Republican morons: all just different shades of disgrace

28 Monday Nov 2011

Posted by in Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Even staunch Republicans can’t deny that the leaders on offer today have never been more pathetic. They are not merely poor or bad, they are abysmal. It’s beyond embarrassing, and if it were my country I’d be ashamed that such abjectly inadequate people could be taken seriously at all, let alone be poised for a Presidential race.  Such a thing could only take place in an anti-intellectual climate that celebrates stupidity. It’s hard to describe without it sounding like exaggeration. British writer Martin Amis published a terrific collection of his journalism on a cross-section of American topics in the 80s called the Moronic Inferno, a perfect phrase for the climate that enables such monstrously stupid politicians.  We expect left-wing media to attack Republicans, but it should be noted whenever the right does. The Canadian right has stepped forward in this regard.

The National Post did a segment Saturday where eleven writers named their pick for Republican candidates, followed by a brief explanation. They mostly sounded jaded and hopeless, as if they were picking which gun they’d use to shoot themselves in the head.  My two favourite NP writers, George Jonas and Robert Fulford, opted for “none of the above.”  Beyond pessimism, Jonas suggested politicians should be drafted since anyone who believes they possess all it takes to run a country is a lunatic, and should be disqualified on these grounds alone.  Fulford said it’s the worst lineup of potential candidates he’s seen in his lifetime.

This week’s Maclean’s discussed Republicans in an article titled “American Idiots.”  It proposes that perhaps becoming a presidential candidate is no longer solely a political objective, but a financial one. Presidential candidates are assured of fame. Politics is merely branding.  This perspective explains why Herman Cain was so stunningly unprepared to answer basic questions about Libya. Even more revealing was his explanation for the gaffe: “I got all this stuff twirling around in my head.” This should disqualify him off the bat: thinking is a non-negotiable job requirement for the leader of the free world.

The article notes that the New York Times looked at Cain’s calendar of campaign events and found that “19 of the 31 days of October were blank.”  Commentators suggest his campaign is fake, just a publicity stunt masquerading as politics. Maybe this is true, maybe not: what’s the bigger disgrace? For a serious political campaign to be so stunningly amateur as to be mistaken for a joke is pathetic, but is it worse or better than using the most serious office in the country for such shameless pursuit of profit? Instead of work on his campaign, the devastatingly prudent thing to do, Cain promoted his book. This is a scandal! It used to be that if you wanted to gain money, fame and notoriety from the President’s office you didn’t try to become the President. A blowjob sufficed.

But this isn’t a dictator ruthlessly inserting himself.  This is democracy. Pathetically, Cain actually has voluntary support, making Americans complicit. The bigger problem is that Cain is not out of place beside Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Palin, and Trump, and too many voters are OK with this.

In Ancient Greece, citizens not only voted for politicians, but could vote to ostracize for ten years any politician who they felt was a threat to the state.  While there’d be no politicians left in Greece today if this were still practiced, it would allow the US to filter politicians who perniciously hijack the political system to get rich. Although, it is shameful that this can’t be entrusted to the voters good sense. But Presidential candidates must all be devoted, capable politicians who know about the world and care about the country. Does this really need to be said? It’s a bizarre, scary world when this statement is not overwhelmingly self-evident, but it cannot be overstated.  This is a race for President of the United States, not high school.

But even ostracizing politicians is a band-aid solution if the climate of stupidity which enables them doesn’t change. Otherwise, a new moron will rise.  Any aspect of culture, media, or even advertising which actively or passively encourages or takes advantage of people’s stupidity is guilty of contributing to fanning the flames of the moronic inferno.  This should not be considered an “elitist” view, a term stupid people use as a shield. And anyway, movies like Dumb and Dumber, intelligence only lacquered in low IQ, aren’t the target of my criticism.  I’m talking about Fox News and everything else that trades the collective IQ of the country for ratings and money. I am not so naive to believe this will ever stop. Indeed, money at all costs is practically the country’s guiding principle.  Perhaps Obama recognized this essential hopelessness and won on a slogan of “hope.”

I fear the media get a kick out of bashing Republicans so much that a part of them is glad they’re there. Bad for politics, good for journalism. But this isn’t funny. This is a deplorable state of affairs that jeopardizes the country, and even the world. Millions of Americans understand this and helplessly watch their country sink into a bog. The focus of concerned, responsible adults should be on rising up; laughter just makes the sinking more enjoyable.

Democracy isn’t inherently good or bad, as Jonas reminds us in an earlier NP article from last week: “democracy is only a method of succession.” It fails without a body of intelligent, discerning and informed citizens. The Maclean’s article suggests that Mitt Romney, “the only serious Republican candidate,” is stuck at 21% support since he fails to make attention grabbing gaffes. He alienates his voters by refusing to behave like a vulgar spectacle on a reality TV show. This is his obstacle.

I was seriously disappointed in American intelligence after the show Arrested Development got cancelled (though intelligent Americans created it), but politics is important.  Countries need more than one plausible political party. The States has only two parties, but one is pathologically immature and obstinately refuses to care about the good of the country. I love the United States. This isn’t disappointing, or funny. This is terrifying.

Inappropriateness on Queens campus…so much can go wrong, and did

24 Thursday Nov 2011

Posted by in Statements

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

When I’m in the company of a good trusted friend there are no jokes I can’t make, and I make them, but I have the good sense not to publish them because I don’t have the same trust and understanding from my small group of noble readers (though I’m sure you’re all wonderful people). I’m irreverent, but just because I make a horrible joke doesn’t mean horrible moral behaviour will ensue.  This trust is not extended towards students at Queens University.

Father Raymond J. de Souza writes in today’s National Post about the Queen’s band who, when they’re not performing at football games, sing from their own songbooks “a compilation so explicit, so depraved, so celebratory of promiscuous debauchery” that they were suspended for the rest of the semester. It was too lewd for the National Post. Thankfully, this blog has no such standard of decency.  Choice excerpts:

“The pamphlet contained phrases like ‘I will rape you with a lamp’…’Chew me, screw me, suck me, fuck me, yaaay Queen’s.'”

“Front page titles over the last three years have included ‘mouth raping your little sister since 1905.'”

No doubt performing lyrics that may as well have been written by the Marquis de Sade, while wearing your school’s uniform, was beyond stupid.  What did they expect? But does this mean the students involved are necessarily moral failures who will slip into a depraved abyss without the universities’ intervention? The university thinks so: in addition to their suspension, they are being sent to “human rights and equity training.”

Here’s where things go wrong in the article. De Souza makes a huge leap, putting the pitiful judgement exercised here on par with Yale’s alleged sexual-assault problem. Bad lyrics in bad taste, however bad, is fundamentally different than an act of sexual-assault. Equating them is dangerous. If there is a sexual-assault problem at Queens it must be immediately and thoroughly dealt with, but the article doesn’t say this is happening.  There’s only a tenuous connection: Yale has a rape culture on campus while Queens students are told not to sing about it for recreational amusement. Charges of rape are too important to be invoked without foundation.

What de Souza really condemns is the “hook-up” culture at Queens.  He cites the Yale report, which sounds more than a little totalitarian: “Because the social environment is so open, students seem unsure of how to develop meaningful relationships, set appropriate boundaries, determine their own social values or act in their own best interests, short and long-term” [emphasis mine].

Wow.  Claiming that Queen’s students (young adults, but adults nonetheless) are incapable of maintaining meaningful relationships or acting in their own self-interest is a serious charge that requires more evidence than de Souza offers, and it’s also none of his damn business.  Students are old enough to go into the army: they can manage their personal relationships and determine what’s in their own best interest without anybody’s approval. I’m inherently sceptical of the patronizing attitude that adults can’t live their own lives free of the “exquisitely progressive,” whether it’s an advisory committee or a celibate priest.  Most people don’t have it all figured out at 20 but they grow up OK.

It’s a little rich that de Souza denounces the sexual climate on campus while accompanying the article is a photo of literally six upside down cheerleaders, asses out, legs wrapped around the crotch of a male counterpart who smiles gleefully. It’s a shade away from acrobatic Roman-Greco coitus. Maybe the NP needs equity training too. Lurid. Eye-catching sure,  but I’m offended. Horribly offended.

Is common sense too much to ask in all of this? “University band: don’t sing about raping girls with lamps.”  Equity training, a vague and terrifying term, is just the universities’ empty recourse for publicly demonstrating accountability. Don’t worry donors, we’re on it.  Keep giving us money.  Equity studies doesn’t enhance students’ critical thinking ability the way, say, studying English, history, classics, law, or other extinct university subjects would. That students are busy adults with their own minds and things to do, including school work, doesn’t concern the University as much as reversing their tarnished image…of course, not remotely surprising.

But strangely, the article makes it seem like university students would otherwise be devoted prudes abstaining from all “debauchery” if only the university climate wasn’t so tantalizing. Revelation: students do drugs, drink, and have sex because…wait for it…they can. Many find debauchery more fun than work, and their schedule is permitting. I’ve even heard rumours of sex and drugs in high school. Maybe young students would take up sobriety if they could occupy themselves with a harmless diversion, say by playing with balls during recess. University students don’t have sex because they’re “bombarded by various campaigns for sexual health,” a bombardment which de Souza calls “not the noblest vision of the human prospect.”  Maybe it doesn’t promote true love, but it might spare them from STDs.

If only administrator’s were as concerned with education as they are imposing morals on their adult patrons.  This isn’t grade school!  This doesn’t excuse the band from singing blatantly offensive lyrics while representing the school. Suspensions are in order for the band, but equity training is repulsive.  Maybe students would learn good judgement as a by-product of good education, and exercise reticence instead of singing about raping the mouth of somebody’s sister. It shouldn’t be much to ask.

At least not in public.

Why Canadian cell phone bills are outrageous

18 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by in Statements

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

A surprising amount of unrelated parties come together to saddle Canadians with the most expensive cellphone rates in the world. Jesse Brown wrote about it in a convincing piece in December’s Toronto Life (regrettably not available online yet). I love when my complaining is vindicated, not that it’s worth it.

Personally, my wireless bill is relatively small (though still a rip off) since I don’t even have a “smart” phone. Yes, my phone is portable, but it’s a moron. It doesn’t get internet.  I don’t have a full keyboard (it takes four presses to type “s”). I rarely talk because my day minutes are stingy (and so am I). I’m eager to end every conversations because a 1:01 conversation is 2 minutes, universal rounding be damned. I have no BBM, Email, or even ICQ. For accessing the system my phone requires I pay a fee, double-dipping in broad daylight: it’s like buying a hamburger then paying separately again for accessing it.  My cell phone plan is basically incoming calls (but don’t roam!) and cumbersome retrograde text messaging, but it costs me over $55 a month. Your phone is better so you pay a lot more than me, but in Canada all us hosers are getting hosed.

I’ll walk you through the article now.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development claims our roaming fees are the highest in the world.  According to another report by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Canadians have the highest monthly wireless charges in the world. Worrying: American banks have never been wrong.  Even “academic sources” say our text messaging undergoes a mark up as high as 4,900%.  Have you ever heard anyone say 4,900%? This goes beyond an acceptable amount of exploitation. In another time and place we’d all be sweeping their chimneys for nickels.

The evil trifecta–Robbers, Bull, Telus (couldn’t think of an evil name for Telus, I welcome suggestions)–has 95% of the market. New carriers like Mobilicity and Wind have to buy a license from Ottawa for billions, incurring debt before they even spend a dime on marketing or infrastructure.  That’s why smaller companies like Fido get eaten up like dog food. Brown claims so called experts on the subject (lawyers, academics, consultants) are either employed by the three-headed monster or are somehow financially connected. Except one glorious man.

Hudson Janisch is a U of T professor emeritus of telecommunications law. His research was “instrumental” in writing the country’s telecommunications act. Even better, he’s 73 and semi-retired, so he’s got no vested interested in lying.  Janisch explains that banks are unwilling to lend money to new companies since their success will cut into that of the big three, who already make more money than any other providers in the world. Banks have no reason to finance new Canadian companies and our government hasn’t let foreign companies offer competition. “Canada is horribly out of step.”

Why is it so expensive? There’s no finite number of text messages that’s depleted every time someone sends a text. No mining company drills into the earth to extract minutes.  Once the infrastructure is up, costs flatten. Companies opt for the maximum gouge because they can. Shocking.

And expensive bills may not be the worst problem.  Our country is supposedly at risk of becoming “a communications backwater,” as only 75% of Canadians have a wireless plan. That seemed high to me, but apparently it’s the lowest of any comparable country, and what’s “comparable” might be surprising.  Internationally, there’s wonderful collaboration taking place between phone companies and forward thinking governments from all those burgeoning telecommunication hot spots in Africa and the Middle East. That’s why the guys who filmed Ghaddafi’s death have a better phone than me.

In the 80s, Ottawa enacted a policy designed to keep foreigners off our radios, and now we’re held captive to this severely outdated policy, which wasn’t designed with current technology in mind.  “It was a policy grandfathered in from traditional telephone regulations.” Normally, or at least ideally, stupid policies are corrected. The NHL made helmets mandatory since they realised not forcing NHL players to wear helmets was ridiculous and outdated.  When it comes to phone bills, Canadians have no choice but to be Craig Mactavish (the last NHL player to not wear a helmet…retired helmetless in 1997).

Also, and this comes out of left field, ACTRA, the actors’ union, is lobbying Ottawa to keep the foreign ownership restriction in place. Where have all the sagacious actors gone? ACTRA declined an interview with Toronto Life (they were all out adopting third-world children) but Brown points to the unions’ website which indicates they believe that if the wireless industry is opened up to foreign investors, we will “lose control of our culture” because “you can’t separate telecommunications and broadcasting.”  Their argument: if people watch TV on their smart phones, which are provided by foreigners, then foreigners control what we watch, and they can’t be trusted to create content that will employ our actors.  But smart phones aren’t seriously going to replace TVs.  Could the actors position be stupid and self-serving? Brown reminds us that Rogers and Bell produce/broadcast a large percentage of Canadian shows, and the union is probably just sucking up.

Our politicians are doing nothing. This problem won’t fix itself, as no company voluntarily decides to forego profit. Pitching a tent in a park is for problems that only affect 99%, but at 100%, this is major.  And it’s cold out.

Expect a strongly worded letter to come in this space. And unlike the civil writing here, the strongly worded letter to come won’t be based on research or facts, just my violent, unswerving hatred for these wireless robber barons.  Let us complain loudly…it’s about all we can do.

Taking the “remember” out of remembrance day

11 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by in Statements

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

This week, the National Post reported there’s a high school in Ottawa that is forbidding veterans who come to speak to classrooms on remembrance day from bringing any military replica guns with them, something they have done for nineteen years.  Making history “come alive,” as cheesy as it sounds, is hard enough for a teacher, and I can think of no better way than having someone who was there tell stories, gun in hand. If I held the veteran’s rifle and tried to imagine the trenches, I’d feel sheer terror, surely the point of it all. But this year the school changed its policy. “No tanks or guns.”  “There are many students from the school who come from war-torn countries, and when they saw the replica gun, it did upset them.” The article doesn’t say if the committee, made up of school staff, actually received a direct complaint from a student or whether they changed the policy on their own initiative. A history teacher from the school resigned in response–a principled move, if somewhat dramatic.

This story is in line with the times, being as hyper-sensitive as possible to those perceived most vulnerable, though I would bet most schools would strongly criticize this policy. Here, the modern urge to “accommodate” is stronger than the urge to teach history. This is a problem. There are times in my writing where I fear I’m saying something painfully obvious, but this story forces my hand: the teaching of history needs to be the first priority in a history class.

If a student from a “war-torn country” is actually traumatized upon seeing either a replica gun or a real gun that’s disabled, they can leave the class. It’s not exactly the same as seeing the Luftwaffe hover the skies in formation or hearing a nearby bomb explode, but students are only kids and they can be fragile, especially if they have actually escaped war themselves. We need to remember war as vividly as possible to try and ensure it never happens again, but they may need to forget war to go on living a normal life. Fair enough. But this should be done only on a case-by-case basis in the event there’s an actual student with such a severely traumatizing past.

Before anyone is excused, consider that Canadian citizens sacrificed a lot more than a moment’s discomfort, and do still today. This is what the gun in class brings home: it is a gun that could have put a hole in the head of a mother’s child. It should be uncomfortable for everyone. If we forget this, what are we remembering? Over 45,000 Canadians died in WWII alone. Is there another symbol besides the gun that can be brought into class to evoke the horror of war? Short of a replica of “little boy,” no.  Maybe the ubiquitous poppy should be replaced by a gun.

A gun in class does anything but glorify war. What kind of student is urged towards violence after seeing a weapon and hearing all the horror stories first hand from a soldier?  Remembering can’t be a hollow moment of silence, but a meaningful reflection of what people actually did. It should cause revulsion, fear, and wonder that it actually happened. If it’s comfortable, it’s inadequate. It should be horrifying. How can it not be?

Perhaps this symbol of death is even more poignant for being in a classroom, the very last place a gun should ever be. War would be the most fundamentally absurd thing imaginable, if only it could be imagined. I literally can’t imagine hiding behind trenches and shooting at strangers with the understanding that killing them increases my own chance of survival. It’s too absurd.  Seeing and actually holding a realistic gun, gently touching that cold trigger with a curled finger, would bring those points home better than any text book, or even a first hand story told by a brave old man in a uniform.

Lest we forget.

The Curmudgeon’s Fall Fashion Style Guide for 2011

04 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by in Comedy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The effortless, laid back look is so hot right now, but what do hard working fashion gurus know about effortless looks? When it comes to this style, the current vogue, their opinions are less than worthless. With this in mind, I am a male fashionista, a trend setter. My credentials are superb, as I haven’t gone clothes shopping in years and I hate fashion. Fashion and fascism both start out the same way. I find shopping for clothes a torture on par with waterboarding, and I see a very small distinction between Yorkdale and Guantanamo. Yorkdale Bay. Ironically, my total lack of care is what makes me a style icon. Even the media has complimented me on my dishevelled appearance.  Follow these fashion rules and you too can achieve the rumpled look without much effort.

THE HEAD-TO-TOE STYLE GUIDE:

The cornerstone of any fashionable wardrobe is good plaid. Red with bits of green is timeless, always a hit. I have another plaid with just greens too, and I’ve worn blues and browns in years past. Unfortunately, a shirt can only withstand so much wear, and those wonderful plaids of old have disintegrated, their ashes in an urn on my shelf.  Now that the Halloween rush is over, Value Village is civilized again. Spend between 5-10 dollars on a plaid, and if you see any sold for more, give the proprietor of the store/garage sale a piece of your mind. You need t-shirts too. When you visit a city or go to a concert, buy a cool shirt with Jerry Garcia’s face on it.

I recommend having two or more sweaters so you don’t need to wear the same one every day. A smart look is to wear your sweater over a plaid shirt so the collar sticks out. This gives my monochrome sweaters a hot accent.  I have a blue, brown, and green sweater: believe me boychicks, this fall, dark, earthy colours are totally in. Some sweaters of mine have a round neck, others are V.  If you do this, girls will just swoon over the variety.

When it comes to pants, jeans are a hot trend. Everybody’s wearing them. In terms of colour, I recommend blue.  I used to wear them baggy but I advise against that now.  Everyone has a different standard of how jeans should fit.  My rule of thumb: tight enough to go biking without getting caught in the chain, loose enough to play spontaneous hockey.  That’s some sartorial smarts right there.  Khakis are like jean’s older, sterner brother. Very smart. “First we get the jobs, then we get the khakis, then we get the chicks.”

You’ll need shoes. I like brown dock shoes because they’re versatile, and in the summer they can be worn sans socks, an added advantage when you don’t have a laundry machine at your place. I call my dock shoes the “BCs,” or the “business casuals.” They’re perfect for Saturday night business drinking and for recreational pints. Nikes are good too.

Leather jackets are timeless. Get one that’s soft to the touch…that nice butter leather. Mine is black with beige accents on the cuffs and collar, so I call it the “black and tan fantasy” in homage to Duke Ellington. Sometimes I name my clothes, but you don’t have to. Get a scarf too. It’s cold out there, and it’s an opportunity to accent your earth tones with stripes or geometric shapes. I wear a light brown scarf to bring out the colour of my dark brown jacket…smart.  There are thick scarves that keep you warm and there are those threadbare schmattes worn by terrorists. Fashion faux-pas. If you’re going to look like Al-Qaeda, do it in the summer.

Chic. Dapper. Dans le vent. Natty. Suave. You too can be these things, it’s not exactly rocket surgery.  Just follow my guideline and aspire to dress like me.

[Addendum: BlogTO readers/others who don’t know me: this piece is a playful, satirical shot at pompous, self-regarding fashion writers. It’s a humour piece. It’s become my most well read piece by far, but I never expected anyone outside my friends to read it. I’ve got flak, so let’s be clear: I don’t really think I’m a male fashionista. Hope you enjoy.]

Universities actually threaten freedom of speech

03 Thursday Nov 2011

Posted by in Politics, Statements

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

I subscribe to the National Post because they publish a handful of writers I admire, namely George Jonas, an excellent writer and thinker of admirable historical sensibility who writes candidly.  He grew up in Hungary under communism, and of all writers I know sceptical of left-wing ideology, I feel he’s got the most cause.  It’s not just an idea for him, though it’s that too. Policies that make a light go off in my head must stir his stomach.

I provide this background because his article yesterday, “Deliver us from the universities,” is guilty of generalizing a bit, and while I’d actually agree with him if I had to make a bet, I’m holding out for more evidence. Essentially: universities were and are the chief threat to freedom of speech.

Jonas cites a study being conducted by civil rights lawyer John Carpay, who created an index that promises to “evaluate the state of free speech at Canadian Universities.” The findings come out in November, but Carpay demonstrated them last week in an apparently convincing sneak peek organized by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy for Calgary’s Chamber of Commerce.  I’m curious and sceptical about the methodology, but my personal experience inclines me towards agreeing with the conclusion.

First Jonas reminds us that in origin, Universities were religious, not liberal. They believed they had to educate students to learn the truths they already possessed.  In the 20th century, “universities incubated both fascism and communism, along with their many sub-versions (pub intended).” In one sentence, Jonas provides some history, a great use of “incubated,” and doesn’t succumb to that brutal reflex where people claim they don’t mean to write the puns they mean to write. “As for the 21st century, with jihadism infesting campuses all over the world, we’re off to a rocky start.”  He denounces Hamas apologists, dubbing them “terrorist chic.” Wicked stuff.

Aside: academics are disproportionately left wing because they have theoretical jobs, and in theory everything works, even communism. Doubting the theoretical on grounds it’s only theoretical undermines the foundation of their life’s work, and so essentially, it undermines their life.  Perhaps the chief virtue in a good intellectual is to resist the impulse to merge the theoretical and the practical, and be always able to separate and distinguish the two.

Back to Jonas’ idea: I read a fantastic book on Orwell a few weeks ago describing all the left-wing hostility aimed at Orwell during the 40s, despite Orwell’s ardent allegiance of the left.  “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”  In spite of Orwell’s devotion to the left, he admirably refused to stop criticizing where he saw problems.  This was before the extent of Stalin’s crimes, the Gulags, were widely known and the left-wing intelligentsia frequently apologized and praised him.  To do so was modish.  Nobody wanted to publish Animal Farm because, spoiler alert!, in the end the animal’s revolution fails.  Orwell wanted socialism to work, but he couldn’t suppress his doubt no matter how much it irritated his comrades.  His allegiance was wholly to the truth, and for this he was ostracised. Jonas understands this dilemna: if Orwell had trouble criticising the Left, what can us mortals do and say?

My goal isn’t to denounce left-wing ideology, just the practice of silencing the other side’s argument on grounds that the verdict is already in. Though most universities have a dominant left-wing ideology in place, I’d be equally opposed to a right-wing one. I hate thinking that succumbs to grotesque oversimplification that obliterates nuance. Indeed, universities have a mandate to instil critical thinking abilities in their students to overcome this unforgivable weakness in mind.  But academic environments are rife with suspicion and hatred for people who think differently.  The chief fault is the inability to believe your ideological opponent is honest and intelligent.

But this difference in thought doesn’t even have to be highly charged political opinion.  In all kinds of classes I’ve heard friends lament that they feel uncomfortable diverging from their professor’s opinion in print for fear he’ll disapprove, and they’ll be graded accordingly.  But a different interpretation of poetry or literature doesn’t arouse the indignation and hostility that political disagreement does.  In all situations, students must not be made to feel uncomfortable voicing and writing their unfettered opinion, supported of course by convincing textual evidence. It’s precisely here, in classrooms, where Jonas’ charge resonates most with me.  Most faculty, and especially students, are smart enough to know they ought to voice in favour of freedom of speech, but insufficiently principled to commit to it in full. Rather, they’re principles are devoted solely to their cause, and there are none left over for the cause of free speech.

Example, a professor with an overt bias (voiced in politically correct terms so as not to get fired) would likely go mostly unchallenged by students who either: want to avoid a scene; don’t want to jeopardize their grade; don’t have the confidence to speak up, don’t want to be class nerd; don’t have a clue what the professor is even talking about; feel total indifference.  Maybe they’re simply hung over.  They’re understandable reasons, and at various moments I have succumbed and overcame all these things myself.  How many professors really say and believe: “my class is only useful if I’m challenged at every step of the way because the only valuable opinions are those which have survived the heaviest scrutiny?”  Even the polite Canadian tendency towards non-confrontation is incompatible with a robust academic environment where ideas become important only after they’ve survived harsh, weighty scrutiny.

I’m eternally grateful to Dalhousie, which I realised was a freakin’ Xanadu after spending a year in that putrid swamp OISE.  I left Dal with my innocence intact under the naive belief that academics want to get at the truth. They’re smart, passionate intellectuals.  Yes, but they’re all too frequently under the false belief that their views embody everything that’s good or desirable, and they tolerate no other view.  I’d like to see the results from this Campus Freedom Index and learn how the study was conducted.

If you’ve managed to sit through all this, bless your heart. Next writings will be light hearted: the “curmudgeon’s fall-fashion style guide” or perhaps, “the Kardashian divorce: I knew she was a skank.”

The hockey interview is a farce that should be discontinued

02 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by in Sports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Probing. Profound.  Purposeful. These are the last words anybody would use to describe what passes for an interview in the NHL.  It’s totally beyond parody. If the team is losing, the solution is keep plugging away at the fundamentals. If the team is winning, they need to keep plugging away at the fundamentals. If there’s a noteworthy individual accomplishment, it’s because of the team.  If the team is doing well, all the individuals are clicking. It all happens one game at a time.  “What’s the key to your success?” “Our coach designed this secret play, here’s how it works…” What do we expect to be told? As a result, players are asked questions that aren’t really questions with the understanding that after saying something banal, obvious, and wonderfully cliché they’ll be given permission to walk away.  In a Canadian hockey culture that is wary of personality, that celebrates blandness, predictable conformity in media talk is all there is. Except for last week.

After the ridiculous 9-8 game between Philly and Winnipeg, Philly’s goaltender Ilya Bryzgalov could have said he’ll bounce back or it was a weird night for both goalies. But shockingly, he spoke outside the script: “I have zero confidence in myself right now. I’m terrible…I feel like I’m lost in the woods. I am totally lost. I don’t know what’s going on.  I can’t stop the puck.  It’s simple. It’s me.”  That a goalie has no confidence after allowing 9 goals isn’t surprising when you think about it, but the hockey world was stunned to hear an actual candid response.  It was sad, and singularly unique: have you ever felt so bad for a $51 million man?  There are countries looking for that kinda bailout.  I wanted to write on pointless hockey interviews prior to this game, but Bryzgalov’s response made me doubt the premise. Maybe there was a point to the hockey interview? Not if the Flyers have their way.

Bruce Arthur reported in today’s National Post that after Bryzgalov mercifully won a game and joked he had gotten out of the woods thanks to the “iPhone Compass,” the Flyers announced their goalie would only be available after games he started.  Heaven forbid an interview contain honesty or humour.  But this violated the league’s rules regarding media access, so now Philly wants to limit Bryzgalov to three questions, which, as Arthur points out, is the same policy our Prime Minister follows.  Whether this curtailing of interview time is a violation of policy is under investigation. For Harper it’s fine, but it’s important that the goalie is held publicly accountable for his performance.

Before he faces the media again, Bryzgalov will undoubtedly be told not to cause any needless distraction by saying anything worth repeating.  Shut up Ilya!  This doesn’t only make total sense from a hockey perspective, the one that should matter most, but it’s what rightly ensures that player interviews are totally vacuous.  As a fan, I don’t want to put any burden on my team. Radical idea: if the media wants something to write about, write about the hockey.  If a player wants to call out or praise his players in public, there’ll be a hungry audience ready to hear something of substance that’s more meaningful for being spoken voluntarily.  He can even Tweet on his own time and allow sports reporters, who will be following, to report on it then.  For fan appreciation, players can do autograph signings, visit hospitals, deliver presents at Christmas.  But the hockey interview is an illusion that tells the fans absolutely nothing. It’s not a window into the game or into the players’ personalities, and in the rare, rare time it is, hockey culture does all it can to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Movie trailers are now their own industry…don’t fall for the hype!

01 Tuesday Nov 2011

Posted by in Statements

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

November’s issue of Maclean’s contains an article “Trailers are out of control,” by Brian D. Johnson, that depicts accurately how in order to generate more buzz, a new industry has been set up where Hollywood trailers are accompanied with its own review.  Interesting, sad, but hardly surprising. Regrettably, the article is not available online yet.

The Hollywood Reporter criticized the trailer for The Avengers in a serious, substantial review.  The trailer! The movie doesn’t come out until next May.  The Avengers isn’t just a predictable action movie starring one hero, but five: Ironman, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, and Samuel L. Jackson (who even if he’s playing himself might be the most bad ass).  The trailer is very unnecessary.  Do they fight for social justice? If five superheroes are needed the world must be in great peril. Expect senseless violence and action.  But unlike the epic trailer for the Transformers sequel, this reviewer bemoans the Avenger’s trailer’s failure to convey “epic drama and conflict as well as great emotional moments.” Sounds like he’s talking about Antigone.  A review of a two minute trailer is absolutely insane. Please, let us either ignore or denounce this aspect of the new hype machine.

The article claims that since trailers are accessed in smart phones and twitter, Google searches went up 50% in the last year.  Itunes has a dedicated category for movie trailers now.  That trailers contain spoilers or are severely misleading is old news, but it is funny that a Michigan woman announced she’s suing the distributor for Drive claiming “there wasn’t enough driving,” and she was misled by “the pulse-pounding preview that made it look like Fast & Furious.”  Is she making a principled stand against an industry that intentionally deceives its customers in order to sell, or is she an idiot? If her lawsuit is successful, she’ll recoup all of her $12.50, minus legal fees. But sometimes great movies do poorly in box office because of bad or misleading commercials. William Goldman said this happened to the Princess Bride, which lacked a target demographic. Bummer.

This phenomenon of dangling tantalizing tidbits in order to entice, however disingenuous, is ubiquitous on Twitter, Facebook, and anywhere where there are links to click or things to buy.  We’re beckoned to click by alluring question marks, various lists of “10 hot things” or the like, or promises of salacious gossip.  To be sure, greatness and crap are advertised the same way, but it’s good to be cognizant of the psychology behind how our attention is being captured.  Perhaps the awareness makes you more immune to being suckered.

Anyway, the main thrust of Johnson’s article is made by invoking legendary New Yorker movie critic Pauline Kael, who, by the ’80s, believed “marketing was eating cinema alive.” Johnson believes that the hype around trailers is evidence of an industry that’s contributing to its own demise, that the art form suffers. Is this true? Is marketing hampering quality movies, like the wave of American films from the ’70s, from being made today?  Would the Godfather be successful if made today, or could it even get made? Hard to know, but I’d like to think I would have had the good taste and discernment to see the movie without having to suffer a review of its trailer.

Confession: My Experience As a Racist (a hockey story)

29 Saturday Oct 2011

Posted by in Comedy, Sports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

From a young age, Canadians are conditioned to revile racists.  We look back on American slavery and wonder how life was really like that.  We bemoan contemporary racism and wonder if the world will ever become truly egalitarian. I’m a pretty decent guy, but I know from personal experience that one aspect of my Canadian upbringing instilled in me a burning hatred for an identifiable group of people and wished nothing for them but the wrath of hell. I’m talking about the Ottawa Senators and their fans.

Ten years ago, if you had asked me if all Sens fans had horns and hoofed feet, I’d have said “no”, but I’d have given them no other benefit of the doubt.  I couldn’t be sure Sens fans even existed: I had never seen one in real life, and even on TV their arena was filled with Leaf fans loudly booing whenever alfredsson (that gutless puke) touched the puck. I had no reason on earth to believe somebody actually liked that team, yet I hated that theoretical person all the same. When the Senators signed a player, I hated him overnight.  This went on unchecked for years, as my friends were just as racist.

My first encounter with an actual flesh-and-blood Senator fan happened in 2003, while my hate was at a late stage of maturation.  Though I didn’t expect a Sens fan to behave with civility or dignity (these concepts utterly foreign to the organization) I behaved well and the meeting didn’t end in carnage, though it started off rocky.  I moved into my dorm during first year university, and immediately put up my Leafs’ flag when in walked my neighbour.

“Nice to meet you. Hey, why are you putting up that piece of shit?”

“Where are you from…neighbour?”

“Ottawa.”

Just like that. He didn’t seem to be suffering any certifiable mental condition detectable at first glance, so I looked again. Still nothing.  Maybe something was wrong in his frontal lobes, but he looked like a normal human being.

Over the year, I developed a friendship with this curious species fuelled by intense rivalry and beer.  To be sure, however amiable, a part of me hated a part of him.  We shared laughs and violent shouting matches in equal measure.  But like mushrooms after a rainstorm, more Sens fans appeared. It took a year among their kind to realise that, in actual fact, Senator fans are people.  For years, I dehumanized their fans and their players (sometimes fairly), but the sample of fans I met turned out to be good Canadian boys who simply had the severe misfortune of growing up in Ottawa.  I had to admit: my neighbour, and others of his race, were decent.

The roster still comprised soulless guttersnipes, but I was racially more sensitive and newly convinced my hatred wasn’t blinding. I had reversed my all encompassing hate and learned to give a fair appraisal of the team. “Volchenkov can block a shot.”  Wholly unbiased now, my opinion was fair, balanced and commendable.  I had reformed and was tremendously capable of praise when it was warranted…it just wasn’t.  That year, following another epic post season Senator collapse, the Leafs eliminated the hated rival for the fourth time. 4/4. Those who remember the game see Lalime clearly in their mind’s eye. Ahh, glory days!

Meeting Senator fans has enabled me to gain perspective on a disturbing time in my personal history, but my racism was of a variety that I suspect all Canadian hockey fans have to some degree.  Still, I look back on these years of unbridled hate with regret. I am grateful for the contact I had with good people who gave me a chance to reform.  Now I can view them as dignified human beings, and they have made me a better person for it.  That said, I do have some final observations:

Chris Neil is a cheapshot artist who seriously looks inbred.

On five occasions, Jason Spezza has contaminated out heroic National team by failing to win gold even once.

Despite just yesterday writing a lengthy argument for unequivocal free speech, I’m afraid of what I’ll put into print if I candidly write about daniella alfredsson [sic]. I have not cooled one bit after his vicious hit from behind on Tucker from game 5, 2002. He should still be suspended without pay.

Free Speech: All or Nothing…Even Homophobia

28 Friday Oct 2011

Posted by in Statements

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The article’s title is a common refrain, but it’s understood less frequently than it’s spoken.  In Canada, our freedom of speech laws don’t allow for expressing hatred. This is wrong.  Margaret Wente recently wrote an article summarizing the debate pretty clearly, and the comments are overwhelmingly in favour of her conclusion that it shouldn’t be illegal to express vile, odious opinions. Yet in 2005, William Whatcott, an unabashed homophobe, was fined $17,500 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission after people were offended by his pamphlets. It’s now before the Supreme Court.  Whatcott said homosexuals are “sodomites” who spread filth and disease, who are full of “sin and depravity.”  His views are, surprise surprise, rooted in religion.

“Should we have to put up with being called ‘filth’? It makes me feel like less of a person.” Yup. Sorry anonymous complainant, the cost of freedom of speech is being occasionally offended.  There’s no right to not be offended, and anyway, you shouldn’t let an ignorant moron have any bearing on your personhood. I’m offended everyday but I don’t exploit it for profit.  At least those thinly skinned saints donated the $17,500 to charity, right? Hmm maybe.  How do you put a corresponding dollar value on offence anyway? Homophobes sure are easier to stomach when they’re made to foot the bill. More, please!

Canada doesn’t have a history of revolution, censorship, or any real civil turbulence like France, Russia, or the United States, and I think that’s why our definition of freedom of speech is so immature and privileged. As a country, we don’t know what it’s like to really be censored; we didn’t have the McCarthy era, guillotines or Gulags.  Our free speech ends the moment somebody is offended, hardly rare, and so long as you are a minority or perceived as vulnerable you can effectively enforce your right not to be offended. This right is made up, it doesn’t exist, and yet it wields more power than a right other countries have fought for.

Right now, our speech laws are bound to the current climate of plurality, which sounds terrific, except it its limited and subject to change. The only question that matters is whether undesirable speech is protected: one day it can be illegal to defend the things we value today.  If tolerance and plurality become widely renounced, I’d like to still speak in favour of it without fear.  What’s currently fashionable doesn’t last. Free speech must be guarded with vigilance, and must not be taken for granted, and can’t only mean protecting favourable speech that doesn’t need protection. It sounds more than a bit counter intuitive to go out of our way to protect speech we find repulsive, but if we only make a fuss about free speech when our speech is no longer protected, it’ll be too late.

This issue doesn’t relate to bullying in schools because bullying of any sort is already not condoned.  Whether bullying warrants a harsher protocol within schools is a very reasonable discussion, but that’s not the same as saying the speech itself should be against the law.  Is bullying based on sexual identity worse than bullying in general? Is one a $20,000 fine, the other $10,000? It seems attacking the most vulnerable group would get you the stiffest fine, but then the  group with the cheapest fine would become the most vulnerable. Students, teachers, parents and friends should be conspicuously opposed to any bullying, not just because gay students should feel safe, which of course they should. but because cruelty is always wrong. Apart from inciting violence and yelling “fire” in the crowded theatre, are those against iron-clad free speech  so scared of all the hatred they think Canadians are secretly hiding?  I thought I was cynical.

Tolerating only favourable views is something intolerant people do.  This is a regressive policy that fascist states and authoritarians use to censor and suppress conversation, ideas, and criticism.  We can’t only agree with freedom when we believe it’s suitable.  We can’t complain about Chinese and Iranian censorship and do the same here, or else what we’re really arguing about isn’t  the censorship itself, but what they censor.

So long as our free speech laws are prohibitive, we shouldn’t applaud ourselves for fighting homophobia but should bemoan what a squeamish, paranoid, immature bunch we are for our failure to guarantee free speech, that right that is correctly exalted and considered the benchmark of a free democracy.