[Writer's note - Usually while writing these posts I sip some whiskey for inspiration but recently I acquired a miserable bastard of a bacterial infection in my foot so today is different. Half of this post was written under the influence of a powerful and legal-but-not-technically-prescribed-to-me-per-se painkiller medication so I really can't speak to any typos and/or general weirdness.]
Dear friends,
Well, it's been over two weeks now since MC Loud's All Night Dance Party kicked off its campaign, and suffice to say it has so far been an unmitigated disaster.
First it was revealed our candidate in Oshawa was actually just a fake name made up by some punk kid. Then our candidate in Fredericton had to withdraw when it became pretty clear he was dead, with our candidate in Fundy Royal serving a life sentence for his murder.
Our guy in Brampton turned out to be a seperatist, which we probably should have asked beforehand but, you know, it was Brampton, while our candidate in Vancouver Centre fell pray to illicit cooking substances and was busted as part of a cumin smuggling ring.
I myself became mired in controversy when that damned Steve Maher stole my tape recorder and published several embarrassingly candid conversations.
I said some unforgiveable things about left-handed people and for that I whole-heartedly apologize. And anyway, in some circles "sub-human" is used as a term of endearment.
Seeking traction, we trotted out a series of promises we thought would grab headlines - annexing Greenland, changing the title of 'Prime Minister' to 'Optimus Prime Minister', naked tuesdays. But research shows that most voters are still unaware that we exist.
It hasn't been all bad. We still have the coolest party name and polls show we're tied with the Bloc in nine of ten provinces. But still, it's clear we needed a wedge issue. Well now we've got one: Democracy.
Basically, we're against it. You maybe thinking, 'but that's not a wedge position at all. Every party is kind of anti-democracy.
And that's true. Every election begins witht the parties wildly alleging that this unfortunate turn of events is the other side's fault with such unsettling vigour that you kind of feel like our 308 MPs were all sealed in an elevator and tasked with figuring out who farted.
It's all but consensus that a multi-party government that represents a majority of voters is not only less democratic than a single-party government that represents a minority, it's a heresy akin to spitting on the queen.
And thanks to our first-past-the-post-fuck-second system, only voters in swing ridings really have the power to determine government (and then, only some swing ridings. A Bloc-NDP race is important and all but has no bearing on who will be PM [or at least it never did until this election turned a wonky shade of mustachioed orange.])
But despite all of this, the other parties still go on and on praising democracy, which, frankly, is a little irresponsible. Half the world is turning itself inside out fighting for the right to vote long after us Westerners have learned that democracy is just like any shiny new toy - flat-out bitchin at first but once you've had it for a while you get bored with it and eventually don't even want to bother.
We know that 40% or so of citizens agree with us, we just need to win them over. Admittedly, getting the anti-voting demographic to vote to reaffirm their anti-voting bias is one dilly of a pickle. But luckily we've got our Edmonton candidate Seymour Butts on the job of figuring it out.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Canadians: I'm Your Man
Can you smell it? That strange scent in the air? That's the smell of excitement. Normally excitement isn't something that can be detected by your olfactory system, but today is different.
Today all the rules are broken.
When I say "Canadian politics" what do you think of? If you're like most Canadians, you think of killing yourself. But what if there was a way to genuinely enjoy politics without having to be one of those douchebags you see on Newsworld?
Well now there's a way to damn the status quo. What do we need? One word: Metamorphosis! ("Change" was taken.)
Ladies and gentlemen, I come here today to offer you this metamorphosis.
We currently suffer the choice between a Russian-sounding guy trying to act Canadian, a Canadian-sounding guy trying to act Russian, and a bald guy trying to act like he can win.
But now you have a real option. Today I present to you the newest political party to enter the scene:
MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party
MC Loud's All Night Dance Party is brimming with new ideas, while also harkening back to the old-school days when Conservatives were conservative, Liberals were liberal and New Democrats were new.
My opponents, when they're not too busy littering or torturing cats, will tell you that that there are only two choices in this election. But we here at MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party think you'll spit on anyone who tells you that after you get a load of our platform.
On National Unity
We believe that Quebec should have the power to decide its own destiny and form a distinct country if its people so choose. That said, Canada also has a right to maintain its cool province to uncool province ratio.
If elected, we will reform the constitution so that in the event of separation Quebec will have to take one of the lame provinces, like New Brunswick, with it. MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party realizes that while this may seem kind of tempting, it is on the whole undesirable. Thus we will undertake a series of unity-building exercises. Birch trees will be bulldozed and replaced with maples. Molson Canadian will be forced to taste better or change its name.
On Debates
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May must have been popular in high school as she sure is bad at being unpopular. There's nothing more pathetic than begging others to pay attention to you, so we here at MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party have rejected taking part in any leaders debate even before receiving an offer. We've got plans that day.
That said, I'd like to formally challenge my opponents to a leaders knife fight at their earliest convenience.
On the Environment
Remember the environment? Remember, like, one election ago when it was actually a big deal? Well we plan to bring it back to the forefront. Now, the last guy who did this got massacred on election day so we can't go too crazy here, but suffice to say we pledge to do something. Something that will make the environment better. It will likely involve carbon.
And while our slate of candidates may not exactly be full of doctors or scientists or people who can read, I think even our opponents would have to admit it's not going to take much to lead on this issue.
On Profiling People and then Banning Them From Your Rallies
We promise to always do the decent thing and friend you on Facebook before we creep your profile and add you to our database of enemies.
Stay tuned, voters. We'll continue to roll out our platformas we come up with it over the coming days. In the meantime, remember to vote MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party - for metamorphosis we can believe in.
Today all the rules are broken.
When I say "Canadian politics" what do you think of? If you're like most Canadians, you think of killing yourself. But what if there was a way to genuinely enjoy politics without having to be one of those douchebags you see on Newsworld?
Well now there's a way to damn the status quo. What do we need? One word: Metamorphosis! ("Change" was taken.)
Ladies and gentlemen, I come here today to offer you this metamorphosis.
We currently suffer the choice between a Russian-sounding guy trying to act Canadian, a Canadian-sounding guy trying to act Russian, and a bald guy trying to act like he can win.
But now you have a real option. Today I present to you the newest political party to enter the scene:
MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party
MC Loud's All Night Dance Party is brimming with new ideas, while also harkening back to the old-school days when Conservatives were conservative, Liberals were liberal and New Democrats were new.
My opponents, when they're not too busy littering or torturing cats, will tell you that that there are only two choices in this election. But we here at MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party think you'll spit on anyone who tells you that after you get a load of our platform.
On National Unity
We believe that Quebec should have the power to decide its own destiny and form a distinct country if its people so choose. That said, Canada also has a right to maintain its cool province to uncool province ratio.
If elected, we will reform the constitution so that in the event of separation Quebec will have to take one of the lame provinces, like New Brunswick, with it. MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party realizes that while this may seem kind of tempting, it is on the whole undesirable. Thus we will undertake a series of unity-building exercises. Birch trees will be bulldozed and replaced with maples. Molson Canadian will be forced to taste better or change its name.
On Debates
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May must have been popular in high school as she sure is bad at being unpopular. There's nothing more pathetic than begging others to pay attention to you, so we here at MC Loud's All-Night Dance Party have rejected taking part in any leaders debate even before receiving an offer. We've got plans that day.
That said, I'd like to formally challenge my opponents to a leaders knife fight at their earliest convenience.
On the Environment
Remember the environment? Remember, like, one election ago when it was actually a big deal? Well we plan to bring it back to the forefront. Now, the last guy who did this got massacred on election day so we can't go too crazy here, but suffice to say we pledge to do something. Something that will make the environment better. It will likely involve carbon.
And while our slate of candidates may not exactly be full of doctors or scientists or people who can read, I think even our opponents would have to admit it's not going to take much to lead on this issue.
On Profiling People and then Banning Them From Your Rallies
We promise to always do the decent thing and friend you on Facebook before we creep your profile and add you to our database of enemies.
Stay tuned, voters. We'll continue to roll out our platform
Monday, February 7, 2011
Fear and Loathing in Hants County
As a rival reporter to Halifax's Chronicle Herald, I've long had a Sharks/Jets-style rivalry with the paper, complete with stabbings and finger snaps.
But I couldn't help but feel sympathy for the Herald after they released their discreetly-titled video and print feature Nova Scotia Burning!!! (exclamation marks inferred by them but added by me).
Despite exclusive interviews and top level production value around a national story, reaction was overwhelmingly negative. Pushed onto the defensive, the Herald began a spirited defence of the importance of the feature.
I decided to write a thoughtful analysis of the situation to illuminate the difficulties in reporting on racial issues. Then I changed my mind and decided to write a one-act play instead. I hereby present to you - The People vs. The Chronicle Herald; Requiem.
Scene: The Chronicle Herald and Joe Public meet in some sort of dramatic setting.
Chronicle Herald: Hey, what's wrong with you? Why won't you watch my new feature, Nova Scotia Burning?
Joe Public: Well I already followed the whole thing when the story was actually happening. I'm kind of sick of hearing about it.
CH: Spoken like a true racist! Don't you realize that prejudice thrives in silence and procreates in apathy? If we don't shed light on this important issue then it'll just breed more hatred.
JP: But, the story was covered to death. Everyone reported on it. Everyone!
CH: Well, our coverage proves that racism still exists in Nova Scotia.
JP: Yeah, but everyone knows there's still racism. Everyone! Even the racists!
CH: Yes, but Nova Scotia Burning shows how racism permeates every seam of our society.
JP: Really? Because it seems like a very specific, personal feud between relatives? Where's the universality in that?
CH: Look, you pansy, hide from it all you want but we're bringing you a big blast of truth. People in this province have to live with racism every day.
JP: So why not do a feature on that?
CH: ...come again?
JP: If you're going to do a big tell-all on a major story, then fine. If you're going to do an in-depth examination of large-scale race relations, then fine. But don't do one and then claim you're doing the other.
CH: Look, we're the newspaper of record. With great circulation comes great responsibility, and it's incumbent on us to delve into the tough issues. We're not going to just give you that shallow, ambulance-chasing daily hackery. We stand back and provide a mature appreciation of nuanced real world issues.
JP: I see. And what's it called again?
CH: Nova Scotia Burning.
JP: Ah, right.
CH: And be sure to stay tuned for our next racism exposés: Schindler's Bluenose...
JP: Oh sweet Jesus.
CH: The Green Kilometre...
JP: This is embarrassing.
CH: To Disproportionately Pull Over a Mocking Bird...
JP: Please stop.
CH: Africville History X...
JP: Look, I'm tired of being talked down to and told I need to learn every detail of a stupid action by a couple of hicks in order to confront racism. I'm tired of being accused of burying my head in the sand or told I "fear stirring up old resentments" when I say I'm not interested. I'm sick of hearing about the goddamn cross burning. I don't care if you try to dress it up with a reference to The Believer. I'm just sick of it.
CH: Was that the one with Ryan Gosling?
JP: Yeah, it's really good.
CH: You know, I saw that on Showcase a while back. That is an underrated movie.
JP: A great performance.
CH: Oh, absolutely stellar.
JP: So, if it's all cool with you, I'm just going to go on living my life exactly the same as before I saw your feature.
CH: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
JP: See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
CH: Sorry. That's just a line from our upcoming news feature, A Few Good Maritimers.
Paul Haggis: Excuse me is this the Chronicle Herald? I saw your piece and I'd like to drop off a resume.
Fin.
OK, so it's easy to make fun of the Herald for their occassional tendency to slip into pompousness, but they do deserve some praise.
While the headline was over the top, the stories themselves were done in a thorough, respectful tone. They provided an exclusive look at the Rehbergs, and it really did look professional. (Director Jayson Taylor jumped to the Herald last fall from the Globe and Mail, where he was highly acclaimed. Dude's won one or two Emmy Awards. He clearly knows his stuff.) The people involved in the feature have every right to be proud of their work.
The reason some of us rolled our eyes is the context. There are a lot of issues that deserved as much or more attention but didn't get it. It was hard not to be frustrated that this is where the Herald chose to flex its muscle and splurge on a level of detail and production value normally reserved for whenever Sidney Crosby burps.
But while it seems egregious as a stand-alone, as part of a bigger series of in-depth think pieces it could fit in nicely. That's exactly what the Herald has promised it is going to do.
So, fellow scoffers, I propose we give the Herald the benefit of the doubt. Nova Scotia Burning may go down as a leap into enterprise reporting and the first step in the Herald upping its game.
And if not, at least we'll have the inevitable motion picture adaption directed by Paul Haggis.
But I couldn't help but feel sympathy for the Herald after they released their discreetly-titled video and print feature Nova Scotia Burning!!! (exclamation marks inferred by them but added by me).
Despite exclusive interviews and top level production value around a national story, reaction was overwhelmingly negative. Pushed onto the defensive, the Herald began a spirited defence of the importance of the feature.
I decided to write a thoughtful analysis of the situation to illuminate the difficulties in reporting on racial issues. Then I changed my mind and decided to write a one-act play instead. I hereby present to you - The People vs. The Chronicle Herald; Requiem.
Scene: The Chronicle Herald and Joe Public meet in some sort of dramatic setting.
Chronicle Herald: Hey, what's wrong with you? Why won't you watch my new feature, Nova Scotia Burning?
Joe Public: Well I already followed the whole thing when the story was actually happening. I'm kind of sick of hearing about it.
CH: Spoken like a true racist! Don't you realize that prejudice thrives in silence and procreates in apathy? If we don't shed light on this important issue then it'll just breed more hatred.
JP: But, the story was covered to death. Everyone reported on it. Everyone!
CH: Well, our coverage proves that racism still exists in Nova Scotia.
JP: Yeah, but everyone knows there's still racism. Everyone! Even the racists!
CH: Yes, but Nova Scotia Burning shows how racism permeates every seam of our society.
JP: Really? Because it seems like a very specific, personal feud between relatives? Where's the universality in that?
CH: Look, you pansy, hide from it all you want but we're bringing you a big blast of truth. People in this province have to live with racism every day.
JP: So why not do a feature on that?
CH: ...come again?
JP: If you're going to do a big tell-all on a major story, then fine. If you're going to do an in-depth examination of large-scale race relations, then fine. But don't do one and then claim you're doing the other.
CH: Look, we're the newspaper of record. With great circulation comes great responsibility, and it's incumbent on us to delve into the tough issues. We're not going to just give you that shallow, ambulance-chasing daily hackery. We stand back and provide a mature appreciation of nuanced real world issues.
JP: I see. And what's it called again?
CH: Nova Scotia Burning.
JP: Ah, right.
CH: And be sure to stay tuned for our next racism exposés: Schindler's Bluenose...
JP: Oh sweet Jesus.
CH: The Green Kilometre...
JP: This is embarrassing.
CH: To Disproportionately Pull Over a Mocking Bird...
JP: Please stop.
CH: Africville History X...
JP: Look, I'm tired of being talked down to and told I need to learn every detail of a stupid action by a couple of hicks in order to confront racism. I'm tired of being accused of burying my head in the sand or told I "fear stirring up old resentments" when I say I'm not interested. I'm sick of hearing about the goddamn cross burning. I don't care if you try to dress it up with a reference to The Believer. I'm just sick of it.
CH: Was that the one with Ryan Gosling?
JP: Yeah, it's really good.
CH: You know, I saw that on Showcase a while back. That is an underrated movie.
JP: A great performance.
CH: Oh, absolutely stellar.
JP: So, if it's all cool with you, I'm just going to go on living my life exactly the same as before I saw your feature.
CH: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
JP: See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
CH: Sorry. That's just a line from our upcoming news feature, A Few Good Maritimers.
Paul Haggis: Excuse me is this the Chronicle Herald? I saw your piece and I'd like to drop off a resume.
Fin.
OK, so it's easy to make fun of the Herald for their occassional tendency to slip into pompousness, but they do deserve some praise.
While the headline was over the top, the stories themselves were done in a thorough, respectful tone. They provided an exclusive look at the Rehbergs, and it really did look professional. (Director Jayson Taylor jumped to the Herald last fall from the Globe and Mail, where he was highly acclaimed. Dude's won one or two Emmy Awards. He clearly knows his stuff.) The people involved in the feature have every right to be proud of their work.
The reason some of us rolled our eyes is the context. There are a lot of issues that deserved as much or more attention but didn't get it. It was hard not to be frustrated that this is where the Herald chose to flex its muscle and splurge on a level of detail and production value normally reserved for whenever Sidney Crosby burps.
But while it seems egregious as a stand-alone, as part of a bigger series of in-depth think pieces it could fit in nicely. That's exactly what the Herald has promised it is going to do.
So, fellow scoffers, I propose we give the Herald the benefit of the doubt. Nova Scotia Burning may go down as a leap into enterprise reporting and the first step in the Herald upping its game.
And if not, at least we'll have the inevitable motion picture adaption directed by Paul Haggis.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The oval of my ire
Following up my last blog post where I defended cynicism and criticized innovation, it seems I'm now going to attack a beloved project that has united all of Halifax, and argue for more bureaucratic red tape.
Sigh. Let's get this over with.
The way thing's are going, Halifax will have a new permanent skating oval on the central Common. People are going crazy for it, and our politicians aren't exactly bandwagon-adverse, so it's got good odds.
And there are some great reasons to have an oval (for a summary, see this Tim Bousquet editorial in The Coast.) But some huge questions haven't been resolved.
Say you're tripping out one weekend and decide to build a big fort in your living room. It turns out you love the fort and want to keep it. But alas, it means you can't really have guests over and it's impossible to see the TV or water the fern. Once the high wore off, most rational, fort-building people would consider moving it to another room where it would be less disruptive.
The oval, meant to be temporary for the Canada Games and placed with no long-term considerations whatsoever, is our acid fort.
The oval debate is wholly centered around the question of whether to keep it or not. Instead we should be asking two distinct questions: 1) should we have a permanent outdoor oval, and 2) if yes, should it stay where it is now.
Now, I'm as much of a fan as ice-skate NASCAR as the next guy, so I have no problem with question 1. My problem with question 2 is that all of the great things about the present location - it's central, it's a big park, etc. - are also downsides.
That's because for the big majority of the year where we don't have cold enough weather it'll just be wased space. A fifth of our signature park is just gone.
(I should note that some people have climbed out of their drug forts to say it could just be turned into a giant inline skating rink. Are we going to invite the 1980s? Because I don't really know anyone else who inline skates. And even if they did, we'd never normally shove the baseballers, cricketers, soccerers, frisbeers and and dog-walkers to make room for something like inline skating.)
Christ, is this really who I am now? Can I not just let people be happy? Everone loves that damn ice circle. You know, I was such a nice kid. Now look at me. I'm in my mid-20s and I've got the temperament of a 77-year-old Korean war vet.
If you google image search 'oval' you get a bunch of drawings of ovals plus this rando.
OK, gotta get through this. What about putting an oval on the Wanderers Grounds, the Garrison Grounds by Citadel Hill, or potentially even behind the new Halifax Library?
They all offer that same rush - outdoors in the heart of the city - arguably without costing such prime land. And sure, there are downsides to each, and maybe the oval wouldn't fit in any of those spots. Maybe we don't go for a full-sized oval. Maybe we have a small one somewhere central, even the common, and put a long-track in Dartmouth or wherever.
The argument has become baseball vs. skating, the Common as sacred land vs. doing something fun. But maybe we could have all of these things. Maybe we can have a great oval near downtown and preserve the Common. Maybe not. Maybe it's not feasible or is too expensive.
But why the hell wouldn't we be frantically studying to answer these questions? That's just due diligence.
Imagine if the city put a huge permanent structure on the Common with no studying or consultation. Some poor bureaucrat would be publicly crucified. But that's essentially what it now appears is going to happen.
And also, seal hunt protestors need to grow up and find a real cause! And stop freaking out about someone changing Mark Twain's words, it's not like he burned all the original copies! And Natalie Portman was only ok in Black Swan!
Jesus, how did it come to this? Well, be sure to check back next week when I'll presumably be bashing world peace and giving an impassioned defence of polio.
Sigh. Let's get this over with.
The way thing's are going, Halifax will have a new permanent skating oval on the central Common. People are going crazy for it, and our politicians aren't exactly bandwagon-adverse, so it's got good odds.
And there are some great reasons to have an oval (for a summary, see this Tim Bousquet editorial in The Coast.) But some huge questions haven't been resolved.
Say you're tripping out one weekend and decide to build a big fort in your living room. It turns out you love the fort and want to keep it. But alas, it means you can't really have guests over and it's impossible to see the TV or water the fern. Once the high wore off, most rational, fort-building people would consider moving it to another room where it would be less disruptive.
The oval, meant to be temporary for the Canada Games and placed with no long-term considerations whatsoever, is our acid fort.
The oval debate is wholly centered around the question of whether to keep it or not. Instead we should be asking two distinct questions: 1) should we have a permanent outdoor oval, and 2) if yes, should it stay where it is now.
Now, I'm as much of a fan as ice-skate NASCAR as the next guy, so I have no problem with question 1. My problem with question 2 is that all of the great things about the present location - it's central, it's a big park, etc. - are also downsides.
That's because for the big majority of the year where we don't have cold enough weather it'll just be wased space. A fifth of our signature park is just gone.
(I should note that some people have climbed out of their drug forts to say it could just be turned into a giant inline skating rink. Are we going to invite the 1980s? Because I don't really know anyone else who inline skates. And even if they did, we'd never normally shove the baseballers, cricketers, soccerers, frisbeers and and dog-walkers to make room for something like inline skating.)
Christ, is this really who I am now? Can I not just let people be happy? Everone loves that damn ice circle. You know, I was such a nice kid. Now look at me. I'm in my mid-20s and I've got the temperament of a 77-year-old Korean war vet.
If you google image search 'oval' you get a bunch of drawings of ovals plus this rando.OK, gotta get through this. What about putting an oval on the Wanderers Grounds, the Garrison Grounds by Citadel Hill, or potentially even behind the new Halifax Library?
They all offer that same rush - outdoors in the heart of the city - arguably without costing such prime land. And sure, there are downsides to each, and maybe the oval wouldn't fit in any of those spots. Maybe we don't go for a full-sized oval. Maybe we have a small one somewhere central, even the common, and put a long-track in Dartmouth or wherever.
The argument has become baseball vs. skating, the Common as sacred land vs. doing something fun. But maybe we could have all of these things. Maybe we can have a great oval near downtown and preserve the Common. Maybe not. Maybe it's not feasible or is too expensive.
But why the hell wouldn't we be frantically studying to answer these questions? That's just due diligence.
Imagine if the city put a huge permanent structure on the Common with no studying or consultation. Some poor bureaucrat would be publicly crucified. But that's essentially what it now appears is going to happen.
And also, seal hunt protestors need to grow up and find a real cause! And stop freaking out about someone changing Mark Twain's words, it's not like he burned all the original copies! And Natalie Portman was only ok in Black Swan!
Jesus, how did it come to this? Well, be sure to check back next week when I'll presumably be bashing world peace and giving an impassioned defence of polio.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Waiting for the Feel Good Revolution; Or, In Defence of Cynicism
Two years ago I sat in a Halifax convention room listening to Bill Clinton give an intensely eloquent and vapid speech for a few hundred doe-eyed people. It took all of my will power not to walk out.
Then I figured, screw it, I'm wasn't working and I hadn't even paid to be there, so I walked out.
I recall this because of a highly entertaining dispute recently between Tim Bousquet, news editor of Halifax's alt weekly The Coast, and (a few vocal spokespeople for) a group of young, upwardly mobile professionals called Fusion. (Full disclosure: Tim and I are both members of a highly ineffective alcoholism support group.)
Basically, Bousquet accused Fusion of being naive Pollyanas, while they shot back that Tim is a cynic who holds back progress.
Funny thing is, they're all backwards. Tim isn't a cynic, he's a hardcore idealist. The Fusion headliners are, if not cynics, playing into inaction.
Tim takes a dim view of the world's prospects - skyrocketing oil prices, looming environmental catastrophe, crippling financial debt, Oprah, etc. He calls for basically overthrowing the system to avert disaster. (Full disclosure: Tim and I co-founded a barbershop quartet in Skokie, Illinois, but it broke up acrimoniously and that son of a bitch still has my cane.)
Meanwhile Fusion's statements come out like, for example, this: "I think one of the most important things a community can do is to engage its citizens in a visioning process to determine collective priorities."
But what happens when you try to take the cliche seriously?
Let's try this one:
Platitude: "We need to be a net importer fo grey matter."
Reaction: "OMG, so true! Repost!"
Identifiable real world consequence: Well, I suppose reducing tuition fees to attract more students to post-secondary education. But then, at a time when we're paying those tuition decreases with borrowed money, how much is affordable? Should we be lowering tuition for rich kids who can afford it, or maybe put money into needs-based grants instead.
Also, attracting bright businesses in the information economy is a no-brainer. But how? Offering economic incentives? Will they just relocate if they get a better deal elsewhere? And again, in a time of deficit, is lowering corporate taxes going to spur enough economic activity to offset the loss in revenue?
From Clinton right on down to Vince the Slap Chop guy, motivational speakers are paid to use linguistic devices to make people feel better, while glossing over ugly truths/product defects.
They are paid, often quite well, to promote a consulting form of slacktivism. From "positivity" to changing your facebook status, the more people are made to feel good about doing nothing the less likely they are to do anything.
Many would interject here and say these motivational speeches are just the first step to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. But look at what just happened in Halifax.
The decision to fund a multi-multi-multi-million dollar convention centre quickly became polarized. Tim flipped hard to the no-side and chain-wrote his way through a ton of CC-bashing pieces (Full disclosure: Tim and I went to Vegas this one time but I can't really talk about it.)
There were many of us on the fence who thought that Tim was reaching at times, but brought up valid concerns. We waited for the rebuttal.
But no counter-arguments had close to the factual heft of the pieces by Tim and other detractors. There was a lot of talk of the need for optimism, kick-starting the downtown, and other platitudes, but little in the way of data other than pointing to suspect business plans.
I'm not saying there wasn't a case to be made that rebutted the No side. In fact, for the purposes of this piece I'm not even saying the convention centre is a bad idea.
I'm saying that I didn't see anyone wade into the numbers and made that detailed defence. Even with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, so many people were willing to support a project unwaveringly because they viewed it as being on the side of progress and optimism.
That's not a progressive mindset, it's a blind spot. And there are plenty of hucksters out there willing to exploit it with their synergistic, next-gen, game-changing, paradigm-shifting, 2.0 crap of the week.
The feel good revolution isn't a means, it's an end. It is an industry that self perpetuates - more talk, more soul searching, more self-affirmation. We get stuck in a holding pattern, waiting for Godot to show up with his magic answers while real world problems flow on unabated.
I guarantee you the people who set up a fraudulent financial system to make themselves rich didn't do it by debating grand ideals, they did it by manipulating cold, hard details. How are we supposed to fight that if our heads are in the clouds?
So here's my five-part appeal to the bright-side-of-life crowd:
- I know that you have good intententions, that you care, and that you genuinely want to affect positive change. And I know that cantankerous old bastards like Tim Bousquet can be insufferable. (Full disclosure: Tim has very soft hands.)
I'm not saying be like him. It's healthy to have a mix of Debbie Downers and Umberto Uppers. Optimism has its place. But-
- At some point you've got to research and advocate for real policy positions. And they're not going to be innovative or collaborative or dynamic, they're going to be old-fashioned, divisive and slow.
I'm not talking about "It'll take hard work," I'm talking about situations like Afghanistan, where our choices are stay and people die, or leave and people die. It's incumbent on us to decide the best of terrible options.
- Changing the world shouldn't just make you feel giddy or happy. It should charge you with a sense of purpose and self-sacrafice. The last part is important because even simple concepts like "going green" will require making changes that will not be easy, cheap, or fun.
- Draw the line between pessimism and defeatism. Things do go badly. We need pessimism to prepare for those scenarios. Don't assume that looking on the bright side is more valuable, or productive, or true than expecting the worst. That way lies delusion.
- Finally, be critical. There's no going back - people will be trying to spin us in many directions for the rest of our lives. We need skepticism to see through it. Use the journalism trick of the better something sounds, the closer you look at it.
I argue with Tim all the time over his ideas. I think some of his grand ideas for social change are over-simplified and out of reach. I argue for a more moderate approach because I think revolutions are too easily hijacked. So maybe I'm a cynic.
But, to steal some lines from my friend Laura Penny: Cynicism is good. Cynicism leads to being pissed off, being pissed off leads to taking action and taking action leads to social change.
I'll leave you with an inspirational quote.
"Thought = creation. If these thoughts are attached to powerful emotions (good or bad) that speeds the creation," - The Secret.
When you look at that and immediately see bullshit, you're on your way.
(Full disclosure: I am a member of secret cabal of Freemasons that run both the financial sector and the entertainment industry, and have a significant financial investment in keeping the working man down.)
Then I figured, screw it, I'm wasn't working and I hadn't even paid to be there, so I walked out.
I recall this because of a highly entertaining dispute recently between Tim Bousquet, news editor of Halifax's alt weekly The Coast, and (a few vocal spokespeople for) a group of young, upwardly mobile professionals called Fusion. (Full disclosure: Tim and I are both members of a highly ineffective alcoholism support group.)
Basically, Bousquet accused Fusion of being naive Pollyanas, while they shot back that Tim is a cynic who holds back progress.
Funny thing is, they're all backwards. Tim isn't a cynic, he's a hardcore idealist. The Fusion headliners are, if not cynics, playing into inaction.
Tim takes a dim view of the world's prospects - skyrocketing oil prices, looming environmental catastrophe, crippling financial debt, Oprah, etc. He calls for basically overthrowing the system to avert disaster. (Full disclosure: Tim and I co-founded a barbershop quartet in Skokie, Illinois, but it broke up acrimoniously and that son of a bitch still has my cane.)
Meanwhile Fusion's statements come out like, for example, this: "I think one of the most important things a community can do is to engage its citizens in a visioning process to determine collective priorities."
But what happens when you try to take the cliche seriously?
Let's try this one:
Platitude: "We need to be a net importer fo grey matter."
Reaction: "OMG, so true! Repost!"
Identifiable real world consequence: Well, I suppose reducing tuition fees to attract more students to post-secondary education. But then, at a time when we're paying those tuition decreases with borrowed money, how much is affordable? Should we be lowering tuition for rich kids who can afford it, or maybe put money into needs-based grants instead.
Also, attracting bright businesses in the information economy is a no-brainer. But how? Offering economic incentives? Will they just relocate if they get a better deal elsewhere? And again, in a time of deficit, is lowering corporate taxes going to spur enough economic activity to offset the loss in revenue?
From Clinton right on down to Vince the Slap Chop guy, motivational speakers are paid to use linguistic devices to make people feel better, while glossing over ugly truths/product defects.
They are paid, often quite well, to promote a consulting form of slacktivism. From "positivity" to changing your facebook status, the more people are made to feel good about doing nothing the less likely they are to do anything.
Many would interject here and say these motivational speeches are just the first step to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. But look at what just happened in Halifax.
The decision to fund a multi-multi-multi-million dollar convention centre quickly became polarized. Tim flipped hard to the no-side and chain-wrote his way through a ton of CC-bashing pieces (Full disclosure: Tim and I went to Vegas this one time but I can't really talk about it.)
There were many of us on the fence who thought that Tim was reaching at times, but brought up valid concerns. We waited for the rebuttal.
But no counter-arguments had close to the factual heft of the pieces by Tim and other detractors. There was a lot of talk of the need for optimism, kick-starting the downtown, and other platitudes, but little in the way of data other than pointing to suspect business plans.
I'm not saying there wasn't a case to be made that rebutted the No side. In fact, for the purposes of this piece I'm not even saying the convention centre is a bad idea.
I'm saying that I didn't see anyone wade into the numbers and made that detailed defence. Even with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, so many people were willing to support a project unwaveringly because they viewed it as being on the side of progress and optimism.
That's not a progressive mindset, it's a blind spot. And there are plenty of hucksters out there willing to exploit it with their synergistic, next-gen, game-changing, paradigm-shifting, 2.0 crap of the week.
The feel good revolution isn't a means, it's an end. It is an industry that self perpetuates - more talk, more soul searching, more self-affirmation. We get stuck in a holding pattern, waiting for Godot to show up with his magic answers while real world problems flow on unabated.
I guarantee you the people who set up a fraudulent financial system to make themselves rich didn't do it by debating grand ideals, they did it by manipulating cold, hard details. How are we supposed to fight that if our heads are in the clouds?
So here's my five-part appeal to the bright-side-of-life crowd:
- I know that you have good intententions, that you care, and that you genuinely want to affect positive change. And I know that cantankerous old bastards like Tim Bousquet can be insufferable. (Full disclosure: Tim has very soft hands.)
I'm not saying be like him. It's healthy to have a mix of Debbie Downers and Umberto Uppers. Optimism has its place. But-
- At some point you've got to research and advocate for real policy positions. And they're not going to be innovative or collaborative or dynamic, they're going to be old-fashioned, divisive and slow.
I'm not talking about "It'll take hard work," I'm talking about situations like Afghanistan, where our choices are stay and people die, or leave and people die. It's incumbent on us to decide the best of terrible options.
- Changing the world shouldn't just make you feel giddy or happy. It should charge you with a sense of purpose and self-sacrafice. The last part is important because even simple concepts like "going green" will require making changes that will not be easy, cheap, or fun.
- Draw the line between pessimism and defeatism. Things do go badly. We need pessimism to prepare for those scenarios. Don't assume that looking on the bright side is more valuable, or productive, or true than expecting the worst. That way lies delusion.
- Finally, be critical. There's no going back - people will be trying to spin us in many directions for the rest of our lives. We need skepticism to see through it. Use the journalism trick of the better something sounds, the closer you look at it.
I argue with Tim all the time over his ideas. I think some of his grand ideas for social change are over-simplified and out of reach. I argue for a more moderate approach because I think revolutions are too easily hijacked. So maybe I'm a cynic.
But, to steal some lines from my friend Laura Penny: Cynicism is good. Cynicism leads to being pissed off, being pissed off leads to taking action and taking action leads to social change.
I'll leave you with an inspirational quote.
"Thought = creation. If these thoughts are attached to powerful emotions (good or bad) that speeds the creation," - The Secret.
When you look at that and immediately see bullshit, you're on your way.
(Full disclosure: I am a member of secret cabal of Freemasons that run both the financial sector and the entertainment industry, and have a significant financial investment in keeping the working man down.)
Monday, November 29, 2010
Accidental Genius: George Lucas
You didn't see many headlines this week saying "Irvin Kershner, director of Robocop 2, died last weekend at 87."
Many of the obituaries of Kershner, who died Saturday, contain decidedly faint praise. The first one I saw called him a "journeyman director."
But the thing no one can take away from him is that he directed The Empire Strikes Back. That may make him the cinematic version of a one hit wonder, but if your one hit is the equivalent of the combined oeuvre of the Beatles, it's not so bad.
When I started this blog with my friend Mike way back when, we thought up some recurring themes. One of them was going to be called Accidental Genius, about people whose blunders inadvertently spark sublime results. I only ever got around to writing one installment, but Irvin, this one's for you.
George Lucas is an awful, terrible filmmaker. For an excellent recapping of why, check out this weird, twisted 70 minute review of Star Wars Episode 1.
(For those who haven't seen it, I realize how absurd that sounds. I, too, once thought I had far better things to do with my time. And like you, I was wrong. All I can say is give it a chance - it is insightful and well worth the commitment for anyone who appreciates movies.)
Yes, Lucas invented Star Wars. But his early scripts are embarrassingly bad. It took the collaberation of a lot of talented people to get the movie to its final form. Lucas did have a fertile mind to contribute. He also had a knack for special effects and a ton of ambition. And he had greed, and that, ultimately, is what saved Star Wars.
After the first movie became a hit Lucas, consumed by a thirst for power that is in no way ironic considering the content of his films, ceded the director's chair because he needed to dedicate more of his energy to fighting the studios for control.
In the early days his railing against the film establishment lead to greatness. After feuding with Director's Guild of America over the trilogy's famous opening title sequence, Lucas left the guild. It's rumoured he had wanted his friend Stephen Spielberg to direct Empire, but this fell apart after the guild dispute.
Pause for a minute and think about a Spielberg-helmed Empire. Picture Yoda training Luke from the basket of a flying bicycle. Picture Qui-Gon Jinn coming in and crying "This lightsaber! This lightsaber could have saved five more gungans." Picture Tom Hanks somehow being involved.
The horror.
Instead Lucas went with the unconventional choice of Kershner, who excelled at character development, to handle the nitty-gritty directing business.
Because he was busy fighting for merchandising rights, Lucas didn't have time to huff around the set saying "The line is I love you too, Harrison, not I know." Because he was busy setting up sub-companies for every aspect of the production, he was too busy to work a big explosion into the ending.
I submit to you that it was George Lucas's terrible vices that saved us from his even more debilitating faults.
Of course years later he would take back custody of the child that was conceived by him but raised by others, and turn it into an insufferable emo kid. With no studio to rail against, no one to challenge his megalomania, Lucas had the complete control he needed to systematically destroy everything people loved about Star Wars and in turn tarnish the childhoods of millions.
Goddamn you, George Lucas.
But we'll always have the original theatrical cuts of the original movies, where Han shoots first, Boba Fett doesn't have an embarrassing Australian accent, and Luke doesn't look off at Hayden Fucking Christensen at the end of Jedi goddamn you, George Lucas.
Anyway, let's hear it for Irvin, who helped make one of the greatest and most beloved movies of all time. The guy who didn't even want to direct a Star Wars movie, but stepped up to the plate and hit a pinch hit, five-run grand slam.
Irvin Kershner, director of The Empire Strikes Back, died last weekend at 87.
Many of the obituaries of Kershner, who died Saturday, contain decidedly faint praise. The first one I saw called him a "journeyman director."
But the thing no one can take away from him is that he directed The Empire Strikes Back. That may make him the cinematic version of a one hit wonder, but if your one hit is the equivalent of the combined oeuvre of the Beatles, it's not so bad.
When I started this blog with my friend Mike way back when, we thought up some recurring themes. One of them was going to be called Accidental Genius, about people whose blunders inadvertently spark sublime results. I only ever got around to writing one installment, but Irvin, this one's for you.
George Lucas is an awful, terrible filmmaker. For an excellent recapping of why, check out this weird, twisted 70 minute review of Star Wars Episode 1.
(For those who haven't seen it, I realize how absurd that sounds. I, too, once thought I had far better things to do with my time. And like you, I was wrong. All I can say is give it a chance - it is insightful and well worth the commitment for anyone who appreciates movies.)
Yes, Lucas invented Star Wars. But his early scripts are embarrassingly bad. It took the collaberation of a lot of talented people to get the movie to its final form. Lucas did have a fertile mind to contribute. He also had a knack for special effects and a ton of ambition. And he had greed, and that, ultimately, is what saved Star Wars.
After the first movie became a hit Lucas, consumed by a thirst for power that is in no way ironic considering the content of his films, ceded the director's chair because he needed to dedicate more of his energy to fighting the studios for control.
In the early days his railing against the film establishment lead to greatness. After feuding with Director's Guild of America over the trilogy's famous opening title sequence, Lucas left the guild. It's rumoured he had wanted his friend Stephen Spielberg to direct Empire, but this fell apart after the guild dispute.
Pause for a minute and think about a Spielberg-helmed Empire. Picture Yoda training Luke from the basket of a flying bicycle. Picture Qui-Gon Jinn coming in and crying "This lightsaber! This lightsaber could have saved five more gungans." Picture Tom Hanks somehow being involved.
The horror.
Instead Lucas went with the unconventional choice of Kershner, who excelled at character development, to handle the nitty-gritty directing business.
Because he was busy fighting for merchandising rights, Lucas didn't have time to huff around the set saying "The line is I love you too, Harrison, not I know." Because he was busy setting up sub-companies for every aspect of the production, he was too busy to work a big explosion into the ending.
I submit to you that it was George Lucas's terrible vices that saved us from his even more debilitating faults.
Of course years later he would take back custody of the child that was conceived by him but raised by others, and turn it into an insufferable emo kid. With no studio to rail against, no one to challenge his megalomania, Lucas had the complete control he needed to systematically destroy everything people loved about Star Wars and in turn tarnish the childhoods of millions.
Goddamn you, George Lucas.
But we'll always have the original theatrical cuts of the original movies, where Han shoots first, Boba Fett doesn't have an embarrassing Australian accent, and Luke doesn't look off at Hayden Fucking Christensen at the end of Jedi goddamn you, George Lucas.
Anyway, let's hear it for Irvin, who helped make one of the greatest and most beloved movies of all time. The guy who didn't even want to direct a Star Wars movie, but stepped up to the plate and hit a pinch hit, five-run grand slam.
Irvin Kershner, director of The Empire Strikes Back, died last weekend at 87.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Well, I'm off to America
My fellow Canadians,
I like you guys, but lately you've been driving me nuts.
Everything's been far too Canadian recently and I need a break.
Our country loses a bid to join a group of U.N. hall monitors futily screaming at our peers to stop running and we react by retreating to our rooms to write emo poetry and cry about how the other kids don't like us.
Our government was so distraught it actually tried to claim some offhand negative nellying by opposition leader Michael Ignatieff caused literally dozens of countries to snub us.
Quick, how many opposition leaders of foreign nations can you name off the top of your head?
Yeah.
Meanwhile, though our Prime Minister still won't speak to reporters and access to information laws are being systematically underminded, people decide to freak out because MacLean's Magazine was mean to Quebec. A sensational MacLeans front page? This is not news.
Not content with being content about being kept in the dark, it seems we're now getting openly hostile with people who would inform us.
Some Canadians - even people in the media I respected such as MacLean's Scott Feschuk - freaked out at journalists reporting edited-but-still-disturbing details from the Colonol Russell Williams trial.
"It's never pretty when the media gets to cloak their lurid instincts in the guise of doing a duty," Feschuk wrote on Twitter, presumably after lecturing a hobo on getting a job.
Only in Canada - well, maybe Belarus too - would people argue the public shouldn't have the right to know what's going on in a public courtroom because it's gross.
Come on, Canada, grow some balls. In a land where twitter accounts are assigned at birth and hardwired into our skulls, mabe we could whine about this stuff. But in our world, where buttons like 'unsubscribe,' 'unfollow,' and 'unfriend' exist, we've been given the freedom of choice.
I guess you could argue choosing to fight for not having a choice could be seen as a valid choice... ah, but there I go being all Canadian again.
Closer to home sweet home in Halifax, the debate about whether to put oodles of public money towards a new convention centre was shrouded by secrecy for a long time as government declined to say how much it would cost.
To give government some credit - Christ, there I go again - they did finally unveil the cost of the centre about a week before announcing they would support it. Rather than encourage this openness, Marilla Stephenson, the premier columnist at the province's paper of record, lambasted our elected officials for bothering to level with us.
Rather than analyze the information, Stephenson was exhasperated that the government was still doing their wishy-washy thinking thing instead of taking action. "Why on earth did they undertake the briefing, then?" she chirped.
To amplify this... Marilla Stephenson has scolded the government for not rushing to throw money at a hugely controversial project and only telling the public the cost afterwards.
I've reached my breaking point. I need to be around some assholes. I need to look at someone and think ' I wonder if that guy is carrying a gun.' I need to hate something with as much passion as the synopses in my brain can muster, and not even know or care why.
So I'm off to America, where centrists are fictional, liberals are conservatives, and conservatives are closeted homosexuals.
Where beer is cheap, football has four downs and a man's moral compass is pointed right at the heart of his enemies and instead of a compass it's a handgun.
I need to feel that strange sensation that comes over me whenever I visit the U.S. where anyone who tries to stop me from doing whatever I want is committing a grave affront; where absolute freedom is paramount and I end up screaming "But this is America!" at some 7-eleven clerk in Boston who won't sell me booze at midnight.
So I'm going for a taste. I leave tomorrow but, like a deep-sea diver, I'll first acclimatize myself with a couple days in America Lite - Toronto, with it's new Americany mayor - then I drive down to Washington for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert-sponsored Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on October 30. One can only hope I'll witness a big brawl between tea partiers and Huffington Post bloggers.
I expect one of two things to happen.
1) Immersed in liberty and cheap beer I will emerge like a Chilean miner into a state of enlightenment. I will then return to Canada, start up a grass-roots libertarian party and lead the charge against our nation's paternalistic system.
2) It will become painfully obvious that the US is a crazed, bipolar country veering towards the edge of a cultural and financial cliff that will make the collapse of the Roman empire look like a lesser episode of Seinfeld.
After viewing our country through the other side of this tragic mirror I'll rush back to embrace all that is Canadian and forgive our occassionally infuraiting complacency.
Seeing as Lady Gaga has become America's voice of reason, my money's on the latter.
Either way I figure I come out on top. So I'll see you all in a week. Come on America, don't let me down now when I need you the most.
I like you guys, but lately you've been driving me nuts.
Everything's been far too Canadian recently and I need a break.
Our country loses a bid to join a group of U.N. hall monitors futily screaming at our peers to stop running and we react by retreating to our rooms to write emo poetry and cry about how the other kids don't like us.
Our government was so distraught it actually tried to claim some offhand negative nellying by opposition leader Michael Ignatieff caused literally dozens of countries to snub us.
Quick, how many opposition leaders of foreign nations can you name off the top of your head?
Yeah.
Meanwhile, though our Prime Minister still won't speak to reporters and access to information laws are being systematically underminded, people decide to freak out because MacLean's Magazine was mean to Quebec. A sensational MacLeans front page? This is not news.
Not content with being content about being kept in the dark, it seems we're now getting openly hostile with people who would inform us.
Some Canadians - even people in the media I respected such as MacLean's Scott Feschuk - freaked out at journalists reporting edited-but-still-disturbing details from the Colonol Russell Williams trial.
"It's never pretty when the media gets to cloak their lurid instincts in the guise of doing a duty," Feschuk wrote on Twitter, presumably after lecturing a hobo on getting a job.
Only in Canada - well, maybe Belarus too - would people argue the public shouldn't have the right to know what's going on in a public courtroom because it's gross.
Come on, Canada, grow some balls. In a land where twitter accounts are assigned at birth and hardwired into our skulls, mabe we could whine about this stuff. But in our world, where buttons like 'unsubscribe,' 'unfollow,' and 'unfriend' exist, we've been given the freedom of choice.
I guess you could argue choosing to fight for not having a choice could be seen as a valid choice... ah, but there I go being all Canadian again.
Closer to home sweet home in Halifax, the debate about whether to put oodles of public money towards a new convention centre was shrouded by secrecy for a long time as government declined to say how much it would cost.
To give government some credit - Christ, there I go again - they did finally unveil the cost of the centre about a week before announcing they would support it. Rather than encourage this openness, Marilla Stephenson, the premier columnist at the province's paper of record, lambasted our elected officials for bothering to level with us.
Rather than analyze the information, Stephenson was exhasperated that the government was still doing their wishy-washy thinking thing instead of taking action. "Why on earth did they undertake the briefing, then?" she chirped.
To amplify this... Marilla Stephenson has scolded the government for not rushing to throw money at a hugely controversial project and only telling the public the cost afterwards.
I've reached my breaking point. I need to be around some assholes. I need to look at someone and think ' I wonder if that guy is carrying a gun.' I need to hate something with as much passion as the synopses in my brain can muster, and not even know or care why.
So I'm off to America, where centrists are fictional, liberals are conservatives, and conservatives are closeted homosexuals.
Where beer is cheap, football has four downs and a man's moral compass is pointed right at the heart of his enemies and instead of a compass it's a handgun.
I need to feel that strange sensation that comes over me whenever I visit the U.S. where anyone who tries to stop me from doing whatever I want is committing a grave affront; where absolute freedom is paramount and I end up screaming "But this is America!" at some 7-eleven clerk in Boston who won't sell me booze at midnight.
So I'm going for a taste. I leave tomorrow but, like a deep-sea diver, I'll first acclimatize myself with a couple days in America Lite - Toronto, with it's new Americany mayor - then I drive down to Washington for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert-sponsored Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on October 30. One can only hope I'll witness a big brawl between tea partiers and Huffington Post bloggers.
I expect one of two things to happen.
1) Immersed in liberty and cheap beer I will emerge like a Chilean miner into a state of enlightenment. I will then return to Canada, start up a grass-roots libertarian party and lead the charge against our nation's paternalistic system.
2) It will become painfully obvious that the US is a crazed, bipolar country veering towards the edge of a cultural and financial cliff that will make the collapse of the Roman empire look like a lesser episode of Seinfeld.
After viewing our country through the other side of this tragic mirror I'll rush back to embrace all that is Canadian and forgive our occassionally infuraiting complacency.
Seeing as Lady Gaga has become America's voice of reason, my money's on the latter.
Either way I figure I come out on top. So I'll see you all in a week. Come on America, don't let me down now when I need you the most.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)