Political stalemate paralyzes Egypt

By macleans.ca - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 11:10 AM - 7 Comments

As protestors continued to occupy Cairo’s Tahrir Square and blocked off a key government building on Monday, members of the Egyptian government met with opposition groups to negotiate a solution to the country’s ongoing political crisis. On Sunday, Vice-President Omar Suleiman hosted talks with representatives of six opposition groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, who were previously banned from Egypt’s political process. Talks stalled as opposition groups said the government’s concessions were not enough, saying the stalemate would only be broken if the government complied with all of its demands, including the immediate resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, the dissolution of parliament, the lifting of emergency laws and the release of political prisoners. In an effort to revive the Egyptian economy, the government has sold of $2.5-billion in short-term debt. The country’s stock market, however, will not open until February 13.

BBC News

Harper fattens federal bureaucracy

By macleans.ca - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM - 18 Comments

When the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, in a recent interview, asked Stephen Harper about the apparent growth in the size of government during his five years in office, the prime minister was defensive. Harper pointed to his expansion of the military and RCMP, along with priorities like food inspection. Beyond those narrow areas, he claimed, “if you look at the trend size of government with the recovery, it’s not growing in this country.” Now comes this straightforward story on the size of government. Leaving aside the military and the Mounties, the public service “swelled by 33,023 people, slightly more than 13 per cent, over five years.” How does that compare with the overall growth in the Canadian population? Under the Harper government, public service expansion has outstripped it by 7.8 per cent.

National Post

'I speak here as a Quebecer'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM - 41 Comments

Maxime Bernier doubles down on his criticism of Bill 101.

Some people say I am not a “real Quebecer” and are accusing me of “attacking Quebec” simply because I want to be more popular in the rest of Canada. They seem unable to conceive that it’s possible to have a different position than theirs on the basis of fundamental principles.

My position is this: Yes, it’s important that Quebec remain a predominantly French-language society. And ideally, everyone in Quebec should be able to speak French. But we should not try to reach this goal by restricting people’s rights and freedom of choice.

Talk amongst yourselves, but en français

By Martin Patriquin - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 10:54 AM - 55 Comments

Photograph by Roger Lemoyne

For nearly three years, Wes Bolduc has owned Bar Blue Dog, an ill-lit and purposefully grimy St. Laurent Boulevard staple in Montreal. He knows the linguistic lay of the land: though he estimates his clientele is roughly 75 per cent English, Blue Dog staff are bilingual. Bolduc, who can trace his own French lineage back to the 17th century, says he has never received a complaint—or a visit from the Office québécoise de la langue française, the government enforcer of Quebec’s language laws. “A rum and Coke in English is pretty much a rum and Coke in French,” the 30-year-old Bolduc says.

Maybe so. But if the Parti Québécois has its way, Quebec’s language laws will be extended to include Quebec’s roughly 196,000 small- and medium-sized businesses, meaning it won’t be enough to only speak French to customers. Under the PQ plan, outlined in the party’s 2008 electoral platform and currently part of the party’s plan should it form the next government, French would be the designated “langue de travail,” (working language), meaning all written and verbal communication, including among the staff, must be done in French.

In order to operate, each business would likely need a certificat de francisation attesting that it has “achieved a level of French so as to meet the objectives of the charter of the French language.” Currently, only businesses with 50 or more employees must abide by these rules. This means every dry cleaner, dépanneur (corner store) and coffee shop must operate in French—even if its owners aren’t.

Continue…

Why we’re all feeling more alone

By macleans.ca - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM - 0 Comments

Koji Ueda/AP

ALONE TOGETHER: WHY WE EXPECT MORE FROM TECHNOLOGY AND LESS FROM EACH OTHER
Sherry Turkle
A clinical psychologist and director of MIT’s Initiative on Technology and Self, Turkle has spent two decades studying how material technology is transforming our immaterial selves. In the 1980s, she notes, that was a matter of a strange new, one-on-one relationship, human and computer; by the middle of the next decade Turkle was examining the way computers had become a means of allowing people to live parallel lives in virtual worlds with vast networks of others, something many of them found far more satisfying than real life.

Now, 15 years later, Turkle finds herself examining how two digital culture trends intertwine: mobility, where smartphones allow us to go virtual when we please; and the new robots, not the un-alive-looking ones in factories, but the snuggly types bringing a new kind of companionship into homes for the aged. Both trends often leave us less connected to other humans and more connected to simulations of them. An acute observer, Turkle is particularly concerned by the effect on parenting, as she surveys playgrounds full of adults with one hand on their kid’s swing and the other holding a BlackBerry. Turkle is not all doom and gloom. She acknowledges the convenience and connectivity that texting and email bring, and also that technology itself didn’t make us want to run away from our lives—like alcohol, drugs and affairs, it merely provides the means to do so. Nor has it (yet) done us permanent damage. Among the hundreds of her interview subjects, Turkle turned up teens who fear the actual human contact of making phone calls, mothers who worry that texting with their daughters makes communication more frequent but also more shallow, Facebook members who both utilize and deride status updates. All of them, she argues, reveal their humanity in their feeling that something is wrong about the way that what was meant to facilitate communication actually pushes people apart.
Brian Bethune

Continue…

Cindor Reeves on CBC (updated)

By Michael Petrou - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 9:45 AM - 7 Comments

The CBC has picked up the Cindor Reeves story. I originally reported he would be on CBC Radio’s The Current today. That has been moved to tomorrow. I understand Alan White, previously of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, will be on the show as well. I have several blog posts on Reeves. This article provides most of the background.

Why Harvey Weinstein wants to cut 'The King's Speech'

By Brian D. Johnson - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 9:43 AM - 10 Comments

It’s no surprise The King’s Speech is leading the Academy Awards with a dozen nominations. This true tale of a stammering monarch has everything that Oscar loves in a movie­: royalty, disability, and an underdog hero with an English accent triumphing over adversity. And if The King’s Speech wins Best Picture at the Feb. 27 awards ceremony, expect to see a beefy mogul who would not look out of place on The Sopranos—the man known by his friends and enemies simply as Harvey—bully his way into the spotlight.

For Harvey Weinstein, The King’s Speech represents a comeback, and a return to the title he seems to covet as if by divine right: Oscar King. After creating Miramax with his brother Bob in 1979, Weinstein became the Midas of independent distributors, beating Hollywood at its own game with Oscar-winning hits such as My Left Foot, The Crying Game, The Piano, Pulp Fiction, Sling Blade, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love and Chicago. But the man who created the indie film boom of the 1990s also destroyed it by inflating prices and selling Miramax to Disney. Since parting company with Disney in 2005, and losing their beloved Miramax (which Harvey and Bob had named after their parents), Harvey and his brother started from scratch with the Weinstein Co. After a string of failures, they’re back in the game. And Harvey is back to his old tricks.

The distributor who earned the nickname Harvey Scissorhands for his habit of recutting films recently suggested excising the profanities from The King’s Speech so the movie, now R-rated in the U.S., can get a broader rating and reach a wider audience. David Seidler, the Oscar-nominated writer of The King’s Speech, told me last week that both he and director Tom Hooper disapprove. “Harvey is a master of awards, he’s a master of marketing,” said Seidler. “I do not believe this is one of his better ideas.” The film’s profanity, in fact, is crucial to the story of King George VI (Colin Firth) finding his voice by unleashing his emotion. “It’s not there for shock value or puerile interest,” added Seidler. “It is purely for therapeutic use. It’s based on my own experience as a stutterer.”

Continue…

The fall of Hosni Mubarak

By Michael Petrou - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM - 4 Comments

Hosni Mubarak was born in Egypt at a time when the past really was a different country. In the 1920s and ’30s, Cairo and Alexandria were centres of the world. Egyptian author Tarek Osman said the cities “dazzled foreigners, seduced visitors, educated the region’s elite, bred art and culture, hosted thousands of immigrants from Greece, Italy and Armenia as well as tens of thousands of Jews, and shaped a highly liberal, open society taking its inspiration from Paris and Rome.”

Today, as the Egyptian president’s reign lurches to its inevitable conclusion amid an unprecedented public uprising, all this is gone.

“The country’s political system has descended to frightening levels of coercion, oppression and cruelty,” writes Osman in Egypt on the Brink, published last year. Egyptians are poor; almost one in three is illiterate; and even those with education struggle to find meaningful work. There “is not only a sense of confusion, resentment and rejection among Egyptians—especially the younger ones, but increasingly an overarching feeling of irreparable damage, a national defeat.”

Continue…

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 9:02 AM - 80 Comments

Stephen Harper, December 2, 2008. The Canadian people made a choice to elect the Conservative Party to govern, without the support of the separatists.

The Globe and Mail, yesterday. The Harper government has agreed to split up one of its crime bills to obtain the support of the Bloc Québécois and scrap the law that allows non-violent offenders to serve only one-sixth of their prison sentence … Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe sat down with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to urge the government to take action. Officials from the two parties then negotiated an agreement.

Stephen Harper: speaking to Americans in French

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 8:12 AM - 108 Comments

When Stephen Harper stood alongside Barack Obama on Friday for a rare joint press conference on Friday, he made a few pleasantries in English – then immediately launched into a long monologue in French.

In Canada, bilingual government announcements are routine. But the consequences of starting off in a language his hosts could not understand was dramatic: American news networks immediately hit mute, cutting to random talking heads back in their studios discussing Egypt in English as Harper silently pontificated — relegated to a half-size image in split screen.

The networks didn’t switch back to live audio – not even after Harper eventually got around to repeating himself in English – until Obama started talking again.

So, given this very rare and valuable opportunity to be carried live on U.S. television networks, this is basically Americans what heard from Canada’s PM: “Well, first of all, thank you, Barack.  Both — thank you for your friendship both personal and national.  And thank you for all the work you’ve done and all of your people have done to bring us to our announcement today.”

That’s it. Thanks for your input, Canada.

It’s hard to get Americans’ attention on Canadian issues. It’s especially hard to get decision-makers in Washington to listen to the Canadian message on the border, and even harder to do it on a day when they are completely engrossed in the situation in Egypt. But the very prospect of hearing what Obama was going to say about Egypt meant there was greater interest than there otherwise would have been in that press conference.

So Harper’s visit on Friday was the one chance for a long time to come to reset the discussion on the border — and to change the American conversation from a new U.S. government report that is creating a misleading meme that only 32 miles of the border are secure and that the United States’ northern boundary is a bigger threat to its security than its southern one. That notion threatens to become the next “Millennium Bomber” – shorthand for why the border should be thickened, no matter its impact on Canadians and our shared economy.

The feeling in the room, too, was one of awkwardness as the assembled U.S. media sat and waited for something to write about. Obama tried twice to make light of it. “Now, I love French, but I’m just not very capable of speaking it,” he said at one point. And later after Harper spoke, he said to laughter, “And I thought — I agree even more with his answer in French.”

Perhaps Harper was trying to appeal to any francophone voters back in Canada who were also tuned in. But if the national interest of a bilateral visit was to get Americans to pay attention to border issues important to Canada, Harper’s decision to speak first in French, instead of beginning in English and switching to French after his points were communicated, resulted in reinforcing for American voters the message that Canadian concerns simply don’t matter.

***

You can follow me on Twitter: @luizachsavage

The Super Bowl commercials we missed

By Jaime Weinman - Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 11:35 PM - 11 Comments

TV Done Wright did us Canadians a favour and assembled the Super Bowl commercials that we didn’t see here. Because even though we were watching an American presentation of an American event and hearing American announcers comment, it was technically a Canadian feed.

Also, Glee is on while I write, and raising the question of whether a show can ever make a “comeback” if the ratings say it’s not in a creative slump. This is a semi-serious question. I feel about Glee more or less as I felt before — it’s a flawed, fun, crazy show that makes no sense but gets points for doing things most shows won’t try to do (and for being an episodic show that isn’t doctor, lawyer or cop). The character inconsistencies, for example, are not handled very well and are ultimately a flaw, but at the same time, not trying to keep everything consistent is something I admire it for, since shows are often too hung up on consistency.

But a lot of people feel it’s lost its charm, and are evaluating it as a show suffering a sophomore jinx, like Heroes. But the ratings are up this season, so unlike most sophomore-jinxed shows, the audience is very strongly saying that the writers are doing a good job — maybe not saying it online, but saying it in the way that counts, by watching. The writers would, on that basis, be crazy to think they have a problem and need to fix things. Except eventually the problems may get out of hand, they’ll lose viewers, and by then the problems will be too far gone to fix.

That said, on the subject of post-Super-bowl shows, Entertainment Weekly did a slideshow about the 20 most-viewed shows in that slot. It didn’t make the list, but The A-Team was one of the most important uses of that all-important slot. Building on the exposure the Super Bowl gave it, it became NBC’s first big hit in a while and more or less held the network up for a year and a half while it rebuilt itself. So the revival of NBC can sort of be traced back to its choice of that new show to follow the Super Bowl.

Perhaps as a reward to Stephen J. Cannell for saving the network three years earlier, NBC gave him its next Super Bowl spot as well, handing it to The Last Precinct. This was a shameless Police Academy clone that got many more viewers than The A-Team in the same slot, and yet ultimately proved one thing: no matter how many football metaphors you use in promoting the show, and no matter how many people sample it, a bad show is still likely to be a flop in the end.

US House border security chairwoman commends Obama-Harper deal

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM - 5 Comments

Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller, who I interviewed a while back, will be holding a hearing on border security, on Feb. 15.  in response to the Government Accountability Office report on the border that has caused so much consternation with its suggestion that only 23 miles of the border a secure.

On Saturday, she came out in support of the Harper-Obama declaration on “perimeter security.” From her press release:

Harrison Township, MI – U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller (MI-10), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, today commended President Barak Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on their joint agreement for enhanced cross-border security, travel and trade collaboration between Canada and the United States.

“The northern border faces serious security challenges which affects both of our nation’s every day lives and today’s announcement of an enhanced collaboration is welcomed news,” Miller said.  “Security on the northern border can only be met through our shared efforts and both the U.S. and Canada must be committed to strengthening every element of our cross-border relationship.”

“Canada is our busiest and most active trading partner.  Our economic relationship is not only important to my home state of Michigan, but to our entire nation.  Securing and maintaining our trade relationship is vital to the steady flow of commerce and people who cross everyday.  Simply put, our border relationship with Canada is central to our economy and way of life,” Miller said.  “Northern Border Security is a principal advocacy of mine and as Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Borders I look forward to exploring ways to secure our borders.”

Full statement is here.

***

You can now follow me on Twitter under luizachsavage

Protest music

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM - 106 Comments

The Liberals have released the following francophone ditty as part of a new campaign in Quebec.

Cindor Reeves and the CBC

By Michael Petrou - Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 6:00 AM - 6 Comments

Cindor Reeves will be on CBC Radio’s The Current Monday morning.

Be Thankful the '80s Are Over

By Jaime Weinman - Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 6:27 PM - 4 Comments

This weekend’s Filler Clip ™: I have never seen this show, and probably never will, but I know of it because I had a book called “The Best of TV Sitcoms” (a guide to the best U.S. sitcoms from the ’50s through ’80s, as chosen by newspaper critics) where critics chose it as the worst sitcom of the ’80s. The worst sitcom of any decade is pretty impressive; worst of the ’80s is kind of an astounding achivement. That was, after all, a time when bad network TV shows were worse than they would ever be allowed to be today — there are lots of bad shows now, but they usually have a certain baseline of technical competence.

Apparently it was one of the first projects Fred Silverman set up as an independent producer after he left NBC. (Having run all three networks, there was nowhere left for him to go as an executive. If only Fox had existed at that time.) He and the creators sold it to NBC in the middle of their pre-Cosby slump, and NBC put it on the air. It was about two guys who run an ad for a live-in maid, and wind up hiring a gorgeous blonde. In other words, Three’s Company with one girl and two guys and with the guys’ steady girlfriends replacing the Ropers. Then it got revived in syndication, because in the late ’80s everything was getting revived in syndication.

I’m actually surprised that cable channels — which have taken the place of syndication when it comes to ordering and running cheap sitcoms– have been slow to do the same, and commission new episodes of canceled broadcast-network shows. Maybe the success of The Game on BET will prompt other cable networks to do the same.

Anyway, I don’t know if this was the worst sitcom of its era and I’m not very anxious to find out, but I do know one thing: those glittering credits effects were pretty snazzy at the time.

Why Ronald Reagan is still relevant

By John Parisella - Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 12:08 PM - 22 Comments

I did not share most of his politics, but I can acknowledge that Ronald Reagan was the most significant U.S. president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He brought conservatism into the mainstream and many of his politics did much to prepare America for the challenges of the next century. The man had his flaws, but he bonded with his people and his memory does not diminish with the years.

To Republicans, he embodies character, vision, and greatness. While he swept to office as the most ideologically driven president in a half-century, he governed in a most pragmatic way. Most notably, his conservative mantra of balanced budgets and reducing the size of government quickly gave way to compromise and incrementalism. By the time he left office, Reagan had never balanced a budget and defence spending grew as never before under his watch.

Continue…

Not much Glee over these slushies

By Jaime Weinman - Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 9:19 AM - 5 Comments

One month, two very different stories about Glee and bullies. Entertainment Weekly recently praised the hit show for its stand against gay-bashing and “the daily high school realities of bullying, discrimination and ignorance.” Soon after, Toronto newspapers reported that students at a Toronto school were not only shouting anti-gay slurs at people but “slushing” them—throwing colourful ice drinks at them and trying to soak them or stain them, or just hit them with the ice. This happens to be a technique popularized, and maybe even invented, by the bad guys on Glee. Enza Anderson, a Toronto transgender political activist who has organized a public meeting to discuss the attacks, told Maclean’s that “it was definitely copied from the show. In my 20 years of living in this community, I’ve never seen this done until that show started.” If anti-war movies like Saving Private Ryan have been accused of making war seem exciting, then Glee could be the anti-bullying show that gives bullies ideas.

The throwing of slushies, or Slurpees, or whatever they’re called, is one of the most iconic running gags on the show. It tends to be done by the members of the football team, the representatives of evil, as a quick and easy way to humiliate the characters on the good-guy glee club: everyone from the annoying Rachel (Lea Michele) to saintly Kurt (Chris Colfer) has randomly been splashed.

Even people who don’t watch Glee regularly might have seen the drink-throwing somewhere else, thanks to advertising. Before the current season started, the cast promoted the show with an ad where they all threw multi-coloured drinks at the camera. Oprah Winfrey even invited Michele to help demonstrate the proper splattering technique on her show, introducing the show’s property master as he practised covering a dummy named “Bob” with red dye: “Not bad,” he mused. “I would have preferred a little more texture.” Along with singing and incomprehensible plots, slushing may be the thing Glee most wants to be known for.

Continue…

Somehow, Sheen triumphs

By Jonathon Gatehouse - Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 8:57 AM - 5 Comments

The Hugh Hefner Sky Villa sits atop the 40-storey Fantasy Tower at the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas. Renting for US$40,000 a night, the two-floor, 9,000-sq.-foot suite—legal occupancy 250—boasts its own glass elevator, pop-up plasma screen TVs, a fully equipped gym and sauna, and an outdoor, cantilevered jacuzzi with the Playboy bunny symbol set into the tiles. But its true, and unspeakably sleazy, selling point is the round, eight-foot rotating bed underneath a mirrored ceiling. The perfect place, in short, for Charlie Sheen.

In mid-January, the suite was the scene of an epic bender in which the 45-year-old star of the CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men holed up for days, entertaining a cavalcade of porn stars, “tattoo models,” and prostitutes. Outside, the tabloid websites gleefully catalogued the self-destructive details; from 10 a.m. Grey Goose vodka shots and cocaine, to a $26,000 hooker bill. Sheen made it back to Los Angeles via private jet just in time for his show’s Tuesday morning “call,” but missed work the next day due to what producers described as an ear infection. That weekend, Ricky Gervais stood in front of an international television audience at the Golden Globes and confirmed Sheen’s status as a punchline. “It’s going to be a night of partying and heavy drinking,” the British comedian predicted as he opened the awards ceremony. “Or, as Charlie Sheen calls it, breakfast.”

Being the highest-paid actor in television, at almost $2 million per episode, should never be confused with being the most respected. For years now, even Sheen himself has seemed to resent the fame derived from his highly successful, yet critically reviled, comedy. Once the hot, young star of such “serious” films as Platoon and Wall Street, he has watched his career devolve into slight comedies like Hot Shots and Major League, then sitcoms, the final refuge of the clapped-out Hollywood icon. Paid to play the roué on TV—the role of boozy, lecherous “Charlie Harper” was specifically written with him in mind—he has carried the performance over into everyday life, embracing a bad-boy lifestyle with gusto. “He likes hookers and he likes coke and he’s got enough money for both,” an anonymous Sheen “friend” told the gossip site Radaronline.

Continue…

Happy 100th birthday, Mr. Reagan!

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 8:16 AM - 8 Comments

Celebrations: The Reagan centennial is being marked by symposiums and conferences

As his 100th birthday approaches on Feb. 6, the ghost of Ronald Reagan continues to loom large over America. He is one of the most admired and most popular presidents. The centennial is being marked by a variety of conferences, university symposiums and ceremonies. But it is in the political trenches where the legacy of a president who left office 22 years ago continues to be hotly debated and redefined. Republicans are taking their veneration of the 40th president to new heights. Democrats, meanwhile, are finding that the more time passes, the more there is to like about the man they once caricatured as a doddering B-list actor who built a military colossus on the backs of the poor.

Sarah Palin herself discovered just how jealously her party guards Reagan’s legacy when she had the temerity to compare herself to the former actor and California governor. Smarting from criticism that her decision to star in a television show about Alaska appeared un-presidential, Palin quipped on Fox News in November, “Like, um, wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor, wasn’t he in Bedtime for Bonzo—bozo, something… ” The backlash was immediate. “Excuse me, but this was ignorant even for Mrs. Palin,” wrote Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan in her Wall Street Journal column. She went on to lovingly catalogue Reagan’s lengthy career from actor to union leader to two-term governor of the most populous state, and to standard-bearer for conservative political philosophy. “The point is not, ‘He was a great man and you are a nincompoop,’ ” Noonan concluded. “Though that is true.”

Rush Limbaugh calls him “Ronaldus Magnus.” During the debate among candidates for the post of Republican National Committee chairman in January, the six people running were asked to name their favourite Republican president. Not one mentioned Abraham Lincoln. “Okay,” declared the satisfied moderator, Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, after all cited Reagan. “Everybody got that one right.”

For many Democrats, Reagan is no longer a president to scorn, but to study. President Barack Obama let it be known over the holidays that he was reading a biography of Reagan. Their first-term situations are similar: both took office amid a recession, in a moment of national demoralization. Both saw their approval ratings plummet in their first year ahead of mid-term elections, in which their respective parties lost seats. And now as Obama faces an Egypt in turmoil, commentators are recalling Reagan’s dealings with the Soviets and asking, “What would Reagan do?”

Continue…

U.S. ambassador David Jacobson explains the border deal

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 8:53 PM - 94 Comments

At a meeting today in Washington, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched a “Shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness”. They announced that a group of senior government officials from both countries would form a “Beyond the Border Working Group.” The group will look for ways to streamline border security while creating a shared “perimeter security” around both countries. In addition, a Regulatory Cooperation Council will look for ways to coordinate and harmonize regulations in order to ease red tape for companies that do business in both countries.

After the leaders’ meeting, I spoke with U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, about what this all means.

Q – What does the Obama administration want out of these talks?

Continue…

WikiLeaks confirms ransom paid for Robert Fowler and Louis Guay

By Michael Petrou - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 8:12 PM - 4 Comments

Robert Fowler and Louis Guay were held captive by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb for five months before they were released. Stephen Harper denied that Canada paid a ransom. He did not deny that other countries might have on Canada’s behalf. The Globe has the WikiLeaks story. I reported similar details in April 2009. Here and here.

Transcript: Obama and Harper's remarks

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 5:33 PM - 9 Comments

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                               February 4, 2011
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA

AND PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER OF CANADA

IN JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY

South Court Auditorium

3:21 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Please be seated.

I am very pleased to be welcoming my great friend and partner, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, back to the White House to reaffirm our extraordinary friendship and cooperation between the United States and Canada.  I’d like to talk a bit about what we accomplished today, and then address the situation unfolding in Egypt.

The United States and Canada are not simply allies, not simply neighbors; we are woven together like perhaps no other two countries in the world.  We’re bound together by our societies, by our economies, by our families — which reminds me my brother-in-law’s birthday is today and I have to call him.  (Laughter.)

And in our many meetings together I’ve come to value Stephen’s candor and his focus on getting results, both when it comes to our two countries and to meeting global challenges.  Although I, unfortunately, have not yet had the pleasure of seeing him and his band jam to the Rolling Stones — but I’m told the videos have become a sensation on YouTube.  So I’ll be checking those out after this bilateral.  (Laughter.)

We’ve had a very successful day.  Our focus has been on how we increase jobs and economic growth on both sides of the border. Canada is our largest trading partner and the top destination for American exports, supporting some 1.7 million jobs here.  So today we’ve agreed to several important steps to increase trade, improve our competitiveness, and create jobs for both our people.

First, we agreed to a new vision for managing our shared responsibilities — not just at the border but “beyond the border.”  That means working more closely to improve border security with better screening, new technologies and information-sharing among law enforcement, as well as identifying threats early.  It also means finding new ways to improve the free flow of goods and people.  Because with over a billion dollars in trade crossing the border every single day, smarter border management is key to our competitiveness, our job creation, and my goal of doubling U.S. exports.

And, Mr. Prime Minister, I thank you for your leadership and commitment to reaching this agreement.

We’ve directed our teams to develop an action plan to move forward quickly.  And I’m confident that we’re going to get this done so that our shared border enhances our shared prosperity.

Second, we’re launching a new effort to get rid of outdated regulations that stifle trade and job creation.  Like the government-wide review that I ordered last month, we need to obviously strike the right balance — protecting our public health and safety, and making it easier and less expensive for American and Canadians to trade and do business, for example, in the auto industry.  And a new council that we’re creating today will help make that happen.

Third, we discussed a wide range of ways to promote trade and investment, from clean energy partnerships to the steps Canada can take to strengthen intellectual property rights.

And we discussed a range of common security challenges, including Afghanistan, where our forces serve and sacrifice together.  Today, I want to thank Prime Minister Harper for Canada’s decision to shift its commitment to focus on training Afghan forces.  As we agreed with our Lisbon — or our NATO and coalition allies in Lisbon, the transition to Afghan lead for security will begin this year, and Canada’s contribution will be critical to achieving that mission and keeping both our countries safe.

Finally, we discussed our shared commitment to progress with our partners in the Americas, including greater security cooperation.  And I especially appreciated the Prime Minister’s perspective on the region as I prepare for my trip to Central and South America next month.

Let me close by saying a few words about the situation in Egypt.  This is obviously still a fluid situation and we’re monitoring it closely, so I’ll make just a few points.

First, we continue to be crystal-clear that we oppose violence as a response to this crisis.  In recent days, we’ve seen violence and harassment erupt on the streets of Egypt that violates human rights, universal values and international norms. So we are sending a strong and unequivocal message:  Attacks on reporters are unacceptable.  Attacks on human rights activists are unacceptable.  Attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable.

The Egyptian government has a responsibility to protect the rights of its people.  Those demonstrating also have a responsibility to do so peacefully.  But everybody should recognize a simple truth:  The issues at stake in Egypt will not be resolved through violence or suppression.  And we are encouraged by the restraint that was shown today.  We hope that it continues.

Second, the future of Egypt will be determined by its people.  It’s also clear that there needs to be a transition process that begins now.  That transition must initiate a process that respects the universal rights of the Egyptian people and that leads to free and fair elections.

The details of this transition will be worked by Egyptians. And my understanding is that some discussions have begun.  But we are consulting widely within Egypt and with the international community to communicate our strong belief that a successful and orderly transition must be meaningful.  Negotiations should include a broad representation of the Egyptian opposition, and this transition must address the legitimate grievances of those who seek a better future.

Third, we want to see this moment of turmoil turn into a moment of opportunity.  The entire world is watching.  What we hope for and what we will work for is a future where all of Egyptian society seizes that opportunity.  Right now a great and ancient civilization is going through a time of tumult and transformation.  And even as there are grave challenges and great uncertainty, I am confident that the Egyptian people can shape the future that they deserve.  And as they do, they will continue to have a strong friend and partner in the United States of America.

Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  Well, first of all, thank you, Barack.  Both thank you for your friendship both personal and national.  And thank you for all the work you’ve done and all of your people have done to bring us to our announcement today.

[Speaks in French.]

And I will just repeat that.

Today, President Obama and I are issuing a declaration on our border, but it is, of course, much more than that.  It is a declaration on our relationship.  Over the past nearly 200 years, our two countries have progressively developed the closest, warmest, most integrated and most successful relationship in the world.  We are partners, neighbors, allies, and, most of all, we are true friends.

In an age of expanding opportunities but also of grave dangers, we share fundamental interests and values just as we face common challenges and threats.

At the core of this friendship is the largest bilateral trading relationship in history.  And since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, a milestone in the development of the modern era of globalization, that partnership has grown spectacularly.

Not only is the U.S. Canada’s major export market, Canada is also America’s largest export market — larger than China, larger than Mexico, larger than Japan, larger than all the countries of the European Union combined.  Eight million jobs in the United States are supported by your trade with Canada.  And Canada is the largest, the most secure, the most stable, and the friendliest supplier of that most vital of all America’s purchases — energy.

It is in both our interests to ensure that our common border remains open and efficient, but it is just as critical that it remains secure and in the hands of the vigilant and the dedicated.  Just as we must continually work to ensure that inertia and bureaucratic sclerosis do not impair the legitimate flow of people, goods and services across our border, so, too, we must up our game to counter those seeking new ways to harm us.

And I say “us” because as I have said before, a threat to the United States is a threat to Canada — to our trade, to our interests, to our values, to our common civilization.  Canada has no friends among America’s enemies, and America has no better friend than Canada.

The declaration President Obama and I are issuing today commits our governments to find new ways to exclude terrorists and criminals who pose a threat to our peoples.  It also commits us to finding ways to eliminate regulatory barriers to cross-border trade and travel, because simpler rules lead to lower costs for business and consumers, and ultimately to more jobs.

Shared information, joint planning, compatible procedures and inspection technology will all be key tools.  They make possible the effective risk management that will allow us to accelerate legitimate flows of people and goods between our countries while strengthening our physical security and economic competitiveness.

So we commit to expanding our management of the border to the concept of a North American perimeter, not to replace or eliminate the border but, where possible, to streamline and decongest it.

There is much work to do.  The declaration marks the start of this endeavor, not the end; an ambitious agenda between two countries, sovereign and able to act independently when we so choose according to our own laws and aspirations, but always understanding this — that while a border defines two peoples, it need not divide them.  That is the fundamental truth to which Canadians and Americans have borne witness for almost two centuries.  And through our mutual devotion to freedom, democracy and justice at home and abroad, it is the example we seek to demonstrate for all others.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  All right, we’ve got time for a couple of questions.  I’m going to start with Alister Bull.

Q    Thank you very much, Mr. President.  Is it conceivable to you that a genuine process of democratic reform can begin in Egypt while President Mubarak remains in power, or do you think his stepping aside is needed for reform even to begin?

And to Prime Minister Harper, on the energy issue, did you discuss Canada’s role as a secure source of oil for the United States, and in particular, did you receive any assurances the U.S. administration looks favorably on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone Pipeline to the Gulf Coast?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I have had two conversations with President Mubarak since this crisis in Egypt began, and each time I’ve emphasized the fact that the future of Egypt is going to be in the hands of Egyptians.  It is not us who will determine that future.  But I have also said that in light of what’s happened over the last two weeks, going back to the old ways is not going to work.  Suppression is not going to work.  Engaging in violence is not going to work.  Attempting to shut down information flows is not going to work.

In order for Egypt to have a bright future — which I believe it can have — the only thing that will work is moving a orderly transition process that begins right now, that engages all the parties, that leads to democratic practices, fair and free elections, a representative government that is responsive to the grievances of the Egyptian people.

Now, I believe that President Mubarak cares about his country.  He is proud, but he’s also a patriot.  And what I’ve suggested to him is, is that he needs to consult with those who are around him in his government.  He needs to listen to what’s being voiced by the Egyptian people and make a judgment about a pathway forward that is orderly, but that is meaningful and serious.

And I believe that — he’s already said that he’s not going to run for reelection.  This is somebody who’s been in power for a very long time in Egypt.  Having made that psychological break, that decision that he will not be running again, I think the most important for him to ask himself, for the Egyptian government to ask itself, as well as the opposition to ask itself, is how do we make that transition effective and lasting and legitimate.

And as I said before, that’s not a decision ultimately the United States makes or any country outside of Egypt makes.  What we can do, though, is affirm the core principles that are going to be involved in that transition.  If you end up having just gestures towards the opposition but it leads to a continuing suppression of the opposition, that’s not going to work.  If you have the pretense of reform but not real reform, that’s not going to be effective.

And as I said before, once the President himself announced that he was not going to be running again, and since his term is up relatively shortly, the key question he should be asking himself is, how do I leave a legacy behind in which Egypt is able to get through this transformative period.  And my hope is, is that he will end up making the right decision.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  You asked me about the question of energy, and, yes, we did discuss the matter you raised.  And let me just say this in that context.  I think it is clear to anyone who understands this issue that the need of the United States for fossil fuels far in excess of its ability to produce such energy will be the reality for some time to come.  And the choice that the United States faces in all of these matters is whether to increase its capacity, to accept such energy from the most secure, most stable and friendliest location it can possibly get that energy, which is Canada, or from other places that are not as secure, stable or friendly to the interests and values of the United States.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I think we’ve got a Canadian reporter.

Q    Prime Minister, can you answer this in English and French?  Canadians will be asking how much of our sovereignty and our privacy rights will be given up to have more open borders and an integrated economy.  And while I have you on your feet, I want to ask you about Egypt, as well, whether you feel that Mr. Mubarak should be stepping down sooner, it would help the transition?

And, Mr. President, on the sovereignty issue, you’re welcome to answer it — you don’t have to speak in French, though.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Laughter.)  Now, I love French, but I’m just not very capable of speaking it.  (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  On the question of sovereignty, this declaration is not about sovereignty.  We are sovereign countries who have the capacity to act as we choose to act.  The question that faces us is to make sure we act in a sovereign way that serves Canada’s interests.  It is in Canada’s interests to work with our partners in the United States to ensure that our borders are secure, and ensure that we can trade and travel across them as safely and as openly as possible within the context of our different laws.

And that is what we’re trying to achieve here.  We share security threats that are very similar on both sides of the border.  We share an integrated economic space where it doesn’t make sense to constantly check the same cargo over and over again — if we can do that at a perimeter, if we can decongest the border, that’s what we should be doing.  If we can — if we can harmonize regulations in ways that avoid unnecessary duplication and red tape for business — these are things that we need to do.

So that’s what this is all about.  This is about the safety of Canadians and it is about creating jobs and economic growth for the Canadian economy.

Let me maybe — I’ll do French and then I’ll come to Egypt.

(Speaks in French.)

On the question of Egypt, let me just agree fully with what President Obama has said.  I don’t think there is any doubt from anyone who is watching the situation that transition is occurring and will occur in Egypt.  The question is what kind of transition this will be and how it will lead.  It is ultimately up to the Egyptian people to decide who will govern them.

What we want to be sure is that we lead towards a future that is not simply more democratic, but a future where that democracy is guided by such values as non-violence, as the rule of law, as respect and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, including the rights of religious minorities.

(Speaks in French.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  With respect to security issues and sovereignty issues, obviously, Canada and the United States are not going to match up perfectly on every measure with respect to how we balance security issues, privacy issues, openness issues. But we match up more than probably any country on Earth.

We have this border that benefits when it is open.  The free flow of goods and services results in huge economic benefits for both sides.  And so the goal here is to make sure that we are coordinating closely and that as we are taking steps and measures to ensure both openness and security, that we’re doing so in ways that enhances the relationship as opposed to creates tensions in the relationship.  And we are confident that we’re going to be able to achieve that.

We’ve already made great progress just over the last several years on various specific issues.  What we’re trying to do now is to look at this in a more comprehensive fashion, so that it’s not just border security issues, but it’s a broader set of issues involved.  And I have great confidence that Prime Minister Harper is going to be very protective of certain core values of Canada, just as I would be very protective of the core values of the United States, and those won’t always match up perfectly.

And I thought — I agree even more with his answer in French.  (Laughter.)

All right.  Thank you very much, everybody.

END                       3:49 P.M. EST

King of the Hill Revisited: "King of the Ant Hill" and "Plastic White Female"

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 5:17 PM - 3 Comments

These are the last two episodes of the first season (there was one other episode produced in the first 13 episode order, “The Company Man,” but it was held over for the second season when its ending was completely re-worked). I’ll hopefully get to the second season soon, but I may do another show in between, or I might find a slightly different format for these posts — possibly one episode at a time instead of two.

“King of the Ant Hill”

This instalment is written by Paul “Not Yet Toby” Lieberstein and Johnny “Already the Voice of Dale” Hardwick. It’s the first episode to focus on Dale (and to really establish his job as an exterminator), as he becomes upset when Hank won’t let him spray his lawn, and also when Hank — the alpha male of the group — gets more respect from Bill and Boomhauer, even on things that Dale actually knows more about. Dale retaliates by using fire ants to sabotage Hank’s new, store-bought grass.

This is not an episode that lends itself to extensive commentary. It’s not a bad episode, though it is a bit more predictable than most, especially in the way it solves everything by having Dale save Bobby’s life. When a Continue…

Truckers cautious about border declaration

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 5:13 PM - 2 Comments

David Bradley, president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, gave the following analysis of the border agreement. From the CTA press release:

Bradley acknowledges that his industry and the trade community at large have been promised these things before, only to be disappointed with the results.

“It will be essential for the governments to truly consult with the organizations whose members and businesses are living the border problems everyday. Previous efforts to achieve improvements at the border, such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) were unsuccessful in part because they came at the problems from the 120,000 foot level instead of where the rubber meets the road. The functioning of the border is a complex process; it can’t be fixed by asking people what the top two or three things are that they would like to see changed.”

Bradley also says that he does not think it is realistic to expect that the negotiations will lead to the dismantling of the plethora of measures introduced in the name of security that have been implemented over the past number of years.

“It may be a misnomer to characterize this to be the negotiation of a perimeter security agreement; I don’t detect any lessening of US concerns over security, or their view that the border in some ways represents the first line of defence. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will no doubt continue to be an elephant in the room.”

Their full statement is here.CTA statement.