Week in Pictures: January 10th – 16th 2010

By macleans.ca - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM - 0 Comments

Motor City magic

By Chris Sorensen - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM - 1 Comment

Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg/Getty Images

They may no longer be the “Big Three,” but General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group LLC were eager to use this year’s Detroit auto show to show the world there’s a Motor City comeback in the making. Amid the usual pulsing lights, puffs of dry ice and pounding music, Olivier Francois, president of the Chrysler brand, stood before a throng of automotive journalists and made references to 8 Mile, the 2002 movie starring Eminem as a white rapper who earns the respect of his peers in a hardscrabble Detroit neighbourhood, as he attempted to whip up enthusiasm for a redesigned Chrysler 300 sedan. “Today you will see what happens when we are backed into a corner,” he said, invoking the image of a prizefighter, before the 300 drove onto the stage and the ear-splitting decibels increased even further. “You will see that we come out swinging.”

Buoyed by recovering sales and corporate restructurings that are finally gaining traction, similar gestures of confidence were also on display by GM, which along with new small cars proudly displayed its silver and yellow Cadillac CTS-V race car (to mark the brand’s return to auto racing), and Ford, the only one of the three Detroit-based automakers that didn’t file for bankruptcy protection or take a government bailout. Ford’s blue-themed display rivalled the size of GM’s and Toyota’s, despite it being a smaller automaker. Ford also introduced a racy-looking Vertrek concept that could one day replace the Escape crossover. “Motown has got its mojo back, obviously” said Dennis DesRosiers, a Canadian automotive analyst.

And, interestingly, for every ounce of hometown swagger—something that had all but disappeared from the North American International Auto Show since the recession hit—there appeared to be a corresponding retreat from the big-name Japanese automakers who’d spent the last few decades eating the Detroit Three’s lunch. Toyota Motor Corp. executives spent much of their time at the Cobo Center, on the banks of the ice-filled Detroit River, answering questions about last year’s recalls of millions of vehicles, as opposed to talking about new models.

But what happens at the Detroit show, with its vast expanses of carpet, soaring displays and dazzlingly lit vehicles, is not always a reliable indicator of what’s likely to take place inside dealers’ showrooms. While the turnaround story at GM, Ford and Chrysler is real, there is still much work to be done. And it’s not like rivals have been standing still for the past couple of years waiting for Detroit to get its act together. Competition will be fierce.

Like other automakers, GM, Ford and Chrysler benefited immensely from last year’s rebounding auto sales in the United States, which grew 11 per cent to 11.6 million after hitting a low of 10.4 million a year earlier. While that’s still a far cry from the 16 million or so vehicles that were being sold prior to the recession, Ford and GM are nevertheless expected to report billions in 2010 profit (Chrysler, still the weakest of the three, is also closing in on the break-even mark after posting losses for the past few years). “The big thing that’s probably shocked everybody is that these car companies can now make money at vastly reduced volumes,” says Jeremy Anwyl, the chief executive of automotive website of Edmunds.com. “They are talking about break-evens now at sales levels of about 11 million a year. To put that in perspective, just a few years ago sales of 14 million would have been perceived as a disaster.”

GM underwent a particularly dramatic overhaul during its 2009 bankruptcy to emerge as a leaner and more focused company. It dumped debt, slashed half of its brands and took steps to wean itself off a destructive habit of relying on steep incentives—zero per cent financing and cash-back deals—to juice sales. “We have to keep our foot on the accelerator here,” said Mark Reuss, the president of GM’s North American division, moments before Chevrolet introduced a sleek new subcompact car called Sonic, which will be sold alongside Chevy’s compact-sized Cruze. “But I think we’re running North America with the right philosophy.”

And, to top it off, the company took a major step toward shedding its “Government Motors” stigma through a successful IPO in November that raised US$23 billion, helping to pay down roughly US$50 billion worth of loans from Washington and Ottawa.

Chrysler also filed for Chapter 11 in 2009 and, in exchange for bailout cash, agreed to a marriage with Italian carmaker Fiat. Despite a lack of new models to sell last year, it too managed to post an impressive 16.5 per cent increase in U.S. sales to 1.1 million vehicles, hitting the target set by CEO Sergio Marchionne. He is now predicting sales increases of 25 per cent in 2011 as Chrysler sends its new 300 sedan to showrooms alongside a vastly overhauled Sebring sedan, now called the 200. Chrysler will also be selling the tiny Fiat 500 in North America, although analysts say it will be the incorporation of Fiat’s small car technology in future models that will truly determine Chrysler’s future.

Ford has taken a different road, having had a head start on its restructuring. With several popular new models and quality rankings that now rival Japanese automakers, Ford’s U.S. sales soared 19 per cent in 2010, and the company managed to increase its market share there for the second time in two years. It also ousted GM as Canada’s sales leader for the first time in more than half a century.

There’s more to come. In Detroit, Ford introduced a new seven-passenger C-Max minivan, marking a return to a segment it abandoned in 2006. It also showed off two five-seat C-Max variants powered by regular hybrid and plug-in hybrid engines (regular hybrids alternate between gas and electric power, while plug-in hybrids run solely on electric power until the charge is depleted and a gas engine takes over), and an electric version of its Focus small car. “The fuel-efficiency story is going to be a major one,” said David Mondragon, the CEO of Ford Canada. He added, however, that Ford has a “very balanced approach to the marketplace,” ranging from the tiny but well-equipped Fiesta subcompact to Ford’s bestselling F-150 pickup trucks. “And with flexible manufacturing, we can build whatever consumers want.”

Having the right mix will be critical as analysts forecast a continued recovery in the all-important U.S. market. Jeff Schuster, director of automotive forecasting for JD Power and Associates, predicts sales of 12.8 million vehicles in the U.S. this year followed by 15 million units in 2012 and a return to nearly 16 million a year later. (Canadian sales increases will be less dramatic, rising to 1.6 million next year compared to 1.5 million in 2010, but only because the market didn’t collapse as badly.) That suggests big profits down the road for Ford, Chrysler and GM, providing they can hang on to their current combined 45 per cent market share, up one percentage point from last year.

Caught in the crossfire

By Nadja Drost - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM - 3 Comments

RAUL ARBOLEDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

To hear what Colombia’s continuing drug war is starting to sound like, board a motorboat in Montelíbano, a small city in the department of Córdoba in the country’s north. At every other bend in the river, listen to members of the unarmed Civil Defence force as they point out where they happened upon floating bodies swirling in the chocolate-coloured eddies; the likelihood of such gruesome discoveries is even higher further upstream, at La Curva de los Muertos—the Curve of the Dead.

Once in a while, pass by a clearing in the verdant wall of trees lining the riverbank, where one or two men stand. They appear to be doing nothing, but they are likely informants of one of several drug trafficking groups who use the San Jorge river as a cocaine throughway, ready to radio their colleagues about who is arriving.

Two hours later, step off the boat and go up a dirt path to the village of Villa Carminia. Walk through thatched-roof homes with emptied closets and shoes strewn on the ground, and peer into backyards where roosters would normally crow. Step into the tiny church of upturned benches where the faithful might otherwise sing. But today, the latest sound of this country’s intractable drug war greets every step: silence. Continue…

The case for the vote subsidy

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM - 303 Comments

Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton argue in favour of the $2 per vote party subsidy.

But Ignatieff said the Liberals support the subsidies as a strong way to sustain democracy. ”We’ve got a political system that is by international standards cheap, democratic and open,” he said. He said that if public subsidies are banned, “then little by little the big money comes back into politics.”

“Jean Chretien started to walk the big money out of politics. You cut public subsidy, you walk the big money back in. We think it’s the wrong way to go and if you want to know why it’s the wrong way to go, look south of the border.”

Layton was equally supporting of the subsidies. “A key element of democratic reform was to make sure that political parties represent the ideas of Canadians and can have their ideas considered in the public discourse.” Ending the subsidies would have dire consequences, warned Layton. “You’re going to end up with those who are able to ante up the bucks getting heard. And that is not democratic. It’s not right.”

What do you think of the CBSC decision to change the lyrics of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing"?

By macleans.ca - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM - 109 Comments

Oscar buzz for a Canadian director

By Brian D. Johnson - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

eOne Films

In a Denis Villeneuve movie, you can count on a savage act of fate changing someone’s life. In his first feature, August 32nd on Earth (1998), a woman vows to get pregnant after surviving a near-fatal car crash. The heroine of Maelstrom (2000) drives over a pedestrian after having an abortion. Polytechnique (2009) re-enacts the arbitrary murder of female engineering students in the Montreal Massacre. Villeneuve’s latest film, Incendies, tracks a mother and daughter through a maze of horrific coincidence in the Middle East. All these movies succeed against wild odds. Stories that could easily tip over into melodrama acquire uncanny power and grace. Dramatizing the Montreal Massacre sounds like an adventure in bad taste, but Polytechnique avoided the pitfalls of exploitation, wowed critics and swept the Genie Awards. Now with Incendies, Villeneuve is emerging as the most acclaimed Quebec director since Denys Arcand—and the most exciting Canadian filmmaker of his generation. Continue…

A penny dropped

By Nicholas Köhler - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:00 AM - 20 Comments

FRANK GUNN/CP

Canada’s one-cent coin, colloquially known as the penny, is a unit of currency equalling one one-hundredth of a Canadian dollar. You need 100 cents to make one dollar, a truth that now seems trivial but was an innovation of moment in 19th-century Canada, when 12 pence still made a shilling, 20 shillings a pound. Yet the coin’s debut in 1858 proved inauspicious: light and flimsy in comparison to the copper tokens Canada’s charter banks had issued for years—and which long remained legal tender on par with the penny, as per Canadian legislation—it was shunned. Years after its first issue of 10 million one-cent coins, the Canadian government was still seeking to unload that inventory, and offered pennies for sale at a 20 per cent discount—a financial loss that coin enthusiasts call “negative seigniorage.”

It took 18 years for Canada to order another batch from Britain’s Royal Mint, which squeezed out, punched and stamped our coins for us, in a plant by the Tower of London. Coppers, as they were called, remained for years a phenomenon of Canada’s East—unpopular beyond Ontario and an early emblem of western distaste for Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal. “You left Ontario, the coppers became worthless,” says Ian Laing, president of Winnipeg-based Gatewest Coin Ltd. “People gave them away as they left.” Attitudes toward the cent were still antagonistic as late as 1905, when Jack and Timothy Eaton opened a five-storey Eaton’s in Winnipeg, where retailers had banded together to keep the penny out by pricing goods to the nickel. When Jack, a stickler for such things, decreed his prices on Portage Avenue would be the same as in Toronto, he sent $500 worth of one-cent coins to Winnipeg. Beside each cash register, he set up charity boxes so customers could discard them should they wish. But he began to sell newspapers at two cents rather than five. Soon, all of Western Canada was awash in pennies.

Things only grew worse. Since founding its own coining plant in Ottawa in 1908, Canada has produced more than 31 billion one-cent pieces. At its main facility in Winnipeg, the Royal Canadian Mint produced an average 800 million pennies a year this past decade—1.2 billion in 2006, 500 million in 2009. They are packed in rolls of 50, 50 rolls per box. Each box weighs six kilograms and gets driven across country by armoured car. In 2006, those cars moved 480,000 boxes—a total of 2.9 million kilograms, with a value of $12 million. All pennies. In 2006 alone. There are upwards of 20 billion pennies in circulation—$200 million worth—a volume even coin purists can’t accommodate. “I’ve probably got about a buck and a half sitting in my desk drawer here,” says Bret Evans, managing editor and associate publisher of Canadian Coin News, a numismatics magazine. “I’m going to confess I’ve probably confined a few dollars of them to my local landfill.” Continue…

'You can't outsmart crazy'—or can you?

By Andrew Potter - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:00 AM - 161 Comments

GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images

It is typical of the political cowardice of the Democratic party, and of the intellectual impotence of the American left in general, that even when something so blatantly political as the shooting of one of their own members of Congress occurs, it finds itself in full retreat, unwilling to try to capitalize on the tragedy.

The pattern is always the same. Whenever someone shoots up a school, or a church, or a supermarket in the U.S., conservatives invariably use it as the occasion to engage in a rhetorical re-enactment of the American Revolution. The usual arguments against gun control are trotted out—guns don’t kill people, the killer was insane—while the left, desperate to avoid being baited as anti-American, quakes in fear.

There were some early, ham-handed attempts by liberals at tieing the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords to the Tea Party, to Sarah Palin, or to the climate of vitriol and hate that has consumed American politics since Obama was elected. But within a few days they were conceding argument after argument to conservatives. The rout was completed on Monday night when Jon Stewart, the arbiter-in-chief of smug centrism, handed everyone their Twitter-points for the next day. “Boy, would it be nice to be able to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible,” he said. But unfortunately, “You cannot outsmart crazy”.

Continue…

NFL Picks: Putting our best, sexiest foot forward

By Scott Feschuk - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 7:43 AM - 8 Comments

Scott Feschuk Last week 2-2 Overall 131-104-9

Scott Reid Last week 1-3 Overall 113-122-9

•••

Baltimore (plus 3.5) at Pittsburgh, Saturday, 4:30 p.m. ET

Reid: This promises to be the Frazier-Ali of post-season matchups. Saturday’s game marks the third meeting of the year between the Steelers and Ravens with each team notching one bone-splitting win apiece. These two are about as friendly as Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell (obviously, Rosie is Pittsburgh – she and Ben have surprising elusiveness for their size. Also, they both dig lesbians).

Personally, I would be shocked if someone isn’t hit so hard his skin falls off during this game. Again, it would be best if this were to happen to Roethlisberger. Then we’d see if he’s as ugly on the inside as he is on the out. I know I suckered a lot of you last weekend with my funny joke about Kansas City winning. I can’t believe how many of you fell for that – only a total jumbodork would bet on Matt Cassel to do anything other than stand still and stain his pants. No joking around this week though: Pittsburgh will win the battle of who is most unable to make first downs, score points and keep their skill players breathing without the help of intubation. Pick: Baltimore.

Feschuk: You’re crazy. Pittsburgh has a better defence, a better quarterback and the only big-time superstar receiver in this game (Mike “Not that Mike Wallace” Wallace). Not to mention the fact the Steelers have a decided advantage with the intangibles, such as special teams and Troy Polamalu’s Head & Shoulders commercials being slightly less annoying than Ray Lewis’s Old Spice ads, which Continue…

Who Will Get the Rose? I Mean, Replace Steve Carell?

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, January 14, 2011 at 2:10 AM - 5 Comments

The latest bit of news out of the NBC critics’ tour is that Steve Carell’s character won’t actually be leaving The Office in the season finale, as we expected. Instead, he’ll be leaving earlier. Greg Daniels told Michael Ausiello that they’ll have Michael leave early, and then the season finale will reveal who gets Michael’s job.

I don’t want to analyze an announcement like that too closely, not yet — we never know what’s actually going to happen as the season goes on. But I did like the fact that the description of the planned story arc sounds so much like a description of a reality competition show:

On hand to select Michael’s successor will be Kathy Bates, reprising her role of Jo Bennett, the country-fried CEO of Dunder-Mifflin’s parent company, Sabre. (Bates already has completed filming the first season of NBC’s Harry’s Law, which debuts January 17.) “We’re going to play out the whole [replacement] process in a realistic way,” says Daniels. “And it’s always great to have Kathy here.”

The outcome of the interview process will feed the season finale, which is tentatively set to run an hour. The extra time may very well be needed to showcase not just the reveal of the new boss but the various employees’ reactions to whomever he or she is. “They’re all different people with strong personalities,” Daniels notes, “so they each have a lot invested in who’s their new boss.”

Both versions of The Office have their share of reality television influence, of course, but I feel like the U.S. version has more reality TV elements, and that that’s one of the things that gave it its own style, separate from that of the original. The original was made when the Survivor type of competition show was still fairly new; the remake came around when reality shows seemed to be taking all the slots away from scripted shows — and when scripted TV seemed stagnant and predictable compared to the most compelling reality shows.

The U.S. version played up some of the things that suggested a kinship with reality shows, like the talking-head interviews that give us a sense of connection with the individual characters (more prominent on the U.S. version), the ensemble feel, and the idea of shifting allegiances and alliances within the setting. It wasn’t the first U.S. comedy to try and achieve some of the energy of early ’00s reality TV; a lot of shows from that era displayed that influence. Arrested Development has a lot of that, and Larry Wilmore has said that when he created The Bernie Mac Show, he was influenced by the style of The Osbournes. But The Office was the most successful at fusing the two worlds, so it seems appropriate that the Carell era may end with a storyline that could make a first-rate season of a reality show.

Update: Joe Adalian has more, from current showrunner Paul Lieberstein and other writers, about the plan for the rest of the season, including confirmation that Michael will be leaving before the season is out. It seems to be a way, in theory, of trying to get viewers used to the new format soon, instead of waiting until September and trying to make it work then. If it works, we could get some of the feelings of resentment out of our system by May and be willing to accept the new boss by the time the show returns for the eighth season. And if it doesn’t work, well, it doesn’t work.

Toronto critics fuel the heat of 'Incendies'

By Brian D. Johnson - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM - 1 Comment

After a long hiatus, BDJ Unscreened is finally back on stream. My absence from this site wasn’t on account of some fabulous tropical vacation, or the flu. As president of the Toronto Film Critics Association, I’ve spent much of the last few weeks organizing last night’s TFCA awards dinner—an event that’s kept me so preoccupied  I’m may be the last film critic in town to get around to reporting it. Much of my time was devoted to editing a six-minute montage of our 24 winning and nominated films, scored with music from their soundtracks. Presenting this thing each year is my little vanity project, a critic’s perverse attempt to play filmmaker then force professional filmmakers to watch the results.

I’m in no position to judge, but by all accounts, a fabulous time was had by all at the awards dinner. Some 160 guests packed Toronto’s  Nota Bene restaurant  for a gala soiree featuring fine dining, Moët & Chandon champagne, and a great volleys of wit. It’s an unusual event. You’ve got the TFCA’s lowly scribes hosting a shindig for the cream of Toronto’s film community, a party that’s supported by a phalanx of sponsors (led by my employer, Rogers Communications, with RBC Royal Bank coming aboard this year), along with film industry honchos, who buy tables. Call it an annual truce between film critics and filmmakers. Very different from what went down at the recent New York Film Critics dinner, where notorious crank Armand White reduced Annette Bening to tears. By contrast, we’re very cozy and Canadian.

Last night’s VIP list included filmmakers Atom Egoyan, Patricia Rozema, Sturla Gunnarsson, Ron Mann, Leonard Farlinger, Dany Chiasson, multi-hyphenate Don McKellar, actress Lisa Ray and CBC broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi. Our host was TIFF co-director Cameron Bailey. Our guest of honour was actor Jay Baruchel (She’s Out of My League, Sorcerer’s Apprentice), who took the train in from Montreal with his girlfriend, actress Alison Pill (Milk, In Treatment). Baruchel presented the TFCA’s Roger’s Best Canadian Film Award, which carries a cheque for $15,000 ($5,000 more than last year). Edging out Vincenzo Natali’s Splice and Bruce McDonald’s Trigger, the winner was Incendies, whose director, Denis Villeneuve, was on hand to accept, having just flown in from New York, where he’d been honoured at the National Board of Review Awards.

Incendies is Canada’s official Oscar candidate for the foreign language film category, and it looks like the film has a real shot. It’s been sold to some 30 countries and in the U.S. it has a strong distributor, Sony Classic, campaigning for it. Villeneuve is emerging as the natural successor to another Denis, Denis Arcand—as a writer-director with a singular style and a serious vision who is garnering international acclaim on his own terms. He also has a personal charm and grace not unlike Arcand’s. At the podium, he was his usual congenial, self-deprecating self. He expressed reverential praise for his fellow nominees, and resumed his joke from last year’s win, when he told Rogers Vice-Chair Phil Lind that he would finally be able to pay his Rogers bill.  Last night he said he had since bought so many gadgets from Rogers that he probably helped them hike the prize money from $10,000 to $15,000.

Jay Baruchel, who presented the award, spent much of evening in conversation with Atom Egoyan, who said he never realized what an intense patriot Baruchel was. The actor is on quite a roll. In 2010 he played lead roles in three studio pictures: She’s Out of My League, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and the lead voice in How To Train Your Dragon, which won the TFCA award for Best Animated Feature. Those pictures have racked up total worldwide gross of $758 million. Which makes Baruchel Canada’s hottest box office star in 2010 by a long shot. But here’s the thing. He also found the time and inclination to star in two independent Canadian films, The Trotsky, which was released last year, and Good Neighbours, which premiered last year at TIFF. A Canadian Hollywood star with a passionate devotion to Canadian cinema is a rare thing indeed.

McKellar, meanwhile, presented the TFCA’s $5,000 Jay Scott Prize for an emerging artist, which went to Toronto filmmaker Daniel Cockburn, who made the leap from video art scene to feature filmmaking with You Are Here, an inspired experiment film that plays like Charlie Kaufman on acid, and stars McKellar’s wife, the late Tracy Wright.

After drawing lots of laughs by roasting me, Ghomeshi presented the TFCA’s special citation, recognizing Bruce McDonald for a year of astonishing creativity. In 2010 Bruce directed four movies: This Movie is Broken, Trigger, Hard Core Logo 2, and Music From the Big House. McDonald was shooting in Winnipeg and unable to attend, but his vivacious wife and colleague, producer Dany Chiasson, accepted it for him, relaying a heartfelt message of gratitude.

My unusually productive and fortunate year has been the direct result of working and living in a wonderfully fertile community- deeply rich in talent, chops, beauty and ambition,” said McDonald.  “To be honoured by the writers is something that I’m especially proud of. You know that it’s always been about the writer for me.  They are the spirit, the foundation, the grace, the meat and the razzle dazzle behind any film project.  The amazing Don McKellar, the Mighty Daniel MacIvor, David Griffith from far off Glasgow and crazy beautiful Tony Burgess from nearby Stayner Ontario.  .  . As filmmakers in this country we must be faster, smarter, cooler, wilder, sexier and unfortunately cheaper than our cousins in the States but that’s what makes the great cinema we are celebrating here tonight and in theatres around the world.”

We had the pleasure of presenting Chiasson with a rare and valuable bottle of scotch in a wooden box. This high pedgree booze was donated by our sponsor Moët & Chandon. Apparently it’s the last of its kind—i a vintage so rare it’s now “extinct.” Or it will be after McDonald drinks this final bottle. Chiasson spent the rest of the evening petrified that she would drop it.

And Patricia Rozema presented our inaugural Deluxe Student Film Award to David Cadiz of Humber College for his short Adventures of Owen, an eloquent weave of animation and live action that captures the sci-fi imaginatings of schoolboy. Rozema told a priceless story about how she once presented a student film award at a high school. As she was reading from a scripted speech, when she said, “The winner is . . . ” she spoke the ellipsis,  “dot, dot, dot.” Apparently there was a student film called Dot Dot Dot, and before she could get another word out, the director of Dot Dot Dot immediately jumped up to accept, only to be told that he was not the winner.

Click here for the full slate of TFCA’s other award winners.

B.C. rethinks securities regulator case

By John Geddes - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM - 11 Comments

The federal government is in danger of losing the clear support of a key provincial ally in its bid to have the Supreme Court of Canada rule that Ottawa has the constitutional power to establish a national securities regulator.

The British Columbia government is considering adopting a “nuanced position,” B.C. Finance Minister Colin Hansen told Maclean’s—a stance that would continue to back the federal government’s aim of creating the regulator, but oppose its constitutional arguments for doing so.

Last spring, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled legislation to create a national regulator, with the goal of replacing the hodge-podge of provincial stock market regulatory bodies. Flaherty asked the court to rule that the federal government can take this step under its constitutional jurisdiction over trade and commerce.

Continue…

Open letter to Dr. Martin Luther King

By John Parisella - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM - 15 Comments

Dear Dr. King,

Last weekend’s tragic events in Tucson, Arizona, just few days before the National Holiday commemorating your work and achievements reminded me of the power of words. So I went back and reread Letters from a Birmingham Jail and your speech, “I Have a Dream.”

I realized that your work to achieve change through non-violent means had a lot to do with boycotts, marches, and sit-ins. But there was much more. It also had everything to do with tone, manner, and words.

Many analysts and the politicians who commented on the horrible tragedy in Tucson that took the lives of six people and injured 14 others, including Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, were quick to blame the current political climate in the United States for encouraging to such violence. We are all tempted to blame someone or one side for engaging in the kind of overheated rhetoric that leads deranged people, or potential plotters, to use violent means for their ends. Unfortunately, there are no such simple answers.

Gun control, greater security for elected officials, and the shunning of overheated rhetoric have become the main subjects of the post-Arizona discourse. In truth, we should all address these issues—and not just in America. While my country, Canada, hasn’t seen much in the way of political violence, no society is immune to it. What we need, Dr.King, is to reflect on the legacy you left us and understand that you lead the most successful social and political revolution of my day, and you did it by employing non-violence and the power of words. In “Letters,” you told us, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” In “I Have a Dream,” you expressed the hope that all should be judged “by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.” Powerful words that should still guide us.

Sincerely,

John Parisella

January 12, 2011

ADDENDUM: Last night’s address by  President Obama struck a unifying tone very much in the spirit of Dr. King. The current political class, including the Republican leadership, seems to be on the same page as Obama in recent days, with some minor exceptions. In deference to the current lowering of the volume and especially for the respect of the victims and their families, it is so much more constructive to seize this moment for introspection and reflexion. There is a lesson for all, even beyond the borders of the United States.

[John Parisella is currently serving as Quebec's Delegate-General in New York City.]

What a New Democrat wants

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 5:09 PM - 39 Comments

David Akin reviews Jack Layton’s demands.

“New Democrats are fighting to make sure stronger public pensions are part of the next budget. We’re looking for practical steps here. Like a modest increase in the guaranteed Canada Pension Plan. And an increase to the GIS, so seniors can afford the everyday basics they need … New Democrats have called on Mr. Harper work with us to drop the 5% federal sales tax on your home heating. We’d also bring back the eco-renovation tax credit — so families can make their homes more efficient to cut their bills even further.”

From the archives: Horse meat—it’s like eating your dog!

By Pamela Cuthbert - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 5:00 PM - 16 Comments

Originally published on July 9, 2009

Much like nibbling on seal, tucking into a tenderloin of horse meat divides diners: some appreciate its delicate taste and others are disgusted at the thought. Cute little lambs and bunny rabbits may induce squeamishness, but the question of chomping on cheval has long divided Canada’s carnivores into two solitudes. There’s a minority of typically francophone Quebecers who see horse as a delicious source of protein. In Montreal, butcher shops such as the Boucherie Chevaline Prince are named and known for their fine cuts of black beauty. And then, keeping pace with English-speakers the world over, there are those who believe it’s taboo. In fact, horse is conflict-ridden wherever you look: considered exotica in Japan, it’s prohibited for Muslims and Jews and was once banned by a pope.

But lately, this controversial flesh, with the added bonus of a good health profile, a distinctly sweet taste and reasonable price tag, is becoming a trendy feature in top restaurants. Grant van Gameren, chef of the Black Hoof and a young wizard with charcuterie whose regulars include Toronto’s top toques, is an unapologetic fan. “I call horsemeat cotton candy,” he says. “It melts in the mouth.” He lists at least three horsemeat dishes on his brief menu of mostly meaty items. There’s a pâté, bresaola—a dry-cured salami—and a raw tenderloin sandwich, seasoned with olive oil and salt and served with a side of hot sauce. “It’s a mellow meat, not gamey at all, and it doesn’t need all that seasoning,” he says. Continue…

John Joseph Cloutier | 1961-2010

By Kate Lunau - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 5:00 PM - 2 Comments

ILLUSTRATION BY TEAM MACHO

John Joseph Cloutier was born on Nov. 27, 1961, to Darlene and Marcel Cloutier in Vanderhoof, B.C. A year later, the family moved to Prince George, about 100 km east, and then eventually on to Kelowna; Marcel was a hard-working mechanic, and Darlene stayed home with the four boys (John was second-oldest). Once John got his driver’s licence, he’d pile his brothers into a van and take them up to the ski hill. Even with his older friends there, “he’d spend time with us, the rookie novices,” younger brother Greg remembers. “On the way home, we’d fall asleep, pooped right out, knowing he’s going to get us home.”

After high school, John found his way to Edmonton, then Calgary, where he got work at a concrete cutting business. He soon met Janice, the salad girl at a local Burger King. “I was cutting up salad at the back,” she says, when she saw John stroll in. “I said, ‘That’s the guy I’m going to marry.’ ” He asked for her phone number. Janice’s father didn’t approve at the time—John was 21, she was all of 15—but their courtship took off anyway. On their first date, John drove her out to a nearby school, “parked his Pinto car, turned on his headlights, faced them at the field, and cranked his tunes,” she says. “He danced me through the field for two whole hours.”

Continue…

Amy Chua on high-stakes parenting

By Anne Kingston - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 5:00 PM - 57 Comments

Photographs by Steve Simon

Amy Chua is a professor of law at Yale University and the author of two acclaimed books about globalization and free-market democracy. Her new memoir, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, recounts raising her two daughters, now 15 and 18, using what she calls “Chinese parenting” methods.

Q: So, are you ready to be pilloried as the ultimate tough-love mum who threatened to burn your daughter’s stuffed animals if she didn’t perform piano practice perfectly?
A: I’m not sure. I did not write this book as a parenting book; and it’s not about promoting the Chinese parenting model, although some people will take it that way. I was raised by extremely strict, extremely loving Chinese immigrant parents whom I adore and feel I owe everything to them. By instilling a work ethic and self-discipline my parents allowed me to have choices as an adult and be who I wanted to be. I tried to raise my daughters the same way. With my first, Sophia, things went smoothly, but then Louisa [Lulu] came along and I got my comeuppance. At 13, she rebelled. I wrote the book seeking catharsis.

Q: You were an obsessive taskmaster, demanding your girls be top of their class, be fluent in Mandarin, practise classical music for hours every day and do chores. You also banned TV, computers, play dates and sleepovers.
A: I didn’t want my kids to fall into a familiar pattern as the granddaughters of immigrants. I was fighting the tendency for them to be entitled and consumerist.

Q: In the book you write “I’m using the term ‘Chinese mother’ loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too.” So why call it “Chinese parenting”?
A: It’s Chinese people of a certain demographic, along with other immigrants. And there are patterns; it’s not just stereotypes. I also say Western parents come in all varieties. I have Western friends who are very strict. But I think the current dominant Western parenting approach is much more protective, much more permissive. Western parents are shocked by some of the things that Chinese parents say and do, it seems so harsh. But a lot of immigrant parents are horrified by many aspects of Western parenting: how quickly they let children grow up, how much time they let them waste, and how poorly they prepare them for the future.

Q: You insisted your girls also have hobbies so they wouldn’t become “weird Asian automatons.” So you chose classical music. You didn’t want them doing crafts which “go nowhere” or playing drums which “lead to drugs.”
A: For me classical music symbolized refinement and hard work and delicacy, and a certain depth. Both the piano and the violin are capable of producing such beauty, something more meaningful than watching TV or doing Facebook for 10 hours.

Q: You believe rote repetition is undervalued in North America.
A: Yes, and this is where my book is really against stereotypes. I hear people saying, “Oh, Asians are born good at math, or good at music.” That’s ridiculous. So much of it is just hard work. When Lulu was 10, she had done poorly on a math test, and said, “I’m bad at math, and I don’t like math.” Some Western parents might have deferred to that and said: “That’s just her . . . she doesn’t like math.” But I made all these practice tests, and we drilled them and on the next test Lulu did very well and some of her friends called her a math whiz, and now math is one of her favourite subjects.

Q: You’re a critic of play dates and sleepovers, which you describe as “punishment parents unknowingly inflict on their kids through permissiveness.”
A: Westerners romanticize the sleepover: they say it’s about self-actualization and letting the kids explore. From my experience what that means is you go over to your friend’s house and the two of you do Facebook stalking or you watch reality TV for five hours.

Q: You maintain Western parents believe in choice; Chinese parents don’t.
A: Yes. Many things kids choose for themselves don’t bring happiness. I feel kids actually feel unhappy on Facebook because it seems everyone else has more friends and is having more fun. You’ll hear, “Oh, I want my children to pursue their passion.” Well, if you give a 10-year-old her choice to pursue her passion, it’s not going to be playing the violin for three hours, it’s going to be computer games. I think Westerners defer too much to their children in the name of respecting their individuality. There is a common pattern you’ll see: an Asian and a Western child will start with a violin; six months later the Western child will want to switch to the clarinet because the violin sounds terrible, and then four months later the clarinet turns out to be hard so their choice is the guitar, and then you’re at the drums.

Q: As you present it, the Chinese approach engenders more self-esteem because it focuses on mastery and accomplishment.
A: Yes. The techniques may sound harsh, but the Chinese parent is saying: “I believe in you so much that I know you can be excellent, and I’m going to be in the trenches with you for however long it takes and I’m not going to let you give up.” Now, eventually if your child says, “I don’t like math, I want to be a poet,” you have to let them.

Q: You also point out that in assuming their children are strong, Chinese parents often appear brutally critical.
A: It’s really important to put things in cultural context. When I won second place in a history contest once my father said, “Never, ever disgrace me like that again.” When I tell my Western friends they think, “What a horrible man!” But that’s not how I took it at all. For me, what he was saying is, “I know you could do better. I believe in you.” But I do understand why Westerners react the way they do, because not knowing my family, these things sound harsh.

Q: You were a closet Chinese mother; in public you’d say things like, “Good try, buddy.”
A: That’s another reason I published the book. After I wrote it, I showed it to my sisters and some Chinese friends and they totally related to it and thought it was hysterical. But they all said, “You can’t publish this! You’ll be attacked!” And I thought, “Why?” I certainly learned a lot from what I call the Western model. That’s how the book ends: I become more of a Western parent than I thought possible. I loosened up. Sophia has a boyfriend. Lulu did just get a sleepover. They still aren’t allowed to watch TV, but they can use Facebook, with limits. Where I did not give one inch is academically. I’m still the tiger mom on that front. There is a strong theme in favour of rebellion in the book. I identify with Lulu. Even though I was the obedient Chinese child, I disobeyed my father too. I married a white Jewish guy and now my father adores my husband. And writing this book is a completely non-Chinese thing to do, it’s a rebellious, very Western thing.

Q: Discussing ethnic differences has become a taboo, yet it’s your favourite topic to write about. Why?
A: The world right now is one in which there are definite cultural and ethnic differences. I heard the way my parents talk at home, and I know the way my colleagues talk at Yale law school, and it’s night and day. I’m against stereotypes, but I think not being able to talk about ethnicity or cultural patterns is worse. I was also trying to puncture a stereotype— there are all of these books portraying Asian mothers as callous people who don’t care about their children’s interests. My book is the opposite: it’s a heartfelt memoir about me as a Chinese parent trying do the best for my children because I love them.

Q: Given the focus of your previous books, I wonder whether you see parents as having a larger social responsibility to raise self-reliant, productive citizens.
A: I’ve taught students of all backgrounds for 18 years, and it’s not my experience that kids raised in permissive families are happier than kids raised in strict families—it might be the opposite. We have some serious issues in the West—very high rates of teenage depression and falling behind in terms of education. So it’s going to be hard for our kids to compete and to get jobs when they’re adults, and not being able to get a job is not a recipe for feeling fulfilled with their lives.

Q: Many people will think your parenting regimen was all about your agenda, and not for your kids.
A: That accusation is so hurtful. When I talk to my Chinese friends, we feel it’s the opposite: how easy would it be to say, “Oh, in the name of my child self-actualizing and socializing I’m going to leave them at their friend’s house for six hours and I’m going to a Pilates class and then go have a glass of wine.” So many times I’ve felt, “Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to practise today?” I hope people know that when I write, “I don’t care if my kids think I’m like Lord Voldemort,” I really do care.

Q: Your daughters were raised in the Jewish faith. What’s your husband’s child-raising role?
A: My husband was raised in a liberal family. He adores his parents, but wished somebody had forced him to learn an instrument and speak a second language. And because I was willing to put in the time, he supported me. But from day one he insisted we take family bike rides and go to Yankee games, all things that I thought were a waste of time, but they helped bring balance to the family.

Review: 'Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother' by Amy Chua

By Joanne Latimer - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM - 10 Comments

Amy Chua’s memoir gives society plenty to debate about raising kids. Chua chronicles her battle to rear two American daughters in the traditional Chinese method—that is, hard ass. She would be offended if we described her methodology as simply strict. She forbids play dates, sleepovers, sports, school plays, or grades below an A. The girls have two hours of Mandarin instruction every day, followed by math drills and hours of music practice.

“What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work…,” (Page 29) explains Chua, who was born and raised in America by Chinese parents of the same ilk. Addressing her own generalizations, she notes that “Chinese mother” is shorthand for any parents (usually first or second-generation immigrants) who don’t want to raise shiftless, entitled kids. Her mission leaves her lonely and exhausted, since she teaches a full course load at Yale Law School.

The book is peppered with funny, self- excoriating scenes of Chua’s extreme mothering. Chua acknowledges she has had doubts, but she never goes so far as to denounce Chinese parenting. “The results speak for themselves,” she says a few times. Her oldest daughter Sophia played piano at Carnegie Hall, while Lulu won a prodigy award for playing the violin. When Lulu finally breaks rank, the rebellion is a satisfying, American-style tantrum. Full sympathy goes to Jed, the Jewish husband, who tries to dial down his wife’s intensity.

By heaping scorn on Western parenting, Chua will raise ire and polarize readers. At her most pointed, Chua says, “Western parents . . . try to persuade themselves that they’re not disappointed about how their kids turned out” (page 50). In reaction, some readers will call her a heartless drill sergeant. Others will want her to raise their kids. Another spiteful group will delight in predicting Lulu’s final rebellion—perhaps heroine-addled prostitute? That’s highly unlikely, but if it happens, I can’t think of a better rehab warden than Chua. The smart money’s on Tiger Mother.

Dire Straits: on every street

By Paul Wells - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM - 79 Comments

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s ban on the uncensored broadcast of Dire Strait’s “Money For Nothing” is a perfect example of Canadian broadcast regulation in its late decadent phase. It’s kind of cute, because it is so futile, that there’s an organization dedicated to protecting me from the danger of hearing this song, by accident, once every several months. Meanwhile I can hear it on Youtube, Myspace, iTunes, XM radio or, assuming there is a campus where students are this unhip (Queen’s?), even college radio.

I’m actually not despondent about the CBSC’s desire to keep one nasty word off the air; just add that word to the pile. Hundreds of songs appear on broadcast radio only in bleeped-out form because they contain words that would not have shocked anyone I know when they were 12. This odd prudery is, along with limited signal strength and inconsistent signal quality, one of the things dooming broadcast radio to niche-market status.

I bought Brothers in Arms, the Dire Straits album containing the offending song, today on iTunes for $5.99. When I was a student at UWO we used to sit in Russ Blake’s room at Westminster College and drink beer and play card games (mostly the other guys played card games; I just sat around and chatted) and Russ would flip his cassette of Brothers in Arms every half-hour well into the night. He’d play the album five or six times in a row. Other nights it was Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Springsteen or Prince.

The unheralded song on that album was “Your Latest Trick” (“And we’re standing outside of this wonderland/ Looking so bereaved and so bereft/ Like a Bowery bum when he finally understands/ The bottle’s empty and there’s nothing left”). About “Money for Nothing” there may be one last thing worth saying, given this week’s events: it celebrates an earlier breakthrough in the mass popularization of pop culture — MTV in its first, almost-all-video format. It’s a song about a world in which anyone, even a lout, has access to the latest bits of pop-culture flotsam; all he has to do is turn on MTV.

The world today provides vastly more lines into the cultural archives than that world did. A regulatory agency designed for that lost world cannot hope to stop the flood today.

Fighting back

By Cathy Gulli - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 4:00 PM - 3 Comments

Leonard's new station shows combat sports; David set his sights on football | The Fight Network/CP; Boris Minkevich/Winnipeg Free Press

The sports puns have been relentless since the comeback efforts of brothers Leonard and David Asper took different turns after the collapse of the family media empire, Canwest Global Communications. For Leonard, who took over the specialty channel the Fight Network in December, they’ve had a triumphant tone: he’s “back in the game” and there is “still some fight left” in him. For David, who that same month ceased to be part of the construction of a new Winnipeg football stadium with a ballooning budget (sticking taxpayers with the bill), the sports puns have been cheerless. He’s been characterized as taking “a standing eight-count.”

Successful or not, the Asper brothers’ latest moves to recoup their careers are certainly compelling. Last year, the heavily leveraged Canwest, founded by their late father Izzy Asper, was forced into bankruptcy protection and, after 36 years in business, was sold for parts to archrival Shaw Communications and the newly formed Postmedia Network. Reluctantly, Leonard resigned as CEO and David (and sister Gail) stepped down from the board of directors. News headlines were variations on a sorry theme: “The empire strikes out.” “The last days of the Asper empire.” One question remained: what next for the Asper brothers?

Continue…

The economist

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 3:50 PM - 72 Comments

Stephen Harper, September 2008. “My own belief is if we were going to have some kind of big crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now.”

Stephen Harper, October 2008. “I know economists will say well, we could run a small deficit but the problem is that once you cross that line as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control.”

Stephen Harper, October 2008. “We’ll never go back into deficit.”

Stephen Harper, December 2008. “The truth is, I’ve never seen such uncertainty in terms of looking forward to the future … Obviously, we’re going to have to run a deficit.”

Stephen Harper, February 2009. “Of course there’s all kinds of risks of inefficient, expanded government policies that will continue into the future. I’m not suggesting there aren’t long-term risks. But I was taught early in economics classes, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said that, ‘At times like this, we remember that in the long run, we’re all dead.’ So right now, we worry about the short term. We are worried about the short term, and we’ve got to get things right now.”

Ian Brodie, former chief of staff to Stephen Harper, March 2009. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that by the end of the ’05-’06 campaign, voters identified the Conservative party as the party of lower taxes. It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”

The Canadian Association for Business Economists, August 2010.  The Canadian Association for Business Economics says a poll suggests 74 per cent of its members think it’s bad policy to replace the obligatory long census with a voluntary survey. Seventy-one per cent anticipate the quality of data obtained from a voluntary survey will be poorer than that collected from the compulsory census. And 76 per cent believe the change will negatively affect the analysis done by their group or organization.

Stephen Harper, yesterday. “On the other hand, when things change as rapidly as they do, you can’t be locked in to the same answer in every situation. Obviously, the last two years required us, my judgment as an economist, required us to on a temporary basis spend an enormous amount of money and run a significant deficit. I think we were in the unusual situation where that’s actually the ideal economic policy.”

On that Money For Nothing Ban

By Andrew Potter - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 3:47 PM - 62 Comments

It’s probably worth getting a discussion started here about the original version of “Money for Nothing” being banished from Canadian airwaves, because of the following lyric:

See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy that’s his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot he’s a millionaire

Alan Cross has a good post on his blog about this, which he’s been updating. But I’m a bit surprised by this part at the end:

I can’t say that I disagree entirely [with the CBSC decision] either. Back in ’85, “faggot” was an epithet thrown around by almost everyone.  It wasn’t much of an issue–just like the days when the use of the n-word was frighteningly common.  Over the years, I found myself noticing that lyric more often and growing more uncomfortable each time.  It somehow just wasnt…right.   But that was the extent of my reaction.  The song was, at most, a period piece when it came to a certain colloquialism. Today, any use of the word “faggot” is just not acceptable to many people.

But there’s one point about that lyric that I haven’t seen added to the discussion, and it is this: In the song, Knopfler is singing in the voice of an appliance store salesman.  He made that clear in dozens of interviews he did when the album was released. The story he told is that he was in a shop looking for a fridge or something, and some rock videos were playing on an in-store television. And the salesman started complaing about rock stars and their cushy lives (i.e. money for nothing and chicks for free). Knopfler said that he pulled out a pen and just started writing down what the guy was saying, and used his comments as lyrics in the song.

The point being, the song does not use “faggot” casually. If anything, it is a song about the casual use of the word by uneducated and embittered bigots.

Surely that makes all difference in the world. How can art make any critical statement on the world, if it is not allowed to quote or mention that which it is criticizing? Are artists not allowed to take on another persona, or to speak in the voice of another in order to sharpen the criticism?

Back to the Future of Sitcoms – Leg Warmers Optional

By Jaime Weinman - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM - 2 Comments

Todd VanDerWerff has a follow-up to his ’70s sitcoms primer: an extensive guide to the U.S. sitcom in the 1980s.

Even though my TV viewing began in the ’80s and therefore I remember the era fondly, I think there’s something about ’80s comedies that makes them feel more dated than the sitcoms of other decades. The ’50s, ’60s and ’90s all produced a bunch of U.S. comedies that could be repeated forever. The ’70s shows are more closely tied to their era, but the best of them have managed to endure based on quality. The ’80s produced a few eternally iconic sitcoms — Cheers, Married With Children and, strangely, Full House, which has had more staying power than I ever would have predicted. (It’s the Brady Bunch of the ’80s.) The Cosby Show has also shown a fair amount of staying power after a rough start in syndication: the reruns originally didn’t do as well as expected, but it has managed to carve out a place for itself in repeats. But other shows are… not forgotten, exactly; shows back then were still able to get a fan following after they went off the air. But they are viewed as products of the ’80s. Family Ties had some very fine episodes, but it’s an ’80s cultural artifact; All in the Family is even more topical in its humour, but is celebrated for its continued relevance. I don’t quite know what it is that makes the ’80s comedies feel more remote from our current experience than the shows that came before or after; it can’t just be the fashions and hair.

Sex, speed and loud music

By Chris Sorensen - Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 2:32 PM - 0 Comments

Three years ago, Chrysler hired cowboys to herd 120 longhorn cattle through downtown Detroit to generate excitement for its Dodge Ram pick-up truck during the North American International Auto Show. The carmaker has also dropped trucks from the ceiling of the Cobo Center, where the show is held, and driven a Jeep through a plate glass window.

These days, however, over-the-top stunts have largely disappeared from the annual auto industry bash, thanks mainly to the latest recession and a taxpayer bailout of the industry. “People would think we were back on the bottle,” joked one Chrysler executive when asked if Chrysler (now married to Italy’s Fiat) would ever consider rounding up more cattle.

But don’t worry. It’s not as though automobile industry has suddenly purged its long-standing penchant for displays of cheesiness. Despite considerable effort to highlight the improved fuel efficiency of their vehicles (aimed more at government regulators than actual car buyers, according to some analysts), the industry still managed to slip a healthy dose of what it believes truly sells cars into this year’s Detroit auto show: sex, speed and loud music. And the results were frequently amusing.

From rock n’ roll to women wearing tight clothing, the auto show was full of examples of the industry’s marketing crutches. There were burly trucks caked with mud, alien-looking concept vehicles, and modified race cars that appeared designed solely for gear-heads to salivate over. Take, for example, Porsche’s 918 RSR, a hybrid car with a pair of electric motors driven by a giant flywheel sitting where a passenger would normally be. The system wasn’t designed to save fuel, mind you—it’s a way to boost its regular 555 horsepower output to 767 hp with a push of a button.

When it came to dramatic unveilings, Chrysler, perhaps predictably given its past, led the way with its introduction of the Chrysler 300 and 200 sedans. Before the cars were driven out on to the stage, hundreds of journalists were subjected to a frenetic mash-up of pounding hip-hop beats, tinkling piano music, images of cute children and references to underdogs who triumph over adversity. To top it off, the president of Chrysler’s brand, Francois Olivier, recited rap lyrics from an Eminem song. In a French accent.

There were other instances of worlds colliding, awkwardly, when Honda unveiled its 2012 Civic concept. John Mendel, executive vice-president of American Honda, gave the usual car salesman’s pitch about the new Civic’s more aggressive lines—he said Civic fans are typically “young at heart” —but stressed the need to avoid straying too far from the look of the existing model, which has been a big seller. Translation: “Civics used to be popular with young people, but then their parents started buying them too, and so we made them bigger and more boring-looking. And so, in an attempt to please both groups, we came up with this.” Then, as if to underscore the generational conflict further, he introduced Pete Wentz, best known as the bassist and primary lyricist for rock band Fall Out Boy. Wentz looked uncomfortable shilling for a car company, and it’s questionable whether the two or three hundred automotive writers crowded around the stage, many of them from overseas, even knew who he was.

Even Toyota, known for its practical-yet-boring vehicles, also couldn’t resist trying to jazz up its sprawling display with a little pop culture. Dropped between the Camrys and Corrolas was a stretched and lowered “swagger wagon,” a reference to a tongue-in-cheek viral ad Toyota made for its minivans that shows a pair of suburban parents rapping about their ride with three rows of seats. Okay, the ad was actually quite clever. And Toyota should be commended for poking fun at its staid reputation. But CEO Akio Toyoda, the grandson of Toyota’s founder, addressed the more serious subject of Toyota’s slipping sales by saying during a meeting with reporters that Toyota needs to be more adventurous with its designs, particularly now that the competition has caught up on the quality front. “I think cars need to be better-looking,” he said through a translator. “The better-looking the car, the better the car.” A blunt acknowledgment that automobiles are created with cutting edge technology and clever engineering, but they are sold based largely on good looks and emotional appeal. Cue the stirring music and images of open road.