Something, something Robocalls

This morning I read a very underwhelming column on the developing robocall scandal by the Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson.  Not only does the column include the questionable claim "As a general rule, politicians never openly lie, because the consequences of being caught in one just aren’t worth it," but it also seems to back much of the official Conservative position on the Robocall Scandal somewhat uncritically.


One of the claims of the Conservative party that seems to have been accepted whole-heartedly is that

people who have worked at senior levels on election campaigns, but who prefer not to be identified, say that voter suppression tactics are stupid because they’re inefficient. It is more profitable on election day to mobilize your vote than to try to discourage your opponent’s.

What evidence do these unnamed campaign workers or Mr. Ibbitson have to support this position?  My gut feeling was that it was at least plausible that voter suppression could be very effective in some circumstances - and particularly in circumstances that were not all that dissimilar from those associated with the current Robocall Scandal.

A little time online lead me to a few neat articles about robocalling and voter suppression.  One that dealt more with the regulation of robocalling in the US does detail a few of the ways in which robocalls have been used both legitimately and illegitimately.  I was particularly amused by the following quote, which is quite pertinent to the Super PAC-era politics currently ongoing in the US:

The NRCC spent almost $20,000 to pour hundreds of thousands of robocalls into the district in New Hampshire. Because the calls were independent expenditures, they could not be coordinated with nor ap- proved of by the incumbent Republican candidate. Even after Congressman Bass asked for the calls to stop, the party committee refused, saying that cessation would require illegal coordination.

Another article more explicitly on voter suppression through the distribution of misinformation found that such tactics could suppress voter participation, particularly among those segments of a population with limited political knowledge/education.  Though these findings are preliminary,  they do hint at the potential effectiveness of a widespread campaign of misinformation.

I am not trying to lay the blame for the Robocall Scandal at the feet of any particular entity or absolve other groups, but trying to suggest that when we hear claims about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of things like voter suppression campaigns that we try to assess the validity of these claims before accepting or rejecting them.  In some cases the validity or inaccuracy of such claims can change the way the whole situation is perceived.

Was something lost in translation at the border

Last night I took a few minutes the results from the Michigan and Arizona primaries come in.  In both cases Romney received a plurality of the votes, though in Michigan the margin was pretty narrow.

Given recent stumbles by Romney and the fact that Michigan is where Romney grew up many suggested that success there would be particularly important.  So now that he has 'won' in Michigan I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the coverage (mainly through their choice of headlines) and see how they have interpreted a similar set of facts.  In the following cases I looked at the most prominent story in these organization's news sections - it's possible that there is additional coverage with a different take on things in a dedicated election coverage wing of the website/organization.

The New York Times' headline was:

Romney Regains Stride With Victories in 2 States

I think it is fair to say that the tone of their article is summed up in the following passage:

His victory over Mr. Santorum here in Michigan was far from commanding, but it was most likely sufficient to dampen the rising clamor from across the Republican Party about his ability to win over conservatives and connect with voters. The tussle with Mr. Santorum highlighted ample concerns about Mr. Romney, but his win spared his campaign from deep turmoil. 

 NPR's leading primary related headline is:

Santorum and Co. Left to Mourn What Might Have Been In Michigan

 Immediately the focus on the significance of the loss for Santorum rather than the significance for the 'winner,' Romney, is apparent.  This emphasis is particularly clear in the first paragraph:

Rick Santorum and his campaign will likely look back on Michigan's 2012 primary not only as a heartbreaking loss in the battle against Mitt Romney but also as a historic lost opportunity.

USA Today's headline isn't too different in tone from the New York Times:

Romney campaign breathes a sigh of relief after Michigan win

A USA Today 'blog' story on the primaries take a slightly different tack, noting the proportionality of delegate distribution in Michigan:

Romney, Santorum to split Michigan delegates

Fox News seems to hedge their prediction bets with the uninspiring:

Romney wins Michigan, Arizona primaries

The seem to be suggesting that Romney's candidacy is still not out of the woods and that this whole Super Tuesday thing might be the real proving ground.

Mitt Romney, after fending off Rick Santorum in his home state of Michigan, is fast-approaching the biggest test so far of his volatile front-runner status: next week’s Super Tuesday contests where 419 delegates are up for grabs.

There seems to be a strange parallel between the Fox News headline and the headline used by the Washington Post:

Mitt Romney wins Arizona, Michigan primaries

The Washington Post also seems less inclined to suggest that success in these two contests have turned around Romney's campaign.

Romney’s victories on Tuesday are unlikely to solve the larger problems that have held back his campaign. Even after months of work and millions of dollars spent, he has not won over a vast swath of Republicans. 

The most surprising headline that I have yet seen comes from the Globe and Mail.  For some reason they seem to have interpreted last night's events as being bad for Romney:

Narrow win in home state of Michigan clouds Romney's chances

And they don't beat around the bushes with this strongly worded first paragraph.

Mitt Romney’s tortuous path to the Republican presidential nomination took another detour into rocky territory on Tuesday with his thin win in a contest he should by rights have owned. 

Obviously these are just a few of the many thousand headlines that have been written as a result of last night's primary results.  But as you can see, depending on your source, things are either looking great for Romney or things are looking bad for Romney or Santorum.  It's impressive that a single event can lead such widely varying news output.

Cameron: 42
Neil:0

Is the web off-limits to reporters?

Today I learned that the Globe and Mail's long-time parliamentary bureau chief, Jane Taber, now heads the paper's Atlantic bureau.  I learned about this change in part by reading what I understand to be her first contribution from her new post.

This first article, which deals with Halifax mayor's Peter Kelly's current political challenges, seems to have been triggered by a recent article in the Coast that deals with Kelly's failings as executor for the estate of a late friend.  The Coast article really goes after Kelly and outlines a number of problems with the way in which the probate process has been handled so far.

As Taber notes

Now Halifax is buzzing over allegations that Mr. Kelly took more than $160,000 from the $500,000 estate of a long-time elderly friend, Mary Thibeault, and with questions of why, seven years after her death, the will has not been settled. 

These questions were first posed last week in The Coast, a free weekly newspaper.

The primary issue I have with the article comes from the final sentence of the previous quote.  As many of us resident in Nova Scotia know, the Coast has been covering the issue of this will for quite some time.  A quick Google search for "peter kelly executor" lead me to a March 2011 story on the topic.

Maybe I should at least be happy that the mainstream media finally picked up on the story, even if it took them almost a year?  And isn't this the kind of story that the mainstream media should be breaking rather than re-reporting from the local alternative/arts weekly?

Cameron: 33
Neil: 0

Different takes on the same announcement

Earlier today the Government of Nova Scotia announced the details of a new MOU with the province's universities.  I gather that in general austerity is the theme of the announcement (with $25 million in funding specifically dedicated to cost cutting - however that is supposed to work).

Of course how the province is presenting this announcement is a little different than some media sources.  To demonstrate the difference I thought it might be fun to provide the first paragraphs from a sources covering this issue.

To start, here is the first paragraph from the government's news release:

A three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the province and Nova Scotia's 11 universities will ensure tuition remains at, or below, the national average, increases research and development opportunities, and invests $25 million in universities to help them become more sustainable.

 From the Metro's story on the topic:

The Nova Scotia government will allow tuition fees to rise by three per cent a year while reducing its grant to universities.

From the Chronicle Herald's story:

Nova Scotia universities will see a three per cent cut in provincial funding, Labour and Advanced Education Minister Marilyn More announced this afternoon.  

 From the Globe and Mail's story:

The Nova Scotia government will allow tuition fees to rise by three per cent a year while reducing its grant to universities.

(As you may haven noticed, there is a striking similarity between the Metro and Globe and Mail paragraphs.  Though the stories had different headlines it seems that they both just re-issued the Canadian Press story.)

I guess the media wasn't too interested in going with the province's take on things in this case.

Big week for the federation

Earlier this week news came out that Ottawa was, at least to some extent, relinquishing its use of the spending power to shape national health policy.  The likely eventual consequence of such a decision is that provinces will have more flexibility in terms of the structure their public healthcare systems.  Of course whether such changes in the way provincial programs are funded actually will lead to many changes (or more divergence than we already see) is not yet known.

And now today one of the federal government's big centralizing moves, the creation of a national securities regulator, seems to have been quashed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Or as they put it:

The  Securities Act as presently drafted  is not valid under the general branch of the federal power to regulate trade and commerce under s. 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. 

 Or if you want a slightly more detail rich version of their position:

In sum, the proposed Act overreaches genuine national concerns.  While the economic importance and pervasive character of the securities market may, in principle, support federal intervention that is qualitatively different from what the provinces can do, they do not justify a wholesale takeover  of the regulation of the securities industry which is the ultimate consequence of the proposed federal legislation.  A cooperative approach that permits a scheme recognizing the essentially provincial nature of securities regulation  while allowing Parliament to deal with genuinely national concerns remains available and is supported by Canadian constitutional principles and by the practice adopted by the federal and provincial  governments in other fields of activities.

Anyway, though it may be too early to tell how the healthcare funding changes play out, it looks as though this has been a pretty good week for a decentralized federation.  Of course, if you aren't a particularly big fan of Canada being a decentralized federation and are all about national standards this may have been one of the worst weeks for you in many years.

No matter where you stand on the centralization/decentralization debate, at least you will all now have good grist for the conversation mill this holiday season.

Doesn't ring true

Grocery stores are some of my favourite stores.  Not only are they great places to visit in your hometown, but they are really wonderful entry points to local culture while travelling.  Grocery stores provide a pretty unvarnished glimpse into what people are consuming and how much they are paying for it.

Given my appreciation of these stores it may not come as a surprise that while visiting such establishments I frequently try to get a sense of some of the prices.  I am particularly interested common foods, like flour and bread, that one can find in a pretty wide range of locales.

Anyway, the reason for this discussion of my love of grocery stores and grocery pricing is because I just read a Globe and Mail article about higher food prices that really didn't ring true to me.

To be a little more precise, aspects of the article didn't ring true to me.  It wasn't really the general thrust of the article with which I had a problem (I agree that food prices do seem to be heading up), but it was a particular sentence that bothered me.

Canadians have had years of access to cheaper food, and on average devoted far less of their household budgets to groceries than people in other countries.

While it may be true that food costs in Canada are lower than in some other countries, they aren't countries I have visited.  When in the two non-Canadian countries with which I am most familiar, the US and the UK, I am always struck by the lower food prices.  More expensive wheat, particularly given Canada's prominence as a wheat producer, always strikes me as a particularly noticeable trend here.

Furthermore, though I didn't follow all imported food prices closely at the time, I don't recall ever seeing a dramatic price drop in Canadian grocery prices when the dollar surged in value a few years ago (a trend which seems to parallel the continuing discrepancy in US/Canada book prices).  For instance, shouldn't oranges, a entirely imported product, have taken something like a 30% price dip to reflect our increasing purchasing power?

For some reason I keep get the sense that in Canada the consumer is frequently not reaping the benefits of changes in global market places (though had the Globe and Mail cited their source it is possible I could follow up and learn that my sense of things is off).

This still bothers me

Apparently the Canadian dollar is valuable as it has been in almost four years.

What I don't understand about this is that I don't seem to have the increased purchasing power that I would have expected to go along with a high dollar. I don't seem to be getting more for each dollar. Particularly grating are lower prices for books in the US. Even though Canada has a much more valuable dollar than we did in years past, the gap in prices seems to have remained stable. How is this possible?

And, at least in my experience, prices of general household goods seem to still be cheaper in the US. Even if we accept that things like import duties and taxation will bump up the price a little, shouldn't the price gap have closed at least a little bit?

And shouldn't more people be asking these questions? Are we just so used to paying higher prices in Canada that now that we have a more valuable dollar we haven't thought about the benefits that should be coming from a more valuable dollar?

Conflicting information about Ms. Brosseau

Starting a few days before the final votes were cast in the recent Canadian election and now continuing past the election has been a media fascination for the then NDP candidate for Berthier--Maskinongé, Ruth Ellen Brosseau. At first it was noted that Ms. Brosseau had spent some portion of the campaign period on vacation in Las Vegas. More recently it has been reported that Ms. Brosseau did not even go to the riding to campaign during the election period.

Maybe the most contentious revelation, at least as far many Francophone residents Ms. Brosseau's district are concerned, is that Ms. Brosseau's French is so rusty and that she is currently being given a crash course in French through the aegis of the NDP and Thomas Mulcair (a prominent Quebec NDP MP).

Given the prominence of this revelation about Ms. Brosseau's level of competence in French I was a little surprised to see that on her parliamentary profile page her "language preference" is French - a language which even her party and father suggest she can't speak particularly well.

Since the disconnect between her parliamentary profile and publicly available information is quite prominent I included a screen shot in case the profile is updated to reflect her language abilities (we wouldn't want to lose this piece of information in the shuffle).

Oh, and I also love that there seems to be only one publicly available picture of this woman, and that it is being used by just about everybody. I wonder if she knew that her candidate profile photo would gain such attention and be so frequently used if she would have used the photo that she used?

A Few Quick Notes 504

-Though we had about 30 centimeters of snow yesterday, today turned out to be a pretty nice day. The main problem that I encountered was slush puddles around intersections.

-I forgot to mention that Neil, Rebecca, Peter, Jeannette, and I joined Jeannette's father for a pre-Chinese New Year meal.

-I had my eyes checked yesterday and I ordered some new glasses today. Hopefully I will be in possession of my new glasses in about four days.

-Today I attended a informal talk/discussion about the current situation in Egypt and the middle-east. While the two history professors and one political science professor didn't have much specific information, they were able to provide some context and background information on Egypt. I was particularly impressed with the quality of the audience questions, I suspect that most of them were of interest to basically everybody in attendance.

-While walking around downtown Halifax I happened to run into a few different acquaintances, two of whom I know through the Poli Sci department. One of these guys told me about his recent media exposure regarding his family being refused entry to a bus. It seems that his story even made the Globe and Mail.

This whole experience reminded me of the recent Metrobus strike and just completely disgusted me.

-Last night at about 3:30 AM the fire alarm began to sound. After a few minutes people began to gather in the front lobby while we waited for the fire department to arrive. After the alarm had been sounding for about 10 minutes a guy in a t-shirt and sweat pants slowly and alertly sauntered in to the lobby, looked at a building employee and asked "what's happening?"

I really thought it was obvious, but apparently not.

-This evening I attended a talk by former Harper cabinet minister Maxime Bernier about being a small government conservative. Though he wasn't quite a Ron/Rand/RuPaul type, he was definitely to the right of many Canadians.

Anyway, while the talk was somewhat underwhelming, I did learn that Bernier really knows how to wear a suit. Man, he is one of the best dress politicians I have ever seen.

Score
Cameron 9
Neil 0

Youth and Change

This evening while perusing the Globe and Mail I saw a story about a kid getting involved in politics. The thrust of the story was that he was hoping to have the province implement a law that would require those individuals with learner's permits (or whatever they are called in Ontario) to be forced to display a 'P' sign on the back of the vehicles they are driving.

No offense to the kid in question, but this doesn't seem like a good idea to me (and I doubt that they have any data to actually suggest that it will be effective). Such a regulation change likely won't accomplish much, at least aside from providing another way for cops to hassle young drivers. Furthermore, as parents likely won't remove the sign from the car when they are driving the sign will soon loose all meaning (as occurred to similar signs in Newfoundland). Possibly the worst impact that this proposed regulatory change might have is that it might actually make conditions more dangerous for young drivers as people may do their best to avoid these drivers with such exuberance that they actually create less safe driving conditions.

There are surely better ways to making driving conditions for young drivers safer than introducing another superficial rule for them to follow.

So while I applaud this young man's civic mindedness, I also encourage him to be careful with regards to which regulatory changes he proposes as not all such changes are created equally and some may actually have effects that are opposite to those that are intended.

Going Mental (in 2013)

It seems, at least according to a story by the Globe and Mail, that as of 2013 I may have a psychological disorder.

It seems likely that with the inclusion of 'selective eating disorder' in the 2013 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders I may cross the border and enter the territory of the officially mentally compromised (though these aren't likely how most people like to use to think about such things).

Anyway, it is kind of weird to know that this change is coming and that there isn't much I can I will be able to do about it but wait and let it come.

A Few Quick Notes 477

-Though not particularly wet, today was definitely quite grey and cold. Not surprisingly, it seems that we might be in for some more snow in the coming hours/days.

-In my previous post it was mentioned that today I attended a talk given by Liberal MP Siobhan Coady. I should have mentioned that this talk was one of several today given by Liberal MPs. It seems that the Globe and Mail has already reported upon the talk given by Bob Rae. As strange as I found it to be a part of a campaign-style speech, I think that I find it even stranger to have been party to a nation-wide communications strategy on the part the Liberal party.

-I have decided to go for the turkey: three public lectures in three days. Tomorrow's lecture subject is South Africa's role in the world.

-For dinner tonight I made a pretty less-than-satisfying chicken stir-fry. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to pin-point exactly where things went wrong.

-Because he Jesse Thorn asked nicely and because it is one of the most engaging interviews I have heard on his show in a while (and this isn't to suggest that there has been a shortage of engaging interviews) I feel that I should mention the recently released The Sound of Young America episode that features an interview with Judd Apatow (of Hollywood fame).

The Sound of Young America


[Embedded audio]

-I guess I should try to read a few more pages of this transition to democracy/democratization stuff before I call it a night.

A Few Quick Notes 468

-We had another grey and overcast day in Halifax today. At points, much to my chagrin, it was raining somewhat consistently.

-I made a monstrously large batch of bean soup this evening. Though the soup may not be having a particularly beneficial impact on my digestive system, it was pretty tasty.

-We played our final fall league Ultimate game on Wednesday. The game was played in some of the heaviest rain of the year. Amazingly, the rain, though heavy, was relatively warm. Though the game was played in less than ideal conditions it wasn't too bad a game.

-Today, for the first time in my life, I submitted a letter to the editor to the Globe and Mail. I suspect that my letter won't be published but I am glad submitted a letter that pointed out a rather glaring factual error (the suggestion that Harold Innis was alive in 1969).

-Jeannette and I are presently watching the modern classic Groundhog Day. I am allowing myself a few minutes of relaxation after a long day of TA related responsibilities. For those of you who are interested, Stephen Tobolowsky, the actor who played Ned Ryerson, released a series of stories on the making of the film.

A Few Quick Notes 460

-Much to my surprise today was beautiful. Instead of experiencing the side-effects of Hurricane Igor we had a pretty regular fall day.

-Contrary to what was reported by Reuters earlier today, Canada did not escape Hurricane Igor unscathed. As noted earlier today, Newfoundland has been suffering from Igor's consequences for the better part of the day. According to my family many trees have been knocked down and power is still out in certain parts of St. John's (and presumably the rest of the province).

Not surprisingly, a number of photos of the damage have been posted online already.

-Last night, after several people suggested that we use baited traps, we made the switch. So far it would seem that these baited traps have been a little less effective than the unbaited variety. Last night we didn't catch a single mouse though each of the two previous nights we caught mice with unbaited traps. Apparently you can mess with success.

-I should get back to work.

-Oh man, there are some associated with commenting on Globe and Mail news articles that will be rolled out over the next few days. Just tonight I learned that one of the major changes was something that I suggested. Maybe I will try to provide a few more details at a later date (and once the changes have been fully implemented).

A Few Quick Notes 452

-Though today was somewhat overcast, it really wasn't all that bad of a day. Actually, I found today to be quite relaxing and pleasant.

-We have had an unusually large volume of mouse related activity recently. This is rather unfortunate as it is both distracting and time-consuming. Recently, Neil and I had to move and re-arrange most of our bulk foods so that they are now all in large plastic containers.

Hopefully the level of activity that we are experiencing presently isn't a sign of worse to come once things actually start to get cold and autumnal.

-Tonight, while I was sitting at my desk studying, I heard someone yell "Hey, get your hands off that or I'll call the cops right now." Unfortunately, I don't know what they were talking about or how the situation was resolved.

-Today, as a gift, I received a 4 GB flash drive from the Globe and Mail. Unfortunately, the flash drive doesn't seem to fit in my computer's USB ports.

-An uncle of ours will be arriving, via cruise ship, tomorrow for a single-day visit. As of yet I don't exactly know what we will be doing. Unfortunately, it look as though the weather won't likely be cooperating.

-I made good progress reading today, something I am sure that you all wanted to hear.

-We have had a strange burst in traffic at Montifax recently. I suspect that our recent involvement in Empire Avenue and our Hurricane Earl coverage are the main drivers of this sudden surge.

A rather inauspicious start

So, as some of you may already know, the Vancouver Olympics officially started yesterday night (or early this morning on Canada's east coast if you count from the time of the final torch lighting). While the events of last night caused the Globe and Mail to use the headline "Our Shining Hour," I think that it is clear that this is really quite far way from an accurate depiction of yesterday's Olympic related events.

In some ways, it is necessary to start with events that occurred before the opening ceremonies even started. In the early evening I was saddened and disappointed to learn that the Olympic luge track has already taken the life of one Olympic hopeful, an athlete from Georgia. The diagram of the accident site that I saw in today's paper makes it clear that those who do a poor job of executing the final turn may face serious consequences as instead of just shooting out of the track, you are likely to be propelled directly into support beams. Though I am not a luge track designer, this does seem to me to be a serious design flaw.

Later in the evening, after several hours of regional stereotype after regional stereotype the opening ceremony finally moved onto the big finale, the lighting of the torch. Then, in front of millions of viewers (I couldn't find a total number of viewers though there were supposedly about 13 million in Canada), there was a major technical problem that delayed the progression of the ceremony and then couldn't be rectified. A $40 million dollar event that failed at the critical moment, "our shining hour" indeed.

A more personal problem that we experienced related the coverage that was offered by CTV. Presumably because of the time-overrun related to the aforementioned technical difficulty, the streaming coverage cutout just moments before they were eventually to light the torch, the event to which the whole thing had been building. In a strange way it was a rather fitting conclusion to the evening's events.

Oh, and just moments ago I learned that the riot police were called in to deal with a group of several hundred protestors (some of whom engaged in vandalism and property destruction). Yum!


Blog-off Score

Neil:0
Cameron: 23

Another riddle solved thanks to the internet

A few weeks ago I noticed that Rex Murphy's column failed to appear in my Saturday Globe and Mail. While I do not necessarily read the column regularly, I do tend to observe its presence or absence.

At first I thought that it was possible that Murphy had just taken a few weeks off, though I don't recall him doing this in the past. Eventually the absnence of the columns seemed a little more ominous.

Tonight, after seeing Murphy's name in another context I decided to see if I could get to the bottom of the matter and figure out why the columns had not been appearing regularly. What I found is that Murphy seems to have left the Globe and Mail and begun working for the National Post (he seems to have pulled a reverse Christie Blatchford).

Blog-off Score

Neil: 0
Cameron: 5

A Few Quick Notes 388

-Today, unlike much of the week up to today, actually felt a little bit like Winter. Not only has the temperature been below freezing for much of the day, but we also had a little snow (though not as much as other parts of the Maritimes). As much as I enjoyed yesterday's spring-like weather, I am also enjoying the slightly more wintery feel of today.

-Oh man, what a week for domestic achievements.

On Tuesday I did some grocery shopping, though maybe not as much as I should have.

On Wednesday I baked bread and washed a few loads of laundry.

Yesterday I did the normal dinner stuff, but nothing particularly fancy (though we did do some late-night grocery shopping).

Today I went shopping grocery shopping again and baked a cake (dinner prep will start shortly).

The trend should even continue into tomorrow as I plan on doing some cleaning and preparing a turkey.

-Yesterday, as part of my TAship I had the pleasure of assisting in the invigilation of an exam. It was actually pretty fun just to stand up front and watch people as they wrote their exams. One of the aspects of the experience that I enjoyed the most was seeing almost everyone's head be tilted in the same direction (down and towards their writing space). Those that did not fit this model really stood out (these tended mostly to be left-handers in right-handed desks as opposed to cheaters).

-It seems that Elizabeth Marshall has been been appointed to the Canadian Senate to fill the vacant Newfoundland seat.

-Today I decided to have pancake mix pancakes for breakfast. I guess I was interested in comparing the ease and quality against my Batter Blaster experience of last December. Sadly, the Batter Blaster really didn't fare well against the batter mix. What I did learn is that pancakes from the mix are really straightforward and probably something that I should consider making for myself on a more regular basis.

-I went on a bit of a non-alcoholic beer binge last night. I think that over the course of about 3 hours I had almost half a dozen cans of the potent brew.

-Today, in the Globe and Mail movie reviews I came across the name of one of my sister's friends (the movie in question is Grown Up Movie Star). This was kind of funny as I don't think that I would have imagined such an experience when I first met this person as a 5 year-old. I guess if this movie makes it to theaters in Halifax we will have to make an effort to go see it.

-Don't forget to tune into the upcoming blog-off, it should be an exciting race.

A Few Quick Notes 373

-Today was another great day in Halifax. Though it was above 10 for the better part of the day it is apparently forecast to drop as low as -2 tonight. I am somewhat curious whether this will actually happen or not. At the moment we need to drop another 10 degrees to get there (and that is on top of the 5 that we have already lost since today's high this afternoon).

-We had another tofu stir-fry for dinner tonight.

-Neil and Rebecca attended a few of the torch ceremonies yesterday evening. I was a little bit confused about when and where things were happening so I didn't participate (though I did get a free pre-torch Coke Zero while I was at Dal). Apparently they saw people like Dexter, Campbell, and maybe Crosby.

I guess I should also note that I am probably not a particularly big fan of the Olympic torch relay. The thing about it that I have been finding particularly frustrating is that every day they have been including a half-page story on page 3 of the Globe and Mail about the torch relay. This wasn't news to begin with and it certainly isn't news now that we are three weeks.

-I spent the afternoon in the Nova Scotia archives. While I wasn't as productive as I might have liked to have been, I think that in the end it should be considered a pretty productive trip. Not only did I find some of the stuff I was looking for, I also found a neat letter about Newfoundland in the 1920s.

-I just got back from the grocery store, where I had gone to buy another 10 pounds of carrots before the store closed for the night and the next week's pricing scheme was implemented. In the past week we have purchased 30 pounds of carrots at $1.99 per 10 pound bag. At the moment we have almost 30 pounds of carrots in our fridge.

-The German Marshall Fund sponsored defence conference is supposed to start tomorrow. According to a website I found a few days ago the protest plan is to picket the hotel's entrance tomorrow afternoon (if I recall correctly) and then hold the full-fledged protest on Saturday. I may or may not be here while the pre-protest is on-going tomorrow, but I will definitely try to grab a few pics of Saturday's events.

-I am in the midst of some marking, which is definitely going more slowly that I would like it to be.

Hypocrisy $tar$ in the Globe or a Comment on Rex's latest column

As is my Saturday morning habit I started the morning off with a pot of coffee, breakfast, and the Globe and Mail. Not to long after I started making my way through the paper I ended up on the last page of the first section. After quickly skimming the page I decided that I would skip to Rex Murphy's column and then call it for that section.

It soon became clear that Murphy was using the column to take issue with the relatively large, and growing, budgets associated with Hollywood blockbusters (and particularly the monstrous budgets associated with James Cameron). Murphy seemed to find the contrast between the general economic restraint associated with a recession and these ever growing budgets something beyond distasteful. Eventually Murphy introduced the idea that the 'stars' in these films are now sometimes paid more than $20 million for their 'work.' Jim Carrey, and a few recent comments about greed and ambition, received particular attention and criticism.

As much as I might agree with Murphy about the absurdity of pay rates of contemporary Hollywood actors, I think that he missed the larger picture by making them the central component of his critique. These pay packages are really only a very small part of the picture when it comes to the economic implications of a Hollywood blockbuster (particularly a $500 million blockbuster, such as the one James Cameron is trying to make).

Unlike the picture that Murphy paints, the money used to make these movies does not just disappear, nor is it a case of feeding babies or making a movie (without such a movie no more money will go to the perpetuation of the welfare state). More accurately, money is invested a number of interests/corporations and people and then disbursed as salaries or payments during the making of the film. A much better way of thinking about a $500 million film is as a project that will take $500 million from corporate backers and distribute it among those parties involved in the production process. So instead of this money being wasted, it is likely providing pay cheques to thousands of individuals during the course of the production of the movie. If successful, such a movie would the replenish the coffers of the investors allowing them to invest in future projects. Ideally the cycle will repeat itself without pause (creating jobs and economic growth with each iteration).

I guess what I found strange about the column Murphy's seeming unwillingness to accept that transactions like those that result from the funding of a movie are what fundamentally drive our economy. To associate Carrey's comments about ambition and greed with such a picture was a rhetorical trick that did nothing but obscure the larger picture as well as the specific outcomes that are likely to come from a $500 million movie.

Only by investing money and creating jobs are we likely to exit such a recession. Staying at home and keeping our bank accounts tightly secured, on the other hand, isn't a viable solution to the problem.

While one may not like the package that comes with the Hollywood blockbuster (and I am not a big fan) it seems unfair not to acknowledge the positive economic benefits that are likely to flow from such enterprises. To impugn major capital investments, even if they are for Hollywood films, in a period of time when their absence is a notable part of the problem seems not only to be unreasonable, but to demonstrate a lack of understanding or misperception of the problem currently being faced by the economy.

So, yes, Jim Carrey may make ridiculous comments and be paid too much but that doesn't mean that blockbuster movies may not actually help us move out of the recession. Most importantly, it is not the case, as Murphy's comments seem suggest, that we should sit back with a sense of quiet respect and acquiescence as the recession runs rampant and refuse to attend movies, or other participate in other forms of economic activity that may stimulate further economic activity and growth.

It is rather ironic that Murphy didn't catch the hypocrisy in his own column yet was so quick to jump on it in Hollywood.