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

The 2005 Canadian Blog Awards are being voted on right now, with dozens of nominees in 15 categories. Nominees who have been mentioned here at Blog This include: Inkless Wells, Warren Kinsella, mblog, Calgary Grit and Antonia Zerbisias. My own personal favourites include Torontoist for Best Group Blog and Daily Dose of Imagery for Best Photo Blog.

The awards are hosted by Robert McClelland, a frequent visitor here.

One quibble with the awards: What’s the benefit of allowing people to vote once a day? Why not just one vote per IP address? I’m happy to vote once, but more than that seems like a waste of time to me… not to mention an opportunity for ballot-box stuffing. (I know, you’d have to be pretty sad to stuff a blog awards virtual box, but still.)

Anyway, cast your votes today and check back next week for the results of Round 1. And I’m curious: what notable blogs have been left off the list?

More entries on:

and they’re off… Harper, really off

Posted by john_d at 09:58 AM ET | Comments (9)

Day one of the campaign aaannnnd... the Tories would re-open the debate on same sex marriage, according to this front pager in the Globe this morning.

Try, at least, to win, Mr. Harper. Not that I want you to win, but for your own sense of pride, please try to win.

More entries on:

November 29, 2005

Keep it clean? Not likely

Posted by mason at 02:05 PM ET | Comments (4)

Today’s MediaScout column from Maisonneuve magazine implores the country’s news reporters to resist the urge to perpetuate a negative campaign this winter:

“MediaScout would like to issue a challenge to each and every journalist who will be covering this campaign. If you actually care about the interests of Canadians, if you actually value the role of a responsible press in a democracy, you will walk away from the mud. Every time a politician starts a personal attack on his or her opponent, put down your pen, turn off your tape recorder and walk away. When Stephen Harper talks about the Liberal link to organized crime, go get something to eat. When Paul Martin accuses Harper of having a hidden agenda, go for a smoke break. A negative campaign needs coverage to survive. By walking away from it, maybe the politicians will realize that Canadians want ideas, not name-calling.”

Sounds nice, but I think it’s one of those easier said than done scenarios. When your editor sends you out to get the most compelling stories of the day, when every other reporter in town is going to report that Scott Brison said Peter MacKay dresses in women’s underwear, what reporter who values her job will fail to write about it? Nice try, MediaScout, but wishful thinking.

More entries on:

Currently...

Posted by andrew at 08:59 AM ET | Comments (8)

I just caught Deb Gray, Carolyn Parrish, Daniel Turp, and Buzz Hargrove doing the usual partisan panelist thing on The Current. The winners: Grey and Turp. Loser: Parrish. Huge loser: Hargrove.

Turp won largely because his favoured party, the BQ, is sitting at 53% in the Queb polls and is going to come close to sweeping the province. He also got to bask in the disgust that the other panelists were willing to express over the sponsorship scandal.

Grey won because she repeatedly skewered Hargrove. Hargrove made it clear he didn't want an election, giving reasons such as 1) Canadians are worried about their pensions, and this parliament was the only chance to make things work, and 2) the election is a waste of $300 million.

Hargrove's arguments were bugs under the wheels of Grey's Harley of Logic. First, she pointed out that Hargrove was falling into the classic Liberal trap of portraying themselves as the only party the NDP can do business with, indeed, as the only possible party of government. Nice work, Buzz. Now Jack understands better the regular flight of NDP voters to the Libs.

As for the $300 million pricetag: We can't have an election because it costs too much? What a classic losers move. As Grey noted, Parliament itself only appears to run on hot air. Besides (says Deb, moving in for the kill), what about the $1 billion a day in pork that the Libs were dishing out?

When he wasn't doing his level best to endorse perpetual Liberal government in Ottawa, Hargrove was giving succour to separatists. Asked how his union's membership was going to vote in Quebec, Hargrove replied that they were mostly going to vote for the Bloc. "And I can't blame them," he said, given the nauseating way the Liberals had tried to buy their votes with measly sponsorships. In fact, (said Buzz), "If I lived in Quebec I'd have a hard time not voting for the Bloc myself."

Cue Turp lotflhao.

Parrish didn't say much for a change, but when she did it was as idiotic as always. Protesting a winter election, she said that when the weather is bad, only the extremists will vote: "The 55-year old white male is the one who is going to trudge out into the snow, and he votes Tory."

More entries on:

November 28, 2005

"woohooo" depository

Posted by andrew at 03:29 PM ET | Comments (13)

Please use the comments section of this post for all Grey Cup wooohooing. You may also use it to wooohooo w/r/t hockey results, non-confidence motions, and any other pressing matters of local, national, or international importance.

More entries on:

Hawvawd, you say?

Posted by john_d at 11:40 AM ET | Comments (8)

Oh boy, and I live in this riding. Looks like Harvard boy Michael Ignatieff is being parachuted into Etobicoke-Lakeshore by the Liberals. Hmmmm, I was walking the lakeshore just yesterday and I DID see an ominous black helicopter hovering, but thought nothing of it at the time. From a press release on Warren Kinsella’s blog:

IGNATIEFF CANDIDACY STRONGLY PROTESTED

Media Release (27 November 2005) – Toronto

After prolonged speculation about whether and where he would run, Michael Ignatieff appears to have found himself a safe haven in Etobicoke-Lakeshore…

The intended coronation of Mr. Ignatieff, a virulent Ukrainophobe, is offensive to the numerous Ukrainian Canadian residents of the riding, many of whom have been members of the riding association for many years and form more than one half of the membership of the riding association.

Ukrainophobe. That’s a new one on me. I am soooo looking forward to the all-candidates meetings.

More entries on:

November 27, 2005

Olympic blues... already

Posted by mason at 11:48 AM ET | Comments (0)

Cap in hand, Vancouver Olympic organizers are considering going to the federal and provincial governments for more money to build Olympic venues. Like many large projects in B.C., it looks like this one is going to go over budget… and it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s late, too.

Here’s my favourite quote from the story:

“He [John Furlong, Olympic organizing committee head] noted that the original bid was put together based on 2002 dollars -- and that by the time construction wraps up, the venues will have been paid for in 2007 dollars.”

Well, jeepers! That sounds like the kind of thing that could have been planned for back in 2002. You are an *organizing* committee, aren’t you?

All this begs the following question: Will the supposed benefits of the Olympics be worth the ever-increasing price? I guess we’ll see…

More entries on:

November 25, 2005

maybe he needs a medicare card

Posted by andrew at 10:37 AM ET | Comments (7)

Black, who in a speech four years ago called his Canadian citizenship an "impediment to my progress in another, more amenable jurisdiction (Britain)," now contends the government should grant his request because his parents were born in Canada.

I say let him have his citizenship back. In fact, I say appoint him to the Senate.

More entries on:

Celebrate with This

Posted by mason at 10:25 AM ET | Comments (5)

NOW SHOWING!

CLIPS, COCKTAILS and KICKIN' OUT THE JAMS

Celebrate This Magazine's annual culture issue with an evening devoted to Canadian film!

Join us for a roundtable discussion on the future of Canadian cinema featuring: filmmakers, Clement Virgo (Lie With Me), Andrea Dorfman (Parsley Days), Ruba Nadda (Sabah) and documentarian, Judy Jackson (The Ungrateful Dead).

After the panel, stick around for music by DJ Sasha (The Scandelles, Eye Weekly), fabulous PRIZES for film-savvy folks, drinks and more!

Wednesday November 30
The Social
1100 Queen St. W (at Dovercourt)
8:00 p.m. doors, 8:30 p.m. panel
$5 admission (includes a copy of our November/December issue)

THAT'S A WRAP!

For more information contact Emily Schultz or Karen Darricades, This Magazine, (416) 979-8400

More entries on:

November 24, 2005

THIS Day in Parliament

Posted by john_d at 09:04 AM ET | Comments (0)

Canada Steamship Lines

Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, former Canada Steamship Lines’ chief engineers recently pulled back the veil of secrecy on CSL operations. CSL ships, they report, have been dumping tonnes of ore pellets into the Great Lakes when no one was looking. Sierra Club director, Elizabeth May, said that it was illegal. The present Prime Minister agreed in 1990 when he said, “Poisoning the water is a crime and persistent and wilful polluters must be treated as criminals and criminals must go to jail”.

When will the Prime Minister commit his government to pursue legal action against CSL for polluting our Great Lakes?

Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government takes the quality of our lakes and the environment very seriously and acts assiduously. The Coast Guard of course does this, as well as Transport Canada.

My hon. colleague should support the measures this government has taken in this regard.

Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, he missed the point. Canada Steamship Lines broke the law. It illegally dumped tonnes of ore pellets into the Great Lakes when no one was looking, and apparently not even the Prime Minister when he held active management of CSL.

Mark Mattson, water quality watchdog, said, “You can’t put anything on the bottom of the lake…. There is no way around the laws…, unless perhaps one becomes a cabinet minister or a prime minister.

Canada Steamship Lines repeatedly broke the law. Why will the Prime Minister not commit his government to legal action against CSL? Is the family business entitled to pollute?

Hon. Stephane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody is above the law. Everybody must respect the law. If anything happens in this country that is outside the law we act because we have regulations. It is because we have an environmental policy, something that the Conservative Party is unable to imagine.

The Environment

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, back in 1990 when the Prime Minister was the environment critic for his party, he said that criminal polluters would go to jail. Now we have learned, according to people who used to work at his shipping empire, Canada Steamship Lines, that when he uttered those words, tonnes of ore pellets were being dumped by the Prime Minister’s shipping empire into the Great Lakes, poisoning the water.

Canadians are used to two standards, one for normal Canadians and another one for Liberals who seem to be above the law. I would like to give the government an opportunity to say that it will investigate and prosecute the Prime Minister’s family empire for poisoning the Great Lakes.

Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government treats every Canadian the same. I find it remarkable and hypocritical to hear that party that opposes every environmental measure this government brings forward talk about the environment.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, lectures on hypocrisy from the Liberals.

The Prime Minister said, “poisoning the water is a crime and persistent and wilful polluters must be treated as criminals”. He said the same thing about the ad scam Liberals but none of them have gone to jail. Why is it that whenever a Liberal breaks the law it is okay, but ordinary Canadians have to pay the price?

It is a very simple question. Will the government in its dying days show that it has learned something from ad scam, that there is one rule of law in this country, and prosecute the Prime Minister’s shipping empire for poisoning our water?

Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is no more than empty rhetoric. No one is above the law and due process will follow. For that party that opposes every environmental measure to raise an issue like this is sheer hypocrisy.

More entries on:

November 23, 2005

That’s Called a Home Run

Posted by john_d at 02:48 PM ET | Comments (19)

In today’s question period, Conservative MP Jeff Watson (Essex), quoted directly from Alex Roslin's THIS Magazine story when asking the Liberal government if they would start an immediate criminal investigation into Canada Steamship Lines’ routine and illegal dumping of excess cargo into the Great Lakes. And I quote (from memory):

“Or, is the family business allowed to pollute?”

Stephane Dion, Minister of the Environment, looking like he’d just been hoofed in the gut, began his reply with the words:

“Mr. Speaker, no one is above the law…”

The rest of his response was drowned out by catcalls and boos.

Welcome to the election, folks.

Go, now and sign our petition about CSL’s Cargo Sweeping into the Great Lakes. Make the Prime Minister answer for his shoddy environmental record.

UPDATE: Apparently Jason Kenney also slammed the Libs on this issue in QP today. I got too excited by Jeff Watson's question and started blogging right away. I'll grab the Kenney question from Hansard tomorrow and post it.

More entries on:

NDP strategy

Posted by andrew at 10:26 AM ET | Comments (13)

The Calgary Grit is preparing the ground for the election by going previewing election strategies for each party. I'd considered doing something similar but I'm L.A.Z.Y., so good for him. His first recommendation is that Layton make the idea of NDP/Conservative cooperation look safe, to avoid a flight of NDP votes to the Libs. Here's the rest of his advice:

Other Advice: 1. Don't forget the corruption issue. 2. Emphasize how your party tried to "make parliament work". 3. Look statesmanlike during debates. From all indication, there could be four debates this time, and with fewer candidates going door to door in the cold, the national campaign will take on greater importance. 4. Be frank about your prospects - you aren't going to win and everybody knows this. Be blunt about wanting to be the balance of power. 5. Watch out for the Green Party.

A Conservative minority supported by the NDP is not such a crazy idea. Until the Cons went all Republican, the NDP routinely preferred Conservative governments to Liberals. Their aren't a lot of Red Tories left in Canada, but the biggest Red Tory in the world is president of the United States, except he calls it "compassionate conservatism".

At any rate, the NDP and Cons can agree on much. The Cons favour radical decentralisation of the country, esp. w/r/t Quebec. For its part, the NDP in Quebec is lousy with separatists who would be more than happy to see still more federal power and cash downloaded to la belle province.

But if I were Jack Layton, I'd support a Harper minority on a single issue: electoral reform, in particular, a move to some sort of PR. He could justify it to his supporters by saying look, this Parliament will last only as long as we can change the electoral system, then we'll go to the polls again under a whole new set of rules that would change Canadian politics forever.

More entries on:

November 22, 2005

Much. Finer.

Posted by at 02:01 PM ET | Comments (4)

I once made a list of fun things to do while on a conference call. I can't find that list now, sadly, because I could really use it. But I remember a few things on it, like:

"Have a dance party for one"

"Pee, and then flush the toilet with your toes while leaning out the bathroom door so no one can hear"

and

"Try to figure out what the hell the Second Wave Feminists are talking about (except Judy Rebick, who is always awesome)".

I made this list in collaboration with another Third Waver friend of mine. At the time, she was on the board of a national pro-choice organization, and I was on the board of MediaWatch. Now, in all seriousness, I have nothing bad to say about my time with MediaWatch. Okay, at my first meeting we fired the Executive Director and at least one person burst into tears, but from then on in it was fairly awesome. My friend's experience was not so great. Even though she was regularly the only woman on the calls who a) Had ever performed an abortion, and b) Was actually still of child-bearing age, she ended up leaving the board after accidently being cc'ed on an email that said "[XXX] seems to not really know her place".

It seemed that her place was to be the young person who didn't talk, while the rest of the women seemed to almost wish abortion would become illegal again, so they could fight to make it legal. It's all that they seemed to know how to do.

Okay, wait. I'm not a total jerk. I'm coming at this very one sided, because I need the preamble.

Basically, it seems like maybe NAC is being put back together. Or at least possibly put back together. And I'm on the advisory committee. At my first NAC-related event, a focus group in Halifax, we did a go-round to sort of say who we all were, and why we were feminists, and what our involvement was, etc etc etc. Mine went sort of like this:

"Hi, so I'm Audra and I run a feminist communications company called Lefty Lucy Communications and one of the ways I think I approach feminism is in the possible impact it can have on culture, and how that's really great and mobilizing. Like, all the young feminists I know, and I'm talking about SUPER AWESOME WOMEN, have this crazy crisis of confidence. For example? There is this great Le Tigre song and the chorus is all 'Please tell your friends I'm still a feminist, but I won't be coming to your benefit, I give up, I give up, I'll be at home today'. And when this song came out, my flatmate -- who is a DOCTOR -- and one of my best friends -- WHO IS AN EDITOR -- were both like 'Holy crap this is our ANTHEM!', and it really struck me. You know? These fantastic women, and they just feel so overwhelmed, and isolated, and then they hear this song, and it's so fantastic! It really kick starts you to feel you're not the only one who thinks she's a total fraud."

Okay, that was ALMOST my answer. Except about 2/3rds of the way through I got cut off by the facilitator. But not because I was talking too long. Lots of women talked far longer than I did. But just because, like, I wasn't speaking their language. At ALL. Everyone else was rhyming off acronyms she'd been involved with, or things like that. It was so awful! Because I had been trying to say how lost young women feel in this movement, but I didn't get the chance to finish.

I AM ALMOST DONE.

So now there is a plenary session (note to self: find out what a plenary session is) coming up for NAC. And, after frank feedback from me about my feelings at the focus group (the woman who was running it fully apologized to me, FYI), I have been asked to facilitate a session called "Engaging a Diversity of Equity-Seeking Women's Constituencies- Younger Women" (I didn't choose that title). And I'm freaking out. I feel like I'm going to be found out as the biggest poseur ever. I have no idea what to say/do!

I realize this is more hand-wringy than news-disecty, by the way. I won't always be like this. Probably. But right now, This Is What A Feminist Sounds Like.

More entries on:

Introducing Audra

Posted by mason at 01:26 PM ET | Comments (0)

Blog This has a new blogger, our first voice from Canada's East Coast. Audra is her name, and she runs a progressive communications company out of Halifax called Lefty Lucy Communications. Follow the links on her site and check out the story of how she helped get the Government of Nova Scotia to discontinue tourism ads that were being broadcast on the reality TV show The Swan.

Looking forward to your contributions to the blog, Audra. Welcome!

More entries on:

November 21, 2005

Here’s An Election Issue For You!

Posted by john_d at 05:08 PM ET | Comments (4)

According to a recent story in THIS Magazine, Canada Steamship Lines has been routinely dumping excess cargo, much of which is toxic, into the Great Lakes for decades. CSL’s links to Prime Minister Paul Martin are well-documented.

This disgusting, polluting practice, known as cargo sweeping, is decidedly illegal according to a number of national and international laws and agreements.* The Great Lakes are a primary source of drinking water for millions of Canadians and many more Americans.

We think a company owned by the Canadian Prime Minister should:

Respect The Law, and

Respect Our Water

Tell the Prime Minister what you think of Canada Steamship Lines’ cargo sweeping practice — go and sign our online petition at this link. Your name will be included in our full petition, delivered directly to the Prime Minister's office.

Remember also to copy the text of the petition and send it, with your name, to all the addresses below. Let’s make this coming election ABOUT SOMETHING other than tax cuts!

Opposition Environment Critics:

Bob Mills, Conservative, Mills.B@parl.gc.ca

Joe Comartin, NDP (Great Lakes Ecosystem critic), comarj@parl.gc.ca

Nathan Cullen, NDP (Environment critic), cullen@parl.gc.ca

Bernard Bigras, Bloc (Environment critic), Bigras.B@parl.gc.ca

A bit more background:

Canada has not yet signed onto the Marpol V Accord, a UN sponsored international agreement effectively banning cargo sweeping. Why not? Is it because our own Prime Minister cannot live up to the Accord’s principle that our water resources are precious?

For more information about cargo sweeping in the Great Lakes, read Sweeping it Under, by Alex Roslin in the September/October issue of THIS Magazine.

PLEASE COPY the link for this petition and distribute it widely.

*Standards, agreements and/or existing laws being potentially violated include: Canada Fisheries Act, U.S. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, Ontario Water Resources Act, Ontario Public Lands Act, Marpol V Accord of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, NAFTA.

Please Note: When we say please sign our petition, we mean John Degen and Mason Wright's petition. The only affiliation between our petition and THIS Magazine is that Mason and I happen to be bloggers here, and we both read the story in THIS and were disgusted enough to create this funky online movement.

Ship image and online petition created by Mason Wright. Petetion written by John Degen. Thanks to Phillip Smith of Community Bandwidth for coding consultation.

More entries on:

boisclair

Posted by andrew at 09:58 AM ET | Comments (6)

For many Quebecers, the election of Andre Boisclair as leader of the PQ is a sign of the relative maturity of the Quebec electorate compared with people in the ROC. After all, Boisclair is young and handsome, gay, and has admitted to using cocaine while he was a PQ cabinet minister. Attempts by his political opponents to tar him with the cokehead brush went nowhere; in fact, all indications are that his popularity increased after he admitted to it.

Boisclair provides an interesting window into the Quebecois political mind. The distinction between cocaine use being morally unobjectionable but outrageous behaviour for a cabinet minister is not lost on Quebecers, they just don't care. They have managed to combine Gaullist statism with respect to the economy with a profound counterculturalism in the social and cultural sphere.

And that is why his political opponents would be wise to completely ignore the coke question in the future. For it must be admitted that one of his biggest appeals is that his unapologetic use of cocaine appears to annoy squarehead anglos. I asked my students (in a graduate seminar on constitutionalism) whether it bothered them that Boisclair repeatedly broke the law (not to mention set himself up for blackmail) while in cabinet. They all shrugged. One pointed out that Quebecers were pretty open-minded about drug use. Another suggested that the only people bothered by it were those who lived in Outremont. (For anyone not down with the semiotics of Montreal addresses, "Outremont" is code for federalists, money, and ethnics).

Quebecers fancy that their relationship to the ROC is one of "egal a egal": As one of the country's two founding nations, they are not one province among 10, but on equal footing with all other 9 provinces combined. Yet in practice, the relationship is one of adolescent to parent. The blind resentment, the petulance, and the repeated desire to oppose for the sake of opposing, are all signs of the fundamental immaturity of the Quebec/ROC relationship. Andre Boisclair's victory over a far more qualified opponent is not a sign of Quebec's political maturity, but its adolescence.

The unfortunate conclusion is that adolescents only grow up once they leave home.

***********
Update: OK, I can see by his comments that John isn't convinced by my argument. Maybe he'll take it from the American Gay press. (You know what I mean).

From the Washington Blade, here's a few choice comments:

Philippe Lucas, a French Canadian from Montreal, who works with the drug policy organization DrugSense said, "Quebequers have a very European attitude about social issues like drug use and sex....
"Although formerly politically dominated by an authoritarian Catholic Church, Puritanism has no place in Quebec culture, and most of us consider the prudish attitude associated with English Canada to be a result of England and America's conservative social influence."

In Montreal, cocaine use, although frowned upon, was widespread throughout the '80s, [AND '90s and '00s!!! -- ap] he said, and there is a general feeling that if Anglos frown upon certain behavior (i.e. sex and drugs), then it must be OK.

It's a pretty simple, if bizarre, position: the idea that Cabinet ministers shouldn't be cokeheads is for uptight Americanised anglos, not liberated Europeanish french canadians.

Trust me. This attitude is extremely widespread. It does, however, suggest an obvious strategy for federalists: embrace separatism.

More entries on:

November 19, 2005

big mac post mortem

Posted by john_d at 03:17 PM ET | Comments (3)

Well, okay, since it’s new, and folks are talking about it—let’s talk about it. I bought the new-look Maclean’s and have read through it. Here’s my quick post mortem:

Cover design: grippy, newsy enough. I like the maple leaf apostrophe. I think the lower corner flap fold thingy looks quite cheesy—it’s not the principle of it, it’s the execution. Seriously though, the boxes running across the top of the banner look like PageMaker circa 1994. Three out of four of those boxes reference stories from the United States (so what? I’m not judging; I’m just noting).

Cover story: Weak. Not that privacy is not important, but the fact that anyone can buy cell phone records on the Net is not a feature length story. It’s a blog entry. This story might already be over—one email from someone in power at a cell phone company and the hole gets plugged. Strangely, this is not my major complaint about this story (some people might have something to fear from having their cell records found out, and so might be interested). What is with the photos accompanying this story? Are you serious? Faux-surveillance shots of our “privacy czar” Jennifer Stoddart on her way to lunch on a particularly blustery day in Ottawa. The shot on page 27 that shows the windblown Stoddart behind a tree branch is a joke, right? And then twenty shots of her crossing a street? God, will she ever wear that gigantic scarf in public again?

Maureen Dowd interview: Linda Frum pretty much stays out of Dowd’s way and let’s her write her own interview, which is wise I suppose. It is a little embarrassing how often Dowd’s answers begin with some version of “Um, actually, no…”

7 Days section: Doesn’t the G&M have a new section called Seven, or something like that? This is a seriously troubled part of the magazine—but it’s not Maclean’s’ fault at all. This section addresses the question—are newsweeklies relevant in the age of online media and blogs? The answer here can only be no. Schwarzeneggers fall from grace in California feels soooo old here. On the other hand, if the magazine can manage to concentrate all its classic newspapery punning in this section (Muscled Out, for the Arnie story—the head of Air Canada “piloting” the airline through “considerable turbulence”—yikes), I will be able to skip it entirely.

Paul Wells and Peter Mansbridge: Write the same column, except Paul Wells writes it way better. I’m a bad judge of this because I never understood why Canada needs a weekly column from our nightly newsguy. I like Mansbridge a lot, on The National.

Barbara Amiel: Has nothing to say of any relevance to the riots in France. An unskilled precis of French radical history and a few news reports from the week past. Empty space.

Actual lengthy news coverage—Excellent. The heart and soul of the magazine. John Geddes piece on the inevitable election. Michael Petrou’s piece on the rioting in France—and his piece on Tony Blair. Great writing, great reporting. More please.

The Back pages section: I like it. It’s lively, but is not afraid to go in depth. A book about Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, rather than the latest frantic roman a clef? That’s a good, brave choice.

Recommended section: The nearly naked girl is almost a nostalgiac tribute to the old People section that promised adolescent boys of a certain generation their best shot at nudity in the staid Canadian household. Beyond that, this is a throw-away page.

The End (back page column): ... is just plain weird. I feel terrible for Gordon Sanderson and all who knew and loved him, but that is just a strange way to close out a newsmagazine.

More entries on:

November 17, 2005

worst. headline. ever.

Posted by joyceb at 11:54 AM ET | Comments (4)

Slate Magazine's editor-at-large Jack Shafer writes this week about how we'll know that the baby boomers have lost control of the media...just watch the headlines.

Shafer argues that as Gen X and Y ascend, gone will be references to the Beatles (say it ain't so) to be replaced by the Beasties (that's Boys, for you in the over-40 set). His crack panel of under-40 pop culture experts weigh in over email on which pop culture reference or contemporary slang will be the harbinger of "The New Power Generation" (ha!)

Daniel Radosh finds the mother lode in his generation's favorite movies, particularly The Breakfast Club. "If we were running things the headline, 'Just Answer the Question, Blair,' would appear over every third London dispatch," he writes.

...industrious Jeremy Derfner sees a news story on the horizon about boomers who won't slow down despite their advanced age headlined "By the Power of Grayskull."

And finally, "Fed Chief Assures Friends Dat Economy Is Crunk."

I say, bring on the Simpsons references.

More entries on:

November 16, 2005

Okay, century #2 begins now… um, we’re waiting

Posted by john_d at 11:35 AM ET | Comments (13)

Strangely, I was not invited to the big Maclean’s party, but I understand from both D.B. Scott and Antonia Zerbisias that it was a hell of a night. Or, at least it was big enough and posh enough and packed with celebs enough to theoretically be a hell of a night. From Zerbisias’s final words, it sounds a bit snoozy:

Er, that’s it. Nobody got blotto. Nobody got into a fight. Nobody did anything to embarrass themselves. But like I said, I left early.

Sounds a bit like the magazine itself.

All I can think to say is, with that guest list turning out for your party, you’d better be publishing an important magazine.

Who was Barbara Amiel’s date? Anybody? Does BA fly solo?

More entries on:

November 15, 2005

Playing politics

Posted by andrew at 01:52 PM ET | Comments (11)

A couple of quick points about the upcoming federal election and associated issues:

1. In today's Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson has a very sensible column in which he calls yesterday's mini-budget "phony" and "fictitious," and recommends that we ignore it.

So why then does his newspaper devote the entire front page to the update, have a nine-page mini-budget insert in the front section, write both editorials about it, and add a bunch more copy in the ROB section?

The Liberals released this as an election manifesto. Eddie Greenspon's Globe and Mail has obliged by promoting it to the skies.

2. My understanding of the opposition tactics here is this: In order to a) take advantage of the Gomery fallout, and b) prevent the Liberals from putting together a massive vote-buying package before Gomery II is released, they decided to force Martin to either agree to drop the writ in January, or face a non-confidence motion before xmas.

But since Gomery has already cooled off, and the Libs have now released their vote-buying package, wouldn't it be smart to lay off completely? Let the unseemly attention devoted to the mini-budget cool off, and let the attention to Gomery II heat up, and hit the hustings the next day.

More entries on:

November 12, 2005

Somewhat disagree

Posted by mason at 12:35 PM ET | Comments (12)

I just got a call from Ekos, the polling people, who were doing a random survey commissioned by the Government of Canada. Normally I am against polls because they often pose misleading questions to respondents, and during elections (or anytime these days) they encourage "horse race" political coverage in the media. But this morning, when they asked little ol' me what I thought, I couldn't resist. As it turns out, it was enlightening.

The questions were mostly about equalization payments: whether I agreed with them in principle (somewhat agree) and if I thought the federal government should place restrictions on their use by the provinces (strongly agree -- I guess that makes me a federalist).

But the most interesting question, I thought, went something like this: Do you believe a good way to impact public policy is through the grassroots? I asked what they meant by grassroots, but their definition was more or less "Canadians like yourself." This is the kind of misleading question that turns me off of polls. Is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation considered a grassroots organization? What about the Toronto Public Space Committee? To me, not being affiliated with government is not enough to constitute "grassroots." I want to see proof of freedom from corporate interference as well. Hence, the TPSC would qualify under my definition, the CTF likely not (truthfully I'm not sure of its relationship with corporate Canada). In the end, I answered the cloudy question with a '5' out of '7,' with '7' meaning strongly agree.

More entries on:

November 11, 2005

Show 'em who's beautiful

Posted by mason at 09:47 PM ET | Comments (6)

Recently, the National Post has been runing a series on so-called "Beatiful Minds," the public intellectuals most worthy of attention and admiration, according to Post contributors. The series wrapped up today with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek nomination of Naomi Klein, penned by cartoonist Gary Clement (it was titled "How No Logo changed my life" and included such witty remarks as "I only listen to protest music on my iPod").

Tomorrow, there will be a review of all the candidates, plus an invitation to cast your vote at the site www.nationalpost.com/beautifulminds. So here's my idea: since Klein is nominated, let's vote for her and show them who's really beautiful.

Who's with me?

More entries on:

Posted by john_d at 10:44 AM ET | Comments (1)

This image provided under a Creative Commons agreement, by Visual Impact on Flickr.

More entries on:

November 10, 2005

Clean for the Cure

Posted by joyceb at 12:00 AM ET | Comments (1)

The little carpet-cleaner-that-could (save me from the dreary housework, that is) now cures cancer. Independent women on your gift list this season will love the latest precious version of the adorable Roomba. No word as far as I can tell from Maureen Dowd.

More entries on:

November 09, 2005

I want to look like THAT guy

Posted by joyceb at 09:56 PM ET | Comments (4)

bwnpic2(big).jpg
In a news story culled from, it seems, the cutting room floor of Nip/Tuck (best show on regular cable, word) the Edmonton Sun announced on its front page today that serial rapist/very bad man/prison inmate Shane Hilton will get a new face, courtesy of Alberta's finest plastic surgeons. Seems Hilton was badly disfigured by a police bullet to the face, sustained in the efforts to "bring the berserk Hinton to justice."

I'm reticent about agreeing with Canada's knee-jerk right, but I gotta admit this one is stretching my sympathy. No word on who will pay for the procedure (allegedly Corrections Services Canada) rather than, god forbid, "the taxpayers", but read the article, tick off the brutal crimes he's serving time for, and consider "it might help ease his transition back into society."

Crime and punishment. It's a tough one for us progressives. Hinton is eligible for parole in 2011 and will have served his full sentence in 2014.

Photo is courtesy of davidhasselhoff.com. South Park shout out is a gimme. First one to correctly recall the daytime television storyline shout out in the Hasselhoff reference wins a subscription to This Magazine, courtesy of me.

More entries on:

Pathetic

Posted by john_d at 10:53 AM ET | Comments (0)

“Harper awaits ’clearer direction’ from NDP”

No other way to define it—abject cowardice.

And so, once again, Canadians are forced to question the leadership of Canada’s traditional second party at a time when that party should be doing their best ever sell job on the issue of… leadership.

More entries on:

November 08, 2005

Well done Jack -- bring on the blame

Posted by john_d at 09:34 AM ET | Comments (3)

Jack Layton may very well have dimmed his own spotlight. I’m sure there will be plenty of analysis blaming Layton for whatever happens in the coming election (if indeed there is one). If the very latest trend is true, and if Canadian voting tendencies continue as they have the last decade or so, a slim majority for the Liberals seems increasingly possible, and that would put an end to Layton’s time spent on the front pages, which has been considerable during the run of this minority government. Layton may not have known about the results of the Globe/CTV poll released this morning, when he made his bold statement yesterday:

“If these Liberals want to get to work on issues like those I’ve mentioned, we’ll be there to get things done. If not — Mr. Martin should understand he better not count on the NDP’s support in the weeks to come.”

Had he known, I doubt it would have made a difference. The poll puts the Liberals out in front with 35%, to the Tories’ 28%, and has the NDP dropping from 20 to 16%. That’s enough to get the ball rolling for the Liberals during a campaign that will undoubtedly once again attempt to steal votes from the NDP with the prospect of an unfocused and internally pugnacious Tory government. The Conservatives are certainly doing their part by remaining unfocused and internally pugnacious.

So bring on the blame—but just try finding fault with Layton’s guts and principles. The politically “smart” thing for Layton to do would be to keep his cards very close to his chest and to reserve judgement on everything. Instead, as he has done since taking over the NDP, Layton has taken a principled stand at an inconvenient time for principled stands.

So I guess the next question is for Mr. Harper. At 28%, and almost guaranteed not to form the next government—after all, what kind of feckless second party could NOT sell themselves as an alternative to this particular Liberal government?—do you stick to your own principles and force a confidence vote?

More entries on:

November 03, 2005

The Modern Woman—Rebel Sold?

Posted by john_d at 05:12 PM ET | Comments (10)

Uh oh, I can feel myself slipping ever so inextricably into very hot water.

My imaginary New York Times op-ed columnist girlfriend, Maureen Dowd has a book coming out, called Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide, and her employer has graciously allowed her to preview it a bit in the weekend magazine. Check out Dowd’s essay, “What’s a Modern Girl to Do?” from last weekend’s NYT mag.

I can’t say I’m thrilled with the off-handed man-blaming that a lot of her argument seems to hinge on—for instance:

Men, apprently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women.

Ouch. Maureen, don’t be so nasty. I was thinking of calling you up, but I don’t know now. (<—irony, okay?)

And this:

Decades later, it’s just an aesthetic fact, as more and more women embrace Botox and implants and stretch and protrude to extreme proportions to satisfy male desires.

Whose desires? My desires? Hmmmmm, not entirely convincing. My desires have little to do with Botox.

But, what may be most interesting about Dowd’s thoughts on feminism and ongoing sexual politics — at least to readers of this blog — is the somewhat familiar direction her argument takes near the end of the article.

Before it curdled into a collection of stereotypes, feminism had fleetingly held out a promise that there would be some precincts of womanly life that were not all about men. But it never quite materialized.

It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman; see me strip. Instead of peaceful havens of girl things and boy things, we have a society where women of all ages are striving to become self-actualized sex kittens… So women have moved from fighting objectification to seeking it.

She seems to be suggesting that the latest generation of leading women are being sold a bill of goods in the guise of a rebellious stance against the philosophical excesses of their elders. Sound familiar?

I don’t know if any THIS Magazine article has ever received more letters of complaint than Feminism for Sale.

Is Dowd’s argument more palatable? Perhaps just the fact that her tone is more defeatist than triumphant helps her argument.

By all means… please discuss.

More entries on:

November 02, 2005

Goodbye Rosa Parks

Posted by john_d at 11:08 AM ET | Comments (7)

For anyone interested—the funeral of American civil rights icon Rosa Parks is happening NOW (11 a.m.) live on CSpan 3.

More entries on:

Canadian Journalism 101—first, look out the window

Posted by john_d at 09:29 AM ET | Comments (3)

Thank god the CBC is back—how else would I get my morning head shake?

Hauled myself out of bed at 6:30 this morning and turned on the radio. Standing at my window, watching the sun rise over Lake Ontario into a stunningly clear sky, I heard local morning host Andy Barrie say this:

“We’re live at City Hall this morning where we can’t see any shadows because it is completely overcast in Toronto right now.”

Granted, Andy Barrie has been known to set the whole city scrambling by getting the time wrong by a full hour, so we’ve learned not to put too much stock in what comes out of his mouth; but then sports guy Kevin Sylvester picked up the “no shadows” motif and started yakking about fog.

Sylvester is a veteran bike rider, so chances are there actually was fog when he made his way to City Hall. Still, how hard is it to look up from the microphone and out the window?

Update: Live webcam image of Toronto:

More entries on:

November 01, 2005

Fun with question period

Posted by john_d at 03:33 PM ET | Comments (2)

Dig this from yesterday’s oral questions in the House of Commons. The build up is a bit precious, but the question itself is pure gold:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to behave like FDR, the least he could do is provide a new deal for the lumber industry.

The fact of the matter is there is no help for the industry. There is no plan. There is no deadline. There are no consequences spelled out for the Bush administration if it just continues to brush off Canada and the Prime Minister’s endless words. Workers and businesses who provided the billions of dollars here are not helped by say nothing, do nothing radio ads.

When is the Prime Minister going to do something that gets respect in Washington?

Credit the Hon. John McCallum, Minister of National Revenue, for not collapsing into a fit of giggling before responding.

More entries on:

A new spirit of optimism in North America—“learning from sucking”

Posted by john_d at 09:30 AM ET | Comments (3)

Front page news this morning has Justice Gomery putting the finger on everyone but Paul Martin for the sponsorship scandal, despite Martin being such a prominent wallet man for the previous liberal government. This can only further soften the seat of power federal Liberals have been getting very cosy in as polls rise over the last few months—though it should be a rough week or so. Paul Wells predicts today’s question period here.

What have we learned so far? It doesn’t matter who’s in charge—responsibility can always be shifted, and tomorrow is always another day.

This lesson as well from David Frum on the weekend, when he analysed George W’s lead up to Hallowe’en in the Sunday Telegraph (a reprint from the National Post). According to Frum, the week that began with the withdrawal of the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court and ended with the indictment of a key White House staffer on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, is not a problem for Bush, it’s an opportunity. Frum’s stunning optimism includes such passages as:

“The carelessness with which the [Miers nomination] seemed to have been made, the high-handedness, the apparent indifference to merit, the failure to ask elementary questions: These triggered unhappy spasms of recognition. Similar faults could be seen in the Katrina failure, in the mishandling of Iraq and the larger war on terror, in relations with the allies… and the list goes on.”

Yes, somehow in all of that, Frum sees wiggle room for Bush. It’s the staff’s fault. After all, it wasn’t Bush or Cheney who was indicted, it was a staffer.

After all, it wasn’t Martin who was signing the cheques… oh, wait.

Bring on the rising polls for George Bush. Nothing surprises me anymore.

More entries on:

Previous month: October 2005
Next month: December 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

November 30, 2005

An election I'm not already tired of

and they’re off… Harper, really off

November 29, 2005

Keep it clean? Not likely

Currently...

November 28, 2005

"woohooo" depository

Hawvawd, you say?

November 27, 2005

Olympic blues... already

November 25, 2005

maybe he needs a medicare card

Celebrate with This

November 24, 2005

THIS Day in Parliament

November 23, 2005

That’s Called a Home Run

NDP strategy

November 22, 2005

Much. Finer.

Introducing Audra

November 21, 2005

Here’s An Election Issue For You!

boisclair

November 19, 2005

big mac post mortem

November 17, 2005

worst. headline. ever.

November 16, 2005

Okay, century #2 begins now… um, we’re waiting

November 15, 2005

Playing politics

November 12, 2005

Somewhat disagree

November 11, 2005

Show 'em who's beautiful

November 10, 2005

Clean for the Cure

November 09, 2005

I want to look like THAT guy

Pathetic

November 08, 2005

Well done Jack -- bring on the blame

November 03, 2005

The Modern Woman—Rebel Sold?

November 02, 2005

Goodbye Rosa Parks

Canadian Journalism 101—first, look out the window

November 01, 2005

Fun with question period

A new spirit of optimism in North America—“learning from sucking”