THOUGHT FOR THE DAY (CANADA DAY EDITION)

[Canada's] new flag and [its] new anthem were part of the triumph of Liberalism. The twentieth century was once commonly said to belong to Canada, but it turned out to belong to the federal Liberal Party. Modern Canada is the creation of the Liberal Party, and it made it in its own image, even more thoroughly than Sir John A Macdonald succeeded in doing, when he organized the Confederation of Britain's North American colonies on the basis of a common loyalty to the Crown that was best expressed by his Conservative Party. Even after Brian Mulroney's victory, the Liberal presence is to the Canadian consciousness what the New Deal is to the American, except that there has not subsequently been an Eisenhower overlay, let alone a Reagan countermine. The Liberal hegemony also began rather earlier, at least by 1921, and quite arguably in 1896. Its cultural consequences have been immense. When Canadian publicists talk about Canada or the interests of Canada, when Toronto Star Ottawa correspondent Richard Gwyn, throughout his valuable and highly successful Trudeau biography, The Northern Magus, refers unguardedly to "we" and "us," it is crucial to know that they are invariably talking about Canadian Liberaldom and its necessities, often without realizing it. "The 1968 election was our last joyous collective experience together," Gwyn, at the time an Ottawa bureaucrat, remembers fondly. "We'd dreamed the impossible dream...We called it, in 1968, Trudeau-mania. Really, it was Canada-mania." But only 45% of Canadians voted for it.
—Peter Brimelow, The Patriot Game (published 1986 but as true now as then)

Kevin Michael Grace, 8.50 p.m., 30 June 2005►

YOU ASKED FOR IT

People are flocking to this site in search of information about Carolyn Stewart Olsen. Happy to oblige. For the uninitiated, CSO is Stephen Harper's press secretary and tipped to soon test the Peter Principle as Opposition Leader's Office communications director, where she would follow in the footsteps of my old friend Ersatz Levant.

According to Canadian Press, 

"Carolyn Stewart Olsen is an issue for a lot of people—her relationship with the leader and her inability to work well with people," a Tory strategist said on condition of anonymity.

Insiders say Harper highly values Stewart Olsen's loyalty, a relationship that solidified during his successful bid for the Tory leadership in 2004.

But making her communications director will only worsen Harper's already rocky relations with national media, said one source.

Stewart Olsen did not immediately return phone calls Wednesday.

Quelle surprise. You can read an amusing account of my own contretemps with Carolyn Competent Charming here. Or you can read this and learn just how loyal she really is.

Kevin Michael Grace, 10.35 p.m., 29 June 2005►

ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

Behold the Freedom Tower, which is to rise 82 stories above the 9/11 memorial in New York City. Nicolai Ouroussoff of the The New York Times excoriates the revised design, unveiled today, as 

• "the darkness at Ground Zero"
• "somber, oppressive and clumsily conceived"
• "a monument to a society that has turned its back on any kind of cultural openness"
• "a chilling expression of how the United States is reshaping its identity in a post-Sept 11 context"
• a "fail[ure] on almost every level"
• "fascinating in the way that Albert Speer's architectural nightmares were fascinating"
• "an ideal symbol for an empire enthralled with its own power and unaware that it is fading"

Yikes. Besides his obvious mastery of vituperation, Ouroussoff does not lack a sense of humour, likening the tower to "a gigantic glass paperweight with a toothpick stuck on top." My first thought was that the tower resembles a hypodermic needle as designed by Michael Graves, but this is unfair to Graves, whose housewares manifest a certain playfulness and are pleasing to the eye.

Ouroussoff concedes that, given the security requirements that constrained the architects, the "Freedom Center complex"—and what a gruesome concatenation of words that is—was pretty much preordained to be forbidding. But that didn't stop them from twittering on about what they would doubtless describe as the tower's "referents":

The fortress-like appearance of the base was inspired by the Strozzi Palace in Florence, the relationship between the base and the soaring tower by Brancusi's "Bird in Space."

Yes, much in the same manner the McDonald's menu was inspired by "food." Can we just drop the pretence? Whatever thread that connected us to Paris between the wars, let alone Renaissance Italy, has been cut. New York is home to many of the world's greatest skyscrapers, including the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, monuments from an bygone age when architecture could still inspire instead of merely oppress. We couldn't build them today, and even if we could, we wouldn't want to.

The creation of civic beauty is an idea now beyond our ken. So it's best not to try. We'd all be better off if we concentrated on saving that which deserves to be saved and stuck to the creation of things we're good at creating: videogames and TV commercials.

Kevin Michael Grace, 10.35 p.m., 29 June 2005►

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

In retrospect, one can see that the whole root of the [English Reformation] was to be found in the deficiencies of Henry [VIII]'s own reproductive system, not in the shortcomings of his six unfortunate wives, not in the weakness of the unreformed English Church and not in the tortuous politics of the Vatican chancery. But Henry was not a man to admit his deficiencies. Rather than admit them, he was prepared to put all his subjects in all his realms through years of revolutionary turmoil and to kill every person who stood in his way.

The plan, as devised by Thomas Cromwell, was terrifyingly simple. In all matters of faith, save one, England was to held within the strictest bounds of traditional Catholicism. The Pope was to removed as Head of the Church, to facilitate a divorce. At the same time the wealth of the Church was to be despoiled and divided among Henry's sycophants, to offset political reaction. All the acts of the Reformation Parliament, 1529-1536, were designed to these ends. The Act of Restraint on Appeals (1533) cut off the English clergy from Rome and from canon law. The Act for Ecclesiastical Appointments (1534) gave the Crown complete control over the Church hierarchy; the Act concerning Peter's Pence (1534) stopped all financial contributions to Rome; and finally, the Act of Supremacy (1534) created an independent and formally separatist Church of England with the monarch at its head. The Act for the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536) abolished a few nests of corruption together with the greatest network of social and educational welfare that England had ever known...

Until recently, little attention was paid to the thoroughgoing ideological system which Thomas Cromwell invented in order to lubricate his legislative program. Since few doctrinal novelties were introduced at this stage, it was long assumed that little had changed in the realm of ideas. Yet close examination of the Reformation statutes shows that each was prefaced by a preamble containing radical theological and historical postulates. Cromwell was not content to create a new legal framework for Church and state. He took great care to present theoretical arguments to justify the changes. In particular, he set out to demonstrate two things: firstly, that the old order which he was destroying had been illegitimate: and secondly, that England was returning to an older, purer state of affairs, which had been steadily corrupted in the intervening period by the false teaching and corrupt practices of the Papacy. His arguments centred on the themes of England as a "sovereign empire," of the self-sufficiency of English law: and of historical precedent...

Thomas Cromwell (Hans Holbein):
Theoretician and legislator of English despotism

Cromwell was claiming to uphold a historic right whereby England has supposedly always been completely independent of all extraneous authority. He was denying the validity of the status which everyone in England had accepted for more than a thousand years...

If one adds the claim to a legal imperium or "absolute sovereignty" to the claim regarding Supreme Headship of the Church and the claim regarding historical continuity, one sees the full extent of Henry VIII's ambitions as formulated by Cromwell. The scholar who has brought these matters to light asserts that they made Henry "the most absolute monarch in Europe." He might well have said "the most absolute monarch in Latin Christendom." For the powers that Cromwell was inventing were most similar to those of the "Caesaro-papism" of the Byzantine tradition in the Orthodox Church. Henry VIII was the Ivan the Terrible of the West. Cromwell's ideological inventions resemble those in Russia concerning the "Third Rome." It may be no accident that whilst Anglicans have never been able to reconcile themselves with Roman Catholics, they have had no difficulty entering into full communion with the Russian Orthodox...

In order to show that Henry VIII was doing nothing new, Cromwell was prepared to revise the whole long history of Anglo-Papal relations...

What is more, [Cromwell's] propositions were supported by a new and terrifying definition of treason. Since the monarch was now to be seen as head of both the temporal and the spiritual sphere any deviation in religious practice or belief could be interpreted as an offence against the Crown. Sacrilege was deliberately confused with politics: anyone who did "slanderously and maliciously publish and pronounce...that the king our sovereign lord should be heretic [or] schismatic...shall be adjudged traitors" and "the offenders therein and their aiders, consenters, counsellors and abettors...shall have and suffer such pains of death and other penalties, as limited and accustomed in cases of high treason." Religious non-conformity, understood in the widest possible context, was punishable by death. The Spanish Inquisitors could not have hoped for more.
—Norman Davies, The Isles: A History

Kevin Michael Grace, 11.25 a.m., 29 June 2005►

FAITH OF MY FATHERS

Henry Stuart: Fin de ligne

A friend of mine, a student of history, asked yesterday for my verdict on the "greatest English king." Rather absentmindedly, I replied Edward I. What I had meant to say was Edward III, but my favourite English king is actually Henry Stuart. Brother of the Young Pretender, he was a better man in every respect than the dissolute Bonnie Prince Charlie. Longtime Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati, he ascended to the throne in 1788, whereupon he had a medal struck with the (Latin) inscription "Henry IX, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, not by the Will of Men but by the Grace of God." And this is why I love him.

Henry IX: Deo rex, a rege lex

A fine account of Henry's life can be found in James Lees-Milne's The Last Stuarts. Lees-Milne, a somewhat absurd and rather fantastic figure, has become posthumously famous for his savage diaries. I see that his website is kept by the lawyer and author Michael Bloch, a somewhat fantastic figure himself.

The Old Cause has always been my cause, but it is only recently I discovered, to my great excitement and pride, my connections to it. The founder of the Grace clan was a Norman adventurer, Odo, Comte de Champagne. He came with his brother-in-law William the Conqueror (or Bastard, according to taste) to England in 1066 and later styled himself Earl of Albemarle. His son Stephen married Hawise, daughter of Ralph de Mortimer, and their eldest son, William, was styled variously "Gros" or "Gras" (fat); and it is from the corruption of these sobriquets that the family name derives.

The main line of the Grace family translated to Ireland in the early 13th century. There they became the barons of Tullaroan (Courtstown) and, as family legend has it, "more Irish than the Irish." Great landowners for centuries, their fortune was greatly imperiled by the Elizabethan and Cromwellian regimes and did not survive the "Glorious Revolution." More important than this, however, the Graces preserved their honour. Valiant defenders of the Faith, many distinguished themselves in the service of James II, in particular, Colonel Richard Grace, who led the defence of Athlone. The Graces of Courtstown were dispossessed in 1697 by William of Orange, the Dutch sodomite and usurper, and their property sold to English mercantilists.

In The History and Antiquities of the Diocese of Ossory, Canon William Carrigan writes of John Grace, MP, JP:

He was one of the first to receive a commission from the Earl of Tyrconnell, after that nobleman was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and he raised for King James's service a Regiment of Foot, of which he was Colonel, and a troop of Horse. In reward for the zeal he displayed, it was King James's intention to create him a peer, and an unfinished patent for that purpose was found in Dublin after the King's flight. A proposal was made to him to bring over his men to King William's side, but he indignantly refused, and wrote back a message to that effect on the first thing he could lay hand upon, which happened to be a playing card—the six of hearts—which from this circumstance became locally known as "Grace's Card."

I would like to think I have inherited something of his spirit and that this explains my undying hatred of trimmers and betrayers.

Kevin Michael Grace, 8.25 a.m., 29 June 2005►

ACCENTUATE THE CONTRADICTIONS I

From the Canadian Press 27 June:

Stephen Harper says any gay marriage law will be stamped with illegitimacy because it will owe its passage to Quebec separatists.

Same-sex marriage legislation, which is expected to become law later this week with the votes of the Bloc Québécois, would have been thwarted if only federalists MPs were casting ballots, the Conservative leader said Monday.

"Because it's being passed with the support of the Bloc, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians," Harper told CBC Newsworld.

"The truth is most federalist MPs oppose this."

Stephen Harper: political genius. The Liberals accuse him of being "in bed" with the separatists. What to do? If you're Stephen Harper, you don't instruct the Liberals on the nature of Parliament. No, that would require some allegiance to principle. What you do instead is to raise the Liberals and suggest that Quebec's votes don't really count. Well done, Stephen!

This is the genius that led him, during last year's election campaign, to accuse the Liberals of being insufficiently pro-abortion—sorry, insufficiently supportive of a "woman's rights [sic] to choose." If I were of a conspiratorial frame of mind, I might suggest that Stephen Harper is a paid agent of the Liberal Party, for whenever they stumble, Harper is there to help them to their feet. After the Belinda Stronach and Gurmant Grewal fiascos, I thought that Harper had achieved the impossible; he'd somehow managed to allow the Liberals to perpetrate a constitutional coup d'état without a loss of popular support. Now I see I'd misjudged the man; Stephen Harper has somehow managed to turn this session of Parliament, the most shameful in our our history, into a popular gain for the Liberals. Well done, Stephen!

Pop quiz: Q: The Conservative Party of Canada supports or opposes a) the original Liberal budget b) the revised, NDP-friendly Liberal budget c) bringing down the government and forcing an election? Stumped? You're not alone. They have argued both sides of all three questions so often they have managed to achieve something else previously thought impossible: they are now regarded as bigger hypocrites than the Liberals. Well done, Stephen!

Back on May 19, the Conservatives got the confidence motion the Liberals had long denied them. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the Bloc Québécois that day and lost by a single vote. Five weeks later, the Liberals faced another confidence vote, again precipitated by the desire the Conservatives share (or shared) with the Bloc to force an election. This time they came up five votes short, after falling victim to the same "counting problem" that brought down Joe Clark's Conservative government in 1979. Instead of sacking his House leadership, Stephen Harper decided to blame the Bloc for forcing a vote he'd demanded repeatedly.

"When push comes to shove, the Liberals will make any deal with anybody," Harper said after the vote. "And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find. That's how they govern the country."

What a maroon.

Stephen Harper has much more in common with Stockwell Day than I could have imagined.* They are both vain, prideful and much less clever than they think they are. They both think they they are experts in everything and thus refuse to take advice, however well-intentioned. That's why this business of Harper's "image problem" is past a joke. Stephen Harper doesn't have an image problem; he has a Stephen Harper problem. 

From the Canadian Press 15 June: 

Some fingers point at two of Harper's closest advisers and keepers: former campaign manager Tom Flanagan and spokeswoman Carolyn Stewart Olsen.

These stories all miss the point: Stephen Harper is the only adviser and keeper Stephen Harper thinks he needs. He is his own press secretary, his own political strategist, even his own scheduler. Honestly, what other political leader in Canada could turn a family visit to the Hockey Hall of Fame into a controversy about why he avoided the Gay Pride Parade? But this is the same man who thinks it a good idea for the Canadian people to get to know him "up close and personal" even after he has revealed he cannot be trusted to attend a photo-op involving children without snapping "Don't touch me!" at one of them.

A revealing anecdote: a former colleague, a much more likeable fellow than myself, found himself living in Harper's neighbourhood in Calgary. He has children; Harper has children. So they often found themselves at the same park. Now this fellow knows Harper, has met him several times, interviewed him several times more. While at the park, he would invariably nod in greeting. Harper's invariable response: the thousand-yard stare. Not "Don't touch me!" so much as "Don't bug me!"

Several of the "Blogging Tory" sites come with this warning (or a similar one): "This blog not only endorses the Conservative Party of Canada but also Stephen Harper as its leader." After due consideration, I have also decided to support the Stupid Party and not only but especially endorse Stephen Harper as its leader. 

This decision may surprise faithful readers, but it has long been my position that not only must the Conservative Party be destroyed but that everything it stands for must be dealt a mortal blow. And Stephen Harper is doing very nicely indeed on both these fronts. Especially of late. Especially today.

After today's little outburst, "govern" is not a verb that will appear in any appraisals of Stephen Harper's future as a federal political leader. If he had the slightest self-awareness, he'd make my prediction come true and resign by Canada Day. I know that he doesn't, and I'm guessing that he won't, and so I couldn't be happier. Another year of Stephen Harper's leadership will do to the Conservative Party what Stockwell Day's leadership did to the Alliance Party: kill it stone dead.

*One significant difference: Stockwell Day is not a nasty man, as I know from personal experience.

Kevin Michael Grace, 11.15 p.m., 27 June 2005►

RALLY ROUND THE FLAG, BOYS

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of fellow blogger Chris Selley. The occasion was, oh, let's just say, Italian business. A smart fellow, I thought, but I had no idea how patriotic he was. My excuse for Canadian patriotism is just because. I've never pretended to actually like modern Canadian cultural profusions. Especially in popular music. Not by any Canadians who've actually not buggered off somewhere else the first chance they got, that is. 

The first Canadians qua Canadians I can remember in pop music were Paul Anka and Bobby Curtola. And things haven't gotten much better in the 40 years plus since then. Sometime in the 1990s, however, I encountered a strange phenomenon: Canadian bands that don't suck. Not that any of them will be on view in Barrie 2 July at Live8. 

Ooh, goody, a free concert. Except that I wouldn't see the Barenaked Ladies, Bryan Adams and Blue Rodeo if you paid me. Gordon Lightfoot might be interesting on the Perry Como: Still Alive! principle, but I'd pay money not to see that simpering commie Bruce Cockburn or the (plod, plod, plod, plod, portentous reference, plod, plod, plod, plod) Tragically Hip. I know little about aggressive beardie Sam Roberts, save for his appalling performance at SARSfest, and even less about Tegan and Sara, save that their pics make them look cute in a gelfling kinda way, but Selley sez:

If you held a gun to my head and forced me to pick any of the Live 8 shows other than London's to attend (and you'd need the gun), I would choose Barrie. Seriously.

De gustibus non disputandum est, etc etc, but oh, come on. Selley mocks the Berlin concert:

Brian Wilson, Green Day, Roxy Music. (Biggest international star: Green Day.)

And this is where I begin to believe his patriotism has seriously clouded his judgement. First off, I don't believe Billy Joe, et al., would dare to claim they are bigger stars than Brian Wilson. Second, these three acts have accomplished between them an order of magnitude more greatness than Canadian pop music in toto, let alone die Meistersinger von Barrie. Selley axes: 

You're sure there aren't a whole lot of Canadian artists who are young, critically acclaimed and internationally popular who just don't happen to be on the bill?

Maybe so, but this is our MOR v theirs. And by this measure, to anyone not blinded by chauvinism, we still suck.

Kevin Michael Grace, 11.15 p.m., 25 June 2005►

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Truth is like sunlight—people used to think it was good for you.
—Nancy Hicks Gribble, "I Remember Mono," King Of The Hill

Kevin Michael Grace, 8.26 p.m., 25 June 2005►

DEADWEIGHT

I was writing an essay based on Butt-head's contention that the Beatles "ruined music," but I've decided to let it germinate. So this will have to tide you over for now.

Beatles forever
The Fab Four have gone from pop sensation to cultural artifact
The Report
January 1, 2001

In a 4 March 1966 interview with Maureen Cleave of the London Evening Standard, John Lennon declared, "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now. I don't know which will go first—rock and roll or Christianity." Thirty-four years later, John Lennon is 20 years dead. Christianity is rather more popular than Lennon would have liked; but the Beatles are rather more popular than he could have imagined.

They released their last album in 1970, the year John, Paul, George and Ringo went their separate ways. Last month their record company released 1, a compilation of all their No. 1 hits—from the insipid "Love Me Do," to the lugubrious "The Long and Winding Road," with 25 rather better songs in between—on one CD. It went straight to No. 1 in Canada, the U.S. and Britain, an achievement unprecedented in the history of popular music. The album has quickly become the fastest selling record of all time. [It is RIAA-certified 10-times platinum as of 15 April 2005—Ed.]

1: One world, one people, one pop group

"Does it really need an explanation?" asks Ira Robbins, editor of the Trouser Press Record Guide. "Not to be dismissive, but this is essentially a marketing moment. It's not as if people are suddenly rising up and saying, 'God, those Beatles were really great!' We've just seen Lennon's 60th birthday, the 20th anniversary of his death, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Exhibit, the miniseries. It's just one of those years that's going to be good for the Beatles."

And there's The Beatles Anthology, a coffee-table compilation of pictures and interviews heavy enough to kill a cat, that lists at $92 [since reduced to $60 list and discounted to $37.80—Ed.] and sits at No. 1 on the Washington Post's General/Non-fiction best-sellers list. Two weeks ago, Rolling Stone declared "Yesterday" the greatest pop song of all time, while in August, Mojo declared "In My Life" the greatest song of all time. In June, Q opined that Revolver was the greatest British album ever.

Yet none of this explains why 1 went to No. 1. It does offer better value for money than other Beatles compilations, but these songs have been endlessly repackaged, and there are no rarities or other extras. So who's buying it? Jay, a clerk at the downtown Vancouver Sam The Record Man, reports that about half his store's sales are to the middle-aged.

For the boomers, the Beatles need no explanation. Oldies radio stations claim they play the "soundtrack of your lives," but for the '60s generation, the Beatles were more than just the soundtrack. It is hard to explain to younger people just how ubiquitous they were. There had never been a phenomenon like Beatlemania, and there never will be again. The Beatles were the standard-bearer for a youth movement that was beginning to feel its power and would soon bring governments to their knees. Lennon apologized, in typically sarcastic fashion, for his outburst to Maureen Cleave, but what he said was arguably true. His blasphemy made the front page of every newspaper in the non-Communist world.

But it was impossible to stay angry with them for long. Young people dressed like them, talked like them, wore their hair and beards like them, took drugs because they did and adopted Eastern spirituality because they took a short-lived liking to a "giggling guru" called the Maharishi. Eat your heart out, Slim Shady.

Sgt Pepper: The glory that was Greece...the grandeur that was Rome

Langdon Winner wrote that with the 1967 release of Sgt Pepper the Western world was more unified than it had been since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. It sounds fatuous today, but it was true. Tony Palmer was ridiculed for comparing the Beatles's songs to Schubert's compositions, but it is doubtful that the great poets Schubert set to music—even Goethe—moved youth as intensely as Lennon and McCartney did.

Enthusiasts even claimed the Beatles were the Beethovens of their day. Thirty years—even 130 years—after his death, people listened to Beethoven's works with greater enthusiasm than they had when he was alive. Brahms despaired of writing symphonies because it was believed that Ludwig van had exhausted the genre. Nobody has ever claimed that the Fab Four exhausted the pop song.

So what do today's youth see in the Beatles? Rachel Sa, a 19-year-old Sun Media columnist and University of Toronto undergraduate, says, "They are really huge at my university." In her opinion, "If music or any kind of popular culture can transcend a generation, it's going to survive." She confesses, "I'm not an avid fan, but I do enjoy their music." She prefers David Bowie, who became a star in the 1970s. Coincidentally, Bowie has recently been named the most influential living musician by the New Musical Express. Radiohead was second, the Beatles third.

When asked to give a visual image of the 1960s, Sa chooses the movie Woodstock. She has never known an unsegregated musical world. "When I was in school the teenyboppers listened to New Kids On The Block; now they listen to Ricky Martin and Britney Spears," she says. "They're huge now, but will they last? God, I hope not."

Woodstock: Not since Passchendaele (or Glastonbury) had the world 
witnessed such horror

Robbins says the recrudescent popularity of the Beatles is "one of the very rare cases in recent years where you've seen cultural memory actually extend backwards. Bands that were exciting to us in our 30s [he is 45] are not even on the radar screen for people aged 15. Young people today grow up fully capable of denying that anything they didn't live through didn't happen. You watch VH1's Behind The Music, and all the stuff that happened more than five or 10 years ago is comical to young people. Charlie Chaplin, the Beatles and the Clash are pretty much equivalently in the distant past."

When asked earlier this year to name his favourite album, Al Gore picked Rubber Soul. But then, as Robbins points out, Gore also claimed his favourite novel is Stendhal's The Red and the Black. Robbins concludes, "The Beatles fit in a box called 'Greatest Band.'" Here is the secret of their continuing success: they have become a cultural artifact, Jane Austen with yeah, yeah, yeahs. John Lennon would not have liked that. So maybe Christianity has won after all.

Kevin Michael Grace, 9.00 p.m., 23 June 2005►

COKE IS IT

I remain agnostic on the question of whether redneckism is possible north of Interstate 80 or north of the 49th parallel. But I have discovered proof positive it is alive and well inside the Beltway.

Kevin Michael Grace, 12.56 p.m., 23 June 2005►

ATTENTION CANADIAN IDOL FANS

No, I don't know anything about Ben Mulroney's girlfriend. Or even, despite previous claims to the contrary, whether he has one. So, in other words, I don't know whether Ben Mulroney is gay. I do know, however, that until last year he wrote a column for Sun Media. So he often appeared in the pages of the Calgary Sun. This must not, however, be interpreted as evidence of an Ashton Kutcher-Demi Moore-type-deal with super-editor Licia Corbella. 

God knows how these things get started, but the man next to the khimar-wearing Licia Corbella in the photograph that appears regularly in this space is not Ben Mulroney. Ben is at least five years older and two inches taller. And he is much more tan. So, no, Ben has not swept Licia off to his Lahore lovenest. And no, Licia has not converted to Islam and changed her first name to Haiyqa. She is neither learning Urdu nor working for Ben Mulroney's Movement for Justice Party. And don't let anyone tell you different.

Corbella (right): Yes to          Mulroney (left): Yes to damaging
hijab, no to Ben Mulroney    UV rays, no to Licia Corbella

Kevin Michael Grace, 12.21 p.m., 23 June 2005►

PENSÉE

The secret to becoming a successful right-wing columnist is to echo the mob while complimenting yourself on your daring. That's all there is to Ann Coulter's craft, the rest is exploitation of the sexual masochism of the American male—he just can't get enough of the kitten with claws. Rachel Marsden's success will depend on the extent to which Canadian men now share the American compulsion to embrace a whiplash girlchild in the dark.

Kevin Michael Grace, 11.38 a.m., 22 June 2005►

COLLATERAL DAMAGE

After I took Calgary Sun columnist Teddy Boy Byfield to task last week for a gross sciolism, a friend remarked that my post had been a waste of time. Somewhat hurt, I asked why. The Calgary Sun is not in the First XI of editorial pages, this person declared, obviously ignorant of the enormous esteem in which I hold Calgary Sun editor Licia Corbella. I responded, "Good day to you!" and I'm afraid we remain estranged.

To mix sporting metaphors, Ms Corbella fields what I like to call the "Murderer's Row" of Canadian columnists. Besides Teddy Boy, there's his son, Eric L "Hey, Where's My $14,400?" Byfield, Rick "Tribune Of The People" Bell, Janet L "Action" [sic] Jackson, Paul "Hasta Mañana" Jackson, Gerry "Two Turntables And A Microphone" Forbes, "Not The Real" Bill Kaufmann and, of course, my old friend, Ersatz "Without Prejudice" Levant.

I don't think it's any secret I've made the Calgary Sun house style my model. All too often I fall short, but Ms Corbella is surely partly to blame! She's set the bar too darn high!! Consider the lead paragraph of J L Jackson's 1 June column:

The 61st anniversary of D-Day will take place this coming Monday—marking a day that will forever be seen as a tremendous step forward in defeating Hitler's reign of terror.

Ars longa, vita brevis—that's all you can say. 

Ms Corbella demands nothing but the best from her stable, and that's why Teddy Boy's 12 June column so distressed me. As I wrote, Teddy Boy claimed that TV personality Barbara Walters had declared that "being compelled to endure the 'spectacle' of a mother nursing her child was 'gross and disgusting.'" As it turns out, Ms Walters did not use the phrase "gross and disgusting" to describe breast feeding.

At first glance, it seems preposterous that anyone would believe Ms Walters had said what Teddy Boy accused her of saying, but so authoritative is the Calgary Sun editorial page that no less a personage than the highly-esteemed American syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin was taken in. Her 14 June column repeats Teddy Boy's falsehood. After Ms Walters brought this falsehood to Ms Malkin's attention, she apologized on her blog and in the next edition of her syndicated column.

And yet neither Teddy Boy nor Licia Corbella has apologized publicly to Ms Walters; Teddy Boy's egregious falsehood continues to circulate on the Calgary Sun website. I think if Ms Corbella were to check with libel lawyers they would inform her that Teddy Boy's column clearly libels Ms Walters and damages her exemplary reputation.

As I'm certain Ms Corbella is aware, Canadian defamation law is much stricter than the American standard established by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan—it is not necessary to prove actual malice in this country. But more important than the liability to which Ms Corbella has, by printing Teddy Boy's column, exposed herself and her employers, there is the issue of truth. Like all responsible Canadian journalists, Ms Corbella understands that the law of libel is a sacred trust that exists to protect us all. For in the words of the Immortal Bard,

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands:
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.

Corbella (left): The Harold
Ross of the Canadian Prairie

Kevin Michael Grace, 4.11 a.m., 22 June 2005►

WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT THE GOOGLE CACHE?

Blog postings about Calgary Sun editor Licia Corbella appear to be disappearing from the Internet at an alarming (and accelerating) rate. This is probably due to an excess of chronitons in the subatomic interstices, but if anyone has an alternative explanation, please drop me a line.

Corbella (right): The finest 
editor Calgary has ever known

Kevin Michael Grace, 11.57 p.m., 21 June 2005►

IN DEFENCE OF RADIO SHACK

Chris Selley takes, it seems to me, an unseemly pleasure in the imminent disappearance of the RadioShack brand:

The Shack's business model was pretty much the polar opposite of the prevailing big-box mentality: flood the store with greasy salespeople, sell only two kinds of everything, charge a fortune for it and take the customer's phone number when they check out. There isn't a single goddamn thing you could get at RadioShack that you can't get at Wal-Mart for half the price...

I beg to differ. A couple of months ago I faced a quandary. I had a digital camera but no USB cable. I had assumed the USB cable for my digital voice recorder would fit the camera. It didn't. I had already bought the wrong kind of memory card (unreturnable) for the camera and so I'd had to order the proper kind, then wait for it to arrive by mail. I could have ordered a USB cable from eBay (which is where I had bought the camera, the memory, the NiMH batteries and their charger, separately) for a dollar or two plus shipping, but I had already waited about six weeks, and I wanted to take pictures now—not in another week to three weeks, which is how long it usually takes to get things via eBay, assuming Canada Customs doesn't get involved. (Actually, not just take pictures but also view and store them on my computer, which is why the USB cable was necessary.)

I was willing to pay a premium for immediacy but no more than 100%. No more than $20 Canadian total before tax, that is. I walked to London Drugs, about half a mile away, where a quick survey indicated, first, they didn't have what I needed, and, second, I would have to wait an eternity to speak to a salesperson. So I walked two miles in the other direction to Future Shop, where the salesman told me his store did not have what I needed. He added that it was extremely unlikely I would find my USB cable in any store. He recommended I buy a USB card reader, obviating the need for a cable. Trouble was, this cost more than $30 before tax, and I when I wrote that I was determined to spend no more than $20 I didn't mention that $23 was all I had in the world and that I'd had to sell possessions to get it. So I walked to Wal-Mart, a half mile away.

I have a firm Wal-Mart rule: no conversation with employees. Two reasons: first, many do not speak English, second, those that do would appear to have been raised in Skinner boxes. They didn't have a USB cable, but they did have a USB card reader, but the latter was too expensive. On the walk back home, I stopped in at Staples. Success: a card reader for $20. 

It didn't work. The packaging claimed it was backwards compatible with USB 1.0, but it was not and crashed my computer repeatedly. So the next day, I trudged back to Staples, got my money back and had just about resigned myself to not taking pictures for a while. I hadn't tried any photography stores because I was almost certain I'd be wasting my time, but time is something I have plenty of, so I tried Black's, a chain store in the Bay Centre mall, where the young woman on the floor gave me exactly the greeting I expected—I have no idea what you're on about, and I don't give a rat's ass, either. On to Lens & Shutter, where the woman behind the counter was much nicer and much better informed—no, I don't have a cable that will fit your semi-ancient Minolta S414; however, if you'd invested in our brand, Canon, that is, I might have been able to help you...

That was it then. I'd wasted two days and was irritable and downhearted. Somewhat more irritable and downhearted than usual, that is. And then I thought of RadioShack. Therein, a non-greasy young man quickly directed me to a strange product: a telescopic USB cable with one male plug and one female adaptor, plus an assortment of different male-to-male plugs, one end into the adaptor, the other into the camera. Price: $20. I was dubious, but he assured me one of the plugs would fit; if it didn't, he'd refund my money. It worked. And he didn't take my phone number either.

I liked RadioShack. I didn't go there often, but when I did, I found a greater selection of electric gewgaws than anywhere else. The salesman were determined to sell you something, which may sound unpleasant, but consider the alternative: the Wal-Mart mentality—I have no idea what you're on about, and I don't give a rat's ass, either—which, as noted above, threatens to become the retail default. Oh Lord, save us from the Wal-Mart mentality.

Saviour machine: Now I can take duck pictures

Kevin Michael Grace, 10.01 p.m., 20 June 2005►

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Many Communists realized long ago that a bloody, Russian-style revolution was not the way to impose their ideas on advanced Western countries. They rightly feared that Europeans and Americans, Christian and conservative by upbringing, would never make such a revolution. So they resolved to change the people, leaving the issue of who controlled the state until later.

They believed that an attack on morality, religion, the family and traditional education would transform society much more effectively than a seizure of power.

Many of these men gathered in Frankfurt in 1923 in what they called the Institute for Social Research but which became known as the "Frankfurt School." Many members fled to America when Hitler came to power in 1933 and became highly influential in US universities, the cradles of political correctness. One of their leaders, the Hungarian Georg Lukács, said they were there to answer the question: "Who shall save us from Western Civilization?"

Lukács, in his period as schools commissar in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, devised sex education as a deliberate way of debauching the minds of the young.

Other leading members included Theodor Adorno, whose book The Authoritarian Personality first put forward the idea that holders of conservative views were in some way unbalanced. But the most influential was Herbert Marcuse, believed to be the inventor of the slogan "Make Love, Not War," prophet of the sexual revolution and the Sixties counterculture.

Almost all the ideas of radical antifamily feminists, sex-education fanatics, homosexual equality campaigners and radical school reformers can be traced to this origin. So can the campaign to get rid of traditional history and literature in schools. It is one of the most successful political initiatives in modern history, all the more so because most of those influenced by it have never even heard of it.
—Peter Hitchens, London Mail on Sunday, 19 June 2005

Kevin Michael Grace, 12.42 p.m., 20 June 2005►

IS THIS THE STUPIDEST MP IN PARLIAMENT?

A month after the catastrophe of Belinda Stronach's defection, the Conservative Party has completed its coping process. Shock has been succeeded by anger, bitterness, depression and, finally, petulance. 

On Friday, Conservative Party MP Helena Guergis (pictured above) co-sponsored (with MP Joe Preston) Private Members' Bill C-408, the Closing The Stable Door After The Horse Has Bolted Act. If passed, this bill will punish any MP who leaves his (or her) caucus (for another party or to sit as an independent) by stripping him of his (or her) seat. Future Belindas would be forced to seek immediate re-election under a different party banner (or none).

Guergis told the Canadian Press:

It's about democracy; it's about integrity [and] restoring voter confidence. When voters elected that person they made the decision based on what they campaigned for and what party they were representing. If they're not going to continue to get what they voted for, then they should have the right to have what they want.

Well, they obviously don't elect them based on their ability to speak English sentences.

Guergis's is certainly a novel approach to addressing the "democratic deficit." Already, no one can run for Parliament unless his (or her) party leader signs the nomination papers, and of course the caucus no longer elects the leader; the leader elects the caucus. But the problem, as Guergis understands it, is that party leaders still don't have enough control over their MPs.

Yes, we must all agree it is wicked for MPs to change party affiliation, but I'm a little confused. Was this always wicked, or did it only become so after Belinda bolted on 17 May 2005? Should Guergis take a look at her caucus, she might notice that most of its members have changed party affiliation once during the last year (Canadian Alliance to Conservative or Progressive Conservative to Conservative), that several dozen have changed twice over the last five years (Reform to Canadian Alliance, Canadian Alliance to Conservative) while several (Chuck Strahl, Monte Solberg, Gary Lunn, et al.) have changed four times (Reform to Canadian Alliance to League of Democratic X-Men to Canadian Alliance to Conservative Party). 

Does Helena Guergis really want to remind the voters of this? If saying one thing then doing another and campaigning for one party then bolting to another are wicked things, then the Conservative caucus has a lot to answer for. Consider the following statements, made by newly-elected leader Stephen Harper at the Canadian Alliance convention, 6 April 2002:

• "This kind of energy tells me something. It tells me that this party is strong. It tells me that the Canadian Alliance is here to stay."
• "As I promised to you over and over during the leadership race, my priority is to rebuild this party for the next election and there is no time to lose."
• "We must continue to be guided by our founding vision of conservatism."
• "We will never abandon our principles and policies."

And what of the Conservative's deputy leader, Peter MacKay? Oh, that poor man, betrayed twice by Belinda, betrayed in the caucus and betrayed in the boudoir. Funny, I don't recall much sympathy for David Orchard and for the Progressive Conservative Party after MacKay euthanized the latter despite a written agreement with the former. I've said it before, and I'll say it again—the newstyle Conservative Party was born of deceit and betrayal with an entirely cynical purpose: winning the next election before anyone could figure out what (if anything) it stood for. But they blew it last year, and they've blown it this year. And, now, like many disappointed cynics before them, they've belatedly discovered principles. Well, good luck with that.

There was one great principle the Conservatives found themselves on the right side of: the sovereignty of Parliament. Paul Martin's mafia mocked it, then wrecked it. But Stephen Harper's party couldn't be bothered to make anything of this. Perhaps they don't care. In any event, they much prefer to shake their fists, impotently, at Belinda Stronach's back.

So is Helena Guergis the stupidest MP in Parliament? No more stupid than the rest of her Stupid Party, I'm afraid. And no more stupid that what passes for "conservative" or "right-wing" in this benighted country.

Kevin Michael Grace, 11.36 a.m., 20 June 2005►

CITY OF DUCKS

I have developed a great passion for ducks. They are graceful—never more so than when gliding on still ponds—and yet still somewhat absurd. They can walk, fly and swim. They love to play and to fight, and their angry noises cause them to resemble querulous French Canadians. Alexander Chancellor calls ducks "the most charming of birds," and I must agree. They make a lovely change from thoughts of dictatorship and violence.

I never paid much attention to ducks until I moved to Victoria. The City of Victoria, that is, and that was only last autumn. There is an astonishing amount of beauty here available free for the taking and plenty of ducks to observe. Beacon Hill Park is home to many. Coming from Vancouver, I suppose I should regard this as a junior varsity Stanley Park, but I actually prefer it. It's easier to get to, doesn't have a freeway running through it and is admirably free of "amenities." This last is a guarantee against children of all ages being dragged there against their wills with the promise of "fun" to everyone's detriment.

I came across Bowker Creek Park, which is in Oak Bay, by accident. It is the neatest park I've ever seen. Victorians must be exceptionally polite, because Bowker Creek adjoins a high school yet is not clogged with refuse. The students don't torment the ducks, either. Not that I've seen, at any rate.

I'm ashamed to admit that I'd didn't even know about Government House until a week ago. This is where the Lieutenant Governor lives. It is open to the public without charge, which is as it should be and a fine gift to the people of British Columbia. I've come to notice that the most unpleasant people are the most attracted to conspicuous consumption. This explains, I believe, why walking is so unpopular. It doesn't cost anything, you see. Unlike jogging and bicycling, it requires no expensive accoutrements. My hypothesis also explains why the grounds of Government House were empty yesterday, save for a few oldies, on a glorious summer afternoon. Whereas I'm sure Butchart Gardens, which costs twenty-two dollars a head, was as vibrant as Chandigarh.

I can't claim that Government House's gardens are as elaborate as Butchart's, and there are no fireworks displays or fish and chip stands, but I find that beauty is best appreciated in relative solitude. And Government House is a setting of considerable beauty. If affords panoramic vistas south to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and across to Washington's Olympic Mountains. It also features the best stands of Garry Oaks I've yet seen. The duck pond is supposed to host turtles, but I didn't see any. Another time, perhaps. There were, however, a score of ducks sunning themselves on the rocks and even a family of ducklings. I took dozens of snaps, one of which is reproduced above. I know that amateur photography is considered as annoying as the recounting of one's dreams, so I'll inflict only thumbnails from here on in.

Kevin Michael Grace, 12.22 a.m., 18 June 2005►

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

In the course of this study one thing has always been present in my mind, which seemed to me so evident that I did not think it worthwhile to lay much stress on it—that men who are participating in a great social movement always picture their coming action as a battle in which their cause is certain to triumph. These constructions, knowledge of which is so important for historians, I propose to call myths.
—Georges Sorel, Reflections On Violence

Kevin Michael Grace, 11.53 p.m., 16 June 2005►

MUSHROOM NATION

Oncoming Man is more entertaining than anything I've ever seen on Cops, but where's the catharsis? It's not just—as Colby Cosh points out—that OC got only four years for his crimes. (And if I remember my Canadian parole protocol correctly, that means he'll serve no more than 16 months.) More disturbing still is that Oncoming Man's identity is considered none of our our business. The 14 June National Post reports: 

Although a CKNW radio news report last week identified the offender as Robert Osbourne, the face of the truck thief was blurred out in the DVD version of the video that police released to the news media.

They said the legal opinion given to police was that it would be a violation of the federal Privacy Act to show the man's face and reveal his identity, even though the video was accepted as evidence in court during a preliminary hearing and the trial has ended.

Man without a face: Robert Osbourne

And from the Baitcar.com FAQ:

Why is the suspect's name not released? It is highly unusual for police to release a crime video to the public after a trial. In this case, we want to educate the public about how destructive crystal meth is and how dangerous auto theft is. We hope that showing this video could prevent someone from trying drugs for the first time. This message can be accomplished without releasing the name of the accused. The Federal Privacy Act prevents government agencies from releasing the names or images of people unless there is a public need to do so. In this case, there isn't, and the story can be told just as easily without his name being mentioned.

Gosh, we wouldn't want to embarrass Mr Osborne, who has, the Vancouver Province reports, "faced 123 charges in the past six years." Or perhaps "educate the public" that should they see his face or hear his name after he hits the streets again next year they should run like hell.

The police don't work for us, and they aren't our friends. They work for governments, and our governments don't believe that criminals should pay for their crimes with serious sentences. Neither do judges or prosecutors. So it's easy to see why criminals now boast privacy rights. Not to protect them but to protect their protectors: the prosecutors and judges, the National Parole Board, Corrections Canada and the politicians.

Let's suppose that at some time in the future some unlucky person gets in front of Robert Osbourne's stolen car or in front of his gun that doesn't jam and ends up maimed or dead. The point of the change to the Privacy Act is to prevent anyone from discovering his priors and then asking difficult questions. The situation I just described is simply routine in Canada. Osbourne's history would come to light because of his previous notoriety, but most career criminals will remain obscure. 

There are certain data that must be freely available to all if society is to regulate itself. Criminal records are one set and court proceedings another. Yet publication bans have become so routine that few will care when our criminal justice system goes entirely sub rosa. One expects almost daily that the media will be expressly forbidden to mention previous convictions at any time, upon pain of contempt.

Will any government data remain public in Canada? Two years, we lost the right to search divorce records. Glen McGregor reported in the Vancouver Sun 3 November 2003:

Bureaucrats in the department of justice decided to cut off access to its Central Divorce Registry—a massive database of information about ongoing and past divorce proceedings—after an internal review of its privacy policies.

Before the ruling, the registry fielded about 150 telephone calls every day from people seeking information about ongoing or past divorces. The registry provided the name of the divorcing spouses, the date of the divorce and the court location and file number of the legal documents.

The service was used by lawyers, genealogists, journalists, private investigators and even the occasional suspicious girlfriend or boyfriend. But this spring, the department decided that releasing this information was a violation of the Privacy Act. Now only the divorcing parties will be given the information.

Although the divorce documents will remain public in the locations they were filed, it will be difficult to determine wh