Definitely, Maybe

Given the number of ‘chick flicks’ I have seen since teaming up with Murray for this column, I like to think that I am a little better equipped to judge their relative merits than I was a year ago.

Some were terrific. Some were dreadful. ‘Definitely, Maybe’ was… ok.

I actually like Ryan Reynolds when he isn’t doing trashy frat house comedies. He reminds me a little of a young Robert Redford. And the ‘romantic lead with a charming comic twist’ is the perfect type of role for him, even if it does come off a bit like Ryan Reynolds Vehicle #7.

Unfortunately, ‘Definitely, Maybe’ is one of those movies that looks like it was cobbled together by a bunch of producers who told the writer, "That’s great! Now, if you could just write in a part for that little girl from ‘No Reservations’…"

Without the kid, it would have been merely formulaic. With her, it was gimmicky. Two and a half stars out of five.

(Not surprisingly, Murray liked it more than I did.)

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow

Of all the snow pictures I've taken this week, these amuse me the most. This was in the parking lot in front of the video store where I work:



For the full effect, you really need to click on the second one to read that white sign in the upper right.

(FYI, the car was gone as of 11:00 this evening)

Surrender Monkeys; or, Why I Haven't Burned My Liberal Card Yet

There are a lot of seriously pissed off bloggers out there today. Progressive bloggers. People I respect. Even little Jason Cherniak is starting to wonder:

Think about the future

I just had a thought.

As Liberals, we should not ask whether people care that our MPs are abstaining. Most people don't follow politics and have no idea what's going on.

Instead, we should ask whether they will care when they find out during an election. Will they shrug it off as political strategy, or will they think "I can't believe the Liberals were doing that".

I'm not sure what the answer is.

Other bloggers have been a little more forthright. Like Dave at The Galloping Beaver:

You can't understand the outrage? Here. Let me explain it.

Some of the Liberal (capital L) bloggers can't seem to grasp the outrage felt by those of us of in the left side of the swamp over the failure of the opposition to meet Bill C-484 with the appropriate action.

...The outrage is not just at the Liberals' obvious failure to properly interpret this bill and then meet it head-on. The outrage goes deeper - much deeper.

And Rational Reasons:

Blogging Angry

...There is only one thing worse than the CPC right now and that is the Liberal Party of Canada and their spineless milquetoast leader, Stephane Dion. He has allowed the CPC to rule for as thought they have a majority, while desperately trying to tell us how bad they are.

And Apply Liberally:

The Liberals have lost me

I’m not exactly a powerful blogger. I’m not exactly a powerful member of the Liberal Party. I’m also not exactly a big financial donor. I have, however, considered myself a staunch supporter of the Liberals for almost the past two decades.

I attended the last convention in Montreal, paid my dues and have used new media like this blog to defend and promote the party. My frustrations run deep now and I’ve decided I will no longer consider myself a Liberal supporter.

And Canadian Cynic:

Dear Liberals: Do you have any idea?

In all seriousness and addressed to any diehard Liberals out there, do you have even the remotest idea of the teeth-grinding fury you've provoked amongst Canada's progressives? Really, is the uproar over this latest exquisite fuckery of yours coming up in conversation in your little get-togethers? Because it should be. Because we. Are. Fucking. Pissed.

Believe me, I totally get the outrage. I SHARE IT. I am sick to death of the abstentions, the capitulations and the endless lame excuses for why the Liberals aren't quite ready for an election just yet ("but just you wait!"). It's not just embarrassing - it's causing irrevocable damage to the party and it's chances of keeping the Harper Conservatives from doing to Canada what George W. Bush has done to America for the past seven long years.

What I cannot understand is why some of these fine, principled people are just throwing up their hands and deciding to stay home the next time there's an election because none of these asshats are worth voting for. Because that sounds a lot like... what's the word... ABSTAINING.

If the past few weeks have taught us anything, it is that not voting is the one sure way to guarantee that nobody will ever give a rat's ass what you think or want ever again.

Believe me, I am not suggesting that anyone should just vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. I'm saying that if you don't like any of the options in front of you, then change the options.

If you honestly think that throwing your support behind the NDP or the Greens will succeed in kicking the asses of the Cons and Libs, then by all means do so. I'll tell them to expect you at the next meeting. If you think they are all beyond help and we need a completely new Progressive party in this country, then great. Start organizing. I'll be there.

If you believe (as I do) that the Liberals can still be saved from themselves by dragging them kicking and screaming back to the left side of the centre line and purging them of the complacent, centrist assholes who are largely responsible for the party's current cowering paralysis, then get off your sorry blogging ass and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Communicate with your MP and/or opposition candidate. If they don't respond, mock them on your blog and send them the link. They'll get the picture. Write letters. Real letters, to actual newspapers. If you really want to make a difference, join a party. Any party. Go to riding meetings. If you join the Liberals and you think the problem is Dion, then work towards getting somebody better in charge. If you think the problem is with the entrenched, corporatist old guard, then work on empowering a new guard. Or (Gods forbid) consider running yourself.

Subvert. From. Within.

A lot of people think its hopeless. A lot of people don't know history, and the enormous transformations that have occurred on both the liberal and conservative sides of the Canadian political spectrum over the past hundred years or so. I'd recommend reading 'Lament for a Nation' and John English's biography of Trudeau for some insight into how radically our major political parties have changed just over the course of my lifetime. Often rather suddenly. Often due to one person being at the right place at the right time in history.

If you need a more recent case study, take a look at what's happening south of the border. The U.S. Democrats have spent the past seven years playing surrender monkey, shucking and jiving and using their House and Senate majorities to support every bullshit Republican measure that has passed their desks. Why? Because the party establishment were so busy trying to position themselves for re-election as inoffensive centrists that they somehow forgot that they were supposed to be DEMOCRATS.

Now all of a sudden they are energized and idealistic and ready to kick some Republican ass. They're going to get the fuck out of Iraq. They've got specific plans for universal (if not entirely public) health care. Depending on who you believe, they may even be questioning NAFTA. Most importantly, they actually stand for something again.

And it isn't all because of Obama. It's because what passes for the left wing of the Democratic Party finally reached critical mass and started actually GETTING INVOLVED instead of just bitching about how lame their party had become. They got organized, and they informed the party bosses and the Blue Dogs that hey, it might actually be in your best interest to start listening to us. And if you don't, well, we're just going to throw our support behind some nobody Senator from Illinois with a funny name and a way with words who actually represents what WE want.

How all that will end is anybody's guess. But it's exciting, isn't it? Want some of that up here? Then start thinking about ways to make it better instead of just complaining.

________________

UPDATE: WTF?!?



Oh. I see. It's the SDA tour bus from Harperville.

I'd like to welcome our Conservative friends to Runesmith's Canadian Content. Feel free to look around. Try not to break anything. Enjoy your stay!

Bill C-484: The Rogues Gallery

By now you probably know that the 'Unborn Victim of Crime Act' narrowly passed its first vote in Parliament yesterday and has gone on to committee. Much to my disgust, Stephane Dion was glaringly absent from the vote. Why? It seems he was too busy attending his wife's fancy schmancy International Women's Week soiree.

Oh, the sickening sweet stench of irony.

Thankfully, Garth Turner voted against the bill. Otherwise I don't think I'd ever be able to SPEAK to him again, let alone vote for him. But even he went through some changes over this and had to actually do his homework to get past the snow job that Epp and his anti-abortion buddies have been pushing, trying to pretend that none of this has anything to do with abortion.

For those of you who still don't get it, Dave at The Beav does his usual brilliant job of explaining why it does - slowly, in small words so you can follow along.

While Epp might be speaking truthfully when he suggests that this amendment would not be used to prosecute women or doctors in the case of an abortion, (although I don't for a minute believe that's the case), he has neatly avoided discussing the one thing that would plant a ticking bomb in Canadian law.

A definition.

The long title of the bill, according to my lawyer friend, contains the time bomb. (emphasis mine)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)

There's the bomb.

Epp and his gang of anti-choice crusaders regularly refer to the bill by its short title, Unborn Victims of Crime Act, quietly sidestepping the clarity of intent in the long title. If it wasn't so underhanded it would be ingenious.

If this bill moves out the House and goes to committee the amendment will require more than just the rewording of section 238 of the Criminal Code. It will require a written definition of an unborn child.

The current offence specifies "in the act of birth".

It is the definition this crowd is attempting to insert into the Criminal Code. By doing so, if this bill goes anywhere other than the garbage bin, they will have provided a counter argument to the Supreme Court decision in Tremblay v. Daigle in which the court specified that a fetus has no status as a "person" under the common law.

Get it now? Epp can put all the 'provisions' he likes into his bill to preclude its being used directly to prosecute cases of voluntary abortion, but the fact remains that it will provide a legal precedent for the recognition of a fetus as a person with inherent rights, and thus unravel all the legal arguments supporting a woman's right to choose.

And that, as we know, is the whole point.

Now for The List.

There has been a list making the rounds on various blogs today of Liberal MPs who voted in favour of C-484 yesterday, as well as those who were no-shows (including their illustrious leader). It seems to have originated on Rabble.ca. On close examination, I found several errors in this list that need to be corrected before anyone goes harassing the wrong people. Specifically,

- Gord Brown is a Conservative, not a Liberal
- Liberal John Maloney also voted 'yea'
- Scott Simms did vote, and he voted 'nay'

The corrected list, based on Hansard, is as follows:

LIBERALS VOTING 'YEA':
Raymond Bonin; John Cannis; Hon. Raymond Chan; Hon. Roy Cullen; Sukh Dhaliwal; Hon. Albina Guarnieri; Hon. Charles Hubbard; Hon. Jim Karygiannis; Derek Lee; Hon. Lawrence MacAulay; Hon. Gurbax Malhi; John Maloney; Hon. John McKay; Hon. Joe McGuire; Hon. Dan McTeague; Hon. Shawn Murphy; Massimo Pacetti; Francis Scarpaleggia; Hon. Raymond Simard; Lloyd St. Amand; Paul Steckle; Paul Szabo; Hon. Robert Thibault; Alan Tonks; Roger Valley; Tom Wappel; Borys Wrzesnewskyj

LIBERALS ABSENT:
Stéphane Dion; Bryon Wilfert; Joe Volpe; Hon. Paul Martin (who is always absent); Nancy Karetak-Lindell; Hon. Mark Eyking; Ujjal Dosanjh; Denis Coderre; Brenda Chamberlain; Gerry Byrne

And then there was the NDP's Peter Stoffer, who broke ranks with his party to vote 'yea'.

Phone numbers and email addresses for most can be found here.

I found a couple of interesting things when I was going though this list. One is that all six Scarborough MPs (all Liberals) voted in favour of the bill. Weird. Apparently Scarborough is a hotbed of crypto-conservatism.

Another curiosity is that almost all of these names are also found on the list of Liberals who voted against same-sex marriage back in the day. This suggested to me that most of them are probably anti-choice as well, and are therefore not likely to be swayed by evidence that C-484 might re-criminalize abortion.

Then I found a better indication of their positions on abortion here.

I would suggest that those who wish to write to MPs on this list focus their efforts on those who are pro-choice or undecided who may have simply been fooled by the 'just protecting pregnant women, nothing to do with abortion here' rhetoric.

Don't yell at them. Educate them. Explain it to them. Convince them that there is more going on here than meets they eye, and that they have an obligation to consider all the ramifications if they allow this Trojan Horse bill to become law.

And You Thought Harper Hated the Press

I spotted this Time blog post quoted on DailyKos and just had to share.

This has got to be a first. Here in Austin, on the night before that make-or-break Texas primary, the Clinton campaign has set up a filing center for the traveling press corps ... in a men's room. Insert metaphor here.



UPDATE: According to the schedule, we will be here in the men's room for the next five hours. Someone will soon have to declare a moratorium on the "down the toilet" jokes.

UPDATE2: Hey, Jay: Is it true Obama has put his press corps in the Golden Door Spa tonight?

UPDATE3: There's also dinner and a television in here. I really wish I had Ana's little camera thing-ee, so I could share.

UPDATE4: CNN has a photo.

UPDATE5: A wider shot (wider stance?) from my own cellphone is posted two entries above this one. A gentleman just wandered in, expecting to use the facilities, and looked very startled to see three dozen reporters typing away on their laptops.

Sheesh - the least they could have done is put them up in the ladies' room so they could have couches and new age music and the smell of vanilla lavender soap instead of, you know, urinal cakes. One commenter wondered aloud what the Health Department would have to say about a bunch of reporters being served dinner in a public washroom. Ew.

And Clinton wonders why the press seem to hate her so.

Stephen's Silver Hammer

Stephen Harper has finally lost his mind. (Oh, crap - am I going to get sued now?)

Harper files notice of libel over Cadman allegations

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a notice of libel against Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and other top Liberals over allegations they've made about him in the Chuck Cadman affair.

Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, told Newsnet that Dion was served this morning at his Stornoway residence in Ottawa.

"The prime minister is not only suing the Liberal leader, he's suing the deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff; Ralph Goodale, who is the House leader; and the Liberal Party of Canada," he said.

"Mr. Harper's notice of libel says they've accused him of knowing about Conservative bribery in the Cadman affair," he said.

Harper said the allegations, made outside the House of Commons and on the Liberal party's website, are false and misleading. He is asking for an immediate retraction, Fife said.

Forgetting for the moment that the articles in question simply quote what was said in the House of Commons and are therefore immune from accusations of libel.

Forgetting the hypocrisy of suing the Liberals without also suing the Cadman family or Tom Zytaruk.

Forgetting even the horrifying precedent of a sitting Prime Minister responding to political attacks through a civil law suit.

What I find truly astonishing is that he would take this outrageous action when the Cadman affair was just starting to fall off the radar, and it was becoming apparent that after their initial fit of bluster the Liberals were probably going to just let it slide.

I am beyond angry. I am actually starting to become afraid for my country.

But when she turns her back on the boy,
He creeps up from behind.

Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head.
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that she was dead.

'The Tin Drum' Revisited

One of my earliest memories of a cultural and political controversy where I felt compelled to pick a side was when the Ontario Censor Board (later re-named the Ontario Film Review Board) banned the critically acclaimed German film 'The Tin Drum' for a single scene implying oral sex by a minor.

The fallout from that decision resulted in a radical restriction of the powers of censorship boards across the country and a general shift in the perception of Canada, both inside and outside of the country, from that of a nation of prudes to a country where freedom of expression and creativity was actively encouraged. The result has been a flowering of unique, challenging and provocative film and television productions that have been recognized and lauded around the world. In many ways, Canada has become the 'HBO' of North America.

This is what progressives refer to as "progress".

This is what religious conservatives refer to as "Canada's rapid descent into decadence and Godlessness".

Thanks to Charles McVety of the Canada Family Action Coalition, most people are now aware of the implications of Bill C-10 and the true intentions of the related 'update' of the Heritage Ministry guidelines that would result in a return to the kind of censorship we used to have here in prudish Ontario. If you haven't been keeping up, writer Denis McGrath over at Dead Things on Sticks has done some excellent coverage and analysis.

It should be pointed out that the specific clause in Bill C-10 that has caused so much anguish among both progressive bloggers and pretty much everyone in the Canadian entertainment industry is, on its face, completely innocuous. Out of a 600+ page income tax amendment bill, all it says is this:

(3) The definition "Canadian film or video production certificate" in subsection 125.4(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

"Canadian film or video production certificate" means a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that Minister is satisfied that

(a) except where the production is a treaty co-production (as defined by regulation), an acceptable share of revenues from the exploitation of the production in non-Canadian markets is, under the terms of any agreement, retained by

(i) a qualified corporation that owns or owned an interest in, or for civil law a right in, the production,

(ii) a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation related to the qualified corporation, or

(iii) any combination of corporations described in subparagraph (i) or (ii); and

(b) public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy.

Hardly surprising that it passed by the House and the Senate without anyone connecting the dots.

It's that "public policy" provision that's the real kicker, because it just so happens that the Heritage Ministry has a rather detailed and draconian set of guidelines for establishing what might be against "public policy" all drawn up and ready to go. Worse, it allows Heritage and Justice to withdraw a certificate and thus disqualify a production for tax credits even after production is well underway - meaning that investors could suddenly find their investment to be not such a good investment after they've already committed and spent the money.

The chilling effect this would have on all Canadian film and television productions - not just the naughty ones - would be utterly devastating.

Happily, the true import of this seemingly innocuous bill has finally surfaced above the fold and made the nightly news, largely due to Charles McVety's inability to conceal his glee at what he considers a vindication of his anti-smut, anti-homosexuality agenda. The Governor General's office has been inundated with calls and emails, and the bill is now back in Senate committee for another look.

If you would like to encourage them to slam this loophole shut, please contact the senators from your province. And while you're at it, toss off a note to the Heritage Minister, and maybe join the Facebook group as well.

____________________

MORE COVERAGE: Even the Globe & Mail's Margaret Wente thinks this is a bad idea. I especially enjoyed this passage:

We may just have to say goodbye to sex, violence, and Viggo Mortensen cavorting with Russian gangsters in the nude. Instead, we'll have to settle for "films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country," as Conservative MP Dave Batters put it. David Cronenberg will be reduced to shooting remakes of Anne of Green Gables. Juno will be recast as the heartwarming tale of a plucky girl who realizes that if she has premarital sex with her boyfriend, she'll go to Hell. As for Young People Fucking, a new movie coming soon, forget about it. It will have to be reshot as Young People Starting an Abstinence Club.

(H/T to we move to canada, where you can find more text from the editorial in case you, like me, can't get past the !@#$% G&M firewall.)