BLOG THIS | blog.thismagazine.ca: August 2004 Archives

So it's official: Conrad Black, David Radler, and a few other associates spent the better part of the last decade helping themselves to the income of Hollinger International.

A special committee of Hollinger International on Tuesday issued a report stating that "Hollinger was systematically manipulated and used by its controlling shareholders for their sole benefit, and in a manner that violated every concept of fiduciary duty."

At the Montreal film festival last weekend, I caught the premiere of Citizen Black, the new documentary by Debbie Melnyck, known for her previous documentary about Frank Magazine. It's a great film, chronicling the rise and fall of one of the world's last great press barons.

What struck me was how poorly Black comes across on camera, in comparison with his written persona. Sure, he's still all puffed up, always sounding like he's swallowed the OED whole, but it comes across as terribly forced and rehearsed, and he's obviously ridiculously insecure. (Apparently Trudeau was the same way -- he worked very hard at cultivating an aura of easy intelligence).

Black is clearly a man who thinks that he believes in the old-fashioned conservative virtues of honesty, integrity, and reputation. Yet just as George Costanza always wanted to pretend to be an architect, Conrad Black simply likes to pretend to be honest.

A while back, he appealed to a judge in Delaware to help him to "restore my reputation as an honest man". The judge declined, saying: "I found Conrad Black evasive and unreliable... His explanations do not have the ring of truth... At worst, the board was duped and there was fraud on the board."

Which is about as close as a judge can get to saying, milord is a liar.

Similarly, at a book-signing in Toronto shortly after the red ink hit the fan at Hollinger, Black stated that he would immediately return over $7million in overpaid management fees. He looked at the cameras with a pained look on his face and said, "Don't call me a shirker... I can't STAND a shirker."

How very Trumanesque. But as Melnyck documents, Black immediately changed his mind and decided not to return the money. He spends the rest of the film blaming his misfortune on his accountants, various underlings, the SEC... everyone but himself. It was like watching Liberals testify at the sponsorship inquiry.

I've always liked Tubby. A pompous, social-climbing blowhard, yes, but fascinating nevertheless.

Well, fascinating no more. Now, he's just another evasive, greedy loser, whose pronouncements, while still multi-syllabic, don't have the slightest ring of truth.

More entries on:

August 30, 2004

Free Parking

Posted by john_d at 03:24 PM ET | Comments (0)

Parks Canada is being completely outclassed in their labour dispute with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. What with the precious summer days of Canada nearing their end, it should be relatively easy for the Parks department to encourage resentment for union action among a public desperate to squeeze in a bit more camping, hiking and canoeing before the leaves fall and the frost sets in. “The damned union is trying to keep you away from your great natural birthright! How dare they… etc.”

Today’s Globe ran a piece describing how the union has managed to subvert any such attacks by strategic withdrawl of services – like, say, pulling union members from the admission booths, and thereby making your National Parks not only easier to enter, but blissfully free. Parks Canada spins this little detail in the FAQ on their site by saying they will be providing free admission to select parks (i.e. the parks experiencing collective action) to make up for any service shortfalls.

Meanwhile the PSAC site documents the wholly strange scenario of Parks Canada managers flexing their intimidation muscles by videotaping union picketers outside Green Gables, the completely fictional setting for our completely fictional national literary treasure, Anne Shirley.

This is hilarious stuff. I would guess it’s pretty hard to generate sympathy for the working conditions of someone who wears shorts to work everyday and has beach patrol in a dune buggy as part of their duties, yet the PC management has not been able to capitalize on such an obvious pr strategy – think boaters trapped by closed locks, swimming children left lifeguardless. Plus, with managers doing everything from water testing to basic safety patrols, Parks Canada now has to worry about its liability should a member of the public get sick or meet a grumpy bear on Parks property.

More entries on:

August 29, 2004

Starship Troopers?

Posted by joyceb at 11:40 AM ET | Comments (2)

Clive Thompson writes about the use of off-the-shelf video games for the X-box being used as combat simulation for US troops in his recent article for the New York Times Magazine:

"...The Army is already preparing plans to ship out copies of Full Spectrum Warrior to soldiers, and its creators envision the game being played by troops in Iraq, where Xboxes are popular among Americans looking to unwind. Many of the military's young soldiers, members of the PlayStation generation, spend much of their downtime each week playing games. As the military sees it, they might as well be playing games that hone their skills. ''When a soldier is off-duty,'' Cummings said, ''he's going to go back to his barracks, and he's going to play Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. What if I give him a simulation instead?''

TPTB have evidently abandoned the development and use of expensive military-developed combat simulators in favour of the increasingly realistic and less costly off-the-shelf private sector games. They've even gone so far as to work with commercial companies to develop games, like the Institute for Creative Technologies' Full Spectrum Warrior. The army has collaborated on a for-military-use version for use in training, where soldiers do a virtual tour of duty in war-torn Baghdad.

Says Thompson, slaughtered along with his battalion after only three minutes of play:

...the game is unforgivingly precise. The soldiers you command are programmed to respond the way a real soldier would. There are no magic weapons to bail you out. All you have going for you is the real world.

What's next? If only we could count on virtual battles to solve the armed conflict of the future. Unreal Tournament champions as the next wave of perfect soldier. Sadly, truth being stranger than science fiction, we'd likely get the horrific scenario of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, baby soldiers trained to fight using computer simulations, only to find out afterwards that the simulations were real.

Oh, and apparently the army version is on your off-the-shelf copy of Full Spectrum Warrior, you need only do a bit of surfing to find the serial crack.

More entries on:

Hoaxing Social Scene

Posted by joyceb at 08:36 AM ET | Comments (0)

I love a good publicity stunt. An object lesson in the art of publicity this week from Kevin Drew of Toronto's Broken Social Scene. In an interview for the cover story of this week's Now Magazine, Drew lays the "last.show.ever." thing on a little thicker than usual. Turns out it was a bit of a wind-up to get a big crowd (and in truth, probably their last show for a good while) as they split to return the focus to their own projects and re-enter the studio in the fall for a new album expected in February.

It worked. Fantastic show, with their big sound and "entire cast of Hill Street Blues" stage lineup well-suited to outdoor venues (even better than the olympic island show, which only ran 60 minutes).

Now we can talk about music, or about hoaxes...

More entries on:

August 27, 2004

England: theme park for frat boys?

Posted by andrew at 11:34 AM ET | Comments (2)

Aug. 31 Update: Tony Blair is back from his holidays, and he's declared war on yob culture.

A few days ago, I came across this article, about the growing problem of binge-drinking in Britain. An excerpt:

"Binge drinking -- consuming alcohol in a methodical attempt to get blind drunk -- is now such a widespread phenomenon in Britain that authorities are starting to get worried."

Oddly, I woke up this morning to find this email from my mother:

Dear Andrew

So how is it going in Montreal? We are now in Scotland, on the Firth of Clyde. We are headed up to the Orkneys tomorrow I think; we climbed the highest peak in the south yesterday -- The Merrrrick -- and stayed in Largs last night on the coast --I must say we appreciate the culture here much more then England --England is getting too Americanized and the so called "culture" is largely based on drinking--I have never seen so much public drunkenness as we did in Exeter.

Love, mom

More entries on:

Best Website: This Magazine

Posted by joyceb at 10:28 AM ET | Comments (1)

I'm not above a little flagrant self-promotion. That's what guerrilla marketing is all about, right? So nominate This Magazine's fabulous new website as "Best Website" in Now Magazine's Best of Toronto contest. Tell your friends too. But please don't cheat. It says so in the rules.

that's www.thismagazine.ca, of course.

By the way, the archive is going online (2 years) in the next couple weeks, and the new issue is HOT. On newsstands any day now, look for the yellow one with the big roadsign on it.

More entries on:

August 26, 2004

Guest blog review wanted

Posted by andrew at 12:01 PM ET | Comments (1)

Calling all lurkers:

Does anyone out there want to read Naomi Klein's piece "Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia" in the new Harper's, and post a review/comment on it? My copy of Harper's is stuck in Canada Post mail-forwarding limbo.

Send me 300-800 words on the piece and I'll post it. Anonymously or signed, as desired. Email apotter@trentu.ca

More entries on:

Maybe we should be cheering for Harper

Posted by andrew at 10:54 AM ET | Comments (2)

According to this article in the Village Voice, Bushwacking is doing wonders for the fortunes of the alternative press:

"in this particularly contentious political clime, in which Dick Cheney displays his colorful vocab and Iowa senator Tom Harkin dismisses the veep as a coward, lefty rags have found President Bush to be the ultimate weapon in the subscription war."

More entries on:

August 25, 2004

Supreme Court Fallout

Posted by andrew at 02:54 PM ET | Comments (0)

Update: Shut up, Ralph

In today's Globe, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein criticized the new appointments, saying that Paul Martin used the nominations to promote the federal Liberals' left-leaning social policies. So, the Alberta government wants more provincial input in the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

Unreal. What possible business is it of the government of Alberta, or any of the provinces for that matter? Tell you what Ralph, let's make a deal. We'll let you have a role in the appointment of judges, if you let the feds tell you how to spend that pile of oil money sitting in your Heritage fund.

Hasn't Ralph got better things to do than usurp federal powers? Like plagiarising term papers or insulting the homeless?
__________________________________________________
Lots of fun stuff in the papers today over the appointments of Charron and Abella to the Supreme Court. I agree with the critics who think that the new, supposedly more transparent process is a total sham, but that's what you get when the Prime Minister makes it up, not as he goes along, but only when the train is actually leaving the station. More evidence that Paul Martin spent a decade plotting to oust Chretien, without spending a minute thinking about what he'd do with the power once he got it. Still John Ibbitson has a very good piece explaining just how difficult it is to strike a balance between the need for a competent, independent judiciary, on the one hand, and an open, accountable nomination procedure on the other.

What about Abella and Charron? Charron seems fairly uncontroversial, but Abella has the political right in a fit. In the Post, Andrew Coyne is really upset, calling for Abella's appointment to be withdrawn. He writes:

"This is the first time I can recall that a judicial appointment has been used as a political weapon, in the most partisan sense of the word... Abella is so far out of the mainstream... a deliberate provocation... a polarizing figure... a wrongheaded choice."

His argument is that Abella has been chosen not because of merit, but because she sure to advance the particular social agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada, especially over gay marriage. Coyne has been making the point for a long time: that worries over MPs scrutinising judges are misplaced, because the process is already politicized -- it is just that it happens in the backrooms, out of public view. A public nomination procedure would at least bring the nakedly partisan calculations to the fore.

I've never entirely agreed with Coyne, until now. I think he's right this time, the appointment of Abella is a "deliberate provocation" -- to Parliament, to the Oppostion, and to the very idea that there are legitimate political views in this country other than those held by the mandarins in the Natural Governing Party. The fact that I more or less agree with many of those views (as does Coyne, for that matter) is beside the point; were I a social conservative, I'd be outraged at her appointment.

But here's the worrisome thing: Abella's supporters are actually making Coyne's point for him. From Shawna Richer's piece in today's Globe:

Susan Boyd, law professor and chair of feminist legal studies at the University of British Columbia, expects to see more sensitivity to gender dynamics on the Supreme Court, something she said has been missing since the retirement of Claire L'Heureux-Dubé in 2002.
"We're doing really well to have such strong female voices on the highest court," Prof. Boyd said. "I welcome a decision-maker willing to look at the law in its broader gendered social context."
"There's a stronger likelihood of that when you have anyone from a group that has not been as represented as fully in the legal system in the past. It's not like there's going to be a uniform women's voice coming out of Supreme Court decisions. But psychologically, this broadens the perspective."

Apart from the nauseating gender determinism implicit here, this is an open admission that Abella represents special interests, and is there to advance a specific political agenda, which is precisely Coyne's point. And this is extremely bad news. If both the left and the right now agree that members of the Supreme Court are political actors, then there is no longer any point in maintaining the charade of an independent, impartial judiciary. In which case, why don't we elect them? At the every least, what possible reason can there be for allowing the Prime Minister to appoint them?

More entries on:

Rhymes with chutney

Posted by joyceb at 09:50 AM ET | Comments (1)

American Leftie digest Utne celebrates its 20th anniversary in September/October 2004. I love lists, and the issue includes an inventory of themes and stories that they've covered (a few: New politics, Is psychotherapy useless? sustainable business, designer god) over the last 20 years. The list is followed by a list of 10 headlines for the next 20 years. Some tongue-in-cheek, some sadly prophetic (The Wild Tiger Vanishes).

Here's my favourite. Congratulations Utne.

Historical Reenactors Turn Left
Historical reenactment, once the preserve of Civil War buffs and other military types, will expand to commemorate labor struggles like the Pullman strike of 1893 and grassroots actions like the anti-Vietnam War protests.

More entries on:

August 24, 2004

Ottawa awakens...

Posted by andrew at 09:12 AM ET | Comments (1)

I went to bed last night intending to post a mock-ha-ha piece asking if anyone had seen the Government of Canada. Didn't we just elect a new Parliament? Who is in charge in Ottawa anyway? Since no one party has a majority of the seats, it is actually an open question, until the Commons gets back to business sometime in October.

In the meantime, our Justice Minister has announced that the Liberals are changing the way Supreme Court judges are appointed. Except they aren't.

Constitutionally, the appointment of SC judges is the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister (well, of the Crown, actually, on the advice of the PM). The Conservatives want the House of Commons to be able to question potential appointees, like Congress does in the US. The Liberals want to avoid a "US-style" inquisition/media circus which would "politicize" the Court. Potential judges want no part of any public examination of their political leanings or private lives.

Under the compromise arrived at, a panel of MPs will get to question the Justice Minister about the judges the Prime Minister has decided to appoint, and then file a report. Question for the class: Does this fulfill Paul Martin's pledge to make the nomination process "more democratic"?

I'm finding it very hard to figure out where I stand on this whole issue. On the one hand: with the adoption of the Charter, like it or not the Court is now a major political actor in Canada, with more real power and influence than our elected MPs. Shouldn't MPs have some oversight over the membership of the Supreme Court?

On the other hand: Canada is not a republic, nor is it even a disguised republic. Parliament is made up of three elements -- Crown, Senate, and Commons, each with its own independent source of legitimacy and power. The genius of the parliamentary system lies in the way these elements have come together in a creative tension.

What this means, though, is that Parliament is a system of government "of the people, for the people", but not "by the people." That is, "the people", as represented by the Commons, do not govern; they consent to be governed by the Crown-in-Parliament.

All of which is to say that turning the appointment of SC judge over to MPs, as the Conservatives want, is not simply a matter of making the system "more democratic". It is a step toward a complete remaking of Parliament into a more republican style of governing. That may be what we want, but we need to keep in mind the law of unintended consequences.

Canada has been well-served by Parliamentary government. Does the Prime Minister have too much power? Maybe. But if the behaviour of our MPs during the hearings into the sponsorship scandal is any indication, it is not obvious that the Commons has the talent or collective sense of public duty that a proper examination of Supreme Court nominees would require.

More entries on:

August 23, 2004

Canada's Olympics: Worse than it looks

Posted by andrew at 04:37 PM ET | Comments (21)

According to the CBC website at 4:38 EDT today, Canada is ranked 20th overall at the Olympics with 1 gold, three silver, and 1 bronze.

Not bad for a relatively small country, population-wise, right?

Wrong.

(Scroll down the list... we're waaaayyy down. That's right, down past North Korea)

Aug. 24 Update: In today's National Post, there is a front-page story about Kyle Shewfelt getting screwed out of a medal by bad judging. What does Kyle think about that?

"I feel great," he said of his mood, performance, and placing. "Fourth is pretty good."

More entries on:

August 22, 2004

Posted by mason at 09:30 AM ET | Comments (2)

It's a Summer Olympic tradition in Canada. Every four years, we watch hopefully but are ultimately disappointed as the Canadian team earns relatively few medals compared with other countries our size. What follows is much soul-searching in the media and a call for the federal government to invest more in our amateur athletes.

This year, the calls are growing to a frenzied pitch. I heard this morning that Canada's men's eights rowing team — as close to a guaranteed gold medal as we have at these Games — finished a disastrous fifth in the event. Their coach said he's never seen them row so poorly, not even in training. Aside from cementing our reputation as better spectators than competitors, this will certainly bring out the cries of "What's wrong?" and increase demands that the feds do something about Our Olympic Disappointment. Of course, the complaints will only be worsened by the fact that Vancouver hosts the Winter Olympics in six short years (despite Summer and Winter Olympics being completely different animals).

I'd like to suggest a bit of caution before our legislators go overboard with their funding of summer athletics, for a few reasons:

1) Canada is the land of ice and snow, not sand and surf, so it should be no surprise we don't excel at the Summer Games. You don't see Norway getting uptight about poor Summer Olympic showings, do you? By the time the Vancouver Olympics roll around we'll be just fine in the medal race, as usual in the Winter Games.

2) The level of competition at the Olympics is incredibly high. When athletes such as swimmers Rick Say or Mike Brown set personal bests and even Canadian records, and don't get so much as a sniff of a medal, you know we're well behind other countries in these areas. In most cases these Canadian athletes are giving it all they've got, and a greater investment in training would not change the fact that other countries with larger populations to draw from and more historical ties to summer sports will beat us.

3) Undoubtedly, we have lots more pressing things to spend our tax dollars on. Before investments in athletics, we need to make sure we're properly funding health care, public transit and infrastructure.

As you watch the Olympics, by all means cheer on the Canadian athletes, but I hope at the end of the Games you'll join me in embracing our role as lovable losers.

More entries on:

August 19, 2004

Currently, we're brain dead

Posted by andrew at 12:01 PM ET | Comments (0)

Look, I love the CBC. Radio3 on saturday night got me through my first lonely winter in Peterborough a few years ago, and now I even say "shedule". But sometimes it takes its mandate as the People's Radio a bit too far, to the exlusion of simple common sense.

Consider the lead item on this morning's edition of The Current. It was a piece about whether the Canada Pension Plan should or should not invest in tobacco stocks. Apparently Health Minister Ujal Dosanj was ambushed the other day at a meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, where some doctor got up and demanded that the CPP sell its $100 million worth of tobacco shares.

So, The Current played the CMA clip, then interviewed a business prof who basically said no, the CPP shouldn't be in the business of ethical investing, it should be looking to maximize returns for the plan. It is a position I happen to agree with, which we can debate here or elsewhere if anyone cares to.

But then things got really annoying. The CBC sent someone out into the streets of Montreal to find out what the common Jean or Jeanne thinks about how the government should invest their pension money. They gave the usual mix of responses: some people thought the CPP should pull out of tobacco, some thought not, others weren't sure where their money should be going.

But here's the thing: Quebecers don't pay into the CPP. Quebec has its own, completely separate pension plan, the QPP (which, incidently, is one brick in Stephen Harper's infamous "firewall" plan for Alberta.)

You can see the thinking at work at The Current: "Well, people always complain about the CBC being too Toronto-centric. Instead of doing the streeter in Toronto, let's do it somewhere else in Canada, preferably somewhere where there are lots of smokers."

Bingo, some genius suggests Montreal. It doesn't occur to anyone that Quebec isn't part of the CPP, so the thoughts of Montrealers on this are not remotely relevant.

On the other hand, it probably is not surprising that not one of the persons questioned here in Montreal piped up and said "I don't care what the ROC does with its pension money." It is part of a longstanding pattern, in which the federal government allows Quebec more leeway for running its own show than the other provinces get, or transfers federal powers directly to the provinces, without getting the slightest political payoff.

There are many conclusions here. I'll leave their drawing as an exercise for the reader.

More entries on:

August 18, 2004

Playing Dress-up at the Games

Posted by joyceb at 09:27 AM ET | Comments (1)

I dragged myself away from reading Alias recaps on Television Without Pity to read a lively discussion on their discussion boards about Olympic team outfits. I admit I was tantalized by the teaser on the home page--"Speedos"--but was delighted not only to find tidbits about the British team's white swimsuits, but an interesting discussion of the pervasiveness of trendy sport outfitters Mooks and Mambo, and of course the ubiquitous faux-Canadian company Roots, who are now outfitting three of the largest teams.

The post that gave me most pause was the first one:
IMO could not stand the hideous US team outfits worn during the opening ceremonies. Why does the US always have to go for the casual-sporty look? I think they could have been a bit more formal given the setting. The poorer countries looked way dappier in their coats and ties. There was a time when people used to dress up while traveling on airplanes, going to church ("Sunday Best"), etc. The worst part of the outfits was the militant berets. It's bad enough the whole world thinks the US is a bunch of bullys, do we really need to remind them about our questionable military presence?

Now the comments about the berets bear thinking on for future team outfit designers, but this poster has hit something on the head for me. Is it any wonder our olympic athletes get 'no respect' when even though they are hailed as our ambassadors of goodwill and blah blah, they can't even be bothered to get out of their sweatsuits?

More entries on:

August 17, 2004

savage love

Posted by andrew at 09:57 AM ET | Comments (2)

Want a quick schoolin' in how to demolish the religious right with irony, wit, and devastating logic? On the topic of gay marriage, Dan Savage sets his opponents straight.

(Caution: this article contains coarse lanaguage and adult situations)

More entries on:

August 13, 2004

How they see themselves

Posted by mason at 01:00 PM ET | Comments (2)

Okay Andrew, I'll bite. What I find equally interesting is that a company that runs a number of private schools in California was recently shut down by authorities for handing out high school diplomas to students after teaching them some wildly incorrect "facts" about the Excited States. In particular the students -- most of them Latino immigrants hoping education would level the playing field for them -- were taught the U.S. flag was out of date because it didn't have stars representing all 53 states (the last three being Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico). The workbook they were given also added a fourth branch of government, the "administrative" branch, to the existing three: judicial, executive and legislative.

Instead of fishing for a story about the rest of the world's miseducation on the U.S., perhaps American journalists should be holding their own education system accountable and helping to ensure citizens of the U.S. have a proper understanding of their own country (not to mention some education about the rest of the world. That's another post in itself.)

More entries on:

How we see them

Posted by andrew at 11:07 AM ET | Comments (3)

A very interesting review in last weekend's Washington Post. The book is a collection of excerpts from the history texts of various countries, focusing on what other countries teach their kids about the USA.

As one might expect, the authors focus on passages that are critical of America. In particular, Canadian textbooks appear to give cause for concern:

According to Canadian texts (six are cited), the United States planned to conquer and annex Canada during the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War and at various points in between. During the Cold War, the United States repeatedly bullied Canada into supporting its aggressive military policies. Canadian officials hoped that NATO would evolve into a North Atlantic community that would act as a counterweight to U.S. influence in Canada, but in vain: Canadian governments had to toe the U.S. line or suffer humiliation. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker, concerned that Kennedy's belligerence might lead to a nuclear war, waited three days before announcing that Canadian forces had gone on the alert. In the next election, the Americans used their influence to topple the truculent prime minister.

In few countries are the texts so consistently critical of the United States as they are in Canada, but in a couple of cases the rhetoric is alarming.

I find this fascinating. I do not see how any of this can be considered "criticism". Apart from the fact that it is all true, it is also extremely relevant to Canadians' understanding of the continental dynamic that has existed for over 200 years. In fact, going by the excerpts discussed in the review, I am surprised at how mild the US bashing seems to be.

When I consider the history I was taught in school, I am struck by how provincial it was. Not only did we hardly discuss the US, but we hardly discussed anything except Nouvelle France. (That's what you got from Trudeauvian immersion programmes in Ottawa in the 70s). We were simply never taught about the rest of the country -- it was like it didn't exist.

I'm curious to know what ThisBlog readers (all three of you!) think about this. Any recollections of an oddly skewed history text?

More entries on:

August 12, 2004

Ouellet resigns

Posted by andrew at 05:03 PM ET | Comments (2)

So, Andre Ouellet has finally resigned as president of Canada Post. Or as the CBC website puts it, he has "quit amid allegations of excessive spending, questionable hiring practices and ties to the federal sponsorship scandal."

Among Ouellet's crimes: he gave jobs to his friends and relatives, he sponsored a TV show about Rocket Richard, and spent $2 million on travel and hospitality -- over an eight year period.

Sure, that's a lot of money. And maybe the head of a Crown monopoly does not need to spent over $200k a year promoting his products and services. But the fact that he's been forced out proves, once again, that the standards of accountability are much stricter in the public sector than in the private. Two million bucks over eight years would not even register as a private-sector scandal in this country; the real scandals start an order of magnitude higher.

I know I'm risking reinforcing perceptions of sycophancy, but my friend and colleague Joseph Heath has written an excellent piece on this topic, for Policy Options. I have no problem admitting that I have learned more from Joe than from any other teacher. Here's a link to his piece. (click at the top on the article called "A toast to the independent audit".)

More entries on:

Social democracy in Quebec

Posted by andrew at 11:16 AM ET | Comments (1)

Update -- August 14

Paul Wells continues the discussion on his blog, with devastating arguments. I cannot overstate how important I think it is that everyone read inkless Wells, everyday. He is easily the best columnist writing on national affairs in this country.

After ten years in Onterrible, I have returned to Quebec, fetish of leftists nationwide. With its 5 dollar a day daycare and powerful unions, this province truly is a beacon for social democrats a mare usque ad mare.

Or is it? As Paul Wells pointed out yesterday, the Charest regime is royally screwing the neediest university students.

Ahh, but Charest is a Tory at heart, you say. Fine, but how about these musings by a former, separatist, premier?

What next? Bombardier stops freeloading off the Canadian taxpayer?

More entries on:

August 06, 2004

Clinton in Toronto

Posted by andrew at 01:22 PM ET | Comments (2)

Did anyone catch Bill Clinton being interviewed on the CBC this morning by my old soccer chum Adrian Harewood (filling in for Anna Maria Tremonti)? It was a fascinating interview, if only because it was a a sad reminder of what poor communicators most politicians are in comparison. I think Paul Wells had it right on his blog last week, when he lamented Clinton as a massive talent, massively squandered.

One particularly interesting part was when Adrian asked Clinton about how to deal with the ongoing threat of terrorism. Clinton conceded that there is no sense in trying to reason or bargain with some of the more extreme members of Al-Qaeda. He said that the real trick is convincing the millions of potential recruits, those living in poverty and oppression and who see no hope for the future, that the US -- and the West in general -- is on their side.

A tough job, and fraught with plenty of enormous obstacles. But consider that what this amounts to is a form of "root cause" thinking about terrorism. That is, Clinton's remarks were virtually identical in substance to those made by Jean Chretien last year in his "notorious" post-9/11 interview with Peter Mansbridge, in which he was widely interpreted as blaming the US for the attacks on the WTC.

Some rich quasi-Canadian society lady named Marie-Josee Kravis wrote an outrageous piece in the Wall Street Journal called "“Why is Jean Chrétien so intent on finding a justification for terrorism?” which was nothing short of a deliberate misconstrual of Chretien's views, and an obvious attempt at discrediting the Canadian government in the eyes of the US Republican Administration. I was asked by the Ottawa Citizen to reply to Kravis's article, and my piece was published along with Kravis's. I thought then, and still think, that Chretien's position was both correct, obvious and rather mild. Nice to see that Clinton agrees.

UPDATE: Joyce's wishes are the CBC's command. Here's The Current's interview with Clinton

More entries on:

August 05, 2004

Sex and the Single Voter

Posted by joyceb at 11:06 AM ET | Comments (0)

If, after reading David Hayes' fascinating tour of NASCAR country, We're not in Dixie anymore, Bubba and are wondering just what the fuss is about the single female vote in the US, check out this excellent article at Mother Jones online, One Woman, One Vote.

The problem for the left as they see it is too much get-the-vote-out emphasis on the Carrie Bradshaws of this demographic: the single, wealthy, white and urban women -- who actually already vote -- and are hardly representative.

Instead democrat registration campaigns should be trying to reach un- and under- employed women and especially women of colour. These women are the truly disenfranchised and the hungriest for change.

From the article:

In all of the hype, no one thought to create something along the lines of "Remember to re-register now that you're out (Check with your State for eligibility!)" pamphlets to circulate at our nation's women's prisons, or "Bring Ten Single Mothers to the Polls" T-shirts to distribute at welfare agencies. That's unfortunate, because if we really wanted to connect with the non-voting single woman, not to mention promote representative democracy, progressives would be putting a priority on the 1.27 million single women who receive public assistance and probably do not have a college education.

More entries on:

August 04, 2004

National Unity Blah Blah Blah

Posted by andrew at 12:09 PM ET | Comments (0)

Update: Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of this. John Ibbitson seems to think so.

(Edited because when I'm in a bad mood I indulge in gratuitous insults)

This is one of the least helpful articles I have read on the topic in a while. It is an op-ed in today's Globe by Andre Pratte of La Presse, and it is boilerplate English-Canada-needs-to-understand-Quebec. Aside from a rather obtuse interpretation of the last thirty years of Canadian history, Pratte claims that

Whatever its faults, the Charlottetown accord was a masterpiece of give and take, as the British North America Act had been in 1867. By voting against the accord, did Canadians signal their abandonment of compromise?

But he neglects to mention one rather vital piece of information. Quebecers rejected the Charlottetown Accord.

Here are the national results of the referendum. As they make abundantly clear, the "Rest of Canada" was more willing to compromise than were Quebecers.

So who exactly needs to understand whom here?

More entries on:

August 01, 2004

The fetishism of commodities Part I

Posted by andrew at 12:36 AM ET | Comments (3)

Update:

The excellent young writer Katie Raynes-Goldie has alerted me to a bit of trouble bewing over the iPod: Some people are alleging that the built-in batteries are designed to stop recharging after a year or so, and Apple is charging $99 to replace them.

But as always, the truth is a bit more complicated... which is part of the reason why I distrust culture-jamming.

Marx opens his famous discussion of commodity fetishism with the following paragraph:

A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than "table-turning" ever was.

As he goes on to argue, the problem with the fetishism of commodities is that social relationships become confused with their medium, the commodity. As the commodity comes to be seen as imbued with human or supernatural powers, this confusion obscures the basic political issues involved in social relationships, and ensures that neither side is fully conscious of the political positions they occupy, and the power relations involved.

But still.

Don't you just crave one of these?

More entries on:

Previous month: July 2004
Next month: September 2004

THIS MAGAZINE. BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL

Please note that all writers hold the copyright for their pieces and it is illegal for any portion of them to be copied or distributed without their expressed permission. So please don't steal.

THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

August 31, 2004

Lord Tubby of Fleece

August 30, 2004

Free Parking

August 29, 2004

Starship Troopers?

Hoaxing Social Scene

August 27, 2004

England: theme park for frat boys?

Best Website: This Magazine

August 26, 2004

Guest blog review wanted

Maybe we should be cheering for Harper

August 25, 2004

Supreme Court Fallout

Rhymes with chutney

August 24, 2004

Ottawa awakens...

August 23, 2004

Canada's Olympics: Worse than it looks

August 22, 2004

August 19, 2004

Currently, we're brain dead

August 18, 2004

Playing Dress-up at the Games

August 17, 2004

savage love

August 13, 2004

How they see themselves

How we see them

August 12, 2004

Ouellet resigns

Social democracy in Quebec

August 06, 2004

Clinton in Toronto

August 05, 2004

Sex and the Single Voter

August 04, 2004

National Unity Blah Blah Blah

August 01, 2004

The fetishism of commodities Part I