She says: In 2009, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart sent one of the cast (Jason Jones) to Iran to do a real on-location segment for their fake news show. One of the individuals interviewed for the program was journalist Maziar Bahari. As with many Daily Show items, the resulting segment was both amusing and educational.
Unfortunately, the mock interview was then used as the pretext for the actual arrest of Bahari, who went on to spend 118 days in an Iranian jail, with no trial.
On his release, Bahari wrote a book about his experience. And last summer, Jon Stewart directed a movie based on that book.
So, Rosewater is not a comedy. On the other hand, it’s not all grim and depressing, either. The beginning, focusing on Bahari’s coverage of the election in Iran and its aftermath, when the result was rigged, is quite exciting. I’m sure I followed it on the news at the time (via The Daily Show, if nothing else), but I certainly didn’t remember all the details presented of Iran’s thwarted version of the Arab spring.
The movie certainly becomes more insular upon Bahari’s arrest, when it focuses on the interrogations and the interrogators, and how Bahari managed to cope, mentally—but I found that part interesting as well. And I was relieved there were no brutal torture scenes. Gael Garcia Barnal, as always, is very good.
You wouldn’t necessarily expect that Jon Stewart could make a very decent dramatic film on his first try, but he has.
He says: OK. Iran is off the list of vacation destinations.
His views largely reflect my own, though, and saves me a lot of time to just point you there.
Or even copy / paste some of his words, below.
—————————
With minimal ado, this blog [flyingsquirrel.ca] endorses the following candidates in the municipal races I [Darcy Casselman] get a say in:
Regional Chair: Ken Seiling
Ken’s had this job for a long time. That’s largely because he’s good at it. If he has any faults, it’s that he’s kind of bland and innocuous. You could be easily forgiven for never having heard of the guy despite holding what’s more or less the region’s top job for almost 30 years. He doesn’t grandstand and he doesn’t show boat. And I like that. Chairs shouldn’t do that sort of thing generally. He lets the region’s mayors and councillors do the show boating.
I dread the thought of a Chair who’d use the position to make it all about them.
If I was going to ever vote for someone to unseat him, it would have to be someone who’s had some experience in local government. Preferably a mayor or long-time regional councillor. It’s not going to be some yahoo who wanders in off the street raving about taxes and claiming their “business experience” somehow qualifies them to wrangle a consensus out of this wildly diverse and sometimes fractious region. If you want a job like this, you need to put in the time.
It should come as a shock to absolutely no-one reading this blog that I strongly support the region’s plan to build a light rail transit system. Despite over a decade of public consultation, despite it being approved twice by two successive regional councils, despite shovels being in the ground, some candidates in this election think now is the time to stop the project, no matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to cancel it or how disruptive such a drastic change in long-term planning would be for the whole region. It’s ludicrous. Not only is it horrible policy, these people stoop to outright lies and fabrication to try to justify it. It’s appalling. So you should vote for Ken.
That and Jay Aissa is a horrible person.
Regional Councillors: Jane Mitchell, Karen Scian
One is easy: Jane is awesome. Seriously. Read her blog. She’s pretty much everything I want in a regional councillor. She’s engaged, open, thoughtful and accessible. If you have a problem with the region tweet her and if she doesn’t have an answer off the top of her head, she’ll dig it up and get it for you. She’s great.
Next is trickier. We get to pick two regional councillor candidates. The other incumbent is Sean Strickland. I have no problem with Sean. I’ve voted for him before. But this time Karen Scian stepped down from city councillor to represent Waterloo to the region. And I like Karen. Both Karen and Sean are really good and my reason for going with Karen probably have more to do with style than substance. I’ve followed Karen on Twitter for ages and I think I have a very good idea of where she stands on things. My feel for Sean is a bit more vague.
Also, there may be a bit of strategic voting in my choice, as I really, really don’t want to lose Jane Mitchell, and Strickland has always come out ahead of her.
I very much look forward to electing regional council by ranked ballot next election. Block voting is terrible.
Special non-shoutout goes to former MP Andrew Telegdi, who has been mostly invisible in this campaign. He appears to have been recruited by Jay Aissa to run on the anti-LRT ticket, with the cynical assumption he’ll coast in on name recognition without people knowing what he actually stands for. Which is despicable and makes me really sad having held him in such high regard in the past.
Mayor of Waterloo: David Jaworsky
I’ve seen Dave everywhere this year. He’s a great guy, affable, well-connected and engaged.
Unlike the Chair, none of the candidates running have served in public office. Dave, at least, has served on a bunch of non-profit boards, committees and was executive in residence at Capacity Waterloo, an organization I came to know and value through my work with Kwartzlab. I honestly think he’s the best choice for mayor.
As an aside, I was surprised at how much I like Rami Said, who is running on his business experience and an “I will speak for everyone!” platform. These are generally huge red flags for me. Pretending you can always represent everyone is naïve. And government is not, under any circumstances, a business. But he’s good. The deal-breaker, though, is he has no public service experience whatsoever. Not so much as a committee. If he was running for city councillor, I like him well enough I might let that slide, but not mayor. You gotta put in the time.
————————–
So again, above are the words of Darcy Casselman, not mine.
As for my ward (which differs from Darcy’s), I had the happy problem of all the candidates seeming quite decent, making it a tough to pick one. But after watching the debate and reviewing their websites this weekend, I have settled on the one I will vote for.
With school boards, it is very difficult to get information, but thanks to The Waterloo Region Record running brief candidate profiles this weekend, I have managed to select one there, too.
“That we have the vote means nothing. That we use it in the right way means everything.” ― Lou Henry Hoover
Not so long after I first moved to Kitchener, I decided that I should vote in the upcoming municipal election. That year the long-term mayor of Kitchener had resigned, and something 13 other people were running to take over the job. As a relative newcomer to the area, I had no idea who any of them were. It was daunting prospect trying to pick one out.
I watched the debates, I read articles in local newspaper. I finally settled on one candidate. I was handed my ballot, and was shocked to discover that it was this packet of paper with a bunch of other options I expected to select: city councillors, regional councillors, school board trustees, hydro commissioners!
I still don’t entirely recall what I did. Hopefully I just left the options other than Mayor blank, rather than pick names at random on them.
But that’s thing about municipal politics, isn’t it? They are, far and away, the most labour-intensive voting decisions Canadians have.
It’s no wonder to me most people don’t bother.
Barring acclamations, most Ontarians have three votes they can cast: for mayor, city councillor, and school board. Lucky us in Waterloo region, we have another level of government, so more votes: for regional chair and regional councillor (which, in my city’s case, grants me two votes).
If you’re counting, that’s six votes I have to figure out. Six. Whereas in every provincial and federal election, I just have one decision to make.
Furthermore, nobody in municipal politics runs as part of political parties. So there’s no shortcut to what the candidate is all about, just based on the fact that they chose to, for example, run for the Green party rather than Progressive Conservatives.
No. You have to research every single person individually.
And there’s not exactly one central point that you know you can go to and find that information. Sure it’s there—some cities like London have done a great job of creating election portals for people; our local CBC radio has KW ward profiles I’ve found useful; Rogers Cable runs debates for every race (except school board) and plays them multiples times (as long as you have cable!)—but you really have to want to find it.
It doesn’t surprise me that not everyone does. Or has the time to.
I don’t know how you solve this.
Electronic voting? As noted, I really don’t think the main deterrent is the need to walk down the street to fill in a paper ballot. Still, if the convenience slightly raises voter turnout, it’s worth it. But I do think it will be only slight.
We’ll have an idea after this election, because some cities are trying it.
Ranked ballots? A conflict for me, because I’m very much in favor, in principle, of enhancing our democratic institutions. And at the municipal level, this seems the best option. But the truth is, that only makes it a bit harder, doesn’t it? That now you have to put in order all the candidates in all three or all five of your elections, not just mark an x beside your top one or two?
However, as long as people are still allowed to just rank somebody number 1 and not bother with the rest, I think it should be fine. Frankly, if you are researching everyone anyway, it’s likely not that much harder putting them in order rather than just picking your top choice.
Political parties? No! Because although it would make things easier, partisanship has rendered our provincial and federal institutions incredibly unrepresentative and and undemocratic.
Do you want your city council meetings to turn into Question Period, full of heckling and clapping, but signifying nothing? No, you do not!
That’s what it comes down to Municipal elections are real democracy, real representation. And if you care about that stuff in principle, you’ve got to put it in action and vote in the darn things.
So though it’s been a slog, I’ve made my decisions on mayor and regional chair, and I’m narrowing it down on regional councilors and city councilor.
But if anyone has any idea where or how I can find out about the three people running for French Public School Board (Conseil scolaire Viamonde) trustee, that would be great! Because at this point, that may be where my democratic principles break down.
(Also, what do school board trustees do, exactly?)
So here’s a back story: I signed up to be a Supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada so that I could vote in their leadership campaign. It was a ranked ballot, meaning you number the candidates in order of preference, and I did not put Justin Trudeau as my number 1. I went with Joyce Murray (who? I know) as my first choice, because I liked her proposal on electoral reform.
But when Justin Trudeau was announced as the winner by a large margin (Joyce Murray came second, for the record—because I wasn’t the only one who liked her electoral reform platform), I was… totally good with it.
The victory was completely expected, of course, but it wasn’t just that I’d expected it and figured he would do. I felt really happy and excited about his election.
And when he gave his victory speech, I only became more so. And honestly, I was surprised by that.
Photo by Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press
But Justin Trudeau speaks well. And yes, he looks good. And he looks good speaking well. He most definitely has that sort of charm and charisma that draws people in. I am not immune to it.
But that does not mean that he would be a good Prime Minister. And him taking that post is certainly a possibility, given that his party’s polling numbers have risen, and have stayed high, ever since he assumed the leadership.
So when he came for a Waterloo region visit, I had to go. The local public meeting was at 5:30 in Cambridge, which is two cities away from me. But in the afternoon, he stopped in on the university campus that was just down the street from my office. That was way easier for me to get to, though it meant mingling with the young ‘uns.
UW is a very math-and-engineering–focused school, and voter turnout among that those age 18–25 is dire, but nevertheless, the “Great Hall” was packed awaiting his arrival. (Which was precisely on time, by the way.)
The world-weary, cynical students behind me predicted his speech would be full of promises that would appeal to students, such as lower tuition (and that he’d then go on to an age old home and promise them better mentions). But it wasn’t that at all. He just talked about the importance of harnessing the passion for the world that youth feel, but do not find expression for in partisan politics. That it’s not that they are apathetic, but that they are turned off by all the negativity. Which is why he’s trying to be positive, to listen, to change the tone.
It was a short talk, maybe 10 minutes (no notes, no teleprompter), and then he took questions.
While I won’t try to recap everything (in fact, I didn’t stay til the end, since it was the middle of the work day), a few moments did stand out.
Electoral reform
This was first question to draw applause, and Mr. Trudeau’s response that he wasn’t entirely in favor of proportional representation was the closest he got to being booed. So don’t tell me people don’t care about that issue. Trudeau said his problem with proportional representation systems is that they often involve selecting members of a parliament, rather than to represent a particular riding. And he did win some people over with his support of ranked ballots.
Ranked ballots might be an interesting change, but it likely wouldn’t change that much, in the end, and it certainly doesn’t give you proportional representation in a party system. Furthermore, I remain a bit frustrated that he doesn’t fully address:
a) That members of parliament don’t really represent their constituents now, at least not in terms of voting in the House of Commons, because all parties demand that all of their members vote along party lines almost all the time, whether their constituents like it or not.
I couldn’t quite hear the question, but I know it was very critical, and I thought Mr. Trudeau’s response was good. He said that it was needed, ultimately, is a two-state solution, and that speaking in a polarizing way on this issue doesn’t help achieve that. But then he pointed out, quite sensibly, that this is not an issue that Canada can solve. We’re destined to just be background players in this.
Better access for people with disabilities
A prime example of how, sometimes, his responses were just vague platitudes. Those world-weary students behind me grew pretty snarky as he just went on about the ideal about giving everyone an opportunity to succeed, without ever saying what he might do specifically to achieve that. “Just make something up, even if you won’t do it!” was the students’ spectacularly bad advice.
I have better advice: Look into the US regulations for people with disabilities, and look to adopting some of those. Believe it or not, the US has some of the best standards in the world—much better than Canada’s.
(Maybe I should write to Justin about that, too.)
Childcare
But here’s an example where he had a pretty good response, even though there is no solid Liberal platform on this issue. He reminded everything that Liberals had a plan in place for this, but it was never implemented after the defeat of the Paul Martin government. But that it was a complicated thing to negotiate with the provinces, and he couldn’t promise that he could just revive it if elected. “I just don’t know what fiscal situation we’ll be facing then,” he said.
Legalizing marijuana
A moment of humor, as the person asking the question really seemed to be high as a kite. “You wouldn’t have vested interest in legalization, would you?” Trudeau quipped. I like to remind people, “It’s not legal yet!” But then he went on to the solid argument that Canada’s current prohibition approach simply isn’t working. Marijuana is not good for the developing brain, but Canada is #1 in youth pot smoking. But with regulations, that would be easier to control, as we’ve seen with tobacco and alcohol. And that the extra funding, instead of going to organized crime, could be used for better drug rehabilitation services.
Canada is currently being led by a man who cannot deliver a speech without a teleprompter, who never takes unscripted questions from the public, who rarely even takes any from the media, and who shields himself behind a wall of security. Who was once advised: “You don’t have to like people to be in politics. But you can’t hate them.”
Justin Trudeau has proven he’s different on all these counts. How much that matters is for the Canadian public to decide.
But I like it.
Trudeaumania floods SLC (article from UW’s Imprint, including a video interview with Mr. Trudeau)
When the federal Conservatives drafted Bill C-23, the so-called “Fair” Elections Act, did they expect it would garner so much attention, becoming a major topic of conversion among politic geeks? Did they anticipate the near universal condemnation the bill has received? Or was this all a nasty surprise?
But shouldn’t you need ID to vote?
Apparently feeling this is their best defense, the Conservatives’ talk about ID issues a lot: That vouching is too open to voter fraud, that 39 different pieces of ID can be used instead.
What they fail to mention is that the ID you present must contain your current address, and most ID does not. The only common piece of ID that does is your driver’s license—but not every Canadian drives.
Most non-drivers currently back up their address-less government ID with the Voter Registration card. However, Bill C-23 would make that card inadmissible. Vouching has been another backup, but again, Bill C-23 would ban that practice.
This bill would make ID requirements more stringent than those in any province, or in most other countries. But voting is a right, not a privilege, and up until 2007, we could vote in federal elections without any ID at all! Provincially, many of us still can:
So, arguably, you should not need ID to vote, actually. But if a government decides to require it, they must do it in a way that account for circumstances such as have recently moved, living in an institution, having a PO box as a mailing address—or being unable to drive. Not doing so is voter suppression, and is likely unconstitutional.
What if they fix the ID thing? Then we good?
No, this Bill has other issues, such as:
Severely limiting what information Elections Canada can share with Canadians, and specifically preventing them from promoting voter turnout. This will kill certain educational programs such as Student Vote. It also may mean that they can’t share the results of their investigations.
Allowing the ruling party to nominate poll supervisors for local voting stations—positions that clearly required neutrality, not partisanship.
Increasing spending limits, and allowing parties to exclude the costs of contacting anyone who has donated to them in the past five years. Can you say loophole?
Requiring that robocall records to be kept, but only for a year—not enough time for a full investigation (as the still-ongoing investigation into the fraudulent robo-calls of 2011 demonstrates: three years and counting).
During hearings, the Conservatives have been unable to come up with a single expert who agrees with this bill. (One they had been quoting testified that they were misrepresenting his report.) In fact, I don’t recall such universal condemnation of something they tried to do since they banned the long-form census.
So they have taken to dismissing all their critique as “self-described experts” or “celebrities”, and personally attacking them: Election Canada’s Marc Mayrand (appointed by Harper) is power hungry. Sheila Fraser (praised by the Conservatives for her work as Auditor General) is a paid shill. It’s been really nasty.
Also, having delivered the bill two years after they said they would, not having consulted ahead with anyone on its contents, they are now trying to rush it through as quickly as possible, limiting debate through time allocation.
Why are the Conservatives doing this?
That is the question.
Other controversial policies, such as GST tax cuts or harsher sentencing laws, are very popular with some people. They are policies that will win them votes, and help raise money. So no mystery why they propose those ones.
But electoral law? Not motivating like money and safety. Sure, diehard Conservatives agree with them, as they do on everything, but this issue just isn’t going to be a big vote-getter or money-maker.
So, why?
a) Is it revenge?
That’s one theory. That Conservatives are angry they were found guilty of electoral fraud in 2005, that several of them have been charged with over-spending during the last election, that they are still under investigation because their voter database was used to commit electoral fraud (the robocalls directing people to the wrong polling stations) in 2011.
They feel picked on, so they want to take power away from Elections Canada as punishment.
b) Is it fear?
About those robocalls: Another theory is that Elections Canada is finally, nearly ready to give its reports on what happened with those in 2011. And the Conservatives, being in government, have an idea what’s in that report, and it’s not good.
So they need this law to pass now so Elections Canada can’t talk about it and they won’t face any repercussions.
c) Is it a nefarious plan to rig the next election?
The Conservatives aren’t so popular right now, remarkably so given that the economy isn’t doing too badly. And there is no doubt that many provisions in this act favor them: They could put biased people in charge of polling stations; they could reduce voter turnout among youth and aboriginal, who don’t tend to vote Conservative; they could spend more money than ever advertising themselves and attacking other parties (and they do have more money than other parties). They could even do more fraudulent calls, with even greater hopes of getting away with it.
Maybe they think this bill is their only chance of winning in 2015.
d) Is it megalomaniac belief that every bill they put forward is pristine and perfect and that anyone who disagrees with them is a silly poo-poo head?
Given this party’s incredible fondness for time allocation to suppress debate on every bill they introduce, combined with an unwillingness to entertain any amendments from any other party, ever: Entirely possible.
Whichever theory you prefer, none of them makes the Conservatives look very good here.
As a fundraiser, Fair Vote Canada sponsored a production of James Gordon’s one-man show, Stephen Harper: The Musical. I got curious about it, and Jean agreed to go with me. (This was last weekend; this weekend we went to the lovely Yuletide Spectacular Christmas concert with the KW Symphony, like normal people.)
The location was kind of neat and one I hadn’t previously known about: A former shoe factory now repurposed as a cultural center—the Courtyard at Bonnie Stuart. The room where the show was performed was on the small side, but they did manage to pretty much fill it.
James Gordon with the Stephen Harper puppet
I really didn’t know what to expect from this show, except that it would be critical, have music, and feature a Stephen Harper puppet.
For the critiquing, some I certainly agreed with it, but some was more anti-corporate, anti-capitalist than I was totally comfortable with. Bit too hippy-trippy, even for me.
But the songs weren’t half bad, making for a pretty entertaining show, overall. It was also supplemented with some video segments. One of my favorite bits was a discussion of the church Mr. Harper belongs to, an area rarely covered in the media. That featured a video cameo by “hippie Jesus”–that is, the actual peace-loving, money-damning dude of the Bible, as opposed to the distortion version espoused by some churches (whom “hippie Jesus” disavowed).
Given the subject matter, Gordon also strives to keep the material updated. There was a segment on the Occupy Movement, but he acknowledged that now seems kind of long ago (doesn’t it?). But it also included a very funny “Thank God for Rob Ford” song, so new he needed to refer to the lyrics sheet, that opined that Harper had quite appreciated Ford’s antics this fall drawing attention away from what the CPC government is up to.
As Fair Vote Canada is supposed to be non-partisan, I wasn’t sure about the fit with this show, until we got to the “What can you do?” segment. One suggestion was a change in the voting system to be more proportional. The whole last bit is meant to be something of a motivating call to arms, that didn’t entirely work on me.
Canadian democracy is in trouble. Governments won’t give straight answers to questions in houses of governance, they limit media access, they routinely impose time allocation on debates, they pass bills to limit the rights of independent MPs, they delay and censor access to information requests, they conduct business in secret, they refuse to provide budget information to civil servants.
I think the root problem with Canadian democracy is our federal and provincial voting systems. Most people’s votes elect no one and therefore have no other effect (now that the federal per-vote subsidy is gone). Only votes for the winning candidate matter, and whether it’s by 11 votes or 11,000, the winner still gets the entire riding. Votes for all other candidates are wasted. (More at Fair Vote Canada.)
As a result, a party needs only 35% to 40% or of the popular vote to win the majority of the seats. They can and do narrowcast their appeal, so they don’t really care if most citizens don’t like what they’re doing. It disincentivizes parties from working together, as everyone is chasing the 35% dream of absolute power. And it encourage abuses of the electoral system, in overspending (as with Dean Del Mastro and other MPs), expense schemes (“in and out”), and outright fraud (robocalls), because such illegalities can give that small percentage extra needed to win it all.
Realistically, though, I don’t think the voting system is going to change any time soon. I think it’s worth trying, but it’s natural for parties to love the current system. Having nearly a one in three chance of winning it all is pretty hard to resist.
British MPs are much more empowered than Canadian ones. And it makes all the difference.
Somehow, gradually over the last 30 or so years, Canadian MPs have lost more and more of their ability to make much of a difference in Parliament. Here are a couple of accountings of their sad lot, by Andrew Coyne’s in The Walrus, “Repairing the House” and in this blog post from On Procedure and Politics: The real problem is MP irrelevancy.
But right now, this week, Tuesday, a private member’s Bill is being presented that could change this. Michael Chong, of the Conservative party (yes!) has been working on a it for a couple of years. Andrew Coyne (him again), endorses it as A bill that would change Canada’s Parliament forever.
It proposes that MPs get to decide who sits caucus and who gets to be leader, and removes the provision for party leaders to sign off on all electoral candidates. Doesn’t sound like much, and by itself, certainly would not fix everything. But it does lay the groundwork for reform, by once again empowering MPs to actually represent us, the citizens, and not just their parties, in Parliament.
So if you’re in favor democracy and would like to see it working again in Canada, tell your MP to support Michael Chong’s Reform Act.
If you’re on Twitter, you need only 140 characters and this list of Canadian MPs on Twitter. You can also follow the discussion via #ReformAct.
Comments on two films I recently watched, sans Jean…
20 Feet from Stardom is a documentary profiling backup singers, a group of people I hadn’t given much thought to before—which is what made it interesting. Though a few male backup singers are interviewed, most of the time is devoted to the women who dominate this profession.
What they all have in common is talent. No “weak but interesting” voices here; they all sing with range, power, pitch, and control. So the question is, why are they just supporting the stars?
The answers vary. Darlene Love was long cheated out of stardom by producer Phil Spector, who would not release her performances under her name. The incredible Lisa Fischer had a successful record—even won a Grammy—but ultimately decided she was frankly happier in a supporting role. Many others tried and failed, because of having the wrong look, poor material, lack of promotion… Or just because.
Through their stories, we get the history background singing in pop music from the subdued style of the 1950s to the increasingly expressive 1960s and 1970s (“rock’n’roll saved us”) to its diminishing popularity in more recent years. It’s a reminder of how important those backup vocals are to many of the songs we love, like “Walk on the Wild Side”, “Thriller”, “Young Americans”, “A Little Help from my Friends” (Joe Cocker), and “Gimme Shelter”. (I had the lines “Rape! Murder!” in my head for days afterward, which was somewhat disturbing.)
Stars are also interviewed in the film, including Sting, Bruce Springsteen, and Mick Jagger. But it’s nice to see the spotlight finally turned on the talented performers behind them.
I finally got my hands on Game Change, the HBO docu-drama about Sarah Palin’s campaign for the vice-presidency, starring Julianna Moore. It’s somewhat old news now, but maybe it’s best to watch it when Palin is at a low point in her political popularity, because man…Otherwise it would be terrifying.
Admittedly, some scenes may have been slightly exaggerated for dramatic effect, but I did some research, and the essence of what was presented is true. The depth of this woman’s ignorance about the world was astonishing, as though she’d had no historical or geographic education whatsoever.
It’s not an entirely unsympathetic portrayal, either. You do kind of, sometimes, feel bad for her as she struggles to cram in mass numbers of facts in a very limited and very high-pressure time, while being made fun of on SNL. I did find myself rooting for her in the Vice-Presidential debate (which was certainly not the case at the time).
But when on more of an upswing, oh my God, she comes across as arrogant and self-centered and just… entitled and horrible. The way the woman herself often strikes me.
John McCain, by contrast, is given a very sympathetic portrayal throughout. But it’s not really his story anyway.
No longer a current event, but this is still fascinating and well-scripted biopic with a great cast. You get behind the scenes to understand how this could have happened: How someone so unqualified was running to be a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world. It’s not the easiest thing for the HBO-less to get, but well worth tracking down.
Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow. Wealthy genius weapons manufacturer changes direction after being kidnapped in Afghanistan.
She says: I got interested in this after seeing The Avengers, because Iron Man was perhaps my favorite character in the movie. I found the Afghanistan setting and the look at the US military industrial really interesting for a “superhero” movie—gave it more depth. I was also struck by the fact that Tony Stark was such a nerd. Yes, despite being a very charming, extremely handsome, and wealthy man who therefore has no trouble attracting the ladies. The fact remains he has no friends, and seems happiest spending hours alone in his basement, playing with his tech.
The downside would be that it was a bit slow in parts, and the villain of the piece was of the bwah-ha-ha unsubtle variety.
He says: Not too bad. A bit slow at times. I really liked the character of Pepper. I’d probably give it 2 and half or three stars.
On the night of the US election, after blogging about dresses, I decided to avoid all forms of news. Though I felt fairly good about the odds, particularly from Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, I found I was overreacting to speculations of Romney victories. And I knew the results wouldn’t be known, for sure, until kind of late. And I was alone. I just didn’t need the solitary anxiety.
So no web, no TV, no radio for me. I just watched my new DVD of The Who Live in Texas 1975, which was awesome! Then I went to bed, knowing that my alarm, tuned to CBC Radio One, would give me the news upon awakening.
… Though in fact I had to wait, like, 5 minutes while they did traffic and weather and stuff. But then Matt Galloway read the night’s most popular tweet:
It seems apt that, even though it was through radio, I got the news via tweet, as Twitter as truly been my main source for following this election. The details were in various New York Times, Mother Jones, etc. articles. Directing me to those were tweets.
So of course, I couldn’t wait to get on and read all the ones I’d missed the night before, when I’d been in avoidance mode. It was kind of like reliving the whole thing in condensed time. Here’s a sampling.
Starring Gael Garcia Barnal
*** 
Cultureguru's Weblog 