On 9/11

In lieu of writing something myself, I'll just point you to some links regarding 9/11 that I found interesting:

• Stephen Brunt's 9/11 Video Essay


• Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Statement on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11


• The story of a fighter pilot who was a part of the effort to take down United flight 93. With no weapons of any sort on board, she was going to have to act as a kamikaze pilot.


• A recount by BBC's Steven Evans of his lucky decision to get a coffee on the day of 9/11.


• Dirk Hayhurst's memories and thoughts about 9/11


• Alan Cross wonders why there hasn't been more art inspired by 9/11


• Roger Ebert talks about the 9/11 films that were created.


• Toronto Mike gives us the World Trade Center's cameos in films


• From Billboard, the music industry remembers 9/11


• Mathew Ingram's thoughts about how 9/11 changed the media landscape.


• Time's revisitng of some of the people who affected and were affected by the actions of 9/11 and the subsequent decade

On Jack Layton...

I join everybody in offering my condolences to the family of Jack Layton for his passing. I did not agree with many of his political policies, however I certainly can agree that he did love Canada and continually acted with the best intentions to improve the lives of many Canadians.

I wanted to also share some thoughts on the more interesting things I read over the last couple of days...

• Carly Weeks in the Globe and Mail takes a different angle on the death, choosing to argue that Layton did not lose a battle against cancer. Instead he died of cancer.
  
  When you think of this, it gives you pause. It's too easy to use the analogy; it's very common and in fact it is the terminology that Layton used himself to describe what laid ahead for him.
  
  Obviously this isn't what anybody intends to imply. Using the battle/fight analogy is meant to honour the person, not denigrate them. However, that is the underlying message. It's just not the message that you think of when you first are offering your support to the patient, or when you are the patient. The problem, as is pointed out by Mike Marqusee in the Globe article, is when the cancer "defeats" the patient. If the cancer ends up "winning", does that mean the patient did not fight hard enough? Were they not good enough to beat cancer?
  
  Sometimes it's necessary to take a step back and consider the words that you are using. Even though you might only intend one way of interpretation, they can have unintended consequences. I know that when somebody close to me (or even I) faces cancer, I will offer my support in a different manner than the battle analoy.


• The National Post lets us know that the State Funeral for Jack Layton is unprecedented. The thing is that having an Opposition Leader die while still in office is pretty well unprecedented.
  
  Ignoring the political implications that the Post covers, it's just the right thing to do for a politician whose popularity seemed to be increasing only 3 months prior.


• Christie Blatchford found herself in a bit of trouble for a column that ended up on the internet on Monday evening. In it, she criticized the coverage of Layton's letter to Canadians, which was fair game. The coverage and commentary about the "extraordinary" letter did seem to be over the top at times and probably needed to have a bit of air let out of the balloon. The problem came when she criticized the contents of the letter and Layton's intentions.
  
  A significant figure dying is always difficult. You have to balance having respect for those who are mourning the death, while also presenting a balanced view of their life. I'm not sure if Blatchford felt as though the scale was extremely skewed towards the praise of Layton and felt she needed to try to balance the coverage all by herself, but whatever her intentions, she failed at them. By putting this column out so soon after Layton's death, any insight she had was buried by the argument over her sensitivity towards the mourners of Jack Layton.
  
  As for her criticisms of the letter, I tend to end up agreeing with Chris Selley, who notes:
  

  If you find the letter over-earnest and platitudinous, well, at least it’s genuinely over-earnest and platitudinous. Would you have preferred he’d revealed it was all an act?

How Conrad Black Made Me Change My Tune on Hockey

I have to admit to paying a lot of attention to Conrad Black. His trial intrigued, fascinated and annoyed me. I do read his column every week; when he is on his game he is a ridiculously talented writer. And I found myself following the back and forth between John Moore and Mr. Black.

The one thing that sticks out with the end result of this trial is how much Mr. Black refuses to acknowledge the reality of the situation he's in.

When Black writes things like "In a mind-bending exercise of suppressing, distorting, and fabricating evidence, the Circuit Court revived two of the counts," he comes across as thinking he's still to be vindicated on these charges. When Black states that ...there is practically no chance that even an American court would have convicted on the two remaining counts if they had not been embedded in 15 other counts that eventually all failed at different stages of the proceedings, he comes across as a conspiracy theorist who has deluded himself into thinking that he is the victim in this situation.

It's frustrating to read Black when he continues on about his conviction. I found myself wishing him to continue to write about the U.S. penal system and its failures (in his view). On this he is just as passionate, but it seems much more productive use of his immeasurable writing skills. But it also got me to think about myself and my own railing on about the Boston Bruins' Stanley Cup victory.

I have been frustrated by how the sports media has glossed over something that I found incredibly odd and discomforting - that the Bruins benefitted from favourable refereeing in each game 7 they played during the playoffs. While I realize that linking this to Colin Campbell (father of Bruins' player Gregory Campbell) is basically taking a giant leap into the crazy conspiracy theory area, it would be nice if somebody acknowledged that the refereeing actually changed in game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals and game six to game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals and it benefitted the Bruins, who were a much stronger team at even strength than on special teams. I've brought this up at times with friends to the point where I'm basically repeating myself. And that's not productive for anybody.

So here's my solemn vow: when I talk about the inconsistency of refereeing in the playoffs, I will not take any shots at the Boston Bruins benefitting multiple times from this. Further, I will only talk about the inconsistencies within the series, not in the greater terms of the playoffs.

I know I am not as skilled a writer as Conrad Black. I hope that someday I will have one-thousandth of his writing talent. But until that day arrives, I'll settle for having a skill he seems to lack: being able to move past things in order to work towards a greater good.

Questioning Authority

When I first read about a federal report on obesity being questioned by a professor of medicine and chair of obesity research, I wanted to comment that we need to look at who is criticizing the report. Somebody whose career is based around researching obesity might have a vested interest to discredit a report that indicates that simple changes to diet and exercise patterns might reduce obesity cases significantly. I especially wanted to when Kelly McParland snarked: Walking around the block is going to offset the double baconator you had for lunch? I don’t think so.

Now comes along the New England Journal of Medicine and a new report which attempts to quantify what affect each type of food has on your weight. (Jonathan Kay has a handy summary of the findings.)

I'm sure there are holes to this report when considering the obesity issue, but it does lay out for us a few ideas when it comes to losing weight. Specifically, something along the lines of "fried carbs bad, naturally occurring foods good." I know that I lost a fair bit of weight by changing my diet to include better types of food (like nuts for snacks, whole grains and salsads replacing fries, and chicken replacing beef more often than not.) It just makes sense given what we know.

That's why I don't understand McParland and Dr. Sharma's full scale rejection of the idea that eating more fruits and vegetables and getting 15 minutes of exercising will lead to a decrease of obesity cases. I understand that there are some cases when this will not be able to be the only piece of a solution, but in many cases, it will help, if not solve the problem. One thing that will definitely not help is the defeatist attitude that McParland and Dr. Sharma seem to be willing to propigate. Encouragement helps people; dismissing a sensible claim immediately helps nobody.

It's all in how you present it

Robin Leach talked about Gordon Ramsay and his new Las Vegas restaurant and Hell's Kitchen when he wrote this:

Hell’s Kitchen is now the longest-running, non-celebrity contestant, reality TV challenge program, surpassing Donald Trump’s The Apprentice.

My first reaction was to try to come up with a snarky comment about Survivor not counting because it wasn't filmed in the US, and American Idol not counting because too many people watch it. But then I started to think to try to understand exactly what he was saying. So, I went to Wikipedia to see if they had a reference for that "non-celebrity contestant, reality TV challenge program" line It has this to say:

Hell's Kitchen has surpassed The Apprentice (hosted by Donald Trump) in number of non-celebrity-contestant seasons

So, I have no clue as to what a "non-celebrity contestant, reality TV challenge program" is. If I had to guess, it's a show where the winner is determined by some sort of judging and not by any sort of calculated measurement.

The true question now is where did Leach get this line? Did somebody read what Wikipedia said and then give it a bit of a flourish? did a PR flack give him that line to add into his column? Or was it a simple misinterpretation?

No matter what the reason is, that line is one hell of a thin slice to make in order to puff up somebody whose ego doesn't need any more inflating. But that is Robin Leach's style - gush about his subjects and write puff pieces. He doesn't need to question something so specific sounding. Why would somebody lie about something as specific as "non-celebrity contestant, reality TV challenge program." What would be the benefit of being the longest lasting of such a niche group?

I don't think there's a benefit to being the longest running anything of a limited subsection of television; it's clear that others believe that being number one in something has to be a positive.

Agendas and perspective

Two unrelated pieces of writing which struck a nerve...

Lorne Gunter has a lot of things to say about Jack Layton and Olivia Chow's trip to Disneyland and junkets in general. I agree with him in principle; politicians shouldn't be taking trips from lobbyists, especially if it can influence their position on legislation.

However, look at the top junket takers and the places they went. Jim Karygiannis took top spot with 16 overseas trips worth $71,950. Pretty damning. So, where did he go?

• Greece. Yup that's pretty nice. Definitely not good.


• France. Another vacation spot.


• Belgium. I can see wanting to go to Belgium and maybe enjoying a beer or three.


• The United States. Well, it's possible he had work there, but there sure are a good number of vacation spots.


• India. It is emerging as a power...


• China. We are trying to build better relations with China...


• Egypt. There are places to go where you can really enjoy luxury. But if you went in the last few months, it might not be so comfortable.


• Nigeria. Maybe he was collecting his money owed from a Nigerian prince?


• Bangladesh. Maybe he was going for some spiritual awakening?


• Cyprus? Haiti? If he was vacationing or going on a junket to these spots, I think he's doing it wrong.

Same goes for John Williams, who intersperced trips to Germany, England, Monaco, South Africa, the United States, Mexico and Qatar with trips to Albania, Serbia, Columbia, Kuwait and Indonesia.

Lorne really buries his lede here by showing us all of the trips and including trips that certainly look like they are related to an MP's job. But by not including those, it would look like he's actually trying to plump up the charges of junkets. It's great that he's decided to point out the worst offenders to taking trips from lobbyists. At the same time, it would be better to try to determine which trips were relevant, and which ones weren't.
***
On the other end of the spectrum, Robin Leach gives us a "report" of Danielle Staub's activities. (see bottom.)

Leach lets us know that Staub is gone from the Real Housewives franchise, and is no longer developing a show with them. Leach takes it a step further to tell us that Staub is making appearances at Score's in Manhattan, which is a topless club. There's a certain amount of glee that Leach seems to be taking with bringing us this and sure enough, Leach himsels tells us why he is so giddy. Staub in the past had said she was going to be the next Robin Leach.

Under most circumstances, this would be a tough situation of media letting their bias come through in their repoting. But with this being Robin Leach, it's more or less accepted that Leach's biases will be apparent in his reporting, and you go from there.

Both stories that I've mentioned here give us an idea as to how important perspective is for getting a better understanding as to what is driving the story and/or how big of a story it actually is. Without that, it would be very easy to over react.

Changing of Perspective

Sun News has done a fantastic job of building up a reputation. First they launch a news network which is criticized for trying to draw based on sex appeal. Then they have to back off of a story that they published and claim that they felt had been planted by a Conservative operative.

Now they've essentially accused NDP Leader Jack Layton of being found with a prostitute. And guess what? There's questions about how the story was obtained.

There are two things which stand out to me on this story:

1) Jack Layton's "yup, this story happened, but there was nothing improper about what happened" reaction was a classic "Tell the truth and hope the story goes away" reaction. This is probably the best way for Layton to handle it, but unfortunately there will be some that will question whether he is telling the truth.

2) I do not understand why the media was quick to run with this story. The Sun had already shown that it could be manipulated by a juicy story, so wouldn't a healthy dose of skepticism be worth it in this case?

Ultimately, what Chirs Selley says is going to be true: This story isn't going to matter.

Blog post - saved

I was going to go tackle this article by John Doyle in regards to the apparent flood of singing competition shows (which is to say, the three of them). But then I saw this article by Doyle and see that he's really just repeating an article that he wrote 6 months ago. If he's not going to bother to put in an effort, why should I?

TV talks about newspapers vs. blogs

A great piece by The Score on the Newspaper/Blogosphere battle:


Both sides have valid points. Cox's point that getting comment from Colin Campbell would have provided better balance is well taken, while Dellow and Sanchez's point that knowing Cox's name doesn't mean that we know his biases and personal relationships is just as valid.

It's something to think about, and I honestly think that both should be able to co-exist. Bloggers tend to take a different angle on stories - for example, Dellow looked at the emails differently than a Toronto Star reporter who initially was reporting on the lawsuit that the emails were evidence in. But the MSM can also help to flesh out the story, get the reaction from the principals thanks to their "access".

The World's Game

Let me throw in my condemnation of Peter King's tweet and article about the USA/Slovenia game. Specifically this:

Putting a ref from a small African country in charge of a vital WC game is like a Mid-American Conference ref doing the Super Bowl.

And this:

But in his first World Cup game, referee Koman Coulibaly, from the landlocked West African country of Mali, ran into the fray and blew off the goal.

Without queston King's misses the mark when he brings up referee Koman Coulibaly's home country. It has absolutely no relevance to his competency and destroys his larger point.

(What's especially odd is that he feels the need to point out that Mali is landlocked. Did I miss the memo that "landlocked" is a codeword for something classist or racist?)

King's point is at best clumsy: he claims later on that his point was that the ref was less qualified than some sitting at home, and is the result of FIFA trying to have referees from each continent. One thing that is missed by King is that _all_ international competitions attempt to get representation of all regions. This isn't professional sports, so using that as an example and/or a standard is misguided.

But more importantly, King puts far too much value on this battle, likely because it involves the USA. When he says that USA/Slovenia was a "vital WC game", I think he shows us his ignorance of the sport. A first round match in the World Cup is no more vital than any other. His analogy to the Super Bowl also belies his mistaken belief. The Super Bowl is the apex of an entire season of play; what football players dream to accomplish. While a futbol player would love to make the World Cup, their dream is to win it. A better analogy would be the regular season of the NFL: a referee error could cost the team from making it to the playoffs, but it might not. There is significance, but it alone will not end up deciding the winner of the World Cup.

I do wonder if this reaction would have occurred if it was to the benefit of the USA. Well, I don't, as it is obvious this isn't the case. King never mentions the elbow that Nathan Dempsey delivered in the early part of the game that went without booking. Many people feel as though Dempsey could have been red carded for the infraction, and yet, King does not mention this as proof of how Coulibaly was over his head and wasn't an appropriate choice of referee for the game. Why he wouldn't, when it only helps his point, is not obvious unless you accept that his narrative isn't that the referee was sub-standard, it's that the US got screwed because the referee was sub-standard.

Which ends up getting to the crux of the issue for King. He isn't upset because an injustice occurred in the World Cup, he's upset that an injustice occurred against the USA. Within that is that King (and Joe Posnanski) will not be able to tell the story that they wanted to tell ("The USA showed grit and never gave up!" - especially with the "No team has ever come back from a 2-0 lead after half time" meme, as though coming back from a 2-0 lead after 50 minutes was less of an accomplishment.) Instead, they have to give their readers another story; in this case they chose to focus on the referee story and how it affects the USA.

Further is the implication that this will prevent the sport from growing in the USA, as though this is a significant worry for FIFA. (Joe Posnanski is another advancing this train of thought.) Fact of the matter is that this is not a worry for FIFA. It is a big deal in the US, and will continue to be so unless the US becomes an also ran. As well, it will continue to be a significant event in the rest of the world. If anything, this brings the USA closer to rest of the world. Everybody, from England to Ireland to many other countries have had a missed or blown call affect thei World Cup in various way. The US is just the latest to be affected.

So congratulations to the USA for joining the rest of the futbol world. Next step, learn to accept missed calls.

An Epic Takedown

Cris Carter on the the signing of Brett Favre

Interesting POV

Watching Jeff Blair on Prime Time Sports and he just mentioned something I had never considered. He pointed out that he had been told in spring training that teams were putting a premium on their own prospects because they should know what they are getting, including whether they are on steroids or not. That puts a totally different spin on the desire to hold on to prospects.

Question of the Day

Why is worldseriesofpoker.com doing live updates if they are going to leave ou the update where something significant obviously happened?

You know what? Why don't you let the door hit you in the ass on your way out

From reading this article, you get the impression that there were a lot of champagne bottles opened when the Chicago Sun-Times accepted Jay Mariotti's resignation.

(Edit 08/29: Also not a fan of Mariotti? Roger Ebert. "If you only work on television,
viewers may get a little weary of you shouting at them.")

Next up: the Hardie/Douglas Peace Treaty

I've been hard on him in the past, but this is an excellent post by Mark Steyn on some of the improvements that could be made to the US Justice System.

Somebody understands!

I have a couple of thoughts about the Conrad Black trial coverage, but Robert Silver over at Macleans.ca covers at least half of them a lot better than I can.

The other big thought? When it comes to trial conducted under US laws, it is best not to listen to Canadian pundits when it comes to the likely outcome (especially if they have some sort of personal relationship with one of the main defendants; this probably disqualifies 99% of all Canadian media.)