Hey, I'm talking about Canada and Canada Day with my new good friend, Warren Pierce of ABC Radio WJR Talk Radio 760 in Detroit. That's Saturday morning, just after 6.00 am. WJR is heard in 36 states and a big piece of Canada.
Love to hear from listeners here or through the Connect link at the main page .
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
A Canada Day moment
July 1, 1876, Confederation's ninth birthday, saw John A. Macdonald speaking at his first "political picnic" in the park at Uxbridge, Ontario.
The picnic was notable for launching the rebirth of Macdonald's political prospects after he had been been driven from office by the Pacific Scandal in 1873 and humiliated at the polls in 1874. The picnics were also significant as a symptom of the consolidation of national political platforms and campaigns. At picnic after picnic for the rest of the summer, Macdonald hammered away at three themes he was using to differentiate his party from the government: the National Policy, the railroad, and Britain over the US.
The picnics were one of the first signs of our political parties becoming leader-driven, centrally-directed, and message-focussed, rather than loose coalitions of individual MPs. They have a lot to answer for, you might say.
But the picnics were picnics too, and a lot of Uxbridgeans had a fine old Dominion Day, despite the reported prevalence of too much "weak tea and dubious lemonade." I hope we drink better than that on the 139th Canada Day this weekend. Personally I'm anticipating a no-politicians weekend on the Lake Nipissing shore.
The picnic was notable for launching the rebirth of Macdonald's political prospects after he had been been driven from office by the Pacific Scandal in 1873 and humiliated at the polls in 1874. The picnics were also significant as a symptom of the consolidation of national political platforms and campaigns. At picnic after picnic for the rest of the summer, Macdonald hammered away at three themes he was using to differentiate his party from the government: the National Policy, the railroad, and Britain over the US.
The picnics were one of the first signs of our political parties becoming leader-driven, centrally-directed, and message-focussed, rather than loose coalitions of individual MPs. They have a lot to answer for, you might say.
But the picnics were picnics too, and a lot of Uxbridgeans had a fine old Dominion Day, despite the reported prevalence of too much "weak tea and dubious lemonade." I hope we drink better than that on the 139th Canada Day this weekend. Personally I'm anticipating a no-politicians weekend on the Lake Nipissing shore.
Canadian History News
I'm becoming a fan of the Canadian History News blog at www.northernblue.ca/cblog. Alasdair Sweeny, indefatigable historical entrepreneur in Ottawa, and his people are building an online historical network that keeps getting bigger and better -- lately they have a Canadawiki under development. Take a look.
A couple of days ago they had a page of advice on how to celebrate Canada Day.
Happy Canada Day to them too.
A couple of days ago they had a page of advice on how to celebrate Canada Day.
Happy Canada Day to them too.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Fixed election dates
Murray Campbell, in Saturday's Globe & Mail, reported that now fixed election dates are the law, the Ontario parties are launching "a year of non-stop campaigning.... with the same drawn-out precision that is standard in the United States." And of course there are no laws to govern election spending before the 30-day "official" campaign period starts.
Remember how fixed election dates were sold to us as a democratic reform? Why is it every alleged reform we are offered somehow entrenches the power of political parties and money even deeper.
The best thing about Canadian elections was you could count on there being only 30 days of all that manic travel, phony media events, and leakings of fake polls. Now we will get it endlessly. And we are told it's an improvement. Thanks, democracy wonks.
Remember how fixed election dates were sold to us as a democratic reform? Why is it every alleged reform we are offered somehow entrenches the power of political parties and money even deeper.
The best thing about Canadian elections was you could count on there being only 30 days of all that manic travel, phony media events, and leakings of fake polls. Now we will get it endlessly. And we are told it's an improvement. Thanks, democracy wonks.
Prairie Giant: what it says
The opening screens of Prairie Giant have a frank statement in bold type. This is a "DRAMATIZATION," it says. "Characters have been condensed, composited, or fictionalized."
Seems pretty clear. It's a movie. It's story-driven. It turns on heroes and villains.
If you want a history, read a history book.
Seems pretty clear. It's a movie. It's story-driven. It turns on heroes and villains.
If you want a history, read a history book.
Why we have barricades in Canada
A northern Ontario First Nations community, Kitchenuhmayboosib Innunuwug (yes, I'll call it KI too) has a land claim for territory it argues should have been accepted as its land under Treaty 9 over a century ago. We can assume the Crown will never settle and the courts might move toward some kind of resolution, maybe around the 23rd century.
Now Platinex, a junior mining company hoping to raise money on promises of a speculative platinum-mining venture on the disputed territory, is demanding the assistance of the courts. The Platinex investors, said their lawyer, are "up to their necks financially;" they are in extreme financial jeopardy. So the courts and crown must give them access to land that belongs to someone else. Oh yeah, Platinex is also suing the band for, get this, $10 billion.
Mining promoters get to stake claims on land where the title is known to be under dispute. The Crown issues them the permits, approves their disclosure documents that minimize the title issues, and fails to uphold Supreme Court of Canada requirements for Crown behaviour involving disputed territory.
When the First Nations owners assert their own interest, they get sued. Why do our courts take this stuff seriously? How do judges become willing agents for this kind of harassment?
Now Platinex, a junior mining company hoping to raise money on promises of a speculative platinum-mining venture on the disputed territory, is demanding the assistance of the courts. The Platinex investors, said their lawyer, are "up to their necks financially;" they are in extreme financial jeopardy. So the courts and crown must give them access to land that belongs to someone else. Oh yeah, Platinex is also suing the band for, get this, $10 billion.
Mining promoters get to stake claims on land where the title is known to be under dispute. The Crown issues them the permits, approves their disclosure documents that minimize the title issues, and fails to uphold Supreme Court of Canada requirements for Crown behaviour involving disputed territory.
When the First Nations owners assert their own interest, they get sued. Why do our courts take this stuff seriously? How do judges become willing agents for this kind of harassment?
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
PropRep Follies
New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord wants proportional representation for his province.
PR's been rejected by voters in Italy after years of producing disfunctional governments and demogogic campaigners. There is movement to get rid of it in Israel, where the gross inequities it causes have helped drive voter turnout down to 60%. But evidence doesn't engage the PR campaigners. Someone said it must be democratic, and that's all they know.
PR's been rejected by voters in Italy after years of producing disfunctional governments and demogogic campaigners. There is movement to get rid of it in Israel, where the gross inequities it causes have helped drive voter turnout down to 60%. But evidence doesn't engage the PR campaigners. Someone said it must be democratic, and that's all they know.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
North American Soccer History
Watching the World Cup and wondering why Canadians may always have to watch the thing with no serious stake in it?
About ten years ago, I read The Struggle for Canadian Sport, and as I recollect it, it explains the whole thing. It's by Bruce Kidd, long-ago Canadian Olympic long-distance runner, now a University of Toronto prof. A serious read, but still worth looking for.
Kidd argues "high performance" is always going to be the aspiration of athletes and fans alike. We want the best. And in North America, high-performance sport was delivered by commercial sport from an early time. By the 1920s, when Canadian hockey players and teams were already heading south, commercial sport had won out over rival systems like community-owned teams and leagues.
And for Canada, commercial sport would always have to accept a North American market dominated by American tastes and traditions. Cricket, lacrosse, soccer were going to be marginal, unless they got traction in the American market.
Oh well, it's fun to watch the Cup events without any particular allegiances gettin in the way. I'm Trini to the bone this week.
About ten years ago, I read The Struggle for Canadian Sport, and as I recollect it, it explains the whole thing. It's by Bruce Kidd, long-ago Canadian Olympic long-distance runner, now a University of Toronto prof. A serious read, but still worth looking for.
Kidd argues "high performance" is always going to be the aspiration of athletes and fans alike. We want the best. And in North America, high-performance sport was delivered by commercial sport from an early time. By the 1920s, when Canadian hockey players and teams were already heading south, commercial sport had won out over rival systems like community-owned teams and leagues.
And for Canada, commercial sport would always have to accept a North American market dominated by American tastes and traditions. Cricket, lacrosse, soccer were going to be marginal, unless they got traction in the American market.
Oh well, it's fun to watch the Cup events without any particular allegiances gettin in the way. I'm Trini to the bone this week.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
CBC's Integrity Gutted like a Fish. Again
Sure glad this morning I don’t work for the CBC! But how tragic that the national broadcaster is such a toxic place for people who try to work seriously in the arts and the culture.
CBC has announced it has withdrawn its support for Prairie Giant, the Tommy Douglas movie of last spring. The family of Douglas’s rival Jimmy Gardiner doesn’t like the way he was portrayed. So pow, in about 30 seconds the bureaucrats cut and run and leave the film-makers swinging in the wind.
It’s a movie, damnit. It’s fiction. In fiction they make things up. If the CBC doesn’t understand that, it should not be in the business of broadcasting drama.
Of course the Jimmy Gardiner of Prairie Giant ain’t much like the Jimmy Gardiner of history. So what? As a hilarious series of letters in the New Yorker recently showed, its editor William Shawn was nothing like the movie character of the same name in the film Capote. Neither was Harper Lee, or for that matter Truman Capote. But they have not pulled the movie. It’s not, shall we say, a hanging matter. It’s a drama, a drama about making things up, and Prairie Giant is a drama about heroes and villains. Jeez, Opus Dei may be pretty weird, but if you don't realize it ain’t the Opus Dei of The Da Vinci Code, you are too naive to be allowed into the theatre.
Fiction’s only duty is to tell stories that feel true. Whether something is true or not, that’s non-fiction’s domain. If the people at the CBC can’t understand this long enough to stand behind a movie they have just run, they should resign. They should resign.
Where’s Mark Starowicz, Mr History at the CBC, on this?
Is there a right way to handle this kind of controversy? Sure. First, if the CBC wanted more historical verisimitude, it should have looked for it during the filming, not under pressure afterwards.
But more to the point: the answer to stories we don't like is alternate stories we like better. If we had a History Television channel worthy of the name in Canada, it would be running an instant doc tonight: Who was the real Jimmy Gardiner behind the CBC's movie villain? Fat chance.
CBC has announced it has withdrawn its support for Prairie Giant, the Tommy Douglas movie of last spring. The family of Douglas’s rival Jimmy Gardiner doesn’t like the way he was portrayed. So pow, in about 30 seconds the bureaucrats cut and run and leave the film-makers swinging in the wind.
It’s a movie, damnit. It’s fiction. In fiction they make things up. If the CBC doesn’t understand that, it should not be in the business of broadcasting drama.
Of course the Jimmy Gardiner of Prairie Giant ain’t much like the Jimmy Gardiner of history. So what? As a hilarious series of letters in the New Yorker recently showed, its editor William Shawn was nothing like the movie character of the same name in the film Capote. Neither was Harper Lee, or for that matter Truman Capote. But they have not pulled the movie. It’s not, shall we say, a hanging matter. It’s a drama, a drama about making things up, and Prairie Giant is a drama about heroes and villains. Jeez, Opus Dei may be pretty weird, but if you don't realize it ain’t the Opus Dei of The Da Vinci Code, you are too naive to be allowed into the theatre.
Fiction’s only duty is to tell stories that feel true. Whether something is true or not, that’s non-fiction’s domain. If the people at the CBC can’t understand this long enough to stand behind a movie they have just run, they should resign. They should resign.
Where’s Mark Starowicz, Mr History at the CBC, on this?
Is there a right way to handle this kind of controversy? Sure. First, if the CBC wanted more historical verisimitude, it should have looked for it during the filming, not under pressure afterwards.
But more to the point: the answer to stories we don't like is alternate stories we like better. If we had a History Television channel worthy of the name in Canada, it would be running an instant doc tonight: Who was the real Jimmy Gardiner behind the CBC's movie villain? Fat chance.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Senate Reform
My column in the June/July Beaver magazine looks at Senate reform -- 150 years ago. We actually had an elected senate in Canada in the 1850s, and it was such a failure that the confederation makers did away with it in 1867. My point in the article is that they did so because they were democrats committed to sustaining the authority of the truly representative lower house. Check it out -- newsstand or by subscription www.thebeaver.ca
Compared to his previous promises, PM Harper's recent baby step on Senate reform - eight-year appointments instead of life - seems harmless. Though my wise friend the playwright and performer Neil Ross remarked yesterday, "Everything he does is intended to look harmless. Wait until he has a free hand!"
On the same subject, a Calgary reader sends note of a September conference committed to Triple E and much else. Personally I'd argue against all six of their Three Principles, but see for yourself at Calgary conference
Which reminds me of a suggestion I've never heard vented: if Alberta is so keen on powerful upper houses, maybe that province could create its own provincial Senate. Indeed, there used to be upper houses in most provinces, but the provinces abolished them ASAP. An Albertan Senate, Triple E, with half the seats coming from the half of the province north of Edmonton; it might be some fun to see how that affected the long one-party dominances in the lower house to which Alberta is more prone than any other province.
Compared to his previous promises, PM Harper's recent baby step on Senate reform - eight-year appointments instead of life - seems harmless. Though my wise friend the playwright and performer Neil Ross remarked yesterday, "Everything he does is intended to look harmless. Wait until he has a free hand!"
On the same subject, a Calgary reader sends note of a September conference committed to Triple E and much else. Personally I'd argue against all six of their Three Principles, but see for yourself at Calgary conference
Which reminds me of a suggestion I've never heard vented: if Alberta is so keen on powerful upper houses, maybe that province could create its own provincial Senate. Indeed, there used to be upper houses in most provinces, but the provinces abolished them ASAP. An Albertan Senate, Triple E, with half the seats coming from the half of the province north of Edmonton; it might be some fun to see how that affected the long one-party dominances in the lower house to which Alberta is more prone than any other province.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)