Don't steal Tom Waits' songs. Or try to sound like him. Especially if you're an advertising agency.
Robert Louis Stevenson tales "too revolting to publish" rediscovered.
Daniel Dennett asks in The Chronicle of Higher Ed.:
So what is the prevailing attitude today among those who call themselves religious but vigorously advocate tolerance? There are three main options:
* The disingenuous Machiavellian: As a matter of political strategy, the time is not ripe for candid declarations of religious superiority, so we should temporize and let sleeping dogs lie in hopes that those of other faiths can gently be brought around over the centuries.
* The truly tolerant: It really doesn't matter which religion you swear allegiance to, as long as you have some religion.
* The benign neglecters: Religion is just too dear to too many to think of discarding it, even though it really doesn't do any good and is simply an empty historical legacy we can afford to maintain until it quietly extinguishes itself sometime in the unforeseeable future.
Over at National Review, Peter Suderman likes Battlestar Galactica. John O'Sullivan sees Canada's political history in a Monty Python song. One which has a happy ending by the lights of NR, at least for now. David Gratzer opines about the election up north:
The turning point of the campaign occurred ironically when neither candidate was out on the hustings — Boxing Day. In downtown Toronto, gang violence literally spilled out on to the busiest street in the city, killing an innocent bystander, a 16-year-old girl. Prime Minister Martin criticized the "culture of exclusion" and promised a conference with minority groups; Stephen Harper talked about justice and proposed minimum sentencing requirements. The Conservatives surged ahead in the polls.
1 comment:
limes @ 11:54AM | 2006-01-25| permalink
That is definitely news of the weird. O'Sullivan shows a complete lack of understanding about Canadian political history, but what would you expect from a Republican?
Most Canadians rightly consider Trudeau one of our greatest Canadians. And why must all Republicans assume that everyone prioritizes being "tough in a brawl" on a global level to national multi-culturalism, to progressive social policies and a social safety net which guarantees that we don't have the extreme lows of poverty that are seen in the US?
email | website
Felix @ 9:07PM | 2006-01-26| permalink
Is "Trudeaupian" a term in common usage? Google says there are more than 10000 examples of it in their index, but it's almost unbelievable that anyone would actually choose to use such an ugly word.
When Fiend and I went to see the War Museum up in Ottawa, I got a chuckle out of one of the WW2-era posters. It showed a towering, burly, cigar-chomping British lion striding menacingly toward some unseen foe, sword in hand. Marching beside him was a somewhat smaller emblem of Canada, an angry-looking beaver wearing an infantry helmet and carrying a rifle. The effect was a little bit comical. Nonetheless, the other artifacts and displays in the museum did show that Canada's military had made a good account of itself in WW2 and other conflicts.
What of Gratzer's comment about the Boxing Day shooting? Did you (or anyone else -- join in, y'all) see the kind of effect on voters' views that he suggests?
email | website
Felix @ 9:09PM | 2006-01-26| permalink
Woops... on second glance, the beaver's carrying a sword instead of a rifle in teh poster I described. My memory says "rifle"; the image I found says "sword". Perhaps I'm mistaken or there was a different version of the poster.
email | website
Felix @ 9:16PM | 2006-01-26| permalink
And yes, I realize that my reference Canada's military history probably just convinces you that I, like O'Sullivan, see the world through militaristic cultural blinders. Ah well. I plead cultural ignorance and, uh, watching too many hours of The History Channel. And the irresistibility of linking to the picture of that cute little beaver in his cute little soldier-hat.
email | website
limes @ 10:54AM | 2006-01-27| permalink
I've never heard the term Trudeaupian, though "Trudeaumania" is quite popular and still used today. Trudeau was our rock star prime minister. He was charismatic, he gave us the Charter, he gave the finger to demonstrators, he pirouetted behind the Queen, he preserved Canadian unity. Trudeau was an arrogant womanizer, but he was a fantastic leader.
I don't think the comment about the boxing day shootings turning the tide of the campaign is quite accurate from what I recall. Sure, both the two leading parties tried to use it to their advantage. The Liberals promised to ban handguns and said the Tories wouldn't. The Tories said a handgun ban was useless and promised mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes (And yes we all know how well general deterence works on gang members. Excellent plan, Harper, very excellent).
Most people saw the violence on Boxing Day as a problem particular to Toronto, which, unfortunately, in many ways it is. Thus, if Torontians believed that the Tories would be more effective in curbing gun crime, you would expect to see Tory seats in TO come election day. That didn't happen. The Tories were completely shut out of TO. In fact, the NDP, the party farthest in ideology from the Tories, was the only party to gain seats in the Liberal stronghold of Toronto. So I think Gratzer's comment is a tad facile.
From what I recall, if there was a shift in momentum, it seemed to come after the Income Trust scandal was brought to light. It seemed to convince many people that the Liberals were all scheming ne'er-do-wells. And the Tories seemed on their way to a majority. Once the majority possibility was bandied all over the media, people seemed to panic over the possibility of a Tory majority and the polls shifted to reflect a possible Tory minority. In fact, this downward slide was evident particularly in Ontario and especially in Toronto.
Another comment to follow re: military.
email | website
limes @ 11:42AM | 2006-01-27| permalink
I too watch a lot of historical programming on television, I read the Sharpe series, Flashman series and the Hornblower series, love war movies etc., but even so I think war is a pretty anachronistic method of solving conflict and a strong military should not even be among the top ten considerations of what makes a nation great.
No Canadian would deny that Canada played a great role in ending a tragically necessary war, but the end of WWII changed many things. Most importantly, the United Nations was created to prevent conflict between nations and to make future wars unnecessary and implausible.
I see war as a byproduct of patriarchal societies. That's not to say that the UN signalled a switch to a matriarchal society; it's undoubtedly still a patriarchy, but a kinder, gentler one with more appeal to reasoned moderation and less "might is right" fervor.
Thus, I see nations which cling to the "might is right" fevor as outdated and hopelessly (and dangerously) out of touch with the rest of the world. There is no shame in presenting a strong united front when it is called for (as it was in WWII) to deal with the world's bullies. But we must not allow the defenders to become the bully. Unfortunately, this appears to have happened repeatedly since the UN was formed, and for Canada's part in any of it, I am deeply ashamed.
Canada is well-known for many great things. I'm proud of Canada's commitment to minority rights (one of the few countries to legalize same-sex marriage and to finally make a real push to allow gays their full rights under the Charter), its commitment to multi-culturalism, our reputation as peacekeepers and not warmongers (though obviously there have been abuses even in a peacekeeping capacity), our national healthcare, our progressive social policies, our general reputation in the world for being a progressive and peaceful nation. Indeed, I wouldn't have a strong military at the cost of all these great attributes.
The people who voted for the Tories, and the American conservaties who supported that shift, all seem to want Canada to move towards becoming a second-rate United States. That I cannot bear. If we must move towards being anything other than what we are now, we should work towards becoming a second-rate Sweden. I couldn't think of a better future for Canada.
Post a Comment