The books of the decade

By macleans.ca - Monday, November 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM - 1 Comment

The British newspaper’s list is far from entirely homegrown, but what has got the readers’ comment section humming is the criteria. The paper looked for “defining” books, ones that made an impact on society or reflected it back on itself. At least then there’s a measuring stick: sales. The Top 10 has room for the enormously popular The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson—”a journalist hooks up with a girl punk to form detective fiction’s unlikeliest pair, wading through the murky depths of Swedish society”—and Atonement, the Ian McEwan masterpiece (“a literary bestseller”) that raised him above his peers as Britain’s pre-eminent novelist. In non-fiction, there’s The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (“a popular demolition job of the world’s great faiths”) and Dave Eggers’ A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, one of the first “literary” memoirs, and the original of a new style of non-fiction. The final three seem as eclectic as the decade itself. In descending order: The Da Vinci Code (“Dan Brown may not be able to write, but he sure can pull in the punters; a mad mishmash”), Dreams from My Father—the British love Barrack Obama—and the defining title, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. JK Rowling’s seventh boy wizard volume “stands as a cornerstone of the decade, a melding of high and low culture that appeals to all ages and nations.”

The Telegraph

Canada’s most famous spy gets his own street

By macleans.ca - Monday, November 16, 2009 at 10:03 AM - 1 Comment

William Stephenson, arguably the most famous Canadian spy ever, has had a street named after him in his hometown, 20 years after his death at 93. Stephenson was Winston Churchill’s top intelligence adviser during World War II, and is perhaps best remembered for his cool wartime code name—Intrepid. He was also a key figure in the founding of the CIA in the U.S. Born in Winnipeg, the city finally got around to honouring him by renaming Water Avenue. Intrepid Avenue would have been catchier, but the new designation is William Stephenson Way.

Winnipeg Free Press

The flu shot screw-up

By Michael Friscolanti and Cathy Gulli - Monday, November 16, 2009 at 8:00 AM - 34 Comments

Canada is barely a few weeks into the biggest mass immunization campaign in the nation’s history, and by now everyone has heard—or worse, lived—a flu shot horror story. “It’s been chaotic,” admits Dr. David Scheifele, director of the Vaccine Evaluation Centre in Vancouver, which is associated with the B.C. Children’s Hospital. His own experience is no exception. Recently, Scheifele ordered nurses at his hospital to administer the pandemic H1N1 vaccine to the highest priority health care workers, those in the emergency room, intensive care unit, and labour and delivery area. He knew there was a limited supply of shots, so nurses visited the targeted groups with a mobile cart. “We thought that was really smart. No advertising. This was a sensible way to interact with the people who needed the vaccines.”

But pandemonium erupted. “Legions of people were basically crashing the party,” he recalls, including non-priority clerical and medical staff. There was such a “clamour” and so many “irate people incensed that they were being turned away” that the nurses had to return the next day with a security guard. “It is preposterous, the notion that nurses delivering a vaccine would be mobbed and fear for their safety,” he says. “Who could ever have imagined a scenario like that?” Continue…

The end is the beginning is the end

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 16, 2009 at 1:30 AM - 8 Comments

Defence Minister Peter MacKay comments from Kandahar.

MacKay said Natynczyk’s interpretation of Parliament’s instructions to withdraw from Kandahar was “reflective of what everyone from the prime minister on down views as those instructions.”

But MacKay was unclear on what direction the mission would take after 2011 and whether it would involve regions of the country outside of Kandahar. ”The military mission is changing,” he said. “It is obviously transitioning at 2011 to emphasis on reconstruction, development, things that we are doing now but we’ll be able to do more. And clearly, there is discussion as to how this is going to take place. We’re tasked with that now.”

The previously stated positions of Gen. Natynczyk and the Prime Minister’s Office are here. Full audio of the Defence Minister’s comments are here. And a rather interesting interview with Hamid Karzai is here.

Life imitates SNL

By Andrew Potter - Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 9:20 PM - 47 Comments

From The New York Times, “Investigators study tangle of clues on Fort Hood Suspect”, November 15 2009:

WASHINGTON — When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan took his two handguns and headed for Fort Hood on Nov. 5, he left behind in his spartan apartment his new business cards. Now they are one more clue for investigators of the 13 killings he is charged with, hinting at the road not taken.

On the cards, ordered over the Internet after Major Hasan was transferred to the sprawling Texas base in July, the 39-year-old psychiatrist omitted the rank he had achieved in the Army he had served for most of his adult life. Instead, he included the cryptic abbreviation “SoA,” apparently “Servant of Allah” or “Soldier of Allah,” perhaps marking a symbolic shift of allegiance from his military profession to his increasingly consuming faith.

…

In July, Major Hasan was sent to Fort Hood, the largest Army post, bustling with the work of war and surrounded by the scruffy trappings of an Army town: pawnshops and payday loan outlets, beer joints and tattoo parlors.

In his first weeks, Major Hasan seemed to be making long-term plans. He applied for a job as a liaison to Muslim soldiers. He printed up the business cards with his Fort Hood address for his moonlighting job as a therapist, permitted by Army rules as long as his superiors approved.

He became a regular at a Killeen mosque, frequently expounding on his view that Muslim soldiers should not be required to fight in Muslim lands. He prayed five times a day, people who knew him said. At some point, he learned he would be sent to Afghanistan.

By September, Major Hasan had purchased a handgun and had begun to visit the strip club next to the gun shop. The club’s general manager, Matthew Jones, said he stayed for six or seven hours the handful of times he visited, paying for lap dances in a private room.

****

From Saturday Night Live, “The Shooting of Buckwheat”, March 19 1983:

TED KOPPEL: (voice-over)

John David Stutts graduated from Unionville High School. His classmates called him “The Loner.” Stutts was a member of the Key Club, the Audio/Visual Squad, and president of the Future Assassins of America. It’s no wonder that his classmates chose him “Most Likely to Kill Buckwheat.”

TEXXON STATION OWNER:

Sure, I remember Stutts. He was a loner, but a real hard worker. I mean, he pumped the gas, checked the oil, he washed the windows. Nice kid.

TED KOPPEL: (off camera)

Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

TEXXON STATION OWNER:

Oh, yes, definitely. That’s all he talked about. I remember one day, I says, uh, “Stutts, why’re you working so hard?” He says, “‘Cause I’m saving up to buy a gun, so I can kill Buckwheat.” (he shrugs his shoulders)

SAUL THE TAILOR:

John was a quiet boy, a kind of a loner. But real polite. He always stood still when I hemmed his cuffs. Nice kid.

TED KOPPEL: (off camera)

Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

SAUL THE TAILOR:

Oh, yes, definitely. That’s all he ever talked about. Why, just the other day, he comes in and he says, “Saul, make me a new suit. I’m going to kill Buckwheat and I want to look good on television.

APEC leaders address protectionism, not climate change

By macleans.ca - Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM - 14 Comments

APEC leaders in Singapore came to an agreement on trade that rejects protectionism and should cut costs for exporters, during the two-day conference, attended by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama. But the other goal of addressing climate change was nearly dead in the water. In fact, the leaders even acknowledged that they thought the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference was also unlikely to yield any major action, as there is too much disagreement between the countries. But, according to Harper, the leaders agreed to try for a “broader political agreement” at that meeting in December.

Ottawa Citizen

Medvedev's speech: breakthrough or decoy?

By Paul Wells - Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 9:11 AM - 15 Comments

Russia’s president — that would be the guy who isn’t Putin — gave a truly remarkable speech to the country’s parliament this week, decrying the country’s decline, its “humiliating” reliance on natural resources, its sham democracy, its reliance on the Soviet legacy, its failure to make the transition to a knowledge economy. Vlad Putin squirmed in the front row as his nominal boss essentially called him a failure.

Most of the coverage has been like this Reuters piece, which points out all of Medvedev’s most provocative statements. Could this be a turning point? A power struggle at the top in a fragile and dangerous Russia? Maybe not. In Foreign Policy, Julia Ioffe suggests it was all for show. One example out of many:

And then came the real zinger. “Strengthening democracy does not mean weakening the social order,” he said, adding that “any attempts, under democratic slogans, to … destabilize the government and fracture society will be intercepted.” It sounded chilling enough to negate all prior talk of political thaw.

Linkage

By Andrew Potter - Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 1:11 PM - 31 Comments

1. Elizabeth Kolbert trashes Superfreakonomics:

To be skeptical of climate models and credulous about things like carbon-eating trees and cloudmaking machinery and hoses that shoot sulfur into the sky is to replace a faith in science with a belief in science fiction

2. Tracey Emin can’t figure out why she isn’t more popular in America:

She has produced works and shows titled “The Tracey Files,” “The Tracey Emin Museum” and “CV,” which stands for two words — the second of them is “vernacular” and the first is unprintable. She has made hundreds of nude self-portraits, including “I’ve Got It All,” a photograph in which her loins are obscured only by piles of money, which she is either giving birth to or forcing inside her vagina.

3. Putin gives advice to Russian hip-hoppers:

“I do not think that ‘top-rock’ or ‘down-rock’ breakdance technique is compatible with alcohol or drugs,” Putin told cheering hip-hoppers who responded with chants of “Respect, Vladimir Vladimirovich”.

4. Jim Carrey’s website will blow your mind (Via AnimalNewYork)

(Seriously, spend a half hour with it. Easter eggs wrapped in easter eggs.)

It's the stupid leadership stupid (Nanos Poll)

By Andrew Potter - Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM - 54 Comments

From the Nanosphere, the latest poll has it 38-28.8-17.9-9.3-5.9.

The nine-point spread is in line with where the polls seem to have stabilized. A few interesting parts that I can see (haven’t looked at the tables yet):

- This is bad for the Greens. Their trend seems to be to poll around 10 and get around 5; to be polling this low is not good.

- the 19% undecided suggests an electorate that is shopping around

- the biggest number for the Cons is that Harper scores double Iggy’s numbers on “most prime ministerial”. For Ignatieff to be at 17.7% on leadership, with Layton at 14.9%, is really bad for the Liberals. Yes, the OLO is going through serious gyrations right now, but this speaks to a larger branding problem for the Liberal leader.

****

Nik on the Numbers

Our latest national poll shows that the Conservatives continue to hold a comfortable lead over the Liberals.

Looking at which of the party leaders Canadians believe would make the best Prime Minister, Stephen Harper now leads by a significant, 17 point, margin over over Michael Ignatieff. This represents the widest gap since Ignatieff was elected leader of the Liberal Party.

Factoring the advantage in the ballot box and on the best PM front, the Conservatives currently have the upper hand. The dilemma they face is that their numbers are strong but it is difficult to take advantage of it politically because of the Harper communications mantra that “this isn’t a good time for an election”.

Likewise, with a defeat in parliament at the hands of the opposition parties not imminent, it is hard for the Tories to plead the instability or unworkability of parliament.

To chat about this poll join the national political online chat at Nik on the Numbers. The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website along with regional breakdowns. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates.

Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,005 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between November 7th and November 10th. A survey of 1,005 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20, for 814 committed voters, it is accurate to within 3.5 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Margins may be larger for smaller samples.

Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only – First Preference)

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between October 10th and October 18th, 2009.

National (n=814)
Conservative 38.0% (-1.8)
Liberal 28.8% (-1.2)
NDP 17.9% (+1.3)
BQ 9.3% (+0.4)
Green 5.9% (+1.3)
Undecided 19.0% (+1.5)

Best PM Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate]
Stephen Harper 34.8%
Michael Ignatieff 17.7%
Jack Layton 14.9%
Gilles Duceppe 6.5%
Elizabeth May 4.5%
None of them 9.0%
Unsure 12.6%

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest “Nanos Poll.”

MPs clam around and a real Ms. Salmon

By Mitchel Raphael - Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 10:00 AM - 1 Comment

The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA) held a reception to persuade MPs to create a federal Aquaculture Act. Gail Shea (left), Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with the executive director of CAIA, Ruth Salmon. Yes, her last name really is Salmon.

Conservative commentator and Summa Strategies VP Tim Powers and Liberal MP Judy Foote.

Continue…

Palin title fight

By Brian Bethune - Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 8:50 AM - 22 Comments

No one and nothing polarizes her nation—you betcha!—like Sarah Palin. Even Barack Obama, who has admirers loving enough to hand him a Nobel Peace Prize for good intentions alone and enemies virulent enough to deny he’s a legitimate President at all, can’t match the contrasting depths of adulation and vitriol Palin invokes. In the four days between John McCain choosing the unknown Alaska governor as his running mate in late August 2008 and her speech to the Republican convention, Palin utterly (if temporarily) transformed the presidential election campaign. Anti-abortion and pro-gun, a moose-hunting Christian hockey mom, she seemed to supporters to radiate with what one called the same raw political talent “we hated and admired in Bill Clinton.” The vice-presidential candidate galvanized her party’s conservative base and gave the Republicans a bounce in the polls. Political opponents, especially women, reacted with fear and loathing to the perceived threat. Heather Mallick, writing on the CBC website, was hardly beyond the pale of standard anti-Palin rhetoric when she sniffed at Palin’s “porn actress look” while condemning her for “terrible” parenting.

A year later, astonishingly little has changed. Palin remains intensely newsworthy. The handful of special elections held this year were scrutinized in light of how they might influence her chances for the Republican nomination in 2012. The ramblings—and upcoming Playgirl appearance—of Levi Johnston, the self-described “f–kin’ redneck” father of Palin’s grandson who is now estranged from the Palin family, are parsed primarily in terms of whether they inspire ridicule or sympathy for Palin. And her eagerly awaited autobiography, scheduled for release on Nov. 17, has enough pre-orders to rank No. 2 on Amazon.com’s bestseller list. Publisher Harper-Collins is guarding the text as closely as if it were a new Da Vinci Code. Continue…

Omar Khadr—closer to home?

By Michael Friscolanti - Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 8:47 AM - 26 Comments

After seven long years in captivity, Omar Khadr is finally leaving the notorious U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But he is not a free man. Not yet, at least.

In the latest chapter of the endless Khadr saga, the White House announced today that the 23-year-old Toronto native will be transferred to an American jail cell to face trial on U.S. soil. Exactly when he will arrive, or where he is going, has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: despite his tender age, his celebrity supporters, and questionable evidence, the Americans still consider Omar Khadr a murderer.

However, as with all things Khadr, there’s a twist: while announcing the surprise transfer, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also left open the prospect that Khadr, a Canadian citizen, could be sent home before his trial ever begins—fuelling suspicion that if Ottawa simply asked for Omar’s return, the U.S. would happily oblige. When asked about that possibility, Holder told a Washington press conference: “We will, as that case proceeds, see how it should be ultimately treated.”

At the heart of all the uncertainty is a separate hearing in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is considering whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be forced to at least ask the U.S. to send Khadr home. Simply put, two lower courts have already ruled that the federal government violated Khadr’s Charter rights in 2004, when he was grilled by visiting Canadian officials at the Gitmo facility even though they knew he endured three weeks of sleep deprivation leading up to the interrogation. To compensate for that Charter breach, the Federal Court ordered Ottawa to seek his repatriation.

The Harper government appealed the judgment—twice—claiming that the business of foreign affairs belongs to elected officials, not the courts, and that the feds have no legal duty to lobby on behalf of every citizen arrested abroad. “We’re in the realm of diplomacy here,” federal lawyer Robert Frater told the Supreme Court justices this morning. “The government has the right to decide what requests should be made, how they should be made, and when they should be made. The courts are not in the best position to do that.”

Khadr’s lawyers, though, insist this is “a unique case.” Omar, they say, does not deserve special treatment because he is a Canadian citizen detained abroad; he deserves special treatment because he is a Canadian citizen detained abroad who had his Charter rights violated by his home country. As the Federal Court of Appeal said in an earlier ruling, that “opens up a different dimension.”

The stakes could not be higher. During all the years Khadr has been locked away at Guantanamo Bay, Ottawa has never once—not under the Liberals, and not under the Conservatives—asked the United States to send him home. The feds have simply stuck to the same old talking point: Khadr is facing serious charges in the U.S., and we respect the American justice system. But if the Supreme Court sides against Ottawa in the coming weeks, Harper can no longer hide behind those words. He will be forced to ask for Khadr back—and if Holder’s latest remarks are any indication, the White House just might say yes. It’s a scenario the prime minister is desperate to avoid (his government has already spent more than $1.3 million in legal fees fighting Khadr at every turn).

The son of a senior al-Qaeda fundraiser, Khadr was famously shot and captured by American troops during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Just 15 years old at the time, he was shipped to Gitmo and later confessed to throwing a grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer, a decorated U.S. army medic with two young children. But in the years since, human rights groups and the Canadian Bar Association have rallied to the teenager’s defence, claiming his confession was the result of incessant torture and insisting that he cannot be held responsible for his actions because he was technically a child soldier. Should he ever return to Canada, Khadr would no doubt receive a hero’s welcome at the airport.

But if that day ever comes, it is federal authorities that will have to figure out what to do with him. It is a no-win situation, to put it mildly. Charge him under Canada’s anti-terror laws, and the case is certain to flop. What jury would convict a 15-year-old boy who was clearly following the orders of his radical father? The other option—reuniting him with his extremist family, where he is sure to become an inspiration for wannabe Toronto 18s—is no less nauseating. This is a family, remember, that is under constant police surveillance. Omar’s sister had her laptop seized by the RCMP; his older brother, an alleged al-Qaeda gunrunner, is facing extradition to the U.S.; and every other accused terrorist in Canada seems to count the family among their closest friends.

It’s no secret why Stephen Harper is fighting to keep Khadr in U.S. custody.
For now, at least, he will get his wish. Khadr is among ten high-profile detainees who will be flown to the U.S. to face American justice, including the Sept. 11 mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The accused 9/11 plotters, five in all, will stand trial in a Manhattan courthouse, just blocks from where the Twin Towers fell, while five others, including Khadr, will have their fate decided by a U.S. military commission. President Barack Obama originally cancelled the Bush-era commissions during his first week in the White House, but he has since reinstated them, with new rules governing due process. Hearsay evidence, or evidence gleaned from torture, will not be admissible.

To Khadr’s defence team, those assurances ring hollow. “We thought that the incoming Obama administration signaled a new day with respect to these cases—a new respect for civil liberties, an abhorrence of torture, a respect for the time-honoured legal procedures and protections that are mandated by the constitution and enforced by the federal courts,” said Barry Coburn, one of Khadr’s American attorneys, who was in Ottawa today for the Supreme Court hearing.

Dennis Edney, Khadr’s long-time Canadian lawyer, said at the very least, the military commission is preferable to an American civilian court. “He would be dead in the water, just because of the climate of terrorism in the United States,” Edney told Maclean’s. “You could almost say the best thing that could happen to him is to stay within the military commission process, because at the end of the day, a military jury understands the law of war. They understand a young kid involved in a battle that lasted minutes—and then spent the next seven years at Guantanamo.”

Layne Morris, a retired Special Forces sergeant, lost an eye in the 2002 ambush that ended with Khadr’s capture. He doesn’t particularly like the idea of Omar landing on American soil, but if it means he will finally stand trial, he supports it. “I have a responsibility to seek justice in this case on behalf of a lot of people,” says Morris, who stays in touch with Sgt. Speer’s widow, Tabitha. “But I’ve got absolutely zero problem if he goes to a military tribunal and they say: ‘Alright, you’re sentenced to time served.’ I don’t care. I’m more concerned about the security. Regardless of how many years you give him, are we confident that we can let this guy go and he’s not going to be trying to cut people’s throats next week? That’s the overwhelming question.”

One of many.

Mourning a moggy

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 12:28 AM - 21 Comments

The BBC, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Telegraph and Guardian all pay their respects to John Baird’s cat, but the finest headline like belongs to the Times: “‘Thatcher has died’ message causes chaos: but it was a moggy, not Maggie.”

TV, TV In 1983

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM - 8 Comments

YouTube has a bunch of video collections called “TV Show Openings,” where someone has collected together the intros for various shows that were on the air in a particular year, flops and hits alike. These are great to watch if you have time, because they have many intros that aren’t available anywhere else on the internet, and they give you a real collective idea of what television was like (for good and ill) at a particular time.

1983, for example, was not a good time for television on the whole — there were a few good shows, a few hits, but this was the time when the sitcom was dead, hits like M*A*S*H were going away, and the Hill Street Blues-style quality drama was still struggling to gain acceptance with the public. And you can see the signs of a struggling TV business in all the high-concept shows, unnecessary spinoffs (Aftermash) and just plain weird ideas (Mr. Smith, Manimal) that premiered that year.

This is also one reason to miss the full-length main title: it’s a way of understanding what a show was like even if you never get to see the show itself. It’s like a historical tool for us lazy historians.

Here’s the 1983 series of openings; I’ve placed part 2 first because it includes the bomb Mr. Smith (which I mentioned in an earlier post) and the success Scarecrow and Mrs. King (which was just announced for DVD release), as well as the most infamous bomb of that year, Manimal.

But for sheer 1983-ness, nothing matches the intro to Whiz Kids at the 6:10 mark in part 1: the theme music is Mozart’s 21st piano concerto rearranged for synthesizer.

Part 3 brings us such deservedly forgotten shows as Stephen J. Cannell’s country-fied “The Rousters” (with Mike Post’s attempt at a country theme song) and Fred Silverman’s attempt to bring back the “jiggle” show with We Got It Made.

Chris Matthews: Not Liberal, Not Conservative, Not Smart

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 7:45 PM - 48 Comments

One misleading meme that’s become popular in discussing TV news is the idea that MSNBC is the equivalent of Fox News, its liberal partisan counterpart. It’s not so, and not just because they give several hours of time to Joe Scarborough (imagine Fox giving the morning over to a liberal, even a squishy one). It’s that Chris Matthews, one of their star personalities, is loathed by liberals. And understandably so, as the liberal Matthews-hating blogger Digby explains. Matthews is not a conservative media figure, either; he just takes whatever position feels good to him at any moment. He demonstrates that when a TV pundit tries to get beyond ideology and present himself as a common-sense kind of guy, he winds up making no sense whatsoever.

(Matthews presumably thinks that since liberals and conservatives hate him equally, he must be doing something right. As I’ve said before, being hated equally by liberals and conservatives probably proves you’re not doing anything right.)

It’s true that MSNBC has a few openly liberal hosts, and the other networks don’t have any, and that puts them to the Continue…

One brave man

By Paul Wells - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 6:13 PM - 19 Comments

Even Nicolas Sarkozy’s lonely act of defiance wasn’t enough to stop the massacre at Tiananmen:

The NYT explains what this is about. Readers are encouraged to submit their own images of Sarko at the turning points of history.

Dept. of novel arguments

By Paul Wells - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM - 53 Comments

Chris Selley noticed this one, from Rick Salutin’s column today:

This week, too, our commanding general in Kandahar, Jonathan Vance, said we would “demand honesty, integrity and good performance from all levels of government or we won’t stay.” But that’s pretty much what the Taliban delivered and why Afghans grudgingly tolerated them before we went in.

Actually, I’m struck by how the rest of the paragraph doesn’t make Rick sound less like a profoundly addled fellow typing distractedly while he keeps one eye on the stove:

So what was the purpose, besides changing the image and role of our military? Perhaps these guys have spent too much time at Fort Hood and seen Patton once too often. Maybe they should just be issued copies of the hot new video game, Call of Duty , without needing to stand in line.

In other words, the part Selley quotes actually benefit from being taken out of context…

"Charlie's Angels" To Be The New "Bionic Woman…"

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM - 1 Comment

Next up, Bionic Angels!

ABC is close to giving a pilot order to a modern version of the classic 1970s TV actioner “Charlie’s Angels.”
Josh Friedman, who recently adapted the “Terminator” franchise for his Fox series “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles,” is onboard to write and exec produce the new “Angels.”

Also involved are original “Charlie’s Angels” producer Leonard Goldberg, who launched the series with Aaron Spelling in 1976, as well as Drew Barrymore, who starred in and produced the 2000 film version and its sequel. Sony Pictures TV is the studio.

Insiders said that ABC Entertainment Group topper Steve McPherson is particularly high on this project.

I was asked why I don’t care for this idea even though I’m an admitted fan of the light action-adventure drama (which I think is not merely worthy of more consideration by the networks, but just an underrated form of television, artistically). The reasons are:

1) I don’t think there’s any compelling reason to remake the original. It’s not like Battlestar Galactica, an interesting idea trapped in cheesy ’70s execution. It was not a great or even good show, but it was pretty much what it set out to be, and the premise of attractive female crimefighters is no longer very unique. The only reason to remake it is that it makes the executives feel more comfortable about the cheesiness or sexism inherent in a format like this. (Sort of like the first movie got away with being both a cheesy, campy adventure and a parody of such adventures.) Like a number of other remakes — Knight Rider being the most obvious example — it seems like an excuse for networks to avoid developing new shows in this format. NBC could have used a new episodic light action drama about a guy with a cool car; instead they remade one from the ’80s, because their executives didn’t have the confidence to pick up a show like this without a brand name behind it.

2) Josh Friedman is on record as preferring serialized shows, so I figure he’ll load the premise with more weight than it can handle. There will be an almost overwhelming temptation to make some kind of ongoing mystery out of who Charlie is and why he hired them.

3) We’ve got two Aaron Spelling remakes already, 90210 and Melrose Place. And neither of those are much fun. Previous Spelling remakes like Fantasy Island (which, as the article notes, is being re-remade as a reality show) and The Love Boat have also flopped. Spelling shows, let’s face it, are so content-free and fluffy that remaking them is pointless (not that he didn’t try himself). The temptation in any remake is to try and have more character exploration and depth than the original. Spelling shows have no depth anywhere in them, so anything you can add to them, in terms of meaning, just winds up being a dull distraction from the opulent sets and catfights.

If the show turns out to be good, I will not eat my words; it’ll just mean it turned out good in spite of the above obstacles. It could happen. It’s not like the original show is so good that people will be up in arms over the changes.

I Am a Scary Robot Who Talks Funny

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM - 2 Comments

Shout! Factory’s cover art for Small Wonder is… well, it’s kind of frightening, actually. I think it’s the fact that Vicki is smiling. If there’s one way to make her more creepy than she already was, it’s to put a smile on her plastic face.

I’m actually kind of curious as to how well this will sell. It’s a show that is so bad by any objective standard that it’s almost a test case for the question of whether nostalgia trumps quality, and to what extent. If the show sells well enough to bring on the other seasons, we’ll know for certain that any ’80s show can sell on DVD as long as enough people remember it.

-

America isn't done changing

By John Parisella - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:50 PM - 13 Comments

On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama said America had changed. For those who recalled the idealism of the 60s, the dreams of Martin Luther King and the Kennedy brothers had seemingly come to pass: a young African-American man from humble beginnings was elected on the basis of his character and not on the colour of his skin. It was an exhilarating moment that I was fortunate to witness while standing on the roof of the Canadian embassy. A little over a year later, however, many Americans are wondering whether America has really changed or whether last year’s election was an accident of history.

The polarization so often decried by Obama and the rest of the political class remains as sharp as ever. While the nation seemed open to more governmental activism in light of the financial meltdown of last fall, more and more Americans have become concerned about the size of government, the deficit and the debt. Health care reform still has the favour of a majority of the population, but the shape that reform should take has become fodder for acrimonious debates. And as Obama considers different options for the war in Afghanistan, the debate over American military efforts will once again be front and centre. No matter what, his decision will surely be a contentious one. Meanwhile, the economy remains fragile, job losses are expected through most of 2010, and Obama’s approval numbers have come back down to Earth. America, it seems, is back to business as usual.

Continue…

The Commons: 'This is an exceptional case'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM - 26 Comments

The Scene. As a general rule, the higher the ceiling, the more important the proceedings that fall beneath it. So it is that there is something more than 20 feet between floor and ceiling in the Supreme Court. And so here it was that the justices took their place at precisely 9am this morning and announced a start to proceedings in the matter of Prime Minister of Canada et al. v. Omar Ahmed Khadr.

The government’s man this day was a short fellow, blessed of a large forehead and mess of hair at the back, wearing small glasses in the middle of his face. His opening gambit was suitably dramatic. The court, he ventured, had no more authority to tell the government to request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation, then it had to decide that the ambassador be recalled or warships be amassed along the border to enforce that repatriation.

“We’re a long way,” one justice ventured shortly thereafter, “from recalling the ambassador.”

Perhaps. Though maybe just barely. Continue…

It's the GST, stupid

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM - 45 Comments

Stephen Gordon tries to figure out the federal deficit.

And here we have an explanation for the structural deficit: the cuts to the GST. Each percentage point of the GST generates about $5b-$6b in revenues (the figures above are net of the GST rebate), so the gap between what current revenues are and what they would be if the GST had stayed at 7% is about $10b-$12b – which is also the PBO’s estimate for the structural deficit.

5 Things you need to know about Anguilla

By Suzanne Christie, Takeoffeh.com - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 3:49 PM - 13 Comments

She’s not much to look at… a long thin scruffy strip of an island off the north shore of St. Maarten. But you can feel yourself succumbing to Anguilla’s charms almost immediately. The island’s warm hospitable people, crystal clear turquoise waters and relaxed vibe are a tonic for the soul. There’s not a lot to do on Anguillla — and that’s the key to her success. It’s a place to relax and renew. Continue…

Pirate radio on cruise control

By Brian D. Johnson - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM - 3 Comments

Philip Seymour Hoffman in 'Pirate Radio'

British comedy is a funny thing. It’s famous for being smart, sharp and nuanced—unlike Yank humour, which is supposed to be dumb, crude and obvious.  Or at least that’s the cliche. And it’s true that much of  North American sketch comedy, from SCTV to SNL, owes its cutting edge to the outlaw absurdism of English shows like Monty Python’s Flying Circus and Beyond the Fringe.  But there’s more than one kind of Brit comedy. As someone who had an English upbringing, I can recall that my first childhood experience laughing my ass off in a movie theatre was at one of the slapstick ‘Carry On . . . ‘  pictures.  Don’t remember which one. Maybe Carry on Nurse.  But I remember it depended heavily on toilet gags, and I couldn’t believe I was watching it with my parents. Pirate Radio offers fresh evidence that Brit humour can be as bone-headed as the American variety. It’s the latest ensemble comedy from Richard Curtis,  who wrote The Tall Guy,  Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones’s Diary, and Notting Hill and who directed Love Actually. Perhaps more than anyone, Curtis, who has also worked with Mr. Bean, draws on the full repertoire of Brit humour, from astringent wit to broad slapstick. But in this case, despite some flashes of wit, Curtis goes off the deep end of sentimental farce, as if desperately seeking a comic tone to match the grandeur of rock’n'roll excess.

Pirate Radio looks  seductive. It’s got a dynamite cast—featuring Billy Nighy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Rhys Ifans and Rhys Darby (Flight of the Concords)—you gotta love an ensemble with two Rhys’s. The soundtrack, upholstered with a wall-to-wall playlist of ’60s hits, is also quite fabulous. But the movie, which opened in the U.K. seven months ago, has been slow to wash up on these shores. And now it’s clear why. For all the talent attached to it, Pirate Radio is nowhere near as good as it should be. It purports to portray an authentic and fascinating phenomenon—the rock’n'roll outlaws who manned radio stations on boats outside Britain’s coastal jurisdiction so they could flaunt the country’s stingy broadcast standards and play non-stop rock. But the film is so safe, and silly,  it does a disservice to its subject, its stars and its soundtrack. Continue…