I Promise I won't post any more bad songs on my blog... but ya gotta admit, Kevin Little created an addictive little ditty.... If you've heard it on the radio, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't heard it, you are probably completely confused by my last post.

Presidential debate night... I'm gonna kinda provide something of a running commentary, without getting carried away with the details... just the general impressions of a reactionary right-winger... so now that you know about my political leanings:

JFK starts the off by kissing Jim Lehrer's ass... GWB starts off looking very sombre, on his first point he sounds like he's trying to level with the American public on Iraq... On the split screen, Kerry looks bemused by George, who starts to a do a little head-bob whenever he is being particularly emphatic. Kerry makes it clear in his rebuttle to GWB's first point that he is gonna through down the military card tonight.

Kerry is getting in some good early shots. He is all over Bush's handling of the War On Terror (WOT). Bush is being clever, say "I" did this, and "I believe"... swatting away the insinuation that he has been manipulated by people around him, a central tennet of the Bush-hater's creed. Turning the tables on the dems who accuse him of being simplistic in his conduct of the WOT, Bush is telling us that it is a multi-front war. Kerry counters by saying that Iraq is not even close to the centre of the WOT.

Kerry talking about body armour? Wasn't this the guy that voted against the 87 billion for appropriations? Iraq is getting worse, he says. Whap! Bush nails him with voting against the use of force. Bush keeps harping on steadfast, resolved... Kerry says he can succeed but Bush can't. both of these guys have been well coached and they are staying on message.

JFK is looking more expressive than I've ever seen him! He must have given up the botox. Was that an eyebrow twitch I just saw? Now he's getting a bit pendantic, as is his tendency. Bush addresses homeland security with what I have come realize is a central point of his philosophy: Stay on the offense. Fight the enemy abroad so that we don't have to fight them here. Bush looks a bit petulant during portions of the debate, and nowhere near as comfortable as he did during the Republican National Convention in NY last month.

A free Iraq will... a free Iraq will.... vs. "help is on the way"... once again, both bangin' home those messages. On the famous 87 billion, Kerry scores a bullseye: I made a mistake saying I voted for it before I voted against it... my opponent made a mistake going to war. Ouch.

Bush says the coallition is strong, Kerry continues to shit on it, cynically holding the line because Brits Australians and Poles don't vote in American elections... plans to do some fence-mending next February when he an Ter-ray-sa move into the White House, I guess.

Everyone kept describing both of these men as formidable debaters but neither of them seems particularly on their game tonight. Both seem halting, unsure at times. Maybe when they start speaking to each other a bit more they will go for each other's throats.

On his long term plans for Iraq, Kerry sounds sure, confident... he knows where he is going... he may be terribly wrong in his approach, but I don't think anyone can say he doesn't have a plan. Bush takes him to task for his comments on Alawi (the "puppet" PM) after Kerry's statement about changing the "dynamics on the ground". I love it when Bush talks about "enforcing doctrine" like some policy wonk... kinda puts paid to the Bush is a moron assertion.

Why does Kerry keep crapping on allies? "Outsourcing" the war on terror? "coallition of the bribed and coerced?" Is this his nuanced approach to foreign policy we keep hearing about? Bush looks genuinely puzzled about the statement that "pre-emptive action must pass the global test"... The look on his face is "Global test? WTF is this guy talking about?" You and me both, George...

GWB seems strongest when he talks about beliefs... and that is where he and Kerry differ. You may not agree with Bush but you know where he stands. He is categorical. He is certain. Kerry takes issue with Bush's certainy "You can be certain and wrong". What bothers Bush about Kerry is precisely the opposite: In Bush's opinion, Kerry changes positions because of politics and pressure --and in his mind, you just can't do that when you are president. You must be steadfast. Bush believes Kerry will wilt under pressure because he is unsure of his core values.

The comments on weapons of mass destruction, each man's approach to North Korea and Russia and particularly, their closing comments reveal a central truth: Americans are faced with the starkest choice between presidential candidates in half a century. Few men differ so fundamentally on so many issues. I think that the United States is in a unique historical position. At the present moment, it is perhaps the most dominant nation to ever exist... and now the world awaits the choice of its citizens.

Just posting some random pictures tonight because I have figured out how to upload photos! This is the Augustus of Prima Porta, in the Vatican Museum. One of the most incredible statues I have ever seen. The majesty of Augustus Caesar and the glory of Imperial Rome rendered marble.

Memories of Rome... May 9th, hung over on the Apian way, rockin' some kind of pompadour?

Going home for Thanksgiving this year...



I'm looking forward to seeing the familia. This picture is from the last time I visited Windsor this summer. I'm looking very cheerful in this photo... which is a bit peculiar, considering my lungs were filling with fluid at that very moment because of the toxic fumes that waft over the Detroit River during the height of summer.

Believe the hype.

Just saw a fantastic flick that was a big hit in the UK last year... no, not that saccharine mess Love Actually (I agree with Mark Steyn who wrote Love Actually is crap, actually)

The movie I am talking about is Shawn of the Dead (see the trailer HERE) described as "RomZomCom" or romantic zombie comedy. Believe it or not, that is a pretty accurate description. Not only is it a wickedly funny film, it has some great gore, if you are into that sort of thing, and well-crafted characters that you actually care about. Set against the backdrop of an outbreak of zombieism in North London , SOTD (as movie geeks have already christened it) tells the story of the disintegration of a thirty-year old electronics salesman's relationship with his long-suffering girlfriend and his efforts to win her back, aided and hindered in turns by family and friends. What is truly hilarious about this movie is that none of the characters seem to notice what is going on around them for the first third of the film. When they finally do, the payoff is really worth the price of admission.

Some critics claim the movie is pointing out that in today's urban society, we humans are half-zombie already, or at least, that we frequently engage in zombie-like behaviour. Now, there is some validity to that, but I prefer to think that what the filmmakers are really saying is that we can all be a bit self-obsessed or disconnected from the ugly reality of our everyday lives at times, and when we are going through a particularly bad emotional experience, it is entirely possible that we become completely oblivious to what is going on around us... Lord knows, I've been guilty of that little sin more than once.

This is the kind of movie you will want to watch again and again, and you'll probably be rewarded as you pick up some of the more subtle jokes or references (and you finally wrap your ear around the english accents of the protagonists) on repeat viewings. If you don't end up enjoying SOTD, check your pulse... you may be a zombie yourself.

Damn... summer's almost over!

Two months!

Two months I've been away.

I'm back now.

Check back soon.

I have rather consciously neglected my blog of late. It's been pretty tough to keep up the writing with work being what it is. I have been exceptionally busy. Today, however, I am prompted to write. I have been watching a TV special on Mordechai Richler, who is probably, by critical consensus, Canada's most talented author of the late twentieth century (although some would give that title to Atwood) and the quintessential unrepentant Montreal anglo. He is known not only for his fantastic novels, which so eloquently captured the soul of the city he loved, but for his forays into polemic writing. Richler fought the nationalists in Quebec relentlessly, dragooning his formidable talents into service to ridicule their pretensions and point out the inherent contradictions of their credo. In the late eighties and early nineties, while the Feds were flirting and unwisely pandering to the separatists, Richler railed against the injustices he saw around him. He saw beneath the surface of "civic nationalism" and exposed the "siege mentality" and the paranoid and obsessive nature of the sovereignty movement, which sought to limit the rights of others in order to safeguard their own way of life. As a French-speaking Anglophone with many nationalist friends who has lived in Montreal, I have my own perspective on the "Quebec question". Simply put, you can dress it up in the garb of "civic nationalism", but the heart of the sovereignty movement is ethnic identity and the duty of minorities to conform to the wishes of the ethnic francophone majority. It is an attitude that proclaims "You may live here, and you may associate with us, but unless you adhere to our philosophy, unless you adopt our language and our ways, you will never be one of us". This is a view entirely at odds with the fundamental beliefs of most Canadians, and it manifests itself in many noxious forms: separatism, anti-semitism, xenophobia. I recall Parizeau and Landry post-referendum eructations on the eve of their defeat ("Money and the ethnic vote"?)and more recent indiscrete remarks, glimpses into their dark hearts. When one reads
Oh Canada! Oh Quebec, one sees that Richler, as so few others did, understood the nature of the fight for the soul of his Province in the late twentieth century.

OK, I'm off my politics kick. The system is broke. First past the post excacerbates regional cleavages. Canadians don't reject the West, but our system sure makes it look like we do. We need to fix it. End of story.

Onto lighter fare. Saw Spidey 2. Loved the heck out of it. I was never a big fanboy as a teenager. I read maybe a two dozen Spider-man comics as a teen, mostly during the McFarlane craze. The Spider-man I am more familiar with is the cartoon from the seventies with the cheesy animation and a very old-sounding Peter Parker.

I loved the first movie because it wasn't the story of a superhero who occasionally adopted an alter-ego to walk among us, but the story of a young man who occasionally had to put on some red and blue tights and fight the bad guys between college classes. It was as much the story of Peter Parker making his way in this big scary world as it was a "superhero flick".

I figured that the one way that Sam Raimi (one of my favourite directors) could botch his second crack at Marvel's flagship franchise would be to focus too much on the spider and not enough on the man this time around. Thankfully, Spiderman 2 is as squarely focused on the trials and tribulations of young Peter as its predecessor. So much more than a summer popcorn flick, it is the compelling story of a kid coming to terms with the life he has chosen, and the price he must pay because of this choice.

One of the best things about this movie is the cast. The performances are universally strong across the board. In his second outing as Spidey, Tobey MacGuire hits his stride. his performance is note perfect. Although Kirstin Dunst would not have been my first choice as MJ, she is growing on me in the role. James Franco: I like the guy alot, but his brooding Harry Osborne is in a holding pattern in SM2, There is, however, a promise of great things in future installments, if this franchise steams along for a couple more movies --as I'm sure it will. Alfred Molina does a kickass job as Doc Ock. Smart and scary and bad, but without being really evil, if that makes any sense. Great supporting turns from Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons, and of course a fantastic cameo by Bruce Campbell, my personal messiah!

Because I hate it when people give away the plot of movies, I will say no more. The effects are light years ahead of what we saw last time around. The plot, unburdened with the task of all that exposition that usually hampers any first film in a series, is a big improvement on that of first flick. The dialogue is comic-bookish without being ridiculous, and Sam Raimi, using his trademark whip-pans and funky innovative camera moves, directs with all the gusto he mustered in his classic Evil Dead films... only now, 20 years later, people are giving him bags of money to do his thing. Watch this flick, and I guarantee you'll leave the cinema with a smile on your face, looking forward to the next visit from your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman!

Holy crap!

What happened?

A number of things:

The attack adds worked.

Scary Stephen frightened all the soccer moms in the 905.

Ontario flinched, held its nose, and voted for the devil they know.

BC turned its back on the Conservatives.

Jack Layton's used car salesman schtick went over with a fair number of non granola-crunching Canadians.

Gilles Duceppe proved that you don't have to flog a referendum even if you are a separatiste.(take note Landry)

and Quebec kicked Poll Marton in the balls so hard he'll be feeling until sometime after Christmas, possibly even well into next year (maybe now that his Quebec support has evaporated, people will stop calling him Paul Mar-tain... the guy is from Windsor, for chrissakes).

I said:

BQ would take 57. As of midnight, they are at 53. I figured Lapierre was toast. Shows what I know.

NDP would take 26. As of midnight, they are at 21. I didn't count on Toronto turning chickenshit.

I was WAY OFF about the Liberal and Conservative totals. CBC has it at 137 to 96 at midnight (I didn't count on the rest of Ontario turning chickenshit, for that matter).

Alot of close races... some may not be resolved for days, maybe even weeks, but no doubt about it... the NDP and the Bloc are the big winners tonight. They can say what they like about being a new party, but you gotta figure the Conservatives are disappointed.

The traitors win big, with possibly their highest total of seats ever (we'll see after the inevitable recounts), and the commies now hold the balance of power in our parliament... I suppose it could have been worse... I could have been the reverse. (can you imagine a parliament --with a 50-member NDP caucus no less-- where the Liberals have to grovel before the separatists? Gak!)

Hell... who knows, maybe some good will come out of this Liberal-NDP minority thing!

My predictions on election day -- because it's fun to speculate and then make excuses for why you were wrong!...

These are completely unscientific. They are based on nothing more than my general impressions, gleaned largely from polls, pundits, and a good old fashioned gut feeling about the way things will go down. I am adopting the Steyn-Coyne nomenclature for the major parties (with terms for the Liberals and Conservatives stolen from the last election in France)

Party Seats

Fascists (CPC): 114
Crooks (LPC): 110
Traitors (BQ): 57
Commies (NDP): 26
Freaks (Green): 1

I really believe that if it is anywhere near as close as I am calling it, and if the Liberals get a higher percentage of the popular vote than the Conservatives (as alot of people are predicting), Paul Martin WILL try to govern with a minority (recent comments about "common sense" notwithstanding).

What does this mean? Mr. Martin prepares for the inevitable fallout within his party, tries to reconcile with the Liberal left wing, cozies up to the NDP and maybe even the Bloc, and staggers along for a few months until the next election, which will be sooner rather than later. After the way his people mishandled his campaign and squandered the lead that the Liberals' enjoyed when the election was called, the question is: will Paul be around to lead the next campaign?

Yet another tedious update...

Visit Coyne. He is now writing about a permanent change in the Canadian political landscape. As the Liberal's grasp of Ontario and Quebec slips through their fingers --Several reasons for that, including a couple I mentioned in previous posts (the social and fiscal conservatism of new Canadians, the disenchantment of Canadians with "their" traditional governing party...)-- Mr. Coyne brings up the idea that Stephen Harper's ultimate goal may in fact be the establishment of a permanent (American style!!!) two-party system in Canada...

As I watch a chameleonesque shipping magnate Paul Martin aggressively court NDP voters as he attempts to re-cast himself as a left-leaning warm-and-fuzzy politician, I'm starting to think that Andrew may be on to something...

Update:

HERE, in contrast, is a reproduction of the NP's editorial endorsing the Conservatives. Agree or disagree, you have to admit, it is not a "qualified" or "conditional" endorsement.

This version comes courtesy of the Belinda Stronach site.

Belinda Stronach: Potentially, the hottest Cabinet Minister in Canada's history... damn, she is fine!

I'm addicted to election coverage.

I love the way people like Judy Rebick talk about the horror of "Reagan-Bush-style Government" if the Conservatives come to power. Some people just can't resist kicking the yanks in the nuts every chance they get.

Alan Greenspon has basically admitted that the Globe could have gone either way in their endorsement op-ed. He said the editorial board went 55-45 on the endorsement. It may be an endorsement of the Liberals, but I doubt any Liberals will be crowing about it from the rooftops.

Here is an actual excerpt from this editorial --Remember this is an editorial endorsing another Liberal Government:

To put it succinctly, Paul Martin, or whoever is inhabiting his body, has proved a monumental disappointment since becoming Prime Minister six months ago. His pronouncements have displayed all the consistency of Pablum. Intent on winning every vote in the country, he lived in fear of offending someone, somewhere, somehow. On Iraq and Kyoto, he was incomprehensible. On same-sex marriage, he swung both ways. On missile defence co-operation, first he was openly for it, then secretly for it. He had two Supreme Court openings, but boxed himself into a process corner.

He made enemies of the meritorious (witness Stéphane Dion) and promoted the mediocre (come on down, Jean Lapierre). The only difference between his political manipulations and those of his "friendly dictator" predecessor was that the latter didn't leave bloodied fingerprints at the crime scene.

On health care, we have heard much rhetoric. But Mr. Martin's ideas for shortening waiting lists remain fanciful. As a general rule, he has beseeched voters to count on his reputation for solutions rather than proposing any.

The National Post has highlighted the "outlandish contradiction" of this election:

Many voters, otherwise sensible, believe that the one federal party proven to be irresponsible is the only responsible choice. That would be the Liberals.

Jonathan Kay of the National Post on CBC in response to Alan Greenspon and the Globe's Editorial: "Do you want to give this monumental disappointment another mandate?"

Well, do ya?

Today's lesson: If you and your dog are nice to people, they might just think twice about killing you and everyone in the immediate area...

So please be a nice person! My life may depend on it.

I wonder...

If the day after the election, Paul Martin finds himself at the head of a minority government, will he suddenly develop an allergy to taking on the Democratic Deficit? It's easy to talk about reforming parliament when your majority is so large you don't have to worry about a few renegades breaking ranks once in a while... My guess is that the whips will come out and some Liberal MPs will end up with nasty welts on their backs if they go wobbly on the big guy.

Since Martin's accession to the Liberal throne way back in December, Paul "Porkpie" Wells has been doing a fantastic job of chronicling our PM's early efforts at ending the democratic deficit on his blog. Check out his archives. (it's a fine blog, Paul, don't worry about what mean people say!)

If he gets his job back, I'm sure we can expect more of the same from this champion of democracy.

OK, let me get THIS straight... we need to re-elect Martin because Stephen Harper's party "isn't ready"? I guess them country bumpkins is slow learners, huh?

We wish Mr. Martin had afforded himself the opportunity of an 18-month tryout before going to the polls. Now the voters have the opportunity to impose a probationary period themselves. Whichever party prevails Monday, a minority looks the most likely outcome. We believe Mr. Martin represents the less risky proposition and deserves a second chance to prove himself. We further believe the Conservatives could use more time to pull their new party together and make their positions and predispositions clearer.


... and so, the Globe & Mail reaches the nadir of arrogance.

Michael Moore's lardy posterior is still smarting from the monumental boot-torquing that Chris Hitchens delivers in his review of Fahreinheit 911 (no, I won't dignify the website for this film with a link... it's my blog, and I can do what I like). Read it. Now.

I still plan on seeing the damn film... I am fascinated by demagoguery and propaganda in all its forms.

What do I think of the election campaign?

Well, being the "right-wing reactionary" (my dad's term) that I am, I am encouraged.

That's not to say that politics in Canada is taking a hard-right turn, regardless of what the yank-bashers and guardians of Canadian culture would have you believe. The centre has proved to be a surprisingly spacious piece of political real estate, notwithsanding the efforts of the Liberal Party-- the party of "da Canadian Values" -- to extend their lease there.

I am encouraged because in the wake of the Alliance-Conservative shotgun marriage something surprising happened. Rather than swallowing the rump PC holus-bolus as the Tory old guard of that moribund party (Clark, Stevens, et al)predicted, the giddy newlyweds found that they could accomodate each other. This "hostile takeover" ended up pulling the Western rednecks and social conservatives kicking and screaming over into moderate right-of centre territory, miles away from the goose-steppers and Jesus freaks with whom they had previously been lumped by Canada's liberal media.

I discovered, to my astonishment, that there is more than one "establishment" in Canada. There is, of course, the "Liberal Establishment"... you know, the folks who created the "Trudeaupian" state, as Steyn calls the Canadian polity that has evolved since the late sixties. They have had the run of the joint in Federal politics for most of the last forty years (except for that eight-year Mulroney interregnum of constitutional and free trade squabbles that still makes most good Canadians shudder). With their Charter, their Multiculturalism, their vigorous anti-Americanism and wtheir well-intentioned degradation of Canada's proud military, the Libs put the Canadian identity in a powerful submission hold and squeezed until the monarchists and detaxers tapped out (I was just watching Wrestling, cut me some slack).

Thing is though, there is another establishment kicking around; "The Man" that the hippies warned us about: The Bay Street Boys, the sinister right-wing conspiracy, the old-Canada Cabal: during the nineties, a bunch of middle-aged cranky white guys kept electing fellows like Mike Harris and Ralph Klein at the Provincial level. In spite of having extirpated the Mulroneyites au federal, the Liberals never could deliver the coup de grace to the conservative breed once and for all. Sure, some interesting populist permutations evolved at the Federal level during the nineties, folks who seemed to be more suited to some carny side-show in Saskatchewan than the sombre halls of power of Ottawa, but in the provinces, there remained a right wing establishment, and darn it all if those guys didn't hang in there, and even flourish.

Maybe it was the return of smilin' Brian for the unveiling of his official portrait that signalled the Conservative resurgence. Maybe it was the courtship of Peter McKay and Stephen Harper. Heck, maybe it was the candidacy of BELINDA!... whatever it was, sometime in the last few months, Canadians discovered that a "conservative" was not some odd breed of American that had stolen the 2000 elections from Al.Gore, version 2.0, but honest-to-goodness flesh and blood humans who lived up here among us! Sure, they liked their hunting rifles and hated the Senate and high taxes, but some of them had some pretty interesting ideas about things like eliminating government waste and improving accountability. Most interesting of all, they consort with people we may dimly remember from the eighties, those Crosbies and MacDougalls that used to hang out with Ben Mulroney's dad.

Canadians have finally discovered that the Liberals do not have a monopoly on the Canadian identity. They have a vision of it (or do they? Coyne might dispute that) The Conservatives have a different vision. So do the NDP, for that matter, as bizarre and repugnant as it may seem. Nothing wrong with different visions. In fact, selecting between competing visions for the country isn't a half-bad way of deciding how to govern the country and who should do it. The Liberals seem alarmed that Harper's "Alliance-Conservatives" may have a hidden agenda... if by that they mean a "non-Liberal agenda", they have reason to worry. Harper has been admirably frank about his desire to take the country in a different direction. Polls seem to indicate that there is segment of our society that may be willing to give his version of Canada a whirl. The Liberals may be surprised that some of their "natural" constituents are turning their backs on their benefactors, but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to bring immigrants into Canada and encourage them to preserve their "traditions", you can't get snotty when they politely inform you that their traditions don't include Abdul and Mohammed getting married, or having young Bai Wen saunter home from the abortion clinic and finishing her calculus homework while smoking a big fatty.

That is where the Liberals get caught. They staked out a big spot in the centre, they cast a wide net, and now after one scandal too many, they are finding that in spite of their desperate assurances, they can't hold on to everyone. Is it any wonder that they are bleeding supporters left right and centre?

Question is... are the Conservatives close enough to the centre to pick off just enough disaffected Liberal voters to make this thing interesting? My gut tells me they are... but what will that mean on election night? Stay tuned.