The Illiad over The Odyssey

An open letter to the Vancouver Mayor and Council,

RE: The Odyssey Night Club

I expect that City Council generally fields more complaints than commendations about their collective actions. This will be the latter.
For starters, in the spirit of full-disclosure; I am a former West End resident. I have not lived there for nearly five years; I am straight; my girlfriend, whose apartment I stay at regularly, lives within 100 meters of the former proposed future site of the Odyssey Night Club on Denman street; and you'll have to take my word for it that I'm not homophobic, though any thorough search of my past would certainly find the heavy balance of by actions to support that claim. I should also mention that while my girlfriend is my direct connection to this issue, what follows does not speak for her - it is my own frustration with a segment of an otherwise well self-representing community and their need to rely upon unsound argument and false premises that fuels this message, combined with a desire to commend council for seeing through the childish and unproductive politicizing being done by the side which feel wronged.
Thank you and congratulations for your recent decision disallowing the Odessey to re-open on Denman street.I have over the past five days heard an awful lot of outrage from within the gay community I am in touch with, and it disgusts me. What I am witnessing is a demographic who rightfully and genuinely feels persecuted, but that feeling of victimization is being irrationally applied in this case.
I've posted a few comments politely explaining the 'other' side of the argument in various locations - including blogs, forums and gay friend's outraged Facebook comments - and in all cases (most unfortunate in the latter case) they have been deleted, and if responded to at all, done so in a persistently hysterical manner. Hence I figured I should respond directly to you via email and publically on my own blog.
Apologies to council for much of what follows is information that you will already know as you are in the thick of it, I include it for the casual reader reading this as an open letter.
I will begin by stating that I fully support the effort to find a new home for the Odessey, but I stress the need to find a solution that will balance the impact as best as possible. I am convinced that the location on Denman was absolutely not the answer that would provide balance.
There is a common assumption in the pro-Odessey-on-Denman-camp, (I may regret this, but for Brevity I'll henceforth use the term "Prodcamp".) that being a vital part of the gay community - a gay-neighbourhood - that Denman street is an ideal place for the night club. I have lived a block off Davie street - behind a relatively quiet night club, but I'll get back to that - and spent plenty of time at my previously mentioned girlfriend's apartment, roughly the same distance from Denman. There is a world of difference in the neighborhoods. While both are rich examples of the gay community, comparing them to one another is not unlike comparing the entertainment district of Granville Street to Shaugnessy. One is where the younger crowd lives and goes to for their night-life, the other is where the married and older citizens settle. Do not be fooled by the propinquity of Davie and Denman compared to the other example. It's a smaller and more densely populated demographic thus the distance is less spread out.
Despite being a major street, Denman is not a 'party street.'
As mentioned above, I have lived behind a relatively quiet nightclub - a gay night club, so the comparison does bear a layer of correlation. Closing time was NEVER quiet, and occasionally I was compelled to call the police due to unreasonable noise from the patrons afterhours in the alley... yes, I am avoiding the gory details.For the most part though we did not complain about the noise - it was merely the few outrageous exceptions - but it needs to be stressed that we moved into that neighbourhood fully aware of both the general night-life along Davie and the specific from said club. It bears saying that this was in the days before smoking was pushed out into the street. That is not a judgement on smoking by-laws, simply relevant framing, as smokers would by necessity spread out along Denman street and ajoining side streets and alleys.Another aspect that the Prodcamp seems to have a tin-ear about is that if the neighbourhood is against the club in the first place that the number of complaints to the owners, council and the police are going to be magnitudes greater than would be experienced in a neighbourhood where the club is established. It's unwelcome nature (not for being gay, just for being loud) would NOT serve it's longterm health as a club - an for the most part, THAT is the crux of the problem, and where Michael Levy is actually being the short-sighted one, contrary to his claims about City Council. COuncil has recognized that noise pollution in the neighbourhood is the primary concern, and that is bang on. It's necessary to acknowledge with out predjudice the existence of largely anonymous, but more specifically spontaneous sexual activity that is ignited within a club. This can happen at straight or gay clubs, thus is not specific to the Odyssey. But when correlated to the proximity of the proposed 911 Denman location to Stanley Park - a known cruising location - it is unreasonable to suggest that couples and individuals would not leave the club heading west through a quiet residential neighbourhood - possibly making it to Stanley Park, possibly not waiting that long - and then have to make a return trip through the same neighbourhood. This is in addition to the expected and accepted diaspora along major thoroughfares at the end or even during a given night's entertainment.
Additionally, putting the club in a location better accessible to other clubs (gay or not) is to the advantage of both patrons out for the evening and to police patrolling. This latter point has little to do with responses to complaints or incidents and is primarily with regards to standard patrolling of night-life. The further the police have to travel, the more their resources are unnecessarily stretched. In the rare event that there is a need to respond to an incident the distance only exacerbates the problem.
There are a few more fallacies and mis-understandings I wish to address as they regularly come up as part of the argument:
Odyssey supporters claim that the noise can be controlled. This is a totally unsupportable claim. For starters the club cannot be actively responsible for revellers who have left the club, they can opnly take flack for it post-facto. Additionally, it is ridiculous to speak for future patrons five and ten years down the road, no matter how many current patrons swear that they themselves will be quiet as they gather and depart.
Council passed a motion to support the Odyssey in finding a new location, as motioned by Councillor George Chow. There seems to be great propensity for the Prodcamp to ignore this. This sadly strikes me as further evidence of an internal need to wield political weight by the demonstrating the false appearance of persecution.The Odyssey IS a cultural icon. Every resonable effor to preserve it should be made in a location where the impact will be less severe, possibly even predominantly welcome. Somewhere along the Davie corridor - not far from it's current location - is the obvious solution, if at all possible. Though if the gay community is prepared to venture out to other neighbourhoods, not specifically percieved as gay, it may be a good thing to break out into either the Granville entertainment district or Gastown. There is an acknowledgeable argument that this might not be as safe; but this should be explored as a counter to the equal an opposite argument that gay activity might be "ghettoized" in the West End, a circumstance that would be reprehensible in either an active or passive form. I believe this latter circumstance would be the opposite of councillor Woodsworth's intentions in her excellent public statements on the subject, and she should stand proud behind her comments and not listen to the ludicrous public attacks of the likes of Joan-E.
Contrary to many attacks, the Odyssey is NOT being forced to close. It is being forced to move by having their lease cancelled - which must happen in order for an AIDS hospice to be built on City land. To quote another public letter from the Prodcamp "Maybe you should leave the Odyssey where it is and try and find a new place for the Hospice." Ouch. This is from a letter within the gay community. I am certain it's not representative of the whole, but it does demonstrate the headspace of some of the Prodcamp, who are willing to throw some of the worst-off segment of their community under the bus for a place to party. It makes me sad. Though... if it is possible to extend the Odyssey's lease for a time longer as they search for a more reasonable location - without impacting upon the building of the hospice, I heartily support and recommend it. Today, April 14th council is to be meeting on exactly this matter, and as I write this I do not know the result.
Another mis-characterization by the Prodcamp is that the opposition is from the elderly. This is fundamentally not true. I happen to know a number of people in the neighbourhood who are not among the elderly who are not in favour of the club moving into the neighbourhood - and at this point, what is the point of name-calling?
I have thus far only managed to uncover one side's versiopn of the alleged "Chinese Restaurant" comment by councillor Chow. I suspect it is being mischaracterized. As it comes across - without ever a direct quote - from the Prodcamp is that Councillor Chow said that when his grandfather's favourite Chinese Restaurant was closed, he was disappointed but eventually he found another.As it appears - and quite possibly in actuality - it's an unfortunate statement. But what was the intention and context? When Councillor Chow's Grandfather was a young man the Chinese population of Vancouver was marginalized - nothing like the enormous and healthy community of today, quite possibly even more marginalized than today's gay community. That's the context. The point is that if the Odyssey closes it's doors forever there will be a void. It will fill. It will fill fast. That's a reality. Hopefully it won't come to that, but if it does, it won't take long before in all practical circumstances there is no difference between what exists today and what exists in the future.
Many of the Prodcamp are prone to making claims about the Odyssey's singular position on the gay community. To hear some, you might think it's the only gay-club in town. Others make the assertion that it's the only gay-club with dancing. Well, I think it's time that we turn to Joan-E for facts rather than hysteria: "Vancouver has Numbers, 1181, Pumpjack, Pulse, Celebrities, The Fountainhead, Oasis and Score. Of those, three have dancing for a combined capacity of around 1500 - all this for Western Canada’s largest gay population."
For those in the gay community who are taking up the stances that this is not a gay issue (or at least isn't until the currently fictional time council approves for a straight-club to open in the same premises); and those who are residents who would have been affected in their comfortable homes with their long-time companions off Denman street, I want to thank you too for being the reasonable people you are.
For those straights who opposed the club, and ever made any sort of assertion of evil in the gay community... please, we are not on the same side - or to the degree we are, you aren't helping.
Once again, congratulations to council for making a well reasoned and forward thinking decision, I'm sure you don't hear that often enough.

Sincerely, Kennedy Goodkey

Best Chance We’ve Ever Had...?

All of five minutes ago – as I start writing this – the Canucks won the division title for the third time in five years.

Yes, it took until the last game of the season. Yes, it wasn't a particularly great game. So FUCKING what?

It brings up the question – what the hell happened last year? We didn't even make the playoffs – but we won the division in the bread years of that sandwich.

It's hard to forget that early in the new year we had a terrible losing skid of 10 games. It's been that ugly before, but this season did include a record home-ice losing streak in that period. And it needs to be pointed out that last year's Stanley Cup champs had a similar losing streak last season. Bus since then, we have been the best team in the league... bar none. That's a fantastic way to enter the playoffs. At the end of the losing streak it was dubious whether we'd make the playoffs at all – in fact a friend in Calgary stated in no uncertain terms that the Canucks would be lucky if we even made the playoffs. I'm trying not to gloat right now.

The Canucks have played in the Cup final round twice. I do vaguely recall both. The first I was a mere 12 years old, and not much of a hockey fan – it was merely geography that had me interested in that one. For the second they made it all the way to game seven of the final – and barely lost it. I watched that one from the same bar in Montreal where I'd sat out the Stanley Cup riot of the year before. In 1994, the Canucks played a spectacular playoff but only got to the final through character and grit.

Since then there have been some decent chances... 2002 (I think) Naslund was on the verge of winning the scoring title when he was injured for the remainder of the season... that was promising. But the REAL chance was 2003 when the infamous Bertuzzi incident arguably resulted in the Canucks losing game seven of the first round to the team that would lose the whole shebang in game seven. Todd Bertuzzi in his best season could have made that difference – to say nothing of Naslund being less shook up and healthier. It's a long and tired argument all around...

But here we are...

About to start a new playoffs... and to my own surprise – I really had little faith before the season started – we have one hell of a team. The Sedins are playing as well as they have ever played – better even. Luongo is kicking ass and had he not been injured for a good portion of the mid-season might have had a truly outrageous season. Hired gun Sundin is firing on all cylinders and has been for ages. And all of the 'young talent' looks more like they have arrived than they're about to arrive.

It's sixteen wins away and there are lots of great teams who need to fall by the wayside first, but since February there has been no team better than the Canucks.

There are some obvious bottom feeders still in the hunt, and a team or two who despite their position in the playoffs are there largely due to early season success – Calgary I'm lookin' at you.

I'm not going to get overly excited yet – we need to win the first round and prove our mettle to really be able to assess the real-world chances, but I think this may well be the most exciting playoffs for the Canucks since that 1994 run.

Ten Alternate Realities I’d be Slightly Happier in.

You're probably at least slightly familiar with the Many Worlds Interpretation of physics. In it every possible variation of reality that could occur does occur. An infinite number of universes that are exactly the same except for "x" and the subsequent changes that naturally follow from the point of divergence. This was the essential plot concept of the TV Show Sliders. These differences could be as extreme as "what of the dinosaurs were never wiped out" to "what if I sneezed a nano-second sooner than I just did a moment ago?"

Anyhow... just for fun and a creative mental work-out, here are ten alternate realities of presumably slight variation that I would like more than the one I've been saddled with... WE have been saddled with. The only rule – no BIGGIES! It's too easy to pick a "what if Hitler died before 1935?" alternate history. Only nominal and frivolous alternate realities allowed.

10) "What if Split Enz were bigger than the Beatles?" Yeah, I could have picked The Clash, but that would be just too easy. And besides, I think The Clash would lose something being THAT big. Anyhow, back to Split Enz - I'd be happier in a world where "I Got You" received the air-play that "Yesterday" gets. Julie Taymor would have directed a cinematic opus called "Six Months in a Leaky Boat." Damn it. I'm already jealous of those alternate worlds and I'm just on #10!

9) "What if the unwashed masses had gravitated towards the far more clever 'Doubloon' instead of calling the 2$ Canadian coin a 'Twoonie?'" It'd be nice to live in a country that witty. I'm just sayin'.

8) "What if the 'space' key on my phone's texting-pad wasn't so sensitive to temperature?" In this universe it in explicably refuses to register when it's cold unless I press it about seven times. It's annoying. There is a universe where I text much less tersely in winter.

7) "What if I hadn't 'ignored' Nicole that summer on tour?" There had to be one of these. I didn't exactly 'ignore' Nicole. I could hardly take my eyes off her all summer, but I never acted upon it. It was totally obvious. Even if I had acted it would have just been a summer fling – she was going back to school at Mt. Alison University and I was moving to Vancouver. At the last night of her last Fringe – Saskatoon I think – that summer she came and hugged me goodbye and whispered in my ear "Don't ignore me next summer." That was my last summer touring. DOH!

6) "What if I'd been healthier upon my return from filming in the Okanagan in Spring 2007?" I had four days before the Vancouver portion of the shoot began. I HAD to rest up. As it was when the Vancouver portion was over I was as sick as I've ever been for a prolonged period of time. But in that window I turned down an opportunity that I really wanted to take. I DID make the right choice, but if I hadn't felt the desperate need to recuperate I could have been in the audience for the FIRST show of the Police reunion tour. That would have been cool.

5) "What if Disney stuck a little closer to the Brothers Grimm?" C'mon. It'd be far more fun if frog princes got thrown against the wall instead of kissed, and wicked step-sisters cut off toes to squeeze into shoes. Or perhaps I'm just a bit perverse.

4) "What if Episodes One and Two had been One and Episode Three had been Episode Two?" Not a perfect solution, but already its better story-telling.

3) "What of fog smelled like mint?" There'd be one more type of good weather – and it'd be radically different from the forms we are accustomed to. Just imagine. Perhaps I should add the clause that smog doesn't count. Who would need an incentive to breathe choking toxins deeper than they have to?

2) "What if the anti-Olympic lobby had the money that the VANOC-2010 committee had back in 2002?" You can't tell me there wouldn't be less headaches in Vancouver today... and over the past few years. Only eleven months 'til it's behind us... sigh.

1) "What if the Steve Moore never cheap-shotted Naslund?" This one plays out quite easily. For starters Naslund would have been in better condition for the remainder of the 2003 season and NHL playoffs. But more than that, the other half of that the truly talented two thirds of the Westcoast Express, Todd Bertuzzi almost certainly wouldn't have mugged Steve Moore (and I'm not going to get into that moral mine-field right now – it's enough to say it would not have happened) and thus would have been playing for the Canucks for the same period. Canucks lost game seven of the first round to the Flames – in overtime. Bertuzzi and Naslund WOULD have made the difference. The Flames went on to barely lose game seven of the final round of the Stanley Cup to Tampa. Do I need to make the implications of this any more clear? "

Joe Bird Died

I've said that probably two dozen times today. Most of them it has been delivered with an incredulous tone that implies that the sentence begins with "I can't believe..."

I never hung out with Joe much. Some, on tour. But for the most part his company – Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie – ran with a different crowd than the Juanabees. There wasn't really any animosity between us (if one discounts the rumours that his main partner in crime had a small hate-on for me personally – allegedly over a girl, but none of that has ever been confirmed (EDIT: Debunked!!! See comments below.)) and the Juanabees even paid tribute to the Trolls in our third show by calling our show "Three Young Hitlers in a Baggie" – a title which melded the names of two of a previous seasons' top sellers.

The Trolls were top dog when we started touring, but they were in the process of transition so we only actually toured together once, before the torch was passed. We crossed paths numerous times though, and in a very real sense the Trolls were the Juanabees inspiration. Between the Trolls and the Flaming Idiots the Juanabees got the incorrect message that touring ALL the Fringe festivals was how it was done. It wasn't. But it would become that way after we did it.

My friend Brian – who was an original Juanabee – dragged me to the last Trolls show at their first visit to the Victoria Fringe. I had genuinely never seen anything like it. I'd seen and done sketch comedy, but the Trolls were pushing things to a new level. It was fast, funny, ridiculous and beyond just being funny had something very real to say. And the music... they were like a rock band that had gone wrong. It was great.

The next year Norm and I would see the Trolls again in Vancouver. It was IN LINE to the Trolls show that I had the conversation with Kevin from the Flaming Idiots that led me to the ill-met conclusion that touring all the festivals was the way to go. It was there that I first heard The Toronto Song. I STILL love the Toronto Song. According to today's Edmonton Journal Joe wrote it and it led directly to their short-lived CBC show. Note: Do NOT start your entire run with the announcement that you should 'lower your expectations.'

I do recall jamming with Joe... it must have been that first year on tour. I'm almost certain it was at one of the infamous 'Fuck Art' parties that became a Fringe staple for a few years. He was an outrageous partier. And part of his seemingly infinite capacity for glee seemed to be his bottomless stamina for being on the up-side of some form of high... though perhaps I mis-read him, but I doubt it.

Joe was always happy to see you, though he probably couldn't recall your name. One couldn't help but think that it was inevitable that he'd die young for that same capacity. I know... or rather, I've been told, that Joe's family was stricken with naturally short life spans. He himself expected to be dead before he was thirty. He was forty-one when he died yesterday. One can't help be struck by the irony – it was April Fool's day.

It's all just thought – random thought, but it's natural to reflect at a time like this. In the past week three acquaintances of mine have died. Joe is the most recent, so perhaps that's why I'm struck by pensiveness now... the dam has broken. But it may be affinity. Joe was born in the same hospital as I was. We have the obvious actor/musician & Fringe connection. It makes me project... both my grandfathers died young. Very different circumstances – I've already outlived the one who died by accident (as opposed to illness.) I suppose that the closer a person reflects ourselves, the more prone we are to consider our own mortality, whatever that results in.

Good journey, Joe. It was good to have travelled with you. Thanks for the inspiration.

More Trolls – that's Joe on guitar.

Look Before You Screen

It's possible to learn a lesson the hard way, as we all know – probably from painful experience. But it's also possible to have those same lessons be a hell of a lot better than they could have been.

Between screenings four and five we had an opportunity to sit down – Mike, Craig and I – and mash our way through a number of issues that were quickly fixable, and a few that were more in depth but that were feeling like we needed to ameliorate in order to get the feedback to focus elsewhere. On that last matter – mission mostly successful! Yay!

We did our final screening (for now) last night. It was our biggest focus group yet, and our most diverse. It was also unique in that it was the only time that we had people in the room who knew no-one involved in the film. A few of the people who had been specifically invited brought people we didn't know. We knew they were bringing people, but we didn't bother to screen them in any way. I think we may adjust that policy next time around.

This past week we have been doing test screenings of the film. For the most part they have been largely painless. Some surprising and excellent feedback and some feedback that we knew was coming and that there was nothing we could currently do about it... in both of those cases solutions are in the works.

Two things happened. One – annoying as all hell; the other – could have been disastrous, but seems to have worked out okay.

THE FORMER CASE: With a minute or two before we started the film, I made a point of pulling out my cell phone and turning to silent in front of everyone and requesting that they all do the same. Several people pulled out their phones and turned them off right then... you would have to be a complete idiot to not notice. Our host declared "I never get calls at this time of night" and we took her word for it, she is a fairly savvy, cool and self-aware person – so if she wanted to leave her land-line ringer on... we were her guests, so who am I to argue?

Twenty minutes into the film our host's phone rang. (Go figure.) She leapt up, answered it and took it down the hall to a back room where she left it... returning moments later. She blew it. She knew it. She handled it as well as could be expected.

Now I would think that having an announcement, and a blatant demonstration of how disruptive a ringer left 'on' could be would be enough of a message to anyone else who left their phone on that they would think to do something about it. Oh how naive.

Half an hour later a cell phone – the sort that simultaneously rings and vibrates – rang. And rang. And rang. No one copped to it being theirs. I was annoyed, but figured that making an issue of it would disrupt even further.

Ten minutes later, the same phone rang and vibrated at length again.

The third time around I actually counted the number of rings. Who sets their phone to 25 rings before voicemail picks up? (And yes... it had voice mail as we would soon find out.)

At this point Craig (with much more tact than I could have mustered in the moment) comment upon the ringing phone. Finally the culprit admitted that it was hers... and did nothing about it. Granted, at this point there were mere minutes left in the film, and it was apparent that it was wrapping up, and she was not in the easiest place to get to her jacket from. At that point it really was the best thing to just wait.

When the film was finished I immediately went around with pens and questionnaires. She took her questionnaire and set it aside and got up and went to her jacket and took out her phone... and listened to the messages that had been left. When she was done I handed her her questionnaire again. She sat down with it for perhaps three minutes (most people take about 15 minutes on average to truly finish it) before declaring (and I quote) "I'm too intellectual for this!" Upon which she stood up and walked into the hall and made at least one call. When she returned, it was clear she had no intention of finishing her questionnaire. And when I made a move to collect it from her she snatched it away from me. She then proceeded to stick around while everyone else finished theirs and sit through the discussion that followed – without participating at all.

So... she is either a totally inconsiderate idiot, or so absurdly important that she can't possibly turn her phone off. Oh wait... it can't be the latter. 'Cause she didn't bother to answer the damned thing when it was ringing off the hook. So perhaps she wasn't anticipating something REALLY REALLY important to happen elsewhere in her life last night. Something so traumatic that she couldn't possibly fill out her questionnaire. Uh... on second thoughts... wouldn't something like that be the sort of thing that when you found out about it you'd apologize for and leave in a hurry rather than sit and listen to a conversation that you had no intention of involving yourself in? I guess that settles it. Inconsiderate idiot.

Oh well, I guess next time I will be really really forceful – verging on insulting – about turning off your phone. But at least I'll have this anecdote to share.

What really picks my ass about it is that she comes to a screening and doesn't give up word one of feedback. We've had others not engage in the conversation – some people just don't work that way, that's fine. But the ENTIRE POINT of coming was to exchange a free advance screening of a film (with free drinks and popcorn I might add) for an opinion about it. I don't care if she hated it. (In fact - that would be useful information!) I don't care if she is "too intellectual" for it. What the fuck does that mean anyway? "Too intellectual?" I know the film isn't Bergman, but fuck you lady, it isn't Farrelly Brothers either.

THE LATTER CASE: I knew I knew one of our other indirectly invited guests from somewhere... this afternoon I figured it out. She was a PROFESSIONAL FILM CRITIC! Doh! She seemed to like the film and her questionnaire had lots of good and articulate feedback on it (and I had decided that BEFORE I figured out who she was) which is not the case with most of the questionnaires – we do have to do a lot of deciphering what the intention and symptom being expressed is in a lot of cases.

I won't say who she was for now – it may never matter. But I do think it's funny!

That could have gone badly. Seriously badly.

Anyhow... next time I think we'll be a bit more hands-on on the invites.

Songsmith ROCKS!

First a disclaimer of sorts...

It appears as though copyright issues are resulting in the links to these going down almost as fast as they go up, so I expect that these will all be broken in short order... or perhaps Microsoft and the various music publishers will give up the fight...

Have you heard of Songsmith?

Well it's simultaneously clever software... and appallingly cheesy.

And speaking of cheesy... the commerical is pretty awful (and yes, that IS a Mac in the commerical... oh dear.) but it kind of shows what the software does better than I am willing to at the moment. Actually... this demo is a little less egregious thanks to it's humility.

To be fair... the program seems to be capable of much more than I imagined, as some of the results below will attest.

I have to wonder what truly valuable applications to this there are? Obviously the commerical is full of shit. No ad-exec is ever really tasked with the job of coming up with the music to the jingle for a product - that gets left to (gasp) hired musicians, which clearly 'Dad' isn't. And it's not instantaneous enough (despite the implication of the commercial) that we could all live in our own crappy Broadway musical if our lap top was always handy. In either above case... shudder at the thought.

But here's the real magic...

People have started taking isolated vocal tracks from famous songs and applying Songsmith to them. The crazy variety from terrible to awkwardly charming is entertaining.

I find it amusing how in some cases it sounds like the singer is the innapropriate part. And in some cases it damned near improves upon the original! (As sad as that is.)

I have to think that some users of the software are going out of their way to push the parameters into areas where it deliberately makes the result sound like a failure, 'cause others are remarkably successful.

In any case the juxtaposition of styles - when massaged appropriately can come up with entertainingly appealing results. A well applied change of mood can work surprisingly well.

And then there are the inevitable (and this has only taken days, judging by the posting dates of the Youtube videos) meta-extensions of the application. From adding backing tracks to speeches, to the inevitable remix of the original (it's crap incidentally, as the vocal track has not been isolated)... and of course even Songsmith is not immune to the Rickroll.

As stated at the top I expect the links to be broken quickly, in which case just go to YouTube and search for Songsmith - someone will have added new stuff... indeed there seems to be new songs every day right now.

I have to thank Paul for drawing my attention to this.

Oscar Predictions

The Oscar nominations were announced today. I have always felt like the nominations are more interesting than the winners – it gives a better snapshot of what is going on politically, creatively and technically in the world of film.

Appropriately, on Monday of this week I finished a journey of ten years. I watched the last of the previous 81 (yes, 81*) films that have won Best Picture. (The last one for me was the rather tepid It Happened One Night.) Someday soon I should do a post on my thoughts on having completed the task.

A month from today there will be a new film on that list. I may have already seen it. In fact, I would bet that I have, but I'll get to that further down.

About two weeks ago I declared to a few people that the Best Actor nominations would be five of the following seven: Heath Ledger for Dark Knight; Richard Jenkins for The Visitor; Sean Penn for Milk; Josh Brolin for W; Brad Pitt for Benjamin Button; Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler; and Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon.

Not only was I right, but the two of those seven that DIDN'T get Best Actor nominations got Best-Supporting – Heath Ledger & Josh Brolin (though Brolin got his nomination for Milk not W.)

I want to take the opportunity on this the day of the nominations to make predictions as far in advance as possible as to who will win – before much external analysis and jockeying for position can happen. I'll look at many of the major categories and throw in a little analysis.

I'll take this in the order the categories are posted on the Oscar website – with the exception of Best Picture, which like the ceremony, I will save for last.

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

It's rare for me to look at a list of nominees and think 'I'd be happy no matter how this one shakes down.' But that is how I feel about the Best Actors.

Richard Jenkins will not win, but it is awesome that he is in consideration. The Visitor came out nearly a year ago, all the other nominees are from films from the last three months... only I believe Milk was the earliest release of the remainder, and it was late November, the other three were all mid to late December. When I saw The Visitor last spring I said to my then girlfriend "We just saw a best actor nomination." I am so happy to be right. His performance is deftly subtle and gently heartbreaking. It is also heartbreaking that Hiam Abbass, from the same film did not get a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

Frank Langella has spent 2 and a half years getting stellar reviews for his stage performance as Richard Nixon... it is no wonder he is getting great reviews for the film. Similarly, Michael Sheen as David Frost – one has to wonder why he missed a nomination. I haven't yet seen the film, but it is high on my list. I have my doubts that Langella can win, though if he does it will be a combination of recognition of his solid journeyman career and his long association with this role. Playing a historical character never hurts your chances, which also applies to the next nominee.

Sean Penn, I hear, is doing his best work ever in Milk. (In alternate versions, he is doing his best work since Dead Man Walking.) I haven't seen it, but it too is 'on the list.' Sean Penn is an actor I have huge respect for, I was so glad when he won his first Oscar, I would love to see him win a matching book-end, but I think there is a wave that will prevent it, which I am getting to eventually...

Brad Pitt is doing excellent work in Benjamin Button, and one of the standard biases of the Academy is towards actors who play role that spans most of a lifetime, and there is no arguing that there has never been a lifetime quite like Benjamin Button's put on screen... but I think Pitt's work is subsumed by the technology that supports his performance and that that will prevent him from winning on this one. It's okay – he will have another chance... which is a thought which also will hurt his chances this time 'round.

Mickey Rourke's disarming self-revealing analogue is almost the only thing anyone talks about when referring to The Wrestler... and that puts even more attention on his brave performance. I suspect that the vast majority of actors who vote will find themselves deferring to their respect for his emotionally naked performance and that Mickey Rourke will take the Best Actor statue in a walk.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

In addition to Heath Ledger and Josh Brolin, mentioned above, the options for Best Supporting Actor are Robert Downey Jr., Philip Seymour Hoffman and Michael Shannon. Josh Brolin will win an Oscar someday. Philip Seymour Hoffman already has, Robert Downey Jr. is probably my favourite actor alive right now, and he disappears into his hysterically funny role in Tropic Thunder, but he too will have another chance. Heath Ledger ran circles around the rest of the film he was in, as well as making the world forget that Jack Nicholson ever wore the purple jacket and nasty smile of the Joker. Add the fact that The Dark Knight is the Godfather II of superhero films, and of course the cherry on top – Heath will never have another chance to win – and he will join Peter Finch as the only two actors ever to win posthumously.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

When I made my declaration about which performances would make up the Best Actor nominations I was struck that I couldn't come up with a suitable list for Best Actress. Looking at who was nominated, it starts to make sense. I haven't seen a single one of the films that the nominees represent. I I've heard great things about Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married and the same for Kate Winslet
in The Reader. All Meryl Streep has to do is MAKE a movie in a year to get nominated, and she is an actor who I feel deserves that recognition – she is THAT good... but her perennial nominee nature (as well as having already won) makes it less likely that she will win in any given year. I know nothing about Frozen River (and by extension, Melissa Leo), and I am a bit surprised that Angelina Jolie has been nominated for Changeling. None of the reviews I read of the film made it sound like she was doing a good job – in fact some of them were downright unflattering. She already has a statue – an undeserved one, honestly – I think the best chance of getting a second one on her mantle this year lies with her lesser half... and I've already made it clear I doubt Brad Pitt will win.

So... who will win Best Actress? I think this one comes down to 'whose turn is it?' This inevitably makes it Kate Winslet. She has been nearly as perennial over the past decade as Meryl Streep, and she has yet to actually win. Already walking off with a pair of Golden Globes including one for the same performance as she is nominated for by the Academy doesn't hurt her case at all.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

I have only seen one of the films nominated, and the performance in question was awesome. If someone other than Taraji P. Henson wins, I MUST see that movie. A few other notes on the subject: I don't think Marisa Tomei actually CAN win another Oscar due to the doubt and controversy surrounding her first win – deserved or not in either case. Penelope Cruz... I have nothing against Penelope Cruz, but I am SO done with Woody Allen. I could care less if one of his films gets any kind of recognition ever again.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

It seems that every year this category is made up by the inarguable eventual winner and two sacrificial lambs. This year is no exception. That said, I think the lambs this year – Bolt and Kung-Fu Panda are of better quality than most 'also rans' of the past... but so is the ringer. So far as I'm concerned, you could take nothing more than the opening half hour of Wall-E and put it up against all the winners of the past history of this category in a Battle Royale for 'Best Animated Feature Film Ever' and it would come out as the champion.

ART DIRECTION

As with many categories, I haven't seen enough of the nominees to really make a fully informed prediction, but even with those I haven't I do have SOME notion from clips and other promotional visuals.

With that in mind, I'm going to go to the mat saying that The Dark Knight is one of the most completely realized worlds I have seen on screen in years. Add to that that I expect there will be a lot of grumbling over it not getting a Best Picture nomination and that that will throw it a lot of consolation votes in the technical categories... I think it could easily win this category.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

I believe there are three serious contenders for this award. Benjamin Button, Dark Knight, and Slumdog Millionaire. Much of what makes up the cinematographic victories of the former two dovetails with visual effects, and that ultimately hurts them.

Danny Boyle's rich style is perfectly suited to the lush poverty of Slumdog Millionaire and it is gorgeously realized. Director of Photography, Anthony Dod Mantle will take home this Oscar.

COSTUME DESIGN

It seems that this award it typically dictated by a combination of sheer number of costumes and the requirement of the film in question to inspire the designer to do the most research into period dress – a factor which is magnified by having to cover multiple periods and accurately represent subtleties.

That said, I always have trouble predicting this category. All five nominees require period dress. To the best of my knowledge Benjamin Button covers the greatest scope of time and thus the most differences in dress... although Australia also incorporates multiple cultural idioms of dress. The Duchess involves the most elaborate costumes and there is a propensity to honour the detailed labour necessary to capture that on screen. It's a tough call for me, but I'm going to go with Australia. Catherine Martin already has four nominations (And two wins) combined with Art Direction, and her collaboration with husband Baz Lurmann is notoriously exacting.

DIRECTING

There are many reasons that people win Best Director. Making fabulously realized pictures. Being artistic completists. Making films with huge scope. Pushing the bleeding edge of technology for new creative realizations. Body of work. Stretching one's self into vastly new artistic territory. It's 'their turn.' And god forbid, moving us, the audience or taking us on journeys we've never been on before.

David Fincher has been one of my favourite directors for years. Of my favourite directors he is the one least known by non-cineastes, though when I start naming his films they tend to know of every single one. I've always known that his day would come, and I believe that is has. Take the list above and apply it to the five films & directors that represent them. Fincher gets a tick beside EVERY single item. No other nominee can make the same claim.

Fincher/Benjamin Button: Fabulously realized pictures – not one of his films has ever failed in this manner, Benjamin Button even more so. Artistic Completist – In Fincher's case this is almost to a fault. He is a famous perfectionist, to the degree that he alienates collaborators on occasion (most famously on Zodiac wherein he lost his original Director of Photography – not the first time that has happened to him – and the film STILL feels visually unified.) Huge Scope – Benjamin Button follows an entire lifetime through most of the 20^th Century and into the 21^st. It is truly epic in a very personal way. The Bleeding Edge of Technology – Aging Brad Pitt backwards from a tiny child-sized old-man to his natural 40 something silver screen glory and onwards to an octogenarian teen ager... you simply have to see it. It's fucking fantastic, and we've never seen anything like it. Body of Work – Fincher doesn't have a bad film on his resume. Some are lesser, for certain, but even Spielberg made Always (shudder.) Stretching oneself – Take a look at Fincher's past canon. Every one is classifiable as 'dark thriller' of some variety or another. Benjamin Button is an epic romance. It's their turn – This is the most arguable. This is his first Oscar nomination, but I guarantee that I'm not the only person thinking it's been a long-time comin'. Moving the audience – It is rare that a film utterly makes me forget I'm watching a movie. Benjamin Button sucked me right into its magic for the first 90 minutes solid and left my mind racing in all the best ways at the end.

A quick, hardly comprehensive look at how the other directors fail to hit all the points above...

Howard/Frost/Nixon – It is NOT Ron Howard's turn. He won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind. The scope of Frost/Nixon is a fraction of Benjamin Button. Technologically it's not ground breaking, nor does it strike me as a stretch for a director who has a number of historically based dramas on his resume.

VanSant/Milk – Gus Van Sant exploring gay themes is hardly new territory. Nor is he adding to the director's arsenal of tools.

Daldry/The Reader – To be fair, I know the least about this film, but from what I can tell, the scope is limited; Daldry isn't pulling any new rabbits out of the hat at the Hollywood Magic Store; despite two past nominations for solid, but IMHO unremarkable films, he only has six credits on IMDB and frankly two of them don't really count in this context.

Boyle/Slumdog Millionaire – If anyone else wins, it will be Danny Boyle. He only really fails in one of the least of the benchmarks – technological innovation – and in my opinion he doesn't make as strong an argument in fully half of the other aspects... but he sure comes close.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

It's significant that the only one I have heard of is Man on Wire, and what I have heard of it is nothing short of glowing.

FILM EDITING

I'm going to Dark Knight for the largely the same reasons I'm doing so for Art Direction.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Waltz with Bashir, like Man on Wire is the only film I have heard of in this category, and I've heard pretty good stuff about it... which at the level I have my finger on the film world is usually a pretty solid indication it's at the head of the pack.

MAKE UP

All three nominations move into a world where the line between CGI and make-up begins to blur... I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. I'll throw this one to Benjamin Button.

MUSIC (Score)

I wish I knew why, but score is one aspect of film that I really tend not to notice consciously. It's kind of weird – even distressing. Upon repeat viewing score will start to present itself to me, but I rarely register it immediately. I don't know why. As a result, I'm not going to bother analysing this one at all and just go with Wall-E based on the spurious assumption that part of why the opening 'silent' (it's not actually silent) half-hour must be so awe inspiring is that is backed up by a masterful soundtrack.

MUSIC (Song)

For starters... WHAT!!!? NO BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN!???

Okay, that is out of my system. I'm not sure which of the Slumdog Millionaire nominations is the Bollywood dance number at the end of the film, but that is my pick.

>Skipping the short films and sound – neither of which I have any real basis upon which to make a determination beyond wild or even hopeful guess.<

VISUAL EFFECTS

All three nominations were pretty cool, but I only feel like Benjamin Button expanded the film-maker's palette. I'm being somewhat redundant, but Brad Pitt's aging process is enchanting.

WRITING (Adapted)

The three films I have seen are all worthy and I have no reason to think the other two aren't, but in the end I have to go with Slumdog Millionaire. It's structure is refreshingly original (ironic for Best Adapted, I know) and manages to make me forget that the story itself is consistently predictable step by step throughout the film... in fact I might even agree that the juxtaposition of original structure and predictable outcome actually complement each other admirably.

WRITING (Original)

I am kind of stuck here. Wall-E's opening half hour (again, I know) is fantastic, but I don't know that I have been so pleasantly surprised by a film's script this year as I was by in Bruges. It seems to be a pedestrian buddy film, yet it manages to make a hero of a despicable man, without genuinely redeeming him, and it also refuses to give in to an easily Hollywood conclusion. When watching it, I found myself begging the film to end before it gilded the lily by hitting the standard notes of a commercial film ending... and it obliged. I guess, if pressed, I'll go with In Bruges for bravely being 'wrong' to excellent result.

BEST PICTURE

While I didn't make an effort to predict the possible nominees, I am happy to see the results and I think I would have called four of the five if I had tried.

Slumdog Millionaire – As previously mentioned is remarkably fresh for being a film with such an obvious destination. I think it has a real chance of winning – winning a Golden Globe doesn't hurt either. Why was it nominated? It manages to avoid the obvious pitfalls that would and should prevent any film from getting nominated (I.E. It is generally speaking a high-quality film.) but above and beyond that it raises awareness of the Western mind as to the lifestyle of modern Mumbai. A politically relevant message is always a good way to add stock to your Best Picture chances. Additionally, a film that other film-makers can look at and say to themselves "that was not easy to accomplish" is doing itself favours. Specifically, going to the slums of Mumbai and shooting amongst the dense population with a paucity of controls is a significant accomplishment it itself – to say nothing of the purported risk of attempting to do so.

Frost/Nixon – The film is doing itself favours from the outset by taking a well received stage play as its immediate source. Add to that the fact that it is a historical drama that reflects upon current events and it becomes increasingly difficult to not nominate it – all basic quality control notwithstanding, which clearly it manages to achieve... it's Ron Howard – what do you expect?

Milk – Again a historical drama – a biopic, no less. Not to be dismissive, but add gay-rights and issues into the mix on top of a solid work and Hollywood is going to like you... especially in a year when gay-rights are under assault.

The Reader – The film I know the least about. Generally speaking, a well made film which touches – or even directly takes on a taboo subject is doing itself favours. In some cases a film of nominal quality can ride its subject through to a win. Gentleman's Agreement, I am looking at you.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Let me be the first to say it, I have an obvious bias and hard-on for this film. It is my pick for Best Pic. It breaks technological boundaries (which is why Forrest Gump won in 1994); it is epic in scope – like MANY past winners; it is both beautiful and moving; and it's (somewhat tacked on) relationship both on screen and off to Katrina-slammed New Orleans does it favours too; the vast number of locations and eras it covers and the fidelity with which they are rendered plays in its favour. It is not a lock, but I do expect it to win Best Picture as well as more of its other nominations than it fails to win. It's not going to run the table though – Slumdog is too strong a competitor and scattered other ringers will spread the wins around on February 22^nd.

I may revisit this with updated predictions based on the buzz and politics of the day and on (hopefully) better first-hand knowledge of the films in contention.

*The first year of the Academy Awards there were two separate 'Best Picture' categories; Best Picture – Creative (won by Wings) and Best Picture – Technical (won by Sunrise). For some reason they amalgamated the categories the next year, and today only Wings is recognized as the winner the first year.

Year of the Podcast

I blame my boss.

It was our staff Christmas party last year, and our Christmas bonus for the second year running was an iPod. Now before you say something obvious-ish about getting iPods from the same person two years in a row, be informed that last year's iPod was a Video Nano, while the previous year was a Tie-clip shuffle.

I can't explain why the shuffle didn't have the effect that the Nano did, but upon receiving it I launched myself into a personal experiment in podcast listening (and viewing) which almost immediately turned into a full-on addiction. The amount I use my iPod for listening to music is a small fraction of the time I have my ear buds in place. I'm going to hazard a guess at 5% music, 90% podcasts, and 5% other uses.

For those who don't know the term, podcasts are essentially downloadable shows (audio or video), usually made by independent content providers (I.E. people in the comfort of their living rooms) but increasingly by small companies which manage to make money off of advertizing within podcasts and even by major media outlets (CBC is a leader in podcast access with many of their shows available for download.) They vary in length from a minute to over an hour. They vary in quality – not necessarily in line with the level of provider. They vary in content – the 'niche' audience aspect of podcasting is a key element, you can find shows on very specific topics. (Just go to the iTunes store and put any odd word into the search bar... a podcast will come up in the results.) They vary in frequency from daily, to "X" per week on no fixed release schedule, to once a week or once a month, or "whenever we feel like it". In many cases any given show's back-catalogue of episodes remains available for download online. And of as much importance as almost any other aspect, yet easily overlooked, iTunes has excellent management software, the details of which would take up a post of its' own. The simplest summary of what a podcast is that I have thought of is 'TiVo for talk-radio.' I know I just lost those for whom short-cutting the tech by referencing TiVo, is no shortcut; and those who have no love for talk-radio (podcasts are predominantly talk-based, but not exclusively.)

Okay, enough framing. That's not why I am writing. What I want to do is recommend my favourite podcasts for others to check out. A bit of a year-end list... made appropriate as I've just passed the one-year mark as a fan and advocate. I can't tell you how many different podcasts I've checked out over the last year, there are dozens which never lasted past the first few episodes. There are others that I liked at first and eventually bored or even outright sick of... "Sci-Fi Surplus" I'm looking at you. There are still others that had limited runs for reasons ranging from being serialized novels; to, the providers ran out of material; to, the hosts reached the end of their inspiration to continue – I will include a few of there in my honourable mentions, but to make my top recommendation list it must still be producing new episodes on some sort of schedule, no matter how informal. Another rather arbitrary rule – which I will practically break further down – I'm not including any TV shows that are made available as podcasts. I do download The Hour, Real Time with Bill Maher, and the Global BC News Hour, but this is the only time I'm mentioning them. I will however include a few radio shows that were originally available as podcasts. I will also be including video podcasts (technically vodcasts, but that's such a stupid name) that are purposed as podcasts. Anyhow, enough 'rules'! On with it!

First up, a few podcasts that are practically every day podcasts for me:

CBC Radio 3 Track of the Day – A mixed bag, but that's why I like it. It's always Canadian music, but beyond that it's up in the air. Each day one of the hosts picks a track, briefly justifies their choice, and then plays it. Sometimes 2 or 3 will back up on my iPod, but I always listen eventually and in a few cases I've found an artist who I've been inspired to find in the iTunes store. My latest discovery thanks to the track of the day – Zoe Keating. Check her out. Every noise you hear is cello... and it's all done with loops, so she can actually play each song live. Amazing stuff.

AC360 – I said I'd break the 'no TV' rule. But this is a slight difference. Anderson Cooper's CNN show is re-cut and re-purposed for podcast. Some content is podcast only. It's my preferred way to catch up on international (with a strong lean towards American) news analysis on a daily basis. The podcast format isn't particularly good for breaking news... at all. But it's a good way to start my day with a bit more of an in depth look at what happened in the world yesterday.

Canucks Video Podcast – Well, it's not quite daily, and days after games there are usually two podcasts. It's pretty much the same video material that is posted on their website, but it saves me the effort... oh the luxury of RSS.

Onion News Network & Onion Radio News – Again not quite daily, but between the two podcasts it's rare that one isn't available. If you aren't familiar with the Onion, do yourself a favour, check out their website. The funniest faux news-source available. And their podcasts are the cream of the crop. Particularly ONN. Each episode usually provides at least one true howler, and several subjugate chuckles as well. ORN is less reliably funny I find, and often (like their print material) the joke is the headline, so the rest is kind of a waste of time... but at 60 seconds an episode, I can afford to chance it.

60 Second Science – Scientific American's daily update on one item of Science News. Concise, usually delivered with a bit of whimsy, and pitched to be understood by someone with only rudimentary scientific knowledge. I have other sources for getting details, but this is usually where I hear about discoveries first.

Moving on...

The kind-of Top Ten:

Not really ordered beyond "My Absolute Favourite", "Six I'm always giddy about when a new episode arrives", and "Three more really good ones that I can round out a top ten with."

In reverse order...

"Three more really good ones that I can round out a top ten with."

The Moth – A rather new discovery for me, but apparently The Moth has existed for ages. It's a live storytelling event in New York and Los Angeles. It's now available as a podcast – one story a week, I believe, though I don't pay too close attention. The stories are usually 15 to 20 minutes long, often have no actual point and are regularly structurally flawed. But they are almost always amusing or touching. Some storytellers are charismatic. Many are Famous. Some storytellers are utterly off putting, like the Jewish comedienne who screamed her tale of woe about a lousy boyfriend, or the guy who told about being raised to be weird... and damn did it sound like the rearing had been successful. For the most part though it's a reliably satisfying listen.

It's All Politics – I rode this one through the primaries and right into the US election. It's been less entertaining since then, but for a weekly encapsulation of the political scene south of our border, its good listening. It's definitely left-leaning (which places it right of most Canadians) but manages to cover the good and the bad on both ends of the spectrum with good humour.

Savage Love – I've been a fan of Dan Savage's syndicated column for over a decade, but I have always found it hard to read on a regular basis. But his podcast version is far more entertaining. Imagine the same bleeding edge sexual advice being doled out in actual conversations. Dan actually phones the people on his podcast, he doesn't just write up a snide couple of paragraphs. He actually calls them and usually treats them with great respect... but not always – and that's often when it's most fun, 'cause usually they deserve it.

"Six I'm always giddy about when a new episode arrives" (In no particular order.)

TED Talks – Perhaps you are familiar with the TED Conference? I wasn't. Apparently, (I have totally gleaned this from context, not from actual facts.) every year a bunch of people gather together and share lectures with one another. The people are the greatest minds in their fields and they just get together to share ideas. I don't know who or how they get invited, and the scope of discussion is remarkable. Presenters have included; Al Gore (Before it was ever a film, An Inconvenient Truth was a TED Talk), Rick Warren (yes, THAT Rick Warren if you are up on current news – I just wanted to highlight the variation of speakers right off the top), to Thomas Dolby (Science!), Richard Dawkins, Steve Jobs, Dave Eggers, Jane Goodall, Bono and a bajillion (I exaggerate) other folks who you have never heard of. TED stands for "Technology, Entertainment, Design" – though it doesn't seem to be that strict. One talk per podcast with a backlog of talks videotaped back to 2002. My one complaint... that by monetizing the podcast (I.E. Adding advertisements to the end of each.) after initially posting them, the old episodes are now seen as new episodes... which means iTunes wants to re-download the entire 400+ episodes all over again, and I can't faithfully recall all the ones I've already seen – particularly the ones I was least interested by. Argh.

This American Life – Chicago Public Radio's best loved program with good reason. As host Ira Glass explains each week "...we choose a theme and then bring you a variety of stories based upon that theme." The scope is spectacular. Every single week I hear a story that makes me think 'THAT is a film.' This past week, the 'film' was the true story of how the American Union of Real Bearded Santa Clauses (I shit you not) had a very disturbing and un-Santa-like internal political schism. Imagine – you can experience that kind of unbelievable reality every week.

Radio Lab – I kind of see Radio Lab as the This American Life of science... but that's not quite right. Each week they choose a subject – say 'time' or 'memory' or 'perception of self' or 'armageddon' or 'distance' or ' language' or ' DNA' (you get the idea) and then they do their best to come at it sideways. Often the subject itself is one that can really only sort of be attacked for popular consumption by abstracting it. Yet at the same time there is always an undercurrent of science. It's not hard science, it's not rigorous science. That would be hard to maintain when producing a seeming stream of consciousness exploration of a topic. Regardless, when Radio Lab is in its 'off' season, my listening options are not as fulfilling.

Movies You Should See – Sometimes you have to take issue with the show's recommendations of what 'Movies You should See' ("The 'Burbs" – are you kidding me?) but of all the shows in my top ten, it is the one that will give me the most reliable laughs. It is also one of the two podcasts in my top ten that is not professionally produced. Four Brits sit around their living room and talk about the chosen movie of the week... and whatever random discussion that follows from the core discussion. My one criticism of the show is the levels of 'IN' you need to have to fully appreciate it. But trust me; you'll 'get' it eventually. I could even try to help explain some of the in jokes – like how Bloom (Shorthand for Orlando Bloom) is such a bad actor that he actually sucks good acting off other actors who are nearby – he is a black hole of acting... as is 'Mannequin Skywalker' (Hayden Christensen to those of you on the 'out' side of things.)

To the Best of Our Knowledge – The triad is complete. This American Life, Radio Lab and To the Best of Our Knowledge. TTBOOK, as it is called, sits somewhere between the other two. It's the Radio Lab of social sciences. It is based more upon interviews than reporting, and is far less limited in its subject matter, both overall and even within its weekly theme. Unfortunately it is currently on hiatus and is re-airing some of the best shows of the past year... which isn't such a bad thing really except that it's a podcast, so if I wanted to hear the old episode I could just go download it. (Not everyone has fully grokked the nature of podcasting – even the providers who are transitioning from Radio to internet delivery.) To the Best of Our Knowledge might actually be my favourite of the three similar shows. I'm not sure why though; I just want it to come back soon.

Filmspotting – Another Chicago Public Radio offering. It's little more than a weekly movie review show. There are a few additional features – such as a top five list such as 'Top Five Films About High-School' or 'Top Five Actors Who Died in their Prime' and a weekly challenge to identify a snippet of dialogue from a beloved film as performed by the non-performer hosts. Occasionally the hosts travel to the TIFF or SXSW or Sundance and come back with interviews which they dole out at appropriate times too. For upcoming and current movies Filmspotting is my favourite source.

"My Absolute Favourite"

My number one favourite podcast is The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. It was one of the handful of podcasts I first downloaded without really knowing what I was getting into and if there was a podcast I listened to before it, I have forgotten. I was randomly searching the iTunes store for interesting stuff to sample and in the Science and Tech category I found a podcast name that intrigued me – Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. I had no idea what I was in for.

I could have decided to label 2008 as the year of rational thought – as it was my other big 'discovery' this year. I have clearly been a rationalist practically all of my life, but didn't realise it or that there is a formalized movement of rational thinkers in the world. Skeptic's Guide was my gateway drug. So, as it was podcasts that led me to my big awakening of the year, I choose to give them the honour of being the catalytic paradigm of note for 2008.

I began listening to the SGU in mid-December 2007 and was 'caught up' by late-April. Their early episodes were rough, but they soon found a groove. I found that the various personalities on the show evoked a variety of responses from me. I hated Perry originally, but later found that I laughed uproariously at his sense of humour more than anyone else's. (The show has never quite recovered from losing his presence.) I immediately loved Skepchick Rebecca (as did every geeky guy listener in the world, it seems) but as she began to believe in her own superstar status, I began to find her more and more tiresome. I don't think I could be alone. About the time I wrote an email complaining about her smug self-importance she seemed to calm down a bit – coincidence? (Oh ho! Rationalist humour!) I expect I could not have been alone in wearying of her egocentric legend. The lead-host Dr. Steven Novella is extremely well spoken and intelligent. His well practiced ability to dissect any argument down to its core principles is laudable. His younger brothers, the uber-geeky Bob who sports wood at the mention of the prefix 'nano', and my favourite, Jay who has a puerile sense of humour but is always the first to congratulate the others on a job well done. Last but not least there is Even Bernstein, who also puts time into producing the SGU's companion podcast "SGU 5x5" – a shorter, tighter, weekly podcast that alternates with the main one.

I have cried listening to the SGU (I won't spoil it for you; you simply have to listen in order from the beginning. I cried shamelessly, on public transit.) But more often I laugh and I always find it interesting if not usefully informative. Their guests have ranged from Richard Dawkins to President Jimmy Carter and included many names that would be familiar to the rationalist community and even a few names that any media savvy person would recognize. It is very conversational and feels like sitting in on a weekly chat with friends about the week's more preposterous 'science' and the social politics surrounding it.

Some Honourable Mentions for those of you who really just can't stop reading:

I could have filled up my top ten with Skeptical podcasts (Notice how I slipped SGU 5x5 in?) but I didn't feel it was good use of space. Skeptoid is perhaps a bit brash. Host Brian Dunning is very no nonsense, perhaps to a fault. But for 'just the facts' analysis of a range of topics, Skeptoid is excellent. Skepticality is kind of the 'touchy feely' skeptical podcast. Some excellent interviews – I particularly enjoy their ongoing relationship with secular lobbyist Lori Lippman-Brown, but the real highlight of Skepticality came from tragedy. Originally Derek was much more outgoing than his co-host Swoopy. But then – while at a podcasting conference dinner – he had a stroke. He survived. But it was left to Swoopy to continue. Swoopy blossomed, and while Derek is still a part of the show – and the show indeed was part of his recovery – Skepticality is Swoopy's show now. Listening to Derek's recovery and Swoopy's chrysalis unfold on the show was awesome. Also The Amazing Show is quite entertaining. Not consistently about skeptical thought, but it features the mac-daddy of skeptics, James Randi usually imparting some anecdote which occasionally has something to do with skepticism.

CBC has many podcasts as I noted earlier. Most have a lot to offer and I listen to about six of them, but only one makes my top ten. Podcasts of "As it Happens" and "Morning Edition" are merely single highlights from the most recent daily show. "Vinyl Cafe" – I largely listen to for Dave & Morely stories. "Ideas" was a limited series that I am slowly working my way through. "The Hour" is a truncated and chopped up version of the TV show.

Wait Wait Don't Tell Me – Chicago Public Radio scores again with NPR's current events quiz show. It's usually very funny, and occasionally I pick up a piece of news I'd previously missed.

Astronomy Cast – They posted their first episode the week Pluto quit being a planet, and slowly, week by week they have tackled a new astronomical subject. Sometimes I find it hard to fully understand – I've never fully appreciated the wave/particle duality except in a superficial kind of way. Other times it has clarified things I only mostly 'got' – The Theory of Relativity... I thought I understood it, but then listening to one episode I suddenly realised how cursory my knowledge of one aspect was. And still other times it expands upon the now outdated high-school astronomy (from the ground-based telescopes to the edge of the universe) that got me listening to the show in the first place.

Crash Test Kitchen – The lowest tech video podcast I watch. It's a very irregularly posted cooking show. Hosted by Woz and Lennie – a globetrotting pair of Aussies who have delivered episodes from no less than four countries (including Canada... actually, come to think of it they might be better characterized as 'Commonwealth trotting') from various kitchens where they have made all kinds of meals... some not very successfully and rarely without pissing each other off. Oh, the schadenfreude!

Geek Brief & Epic Fu – Two podcasts that are as market savvy as they are informative. Cali and Zadi, respectively, are each hotties who dish out a sampling of tech and web-culture news. Cali is more tech, Zadi more web. Put a scrumptious lady in front of a camera for the nerds to drool over as they get a fix on the news that is most important to them. An excellent choice. Cali has 3-5 minute shows a few times a week. Zadi is 10-12 minutes once a week. I'll watch them anytime... occasionally I'll listen to what they are saying.

In Our Time – A BBC radio show. Each week a group of experts is provoked into giving a much briefer explanation of the subject of the week than any of them ever seem comfortable giving. They would much rather expound about their specific sub-category of knowledge, but host Melvyn Bragg cajoles them on.

And finally, four shows that are on notice:

Slice of Sci-Fi – If I could find another shorter and less self-indulgent show to get my sci-fi entertainment news, I'd ditch this one in a moment. It's the THIRD podcast on the subject that I've tried, and certainly the most successful, but there is an air of unwarranted intellectual superiority about the geeks who want to do these types of shows that grates my last nerve. The consistent worst problem? They always seem to think that 'because I like it' should trump any networks business decision to cancel a TV show that isn't producing numbers. Doesn't mean the system isn't broken, but the underlying premise of their argument is just as broken.

Stuff You Should Know – Interesting, but I've had to quit calling it informative. You would think that a show called 'Stuff You Should Know' would have some rigour. Yet they give pseudo-science the journalistically corrupt 'equal time' and often have obvious gaping holes in their research. This past week – the proverbial straw – they were talking about plane crashes. They got around to the infamous Uruguayan rugby team who crashed in the Andes – the subject of the feature film "Alive," and mentioned that there was a documentary being made about and they'd have to see it when it comes out 'whatever they call it.' Well, it came out LAST YEAR and is called 'Stranded.' I saw it last year. I found it on line without using the title. A two word google search: "rugby cannibalism". I could go on with further damning detail, but the essence is clear... shamefully lazy reporting.

The Productivity Show – The irony of this podcast is remarkable. The original episodes, though not terribly focussed were quite useful and interesting. But gradually the regularity of release stretched further and further. Then the show was taken over by another host... who was less interesting, but more regular... for a while. I suspect no new episodes will ever surface. It has been months since the latest one.

John Cleese Podcast – Delightful. Such a mixed bag. Some short new sketches. Some direct to web-cam anecdotes. Some excerpts of lectures. Not one wasted moment in the entire batch. But I suspect that it too will never air another episode.

I have over 1200 backlogged podcasts on my hard-drive, and listen to an average of about 15 per day, but at least ten new ones download on the average day... and most of the backlogged podcasts are over 30 minutes in length, while at least ten of the 15 I burn through in the average listening day are under ten minutes.

It's going to be a long hill to climb. I thank my boss.

A New Farewell

It was an unusual weekend.

Exhausting, emotionally wrought, and yet I can't imagine not doing it.

This time last week word got to me that the Father of one of my best friends had suddenly passed away.

For me it was one of life's benchmarks. Not many parents of friends have died before now, and those who have passed away have done so in tragic and premature circumstances. This was different. John was 70. Still younger than one would hope, yet old enough that it is hard to make the argument that he didn't have a good run. On top of it, last year he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's had nothing to do with his death, he had a stroke. I am only speaking of myself, I would not presume to speak for John's family – my friends – when I say that on some level his sickness had sub-consciously prepared me for the eventual and the inevitable, but this was no less than years earlier than expected. It was a shock to hear he was gone, and it hit me hard. I underestimated how much it was affecting me when I called Demetri, Ruth and Frances. As I left a message for them on voicemail, I spoke out-loud for the first time some of the things that were racing through my mind, and that made them real, and I barely... okay, hardly at all, held myself together as I extended my condolences to them. While trying to throw out a buoy of support I was simultaneously discovering the mortality of my own parents. If I could do it over and save that phone call 'til after my own soul crushing realization, I would.

The next two days dove-tailed with my best Christmas present ever & the Trevor Linden jersey retirement (they are connected, directly and may be their own blog post), making for an emotional few days.

Friday night I hopped on a plane home to Prince George to attend the funeral service. The plane was delayed by nearly two hours due to weather. At the time that was a pain, but by now the weather across the country is keeping people stranded at airports for days, like some twisted hybrid of Kafka, The Terminal, Planes Trains & Automobiles and Castaway. I'm betting that Christmas Day at YVR is not what people had planned. I feel a bit cheap complaining about the two hours of lost sleep I had, considering the hassles some people are having.

Saturday morning came early. I had thrown out lines to a few people I don't normally see when I'm in PG, thinking that habits would persist and at best I'd only connect with one. It was a busy morning. Breakfast at 8am (after getting in at nearly 3) after which I squeezed in the obligatory shower and shave, followed by the proverbial second breakfast... okay it was really just coffee.

On my way to the service itself I had the realization that as sombre and occasion as it was, it was bound to be an awkward reunion with many people I had not seen – in some cases for twenty years or so. Dad pointed out that I had better get used to the idea, 'cause that is what life is going to keep doing to me, and that in many cases the people who I am reunited with will be people who I don't see again until the next funeral. Hadn't really considered that, but he's right. Don't feel guilty about it. It's the way it is.

I arrived at the church with minutes to spare. Got one of the last seats, seated beside a friend who I hadn't seen in five years or more.

The service itself was a first for me. Practically the first time I've been to a liturgical service. I have been to one vaguely religious funeral, but it was mostly lip-service – definitely lacking in ceremony. In any case this was definitely my first Trisagion – if that was indeed what it was.

Many of our theatre traditions find their origins in either the Catholic Church or Greece. That said, a Greek Orthodox Funeral is not particularly compelling theatre. But I did find it interesting in its own way. I definitely don't feel the need to attend another one in order to hone my appreciation though. Most significant to me was the music. I think technically it was chanting. I'm sure that someone better schooled in such things might delight in telling me just how wrong I am and that the subtleties are far from subtle, but it sounded an awful lot to me like music from a bit further East along the Silk Road. This is an old ceremony. Traditions that can be fairly qualified as 'ancient.' In my mind just more evidence of how close... how similar we all are, despite superficially different theistic traditions. Does it really require stepping outside of the theology to see it? It shouldn't.

It seemed that most of the people in attendance were not Greek Orthodox, though certainly that must have been the faith of the greatest number of attendees. One woman within arm's reach of me seemed to know the service very well and chanted along, crossed and bowed at what seemed every appropriate customary moment. I felt a bit guilty that it unnerved me so much. It must be an accepted part of most religions in the world now that we are so homogenized as a society that where once an entire village would attend the same church, that now in the most moderate sized western towns the variety of belief is wide and the intermingling so inevitable that there must be an acceptance that non-believers of some stripe are going to desire to come and show their respects and support to the bereaved. I have no great insight here – I am simply mildly curious what the development and history of this has been over the centuries.

If you have missed it, I am an atheist. Perhaps to be perfectly intellectually honest I'd have to call myself an agnostic or preferably a teapot or tooth-fairy (my preference) atheist. But it must be said that the church(es) make some really beautiful rooms. Garish, for sure – there's no way I'd want to have a shrine, let alone a chapel, for my living room – but it's hard not to appreciate the effort that goes into the decor. Fittingly this particular church was designed by John.

The eulogy was delivered by Demetri, and not too surprisingly it was the best eulogy I have ever heard. I have delivered two eulogies in my life. Two grandparents. It's a daunting proposition to try to sum up a lifetime in ten or twenty minutes. Undoubtedly impossible. Watching Demetri I appreciated why he – and I – are those in our families who are expected to do such things. Writing and presenting are our trades. But that should not be confused with neither the entitlement to the honour, nor the actual ease of the responsibility. I expect to be expected to deliver again, and I now have seen the bar raised and will try to do better than I ever have before, and without an underlying feeling of disgruntledness (yeah, whatever – even writers experience a failure of vocabulary on occasion) or anger at the belief that I should be the one to do it. (Indeed if and when the time comes that I am asked again and there is someone fitting who is up to the challenge, please step forward, I look forward to sharing the responsibility with others as much as possible.)

Back to Demetri. His eulogy did everything it needed to. It provided a brief & essential history of John's life; identified the core of his character; made us laugh; gave personal and heartfelt insight (the real payment for giving a eulogy is the opportunity to share these); and provided us with guidance in how to fill the space where John was with the best memories and lessons of his life. But on top of it all, Demetri aspired and reached a level of art in his structure. By the end he had seemingly effortlessly returned to his starting point from a new direction, simultaneously tying in the most personal sentiment – which had appeared at approximately the 1/3 mark – as he reached his final sentence. It had been pitched at a near perfect emotional level and the people gathered could have gladly listened for as long, yet again. Without the structural flourish it would have been excellent and dynamic, and perhaps I am the only one to have noticed – or appreciated it technically... and to feel a tinge of guilt at analyzing it, but that extra level elevated it to a true work of beauty.

Although we didn't get into it, I expect that my companion on my walk to the reception at the family home also noticed the structural divinity of the eulogy. He too is a writer. Paul and I walked together. It's not far, but it was -27c. As Prince George ex-pats we had to do the trip in two parts, stopping for coffee and heat roughly half way.

The house was very full when we arrived, and sure enough every third person was someone I hadn't seen in years. It was an odd layer of joy to add into the mix.

After the reception – when I left with a group of three there was a single couple left – I went home to dinner with my Dad and his wife, Kay. A damned good dinner too. Simple, but very hard not to go back for seconds. It's Christmas, it's best to avoid the extra helpings right now.

After dinner we watched some hockey and curling – how Canadian – before bed. Pretty much as I arrived in the bedroom Demetri called. He came over for a few quiet hours. I had come primarily to support him (and his Mom and sister) and the understandable chaos of the service and reception had naturally limited our opportunity to talk. A week earlier we had expected that we'd see each other in Vancouver in the new year (and may still, but it will be extremely truncated) but circumstances have changed, resulting in both an entirely new category of things to share and a paucity of time to do so in. It was good he came by, despite both of us being exhausted and neither of us having a night ahead in which we could get much sleep. He had an early morning breakfast with visiting family. I had an equally early flight to catch.

The talk was good. We didn't even talk too much about the preceding week. Some. Not much. We'd spoken a few times while in the thick of it, and I'd got a chance to glean where he was at – what he was experiencing. I expect there will be more once the season has passed and there is time for processing. It could take years to really get it all.

As far as 'being there for him' I felt like most of the evidence of what I had come there for was in the procession out of the church. I gave his Mother a hug – she was remarkably cheerful, I suspect the sheer out-pouring has been an on-going process and the number of people there at the church was a lift to her spirits – and then I proceeded to Demetri. We didn't say much. We just hugged and his voice broke as he thanked me for being there.

Zoi se mas.

My flight home was delayed. It was too cold. The de-icing fluid was freezing.

"Well, tonight, thank God it's them, instead of you."

Twenty Four years... damn.

I remember whern I first heard 'Do They Know it Christmas?' I was in my grade 10 Algebra class and because we'd collectively done well at a recent quiz we got to listen to the radio while we worked on our latest set of quadratic equations.

Some kids in the class had already heard the song and word passed around quickly that it was a song by a bunch of British musicians to raise money for starving people in Africa.

I recall thinking that it was rather partonizing and had to think 'wait a second... there are large portions of Africa which while poor are hardly starving' or something to that effect. C'mon, I was fifteen, there was no internet, while not really anymore accurate than the information I was getting from the song, the essence of what was going on in my head was right.

Let's also put into perspective that beyond having grown up with Unicef ads telling me that I could sponsor a child in Bangladesh for less than 50 cents a day, I was really not in touch with third world suffering. Yes, I do know Bangladesh is not in Africa - but I don't know that I knew the difference in 1984. And that is part of the point... I didn't know. Over the next year I - like so many - would learn a lot. The short term legacy of that song would be phenomenal.

The effect in Ethiopia specifically was, as we now know, minimal. Some lives were saved, or at least prolonged, but an enormous amount of money was lost to logistical failures in distribution and localized corruption. But awareness was raised. A spirit of humanity was evidenced that has never really disappeared. The song has been rerecorded twice since. Various similar projects like "We Are the World" (talk about patronizing) and "Tears are Not Enough" (the Canadian artists' response.) appeared to do their part. And of course there was Live Aid.

Live Aid itself could fill volumes. From the career making performance of U2, to the follow up Live8 (where Bob Geldof recognized that awareness was more valuable than money & didn't even try to raise funds with it.)

The long tail of 'Do They Know its Christmas?' is truly remarkable. I wonder if Midge Ure and Bob Geldof had a clue when they put it together?

But the legacy that I think may actually be the most important, is that they created a song that would transcend it's origin to become a genuine non-secular carol. Non-secular? Yes. I contend that it is, despite the title of this post, and a reference to prayer in the lyrics. It's a song that goes beyond those cursory and largely metaphorical images and speaks to the things that many agnostic and atheists - I'll even go so far as to say 'non-Christians' - find in the yultide season.

It's a time of expanding our awareness to think of the plight of those less fortunate and to celebrate the abundance each of us has for ourselves and our families. These are all standard Christmas platitudes, and I don't want to get buried in my own maudlin musing, but the chorus of "Feed the world... Let - them - know - its - Christ - mas - time..." is hard to hear without singing along and or getting it stuck in your head. And it bears more of the spirit of the 'reason for the season' than the typical non-religious carol - most of which are seasonal novelty songs (Eg. "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer", "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" or "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer.")

Considering how bastardized the entire holiday has become, it's nice to have a cornerstone upon which the loftier morals of the holidays can be built without having to turn to the ecclesiastical. 'Cause "in our world of plenty, we can spread a smile of joy."

Prorogation – Right or Wrong, is it even smart?

I really really have to stop myself from teeing off at length about Stephen Harper's various declared mistruths and fallacies to the Canadian public over the past several months. (To say nothing of anything he actually did before and immediately leading up to this autumn's election.)

I am not happy with him as our Prime Minister. I would not be happy with Stephane Dion as our Prime Minister either. I don't even really consider Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe as realistic options regardless of my feelings.

Any contention that a coalition is unfair, unjust or (this one really just fucks me off) illegal is either misguided, misinformed or an outright lie.

I don't think a coalition would be particularly functional, but there is only one way to know. Apparently it works really well in Switzerland. So let's assume that it's hasty to assume. One thing that is for certain is that a coalition is perfectly legit. It has been a part of our Parlimentary system from the outset and while it has been nearly 70 years since Canada last operated under one it has been a valid option under every minority government since Confederation.

While I'm on the subject of how our political system works, and before I get to my main point, there is a pair of polemic fallacies that are being lofted by each side. The boiled down version of each are as follows. On the pro-coalition side of the debate: "The majority of Canadians did not vote for Harper." On the anti-coalition side "No one voted for a coalition." Both of these statements are correct on the surface, but the implicit argument of both is utterly false for exactly the same reason. That is because of how our government is elected. This is important and it seems easily overlooked. It appears as though through a combination of common parlance (Eg. "I'm voting for Harper." Or "I voted for Trudeau.") and associative assumptions gleaned from the highly visible elective process of the United States, that people seem to not realise who/what they vote for. Think back to October 14^th. On your ballot, did you see any of the following names? Stephane Dion, Steven Harper, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, Elizabeth Green? The answer is "no" (Unless you happen to live in – respectively; Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Calgary Southwest, Toronto-Danforth, Laurier-Sainte Marie or Central Nova; and even then you only would have had one of them on your ballot.)

We in Canada vote for our local representative in the House of Commons. They (typically) each belong to a party. Collectively they determine who the government is. If there happens to be a majority of one party's representatives (MPs) it's pretty much a given that they will declare that they will declare their party leader as Prime Minister. Otherwise, it is all up for grabs. Under MOST minorities the party with the most seats is able to leverage an agreement with at least one of the lesser represented parties to agree with them in principle and support the leader of the better represented party as Prime Minister. This works under the understanding that more Canadians supported that party's representatives than any other. But this is nothing more than a courtesy. There is NO obligation to do this. It in itself is the simplest form of coalition. There is nothing stopping any other combination of parties – or even individuals if they desire to split from the party lines – who believe that they can collectively act in the best interest of the Canadian public from appointing a Prime Minister from among their ranks (presumably the leader of the largest party group within them) if they have the political will and force of numbers (I.E. a majority) to do so.

So, back to those two statements. "The majority of Canadians did not vote for Harper." True. Of course the only Canadians who could live in Calgary Southwest. But at it's heart, the unspoken premise of this argument is "Canadians did not elect a majority of Conservative MPs." Which is essentially irrelevant. We elect MPs of whatever stripe. THEY determine what the make up of the government is, no matter what constitutional avenue is excercised to do so. On the other side, "No one voted for a coalition." Again, this is technically correct. Put aside all facetious arguments such as "Of course not, 'Coalition' was never on the ballot." (Sorry Mom, I know that particular witticism was yours.) This is a false attempt at attacking a straw man... which I believe makes it a straw man in it's own right. It argues that 'coalition' was never an option. This is, frankly, complete bullshit. Coalition is ALWAYS an option. It just happens to be an option that is not often used in the sense that the people using the argument mean it. It may not be on the ballot, but tacitly it is a standard part of our political process. Furthermore, it is precisely what would allow Harper's minority government to exist – a coalition. Arguably a less stable one than what was planned by the opposition parties this week. Harper's minority government would be operating at the pleasure of the opposing parties, and thus would require agreement from at least one of them on any given vote – a defacto and ever shifting coalition without officially agreed upon terms (unlike the agreement proposed for coalition this past week).

Neither argument is really saying what it actually means. This confuses the issue as such equivocation results in a lot of wasted effort arguing about meaningless frivolities rather than getting to the point.

A coalition, like it or hate it (there doesn't seem to be much 'love' for it) is a valid and legal option. AND... before the anti-coalition side jumps down my throat for apparent non-partizanship... to the best of my understanding, so is proroguing Parliament.

However, I think proroguing Parliament is a worse choice.

For starters, delaying action on the current financial crisis is a mistake. We seem to be one of the countries who are least affected by ('least', not 'un' affected) and we are not only allowing it to gain traction within our borders, but we are losing our advantage without. This is merely my limited perspective. I am no economist, it is also hardly germane to my main point.

From Harper's position, what is he thinking? It strikes me as a singularly cowardly approach. Does he actually expect the other parties to back down in January? It doesn't look good on him, and can only put him in danger of squandering the limited advantage he has. For what? To hold on to his vestige of power another six weeks? If he had simply allowed the coalition to take control, it would have had a limited shelf life. It's inevitable. That would only have made voting for a stonger Conservative government look like a good option to a large number of Canadians. Yet by throwing the equivalent of a political hissy fit, he does nothing to improve his image. (Much to the long term delight of the other parties.) At best he is merely putting off the inevitable and making himself look worse in the eyes of the majority of Canadians who did not vote for him, and alienating the fringe of those who did. By proroguing Parliament he will find himself facing either an election or a coalition in January. The latter will lead to an election in the end too, but his party will be best served in either case to not enter the next election with him at the helm. Again... what was he thinking?