Wither Canada or the second coming of Trudeaumania

Wither Canada, no not the Python episode from the 70's but the genuine question; what ever became of Canada.

Well the short answer is that it never went away, but from the day Stephen Harper became PM in 2006 to last Monday, Canada had been the 51st state, the pale imitation of trickle down Rayndian neo liberal petrie dish to the USA. For years people in the UK would, especially from the election of Barak Obama in 2008, naturally or rather unnaturally look to the USA for examples of how to do things and shining examples of small l liberalism or alleged socialism.  The only problem with that model is that the USA is not now nor will it ever be anything but an apple to the UK's orange. The histories of both nations divert in every significant way you can think of and the resulting political structures and philosophies that dictate world views as well as economic and societal structures could not be more different. And yet UK political and economic elites continued till a few days ago  to only go to  the well of America for inspiration .

I suppose I should point out the obvious or not so obvious, starting with the basic notion that Canada has a House of Commons and Senate modelled on Westminster. What that means is that much of the required assumptions of how government works be it central or  provincial will be the same assumptions that govern systems and applications of civil service, how a bill proceeds through Parliament and how members are elected and behave in the chamber. Party political fund-raising through to the rules governing elections and debates are closer than anything you will find in the USA. And yet when talk of reform surfaces, the last thing you hear is  why don't we ask our Canadian cousins for their experience.

Next up is of course the very basic veering off point between Canada and the UK... being where on the spectrum each country was in 1979.  In Ottawa a very likeable  but  slightly gormless Tory named Joe Clark was about to be lapped by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in February of 1980 after losing a non confidence motion on a money bill, while the UK had in May of 1979 embarked on the hell that would be the Thatcher era. Monetarism at it's worst v the Just Society and centralised mixed socialist economy. It's natural that while Canada built on the foundations of the late 60's and 1970's social and economic compact that preserved the welfare state and multiculturalism with a huge dash of leading the West and the South ( aka third world aka developing block of ) nations in a series of initiatives to fight land mines, global warming and poverty, it was seen as a genuine alternative player on the world stage and that of course included think tanks in the UK.  However, from the moment the Government in Ottawa joined the lock step march of the UK and USA in the trickle down world of the American Republican and Thatcherite war on the poor the sick and weak, it became easy even under the Blairite era to ignore any contributions to public policy and debate Canada would have to give. Let's be honest, for a while as much fun it was to kick the shins of American politicians for their ignorance, it was damn embarrassing watching the likes of John Baird the minister of selling off natural resources and national parks, deny global warming at International conferences. Harper himself would be the dull  invisible PM at  G8 and  Commonwealth conferences who if  Canadians were lucky; said nothing  and if not, made some deal that further put the country in the back pockets of dictators and multinationals.

And yet... even under these unproductive circumstances, there were and still are plenty of areas where UK policy can learn much from Canada. Federal structures and reform, party political financing, internal reforms of the House of Commons as it pertains to operating hours and the accountability of it's members to the House and the electorate. Why is it that even now the PM here still only faces questions once a week when in Ottawa there is no such thing as PMQ, it's just question period and the PM must be a part of it every time unless away from Parliament. The expenses scandal we had would not have happened if rules and regs  in place for over a decade if not longer in Canada, had been applied.  As for the NHS, every Province and Territory has had  universal health care since 1968 while the Americans still struggle with the concept of free health care at point of delivery.  Why when there is public discussion of the NHS and the mess it's in  are we not even alluding to Canada or other nations at least on the same page as we are? Gay rights, Canada quietly and without fuss allowed gays to marry over a decade ago ( something that still is news to many here), in 1967 the minister of Justice ( go on guess who) said "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" thus decriminalising homosexuality. Women have had control over their bodies and reproductive systems for so long it's simply not an issue now. All still issues in the USA, home of the free and the brave.

Most recently and wisely the new Governor of the Bank of England was hired from Canada, that country that had been the direct neighbour of the USA, that didn't go down the route of Fanny May and Enron. Yet when the debate occurred here, till recently, it was still the fault of Gordon Brown???  How blind some media outlets and political parties  were to utterly ignore the facts. Our closest political cousins did not need to bail out the banking sector ( even under a tory administration) while here Thatcher's children pointed fingers at Brown and ignored the reality of a stable Canadian economy. Only the apparently brave and  ultra left wing fire brand  and threat to the nation.... Jeremy Corbyn winning, put an end to that lie.

Which brings me nicely to the events of Monday and why they happened. Justin Trudeau, the most interesting thing to happen in Canada since Celine Dion or that abomination Justin Bieber , if we're to believe the sudden eruption of serious news stories and  vid  clips of him kissing men and twisting the light bulb emerging on the net, became Prime Minister elect. If I were a brit for the last  30 years I'd be going, where in hell did this guy come from? But the answer is he was always there and is the natural extension of the what it is to be Canadian. To be clear, the Harper years are even referred to by Canadians as very un Canadian. The two issues that won Trudea the election were in order 1- Defecit spending and 2- The Niqab. then maybe 3- Taxing the 1%  followed by  the environment ...The reasons he won are very Canadian.

Before I say more, for those of you in the know, I do not acknowledge the existence of limp and useless Michael Ignatieff and mourn the kicking around of a wonderful but far too nice a man Stephane Dion who I had the honour of calling my MP and friend. His Green plan was years ahead of it's time and will most likely be the foundation of the new government's war on green house gasses.  

Let's start with deficit spending. Going back as far as the early 70's, Keynesian based policy that espoused the spending of money to make money and the tolerance of a certain level of deficit was the back bone Liberal policy.  Every minister of finance right up to several who themselves became Prime Minister were never shy of spending a little more than they had. In the last Parliament, Harper managed to extract a promise  from Thomas Mulcair and his NDP ( the allegedly real left wing party) to support a law forcing future Canadian governments to operate under a balanced budget.  Let's examine the terms  here . For Tories, here and there, balanced budget is another term for austerity. A policy that has seen veteran pensions reduced  by  more than half, services to the public  including door to door delivery of the post being withdrawn most  recently, and throughout the Harper years, a consistent effort to reduce the amount of money spent on citizens and  the services given them across the board. Even the hobbled and injured CBC so used to cuts from central government was on the verge of the final indignity of complete irrelevance as a national broadcaster. But The NDP felt they had to respect the public mood and take on board the will of the people if they stood a chance of winning the election. Sound familiar? It should.

The actual left in Canada, which has always been the Liberal Party,  under a controversial, bold, brave, perhaps even courageous leader said  NO. The accepted wisdom was that the Liberals had signed their own death warrant. Oooo I'm sure I've heard that here somewhere too... But then a funny thing happened on the way to the circus, the team explained what that actually meant. Municipalities and families  and farmers and small businesses signed on and supported the Liberal position. Shock horror! Except if you think about it, it 's perfectly sensible centrist policy that has  worked  on and off in Canada going as far back as 1948 or earlier if you take Mackenzie King's rural electrification policy that cut the legs out from under the CCF. The occasional slow down for a liberal balanced budget ( achieved by the way by Chretien and Martin) were exercises in socially just economic policy that still included taxing the wealthy and collecting taxes from large corporations.

Next up the niqab.  Oh what a lovely petard the right weaves to hoist itself upon. And this one did not fail to explode in the face of the Tories and the nationalists. The simple facts are that a woman who was going to a citizenship ceremony wanted to wear the niqab when getting sworn in. On the surface an issue that could be dangerous to anybody brave enough to touch it.  The Tories and the Bloc Quebecois waded in and  demanded the woman show her face.  Quickly and I mean  at light speed, the debate especially in Quebec, escalated to the levels where the EDL and UKIP would feel particularly comfortable.  It's at this point that the NDP again waffled, choosing to to finally appear to both support the woman and the existing rules. Trudeau in March had  said “You can dislike the niqab. You can hold it up it is a symbol of oppression. You can try to convince your fellow citizens that it is a choice they ought not to make. This is a free country. Those are your rights,” he said. “But those who would use the state’s power to restrict women’s religious freedom and freedom of expression indulge the very same repressive impulse that they profess to condemn. It is a cruel joke to claim you are liberating people from oppression by dictating in law what they can and cannot wear.” So when the whole thing  blew up in Quebec and the party taking again a brave position to support the choice of that woman was seen as  taking a strong stand against the apparent public mood , it cemented in the minds of undecided voters and NDP voters that the only way to be rid of the Tories  was to vote Liberal. As the rot spread and the NDP vote collapsed in Quebec the rest of the country noticed and took a three way race and turned Trudeau into the front runner. 

The thing to take from this exercise in decision making and risk taking is that Justin Trudeau gambled that Canadian core values had not changed. A country built by immigrants would be tolerant and accepting, a country that had  as of Sept 3rd responded with a huge outpouring of anger and dismay at the death of a refugee boy who's family was already in Canada. The shame felt by people that such a government spoke for them with such miserly cold hearts that it killed a child in the name of austerity, immigration control and let's face it ... Islamophobia. The only decision then was which way were the the 60% of the electorate not voting tory going to go. Harper knew his goose was cooked by early September but  until that moment during the Niqab debate Mulcair was still in with a shout for a minority coalition.  The mesquinerie or pettiness of Harper had driven the final nail into the desire of Canadians to be well rid of him and the NDP was going to pay the price. This is  illustrated by an incident best related by Justin Trudeau himself on election night

 Last week, I met a young mom in St. Catharines, Ontario. She practises the Muslim faith and was wearing a hijab. She made her way through the crowd and handed me her infant daughter, and as she leaned forward, she said something that I will never forget. She said she’s voting for us because she wants to make sure that her little girl has the right to make her own choices in life and that our government will protect those rights.
To her I say this: you and your fellow citizens have chosen a new government, a government that believes deeply in the diversity of our country. We know in our bones that Canada was built by people from all corners of the world who worship every faith, who belong to every culture, who speak every language.


Lastly there is a trickle of issues that would make a leftist here giddy with delight if they thought there was a ghost of a chance of getting elected on these planks.. 

1- Taxing the top 1%
2- Legalizing the sale of marijuana as a priority 
3- Increasing exponentialy the representation of  women and natives in the Commons
4- Going on the world stage and reclaiming Canada's rightful place in the Green House Gas fight
5- Saying refugees are welcome and will not be allowed to die, target 25,000 before Christmas.
6- Withdraw from participation in the bombing of Syria and Iraq with as immediate effect as can be achieved.  


and some of you will positively wet yourselves over this one.

7- Vowing that the 2015 election was going to be the last ever federal election using the first past the post system. 

To quote his father in less happy and more dangerous times "Just watch me" 

 So what do we on the left have to learn from these strange creatures in Canada who are so related to us they are nearly us? Fate has given us Jeremy Corbyn. He's done three impossible things according to the establishment.  Get on the ballot, be a serious candidate and win.  Can he win an election? If a centrist Keynesian Socialist can take a mainstream party from 34 seats in the commons to a majority government of 184 MPs in a country where there is a belief  they are open , friendly accepting and progressive, then why not here? 





 

The Emperor has no clothes: peoples revolutions v special interests

Since 1989 and probably at selected times since 1840's Europe, the world's people have more and more taken the initiative in causing regime change in "sphere of influence" states of the great western and eastern powers. With the rise of educated comfortable middle and working classes that dare to aspire and the added advent of the internet, entire nations want to be like the countries that decide how others live.

First in Europe and now in North Africa, people want to be in a country where they have the right to decide their own course of action, the right to decide which orientation they will take in internal politics and what is good for them, without having to go through the filter of the best interest of the great Imperial powers like Russia, Britain, France, Germany, China and the USA, or their clients like Israel. Sadly, South Africa still dictates terms that are beneficial to itself over the interests of the ordinary Zimbabwean or Ivoreans, much the same way Great Britain and others used to protect their special interests. White men doing the same thing was wrong, and now black men doing this is still wrong, however you wrap it in rhetoric. While  some individual strongmen will continue to get away with murder literally, the age of plantation politics is coming to an end with the arrival in Africa of the flu that has kept Europe sporadically free for the last 200 years.

Cote D'ivoire was, until the meddling of some, getting rid of it's disgraced former leader, Robert Mugabe still effectively runs the country he has owned since nearly independence, despite people power. His regime and the regimes of countless other tin pot little African dictators, depend on a tolerance of other leaders equally afraid of the consequences of losing power. In the UK, Canada, Germany, leaders retire and write memoires, in Africa they are arrested or flee with the money. It's not a natural state of affairs that once a leader gets a grip on power that he or she must fear being rumbled for robbing the treasury and murdering the populace. Since the end of Communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe, most regimes have had free and fair multi party elections with changes in government following on peacefully and without incident. Is it the considered opinion of some African leaders and other western ones that Africans are not ready or capable of such a peaceful transition? South Sudan is an example of the extraordinary peaceful revolution and creation of a nation , some have waited for since 1955. Had the special interests of the world held sway, the result announced yesterday of 99.5% yes, could never have happened.  The fact the result was so emphatic is proof of the desire of the people to move towards an independent state so long denied them by a string of Governments in Cairo, Washington and London as well as regionally in Africa.

In my lifetime I have seen the imposition of right wing dictatorships on nations by the USA and Communist ones by China and Russia in the name of the great struggle for liberation of the global interests of those empires. What the locals wanted or thought, was of little importance, what happened to the locals , especially in places where mineral or other desired wealth was important to outside interests, mattered even less. A case in point was Kuwait, where oil and more oil were the deciding factor that drove the allies to come to the defence of the poor down trodden Kuwaiti people.but where similar fates were meted out to Kurds, Rwandans, Palestinians and Hungarians or  non Serbian Yugoslavs, it took ages if ever to react to the plight of these people.

In the last 40 years Soviets invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, caused a puppet regime to bring deadly martial law into Poland, created excuses to steal land from Georgia and other nations. And yet when the same people throw off the yoke of one kind of slavery or another, the west trips over itself to claim the moral high ground and credit for regime change. Since 1989 through to today, the influence of the US State department and other such players in the affairs of the world's liberated peoples has been nil to near tragicomic farce. There is a reason they are so ineffectual and gormless when it comes to these situations.  Having discouraged dissent and diversity in the first place, they are unaware of and not trusted by even the most well meaning of opposition movements. First fearing social-democratic secularism then the Islamists, the west and now even Russia play the game of preferring the devil you know over the one you don't.

The people of Egypt, given the chance to elect a new Parliament with multiple parties and ideologies will likely not elect a government that Mr Obama, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron will like, but it will be the government they want and that is representative of their desires and values. Hamas in the Gaza strip is an example of a radical party that if given the chance to rule, was going to do a perfectly adequate job, but like it's far more moderate predecessor, was attacked and destroyed from above and below by Israel and other international special interests. How are Palestinians, or any other people expected to grow into multi party democracy if they are not trusted by the paternalistic great powers to have their say? It is the height of hypocrisy to watch Washington, London and other capitals sit back and do nothing , then prop up the dictator, then call for his removal. What we are seeing is an attempt to impose a solution on Egypt that will pacify the people but preserve the status quo for several countries more interested in their own security than the freedom and democracy of Egyptians. ( or Algerians, or Yemenis, or Sudanese, or Saudis etc...). The citizens of those countries must be allowed to set the pace of reforms and the types of reforms they want in their own lands. As they are exposed to other ideas, the creation of hybrid political ideas and systems come into existence that represent the desires of those people. Sometimes simply taking a model that works in the UK or America is just not going to work. Afghanistan and several regions in West Africa have centuries old systems that had worked well, but were swept aside overnight and consequently could not be expected to succeed.

Democracy is in and of itself not a solution to all things. In Uganda gays are repressed by the state and local churches, in West Africa federalism has failed to stop resource based, religiously tinged conflicts from breaking out. In the Unites States, free universal national health care is still decades removed from what is accepted as normal in most European conservative circles, let alone the left. In Europe there is a rise of the extreme right in parliamentary elections. These examples point to the need of politicians to come to terms with the problems in a way that most can accept, or the cycle of stagnation, violence and mistrust will continue. In Europe and the rest of the West,  people, that is citizens, are trusted to sort out the mess, often of their own creation, but in other places we seem to think a paternalistic heavy hand is required should the result not quite suite our needs or personal political philosophies.

As a Pole living in the West, I appreciate the liberty I have had to influence my local, regional and national Government. I have treasured the ability to work and speak freely and I have wanted the same for others, even when it meant that maybe the Foreign Office or the American State Department or the Kremlin might not be best pleased. In parts of the world where the west has had to negotiate on level terms with new powers like India, Brazil and Indonesia, we have seen the spectacular failure on the part of the industrialized powers to take into account the desire of those countries peoples to climb up to at least as good a standard of living as ours BEFORE they start to sacrifice their monetary, ecological and agricultural policies for us. While it's important to bring to the table our level of concern and conviction regarding these issues, we cannot expect these new counterparts to respond in kind until such time as they themselves are not asked to make greater sacrifices than ourselves. This policy of having others suffer for our crimes is nothing new and should be replaced with the same basic philosophy as the Marshal plan had. Mainly to rebuild those parts of the world to their functioning selves before we can expect those parts of the world to play by the same rules as us.

China is inevitably lurching towards some kind of mixed economy socialist democracy and market system most Europeans would recognize, India, will likely be more chaotic, producing a string of reformist governments that will drag most of India kicking and screaming into the 20th century, while Mumbia gets on with inventing the 21st. Canadian PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau years ago worked for a North South dialogue that aimed at building the bridges between the emerging economies and the old established ones,  while reforms were made along with the necessary linking of those emerging economies to the solutions of very real problems like global warming, food shortages, debt, and educational/health standards. Since his departure from public life, the peace dividend has come and gone, western economic self interest continues and the powers that were on the outside looking in are still there but even stronger now.

How long will it take to embrace China as a full partner on monetary policy? How will it take for the Asia Pacific rim  and South American countries to finally crash the party so long reserved for the exclusive club that most European nations don't even belong to yet? Poland is right, Europe has to sit as a member at the G20, China and India need to be let in. But how can we expect this to happen  if even today we see the fish out of water  inept indecision of western powers trying to work a solution in Egypt that will at the end of the day have little to do with the protests of ordinary Egyptians except that they were the ones who forced the unwilling hands of  Washington, their clients and other countries with interests in how Egypt is run for their protection.  It is clear to anybody with eyes that the Army is waiting to crown an acceptable compromise that will please the middle classes, the middle east peace process, western interests and Israeli security. I doubt seriously this solution will come anywhere near satisfying the root problems of the Egyptian unrest and will only delay the inevitable final crumbling of the current regime.

Abject poverty and deprivation breeds despair and fanaticism, as do prolonged dictatorships. If Egypt or "The Mother of the World" is as important to the region as the analysts and the regional leaders and peoples say it is, let the revolution come, let the free and fair reforms and elections happen NOW. If we wait, there is no knowing what the well educated youth bubble of middle class aspiring Arab men and women will do next. Letting the mainstream elements of Egypt  take over now, will usher in a new age similar to the optimism and good will  that followed the decade of dominoes falling in Central and Eastern Europe. As we speak, Khartoum, home of possibly the worst of the rogue nations in Africa is under pressure, Yemen, Algeria and Jordan as well. What happens in the next few days in Cairo will determine the course of African and Middle Eastern politics for decades to come. If the west wants to be able to say they did something, they should create the pressure, clearly and without reservation, that leads to genuine people approved reform. Then and only then will the west and America in particular not be so mistrusted and hated. This is the time to cut the fanatics off from the new recruits by showing they are wrong when they say it's just another Congress of Vienna, Paris accord or Yalta stitch up.

The people of Belarus, Iran  and Zimbabwe watch with eager anticipation to see if they can dream of unfettered revolution or if they are doomed to spill even more blood before they are as free as the average Pole or Brit. I can't help but feel the weight of history and share the excitement of Egypt as I watch the fall of a hated regime. Much like our struggle, it will hinge on small events and the intervention or lack of intervention of outsiders. It took us 10 years and in the end it was a vote of non confidence on the Sejm(parliament) that drove the last nail in the coffin. Egyptians might be able to keep it down to a week. Good luck, the world is watching and we are cheering you on. A word the Egyptian Army, make up your mind, move on the Government or your continued neutrality will be taken as cowardice in the face of indecision.The Army must embrace the Lotus revolution before they become as mistrusted as the regime and the police.

Since I wrote the above, the Army has released a statement stating it would not fire on the people and that they considered the demands of the protesters "legitimate".  One looks forward to the next 24 hours and the million man march planned for Cairo.

The Emperor has no clothes, the sooner the special interests realize this, the sooner the world will be a better place to live in.

BOOO what a bag of Shite, send 'em home now

How dare you! How dare you say we don't have the right to be angry to boo.Overpaid neanderthal,  pampered gobshite.England were rubbish, utter shite. The only bright spots were  David James and Jamie Caragher.  I cannot believe a super star on £100,000 a week would say owt like that  to people who sacrificed  as much as £8,000 for the trip and hotel and all.  Did you really think you were just unlucky? Wayne you need to apologize NOW if you don't want to be booed in every park from Newcastle to London.  You and your mates need to get a grip and save face against Slovenia.  You useless bunch of soulless tossers deserve to be sent home NOW .  I cannot understand how you and your mates have completely lost any pride at all. Perhaps the very worst performance an England side has ever delivered.

Mr Capello, you entirely miss the point... so what all the teams are on three points. Your selection was appalling, they could not complete a goal attempt, they could not defend, they gave the ball away  like it was Christmas, they were on the back heal from the word go. Fact is that Algeria barely tested James, Imagine just how angry we'd be if Algeria was anywhere near as good as Germany or Argentina. We'd have been buried alive in goals. I don't care if England get past Slovenia now, I don't think we can get in a decent game in the next round. WE DON'T DESERVE TO BE THERE. I am ashamed of the team. Mr Capello you have to stop keeping the squad in a protective bubble , you need to tell people if they're playing or not , you need to be more open and allow these players to breathe and relax a bit. Let the wags in for a conjugal visit, these men are not monks, don't treat them that way. The fact you told James 5 minutes before he boarded the bus he was our stopper is insane. I dread the next match if you keep this up. BTW FA if you're reading this. On the back of this performance , we should perhaps just not even be thinking of Euro 2012.

And talk about bad timing, who decided it was ok to show a happy joy joy Mars bar advert right after that disaster? On the up side, except for Germany  most recently, the host nation has been diabolically bad and needed help from officials to limp out of the group stages. By that reckoning, we should be a shoe in for the next World Cup Hosts. From here on in regardless, I'm supporting Germany. This tournament is about the best, not the sexiest or the ones you're supposed to support by dint of  geography. If England were an X factor act , they wouldn't even be Jedward. I take that back , they ARE Jedward. They are flash, full of themselves, have Simon Cowell whispering praise in their ears and they are at the end of the day, complete rubbish. I'm trying hard to find something to be positive about  right now, but it's hard I will at some point be able to put my England top back on this week , but not tonight or tomorrow or even the day after.So where is that paypal link for the whip around to bring the boys back? I got £2 pounds burning a hole in my pocket.

Now from the self inflicted to out and out theft. Germany and USA were victims of possibly the worst officiating since the Swiss ref stuck it  into England a few years ago, you know when we were merely mediocre.  Germany had the tichiest ref I have seen in years. This Spanish inquisition aka Alberto Undiano gave out more cards than traffic warden filling a quota, most of them were undeserved and led to the sending of Miroslav Klosse . From that moment on the ref became the star of the show.  Apparently this man is the Howard Webb of Spain, responsible for more sendings off and yellow cards in regular season play than any other Spanish ref. Ironically, it was hard to tell most of the time that Germany were at 10 men. Without that shocking sending off , except of course the meddling of the ref who didn't give that 2nd pen, Germany would have dealt with Serbia and solidly. Yet again an official thinks he can be the reason a game goes one way or another. Thankfully I still think my new team can  get out of the group stages and make the final. Players are supposed to be allowed to play football, it's a rough sport and if we pretend otherwise, we'll get more matches like Germany v Serbia.

And it just kept on being a perfect day didn't it?  Slovenia v USA should have ended 3-2, there was nothing wrong with that goal, nobody questioned it, well nobody but the ref who didn't see half a dozen Slovenian players dragging down Americans in the box right left and centre. And in case you were wondering, it wasn't off side either.  This match was the only one that was gripping well played and entertaining. Even the Americans it must be said, played some cracking football. I don't think for a minute they are as good as England on a good day, but they aren't the pathetic sacrificial lambs they were a few years ago. Maybe one day they might even get a little respect at home.

.Writing this has been cathartic, it's at least spared some inanimate object from possible destruction. I may as well change the mood and turn the telly on to something less rage inducing . Doctor Who is on at the week end, Mock the week is back and Top gear is back July 27th, and of course there is that pile of classic who tapes we've barely made a dent in...Dalek Invasion of Earth up next ... laters all, perhaps tomorrow will a better day. I can't get any worst, can it?