BLOG THIS | blog.thismagazine.ca: June 2005 Archives

I am sad. I just found out over the weekend that one of Canada' best little indie labels Three Gut Records is calling it quits. The Toronto-based, Guelph-founded, label is home to some of our country's best music (in my opinion) including: the Constantines, Jim Guthrie, Royal City, Gentleman Reg, Cuff the Duke and Sea Snakes. The label's last official release will be the new Constantines album, entitled Tournament of Hearts.
There will be two five year anniversary parties for the label. One in Toronto on August 20th and one in Montreal on the 21st.
For more details checkout www.threegutrecords.com.
RIP Three Gut. You served us well.

More entries on:

my kind of headline writer

Posted by andrew at 11:24 AM ET | Comments (0)

Potter-mania shifts up a gear

More entries on:

my painful monkey spine

Posted by andrew at 11:08 AM ET | Comments (3)

About ten minutes ago, I booked an appointment with Benjamin, a granite-handed Russian massage therapist who, sometime around 6:15pm tomorrow, will have me begging for mercy as he digs his thumbs under my collarbone. I've had neck problems since I was 28, largely caused by spending my mid-20s hunched over a computer in a fit of constant anxiety trying to write a thesis that was read by at most three people, and, with luck, will never be read again. Hence the need for periodic visits to men like Benjamin, who must be cruel to be kind.

Around the same time that I was wrecking my health trying to write a thesis that would ultimately fail to be my ticket to wealth, fame, money, and babes, I was paid to grade papers written by similarly anxious, but younger and more supple undergraduates. I recall one paper in particular. It was a standard piece debunking one of the arguments for the existence of God that we set up like bowling pins then demand that our students knock down. Yet about halfway through, the young man came up with an insight that floored me:

"If God exists, then why did he give us painful monkey spines?"

Exactly right. The central difficulty with all creationists, from bearded-God evangelicals to the subtler intelligent design theorists, is that, while their theory might explain (in some suitably loose meaning of "explain") the existence of life, it utterly fails to explain one crucial aspect of life, viz., the general crappiness of adaptation. That is, what needs explaining is not how well designed we are, but how poorly. And that is something the Creationists can't do, on pain of bleaching God of one of his three main powers. Either he's not omnisicient, not omnipontent, or not omnibenevolent.

Here's a slightly longer version of the painful monkey spine argument.

More entries on:

June 25, 2005

Meanwhile, in Chile...

Posted by mason at 12:05 PM ET | Comments (0)

A proposed open-pit mine to be run by Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold touched off protests early this month of 2,000 each in Santiago and Vallenar, near the mine site. From CorpWatch:

“Barrick! Listen! Chile will not surrender!, No to Pascua Lama!,” roared a crowd of protestors as they paraded through the streets of Santiago, Chile. The crowd was addressing Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold, in response to the company’s proposed bi-national “Pascua Lama” open-pit mine on the border of Chile and Argentina.

In what has so far been the climax of a campaign that is quickly gaining momentum, the protestors gathered on June 4th in both Santiago, Chile’s capital city, and in the northern city of Vallenar, near the Pascua Lama site. Each protest drew an estimated 2,000 people in a lively atmosphere of carnival and traditional dance and ritual. The groups condemned Barrick Gold’s plans as greedy, heavy-handed, and called the proposed mine an environmental and social nightmare, shouting, “We are not a North American colony!”

More entries on:

June 24, 2005

It's the scurvy

Posted by andrew at 11:53 AM ET | Comments (5)

I don't know why anyone bothers blogging when there is Inkless Wells. Everytime Wells declares that he's taking a break and that "blogging will be sporadic for a while," he turns around and unleashes the best stuff anywhere.

Today, he follows his rant against Harper with an annotated reply to one of his critics. Sometimes it's brilliant, but more than anything it's brilliantly dumb:

Why are you so nasty? It's the cocaine.

More entries on:

You gotta admire their cajones

Posted by mason at 11:02 AM ET | Comments (0)

Ever so quietly, the federal budget has been passed. I’m not a fan of the Liberals or their apparent behaviour in AdScam, but I’m pretty impressed with their resourcefulness; they found a little-used procedural motion to force through the budget late last night. Of course, it helps that this is a good budget for Canadians. A national child care program, money for cities, affordable housing investments. A lot of people should be very happy this morning. Aside from folks like Andrew Coyne, that is.

More entries on:

June 23, 2005

Exit Interview for Ethics Commissioner?

Posted by joyceb at 01:43 PM ET | Comments (2)

Regular readers of this blog might remember back in March a little investigative work by Andrew Potter revealed some problems with accountability in the Ethics Commissioner's office.

Seems the Sgro inquiry has taught the Ethics Commissioner a few things. Like it shouldn't take seven months to find an office, hire a staff and make a few follow up inquiries. He's sure he'll be able to complete future inquiries in a more timely manner. Let's hope so, since the Grewal inquiry outwardly appears to have more legs than the Sgro inquiry ever did.

More entries on:

If the blood loss doesn't kill you, the poison will

Posted by joyceb at 01:14 PM ET | Comments (1)

Creationists, please avert your eyes. News from the University of Alberta's school of paleontology today that some of the earliest mammals had a lethally poisonous bite.

From today's Edmonton Journal, the fossil in question belonged to "Bisonalveus browni, a furry, insect-eating creature about the size of a mouse that lived in North America some 60 million years ago, during what is known as the Paleocene Epoch." The specimen was collected in 1991 but was part of a larger fossil lodged in a big hunk of shale. A graduate student noticed a ridge in a tooth, uncovered in 2004, and brought it to the attention of a supervisor, thinking it might be a cavity.

The scientific paper appears in this week's Nature but for full text you'll need a subscription.

This significant scientific discovery (for Canadian scientists) appears nowhere in today's Globe and Mail. I should add too, that if dinosaurs don't float your boat, Nature has full text online of an item entitled, "Jennifer Aniston hits a nerve"

More entries on:

Harpernalia

Posted by john_d at 12:04 PM ET | Comments (6)

I just wanted to take a moment to note Paul Wells’ recent advice to Stephen Harper. “Do something!”

And then go back, way back to a blog posting I made about a month ago. Here’s me in the comments section later:

But seriously folks, does anyone else think that those rumours about a “dump Harper” underbubbling in the Conservative party should now no longer be just rumours if this party has any chance at power in the next election (or three)?

Over the last year and a bit he has been beaten, out-strategized, outplayed, publicly abandoned and then given a whole bunch of rope from which he is right now fashioning a Harper-neck-sized noose. Could they have had a worse leader during this time period? McKay? Stronach? Clement?

So, again, I ask—when does the feeding frenzy on Harper’s, um, behind, begin? The press recognizes it’s coming. The people of Canada are less than impressed with Harper-lite, as is Harper himself.

So, when does Stephen Harper get the phone call in the middle of the night?

More entries on:

Who knew?

Posted by mason at 11:52 AM ET | Comments (4)

I took my time this morning and went to get Live 8 tickets just now, but I've discovered that all of them were snapped up in 25 minutes! How disappointing.

More entries on:

June 20, 2005

Sorry, but god really is dead

Posted by andrew at 11:09 AM ET | Comments (10)

UPDATE: Tabarrok is still clued out. If God suddenly appeared, all lighting bolts etc., the correct scientific reaction would not be "oh, I guess the theists were right all along." It would be: "Gee, I wonder where God came from."

Again, if we can just accept the existence of organised complexity as a brute fact of the matter which needs no further explanation, then why do we need God to explain anything? Let's just accept the existence of life itself as a brute fact that needs no further explanation.

But that would be dumb, right?

******************************
For no apparent reason, Alex Tabarrok over at MR has jumped into the creationism debate.

His conclusion is that both creationism and atheistic evolutionism are consistent positions, but that anyone else (evolutionary theists, or creationist atheists, I guess) is confused.

Here's his take on Paley's old watchmaker argument:

Suppose that you find a watch in the forest. If you know there is no watchmaker then the theory of evolution is a brilliant and compelling explanation for the presence of complexity without design. But suppose that you know a watchmaker exists then surely the simplest and most compelling explanation is that the watchmaker made the watch. Any other explanation, particularly one so improbable (see extension) as evolution would seem to be preposterous and beside the point.

Thus for someone who knows, really knows, that god(s) exists (and there are many people who claim to know that god(s) exists) then some form of creationism (see the extension) follows as a rational deduction from the premises.

The irrefregable reply to this argument is given by Richard Dawkins, about 2/3 of the way through The Blind Watchmaker, and it goes like this:

The creationist says:

1. A watch is something that exhibits organised complexity.
2. Organised complexity requires an explanation.
3. The existence of a watchmaker would suffice as an explanation for the existence of the watch
4. A watchmaker exists
Thus
5. We have a simple, satisfactory explanation for the watch.
Therefore,
6. Creationism is true (and evolution false)

Dawkins' reply is as follows. He begins by accepting the entire argument 1-5 above. But he denies that this entails the conclusion.

Why?

Simple. Because a watchmaker is also something that exhibits organised complexity. This is a classic case of begging the question, i.e. assuming as a premise what you are trying to solve. The entire problem of life stems from the question: "how did we get all of this organised complexity?"

If you can simply posit the existence of organised complexity ("a watchmaker did it!"), then you have not explained anything. You have merely assumed as a premise (the existence of organised complexity) what you are trying to explain.

So, Tabarrok is wrong: Creationism is not a consistent position. Or at least, it is consistent at the price of being utterly vacuous, insofar as the conclusion is included in the premisses.

More entries on:

June 17, 2005

Hindering rational debate: It's the Fraser Institute's way

Posted by mason at 12:50 PM ET | Comments (28)

Any day now the Fraser Institute will come out with its “news” that Tax Freedom Day — a device that is meant to show Canadians when they start “working for themselves” instead of the government — is just around the corner. This year, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has beat them to the punch with a study arguing that TFD is fundamentally flawed, for a number of reasons.

Beyond the criticism of the Fraser Institute’s methodology (criticism that is often lacking from reports on Fraser Institute studies), it is nice to see the CCPA reminding Canadians that we actually do receive good value for our taxes, give or take a political scandal. “With their taxes,” explains the study’s author, “Canadian citizens buy their most valued goods and services: high-quality public schools, world-class universities, excellent medical services, public parks and libraries, safe streets, and livable cities.”

Incidentally, This published an article last year (I believe) pointing out that even if Tax Freedom Day has any merit, a quick calculation shows how little corporate Canada pulls its weight: Tax Freedom Day for corporations is several months earlier than it is for individuals.

More entries on:

June 16, 2005

New ATM Service: Constitutional advice

Posted by andrew at 10:48 AM ET | Comments (5)

The Post today reports on a very interesting new study from the Bank of Nova Scotia, warning that the fiscal arrangements between Ottawa and the provinces are a total mess.

No kidding.

I haven't read the actual study yet, but while some of it sounds a bit iffy (the Bank appears to endorse the notion of a "fiscal imbalance"), it makes some excellent points about the constitutional impropriety of a lot of what the feds are doing.

For example, of Jack Layton's big score on the budget, it says:

The NDP deal, for example, funnels federal spending specifically to post-secondary education and training, affordable housing and energy conservation, areas that provinces would have funded through federal social transfers -- if they so wanted.

Exactly.

And the article ends with an eminently sensible statement from Mary Webb, one of the study's co-authors:

"If a government has the responsibility of raising revenue, then it should be [its] responsibility for spending the revenue. The public is more easily able to understand what's happening."

As is the relevant legislature, for that matter.

More entries on:

June 15, 2005

Sorry, sorry, the phone kept ringing as I tried to leave the house—did I miss anything important?

Posted by john_d at 10:27 AM ET | Comments (1)

Parkdale-High Park MP Sarmite Bulte gives her party a pulse check because she thought it would be okay to NOT be in Ottawa all day when 15 confidence motions were on the schedule. In the end, she made a mad dash into Parliament, having missed some minor votes and just in time for the government busters.

Anything I feel like saying at this point would get me in trouble with somebody on this blog, so I’ll just leave it at that.

More entries on:

June 14, 2005

Prediction: Scarborough Dinner Jackets big in 2007

Posted by joyceb at 03:12 PM ET | Comments (3)

I can't resist. Seems Hugh Jackman has signed on to reprise his role of Wolverine in the eponymous spinoff film, to begin filming once X-Men 3 wraps in late 2005. For fans of the series, this is big news. And in my opinion, Jackman is the best thing about the films, but that's in part because he's playing everyone's favourite mutton-chopped adamantine skeletoned alcoholic amnesiac mutant. A WHOLE FILM about a Canadian super-hero? Cool, eh?

More entries on:

This is Product Placement

Posted by joyceb at 11:40 AM ET | Comments (1)

Some time back in early 2004, the producers of a new dramedy in development for CTV, entitled "Robson Arms" contacted This Magazine for a permission to use the magazine as set dressing. Seems there's a corner shop in the new show and This Magazine fit with the style the designers were hoping to convey. It will be interesting to see, when the show premieres this Friday, what the newsstand in the corner shop looks like after all. (Smart designers: This part of Vancouver would definitely have an indie-dominated newsstand.)

I can't promise I'll last through the whole series but I'll be watching the parade of well-known Canadian TV and film stars, and hoping for a glimpse of some familiar magazine covers (and seeing a worthy brand reaping a little product placement exposure). Here's hoping the producers have achieved what they promised: a cross between Melrose Place (so passe, surely now they would say Desperate Housewives) and Coronation Street.

More entries on:

Grande en Espana

Posted by andrew at 11:22 AM ET | Comments (0)

For the none of you who care, Rebelarse Vende is sitting at number 9 on the El Mundo charts, and will be no. 4 in El Periodico de Catalunya when their list is released on Thursday.

More entries on:

Britain, Save Thyself

Posted by andrew at 11:09 AM ET | Comments (5)

Given the cheering coming from the more chauvinistic precincts of the British press, one would think that May 29th was Agincourt, Trafalgar, and Waterloo rolled into one. The French had barely had barely finished shrugging non to the proposed European constitution before the Eurosceptics started gloating. Mark Steyn captured the spirit with a column in the Telegraph, in which he observed that the proposed constitution had been flushed down "the Eurinal of history".

This is somewhat understandable, since there is much to the criticisms leveled against the EU. The eurozone economies are doing poorly, the stability and growth pact is a failure, and Brussels is a utopian, bureaucratic, dirigiste, and unrepresentative sort of place. What is curious though is the notion, which has quickly gained significant support, that somehow Britain is poised to "liberate" Europe. The June 4th edition of The Economist celebrated "the Europe that died," and argued that "the one to save" would have to be based on the "Anglo-Saxon" model of decentralization and economic liberalization. The June 4th edition of The Spectator went even further, arguing in its cover story ("Britain Can Liberate Europe") that Britain was the only country, and Tony Blair the only leader, in any position to get Europe on the way to a more decentralized, democratic, and liberal future.

Yet it isn't like all is well in Albion. Sure, the economy is doing great, with a growth rate double that of the Euro-zone and unemployment less than half that of France. But Britain is also beset by a deep social and cultural malaise which many Europeans might well perceive as stemming from the alienating and dislocating effects of that same liberal, pro-growth economic model. Furthermore, the British government has responded to this crisis in such a decidedly heavy-handed and illiberal fashion that one might plausibly argue that Britain is a country as much in need of liberation as any other place in Europe.

Anyone who travels to England these days invariably returns with horror stories of quiet evening walks disrupted by outrageous scenes of mass public drunkenness. The problem of "binge drinking," and the accompanying crime, violence, and social chaos, reached epidemic proportions over the winter, prompting the government to put together an emergency legislative package. Last month, a British shopping mall introduced a ban on teenagers wearing hooded sweatshirts ("hoodies") as a way of dealing with vandalism and a bizarrely futuristic form of harassment called "happy slapping." This involves groups of teens running up and slapping unsuspecting kids or passersby, capturing the whole scene on cameraphones, and emailing it around or posting it on the web.

The hoodie ban received the enthusiastic support of Tony Blair. This is unsurprising: In 1998, Blair's government passed the Crime and Disorder Act, which introduced the notorious "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders," or "Asbos". In order to be served with an Asbo, an individual need not actually commit a crime. All that is required is that a judge be satisfied that the person has committed an act which "causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress." Asbos are designed to prevent drunkenness, intimidation, and other non-criminal forms of behaviour from ruining community life, and while the orders involve civil, not criminal, sanctions, breaches of an Asbo are punishable by up to five years in prison.

The UK press has had fun detailing the many ridiculous orders that have been served, from the woman who is no longer allowed to garden in her underwear to the new rule that allows local councils to fine people who let their hedges grow too high. Amusing, sure, but there is a serious problem here. The country is in the midst of a major social crisis, and the only way anyone can think to deal with it is through nanny-state measures and restrictions on civil rights. Violent crime was up 17% in Britain last year, and an editorial in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal suggested that it might help to ban the sale of kitchen knives with pointy ends. This, too, has met with widespread derision, but the Journal's instincts are essentially no different from those of the Blair government, which appears not to have encountered a social problem that could not be solved through a healthy restriction on individual liberty.

Since the double rejection of the EU constitution by the French and the Dutch, the European project has met with some heavy criticism from the rather self-satisfied British. On June 9th, Europe returned the favour, in the form of a report from the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, Alvaro Gil-Robles. Responding in part to the use of Asbos and other forms of legislated social control, Mr. Gil-Robles condemned the Blair government for its dangerous tendency to "consider human rights as excessively restricting the effective administration of justice and the protection of the public interest."

But surely the British don't need some Eurocrat to tell them that the famous hereditary rights of Englishmen are endangered. Or do they? For all the recent sniping across the Channel, perhaps Europe and the UK need one another more than they like to admit.

More entries on:

the challenges of planting seeds

Posted by mason at 01:31 AM ET | Comments (2)

Something tells me Andrew will enjoy this article on the left's inability to even plant seeds properly. Nice find from an alternative news site run by a Toronto coffee shop.

More entries on:

June 13, 2005

Sith Sucks

Posted by andrew at 12:44 PM ET | Comments (7)

Despite promise to self, I broke down last night and went to see the new Star Wars movie. Expectations were extraordinarily low, and only reinforced by the sure judgement of the magnificent Anthony Lane.

But it was 30 degrees at street level last night, about 10 higher in The Sauna on Rue Villenueve, so I headed to the cheapest air conditioner I could find.

I don't have much to add to the criticisms. It is a brutally cynical movie, a total bore from start to finish, made by a man with a wax ear for dialogue, a buttery grasp on mechanics of plot, and a Californian disregard for consistency. blah blah blah, my childhood has been betrayed, etc.

But there is one scene that, IMO, illustrates how collossally brain-dead George Lucas is.

SPOILER AFTER THE JUMP

It occurs in the final act, as Obi-Wan and Anakin are fighting to the near-death in the mines of Mordor, and Anakin says something like, "Either you're with me, or you are my enemy." And Obi-Wan says, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."

This is an obvious, and pretty clumsy, anti-Bush statement. As such, it got a big cheer from the Montreal crowd at my screening. But it is ridiculous for two reasons.

First: A film like this relies more heavily than most on the suspension of disbelief (a friend of mine still can't get past the line, "Bring the Princess and the Wookie to my ship" from Empire). This line immediately jerks you from a galaxy far far away to the front pages of the morning paper. Idiotic.

Second, and worse: It makes no sense, since the jedi worldview -- indeed, the entire SW universe -- is based on a Manichean battle between opposing forces of darkness and light. There is a "good" side to the force, and a "dark" side. There are good guys, and evil (not "bad" -- evil guys. The whole 6-movie series is about the battle between absolutes.

For Lucas to put that line in the mouth of Obi-Wan Kenobi, in the climactic scene of the entire prequel trilogy, shows one of two things. Either a) he's an incredibly stupid man who does not understand his own creation, or b) he's an incredibly cynical man, willing to score a cheap political point even at the cost of demolishing the metaphysical basis of his imagined universe.

Either way, Luke Skywalker said it best:

What a piece of junk.

More entries on:

Gold Medal Win: Essays

Posted by joyceb at 10:09 AM ET | Comments (5)

Congratulations to This Magazine writer Bill Reynolds for his Gold Medal win at Friday's National Magazine Awards. "Crossing the Line" won Gold in the Essays category.

More entries on:

June 10, 2005

Reason for optimism?

Posted by mason at 09:59 AM ET | Comments (8)

I couldn't help but be buoyed by news this morning that the Killer B's, Bush and Blair, have come to an agreement on forgiving debt for the poorest countries in Africa and Latin America. The deal is expected to be approved by the G8 finance ministers this weekend, and would write off $16.7-billion (US) "owed" to foreign lenders such as the IMF and the World Bank.

To me, this is a necessary step in reducing poverty the world over, especially since this money was first lent with extremely restrictive conditions attached, conditions such as "deregulation" (read: privatization) of many industries, which made it nearly impossible for borrowers to become self-sufficient.

But as Naomi Klein points out in The Guardian, real eradication of poverty in Africa will only occur if African people are allowed to control their own resources.

More entries on:

June 09, 2005

Nous sommes tous Liberaux

Posted by andrew at 04:58 PM ET | Comments (2)

"We're not going to have a two-tier health-care system in this country. Nobody wants that," Martin told reporters in Ottawa.

Of course not. Why would anyone want that? Certainly not after last summer's Health Care Summit, in which he used the fabulous instrument of "cooperative federalism" to fix Health Care For A Generation.

Earth to The Headwaiter: Lots of people want two-tiered health care, not least of all the dude who took the issue to the Supreme Court.

More entries on:

June 08, 2005

USA Fact of the Day, or, Why Conservatism is Winning in America

Posted by andrew at 08:17 AM ET | Comments (4)

Voter turnout in US Presidential elections, among the 4 million NRA members: 95%

That's from The Right Nation, a book that is educating me on every page.

More entries on:

June 06, 2005

Mariah Carey, Ethnic Singer

Posted by andrew at 02:40 PM ET | Comments (13)

Here's something that has me completely stumped. If anyone can explain to me what, if anything, is wrong with this picture, I'll be very grateful:

Live 8 Outrage Over 'Hideously White' Line-Up
by Zoe Street

London campaign group Black Information Link has torn into Live 8 for not including enough black performers in the London line-up, claiming it is "hideously white".

The beautifully bonkers Mariah Carey is so far the only ethnic minority performer confirmed for the July 2 gig in Hyde Park, although the other Live 8 performances worldwide boast more of a culturally diverse line up - such as Youssou N'Dour in Paris and 50 Cent, P Diddy and Jay- Z in Philadelphia.

But the angry campaigners accuse the rock event's organisers of "handpicking a virtually all-white line-up" for Britain's offering, although Sir Bob Geldof insists he has approached "a number of urban and black artists to participate," with little success, as many were commited elsewhere, reports the BBC.

Black muso and creator of BBC drama 'Babyfather' Patrick Augustus, fumes that Afro-Caribbean artists have been "totally excluded."

He rants, "It seems like the great white man has come to rescue us while the freedom fighters never get a mention.

"Where are the reggae artists that have been campaigning for truth and justice over all these years?

UPDATE: Well, someone smarter and funnier than me has figured this one out. But I suspect most of you aren't going to like it.
CAUTION: CONTAINS MARK STEYN.

More entries on:

what price frame?

Posted by andrew at 10:41 AM ET | Comments (6)

Given the obscene mess that is federal politics in Canada, it is tempting to take very little of what goes on in Ottawa at all seriously. But when it comes to getting my head around this story, I have to keep pausing to pick my jaw up off the floor.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Conservatives set out to frame the Health Minister and the PMO. Gurmant Grewal engaged the government in negotiations to sell his vote in Parliament, taped the proceedings, then hung on to the tapes for almost two weeks after releasing a ten minute "incriminating" snippet. Then they released versions of the tapes that some dozen independent experts assert have been edited and spliced.

All of this with the approval of Stephen Harper.

WTF?

If this is indeed what has happened, this is an unbelieveable exercise in perfidy that dwarfs (I'm clearly searching for words here -- where's a poet when you need one) anything the Libs have done, including the sponsorship scandal.

Two further consequences, if, indeed, this is what happened:

1. Andrew Coyne's credibility as a commentator on national affairs is shot all to hell.

2. The Conservatives should -- and will -- remain out of power for a generation to come.

Maybe Belinda is smarter than I thought.

UPDATE: Whoops -- sorry to step on Degen's post on the same topic. That's what happenes when you don't "refresh" your browser. He indirectly asks an interesting question: given the crapola, why are the NDP stuck at 20% in the polls?

More entries on:

Searching for Signs of Intelligent Life

Posted by john_d at 09:33 AM ET | Comments (13)

A piece in the Globe this morning asserts that the Grewal tapes were definitely altered, and not accidentally during a digital audio transfer. How did the audio expert put it? Like this:

“These tapes have been edited. This is not a maybe. This is not something that’s unexplained. This is not, ‘Oh, this is odd.’ This is a definitive statement. The tapes have been edited,” Mr. Mitchell said.”

So, I’m back to wondering about this legendary intelligence inside Stephen Harper’s brain, the stuff I’ve been hearing so much about from the folks trying to sell him as “the only” alternative to the Liberals. The only alternative, other than the NDP, who as far as I can tell have not engaged in surreptitious taping for entrapment purposes, then held onto the tapes a weirdly long time (like the amount of time it would take to edit them properly to get rid of anything self-incriminating), then released the clearly edited tapes thereby guaranteeing they leave for the summer recess inside a cloud of stink of their own making.

Nope, seems to me the NDP haven’t done anything like that, ever. Too bad they’re not a viable alternative to either of the parties caught on tape, otherwise Canada would have a clear path out of the politics of crapola.

Anyway, if anyone spots any signs of intelligence, let the rest of us know, please.

More entries on:

June 03, 2005

Chantal For PM

Posted by andrew at 12:21 PM ET | Comments (1)

The sublime Ms. Hebert unloads on the Headwaiter:

Some of Martin's cabinet loyalists are now quietly questioning whether their loyalty to him is in conflict with their duty to the country -- and so probably should the rest of us.

More entries on:

Oh, that's rich ... and creamy

Posted by patricia at 09:03 AM ET | Comments (1)

It seems the people at Starbucks have finally realized the challenges they inflicted on the caffine-deprived when they changed the lingo for ordering coffee -- because they have produced a manual for ordering a Starbucks beverage.

Called "Make it Your Drink," this 24-page little booklet has a helpful glossary, diagrams, even a sample fill-in-the-blank order (I'd like to have an iced, decaf, triple, grande, cinnamon, skim, no-whip mocha) to save you time at the counter.

Now, not being a regular Starbucks customer myself, I really have no idea whether this pocket-size manual is actually new. But I picked one up in an east Toronto SB after ordering a $2.65 iced tea and discovering, to my horror, that a shaken iced tea actually costs more than a one that's, I don't know, left still. By the way, the booklet has no explanation for that.

I did learn, however, that "Doppio" is Italian for double, but it's used only to refer to a two-shot espresso. (So one orders a doppio espresso con panna, but a double latte.)

I also learned that triple, grand, decaf latte people aren't the same as tall, iced, caramel macchiato drinkers. My guess is that they both spend a lot on coffee.

Anyway, the brilliance of the booklet is the helpful back-page, which lets you write in your order (helpfully, it allows for five lines of text) so that you can just show the card to the barista and save yourself the trouble of learning Italian.

I'd try it myself, but I don't drink coffee.

More entries on:

June 02, 2005

Tell me about your brands

Posted by andrew at 03:32 PM ET | Comments (10)

I've been interested lately in the phenomenon of the "cult brand" or the "brand hijack." This is brand loyalty with a twist: instead of passively adopting a brand and its corporate-defined identity, consumers are taking a more active role in manipulating, sustaining, and promoting the meanings of their favourite brands. The most obvious example of a cult brand is the Apple iPod (for which there are hundreds of mods, hacks and tributes available, from gum-wrapper carrying cases to an iPod coffee table) but brands like eBay, Amazon, and Starbucks have equally fanatical and dedicated fanbases.

Today, I've been reading the book "Brand Hijack" which is much better than the usual gee-whiz marketing book. It has some genuinely insightful stuff to say about the changing nature of consumerism and identity in the weird wired world.

I'm writing a piece on the topic for the Wonderful New Toronto Sunday Star, so I'll link to that soon. But in the meantime, I was wondering if people would be willing to help me engage in a bit of armchair market research. What are your favourite brands? That is, what brands do you like, not because you like the product, but because it reflects your values, your identity, or permits a sense of community?

Feel free to interpret "brand" in the widest possible sense. So, it includes not just shoes and cornflakes and coffee and electronics, but also services (Hotmail, Orkut, Friendster), cultural works and franchises (Star Wars, Lego), organisations and community groups (Linux, Creative Commons) and so on.

Post here, or email me at apotter70@gmail.com

UPDATE: Here's some reading, to get those ideas flowing.

1. James Surowieki on The Decline of Brands

2. Business Week on The Culting of Brands

3. Der Speigel on the hijacking of brands by skinheads.

More entries on:

June 01, 2005

France, Europe, and America

Posted by andrew at 11:30 AM ET | Comments (15)

In trying to understand the nature of the European Union, France's place in it, and its relation to Britain and the United States, I have been reading the following books:

Encyclopedie, by Phillip Blom. A good account of the publication of the famously subersive Encyclopedia, starring my favourite philosophe, Denis Diderot.

The Roads to Modernity, by Gertrude Himmelfarb. A revisionist and slightly reactionary take on the British, French, and American enlightenments. Helpful, because Himmelfarb is an American conservative (married to Irving Kristol), and her hostility to the French Enlightenment is a good example of how deep the estrangement between France and America runs.

Democracy in Europe, by Larry Siedentop. One of the best books I've read on any topic in the past five years. Siedentop is an Oxford don who has written an excellent primer on the constitutional options open to Europe: an English-style loose association, a German-style federation, or a French-style rule by bureaucracy.

I have also picked up The Right Nation, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge. The authors are from the Economist; their aim to to explain how the "American exception" has taken the country so far to the right so as to become incomprehensible to Europe.

Don Quixote, by Cervantes. Because there's a new edition from HarperCollins. And because Spain is awesome.

Anyway, this is what I'll be doing instead of blogging for a while.

More entries on:

Previous month: May 2005
Next month: July 2005

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

June 27, 2005

Home is where the rock is

my kind of headline writer

my painful monkey spine

June 25, 2005

Meanwhile, in Chile...

June 24, 2005

It's the scurvy

You gotta admire their cajones

June 23, 2005

Exit Interview for Ethics Commissioner?

If the blood loss doesn't kill you, the poison will

Harpernalia

Who knew?

June 20, 2005

Sorry, but god really is dead

June 17, 2005

Hindering rational debate: It's the Fraser Institute's way

June 16, 2005

New ATM Service: Constitutional advice

June 15, 2005

Sorry, sorry, the phone kept ringing as I tried to leave the house—did I miss anything important?

June 14, 2005

Prediction: Scarborough Dinner Jackets big in 2007

This is Product Placement

Grande en Espana

Britain, Save Thyself

the challenges of planting seeds

June 13, 2005

Sith Sucks

Gold Medal Win: Essays

June 10, 2005

Reason for optimism?

June 09, 2005

Nous sommes tous Liberaux

June 08, 2005

USA Fact of the Day, or, Why Conservatism is Winning in America

June 06, 2005

Mariah Carey, Ethnic Singer

what price frame?

Searching for Signs of Intelligent Life

June 03, 2005

Chantal For PM

Oh, that's rich ... and creamy

June 02, 2005

Tell me about your brands

June 01, 2005

France, Europe, and America