Round Numbers

Confession: I have a bit of an obsessive-compulsive thing with symmetry and round numbers. So despite the strong temptation to end 2008 with with a sleazy-joke-baiting 69 posts, the desire to finish instead with an even 70 trumps. 

Thanks to any and all who have read my ramblings this past year, and have a very happy 2009.

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

In an article on the Slate website today, writer Emily Bazelon complains that G-rated movies, ostensibly created with young children in mind, are too violent and scary. It rubbed me the wrong way - like most complaints about movie, television and music content.

Bazelon talks specifically of how her six-year-old son and his friend were wound up a little too tight after watching the Tale of Desperaux, a film that apparently includes some images - scurrying rats, sharp-toothed cats, etc. - that could frighten young viewers. She makes some very interesting points about how animation has become so sophisticated and lifelike that kids might not always be sure what's real and what's fake, and how this might make movies like Desperaux more frightening than the patently ridiculous Road Runner-Wile E. Coyote cartoon battles of yore.

Still, I couldn't help but picture Bazelon's son as a hypersensitive scaredy-cat, rendered thin-skinned by parental overprotectiveness. Uncharitable and without any basis in reality - I don't know the Bazelons, after all - but still, I couldn't help it. I think what irked me the most is Bazelon's suggestion that it's not so much the violence that's the problem, but rather the "extended suspense that keeps my kids up all night." I get why kids movies shouldn't be bloody. But not suspenseful?

I'm probably biased her by my own early movie experiences, which included an unexpected exposure to the ending of the original Friday the 13th along with the usual kiddie fodder. But the fact is, kids can be scared by anything. When the mysterious government scientists in their white uniforms and masks came for E.T., I was horrified. I had nightmares about the end of Superman III, when one of the bad guys (bad girls, actually) gets turned into a metallic zombie by a machine that goes haywire. Numerous scenes from other kid-oriented movies left indelible and scary impressions on me as I was growing up.

In fact, those scenes have tended to last longer in my memory than most of the movies that surround them. Maybe that speaks to my own horror and suspense-y leanings, but I think it also says something about the point of going to the movies. You go to experience feelings, and those feelings can, and maybe should, also include fear. A safe kind of fear that, regardless of subsequent nightmares and racing heart rates, can be escaped when the curtain comes up.

Depriving one's child of the joys of a good, suspenseful ride seems to me to be more of a case of a parent not wanting to deal with an overexcited or sleepless kid than one of protecting said kid from any lasting damage. But being scared is part of the movie experience, just like children's nightmares are part of the parenting experience.

Caveat: These wise words are written by someone with no children.

Right Solution, Wrong Problem

It just occurred to me that George W. Bush is a genius. He has a knack for coming up with brilliant solutions in times of crisis. He just tends to pose the wrong solution for the wrong crisis.

For example, in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush calmly told Americans that everything was all right and that, in the name of patriotism, they should "keep shopping." In the aftermath of this year's financial meltdown, meanwhile, Bush proposed that the U.S. government do an end-run around capitalism in order to save capitalism, a process that required something akin to creative diplomacy.

These solutions might have worked to perfection, if applied to the opposite problem. Shopping hasn't brought an end to either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars, and while the U.S. hasn't been attacked on its own soil since 9/11, that can hardly be credited to citizens doing their patriotic duty at the malls. But a little creative diplomacy on top of all the military aggression might have made the whole "war on terror" more successful and would have kept the U.S. from squandering its reputation internationally.

However, the sliding economy is a crisis that actually could be minimized if people kept shopping. In particular, the super-rich - those people whose wealth far exceeds what they or their offspring could possibly spend in a lifetime - could use their recession-proof status to pump much-needed dollars into the economy in a time of need.

So to all the billionaires out there (who surely have this blog bookmarked), do your country proud and get that Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course installed in your backyard.

And to President Bush (whom I expect is also a regular reader), you're a genius. Almost.

Fine Moments in Journalism

Once again, I will serve more as aggregator than commentator. But commentary first.

Barack Obama has chosen celebrity mega-minister Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life (whose own life purpose has included amassing millions of dollars from his faithful following and who, therefore, seems inevitably driven to some kind of Jim Bakker-like scandal eventually), to serve as the official priest at his inauguration next month. Why does this supposedly secular occasion need an official prayer-leader? Because it's America, of course - the land where church and state separation is eternally compromised by the GPS ankle bracelet that church keeps on state to make sure the latter doesn't stray too far.

And because it's America, and because he's America's top politician, Obama has to pay lip service to this game whether he wants to or not. But Rick Warren is a disappointing choice, for reasons that celebrity atheist Christopher Hitchens illuminates, in typical biting fashion, in this article. Let's hope that Obama's mistakes are confined strictly to ceremonial gestures.

Fine moment #2:

In the latest Vanity Fair, William Langewiesche delivers a teeth-grindingly suspenseful account of a mid-flight airplane crash that happened in South America two years ago. This is just outstanding journalism. Langewiesche's reconstruction features fastidious detail that builds a mounting sense of dread as the piece goes on. By the time of the accident, you feel like you're on both planes.

Fine moment #3:

From the same issue of Vanity Fair, a profile of Tina Fey by Maureen Dowd. If you're looking for Dowd to fawn over Fey, and if you're looking for Fey to play into any sexy-teacher stereotypes that correspond with her recent rise to stardom, you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for a window into a celebrity that changes your perspective of the subject, you won't be. What surprised me is that Fey comes off as a bit of a nag and a prude - very curious to see how her camp reacts to the story.

Potpourri

A few short hits after several weeks of relative inactivity here.

1. I swear I'd never even heard the word "prorogue" until Canada's Governor-General agreed to do it to Parliament in order to buy Stephen Harper some time. Never let it be said that a constitutional crisis can't have a positive effect on the nation's vocabulary. From now on, when someone accuses me of procrastinating on a story deadline, or household chores, or a bill payment, I will explain that I am not avoiding these responsibilities but rather proroguing them.

2. Prediction for 2009: Shoe-tossing will become the new vogue for registering one's distaste. I can't say much more about President Bush's dodging of an angry Iraqi's shoes at a weekend press conference that Pop Crunch doesn't already say very cleverly at the linked site. But I do wonder whether there's ever been a president in American history who was more eager than Bush (likely) is to see his term come to an end. He's like the PC to Obama's incoming Mac.

3. A lot of what I support politically might be decried by conservatives as "nanny state" stuff. But if you want to read about the real definition of a nanny state, read this.

Hopefully I'll get a few posts up over the holidays. But in the event that I choose to prorogue, I hope everyone has a good, relaxing time.

Harper's Bizarre

Apparently the current political wrestling match in Ottawa has catalyzed the coming-of-age of Canada's political blogosphere. Good. It's about time this country truly embraced the practice, well-established in the U.S. and elsewhere, of hurling poorly-spelled sub-kindergarten insults at each other while hiding behind anonymous noms-des-plumes (like McGarnicle. Or Arrowsplitter).

This blog yawns and rises on its own sweet time, of course, so it's taken until now to post about this. Not that I haven't discussed it with people. And in fact, that might be the primary good that comes of all this - spurred on by the question, "can they really do this?", Canadians are becoming at least mildly interested in their own country's politics again.

The situation in review, as I'm sure everyone knows: Last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty released an "economic update" that did not include a major economic stimulus package but did propose the elimination of public funds for political parties, the elimination of public employees' right to strike and, I believe, dilution of some pay equity laws. All of this - especially the part about political funds - stuck in the craw of the Opposition parties, and the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois have since agreed to team up in a coalition that would constitute a majority and oust Stephen Harper and the Tories from power. The Green Party has also said it would support this coalition, which would, if it follows through on its threats, make Liberal leader Stephane Dion the Prime Minister and implement a 24-member cabinet consisting of 18 Liberals and six NDPers.

Having fun yet? If you like naked power politics wrapped up in outraged, won't-somebody-think-of-the-country rhetoric, you have to be. Harper has called the coalition and its motives undemocratic for attempting to seize power without actually being elected. "Through the back door," as he puts it - a fine turn of phrase for a guy experiencing the political equivalent of forced sodomy. Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton, meanwhile, have bounced the "undemocratic" accusation back at Harper, suggesting that withdrawing public funding for the parties was a way to gain unfair political advantage (the Tories would lose the most in raw dollars under such a move, but that's misleading - they also draw by far the most on corporate donors, meaning that their financial edge over the other parties would increase). 

They're all kind of right, and they're all very wrongheaded. Certainly, Harper has a point when he says that installing a coalition government just two months after the Conservatives won a fairly strong minority seems to go against the expressed will of the people. And Dion, Layton and their supporters are right to say that Harper/Flaherty's economic update was a sneaky, egregious exercise in pure partisan politics. 

But what should happen now? The headline in the Toronto Sun yesterday bleated that "this must not be allowed to happen." However, unless they're suggesting a complete overhaul of Canada's political system, it absolutely must be allowed to happen - this is how the Parliamentary system works. 

Nevertheless, don't be surprised if it all comes to nothing. That's the view of a writer at a prominent national magazine, and I see his point. There's too much to lose here for the coalition parties. The Liberals, chastened in the last two elections for their corrupt sense of entitlement during 11 years of continuous rule, would come off looking more than ever like a party motivated solely by gaining power, elections be damned. They'd also be putting the embarrassing Dion, who, more than any other single reason, was the cause of their historic electoral defeat in October, in the Prime Minister's chair as a complete lame duck. He'll be replaced in May, meaning that Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae or Dominic Leblanc would take over, also without being elected. And the NDP, while it would enjoy the chance to get closer to government than ever before, would be seen in some circles as selling out their principles and basically be conceding their inconsequentiality as a distinct party.

A lame-duck and uninspiring Prime Minister. Three leadership candidates squabbling amongst each other. An NDP that would surely become frustrated by the lack of attention paid to its agenda. A Bloc party that would always be there, offering helpful reminders about its own separatist agenda. How could this coalition possibly govern? How can any meaningful, coherent voice emerge from the racket?

The magazine writer I spoke to felt that, more than anything, this was an opportunity for the Opposition parties to kick Harper in the teeth after two and a half years of bullying by the Conservative leader. And, tail between his legs, Harper has clawed back some of the contentious items in the economic update. Having gotten these concessions, the Opposition parties might be wise to withdraw their threats of a peaceful coup. It could - especially if it results in a snap election - result in a major backfire in which election-fatigued voters end up giving Harper a majority.

Who said Canadian politics was boring?

Amsterdamage

Spent last week in Amsterdam on business, but managed to sprinkle a healthy amount of sightseeing and shenanigans into the adventure. I had intended to chronicle said adventure through the blog while I was there, but something kept interfering with my short-term memory and it just didn't happen. You are thus spared the extended travelogue and can instead chew on these scattered morsels of observation.

Things you see in Amsterdam:

- Some of the oldest buildings in Europe (Amsterdam has been remarkably unaffected by the various wars that have bombed out classic architecture in cities such as London. To walk in Amsterdam is to walk among rows of five-story structures that have stood since the 17th century. The buildings lean slightly into the street, a design that allowed for residents of the upper floors to lower baskets down to street level, to be filled with goods from the markets).

- Canals. They loop around the city in concentric circles, passing under small bridges. Looking down-canal from one of the bridges provides, to my mind, the iconic view of the city - the canal and two or three bridges in the distance until the waterway veers off on its circular path, taking the old, beautiful buildings with it.

- Museums. The Van Gogh. The Rijksmuseum (with lots of Rembrandt and a great visual tour through the history of the Dutch and their colonies). Do not go to Amsterdam without going to these places.

- Coffeeshops. Everyone knows you can do soft drugs legally in Amsterdam, although it's considered bad form to do them anywhere other than the designated "coffeeshops." Actually, I think the Dutch consider it pretty bad form to be a pothead in general. The quasi-legal status of drugs in the Netherlands is an object lesson in sensible legislation...people in the country don't grow up thinking of weed as a mysterious, forbidden fruit, so they're not as eager to taste it (especially when the legions of zombified tourists make it look so lame). Still, it's a fun and unique experience to buy drugs off a menu.

- Prostitutes in windows. Again, everyone knows this. But I was somewhat surprised to find, on this visit, that they're in the windows as early as 10 in the morning. Not surprised, however, to learn that the 10AM window shift is (even) more depressing than the 10PM.

Things you do not see in Holland:

- Obesity. Everyone is on their bikes or on their feet at all times, which must be the reason that, despite the presence of super-rich pastries on every street corner, the total fat of the Amsterdam population seems to be less than that of one Big Mac. If you see a fat person, they're a foreigner.

- Short people. How the Dutch are not a basketball power is beyond me. Even the women all seem to be over six feet. If you see a short person (under six feet), they're either under the age of 12 or a foreigner.

Okay, so that ended up being an extended travelogue after all. And it probably contained zero news value for anyone who's been there or even read about the city in any detail. But I had to record something for the record about Amsterdam.

And really, it's MY blog, isn't it?

U.S. policy, 2009 model

President-elect Obama met with President Bush at the White House today for the traditional post-election photo-op and tour. I bet if Dubya had the option, he'd hand over the keys this minute - it has to be awkward playing housesitter for a guy that so many people are so eager to see take charge. Doubly awkward considering Bush himself was arguably the main reason that Republicans were so thoroughly trounced.

There was also some news today about how the first few weeks of Obama's presidency might go, beginning with a plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. Also reported in the Toronto Star: Obama's apparently working out a list of policies he can and will immediately reverse upon taking office, which includes lifting a ban on stem cell research.

While the biggest problems - the economic crisis, the wars - will take much more time and effort to resolve, there's reason to believe Obama's America will differ from Bush's in some meaningful ways quite soon after the transition. A relief for liberals, yes, but also a testament to American democracy, as none other than Desmond Tutu notes in the Washington Post.

As Tutu reminds us, it's worth appreciating any country that allows its citizens to change course every few years when bad leadership leads them astray.

Barack to the Future

Thanks to an ill-timed work conference, it's taken me two days to comment on the end result of what had been a personal obsession for a year and a half. But while history waits for no man, it was kind enough to hold off until I got home on Tuesday night, and can surely forgive my delayed written reaction.

Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States. And it wasn't even close. The Democratic ticket won a landslide in the Electoral College and drew 52% of the popular vote, which sounds tight until you consider that it's the largest popular vote percentage earned by any candidate in 20 years.

Obama won't have much time to ruminate about the history he's made as the first president not of purely Caucasian descent. The economy's in the toilet, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ongoing and it's difficult to think of a president in recent memory who took office at a more challenging time. The honeymoon will be short, and it won't be long before Obama starts to disappoint those who projected certain qualities and ideologies onto him that aren't necessarily there. Case in point: his proposed plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. I've never taken this claim at face value. Once he's in the White House, I believe Obama is going to fully appreciate the complexity of the situation and realize that a more cautious withdrawal plan is necessary. He'll still do what he can to bring troops home - it's just that his ardent anti-war supporters will not be satisfied with the pace.

But for now, rather than focus on how President Obama may or may not live up to his campaign pledges, there is reason to celebrate - in a truly bi-partisan fashion - the fact that he has earned the chance to try. Not because he is necessarily the best candidate (although it says here he was) or has the best plan (although it says here he does) or ran the best campaign (he did) or because the U.S. and the world desperately need "change" (they do). Rather, this election was most notable in what it reflected about Americans.

Residents of more liberal Western countries such as Canada often like to claim a moral and intellectual superiority over "stupid Americans," a stance that, while colossally arrogant and stupid in itself, has been all too easy to justify for the past eight years. And throughout Obama's run for president, even as it became clear in recent weeks that his victory was all but assured, many people still couldn't quite believe that the U.S. would actually elect a biracial leader to its highest office. Too many racists would come out of the closet and into the voting booths, many predicted. Too many white voters would, at the last minute, balk at the notion of a president with dark skin and a last name separated by only one letter from the first name of the world's most-wanted terrorist.

Well, I guess Americans aren't so stupid. And I guess that closet full of racists isn't so full anymore, after all. What's astonishing isn't just that Obama won - it's that he won by carrying states like Florida, with its high proportion of aging, conservative voters,Virginia, the home territory of the Confederacy, blue-collar bellwethers Ohio and Florida and traditional Republican strongholds such as Iowa and New Mexico. He won a 14-point majority of female votes and pulled in a surprising number of votes from the white lunchpail crowd that was always his toughest audience.

In other words, he didn't just win by turning out the vote among white progressives, minorities and young people - although he did do all that. He won by collecting a substantial number of votes from the very people that us morally and intellectually superior foreigners (and many blue-state Americans) thought would automatically reject him. Because of this, he can lay legitimate claim to being a truly national president after years of rigid division between liberals and conservatives. Although he still has to prove his bona fides as a uniter in government, his campaign has already succeeded in making his country more united.

So credit Obama with proving to doubters, through sheer force of intellect, personality and grace, that race is not an obstacle to the presidency. But more so than that, credit the American voters, who may very well have - despite the assumptions of anti-American detractors - already come to that conclusion before he even announced his candidacy.

When I was in Mississippi this past summer, one of my hosts, a Republican who was disillusioned with the Bush Administration, said that regardless of the failures of the past eight years, John McCain would win because America simply wasn't ready to elect a black president. I wonder how he felt on Tuesday night - pleased? disappointed? - to discover that he was wrong.

In defence of the liberal press

It's been a while since I linked to a Slate article, and considering my addiction to the site I'm pretty proud that I've resisted scratching that itch. No more, though. Jack Shafer, Slate's media critic, posted an excellent piece today that addresses the so-called "liberal bias" in the mainstream media. Shafer doesn't try to argue that journalists, as a group, tilt overwhelmingly to the left. Instead, he explains why this is so, and why, despite the angry bleating of conservatives, the personal politics of reporters and editors probably don't mean that much when it comes to actual coverage. It's worth noting that Shafer is no liberal himself. He's a crusty individualist who's voted Libertarian in every election since 1972. 

That crusty individualism reveals itself in almost every one of his columns - he's usually hilarious and carves through bullshit like a hot knife through butter (only he doesn't use that kind of shopworn cliche). He's the kind of journalist I aspire to be, and in fact one of my more cherished professional memories was a very brief phone and email correspondence with him more than three years ago, when I was researching a story pitch for my final year of J-school. The story never got out of the idea stage, and Shafer was as gruff and crusty as his copy advertised when we spoke, but I'll always appreciate the fact that he bothered to call and write back. He didn't have to.

That's something I keep in mind when I read his often withering media critiques - he hurts us because he cares.

The (non-GOP) elephant in the room

There have been enough assassinations, and thwarted attempts, of United States presidents in the country's history that every candidate for the office is well aware that they're a potential target. That goes for any candidate, regardless of party or policies or race or gender or sexual orientation. Presidents are famous, and there are always kooks out there who would cut them down them simply to get some fame-by-association.

That the risk is higher for Barack Obama is something that hasn't, to my knowledge, been brought up very frequently in the mainstream media - although it has certainly been a topic of conversation among family and friends and, I'm willing to bet, millions of people around the world. I think no one wants to bring it up too publicly for fear that speaking the words too loudly will make them come true. But the fact is, Obama's mixed-race identity makes him a target for lunatics with a particular racist bent, in addition to the garden-variety lunatics that might ordinarily take a shot at any president.

I was reminded of this grim fact when I read this story, outlining an actual plan that was derailed, thankfully, by the authorities. Seems like the two neo-Nazi losers behind this plot had little chance of success (even they acknowledged that they'd probably be the ones eating the bullets), but it's nonetheless chilling to read about the depth of racial hatred they felt, and the violent steps they were hoping to take in order to satisfy it. 

It's disheartening to think of Obama and his family, on the verge of a historic victory, having to keep these terrifying scenarios in the back of their minds. If he becomes president, he'll have no shortage of incredibly complex challenges to face right out of the gate. A real shame that, as long as he is in office, he and his Secret Service team will probably also have to face the stupidest and most basic ones, too.

Joe the Bummer

After 18 months of obsessing, to varying degrees, over the U.S. presidential race, I hit a wall last week. During the last debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, I found myself switching, guiltily, between their conversation and the Red Sox-Rays game. Although the snippets I saw suggested that it might have been the best and most lively of the three debates, I just couldn't take it anymore. I was so sick of both of them - the way they continually refused to answer direct questions, continually used their time to stick forks in each other's eyes (especially McCain) rather than explain what their plans were, the way they competed, ridiculously, to see which one could stick a fork deeper into the eye of the Bush Administration. It just seemed like there was nothing more to say, and certainly nothing more than I could stand to listen to.

So I've stepped back a little bit, perhaps recognizing that for all my interest, I don't get a vote and thus I'm completely powerless to influence the result. It's worth noting, though, that more and more news outlets and pundits are calling it game over for McCain. Obama's taken the lead in polls in key states like Pennsylvania, and the McCain team's desperation is evident in the fact that they've all but completely abandoned policy distinctions in favour of hysterical attempts to link Obama to long-retired terrorists and squabbles over a well-off, barely-literate plumber. 

I don't want to jinx the result, but things certainly seem to be tipping in Obama's direction. Which means the Sarah Palin sideshow - version 2008 at least - will soon be in the rear-view mirror. Too bad, in a way, because she has provided some decent entertainment. Most recently, there's the flap about the Republican Party spending $150,000 in one month to keep her in crisp blouse-and-skirt combos from Neiman Marcus and Sak's. 

Now, I don't particularly care about this - I certainly don't think it's a huge scandal, and I wonder if it speaks to a bit of a double standard that women in political life have to face. But I do enjoy it when Palin, who has made quite a sport out of dodging the press, laments how unfair it is when "all the facts aren't reported." Especially when she puts it in such Britney-esque terms:

"That whole thing is just, bad."

Imagine Palin applying this pearl of wisdom in a conversation with Kim Jong-Il about or Mahmoud Ahmidinejad about nuclear reactors in North Korea or Iran, or when hammering out a solution to the financial crisis with Henry Paulson. It's laugh-so-hard-you-cry kind of stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, Palin can keep the fancy clothes, just as long as she doesn't become vice president. Because that whole thing would be just bad.

Deja Phew

Bet you thought I couldn't do it. "It" being finding another "deja vu" pun after today's Canadian dailies used most of them up. Never let it be said that I won't venture to the farthest, most cobwebby corners of my mind in search of low comedy.

The various dejas, of course, refer to the fact that Stephen Harper's Conservatives won another minority government in yesterday's federal election. It's a significantly stronger minority at 143 seats, just 12 short of the majority Harper was hoping for - hence the "phew" on behalf of those not predisposed to Mr. Sweater Vest.

For Harper, it's a bit of a disappointment but certainly a strong enough showing to keep him firmly ensconced as Prime Minister and Conservative leader. For the Liberals, a disaster - despite a bit of a resurgence in Quebec - that will more than likely cost Stephane Dion the party leadership. For Jack Layton and the NDP, an exercise in wheel-spinning with just a couple more seats and 1% more of the popular vote - although the party will be buoyed by the election of MPs in Alberta and Quebec. For the Greens, no seats but the hope that Elizabeth May has helped win a seat at the table in Canada's mainstream political discourse. For the Bloc, a rousing reminder that the party still dominates in the only province it cares about.

 A few weeks and a few millions dollars later, however, and we're not in a significantly different position than we were before. Expect a Conservative minority to continue for a fairly long time now, as the Liberals have lots of work to do on everything from leadership to the policy playbook and the other parties didn't do much to advance the idea that they're a credible threat to form a government. 

This gives Harper a lot of leeway to build support for his agenda. But those opposed to said agenda can take heart in the fact that the electoral map suggests the Conservatives may have hit their ceiling of support. Also, Harper's a guy who likes a good scrap, and with his opponents doing a left-wing Three Stooges routine, he may allow himself to drift out of fighting shape.

Hell frozen, ice safe for skating

Sports break!

In this crazy, mixed-up world of ours, it's nice to know you can set your clock by some things. Certain dates that roll around every year and bring warm feelings to your heart. So it was yesterday, as the NHL got the 2008-09 season started. So it was this morning, as I opened up my hockey pool page and saw the first true statistical update of the season (last weekend's Europe games aside). Ahh, sweet hockey. My fellow puckheads and I had better savour this - it's only going to last for another nine months or so.

Living in Toronto, I'm stuck with a Leafs-heavy TV schedule despite the fact that they're going to be one of the more dreary teams in the league again this year. Or maybe not. They beat the champion Red Wings last night, and while the result might be an anomaly in what is still probably going to be a very trying season, they looked quite good. Faster, more aggressive, more organized. Fun to watch.

Maybe it's because so many of them are so young that they don't realize how much they're supposed to stink. Or maybe they know exactly how much they're supposed to stink and they want to prove people wrong. Mostly, I think it's the fact that about half of the guys on the team know they could be sent down to the minors if they don't play hard and follow the coach's script. Competing for your job every night - not exactly a feature of recent veteran-laden Leaf teams - has a way of bringing things into focus.

Canadiana

Okay, I'll admit it. I watched Biden-Palin instead of the Canadian leaders' debate last week. But I did flip channels from time to time. With the strangely dark lighting, the round-table format and the host's constant referencing of Biden-Palin, the sexiness deficiency of Canadian politics was on full display. That, and the fact that Canadian politicians, compared to those in the U.S., have a not very entertaining habit of actually answering questions and talking issues. How's that supposed to get people interested?

I managed to stay focused for a few minutes at a time and gleaned a couple of things. First is that, I must admit, I do understand the appeal of Stephen Harper. The left likes to paint him as a right-wing ideologue, and that he may be, but he comes across as pragmatic, calm and rational, and I get why Canadians have warmed to him in his short time in power. I don't like him, but I get it. 

Stephane Dion, on the other hand, seemed like he was flailing - in part, I think, because of his lack of comfort in English. I have to say that I have trouble understanding him, and whether it's fair or not it's very difficult for him to connect with a national audience if they don't know exactly what he's saying. Especially problematic when you're pushing something like the Green Shift, which demands a lot of explanation. 

Jack Layton might very well be a good enough leader to win. If he was the Liberal Party's leader, that is. From what I saw, he did a good job of playing up the NDP's populism while playing down its big-government socialism - the programs he brought up all had price tags and were paired with cuts in other areas that would pay for them. He also did the best job of attacking Harper. But it's still the NDP, and while the party might be able to peel off a few more Liberal votes, it won't be enough to become the official opposition. And, of course, it'll end up actually strengthening the Conservatives (more on strategic voting in a sec).

Elizabeth May was solid, taking full advantage of being added to the debate. The Green Party's electoral chances are slim, of course, but she helped present a de-radicalized image of the party that could serve it well down the line. 

I don't really much care about Gilles Duceppe. He was fine, and I always get the impression that he enjoys being the wrench in these things. He can't become Prime Minister, doesn't want to, and therefore he has the least pressure on him.

Overall, the U.S. economic crisis has hurt Harper a little, but it looks as though he's still going to win a solid minority. Which will rile up the operators websites like these, which offer lessons on strategic voting. Ah, strategic voting - one of the great joys of the Canadian political universe. A lot of NDPers, of course, disdain the practice on principle, and that does make sense. But with five parties out there, four of them on the left, to varying degrees, I think it's become a necessary evil.  

I wonder when the Libs and the NDP (and maybe the Greens, too) will realize that at least two of them need to band together. Taken as a whole, they represent Canadian opinion far more accurately than do the Conservatives. But there's too much vote-splitting. For inspiration, they might want to look at the Conservatives, who've been able to rebound from political obscurity by uniting the former Reform and PC parties. 

Never hurts to steal a page from the enemy playbook.

The Undercard

At their vice-presidential debate last week, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin weren't much better than their running mates in terms of answering direct questions or going beyond vague platitudes. But they did make for a far more entertaining show. And without question, Palin was the star.

After rousing the conservative base with her down-home charm and borderline MILF-iness at the Republican convention, Palin entered a month-long media blackout, stepping out into the light only twice and getting burned both times. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric exposed her ignorance on a wide range of issues - or at least an inability to think on her feet (how could she not have been able to name even one magazine? Surely she's got a few copies of this one lying around the house). She'd gone from potential saviour of the McCain campaign to national joke in a few short weeks, and the widespread expectation was that Biden would slaughter and field-dress her, Alaskan moose-style, on the debate stage. The prospect of a rhetorical turkey shoot lent some intrigue to the confrontation.

By any rational measure, Biden did crush Palin. He came closer than she did to actually answering the questions, flaunted the breadth and depth of his knowledge and shrewdly avoided the temptation to condescend to his under-qualified opponent. Palin, on the other hand, gave a virtuoso lesson on how to stick to memorized script regardless of the question being posed. I especially liked when she used the fact that she'd only been on the ticket for five weeks to dodge a question about promises that might have to be rescinded.

What she didn't do is cry, or wet her pants, or stare blankly at the screen for minutes at a time. Which, after her Gibson and Couric interviews, seemed to be what people were expecting. The bar for her was set so low that it would have been more difficult to limbo under it than hop over it, and hop over she did. This is, after all, a poised and confident woman with a strong belief in her (misguided) convictions. She was never going to cower. 

In that sense, it was a victory for her. But while she might have avoided personal embarrassment, it's not like she did a lot to re-energize the McCain campaign. She clearly lacked Biden's intellectual heft and curiosity, and her performance reinforced her status as a neophyte on the national political stage. In other words, I don't think she made anyone feel any better about her as America's potential second-in-command.

Where to begin?

Phew. A very busy couple of weeks at the copy-churning factory, so it's been a while since I've been here. Thankfully, nothing much has happened in the world since September 22.  Sigh...let's do this in multiple posts, shall we?

First up, the U.S. presidential race. Neither of the two debates between Barack Obama and John McCain have produced much compelling material. Obama, having recognized after the primaries that his biggest task in the general election was to allay concerns about his vague ideas and inexperience, has dialed down the big-idea rhetoric and become a policy wonk. He no longer sends people's hearts into their throat, but he's been more or less successful at answering the question, what does "change" look like. In this respect, he's outflanked an increasingly bizarre and attack-oriented McCain campaign. At the most recent town hall debate, McCain spent far too much time laying into Obama and not nearly enough talking up his own agenda. At his age and with his POW experience, McCain gives away many physical characteristics to Obama, differences that are exacerbated on television and are even more pronounced when he launches into petty attacks. The body-language deficit and the bitterness make him appear exactly like the out-of-touch old man that Obama's tried to portray him as. Meanwhile, McCain's attempts to smear him as a dangerous novice seem less and less credible the more Obama spits out mind-numbingly boring minutiae about credit card defaults.

These factors, plus the fact that the economic crisis has shifted the election issues onto turf that's more comfortable for Obama than McCain, have created significant momentum for the Democrat. He's leading by five or six points in national polls (a blowout by presidential election standards) and has gone ahead in swing states like Pennsylvania. The narrative is starting to form in the media, too, with even some Republican observers all but conceding that the race is over. 

But there is still one important factor to consider, one thrown out rather bluntly by CNN pundit David Gergen after the town hall debate. After listening to pretty much every member of the "Best Political Team on Television" declare Obama the next president, Gergen pointed out - as if everyone had forgotten - that Obama is black. It's funny, because I had been impressed and relieved at how the emphasis on his racial makeup had diminished. Yet I, like so many people, I think, won't fully believe the Barack Obama story until he's voted into office. We all know that a certain subset of American voters will not vote for him simply because of his mixed racial identity. We won't know until next month how big that group is.

Onward, dubious soldier

I've written before about how it's hard to be cynical about John McCain's POW story - how he subjected himself to four extra years of torture by adhering to the first-captured, first-released principle rather than take the easy way out. Okay, so the part after the em-dash remains pretty impressive. But it looks like there's room for cynicism anyway, and not just because McCain and his surrogates have politicized the tale by making it the focal point of his election campaign.

Check this out. No really, check it out. It's a story about how McCain has allegedly played a key role in a decades-long coverup regarding POWs allegedly left behind in Vietnam. I know I link to articles all the time and that it's mostly to prove that I know how to put in a link (Matt 2.0!). But this really is worth reading, not only because it theoretically could take the McCain campaign out at the knees, but because it's not likely, if the last thirtysomething years are any indication, to get much play from the mainstream media.

A politician's cavalier hypocrisy and the media's lazy complicity - two sources of rage for the price of one.

Strong idea, weak proof

This research-study story from the Toronto Star should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a small planet, but it leads into an idea I've been thinking about for a while - the odd relationship between liberals, conservatives and courage.

The gist is this: Conservatives so often paint liberals as cowards who don't have the spine to face the tough issues of the day, particularly issues like war and national security. But isn't the whole conservative proposition an exercise in cowardice? Isn't every right-wing campaign based on some speciously-reasoned terror? We must spend billions fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because the terrorists are scary. We must deny gay marriage because "the gays" would uproot the moral fabric of society and because gay marriage would inevitably lead to horses marrying 10-year-old boys. We must not regulate markets or have socialized medicine because that makes us Communists, and Communists are scary. 

On almost every issue, the conservative argument is based on being afraid. Afraid of change, afraid of the future. And yet conservatives succeed quite regularly at playing the tough guys, disguising cowardice as courage.

I'm not suggesting that the liberal proposition is perfect, but I just don't see the same dissonance between the public image and the principles that drive it.

Oh (yeah, forgot about) Canada

Compared to U.S. elections, which mix a tiny dash of policy focus into a steaming brew of character assassination, feigned outrage and relentless appealing to the lowest common denominator, Canadian elections, with their focus on legislative agendas and their charisma-free leaders, are kinda dull. Thus, it is with some sadness that I have to acknowledge the fact that my home and native land has a vote for Oct. 14.

Whereas the Americans are talking about change and are, in one form or another, going to get it, us Canucks are being put through the democratic process for the purpose of reaffirming the status quo. Stephen Harper's still creepy - all the more so when he tries to go all family guy in his TV spots - but his performance thus far has been mainstream enough to pacify concerns that he'd turn Canada into a Bush-lite, neo-con state. Stephane Dion, for all his good intentions, is still a dork who comes off as though he's crying about Harper shaking him down for his lunch money (don't think Harper wouldn't do it, either). Jack Layton still looks like he just walked off the set of a late-70s porn flick and while he's managed to pull in some former Liberal supporters, he still represents what amounts to a fringe party. And speaking of fringe, there are the Greens, who will just count themselves lucky to hold onto their first ever MP.

In other words, we're still going to end up with a (perhaps slightly enlarged) Conservative minority. In the meantime, we'll get ads about Green Shifts, economic management and pulling troops out of Afghanistan. We'll also get some personal attacks, but far fewer than our southern neighbours. I guess we should be thankful that our political system remains, relatively speaking, focused on the issues. It speaks well for Canada and Canadians. Sadly, though, it just lacks the entertainment value of U.S. politics - the best reality show running.

Palin impalin'

Almost forgot about Sarah Palin's big Wednesday night speech. There was a lot of pressure on her, and she pretty convincingly destroyed the notion that she'd be some kind of terrified deer in headlights. Turns out she's more like the driver who sees the deer, floors the gas pedal and joyfully licks the blood off the windshield after the collision. Only Rudy Giuliani's speech rivaled hers in terms of grinning, mean-spirited bile.

When she wasn't ripping out liberal throats, Palin was lovingly speaking of her family and introducing them one by one. That, to me, should solve once and for all the conundrum of whether it's fair to criticize her handling of her teen daughter's pregnancy. You simply cannot exploit your family for political gain and then cry foul on anyone who brings up your family in an unfavourable light. 

Women - and men - ought to be proud of Palin's groundbreaking nomination. But she provides yet another reason to avoid the Republican ticket. She may seem like a female heroine, but she'd set women back decades if she's in power. Best that she be known as the unlikely answer to a trivia question.

McCain takes the edge off

Watching John McCain's acceptance speech last night, it occurred to me that the Republican convention played out like a week-long good cop-bad cop routine. After days of failed candidates, party insiders and a vice-presidential hopeful softening up the Democrats with vicious body blows - including several of the below-the-belt variety - McCain took the stage last night to play the caring nurse with the soothing, bedside manner. If the previous speeches were meant to rile up the Republican base, McCain's was an appeal to common-sense independents. It wasn't particularly graceful and it certainly didn't make me feel any better about his policy positions, but at least it was better than the childish pissing and dissing contest that preceded it.

Generally speaking, I think it was an effective speech for McCain. It made him less frightening to non-Republicans, and even if the GOP base doesn't agree with all of his politics, they never get tired of hearing about his war stories. Which are, you have to admit, pretty astonishing - especially the fact that he condemned himself to four extra years of torture in a POW camp in order to let a fellow soldier go free. Kind of hard to be cynical about that one.

The final lap of this endless race commences now. For many reasons, from the justifiable to the reprehensible, it'll be closer than it has any right to be.

All the good Palin puns have been used...

...at least as far as I can tell. Anyone got a Palin pun they haven't seen used yet? Consider this an informal contest - post a comment with your Palin pun (I've already seen Palin comparison and Palintology, among others) - and you'll win a prize pack consisting of my amusement.

But seriously now. McCain has seen Barack Obama's barrier-breaking candidacy and raised him another barrier-breaking candidacy. Or to make a more accurate poker analogy, he's flat-called. Alaska governor Sarah Palin would become the first female vice president if the Republicans win in November, which means that the Democrats no longer have solitary claim to to a potential "first." Either way, the U.S. will make history in this election.

Palin's nomination is fascinating for a ton of reasons. On one hand, it could be perceived as a cynical grab for disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, but Palin's a long way from Clinton. Her pro-life, pro-gun views are to the right of McCain's own, so this selection actually seems to be aimed more at conservative hardliners than independent female voters. McCain wasn't looking to bring more people into the tent - he was looking to pacify the people who were already in the tent but not convinced of his ability to keep it upright. 

In pacifying the Moral Majority, however, McCain has chosen someone whose level of experience - she's been governor for less than two years - is even less impressive than Obama's. Nothing that hasn't been said a billion times elsewhere already, but the GOP's attacks on Obama's inexperience ring pretty hollow now. Although they've kept launching them during the first couple days of the RNC convention.

Oh, and then there's the whole thing about Palin's 17-year-old daughter being five months pregnant, courtesy of her 18-year-old boyfriend. In making the announcement, Palin was quick to express her support and to note that her daughter would have the baby and marry the boyfriend (does the NRA sell commemorative shotguns for these occasions?). All very well and consistent with her anti-abortion stance, although I wouldn't bet the beer money on Bristol and Levi having a long and happy future together. 

However, Bristol Palin's pregnancy would seem to put the lie to another one of her mother's core beliefs - abstinence-only education. One has to assume that Bristol was told to save herself for marriage and was perhaps not well versed in the workings of condoms, etc. 

And that raises another question, which is the real impetus for this post (aren't you glad we got to it eventually?). Pundits and politicians have debated whether the VP nominee's children, and specifically Bristol's pregnancy, are fair game for attack in an election campaign. Notably, Barack Obama has said it's off limits. I think he's wrong.

When a politician espouses one belief but his or her behaviour reflects something entirely different, that calls the character or judgement of that politician into question. Governor Palin would have kids learn only about the importance of keeping it in their pants, but her own daughter's situation suggests how hopeless and dangerous that belief is. Bristol is a living example of a failed policy idea, and the Democrats need to find a way of making this argument, although the focus has to be on the policy, not the person.

My feeling on this stems from my reaction to Dick Cheney's hypocrisy on gay rights. On one occasion, when interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Cheney responded to a question about the child being raised by his lesbian daughter and her partner. Cheney said Blitzer was "out of line" for asking how Cheney could square his support for his daughter with his administration's anti-gay views. Howlin' Wolf tried to press on with this very legitimate question, but got nowhere. And I'm still dying to know the answer.

Blogging from the convention

Or, more accurately, blogging from the couch while watching the convention on TV. Or more accurately still, blogging the day after sitting on the couch and watching the convention on TV. But "blogging from the convention" sounds cooler.

Two days down in the Democratic convention and we've already seen a damn-the-doctors appearance by Ted Kennedy, Michelle Obama's I-am-not-a-Black-Panther introduction and Hillary Clinton's attempt to sway the most irrational bloc of her supporters to vote Obama. All of this just days after Senator Joe Biden was announced as Barack Obama's running mate.

Let's take all these things one at a time, shall we? The first one's easy - I didn't see Ted Kennedy's speech, but he's party royalty and he no doubt got the crowd fired up. Moving on to Michelle Obama, I have to say I was impressed but not entirely convinced that she presented the "softer" side of herself and her husband, which I think was one of the main objectives of the speech. The fact is, she's just too accomplished, intelligent and independent to play the demure, cuddly Political Wife, and no amount of talk about family could distract me from the fact that she's a fierce force. In other words, she's a lot like Hillary Clinton! Considering that Hillary helped Bill win two elections, the Democrats should be grateful to have a tough, no-bullshit potential First Lady in the campaign and should stop trying to soften her edges. And maybe Hillary, if she's serious about stumping for Barack Obama, should draw more attention to the evident parallels between Michelle and herself.

Which brings us to Hillary's speech. It was as forceful, charismatic and crowd-pleasing as any that I've ever seen by her. Like a lot of pundits, I was a bit surprised that she didn't make more of an attempt to sell Obama's character, but her job was ensure that Clintonistas become Obamaniacs on election day, no matter how reluctant they are to do so, and so it made the most sense to focus on the fact that anyone who agrees with her policies should think of the bigger picture and check off the box marked "Obama." Did it work? No way of knowing, but I'm a little skeptical about how big the contingent is that would support Hillary in the primaries and vote for John McCain in the primaries. Then again, America's recent electoral history is a history of people voting against their own interests.

At first, I wondered if Obama had voted against his own interests by choosing Biden as his VP candidate. His whole message has been about change, and Biden's been in the Senate since the Paleozoic era. His campaign has been obsessive about staying on message, and Biden's got a notorious penchant for speaking his mind, which means he sometimes blurts out some very unfortunate things - such as his description, early in the primary season, of Obama as "clean" and "well-spoken," a revealing and common backhanded compliment doled out by white people who expect nothing but G-Unit clothing and street slang from black people. However, all of the other VP candidates had fatal flaws. Obama needed to balance his relative inexperience with experience, and Biden has that. He couldn't pick a woman that wasn't Hillary, because that would look like shameless (and ineffective) pandering. And he couldn't pick Hillary, because as popular as she is, she's guaranteed poison to many voters and too easy for Republicans to attack. Also, I don't think she was very much interested in the job.

So I'm warming to Biden. He's a principled guy and he's also not shy about the streetfighting tactics that campaigns sometimes require - tactics that Obama claims to oppose. Now, Obama has a surrogate who can go into the trenches and yet can be plausibly denied or rebuked if he goes too far. The first clue as to how Biden will be used comes tonight, when he addresses the convention. I'm not sure if I'll be able to watch, so someone might have to tell me about it. 

By the way, the definition of nerdiness is being tempted to skip out on a party with free booze in order to watch speeches at a political convention in a country that you can't even vote in.

Don't believe me. Believe TV

Really, I mean that. Seriously. Way back when I first started this blog, I promised a big, long, thorough dismantling of 9/11 conspiracy theories, particularly those espoused in Zeitgeist, a film that makes Michael Moore look like the model of journalistic ethics and technique. But I never got to it, in part because of the size of the task and in part because of a lack of confidence in my ability to complete it. 

Thank God there's TV. CBC's The Passionate Eye is about to air a series of documentaries about this very subject, documentaries that promise to (to paraphrase a press release I got) debunk some persistent 9/11 conspiracy theories while also challenging the "official" version.

The docs air on Sept. 7, 8 and 14, and you can find stuff on at least one of them here. I'm sure the non-internet-challenged among you can find out more about the other ones by cruising around the linked site.

Why should I do the heavy intellectual lifting when our tax dollars already provide the brainy forklift? I can't think of a reason, so I'll just encourage you to watch. Though I'll disown the docs if I disagree with them, of course.

Hey, don't you wonder what I think about Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate? I sure do, so I'll get to that later this week.

Chinese food for thought

By now everyone's heard about the controversy concerning the parts of the Olympic opening ceremonies that were faked - digitized "fireworks" and the replacement of a seven-year-old anthem singer (although not her voice)  from the televised event. Chinese officials wanted a prettier girl for the broadcast, so they found one to lip-sync to the national anthem as sung by the first girl.

The reaction from most of the Western media was a combination of shock and I-told-you-so - the fakery was described simultaneously as representative of China's morally bankrupt authoritarian society and a particular low point for said society. Certainly, it was viewed as embarrassing. Which raise the question: if China was looking at the Beijing Olympics as a means to show off its greatness, did they not see that they would actually lose points with the rest of the world for doing this kind of thing?

I suspect the answer is that they did, but just didn't care. And I think that answer contradicts the common wisdom about China's approach to the Olympics and to the rest of the world in general. Specifically, the opening ceremony scandal reveals that China - which did little to hide it after the fact - doesn't crave global respect the way we often assume it does. Its main audience for any major event isn't the citizens of Canada or the U.S. or Britain or Japan or India. It's the citizens of China. 

A very interesting author was on The Daily Show last night, talking about how China's government is no longer really a Communist government, but has struck an unspoken deal with its people to bring in global investment and keep the economy growing in exchange for a permanent hold on power. The government also strengthens its grip by stoking national pride. 

The Olympics fit both of these objectives. They bring in gobs of money and they bolster the nationalism of the Chinese people. The rest of the world is beside the point, because as a growing economic powerhouse with 1.3 billion people, China really doesn't need the respect of the rest of the world. It just needs its own people to keep believing the country is perfect and powerful. Thus, any means of putting on a perfect spectacle, including CGI fireworks and seven-year-old Milli Vanillis, is justified.

Eleanor Rigby moment

Sometimes the strangest things can cause your gut to drop and a little wet ball of emotion to gurgle up into your throat. Take this story, for example, about the passing of the world's tallest woman.

What got me was her 1974 letter to the Guinness Book of World Records. Specifically, what got me was that she wasn't looking so much for fame as she was a companion. Made me think of how easy it is to find yourself lonely, whether you have any obvious outward "deficiencies" or not. Certainly, it's easy to imagine how a 7-foot-7 woman would feel so lonely that she'd reach out to the Guinness Book as a dating service.

We in the West who are middle class and up have been rightly pegged as having an oversized sense of entitlement, and that extends to relationships. We've taught ourselves to think that finding the perfect mate isn't just a possibility, it's a birthright. So we search out the most beautiful, the most sexually satisfying, the kindest and the most intellectually stimulating partner, someone who shares all of our hopes and dreams and sensibilities, and we refuse to settle for anything less than all of this, packaged together in one person. Meanwhile, thousands of people go their entire lives without having even the most basic of these needs met.

Okay, so maybe Sandy Allen ended up in a fulfilling monogamous relationship, or satisfied her physical desires with a long list of sexual partners. The article doesn't say. And maybe this entry is coloured just a little by recent developments in my own personal life. But the point still stands: life comes with no guarantee of love, and those of us who have experienced it should remember how lucky we are.

What's worse than a Greyhound headhunter?

Answer: People who think the murder was justified.

I wrestle with the question of God's existence. I certainly don't believe It conveys Its message by orchestrating ugly tragedies. But if God is wrathful, I suspect Its anger is directed more at these assholes than, say, homosexuals or abortionists.

The Day(s) the Blog Stood Still

It's been awhile, and there are a few reasons for that. Jarring, emotional blows in both the personal and professional sides of life. And since I don't treat this blog like my diary, I'm not inclined to unpack it all and sort through it here. Suffice it to say that nobody died, even if a very cherished and ephemeral "thing" did.

So life and blog both go on. As does the U.S. election, which, after the grueling Democratic primary season, seems to finally be ramping up. Attack ads, silly accusations and attempts to reduce the whole affair into reductive catchphrases. It's on, and I have some early thoughts.

The first is that anyone who expected Obama and McCain to make good on their promise of a high-minded, respectful contest is likely already disappointed. Obama's halo is fading as he shows that he's not above playing politics (surprise!), changing his mind on issues like public campaign financing. And McCain, with his stilted speeches, catering to the far right and outright strange choices of attack issues seems like a shriveled shadow of the candidate that seemed so exciting in 2000. 

These are two decent men, I think, but also two competitive and egotistical men. But the early returns suggest that McCain is a little lost, while Obama - though obviously tired - still has a clarity of purpose. And I have to credit him with the line of the election so far, which came in response to Republican ads mocking him for his suggestion that Americans save money on gas by keeping their tires inflated (which actually does save a significant amount of gas).

"It's like they take pride in being ignorant," Obama said, a comment that deserved to be punctuated by the sound of a nail being hit on the head. 

As much as it was a "you go, O" moment, I wonder if this kind of pointed commentary could backfire on him. A certain segment of American voters actually does take pride in being ignorant. Or, more accurately, takes pride in being called ignorant by snooty liberals. Obama's had problems shaking the elitist label, and lines like these - while they rally his supporters - could turn off some of the voters he needs to court.

A confession

How tightly do you hold to your political and social values? To what length would you go to defend them? It's easy enough to preach to the converted, easier still to write passionate speeches in your own head. Easy, of course, to lob rhetorical grenades anonymously from behind the digital wall of a blog. But when confronted by a person whose values you abhor, when faced with the (duty? opportunity?) to venture into the teeth of an argument you disagree with, what are you willing to risk? Defeat? Discomfort? Physical injury?

Any progress we've made as a society has been a result of people willing to risk everything. And yet so many of us, even those who profess to believe very strongly in certain principles, can shrink in the face of a challenge. 

With much regret, I have to report one of my own such failures. While in Mississippi, I was welcomed with textbook Southern hospitality by a family that allowed me and my travel-mates to spend significant time in their home. This time was almost uniformly pleasant, but there were a couple of instances of profound ugliness. Specifically, the casual use of the word "nigger."

Even the well-traveled and well-educated among our hosts dropped the n-bomb a few times. Most shockingly, they didn't feel it was racist to do so. They explained in patient, vaguely condescending voices that they had no problem with black people, but disliked "niggers" - a distinct sub-group, they said, that was chronically unemployed, sexually irresponsible and violent. The word was okay to use, they said, because it's meant as a descriptor equivalent to "white trash" and because black people used that word all the time to refer to each other.

The ridiculousness of these arguments is evident on their face. It's no more defensible to hate poor people than it is to hate members of a particular race. And the use, by black people, of a word that exemplifies the sickest kind of racism, does not excuse its use by members of the race that perpetrated (and perpetrates) this racism.

An ignorant argument, easily defeated. And yet I didn't defeat it. When the n-bombs dropped, I sat there in stunned silence. 

Maybe it was the surprise factor, maybe it was the fact that these were people that had opened their home to me and I didn't want to offend them. But it doesn't matter. When I was confronted with a (duty? opportunity?) to stand up for cherished values, I choked. I wasn't even able to risk an escalation of the discomfort I was already feeling. It was an utterly shameful non-performance.

It is often said that the worst prejudices are allowed to survive and flourish not so much because of the people who speak the horrible words and do the horrible deeds, but because of the people who fail to speak and act against them. I would like to think of myself as a principled person and a positive actor in the world. Down South, I discovered an uncomfortable distance between this self-image and my ability to live up to it.

I have to do better.

Boarding school

You've got to hand it to Christopher Hitchens. Whatever you think of his positions on the Iraq war or the fight against terrorism (he's an infuriating - and infuriatingly persuasive - hawk), you can't deny his bravery. To appreciate why, check out this Vanity Fair story, wherein Hitchens relates his first-hand encounter with the torture technique known as waterboarding.

I have a feeling that Hitchens went into this experiment hoping to reach the conclusion that waterboarding wasn't really that bad. Instead, he ends up making one of the more honest and informed cases against the practice that I've read.

Good to see one of journalism's most provocative commentators throw plug in some high-voltage perspective on U.S. use of waterboarding, a story that's been drained of its shock value through repetition in the media.

Out of the frying pan...

One thing that makes suffering through a Toronto heat wave more bearable is the knowledge that it's not half as stifling as New Orleans. Three years ago that city almost drowned. Now I think it might melt.

The heat and humidity of Louisiana's Gulf Coast was just one of the things I learned about during my recent week-long sojourn through the Southern U.S. It wasn't so much about learning brand-new facts - anyone can guess that New Orleans is hot and most people have some idea that middle America is fraught with racial and class tension and extremely devoted to both God and guns - but the trip brought these facts to life in a way that only first-hand experience can.

There's too much to unpack for one blog post, so expect stuff to trickle out over the next few days and weeks. But I thought I'd lead off with a couple of small insights I got from talking to folks about the upcoming U.S. election. I didn't dedicate as much time to this research as I thought I might, but did get a couple of points of view that I thought were worth noting.

At a flea market in Ohio, I bought an Obama for President baseball cap from a vendor and decided to chat him up a bit. It turned out that Ousmane was from Senegal and, though he'd lived in the States for more than a decade, wasn't a citizen with voting rights. Nevertheless, he had lots of opinions on Obama, race and the election. A year ago, he wouldn't have taken a bet that a non-white candidate would have a chance to be president, but his thinking on that has shifted since Obama won the nomination. Ousmane said he'd talked to many people - black, white and other - who planned to vote Democratic, so he liked Obama's odds. And rather than race, he thought Obama's biggest challenge would be meeting the toughness test.

"I think people think he won't fight," said Ousmane. Getting out of Iraq might be a good move for the country, he said, but he felt that more militaristic members of the electorate would see it as weakness. "You know McCain will fight," Ousmane added.

Down in Columbus, Mississippi, however, I talked to a middle-aged male with strong Republican leanings who nevertheless blamed the current administration for "making a mess of the country." Stephen believed the Iraq war was folly and didn't much like McCain. But he didn't have much love for Obama, either. He thought Obama would be a weak commander-in-chief and that terrorist foes would be inclined to take advantage of him. It's an argument that I think illustrates the lack of understanding so many people have of 9/11 and terrorism in general. Bin Laden doesn't give a rat's ass about which person or party's in power. I'm not sure I was able to convince Stephen of that, but he did seem to mull the idea over.

In contrast to Ousmane, Stephen thought Obama had no chance at all. When push came to shove, he said, America just wasn't ready to elect a black president. To which I responded, "I guess we'll find out."

I would have liked to find out more about what people thought, but hey, it was a vacation. One that churned out enough fodder to sustain a few more posts, I'm sure.

Bayou Bound

Headed off on what should be a spectacular road trip through the hot and dirty South, with stops in Memphis, New Orleans and Mississippi. For someone fascinated with U.S. politics - and especially the race issues linked to the upcoming election - this is an excellent chance to find out what the people from the country's most racially charged (at least historically) region feel about the whole thing. I may even take the time to chat with some of the locals to come up with some kind of barometer, which could be the basis of a mag article. It would definitely be the basis for a few blog posts.

It's also a fantasy trip for a music lover...Graceland, New Orleans jazz and Delta blues. I can't wait to hear the words and music of the South and report back.

Cue the Backlash

This blog seems, over the past month, to have become mostly a Friday affair. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a little curious. However, it (the blog) remains fascinated, perhaps unduly so, on U.S. politics. So get ready for another helping of Obama.

We're starting to see some of the inevitable backlash against Obama, now that he's three weeks and change into his life as the undisputed presidential nominee for the Democrats. There's more scrutiny on him now, and campaigning against McCain has forced him to make pragmatic decisions that often contradict the "new kind of politics" messaging that elicited an almost religious reverence from some quarters during the primary season. It's one thing to try and win over the Democratic base, another thing to go fishing for votes in independent and Republican pools, so expect Obama's messianic rep to take a beating in the next few months as he tries to appeal to more conservative voters.

This will upset some people, of course, but it serves as a reminder that citizens in a democracy should place facts ahead of hype and rhetoric. And anyone upset by Obama's more cynical turns needs to give his or her head a vigorous shake. No, he's not the political equivalent of the Christ child. He may not even be especially nice. But he stands for political and religious freedom, women's rights, racial equality and a thoughtful, imaginative approach to foreign policy, whereas McCain is anti-abortion and an ardent supporter of the Iraq war.

Will Barack Obama fail to live up to the ethical and ideological bar he set for himself when the presidency was just a glimmer in his eye? Yes. But if you're an American voter and your beliefs align with his in terms of policy, there's no question where your vote should go. 

T.O.'s retro sports

First the Toronto Maple Leafs hired Cliff Fletcher for a second go-around, 11 years after his first stint as the club's general manager ended. Now the Toronto Blue Jays signal their nostalgia for the glory years of the early 90s by bringing back Cito Gaston to manage the baseball club. All we need now is for the Raptors to bring back Isiah Thomas to run the basketball team into the ground and harass employees  and it'll be 1995 all over again. 

What's notable about Gaston's hiring is that, despite winning back-to-back World Series titles with Toronto in 1992 and 1993, he was never hired as manager by any other club after leaving the Jays in 1997. Which is baffling, considering the number of managers that have been hired and rehired over that period without ever reaching Gaston's level of success.

Why was this? It's tempting to point to race, but Major League Baseball teams have shown more willingness to hire black managers in the past few years (Dusty Baker, the recently-fired Willie Randolph, etc) - although the number of non-white managers and general managers still doesn't reflect the ethnic diversity on the field. So while race might have been an issue in some cases, there were likely other factors. Maybe he had a reputation for being difficult to work with, or for not working well with young players (Gaston won a ton with a star-studded roster, but started to flounder when the Jays shed payroll after their second championship). 

It could just be that Gaston wasn't the right man at the right time for the jobs that came up. But after 11 years and dozens of managerial changes, is it really possible that not one club thought a guy with two World Series rings was the best available choice? Weird.

Who cut the red wire?

So much for the "explosion of conversation."

Well, since nobody asked (and really, doesn't that define the blog experience?), here are my thoughts on the Philip Weiss piece in a recent issue of New York magazine, which suggests that men have a greater biological requirement for sexual variety than women and are thus more prone to infidelity:

The short version is, what a crock of shit. 

The longer, more explanatory version is the same cop-out argument that men have been trying to make for years, and Weiss doesn't present anything new. The only reason this idea's been trotted out again is that the Eliot Spitzer case has made it "timely." 

Now, I'm not opposed to the concept that male and female sexuality could be different in fundamental, biological ways. In fact, I'd bet the farm that it is - with all the obvious physical differences between the sexes, I think it's silly to expect that men and women are exactly the same when it comes to sex, even if it's politically expedient to believe that. 

What I don't buy is the idea that men cheat because they're compelled to by some primal force that women don't share. That MIGHT be true, but there's absolutely nothing in Weiss' piece, or anything else that I've read, that offers anything close to conclusive proof. For example, Weiss gives us a version of the "spread the seed" explanation for why men want multiple partners (while also, admittedly, paying a little lip service to possible biological imperatives that might lead women to cheat). 

But no biological argument that I've encountered better explains the disparity in infidelity between men and women better than simple economic history. In a patriarchal society where men have typically held the majority of economic power, men have always had an easier time mitigating the consequences of cheating. They've had the money to keep their affairs discreet. When they've been found out, their financial power over their spouses has allowed them to convince (blackmail?) those spouses into maintaining the partnership. And typically, men who get dumped by their wives or girlfriends have been better positioned, from a financial security standpoint, to land on their feet. 

Women, meanwhile, have not historically had the independent financial security to keep their cheating a secret and because of the financial imbalance have had more to fear from a break-up. Not to mention the fact that society largely pardons men who stray, while women guilty of the same offence are labeled sluts and whores.

Nature likely does play a role in the differences in sexuality between men and women, but there's just too much "nurture" evidence to convincingly make the case that biology is the reason that husbands stray more often than wives. Chris Rock once joked in an HBO special that "A man is as faithful as his options." As women get more and more options, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheating numbers start to even out.

The Plug-osphere

Currently without an original thought, so I'm going to plug a couple of blogs by people whose thoughts are very original and worth reading.

This one's in its embryonic stages but an inside source (me) thinks it's going to be good. Get in on the ground floor and be sure to comment up a storm.

This one doesn't need my help - it belongs to a well-respected cultural anthropologist. But I've interviewed this guy for a work assignment and he's an insanely knowledgeable, enthusiastic and engaging conversationalist. These qualities come through on his blog, which is a great read for anyone who likes their anthropology, pop culture and marketing discussion served up in one highly intelligent gumbo.

Read these guys...but please come back here from time to time.

Sex bombs

With the weekend on the way, I thought I'd lob a grenade into the blog in the form of this piece in New York Magazine by Philip Weiss. Helpfully, Weiss has already pulled the pin out, and I'm hoping that this post results in an explosion of discussion. 

The article concerns cheating, prompted as it was by the Elliot Spitzer scandal. Weiss examines infidelity through the prism of male desire, dragging out well-worn chestnuts about the differences in the sexual hardwiring of men and women. I'm being reductive here, but essentially Weiss seems to feel that men are genetically programmed to require sexual variety, while women aren't (so much, at least).

A posse of female writers at Slate have had a go at the piece, and you can check out some of their musings here. My own views I'll keep to myself for now, but I'd love to hear from anyone with an opinion about the Weiss piece and the idea of fundamental differences in male and female desire for sex and sexual variety. 

And really, how can you not have an opinion on this? Is the article offensive? Is it truthful? Is it both? Please discuss.

Aftermath

I've posted so much about the Democratic primary in the past that I'd be remiss not to write something in the aftermath of Barack Obama's official clinching of his party's presidential nomination. It's just that I don't feel like I can add a whole lot to what's already been written in the last few months. And rewritten. And written yet again.

It's worth reading this piece by Slate press critic Jack Shafer, who points out that for all the talk about what Hillary did wrong, Obama did an awful lot right. He managed to defeat, however narrowly, an incredibly popular and politically savvy opponent in one of the most heated nomination contests in history. Shafer puts forth what should be a fairly obvious conclusion to draw - Obama won more than Clinton lost.

The focus on the loser is depressing given that, since the field of Democratic candidates was whittled to two, the party's nominee was guaranteed to be a glass ceiling-breaker based on either gender or race. Regardless of who won, it was supposed to represent progress for people who have been marginalized in the American political system. It's still historic, of course, but it somehow feels a little bit hollow given that so many of the supporters of both candidates hardened into such antagonistic stances. That so many Clinton supporters, in particular, say they're going to skip the election or vote for John McCain - an anti-abortion conservative whose policies are antithetical to feminism - is completely baffling, given the similarities in policies between Clinton and Obama.

There are five months to go until the general election, and Clinton will almost certainly rally her supporters to back Obama. And with more time to shine and a less impressive opponent with whom to share the spotlight, Obama is more than capable of cranking up the wattage and getting people talking about hope and unity again (hopefully with more specifics about how those things are to be achieved). 

Right now, though, there's a numb feeling. That a black (or more accurately, biracial) candidate could win the nomination should be a good omen for women. Likewise, had Clinton won, it should have been a good omen for non-white candidates. But what started as a win-win campaign has ended with an undue focus on the loser, and that, for now, has dampened the celebration.

Light weekend reading

I know what you're all thinking. You're thinking, I need something to read this weekend, preferably a well-researched history of the conservative political movement in the U.S. over the past 40 years. Well, you're in luck - when folks ask what you did this weekend, you can dazzle them by talking about the New Yorker article you read.

In all seriousness, this is a brilliant examination of recent political history, with plenty of insight on the future. It's also a great window into the mind of conservatives. If you're inclined to think of of Republican politicians as "evil," you'll definitely find some evidence to support that view. But it's rather amazing how rational and self-critical some of the conservative movement's most divisive voices, such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan, appear in the piece. 

Of course, those guys aren't in the thick of politics anymore, so they have more freedom to be sensible, but that in itself is a reminder that most politicians are a lot brighter than their media sound bites suggest.

Read it. The people you like will love and respect you. The people you don't like will never ask you about your weekend again. Win-win.

Theeeooooo...I would like to talk to yooouuuuu...

...about your chest-bumping the President!

Bush looks so uncomfortable in this photo that it's actually kind of endearing. As a former Texas Rangers owner and baseball enthusiast, he probably would have preferred to give Shiveley a pat on the ass - the customary (and undeniably homoerotic) gesture of celebration in that sport. But perhaps, with his tight white pants and exquisitely arched back, Shiveley was simply too Bootylicious for the Prez.

Awesome.

HMV clarification

Further to yesterday's post, I should clarify that HMV will still be selling CDs. I imagine they'll be relegated to some back corner, and that the young cashiers' eyebrows will raise with incredulous contempt when you bring one to the counter.

From the strange bedfellows department

HMV is opening the first edition of its "store of the future" concept in downtown Toronto on June 17 (Yonge and Bloor location for the locals among you). Since CDs are a thing of the past, HMV's redesigned stores - about 20 or so Canadian stores are scheduled for renovation this year - will sell other items such as cell phones, video games and iPods. There will also apparently be computer stations set up in-store so patrons can log on to their favourite social media sites.

Hmmm...phones, video games, computers, iPods. It's incredible that no one has thought of putting all of these "store of the future" elements together in one place before. And, I don't know, maybe called it Future Shop.

But what I find most interesting about the story is that the store's opening bash will feature a performance by Billy Bragg. Not Nelly Furtado or Michael Buble or Feist or some other big-selling Canadian artist. Billy Bragg.

Because no one's going to sell more iPods to a tech-obsessed young target audience than a middle-aged, acoustic guitar-wielding, anti-capitalist British folkie.

I am essentially a five-year-old because...

...stuff like this cracks me up.

Thought I'd throw a curveball with a bit of ultra-lowbrow. 

Reuse, recycle and...what was the other thing?

Had an interesting, if depressing conversation with a co-worker today, inspired by this excellent post from the Cultureby blog. The gist: consumers are shifting away from a gluttony model of consumption - more, more, bigger and more - to what poster and all-around awesome cultural thinker Grant McCracken calls a "just enough" mentality. Counterintuitive and, like most of the stuff on that blog, thought-provoking.

For me, the thoughts it provoked had to do specifically with the environment. It's finally fashionable to be an environmentalist now, and even some of the world's most wasteful corporations have dedicated themselves to greener practices - or at least the appearance of greener practices. We have or will soon see reduced packaging, greater use of recycled material and all that good stuff.

The problem is that no matter what a product or its packaging is made of, none of it will make any environmental difference if people keep buying more of it. The single greenest decision that any human being can make is to consume less. A lot less. Plain and simple. (Another candidate for greenest choice would be to not have children, those little consumers of resources. Good luck legislating that!)

There are folks who hold out hope for a market solution to global warming, arguing that consumers will use their dollars to force companies to go green. But economic growth depends on ever greater consumption by an ever greater number of consumers, while halting or stalling global warming depends on less consumption by fewer people (or at least as few people as possible). 

From my perch, it seems like an inescapable fact that the economy and the environment stand in fundamental opposition. On the other hand, maybe consumers and businesses really can learn to get by with "just enough."

Anyone want to take that bet?

Justice!

He's scrappy! He's gritty! He's Stubby, and he's going to the Olympics!

Last week, I threw up a post about Stubby Clapp, Canadian baseball hero, being denied the chance to play for his country at the Beijing Olympics by the Houston Astros, who employ him as a coach. The Astros have obviously changed their minds.

This proves two things:

1) The Astros actually have a heart.

2) Astros management reads this blog. It's the only reason I can possibly think of for this reversal.

Fall from grace

In the previous post, I mentioned Hillary Clinton's repeated efforts to point out Barack Obama's difficulty winning over working-class white voters, most famously in a USA Today interview from last week. She's since semi-retracted her words, admitting that they weren't terribly wise. 

But since I didn't let Barack Obama off the hook very easily for his remarks about working-class voters "clinging to guns and religion," there's no way Clinton's remarks can be allowed to pass. Thing is, there's nothing I can say that wasn't said better in this article from The Root, which spells out how this kind of race-baiting from Clinton is, more than anything, incredibly disappointing and sad. The Clintons have historically been known as champions of equality, and have enjoyed great support from black voters. That she would tarnish this well-deserved reputation in order to keep the faint heartbeat of her campaign beating reflects poorly on her.

Sadly, she may have a point when it comes to electability. It is possible that there are enough American voters who simply won't vote for a black candidate that Obama will fall short in November. But this is no reason to deny the nomination he's earned. Moreover, it's a  dismissal of all that civil rights leaders have achieved to suggest that, on the precipice of making history, a black candidate should be pushed aside because "people aren't ready" for him. 

If not now, when? To back away from this moment due to real or perceived racism is to give in to it.

Endorsement Deal?

John Edwards has hopped off the fence to officially endorse Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for president, a move that takes the edge off Hillary Clinton's massive win in the West Virginia primary and pounds yet another nail into her candidacy's coffin. Obama now has the lead in pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular vote, states won and high-profile endorsements. He is going to win. It has actually been this way for a long time. Despite suggestions from the Clinton camp, it's no longer a contest - victory for her is a near-impossibility in mathematical terms, and the only way for her to win is to convince the superdelegates who haven't picked sides yet to go against the will of the people. And pretty much the only way that's going to happen is if Obama's photographed throwing a baby out of a high-rise window. While high-fiving Osama bin Laden and stomping on a crucifix.

Clinton keeps sticking around, though, poking holes in Obama that John McCain will hope to tear wide open in the general election campaign. Specifically, she keeps bringing up that he has trouble attracting white working-class voters. So it obviously helps to have Edwards on board, a white Southern guy whose signature issue is fighting poverty.

Edwards waited almost four months to make this move. Obama must have promised something - an increased focus on poverty, a cabinet position. But did he go so far as to whisper the words "vice president" in Edwards' ear? 

An Obama-Edwards ticket would be high on charisma, funding and dashing good looks. However, it might also skew a little too liberal. I wonder if Obama might be better off aligning himself with someone who has more pull with conservative Democrats and independents (I'm not sure who that would be - safe to say Clinton isn't likely to be asked, or likely to accept if she is).

I am curious to find out what political collateral Obama spent on the Edwards endorsement. But we won't know until Obama officially wraps things up, which should happen in the next two or three weeks.

Re: Union

Anonymous was nice enough to explain his/her comment blaming some prominent Republicans for the way that so many labour unions behave. My apologies for taking so long to see and respond to it (damn confusing Interweb!). 

Your grasp of history is fearsome, Anonymous, and I understand your point a lot better now. My apologies for any mistakes in my attempt to paraphrase it for those who don't click to read your comment: The gist of what Anonymous is saying is that hard-line anti-unionists like Nixon and Reagan only encouraged union leaders to adopt more hard-line perspectives and tactics in response, making it more difficult to reach a timely and satisfactory compromise.

All true, I'm sure. But regardless of who was the chicken and who was the egg, can we also agree that some responsibility must fall on labour leaders themselves? They might not be as famous or as politically polarizing - we might have a harder time remembering their names - but they have also learned to be obstinate, often to the detriment of the public and their own members. 

Also, the politicians Anonymous refers to are American. How have Canadian unions, such as the TTC's evolved to become such hardliners?