You will have noticed ... shall we say 'light' posting here lately, as a gang of armed deadlines took me out back in the alley, roughed me up and threw me in the dumpster. This process expected to be repeated for the next week or so, after which I shall have a lovely holiday and recuperate my shattered nerves. In the meantime:
The loonies at the BBC have devised a series on the afterlives of Enid Blyton characters: George speaks! (And I cannot recommend Radio 7 too highly - they have the Goon Show too!)
Michael Phelps has only been dumped by Kellogg's, and you can join the Kellogg's boycott in return. Smarmy gits.
And just for the heck of it, those links you know you want but are ashamed to bookmark:
for all your US political needs
and to calm your shattered nerves after.
Expect a triumphant return at the end of February, with fresh new snark, tall tales of this 'California' they speak of, and long-awaited deep thoughts on Michael Ignatieff. In the mean time, talk amongst yourselves...
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Slow News Day
And if there's anything duller than the annual round of 'Many People Do Christmas Shopping' articles it's 'City That Rarely Gets Snow Confounded By Snow'.
So instead, why not take time to enjoy Virgil on Facebook, courtesy of our New Brunswick Correspondent?
So instead, why not take time to enjoy Virgil on Facebook, courtesy of our New Brunswick Correspondent?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Post Blago Blog Post
Not that I didn't enjoy the Rod Blagojevich Untergang media circus, but I've yet to find a piece addressing the really interesting question here, namely: how did this guy manage to function as Governor of a major state?
I mean, I understand that Illinois expects corruption from her politicians, no problem there. But this guy is nutty -- delusional, narcissistic, histrionic, incapable of normal self-presentation. So what are the expectations of a United States Governor, such that Rod Blagojevich was able to (more or less) meet them for almost five years? And what's next? Are we going to find out that Arnie Schwarzenegger never bothered learning to read or write? That David Paterson is exactly like that Peter Sellers character? That Janet Napolitano is just some kind of Internet hoax? How did the quality controls manage to totally vanish all at once?
I mean, I understand that Illinois expects corruption from her politicians, no problem there. But this guy is nutty -- delusional, narcissistic, histrionic, incapable of normal self-presentation. So what are the expectations of a United States Governor, such that Rod Blagojevich was able to (more or less) meet them for almost five years? And what's next? Are we going to find out that Arnie Schwarzenegger never bothered learning to read or write? That David Paterson is exactly like that Peter Sellers character? That Janet Napolitano is just some kind of Internet hoax? How did the quality controls manage to totally vanish all at once?
Wall St. welfare
What Paul Krugman said.
UPDATE: Joseph Stiglitz says it too.
Some of Krugman's commentators are pretty good too. Most resonant with me, I fear, was the one who began (roughly): 'This is why I didn't vote for Obama in the primaries...'. Obama is a transformative figure symbolically and stylistically, and his being good rather than evil is a pretty radical change in context. But none of that entails that he's even going to attempt to change the culture of kleptocracy which has now sunk the American economy. My hope is that his current deference to the right and the rich (hiring Summers et al., not really trying to fix TARP) is an elaborate Plan A which he will be able to ditch in a year or so when everyone's been given enough rope and things have only gotten much worse. My fear is that he's a hardcore Rubinomics man himself, and just doesn't grasp how broken the system is or see what's fundamentally wrong with taxpayer-funded robber baronry.
And actually, I have an even deeper fear. This is that Obama does understand the problem, but seriously believes he can change the self-interested behaviour of bad agents through the magical power of his personal moral authority, whether that means being generous and responsive to House Republicans or speaking mighty Words of Chastisement to bonus-taking bankers. In which case he's delusional, and there may be no Plan B at all.
UPDATE: Joseph Stiglitz says it too.
Front page follies
That's one slow news day out there, but I still have to say that the Globe's front page story (with sub-Facebook photo) about Michael Phelps and a bong represents everything I hate about journalism today. The only honest headline would be: "Trivial Act of Uninteresting Person Prompts Cynical Corporate Pseudo-Scandal", and that doesn't really describe a story that belongs on the front page, does it? If Phelps' sponsors do dump him, there's a case to be made for a story in the Business section, and certainly for an editorial pointing out how silly and corrupt the whole sponsorship racket is. But they haven't done it yet. No doubt the Globe is proud of itself for being ahead of the story here, but what it amounts to is that they're egging on the mindless festival of hypocrisy they're predicting. Ugh.
Once again, the on-line edition turns out to be a bit more grown-up: there the story is last on the list under Sports.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Darwin Day!
Today's papers are quite dull and predictable, except for the double page F6 spread on Charles Darwin. It's really a mashup of three articles, one on Darwin himself (in which, as always, he comes across as a lovely chap); one on the ongoing pushback against evolutionary theory; and the third on an eccentric Ottawan couple who hold an annual 'Phylum Feast' featuring burdock, sea cucumbers and god knows what -- the idea is to represent as many different taxa as possible -- in honour of the great man every Feb. 12.
The pushback stuff is spooky if unsurprising, and raises anew the question of why Canada is so different from the United States on issues like creationism, given that we in fact have just as high a proportion of mouthbreathing truth-haters in the population. But the part that really struck me was the Phylum Feast. It all sounds horribly inedible but still, these guys have the right idea. The great (and somewhat surprising) defect of secularism has always been its failure to create a calendar of emotionally satisfying, socially bonding rituals and seasonal narratives to compete with those of the church. Of course there should be a Darwin Day, with appropriate rites and feasts. Other obvious candidates for secular sainthood (in this functional and festive sense)? I would nominate Nietzsche (patron saint of the mad, and classicists), Emma Goldman, Gandhi, Mozart (the poor, child prodigies) and/or Beethoven (the deaf), for starters. Each would have to be someone you could build an interesting party around, one way or another, and collectively they would represent the diversity of human biography and all the traits you want to celebrate. (It's no barrier if they also have gigantic character flaws, as any reading of Lives of the Saints will help to make clear.) It wouldn't be hard to come up with a very appealing Secular Calendar, and as for designing the rituals we have millennia of evidence as to what works. A friend of mine was baptised by his atheist parents at home in single-malt scotch: that works for me. I vote for the annual fast period to culminate in Colette Day, on which you're obliged to prepare the most sensual self-indulgent French meal you can contrive, and for the pilgrimage to be tied to Mozart -- who wouldn't prefer a Hajj that ended up in Vienna?
So what should we do on Darwin Day? Something to do with nature, obviously -- mass country rambles, perhaps. And he was by all accounts an underachieving youth and a wonderful father, so perhaps after the walk everyone would have to take a young person out for tea and listen sympathetically.
The pushback stuff is spooky if unsurprising, and raises anew the question of why Canada is so different from the United States on issues like creationism, given that we in fact have just as high a proportion of mouthbreathing truth-haters in the population. But the part that really struck me was the Phylum Feast. It all sounds horribly inedible but still, these guys have the right idea. The great (and somewhat surprising) defect of secularism has always been its failure to create a calendar of emotionally satisfying, socially bonding rituals and seasonal narratives to compete with those of the church. Of course there should be a Darwin Day, with appropriate rites and feasts. Other obvious candidates for secular sainthood (in this functional and festive sense)? I would nominate Nietzsche (patron saint of the mad, and classicists), Emma Goldman, Gandhi, Mozart (the poor, child prodigies) and/or Beethoven (the deaf), for starters. Each would have to be someone you could build an interesting party around, one way or another, and collectively they would represent the diversity of human biography and all the traits you want to celebrate. (It's no barrier if they also have gigantic character flaws, as any reading of Lives of the Saints will help to make clear.) It wouldn't be hard to come up with a very appealing Secular Calendar, and as for designing the rituals we have millennia of evidence as to what works. A friend of mine was baptised by his atheist parents at home in single-malt scotch: that works for me. I vote for the annual fast period to culminate in Colette Day, on which you're obliged to prepare the most sensual self-indulgent French meal you can contrive, and for the pilgrimage to be tied to Mozart -- who wouldn't prefer a Hajj that ended up in Vienna?
So what should we do on Darwin Day? Something to do with nature, obviously -- mass country rambles, perhaps. And he was by all accounts an underachieving youth and a wonderful father, so perhaps after the walk everyone would have to take a young person out for tea and listen sympathetically.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Your finance minister, Sandy McTire
There's something pretty funny -- and very Canadian -- about the way that, judging by the emphases in the Globe and on the CBC yesterday, the Harper 'stimulus package' is all about that central pillar of our economy: home renovations. In other countries, infrastructure stimulus means les grands travaux, nation-building, fixing the railways and establishing epic monuments. Here, we're more about putting a new deck in. In fact, given the avidity with which Canadians collect Canadian Tire money, I suspect the Conservatives are on to a vote-winner here. (Come to think of it, why not just make Canadian Tire money legal tender?)
I don't really understand why construction should be privileged over other sectors as a focus of stimulus, unless there's stuff we particularly want constructed. The do-it-yourself kind is presumably anti-stimulus, since the labour is unpaid. And so far as I can tell, the average GTA renovation/construction firm (a) has had more demand than it could keep up with for the past five years, and could surely coast a while; (b) prefers not to collect GST; (c) has coped with high demand by hiring illegal immigrants, who presumably are sending remittances home and also not paying taxes; and (d) has (reasonably enough) 0 intention of ever hiring and training a laid-off auto worker (see (c)). I don't see how it can be a particularly high-value sector to stimulate once you've factored in all that real-life stuff, which I'm willing to bet they didn't. Instead, why not a stimulus package centred, say, on restaurants and farmers markets? Tax breaks for anyone who eats out twice a week, and/or gets the fancy mushrooms from that guy at the Riverdale market? That's all local spending, it's instant job creation and it's not one-time-only the way construction is. But you just know that Prentice and Harper think spending money at Home Depot is morally superior, and I fear they are true Canadians in that.
UPDATE: Inkless Wells has handily provided a photo of Stephen Harper demonstrating the correct use of a nail gun on Michael Ignatieff. (No no, just on some wall.) It's rather less scary than the photos of him smiling and holding cookies, sharing a laugh with a cute kid, and so on. But personally, I think the only apt photo would be one of Harper trying to lure first Quebeckers and now Ontarians into his gingerbread house.
I don't really understand why construction should be privileged over other sectors as a focus of stimulus, unless there's stuff we particularly want constructed. The do-it-yourself kind is presumably anti-stimulus, since the labour is unpaid. And so far as I can tell, the average GTA renovation/construction firm (a) has had more demand than it could keep up with for the past five years, and could surely coast a while; (b) prefers not to collect GST; (c) has coped with high demand by hiring illegal immigrants, who presumably are sending remittances home and also not paying taxes; and (d) has (reasonably enough) 0 intention of ever hiring and training a laid-off auto worker (see (c)). I don't see how it can be a particularly high-value sector to stimulate once you've factored in all that real-life stuff, which I'm willing to bet they didn't. Instead, why not a stimulus package centred, say, on restaurants and farmers markets? Tax breaks for anyone who eats out twice a week, and/or gets the fancy mushrooms from that guy at the Riverdale market? That's all local spending, it's instant job creation and it's not one-time-only the way construction is. But you just know that Prentice and Harper think spending money at Home Depot is morally superior, and I fear they are true Canadians in that.
UPDATE: Inkless Wells has handily provided a photo of Stephen Harper demonstrating the correct use of a nail gun on Michael Ignatieff. (No no, just on some wall.) It's rather less scary than the photos of him smiling and holding cookies, sharing a laugh with a cute kid, and so on. But personally, I think the only apt photo would be one of Harper trying to lure first Quebeckers and now Ontarians into his gingerbread house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
