kimmy

Always interesting to hear from Oleg. Now back to your mushroom patch! -k

(I wouldn't let Nurse Amy get anywhere close unless she took a breathalyzer test first...) I kind of agree with a lot of your assessment of Hilary's mannerisms, but in this last bit, aren't you kind of restating the old feminist complaint that we're comfortable with male authority figures and uncomfortable with female ones? Successful male politicians remind people of admired and trusted figures... female politicians remind people of a schoolmarm, or a nurse, or of mom or grandma. Not that people don't love mom or grandma, but do any of us picture mom or grandma as leader of the free world? What would a hypothetical female President actually look like? Would she be young and attractive like Belinda Stronach, Rona Ambrose, or the like? Older and not unattractive, like Kim Campbell or Barbara McDougall? Would she be utterly lacking in sex appeal like Deborah Gray or Sheila Copps? Probably not: it's easy to find examples of the kind of negative style-focused press that all of these women have received. Would she look like a kindly grandmother like Ann Richards? Nobody wants to take cracks at Grandma. Then again, nobody envisions Grandma as President, either. The short-lived TV series "Commander in Chief" was about a female President (portrayed by Geena Davis). On the show, she'd never won election; she had been named Vice President mid-term and the President died of disease also mid-term. I don't know if the character portrayed in the show would be what people might picture a female president to look and act like (I suspect in real life, she'd face the same prejudices as Belinda Stronach.) I believe there was a movie made about a female presidential candidate... it was called "Hitler's Daughter" or something to that effect... I think that Margaret Thatcher's picture is in the dictionary next to the word "severe", yet she's the only woman who has risen to power in any of the Western nations. How did she accomplish it? -k

The Liberals will not have a chance of unseating the PC party until they get rid of Kevin Taft as leader. The guy is a dud the size of the Colossus of Rhodes. -k

Perhaps I have not followed the coverage of this race enough to pick up on the tone of the media towards Hilary. I no longer watch US "talking head" TV programs, and no longer have the time to watch Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Letterman/Leno. (I am guessing Stewart or Leno made the White Bitch Month remark.) A few years ago when Belinda.ca was running for Conservative leadership, I wrote bitterly and angrily about the way she was treated by the Canadian media: the meticulous study of her clothes and hair, the speculation about which single eligible bachelors in Parliament would be a good romantic match, innuendos about her "friendship" with Bill Clinton, wink wink nudge nudge, Parliament Barbie cartoons, and so on. (I am sure that inventive searching could unearth that thread even after several years.) You yourself, August, dismissed my complaint saying that "she's a lightweight." She may well have been, but I can't imagine a male lightweight would have been given such demeaning coverage. From the article you've posted, it seems as though Hilary has experienced problems along a similar line. -k {I keep referring to her as Hilary rather than Clinton... I suppose because I think Clinton still means Bill, even after all this time.}

Philosophically I'd like to see a woman become US President someday (or even Canada's Prime Minister, for that matter) but was never especially enchanted with Hilary. With that now unlikely to happen for Hilary, I don't know when we'll next see a woman get this close. I'm not even aware of any women who might have the right combination of profile and popularity and placement to take a run at it. If Hilary couldn't do it, it might be a long time before a woman actually succeeds. Perhaps it is naive of me, but I would like to think it is largely just a matter of Obama being the better candidate. I don't think Hilary is too old, but Obama is younger. I don't think Hilary lacks charisma, but Obama clearly has a lot more. I read that Obama won the 2004 Illinois senatorial candidacy in the same way: arriving in the race as an underdog, but building momentum to take the nomination away from better known, better funded, heavily favored (male) opponents just as he has now done to Hilary. He seems to have a gift for this line of work. Perhaps there was some amount of gender bias (coverage of her "emotional outburst" in particular) and perhaps the Clinton name played into it in various ways, but I don't think any of this cost her the race so much as being up against a guy who just seems to be really good at this. I think that if she were running against a stiff like John Kerry, she could have had this thing locked up long ago. -k

Sure, lots of stuff could have gone wrong. But that doesn't actually do anything to dispute the fact that Obama has been recognized as one of the frontrunners for a year (and in fact, viewed as a likely contender going right back to his landslide victory in the '04 senate race.) YEAARGGH!! Of course not. But that doesn't change the amount of strategizing and coaching that goes on. "Carville makes it clear he's making it up as he goes along." So, uh, was Carville running for President? Carville was managing Bill Clinton's campaign. People like Carville have jobs because the risks of letting the candidate himself make it up as he goes along are just too great. With each post, you help me make my argument. Here you have Obama's campaign manager giving us some insight into the kind of advice he's giving. Fight back, but don't be too fiesty. Don't ignore McCain, but don't make it look like you're overlooking Hilary. You can't seriously doubt that Michelle Obama is getting the same kind of advice when she steps behind a microphone. Each aspect of what the campaigns show to the public is designed by these experts, and reviewed at the end of the day to figure out whether they're doing the right thing or the wrong thing. Why is Mrs Obama in front of a microphone in the first place? Because the Obama campaign wants her to be. What do they think she's providing the campaign? My guess is two things: "Keepin' it real" with black voters, as already discussed. And, perhaps, they believe that having Barack associated with a strong woman will help counteract whatever appeal Hilary might have with feminist voters. And to bring this full-circle back to my original point: what Michelle Obama says each time she speaks in public *is* relevant to a discussion of this campaign, because she is *part* of that campaign. Her presence and her message is part of what the Obama campaign wants people to see, so discussing her as part of that message is entirely in bounds. -k

That was a neat video, August. I think I recognized about twenty as well, thought probably not the same twenty as you did. I have not seen any of this year's best picture nominees; I'd heard that some of them were excellent, though. This must be a better crop of films than the previous couple. I did watch some of tonight's festivities, mostly to see if 21 year old Ellen Page of Halifax won best actress (she did not.) I enjoyed seeing Daniel Day Lewis "knighted" by Helen Mirren (who of course was "The Queen" in last year's eponymous film) in what looked like a completely spur of the moment idea. Daniel Day Lewis seems like such a refined and delicate man when he is not in character that it is unbelievable that he can portray these powerhouse characters. As "Bill the Butcher" in Gangs of New York he seemed like he could break most men in half with his bare hands, and from the clips I have seen his performance in There Will Be Blood looks equally imposing, completely opposite to the slim and mild-mannered gentleman on stage tonight. It's difficult to believe it was the same person. As I watched, I thought back on our earlier chat where you made reference to Oscar winners of previous years by way of arguing a point. And it seems to me using the Academy Awards as a measure of artistic merit is pretty doubtful to start with. Looking back on all the clips of past winners was a reminder of how some types of movies just aren't considered. There are excellent action movies, excellent comedies, excellent science fiction and fantasy films, excellent thrillers, but with rare exceptions they're not treated as "serious" cinema by the people who decide this sort of thing. They're given some minor awards (visual effects, sound effects, and so on) as a token acknowledgment (how many minor awards did The Bourne Ultimatum receive tonight? 3 or 4 while I was watching...) while being excluded from the big prizes that are reserved for certain types of movies that the Academy considers "serious" films. As well, I was reminded that the awards seem to be based as much on politics as on merit. Let's vote for this guy because he deserved it last time but we had to vote for the old guy last time because he didn't have an Oscar and was going to die soon. Let's give the award to Halle Berry because even though she sucks, the press has been giving us a hard time about not giving awards to minorities. Let's vote for the AIDS guy movie, because AIDS is, like, the totally hot cause this year. -k

There have been only 3 candidates of any note in this race-- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama himself. Edwards was way out of his league from the start, trailing Clinton and Obama badly as far back as a year ago, in every poll you can find except for in a few Deep South states where Edwards had a hometown advantage. It has long been known that this was a 2-horse race. They've known for a long time who their only real opposition was. The success is not hype. What is hype is the suggestion that they couldn't have imagined this was possible. They knew exactly that this was possible. "We never thought we would make it this far!" is something that Obama will say during his humble-guy gracious victor speech. In truth they've known for a long time that they had an excellent chance of making it this far. The Obama campaign had no trouble raising money. If you'll think back 3 months, you'll recall that it was Hilary, not Obama, who was revealed to have had fundraising trouble. As for the constantly changing playingfield, certainly. But none of that disputes the key role that the advisors and strategists play. In fact, it underlines it. The number of man-hours that will go into analysing each upcoming primary in minute detail, studying the issues most key in getting votes in that primary, analysing the latest news, the latest actions from the opponent. Hilary got a new top expert because her previous top expert was getting beat soundly by Obama's top expert. -k

And how much speaking has she done during his campaign? Almost none. She's been seen and not heard, and that is as much by design as Michelle Obama's prominence. As far as I'm aware, her only public comments during the campaign have been to scoff at the New York Times' innuendo that McCain had a sexual relationship with a female lobbyist; a situation where a statement from her was pretty much unavoidable. -k

Oh, come on. Obama's success during this campaign might be unprecidented, but it's certainly not unplanned or unanticipated. People have been talking about Obama as a strong contender for the 2008 Democratic nomination ever since his landslide win over that idiot in the 2004 election. They did not get to this stage based on the belief that none of this was actually going to work. They've worked their tails off based on the belief that it could. A large number of people have invested their efforts and time and money in the belief that this was possible. He's faced only one opponent of any note, whose success would be just as unprecidented as his own. Hilary may have been the favorite at the start of this race, but I don't think anybody perceived her to be a shoe-in. To suggest this is something Obama could have only imagined in his wildest dreams is ... I would say hype, more or less. It seems like the sort of thing a candidate might say about himself during a "humble victor" type speech, or a "we're still underdogs" type rally. They didn't just dream it, they knew this was possible. A considerable amount of the campaign's considerable resources has been devoted to experts and to researching opinions and perceptions, people whose full time job has been to help plan out how to build this momentum and how to maintain it. I don't know what else to say, August. You're too smart to think they're just "winging it" and seeing what happens next. You can't possibly doubt that there are strategists who are working full time on this. You can't possible imagine that they're just handing her a microphone and letting her say whatever pops into her head. If it wasn't reported, it was because it was said well away from a microphone, or because it was completely uninteresting. Those are the only two ways anything she says will escape notice from now on. I don't doubt her sincerity. I just doubt that she's going out and speaking off the cuff in the slightest. And while they certainly don't need to win black voters to their side, they would certainly like to hang onto them. They will certainly wish to avoid the accusation that he is an "Oreo". She is there to "keep it real". Perhaps, but I still don't think it's actually that close to spontaneous. These smart people working for him will at present be doing their darnedest to keep it from going off the rails, primarily by providing the best possible information and by coaching them-- Barack, Michelle, and anybody else who speaks on behalf of this campaign-- about what to say and not to say anytime they're in public. If it does indeed go off the rails, he'll have exceptionally bright advisors around him to provide every possible guidance as to how to get it back on the rails, or at least minimize the damage. I grew up in Canada during the Chretien regime. How could I be anything but cynical? -k

She might be all of that, but you'd be astoundingly naive to not think that she's receiving a lot of coaching. While she might not have the time to participate in focus groups and the like, rest assured that somebody is doing that. Some of the astoundingly large budgets these campaigns run is devoted to P.R. experts, polling, and yep, focus-grouping. You can put it in the bank that Barack has received advice along the lines of "steer clear of race issues, because it makes the white folks uncomfortable" and you can bet that Michelle has received coaching on how to pump up minority crowds in ways that'll be less likely to hurt whitey's feelings. You can't seriously think that they're just putting her in front of a microphone and letting her ad-lib. Every aspect of a candidate's pitch is constantly assessed and reassessed, and that includes the role of the spouses. The reason Michelle Obama is out there in front of microphones is that the campaign people believe she's an asset. If they didn't believe she was helping the campaign, you'd see her in a much less prominent role... see Mrs McCain for comparison. (I suspect that Mrs Kerry got advice along the lines of "avoid speaking in public altogether.") It seems like the Obama campaign has all the momentum now; I haven't heard any positive news for Hilary in weeks. -k

Mrs Obama has taken an active role in her husband's campaign, and a strategized one. As with Bill Clinton, the role the spouses play in the campaign is managed, focus-grouped, tweaked, and focus-grouped some more. As such, I think Mrs Obama's role is worthy of discussion. In the opinion of some, Mrs Obama's role has been to appeal for non-white folks to get onboard her husband's campaign. If Mr Obama himself makes some effort to package himself as the choice for non-white voters, it opens a whole can of worms that obviously runs the risk of scaring off the white supporters who have to this point been willing to look at race as a non-issue. But the campaign can't ignore these voters, because if they do nothing to address the issue of race, he runs the risk of looking like (to use the colloquialism) an "Oreo" or (well, worse perjoratives exist.) And, hey, like, free votes. They want these supporters, but they don't want Barack Obama to be the guy who asks for them. Enter Michelle Obama's high-profile role in the campaign. The last racial breakdowns I'd seen showed Clinton and Obama virtually tied among white voters, but Obama with a massive edge among black voters and (pecular, to me at least), Clinton with an edge among hispanic and asian voters. -k

You are touting CRANIOMETRY as a means of choosing a political candidate? It's still 2008, isn't it? Did you just emerge from a time-machine or something? How large is your own cranium, Oleg? Can you take some measurements and get back to us? Hillary kidnaps kids? WTF? Do you actually know what a Trotskyite is? McCain is The Manchurian Candidate? WTF? Embracing reality? Give it a try some time. -k

huh? If you're saying that many working mothers have more than their fair share of household chores, then I suspect you're probably right. But how does that make a holiday worse than any other day? -k

Indeed. The stretch between New Years and Easter is too long between stat holidays. Ontario businessmen miffed at joining the 4 western provinces in having 9 statutory holidays rather than 8 should keep in mind that our neighbors in the haven of capitalism to the south of us have 13 statutory holidays. -k

At this point in our country's history, the only field in which Ontario is "superior" is in the number of MPs in the House of Commons. Considering the state of federal politics in this country, I'm not entirely sure that's something to brag about. -k

"europe should be for whites only!" Then shouldn't North America be for First Nations only? -k

There are a number of moments I think back on as being significant in shaping my view of our country. One of them occurred when I was quite young, and I was playing cards ("Go Fish," I believe) with my dad, with CBC radio chattering away in the background. On the radio, there was some sort of discussion about Louis Riel, and of course I knew nothing of the subject. I asked dad what they were talking about, and dad explained that Louis Riel was a hero to the French, and the Metis, and to western Canadians. "Then why are they saying bad things about him then?" I asked. He replied: "Because the textbooks are written in Ontario." That moment is still very clear in my mind. Something just clicked into place, and I "got it." It wasn't about Louis Riel specifically, it was about Canada, and the disconnect between regions. -k {Keepin' it Riel!}

Roszko was fighting for his grow-op. Riel was fighting for a group that was being shafted by a political process that gave them no consideration and no voice. This sort of attitude is exactly why a rebellion was needed. -k

I'm having a hard time telling if this is good-natured interprovincial ribbing, or if you're serious. If you're serious, it's kind of sad really. Where are Canada's best movie and television productions being made? (hint: not in Ontario.) Where are Canada's best new musicians coming from? Every part of the country. Canada's most prosperous places? West. Best quality of life? Vancouver, allegedly. Ontario's only remaining "superiority over the colonies" is in two areas: number of MPs, and number of old buildings. Yawn. Ontario might be a "parent" in confederation, but the "kids" have grown up, and as is often the case, the adult kids have equaled or exceeded their parents in many respects. Happy Family Day to those of you in Alberta and Ontario (is it called Family Day in Saskatchewan as well?) And to our friends in Manitoba, have an especially happy Louis Riel Day! (these t-shirts are rockin'!) -k

True. I wasn't aware of these films. My knowledge of things Swedish and my knowledge of foreign cinema are both sadly lacking. However, thanks for mentioning them. Perhaps I will try to find these movies. They sound like the kind of story that I've said on at least a few occasions should be something that Canadian kids learn about in school, yet (in my recollection at least) didn't merit more than a paragraph or two in the textbook we had when I was learning Canadian history. "Produce better works" and "produce less dregs" aren't synonymous. I think (as you touched on) economic factors are a key in determining how much of both (dregs and better works, but particularly dregs) gets produced. I would think that the relative cost of making a movie and the relative chances of marketing it will determine whether it gets made or not. There are some movies that will probably always look like a sound investment for studios and investors (big name actors, popular subject matter, lucrative franchises, and so on...) But there are other projects that are just not as safe a bet. Take the past year's "Juno": unknown stars, subject matter that was probably not going to appeal to a lot of people... but, the people behind the movie had a strong belief in their product, they were successful in getting it made, and their faith has been borne out: it's a huge critical and commercial success and has generated an astronomical return on its investment. Entrepreneurship at its finest, right? Let's take another hypothetical movie (I can't think of a handy example right now, for obvious reasons) that the producers also have a strong belief in, are successful in getting it made ... but it flat out sucks. It is garbage. The producers believed in their product, but they were just so wrong. So what went wrong? Well, how easy is it for a crappy movie to get made? I honestly don't know. I've never tried making a movie, and I don't know how hard it is to get people to give you money. Maybe it's not actually very hard at all nowadays. Maybe there are investors out there who are so wealthy that they'll give you $50,000 just to see what happens. Maybe that investor can write off the whole thing on his tax return if it's a financial failure. Now, I've further heard that given factors like international distribution, DVD sales, and the sale of TV rights, most movies make money eventually, even if they flop in initial release. With the advent of direct-to-video and subscriber movie channels during the .. 1980s, I suppose it was, I suspect there is probably a lot more opportunity for crappy movies to eventually turn a profit than there used to be. So maybe it is a lot easier for dreck to get made now than it used to be. -k

Whether cigarette companies knew the truth wasn't the question. During the 1950s and 1960s, was it common knowledge that cigarettes caused cancer? another long known I've just read that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was not specifically identified until 1973. I'm skeptical that the general populace even knew that cigarettes were bad for their own health during the time the "boomers" started smoking, so I'm especially skeptical that they knew that smoking was bad for fetuses. another long known The clap? Herpes? A nasty case of crabs? All tremendously irritating I'm sure, but not exactly deadly. Between the time a cure for syphilis was discovered early in the 20th century and the time AIDS arrived in North America in the 1980s, what was this deadly sexual transmitted disease? (Pregnancy?) No government action would be required if every parent had common sense and responsibility. Sadly, many don't. I am all in favor of adults being free to make their own choices in just about every matter. But I do not wish to see children hurt or killed or inflicted with lifelong disability because the people responsible for their care were too dumb or irresponsible to do a proper job of it. If some yokel is driving down the highway with unrestrained children in the back of his pickup... should that be his choice? Should we go back and review that and say "you know what, this is an unwarranted infringement on personal freedom"? -k

So what's your solution? Just allow stores to sell cigarettes to minors? -k

Well, one list is headlined by an iconic film, while the other is headlined by arguably one of the weakest Best Picture winners ever. So I think I can see the conclusion you'd like me to draw. But I'm going to go off the board for this one, August. The conclusions I'm drawing are: 1) I conclude that you know how to cherry-pick data. I mean, I provided 1968 as an example, but I invited Drea and Jazzer to pick any year they like and do the same analysis. I see no such invitation in your work. Does your point stand up as well if I pick the year before The Godfather ("The French Connection" was the best picture winner) or the year after ("The Sting")? What if I pick the year that Annie Hall won Best Picture as representative of 1970s cinema? 2) I conclude that like Drea and Jazzer, you've also missed the point. The point, once again, was that the bulk popular music (or, as you've sought to extend the scope of the discussion, movies, or TV for that matter...) does not stand the test of time. I suspect the same is true for the movie crop of 1972. If you want to prove me wrong, why not scoop up a list of the top 50 grossing movies of 1972, and we'll look through them and see which ones stand up well. I'll grant you The Godfather, and even Deliverance (though it's mostly just known for hillbillies, banjos, sodomy, and Burt Reynolds' buff pre-Cannonball physique.) How about the other 48, chief? And by the way, citing the Motion Picture Academy's views on anything seems oddly incongruous with your usual views. You often like to argue along the lines that peoples' value of something is reflected in their willingness to pay for it-- you've suggested this as a reason why cable TV is better than free TV, why satellite radio will be better than broadcast radio if I recall correctly, why a tax on pollution is a necessary step in improving air quality, and so on. How, then, is the opinion of a small and insulated "elite" of value in determining the artistic merits of movies? The academy voters don't even have pay to see the films. They don't even need to have watched the nominees to vote, in fact. -k

Wilber got exactly what I was trying to say, and Drea and Jazzer missed the point completely. First off, I find it hilarious that in discussing today's music, you two single out Rap as if it was the only music being made anymore. Way to look knowledgeable Drea, Jazzer: how much of the music you listened to when you were young has actually survived? Hint: it's not as much as you think. If you don't agree, check out some old music charts (they're easy to find. Here's a handy site to get you started: http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1968 ) Oh sure, it starts promisingly enough-- Hey Jude, right at the top of the list! Then what? Paul Mariat? Bobby Goldsboro? The Rascals? Archie Bell and the Drells? I have listened to a great deal of "classic rock" and "oldies" radio, but I am afraid "Archie Bell and the Drells" escape me. Go over these charts for yourselves. Pick any year you like, it'll be the same: for every Beatles and Simon & Garfunkle, there's 2 or 3 or 4 Archie Bells or Fifth Dimensions. For every Hey Jude or Mrs Robinson, there's a dozen songs that haven't been heard of for years. The handful of great artists and classic songs has survived... but most of these artists and these songs have been long forgotten. Or, as Wilber succinctly put it: 80% of it sucks. -k {And if you're still skeptical, I've just got this to say: Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey. You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you. Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar. You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you. (the Number One Song of 1969!) }