Saturday, February 28, 2009
Undressing Money
Labels: economics, money undressed, podcasting
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Where We Are
Monday, December 01, 2008
Officially on break
Labels: podcasting, the point
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Triumph!
Victory! Further bulletins as warrant.

Sample future bulletin:
Casserole tonight! Saucy!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Why should the Greens be kept out?
Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for the network consortium [that hosts the debates], is quoted as saying that three parties - those led by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe - all opposed the participation of Ms. May in the so-called leaders debate, "and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no leaders debates."and more to the point, on the implications of this disservice to us as an electorate in making informed decisions about our federal government:
That's blackmail. If these three men want to boycott a genuine debate, let them have the courage to do so openly. Let them also explain why, in a year when U.S. party establishments could not shut out an Obama or a McCain, it is appropriate for the Canadian party establishments to muzzle a significant voice for change.
The tone of federal politics today is the worst I can remember in my 50 years in public life. Of course, there were angry partisan differences before, but they were tumultuous exceptions to a general rule of common public purpose, even civility. By contrast, the standard today has become consistently bitter and negative - personal invective routinely displaces any serious discussion of issues or differences.I should mention that although I don't support any of the political parties in Canada, nor do I intend to ever be a member of one of them, I do endorse a lot of the ideas the Green Party has presented in their platform - a shift in overall tax collection to enforce a tax on carbon emissions (I'm willing to debate the desirability of this on a national level), emphasising preventing illness through what they call health promotion, protecting victims of discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. A lot of this sounds great to me, other things in their platform less so.
This low standard helps corrode respect for the democratic institutions in which this mean drama plays out. It comes at a bad time, because there has been a general decline in the reputation of politicians, parties, legislatures and other institutions. Cynicism grows. Candidates are hard to attract. Citizens turn away from politics - especially young people, who see nothing to attract or inspire them. That constitutes a long-term threat to the authority of the pan-Canadian political institutions that have always been essential for citizens of this diverse democracy to act positively together.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Sporno
So, after having gone through all the trouble to reason out whether to watch the opening ceremonies for this year's Olympics or not, I slept through them, and woke up just in time to see the end of the athletes' march. And then I missed the repeats. Twice.
It just wasn't meant to be.
I blame it on the time difference... I'm back in Alberta visiting the fam for a few weeks, and got to fulfill my one aspiration in Calgary this summer: to watch the games with my grandpa in his authoritatively climate-controlled condo (he's way more serious about this than those officials in Beijing, I assure you) and eat cheese buns. My personal highlight, of course, has been the men's diving. Everything after this is just icing on the cake.
Hilariously, my grandpa actually bet that our-man-from-Laval Alexandre Despatie wouldn't even place because he did so poorly in the preliminaries. 'He got too fat,' he concluded. Well, Alex, I'll admit you've put on some muscle since you were *thirteen years old*, but I'd say you did pretty well for yourself. Thanks for a great show.
And it is all a show, of course... did anyone else read this headline? '77 applications, no protests at Beijing Games,' reports the always credible Xinhua news service from Beijing. Shockingly, they report that 74 of the applications to protest at the three Olympic venues pre-approved for demonstrations were 'withdrawn after amicable settlements between the parties and authorities.' Two others had some problem with their application, they say.
One, apparently, did not meet the proper criteria for government-sanctioned protest, for unexplained reasons. I wonder what they could be.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
It has to be said... That's hot.
John McCain, trying his damndest to make Obama look unready for leadership, has put out an ad comparing the latter's fame to Paris Hilton's inexplicable celebrity status of her own. You'd expect the best response to come from the really rather eloquent, thoughtful Mr Obama. But you'd be wrong.
Perhaps the best thing Paris Hilton has ever done in her short, inexplicable life:
Labels: awesome things, politics, usa
Thursday, August 07, 2008
That Man

A different Emerson altogether, but the similarity in nose profile is striking, isn't it?
Does anyone else find it grossly embarassing a) that our new Foreign-Affairs-Minister-by-default-because-no-one-else-elected-was-available-
and-another-cabinet-appointment-might-make-for-bad-optics David Emerson is tripping all over himself this week to make sure Beijing is absolutely clear that Harper means no offense whatsoever by not attending the opening ceremonies and b) that his man holds a cabinet position at all?
I've got to admit, the Conservatives here have a knack for timing. Who else could have had the balls to use the almost unbelievably stupid affair with Maxime Bernier and the misplaced NATO briefing to slip in Emerson as his replacement without eliciting more than a peep of outrage? Surely there are others among us who remember that this is the same David Emerson who unabashedly crossed the floor immediately after being elected for the Liberals in 2006 for a bright new career with the Conservatives?
Monday, July 28, 2008
On the lookout
You may enjoy this gem from our friends at passiveaggressivenotes.com:
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Strange Games

Human rights at the 08 Games... not so much.
Yeesh. Apologies for the delay. The hurricane of classes and exams has abated. Without further ado:
"Beijing Arrests Fat Chinese Children Ahead of Olympics"
BEIJING - As part of its urban beautification program ahead of the upcoming Olympic Games, the Chinese government has rounded up all the fat children in the city and deported them to a detention facility in the suburbs. The state newspaper Xinhua reported that “ China must present its very best image as an athletic and advanced nation,” quoting unnamed spokespersons. The removal of fat children from the view of visitors and press is seen as a crucial to maintaining “Olympic Spirit,” the article went on to say. Parents of the detained children, who were rounded up by police armed with non-lethal electrical stun devices in city-wide sweeps over the weekend, have been notified by mail and can pick up their children on September 1. Reports that the children will undergo nutritional and fitness re-education could not be confirmed at press time.Okay, obviously the writers over at NotTheNation.com have their tongues firmly placed in cheek with this bit. But it's true that Beijing has gone all out preparing for these games. I mean allll out. How many cities basically quadruple how long and useful their subway system is to host this show, and do it on time? Not many. How about building two national athletics arena more ambitious in scope and design than anything the country has ever seen, and with a high likelihood of not leaving behind a municipal disaster for the locals to clean up for decades to come? Literally unprecedented (if still so-so) accessibility of facilities being put in and training of employees to show respect and understand the needs of visitors with disabilities? A Great Leap Forward-esque level of nationalist fervour?
That last point there is the most revealing to me. Not just about these games but about modern China as a whole. Since the foundation of the People's Republic in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party has done a laudable job (if it's the kind of thing you're inclined to laud) of moving itself into the public consciousness as essentially synonymous with Chineseness. Unswerving allegiance to distant, authoritarian rulers has a rich and storied history in China; the Communist Party's place in the middle of this solar system of paternalism is in many ways just its modern manifestation. And they've certainly capitalized on the filial piety-glorifying legacy of Confucianism - Father knows best, or at least, Grandpa Deng and the gang do anyway.
Why is this relevant? In large part because it's as much a face-gaining event of unprecedented scale for the Party as much or moreso than it is for the citizens of China. Most people in Canada of my generation probably think of the massacre in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 when they think of this government. Older generations might remember the brutality of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap forward more vividly. The picture's more complicated than this, but the connection is worth making. Especially when the question comes up of whether an international boycott is merited - be it in viewership, attendance of political leaders, or participation of athletes
The Communist Party today is just as oppressive, brutal and secretive as it was in 1989, if not moreso - albeit with better international PR. They've killed 'terrorist splittists' left and right this year in Xinjiang and Tibet, and are definitely responsible for propping up some pretty brutal regimes in Sudan, Burma, and other places where unsavoury governments commit similarly heinous crimes on their own citizens. It's absurd that the government and many many others are fooling themselves into thinking the Olympics aren't a political event. They might just be the most dramatic political event a country can host, short of an extraterrestrial landing or something.
The Communist Party is definitely banking on good publicity from a showy, expensive, tightly controlled games going off without a hitch - a long way from the images in the West, at least, of families in Mao suits riding bicycles down leafy avenues to their tiny brick homes where everyone's eating porridge for three meals a day in destitution for the good of the nation. So with all of that in mind, yes, a boycott is a good way to undermine the credibility of the regime, credibility they're desperately trying to drum up with this thing. It's a powerful political tool, although it would be moreso if the Canadian team, for example, just wasn't going, rather than trying to encourage a mass viewing boycott.But on the other hand, Chinese people have invested a lot emotionally into the hard work of hosting a really incredible show - every city of any size you go to in China has had Olympic-related athletic events and memorabilia on sale for years already. The overwhelming majority of people there are expecting to gain a lot of face from hosting a well-organized games, showing off the lipstick of the Middle Kingdom as it were, with Beijing all rouged up and so on. And I know a lot of people over there find it hurtful, find it actually personally offensive that so many people in North America and Europe are calling for a boycott because they see it as essentially calling them bad hosts, and there is a legitimate beef there that it's pure hypocrisy for people from Canada to defend our right to host the games but not China's on the basis of their human rights record, when we have such an appalling history of brutal colonialist policies like residential schools in our own very recent past and continuing into the present, and our own litany of racist institutional acts like the Chinese headtax and the disenfranchisement of First Nations voters and the policies towards Africville in Halifax and so on and so on...
So are the Olympics the venue to stir shit up, and make it very very public that the Chinese government is doing some monstrous things to its own people and propping up other regimes behaving horrendously in their corners of the world? I think so, definitely. The Globe and Mail has reported just this weekend (for real) on the increasingly authoritarian social and political controls being wound up in the run-up to these games. Some had anticipated this event might be the beginning of a road toward greater respect for human rights and public accountability at home and abroad. there's been reactionary crackdown after crackdown, and things are likely to get worse before they get better. The riots this month in Guizhou province's Weng'an county being a case in point, over the apparently cavalier dismissal of local Li Shufen's suspected murder and rape - by a group of men who may have included one relative of a local police officer - as nothing more than a suicide. The initial response to the crowds of 30 000 trying to burn down the station over allegations of corruption?
Arresting 300 protesters, asserting that 'the family were "too emotionally unstable" to accept the results of the "careful investigation according to the law"'
and accusing
'gangsters and others with ulterior motives of whipping up local residents' anger, warning that such offenders faced strict punishment.'
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Human Rights First are doing exactly the right things making people aware of China blocking even the simplest progress on human rights like sanctions on the government in Zimbabwe over the sham elections and the violence Mugabe is pushing over there. Using the intense lens on Beijing as a platform for this kind of stuff is brilliant.
But a boycott on watching them?
The cynic in me says get real, this is going to be a fricking amazing show and I can't imagine who would want to miss it. The idealist in me says yes, it would make the government lose face, which it should, in buckets. But then again, it also risks offending 1.3 billion people who feel understandably a bit sensitive about the whole thing, and it's them I think we should be engaging with to get them to push for better government for themselves, greater respect for human rights, and for better foreign policy from the Chinese government abroad.
Last year, my friend's dad and I got into an argument over this idea that the rest of the world should be afraid of the 'peaceful rise' of the People's Republic. It's largely just fearmongering from those scared of losing a monopoly on power in the American de facto empire, but he was also arguing that even if China became a superpower economically, politically and militarily on the same scale as the US, at least they wouldn't be going around acting like the World Police telling everybody what to do. Except, that just like the officials in Weng'an, in many countries - by its action and inaction - China is already doing so. For all of our sake, this is an opportunity worth using at the very least shame the government into doing so with more humanity.
Labels: burma, china, human rights, politics, sudan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.


