Posts

Posted on

Wei Jingsheng

Wei Jingsheng is a Chinese dissident who was imprisoned for almost 20 years because he had the courage to stand up for the basic human rights you and I take for granted as citizens of a free country. He was expelled from China in November 1997, probably because he was one of the most well-known of China’s many prisoners of conscience.

Jingsheng traveled to Paris where only the junior minister of “cooperation” would meet with him. In London, Prime-Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook were too busy to see him– probably had a party with OAISIS scheduled or something– so only an obscure bureaucrat would agree to talk with him.

The Clinton Administration had made a point of demanding that China honor the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, until about 1994, when more and more U.S. corporations insisted that Washington’s hard-line stance was harming business with the Communist giant. A lot of U.S. corporations salivate uncontrollably at the thought of a billion households that don’t yet have telephones, microwaves, or cable TV.

Cuba, on the other hand, only has about 7 million people, so it’s quite all right if you want to get all righteous about human rights under Castro. When it comes to China, however, you’re talking big bucks. As Bob Dylan once observed, before his own sell-out, “money doesn’t talk/it swears”.

A lot of people–especially corporate types–will argue that human rights should never be tied to commercial relationships. Oddly, this argument does not polarize along the political leanings you might have expected. Some very conservative U.S. congressmen support the demands for greater accountability for human rights abuses in China, while Clinton himself appears to be folding under pressure from the big corporations, and, as observed, Tony Blair and his Labour Party doesn’t have the time of day for a pro-union Chinese dissident.

You may recall that we went through this whole debate during the South African crisis, and Maggie Thatcher led the opposition to economic sanctions on the basis of the argument that they don’t work, and that they only harm the average citizen, not the powerful elite. Does Thatcher support sanctions against Iraq? The U.S. insists on tightening the sanctions against Iraq until they admit the U.N. weapons inspectors: isn’t Bill Clinton in a position of hypocrisy?

We ought to be more consistent on this. If sanctions worked against South Africa (they appear to have helped) and if they are believed to work against Iraq (this is somewhat questionable), and if it is hoped they will work against Cuba (dream on), then they ought to be applied to China.

What we have to do is remove the element of hypocrisy from the idea of sanctions. We constantly insist that we apply sanctions out of high moral principles, but we drop them as soon as we realize that there is fast buck or two to be made. The U.S. didn’t seem to mind the human rights abuses committed in Nicaragua or Chile, as long as U.S. commercial interests were served. Many European nations, like Italy and France, want to rebuild their business relations with Iraq, and thus they want to drop sanctions against Hussein. The U.S. won’t apply sanctions to China because U.S. corporations want to do business with the Chinese.

As China’s pursuit of the 2000 Summer Olympics demonstrated, the Chinese government does want relations with the West, and they need the technological and economic assistance only the West can provide. But such assistance ought to be dependent on well-defined and verified progress on human rights issues, democratization, and some measure of self-determination for Tibet.

Posted on

Balanced Books: Jean Chretien and the Temple of Doom

For the first time in 30 years, the annual budget of the Government of Canada will show some black ink.

The immediate response of the Reform Party was to denounce the government for spending some of the new “fiscal dividend”, instead of cutting taxes.

The Reform Party is on record as having advocated big tax cuts years ago. Had we followed Manning’s advice then, we would still be facing billions of dollars in deficits, just as the Americans, who cheerfully followed Reagan’s advice, are still a few years away from balanced books.

The Reform Party has a problem. Most Canadians regard this balanced budget as a significant accomplishment. Most Canadians, I suspect, are pleased with Chretien and Martin, and a little self-satisfied: we took the high-road, we suffered years of cuts and sacrifice, but it has finally paid off. The annual budget is balanced.

If the Reform Party could see themselves, they might hesitate before making the usual partisan jabs at the Liberals. No one knows for sure, of course, but my guess is that most Canadians are really very pleased about this achievement. We’ve gone through a lengthy period of painful sacrifices to get the federal budget under control. It was difficult, but we did it. We should be pleased and proud.

Then we see Preston Manning with his bad hair-cut, whining about how this government, the first government in 30 years to bring the budget under control, is irresponsible and shameless because it is putting a few bucks back into some of the programs it’s gutted over the last few years.

Preston Manning is being dishonest when he claims to speak for most Canadians when he demands a tax cut. Most Canadians have indicated over and over again that, yes, while they would like a tax cut, they also believe that a good chunk of the “fiscal dividend” should go back into some of the social and health programs that make Canada a civilized nation. This is not a matter of interpretation or fudging the stats: the polls are consistent and decisive on this issue. Manning is not only wrong but he is also shrill and whiney. My guess is that the next polls show the Liberals ever farther ahead of Reform than they are now.

So it took a “free-spending liberal” to bring the budget deficit under control. Mulroney, a conservative couldn’t do it. In the U.S., Reagan, an arch-conservative, not only did not reduce the deficit: he escalated it from about $50 billion to over $450 billion, by cutting taxes (at least, for the rich) and increasing spending on the military. Clinton only now has brought it back under control, though the Americans are a year or two behind Canada.

Jean Chretien and Paul Martin should get gold medals. Chretien should get a special shiny gold medal for being lavish with praise for his finance minister. This is not a leader who is insecure about his position in the party or his ability to lead. This is a leader who thought that Paul Martin was a pretty smart guy and maybe he should be in charge of getting the deficit down, so he made him Finance Minister and then did the simplest thing possible: left him alone to do his job.

Posted on

Born on Third Base

I was a little flabbergasted to discover that the reason the Government of Canada was finally able to balance their books this year was not because of all the slashing and burning over the last five years that have left Canada’s social and health care programs in a tattered wreckage. No, that’s not it, and the next time you see Prime Minister Jean Chretien beaming with self-satisfaction at a press conference, please throw a pie in his face.

No, the real reason the deficit has come down is simpler than that. It is because interest rates have come down, and because the economy is in the middle of the longest continuous growth spurt since the early 1960’s. Anyone who has renegotiated a mortgage from 10 3/4% down to 7 1/4% knows what effect interest rates have on a large amount of money. All of those budget cuts? They might have accounted for only 1/3 of the necessary savings.

There are some people out there who believe that the entire budget deficit was just a plot by the very rich to create a huge financial crisis to convince the general public that taxes are bad and that the government can’t be trusted with the management of public resources. The way the plot worked was this:

  • the government used taxes to address the massive imbalance of wealth between the rich and the poor
  • the people supported this activity
  • the government raised taxes, primarily on the well-to-do, to subsidize social programs that help everyone or just the poor.
  • the rich realized that if this system prevailed, they would only own five homes, not ten, and eleven Bentleys, not eighteen, and decided something must be done.
  • the rich, who control the stock market, the bond market, and the Federal Reserve, caused interest rates to go up, to “cure” inflation, at the cost of higher unemployment, which, of course, does not affect the rich.
  • Ronald Reagan, the tool of the rich, reduced taxes on the rich, while actually increasing government spending, especially on the military, which, combined with the interest rate hikes, thereby created a massive government deficit. The media, another tool of the rich, hammered home the idea that inflation was evil and must be fought at all costs, even to the extent of increasing unemployment and government debt.
  • the general public, not aware of the real cause of the budget deficit, became appalled at the size of the budget deficit and demand leaders who would reduce it, without raising taxes.

Here the plan goes astray: Bob Dole, Preston Manning, and John Major were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this strategy. In each case, the public, far more rational than the media give them credit for, elected relatively moderate, compassionate leaders.

Bill Clinton and Jean Chretien and now Tony Blair oblige the ill-informed public by slashing social programs, while maintaining the rhetoric of tolerant, compassionate liberals. Largely, this translates into same sex health benefits, a harmless frill, while diverting billions of dollars in wealth back into the hands of the rich.

The net result: a massive shift of wealth from the laborer to the investor. Read the newspaper, watch tv: how does the media interpret the state of health of the economy? In jobs? In pay for the average dude? In health care or social programs? No! In the value of the stock market, and in the returns on investment for the average stock-holder. When Chain-Saw Al Dunlap takes over a company and promises to slash tens of thousands of jobs, the value of the stocks of this company go up. Great news! You’re out of work! Your family can go to hell, we don’t care– as long as the stock market continues to rise! (One interesting irony: so-called pro-family politicians and religious leaders don’t seem to be “pro” your family, when your job is lost: they support the “lean and mean” economy, lower minimum wages, and anti-union measures. As far as they are concerned, you can go work at McDonalds.)

Here again, the plan has gone somewhat astray, in that growing numbers of middle-class wage-earners are investing in mutual funds, causing an unprecedented string of growth years for the markets. I don’t think anybody really knows what this means just yet.

Posted on

Sports Economics

Everybody knows that salaries for professional athletes are completely absurd, but nobody seems have any rational idea of what can be done about it. The basic argument against doing anything is that if people want to pay $55 to sit in a huge stadium and watch a bunch of spoiled athletes shoot hoops or shag fly balls or run into each other, what’s to stop them? It’s a free country.

Ah, but it’s not that simple. There are rules by which all businesses in the U.S. and Canada must operate. Most of these are good rules, designed to prevent collusion and restraint of competition. But professional sports do not abide by these rules: they have an exemption, granted by the government. The solution to the problem of outrageous sports salaries is really very simple. You remove or modify the legal exemption. Bang. Done.

Few people understand what the meaning of this exemption is. The meaning is that professional sports teams are not subject to the usual rules of competition, even though they are for-profit businesses. They are allowed to cooperate together to form a single league with a de facto monopoly over players and venues. In exchange for this exemption, the leagues are supposed to provide a commissioner to ensure that the interests of the sport are served. In reality, in practice, all the commissioners serve only one interest, that of the team owners. New franchises are handed out like lollipops because the astronomical entrance fees are divvied up among the established owners.

What would happen if the exemption were abolished? It would take a while, but we would begin to see minor leagues flourish again and some of them would grow into genuine competition for the Majors. Most medium-sized towns would be able to support a professional team because, with a multiplicity of smaller leagues instead of one, exclusive, big league, players salaries would decline to a rational level. And instead of a very small number of black athletes emerging from the ghettos to make it very, very, very big, we might have a large number of black athletes playing on a large number of professional teams, making a decent living for themselves, and helping bring business to their home communities with medium-sized stadiums, where fans will also actually get a decent view of the game.

We would have to kiss goodbye to the concept of “THE” Major Leagues. Big deal. And no more publicly-funded stadiums, one of the most insane ideas of our time (why are we taxpayers subsidizing the outrageous salaries of professional athletes?).

Posted on

Allen Inverson

Allen Iverson is a point guard on the Philadelphia 76ers. He is possibly the most promising young talent in the game. The Sixers pay him $9.4 million over three years, but he also receives endorsement money from Reebok. It costs $54 a ticket to watch Allen Iverson play.

Iverson grew up in Hampton, Virginia, in the ghetto, in a dilapidated house that was frequently unheated because his mother, who was 15-years-old when he was born, could not afford to pay the bills. The house reeked of backed-up sewage.

As he grew up, Allen watched friend after friend die violently in gang turf wars. Allen’s father served time–for stabbing a girlfriend–as did his step-father. But Allen was born with a gift, and he worked hard to perfect it. He starred in high school basketball, and then for two years at university. Then he hit the big time: the NBA.

Now that he is a millionaire, Iverson has moved his mother, his sisters, his aunts, his uncles… just about everyone in his extended family, and his girlfriend and two children of his own, into decent housing outside of Philadelphia. He also supports two full-time body-guards.

Who is after Allen Iverson? I don’t know. But every important person has a body-guard.

Allen Iverson served some time in jail when he was in high school because he was in a bowling alley when a riot broke out between some whites and blacks. The police arrived and arrested four blacks, including Iverson, and none of the whites. He was alleged to have thrown a chair that struck a woman in the head. He received five years in penitentiary even though he had no previous convictions and insisted that he had left the alley immediately after the trouble started. His conviction was later over-turned upon appeal and erased from his record.

Did you read that carefully? A young black man with no previous convictions received a 5-year sentence for allegedly throwing a chair at a woman during a fight in a bowling alley. Five years. Isn’t that a little harsh? What does five years in prison do to a young man like Allen Iverson? What do you have when he comes out? Do you think that when he comes out, he will say to himself, “Whoa! I’ll never do that again!”

Allen’s high school friends can’t afford the $54 it takes to see Allen play, but Sports Illustrated reports that some of the white men who can afford it heckle Iverson mercilessly.

What does Allen spend his millions on, after supporting his extended family? Incredibly tasteless, ostentatious jewelry, a red Jaguar for his mother, a Mercedes Benz for himself. Whatever he wants.

This is the face of the modern pro athlete. Everyone I know complains bitterly about the absurdly excessive amounts of money these athletes are paid. When we find out what they spend that money on, we are sometimes shocked at the waste and extravagance. We are disappointed that they don’t seem to put the money back into the poverty-stricken communities they came from.

Salaries for professional athletes entered the realm of absurdity years ago. Everyone seems to know it, but no one seems to know any way to stop it. And they keep going: the latest contracts are for over $100 million. This is beyond idiocy and absurdity: it is pure madness.

But the story of Allen Iverson should give us pause. It is one thing for comfortable, middle-class whites to stand appalled at the state of affairs in professional sports; it is quite another for a black-teenager from an American ghetto. For many of these teenagers, their only hope of leaving their poverty behind is either drug-dealing or professional sports. In some ways, Iverson’s huge salary is his payoff for suffering years of abuse and degradation.

Consider also the case of Latrell Sprewell, who assaulted his own coach, P.J. Carlesimo. The team and the League did the right thing, for once. The team terminated his contract and the NBA suspended him. Astonishingly, an arbitrator over-ruled both, shortened the suspension to six months, and reinstated his $17 million contract. Once again, we are beyond the realm of the unusual and into the realm of the completely bizarre. If you physically attacked and injured your supervisor, do you think you would be merely suspended? Where would you find an arbitrator dumb enough to reinstate you at full salary?

Given the general weirdness of all this, is it so hard to believe that the CIA deliberately encouraged drug-use by inner-city blacks, or that the budget deficit was the result of a conspiracy among bankers, investors, and the military, to convince the general public that government spending was out of control and force social spending down while continuing to line their own pockets? If you carefully analyze the changes in tax law over the past twenty years, two things are clear:

  • a huge chunk of the deficit spending went into the pockets of military contractors and suppliers (think of the infamous $450 hammers charged to the Pentagon)
  • a huge chunk of the taxes that will pay off the deficit is coming from the pockets of hard-working, average citizens, because of all the tax cuts and deductions that benefit the rich
  • the budget deficit did not hurt the rich one little bit. While you and I were constantly told that we had to lower our expectations, cut back, and make sacrifices, accept down-sizing, because times are tough, the rich continued to increase their own salaries and profits, sometimes by astronomical sums.

What has this got to do with Allen Iverson and basketball? Just part of the general weirdness of our economic system, that’s all. Millions of people go to work every day. They spend hours and hours working hard, doing various challenging tasks, and thusly they generate enormous wealth. Where does this wealth go? Well, we know that you and I are getting about the same amount we got twenty years ago, maybe a little less. On the other hand, professional athletes, heads of corporations, and Al Dunlap– the man who is famous for taking “down-sizing” to extreme heights in the name of shareholder profits–are all making way, way, way more than they used to. Bank profits are way up. Microsoft is making a bundle. Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Madonna…. In 1990, the average NHL salary was $200,000. Today it is $1.1 million. When was the last time you got an increase in your pay?

Money moves around. We ought to pay close attention to how it moves around. There is one thing that is resoundingly clear about the way it moves around: pretty well anybody who can take more, will take more. There is no restraint on human greed. Some people regard unions as greedy. That may be true, but the difference is that unions distribute wealth far more widely than corporations do, and history tells us that the more widely and evenly wealth is distributed, the safer and healthier a society is.

Posted on

The New Economy

On a grand scale, there’s a lot of strange things about our economy.

We thought we abolished slavery in the 1800’s, but if you define slavery as enforced servitude, who among us is not a slave? Could you quit your job tomorrow? You would lose everything you own. You would be cast out into the streets. You would sleep on a park bench and eat from a dumpster, or starve or die of some contagious disease.

Perhaps you feel that prosperity liberates you. We have more material possessions than any slave ever had. On the other hand, slaves lived much shorter lives than we do. They worked for 15 or 20 years, in exchange for food and a place to sleep. We work for 40 or 50 years. If we are so much better off than slaves, why do we work so long?

I’m joking of course. Slaves worked longer hours and didn’t get paid vacations. They didn’t have tv or cars or stereos and they couldn’t send their children to ballet school. So we are better off than slaves.

Still, I find it sadly ironic that we really have about as little choice as the slaves did about how we spend our days. Our society produces immense piles of goods. If you want an immense pile of goods, who is going to stop you? Suppose, however, that instead of a VCR, indoor plumbing, a car, boat, lawnmower, stereo, and digital camera… suppose all you wanted was food and shelter. You should be able to work for one or two days a week, live in a non-descript, unfurnished apartment, and do as you please the other five days. Could you do it?

Your expenses would come to at least $500.00 a month for the apartment alone. Food would probably be about $400.00 a month. So, you would have to be earning about $1,000.00 a month or $12,000.00 a year or $250.00 a week just to get by. Can you do that on a part-time salary? I don’t think so. The trouble is that the well-paying jobs are tied to full-time activities. The part-time jobs don’t pay nearly as well.

Posted on

Bob Dylan Sells Out

AmDylan.gif (54973 bytes) I too harsh on people?

 

In the movie, The Magic Christian, a worldly-wise millionaire (played by Peter Sellers) adopts a destitute young man (Ringo Starr) as his own son. He decides to impart to him all of the great wisdom he has accumulated over the years. The first and most important lesson is that everyone– without exception– can be bought. In the unforgettable climax of the film, Sellers scatters numerous British pound notes over the surface of a swimming pool filled with the most disgusting, offensive substances imaginable as dozens of extremely well-dressed financiers and bankers are strolling by on their way to work in their gleaming towers of steel and glass. They stop, stare, try to reach the money. One of them finally steps right into the sludge, and soon all of them are splashing around in it trying to grab the money away from the others. Yes, everyone can be bought.

I just picked up the latest edition (March-April 1998) of the Utne Reader, a bi-monthly compendium of articles by the “alternative” press. On the back of the cover, there is a picture of a very young Bob Dylan. That makes sense. Who better defines “alternative” than Bob Dylan, especially a young Bob Dylan? Think of those songs from the early 1960’s: “God on Our Side”, “Only a Pawn in the Game”, “Like a Rolling Stone”, “Masters of War”, “Visions of Johanna”… Dylan, unintentionally, perhaps (you could write a whole book on the subject), became a spokesman for a generation of young people who seemed to reject plastic, phony materialism, the consumer ethic, the idea that everything could be bought and sold, and that the ultimate goal of life was a home in the suburbs, a zillion appliances, Tupperware, and a two-car garage.

If you were born too late or too early, you probably have no idea of how powerful his mystique was. No one before or after has had anything near the pull he did in his prime. Every other major artist was acutely aware of what Dylan was doing. Even commoditized performers like Sonny and Cher included Dylan songs in their repertoire.

He was the very definition of “alternative”, because, at the time, the wholesale commoditization of life was well under way and he was one of the first and most powerful voices of popular culture to mock it. His performances were utterly compelling, because he was powerfully eloquent and uncompromisingly savage in his rejection of moral hypocrisy and glib righteousness. [notes on Dylan film]

The trouble is, there is an Apple Computer logo at the top left-hand corner of the page. And under the logo, these words: “Think different”.

Yes, everyone can be bought.

Well, I guess most other folk singers would have regarded selling out as the wrong thing to do, so, yes, I guess Bob Dylan thinks different.

I wish I knew how much he got for the ad, and why he needed the money. I do NOT wish I could hear him explain why I’m an idiot for thinking he should not have taken the money, should not have sang for the pope, should not have taken part in the tribute to Frank Sinatra, should not have allowed “The Times They are a Changin'” to be used in a Bank of Montreal ad, and should not have treated Phil Ochs like dirt way back in the 1960’s. I don’t want to hear it because it is so entirely predictable and self-aggrandizing and phony and I don’t think I could stomach it coming from Bob Dylan even if almost everything else he’s done in the past ten years should have prepared me for this.

This may sound absurd, but does anybody still need an explanation of why doing a commercial endorsement is wrong? It’s not all that complicated.

If the role of art, music, poetry, drama, and fiction, is nothing more than to entertain, then, yes, I guess there is no problem, since consumer products are just another form of gratification. And if you believe that the gleeful consumption– conspicuous or otherwise– of material goods is about as meaningful as life gets, then yes, there is no problem.

But if you believe, as I do, that there is a higher purpose to art, that it should also enlighten and stimulate and provoke, and should in some way expand our knowledge of what it means to be human, of what it means to love, of what it means to be alive, then a commercial endorsement is the anti-thesis of good art. It is a sell-out. It is betrayal of the very idea that human values are above simple self-aggrandizement.

A great artist stands out because he has the courage and integrity to observe and reflect and illuminate the weaknesses and strengths of human behaviour. When an artist agrees to accept money in exchange for the association of his image or persona with a commercial product, he shows that his integrity is compromised, because his endorsement is the result of a bribe. And when he accepts accolades and awards from people whose whole lives are dedicated to dishonesty and materialism, then he shows that he has no courage, for his acceptance is the result of his desire to become like those who thusly honor him.

When Bob Dylan first came to prominence, one of his most attractive qualities was the way he stood apart from the establishment toadies and drunken crooners that dominated the entertainment world of the 1950’s, singers like Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra, who sang meaningless love ballads to addled over-weight pant-suited matrons in the crassest of American cities, Las Vegas. Today, Dylan takes part in a tribute to the King of Crass, Frank Sinatra. How long before Dylan himself plays Las Vegas?

In defense of Dylan, I have heard people say that it’s just no big deal. Just because he endorses Apple computers doesn’t mean “Tangled Up in Blue” isn’t a great love song. In reply to that, I have to say that even if it wasn’t a big deal, it’s still a cheesy, tacky, contemptible thing to do, and you have to wonder about why Dylan would do it. Dylan’s income from song-writing royalties alone must be enormous. Did he manage his money so badly that he is desperately broke? Are the alimony payments getting out of hand? Is his exclusive Malibu mansion in need of repair? Is he so isolated and surrounded with sycophants that there is no one to tell him that, considering his stature as a songwriter of uncommon power and intensity, the commercial endorsements look petty and stupid?

Well, maybe we all should be as humble. What if someone offered me, say $100 a week if I agreed to display his product logo on my web page (as if…)? I could argue that journals and newspapers have always carried advertising so it’s really not “selling out”, it’s just the business of writing. If I sold my writing to a journal (which I have done, in fact, on a regular basis for many years) who do I think pays for the checks I receive? Right– advertisers. Dylan’s music is played on radio of course, so his royalty checks really come from the same source.

So is it really such a big leap from a royalty check to a product endorsement? The difference is that we all understand that just because a Miller Lite ad follows a Dylan song on the radio does not mean that Dylan drinks Miller Lite, in the same way we know that a General Motors ad in a newspaper doesn’t mean that the newspaper believes that General Motors cars are any better than anyone else’s cars. There is a line that is being crossed.

The bottom line, I guess, is that it is ridiculous to believe that Dylan needs the money so badly that he will allow such questions to be raised about his integrity as an artist. The answer is that Dylan, singing for the Pope and Frank Sinatra, and flogging his reputation on the Grammys, is after something other than artistic achievement. The answer is that Dylan doesn’t believe himself anymore, and therefore, why should we?

Songs from the Old Dylan:

” you used to ride on a chrome horse with your diplomat/who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat/Aint it hard when you discover that/He really wasn’t where it’s at/After he took from you everything/He could steal..”

“…businessmen, they drink my wine/Plowmen dig my earth/None of them along the line/Have no idea of any worth…”

“Dear Landlord, please don’t put a price on my soul…”

“…but even the President of the United States must sometimes have to stand naked…”

A Playlist for Bob Dylan when he finally goes all the way and plays Las Vegas.
  • Opening number: Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again
  • Mood Piece: Dear Landlord
  • A love ballad so all those Amway salesmen can get off their duffs and shake out their double-knit pants:  Most Likely You’ll Go Your Way and I’ll Go Mine
  • For those who really appreciate the décor:  Visions of Johanna
  • For those who wonder if this is the same Bob Dylan who used to do those protest songs: My Back Pages
  • For the maids and kitchen help: The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll
  • And the waiters: Serve Somebody
  • To his former wife, Sara, if she happens to drop by: It Aint Me Babe
  • To patrons who favour the Black Jack tables:  Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts; Black Diamond Bay
  • To those who wished it was Elvis instead: I Want You
  • Just before Milton Berle comes on: Motopsycho Nightmare
  • To a convention of Dupont engineers: Hard Rain
  • To contestants for the Miss America Pageant:  Just Like a Woman
  • After a Fashion Show:  Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat
Posted on

Time Magazine Tabloid Watch

When Does Time Magazine (Canadian Edition)
Become a Tabloid?

Time magazine used to cover the news.  But lately, we’ve been seeing a lot of stuff that we normally find on the cover of the National Enquirer instead.

Time’s current subscription base: about 5 million

Issue Pages News Advertising Other Tabloid
Feb 23, 1998Feb 16, 1998

Feb 9, 1998

Feb 2, 1998

Jan 19, 1998

Jan 12, 1998

Cancelled Subscription

 7272

76

98

70

64

 1616

10

9

36

24

 3522

31

35

31

18

 1214

3

21

0

16

 920

32

33

3

6
Posted on

The Canadian Men’s Olympic Hockey Team: Class

Canadian Men’s Hockey Team Represented the Spirit of the Olympics

Sure, they didn’t win Gold or Silver, or even Bronze. But I was proud of the Canadian Men’s Hockey Team.

  • They stayed in the Olympic Village with the other competitors, even the ones who didn’t make six figure salaries.
  • They played selflessly, with heart and determination, and they played well.
  • They simply got beat by teams that were a tiny bit better than they were.
  • They made no excuses, and blamed no one but themselves for those heart-breaking defeats.
  • They showed up at other Olympic events to cheer on other Canadian athletes.
  • They played good, clean, skate-pass-shoot hockey: showing the sport at its best.

Why didn’t they win? It’s hard to fault Clarke, Gainey, or Crawford. They chose solid, two-way players, and those players generally performed up to expectations. The one deficiency in this line-up was players with a deft touch around the net… like Kariya and Sakic(!). Gretzky played well, but he’s not 25 anymore. Lindros also played well, but he’s not a finesse player. Once they knew Kariya was in doubt, I wonder if they shouldn’t have added Vincent Damphousse or someone else with a deft touch around the net. But, again, I’m not quibbling. The team was well-chosen. Unfortunately, I think Canadians simply have to face the fact that the rest of the world has caught up to us and we are no longer the dominant hockey power. We were close– the games were thrilling– but we’re going to have to work hard and develop new talent if we hope to ever reclaim the World Championship or the Olympic Gold Medal.

Posted on

Olympian Rip-off

According to Avery Brundidge, the Olympics “embraces the highest moral laws. NO philosophy, no religion preaches loftier sentiments.”

Well, if the highest moral law is “he who has the gold, makes the rules”, then he’s right.

For all the hype, the Olympics is nothing more than a two-week long commercial with athletes. During the first few days of competition, I would estimate that there was about three minutes of competition to about three hours of meaningless chatter about scandals and politics and about twelve hours of commercials. Someone with more patience should sit down with a stop-watch and get the actual figures.

During an important curling match, the CBC actually cut away for commercials while rocks were being thrown in the late ends of an extremely close semi-final match between Britain and Canada. It’s almost as bad as ABC News Nightline. Could anything have made it more clear what the Olympics are really all about?

There will be some great competitions, no doubt, and men’s hockey is shaping up to be one of the best. On the larger ice surface, we might actually get to see some skating, passing, and stick-handling. Why did the NHL agree to this? Don’t they realize that viewers will be appalled when they are forced to watch the ridiculous thuggery of the NHL again after this treat? Maybe that’s why they announced there will be a crack-down on clutch-and-grab tactics after the Olympics.

As for figure skating and ice dancing, if everyone knows that the judging is decided on the basis of back-room politicking, why can’t anybody seem to do anything about it?

The reason why is simple: the International Olympic Committee is the personal fiefdom of Juan Antonio Samaranch, the former youth fascist, who runs the organization with an iron fist behind walls of secrecy. He appoints new members to the committee. He controls the purse strings. And he is accountable to no one.

This kind of structure should not be able to survive the modern era. Most large corporations have begun to realize that without clear lines of accountability, they cannot be competitive. Everyone is too busy covering their own rear end to serve the genuine interests of the company.

When Ross Rebagliati tested positive for marijuana at these Olympics, someone should have looked at the receipts for the Atlanta games. As Dan Morgenson pointed out in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, 9,000 cases of beer, 1,800 cases of wine, and 600 cases of liquor, were delivered to Hyatt Regency hotel for the benefit of the 106 members of the International Olympic Committee. Hypocrisy run amok!

All of the world’s national Olympic Committees should meet together this year and announce that a new structure must be created by a committee elected from the National Olympic bodies. The first task of this committee will be to create a code of conduct which all of the national bodies must subscribe to or suffer ineligibility. This code of conduct must stipulate that the committees are accountable to the athletes they serve and to the supporting community. This code should set a fixed ratio of “officials” to athletes to attend each sporting event. All officials must be legitimate representatives of their sports– not sycophants of some politician or general.

The second task will be to set up a new International Olympic Organization with a board that is democratically elected from among all the member national bodies. No nation will be allowed to nominate from their own country. At least 50% of the board members should be elected directly by the athletes.

The third task will be to impose stringent limits on the amount of Olympic dollars that are allocated for administration and promotion. Nobody knows what the exact numbers are, but nobody doubts that a huge proportion of Olympic spending is devoted to the comfort and pleasure of the same idiot officials and appointees who decided that Ross Rebagliati should lose his gold medal because of trace amounts of THC in his blood.

Finally, the baloney should be removed from the selection process for hosts for the Olympic games. Once again, everybody knows that the process is incredibly corrupt– officials are almost handed suitcases of cash by representatives of contending cities– but nobody seems to have the guts or the means to stop it.

We have seen the U.S. press become hysterically obsessed with the salacious but insignificant scandal of Bill Clinton’s undisciplined sexual urges. Millions of words and thousands of hours of television program have been devoted to this non-news story. Compared to the Monica Lewinsky story, the way the International Olympic Committee operates is a major scandal of outrageous proportions. The only way it will ever get on the front page, however, will be if Samaranch hires himself a lovely little intern…