Canadian Steele

Well, it is pouring in Winnipeg, again. This city seems eternally overcast, while half of that, I’m sure, is only perceived, it still seems forever gray.

It is funny. There is something wholly its own about this city. Winnipeg emits a duality, and a love/hate dichotomy exists for every person who lives here. While today may be ashen gray, a promise of gold lingers above. Every day of sun has you looking to the horizon, or over your shoulder, trying to catch the gloom that seems to live out of the corner of your vision. And that dyad is Winnipeg. It may not make sense unless you have lived or are living here.

It is hard to put a finger on it, but Winnipeg’s dichotomy can be characterized through its highs and lows.
It is a city known for its arts, and yet its people are responsible for the injection of its local, obese radio DJ into 34th place on the CBC’s “The Greatest Canadian“.
The NHL found a home here for an abysmal franchise, and left.
The AHL gave the city the Moose, who seem to be the visiting team no matter how often they win.
Winnipeg was once supposed to be the capital of Canada, now we have an overly large legislature serving as a reminder.
Winnipeg is home of the “almost was”, or the “could have been”. But, it is also the home of a diverse and vibrant culture, a place of “we are”.
…And I recently ran into a beautiful song that captures the essence of Winnipeg, and the see-saw relationship its residents have with the city. If you can, download listen to it.
It is called “One Great City” by The Weakerthans. If you are a ‘pegger, you’ll identify with it immediately. If you aren’t, then maybe the song will give you an understanding of what it is like to live “at the forks”.

“One Great City”

late afternoon another day is nearly done

a darker grey is breaking through a lighter one
a thousand sharpened elbows in the underground

that hollow hurried sound of feet on polished floor
and in the dollar store the clerk is closing up
and counting loonies trying not to say
i hate winnipeg

the driver checks the mirror seven minutes late
crowded riders’ restlessness enunciates
the Guess Who suck, the Jets were lousy anyway
the same mood every day

and in the turning lane
someone’s stalled again
he’s talking to himself
and hears the price of gas repeat his phrase
i hate winnipeg

up above us all,
leaning into sky
our golden business boy
will watch the north end die
and sing ‘i love this town’
then let his arching wrecking ball proclaim:
“i…hate…winnipeg”

More: Apparently, Manitoba is the only province without an official motto.

To give much credence to the idea that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy in the US altering the news and people’s opinions is to ignore basic common sense. Firstly, the country has shifted to the right (see the last election), and a slight shift in the point of view of the news is natural. Secondly, the administration in power is of the right. Now, of course, a more realistic question follows. Does the MSM experience pressure for favourable and biased reporting from the group in power? This idea is more sophisticated, and I think, more accurate. What most interpret as an ideological conspiracy (for both the left and the right, see Al Franken on the media coverage of the Bush-admin. or Ann Coulter for media coverage of the Clinton-admin.) is more likely the result of the Whitehouse flexing its muscle and exerting an influence on media output. For a quick example, I encountered this question by Paula Zahn of CNN. The topic was Saddam in his first court appearance.

ZAHN: And there were a lot of people stunned by what he had to say in the courtroom, in particular an exchange about the accusation that he had gassed the Kurds, where he more or less said, I heard about it on television. Do you believe he was delusional today or crazy like a fox? (emphasis mine)

(Reporter) AMANPOUR: Well, I’m not sure which one of those to choose.

What, the hell, kind of question is that?

Now, I know this is only one instance, and I plan to post a more total representation, but it is worth looking at. Anyway you interpret it, outside of Zahn just being an idiot - which she isn’t, that kind of question is a blatant attempt to colour opinion. To portray Hussein as “crazy” or “insane” would have certainly lent weight to the administration’s argument for the Iraq war. The mere fact that they were unable to do this is suggestive of why we hear so little of the former dictator now. The issue, then, becomes who was it that decided to table that question? Simply Zahn herself, or was it a question representative of the agenda of CNN? Do the faces or the suits of CNN alter news to please the government?

Again, this is only a single question and proves nothing, but, in the past, I have noticed a pro-administration taint given to news for both Bush AND Clinton. I will post more examples, but the trend can easily be proven. The result, naturally, is the opposition becomes more salient to this shift and brings the issue to the fore. This has occurred in the past and continues today. This, I feel, is another advantage of the Blogsphere over the MSM. Major networks are easier to grasp. They are entities that are much larger and the power is more centralized. To try to seize those of the blogging world would be to end up grasping at air. Bloggers as a whole will never be accessible by coercive means.

More:In the comments Aaron from Grandinite provides some insight into the type of pressure available to the administration in terms of journalistic access.

A recent poll by Ekos Research Associates Inc. has caused many to jump on an ever growing band-wagon, condemning Canadians as Anti-American. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reports:

Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.

The 1,500 people contacted for the poll, conducted last February for the Department of National Defence, listed “International Organized Crime” as the top danger, with 38 per cent ranking it as a great threat to security concern and another 50 per cent listing it as moderate

But tied for second in the poll were “U.S. Foreign Policy” and “Terrorism,” with 37 per cent rating it a great risk. Just behind those worries came “Climate Change and Global Warming.”

The results of this poll are being seriously construed. To fear Bush more than Bin Laden would be preposterous, of course, and that is exactly what the American parrots are reporting this poll shows. However, perceiving the current American administration as a greater threat than Al Queda is a completely different issue. To say a unilateral state, with whom we have been allied, has seemingly been in a race for hegemony poses a greater risk to our security than terror abroad demonstrates (at least some) Canadians ability to grasp the bigger picture. Through years of strong arm foreign “policy”, America has effectively buried Canada along with itself in a strong hatred of the West; found especially in the Middle East. Perceiving the totality of this threat as greater than that posed by the terrorists of the world is justified. This is especially true when the hatred that burns brightest is stoked simply by the pure fuel that is American action abroad.

What Americans are quite known for is their inability to accept blame; forget where the problem originated, the problem must lie with someone else. So, unsurprisingly, culpability falls on anyone but the Americans themselves. Hatred for Americans has no reasonable cause, apparently - the people of country X are said to be jealous - jealous of democracy, jealous of the American way, jealous of freedom. Forget who imposed the conditions leading to country x’s oppression, they only want what America has. Forget Saddam Hussein had the stars and stripes draped over his shoulders, and American artillery in his tyrannical hands, their hatred has its source in their lack of freedom only.

Now, even dissention has been brought under this ‘infallible’ blanket thrown over the electorate of the US, the edges of which are starting to encompass area north of the 49. “You are either with us, or against us” has been a moniker with which the Bush administration has successfully divided and conquered the voting public, and has been seeking to sway opinion abroad. Opposition is quickly devalued with words like “traitor”; the branding of liberal burns with the sting of an insult, now. People like Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly have great success as their views align perfectly with the administration’s agenda. The shift has been succesful, dissent=anti-Americanism. Currently, a tide of fear has arose in Canada, one that can only be assuaged by bending over for America. Celucci, the previous American ambassador to Canada, constantly ridiculed us for our lack of “loyalty”, saying friends don’t abandon each other in times of need (when in the real world, a true friend will stand up tell you when you have taken the wrong path), and this chorus was picked up by the weak of Canada. Anti-americanism became a cliche, a catch-phrase, even a sin, symbolic of a suppossed hostility and inferiority expressed by Canadians. The blame-shift came full circle once again.

This is fully demonstrated by the recent study done by the Fraser institute. Anti-Americanism was characterised by disaproval with the Iraq war, or negative attitudes expressed during post 9/11 or after we lost 4 soldiers to American fire. This is hardly a representative sample nor are these valid variables used to obtain the mythical “anti-Americanism” result. So, does the moral-eye at Fraser institute turn to the states to investigate possible reasons for this bias? Of course not. An outright insulting and deleterious view of Canadian culture as a whole is served up. “Garrison mentality” and immature cultural identity’s cause us to resent whatever it is America has. A culpable US is an option that is not even dismissed, it is outright ignored.

So, returning to the previous poll’s results, I find attaching anti-Americanism to anti-Bush admin. more than over-reaching. As I stated before, the results are justifiable, and Canadians should not have to feel guilty expressing such opinion. Legitimate dissention should never be cast so negatively. This is why I fear the Rachel Marsdens, the Tucker Carlson’s. The death of Respect is a movement forwarded by their likes, and is gaining momentum. To beware the branding of anti-Americanism is not only to understand the value of opposition, but to obstruct a greater deception. Whether they know it or not, Canadians are American’s best friend.

I’m extremely lazy today but I still feel the need to post something, so I thought I would provide some links to some excellent posts.

1. Andrew Spicer has an innovative post up entitled An Adaptive, Performance-Driven, Health Insurance System. It’s an interesting presentation that proposes to reverse the current supply-driven system into a demand-driven system, allowing “the health care market to provide services at adequate levels.”

2. Expect good things from POGG, Eh, as Timmy the G (Voice in The Wilderness), Jonathan Dursi (No More Shall I Roam), and mahigan (True North) join to make it a group blog with a lot of fire power.

3. Grandinite has a link to a picture of everything.

4. If you are like me (a human), you probably don’t like the vitriolic Rachel Marsden. This Coulter-bot has recently taken up shop at the National Post and has stayed true with one mindless, sensationalist, apathetic, stereo-typing, disrespectful piece after another. Thankfully, Canadian Cynic has taken up the enormous task of critiquing Ms. Marsden. So check it out and personally thank him.

5. Gauntlet is always a good read. His latest post is a critical look at O’brien’s stance and the system that allows such power.

6. Jay Currie has a secret plan to save the Canadian blogsphere, but he is not telling what that is yet. I’ll admit it, I’m interested.

Occasionally, I like to go slumming and pick fights with extremist or ignorant bloggers. For example, I found a delightful site on Timmy the G’s comment section, called Anti-Strib. It’s a mean little American right-wing blog that doesn’t mind discrimination, as long as they’re the ones doing it. So, I couldn’t resist. It is not hard to get them going. In any case, the short battle was closed down by yours truly. From hence forth, the act of pummeling your opponent until he is unable to reply, ending the thread, shall be called “Post Mortem“. This is a quick, but classic example. It was kind of an easy target, so I’m hoping I can post a tougher one later. If anyone else has examples of blogging beatings administered by themselves or someone else, I’d love to see them. I know it is petty, but it is still satisfying.

Well, apparently Matt Good has become part of the BlogsCanada Politcal family. Fine, I guess, but there has always been something that has bugged me about celebrities weighing in on public issue. I think my ire lies in the fact that no matter how invalid, biased, asinine, uninformed, tangential, or inane their opinion, the celebrity will always have considerably more power than the common person to spread their opinion. This type of unusual political power is not magically conferred by success in the entertainment industry, despite what some celebrities seem to think. Their opinion matters, of course, but no more than any other. This is not the reality, though. The weight the celebrity’s word carries is automatically attained regardless of merit. I’m sorry, but inequity gets under my skin.

In any case, I gave Matt’s blog a try. His post for today happened to be a query pertaining to the focus of the American media. A valid example, contrasting MJ coverage with the downing street memo, was raised in order to demonstrate the apparent disparity of attention given to relevant issues against the chaff of media. I would agree that the media does over-present the entertainment world, but the blame should not be placed on the media. Here is what I wrote as a comment on his site:

It is actually not that difficult to see why MJ’s trial generates more concern than world issues. It is a case of proximity and familiarity. A war in Iraq is in no way “real” to the American people, the sights and sounds of a distant people do not register in any genuine way. The white house is just as distant; holding the American government accountable on any issue falls on the far side of impossible. Where the people could not identify with the image of a wailing Iraqi mother or a belligerent leader, they are able to subsume the entity that is celebrity. Fame is characterized by its share of the spotlight. Faces and names are driven into the cultural identity, and these names, by default of notoriety, resonate with that culture. Michael Jackson is seen everyday, not ten feet from the sofa in even the meanest of living rooms. Controversial documents and war torn streets flicker and are gone, small pieces dimmed by the volume of the red, white, and blue parade passing in honour of itself. For the people of America to care, it would have to hit closer to home. So, the media, rather than being the scary censor, is actually the cultures biggest slave. Money drives the world and directs the camera’s lens. The media points and shoots where the people say. An unfocused and ignorant media is simply a reflection of the people it serves.

The blame, I would assert, lies with the public the media serves. Jon Stewart said on one of his shows that if Hitler had a show that would get good ratings, his show would be aired. I tend to agree. The scope of information conveyed by the tube tends to follow the trail of money, which is the littering of public. The American people have a real need for celebrity; they are obsessed with fame. And I believe this need represents a lack, so an attempt is made to fill in this gap. Celebrity represents the American dream. You know: the dream that is the quest towards total autonomy that is achieved through hard work and pledging belief in the American way. What happens is the disillusionment of this ideal. Obviously, not every one can be rich or totally free. To salvage the American dream, to play out that fantasy, the people demand an outlet, a process in which they can identify with those that have made it.

So the scene has done a complete revolution, one arc around the set. Where Matt Good, a celebrity, denounced the media for its coverage, we focus on the concept that the people must lose hold of the fame they are addicted to. Like an alcoholic, they love that which blurs their vision of reality, distancing them from what is truly important. To enjoy the drink of fame, one must enjoy it only socially, not to imbibe everyday the world of celebrity.

So, what am I asserting here…
-That the American culture is fundamentally wrong and completely without hope? Hardly. I think the American culture has within it a great value, one that is important for today’s conflicts abroad. However, this cultural blind spot has deeper roots, rears its head in many forms, and is the cause of the anti-Americanism so abundant in the world today.
-Am I saying fame is evil and entertainment is dross? No. I wish to only remind that entertainment be remembered for what it is, a luxury, and should receive the attention befitting it. To change lays precisely within our power, not the big, scary, media monster. It is sometimes difficult to align yourself with that which is distant, that which is unfamiliar. Our smaller needs at home tend to outweigh the greater needs of those past our boundaries, so an effort, one that we bloggers are certainly a part of, must be made to widen that lens, and watch in the right direction.

Well, I’m off to the CPA convention in Montreal tomorrow, which runs from Thursday to Sunday this weekend. This will give me a good opportunity to observe, first-hand, current PQ issues. Maybe I will be able to report “in the field” on Quebec’s governmental events. In any case, I will be returning Sunday, so if I am unable to post until then, I leave you with some interesting links.

Cathie From Canada has a excellent post on the power and nuances of words used in language. She notes an article written by The Poor Man dealing with Amnesty international and the republican reaction to their use of the term “Gulag”.

Along a similar vein, The Potent Pew reports on the Fraser Institute’s new study condemning the CBC as “guilty of anti-Americanism”. Antonia Zerbisias offers a strong criticism of the study.

The articles reported on by Cathie and Jonathan at the Potent Pew cut hard across an idea I have been meaning to comment on for some time. Hopefully, when I get back I will have some time for this post. In the mean time, it should be noted that the use of semantic weaponry is a universal tendency, not merely a right wing tendency. However, on the global landscape, some groups have been more guilty of this charge than others.

Moving along, CTV reports here on a new poll that suggests the NDP are ahead of the conservatives. It seems Layton is taking advantage of his opportunity.

Buckets of Grewal continues to amaze us on his extensiveness of all things Grewal.

Apparently, Abercrombie and Fitch is evil.

And, anything written at our BANPC is worth the read. See Blank Out Times for an example. Pooh is an especially intelligent and grumpy bear, and is fun to watch.

That is about it. Next stop: Montreal. Too bad the Habs aren’t playing.

Anyway, Keep Fit and Have Fun.

All right. Just about everyone else has been tagged for this mini book questionnaire, so thanks to Rob at Doucheblog for letting me play. So….

# of books I own…
Roughly 100, give or take 20. I’m too lazy to guess accurately, let alone count them.

Last book bought…
“The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana” by Umberto Eco. I am a huge Eco fan and was quite pleased to see that this book had finally been translated.
&
“Navigating a New World” by Lloyd Axworthy.

Last book read…
“Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. Now, strangely enough, I have this compelling urge to move to Colorado…

Five books that mean a lot to me…
I have noticed that nearly all of the entries for the other bloggers are non-fiction. While these types of books have been worthwhile reads for me, they just don’t carry the same weight or meaning for me as fiction does. So, here goes.

1. “Foucault’s Pendulum” by Umberto Eco. Eco is a genius, plain and simple. The ultimate creator, a master of union, Eco combines erudition with entertainment, showing unequalled talent for synergy. He is the type of writer I would love to be.

2. “Hard Times” by Charles Dickens. This book may seem like an odd book to choose, but it stands out for me. Dickens, while being one of the few dead author’s that can make me laugh out loud while reading, can also illustrate the beauty of any scene. Several of these scenes remain with me in vivid detail and resonate, demonstrating the power and timelessness of Dickens’ writing.

3. “Lord of the Rings” by JRR Tolkien. If you have read it - you know. If you haven’t read it yet - you should.

4. “Paradise Lost” by John Milton. Besides this being a literary masterpiece, it is just damn cool. I love mythology and the “fallen hero” archetype so, obviously, this is one of my favourites.

5. “Oryx and Crake” by Margaret Atwood. It is kind of stunning how well written this book is.

OK, I think nearly everyone else has done this already, but I’ll tag…

Justin at Flashpoint
Classic at Classic Quarters
Civitatensis
Sean at Trickle Down Truth and
Alan at Gen X at 40

Update:
I also tag Derek at Words Without Walls, who is feeling a little left out.

Right now, everyone is stuck on the Grewal tapes. Let me save you a little bit of time. Nothing of substance will come of this, only more hot air. That’s it. So, I have decided to go for something completely different, and make a list of some of the worst comments in blogdom. We have all seen them, maybe even wrote some of them(cough); they are the comments that can lead nowhere or can halt a good conversation in its tracks. I am an advocate of reason, and some bloggers desperately need to return to this fine ideal. So, in no particular order, here are some of those comments. And, if a past reply of yours happens to resemble one of these examples, well, too bad. That’s your fault.

Top Ten Weakest Comments

1. “I completely agree.”

Umm, thanks. Just slightly better is this one followed by your own post re-hashed and thrown back at you.

2. “I completely agree, but…”

…but I don’t think you do.

3. “(finds a typo in your post)…can’t you spell?”

This one rates extremely high on the lame scale. You’ll find the least intelligent using this one.

4. “Ha-ha.”

Actually, now that I think about it, this isn’t that bad. I am outlandishly hilarious.

5. “I suggest you take a _____ class. “

The blank is usually a history class, sometimes political science, because apparently completion of such a class at any school, with passing marks or not, automatically makes you an expert on said subject.

6. “Wow, great post. You’re so great. You write so greatly. Um this is great. You’re a great human…”

Again, retrospectively, not that bad.

7. “Wow, great post. You’re so great…… check out my site at http://politicsrox.blogme.com”

Now, I am all for shameless self promotion, but a little tact please.

8. “You’re a blogging whorie!”

Good one.

9. “Oh yah, you’re a ‘liberal’!”

*Note* This insult only works in the US.

10. “Just what I figured you to be…a girly man french-canadian liberal weinie.”

…No one else get this one… hmmm… I guess I’m the only one.

These are only a few of the many bad replies out there. We have an increasingly important role in the media (see this post by Jay Currie) and I think this new-found responsibility should be shouldered with due consideration. Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t toe the line once in a while. So, if you have any more, let me know. And if anyone has received a comment worse than that last one, I’d love to hear it.