The Rolling Five Year Plan

Toronto's Veal Sandwich Search

2007-10-14T10:15:00.000-04:00

Totally irrelevant to everything that has been written previously on this site, I would like to introduce my quest for what I consider to be the best veal sandwich in Toronto.

I'll have full tasting notes shortly, but Commisso Bros., San Francesco's, California Sandwiches, Mustacio's, Centro di Formaggio and Vinnie's Panini are on the list of places to hit, stat.

The qualities to be assessed are, individually: Freshness and style of bread; flavour and consistency of sauce; flavour, cut, and perceived quality of meat; quality of toppings available; and of course, price.

I'm pumped.

May and MacKay: The Trouble with Greens in Rural Canada

2007-04-13T14:04:00.000-04:00

I don't understand this. I'm not a farmer; I split time between Montreal and Toronto. I go to university in Sackville, a little impenetrable bubble of academia and kegs amidst acres of misunderstood agriculture and fisheries...(and Moncton). Frankly, the Green Party CANNOT win in Central Nova. Farmers simply employ too much common sense and the Green Party does not speak on relevant enough terms. Smaller Canadian cities bode the best opportunities for the Greens.

So here is what I think. Robert Greene wrote a book called The 48 Laws of Power. In this he made every chapter a 'law' and showed historical transgressions and observances of hard-edged ideas like, "Crush your enemy totally" and "Conceal your intentions." In the margins he quotes relevant proverbs and sayings that help illustrate the point. The book is intense, but there are some fantastic little stories held within.

One of the stories is from the chapter "Know who you're dealing with" (I think). It talked about charlatans in early modern Europe. Apparently, they would roam from town to town selling ridiculous 'potions' that held fantastic promises of youth, beauty, and health. What Greene points out in this segment, is the clientele charlatans targeted. They specifically avoided those who had received greater than normal education levels. These people would generally figure out that what was being sold was false promises.

They also avoided farmers at all costs. They avoided them because they had no formal education whatsoever, and that this instilled a remarkable common sense when it comes to far-fetched ideas.

They preyed on the average townsfolk, who were familiar with the general ideas and terms, but not the specifics or critical thinking that come along with it. In essence, charlatans would prey on the half-educated.

To be clear, I'm not saying that farmers are ill-educated today. Quite the opposite, I think there is an amazing knowledge reaped by working the land as they do. It is something no university can ever offer. Further, I'm not arguing that the Green Party is run by charlatans. I respect what they do and am excited for when they enter the House.

There is a disconnect, however, between the two that makes May's interest in the riding folly. The Green Party will not win its first seat in Central Nova.

So May and the Green Party platform will show up and tell the agricultural side of Central Nova about sustainable agriculture. She will tell them what their way of life is doing to the planet, why environmentally friendly pesticides need to be embraced and why fishing, pesticides, subsidies, and oil-dependent farms need to be scaled back. May will tell them that Canadians need to farm smarter.

Farmers, true to their knack for common sense, will ask how. How can we do this without losing our farms? How can we do this without limiting production? How does a Green vote translate into better lives for Central Nova?

Farmers work so hard. Traditionally viewed as fearing change, the possibility of losing their farms creates a strange drive to innovate in people. If that means lobster shells for fertilizer, they're doing it. If that means switching to part time to eke out a living, so be it. Times are tough for these Nova Scotian farmers in particular, and they've been tough for a long time.

That being said, change isn’t universal. The farmer's almanac is still in use -- same time tested 1797 formula for predicting the weather. I have a good friend who lives on Big Island, part of Mackay's riding. Apparently the DRO can tell how new people vote when they move to the island. Some things don’t change in Central Nova. Apparently politics is one of them.

Now picture May's 2006 run in London. From my perspective, London is a college town with offices and insurance -- and the finest lawn in Canada not located on a golf course. Lots of middle class people who are removed from the land. Campaigning on abstract concepts of ‘smarter, more environmentally friendly agriculture’ seems to be an easier sell. I just see it being easier to tell London that Canadians need to be smarter environmentalists than Central Nova. Have you ever tried to pull a smart car out of a tractor rut?

Elizabeth May is a very smart environmentalist. I’ve read At the Cutting Edge, and thought it was well written and an important addition to environmental awareness in Canada. I do not, however, think that running in Central Nova is wise...

...especially when citrus prices are at an all time high and global warming is coming on strong. MacKay’s agricultural plans for the riding ??

“I’m proud to present the plans for Nova Scotia’s new cash crop: Canadian grown Oranges and Grapefruits, 2020.”

The Comuz

2007-03-26T12:13:00.001-04:00

I understand the importance of whipping MPs in line. Party loyalty is important. Joe Comuzzi gets kicked out of the party for voting for pretty much the same budget he's seen for the past 13 years under Libs. He's from the old guard, he's not on board with the same-sex issue. Fine. But in this instance, why would we ditch him??

Let's think this through:

The Comuz voted for the budget because it gave funding to cancer research in Thunder Bay. How does an MP explain voting that down to his or her constituents? How does an MP vote down a project he or she conceived and fought for? Nice...

The Comuz is around 75 years old. By throwing him off, we're ditching someone who likely wouldn't be running with Dion in the next election. Again, nice ending to a very strong career...

The Comuz voted for a budget that was going to pass anyway with Bloc support. Not that a vote is ever meaningless, but this vote was meaningless. Sure, it may not look like party unity, but one man's party whip is another man's machine politics... nobody wants an election right now anyway.

The Comuz is, from what I hear, a 'riding guy'. In other words, he's someone who has built a riding association around him and we are dependent on him to help keep the seat. The counterargument to this, of course, would be Ken Boshcoff. Ken did win his seat in 2004, but not by much in a three-way race. Could this disrespect shown towards Comuzzi be a tipping point to turn blue grits into red tories in both ridings? I'd like to hear how secure Ken feels about his seat right now.

I have a good friend from Thunder Bay - Kirby Ramsay - a Conservative. Politically, he's a good guy who knows and understands the area, and who has been involved since the Harris days. He knows Comuzzi (through experience in the region) and Boshcoff (probably from his days as a PC candidate). So we were talking about this. He said he liked Comuzzi - he was a great guy - and was disappointed he had to finish his career like that. He made a point of saying he wouldn't say the same thing for Boshcoff.

Personally, I have yet to meet Ken. If Kirby is any indication of the sentiment held in Thunder Bay (that would be a huge middle finger from Dion to Northwestern Ontario), I don't imagine we'll have his seat after the next election either.

Good thing we'll make those seats up in Quebec...

Glen

He's In Everything!!

2007-03-10T21:59:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to point out the fantastic career development that Samuel L. Jackson has gone through. Currently, the man is featured in a film called Black Snake Moan, with Christina Ricci. Here's the trailer:

Aaaand here he is in the first few minutes of an episode of Ghostwriter:

That's right: Ghostwriter.

Juxtaposition, juxtaposition, juxtaposition.

History and Theory: Group Movements and the Case of India

2007-02-27T00:17:00.000-05:00

N.B. Evidence is generally drawn from: Brown, Judith M. Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Oxford: Oxford UP. 1985

When discussing change over time it is often useful to consider models of change designed to fit certain group movements. The Indian movement towards self-rule in 1920 under M. K. Gandhi is no exception. There are three major theories in the field of social psychology that have been developed to understand these movements: 'J-curve', 'rising expectations', and 'relative deprivations'. These were originally designed to analyze the Civil Rights movement in the United States, but have since been generalized for broader historical applicability. While these theories certainly apply to many historical examples, India will prove to be the exception to the rule (or theory). In terms of India's struggle for swaraj, Gandhi was central to a united movement. This is problematic for these theories , which make little room for the individual in social movement. Further, because of its religious and regional diversity, and its sharp disintegration of social hierarchy, none of these theories function because without Gandhi, a cohesive movement would have been unlikely. The evidence outlined in Judith M. Brown's Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy is sufficient for a rejection of the major theoretical backing in relation to the Gandhi-led movement toward Indian self rule.
The three theories of social movements set out to prove the same thing, but are different in reasoning. Briefly, the theory of rising expectations asserts that action due to dissatisfaction is caused by advancements experienced directly prior to the movement. Relative deprivation takes into account the comparative advances of the dominant group, posing that a social movement is dependent on the perceived gap. Thirdly, the J-curve theory dictates that movements manifest after a period of real or imagined growth (political, economic, social) followed by a significant reversal.
These theories all assume a certain level of connectivity between members of the movement. While there are certain moments of significant cohesion, deep divisions between regions made any attempt to collectively move toward common advancement difficult. These regional divisions are exemplified by Brown in several ways. At the most basic level, some areas were, or were seen to be, politically unenlightened. Brown points to Sind and Gujarat as being called ‘politically backward’ by Wacha and places more familiar with politics. This led to uneven participation and eroded potential cohesion between the regions. More to the point, Brown notes that before Gandhi there was no political organization or leader who represented all of India. This is a strong example of the difficulties of collusion by the regions and the groundbreaking work of the Mahatma.
Religious differences were very important and also fell along regional fault lines. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs were constantly suspicious of each other. The feeble base from which they drew political alliances with other religious groups were never overly strong, and the disintegration of the all-Indian swaraj in 1922 is a prime example of this. Brown notes that religious factions originally bought into the first of Gandhi’s three ‘hallmarks’ – unity specifically between Muslims and Hindus. Even with the work by Gandhi, these groups quickly grew unhappy with Gandhi’s ‘idiosyncratic policies’ and lack of tangible returns. This speaks both to the unease with which these religious groups colluded and the success Gandhi had in simply uniting these factions enough to have them working together (albeit briefly).
Brown also notes the intense changes in social structure that occurred during this period. This pressure to abandon the untouchable caste brought intense change from within the Indian populace. These changes created division between Indians, while forcing them to adjust internally. This drew focus away from swaraj and toward Indian society as a whole. It is true that untouchables were not formally outlawed until the 1950 Constitution of India, suggesting a correlation between swaraj and social reform, but during the 1910s this can been seen as being acted on by Gandhi rather than accepted by all levels of society. Ultimately, this was to achieve the unity among Indians sought by Gandhi, but it made a cohesive movement in 1919 – 1920 all the more difficult
In placing the three theories within the India case, there are moments within regions where each theory fits to an extent. Brown points out that a heightened Indian self-esteem was caused by the Indian war effort from 1914-18. She suggests that by fighting side-by-side with the British, the Indians felt they had proved themselves worthy of self rule. This would suggest that the theory of rising expectations. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms in 1919 fit with this as well, legislating more power to the provincial governments. The dramatic increase of prices, especially of foodstuffs, would suggest that the gap between groups was growing. This evidence points to the relative depravity theory. The cost of food would have been a much greater percentage of the average Indian’s income than the average Englishman in India. Therefore the average Indian was set back far more when food prices rose. The J-curve theory could draw on the economic crisis as well. A more poignant example of a significant setback would be Reginald Dyer’s Amritsar massacre. Drawing on specific examples shows evidence of all three theories. However, none of these theories dominate and all face significant counterarguments.
Each of the three criteria presented creates problems for these theories because of a lack of universality or common reasoning for the swaraj movement. The theory of rising expectations does not conform because of the setbacks economically that were felt in the late 1910s. Brown cites the increase of applicants to the police forces, who had only dropped wages by 10%, as an example of this. The economic crisis would seem, then, to be in accordance to the J-curve theory. However, Brown shows through a table of price increases that had this been the case, the greatest percent change in prices was in 1916, and that by 1919 prices had settled to a more normal inflationary level. This evidence serves two purposes: first, it questions why swaraj wasn’t undertaken during the war (when leverage likely would have been highest); it also indicates that a certain level of economic stability was reached by 1919. From the relative deprivation standpoint, the comparative gains being made in quality of life seem to be in check with those of the ruling British at the time. With the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, more power was being offered from the Raj to the provincial governments, headed by the Indians. While this was far from self rule, it was a comparative re-adjustment in how India was ruled. This would suggest a closing in the gap between rulers and ruled. All three theories can be rejected and accepted depending on which arguments are put in place.
Ultimately, these factors make it impossible to accept these theories based on the fragility of the movement itself. Furthermore, the impressive nature of Gandhi in uniting all India from 1920 – 1922 shatters the three theories for not allowing enough room for individual political agency. Because these theories do not make room for the great figure in history, it is difficult to accept their argument. If Gandhi is excluded from the explanation of swaraj, the factors of religion, regionalism, and social disintegration would be enough to prevent any cohesive movement from forming.

Book Review: Harvey, David. Paris, Capital of Modernity. New York: Routledge. 2003.

2007-02-17T08:41:00.000-05:00

David Harvey is one of America’s most prolific geographers. He has written several important studies including Social Justice and the City (1973) and Limits to Capital (1982), which are both seminal works in class based geography. Harvey is heavily multi-disciplinarian, thus Paris, Capital of Modernity is likely to be considered his magnum opus in the field of historical geography. Paris, Capital of Modernity includes forays into cultural history, an attempt on his part to be fashionable given the current attention given to cultural historians. This a major downfall of his work. While Paris, Capital of Modernity is an accomplishment, I would consider this new direction a disappointment. Harvey is at his very best when continuing his traditional work on material history, yet when he attempts cultural and literary history his presentation leaves much to be desired. At the core of Harvey’s thesis is a challenge to the notion of ‘modernity as break’. He uses the socialism seen in the 1871 Paris Commune as his core example. Harvey feels this brief period of socialist organization is often portrayed as a break from all that came before. He argues the Commune was a social process congruent with socialist literature produced in July Monarchy Paris and working class life in Second Empire Paris.
Paris, Capital of Modernity is divided into three parts. The first part is designed to draw the reader into the work using culture produced in Paris from 1830 – 1848. Harvey attempts to coax ideas out of the writing of Balzac and Flaubert to show socialist utopian concepts. He places these alongside Marx and Saint-Simon to exemplify the socialist spirit in Paris generations before the Commune of Paris. Harvey’s most redeeming work in this section is his use of visuals by Daumier, but rather than incorporate the pieces as evidence, he leaves them to speak for themselves. This section is distinct from his prior work in history because of its primarily cultural focus. Because of this inexperience, he does not have the dexterity that literary critic Marshall Berman, for example, does in his analysis or prose. When contrasted with the writing in the rest of the book, this is especially disappointing.
The second part is where Harvey’s strength lies. This section details the access to capital and agency felt amongst the worker and the scope of Haussmann’s creative destruction in Second Empire Paris. This is shown in his chapter Abstract and Concrete Labor, where Harvey uses spatial relations to condemn bourgeois values. He sees their actions as relegating the worker and industrial space to the edges of Paris while creating idyllic space centered on speed and commerce in the heart of the city. Another example is Harvey’s chapter Rent and the Propertied Interest, where he shows the powerlessness of the worker during this period. Through intense fieldwork, Harvey shows the working class to have experienced ‘displacement and segregation’ coupled with decreased access to power in Haussmann’s reconstruction of Paris. The presentation of empirical evidence coupled with thorough analysis makes this section engaging, yet a criticism of this section is that Harvey could nuance his portrayal of the Bourgeoisie. Harvey has a tendency to personify the bourgeois simply as Haussmann, giving little identity to the rising class of professionals or sense of independent agency.
Finally, Harvey creates a micro-history of the Basilique du Sacré-Coeur, which was built after the Paris Commune. In performing this he offers a case study of Bourgeois dominance for the reader to consider after explicating the working class’ experience in Second Empire Paris. He concludes that the Basilica was built to oppress the working class: both as a powerful, elevated structure and as a reminder of the failure of the Commune. This last section, titled Coda, offers exactly what its name suggests, an independent passage to bring this work to a proper close.
The reader is left with several questions at the end of this work: In content, is there enough evidence of literary socialism and utopia to consider Parisian literary thought congruent with the socialism of the 1871 Communards? What drove the Bourgeoisie to segregate the city so completely? More importantly, is Harvey’s shift from material history to the more fashionable cultural history worth a serious sacrifice in the reader’s sense of engagement with his work? I submit that it is not.

Book Review: Barnett, Correlli. The Collapse of British Power. London: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1984.

2007-01-28T18:06:00.000-05:00

Correlli Barnett's monograph The Collapse of British Power posits (in a rather bellicose - or Realpolitik, depending on ones' point of view - fashion) that Britain had strayed from the hard-nosed nature that made it so successful in the eighteenth century. He seeks to answer several questions, asking "why such men...as Baldwin, MacDonald, Chamberlain, Simon, and Halifax held sway? Why British public opinion...was so pacifistic. Why British governments handled international crisis...[the] way they did." He laments the decline of Britain as a "sorry and contemptible plight... Derived neither from bad luck nor failures of others." He feels that Britain's collapse in global power was because of the values imparted on it by the Romantics and Victorian Britain of the early nineteenth century. He writes that the "answer lies... in national character itself... For it is character which...governs destinies of nations as well as individual man. It is key to all policies, all decisions." Victorian Britain, according to Barnett’s thesis, put ultimate priority on "moral principle and moral purpose rather than strategy" that was retained until the policies of appeasement had failed. This is a marked difference from the pragmatists that, Barnett posits, dominated the Georgian era in the late eighteenth century.

Barnett sets about proving his thesis in several specific arguments which flow remarkably well: the Public School system, the colonies and dominions, the economy at home, and the characters who led Britain from Victorian England forward. His methodology allows for these far ranging arguments tracing developments in a very multidisciplinary way. Some very clever (and occasionally humourous) associations are made by Barnett’s use of virtually every sort of evidence available. His evidence ranges from personal letters to Hansard documents to scholarly work and raw economic data, all of which are employed in full. Regrettably this strategy, while offering much evidence to further his arguments, can lead the reader to cast doubt. Also, some of Barnett’s arguments seem counterfactual after thirty five years (it was written in 1972). The Collapse of British Power can be perceived to have weaknesses both in methodology and argument.
In terms of methodology, much of his evidence is quick and incisive into different fields. This becomes problematic. For example, in his evidence of raw emotion leading the actions of the English in the Victorian Era, he points to characters who identify with the celebrated Pre-Raphaelites. This is a fine example of the Romantic period. However, as an expression of national character through British Victorian art, it leaves less than a full picture. A counterpoint could be the creation of Crystal Palace, the epic structure from London's 1851 Exposition - a model of dehumanized creation, virtually polar in sentiment to the Pre-Raphaelites. Another example would be the Darwinian influence held in the Victorian era and afterward. Thus, the fact one of the greatest achievements in scientific thought in the eighteenth century was created during a period that is characterized as one of romance over science and morality over pragmatism. To sacrifice comprehensiveness with aggressiveness in characterising the Victorian Era, Barnett weakens his own arguments.
Barnett’s critique of the British Public Schools and universities in early 20th Century Britain may also have missed the mark. He postulates that a curriculum heavy on Christian values, classic texts, and chivalrous notions of fair play and sportsmanship created extraordinarily weak leaders in the interwar period. While the classics were (and are) embraced, it is unlikely that Britain’s competitors embraced more modern works with more vigour. It is also unclear as to whether Germany or other powers had business or truly technical schools. Whether that would be enough to alter the thoughts and minds of a national character, and further explain Germany’s rise is unknown. In defence of the Public Schools, it can be argued that a liberal arts education forms skills in critical thinking, and that the subject matter is little more than a pedagogical exercise to develop those skills. Whether or not German students were studying Nietzsche or Hobbes in the early twentieth century, it would be difficult to imagine that this would create a great difference in the quality of their comparative education and abilities as leaders and decision makers.
Lastly, from a methodological perspective, Barnett choses not to stake out a concrete parallel example of Georgian culture besides the foreign policy and leaders during the Victorian era. By doing this he relies on the reader’s memory of Georgian times and implies that they were marked by pragmatism rather than proving it. When contrasting British identity in the twentieth century to Victorian or Georgian times, it would strengthen his argument considerably if he chose to clearly map the Georgian character or identity as assertively as he does the Victorian.
Finally, to tackle his core argument, Barnett's assumption that Britain could have maintained it's 'real power' advantage is unlikely. In fact, that Britain still wields the power it does today is remarkable. This power is often attributed to the currency the English language is given globally. Barnett ignores the fact that taking a 'moral,' or culturally imperial view on the colonies brought benefits that political scientist Joseph Nye would term 'soft power;' a similar ideological and cultural values (or at least familiarity) and most importantly, played a large role in building the lingua franca that is contemporary English. While it is debatable as to whether it actually holds power over the policies of nations or not (in other words, hard power), soft power has been critical for Britain in protecting British interests in the twentieth century - especially financial interests. While obviously the United States had a large part to play in the language's dominance in post-World War Two history, Britain's focus on her 'civilizing mission' must be considered when understanding the importance of English as a global tool for communication. It can be argued that this intangible has led to a cultural empire beyond what could ever have been expected of Britain in terms of real power. While Barnett is focussed on the strategic implications of policy in a pragmatic, realist light, modern theorists (albeit neo-liberals) would argue that there is more to a nation’s power than its ability to militarily coerce others to their will.
The objective of history is often to replace unfounded memories with concrete analysis. While Correlli Barnett certainly presents a thoroughly researched case, he seems to place argument over analysis. That being said, The Collapse of British Power is an important historical work, at the very least for expanding the debate on the question of British leadership in the early twentieth century. There is much work to be done by historians on this question, but perhaps Barnett's notion of an everlasting empire is as pragmatic as the morals an liberalism that clouded the thought of Britain's great leaders in the first half of the twentieth century.

Killing the re-Forestation Biz

2006-12-17T20:22:00.000-05:00

Scooter wrote in his blog about the fantastic use of paper and postage that Eastlink (a giant Media corporation in the Maritimes) spends on making sure that Scooter gets his bills for advertising the Olive Branch on the radio; the irony lying in Scooter's summer gig in the forests of BC running a tree-planting camp. While I'm never one to rain on a parade, I wanted to point out this feel-good attempt by Xerox to take the legs from underneath Scooter's profitable cycle.

(Incidentally, I like the corporate responsibility taken by Xerox here by actually hiring an anthropologist. I always thought that anthro majors ended up getting disenfranchised in Shaman school in Northern Thailand, then came to Mount Allison to emulate Inuk dance much to the dismay of intro classes. Trying hard to figure out how those fit but regrettably the link is missing...zing.)

I'd personally like to highlight what is submitted at the end of the article. I enjoyed the Super 8 to video analogy, and think it hits the nail on the head, but rather softly. Here is Xerox, a company that has entered dictionaries (often as a verb or noun for copies / making love to the photocopier), telling us that offices use too much paper.

Rrrrrrreally.

So suddenly we're all reading online and paying less attention to the copier in the corner of the office, and Xerox says that, hell, this misuse is ridiculous and they have a solution. Paper is too valuable for this, and it's time to get back to the Re-use part of the three Rs.

Xerox, the boat left and you weren't on it.

So we've finally come to adjust to using our computer screens as a reasonable form of content delivery (as we were told computers would do 15 years ago). We're finding that, suddenly, the Canadian winter resembles an English autumn more than an Anne Murray song. Xerox is presented with an nearly intractable problem:

People are shifting away from paper, potentially because of costs / environmental concerns. potentially because they're adapting to a more effective medium.

People, therefore, will be using copiers less which will hurt our bottom lines.

Xerox says to themselves, "We need to come up with something that keeps people using our products while allaying those first two concerns, making us the good-guy in this. HA! - Erasing Ink! Paper use is all on them, we only require one sheet, which they can use infinitely..."

Finally, they publicise this with a soothing statement that paper is as good as ever.... Aaaand I quote Eric Shrader, a computer scientist cited in the article: "People really like paper, they like the way it feels!"

Yeah, well at least their damage control soothes our consciouses for 10 years of printing off bad jokes for display above the cooler. Just a thought.

So Scooter, cherish those bills, as you may want to look into taking this DJing thing full time... according to Xerox you're going to have summers off soon...

...and I learned something...

2006-12-11T22:24:00.000-05:00

I'm not a football pundit. That's what I get. Buut let's be honest here, Pete was sunk either way - be it with Walker's 2.6 points or Jenning's 2.5

Oh yeah, and Pete - Liz says hi.

Glenford

Week 14 for the GBBs

2006-12-09T10:48:00.000-05:00

Alright, so I'm in a fantasy football league with some friends and it's the week before the playoffs. This is one of those fun leagues where everything starts off with poo-based names and gets more and more serious as the season goes on. I've clinched and am pretty happy about it, as has the guy with Ladanian Tomlinson (who also happens to write for a sports based statistical company - like we had a chance...) and there are three others competing for 2 spots. It's tricky though; Pete, who sits in fifth, is going up against Jeff (LT-Sportswriter) in what looks to be a really really tough week. Pete's accrued far more points than Chunk (2nd) and Rob (3rd) who also happen to be playing each other. So basically, if Pete can pull off the win, he gets the 4th spot.

This is totally alien to those of you who aren't in these leagues, but I've had pep talks with Pete over the past couple days, but in reality I think he's in for a tough ride and a total crap-shoot with his wide receivers. The hot/cold part about fantasy is specifically the three WR slots we have. Sure, kickers can just show up, as can defenses, but when you have 3 slots, it turns 'what number am I thinking of' into a state lottery 'pick 3' once a week for 16 weeks. So here are his WRs:

Starting

Javon Walker @ SD (with rookie Jay Cutler versus a rehabbed Shawne Merriman)

Plaxico Burress @ CAR (with sugar sweet Eli Manning doing his part in the Manning Brothers' Good Cop - Bad Cop [replace Cop with QB] and a Carolina Defense that's been waiting for a game to actually play well in since.... October [?]. Also, it is important to note that Carolina is playing at home, which means Eli and Co. are going to come away with one)

Reggie Brown @ WAS (Yeah, Calgary Stampeder Jeff Garcia is at the helm... and still walking / talking like a duck even if he does have a playmate for a girlfriend. Washington has kept offenses down, but this is a pick I have no problems with. My prediction for this game is a 30-24 Philadelphia win with lots of fireworks in the fourth quarter. The reality will actually be much different; a 9-3 win for Washington in overtime because I greatly dislike the Eagles. There, I said it.)

Bench

Laveraneus Coles at home versus BUF (this is tough. The Jets need to win, and they're playing at home with a reasonable QB against a hot/cold defense. Coles is Pennington's #1 target, and worthy of consideration here. Not sure if I see huge production here, but probably a touchdown given the revolving door of backs they have in New York)

Greg Jennings @ SF (this one I kinda like - San Fran is a really enjoyable team and one of my favourites of 2006, for certain, but I see Brett going wild on their corners, I really do. Enough to put Jennings in over the other four, I'm not so sure, but it's high risk high payout at this point for the Glass Bottom Boats [Pete's team name...] could be advisable)

So IF this were my team, which it is not, I would submit that Jennings needs to find a way into the lineup somehow. I think the call may actually be fairly drastic; benching Walker. It seems strange, and a little excessive - Pete if you take my advice and lose by whatever Javon would have given you, this was merely a suggestion and your fault for listening to me - but I think Jennings is going to have a career day on Sunday.

And that's the only suggestion I have for the man, poor guy.

Tomorrow,
Glenford

So people actually read this thing?!

2006-12-06T13:27:00.000-05:00

Well, I'll be damned. Now I feel some sort of pseudo-pressure to create. I feel as though the next viable posts should be on their way over the holidays, as I get a solid dose of, well, Ontarian and Quebecois culture... again.

Also, I had no idea that there were comments on the site, and feel dumb for not realizing that until now. So there you have it. Also; I'm writing a thesis which is turning out to be the academic equivalent of trying to hold an icecube. As such, I hope to draw some comedy out of my general ineptituted at balancing... things... in general.

Finally, I'd like to pass on this little nugget:

If you haven't felt confused while listening to music recently, you clearly haven't listened to anything by Deerhoof (try the song Panda, Panda, Panda). 20 minutes later and you'll have a new appreciation for... well... Anglophones with a real grasp of the language. This is unfortunate, as the most entertaining part of the group's concept is that the lead singer is this little Japanese lady. Anyway, certainly worth a look if you're feeling totally uninterested in your musical selections at this juncture in time.

toodles,
Glen

Wow... Stellar Show in Montreal

2006-12-02T15:52:00.000-05:00

Well, before the vote comes out I just wanted to write how excited I am that Dion is in the position he is. Damn impressive.

Now back to writing the thesis.

Glenford

Stephane Dion

2006-06-12T18:33:00.000-04:00

rocked the debate, amazingly qualified, slowly turning into a personality and out of a french manley character. Love it.

Oh, and there's lots of reasons policy-wise as well.

Toodles

Jonquiere Rules

2006-05-25T18:31:00.001-04:00

Okay, it's been a while and I'm sorry. Here's the deal: this place is surprisingly normal.
That being said several things do stick out. Enjoy.

Jonquiere rules.

Very important. This place has done wonders for my foosball. Seriously. The competition here is so high that there is a local rule instituted in bars that bans players from the second row from scoring. If a goal is scored like that then the following goal is double or nothing. Very interesting.

Also, beers in regular bottles are frowned upon here. Instead you are generally pressured into buying 'grosse biere' - that is, your favourite brand in a 750 ml bottle. I choose to drink Labatt Cinquante as the locals do. I am, after all, here to work on my french.

Favourite band of the moment: Les Dales Hawerchuk. First off, best band name I've heard since maybe Peter Mansbridge and the CBCs. Secondly, their debut track "Dale Hawerchuck" is just damn catchy / hilarious. In fact, so catchy / hilarious I will post the lyrics in french and attempt to translate them into English. Please note that I didn’t write the lyrics and do not take responsibility for the intentions of the author. Also, I have no idea how to speak french. Brace yourselves:

Dale Hawerchuk - Les Dales Hawerchuk

J’allume ma dernière cigarette
I light my last smoke
J’débouche ma dernière bière tablette
I don’t have a sweet clue besides ‘biere’
J’fais jamais de jokes avec les tapettes
I’ll assume this says ‘I never make gay jokes’
Mais j’avoue j’ris des grosses femmes laides
but I make out with women who are big-boned (?)

Fortin à gauche, Langevin à droite
with my buddies
Esti que c’est beau une passe su à palette
something something ‘it’s nice’ something...
Si j’me ramasse tout seul devant l’net
hahaha ‘ramasse’
J’te jure m’a te la crisser top net
I like how they rhyme net with net. Reminds me of old Rod Stewart. The kind you can guess while you’re listening to the song for the first time...

Car je ne suis plus Sylvain Séguin
because I’m not a lot of lead singer’s name
Moi, je suis Dale Hawerchuk
Me, I’m Dale Hawerchuk

Je cherche pas l’amour
Not looking for love
Je cherche les caresses
Looking for make outs
Je cherche une femme avec des belles fesses
and girls with nice bums.
Juste pour une nuite pis fuck le reste
but only for a night - no long term makeouts
Moé j’suis sans soucis, j’suis sans finesse
me, I let ’er rip
Une game de hockey avec les chumés
a game of hockey with my boys
La gang qui m’invite en tournée
who invited me to a tournament
Une belle femme qui viens d’me regarder
a pretty girl just looked at me
Depuis j’suis Dale j’me laisse aller car
to start, I’m Dale, I’m free to go because

Car je ne suis plus Sylvain Séguin
Moi, je suis Dale Hawerchuk
Chorus

J’pend pu ma carte pour les emplettes
carte = map (?)
J’va jouer dehors même si y fait frette
?
J’t’ai rendu chum avec Ginette
Ginette I’m pretty sure is the french version of Gino and Gina for typecast Italian boys and girls. Think big hoop earings and the phrase ‘oh no you di-n’t’. Ginette.
J’suis rendu clean, rendu correct
This part I don’t get. I returned clean and correct, and...
Pierre met du Beatles dans l’getto
Pierre put the Beatles in a Ghetto ?!?!?!?!
Y regarde dehors, y fait pas beau
then look outside and it’s not nice
En face, y’a une grosse tour à bureau
inside there’s a lot of stuff to do at the office
Ça d’l’air qu’y’a une osti de vue d’en haut
yeah...

Vu qu’on n’est pas tout des Séguins
On est les Dales Hawerchuk
Chorus

Anyway

Next, eggs and potatoes are suitable for every meal of the day. You've eaten chicken a la king. I know you have. The chicken with the white sauce and the veggies with a pastry thing... well, the Saguenay version is made with hard boiled eggs and wonderbread - strictly the white sort (not sure which recipe came first, by the way)...(worst joke ever - where is my dad) Quite the dinner.

Although I have to say, my favourite Quebecois surprise thus far may just be the ‘amburger chaud’ - I sat down at the table for dinner and dressed what I thought was a normal hamburger and fries. My Jonquiere mom, Paulette (who, along with Jean-Guy are freaking amazing - anyone who does explore in Jonquiere really ought to request being set up with Paulette Laforest and Jean-Guy Gagnon) came around with a pot of gravy which I expected was for the fries but apparently it was for the burger. Quel surprise. I since have come to terms with la sauce as an important foodgroup. A few nights ago we had souvlaki... with sauce. Tonight it was steak et sauce.

Cheval, Lapin, and les jambes des Grenouilles are not only common, they’re available fresh at the grocery store.

Sirop d’erable is passe. Making everything you can dream of from Blueberries IS, I cannot stress this enough, IS the new sirop d’erable.

The desired qualities sought after of cheese in the Saguenay are those of plastic. There is a local cheese that makes the same squeaking sound when eaten a dry erase marker does when writing. Like cheese curds, but then again... not...

Simply by throwing a french accent on most words, you CAN pass yourself off as both intelligent and bilingual to most anglos. The reason is that you communicate under the guise of speaking french (which makes you look like a hero) while speaking using words they understand (you’re gifted at communicating). It generally takes anglos who are pretty good at french a little while before they catch on to your little game. Highly recommend you all try it next time you have an interview with the feds or are ordering a nice dinner at a nice french restaurant west or south of Quebec. WARNING - DO NOT TRY WITH VRAI FRANCOPHONES - the aforementioned will be understood as remarkably insulting.

Aaanyway, I’ll write more often I promise...

Presque a Jonquiere

2006-05-18T18:06:00.000-04:00

(Dimanche, 14 Mai - 15:45)

three things strike me. First off, there’s a real heifer from Alberta on this bus who really needs to put a sock in it. Second, jesus, there’s still snow and ice up here. Swear to god. Third, these are the roads that get headline news because a bunch of CEGEP kids went flying off a cliff because their bus took the corner too fast.

I’m in the process of finding some wood to touch.

Comme un Autobus...

2006-05-18T18:03:00.000-04:00

(Dimanche, 14 Mai - 11:45)

Crank Les Cowboys Fringants! I’ve been prepping this for months. With a strict regiment: no haircuts, a lexicon of Quebecois cusses and an utter distain for everything Anglo. I’ve packed with me what I consider my survival kit for this sojourn to Jonquiere. Got my booze handy; have my itunes loaded up with Mes Aieux and Les Cowboys; I even packed a mini-shrine for our lord and saviour, Rene Levesque. I’m up on my Andre Boisclaire, and will stop at a reservation to bring my host famille a fresh carton of native-smuggled cigarettes. I went to a consignment shop and picked up some flanel and had a pretty sharp red toque set up, but alas, I forgot to pack both and will be short what I consider two very important pieces in my integration. I’ll be posting somewhat frequently, although I understand that Jean Charest, in a strong tradition of stomping out the wrong unions (no problem with knocking Child care workers down a couple pegs, but the S.A.Q. was invincible over the holiday season, 2004, TABERNAC) has moved his strikebreakers into Jonquiere to manage the annual influx of anglos.

Jonquiere, as it has been explained to me, is a strange place. Built on aluminum and pulp / paper industries on the Saguenay, Jonquiere’s motto is, loosely translated, “city of friendship.” It is located somewhere in between Quebec City and Chibougamau. In the brochure I’m actually guaranteed a friendly welcome (Guarantee was spelt wrong though, so I guess that’s not binding - pre-conception of Parisienne waitstaff). So, basically we’re looking at a french Saint John.

Saint John is probably the capital of ‘fisty-kisses’ and broken pool cues in the Maritimes. A little rough around the edges at times, and with an unmistakable odour.

So let’s work on the old LSAT questions and create one for the situation here, working with what we know. Remember, you’ve got a little over a minute to work this question out...

Glen visits Jonquiere, the french equivalent of Saint John, which is a rough city in Maritime Canada:

Jonquiere is the home to the only WAL-MART ever closed.;

Glen visited Saint John, and made it out alive;

Someone told Glen, upon leaving Saint John, “We’ll get you next time...” (Just kidding, Lizzy; your folks said they were coming to Sackville to get me);

Jonquiere has recently been notified that their Aluminum factory (owned by English Canadians and the largest employer in the region) will be closed;

Glen is a big fat WASP; a Liberal; and generally a know-it-all, pompous, jackass;

What are the odds he’ll be able to integrate:
a) 100%
b) 70%
c) 50%
d) 30%
e) 0%

How to solve this question

E is out because Glen survived Saint John, so it’s likely that he’ll be able to at least exist in Jonquiere.
A is also out, because his experience in Saint John was fraught with terror, and we can work on the following equation:

Jonquiere = Saint John + more unemployed + separatist + unioniste + angry + french.

So it’s B, C, or D. I’ll let you know in a month.

Hopefully by then I’ll also be able to figure out whether me rocking out to “En Berne” by Les Cowboys is ironic or just funny for me. Maybe both. Remember, this is Quebec, and anything is possible.

'Personalizing' Social Programs

2006-05-08T00:08:00.000-04:00

Sunday came bearing interesting news... On the front page of the Montreal Gazette, Hill correspondent Elizabeth Thompson wrote that Harper and the Tories were consulting Republican Party pollsters on how best to move from a weak minority to "crush [the] Grits this year." This came as a shock (feeling tightly nervous as the Libs are compromised right now without a leader and a role in opposition while Republicans are just really good at engineering election wins), but upon reading a synopsis of the talk, titled "Massaging the Conservative Message," I laughed out loud reading some of the solutions Republican pollster Frank Luntz had given to the CPC.

To his credit, some ideas mentioned do work in the Canadian environment, but the ones that do are generally common practice. For example, they suggested digging up as much dirt on the preceding government as possible after an election - makes sense. Dalton did it in Ontario, allowing him to hike taxes immediately with a nice little fall-back excuse. Luntz reminded the Tories that this kind of information has a limited life span (he suggested a year). He also recommended that the Tories be careful with their jargon; tax relief as opposed to tax cuts, etc...

On the whole, the other ideas Luntz brought forth were pure, unadulterated garbage - as Josiah MacQuarrie says; 'poppycock'. All concepts presented in the article seemed skewed to a pro-Republican American voter base, and the article noted the informal relationship between the Conservatives and the Republicans as helpful in communicating to voters. So enjoy what the future campaign for the CPC may look like:

"You have a gentleman who may well be the smartest leader intellectually. Now, that is half the battle. The other half of the battle is to link that intelligence to the day-to-day lives of the average individual."

"Voters want someone who is credible and trustworthy more than a person who shares their ideas, more than anything else, they want to know that you are a straight shooter."

"If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it."

"You tax more (than the United States) and you have to change that. You regulate more and you have to change that. But you are going to control the government longer than we are."

"Voters prefer tax relief to tax cuts. Tax code simplification vs. tax code reform. Don't privatize a program, personalize it. If you express regret or sadness about how the Liberals have run the government, it's not seen by voters as an attack."

These statements were wonderful. According to Mr. Luntz, Canada is excited about becoming less complex; excited about the possibility of personalizing our social programs; excited about revering Stephen Harper as an intellectual demi-god; and most importantly, excited about hockey in politics form.

The piece de resistance was truly in the introduction of Luntz, Presto Manning "praised the work Luntz had done for him several years ago." If Presto's results offer any historical connotations, LPC may be back in business sooner than originally thought.

Article cited: Thompson, Elizabeth. "Tories given 'map' to majority: Pollster meets PM." The Montreal Gazette. Sunday, May 07, 2006. p. A1, A4.

Electioneering Leadership

2006-05-04T09:20:00.000-04:00

The Liberal leadership campaign will be difficult, and likely, as many have pointed out, to result in everyone getting their 'second pick,' as the pool is entirely too diverse right now to come to consensus without significant brokerage. That being said, organizers have to be aware several dynamics set in this campaign that will make or break a campaign:

Canada is comprised of 308 ridings, each of which has been assigned 14 delegate spots for the convention in Montreal. Not every riding is a Liberal dominated riding, though (obviously, as we lost the last election), nor is every riding close to Montreal for the convention either. So, as a campaign director, one would have to question where one's time is best spent...

So you can squeak out a few delegates from Toronto Centre Rosedale or Westmount Ville Marie. Guess what - the time, money, and energy it takes to actually elect people in Liberal ridings is a hundred-fold what it would be to head into Bloc country and have some fun.

In the 39th general election, Quebec voted in 17.3% Liberal members with 20.7% of the popular vote. 764,693 voters cast ballots for the Libs. 317,675 of those ballots were in Montreal. Easy delegates can be picked up where we don't have a hope of winning a riding. You see this if you look to ridings where the BQ hold dominance (over 50% support) and the CPC emerged as a federalist alternative, such as Beauport-Limoilou (4,929 votes), Jonquiere-Alma (1,550), Trois-Rivieres (5,600) or Chambly Borduas (6,933). These are all within about 5 hours of Montreal by car, so are in fair driving distance.

Thus it is fair to posit a few things: there are no transportation barriers as there would be in the Conservative wasteland of Alberta; the voters have no hope in winning their ridings, so party infrastructure will be more symbolic than practical (to the victors go the spoils, so there is incentive to be a Liberal in T.C.R., and thus most Ontario ridings are currently quite competitive); finally, there will be less competition as fewer delegates will be up for selection, as there are simply fewer Liberals in riding.

This would indicate that several delegate spots, (say 20 ridings at 14 delegates a piece = 280) could be handily won if approached in the right way. Now consider that there are currently 10 candidates and will be approximately 2500 delegates at Montreal's December convention. To chase 10% of a potential delegation that would require minimal effort or cost is an amazing opportunity. In fact, I'd assert a few days well spent in those regions would probably be enough, as they'd be elated to receive the attention generally passed over in their population sparse, non-Liberal regions.

How will this affect the results at the convention?? It will primarily drive home the fact that the party is inextricably linked to being bilingual at every level, making it impossible for someone who cannot speak the language to become chef. Besides that, it will put paramount importance on campaign teams and organizers to make sure they lure these delegates, the low hanging fruit of the Convention spectrum. At the core of it all, electioneering will win this battle, as it will most, rather than key issues, ideas, or any attempt at renewal.

Technorati told me so...

2006-04-30T22:33:00.000-04:00

Well, to continue the recent, unprecedented growth in my time online, the next step is clearly to begin blogging. In a hypothetical sense, this blog will be occupied by a veritable melange of politics, current issues, and above all, ripping off Bill Simmons.

Enjoy.

Warm regards,
Glen Jameson