by Jared Bland

As I write these words, it’s 5 PM and I’m sitting in my office at The Walrus magazine in downtown Toronto. It’s relatively comfortable here, in material terms—there’s a couch, some big windows, and lots of books. I’m contemplating having a whisky.

And it’s actually quite easy to write these words. I’m not harassed by anyone as I do so. No one is telling me what I can or cannot say. I have no real reason to fear that anything I could write at this moment and in this place could lead to censure or punishment. I could offer an opinion on our government, should I want to, and not really have to worry about repercussions. I could say almost anything about anyone, as long as it is true, or I reasonably believe it to be so.

It’s quite easy to forget how luxurious a situation this is. I don’t mean the couch or the whisky—though they’re nice—but rather the essential freedom I’m exercising. I’m sitting in a free country with the ability to write freely. This is a climate that we, as Canadians, are blessed with every day. But all over the world, writers, journalists, and other artists of the written word are nowhere near as fortunate.

This is why PEN Canada exists—to work on behalf of writers, at home and abroad, who have been forced into silence for writing the truth as they see it. PEN lobbies governments in Canada and internationally for the release of persecuted writers, and conducts public awareness campaigns about freedom of expression. Simply put, PEN assists writers around the world who are persecuted for the peaceful expression of their ideas.

To aid in this mission, McClelland & Stewart will this week publish a fundraising anthology called Finding the Words: Writers on Inspiration, Desire, War, Celebrity, Exile, and Breaking the Rules. The book features new work by thirty-one wonderful writers from Canada and abroad, each interpreting the very broad theme of language and creativity in their own unique ways.

When deciding on a subject for the book, language seemed an obvious and appropriate choice. I was drawn to the idea because of the essential mystery of the way words function in our lives: they are at once capable of altering the course of the world we inhabit and changing the amount of sugar in our coffee. Language exists for us as something sublime—and, for some, even divine—as well as something incredibly banal. Is there anything else that is so defining yet disposable, so immortal yet instantly forgettable?

And this is more complicated still for writers, who are, after all, the artists whose raw material is most omnipresent in their lives. (A pianist plays notes to make art, but must use the words “window seat” or “gluten-free alternative” to make an airline reservation; a painter, it is true, could write a letter in acrylic, but he cannot speak to his child in watercolours.)

That unique fact makes language an incredibly rich subject for an anthology, and to capture it as broadly as possible we invited novelists, journalists, songwriters, memoirists, philosophers, and essayists to write about the idea of finding the words.

And as material began to arrive from writers across the country and from around the world, we were gratified to find this evocative theme had led our contributors to produce multifaceted meditations that reflected the varied and unique experiences, obsessions, and inspirations of each writer.

Many of the pieces are wonderfully intimate; they open the doors to their authors’ creative lives and invite the reader in to learn how a certain character was shaped, how a given book was composed. Some essays deal with the intersection of language and the writers’ own lives – revealing the quiet desperation that comes from the silence of a small prairie town, or the incredible wealth of stories that exists behind prison doors.

Some grant the reader access to a previously unknown corner of the world through the remarkable lens of a South African intellectual or a Malaysian expat in Beijing or a streetwise wannabe gangster in mid-century Montreal. But as diverse as they are, each of these pieces reflects in a particular way on the role words play in all our lives – on what it means to be a citizen of a world both united and divided by the lines language draws.

And, since PEN is a national organization, it pleases me to say that some of the pieces are unabashedly, wonderfully Vancouverian. I’m thinking particularly of Lee Henderson’s challenging and brilliant essay on his indoctrination into the school of Corporate English while working for an unnamed educational institution on what he calls Tuition Row. Or David Chariandy’s breathtaking meditation on history and loss, which culminates in an incredibly poignant reflection on the meaning of the Olympics in a land of constantly shifting identity. These pieces speak to a certain place, to be sure, but they also capture truths more universal than any municipal or provincial boundaries.

Ultimately, these pieces, and so many others, come together to remind us of another universal truth: that freedom of expression is an essential right, one we must all work to defend.  

- Finding the Words, edited by Jared Bland (McClelland & Stewart), is in stores today.

Contrary to the perceptions of many television viewers, Matt Groening’s The Simpsons—a PG/14+/PGv/TVG/TVPGD rated (depending on the episode content and national origin of transmission) animation about a hilariously idiotic father (Homer Simpson), a ridiculously big-blue-haired mother (Marge), a contemptuous and very mischievous son (Bart), a very intelligent and humanitarian daughter (Lisa), and a soother-addicted infant girl (Maggie)—is one of the most moral and enlightening animated programs on modern TV, especially when considering the typically-socially-liberal audience for whom the show is generally produced.

In this satirical cartoon, intended for consumers with an adequately-mature mind (which admittedly can be subjective terminology and point-of-reference), The Simpsons mocks the imbecilic, hypocritical, callous and even mean-spirited attitudes of much of American society, including those of elements within entrenched, established religions and public institutions (e.g. political office and the justice system).

Yes, without doubt, the show can get overly bizarre and/or quite crude in its humour: A very-good example is the episode in which the Simpson family go to Japan, and Homer relieves his bowels into a hotel-washroom toilet bowl with a built-in camera at the very bottom; and meanwhile, his family incidentally (though very briefly) catch the grotesque action on a video screen in another room. Another worthy example is the annual Simpsons Halloween Specials, in which the viewer can see, among many other things, the attack of a mysterious gas that turns people inside out, with the odd globs of blood splattering, for effect.

Nevertheless, it can justifiably be said that such a sacrifice—i.e. having to watch a very-few potentially crude and somewhat disturbing Simpsons scenes—is worth it, since the show in return mostly procures heart-lightening laughter.

Of course, with the prevalence of moral relativism in contemporary society, how does a person define “morality”? The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) defines “morality” (noun) as, “[the] principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour …” However, adding to the above, to also utilize my own point of reference for this essay’s thesis, let “morality” be defined as thus: To not practice greed, selfishness or the exploitation of others; to hold respect for all life and the planet on which that life exists; to feel and show consideration and compassion toward all life; to do one’s very best to not feel ill will nor practice ill deeds toward others; to practice what’s obviously in all children’s best interests; to treat all beings equally and fairly, and—most importantly—to avoid (to the very best of one’s ability) causing pointless, gratuitous suffering.

Those who consume The Simpsons episodes as frequently and enthusiastically as I, will likely, if they are objectively truthful, attest to the fact that the show parodies virtually all aspects of society. For the very most part, the show does not shield any proverbial sacred cow; rather, it exposes, ridicules and publicly re-examines basically all aspects, good and bad, of society.

Of course, the acts of societal idiocies and hypocrisies which The Simpsons mocks are too plentiful to include in this essay in their entirety; and the ones that will be included in this essay will be categorized: 

HOMOSEXUALITY

Although The Simpsons does not promote the homosexual lifestyle, it nonetheless has a favourably tolerant attitude towards homosexual persons and their lifestyle; it also humourously mocks the unjustified homophobia displayed by some of the heterosexual characters.

Also, Simpsons consumers should note the homosexual character, Waylon Smithers, a rather noble man who devoutly admires his boss, multi-billionaire nuclear-power-plant owner Montgomery Burns, almost to the point of worship; indeed, Smithers is quite faithful to his boss, for whom he both lusts and holds love. Sure, Smithers can occasionally be a malicious character, but is so basically only when his relationship with Burns, in some manner or another, is being threatened.

A Simpsons viewer might recall the episode in which Smithers is portrayed as one with a tortured conscience when his boss orders him to have employee Homer Simpson severely beaten by hired goons (a consequence of a nasty letter to Burns by Homer); and even with Smithers’ intense devotion to Burns and his wishes, Smithers is nonetheless compelled to do the moral/humane thing by not having Burns’ order carried out. (Albeit, Smithers also had in mind the fact that Homer’s son, Bart, donated life-saving blood to Burns.)

Smithers also (reluctantly and gently) rebukes Burns in another episode in which Burns, going mad and absolutely corrupt with absolute power, steals an oil well that was supposed to have greatly benefited the Springfield school, under which the oil pocket was situated. And Smithers challenges the (im)morality of Burns’ deeds when the latter plots, through the use of a giant shield, to literally block out the sunlight from the dwellers of Springfield, so that the residents would be forced to purchase and consume even more of his power-plant electricity to light-up the darkened town. (Also in that episode, Smithers sadly reveals the fact that Burns “is the closest thing I’ve ever had to a friend”.)

Admittedly, however, the show does simultaneously make Smithers’ subtly-expressed homosexuality humourous to the average heterosexual viewer through Smithers’ unorthodox focus of his adoration and lust: an evil, very ugly (physically and non-physically), withered, cruel, very rich yet very miserly, liver-spotted and scrawny 104-year-old man.

But on the other hand, in another episode, though allowing stereotypically-gay characters—i.e., blatantly flamboyant and feminine—to be the butt of the show’s humour, The Simpsons mostly mocks the hilariously (albeit insensitively) homophobic attitudes of Homer (“Bart’s going to grow up straight, for once!” in reference to Homer taking his son Bart on a deer-hunting trip) and his closest pals, Barney Gumble (the town drunk) and Moe Szyslak (the bar-owner and -tender). Furthermore, that episode’s main guest and openly-gay character is portrayed as a very fun, intelligent, tolerant and quite-forgiving man, who also eventually becomes the hero by saving the three homophobic men and Bart from a small herd of violent reindeer.

And at least as favourable to the “homosexual person” was the episode in which Homer, through the use of a new-breakthrough product on the market, grows a full head of hair, literally overnight. Thus, when Homer gets noticed and promoted by Burns (because of his new hair, of course), Homer must hire an assistant, Karl; and Karl turns out to be an absolutely great human being, who also is obviously (at least to me) a gay man. Indeed, the actor who does Karl’s extremely hoarse voice is an openly gay man).

FIREARM-OWNERS RIGHTS MENTALITY IN AMERICA

Not surprisingly, The Simpsons also mocks Americans’ rampant gun-ownership mentality and its obvious resulting dangers.

One noteworthy episode had Homer almost-effortlessly acquire a handgun to “defend my family” and championing completely unhindered gun-ownership rights; and being the utter fool that he is, Homer very-dangerously handles his firearm to the point of absurdity (e.g. opening his can of beer with his handgun). And while staunchly supporting unconditional gun ownership supposedly to defend national sovereignty, Homer asks his daughter Lisa, “How would you like it if the King of England came over and started pushing you around?” Also, when Bart asks him if the former can hold the handgun, Homer tells him, “Only if you clean your room”.

IMMIGRATION & FOREIGNERS

Judging from the show’s parodies on this issue, the story/script writers of The Simpsons likely sympathize with the plight of immigrants at the hands of intolerant, bigoted and often-ignorant American-born citizens.  (Bart proves that he’s of the latter with his ironically-ignorant reaction to sister Lisa’s rational assertion that one should not judge another nation especially when one has not even been to that nation: “Yeah, they do that [prejudge] in Russia,” he says, oblivious the fact that he’s never been to anywhere near Russia.)

One episode on this issue began with the Springfield community demanding basically unlimited protection from stray bears—including a stealth bomber as a part of the new “Bear Patrol”—but end up focusing their outrage over a small tax increase because of the expensive “Bear Patrol” at the mayor, Diamond Joe Quimby. (Homer idiotically calls the tax “the biggest tax increase in [U.S.] history”; however, Lisa immediately rebuts him: “actually, Dad, it’s the smallest tax increase in [U.S.] history”. Regardless, Homer rebuts his daughter with his irate, brainless suggestion: “Let the bears pay the Bear Patrol tax; I pay the Homer Tax”; and Lisa again corrects her foolish father: “You mean the Homeowners’ Tax”.)

At another point in the episode, Homer says to Lisa, “There’s not a single bear in sight—the ‘Bear Patrol’ is working like a charm”.

“That’s specious reasoning,” Lisa retorts.

“Thanks, honey,” Homer says to her, adoringly.

“According to your logic,” she says, picking up a stone from their lawn, “this rock keeps tigers away”.

“Hmmm. How does it work?”

“It doesn’t.”

“How so?” Homer asks further.

“It’s just a rock,” she says. “But I don’t see a tiger, anywhere.”

“Lisa,” concludes Homer, while pulling out his wallet, “I want to buy your rock.”

As for the town’s mayor, he soon, in a cowardly and typically-political fashion, blames “illegal immigrants” for the miniscule $5 “Bear Patrol tax”. “Tackling this issue calls for real leadership,” Quimby boasts to his assistant, just before the scene changes to one in which the mayor is making an announcement to the townspeople: “Your taxes are high because of illegal immigrants,” he erroneously accuses, to the agreeing grumble of the gathered mob. “That’s right—illegal immigrants.” He goes on to say that the town needs to get rid of them through Proposition 24 (which eventually passes with ninety-five percent of the popular vote). Of course, the town gets all riled up—with the obvious exception of the foreigners, the much-more-enlightened Lisa and her compassionate mother, Marge. One town bully child, Nelson Muntz, tells a foreign exchange student, “Hey, German boy; go back to Germania”. The episode is, rightly so, rife with ironic examples of blatant hypocrisy, such as that by Moe; although he’s one of the most vocal supporters of Proposition 24, he, while donning a fake moustache, ends up being one of those taking the last-minute citizenship test. Also, in one scene, while charging that the illegal immigrants should at least learn proper English if they wish to stay in the U.S., Moe is shown painting onto a large wooden sign the revealing proclamation, “United States for United Statesians”. But after Homer sees the proverbial (humane) light, he makes a hilarious attempt at some last-minute coaching of illegal-immigrant and convenience-store clerk Apu Nahasapeemapetilon in anticipation of the latter’s taking of the U.S. citizenship test. Ironically, though, it turns out that Apu knows far more about the U.S. and its history than do the American-born Homer and other proud, born-in-the-U.S., anti-immigration thinkers. Homer, while trying to teach Apu about the U.S. presidential election system, ignorantly and foolishly makes a reference to the American “electrical college”.

TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

I, a meat eater, found that the only issue on which The Simpsons apparently takes an ideologically partisan, albeit also informative, position is that of meat-consuming society, even at the risk of offending/losing a large portion of the show’s meat-eating fans.

In that most profound episode on this very worthy issue, he parodies (i.e. mocks and intellectually exposes) the barbarity of the inhumane, claustrophobia-inducing, production-line conditions that carnivorous society utilizes for producing the meat we so crave.

In one scene, Lisa Simpson, who is just acquiring a vegetarian philosophy and has expressed her moral concerns to her school’s principal, Seymour Skinner. In turn, he decides (for the sake of having “open dialogue”, he claims) to have Lisa and her class watch a pro-meat-consumption, meat-industry propaganda film titled Meat and You: Partners In Freedom. In that film, the contents of which are wallowed-up by Lisa’s classmates in conformity to the meat industry, “actor Troy McClure” tells “Jimmy”, a coached little boy, how important and not immoral meat-eating and the meat industry are. Jimmy—who tries to regain his composure following his quick tour through a slaughterhouse, in which he witnesses the assembly-line slaughter of cattle—asks/tells McClure, “I have a crazy friend who says it’s wrong to eat meat. Is he crazy?”; to this, McClure matter-of-factly replies in his typically-buoyant voice, “No, just ignorant!”

Later on in the episode, when Homer throws an everybody’s-invited all-meat-barbeque, Lisa gets mocked by all of the guests when she offers them a large bowl of iced tomato soup and tells them that thus nobody there needs to eat the meat. “Go back to Russia!” is Barney Gumble’s opinion of Lisa’s vegetarian suggestion.

Not surprisingly, towards the episode’s conclusion, Lisa, observing the plethora of pro-meat-eating advertisements all around her and ready to give in (though she doesn’t), frustratingly exclaims, “Uuuugh! The whole world wants me to eat meat! I can’t fight it anymore!” She goes into the Kwik-E-Mart, purchases what she believes to be a regular hot dog and bites into it: “There! Is everyone happy?!” Then, Kwik-E-Mart clerk Apu (a vegetarian Hindu), having asked her what she thinks of the new Veggie Dog prepared-products, takes her upstairs onto the store’s roof, where he keeps a garden along with Simpsons guest-stars Paul and Linda McCartney (known vegetarians and animal-rights activists). Lisa rhetorically asks them, “When will all those fools learn that [meat-eating is not necessary]?”

In another episode about a travelling carnival and two of its employees, Homer and Bart were at the last second spared from having to bite off the heads of live chickens to practice for the carnival’s freak show. Homer stuffs the two chickens back into a small cage already inhumanely packed full with other chickens; as he does so, he quite-ironically reassures the two chickens how fortunate they are to still have their heads attached: “You must be the luckiest chickens in the whole world!”

The Simpsons again brilliantly exposes meat-eating society’s hypocrisy in one particularly hilarious episode in which Homer acquires a love and adoration for a lobster he bought in its infancy to raise/grow for the sole purpose of eventually harvesting for his consumption. However, Homer unexpectedly becomes quite attached to the baby-eyed lobster and instead decides to keep it as a family pet; though he later accidentally cooks his good crustacean friend when he attempts to pleasure his pet by treating it to a nice, relaxing hot bath. Homer, while in bitter mourning, nonetheless eats the meat from his beloved pet; in fact, as he weeps, Homer simultaneously savours eating the delicious lobster meat, in between mournful sobs, with every mouthful of his cherished pet. Homer’s ludicrous behaviour is indicative of society’s (general) claim to love some animals while allowing other animals to suffer so we can enjoy eating a delicious slab of meat for but gratuitous purposes.

In another episode, the Simpsons go to a new restaurant at which one can choose a live cow to have slaughtered right before you. In response to Lisa’s revulsion at the very thought of such, her mother says to her: “Maybe the animal likes to be the center of attention”.

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM & ITS CORRUPTION

According to The Simpsons’ parodies, the justice system (at least in the U.S.) is, at best, incompetent and sometimes even corrupt.

In one episode, multi-billionaire Burns gets caught and arrested, tried for and convicted of repeatedly depositing barrels of his power plant’s toxic waste in city-park tree trunks. Having been ordered by the judge to pay a large fine to the town as punishment, Burns, who’s bodily restrained, tells Smithers to reach into the former’s pocket to give the judge the fine money, while adding, “Oh, and I’ll take that statue of Justice, too”. The judge, in return, slams his gavel down hard and exclaims, “Sold!”

When Burns, in another episode, romantically pursues Marge but then fires her when she refuses his advances, she hires the inept (and thus quite cheap to hire) lawyer Lionel Hutz. Marge, Hutz and Homer meet with Burns and his plethora of high-priced lawyers, and at the sight of Burns’ expensive, multitudinous Dream-Team, Hutz runs off screaming in panic. A downcast Marge then suggests that the two of them go home—“Well, I guess that’s it; people like us can’t afford justice … We might as well go home”.

CULTURE OF VIOLENCE

Apparently, the biggest jab that The Simpsons takes at contemporary society is directed at the infestation of violence in American (and Canadian) entertainment.

The most prominent indicator of violence in The Simpsons is when Homer, furious at Bart, throttles the boy’s neck, basically for some mischievous act on the boy’s part. Although this behaviour on Homer’s part is not tolerated in our society, it’s still paraded as humor within the show. However, though not explicit, Homer’s violent behavior is designed to act as a negative characteristic on his part, mostly by the hysterically-emotional expression on his face as he assaults the boy.       

Having pointed the above-mentioned out, in one quite-memorable episode, Marge takes up the cause of eliminating—or at least reducing—gratuitous cartoon violence after her infant Maggie hits Homer on his head with a hammer, after having just watched a typically-violent scene from the show’s children’s cartoon, Itchy & Scratchy; one of the cartoon’s two characters (Itchy, the mouse) hits the other character (Scratchy, the cat) on his head with a large mallet. (It should be noted that the Itchy & Scratchy cartoons solely consist of that mouse viciously dismembering, beating, burning, blowing-up, etc., the cat.). Towards the end of that Simpsons episode, Marge is asked to take up the cause of banning the genital-revealing sculpture of Michelangelo’s David; however, when she, for artistic reasons, respectfully declines, adults who had defended/tolerated the gratuitous cartoon violence of Itchy & Scratchy were quick to demand the censorship of the frontally nude David sculpture. This scenario is indeed quite typical of American mainstream TV-entertainment, in which you can see a man cave in another’s chest, but you cannot view a woman’s bare breast.

Nonetheless, in The Simpsons world, all children (with the notable exception of the unusually-pacifistic Flanders boys) absolutely love The Itchy & Scratchy Show. Bart and Lisa are frequently shown breaking out in fervent laughter when watching the hideously-violent cartoon, which any objective viewer will accurately perceive as being about as humourous as a headache, i.e. not the least bit funny—a fact which is very likely the show’s creators’ full intention: for much is said about society’s children, and society’s morals, when such a gratuitously-violent cartoon amuses the youth and keeps them intent on their continuous consumption of the cartoon. For example, in another very memorable episode where Bart and Lisa have just watched the cartoon and have cracked-up laughing, Bart immediately asks of Lisa, in a quite serious and sincere tone of voice, “If I ever stop loving violence, I want you to shoot me”; and to his request, Lisa, who’s uncharacteristically fond of the intensely-violent cartoon, assuredly agrees.

Also quite memorable was the episode in which Bart and Lisa battle each other on opposing Pee Wee ice-hockey teams and become violent with each other—both on and off the ice—for no other reason than a “little, healthy competition”. During the games, the audience members are also filled with anger and rage because of this competition, and mindless violence breaks out amongst them.

Although The Simpsons viewers are very unlikely, if there’s any chance at all, to see violence endured by any of the female characters, the opposite goes for the male characters, especially violence against the latter’s most sensitive and vulnerable part of their bodies—the genitals.

Note one such groin-bashing-humour episode, where Homer builds a small tennis court in his yard. He playfully and (unfortunately for him) successfully pulls open the

front of his shorts to catch a pop-fly-like return of the tennis ball—“It’s in the bag,” he says, cockily—though not without literally keeling over sideways onto the tarmac in excruciating pain.  

WEALTH & POVERTY

Watching The Simpsons forces the show’s consumers’ to (a large extent) acknowledge our society’s wealth gaps, poverty and food wasting; although in one episode, included was a reference (through the mouth of the most passive, friendly and perhaps quirkiest Christian in town, Ned Flanders) to some welfare recipients as being those who “just don’t feel like working—God bless ’em”.

In the episode where Bart ruins the family Thanksgiving Day turkey dinner, Smithers prepares for his master, Burns, a many-course dinner that would feed a multitude. Burns takes a tiny bite of turkey and says, “Mmmm—delicious! Smithers, every year you outstrip yourself in succulence …”; and to this, Smithers replies, “Would you like some candied yams, sir?” Astonishingly, Burns casually tells his minion, “No—I couldn’t eat another bite”; and gesturing to the plethora of untouched prepared foods on the long table, Burns instructs, “Now dispose of all this, Smithers”. But Burns then adds, “However, I do have just enough room left for some of your delicious homemade pumpkin pie”. (All the while, Bart, who has run off away from his angered family, is so hungry that he plots how he can make off with Smithers’ pie, which is cooling off on a mansion windowsill.)

In another episode, The Simpsons takes a much-deserved jab at capitalist society and its allowance of the wealthiest of citizens to pay the least—if any at all—income tax, through their utilization of tax-law loopholes. In that episode, while all of the working stiffs in Springfield are hurriedly filing their tax forms on tax deadline day, Homer, having gotten the previous tax year confused with the current one, foolishly believes that he already has done his duty. But when Marge and Lisa enlighten him on the matter, Homer does his tax-form preparations and filing at the very last minute; and as a result of his ludicrous sloppiness, he ends up getting audited by the IRS. Meanwhile, multi-billionaire Burns asks Smithers if they (i.e., Burns, through Smithers) had filed his tax forms and how much he’d have to pay; and Smithers replies that, “Actually, sir, with our creative accounting we’re only paying $3 a year”. Burns then curses the tax-grabbing IRS for soaking him and irately expresses his displeasure to Smithers, “You’re right—we’re getting screwed!”

As well, through another episode, the show takes a (perhaps also deserved) jab at chronic-billionaire Microsoft-chairman Bill Gates. When Homer decides to start up his own website-service business, Bill Gates, with the aid of two goons, “buys out” Homer’s new enterprise; but rather than pay Homer, Gates has his goons tear apart Homer’s meagre desk and equipment. At Homer’s astonishment, Gates maliciously giggles: “You don’t think that I get rich by writing cheques, do you?”

However, The Simpsons does not fail to implicate perhaps life’s most bitter of ironies and greatest injustices: i.e., very/too often those who need greater wealth the very least—those who are the richest—are the most likely candidates to receive the loot.

Such as with the episode in which Kent Brockman, the very-well-paid Emmy-winning newsman for Channel 6, reads out on air the big-jackpot-a whopping $130,000,000-lottery’s winning numbers and realizes that indeed he is the winner.

(Making multi-billionaire Burns the winner would have been pushing it a little too far.)

But the Burns character was utilized as such an example in the episode in which Marge becomes a Springfield police officer.  Kwik-E-Mart clerk Apu, believing Marge to be just another typically-corrupt Springfield police officer, places down a thick wad of bribe money down onto the checkout counter for Marge to take.  However, both turn and face in opposite directions, each expecting the other to remove the money (a fair amount a cash, from appearances), though both refuse to budge.  But sure enough, Burns happens to be walking by (though neither notices him), sees the vulnerable wad of money and exploits the situation by taking the cash, unseen.  A couple of seconds later, Apu and Marge finally turn around to see the money gone, each convinced that the other had taken the bribe money: “That’s better,” the two say, simultaneously.

POLITICS & THE ENVIRONMENT

In The Simpsons, politicians and ecological degraders, along with the gratuitously and greedy rich, receive the brunt of the show’s often-stinging parody.

During one episode, Bart, one of two class-student presidential candidates (who was nominated by the purple-haired twins, Sherri and Terri), tells his classmates, “I had a speech ready, but my dog ate it”; to this witticism, he, of course, receives an approvingly amused classmate audience.

Furthermore, when his concerned political opponent, Martin Prince, competently points out to his peers that an asbestos sample taken from their very own classroom infrastructure revealed a health-hazardous 1.74 parts per million of cancer-causing asbestos, Bart declares that his opponent’s promise to remove the hazardous element is wrong: “That [the amount of asbestos in the school’s structure] is not enough!  We demand more asbestos! MORE ASBESTOS! MORE ASBESTOS! MORE ASBESTOS! ...”

To top off his ludicrous demagoguery, Bart politically slams his opponent: “He [Martin] says, there’s no any easy answers; I say: he’s not looking hard enough!!”

Of course, in response to all of Bart’s demagoguery, his fellow students wildly cheer him on; though justice wins out at the end; for, while his classmates are foolishly careless enough to vote for Bart, they are also foolishly careless enough to forget or simply not bother to cast a ballot for their favorite demagogue candidate, Bart.  Thus, Bart loses the election.

As for “democratic” politics, The Simpsons drips with cynicism on the subject.

In one episode, in which Sideshow Bob (“Robert Underdunk Terwilliger”) fraudulently gets himself elected (briefly) as mayor of Springfield, sitting mayor Quimby expresses his main concern while in political office—doing what the mob-like masses of the town want of him so that he can get perpetually re-elected: “If that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say that I don’t also blow.”

In the particularly hilarious episode about Homer’s campaign for and election to the office of sanitation commissioner—an unforgettable episode in which the show mocks the near-insanity with which too-much of society treats its solid waste—Homer’s utterly-lazy (non)response to bartender Moe’s suggestion that Homer come up with a catchy election-campaign slogan is to whine, “Awwwwe! Can’t somebody else do it?!”. But ironically his whine, thanks to Moe’s exploitive thinking, turns into Homer’s winning motto, “Let somebody else do it!”. (Relevant to this episode and its message is that of another in which Homer matter-of-factly explains to daughter Lisa about politicians’ purpose: “The whole reason we have elected officials is so we don’t have to think all the time.”) In order to fulfill his crazy election promise of having the homeowners’ job of getting their own refuse to the curb done for them, Homer, desperately requiring the funds with which to pay the wages of the extra garbage collectors, agrees to accept with open arms the syringe (etc.) infested refuse of neighbouring towns. Homer—typically unable to foresee past the end of his stubby nose—then packs so much garbage into the ground that he simply leaves no more space in which to hold further waste; thus the trash begins to literally pop up through the ground elsewhere—and in quite poetic manners, too: it pops up through the green at the luxurious local gold course right where the rich and famous are playing their sport; and up through the podium at the town hall, right into the face of the adulterous, corrupt mayor Quimby. When the town has had enough of this repulsive mess, Homer simply and literally ups the town of Springfield onto large moving trucks and has it moved to ground not yet befouled by man.

In another episode, an oil freighter becomes grounded and a crude-oil spill occurs at Baby Seal Beach. When Lisa, who’s watching the news in the company of her family, learns of this disaster, she laments, “Oh, no!” And Homer, being the incredibly idiotic buffoon he is, gently reassures her: “Don’t worry, sweetie; there’s lots more oil where that came from.”

And Homer’s ridiculous reassurance to Lisa sounds just like something Burns would say. Indeed, environmental/ecological concerns are way beyond his narrow scope; for example, when Lisa asks Burns if his power plant has a recycling policy, a quite bewildered Burns looks wide-eyed down into Lisa’s face and barely pronounces, “ree-cyy-cliing??” He then scans his mental dictionary, in which such a revolutionary, radical concept as “recycling” is nowhere to be found.

However, the absence of a power-plant recycling policy pales in comparison to Burns—in the episode in which he unsuccessfully runs for governor of state (where ever that may be)—permitting, amongst some other atrociously-dangerous power-plant practices, one of his nuclear-reactor’s cracked exterior casing to be sealed with a piece of chewed bubblegum: “I’m just as shocked as you are!” Burns attempts to convince the unconvinced safety inspector.

THE MEDIA

Not surprisingly, The Simpsons throws much-deserved jabs at the media, both news and entertainment.

Although the rest of the episode was unrelated to media conduct, the very beginning of one episode had Marge opening up the day’s mail at the breakfast table, which is surrounded by the Simpsons family. “It’s from The New Yorker magazine subscription department,” says Marge, disappointedly, reading the contents of one letter. “They’ve rejected our subscription application, again.” Obviously, no publication would turn down a subscription request; however, anyone familiar with the aristocrat-like, ivory-tower publishing policy of The New Yorker would understand the above-mentioned dig at that publication.

As for parodying the news-media’s influence (usually negative, in this animation) on the often-gullible masses, The Simpsons makes its mockery through its cocky and confident character Kent Brockman, the local news anchor and host of Springfield Action News, Eye on Sprinfield, Smartline and My Two Cents. In the episode about a staunchly-

feminist-minded babysitter’s (mistaken, though sincere) accusation that Homer sexually harassed her, Brockman notes that a local public-opinion poll found that 98 percent of the public believes that Homer is guilty of the accusation made against him; though (unfortunately, according to Brockman’s tone of voice) the poll is not legally binding—though it will be binding if a referendum on a relevant Proposition is passed by the people, he adds.

The entertainment media receive a figurative slap in the face via The Simpsons, particularly in one area all too prevalent in and typical of Hollywood clichés—an area that apparently will never become too tiresome, and especially never too immoral, for entertainment-media consumers: i.e. swift whacks to the male genitalia, where the unfortunate recipient keels over in excruciating pain:

Such is one episode in which Springfield holds a film festival, and Homer acts as one of the judges. One film, titled Man Getting Hit by Football in the Groin, is produced and submitted by Hans Moleman—a shrivelled, short, myopic, elderly Springfield resident, who’s also a hapless driver that wears glasses with lenses two-inches thick. His film consists of naught but him stepping out of his house only to have a thrown football land in his groin. He, of course, drops his walking cane, clasps both hands over his crotch and falls over sideways onto the ground, trembling with what us males know to be unimaginable suffering. Homer, unlike the rest of the judges and audience, breaks out in roaring laughter, barely containing himself in his seat: “This contest is over!” Homer laughs. “Give that man the $10,000!” (A prize that doesn’t even exist.) Marge, sitting next to him, embarrassingly and angrily informs him, “Homer, this isn’t America’s Funniest Home Videos. Later, after Marge has scolded him for his stupidity and lack of professionalism, Homer, who holds the tie-breaking vote, weighs the pros and cons on which way to vote: “… but Football In The Groin has a football in the groin”. And near the end of the episode, Man Getting Hit by Football In The Groin is entered and played for another audience at another film festival (though not in Springfield); but in this version, Hans Moleman is replaced with an animation version of actor George C. Scott, who keels over sideways onto the ground and painfully groans after getting hit by the football—“Ughhhh! … my groin!”

CHARITY

It is in that same episode about the crude-oil spill that The Simpsons duly exposes the propensity of the people, as a whole, to be choosy about which charitable/social cause they will support, usually depending on how fashionable that cause happens to be.

When Lisa, rather desperately, coerces her mother (Marge) into making the extensive trip (by car) to Baby Seal Beach to help clean oil off of all the cute animals, they are immediately told upon their arrival, and much to Lisa’s disappointment, that all of the oil-covered animals have already been allocated to Hollywood superstars for public-relations purposes. This parody is quite warranted, for there are, for example, many food banks in reality at which a potential volunteer will find an actual waiting list for volunteer-work positions.

POETIC JUSTCICE

Through The Simpsons, the viewers quite-often are treated to a strong sense of poetic justice.

Especially so is with the episode in which Burns is non-physically forced to chew on a chunk of a genetically mutated fish—caught by Bart and nicknamed “Blinky”, due to its third eye—when he runs for the office of governor. (The Burns-candidate-supporting Homer, as idiotic as he is, dismissingly accuses his wife, “I bet before the papers blew this whole thing out of proportion, you didn’t even know how many eyes a fish has”.) The media cameras focus on him as he attempts to score political points by eating dinner with the “average” power-plant employee and his family, who coincidently happen to be the Simpsons. But Marge, who’s campaigning for Burns’ environment-friendly political opponent and had been begged by Homer into preparing the dinner for Burns, prepares “Blinky”, which had resided in the creek severely polluted by toxic refuse from Burns’ own power plant. Marge serves Burns the first piece of “Blinky” (with the skin still attached) and then waits for him to take a bite; and when Burns can no longer hold the foul piece of grotesque mutated fish in his mouth, he spits it out right across the entire table and onto the floor, all of which is fully captured by all of the story-hungry photojournalists in attendance. (One reporter phones-in the thesis of his planned story: “`Burns can’t swallow own story`.”) Burns, with Smithers’ assistance, then begins angrily overturning and breaking the Simpsons’ living-room furnishings, presumably as his retaliation for Marge’s/Lisa’s trickery and destruction of his would-be political career; and Burns almost-immediately having exhausted himself, he and Smithers leave the residence, the former telling the latter, quite incredulously, “It’s ironic, isn’t it, Smithers ... [the Simpsons] cost me the election; yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one who’d go to jail. That’s democracy for you!”

ETHICS, MORALITY & RELIGION

It’s through the multi-billionaire, nuclear-power-plant owner Montgomery Burns that The Simpsons exposes the evil behaviour that virtually absolute power and seemingly unlimited wealth can procure from the corruptible human mind and will. However, the show does not let the common folk off easy with its parodies of human misconduct.

In an episode in which Lisa uncharacteristically cheats on a school test, every external element around her is intensely pressuring her to not admit to her cheating, mostly in order to keep her school’s grade-average high enough to acquire greater government funding. Indeed, she must eventually rub directly against the proverbial grain by forcing her school’s officials to hear her professions of guilt. Admittedly, though, the fact that there are some truly virtuous characters—however few—in society is indicated through The Simpsons’ utilization of Lisa and (in that same episode) her adamant insistence on confessing, with only justice and her cleared conscious to be gained.

In another episode, the show’s creators appear to have pushed the proverbial social envelope too far to the liberal end of the ideological spectrum when they produced an episode that was apologetic of bawdy/whore houses. When one such house was discovered in Springfield, the sole focus of the show was to expose the hypocrisy of the puritanical members of socially conservative society, to the point of appearing quite apologetic to the aforementioned, sordid profession.

Also, there are many who’d feel offended by the episode about the origins, and the citizen partisanship within each, of the towns of Springfield and neighbouring Shelbyville, through which the show alludes to one particular religious sect and its propensity towards polygamous unions (a.k.a. plural marriages) within their religious tribe: The towns were established many years before when Jebediah (Obadiah Zachariah Jedediah) Springfield and his supporters parted ways with his counterpart, Shelbyville Manhattan, and his followers because the latter wanted to commence their new community (having just arrived in the wild, untamed land) by allowing the men to “marry our cousins”. Asked by Jebediah, however, “why would we want to marry our cousins?”, Shelbyville replies, “Because they’re so attractive ... I thought that was the whole point of all this [the migration]”. When Jebediah refuses to go along with such a social order, Shelbyville angrily denounces his counterpart by insisting, “I tell you, I won’t live in a town where a man can’t marry his cousins!” Thus, each, along with his followers in agreement, went his own way to establish his town.

In the realm of religion and theology, The Simpsons points out an apparent conflict of faith/ideas present in the practice of prayer—i.e. why would the Creator grant good fortune to one person who prays for it, while rejecting another person’s prayer for the same good fortune? In one episode, Homer basically forces Bart to become an expert at miniature golf and to compete against the son of Ned Flanders, his very Christian and kind-hearted neighbour—a person for whom Homer feels and expresses utter, without-reason contempt; and it becomes a match on which Homer goads Ned into agreeing to bet, the loser’s father being the one who’d have to mow his lawn donned in his wife’s Sunday dress. On the day of the big game at the golf course, Homer finds the Flanders family praying, in a circle while holding hands; and to this, Homer mockingly informs his neighbour, “hey Flanders, I already asked God to let Bart win, and He can’t very well let both of them win”.

In many episodes, attorneys are the show’s favourite targets.

In the episode in which bully-boy Jimbo Jones joins Homer’s ‘order-enforcing’ posse but then later discovers that the posse is not what he’d thought it would be, Jimbo bitterly proclaims that he has thus given up on justice and integrity and therefore might as well join a very-well-paid though morally-corrupt profession: “You let me down, man.  Now I don’t believe in nothin’, no more: I’m going to law school”.  To Jimbo’s decision, Homer lets out a disapproving bellow, which reverberates throughout the area—“NOOOOOO!”

The Simpsons also takes a deserved dig at contemporary society’s prevalence towards moral relativism in the episode in which Bart and an initially-hesitant Lisa fool their babysitter, Grampa (Abraham) Simpson, into giving/buying them whatever they want (e.g. junk food, coffee, a large damaging party at the Simpsons residence). When Lisa reveals her troubled conscience to Bart, the sneaky boy reassures her: “Lisa, in these turbulent times, who’s to say what’s right and what’s wrong.”

But the animation deserves credit for taking a warranted jab at what’s commonly considered by society to be one of this planet’s greatest evils—Big Tobacco.

In the episode in which Lisa eventually becomes Little Miss Springfield, Laramie Cigarettes, the (not-surprisingly) corporate sponsor of the little girls’ beauty pageant, briefly uses her to sell their nicotine product, until she takes a bold and daring stand against being “a corporate shell”.  In fact, the morally-corrupt Laramie president, Jack Larson, has his cigarette company’s ad-producers put Lisa on a Laramie ad poster, in which Lisa, kneeling in prayer by her bedside with a lit cigarette in her mouth, says (with her words in large print): “God, Please Bless Mommy, Daddy and Laramie Cigarettes”.

THE MASSES

Humanity, according to The Simpsons, can be (as a whole) selfish, inconsistent, quite ignorant and irrationally reactionary.

In one episode, Mrs. Edna Krabappel, Bart’s Grade 4 schoolteacher and the head of the teachers’ union, is at considerable odds with Principal Skinner, regarding the formers’ salaries and the school’s serious lack of instructional supplies. The students’ parents meet with the teacher and principal in the school’s auditorium; there, the parents are led back and forth like sheep to the points made by Krabappel and Skinner: “We’re doing it [teachers seeking more money] for your children,” Krabappel emphasizes to the parents, who all mutter in agreement to one another. (To this, Reverend Timothy Lovejoy’s wife, Helen, makes her typical and somewhat-hysterical exclamation, “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!!”) But, responds Skinner, “We [the school employers] have a very tight budget—in order to give the teachers a raise, we’d have to raise taxes” (a prospect against which the parents mumble in discomfort). However, Krabappel reminds them all that, “It’s your children’s future,” again to which the parents all concur. And to this, Skinner lifts his hand in view of the parents and simply rubs his thumb, forefinger and index finger together, and the parents murmur and grumble, “oh, no—more taxes”. And so forth it goes, to and fro. It’s quite clear that the parents indeed want it both ways—to have their proverbial cake and eat it, too.

TODAY’S YOUTH

Perhaps the greatest (though admittedly understandable) misperception held by critics of The Simpsons is that the show downplays, or perhaps even promotes, disrespect by youth toward their elders.

Indeed, many viewers often misinterpret Bart’s apparent irreverence for his father—frequently referring to Homer by his first name, in one episode Bart, while watching TV, casually tells his father to “Crank it, Homer”—combined with the boy’s disrespectful attitude towards virtually every other authority figure, as a negative influence on the younger viewers. Well, aside from the fact that the show is not produced for an under-14 (and very impressionable) audience, Bart’s behaviour is implicitly marked as an undesirable factor of his character that will likely result in an undesirable future for him in society, not to mention his current dismal status academically and amongst the school officials. Lisa, on the other hand, is hard-working, considerate and respectful towards others—young people as well as adults; and she is portrayed as being one who’s very likely to achieve great accomplishments and status in life. Whenever there is disrespectful behaviour in the show, it implicitly reflects poorly (for the astute viewer, anyway) on the characters displaying their irreverence.

On the issue of whether contemporary children are taking on greater adult-like responsibilities and dangerous habits at an earlier age than in previous generations, according to The Simpsons, the answer should be obvious: In one musical episode, Bart sings a request of his father, “Can I be a booze hound?” and Homer replies in song, “Not till you’re fifteen” (as if Homer is being a responsible parent in requiring this irresponsibly-low minimum age of his son). And in another episode, Homer replies to Bart’s request for some beer with an idiotic, “No, Bart; that is for Daddies and kids with fake IDs”.

However, it’s quite worthy of mention that The Simpsons does not completely portray a bad-brat Bart Simpson as but a proverbial “bad seed”, or create him as a write-off that was a lost cause since conception (albeit, during an ultra-sound, Dr. Hebert tells a very-pregnant Marge, “If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear he was mooning me”). Indeed, one episode offers a revelation into Bart’s very-first year of schooling—a time at which Bart was actually enthusiastic about school and uncharacteristically behaved himself. It was only when his teacher seriously discouraged Bart—at one point blatantly letting him know that he has no hope of acquiring talent(s) and thus achieving a fruitful life. In fact, Bart becomes such a despondent little boy that he pencils a large stick-figure drawing of his unhappiness and death, a drawing at which Homer screams, “Aughhhh!! Burn it!! Send it to Hell!!” Then, after reaching a climax of discouragement at school—and, to an extent, even at home (Homer, though with good intentions, builds Bart a horrific-looking clown-shaped bed)—Bart suddenly perceives (or, perhaps, realizes) that the closest he’ll come to having a productive talent is making his classmates laugh by his acting goofy; when principal Skinner tells him out-flat that it’s the precise point in his life at which he is at a crossroads, of being an achiever or a loser. Bart’s response to Skinner, after some seconds of contemplation?: “Eat my shorts”; to which Bart’s fellow students laugh and applaud.

But then again, one can discount the above by simply recalling the episode in which Bart is in his first few years of life and he (assumingly amongst other misdeeds) lights his father’s tie on fire, as well as flushes his keys and wallet down the toilet; not to mention, cuts off all of his baby sister’s (i.e., Lisa’s) hair, so that she would not appear so adorable to her new parents, Marge and Homer.

Furthermore, we’re existing at a societal point in time at which it’s somewhat fashionable to suppress any “blame” in life towards those who may have left us scarred—physically, emotionally or psychologically.

Admittedly, The Simpsons occasionally includes annoying aspects—such as its inclination towards frequently exposing the bare buttocks of only the male characters, its confinement of wedgies against only the male characters and its bewildering propensity for the inclusion of wisecracks particularly aimed at the French (Bart even makes an outrageous, erroneous serious-toned reference to that ethnic group’s collective foul odour!).

Also, for many viewers, the show goes too far in a few of its jabs at Christianity that appear more ideological than humourous, perhaps overly-philosophical enough to be construed as naught but political Simpsons script-writing—such as when devout-Christian Ned Flanders makes sure to burn tangible evidence of a godless universe while his two pacifist sons view a Christian-cartoon-show character telling his talking pet dog (and thus conveying to the Flanders boys) that he has just finished “making a pipe-bomb to blow up the Planned Parenthood clinic”.

Having said this, however, the show’s creators make a wise choice in allowing The Simpsons to be produced mostly with the morally gray area in mind. Such is done by having Homer and Lisa sneak inside (“break into”) a museum late at night so Lisa can have what would be her last chance to experience the presence of ancient Egyptian artifacts on display. Also, episodes were produced in which Homer reveals his albeit-rare compassionate and decent side; for example, when he wishes misfortune on Flanders’ new business (a store selling items for only left-handed people) but at the end expresses sincere sorrow for Flanders’ misfortune and thus enables the business to recover. For in so doing, the show more reflects real life, which rarely consists of the proverbial moral black-and-white/good-and-evil.

The Simpsons blends genuine humour with the vulnerability and corruptibility of human nature to produce a hilarious TV program. Granted, it could be more explicit in some of its moral stances; however, through its implicit morality, the observant viewer receives the same relevant message without the often-discomforting force and rigidity usually experienced with explicit morality.*

In watching the live streaming coverage of the Egyptian revolution on Aljazeera I am awe-struck by the incredible humanity of what is unfolding in that country. I imagine Jean Jacques Rousseau wandering amongst the throngs of people and being equally amazed and delighted. For the character of this uprising, this outpouring of frustration and joy, of kindness and determination, of compassion and hope and community is more Rousseau than it is Mohammed or Marx.

The image of an old man with a long white beard racing his horse across Liberation Square yelling at the top of his lungs “I am free! I am Free! I am free!” – hardly able to comprehend that he was able to do so without fear of bring beaten or worse, is for me the most enduring image of the incredible events taking place in Egypt.

The revolution has greeters. On Tuesday as people streamed into the square in the tens of thousands, organizers actually greeted each one: “Welcome, welcome…” All the people who pundits would have three weeks ago assured as would never revolt are there in the square: incredible numbers of women, secular and otherwise; old people; middle class people – and upper class people like a former member of the board of one of Egypt’s biggest banks.

Rousseau proclaimed that morality was not a societal construct, but rather innate, an outgrowth of our instinctive resistance to passively witnessing suffering and injustice, out of which comes the emotions of compassion and empathy. If Tahrir Square is the evidence, then Rousseau was right. And he would have been totally at home.

The revolution is one of those phenomena that cannot be predicted. It smashes stereotypes embedded in the consciousness of the West over decades. That stereotype of poor, desperate, ignorant, grasping third world people is a convenient construct for the US and Canada for they form the foundation of our justification of keeping vicious dictatorships in power.

The Egyptian ruling elite not only adopts these same stereotypes but also fervently believe them for the similar reasons: their theft of the resources of their countries also depends on this notion, for it is the ideology of oppression, if we see ideology as that which gives meaning to power.

But that stereotype is, thanks to the revolution being continuously televised, is utterly dead. The incredible poetry of the people in the streets describing their feelings, the almost universal articulateness of the men and women expressing their views is awe-inspiring. And humbling. I cannot imagine a Canadian (American?) crowd offering so many poets, philosophers and historians in spontaneous response to reporters’ questions. (Leave aside for the moment the fact that I can’t imagine a million Canadians in any square.)

The humanity of the people giving this explosion of democratic sentiment its character is hard to credit, from a people who have been brutalized, robbed, humiliated, jailed and tortured. Yet there it was in the first words spoken by Wael Ghonim, head of Google’s Middle East operations after being released from jail. He was held, constantly blindfolded, for 12 days before finally being released.

But Ghonim was incredibly measured in his response to this crime – and he called it a crime – and his humanity, I think, was at the root of the huge resurgence of the numbers of protesters. Over 100,000 people have now signed onto a Facebook page declaring that he speaks for them.

But he would make no such claim: “I am not a hero. I only used the keyboard; the real heroes are the ones on the ground.”

He continued:

“This is not the time to settle scores. Although I have people I want to settle scores with myself. This is not the time to split the pie and enforce ideologies.

…Inside I met [State Security] people who loved Egypt but their methods and mine are not the same. I pay these guys’ salaries from my taxes, I have the right to ask the ministers where my money is going, this is our country.

“I believe that if things get better those (good state security people) will serve Egypt well.”

This compassion for, of all people, the dreaded security police, seems not to have come from a place of naïveté or weakness but just the opposite: from a place of strength that derived from the hope and joy of witnessing the unity in the square. Listening to Ghonim you really get the feeling that the revolution will succeed.

The humanity demonstrated by the protesters also helps explain why the global reaction to the violence against them was so universal and so powerful: this revolution has been absolutely peaceful since day one – respectful of people and property and the army. The violence was that much more grotesque because of it.

In order to curry favour with this new hero of the day, the newly appointed General Secretary of the ruling NDP party, reformist Hossam Badrawi, actually drove Ghonim home. But Ghonim was not fooled or persuaded: “I told him I will go in the car …but without an NDP logo. I told them we don’t want any NDP logo on the streets. … I told him I don’t want to see the logo of the NDP ever again.”

As Mid East exert Eric Margolis points out, there are hints here, too, of what was called Nasserism in the 1950s and 1960s, after Gamal Abdel Nasser, the most loved and progressive leader Egypt ever had. Nasser’s philosophy combined Arab nationalism and a pan-Arab ideology, and embraced a form of socialism. He was also a key figure in the non-aligned movement of developing countries. While it is too early to tell what direction the movement will take, the central role played by skyrocketing food prices, the grotesque divisions between rich and poor and Mubarak’s alleged $70 billion bilked from his own people, suggests that both nationalism and class will define the movement – and how it spreads to other countries. But what captures the imagination for the moment is the humanity and compassion of the people changing the face of the Middle East before our eyes.

[Riders wait to board the SkyTrain at Commercial-Broadway. Credit: Arlen Redekop/Vancouver Sun]

Last month, we took  to our Twitter account, to ask our readers what annoyed them about riding the SkyTrain. The response, using the hashtag #VanTran,  was huge.

Here are a few examples:

@lauramcN :"Translink pet peeves are grumpy drivers, and stinky bags of bottles".

@ivychau88: "Loud music, backpacks in my face, ppl not moving to back of bus, ppl not letting others off first." 

@whatsupvancity: "When people get on the skytrain before people are done getting off! Worst ever!

@MissNikkiDotCom: "I hate when teens talk super loud on the bus& use rude language when there's little kids nearby-you don't look cool." 

@kimberleyrawes "How much time you got? ALL THE ABOVE plus crowding the door, not moving back…"

To help us put the fervour to creative use, we asked a few improv comics -- Michael Robinson, Bill Pozzobon and Eric Fell -- from Granville Island's Vancouver TheatreSports League to join us for a ride through Vancouver on the SkyTrain, and have some fun with the transit faux pas that get under your skin.

The fact is, British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) is exploiting the weaknesses of very many of its consumers to the point of callousness—especially those suffering with often-debilitating Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Sure, this government owned and operated entity offers the odd token gesture of sympathy through such meager means as, for example, free-of-charge gamblers-anonymous-like counselling; however, it’s far too little and often comes far too late in the proverbial day to count as much. It seems that BCLC, via its provincial government masters, does far more for privately-owned, B.C. gambling establishments that desire millions of free-of-obligation taxpayers’ dollars to increase their sizes (etc.) and thus their profitability.

Although I currently enforce my limit “and stay within it,” BCLC in the past (Spring, 1986, at age 18) has had me with all of my money for a full day.

While I was supposed to be searching for a work-experience, practicum position at the airport, I instead ended up spending the entire $50-or-so I had on BCLC’s “Scratch & Win” lottery tickets. I was experiencing a futile-fight compulsion to buy ticket after ticket until I would eventually win something, perhaps even a substantial amount of prize money. I did manage one or two $2 wins and a $5 win, at which time I should’ve stopped playing and cut my losses; however, I found that I couldn’t resist but to go for the gusto, and thus I played on until I was broke and feeling depressed.

There is post-secondary psychology-course literature that states that gamblers purposely, though unconsciously, play and (usually) lose a fair amount of money on games of chance and then kick themselves around the proverbial block afterwards so as to mentally punish themselves. Sadly, it’s a form of psychological, lousy-lottery-luck masochism.

The most insidious aspect of BCLC conduct is the Extra option that print-out lottery-ticket players basically have psychologically forced upon them with every single ticket stub they receive when they purchase and play a 6/49, BC/49 or Lotto MAX lottery ticket—though for most players, it’s tickets (in the plural). Therefore, even if the ticket buyers do not wish to play the Extra, BCLC nonetheless prints out for them four random numbers (ranging anywhere from 1-99) onto the ticket stub with the word “NO” adjacent to them. BCLC obviously does this to allow fear to fester in the minds of all of the players who do not purchase the Extra numbers: i.e., when checking their regular-ticket numbers, many players cannot help but to check if their Extra numbers had been drawn (maybe just to confirm that they had saved a dollar by saying “NO” to the Extra). Hence, BCLC’s past, shamefully-exploitive, “I’m sor-ry … so sor-ry … that I  waaaas such a fool” commercial jingo alluding to all of those regular-ticket buyers who would have won half a million bucks had they just parted with the dollar and said “YES” to the Extra.

Therefore, what I do as a non-Extra lottery player is simply totally disregard the Extra numbers non-solicitously forced upon me. (Ignorance is bliss, is it not?)

For the record, the odds of someone matching 4/4 numbers on the Extra! draw is 1/3,764,376; or three of the four numbers, 1/9,906 (which gets you $1,000); two numbers, 1/141 (which gets you $10); one number, 1/6.8 (which gets you $1)—all of which leaves lottery consumers like me wondering just how far BCLC is willing to go, ethically speaking, to get their revenue and just how far into dreamland so many abusive-ticket-buying and possible mentally-ill persons have drifted.

Of course, becoming a millionaire from a (now $2) 6/49 lottery ticket is, to most of us, a dream come true—a fact that is taken advantage of by so many public and private gambling-revenue sucking entities throughout the world for a very long time. In B.C., such a mass-revenue-producing concept was institutionalized in 1985 as BCLC.

Regardless of the astronomical odds of winning, the lottery, and in an ever-increasing variety of games available, is continuously played and lost by countless people, a disproportionately large segment of which are those in society that are the least able to afford the almost-certain losses.

It all makes sense: Those who need the money the most, put the most money (per capita) into the lottery system—and the irony, indeed, is quite bitter.

For this very brief essay, I spent about eight solid hours on the phone and Internet seeking the statistical percentage—even just an approximation—of the mentally ill populace that have a (usually, lottery ticket) gambling problem compared to the populace as a whole; however, nobody, including many that should have known, could inform me in regards to anything about my query. This indicates, at least to me, just how unconcerned or callous society (perhaps even some mental-health organizations that I’ll not name) is towards the very serious issue of problem gambling.*

It's been a year since the Vancouver Winter Games.  Gone are the parties and the world's media. Gone are the athletes and the red mittens. 

One thing that does remain is the memories. And we want to hear from you about the things you'll always remember about the 2010 Games. 

To mark the anniversary, The Vancouver Sun invites you to share your favourite stories, photos, videos and audio clips with our readers.

Here's how:

U-REPORT
Send your content to us via our exclusive user-generated news tool.

TWITTER
Use the hashtag #VanSunOly.

FACEBOOK
Post to our Facebook wall.

TUMBLR
Use the hashtag #VanSunOly

Editor's note: After reading this post by C.O.I. contributor Murray Dobin yesterday, the four directors of Conservation voters of B.C. requested a space to present their view.

Here it is: 

Murray Dobbin’s piece sets out his concerns with the actions of several environmental organizations who participated in a voter education initiative linked to the leadership races underway in both major BC political parties. As a correction, it needs to be clear that the environmental groups he names (Dogwood Initiative, Ecojustice, Georgia Strait Alliance, West Coast Environmental Law, and Wildsight) are not ‘members’ or ‘part of’ Conservation Voters of BC, which is a separate, volunteer-run, non-partisan initiative, not affiliated with other environmental organizations. The other environmental organizations named are engaging in voter education, and the information offered to their supporters is housed on the Conservation Voters of BC website, which is also engaging in the leadership selection races.

The voter education action criticized by Mr. Dobbin was designed to take advantage of a significant opportunity to make environmental issues a key part of the debate. During the past month, several organizations sent emails to supporters letting them know that with both major parties in leadership selection, and that they could get involved with either party, as this is a non-partisan action. It is only the second email which focused on the BC Liberal Party as the BC NDP set a much earlier cut-off date for new members who could vote in leadership selection (as pointed out in the email, though not included in Mr. Dobbin’s article). Recipients were also alerted that environmental questions are being sent to all candidates in both races, and all responses will be posted.

British Columbians have strong environmental values, according to opinion polls often the strongest in the country. People are passionate about protecting our environment, they get the link between our environment and our health, and they understand our global responsibilities to decrease our ecological footprint.

Yet our elected governments never seem to get this. They have to be pushed and cajoled into almost every ‘green’ action they take, regardless of political stripe.

Politics-as-usual has not served BC’s environment well. For one thing, assuming environmental issues are the purview of only one or two parties allows the ‘brown’ parties to believe ‘the environment’ is voted out when they get voted in. Our precarious ecological position doesn’t allow us the luxury of waiting 4/8/12/? years until the ‘right’ party gets voted in.

Secondly, environmental values aren’t limited to only one end of the political spectrum. Environmental supporters hold those values along with a range of other social and economic values. Our job is to give supporters the information and the tools they need to give stronger voice to their environmental values, and to carry those green values into whatever forums they engage in. Care and concern for BC’s environment always polls much higher than any particular party.

Thirdly, it seems politics-as-usual is failing a lot of British Columbians. The 2009 election saw a record low voter turnout – we currently have a government that was voted for by only 23% of people eligible to vote in the last election (about the same amount that voted in the last NDP government in 1996). Memberships of both parties have plummeted – it’s reported that BC Liberal Party membership was only 30,000 going into the leadership race, and we’ve heard reports of as few as 10,000 for the NDP. Really? Even assuming both parties doubled their membership prior to the cut-off dates, that means only 2.5% of eligible BC voters are can cast a vote for a party leader that determines the choice we all face in the next provincial election. No wonder more people opt to just stay home.

BC’s electoral system remains mired in a winner-takes-all form that seems to be uninspiring – at best – for more and more voters. While there are a few people that still approach party membership as a sacred trust, most people see it as irrelevant – at best. Which shouldn’t be surprising: there’s no way two or three parties could hope to present ideologies or platforms that speak to the diverse array of economic, social, environmental and other values, and combinations thereof, that exist in the population at large. Working with this imperfect system, encouraging voters to engage in civic opportunities in order to ensure their values are part of the debate – an action-oriented message – may be more inspiring to a wider swath of people than demanding they only engage if their heart and soul perfectly align with current party principles. Forever.

Ideally, all parties, all politicians, need to see their environmental performance as a key measure they’ll be held to in every election. Just as all parties recognize it’s imperative to be seen as competent managers of BC’s economy, they should also feel compelled to demonstrate their abilities as stewards of our precious environment. Ideally, parties and politicians will be competing for the environmental vote, having to one-up each other with better and more innovative approaches rather than slamming any ideas that aren’t their own.

The objective of this voter education initiative is to inspire more civic engagement among those with strong environmental values. Some will choose to exercise their power as a party member with the BC NDP, and we hope a candidate with a strong and credible environmental platform emerges at the head of that race. Some will choose to exercise their power with the BC Liberals, with the added twist that the leader they choose will also be Premier for up to the next 2.5 years. In our current system, much power is wielded from the Premier’s seat, and that power can be used for environmental good or environmental bad. We owe it to the environment to at least make sure those questions are asked – by party members – before leadership choices are made.

And engaging in the current leadership races should in no way be seen as a shackle one takes into the next election. Politicians, of all political stripes, need to earn their environmental credibility each time the voters have a choice to make.

Kevin Washbrook, Naomi Devine, Will Horter and Lisa Matthaus
Directors, Conservation Voters of BC

Yesterday I received an email from the Conservation Voters of BC urging me to join the Liberal Party of BC so I could vote for their next leader.

I thought it might be a joke but reading the whole piece it was clear this group was serious. It is one of the most ill-considered and dishonest appeals I have ever received from normally progressive organizations. It represents incredibly bad judgement on the part of five respected organizations – three of which I have actually given money to in the past year. The groups that make up the Conservation Votes are: Dogwood Initiative, Ecojustice, Georgia Strait Alliance, West Coast Environmental Law, and Wildsight.

If they don’t rescind this appalling appeal they won’t be getting a donation from me this year or any year in the future.

Here is part of what the organizations said in the email appeal (addressed to me personally with my contact information gleaned from one of organization’s list of supporters).

“If you received this message, you live in a provincial riding with very few Liberal Party members, probably less than 400.

…If you want a Premier who is going to feel compelled to respond to environmental issues, now is the time to get involved.

But you have to act quickly. The cut-off date for people to join the BC Liberal Party and be eligible to vote for leader – who will immediately be the new Premier – is February 4th, this Friday.

…Keep in mind that taking action on this unprecedented opportunity now does not determine the vote you will cast in the next provincial election, which isn’t scheduled to happen until 2013. Party memberships can be cancelled at any time.”

The email points out that it will be polling the candidates for all the parties regarding their environmental stance and publishing the results.

The problem – and I can’t believe the sophisticated leaders of these organizations can have missed this – is that this is a profoundly dishonest action. It is essentially political fraud: joining a party whose values, policies and record are all profoundly reactionary, mean-spirited and representing in total the worst government the province has ever had. How could a progressive individual possibly consider putting their name to an application form of a party they totally disagree with? And give them money to boot.

That progressive groups would do this is truly disgusting as it sets a precedent for any group to do the same thing. Right wing organizations have much greater resources and therefore much greater ability to organize such actions. Will the legion of well-funded groups that support the corporate Liberal Party (chambers of commerce, industry associations, the Fraser Institute, the Taxpayers’ Federation, anti-abortion groups, etc. now adopt this bright idea and get their members to join the NDP to vote for the most right-wing (or the weakest) candidate to make it easier for the Liberals to win?

Or maybe the corporations facing effective campaigns by these five groups will organize people join one of them and elect a board that is completely hostile to its objectives – and then shut it down completely, lay off its staff and donate the money remaining to the Petroleum Institute.

Organizations trying to make the world a better place have a duty not only to their own causes but also to adhering to the highest possible ethical standards.

What on earth were these groups thinking?

Their scheme is an insult to all the other organizations and movements in this province who are trying to defeat the Liberal government for its terrible policies on a huge swath of policy areas: child poverty, the private power rip-off, the minimum wage, cuts to culture, the huge tax giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. It is a very long list.

But the Conservation Voters, playing at non-partisanship, reduce it all to environmental issues as if all the others don’t matter or should be sacrificed on the alter of their issues. I don’t know of any other organization or group of organizations that would be so contemptuous of environmental issues.

For as long as I can remember the environmental movement has demonstrated a weak understanding of social justice issues. Getting these groups to join in broad coalitions has always been difficult because of this. The reverse has not been true: broad coalitions – for example against NAFTA and other such corporate rights treaties – have always sought out environmental groups because they recognized that a healthy environment is a key component of social justice broadly defined.

What is the end point of this unfortunate exercise if a Liberal leadership candidate comes up with a better statement on the environment than any of the NDP candidates? And what he if he or she wins the leadership? Should so-called Conservation Voters then vote Liberal – and ignore all the other carnage this terrible Liberal government has done and would continue to do?

If this is the best the Conservation Voters of BC can do perhaps the whole idea was just bad in the first place. They should at the very least rescind this offensive appeal and go back to the drawing board for an ethical strategy of putting environmental issues front and centre in the next election – something I completely support.

If they can’t do that they should fold their tent and put their energy into their individual organizations which is what gave them credibility in the first place. This action severely undermines that credibility and is an insult to the thousands of people who give these organizations money every year.

[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (centre) with his sister Nannerl and father Leopold.] 

by James W. Wright

There are many reasons why I am passionate about opera: beautiful, emotional and inspiring music; literate, poetic language; grand and glorious productions on stages filled with singers, choristers and dancers; and very often, a link with important people and events in the past. But another reason I am passionate about opera is the relevance it has for our lives today. Opera is certainly not alone among the arts in this ability to speak to us about our own times, but it is the art form I know best and about which I can speak with certainty.

At Vancouver Opera we often speak of opera’s relevancy to 21st Century British Columbians, and work hard to help long-time audiences as well as opera “newbies” understand and appreciate this fact; I know our colleagues at the symphony, in the theatre and dance companies and in the galleries work to do the same thing. Opera sometimes has a bigger challenge in this, I think, because of the music coming to us from an earlier century, the dress and manners of an earlier time, the “powdered wigs” and foreign languages. But here I believe is the wonderful secret of my art form: opera is about the big things, the important emotions of all of us humans….and these “big things” and large emotions don’t change from year to year, decade to decade, or even century to century. 

Sometimes these sweeping themes are rather personal: love and betrayal; estrangement; the distances created between families and friends and the bridges to span those distances. Sometimes the big ideas are societal: when we last produced Aida, we investigated the plight of “Women in War” with Lloyd Axworthy, Ruth Segal and others; when we staged Macbeth our panelists examined “Power and its Abuse;” in 2002, during the opera Of Mice and Men important BC artists discussed the “Role of the Arts in Effecting Social Change.”

Our current offering, Mozart’s La Clemenza di Tito, is about one important thing: what qualities do we want in those who lead us?  Mozart’s gorgeous and spirited music, the intriguing scenery and stellar singing are all in the service of this big idea. Is ruling with compassion a better idea than ruling with vengeance? Is the good of the people more important than the reputation of the leader? Does forgiveness in a leader show strength or betray weakness? Mozart’s opera inspired us to bring together a first-class panel last week at the Vancouver Public Library to discuss this notion of effective and compassionate leadership. Columnist Gary Mason, UBC professor Michael Byers, Tsawwassen First Nations Chief Kim Baird, Superintendent of West Vancouver schools Chris Kennedy, and Brenda Eaton, Chair of BC Housing Management Commission, discussed with one another and the audience their beliefs concerning leadership. 

Mason spoke of VANOC CEO John Furlong’s exercise in nation building which was built in part on the biggest Olympics torch relay in history, involving Canadians across this land, as well as convincing the powers-that-be to invest in the performance of our athletes, which paid off handsomely and helped unite the country in its pride and patriotism. Michael Byers noted that after his long prison sentence and eventual rise to the South African presidency, Nelson Mandela rejected revenge as a tool of governance and instead focused on “truth and reconciliation” and sought to heal his country by his ferocious support of the Springbok Rugby team as it grew to be the World Cup winner, as portrayed in the film Invictus.

Qualities of leadership: what the past can tell us about, warn us about, prod us to think about.  What great art – whether opera, symphonic music, great theatre or inspired painting – can help us to understand about our own lives and our own times: isn’t that a timely and relevant conversation for 21st Century British Columbians?

James W. Wright is the General Director of Vancouver Opera.

by Jaime Woo

Canadians are coming around to the fact that their way of living just got much more expensive. The CRTC decision to have independent ISPs enforce usage-based billing (UBB, also called internet metering) has become a tipping point, a moment of realization that how we live is going to change. The scaling back of how much internet we can use will affect our everyday lives: we will listen to less music on iTunes, chat briefer with overseas relatives on Skype, and share fewer home videos through YouTube.

There are many other less obvious areas the internet cap will affect in a detrimental fashion that the CRTC has seemingly not considered in its decision. As an organizer for the games festival Gamercamp, I’m worried about how this decision will slow video game development in this country, especially with independent games.

What’s so important about games? It's a question you might ask and an understandable one—for it’s a common one—but within the span of the 40 year old industry, games have grown to such an extent that they have become ubiquitous. Who hasn’t heard of Angry Birds, FarmVille, or Wii Fit? With people launching birds at pigs, planting crops, and doing yoga in living rooms, games have become integrated in many people’s lives. I can’t describe how delighted I was to see how much fun my Aunt and Mom had this Christmas happily dancing along to Lady Gaga on a Kinect game.

The change to UBB affects the game market in a substantial way.

Nowadays, downloadable games make up a significant portion of the industry through platforms like Steam, Xbox Live, PSN, and the iTunes store. By deciding that both limited internet usage and exorbitant overage fees are fair, the CRTC has opened the doors to a trend of higher costs for less internet service. It's inevitable that consumers will become more nervous in their downloading habits and it’s not hard to predict they will scale back on consumption.

This has a far-reaching consequence as games are a big business, worth an estimated $4B in Canada—and one that is rapidly growing. People are earning livings making games; Canada is an amazing place for game development, with major clusters in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Winnipeg. With UBB, not only will there be a negative effect on sales, but the cost of producing and marketing a game will also increase.

A game maker will have to think about the added costs, such as downloading new software packages, retrieving audio or video files while researching projects, or sending assets back and forth with suppliers. Even completed games will be affected: games are regularly promoted with trailers and if consumers are worried about the cost of streaming video, game makers have lost a powerful way to reach consumers. Big-budget games with more promotion and media attention won't be affected, but, sadly, smaller independent games without money for marketing may fall through the cracks.

I live in Toronto, which is home to a thriving indie game development culture, where (just like in film, music, and the stage) innovative, boundary-pushing titles are created by small teams, often consisting of ten people or less. These indie developers work with small budgets, bootstrapping out of a love for making games. It’s clear to me that there will have to be some compromise and scaling back to accommodate the heightened costs of UBB.

And just why has the CRTC risked dampening a culturally and economically promising industry for Canada? That’s the fundamental question. It isn’t the cost to telecoms for internet usage—as the official line suggests—since it has been estimated that there is a 10,000 to 20,000% mark-up on the actual cost for transmitting a gigabyte of data. Instead, it appears the telecoms are attempting to protect their territory, by shifting consumers away from services like the data-intensive Netflix and back to their own TV and on-demand products.

Crippling Canada’s future to shield private corporations’ bottom lines isn’t in the best interest for Canadians, and it’s why we have to protest the CRTC decision. (There’s an online petition at Openmedia.ca you should sign.) An industry like video game development isn't the most visible but is growing our country: why are we putting that at risk? Even more troubling is wondering the repercussions for Canada from the many other industries we aren't hearing about that the CRTC has unwittingly sabotaged.

- Jaime Woo is the co-founder of Gamercamp. Follow him on Twitter @jaimewoo.

Related:
Worried about Internet usage fees? How to know what you are in for
Consumer backlash over UBB 

Re: "Egypt's Mubarak shuffles cabinet; 'get out,' protesters chant," by Sherine El Madany and Marwa Awad, Reuters, January 31, 2011

"Exclusive Analysis' (Zaineb Al-)Assam said Yemen, Sudan, Jordan and Syria looked vulnerable to 'contagion' but the greatest risk was in Saudi Arabia: 'U.S. allies in the region will be alarmed at the rapid drain of U.S. public support for an erstwhile ally.'

"Syria's President Bashar al-Assad said there was no chance the upheaval might spread to Syria, which has been controlled by his Baath Party for the last five decades.

"In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Assad said Syria's ruling hierarchy was 'very closely linked to the beliefs of the people' and insisted there was no mass discontent. Many Syrians would disagree — though not if speaking in public."

It will be very interesting to see the relationship between Egypt and the USA no matter the result of these protests. The Egyptian people know more than anyone that the United States has kept Mubarak in power through financial support. Crushing any viable alternative to Mubarak's power over the years through his police state and 30-year long State of Emergency has been of course "an internal matter" with no connection to America's interests. Don't believe it. Fear of any power base (including a moderate Islamic party) that could eventually take power and U.S. self-interest has kept Mubarak in power for 30 years.

Zaineb Al-Assam's word "contagion" is a ridiculous choice of words describing the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people, as breathtaking as Mubarak's blackout of Egypt's connection to the Internet through government decree. Indeed, one would expect such reaction in a Cold War Soviet state or any current state run by a dictator who has no genuine interest in freedom (of speech or any other).

And as for Syria, no one predicted the events in Tunisia or Egypt. We are looking at the prospect of an entirely changed Middle East, governed by a younger, well-educated, well-informed, democratically-minded population. The U.S. government has no one to blame but itself if new governments in the Middle East abandon it.

Brian Strader

The Vancouver Sun has teamed up with Simon Fraser University to present podcasts of the history department's new year long lecture series exploring different aspects of Vancouver's history.

Here, in the first lecture, “Vancouver: The Best Place on Earth?”, Vancouver authors Charles Demers and Matt Hern discuss some of the notions of the city, and how a great view does not alone make a city great. 

A full summary is below: 

Vancouver is spectacularly beautiful. It is the most livable city in the world. It’s a paradise.  I don’t know if you’ve been told, but you can go skiing here in the morning and be sunning on the beach by afternoon. The views of the city are picture perfect – but some views on what’s going on in Vancouver can be a little less pretty.

Two local authors and activists, Charles Demers and Matt Hern, have each written new books about the city. Vancouver Special (CD) and Common Ground in a Liquid City (MH), are both fun and critical looks at Vancouver, trying to understand the city, as well as its past, present and place in the world.

‘It’s the Best Place on Earth.’ This is what we are told (and sold) relentlessly about Vancouver. And some of it is true: in lots of ways this is lovely city, and you can hit the slopes and the sand on the same day (provided you ski quickly and drive like a maniac).  But that story needs to be nuanced significantly, and now that the din of Olympic-sized cheerleading has died down, Vancouverites are ready to hear and talk about something else beyond boosterism.

This is a city in the midst of a housing/homelessness crisis, one that is pricing everyday people out of the core, and built on the lowest minimum wage and the highest rates of child poverty in the country. It is a city that has what KPMG calls the most business-friendly tax climate in the world, and that has emerged as a neo-liberal haven for investors and speculators, largely on the backs of working people.

Hern and Demers, both accomplished speakers, have arranged their criticisms and congratulations for Vancouver into an entertaining and engaging presentation that will challenge residents, activists, students, planners, wonks, urbanists and anyone interested in Vancouver’s future.  Their presentation can address the city generally or be tailored specifically to a particular subject.

Listen to the podcast below: 

Check back next month for the second in the series:  I Can See Russia from My House: Russian Colonization on the Northwest by Ilya Vinkovetsky.  

by Barrett Jones

The Trenta. That is the name for 31 ounces of bladder-bursting caffeination -- the latest cup size offering from international coffee corporation, Starbucks.

31 ounces.  

They say that it’ll only be for their iced drinks, but one might imagine a time when everything is available in the size of roadside regret. So in a market where specialty retailers are moving to smaller and smaller drinks, more focused on the flavour of the coffee, and less dilution, why is the biggest brand in the game going in the opposite direction?

What follows is my speculation:

Increase table turnover: The same people sipping coffee for three hours, and therein occupying the only four-top table, will be effected the most. Increasing the drink size will result in higher table turnover as the laptopites rush off in search of a washroom key.

Perceived value: When you seem wholly disinterested in making your product better, you have to give people a reason to come in. Since the McRib is taken, perhaps a bucket of sized latte will do it.

Environmentalism: Now that a family of four can share one coffee, that’s three fewer cups headed to landfills.

Design: Focus groups deemed this more appealing than a funnel and a metre of garden hose. (Although it tested high among college freshmen.)

Health: Doctors deemed frappuccino infusions, “dangerous.”

Perhaps I’m too progressive for the market at large, but I prefer a small coffee, brewed well, that’s strong and delicious. I might even have a trio of them: but when my cup gets into the comically large category, I balk. When a coffee cup needs two hands, all I can wonder is how far off we are from the next step of the devolution when we have a feedbag strapped to our face.

Barrett Jones is an award winning barista at Vancouver's 49th Parallel. You can follow him on Twitter at: twitter.com/barrett_jones

The photographs are as stunning as they are inspiring. The world is now totally focused on the democratic rebellion in Egypt. President Hosni Mubarak, the dictator who Israel relies on for its current unassailable position, sends out the army to deal with demonstrators and what happens? The soldiers, including officers, joined with them, hugging them, kissing them, shaking hands and sharing posters and banners calling on Mubarak – a coward and autocrat in the pocket of the US and Israel – to resign, and demanding democracy.

Mubarak is finished so he no longer really needs to be afraid. The millions he has socked away in Swizz banks will serve him well unless someone assassinates him before he can spend it. No, the people who should be terrified are those in the Israeli government and political elite who for decades have treated Palestinians with racist brutality – worse than anything experienced under Apartheid in South Africa – with complete impunity.

The arrogance of Israel – and its delusional certainty that it can prevail virtually forever with its policies – is suddenly confronted by a new reality that all the colonial genius of the country could not and did not anticipate. The tens of thousands of Egyptian – and Jordanian and Algerian and Yemeni – citizens demanding democracy are calling Israel’s bluff. For decades Israel has been able to ridicule and thumb its nose at the nasty little dictatorships of the Arab world – arguing that only Israel was democratic.

The implication was clear: wouldn’t it be great of all the Arab states were democratic. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. What has kept Israel protected during its decades of illegal occupation, the seizure of Palestinian land and resources and its military adventures against Iran, Syria and Lebanon – along with unlimited US support – is the certain knowledge that the corrupt and morally bankrupt regimes surrounding it would never dare risk a confrontation.

No more. Overnight this comforting picture is in doubt. Nothing frightens Israel more than the prospect of democratic Arab regimes actually responding to the will of their populations – a will that includes dealing with the oppression of the Palestinian people. And while it may not be at the top of their lists of demands it is always there – a powerful and humiliating symbol of Israeli power and intransigence. It gnaws at the heart of every Arab with even a modicum of nationalist sentiment. If these regimes become democratic it is only a matter of time that they will be obliged to deal with the Palestinian question.

If there was any doubt that the place and role of Israel in the Middle East is threatened by the young people – and not so young – in the streets all you have to do is look at the response of President Barack Obama (and Canada). Obama in an official news conference response to the Egyptian developments stated that the US was “calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal including rights to peaceful assembly …free speech …and the right to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. I also call on the Egyptian government to reverse its actions they’ve taken to interfere with access to the internet, cell phones and social networks which do so much to connect people in the 21st century… We have been clear that there must be reforms – political, social and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people.”

Obama revealed that he had spoken to Mubarak after the latter’s nation-wide speech on Friday, promising political and economic reform. Said Obama: “I told the president he had a responsibility to give meaning to those words.”

Say what? This whole performance – and an almost identical one by Canada’s Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon who usually chokes on the word democracy – will have come as a huge surprise to Mubarak who the US has supported in every ugly action he has taken in 30 years (including its own blockade of Gaza in co-operation with Israel). Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid – second only to Israel itself.

What has the US suddenly pining after democracy is nothing but another chapter in Middle East geo-politics. Obama, whose Mid East policies are no better and perhaps even worse than George W. Bush’s, is terrified that its past support of Mubarak will come back to bite the US. There is a powerful undercurrent of anger and resentment at the US for that support amongst the demonstrators even though it has not been a major element of the demonstrations. Obama is doing everything he can – or saying it – to short circuit any lumping together of Mubarak and the US as the movement for democracy grows.

More ominously, the US has been providing Egypt with billions in military aid over the 30 years since the country signed a peace agreement with Israel. It now has the most modern military machine, outside Israel, in the region. This was the price the US had to pay for having the most powerful and populous Mid east Arab state take itself out of the picture in terms of opposing Israeli policies. If that military machine ever got into the hands of the “wrong people” it could fundamentally change the politics in the area.

Front of mind for Obama and the US military is the fact that even though the Muslim Brotherhood is not leading these demonstrations, if an election was held tomorrow, they would win handily. The US may be hoping to stretch out the time-frame of democratic reform hoping for the development of a secular civil society that could help deliver a pro-Western government. But it was their dictator who did everything he could to suppress civil society and create the conditions that were perfect for the rapid growth of Islamic fundamentalism. You don’t create a robust civil society overnight, at least not one capable of defining the political culture.

Benjamin Netanyahu – the ultimate rejectionist regarding peace with the Palestinians – must wonder why the gods have turned against him. For weeks he has been pre-occupied with another disaster developing on his border: the formation in Lebanon of a government effectively controlled by Hezbollah. While the US and Canada are desperate to caste Hezbollah as nothing more than a “terrorist organization” they know better. It is a powerful player not just in the politics of the country but is a cultural and social force embedded in the fabric of the country. It is also the only military force that has fought the allegedly invincible Israeli military to a standstill, shaking the confidence of Israeli people and humiliating the army.

Israel, just two weeks ago feeling it had effective control of Middle East developments with its successful Stuxnet worm attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, is now facing an enemy it will not so easily neutralize: the pent-up anger of millions of mostly-young, educated Arab citizens in a half a dozen countries – and growing? – who will turn their attention to the brutal oppression of the Palestinians sooner or later. Israel, a country which for 30 years has behaved like a school yard bully backed by an armed big brother may suddenly be thinking about the consequences of it actions. It is the biggest change to come to the Arab world and to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in two generations.

By: Katherine Scouten, Vice President, Economic Development, Initiatives Prince George
 
This month Initiatives Prince George in collaboration with the Downtown Partnership launched a new City Centre marketing program.
 
The marketing program is aimed at attracting interest from real estate developers and property owners in the City Centre of Prince George, and the invitation is framed within the visionary words of Daniel Burnham, “Make no little plans.” Burnham was the founder of the City Beautiful movement nearly 100 years ago, upon which Prince George’s original downtown was designed. This same design re-ignited the imagination and will of the city through the Smart Growth on the Ground Planning Process of 2009. The new modernized plan calls for the implementation of a series of recommendations adopted by the Downtown Partnership. Mayor Dan Rogers heads up the Partnership along with Councilors Shari Green and Cameron Stolz. Councilor Murry Krause represents The Beyond Homelessness Committee.
 
The recommendations call for the Partnership to deliver on actions grouped into seven objectives that range from improving municipal infrastructure to improving air quality, public safety, and cultural vibrancy. 
 
The new City Centre marketing program is a key component of the overall plan, and gives the Partnership the ability to start delivering on the objective to improve the downtown marketplace climate.

A feature component of the marketing program is a 16 page full-colour prospectus. In order to capture interest and engage investors in this vision for the City Centre, it is designed to provide compelling answers to their anticipated questions:
 
1. Why should I invest in Prince George’s City Centre?

2. What is the City of Prince George doing to show leadership and walk the talk of revitalization?

3. How do I get involved?

The focus is on projects at all stages - ongoing, planned and conceptualized - in catalyst districts of the downtown. Over $50 million in public projects like the RCMP Detachment, Downtown District Energy System, Spirit Square, and 100 capital works projects in the past five years are identified.  The prospectus also destroys the myth that there is an absence of private sector investment in the downtown, by confirming that over $30 million and 100 building permits have been issued in the C1 zone over the past five years.  Larger private sector projects such as The Commonwealth Health Centre, Ramada Hotel, Terasen Gas, TELUS expansion, and The Keg Steakhouse & Bar upgrade are included as evidence.

The prospectus also  affirms economic growth stimulus to the city overall, stemming from Prince George’s successful bid to host the 2015 Canada Winter Games; expansion of regional resource development and its impact on the city as a supply and services centre; the growth of Prince George as an international transportation hub; Prince George being ranked #1 as having the most cost-competitive business location amongst cities profiled in Pacific US and Canada by KPMG; and, the city’s position as a regional health and education centre.
 
As to any question of “why now”, developers are reminded that Prince George is experiencing growth after a long period of diversification, introducing genuine opportunity for investment and re-vitalization in the core of Northern BC’s largest city. Timely news came this month when BC Stats estimated Prince George’s population growth this past year at 1.2% following 3 years of growth of 0.8%, averaged annually.
 
This is the first time downtown marketing efforts have offered a clear call to action to investors. Development sites owned and promoted by the City of Prince George are identified in the prospectus, along with conceptualized mixed use, commercial, residential and institutional projects for the City Centre.  More details about potential projects will emerge over 2011.  Common to them all, and those put forward by private land owners, will be bundled incentives unique to BC. These include the lowest downtown Development Cost Charges in BC, and the significant value contributed by a new Revitalization Tax Exemption by-law expected later this year that will add an “early-benefit” option for developers.
 
The marketing kit itself is made-in-Prince George. It is an aggregation of existing information and plans supported with creative assistance from a local firm, and paid for with funds Initiatives Prince George allocated from real estate proceeds of a downtown property sale to Terasen Gas for a new 100 seat call centre, this past year.
 
Next, the prospectus will be taken to developers in Northern BC, as well as Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary where initial interest in opportunities and projects will be gauged. Local realtors and developers are also encouraged to use the materials in their own marketing efforts. Trade shows, inbound familiarization trips for developers, and continued promotion of opportunities to Northern BC’s builders, developers and realtors are planned for 2011.

A solid initial campaign has been created. With continued investment in marketing and promotions, and commitment by the Downtown Partnership, the City Centre will experience an accelerated pace of improvement as “cranes and concrete” move into empty lots, and run-down properties receive face-lifts.  The anticipated results over the next five years will be an increase in assessed values, building permits, residential units, business licenses and jobs in the City Centre.  More public space, tree canopy cover, parks and plazas will also improve the experience of living, working, and playing in the downtown.  Most importantly, success will give citizens a renewed sense of pride and confidence in their City Centre as a vibrant hub.
 
Initiatives Prince George will continue to do its part through an ongoing focus on marketing and implementation. With a new 3 year strategic plan that identifies downtown development as one of the five key strategic thrusts, IPG will allocate 20% of its core budget from the City of Prince George to this priority in 2011.
 
The Downtown Partnership members are to be congratulated and thanked for their ongoing efforts. These include The City of Prince George, Initiatives Prince George, Downtown Prince George, Lheidli T’enneh, RCMP, Prince George Chamber of Commerce, Beyond Homelesness Standing Committee, Prince George Native Friendship Centre, and Northern Health. The Partnership provides quarterly releases on its progress. 
 
Ian Wells, Manager of Real Estate for the City of Prince George and I Co-lead the Downtown Partnership’s implementation plan. For more information contact the Downtown Partnership at downtownpartnership@city.pg.bc.ca or call 250-649-3201 (Katherine), 250-561-7784 (Ian). The prospectus can be downloaded at www.pgcitycentre.ca.