The Commons: What we’re not talking about

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 7:25 PM - 67 Comments

The Scene. The phrase is perhaps less rhetoric than art: its meaning entirely up to the beholder.

“We are not opening the abortion debate,” the Minister for International Development declared last Thursday.

“We do not wish to debate abortion in this place or elsewhere,” the Prime Minister seconded.

In the weeks since the Prime Minister announced an intention to deal with maternal and child health in the developing world, his government has struggled some to explain precisely what it means by that. When the leader of the opposition pressured the government side to confirm that a “pro-choice consensus” would be followed, the Prime Minister’s spokesman declared that the plan had nothing to do with abortion, gay marriage or capital punishment. Two weeks later, Bev Oda’s office declared that “family planning” would have nothing to do with it. A month after that, the Foreign Affairs Minister announced that access to contraception was most certainly out.

At that point, suddenly seeming to be at odds with international allies it intends to rally to this cause, the government side apparently decided it should stop explaining what wouldn’t be in its plan. And so Ms. Oda was sent up in Question Period last week to announce that the government would not be “closing the door on any options that will save the lives of mothers and children, including contraception.” No clarification was provided as to doors leading to gay marriage and the death penalty, but abortion was given its own clause.

“As we have been saying all along,” she said, “we are not opening the abortion debate.” Continue…

Hey look: Peace in our time

By Paul Wells - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM - 23 Comments

In which Coyne and Wells recover from our fray over the nature of Canadian conservatism to toast, via Skype, the latest triumph of American liberalism. That’s right: Coyne v Wells on Obamacare.

What is truly ailing the GOP

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM - 11 Comments

The image of a group of an unapologetic group of Tea Partiers heckling a man suffering from Parkinson’s disease during a recent rally against U.S. health care reform will not soon be forgotten. According to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, the episode, captured on videotape and widely circulated in advance of Congress’s passage of the historic bill, is emblematic of the kind of vile behaviour that has been allowed by the Republican party—both among its supporters and ranks. Opponents of the bill also took aim at black congressmen, including civil rights leader John Lewis, by spitting on them and shouting racial slurs. Herbert argues that, in shielding those who partake in this kind of racism and bigotry, the GOP has created a deliberate distraction. “The toxic clouds that are the inevitable result of the fear and the bitter conflicts so relentlessly stoked by the Republican Party [...] tend to obscure the tremendous damage that the party’s policies have inflicted on the country,” he says. “If people are arguing over immigrants or abortion or whether gays should be allowed to marry, they’re not calling the G.O.P. to account for (to take just one example) the horribly destructive policy of cutting taxes while the nation was fighting two wars.”

New York Times

David Mamet's Memorable Memo

By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM - 1 Comment

Just released today on Movieline.com, and likely to become a cult classic in the screenwriting how-to genre, is David Mamet’s 2005 all-caps memo to the writing staff of The Unit, where he berates them for writing scenes that are all information (and therefore undramatic) and advises them to make every scene dramatic, meaning that a character must have a goal that he or she is trying to achieve (and right now). Or in his words, “The main character must have a simple, straightforward, pressing need which impels him or her to show up in the scene.” The scene, he continues, “must start because the hero has a problem, and it must culminate with the hero finding him or herself either thwarted or educated that another way exists.” As for how to get in all the expository or clarifying information, he doesn’t seem particularly concerned or willing to set down rules for how to do it; his advice is “figure it out,” because the delivery of information can’t be allowed to interfere with the dramatic nature of the scene.

I don’t know whether Mamet really believes that there are hard-and-fast, inviolable rules of storytelling; I’m sure you can look through his own work and find examples of him violating them. But his point, I think, is to get the writers thinking about the dramatic point of every scene, and asking whether the scene exists for any other purpose than conveying information or filling up a plot hole. (This applies more to movies than TV these days, but writers and directors today frequently get so worried about plot holes — or badgered by so many executives who like to point out plot holes — that they waste valuable screen time on explaining things that no involved viewer would ever care about. That’s why most movies are too long.) And I also think that his point doesn’t only apply to suspenseful, what-happens-next drama, but to any kind of show.

Here’s one example I always love to give of how a dramatic goal gives a scene structure and shape, turning it into a great scene. This is the All In the Family scene where Archie argues with Maude (in her first-ever appearance) about whether Maude’s idol Franklin Roosevelt, whom Archie calls “the first creepin’ socialist,” ruined America with his socialist agenda. The scene is good and funny enough purely as dialogue, and arguably is sufficiently dramatic because of how badly Archie and Maude both want to win the argument, plus Edith’s failed attempts to mediate. But the writers, Michael Ross and Bernie West, did something else to make the scene work: they made it not only about the political argument, but Archie’s attempt to get his beloved chair back. Maude is sitting in his chair and won’t get out of it. He starts arguing politics so he can get her angry, get her out of the chair, and finally so he can take the chair back in triumph. That makes it a scene where something actually happens, beyond two people rehashing an argument about politics, and it also gives the scene a physical component, making it more than illustrated radio. It’s a comedy scene, but it’s “dramatic” in every sense of the term.

Coyne v. Wells on Obamacare

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 5:29 PM - 20 Comments

Download | Feed | iTunes

I demand an apology for your demand that I apologize

By Andrew Coyne - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 5:21 PM - 52 Comments

Days after stirring outrage by claiming the Bloc were courageous “résistants” against — well, actually, they’re on the payroll of the Canadian state, aren’t they? — Gilles Duceppe has attempted an intricate recovery move, never before tried in competition.

Responding to those who found the comparison’s implied corollary — if the Bloc = résistance, then Canada = Nazis — in poor taste (not to say insane), Duceppe refused to go with the old “I’m sorry if you were offended” routine on which lesser politicians often rely. Rather, he has elected to play the more daring “I’m offended that you were offended.”

More daring and, when you think about it, more authentically Blocquiste.

UPDATE: Bloc continuing to demand $2.2-billion more in federal transfers. Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a good resistance movement these days?

Ottawa hands out $12-million Haiti contract without bids

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM - 11 Comments

Canada has had its eye on building temporary facilities to house the Haitian government since days after the massive earthquake that destroyed much of Port-au-Prince and Stephen Harper finally announced Ottawa would go ahead with the project during a visit to Haiti last month. Turns out the $12 million contract was handed to a subsidiary of Calgary-based ATCO Ltd. without a public bidding process, even though procurement guidelines usually require government contracts worth more than $25,000 to be submitted to one. Ottawa also opted not to post an advance contract award notice, which would have allowed rival potential bidders to submit to submit counter-proposals. According to the CBC, ATCO Ltd. has “significant political connections,” with three of its directors having donated to the Conservative Party. The Public Works Department, meanwhile, says “the urgency of the situation in Haiti and the tight timelines” precluded a drawn-out bidding process.

CBC News

More cops, more violence

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 3:44 PM - 12 Comments

A new report by the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS says increased policing does nothing to halt the violence that follows the illegal drug trade—in fact, stepping up law enforcement tactics only increases it. According to lead researcher Dr. Evan Wood, the federal Conservatives’
law-and-order legislation that would see criminals sentenced to ever-longer sentences will only heighten turf wars between criminal gangs. “When you destabilize the market by taking key players out,” he said, “violence will ensue.” Wood says governments would be better off regulating the drug trade to take the criminal element out of the distribution process. Critics of the report point out that while there may be a temporary spike in violence as criminals rush to fill the void in the drug market, the long-term effects of criminalization are worth the trouble. “If you allow criminals to just run rampant and you allow the drugs to run rampant, there will be increased violence.”

National Post

Picture perfect

By Martin Patriquin - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM - 9 Comments

Sometimes it’s too easy to come up with something witty about the verbal excesses of Gilles Duceppe. Sometimes it’s best to leave it up to La Presse’s Serge Chapleau, because he’ll be way funnier than you.

A good read on Bill Reid

By John Geddes - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM - 11 Comments

I find it hard to reveal my interest in First Nations art without feeling a defensive urge to prevaricate. A person of my taste and sophistication, I want to say, certainly doesn’t mean Eskimo-kitsch carvings, knock-off Morrisseau greeting cards, and Haida-print bookmarks.

Except that, in a way, I mean exactly those things. The fascination of these traditions lies largely in how they’ve worked their way into every corner of our field of view. Unlike any other art made in Canada, besides Tom Thomson, Emily Carr and the Group of Seven, these are the graphic styles Canadians actually choose to live with, which has to count for something.

So anything that helps us understand what we’re looking at when First Nations art and design are in front of us, as they so often are, deserves notice. To that end, I commend to you a lively, insightful essay by Norbert Ruebsaat, in the current issue of the Literary Review of Canada, on a new collection of writings by Bill Reid, the late sculptor who led the renaissance in Northwest Coast art.

Continue…

What should Americans expect from Obama's health care reforms?

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 1:52 PM - 21 Comments

I apologize if my graciousness offends

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM - 49 Comments

The Liberals sent Wayne Easter up yesterday to berate Jean-Pierre Blackburn for whatever it is that happened awhile back with the Veteran Affairs Minister and his tequila. The Conservatives permitted Mr. Blackburn to respond for himself. His two responses were as follows.

Mr. Speaker, I was at the airport a month ago. We had forgotten that there was a bottle of alcohol in our carry-on luggage. Of course, the bottle was confiscated by the security officials. I never asked for any preferential treatment whatsoever. I remained polite at the airport at all times. The security officials did their job and I respected their decision.

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that I did not ask for any preferential treatment whatsoever. I just would not do that. I repeat that I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

'We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale'

By Colby Cosh - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:55 PM - 21 Comments

Bloomberg’s sphincter-tightening-news division reports that two-year U.S. Treasury Bonds now have a higher yield than notes of similar maturity issued by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and the Royal Bank of Canada.

Mother of all debates

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM - 77 Comments

The Conservatives have decided they will vote against today’s Liberal motion because a) it is “a transparent attempt to reopen the abortion debate” and b) it is critical of the George W. Bush administration.

The House is presently debating the matter.

BREAKING BAD: The Good And Bad

By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM - 14 Comments

Sunday night’s season premiere of Breaking Bad sort of clarified what I like best and least about the show. It has certainly improved a ton since the first season, when it seemed to me like the ultimate generic cable show, with every cable-network-approved cliché — the dysfunctional rot at the heart of middle America, Jekyll-and-Hyde duality, labyrinthine soap-opera plotting — in place. Starting in season 2 it became a much better and more interesting show, always bolstered by Bryan Cranston’s performance (though I’m not convinced that the rest of the cast is terribly interesting). Still, my main likes and dislikes remain pretty constant:

Like: The painful, awkward, funny-scary moments when Walt, a monster who still likes to think of himself as a basically decent man doing his best for his family, tries to justify himself to “normal” people. His use of meaningless buzzwords to explain his motivations, like “it’s complicated,” is a wonderful character touch; it also helps pull the show away from cable cliché by parodying the notion of moral ambiguity or “shades of grey” or all the other buzzwords that cable showrunners use to describe their work. Walt wants to think of himself as a symbol of life’s complexity and the difficult choices we have to make, and Vince Gilligan has talked about “taking a good man and transforming him into something else,” but it could be that he’s just a rotten person who enjoys this life and has found his true calling. And when his deranged self-justification butts up against a roomful of regular people, as it did in the gymnasium speech in the third season premiere, the result is a scene that is both very funny and very frightening, which is something few shows have been able to manage since the better episodes of The Sopranos.

Dislike: The big “symbolism” scenes. Any wordless scene with Walt interacting with some symbolic thing — oh, look at the meaningful way he’s cutting that bread! — is cable formula stuff, leading to blatant overplaying by both Cranston and the director (well, Cranston directed this episode, so all the overplaying is his). The burning-money scene was the show, and the edgy cable genre, at its weakest: symbolism on a Rosebud-was-his-sled level, tricked out with silly camera angles (putting the camera inside the grill) and requiring the main character to act nothing like a recognizable human being. It’s like they look at those old parodies of bad art movies — the ones that begin and end with a leaf falling, symbolizing the transience of life — and take them seriously.

In sum: Good show; could do with fewer symbols.

The trouble with the ANP

By Andrew Potter - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM - 3 Comments

A new Newsweek/Pro Publica investigation into the training of the ANA is all kinds of grim:

America has spent more than $6 billion since 2002 in an effort to create an effective Afghan police force, buying weapons, building police academies, and hiring defense contractors to train the recruits—but the program has been a disaster.

How bad is it? The only bright spot in the entire program is thanks to the efforts of the Italian carabinieri. Read the whole thing; it lays out in detail just how screwed up the security situation is in Afghanistan.

Champion of right-wing America lashes out at Canadian university

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:08 PM - 36 Comments

Ann Coulter is all riled up again. Her latest target: the University of Ottawa. Coulter is scheduled to speak at the U of O Tuesday night as part of a three-city Canadian tour. But now, she’s attacking the university’s provost for an email he sent her, warning her that in Canada, free speech is defined differently than it is in the U.S. Coulter explains: “Now that the provost has instructed me on the criminal speech laws he apparently believes I have a proclivity [to break], despite knowing nothing about my speech, I see that he is guilty of promoting hatred against an identifiable group: conservatives.” Coulter adds: “I was hoping for a fruit basket upon my arrival in Canada, not a threat to criminally prosecute me.”

Ottawa Citizen

Throw Ann Coulter in jail!

By Carson Jerema - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:06 PM - 180 Comments

It isn’t just the student union that is having a fit over Ann Coulter’s planned visit to the University of Ottawa. Francois Houle, vice-president academic and provost at the U of O, has sent Coulter an email warning her to watch her mouth, lest she find herself behind bars.

Coulter has posted the email online, which reads:

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is little question that Coulter has written many things considered provocative, rude and inflammatory. For a few examples see here and here. But has she ever said anything criminal? Something so offensive that it would actually attract the attention of the police? Our criminal hate-speech provisions no doubt require an arbitrary line be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. But the way the law has evolved is that it has become reserved for the most egregious and vile offences, like this case.

When Section 319 of the criminal code, the hate speech provisions, was subject to a Charter challenge and reviewed by the Supreme Court some two decades ago, it survived only because the judges reasoned that, as written, it should not have an overly broad interpretation, and that only the most extreme cases should be subject to prosecution. Such cases typically include a sustained effort by the accused to willfully promote hatred over a period of time, and, in such a way that there would be no redeemable political speech. Hate speech has to be near fully void of relevant comment on issues of public interest. In fact this is written right into the criminal code and anyone charged with promoting hatred has recourse to several defences. The defences include truth, commenting on religious topics, making comments that stem from religious beliefs, and making comments that are on a topic of public interest.

Even if Coulter repeated every inflammatory thing she ever wrote during her visit in Canada, she likely still wouldn’t be charged. And, if she was, she would have several legal defences at her disposal.

Provost Houle wants Coulter to educate herself on our hate speech laws, I would suggest he take his own advice.

Originally published on March 22nd, 2010 at Maclean’s On Campus

Sarah Palin in final talks for reality TV show

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:05 PM - 3 Comments

You wonder if Alaskans are getting worried by the degree to which Sarah Palin defines their state in the minds of outsiders. The former governor is now reportedly close to a deal with Discovery Channel for a travelogue-style reality show, in which she will guide viewers around the Alaskan outdoors. Super-producer Mark Burnett (Survivor, The Apprentice) is behind the project, and plans to shoot the series in high definition. The question now is whether it will be worth the cost. Palin is reportedly asking something in the range of $1.2 million per episode, and Discovery was forced into a bidding war with rival A&E Networks for the program, which is conceived as a pricey, high-end production.

The Hollywood Reporter

Toyota started floor mat-related recalls in 2003

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:02 PM - 0 Comments

Toyota recalled 400 Celicas in 2003 over fears the car’s floor mats could slide forward into the accelerator pedal, causing drivers to lose control. The company says the problem is unrelated to the massive 2009 recall of Rav4s and Matrixes over similar problems. However, Canadian politicians and
industry watchers such as the Automobile Protection Association say the earlier recall shows Toyota knew about potential problems with floor
mats and should have done more to keep its cars safe. “Now either Toyota was not completely forthcoming to Transport Canada on the causes of
the problems, or Transport Canada bought a line or didn’t act on the information it had. In either case, this is troubling,” says Liberal MP Joe Volpe, vice-chairman of the committee examining into the Toyota recalls. American politicians have also criticized Toyota for its handling of the recall, with Democratic Congressman Edward Markey saying “why didn’t it do something additional before fatalities and other serious accidents occurred?
If the [U.S.] Department of Transportation knew about these problems before 2007, why didn’t it do something sooner?”

CBC News

The problems run deep

By Danylo Hawaleshka - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:00 PM - 1 Comment

Orestis Panagiotou/ EPA/ Keystone Press

Taxis are still reasonably priced in Greece, even though not much else is. In Athens, where an espresso can cost $6, gin and tonics $12.50, and the latest issue of Vanity Fair fetches $16, cab rides still cost about half of what they do in Toronto. It probably has a lot to do with how taxi drivers in Greece pay next to no income tax. Christos Kyriakousis, for instance, drives his own 2004 Mercedes-Benz E270 sedan. Under current tax law he simply pays an annual flat rate of less than $1,700 (1,200 euros). But now, the cash-strapped Greek government is insisting that taxi operators like Kyriakousis—horror of horrors—will soon have to issue receipts and pay tax according to how much they actually earn. In protest, drivers earlier this month staged a 48-hour work stoppage. “As far as I’m concerned, they can do it,” Kyriakousis says of the government’s intention to bring in tougher tax measures. “But we have to be able to trust them, and they have to trust us.”

Therein lies the great dilemma. Still very much a cash-based society plagued by frequently low household incomes, Greece remains terribly corrupt, with trust between taxpayers and politicians holding little or no currency. Transparency International’s corruption index last year placed Greece 71st out of 180 countries, behind Kuwait and Ghana, and only slightly better than Burkina Faso. Little wonder then that Greeks tend to look out for themselves—with a sense of entitlement that has often undermined efforts to improve the common good. And so necessary government reforms, like recently announced austerity measures, are often met by protests like the one on March 11, when as many as 50,000 public and private employees took to the streets. And yet it is difficult to imagine a nation, particularly one belonging to the European Union, more desperately in need of economic change.

This is, after all, a country of only 11 million citizens, where one in four workers is employed by the state (many of them tenured), and where generous state pensions and early retirement provisions have the country teetering on the edge of insolvency. The country’s financial problems are dragging down the euro, the currency used by Greece and 15 other EU member states. And so, earlier this month, the government was forced to institute 4.8 billion euros worth of tax hikes and cost savings ($6.7 billion), in addition to the five billion euros in spending cuts already announced in January as part of the so-called stability and growth program demanded by Eurocrats in Brussels. “This is by far the most austere and painful set of stabilization and austerity measures that has ever been adopted by a Greek government,” says George Pagoulatos, a political economist at the Athens University of Economics and Business. “There’s a lot of fat to be scraped off the public sector. There are far too many [state] organizations that could be abolished without any welfare loss. It is clear that the total wage and pension bill of the government is unsustainable.”

Continue…

It’s the last closet on the right

By Nancy Macdonald - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:00 PM - 13 Comments

Photograph by Brian Baer/ Zuma/ Keystone Press

For his entire career, California’s Bible belt state Sen. Roy Ashburn was best known for sound bites like this one, dating to 2005. At a rally he organized to drum up support for a ban on same-sex marriage, the powerful Republican from Bakersfield stood beside the founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, Lou Sheldon, proclaiming heterosexual marriage “fundamental to civilization,” as Sheldon made vile claims about the lives of gay men and women—in all, “one of the most disturbing hours of my life,” said one reporter present. Ashburn, said to be “right of Rush Limbaugh,” has opposed every gay rights initiative that’s crossed his Senate desk, including measures aiming at fairness in jobs and housing, and one to protect gay youth.

Fast-forward to March 3 of this year, when a drunk-driving arrest near the Sacramento gay club Faces led him to announce, days later, to Kern County radio listeners: “I am gay.” Even north of the border you could practically hear the collective slap! as Republican hands met foreheads.

The gay Republican outed by scandal is, by now, a familiar event on the American political calendar. As Out magazine describes modern, gay Washington, Democrats live openly on the Hill and in K Street lobbying firms while their Republican counterparts “still cower in the closet until they trip themselves up with off-colour instant messages to teenage pages or conduct unbecoming to a United States senator in an airport bathroom.” Why demonize gay people in the first place? “Beats me,” says Wellesley College political theorist, Laura Grattan. Surely, she adds, there’s self-hatred or overcompensation going on—“they could take a stand against gay rights without being so publicly vitriolic about it.” Whether railing loudly against gay rights is a shield, a political ruse to win votes or an attempt to scare it out of their systems, the result is clear: ritual outings and public embarrassment—though on that score, Ashburn’s glassy-eyed mug shot barely registers.

Continue…

For the banana museum, time to split

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 11:58 AM - 0 Comments

Banana anyone? The International Banana Club and Museum—home to more than 17,000 banana-themed items, from a banana golf putter to a gold-sequined “Michael Jackson banana”—is in need of a new home. Ken Bannister, the museum’s founder, was recently informed by local officials in Hesperia, Calif., that he would have to vacate the city-owned space that currently houses the collection. Bannister started building his collection in 1972 and opened his first banana museum in Altadena, Calif. Despite efforts over the years to sell merchandise and shares in a “Banana Club” (membership: 35,000), his museum has never been the financial success he once dreamed. One of the big challenges over the years has been keeping his collection family friendly. Items that he receives that are “lewd, crude or lascivious” are returned to sender. Bannister, who is known as “Top Banana”, says he is considering relocating his collection or selling it all on eBay. “I guess it’s time to split,” he says.

Wall Street Journal

Was stimulus spending useless?

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 11:53 AM - 13 Comments

The Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank, says the Canadian government’s $47.2 billion in stimulus spending created massive deficits while doing nothing to curb the recent recession. A new study from the group says the spending accounted for only 0.2 per cent of the 1.1 per cent GDP growth between the second and third quarters of 2009, and that it had no impact on the one per cent growth in the third and fourth quarter of that year. The report instead gives credit to “private-sector investment and increased exports” for the economic turnaround. It also says the small impact of stimulus spending shouldn’t come as a surprise, as most government spending was earmarked for infrastructure projects, which only show results over a long period of time.

CBC News