moment later.

Donna Carrick
September 11, 2011