I confess to guessing on a couple questions on the “How Canadian Are You?” quiz. Also I don’t like coffee but I knew that timbits and coffee had to be the right answer.
You rock, you are an almighty Canadian through and through. You have proven your worthiness and have won the elite prize of living in a country as awesome as Canada. Yes I know other countries think they are better, but we let them have that cuz we know better than they do, eh?
I awoke this morning to the news that Ellen Willis died. I have nothing profound to say about her that others haven’t already said better, but I will link to this wonderful brief history of feminism at the Village Voice.
It occurs to me that one good use of this blog, and one way to maybe start some conversations, is to list books that are coming in. I purchase a lot of books, probably more than I have time to read, but my intentions are strictly honorable even if the result is, well, more Benjaminian.
In that spirit, and because I stupidly agreed to wait for a callback for a reporter when I really wanted to go get some lunch, here are the books that were waiting for me when I arrived at my office today:
Lisa Gitelman, Always Already New: Media, History and the Data of Culture (just released)
Theodor Adorno The Psychological Technique of Martin Luther Thomas’ Radio Addresses
Albert Bregman Auditory Scene Analysis (I always check this one out from the library and start in on it, and then it gets recalled)
Anne Danielson Presence and Pleasure: The Funk Grooves of James Brown and Parliament (also just released — and I note that there is a nice long section in the index for “Bootsy Collins”)
Now, here’s the question I can’t figure out. I have this pretty constant influx of books. I am running out of space at home (where I do most of my reading) and have resorted to piling books on top of my bookcases. But I do have space in my office (because I rarely do any reading here). How many books do I move from home? How much empty shelf space should I have at any time?
One of my students just asked (jokingly) if that would be possible. Here’s what I came up with:
4. Which of the following statements correctly complete the sentence?
The habitus is a:
I. special cage marketed for pet rodents.
II. all-wheel drive vehicle featured in an ad with a Kiefer Sutherland voiceover.
III. fashion firm.
IV. nonspontaneous generative principle of sponteneity.
A. I&II
B. II&III
C. III&IV
D. IV
That’s a first!
The anonymous “Passerby” writes:
Erm, note to Americans recently moved to Montreal: there are many histories and families rooted in Montreal, and it is possible you have not yet mastered the life stories of all those who grew up here. Get over yourself.
I note that it goes by the standard, specious “you’re not from here and never will be, so you couldn’t possibly understand” line of reasoning, which south of the border is called “anti-immigrant” and generally frowned upon by progressive people. It’s also not very accurate, since I’m pretty sure “all those who have grown up here” also haven’t “mastered the life stories of all those who have grown up here” before making judgments about local cultural politics. It’s a classic double-standard to keep the natives and foreigners separate, and to mark one group’s greater entitlement to participation in local life and politics.
I’ve heard some version of the angry anglo spiel and to me it sounds pretty ugly. Changing names of streets may be annoying and silly — Parc should stay Parc — but it does not constitute oppression of a class of people.
I would be grateful if someone can explain to me how anglophones are actually oppressed in Montreal for being anglophones. Please use standard reason, evidence and argumentation to do so. Calling me out for being a foreigner isn’t going to convince me.
Our fantasy team, hosti de cálisse, is starting to win some games after a very slow start.
And my two favorite teams are having lousy seasons. Minnesota’s all concerned about “character” and coach Brad Childress seems to believe that he can best win games by boring the other team into submission. Seriously, the offense is so pathetically dull. Color commentators have taken to pointing out that Minnesota seems physically incapable of a 30-yard play from scrimmage, unless it’s a 2-yard pass and some clever running by a receiver. All this talk of Brad Johnson winning games is irrelevant — a great offense has been dismantled and we are left with a dull team that can only win by allowing the opponents to score even fewer points than they do. Even the defense is dull. It makes them hard to watch. Pittsburgh has an even worse record but at least they’re entertaining. They just turn the ball over too much.
Most distressing, however, has to be the Arizona Cardinals, who have assembled a game-breaking, star studded offense except for their offensive line.
It turns out that the line is really, really important.
Holy crap. A conservative Canadian newspaper. Now, I know some of you Canadian readers already believe that the Globe and Mail is a conservative rag, but they’ve got nothing on the National Post. Sure, I could write about my trip to Vancouver, but I really need to tell you about the newspaper that showed up outside my hotel room each day.
To start with, there’s the coverage of Quebec. “Militant anglophone” would be a good descriptor of what I’ve seen so far. Granted, it’s some kind of bizarre language politics that led the city administrators to consider renaming Parc Av. for Robert Bourassa, but the op-ed was penned by someone who actually believes he is in “self-imposed exile” from Montreal. That’s like saying I’m in “self-imposed exile” from Minneapolis because I no longer live there. Note to Montreal anglophones: You are not oppressed. Get over it.
Then there’s the special supplement on “Canada’s University Innovation Leaders.” McGill ranks an impressive 3rd, but the only measure that matters for a research university ranking is how much money faculty raise. And the editorial is concerned that “overall income growth” is not as good as it could be. I’m all for more funding for universities, but “growth” is not a good thing in and of itself. At a certain point, faculty have enough money to do their research and should just get to it.
Coverage of the Harper administration and U.S. foreign policy? Largely laudatory. They also have more NFL coverage, and we all know what that means. . . .
