Thursday, March 31, 2005
You see twelve men and one woman; I see Supertramp. I thoroughly enjoyed The Real Da Vinci Code, shown on History Television; in fact, I've been watching it over and over on tape all week (always a good sign). Hosted by Tony Robinson -- Baldrick of Black Adder fame -- the witty documentary does a very good job of debunking Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code; at the very least, it reminds the book's readers, many of whom have become tourists of same, that it's called "fiction" for a reason. Well, what does Brown expect when he and his best-selling novel -- "the #1 worldwide phenomenon" -- claim historical facts that are neither? At least, that's the view of many historians and academics, who are shaking their heads at The Da Vinci Code's theories, as well as those that they, in turn, are based upon. (A house of cards, if ever there was one.) However, that's not the reason why I haven't read the book: I have no interest in it at the moment -- even if I did, it wouldn't change the fact that its underlying theories and the great secret they point to are completely irrelevant to me -- and what with 50 paperbacks piled on my desk, with specific ones being actively sought, I'm not hard up for reading material. Besides, I'm not criticizing the fiction itself; anyone who can write a novel -- something I can't do, but would like to -- much less a page-turner like that, gets my respect on that basis, alone. That being said, I don't enjoy being preached to, religiously or otherwise, by the fiction I'm reading; I'm not saying that's what Brown does in The Da Vinci Code -- only that, in general, it's a surefire way to get me to put down a book.
posted by media_dystopia @ 03:17 [ link | top | home ]
Monday, March 28, 2005
"Is Doctor Who gay?" First of all, Doctor Who isn't a television character -- the Doctor is; Doctor Who is the eponymous and punny title of the long-running BBC series. ("Who are you?"; "I'm the Doctor."; "Doctor who?"; "Just Doctor, actually." -- I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point.) Technically, the questioner is asking whether the show is lame, not whether the character is homosexual. (Kind of like asking, "Is the press gay?") Secondly, the real question is: Who the hell are these idiots in the media (including the today's Ottawa Citizen) who are applying human sexuality to a nonhuman -- alien -- Time Lord? They're basing this, of course, on the fact that the Doctor pays little attention "in that way" to his young, attractive female companions, and has a tendency to dress rather whimsically and eccentrically, frilly even. Of course, they're ignoring the fact that he doesn't hit on his male companions, either; for all intents and purposes, he's asexual -- Doctor Who was always a family show, after all. And what sort of taste in clothing would they expect from a whimsical and eccentric personality, anyway? Thanks to his TARDIS, the near-millennia-old Gallifreyan has mastery of time and space, and access to every civilization in existence; just because he has a fondness for earthlings, doesn't mean he has a fondness -- nudge-nudge, wink-wink -- for them, male or female. For all we know, he could get it up -- does he even have an it to get up? -- for any number of species other than humans; hell, he could be a Daleksexual! Did the media ever consider that? Sheesh. (At the rate they're going, next week's asinine question will be, "Is Chewbacca into bestiality?")
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let me say that I'm glad that the series is coming back to television, and especially glad that Christopher Eccleston, an actor I've always enjoyed -- most recently in the first two Cracker series on DVD -- is playing the Ninth Doctor. Canadians coast to coast will be able to catch the show's latest incarnation -- regeneration, if you will -- starting April 5, on CBC of all places. (Who says our public broadcaster isn't hip?)
Follow-up: It was with great anticipation that I watched the April 5 premiere of the updated-for-the-21st-century Doctor Who. My initial reaction, said wide-eyed: "Well, that was...interesting." Christopher Eccleston -- who's last name I can now pronounce thanks to his hosting the CBC broadcast (a nice touch, by the way) -- was a joy to watch as ever, but other than that, the show was, um...how's about I continue watching it and reserve judgment? Suffice it to say, the latest incarnation of the cult classic faces an uphill battle if it's going to top the '70s and '80s versions of itself.
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:17 [ link | top | home ]
Hotel America: hating Canucks; loving their bucks. Ottawa Citizen, front page, above the fold, continued on page A4, Cristin Schmitz byline: "U.S. take on Canada: a frozen land of Zamboni drivers"; "American commentators take aim at their northern neighbour, from the music of Nickelback to perceived terrorist threat." The article itself...well, suffice it to say, it reinforces everything that I've been (futilely) railing against, and more; it certainly proved my point about last week's trilateral summit, what with the lead up to it inspiring the latest round of arrogant commentary. You know, when Canada is seen, incorrectly, as nothing more than a terrorist haven -- their gateway to the U.S. -- and a "great white waste of time" (among other, more insulting things) by our neighbor, when we're constantly denigrated and defamed by our so-called "friend," I find it really hard to understand why Canadians reward it by putting a ton of money into its tourist economy; for that matter, why they vacation in a country where they have to conceal their nationality, flag especially, or where they're only tolerated for their money. While the American news media are busy lying about us, insulting us, and inciting hate against us with complete impunity -- for ratings, fun, whatever; because they can (the hallmark of any bully) -- we're busy lining American pockets. (You'll notice that, thankfully, our big-name journos and talking heads aren't wallowing in the gutter with their American counterparts; in a way, their hands are tied by, among other things, journalistic standards and practices -- they have to play fair while those south of the border, notably the right-wings ones, can play dirty.) Texas, alone, had 247,000 Canadian visitors last year; they're referred to as "Winter Texans," which explains why we do it: snow and ice; shoveling and scraping; bone-numbing cold and wind chill; less sunlight and more seasonal affective disorder; dry air and drier skin -- they all conspire to trump indignation and repudiation. I've got news for you, my fellow citizens: Mexico, Cuba, and whole lot of other places south of us are just as warm and sunny during the winter -- if not more, and possibly for less money -- and they aren't pissing on our heads at the highest levels of journalism. I think Canada needs to approach this the way Bill O'Reilly would: it's time to boycott the U.S. as a travel destination. Got vacation time? Have money to spend? Need sun and/or surf? Then go somewhere that has a modicum of respect for your country and its people. America has already lost my tourist dollars; it's time for it to lose yours.
That being said, Nickelback is fair game. Yuck.
Follow-up: The next morning, I went to the supermarket, and was struck by the amount of produce and other food products with "Product of U.S.A." on their packages or displays. It didn't affect my buying decisions any, even when there was a choice -- Mexican cherry tomatoes versus Californian grape tomatoes, for instance -- but it did remind me how many American goods we consume, and, therefore, how many U.S. companies, as well as their employees and shareholders, profit off of us. As a Canadian grocery-shopper, especially one who lives in a frozen wasteland for part of the year, it would be asinine to turn my back on fresh, American-grown products like fruits and vegetables. All I'm saying is, business is business: if a company can't give you want you want or is mistreating you, then you go with another -- that's the only power that we, as consumers, have. (The "you snooze, you lose" principle.) So, when a country's government and news media hold your country and its citizens in such low esteem, contempt even, as to feel the need to be vocal about it, then why should its tourist industry benefit at the same time? Why should we, as travelers, continue to patronize a country that publicly dislikes ours? Why should we reward America's unremorseful institutional hatred of Canada? (That's exactly what it is next to our sporadic anti-Americanism, which is invariably followed by self-castigation: accepting the resignations of advisors and kicking MPs out of caucus, for instance.) It's one thing for governments to have public disagreements -- that's to be expected; annoying, but expected -- it's another thing for members of the press, spurred on by like-minded politicians, to insult and debase people of another country, especially those of one's closest neighbor, largest trading partner, and biggest supplier of energy and other natural resources. We are a nation of potential tourists, and the U.S. is seemingly competing for our dollars by insulting us as people, as well as everything from our government and institutions to our music and culture. If a company did that sort of thing, how could it possibly expect to gain or retain customers? Besides, if Americans can boycott our seafood products -- and other things Canadian, depending on who you talk to -- because of our seal hunt, then we should be able to boycott their tourist destinations because of their gratuitous disrespect.
Follow-up: By the way, I'd really like to think of this treatment as some form of displacement on their part -- the rest of the world doesn't like or trust the U.S. at the moment, so Americans resent us instead -- but I think it just comes down to them not liking us, and the further to the right they are, the less they do; even among the well-informed, "liberal" is a bad word, the weak and powerless (as the neocons see us) are despised, the Liberal government is rightfully in the Republican doghouse, and so on and so forth. Now, while I greatly appreciate Frank McKenna's vigorous -- and refreshing -- defense of Canada to the less-informed right-wingers down there, including taking on a C-SPAN call-in show's callers and their litany of complaints about their northern neighbor, going so far as to remind viewers that nasty things have been said about Canada, our new ambassador to the U.S. is looking at a lost cause: the American government and news media's brainwashing is complete and irreversible; what began as misunderstandings, misconceptions (urban legends, as McKenna sees them), and just plain lies have, in the last four years, become unshakable truths -- reality -- in the minds of the country's conservative electorate. (Hence the success of the blame-Canada doctrine.) These are, after all, the people who still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Iraq was behind 9-11 and that the hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada. Still don't believe me? Ask a representative sampling who was responsible for the August, 2003, blackout; trust me, it won't be a power company in Ohio.
Follow-up: A quote from the April 5 AP article by Lara Jakes Jordan, entitled "U.S. to Tighten Border Controls by 2008": "Canada is the United States' largest trading partner, with $1.2 billion worth of goods crossing the border every day. Nearly 16 million Canadians entered the United States last year, generating an estimated $7.9 billion in travel-related revenues, according to data provided by the Travel Industry Association in Washington." Yes, that's half the population of Canada. Yes, those are American dollars. Talk about proving my point -- but by all means, folks, keep insulting us.
posted by media_dystopia @ 08:50 [ link | top | home ]
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Never underestimate my ability to get lost in my own city. I keep telling people that, but they never believe me. Today, for instance, I wound up in the Kanata North Business Park, one full Queensway exit from where I wanted to be. As fate would have it, I turned off of March Road onto Terry Fox Drive, and stumbled into the most interesting collection of buildings in Ottawa. (Thousands of employees at high-tech companies there would disagree with me, of course.) As I made the circuit of what I later found out to be the Kanata Research Park, still (stupidly) looking for my kilometers-away destination, I was utterly fascinated by the edifices around me; the Stealth Building, in particular, had me gaping: the squat, jet-black monolith was just so...unusual. It's the only time I can remember that I've actually enjoyed the architecture, landscape, and sheer presence (for lack of a better word) of buildings enough to want to go back and see them again; in the case of Stealth, I want to visit it on a weekday to see what goes there, maybe even get a look at the foyer. Suffice it to say, the research park was inspirational; it made me think of cyberpunk-style arcologies. Mind you, all the greenery detracts from the sci-fi feel of the place; encroaching on it with additional buildings and parking lots, not to mention getting rid of The Marches Golf Course, would go a long way towards enhancing it. I think I'll mention that to the people in charge; I'll even give my proposal a snazzy title: Plants? Bah! (Think it will go over well? Me neither.)
posted by media_dystopia @ 15:31 [ link | top | home ]
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Unnatural ice hockey. I finally saw a televised game being played on blue ice, and I have to be honest, it looks bloody awful -- and that's an aesthetic point of view; I'm not being a purist. As far as I could tell, the ice is highly -- and disconcertingly -- reflective, with the lines (mostly) visible, right after the Zamboni has done its thing; however, the further into the period you are, the duller and whiter the ice is -- because of gouges, shavings, whatever -- and the harder the lines are to see. So, remind me again what the point of blue ice is? Clearly, the people responsible for this insidiousness need to head north for the winter: blue is the color of the stuff you spray on your windshield or throw on the sidewalk; the stuff you're trying to melt is either clear or white -- nature is quite keen on that point.
posted by media_dystopia @ 01:40 [ link | top | home ]
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Absolute monarchy, Lone Star-style. What's the point of Vicente Fox and Paul Martin attending a trilateral summit of North American leaders when they're both on Bush's shit list -- Mexico's leader for criticizing U.S. immigration policies; ours for not joining BMD (among other things) -- and the president will only deign, reluctantly, to give them each 20 minutes of requested one-on-one time? Today's meeting in Waco, Texas, to be followed by lunch at Bush's ranch in Crawford, leaves a bad taste in my mouth before it's even begun: it comes across as two lowly peons seeking an audience with a king who has absolutely no concept of noblesse oblige. (Many thanks to Terry Mosher, aka Aislin, for putting that notion my head with his March 19, 2003, editorial cartoon; I saw it in a collection at a bookstore the other day.) So, why are they subjecting themselves -- and, by extension, their citizens -- to this? Isn't Bush's state visit still fresh in Martin's mind? More importantly, why are the taxpayers of Mexico and Canada paying to see their duly elected leaders prostrate themselves in front of a man who couldn't care less about their respective countries and what his administration is doing to them? If Bush has any demanding or lecturing to do, he can bloody well do it over the phone, without Fox and Martin having to prop up his facade of diplomacy and respect with an undeserved photo op. Then again, Bush has a rather attractive carrot to dangle in front of them: the cachet of a Crawford invite -- something that eluded our last prime minister. As for the American press dubbing the meeting the "Three Amigos Summit," well, there are three of them and it is a summit -- two out of three ain't bad.
Follow-up: It must be Canada's lot in life: only our foreign affairs minister would be stopped by the U.S. Secret Service and asked for identification. "Pierre Pettigrew? Nice try, pal. Hey, Joe, there's a Frenchy here pretending to be a Harry Potter character!" Can you imagine what would happen if the RCMP asked to see Condoleezza Rice's passport? Yikes!
posted by media_dystopia @ 03:03 [ link | top | home ]
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
"It's wise to always err on the side of life." Yes, the American president had the unmitigated gall to say that. I realize that Bush was referring to Terri Schiavo, in an attempt to rationalize why he and other right-wing politicians are sticking their ideological noses where they don't belong, but given what's going on in Iraq -- a death toll including, but not limited to, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 1,500 U.S. soldiers -- and elsewhere, with more to come (Syria? Iran? North Korea? Canada?), how can he possibly spout such hypocrisy? Did he fall off the wagon or something? Is he back binging on cocaine? How Christian conservatives, from the grass roots to the highest levels of government, can go to any and all lengths to protect unborn fetuses and vegetative adults -- in the case of Schiavo, turning a blind eye to the separation-of-powers doctrine to stop what some are calling a "modern-day crucifixion" -- but completely ignore the pain and suffering of so many men, women, and children around the world is simply beyond me. I have an even harder time understanding how some of them can cause so much of it, including death in all its forms, and then come out with the sort of delusional tripe that Bush did. "When they say 'right to life,' they're talking about their right to decide which people should live or die." -- George Carlin's Reagan-era aphorism is disturbingly fitting these days. It's just ironic that amongst those slated to die -- or put into a vegetative state -- are the pro-life, pregnant, and unborn.
posted by media_dystopia @ 06:31 [ link | top | home ]
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Now that was a good read. I'd describe Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan as cyberpunk in a cyberless, far-future world. No wonder I enjoyed it so much, and no wonder it did such a great job of topping Robert J. Sawyer's Golden Fleece. It doesn't hurt that Williams is a man after my own heart when it comes to the use (overuse?) of dashes. Although, his use of ellipses...well, we can't always get the punctuation we want, eh? Given the option, I'd read Metropolitan's sequel, City on Fire, next; unfortunately, I don't have it, so I'll have to skim through my 45-book backlog instead. At the moment, it consists of a handful of new books from Christmas, and a whole lot of used ones accumulated at Book Market locations here in town, at a gaggle of dingy shops in downtown Toronto, and via Internet sellers (for the harder-to-find ones). I may not be the most voracious reader in the world, and certainly not the fastest, but even I get a lot of pleasure from having such a selection -- my own personal literary menu -- available whenever I finish a book. I find it very comforting to have the unread paperbacks stacked on my desk, their multicolored spines facing me as a work on the computer; not only do they represent a plethora of escape at my fingertips, but they make for the best kind of decoration: pretty and utilitarian. So, which brick do I now pull out of the mini-wall of books? I'd say...um, let me see...well, it's been the better part of a decade since I've read a Culture novel, so I'll go with Iain M. Banks' Use of Weapons. (I didn't have the greatest opinion of Consider Phlebas all those years ago, so it'll be interesting to see how I react to another book in the series -- which, of course, is why I bought it.)
posted by media_dystopia @ 02:43 [ link | top | home ]
Friday, March 18, 2005
Good riddance to a bad diplomat. What started out as South Park's tongue-in-cheek mantra has become political doctrine south of the border: blame Canada. In the last week, alone, it's been everything from hunted seals to counterfeit goods to crop-ruining starlings, not to mention those perennial favorites, marijuana and terrorism. These days, any Canadian's attempt at staying informed means being inundated with U.S. scorn. (Go ahead, pick up a newspaper and see for yourself.) And point man in this reproachful approach to neighbor relations has been Paul Cellucci. Thanks to his four-year stint as Washington's chief whip-cracker in Canada, our country's position as America's favorite whipping boy has been solidified. His appointment up, the ambassador can now return home, smug in the knowledge that we've been soundly put in our place -- for our own good, of course -- and that he's left us with some uncertainty, a final "fuck you" to all Canadians: we don't know how long his Fortress America office will remain vacant -- that tried and true diplomatic snub -- and how big of an asshole his replacement will be. Being a natural pessimist, especially when it comes to Canada-U.S. relations, I daren't say, "It can't get much worse!" In fact, his departure today, joyous and much-anticipated an occasion though it may be, is tempered by the sad truth that His Rudeness is the proverbial devil we know; for all we know, he could be a veritable diplomatic delight compared to Bush's next choice, whoever that might be. Given the president's recent tendency towards ironic, if not downright disturbing, nominations, a notorious Canada-hater would probably seem the ideal ambassador to him -- keeping in mind that Cellucci claims to like Canada; I've even heard him use the word "love"! Incredulity aside, the good news is, the evil has left; the bad news is, he may have been the lesser one. In either case, those of us familiar with the insufferable diplomat will be giving him a long-overdue one-finger salute and boisterous "Take off, you hoser!" on this, his last day tormenting us in an official capacity. Good riddance, indeed.
Follow-up: One last kick at Canada literally at our expense: His Rudeness is writing a book about his tenure here; Unquiet Diplomacy will be published by Toronto's Key Porter Books -- yes, a Canadian publisher -- in September. (A far better title would be Sticking it to Canadians, don't you think?) I'll be sure to run out and buy a copy...right after I gouge my eyeballs out; there is no way in hell I'm going to subject myself to that man's insulting words, much less put money in his pocket for them. You know, if Cellucci had any sort of decency, he'd use the book to apologize to Canadians for being a prick; however, he doesn't, so expect more browbeating from the undiplomatic ex-diplomat.
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:19 [ link | top | home ]
Is he leaving, or what? Today is supposed to be the day that His Rudeness graces us -- finally -- with his departure. So, can we begin celebrating, or is there a delay? (Another punitive measure, I suppose.) This sucks: my farewell-to-Cellucci post is all ready to go, and now I have to wait for exit confirmation before being able to publish it. Damn him!
Follow-up: Cancel the delay alert -- his ambassadorial duties ended on time. Nice of him to take partial credit for Canada's recent increase in defense spending while heading out the door, eh? (Pointing out a blinding glimpse of the obvious is hardly cause for patting oneself on the back, you know.) Anyway, I can go ahead and publish my diplomatic adios; however, I'll do so with a new post instead of adding a follow-up to this one -- trust me, it needs its title.
posted by media_dystopia @ 05:01 [ link | top | home ]
Thursday, March 17, 2005
"Is Christianity under attack?" No, Cheryl Gallant, it isn't; nor is the Liberal government persecuting you. The rights of gays and lesbians -- and women in general -- under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other hand, are under attack...by Christian-conservative MPs like you. Thanks for asking your constituents the titular question, and for reminding Canadians that your party's social conservatism is alive and well despite its feeble attempts to appear moderate and mainstream. Clearly, the Conservative policy convention now underway -- the merged party's first -- is nothing but a sham, a facade of tolerance, an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of voters. If Stephen Harper really intended to turn his party into a centrist one, he'd kick you -- Gallant -- and your fellow right-wing extremists out of caucus. (The prime minister had to do that with Carolyn Parrish; why shouldn't the leader of the Opposition be held to a similar standard?) Until that happens, and until his moral compass, his home province of Alberta, drops its anti-gay and -lesbian fire wall -- Ralph Klein is once again using the notwithstanding clause to take a stand, last-ditch though it may be, against same-sex marriage -- the Conservative Party will remain nothing but a repository for bigotry in all its forms. Just because you talk of the center, doesn't mean you're anywhere near it; it's nothing but optics, just like holding the convention in Montreal is: we all know you're anti-bilingualism, anti-French, and anti-Quebec. Speaking of Alberta, parties, and bigotry, how the hell can Klein call himself a Progressive Conservative? Can someone please send the premier a dictionary? (I'll say this for his federal counterparts: at least the word "progressive" and all its pretense was dropped when the right was united.) And one final note about Gallant: I don't know about other Ottawa residents, but I find the fact that she represents a riding close to the capital -- Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke -- rather disturbing.
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:22 [ link | top | home ]
Friday, March 11, 2005
Happy to have been fleeced. I was expecting to have finished Golden Fleece before tonight, but snoring kept getting in the way. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time reading Robert J. Sawyer's debut novel; it's just that I have a reading problem: doing it in bed, as I am wont to do, invariably leads to sleeping in bed. (At one point, I jolted awake when the book hit the floor; amazingly, I had dozed off while holding it aloft in one hand.) Anyway, I'm glad to have finally checked it off the reading list, albeit years after I first heard about the Canadian sci-fi author and read the book's opening chapter on his Web page. An interesting component of Golden Fleece is its Canadiana, something you don't often come across in SF (although, perhaps I'm not the best person to be saying that). The story's pacing parallels the motion of the starcology -- spaceship -- that provides its setting: slow at first, gradually accelerating, and then hitting its peak with an ending that -- never mind, this is a spoiler-free zone. Let's just say that the danger of me falling asleep lessened considerably the closer I got the end of the book; I even -- gasp! -- skipped television to read the last few chapters. I'm not sure how I'm going to top that; perhaps my latest Book Market acquisition, Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan, will do it...
posted by media_dystopia @ 21:35 [ link | top | home ]
Phoque off, eh? Every year around this time, environmentalists, animal protection groups, and others get their hackles up over Canada's commercial seal hunt, for which I have become a sort of apologist. This year, the Humane Society of the United States is calling for an international boycott of Canadian seafood products, and is starting its round of protests with an international day of action against the hunt on March 15.
Two things came to mind when I heard about this: First of all, I don't think that any group from the U.S. has the right to call for a boycott of any Canadian industry given what their protectionist country has put our cattle industry, alone, through recently (and will be, by all accounts, for another year to come). Secondly, and it may sound callous to say this, but better to club a seal than to harm a human. Perhaps American protesters and some of their European ilk should be aiming their self-righteousness at their own governments for what they're doing economically and militarily to other sovereign countries and their citizens. I find it both sad and amusing when people's indignation is aroused to the point of action by animal slaughter, but not by the human kind. (Don't even think of responding with the line "But they're defenseless..." because I'll give you a long list of your fellow beings who are.) When it comes to HSUS and its efforts, there is irony at work. Is it that the society is trying to stop the seal hunt by calling for a boycott of an industry that depends to some degree on the culling of the fish-devouring animal? Or is it that it seemingly finds the seals more deserving of humane treatment than, well, humans? (Actions do, after all, speak louder than words.) Perhaps its members and other protesters would give a shit about the people of, say, Iraq if they realized that the wildlife there is just as threatened by the bombs and bullets; until then, a more philosophically appropriate placard for these people would read, "Save the seals; kill the humans."
I'll let George Carlin sum things up for me: "And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet, we haven't learned how to care for one another -- we're going to save the fucking planet?" Amen to that.
Follow-up: I don't know about you, but the more these people protest the hunt and reproach Canada and Canadians at large for the actions of a few in an economically depressed region, the more I want to clad myself in sealskin. (The "few" being people who need the work, both as sealers and fishers; what's more, by the doing the one, they increase the chances of being able to do the other: culling the seals boosts the fish stocks.) To really spite the protesters, I'd insist that only the cutest pups be clubbed and skinned for my garment, and that the bloodstains be left intact -- to give it character, of course. Oh, and fingers crossed that the sealers have footage of their kills -- call it the "club cam" or "pelt POV" -- to accompany the final product as a sort of certificate of authenticity.
Follow-up: I have no problem with Canadians, particularly those in Atlantic Canada where the hunt takes place, protesting against it. If it is as evil as opponents say it is, then change from within would be a good thing. But when people in Mexico and other countries with spotty -- at best -- human rights records are up in arms against it, I'm left stunned by the incredulity of the situation, with Carlin's "Are these fucking people kidding me?" resonating in my head. There are simply those who have no business poking their fingers into other people's eyes; in the case of gross human rights abusers, none whatsoever.
Follow-up: Yes, I know how to spell "fuck." Guess what the French word for "seal" is. Right. Now we're on the same page.
posted by media_dystopia @ 19:34 [ link | top | home ]
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Her name is Erin Karpluk. Usually, I write about Canadian actresses I've actually seen in things, be they national commercials or homegrown shows. Now I'm banking on one that, despite a growing list of credits, I have yet to see in anything except previews for an upcoming show -- Godiva's, on Bravo!, in which she plays Kate -- but that was enough to pique my interest. Actually, "pique" is putting it mildly; I mean, just look at her IMDb Publicity Photos and tell me she isn't a woman that you could just fall in love with on sight -- I certainly did.
Follow-up: The JAM! Television review of Godiva's included a good photo of her. What a smile!
posted by media_dystopia @ 20:47 [ link | top | home ]
Carolyn Parrish, meet Marlene Jennings. If you're the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister with special emphasis on Canada-U.S. (relations), and you suggested during a committee meeting that Canada should "embarrass the hell out of Americans" around the world over trade irritants -- if not as a means of settling our disputes, then as a warning to other countries about the dangers of signing trade accords with the U.S. -- just how stupid would you have to be? And, more importantly, just how fast should you be fired by your boss? In the case of Marlene Jennings, I'd suggest extremely and immediately respectively, and in the case of the latter, preferably in the most loud and grotesque manner possible; maybe then Washington will hear and see it, and perhaps that, in turn, will lend less credence to the ever-present notion of Liberal anti-Americanism. (The Conservatives may have pounded a heartfelt apology in the House of Commons out of her, and then accepted it, but I don't think that part will be mentioned by their counterparts on Capitol Hill or by the right-wing press south of the border.)
First of all, if anyone is going to embarrass the Americans, it's going to be themselves -- it's their purview, just as it is ours when MPs like Jennings open their gobs and unceremoniously shove their feet in. Secondly, not only is her fatuous statement an embarrassment to the portfolio -- kind of like a health minister doing smack out behind the East Block, wouldn't you say? -- prime minister, Liberal Party, government of Canada, and country at large, it is the height of idiocy at a time when the Canada-U.S. relationship is suffering greatly. What I want to know is, what exactly goes through a Parliamentarian's head when making such an asinine suggestion, even facetiously? Does it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be of any benefit to the country? And why doesn't that brain lock -- the one that prevents you and I from saying everything that comes to mind -- kick in when they're about to embarrass themselves and their fellow Canadians? I have would thought that, post-Carolyn Parrish, the high road would be every Liberal's polestar -- apparently, not.
Way to go, Jennings, you moron.
posted by media_dystopia @ 17:54 [ link | top | home ]
Friday, March 04, 2005
Tragedy and shame. The day after four RCMP officers were killed in the line of duty, there are people using the tragedy to oppose the decriminalization of marijuana. What exactly has decriminalizing small amounts of pot -- which I support, by the way -- have to do with a convicted criminal using a firearm to commit multiple murder? The only relevancy of the fact that the gunman was running a grow op is that he was committing a crime; one of many, from the sounds of it: the four officers were securing the property until members of the RCMP Auto Theft Unit could arrive to search for stolen goods. By all means, crack down on grow ops and increase the penalties for their operation, but don't use the deaths of four Canadian heroes to play politics with pot. That conservatives, be they politicians in Ottawa or residents of Alberta, are using this tragedy to oppose the decriminalization of marijuana instead of, say, the possession and use of guns by criminals is shameful, myopic, and shows a lack of priorities. Equally shameful -- and asinine -- are those liberal-minded folks who are saying that the constables would be still be alive if pot were legalized. No, they would still be alive if a gun-toting, cop-hating whack job didn't ambush and shoot them in cold blood. And yet, apparently, pot is the evil here; not the fact that, as the RCMP put it, "the male" -- and by "male," they mean a felon who has spent time in jail, who is referred to by his father as "a wicked devil," and who, according to CBC, "is being described as a dangerous man, with a long history of run-ins with police and a lifelong fascination with guns and weapons" -- "was in possession of a rapid fire auto carbine assault style rifle." No, now is not the time to jump on the anti-marijuana bandwagon.
Follow-up: I, like so many Canadians, watched the March 10 memorial live on television. The sea of red, the outpouring of grief, the continent-wide police presence, the eloquent words -- it was all so...gratifying; a nation in mourning, indeed. Although, having lost my father recently, I'm finding it hard to grieve for those fallen RCMP officers. That may sound counterintuitive, but it kind of makes sense to me: I'm still numb from the one, so I'm numb to the other. I did, however, find it disconcerting that CBC Newsworld's French-language counterpart, RDI, aired only a little bit of the memorial before switching back to the Gomery Inquiry. I realize that live testimony regarding the sponsorship scandal has become the soap opera in Quebec, the province's version of must-see TV, but four members of our national police force died in a heinous crime, and their memorial was unprecedented in Canadian history. Judge Gomery, the lawyers, and the equally shifty characters on the stand could have all been taped and broadcast later in the day of mourning. In not doing so, the French half of the public broadcaster was disrespectful to the rest of Canada -- but, hey, it played well in Quebec, so who cares, right? (Tragedy and shame, indeed.)
posted by media_dystopia @ 17:20 [ link | top | home ]
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
I'm watching what these days? At a time when I'm forgoing network television in general, I not only watch CBC's This is Wonderland, Rick Mercer's Monday Report, and The Newsroom, CTV's Corner Gas, and Discovery Channel's Daily Planet, but look forward to them. (A vote of confidence in Canadian television if ever there was one.) It is a joy to watch such well-written and -acted characters as Elliot Sacks, George Findlay, and Oscar Leroy -- mercurial, self-absorbed, and curmudgeonly respectively -- to name but a few. Screw Cancon -- just give us more great TV!
posted by media_dystopia @ 22:13 [ link | top | home ]
My kingdom for a conclusion. Showcase has been airing the one-hour parts of British crime drama Cracker. It didn't take me long watching Robbie Coltrane's wonderful performance as criminal psychologist Eddie Fitzgerald -- a man whose flaws include chain-smoking, heavy drinking, and a gambling addiction -- to fall in love with both the character and the show. Now, while I appreciate Showcase's programming choice, it doesn't do me any good to enjoy it in fits and starts. When you keep missing the third and final part of an episode, a certain amount of frustration develops. You get yourself really into it, loving every moment, and then the end credits roll on that part. Months later, when the episode repeats, you still don't see how it ends. Enough was enough: I went out and bought the Cracker: Series Two DVD box set. I went with the second series because I wanted to know how episodes "To Be A Somebody," guest-starring Robert Carlyle, and "The Big Crunch," featuring Samantha Morton, end once and for all. (That, and the price was really good.) Right now, you're saying, "Get a VCR you moron!" If I did that, and had the episodes on tape, I couldn't justify going out and getting the DVD version, now could I? Besides, it's been on my wish list -- one that proves that, as time goes on, I'm becoming quite the Anglophile, entertainment-wise. If I had my druthers (read: lots of disposable income), I would fill my as-yet fledgling DVD collection almost exclusively with British comedies, dramas, and even historical documentaries: everything from Red Dwarf and Black Adder to Cadfael and Inspector Morse to David Starkey's Elizabeth and The Six Wives Of Henry VIII. Hollywood movies aren't the sort of things that I can watch repeatedly, so aside from a few favorites like Blade Runner: The Director's Cut, Conspiracy, my collection is going to be Brit-heavy and, therefore, very watchable. (No, I haven't forgotten Corner Gas: Season Two, a DVD I want to buy even before the season is finished.) Recently, I've found myself watching, or having on in the background, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes DVD box set -- the second in my collection, after Corner Gas: Season One -- almost daily because of its soothing effect; as with Jeremy Brett's Holmes, Coltrane's Fitz is sheer joy to watch, so I expect today's purchase to also provide a pleasurable escape from, well, everything. For me, that has become the raison d'être for DVDs.
posted by media_dystopia @ 18:53 [ link | top | home ]