BLOG THIS | blog.thismagazine.ca: January 2006 Archives

After a full day of sessions on Saturday (most with an eye toward improving the magazine’s web presence), my official IPA convention experience came to a close. I would have posted about the day’s events, but I think it’s safe to say that little of the content from the workshops I attended would be of interest.

However, one of the chief benefits of an event like this was the connections to be made with like-minded journalists, editors and other media types. After a couple nights on the town in SF, several of the Canadian contingent met yesterday morning to begin the process of expanding the power of our publications—especially online—through collaboration and sharing of resources, skills and technology. It just goes to show that no matter how much community can be developed online, nothing builds trust and fosters a sense of shared experience quite like meeting face to face and sipping a local microbrew in a strange city.

Similarly, I was able to discover or rediscover a host of exciting, off-the-beaten-path publications from North America and around the world. Bulb. YES! Magazine. Chicago Reporter. Heeb. $pread Magazine. In These Times. At the very least, these titles offer examples of journalists getting to the overlooked stories their readerships want to hear. Check them out, and if they offer a perspective you value, consider adding them to your media diet.

I’m now at the Detroit airport, a little sleep-deprived but inspired and excited about the potential of the independent media, especially the prospects for This.

How’s Canada?

More entries on:

January 27, 2006

The Sword and the Shield

Posted by mason at 04:44 PM ET | Comments (2)

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! just gave her keynote address at the Independent Press Association convention, and it left many attendees in tears.

The event, over lunch here in San Francisco, began with an Indy Media-produced documentary on mass media and its role in promoting war, and her address carried that theme further.

It was a wide-ranging speech that touched on Iraq, media independence, East Timor, Henry Kissinger and what Americans represent to people around the world -- the sword and the shield.

"There is no more important time to be an independent reporter than today," Goodman said. "[People] know they were lied to about weapons of mass destruction... People are angry and they are looking for alternative sources of information."

"Our job as journalists is to go where the silence is," and report on it, she added. "Whether we are journalists, students... whatever we do in our lives, we have a decision to make every hour of every day: whether to represent the sword or the shield."

Goodman's impassioned talk put things in perspective, especially for media types like us around the tables who tell stories of inspiring people fighting for change, only to ask themselves what they are doing. When you work with the independent press, the answer is: a lot.

More entries on:

IPA convention, Day 1

Posted by mason at 01:19 PM ET | Comments (0)

Hello from San Francisco, California, where Day 1 of the Independent Press Association convention '06 is underway. I'll be attending a number of sessions today and tomorrow, including targetted workshops and lunchtime addresses by Amy Goodman and Greg Palast. The other part of the event, of course, is networking, and already I've met several people from independent publications in Canada and the U.S.

Last night there was a reception for the Utne independent press awards, and Utne's affinity for Canadian magazines was apparent, with awards going to Shameless (for Personal Life Coverage) and Ascent (for Spiritual Coverage), and nominations to several other Canadian titles. Congratulations to the winners!

Also, a small group of us had drinks last night at Vesuvio's, a hangout of the beat poets in their heyday -- just one of the highlights of my visit to San Francisco so far. It's my first time here and I've got to say, the place agrees with me.

I expect to be blogging from the convention floor throughout the weekend, so stay tuned...

More entries on:

revving the satirical engine

Posted by john_d at 11:08 AM ET | Comments (1)

Anybody see the Bush press conference re: Hamas on The Daily Show last night? Oh, how we laughed.

And here's the best Harper bit I've seen yet (thanks to Zerb for this one).

More entries on:

the shoe, apparently, fits

Posted by john_d at 09:53 AM ET | Comments (8)

Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper speaking yesterday about U.S. assertions that Canada cannot claim sovereignty over the waters of the Northwest Passage:

"...it is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador from the United States."

When, I ask, when will this embarrassing anti-Americanism from the Conservatives and the west cease so we can finally normalize relations with our greatest trading partner and most special friend?

More entries on:

January 24, 2006

Yay, democracy! part 2

Posted by john_d at 04:38 PM ET | Comments (11)

My last posting has been criticized for not recognizing the dire straits our democracy has entered.

I weary of these politics. We live in a parliamentary democracy with a first past the post electoral system. I'd like to see one of those factors change, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon, despite Stephen Harper's electoral reform noises. It is simply not in the interest of a potential majority party to change this system. Absolute power, etc.

Something the leftover ideologues in the NDP need to realize:

Most Canadians actually DO think a lot about their taxes and their mortgages and their childcare expenses, AND their thoughts on these subjects are not always pure or ideological. I know higher gas prices are better for the planet, yet I still wait for a downward fluctuation to pull into the station and gas up. Bad lefty!

Canadians need to be addressed during an election first and foremost as if thinking that way is NOT morally lazy. Holding the balance of power in order to lecture the country on social issues from a particular ideological stance is a short-sighted goal for the NDP. It seems to me Layton is much more interested in rolling up his sleeves and asking Canadians what their goals are -- all of them, not just the good-hearted ones. That's a hopeful sign for the party, since, judging by the election results, the majority of the Canadian population shares a centre-left perspective on social issues, and a right-tolerant perspective on the economy, especially when it's "time for a change." That's a Canadian reality. Political parties ignore it at their peril.

If the NDP ignores it -- to borrow a Coynism -- they will merely be leaving the motor running on those new seats for the return of the Liberals, once the reds get themselves a sellable leader and some new energy.

My favorite moment from this election? At an all candidates meeting in Etobicoke-Lakeshore a union fellow got up and asked the NDP candidate, Liam McHugh-Russell, if the NDP would use its influence in Parliament to increase corporate taxes in order to balance the burden off individuals a bit. McHugh-Russell looked very thoughtful, paused, leaned into the microphone and said "No." The Paul Summerville idea that 'prosperity' should not be a dirty word for the NDP has some good young believers.

Yet the old tax-and-spend NDP image was used very effectively against the party in that riding, by both Liberals and Conservatives. Change takes time.

More entries on:

Yay, democracy

Posted by john_d at 11:55 AM ET | Comments (9)

I can think of better results for yesterday's election, but this one will do.

The Liberals needed to go. Martin needed to go. I've said before, it would be tough for a Conservative party to NOT beat the Liberals in their current state.

Prime Minister-elect Harper seems well aware of the constraints on his power, and refreshingly open to some tough parliamentary work in the coming months and years -- hopefully years.

As to the NDP, it's tough to be disappointed with a bunch of new seats and a continued rise in the popular vote. That said, serious questions remain for the party. When you work a campaign like the one in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, you see the on-the-ground evidence of just how tough it is to take the centre away from the Liberal party. There will be no federal NDP government until they manage to do that, because Canada is not moving further left anytime soon.

More later.

More entries on:

January 23, 2006

Group Hug

Posted by joyceb at 11:17 PM ET | Comments (2)

Somebody in power should have been paying attention to minutiae on slow news days past. British psychologist Cliff Arnall has calculated the most depressing day of the year, and it's January 24.

Deep breath.

On a more positive note, we have June 24 to look forward to. Same British psychogist theorizes it as the HAPPIEST day of the year. And by calculations, that's the second last day of Pride Week Toronto 2006. So this hag will be digging out her body glitter and looking forward to a weekend in June.

Calls for a rousing, "Now, more than ever!"

More entries on:

One day only!

Posted by mason at 02:27 PM ET | Comments (1)

For one day only -- today -- I have disabled comments on Blog This, because, as Rob Hyndman points out, any reporting of election results in one district before the polls close in another district is illegal. This includes electronic reporting which, scary as it may seem, Blog This and its visitors are capable of. Since This Magazine is hardly thrilled with the idea of breaking this particular law, we're playing it safe.

Happy Election Day to all.
The Management

More entries on:

Gimme a V, Gimme an O....

Posted by Lisa at 12:28 PM ET | Comments (0)

Things to do today:
1) vote
2) vote
3) v....

Okay, you get the picture. And in the international news section of today's New York Times....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/international/americas/23canada.html?th&emc=th

More entries on:

Oh. Canada.

Posted by joyceb at 10:42 AM ET | Comments (0)

Michael Moore wants to remind you to vote.

More entries on:

Vote please -- your right and duty

Posted by john_d at 09:38 AM ET | Comments (0)

I'm cool with not blogging on Canadian politics on this important day. Rule of law and all that.

Hey, speaking of the rule of law, if you haven't read the transcript of Al Gore's recent speech on American constitutional issues, you really should. I shook my head a bit last Friday as the Beltway Boys -- two 'political analysts' on Fox News Channel -- ridiculed Gore for this speech. My favorite part was when one of the 'boys', speaking of the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal now happening in the States, said "What I think is that Congress should check out whether or not Bush actually had the authority to do this, and if it finds that he didn't have the authority, it should give it to him." An open call to ignore Presidential law-breaking and to dilute American democracy, on the record, on national television. Wow.

Here's the link to Gore's speech, and here's a highlight:

In the words of George Orwell, "We are all capable," he said, "of believing things which we know to be untrue and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right."

Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time. The only check on it is that, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

Two thousand two hundred American soldiers have lost their lives as this false belief bumped into a solid reality. And indeed, whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to gross mistakes and abuses.

That is part of human nature. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes, dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.

More entries on:

January 22, 2006

Elections Canada, and bloggers.

Posted by at 08:10 PM ET | Comments (1)

From CBC.ca:

Blogging on election day is going to be a tricky thing. In this election, unlike the last one, Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act will be in effect, meaning it will be effectively against the law to blog about election results until 10:00 ET, since blogging is considered transmitting "to the public."

Full story.

What do you think? Will you let this have an impact on you?

More entries on:

January 21, 2006

The world I want to live in is kind of fantastic

Posted by at 04:16 PM ET | Comments (5)

The day that George W. Bush was re-elected, my husband came home from work with a copy of Love, Actually so I would watch that and pretend it was real instead of watching the news and losing my mind.

Now that I feel like we're a few days away from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, all I've really been able to cope with doing is watching episode after episode of old seasons of The West Wing.

What art do you use as escape during trying political times?

More entries on:

Seat projections, anyone?

Posted by mason at 02:42 PM ET | Comments (0)

In the not-exactly-grand tradition of seat projection sites such as the UBC Election Stock Market and DemocraticSpace.com, I suggest we carry out some seat projections of our own. Post yours by noon on Monday, and the winner gets … well, nothing aside from a Conservative minority, probably. Use CBC’s reflection on the 2004 results as a starting point. My projections can be found after the jump…

Mason guesses:

Seats:
Libs 89
Bloc 64
Cons/Reform 125
NDP 29
Independent 1

Pop Vote:
Libs 30%
Bloc 13%
Cons/Reform 30%
NDP 20%
Green/Other 7%

More entries on:

January 20, 2006

Harper backtracking on same sex marriage

Posted by john_d at 10:26 AM ET | Comments (5)

Heard it on CBC Radio this morning, and it's also in the Globe.:

The Tory Leader began the long winter election campaign by saying he would ask Parliament if it wanted to reopen the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. He said he would respect existing homosexual unions if the House of Commons decided to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

But Mr. Harper said yesterday at a news conference in Waterdown, near Hamilton, Ont., that this would not be one of the first acts of a Conservative government.

"I'm not going to want to leave it forever, but it's not one of the top-five priorities [of the party] so I suspect we won't deal with it right away," Mr. Harper said. "But we will ask Parliament's opinion in due course."

As well, the Tories are busily hiding their anti-gay messengers from the very Canadian mainstream some suggest they actually represent. The Tory candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga, Harold Albrecht, has been outspoken on this issue, (though, strangely, he's never commented on this blog), yet he couldn't quite get his message out to the 'majority of Canadians' yesterday. Also from the Globe:

When reporters tried to question Mr. Albrecht about his views after the rally, Conservative handlers blocked them from getting close. Mr. Albrecht was hustled into a kitchen where he stood alone as the news media were told he was too busy to speak with them.

I love the smell of hidden agenda in the morning.

More entries on:

January 19, 2006

Rebel Yell

Posted by joyceb at 10:40 PM ET | Comments (6)

Sitting in the salon this evening (hair that is, not my charming Edmonton pied a terre) and between US Weekly and an out of date People magazine (Angelina to adopt again, come.ON.) is the January 23 edition of Macleans...featuring the National column by our own Andrew Potter. I could barely contain my excitement and am ready to return to that direct mail package I just received and subscribe away.

Andrew has really interesting things to say about branding nations and delightfully, it's available online. What made it serendipitous, is that I had just had a conversation, not 10 minutes before, about branding cities. Maybe Potter will tackle that sometime for us -- I'd love to hear him take on Bruce Mau. Best part of the piece (for those of us in the how-do-they-do-that set) is his breakdown of the essential components of successful nation branding:

...the architects of these countries also had heavier tools to work with. For serious national-identity engineering, there are four major instruments:

- an official-language policy
- rules for immigration and the acquisition of citizenship
- the setting of school curricula, especially civics education and the teaching of history
- peacetime compulsory military service

That, and the shout out to girlcrush Beckie Scott. Great stuff! And the plot twist? Seems Gilles Duceppe is the only one with his head screwed on straight on this issue.

More entries on:

a sphincter says what?

Posted by andrew at 10:19 AM ET | Comments (7)

Oooh -- Buzz Hargrove endorses permanent Liberal rule. Oooh -- he calls on Quebecers to vote for the Bloc. Oooh -- he says lots of other stupid things. Oooh -- watch the mainstream media get all woozy.

Give me a break. Buzz Hargrove said all of this, and many other stupid things, on NATIONAL FREAKING RADIO -- almost two months ago. As reported by me, here.

Not that it required any great journalistic skills, requiring merely that I have a) ears and b) a radio. Andrew Coyne was paying attention. Judging by the absence of comments here or anywhere else in the media at the time, no one else seemed to think that the head of the CAW endorsing separatism was all that big a deal.

Hi everyone!

More entries on:

how desperate are the Liberals?

Posted by john_d at 09:41 AM ET | Comments (2)

Last night I got home from an all-candidates meeting to find this pamphlet in my door. NDP colours on the outside. Desperate – sadly desperate – Liberal plea on the inside.

Please vote NDP and put these pathetic, say-anything-for-power folks out of their misery.

More entries on:

January 18, 2006

News from the backwater

Posted by john_d at 10:50 AM ET | Comments (12)

As Andrew Potter likes to remind us, the intellectual elite, especially those with international credentials (oh, the mother country has noticed us again!), can't quite understand why we haven't just turned Canada over to Michael Ignatieff now that he thinks he might like to run it.

I live in that backwater in western Toronto, and so ventured out in the hurricane last night to meet all the candidates from my riding (except the Communists and Marxist-Leninists whose invitations got lost in the mail). Learned something I didn't know right away. Etobicoke-Lakeshore has the worst air quality in the entire GTA. Here is my assessment of the meeting, with a sincere attempt at impartiality despite my obvious bias:

John Capobianco, Conservative: Tastes blood in the water and can barely contain his excitement about Stephen Harper's position in the polls. That said, he's running in Toronto, so makes little if any mention of Harper's social policy stands like the traditional definition of marriage. Referred to tax cuts, tax relief, lower taxes, etc. approximately 126 times during the course of a three-hour meeting. Flagellates the Liberals for a poor environmental record concerning our national treasure, Lake Ontario, while presenting little in the way of a concrete plan to improve the lakeshore himself. Is carrying a gigantic "I worked for (former Tory Ontario Premier) Mike Harris" millstone around his neck, which, strangely, he seems rather proud of. Good for him. Don't try to hide your past, I say. Which brings us to:

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal: Impressively relaxed speaker. When he chooses to address an issue, the room listens. Is being dragged down by ties to the incredibly unpopular Paul Martin and yet, unfathomably, cannot bring himself to cut those ties. In answer to the question "Why should we vote for you?" (which all candidates had to answer), he spoke glowingly about his predecessor, Jean Augustine's record as the local MP for the past 12 years, how she remembered the birthdays of her constituents, etc. Perhaps the lamest answer of the night, and the packed hall let him know it. 12 years of increased pollution and air quality degradation under the Liberal watch, and we're hearing about birthday cards from some other politician? Any mention of Iraq brought stifling boos and hisses from his supporters in the crowd, and he never once addressed the issue himself. Why not? I actually want to like this guy. I want him to go all Jebediah Bartlett on me, and force me to deal with his difficult honesty, but the great professor comes across as a rather ordinary politician. Needs to address the sour-faced disapproval look he puts on when he disagrees with something someone says.

Liam McHugh-Russell, NDP: Would it kill you to comb your hair? Clearly the most passionate speaker, and the candidate with the most local street cred, having worked locally on many of the issues topmost in voters' minds. Great communication with the crowd, even while being rudely shouted down by local Liberals. Did not seem quite prepared for the question on arts and culture, but then what politician says anything about arts and culture other than "I think it's great, we support it." Has a great handle on the NDP platform, and mentions Jack Layton a lot. Fell into a trap on tuition and student debt. No one wants to hear left-wingers complaining it costs them too much to go to law school. Everyone has debt - talk about quality and availability of education instead. His closing remarks were addressed squarely at undecided traditional Liberals. The ship is sinking. Our boat looks more like yours than that Conservative submarine over there. Welcome aboard.

Phil Ridge, Green Party: Great rapport with the audience. Excellent local credentials. Knows the local environmental issues better than most. Can really get into the, well, dirt of the Humber sewage treatment plant that stinks up the whole neighbourhood. Understands that these environmental concerns are very high on the priority list for local voters. Could not speak comfortably on any other issue, and while he made a charming effort of it by reading directly from the Green Party playbook, one has to wonder about his ability to do anything in Parliament as a single issue guy.

Wrap up: If there's a better slate of candidates in any riding, I'd like to hear about it. Yay, democracy! I think St. Paul's (also in Toronto) has a pretty good slate as well. What about in other parts of Canada? Where are the real tough choices?

More entries on:

Don't trash the 'stache?

Posted by mason at 10:38 AM ET | Comments (8)

I caught The National on CBC last night, which included a special "Your Turn" segment with Jack Layton. CBC viewers were invited to pose questions to the NDP leader in front of a live studio audience in Halifax, with Peter Mansbridge moderating. It was a rare chance for Layton to get a full hour of airtime to himself, so how did he do?

Overall, I would give him a grade of B. Those questions playing to his strengths he really nailed, such as ones on cities, rural municipalities, gun violence and the environment. The problem was, he was very wooden at the start and had a hard time coming across as sincere. He sometimes avoided answering questions directly in favour of his talking points, which was frustrating even for a decided voter like me.

When it got down to the specifics of issues he was impressive, and you could see how well some NDP policies have been thought out, but too often it took several minutes for him to describe problems as he saw them and lay blame on the Liberals before he got to his points. Unfortunately, I felt it would take extraordinary patience for viewers to stick with Layton through his politicking, but if they did I believe they would have agreed with NDP values and priorities.

So my question is, why is it so hard for the NDP to find a leader who can come across as genuine and not appear to be fishing for votes all the time?

More entries on:

January 17, 2006

Why they fight

Posted by john_d at 05:41 PM ET | Comments (0)

I'm not saying nothing. This isn't about Stephen Harper. This is an American documentary made by Americans about America.

Still, I'll bet I get called anti-American for calling your attention to it.

Why We Fight

More entries on:

Instructive history

Posted by john_d at 11:54 AM ET | Comments (0)

1984 - Bloated and corrupt Liberal government under John Turner is thrown from office after Brian Mulroney campaigns to bring back integrity to Parliament. Former Liberal voters turn to Tories because "it's time for a change."

1993 - Bloated and corrupt Tory government under Kim Campbell is thrown from office after Jean Chretien campaigns to bring back integrity to Parliament. Former Tory voters turn to Liberals because "it's time for a change."

2006 - Bloated and corrupt Liberal government under Paul Martin is thrown from office after Stephen Harper campaigns to bring back integrity to Parliament. Former Liberal voters turn to Tories because "it's time for a change."

If only there were some sort of discernible pattern Canadian voters could use, right now, to determine a new future for our federal politics. If only.

More entries on:

January 16, 2006

Take action to end patronage at CBC

Posted by at 10:47 PM ET | Comments (5)

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting are running a new email campaign to end patronage at CBC. Here's what it's all about: "The CBC President acted on his own when he locked out CBC employees last summer. Yet, he remains in office, protected by the Prime Minister who appointed him and unaccountable to Canadians. The patronage appointments system must change." Once you enter key deets, like your postal code, into the Friends online form emails will be dispatched directly to candidates in your riding. See how easy activism is?

More entries on:

some of my best friends own dictionaries

Posted by john_d at 12:03 PM ET | Comments (32)

I caught a bit of an interview on The Current this morning with a Conservative operative (sorry, didn't catch the name - I was driving and eating at the same time), discussing the Same Sex free vote the Cons have promised as part of their "winning" election platform.

I'm confused.

After giving me my morning smile when she said "Some of my good friends are gays and lesbians, and they don't mind at all..." (please note: it's Martin Luther King Day!) she went on to explain that nothing about the current equal rights status for same sex couples will be challenged in the free vote. The only thing that will be determined is the definition of the word "marriage."

Since when do countries go through a legislative process just to define a word? I mean, I know the US has been having some trouble with defining "torture" of late, but that's less about what the word means and more about how they want to apply it near a picturesque little bay in Cuba. Just a definition without any legal application? Isn't that why we have dictionaries?

Merriam – Webster (the Americans even):

Main Entry: mar-riage

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Is Prime Minister Harper really going to put Canada through a process of formally defining a word his role models down south have given up on? Really?

More entries on:

January 15, 2006

And the winner is...

Posted by mason at 03:01 PM ET | Comments (1)

...already determined, if you look at any of Canada's major newspapers and TV newscasts more than a week before election day. The story of Conservative momentum and Liberal downfall is dominating the headlines, to the point where features about might-as-well-be-prime-minister Stephen Harper seem like preparation for the populace. "Hey, we already know the outcome of the race, so get used to your new government," the nation's editors and producers seem to be saying.

But at least one voice of reason is straining to be heard. Alan Bass, chair of journalism at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, B.C., writes sagely on the media's responsibilities during the last week of campaigning. Some key points:
- polling and pack journalism help create a narrative that can spin out of control as reporters seek storytelling opportunities.
- for news outlets to maintain a balance in coverage, the selection of photos must be responsible, ie., avoid choosing mostly photos of Stephen Harper that look "prime-ministerial" and photos of Paul Martin that look despondent or flustered.
- the RCMP investigation into the alleged income trust leak has drawn no conclusions nor resulted in any charges. Keep that in mind.

Somehow I'm not overly optimistic that the nation's news creators will play fair. Polling will continue to fall on the front pages, unfortunately, and the "two-horse-race" narrative will crowd out the NDP, Bloc and Greens until blue and red are the only colours your TV will need.

Still, it would be nice if Bass's memo to journalists resonates in a few newsrooms, at least.

More entries on:

January 13, 2006

don't vote strategically -- unless you're a conservative

Posted by john_d at 10:03 AM ET | Comments (2)

Hoping for a day when everyone's vote will be counted in a meaningful way, I can't support the "strategy" of voting for someone you don't want in order to beat the person you really don't want. That said Calgary Grit sent me in the direction of this very interesting Strategic Voter guide at Democratic Space.

So, if you ARE being tempted by fear to change your vote, at least check first to see if there's any point in doing so. For instance, if you are a Conservative living in Trintity-Spadina or Parkdale-High Park, and you truly do despise those corrupt Liberals, with their nasty negative campaigning and untrustworthiness, I guess you're best choice is to elect the NDP. Thanks for doing that.

More entries on:

January 12, 2006

private health care—the sicker, the better

Posted by john_d at 04:52 PM ET | Comments (2)

The New York Times yesterday had a sad front pager detailing the demise of three for-profit diabetes prevention centres in the city, which is experiencing something of an epidemic of Type 2 diabetes.

From the story:

They did not shut down because they had failed their patients. They closed because they had failed to make money. They were victims of the byzantine world of American health care, in which the real profit is made not by controlling chronic diseases like diabetes but by treating their many complications.

Insurers, for example, will often refuse to pay $150 for a diabetic to see a podiatrist, who can help prevent foot ailments associated with the disease. Nearly all of them, though, cover amputations, which typically cost more than $30,000.

As the article goes on to show, one of the less talked-about problems with for-profit medicine is that good, effective preventive medicine is not “profitable.”

Think about that when you go and vote.

OH, AND HAVE I MENTIONED?:

Vote NDP.

More entries on:

we always knew we were morally superior—now there’s proof

Posted by john_d at 04:31 PM ET | Comments (3)

Buried behind all the news of surging Tories in today’s Toronto Star is a fascinating piece by Dennis Raphael, associate professor at the School of Health Policy and Management at York University. Raphael argues a direct link between low child poverty rates and what he calls “left cabinet share” in governments. The statistics he uses to make his point are pretty revealing:

The best predictor of child poverty rates is also the best predictor of official commitment to providing its citizens with a modicum of security and well-being: The influence of “left” parties in government as measured by “left cabinet share.”
...

To illustrate: Sweden had a 32 per cent left cabinet share and a child poverty rate of 2.4 per cent. Belgium had a 13 per cent left cabinet share and a 6 per cent child poverty rate. Canada had 0 per cent left cabinet share and a 14 per cent rate. And the U.S. also had the lowest left cabinet share at 0 per cent and a 25 per cent child poverty rate.

Raphael goes on to argue that left cabinet share influences trends toward full employment, equitable wealth distribution, and strong social programs, all of which are, presumably, factors determining a lower child poverty rate.

What does all that mean for “right” cabinet share? Well, I guess Canada is about to find out.

ADDENDUM:

Vote NDP.

More entries on:

January 11, 2006

You know what's funny, in an ironic sort of way?

Posted by john_d at 09:52 AM ET | Comments (3)

Conservatives whining about negative campaigning.

Misrepresentation? Base dishonesty?

I dunno, sounds to me like Harper is at least the "objective ally" of a militaristic coup-plotter/evil-doer. You know, based on the logic regularly used by his own folks.

ADDENDUM:

Vote NDP.

More entries on:

January 10, 2006

Scare tactics

Posted by mason at 11:14 AM ET | Comments (6)

With the Toronto Star today reporting on a poll that says the Conservatives will form a majority government in the election, let the fear-mongering begin. I'll start.

Rick Mercer has a funny/scary imaginary Conservative Cabinet on his blog, featuring the likes of Rob "Nelson Mandela is a terrorist" Anders as Minister of State (Multiculturalism) and Cheryl "Abortion is like when Iraqis execute American hostages" Gallant as Women's Caucus Chair.

A few other gems:
- Brian Fitzpatrick for Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He once said, "You can't scalp me because I haven't got much hair on top of my head."
- David Sweet for Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. He once said, "There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow. Men, on the other hand, had to be called." He is also a former CEO of Promise Keepers Canada.
- Art Hanger, who said in 1994, "Immigrants are choking welfare systems, contributing to high unemployment, and many cannot read."

All of the above are seeking your vote on January 23. Is it any wonder the Conservative campaign has centred almost totally on Stephen Harper, virtually ignoring the rest of the candidates?

More entries on:

Swimming in the jury pool

Posted by john_d at 08:58 AM ET | Comments (0)

I will be blogging infrequently this week, as I am spending most of it sitting around in a big room downtown waiting to be picked for a jury, or not. Civic duty, etc.

Observations so far:

Most people are secretly glad for the time away from the office. There’s a lot of contented reading and snoozing going on, interspersed with quick hits on the cellphone to transmit “concern” that everything is okay back at the office. And that’s just me.

The bagels deep within our justice system are surprisingly fresh and delicious.

In a room with hundreds of people sitting around, and very little to do, almost no-one is talking about the election.

More entries on:

January 08, 2006

Day Trippin'

Posted by joyceb at 07:34 PM ET | Comments (3)

This post is at the request of a faithful reader and meant to divert us from election reading for just a bit. We know where we'd like to tell some politicians to go, but what places in and around your home would you send friends for diversion, inspiration, or just plain fun? We're all looking for something to do next weekend, and we're all friends here, right?

Here's a couple to start us off:

For good clean family fun, Cullen Gardens and Miniature Village, in Whitby Ontario. Home of the marigold, and the bedroom community that I grew up in. I'm just old enough now to not roll my eyes, but giggle with delight at the teeny tiny people on the teeny tiny roller coaster going "WHeeeeee!!!"

The World Famous Gopher Hole Museum in Torrington, Alberta, about an hour from Edmonton. Must be seen to be believed.

Discuss, talk amongst yourselves, embellish and so forth.

(Thanks to Lynda and apologies to the National Post)

Updated to add: That apparently Cullen Gardens is closing, or already closed. Bah. OK then, music-lovers should visit the awesome Star Records on Simcoe Street in Oshawa. Back in the 80s there was a music label and a "Club" where some of the legendary garage bands of the time played. This place made Oshawa cool, and living in Whitby bearable.

More entries on:

January 06, 2006

The Co-Opting—or, Mark Steyn Makes My Mother Angry

Posted by john_d at 04:43 PM ET | Comments (10)

I had a rather breathless phone call from my mom yesterday. I get the feeling Maclean’s is about to lose a subscriber, though I’m sure that scares no-one over there.

What had Mom upset was Mark Steyn’s first column in the new Big Mac (read it under Jihad is a Feminist Issue at SteynOnline), in which he suggests women, or “broads” as he calls them, should—I hope I’m paraphrasing correctly—quit whining about life in the West where they have it great, and start complaining more about the plight of their sisters in Muslim countries. Is that what he’s arguing? It’s hard to tell ‘cause he seems to be mad at so many things—specifically, in order: feminists, our unmanned Dominion, Marc Lepine, Marc Lepine’s father, the press, men (specifically men who do what they’re told under threat of death), lobby groups, abortion, Russian women who have had abortions, Russian men, Gloria Steinem, Cameron Diaz, Oprah Winfrey, the Taliban, Kuwait, Pakistan, Susan Sarandon, the Governor General’s Literary Awards, Europe, women who choose to have fewer children later in life, abortion again, and men (again).

Yikes, what a tangle. At the heart of all this, though, it’s easy to recognize a classic gambit of the young, loud right—the co-opting. Check this out:

”... that’s all a long way away for Susan Sarandon, Gloria Steinem and the other sisters whose contribution to the liberation of Afghanistan was to oppose it.”

With this nasty rhetorical swipe, Steyn implies that Sarandon, Steinem et al do not meaningfully oppose the practice of “honour killings,” in which daughters are murdered to protect the honour of families. He takes a feminist issue (of course, I know it is more than a feminist issue) and suggests that the feminists don’t care about it. He appropriates their issue not really to prove any point, but simply to run them down.

The problem is, of course, that his argument depends on a rhetorical fallacy. Here comes Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (Second Edition) again (the textbook last used on this blog to question the emotional well-being of Christopher Hitchens).

Here’s Steyn’s syllogism:

Susan Sarandon and Gloria Steinem opposed the American intervention in Afghanistan.

The American intervention in Afghanistan helped the women of Afghanistan by releasing them from the repressive rule of the Taliban.

Therefore Susan Sarandon and Gloria Steinem opposed releasing the women of Afghanistan from the repressive rule of the Taliban.

In rhetorical terms, this argument is known as Illicit Process, which is exactly as dirty as it sounds. It’s a non sequitur of the lowest order.

More and more arguers on the left are having to put up with this kind of illogical crap from the rightwing media stars. It’s easy, it sounds sort of well-argued, makes for great magazine copy, and really stirs up the readers. Ken Whyte is undoubtedly pleased that my mother phoned me over something she read in Maclean’s, as he should be.

Here’s another classic illicit process argument from the right:

Peace protestors opposed US intervention in Iraq.

US intervention in Iraq removed Saddam Hussein who was guilty of untold atrocities against his own people.

Peace protestors supported/enabled Saddam Hussein in his untold atrocities against his own people.

Sound familiar? They’ll keep trying it, as long as people keep letting them get away with it. These assertions are not true, they cheapen discussion, and they are really incredibly dishonest.

So, Mom, is that what you were looking for?

More entries on:

January 05, 2006

Mild, Streaky Toronto—beloved of a nation

Posted by john_d at 12:29 PM ET | Comments (13)

I need to get this in quickly, while it’s still relevant. I know the RoC is dying for a Toronto update, so here goes:

We haven’t seen sunshine in it seems like months, and the temperature has been hovering a few degrees above freezing for way too long for this time of year. Backyard rinks are a mess right now. If this weather keeps up, we may have to adopt a self-righteous yet pot-smoking attitude and start calling ourselves The Couv.

On the other hand, the Blue Jays have spent the winter meetings filling all the holes that needed filling. We haven’t had a better team since the glory years. Bring on the spring.

As well, the Leafs have won six in a row and now stand seven points ahead of Montreal. How did THAT happen, with Montreal being all good and everything and Toronto sucking? What a weird world. Only ten back of superpower Ottawa, as well. And Lindros, the saviour, has been injured the whole time. Wonders. They are ceaseless.

Finally the Raptors have won four in a row, and just crushed, I say crushed Orlando last night 121-97 (for non-basketball cities, that’s a crushing). It’s like Toronto suddenly can’t lose. Maybe that will make Mason stop talking about bringing Ron Artest here—like we need another hot dog with an attitude problem playing pro sports in this town.

Now, we get to decide the federal election. Busy, busy, busy.

If I lived in any other city in the country, I’d have an inferiority complex about Toronto, and criticize it all the time.

Update:

I invite quick snapshots of other Canadian cities as we start busting open the New Year. I'd do it myself, but I can't think of any other Canadian cities. Is New York a Canadian city?

More entries on:

January 04, 2006

Potter Ponders Public Affairs, Publicly

Posted by john_d at 05:51 PM ET | Comments (13)

Holy cow, I can’t leave the desk tonight. Breaking news from Paul Wells’ blog. Our very own Andrew Potter has succeeded in the long jump he’s been practicing for months now, and will begin a regular column on public affairs for Maclean’s.

Andrew!!!!! Cheers to you. Very good news for you and the country.

Also excellent news:

Sarmishta Subramanian, former THIS editor and editor at large for just about everyone else also joins Maclean’s as a Senior Features Editor.

Check out Wells for all the latest national Post… I mean Maclean’s appointments.

More entries on:

Irving Layton RIP

Posted by john_d at 05:35 PM ET | Comments (7)

Israel Pincu Lazarovitch a.k.a. Irving Layton died today after a very long illness. Born in Romania, Layton was one of Canada’s most successful poets. He was 93 years old. I have transcribed the following poem from A Wild Peculiar Joy (McClelland & Stewart. Copyright 2004 by Irving Layton). Go and buy the book, why don’t you:

There Were No Signs

By walking I found out
Where I was going.

By intensely hating, how to love.
By loving, whom and what to love.

By grieving, how to laugh from the belly.

Out of infirmity, I have built strength.
Out of untruth, truth.

From hypocrisy, I wove directness.

Almost now I know who I am.
Almost I have the boldness to be that man.

Another step
And I shall be where I started from.

More entries on:

intellectual elitism and the Canadian voter

Posted by john_d at 12:39 PM ET | Comments (0)

Thanks to D.B. Scott for tipping me off to this Jim Travers column in the Toronto Star, which pushes Michael Ignatieff as the saviour of Canadian politics. Why the saviour? It's his brain, stupid.

I find something terribly troubling about this analysis, and not just because I am actively working to defeat Ignatieff in Etobicoke-Lakeshore by supporting his opponent, Liam McHugh-Russell.

Here’s what I mean. Some quotes:

...there is urgency in attracting back to politics thoughtful people who don’t need the job, pension or spotlight.

Why, exactly? I mean, I sort of get what’s being said—fewer immediately personal motives should mean greater “good for the country” motives. But how do we measure any of these things? How do we measure Ignatieff’s motives, and why should we assume that just because he’s smart, his motives are pure and good? Perhaps he has immediately personal motives involving his intellectual ego and a very inflexible vision he has for the country’s future. Would these be less bad than the motives of someone who wants to be MP because it’s a good job with a pension, and who is committed to doing a great job for her constituents?

Nevermind that Travers’ claim implies that Ignatieff’s opponents are not thoughtful, need a job with a pension and crave the spotlight. I doubt this is true of any of Ignatieff’s toughest opponets in the riding. Let’s give Ignatieff his job and Harvard pension—who’s to say he is not seeking a spotlight? There’s more fame in being a well-published academic than there is in being a well-published academic who is also Prime Minister of Canada? This point of Travers’ is a mess.

Then, there is the silence in the argument over the future of federalism that only a voice that is passionate and reasoned can break.

Really? No-one with passion and reason is leading the debate over Canada’s future right now? It seems to me Gilles Duceppe is doing an excellent job leading this debate, and he is both passionate and reasonable. That most of English Canada disagrees with him is a problem, for sure… for English Canada. It is Ignatieff’s own chosen party who has dropped the ball for English Canada. Again, we are asked to believe because he has degrees on his office wall in Boston, we should ignore the work of his party and elect him?

Years of nuanced writing on ethnicity got bent out of shape while his support for the Iraq war remains awkward to explain. And even for an academic who spends so much time in the streets below the ivory tower, the rough introduction to retail politics orchestrated by the Prime Minister’s operatives left campaign damage and personal bruises.

I have already given Ignatieff the benefit of nuance on ethnicity, as most, um, thoughtful people have, but what a fantastic dismissal of his Iraq policy opinions. Awkward to explain. Yeah, awkward. I should say so. When your country clearly opposes a war you supported, and you are asking for votes, that’s pretty awkward. Best not to talk about it (cue Ignatieff’s leaflet, which mentions his Iraq opinions exactly never)—now there’s the intellectual honesty one looks for in a professor, I mean politician.

As well, here we have the now familiar argument that all the crap surrounding Ignatieff’s parachuting-in was caused by some conspiracy of Martin’s operatives afraid of the smart new guy. Is Ignatieff his own man or not?

...he proselytizes for a central government strong enough to bind the federation and flexible enough to respect the provinces.”

Is proselytizes really the verb Travers wants here? But my real question is, other than Duceppe, who isn’t recommending a central government strong enough to bind the federation and flexible enough to respect the provinces? Oh, I see, Ignatieff can use bigger words to make this argument. Well, by God, let’s vote for the smart guy then. More please.

In politics, reach and grasp are separated by the gritty logistics of self-interest, organization and timing. Of the three, Ignatieff is only rich in the third.

And we know this because…? Again, why is any self-interest on the part of Ignatieff inconceivable?

Even before getting to the part where Travers says Ignatieff would raise Parliament’s collective IQ, I find his argument to be facile intellectual elitism of the very worst kind. It seems to be the only argument recommending Ignatieff. Hardly worth my vote.

There seems to be this weird underground movement out there that wants to see Ignatieff as the next Trudeau. Granted, there isn’t an “intellectual” or “thoughtful” person in Canada who does not relish the memory of Pierre Trudeau because of that man’s smarts and his position in the world of the intellect. But Trudeau also spoke truth to power, as far as I can tell, clearly and consistently. This is a quality I find Ignatieff lacks, and lacks hard.

To borrow an Americanism—I knew Pierre Trudeau, and you, sir, are no Pierre Trudeau.

More entries on:

The case against "free" votes in the House of Commons

Posted by mason at 09:59 AM ET | Comments (0)

Recent revelations about a powerful Washington lobbyist should not go unnoticed by Canadians, especially during the election time. A key plank in the Conservative platform is to increase the number of so-called "free" votes in the House of Commons. The thinking is this would reduce the nasty problems that go along with party politics, such as MPs ignoring their consciences (not to mention their constituents) because they are obliged to vote with the party on important votes.

But wait. It turns out there is a benefit to party politics after all. The crimes lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to yesterday—conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion—were part of a plea bargain, and he has agreed to co-operate with investigators, meaning damning evidence is sure to be given against Republican (and Democratic) benificiaries of his fraud. Abramoff's activities involved funnelling money—in exchange for influence—from at least eight Indian tribes to political groups and lawmakers in Washington, including speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert (who also yesterday tried wiping his hands of the affair by donating his share of the money to charity).

Under the U.S. system, representatives can vote any which way they want, which leaves them wide open to lobbying. In Canada, individual lobbying is not a large part of the system, since Members of Parliament are generally required to vote with their parties in order to pass or defeat legislation.

Let's keep it that way.

(See terrific Washington Post graphic outlining the Abramoff case.)

More entries on:

January 03, 2006

Happy New (ish) Year

Posted by john_d at 10:32 AM ET | Comments (1)

Influence peddling, money laundering, corrupt politicians. Does this have anything to do with Judge Gomery and our current election? Sure it does, but I’m actually talking about Jack Abramoff, the American lobbyist who is right now cutting a deal with prosecutors, which will involve a lot of names named and careers tanked, mostly on the Republican side of the aisle down there in creaky, unstable Washington. Wait, I mean vital and vibrant Washington. Nothing proves the vitality of a democracy like the efficacy of its federal prosecutors!

Fallout please? Well, in Canada we may just put the same jokers right back into power. In the States, it’s also an election year. Who knows, by this time next year, North American voters may have set a new standard for political responsibility. Um, look down if you want to see it.

Maybe Bolivia for a vacation this year.

More entries on:

Previous month: December 2005
Next month: February 2006

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

January 30, 2006

Face-to-face with independence

January 27, 2006

The Sword and the Shield

IPA convention, Day 1

revving the satirical engine

the shoe, apparently, fits

January 24, 2006

Yay, democracy! part 2

Yay, democracy

January 23, 2006

Group Hug

One day only!

Gimme a V, Gimme an O....

Oh. Canada.

Vote please -- your right and duty

January 22, 2006

Elections Canada, and bloggers.

January 21, 2006

The world I want to live in is kind of fantastic

Seat projections, anyone?

January 20, 2006

Harper backtracking on same sex marriage

January 19, 2006

Rebel Yell

a sphincter says what?

how desperate are the Liberals?

January 18, 2006

News from the backwater

Don't trash the 'stache?

January 17, 2006

Why they fight

Instructive history

January 16, 2006

Take action to end patronage at CBC

some of my best friends own dictionaries

January 15, 2006

And the winner is...

January 13, 2006

don't vote strategically -- unless you're a conservative

January 12, 2006

private health care—the sicker, the better

we always knew we were morally superior—now there’s proof

January 11, 2006

You know what's funny, in an ironic sort of way?

January 10, 2006

Scare tactics

Swimming in the jury pool

January 08, 2006

Day Trippin'

January 06, 2006

The Co-Opting—or, Mark Steyn Makes My Mother Angry

January 05, 2006

Mild, Streaky Toronto—beloved of a nation

January 04, 2006

Potter Ponders Public Affairs, Publicly

Irving Layton RIP

intellectual elitism and the Canadian voter

The case against "free" votes in the House of Commons

January 03, 2006

Happy New (ish) Year