In threes

Things come in threes, as the saying goes. And MUN is being hit with quite the triple whammy in the past week. So much so you get the feeling that if MUNÂ’s University relations department could take the week off rather than dealing with the crap that is currently raining down on them, they would.

I'’m trying to recall the last time MUN looked this bad, not just locally, which happens from time to time, but nationally. Universities live and die by reputations. It gets them the students, the prestigious professors and the big grants to do research. By all accounts, MUN is the middle of a massive coronary event.



To recap:

The Supreme Court of Canada rules in favour of Wanda Young using such charming language as the university needed to "get their facts straight before taking a potential career-ending action." Oh, and that the professor, Leslie Bella, acted on "conjecture and speculation."

So the university basically destroyed Young's career and life for years, never owned up to the fact, dragged the case on for years and made her to go the Supreme Court in order to get her life back. If I'm not mistaken, at one point, while waiting for her appeal to be accepted by the Supreme Court, the university went after her for the money they had already paid out to her. Lovely.

By far the worse hit is the spectacularly damning story that Chris O'Neill-Yates is doing for The National. It is a three part series, airing during the CBC's flagship news broadcast. The first part of the story focused on what appears to be massive academic fraud by Dr. Ranjit Kumar Chandra. OÂ’Neill-Yates has found at least 10 academic papers that are "fraudulent or highly suspicious."

If a MUN professor was doing this on his own without the university's knowledge, that would be bad, but not devastating. But this is: MUN has known about it since 1994. For more than a decade they had their suspicions about Chandra, but did nothing for fear of a lawsuit, among other reasons.

Part two aired Tuesday night, focused on what happened to all the money. Because if Chandra got grants for about $1 million dollars to do research, and did very little of it, where did the money go? Apparently to dozens of bank accounts. MUN apparently didn't know what Chandra did with the money or how much he was getting. Part three focuses on how Chandra could have gotten away with academic fraud. What ever happened to peer review?

O'Neill-Yates will win awards for it. The quality of journalism is that good, although I did find part two a little too tabloidish for my liking. Then again, I've never liked ambush interviews, although I understand the need for them sometimes. One other observation; Jack Strawbridge, for most of the interview, looks like he would either prefer to be working in Alert right about now, or strangling the people he has to cover up for at MUN because of their apparent incompetence in not dealing with the situation before it got to this point.

3. Oh, and just for good measure, the Auditor General's report came out today and took a few shots at how the university is run and how accountable its books are. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the media over the next few days. In the meantime, MUN's response to the AG is here.

You know, it's the kind of week where I wonder if Dr. Axel Meisen isn't hiding under a bed somewhere. Or, since most of the Chandra stuff occurred under Art May's watch, cursing him pretty heavily.

Maybe it was a good thing I didn't win the Board of Regents election last year after all...

Currently Playing
The Tigers Have Spoken - Neko Case

Three random bits

1. Well, thank Christ that's over and done with. I know I was living in fear he was going to run, but a lot of stories coming out today, before Tobin officially announced, that were stating things in a manner that indicated he wasn't going to run. Leaking to soften the ground, as it were.

Then there was Jeffrey Simpson's spot on, and devastating, assessment of Tobin in the Globe today: "Mr. Tobin's a dead duck in Newfoundland, and it's always nervy to choose someone whose old friends offer warnings."

Yup, that's pretty much right on.

2. I nailed about 75% of my picks with the Oscars, which isn't bad. I should have known better to pick against Judi Dench getting a nomination and I thought hard about whether Howl's Moving Castle would edge out Madagascar, but I obvious leaned the wrong way.

Then again, A Shark's Tale beat out The Polar Express for a nomination last year, and that was just weird.

And Nancy, if you have an Oscar pool, I want in. I've good for it...

3. I've had a couple of people interested recently express interest in wanting to know what Iqaluit is like. And it's not that I don't love the e-mail, but that I should probably do something more on it. I'm noticing that I'm getting a lot of hits from search engines from people looking for information.

So I've begun working on a Iqaluit FAQ in a similar vein to the "How to pitch to an entertainment writer". I'll also permanently link to it. It's also looking like it will be a multi-part post, but hopefully it will be smaller than the entertainment article. Hopefully this will answer most questions.

If you have a question you want answered, then e-mail me at: towniebastard (at) gmail dot com. I'll do my best to answer it.

Playing on iPod
Plans - Death Cab For Cutie

Nominee predictions

It's only hours away as I write this, so by the time some of you read this the picks might already be out. Still, here are my guesses. Take into account I have seen only a few of these movies. I'm basing my guesses on buzz, promotion and gut instinct.

Best Picture
1. Brokeback Mountain
2. Capote
3. Crash
4. Good Night, And Good Luck
5. Munich

Best Director
1. Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain)
2. George Clooney (Good Night, And Good Luck)
3. Paul Haggis (Crash)
4. Stephen Spielberg (Munich)
5. David Cronenberg (A History of Violence)

Best Actor
1. Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Capote)
2. Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain)
3. Joaquin Phoenix (Walk The Line)
4. David Strathairn (Good Night, And Good Luck)
5. Ralph Finnes (The Constant Gardner)

Best Actress
1. Reese Witherspoon (Walk The Line)
2. Charlize Theron (North Country)
3. Felicity Huffman (Transamerica)
4. Laura Linney (The Squid and the Whale)
5. Keira Knightley (Pride and Prejudice)

Best Animated Movie
1. Madagascar
2. The Corpse Bride
3. Wallace and Grommit: Curse of the Were-Rabbitt

Best Supporting Actor
1. George Clooney (Syrianna)
2. Jake Gyllenhall (Brokeback Mountain)
3. Bob Hoskins (Mrs. Henderson Presents)
4. Ed Harris (A History of Violence)
5. Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man)

Best Supporting Actress
1. Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain)
2. Scarlett Johansson (Match Point)
3. Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardner)
4. Maria Bello (A History of Violence)
5. Catherine Keener (Capote)

Playing on iPod
Come on, feel the Illinoize - Sufjan Stevens

Run Away!

A very Monty Python sort of day if you're a Liberal supporter. I mean, lots of brave posturing, but when the Conservatives unleash the killer bunny then, well, it's cut and run time.



(It's distinctly possible I have taken the Monty Python and the Holy Grail analogy too far there, but I'm a sucker for a good Python moment.)

In Newfoundland there was no shortage of Liberals running away when faced with leading the party into Armageddon 2007 (ie. The next provincial election). First out of the gate, running in the opposite direction, was Gerry Reid saying that nope, no way was he going to keep leading the party. Then, soon afterwards (in fact, so soon afterwards the CBC didn't need to write a new story for it, but instead just added on to the Reid story) Anna Thistle said in so many words there was no way in hell she was doing it.

What is remarkable is that there is only a week left to declare your intention and only one person is interested and no one from the current caucus looks like they want the job. Wow. What does that say about the one mighty provincial Liberals. When Tobin screws a party, he screws them good.

And, of course, speaking of Tobin...

Paul Martin resigns as Liberal leader and everyone figures they've got the leadership contenders figured out.

Except John Manley quickly bails, citing family reasons.

Except Frank McKenna just bailed, citing personal reasons.

That's two big gun favourites who just said "No" to being Liberal leader.

Groundhog Day is February 2nd. I wonder, will Tobin stick his perfectly quoffed head (there's a lovely bit in the Saturday Globe about Tobin and his hairdresser, but it's members only online) out of his hole in the ground, see his shadow and go scurrying away for six more years.

Or will his winter of being away from politics finally be over and he takes the plunge. I've seen two polls that said he was the second choice after McKenna to be Liberal leader. With McKenna gone, is he now the favourite?

God help us all, but I think we just took a step closer to Prime Minister Tobin today...

Currently Play on My Newly Working iPod
Spamalot - Original Cast Recording

Half an anniversary

Way back when I was a young geek and managed to get my first serious girlfriend, I used to celebrate every monthly anniversary. I used to buy her a red rose on the 20th of every month, I guess at least partially to celebrate my continued amazement that I still had a girlfriend.

That habit ended once that relastionship did and I haven't really bothered with monthly anniversaries ever since. However, since you only get to celebrate six months of wedded bliss once (well, hopefully I'll only get to do it once) I figure, why not.

Mind-blowingly enough, it was six months ago today that myself and Cathy got married. I'm floored by how fast time has been going since we've been up here. I guess when it's this cold, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's still kind of freaky how much has happened so fast.

So happy anniversary, babe. The next anniversary, in six months time, will be spent in some place considerably warmer.

What this theatre needs is...

Since the Oscar nominees will be announced on Tuesday, I'll have my guesses for the nominees up on Monday. I have a pretty good track record for picking the winners, but not so much for the nominees, so we'll see how I do this year.

However, before I get to that, allow me a small rant, because I just saw the box office for this past weekend. Now, I know box office and the quality of the movie have nothing in common, but I still like looking at the figures. I find them interesting for reasons I know not, but I do.

There was no shortage of articles written in 2005 saying what a terrible year it was for the movies. Small forests were decimated to print the articles and landfills will be overflowing with the discarded film from people on Entertainment Tonight or E! Talk Daily saying what a bad year it was.

Now, some people like Roger Ebert have said that is bullshit (alas, I can't find the exact article on Roger's site). That 2005 was still, in terms of money, one of the five best years of all time. Yes, ticket sales are down, but no one in Hollywood is going to be collecting food stamps any time soon.

But it did do one good thing; it caused industry people to reevaluate the movie going experience. Granted, instead of trying to fix things, they blamed a lot of it on Internet piracy which isn't nearly as bad as some in Hollywood like to portray it. But there was talk of better theatres, of trying to crack down on noisy and rude patrons, and of eliminating the annoying adds that delay the actual start time of a movie by about 15 minutes.

But most importantly, there was talk of making better movies. "If we make better films," the studios cried, "they will come!"

I'm all for better movies. Personally, I had no real problem with 2005. I got Sin City, Batman Begins, Serenity, Lord of War and King Kong, just to name a few off the top of my head. Bring on more movies like that and if you can do better, more power to you.

So, better movies. That's the solution for 2006. Do that and all will be better.

So what was the #1 movie at the box office the weekend of Jan. 20-22? Underworld: Evolution.



What was the #1 movie at the box office the weekend of Jan. 27-29? Big Mamma's House 2. Oh, and just for kickers, it had the second highest opening weekend box office in history.



I haven't see either of these movies and normally I disdain people who judge movies who don't bother to see them. However, I did see the first Underworld and I also happened to catch about 30 minutes of Big Mamma's House. I had to stop after 30 minutes because I feared lasting brain damage. As for Underworld, despite the charms of watching Kate Beckinsale run around in skintight pleather for 90 minutes, I ended up yelling at the screen after the movie (the only other time in recent history I've done this was House of Flying Daggers, because the last 15 were so terrible and the rest of the movie was so good that I was furious). I yelled because the trailer looked made the movie look unbelievably fun. Instead, it was incomprehensibly shot garbage.

So yeah, I see no reason to spend money on these films. But apparently others did. Lots of them.

And what lesson will Hollywood take if this trend of utter garbage does well while critically acclaimed movies such as Munich, Syrianna and Good Night, and Good Luck do mediocre to crap box office? Why, to blame internet piracy, of course. And to keep churning out crap.

You know, increasingly I'm beginning to think there is nothing wrong with the movies, it's the people who go and see them. If only there was a mass cinematic enema that could be given to people, that might improve things.

Playing on iTunes
Live Between Us - The Tragically Hip

A gleam of brilliance

I read Ray Guy’s column in The Independent last Sunday about what might happen at Loyola Hearn’s first cabinet meeting. Now, Guy is at a fraction of his peak powers. Back in the day he could make Joey Smallwood crap his pants every time he wrote a column in The Evening Telegram.



He was feared and he was brilliant. There are many pretty good columnists operating in Newfoundland right now, but none of them have the Fear of God reputation that Guy could install in people when he was writing in his prime. It’s a pity, really.

I mean, Russell Wangerski is good, when he's not rambling on about rambling brooks and streams. Craig Westcott is pretty damn good (I know for a fact the premier has cursed on him), but I'm biased because he's a friend. Same thing with Barbara Dean-Simmons in Clarenville. She's a friend, and she's also probably too busy to do it as much as she would like.

Averill Baker had potential, but she keeps hammering away at the same points over and over and over again. Peter Fenwick is well past his prime. I haven't read enough of Bill Rowe, but the first few I did read didn't wow me. I think the last really exceptional columnist in the province was Mark Critch, now that I think on it.

So no, there is no one at Guy's level back in the day. No one that Danny Williams worries about, for example.

Anyway, Guy’s column wasn’t brilliant. Not by any stretch. But you could see the flashes, like this bit:

Mr. Harper: Here’s my big question, Loyola. What’s the first thing to pop into your mind if you have to make a cabinet decision?

Mr. Hearn (After a colleague whispers in his ear): What the Jesus would I do? No, no. I mean, what would Jesus do?

Mr. Harper: Close, Loyola, but wrong. What would George Bush do? There’s not a Canadian, present company included, fit to ask what Jesus would do. George Bush does because he’s got Dick Cheney to tell him. Jesus tells Cheney, Cheney tells Bush, Bush tells Fox News.

Mr. Hearn: Bless us and save us, Stephen. You mean to tell me there’s not a Canadian fit?

Mr. Harper: Too long in the wilderness, my culturally defeatist newfie friend. Too long steeped in Satan-led blasphemy, abomination, idolatry, sodomy ... and that is our Job One. By the way, what’s the report on, er, strange bedfellows in your district?

Mr. Hearn: John Crosbie.

Seriously, not bad at all. Some of the other stuff rambles or falls flat, but there’s enough cleverness in there to remind you why politicians were terrified of him back in the 60s and 70s. It would be nice if there was an equivilent to terrify the politicians of today...

Playing on iTunes
Greatest Hits - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers

Your job doesn't suck as much as you think

It can always be worse, my friends. Oh yes...



(Courtesy of my good friend Chris Myrick's excellent Asia Pundit. He's also posting some good stuff on Google's decision to block certain information and sites from China.)

Playing on iTunes
Open Heart Symphony - Spirit of the West

Partisan = drug addict?

Yes, I'm posting a lot of political stuff lately. And I appreciate that some of you might not be entertained by all of this considering we've just spent the better part of two months dealing with a federal election.

I just ask you to bear with me a bit. I gotta go where my muse takes me. And this week, I must still have some political issues to work out. I still have stuff written about Ray Guy and Andy Wells I haven't posted yet.

But my friend Mike sent me this link to a fascinating article about what effects being strongly political partisan can have on the brain. Mike, by the way, has got a Phd in biochemistry or something, studied at Harvard and is a senior research chemist. So if the science of this article makes sense to him, then there is probably something to it. It's an American study so Republicans and Democrats were used, but I think we can pretty safely substitute in Canadian political parties.

For those of you who don't want to read the article, I'll quote from what Mike sent to me about what the article's conclusions are:

"There is now scientific evidence that strong political partisans
a) Don't think logically
b) Can't learn from new data, and
c) Have brains that function similarly to those of drug addicts."

Clearly I'm not thinking of anybody in particular. I'm just throwing this out there for general public education.

However, the next time you flip on Newsworld and there are three pundits arguing that the Liberals, Conservatives or NDP is the best party, realize there is apparently not much of a difference between them and crazy, brain-damaged drug addicts.

Playing on iTunes
Open Heart Symphony - Spirit of the West

A voice in the wilderness

I forgot to mention in my glorious losers post yesterday that someone out there in the vast Canadian wilderness, a tribe of federal PCs still roam the land. Alas, they are not Progressive Conservatives, because I imagine there are all sorts of legal and copyright issues with using that name. No, they are the Progressive Canadian Party of Canada. They got 14,446 votes on Monday which shows they have a bit of work to do before they bump off Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.



I admit, I had visions of a grizzled, scowling Joe Clark thumping across the land, perhaps with a gnarled tree stump as a walking stick and missing an eye, having sacrificed it to the gods for wisdom. And he’s preaching to those who want conservatives, but for whom Stephen Harper scares the bejesus out of them. And he’s telling them their day will come. That there is no need to vote for Harper and his ilk. Just follow him. Follow him and one day soon he will lead them to the Promised Land. Lead them over the Rideau Canal and back onto Parliament Hill.

Yes, it would happen. And Joe would be prime minister once again. And it would be a good thing.

It was a lovely vision. Alas, when I checked out their website I get Tracy Parsons, who is not grizzled, gnarled, nor one-eyed. And is instead an attractive 40-year-old blond mother of two. Kind of disappointing, really. I think she should consider getting Clark back for the ’08 election. And, you know, scruff him up a bit.



It could work. Honest.

Playing on iTunes
Receiver - Sean Panting

The Glorious Losers

People who want a proportional representation system have been quick to point out that if you went by popular vote, the Greens would have had about 14 seats and we would likely not be looking at a minority Conservative government, but a coalition government of the Liberals, NDP and Greens. Some might be upset that's not happening. Others might be thanking whatever gods they worship that didn't happen. I'm not really sure what to think, other than it would likely be pretty groovy, man...

But it wasn't just the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens running on January 23. No, no, there were a whole host of other parties trying to get your vote. They didn't run everywhere and they certainly didn't win anywhere, but let us take a moment to praise and, well, mock a bit, those who tried but fell short. Way, way, way short.

A friend of mine in Alberta wanted to know, just before the election, who the WBP were since they seem to be running in her riding. Well, they're Western Block Party and they're advocates for Western independence from Canada. I'm sure she'll be happy to know that they received a whopping 1,094 votes. Not in one riding. That's the combined number for every riding they ran in.

I shudder to think that there were 1,094 people for whom the Conservatives were entirely too wussy. Actually, if you throw in the Christian Heritage Party, you can add another 28,279 people to that list.

There were more Maxist-Leninist (9,289 votes) than Communists (3,127 votes). The Maxists also managed to narrowly beat out the Marijuana Party (9,275). I suspect vote splitting with the Communists nearly cost them the "irrevelent left-wing protest vote".

I also have friends who fall into the Libertarian spectrum. Alas, they will be disappinted to know the Libertarians made a poor
showing, failing to even beat the Communists with only 3,003 votes.

The First People's Nations party had a decent go in its first time out, getting 1,340 votes. There might be hope for them in the future. There are several predominently native ridings in Canada. If they get their act together, I could see them picking up a seat in the future.

But the biggest loser of the evening was the AACEV Party of Canada, which is an animal rights/environmental party for whom, I assume, the NDP must be the equivilent of Bush Republicans and the Green Party are just too conservative. I'm guessing Stephen Harper would be worse than Satan. Alas, they got 72 votes. But they're hopeful they can beat the WBP in the next election.

The numbers, in all their glory, can be found here.

Playing on iTunes
Santiago - The Chieftains

Today's Liberal leadership round-up

I keep saying I'm done with political stuff for awhile, but then I think of more juicy goodness. I actually jot them down at work so I can remember to blog about them later (remember kids, blogging at work is a bad idea.) And you've got to write this stuff down or you lose it. First rule of writing.

Anyway...

Liberal leadership
1. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, is there a Liberal in the country not thinking about running for the leadership? I've seen at least 20 names batted about. I'm surprised I haven't seen Roger Grimes name mentioned.

2. I know there is this big rush to recruit and slap the crown on Frank McKenna, especially since he's now quit his post as ambassador, to lead the Liberals, but does anyone really know all that much about his current politics? Other than he's bilingual and was a pretty successful premier in New Brunswick, I haven't head much else about what he's actually for. Or heard him doing much debating of public speaking. Oh, and that when he does talk, it seems to piss off Americans.

3. I know John Manley's name is being thrown around and I was actually living with The Fear over that happening. Sure, he was a competent, hell even exceptional, cabinet minister. But let's face it, if he was leader and debated Stephen Harper I would be genuinely worried voter turnout would crash since none of us would be out of our comas in time to vote.

There is hope, though. I read a quip from Manley in The National Post. He said it election night, but I must have missed it: "Some may want a dynamic, charismatic leader -- some others may support me."

I'm not saying it's Robin Williams funny, but that's not bad. There might be hope for him yet.

4. The same article also contains my favourite Brian Tobin quote so far. It's not the bit about "fulfilling his obligations in private life." We all know he's going to come back because "people insisted that he was needed" or some such foolishness. No, it's this quote: "There is no need to rush recklessly ahead (with a leadership contest)."

Yes, for the love of God, don't rush ahead. I mean, the Liberals are talking about a convention before Christmas. The last thing they need to do is elect Tobin and then he heads home for Christmas, spends some time with Jodean and the kids and the next thing you know, the "glow of the Christmas lights" will have him quitting again. Then where will the Liberals be?

It's what he's best at, you know: Making big promises, quitting and screwing over constituents. If you want that in a leader, Tobin's your man.

Playing on iTunes
Santiago - The Chieftains

No change in the weather

So how did things go in the North? Well, other than freezing cold (it was about 45 yesterday once you threw in the wind), there was one small change. Instead of three Liberals, there are now two Liberals and one New Democrat. The NDP beat the Liberal junior minister in Western Arctic (the Northwest Territories).

The race was closer in Nunavut than it was last time, but the Liberal still won fairly easily. A few scares early in the evening when the Conservative was ahead, but Nancy Karetak-Lindell eventually pulled away. Results were painfully slow coming in, though. When I went to bed at 12:20 EST I think about 15 polls were in for Nunavut. The polls had been closed almost three hours at that point. I have no idea why, other than to say “It’s the north.” Which is generally what you say when things happen that appear to make little sense.

A favourite moment was when a fluke of what polls were being counted, and their speed (or lack thereof) had the Marijuana Party candidate in third place for about an hour, only 12 votes or so behind the front runner. That was a bit weird. Granted, the vote totals were something like 25 Conservative, 18 Liberal, 13 Marijuana Party.

Actually, the marijuana guy finished ahead of the Green Party. It’s been suggested that what with climate change, Nunavut would be a prime place for the Green Party to make a breakthrough (yes, there is a decided lack of Green up here. Perhaps they might want to rethink that name).

I’m not going into it too much, because it cuts a bit close to my job, but until the party changes its stand on sealing, I don’t see it happening. The candidate up here had to publicly distance himself from the Green’s anti-sealing stand. Guess it didn’t work.

As for the turnout, 53.3% voted in Nunavut. Not great, but still about 10 points higher than last time. So that’s good.

As for what it means for the North, I don’t know yet, but it will be worth watching. It’s the first time in decades the North hasn’t had a representative in government. And arctic sovereignty was a significant plank in the Conservative’s election strategy. More search and rescue, more troops, a naval base near Iqaluit, etc.

Harper has promised a lot, with a limited window to get it all done. With no one in the government caucus to push for Northern issues, it’ll be interesting to see how much of this gets done in a short period of time.

Mostly Harmless…

Eh…so that wasn’t as bad as most people thought. The Conservatives get a small minority, but are held pretty firmly in check by a sizeable Opposition who will let the Conservatives get away with so much, but not too much. For example, they will get away with anti-corruption legislation, more money for the military and some tax breaks. But I highly doubt they will get far messing with social policy, such as abortion or same sex marriage.

Yes, the Liberals aren’t going to want to topple the government for at least a year or more and that does leave them vulnerable to the Conservatives trying to ram some thing through. But again, the Conservatives want to get reelected. This wasn’t a vote from a group of people deeply in love with Harper and the Conservatives. This was a vote from people who felt, for the most part, like they had no choice but to spank the Liberals.

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Shockingly enough, I haven’t heard of anything boneheaded being said by a Tory winner last night. Perhaps Harper has put subcutunous electrical devices in each one of them. Just before they’re about to say something retarded, they get a small electrical shock. Don’t be surprised if you see lots of Tories twitching and spasming in the coming weeks.

Oh, as for my predictions…they pretty well sucked. But hey, I got the NDP number right.

As for big winner or losers, I’m not sure there were any. The Conservatives won, which makes them a winner. But they certainly didn’t win the number of seats they were hoping for.

The Liberals lost, which makes them losers. But considering some predictions had them with about 60 seats and barely ahead of the BQ for Opposition leaders, they’ve still got to be happy.

The NDP finished fourth, but picked up 11 seats. Still, they were in the low 30s for awhile. I’m sure they were hoping for a few more seats and to be the balance of power.

The one party with nothing to spin, I guess, was the BQ. There was talk of 60 or more seats and a popular vote of better than the magic 50%. But they lost 6% and lost three (nearly four) seats. Good luck spinning that.

Good on them, by the way. It’s nice to see that it wasn’t people embracing sovereignty in Quebec with the early poll numbers, but just being furious with the Liberals. Sovereignty remains where it generally does in Quebec – around 40%.

As for Paul Martin, I’m reminded of a quote I once heard about President Bill Clinton. I’m paraphrasing here, but it was roughly this: “In between the potential of Bill Clinton and the reality of Bill Clinton lies his tragedy. The tragedy of the waste of what should have been.”

I think that works for Martin. He could have been a great prime minister, but it just never happened. There will be lots of articles and books written about that, assessing blame and praise. Let’s just say it didn’t work out for him. But at least he did the smart and classy thing of stepping down right away. I’d say a Liberal leadership convention around November. Too soon to say who will win, but surely McKenna, Tobin and Manley will be running.

A couple of other numbers, although not as impressive.
Percentage of eligible voters who voted in Newfoundland – 56.8%
Percentage of eligible voters who voted in Canada – 64.9%

Better than in 2004, but still kind of pathetic.

Pick a number

So, with mere hours left in this government, it's time to make a prediction on seat numbers. I'm not running this through any site that takes percentage of popular vote and churns out a seat count. This is just pure guesswork on my part.

For Newfoundland:
Conservative - 4 (alas, I don't think Scott Simms is going to hold)
Liberals - 3
NDP - 0
Green - 0

For the rest of Canada:

Conservative - 141
Liberals - 79
Bloc - 59
NDP - 29

Feel free to add your guesses in the feedback section.

Currently Playing On iTunes
Lucky You Are - Colleen Power

Goodbye West Wing, Hello Tick

I had just finished watching yet another good West Wing where it became obvious how Santos was going to beat Vinnick. All season Santos has been behind and it has looked hopeless. Obviously, the writers were going to drag something out. Some scandal or controversy that would bring him down. And a near nuclear accident in a plant in California, that Vinnick championed, appears to be the thing that's going to decide it.



I'm glad that's how it's going to happen. Throughout this season, West Wing has been running an idealized presidential election, without the smears and mostly on issues. It's been entertaining to watch. And they didn't make nuclear power an easy fall guy. Instead, there were good and bad points about it. Very intelligently written. Not as good as the writing in the first three seasons, but still good stuff.

So naturally, NBC announced the show is done as of May 14. Not a big surprise, I'm sad to say. NBC appears to be run by monkeys this season. So rather than moving the show to a time slot where it might have a chance, they canned it instead. Genuis.

All of this and Commander-in-Chief is still on the air. I tried watching an episode last week involving a U.S. submarine missing in North Korean waters and all I could think was "Didn't West Wing do this back in season three or something and do it about 10 times smarter with a fraction of the melodrama?" Yup.

sigh Never look for fairness or justice in television. It doesn't exist.



The one bit of good news is this story about the Tick cartoon coming to DVD later this year. Perhaps grown men shouldn't like cartoons, but hey, I'm a geek. And one of my all-time favourite cartoons is The Tick. Not the live action show briefly on Fox. That always felt...unnatural. The cartoon, however, is pure genuis. One of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV. I'll be buying this the day it comes out. So should you.

SPOON!!!

Currently Playing On iTunes
Face And Eyes - Colleen Power

Down With Pants!

For those of you not in the know, and I suspect that would be most of you, today is No Pants Day. Or at least it is according to the people following this site. It's not quite the same as the tradition that some of my friends followed, but close enough

Yeah, you read the last sentence correctly. My friends have (had) the tradition of screaming "Down With Pants!" and this normally meant people would drop their pants. Woe to the poor sod who had a pair of tidy whities on. Or, you know, went commando that day. There would be great mocking for the lame underwear and potential snickering for the lame package.

The origin of this tradition, as best as I'm able to trace it, is Nov. 5, 1993. It was after a Spirit of the West show at the TSC and a group of us decided, suitably fired up by the booze, that it was time to perform our own act of rebellion against a tyranical government (A lot of people at MUN hated Clyde Wells pretty solidly at this point). While we didn't have the explosives to do in the Confederation Building, we did have fireworks. So it was a symbolic gesture of contempt towards the government.

So we go to the hill, hide a bit out of the way while the pyromaniacs (engineers, if I recall) set up the fireworks. One of the party wanted to help with the explosives, even though he was quite drunk. When it was decided that this was a tremendously bad idea, he staggered up to the highway meridian in front of Confederation Building and screamed "Down With Pants!" and then promptly dropped his.

Alas, it was a commando occassion for him (Who shall go nameless on this blog, as he is a Professional these days).

So we're trying to launch fireworks without being caught, we have a pantsless man screaming at Confederation Building while cars honk at him on their way past and we're trying to debate exactly who goes out to the meridian and drags him away,

It all worked out in the end. The pantsless man was successfully removed, the fireworks were launched and no one was caught. A pretty good evening over all. And, of course, "Down With Pants!" became both legend and tradition.
So while January 22 is the wrong day of No Pants Day, I can understand why it wasn't held on November 5. It does get over-shadowed by other events.

So whereever you are today, feel free to go without pants, or drop them to show your contempt of government. Or to show off your underwear.

I won't be, though. It's -41 with windchill in Iqaluit today. That's a bit too nippy to be wandering about without pants.

Currently Playing On iTunes
Red Roses For Me - The Pogues

Good analysis

There are quirks to living up north and this is one of them: From Monday to Friday most of the southern newspapers we get in Iqaluit arrive between 1-2 p.m. This includes The Globe and Mail, The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, National Post and 2 or 3 French papers. Unless there is weather, in which case all bets are off. But normally, this is the case.

But on Saturdays, it's a crap shoot when the papers will arrive. I've seen them there at 1 p.m. There have been other days when they didn't get it until Sunday. People get very testy about this. I mean, I don't know how well the papers sell during the week, but people want their Saturday paper. I know I do. During the week I read most of my news online, but I do like to sit down and spend an hour or two reading the Globe on a Saturday.

Today, it came in at 6:30. sigh

That's why I'm late posting this link. While I might not always agree with him, I felt this analysis by Jeffrey Simpson was pretty well spot on. It's about what went so wrong with the Liberals in the past three years. How you can have a solid economy, good employment figures and a high level of contentment from the population and totally squander it in short order.

It's fascinating stuff and well worth the read even if you're one of those people who normally hate the Globe.

Currently Playing On iTunes
If I Should Fall From Grace With God - The Pogues

Dr. StrangeHarper: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Not Fear the Tories

So the polls appear to be holding. Barring a miraculous last minute swing in Ontario (not unheard of) the Conservatives are going to win a minority. There appears to be enough last minute shifting and few screw-ups by the Conservatives in the past week to keep them shy of majority territory. Which is what most people want anyway. Just in case Stephen Harper's miraculous transformation into a moderate conservative has a shelf life of about seven weeks (oddly, about the time it takes to run a federal election).

Liberals running in the election have done everything but paint the Conservatives as the anti-Christ. "If you elect the Conservatives, the angel will break the second seal and you can forget about ever catching a cod fish because the seas will have all turned to blood, and the cod, they don't like swimming in blood, b'ye."

I can understand this. If you're a politician and running for election, well, you do everything you can to get elect. It's important to get elected and become a member of the party running the government. You get to decide the direction of the country. And, more importantly, you can access to a whole lot more money to play with than if you're in opposition.

The only Liberals who want the Liberals to be the government are those running to fill the seats. An other Liberal with half a brain should look at this crowd and go "Yeesh. Maybe a break isn't such a bad thing." Purge. Restart.

"Choose Your Canada." Stephen Harper will do terrible things. He will siddle up to the Americans. He will make us just like the Americans. He will cut our beloeved social programs."

Oh please...

Look, Canada is a fundimentally liberal (or Liberal) country. Even the most cursary glance of the party in power for the past 100 years will show that. Canadians don't elect Conservatives; we toss out Liberals. At some point in time, the Liberals get too smug, too corrupt and lose touch with the rest of the country. Welcome to that point in history.

The Liberals have just been horrific for most of the past two years. It's sad really. I think Paul Martin could have made a good prime minister. It's going to be one of those things debated by historians on what went wrong. But the party is adrift. No idea or focus that they can coherently articulate to the rest of the country. Other than "Tories bad. Have some money."

The best thing for the Liberals is to lose this election, go off into a corner, get reorganized and get ready to fight again in two or three years time. Find a new leader. Get a coherent vision.

Because the Tories won't destroy the country. They're going to muck with it, to be sure. But there will be nothing of lasting damage. I honestly don't think they're going to mess with same sex marriage or abortion or with universal health care. It's too controversal and will stir up people way more than they can afford as a minority government. They need to get reelected and there are smart enough people with the Tories to realize people are not voting for them because of their deep love of their party, policies and leader. It's because they've finally hit the tipping point with the Liberals.

Besides, once the Tories win, it will be a miracle if on election night one of their newly minted MPs doesn't say something staggeringly sexist, racist or homophobic. There's no way they go a whole week without it happening.

The honeymoon when Chretien got it was about two years, because people loved him as much as they hated the Mulroney Tories. The honeymoon with Harper is going to be about two weeks. No one hates Martin; it's just that no one understands him anymore.

So don't worry about the Tories. Let the Liberals go off and lick their wounds. They'll get themselves straightened out. Because odds are, the Tories won't really be around long enough to do any serious damage. You can start the clock on them five minutes after the election has been called.

Currently Playing on iTunes
Weezer - Weezer

Lazy day

This was a day, as my wife charmingly put it, where the little hamster in the wheel inside my head never really got going. I'd argue the point, but she's right. It was a storm day here in Iqaluit. Not a lot of snow, probably only 5 cm or so. But once you throw in sustained winds of around 90 km/h and gusting to well over 100 and then add a windchill of below -30, well, it's enough to shut the place down. Schools closed, government closed, pretty much everywhere closed.

So apparently some part of my brain went "Yipee! No thinking for me today." And so it was. A pretty slothful day of watching TV and reading comic books (I reread the excellent, and highly recommended, "Fables"). Thus, there is not much to report. I had something brewing on the election, but that's for a day where the thought process is a little more focused.

So I shall give you these two new facts about Nunavut and Iqaluit that you may have not known.

1. Technically, Iqaluit is not in the Arctic Ocean. I thought I had my third ocean when I dipped my hand in it back in September, but no. It is, geographically speaking, next to the Atlantic Ocean. However, since Newfoundland is located in the North Atlantic I feel Iqaluit should get the designation of the Very, Very North Atlantic Ocean.

2. All of Nunavut is located in one time zone, that is, Eastern Standard Time. If you look a a map, Iqaluit is actually north of New Brunswick. We should be in Atlantic Time. If you look to the western region of the territory a community such as Kugluktuk should be in Mountain Time. It's a big territory. I'm not 100% certain of the reasons behind it, but I believe it makes it easier for government to function if all the offices operate on the same time, rather than across four time zones.

One last thing, completely unrelated to Nunavut, but I skipped my first curling game in about 18 years last night. There are a number of reasons why I stopped being a Skip. I was too competitive. I tended to curse a lot and generally became a jerk. None of which (well, except for the cursing) are qualities I particularly enjoy.

However, I like to think I've grown up a bit in the last two decades so when all the games were cancelled last night because few people showed up, we had enough for a pick-up game. And I skipped. And my team won. A nice, back-and-forth, fun game against a good team where we won 6-5. I wasn't shooting my best, but I was still happy. I genuinely would have been happy if we lost, the game was that much fun.

I'm not sure I'm ready to be a skip again full-time, but it was nice to see that no bad habits (well, a bit of cursing) reemerged. Of course, that was a scrap game. Let's see if I'm still well behaved if I'm in a competitve bonspiel.

Currently Playing On iTunes
Receiver - Sean Panting