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.

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.)

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.

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.

Don't wish they all could be Dalifornia Girls

I did not go to Dalhousie University.

Instead I went to the much smaller and seperately chartered University of King's College where I got a combined honours degree in journalism and philosophy (known in the biz as the Dying Industry Special).

Because King's is right next to Dal and they share credits, people often say to me "Oh, isn't King's just part of Dalhousie?" to which I usually reply with some combination of the words "off" and "fuck."

King's students have the stereotype of being Nietzsche-quoting-drum-circle-participating-stoned-NDP-voting snobs who rarely wash. I accept this. I accept this because it is still better than being forced to associate with Dal, and I'd like to thank the Dalhousie Student Union for once again illustrating why.

It started last year when students at l'Université du Québec à Montréal made a big lip sync video to the awful Black Eyed Peas song I Gotta Feeling (sample lyrics include listing the days of the week and repeating "tonight's gonna be a good night" 26 times.)

But it seems they were the first university to do it and they got a ton of media coverage so good on them, I guess. But then Dalhousie (real slogan: Inspiring Minds) decided to one-up their Quebecois counterparts by doing the exact same thing only a year later and with an even worse song.

The result: Dalifornia Girls. I'm sure that somewhere out there the UQAM students are bowing their heads and muttering "touché."

If you haven't figured it out by now,
they're not doing the Beach Boys one.

Fun Fact: They cleverly titled the video "Dalhousie Student Union - California Girls - Lip Dub" so that it is impossible to find it by searching "Dalifornia Girls" in either google or Youtube.

OK, so credit to the DSU for finding one of the rare plays on the word California not already taken by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, but did picking a song celebrating the polar opposite corner of the continent not raise any red flags?

Sure all the references to sunshine and beaches and bikinis still could apply to Halifax. They just happen to apply to the only four months of the year students are not here.

Most baffling of all is that according to this Dal News piece the organizers narrowly picked the Katy Perry song over... Joel Plaskett.

So Joel Plaskett, one of Nova Scotia's most famous musicians whose songs continually references his love for his home and would stand distinct from the pop music of previous videos, was beaten out by a tune about palm trees and short shorts.

I'd like to stop here and reiterate that at no point was I registered as a Dalhousie student. I did take a few courses there but they were mandatory credits, I swear.

Except for History of Russian Film, which admittedly was awesome.

Anyway, how did this happen? That's like like Memorial University in Newfoundland passing over Great Big Sea to lipdub the Insane Clown Posse. (On further consideration, that would be awesome. MUN students: please do this one.)

It's curious that the university's official news organ chose to rev up the hype machine rather than quietly face palm. The story interprets the video's almost 9,000 hits as "quickly becoming a Facebook and Twitter sensation" and "going viral."

Farbeit from me to point out when something smacks of desperation, but as of this writing there's a little over 10,000 views, which is still less than the student population of Dal. On the Going Viral scale that barely merits a sneeze compared to the Double Rainbow guy who's on his deathbed clinging for life (On the Going Viral scale, being on the deathbed is good.)

Now it appears some commentors are complaining about the video sending the wrong message.

"Female scholars here work hard & deserve better from you," says one commentor on twitter.

"'I'm saddened that in 2010, Dalhousie is proud to be promoting it's university as a place to meet women. Wrong message. Incredibly embarassing for students, faculty, staff and the community at large," reads a comment on DalNews.

Typical politically correct nilly-nannying. Young women today just choose to express their liberation by flocking behind men wearing pimp apparel in videos made to welcome incoming students. Get over it, grandmas.

Progress.

And to be fair, most of Joel Plaskett's songs include lyrics worse than "we freak in my jeap" and "kiss her/ touch her/ squeeze her buns". I'm pretty sure all his references to "the Khyber" are just filthy metaphors.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out for Dal, but it's not something I will personally be following because - and I cannot stress this enough - I did not go there.

Long-form census revealed!

I've long been a fan of Industry Minister Tony Clement. Back when he was an early promoter of merging the Reform and Tory parties I thought to myself "Well that just makes sense." In 2008 when he was federal health minister I cheered when he tried to shut down Vancouver's Insite safe injection site (needles creep me out).

But I wasn't sure about this long-form census stuff. A lot of people who can count really high seemed pretty mad about the government getting rid of it. I didn't know what all the fuss was about so I tried to get a hold of an actual version of the census.

After a little digging I came across a preliminary version of the 2011 long-form census that had leaked onto the internet. I've got to say, I totally agree with Tony. The questions are just way too invasive and personal to subject your everyday citizen to. For example,


42) How much money did you make last year?

43) How much money would you like to have made last year?

48) How many bedrooms are in your neighbour's house?

53) Describe, in detail, your reaction to the LOST finale.

59) Done anything illegal we should know about?

66) Totally hypothetically, if we were to sell off one of the territories, which one would you miss the least?

70) So what are you wearing?

82) What is your child-to-Jonas Brothers poster ratio? (See calculation chart attachment J)

89) Do you trust that your answers to these census questions are totally anonymous, Larry?

103) With one (1) being 'abstinent' and five (5) being 'aficionado', rate your frequency of casual, unprotected sex.

112) Do you find this census too onerous and confusing? Phrase your answer in the form of a haiku.

116) Ah, I was totally going to ask you something but it's escaping me at the minute. It'll come to me later.

116. b) Oh Christ, this is totally going to drive me nuts.

133) Have you watched CPAC in the last two (2) weeks? How about ever?

146) Have you ever thought about raisins? I mean really thought about them.

167) Including yourself, how many persons in your household have watched the classic 1985 Tim Curry movie Clue?

169) Have you ever felt an inappropriate attraction to someone you're related to? Does it bother you that we can put you in jail if you don't answer this question?

201) Trudeau - visionary or dick?

Bring back Hitler! (but not like that)

Living in an hyper-litigious society can be fun. You can get way too drunk at your office Christmas party and then sue your work when you fall down the stairs. You can threaten legal action when your waiter brings you slightly overcooked steak. Dentist shoots you a dirty look? Sue. Neighbour's dog piddles on your sneakers? Sue! And god help the octogenarian grandmother who just rear-ended you in the Sobeys parking lot. Ka. Ching.

Truly, it's a good time to be alive (Note: This is in no way a reference to the very classic and very copyrighted 1999 Edwin song Alive)

But there's one thing that's always baffled me. Surely, suing every last doubloon from some poor shmo has got to be a rush. But why do so many people launch lawsuits that only hurt themselves?

I could list many examples. Eeven my amigo Rich Aucoin has been a victim when he stole/promoted How The Grinch Stole Christmas and worked it into his act, to genius results. But this time the lawyers aren't just going after broke Canadian indy musicians. This time they're going after Hitler.

Like 1945 Berlin, the popular Hitler meme has come under attack, only this time with takedown orders. Sure, it steals a clip from the movie Downfall and technically the producers can go all Law & Order on the internet.

But why would they?

According to boxofficemojo the story of Hitler's final days did very well overseas but only scraped the lucrative North American market to the tune of $5.5 million.

I first heard about Downfall when it came out about five years ago and always wanted to see it. But I never got around to it until I saw my first Hitler video about Terrell Owens joining the Buffalo Bills. I was hooked, watched a bunch more of them and soon was intrigued enough to seek out the movie.

There's no way to know how often this cycle was repeated, but in an increasingly DVD-centric market I'd bet it's a hell of a lot. Even further, the movie is fascinating enough for a lot of people to recommend it to friends, blog about it or include it in best-of lists. That adds up. And this is coming from someone who spent a few hours writing a Best Movies of the Decade list one bored evening and had it surprisingly 'go viral' and be viewed by over 79,000 people at last count.

So what reason is there to sue? Principle? Uh, these people are making fun of Hitler. And in the process they're giving your movie loads of free advertising to a market you've yet to break into.

Why not just sue yourselves for releasing a trailer? This whole irrational, knee-jerk decision making that's ultimately self-destructive reminds me a lot of... someone. I feel like I watched a movie about this recently but for the life of me I can't remember who it was about.

So lay off the legal blitzkrieg, Downfall producers. You've found a way to profit off of World War II in a way that victimizes Hitler. Personally, I would run with that.

Also, please don't sue me.