Top 10 Canadian Indie Albums of 2006

Top 10 Canadian Indie Albums of 2006

1. Amy Millan - Honey From The Tombs
2. Pink Mountaintops - Axis of Evol
3. Melissa McClelland - Thumbellina's One Night Stand
4. Matt Mays - When The Angels Make Contact
5. Neko Case - Fox Confessor Brings The Flood
6. Les Breastfeeders - Les Matins de Grands Soirs
7. Magneta Lane - Dancing With Daggers
8. The Golden Dogs - Big Eye Little Eye
9. Sam Roberts - Chemical City
10. Final Fantasy - He Poos Clouds

While I spent most of 2006 catching up on some great albums from 2005 from artists like The New Pornographers, Immaculate Machine, Novillero, Cuff the Duke and the Diableros (among others), there were a number of spectacular releases this year including Polaris Prize Winner Final Fantasy and the stunning solo effort of Amy Millan. This list is by no means in order save perhaps for the #1 of 2006 which goes to Honey From The Tombs.

Let me know what you think of the list and where I've gone wrong and I'll send you one of my last two invites to the best music site on the net.

The Art of the Clap + The Bicycles

When it comes to catchy pop tunes, Toronto's The Bicycles have written the book, or should I say the album, by which I mean their new CD The Good, The Bad, and The Cuddly. 17 tracks measuring on average 2 minutes each solidifies The Bicycles as icons of a different age. Listening to the album once from afar and again close-up clearly brings back a '60s-esque lo-fi feel, with slightly scratchy vocals, rattles and hand-clap rhythms. Which brings me to my next point, the art of the clap. When used strategically, as it is on this week's track "Australia" it adds a completely new dimension to the music. Acoustically, the clap cannot be duplicated. What instrument in the modern pop-band ensemble comes close? Certainly not the guitar, bass or drums. Even our ancient friend the tambourine, one of the most ancient instruments still in use today, is incomparable to the sharp yet warm sound of two hands in unison (if you want to know the sound of half of one-handing clapping listen to Joel Plaskett's ode to Kelowna in "Love That Town"). Its staccato snap punctuates the music as if from without. Perhaps it was my youthful years spent listening to bootlegs and audience recordings that have sensitized me to the lovely sound of hands in motion, but even without that historical tidbit, I'd still say the handclap is an instrument all to itself. Listen to its crisp albeit seldom sound in "Australia" and judge for yourself! For an over-indulgence of handiwork take a listen to "Paris Be Mine."

Other stand-outs on The Good, The Bad and The Cuddly include the first track, "B-B-Bicycles" and the airport lounge mix of (what sounds like) "My Guy" (or was it Whoopi's "My God"?) which comes out altogether new in "Ghost Town". "Cuddly Toy", the eleventh track on the album is very reminiscent of a Beatles track which means fans of 60s pop that are more knowledgeable than I will get a kick out of matching songs, albums, artists and influences to the The Bicycles.

Returning to "Australia", the hypnotic foot tappin' bass-line is rivaled only by the Golden Dog's Dynamo from last month and the layered cascading vocals is like something straight out of The Mamas and Papas or the Archies.

NewMusicCanada had this to say about my fellow Torontonians:

The Bicycles want their music to reflect who they are as people, as a band, and their outlook on the world, which sounds really boring, but think of all that set to a crisp bit of tambourine. Snappy! Basically, the Bicycles like to have fun.

So give it a spin yourself and those of you who know your classic pop better than I, let me know how you'd describe it!

The Bicycles - Australia.

PS. As I post this I'm heading out the door to fly back to Kelowna, BC for the holidays. I hope to be able to update the blog over the break, especially to post my top list of albums for 2006, so stay tuned. Lastly, as a Christmas gift to anyone who reads this blog, I will be handing out 5 invites to a top-rated music torrent site for serious audiophiles! If you're really into music and want a quality virus-free way to *sample* music from the Canadian indie scene and beyond shoot me a message or post on the board and I'll get one out to you!

CBC Radio 3 Recap of 2006

CBC Radio3 has published on their blog a collection of Canadian indie music nods from across the entertainment spectrum, including Amy Millan's spot in Rolling Stone's 100 Best Songs and The Wailin' Jennys CD success on the Folk Alley Top 10. A few other favourites posted on this blog right here have also made some noise internationally including Emily Haines' Metric and the Golden Dogs - which just goes to show you all I have excellent taste in music! And if you doubted it, why not try out some Les Breastfeeders for size. This Quebec band left a permanent mark when they headlined the Lamplighter back in Vancouver last March and did an equally impressive job here in Toronto performing hits from their latest CD Les Matins de Grands Soirs. So if you haven't been paying attention to the music tracks I've painstakeningly posted and raved about on this blog, click the "indie music" label at the bottom of this post to get a showcase of the who's who of the Canadian indie scene and stay tuned for more in the new year!

The CBC Radio 3 Top 94 of 2006 and the first annual Bucky Awards are fast approaching; but Canadian artists are already hitting 2006 best album lists around the world.

Tokyo Police Club and Amy Millan have both made it into Rolling Stone's 100 Best Songs of 2006. Of Millan's song "Skinny Boy", they write, "Singer from Canadian indie-pop outfit Stars applies angel-voiced cynicism to delicious Mazzy Star-style tune. Best line: You've got lips I could spend a day with.'"

Meanwhile, Tokyo Police Club get a whole new word made up for them in the description of their great song, "Cheer It On": "They're not from Tokyo, they're not cops and the only club they could get into is probably the Strokes Fan Club -- but these mods score with a gloriously dumb garage-punk thrash-terpiece."

Destroyer's latest CD, Destroyer's Rubies, is number 9 - and the only Canadian pick - on Metacritic's 30 Best-Reviewed Albums of the Year, which tallies its results based on major critics' reviews from around the world. The Vancouver band beat out internationally acclaimed releases by groups including The Roots, Arctic Monkeys, Neko Case, The Decemberists, The Hold Steady and even The Beatles.

Right now, NME's Top 50 Albums Of The Year is only out on newsstands, but Metric's Live It Out, which was released in the UK in July this year, is ranked at number 38, above Beck, Bob Dylan, and Wolfmother.

The Wailin' Jennys recent CD, Firecracker, is number 1 on the Top 10 list of Folk Alley, a national NPR radio program. On the show's website, they rave: "Wailin' Jennys' award-winning Ruth Moody, Nicky Mehta and Annabelle Chvostek combine their individual songwriting talents, spine-tingling harmonies and rootsy folk-pop arrangements for a stunning follow-up to their 2004 debut."

Three Canadian bands have received a slightly different kind of honour: The Bicyles, The Golden Dogs and Les Breastfeeders have made it onto Allmusic.com's 25 Most Crushworthy Bands of 2006 list.

Of Toronto's The Golden Dogs, Allmusic's Margaret Reges writes: "The Golden Dogs are Canadian, they sound a little like Arcade Fire, they wear cute outfits, and gosh darn it, I want to put them in my back pocket! I wanted to buy a t-shirt, but they aren't selling any! Damn you, Golden Dogs! Damn you for making me love you!"

Hear Les Breastfeeder's Pas Sans Saveur from Les Matins de Grands Soirs

York University Exceeds the Western Standard

More of a momento than a rant or opinion piece. Below is some excerpts from Western Standard's "Nuttiest Professors" article which seeks to denounce the general state of academia in Canada and then name some names behind its downfall! I was proud to see York sporting two profs on the short-list! One being my very own Technopolitics professor Shannon Bell! I hope she reads this as an honour, as I did, and not as Grandpa and Grandma Conservative will be!

Universities today are hothouses of intellectual repression, encumbered by censorious codes stifling free speech and weakened by employment-equity programs that force faculties to favour diversity over accomplishment. Just ask Lawrence Summers, the former U.S. treasury secretary who was hounded from the presidency of Harvard this year after suggesting publicly that males and females may have innately different capacities for science and math. Or Margaret Somerville, the distinguished McGill ethicist, nearly denied an honourary doctorate from Ryerson University this summer after faculty protested her skepticism toward same-sex marriage (she got the degree but several professors turned their backs on the ceremony).

Today, there are probably just as many, or more, left-wing professors than a generation ago. If our situation is similar to American universities (where there's been extensive research on the issue), most faculties are tilting so far left they're lucky they haven't slid into the Pacific. One study last year found that three quarters of all faculty members at U.S. colleges considered themselves left-wing (as much as 87 per cent at Ivy League schools and even higher in the humanities).

SHANNON BELL, ASSOC. PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, YORK UNIVERSITY

Political science has never been this risqué. But Bell doesn't exactly cover filibusters and Senate reform; try post-contemporary theory, fast feminism, sexual politics, cyberpolitics, identity politics and violent philosophy. The self-described "performance artist" holds workshops teaching the art of "female ejaculation" (also available on video for those off-campus). In 1998, she made news testifying in defence of a sadomasochist prostitute, saying such deviant sexual behaviour was "therapeutic" and that she was an experienced dominatrix herself. In 2000, she was found by police in an illegal lesbian bathhouse. In class, Bell says she dresses provocatively to get a rise out of her students. Early in the term, for example, she usually dons over-the-top feminine outfits. "Then, around the end of October, things are getting intense in terms of their assignments," she's said. "And I move into solid leather for about a month."

So kudos to Shannon and thanks for offering the best class this semester!

The full text of the Western Standard article can be read (after registration) here.

NSX: the Nova Scotian Xperience

I hate to butt in on Immaculate Machine and Novillero who haven't even had one week on the chart (as I'll call it), but I've got late-breaking news from the world of Canadian indie music! News that I must share with the devoted one or two people that read my blog! Remember, you heard it first here!

What happens when you cross two of the best Canadian acts out of Nova Scotia, Matt Mays and Buck 65 (for some strange reason I'm talking about the best acts out of N.S. without mentioning Joel Plaskett?)? Well, as the song title says you get: When The Angels Make Contact, a solidly rocking number from Matt May's new album by the same name. Known for his solo work as well as his CDs with backing band El Torpedo, Mays is the definitive Canadian indie hard rock act in a scene that has long abandoned hard rock to the cheesy odes of Nickelback or the to the dinosaurs of The Tragically Hip and Rush (not to mention whatever whale song Randy Bachman is turning out on some pacific island). In fact, the indie scene, as varied as it gets here with everything from "death country" (Elliot BROOD) to electronically-manipulated violin and piano (Final Fantasy) doesn't have much room for traditional crunchy guitar riffs and Chris Cornell-esque screams. Which in fact, is usually fine with me. As much as hard rock was my genre of choice as a teen its been so-constantly-and-consistently bastardized throughout the late 90s and 2000s that leaving it to die a cold and anonymous death seemed best, lest it pollute the glorious pride of Canada's budding scene.

Thus for me, Matt Mays has only been a passing interest. I saw him live (but not purposely) in Vancouver opening for Plaskett and again at V-Fest Toronto where he was relegated to the B-list stage (and put on the best performance I witnessed on that stage). His tunes were good but not great, they provided the kind of hard rock background noise that might as well come from Nickelback. The songs just did not stand out, against one another or on their own.

Buck 65, on the other hand, is a Canadian legend, as far as that goes. The Eminem of the Canadian East, sans lyrics of strangling wife and child naturally. In fact, Buck 65 easily transcends the category of rap, with a brisk spoken-word pace that sounds like its tinged with slam poetry as much as conventional rap. His music itself is never satisified with being a simple beat to his vocals, and he takes on a number of genres from the electronically synthezied Devil's Eyes to his cowboy-rockin' Road House Blues. The bilingual Buck also slips between French and English on his latest CD Secret House Against the World...

So what happens when you mix this overly-potent talent with up-and-coming Matt Mays: an extremely solid effort that ends up overshadowing (if possible) Buck 65 and illuminating the potential of hard-rock greatness in Mays. Starting with the grittly churning guitar riffs Mays' voice and lyrics immediately stand to be recognized. Buck 65's brief interlude provides a great dimension to a song that, even without his touch, would stand well on its own. Mays' final howl and the minute-long guitar solo that follows make me wish I owned a lighter.

Find out some more information about the artists from and then give the MP3 a whirl.

Matt Mays:

Matt Mays & El Torpedo is Matt Mays (guitar, vocals), Jarrett Murphy (guitar, vocals), Andy Patil (bass, vocals), Rob Crowell (keyboards) and Tim Baker (drums). MM&ET have spent the last four year touring the country endlessly. In that time the band has moved from opening shows for acts such as Blue Rodeo and Sam Roberts to headlining their own sold-out shows. The group recently took home four awards at the 2006 East Coast Music Awards. They are touring Canada with The Black Crowes in May 2006.

With Patil and Baker's driving rhythms supporting Crowell's organ swells and the squalls Murphy & Mays' dual guitar attack, MM&ET's sound is a soulful eruption of roots rock. From the first listen, it's obvious that they have that indefinable element that carries a group's music beyond the sum of its parts. "It's one of those things that you couldn't really construct with anyone," claims Mays of the band's chemistry. "It's a really natural solidification in music of five friends who like, listen to and laugh at all the same things."

MattMays.com

Buck 65:

Buck 65 is old. He started out as a b-boy back in '82 while living in Small Town, Nova Scotia, but today this no-nonsense white boy is the Jimmy Castor of hip hop. Handling production, lyrics, and Djing duties by himself, Buck may be the man to single-handedly rescue hip hop. Many regarded Buck as somewhat of a weirdo because his subject matter includes fashion design, freestyle BMX, baseball, and ichthyology. Maybe he's a throwback, maybe he's the future, but you can't hear any death threats or hollow boasting coming from this honky. Forget about it. This is music that picks up where the rap performance in Revenge of the Nerds left off.

NewMusicCanada.com

So without furhter ado, please enjoy When The Angels Make Contact.mp3

Should Treatment be Mandated for the Mentally Ill?

Do you think people diagnosed with mental illness should be legally required to accept treatment?

A question with frightening consequences, however, Canadian's came through with their core progressive values on this one.

Yes | 10437 votes (55%) 10437 votes No | 8666 votes (45%) 8666 votes

Total votes: 19103 <Globe & Mail Weekly Poll>

I don't really have the energy to rant about this. For one, I am so far on one side of the fence with an issue like this that I can barely relate to the other opinion. I'll leave it for comments from anyone who'd like to chime in his or her opinion (without fear of a raving tirade in response from me!).

Celebrate CBC Radio3 with Immaculate Machine

For those of you poor souls unlucky enough to have missed the CBCRadio3 See Vous Play concert in Toronto last month or the cross-Canada Radio3 / Mint Records / Exlaim Magazine tour featuring The New Pornographers, Immaculate Machine and Novillero, then now is the time to rejoice: fresh from the copy of the CBC Radio 3 Sessions CD distributed freely at See Vous Play. I figure this is a good way to plug both the CBC Radio3, which is my secret reservoir of musical knowhow, as well as show off my favourite band-out-of-Victoria, BC: the Immaculate Machine. I first saw this trio perform at the Railway Club in January of this year and its pleasing to chart the progress of an indie-band on the rise. Whereas at the Railway Club they were one band in 4 playing short sets for a handful of dollars they are now opening for the New Pornographers and touring in Canada and the US. This is no doubt due to the great dynamic of the two alternating lead singers - Brooke Gallupe and Kathryn Calder - which bring an incredible range to their solid pop melodies.

Their latest CD Ones and Zeros has been / is / one of the best albums of 2006 with nary a bad tune on the disc. If you're like me, you'll fall in love with Kathryn Calder (literally). Hearing her cover for the lovely Neko Case on the New Pornographers tour (2nd time at least, 1st time is a haze) cemented her status as an outstanding female vocalist.

So if you hate Victoria BC like I do and want one more reason to trash it, love Immaculate Machine until they move to Vancouver like every other good thing does (just ask Glen Clark).

More on Immaculate Machine from NewMusicCanada.com

"A hearty mix of smart pop, atmospheric new wave and garage rock..." This Victoria, BC trio is acclaimed for its songwriting as well as for its energetic live show. Three voices, crashing drums, catchy keyboards, and electric guitar blend to create a sound that is truly hard to pin down. Kathryn Calder: keyboards, vocals Luke Kozlowski: drums, vocals Brooke Gallupe: guitar, vocals ...The "favourites" section to the right is an incomplete list of some fine bands we've shared the stage with.

Now hear Immaculate Machine's latest CBC Radio 3 Sessions debut Dear Confessor.

Also listen to the Exclaim/Mint Roadshow openers (and CBC Radio 3 Sessions colleagues) Novillero: The Hypothesist

Addendum from Marx's Capital

Here's a minor addendum from Uncle Karl's Capital Vol. 1 (in relation to the previous post "Machiavellian Morality"):

"...it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist..." (Marx Capital 98).

This passage is interesting because the capitalist is defined not as one who simply engages in making money but one who does so as an end-in-itself and also, inevitably, ad infinitum. In this, I think Marx is uncovering the pathology of our time: the tendency toward absolutism; toward excess. Whereas Marx reveals that commodity exchange has its end goal in the usage of the commodity sought after (a finite exchange) the capitalist has no 'end' in sight. The accumulation of money is not therefore strategic in the Machiavellian sense espoused below. Rather, money for the sake of money, power for the sake of power, torture for the sake of torture is the rationale behind Marx's "rational miser" (98). Here lies the 'law' of excess which permeates the banality of existence.

Furthermore, this process sees the dissolution of the end and the prioritizing of the means. Marx points out that money was designed as a means to facilitate exchange of commodities. The 'ham' in the commodity sandwich (commodity-money-commodity). In the case of the capitalist, the sandwich is reversed to money-commodity-money. Money, the previous means, become the ends which is itself nothing but another means for another end, etc. In Worthington, instead of torture being cautiously advocated (and hopefully investigated) as a means to an end, it takes on a whole new form, as the final solution. Torture will reveal a potential truth (more often a pain-induced lie or hallucination) but more torture for more potential truths. In the "war on terror", itself a vaguely described struggle whose enemies can morph into anyone, Worthington's blank cheque encourages losing ourselves within an abyss of excesses.

The solution must be the reconstitution of these "means" as means. In the sense of capitalism, money can only take the back seat when the person or society begins to posit concrete values for which to strive. Similarly, torture - if it is indeed even strategically worthwhile - can only find a place within a war that is defined realistically (a slightly meaningless word but meant to conjure the tenets of the Machiavellian method outlined below and reappropriate the term from Realism), not vaguely as a war on terror. Unfortunately, if the war is read simply as an outcropping of capitalism, which it very much appears to be, then it will not be able to be defined realistically. It will not be able to curb its tendency toward excess because its very essence is excess. It is simply an embodiment of the money-commodity-money pursuit, in which torture, murder, rape and general strife (all excesses that will beget their own excesses) are the 'ham' in the sandwich of dollars. In this way, originary excess spreads its seed wherever it goes and finds its most worthy accomplices in those 'students of realism' who advocate for curing our present quagmires with more of the same.

Machiavellian Morality

This new essay - hot on the heals of the controversial post regarding the Politics of Discrimination is admittedly also, in part, a reaction to my favourite source of (mis)information, the Sun Media Corp. As a daily reader of the Canoe.ca website I am constantly astounded by the sheer ignorance and audacity that make the news world spin. Generally its the editorials that are the worst, and I suppose they are designed this way. If they don't create some kind of backlash or fervor of voices - either for or against - then they don't serve to sell papers, or advertisements, or whatever makes profits these days. In fact, editorials of these kind generally aim at that fringes. Their guise is the everyman but realistically it is only the few that take offense or applaud the often low-brow attempts to antagonize: the partisans. Most intellectuals of merit don't read such pieces, call that elitism or 'discriminating taste'. The rest of society are too busy living whatever they deem life is and some just have an ounce of that ol'fashioned good sense not to be interested when the latest pundit starts pounding his podium.So where does that leave me? I certainly "react" to these posts, am I any different? This is certainly up for debate and my opinion on the subject is definitely not authoritative - however, I would submit that my responses, at least on here, are not simply a "reaction", that knee-jerk sort of response that fills most political forums and legislatures. Rather, in the interval between, my desire is to reshape this original energy into an action in its own right, adding a positive force to an essentially negative (hence the 're-' in reaction) movement. Thus, while I berate myself for adding nothing new in the previous posts, I have been trying to espouse surreptitiously a path between the action and reaction approaches of partisan politics, as well as a new methodology of truth (rather than new truth in itself).

Today's stimulus will give me the occasion to reveal more clearly this methodology, as it finds itself rooted, in part, in similar observations, but ends with radically different conclusions than our friend from Sun Media Corp. Thus, without further ado, an column by the Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington entitled: Winning the War on Terrorism (I originally came across this article after reading an editorial on it by Salim Mansur, who earns his pay by regurgiating the work of columnists writing for the very same paper: Gitmo Captives Not POWs, Just Prisoners). I have cut the article to a few key paragraphs which I believe summarizes Worthington's view succinctly (although without the gory details of torture methods he seems fond of recounting):

Here at Guantanamo, where 432 Taliban and al-Qaida core leaders are still confined, American custodial staff -- military police gxuards, trained interrogators, FBI, psychologists and assorted experts seeking information -- are severely hampered by humane restrictions that detainees exploit.

The Americans at Guantanamo are on the front line against terrorism, just as soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are. Both are hobbled by limitations and public relations concerns that make success difficult.

After all, al-Qaida doesn't provide Bibles to American (and other) prisoners before cutting off their heads as video cameras whirr.

History has innumerable examples of terror movements quelled only by greater violence -- and few examples of fanatics or terrorists being persuaded to amend their extremism by discussions or gentle persuasion.

If America were to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, as these are not needed to assure humane treatment, the Supreme Court would be powerless to rule otherwise. And America would be freer to use whatever means it takes to win this war (my emphasis). It would also give pause to her enemies, and reassurance to friends.

And at Guantanamo, the Americans would be able to find better ways to persuade hardcore detainees to talk than by taking away their pillows, or bribing them with ice cream.

This common sort of argument reveal the tendencies of one of the modes of our thinking. Namely there are two types which I will place into the old categories of "idealist" and "realist". Oddly enough, those who claim to be one or the other are generally both at once, and the consequences are generally sinister. For instance, the most rabid advocates for the war in Iraq, which has seen somewhere close to half-a-million dead (the majority of that number being civilians) come from the conservative heartland of the United States and Canada. These are the "moralists" of the crowd who believe in the absolute commandments of "thou shalt not". Such a system of absolutes quickly results in paradox, how can we believe in "thou shalt not kill" for example and yet bear the blood of thousands of dead Iraqis? In comes 'realism', a belief that in its essence is fundamentally amoral and anti-progressive. Coming from the realpolitik tradition, realism is the strategy of the superpowers to keep the status quo by any means necessary. This sort of nihilistic logic, often wrongly attributed to Niccolo Machiavelli, is at the heart of Worthington's pro-torture piece. We can win if we break, batter, and beat prisoners - that is the moral of his article, and the one behind realism in general.

Thus moral absolutism quickly leads to a sort of pragmatism or realism, although rarely ever in a coherent manner (such as a logical removal of most if not all absolute principles). In fact, today's moral leaders are blessed at having all the benefits of a stiff and inscrutable moral code while having the flexibility of a mobster in dealing with a local proprietor behind on his debts.

The Moral-Realist hybrids write columns like Worthington's. Fresh out of church on a Sunday afternoon, they hunker down in front of the keyboard to extol the virtues of Colonel Kurtz's "exterminate the brutes" mentality. For them there is no contradiction. 2+2=5 and that's that. It's obvious and you should start seeing it there way next time they ask you: how many lights do you see?

This 'logic' is the most insidious strategy, whether conscious or unconscious, of modernity. I use modernity - such a loose and ambiguous term itself - simply because there is no one group that I can attribute to orchestrating such a massive assault on cognition and thought. Nor can I simply say this is a right-wing strategy. The left loves to mix itself into this regime of mixed-up moral realism, stumbling over its own tongue as it tries to figure out what it stands for and how to engage it.

Every few years one or both sides acknowledges this 'moral corruption' and advocates for a consolidation of the ranks within each of their idealist camps, where they go through ideological retraining to purify themselves of realist taint. A reaction to the situation that most certainly comes no closer to rectifying it and only widens the gap between the poles of left and right and makes the future 'realism' more mendacious than the last.

A Machiavellian Morality

Antonio Gramsci can be credited with bringing to my attention Machiavelli's 'project'. He was not writing a treatise simply on maintaining power but a revolutionary text on creating a new power, a new state: an Italian nation-state that would rival those European superpowers of France, Spain and Britain. Machiavelli's dream would not be realized in his lifetime nor for a number of centuries afterward, Italy being a latecomer to the unified nations club, arriving in the 19th century. In Machiavelli's work, we can see that his goal was not simply to "win" although that is always good, but to achieve a material goal. Thus, Machiavelli's project is not bound by the realpolitik that grew out of the 19th century conservatives which was used to secure and maintain power; it is not a cyclical perspective that accepts no movement, but rather a radically progressive methodology that requires both values and strategy in order to power itself.

"Nietzsche asserts that having one virtue is better than having many, for 'it is more of a knot for fate to hold on to.'" (Wikipedia on Virtue).

If multiple absolute principles results quickly in paradox - ultimately requiring their being broken as we most unfortunately witness on a daily basis from those most-upstanding members of society - then the simple solution is not a dissolution of all principles, a becoming Kurtz, as Worthington and others are so willing to do from the comfort of their world so far removed from an actualized 'state of nature' (see Iraq) that their mind-numbing formulations suffer no penance. Rather it requires a strict examination as to what morals / virtues can possibly be willed indefinitely, against all odds. Who among us looking with that kind of scrutiny into our virtues could possibly say that Nietzsche's claim of even a single virtue is not a boast!

Honesty is the best policy. If we did not lie to ourselves to begin with, extolling our virtues as the West is wont to do, then we would not be accused of our moral hypocrisy nor bear the toll it takes on our individual psyches as we become more and more accustomed to the Big Lie ("The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a falsehood until it is taken to be the truth" (see Wikipedia's Big Lie)).

It is in the vacuum left behind by the removal of surfeit morals that we may examine realism in view of Machiavelli's progressive capacity. Worthington argues that there is no reason to hold back on the Gitmo prisoners, that the Geneva conventions don't apply anyway and if they do we should just remove ourselves from the convention. Finally, he asserts that not torturing is related to not-winning. If we tortured more we'd win. The argument has no moral compass whatsoever. In fact, the only lifeline thrown to the prisoners by Worthington is that the torturer and his society will provide the only necessary check on torture - much like arguing the police should check the police, the legislature the legislature, etc. A complete reversal of checks and balances theory itself.

The problem with the Worthington style argument is not its incorrectness or untruth. In fact, I might even contend that Worthington is completely within the realm of truth, Geneva may not in fact apply, and there certainly is no god I believe in that will stop us from torturing these prisoners to a messy pulp (weather Worthington's god is in agreement who knows these days, it seems the Christian god has stopped carrying about Muslims just like he did for Blacks during slavery and Jews during WWII - our god is a selective god). However, Worthington in all his eagerness to kick-some-turban-to-the-curb fails to provide a single point of merit on how torture will result in victory or change of any kind. In fact, Worthington is very short on details when it comes to what the end goals of torture are at all. Certainly torture could yield information to stop an attack but where is the evidence? What is the limitation? As it is, torture is advocated unlimitedly, for its own purposes. There is no measure, no goal to be achieved, because one can never stop winning, one can never be sure that another attack is around the corner. This is Worthington's blank cheque, which he very aggressively endorses with his consent.

A Machiavellian position would proceed differently. Firstly, it would posit a realizable goal. Torture for torture's sake or for a generalized notion of better security would not suffice. Rather, it would be properly laid out by an understanding of the here and now with an aim toward the there of future. This could be as simple as we must prevent a second terrorist strike against the United States.

Secondly, rather than starting with the assertion that more torture = more results all tactics would be examined. Does torture yield results and what kind of results? Factors such as increased coercion leads to faulty information, loss of legitimacy, excesses (ie. murder) by soldiers, and generalized indictments regarding the moral compass of the armed forces and government are to be considered (after all, you can't win a war when you're being booted out of office). Does Worthington consider these? Not at all. Torture for him does not need explanation, despite being one of the most coercive and violent activities one can commit on another. It passes from his lips/pen/keyboard as easily as if he was ordering a pizza.

A strategic reading of the situation would debate whether torture could possibly yield positive results and if so, in what cases. It would require specific license and not a generalized one. Torture writ large, by Worthington and others, is a license to backfire - as it did for the United States (which makes it doubly confusing why, despite the real critiques and complications that the Bush government's torture police has engendered, any one would advocate for it). Which itself brings us full circle. The realists are nothing more than the idealists they had descended from. Their proposals, which seem realistic simply because they are harsh and brutal, advocating excess pain and suffering for all, are nothing more than simple-minded ideals coded in the same absolutist manner. They are negative idealists but idealists nonetheless and their very form of thought is a violence which is most insidious to those of us that breathe it in. Worthington means nothing to those imprisoned at the US base in Cuba. They will never hear of him, never read his words. But Canadians will, they will absorb his doublespeak, they will praise his blunt 'realism' and will to win, and they will become the same, speaking in paradoxes that seem themselves evident and non-contradictory.

In contrast, a Machiavellian morality is neither idealist nor realist. It attempts to overcome idealism through the removal of absolutes and to enhance realism by becoming more realistic - looking at inputs, outputs, degrees of change. A Machiavellian morality embraces uncertainty rather than trying to eliminate it absolutely. At most, a Machiavellian morality is an old-fashioned ethic of moderation, designed for navigating the rocks shores of an unknown coastline rather than barreling straight through. A Machiavellian morality always knows where it is going and where it has come from and where it is, even when the journey goes off track. It is always open to re-evaluation, for the means are very much part and parcel with the ends. A means of unlimited torture yields as its end a society that has unleashed a devastation onto itself and its others - there can be no pretensions otherwise.

In sum, this is my rough sketch of a Machiavellian morality as contained in yet another critique of the Sun Media Corp. I hope to be able to further expand on this outline which in its vagueness is open to as many critiques as it supposedly resolves. In the meantime I will let it stand for some feedback.

Thanks.

A tribute... on friendship in times of sorrow.

When it comes to death I have a certain inability to act appropriately. It seems a situation which defies convention. Condolences always seem artificial and cheap, maybe because in myself I realize that there is no way I could really sympathize or approximate the pain and anguish experienced by another. It's at times like these where the distances between individuals - even the best of friends - can seem staggering. Its never a comfortable moment, yet at the same time the bereaved in question is almost always extremely accommodating and thankful - more awkwardness but in the incongruity lies a sense of understanding, on some level. It seems as if these moments bring into relief the whole history of like-moments, the breakups, the defeats, deaths, injuries, sicknesses which have translated into sorrow, pain and anguish in which the two have each played the role of victim and sympathizer, and that this shared memory of simply being-there, being-part, and the vicissitudes of time it exposes: that everything is in flux, that this moment was lived previously in another sorrow and will be survived by the necessity of a future being-there-for-the-other. An eternal recurrence of the same which grounds true friendship amidst changes of place and date. Perhaps the only method of experiencing in common that which is in essence completely individuated - pain, grief and sorrow, through the bonds of history that make a friendship.

And now to express in song what fails me in words, Amy Millan's Baby I.

The Politics of Discrimination

As per usual, my (non-music-related) addition to the blog is a reaction. I wish I could come to the blog-o-sphere with some new affirmative truths wrestled from the beast of ignorance and ideology but unfortunately those have to go through the rites of passage first (namely the ridicule and insults of friends and colleagues) before they are battle-tested enough for the permanence of print (even web-print has some permanence). Not to mention I don't want the three people who read my blog to steal my new ideas - its a capitalist world out there and I gotta protect my few assets (joking of course, you'll be the first to pilfer whatever it is I know).

Anyway, without further ado, the stimulus:

The student union at McGill University is refusing to allow blood donation drives in its buildings until Quebec's blood collection agency agrees to accept donations from homosexual men.

Héma-Québec screens donors by means of a questionnaire.

Among other questions, it asks whether male would-be donors have had sex with another man at any time since 1977. If they answer yes, they are not allowed to give blood.

Health Canada put the policy in place after the tainted blood scandal of the early 1990s, to prevent blood infected with HIV from getting into the health-care system, but the McGill student union calls it discriminatory.

Aaron Donny-Clark, president of the Students' Society of McGill University, says it is a question of dignity.

"Some of our students have passed these people with the buttons, eating the cookies or whatever, and know that the only reason they can't give blood has nothing to do with their blood, nothing to do with anything relevant at all," he told CBC News.

"We just can't stand for that."

Health Canada must approve change

André Roch, vice-president of public affairs for Héma-Québec, acknowledges that the screening question is outdated. New blood tests have been developed that make it easier to screen for AIDS, he said.

However, he said Health Canada must give the go-ahead before Héma-Québec's donor questionnaire can be changed.

Héma-Québec has recommended that only men who have had sex with another man in the previous 12 months should be prohibited from giving blood, Roch said.

This is not the first time the blood donor question has caused controversy in Quebec.

In January, Héma-Québec shut down a blood drive taking place in the William Shatner University Centre on the McGill campus.

"This decision became necessary after an anonymous note encouraging potential donors to lie on their blood donation questionnaire was posted within the premises of the centre," the agency said in a news release posted on its website.

In 2004, the province's largest school board, the Commission scolaire de Montréal, cancelled a blood drive at its office as it pressed for the question about past sexual activity between men to be dropped.

Full-text available at the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/11/13/mtl-blood-drives.html

Nothing extraordinarily surprising here, Quebec youth and students have long been at the forefront of political activism and the quest for equity - when it comes to "progressiveness" - that gooey non-substance - they get it and put it into action post haste.

Now as to the 'meat' of the text, the so-called dispute as framed by the CBC and likely by the Students' Union themselves is the "discriminatory" nature of the blood questionnaire. What is interesting, however, is that the idea that the questionnaire is "discriminatory" is itself an allegation or in contention at all. Is not the point of a questionnaire to discriminate? They are not asking the questions for the sake of asking - it is for the sake of selection, a discriminating behavior par excellence.

Which brings me to the larger question: to discriminate or not to discriminate?

In today's context this hardly seems a legitimate question. The discourses of many on the left and right have unified into a sort of 'politically-correct' leviathan which threaten all who oppose it with charges of anti-**** or that. To discriminate, in its essence, has become evil - the mark of the racist or sexist. But let's rewind to the dictionary entry of discrimination:

1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.

4. to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.

5. marked by discrimination; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.

Care of Dictionary.com

Without getting into any of the nuts and bolts of this definition, I will say that it speaks to me clearly as the essence of difference, particularly observing it and at times action taken upon noting it.

Clearly, "discrimination" is a neutral term and one only has to remember its positive inclinations to be rescued from the abyss of one-sidedness where this term has been thrown. Examples being, of couse, "discriminating taste" or the ability to "discriminate right from wrong", etc.

So, what happened to discrimination?

It would be ahistorical to look over how difference has been cast in the last... forever-many years. Its negative connotation did not come about magically but through the very sufferings of millions of people because of a "noted or observed difference". This includes, of course, discrimination of race, gender, ability and sexual orientation. But is the answer the destruction of discrimination?

Returning to the article, the McGill Students' Union's charge against the survey is simple, it discriminates. Not exactly a nuanced argument, which gives an idea to the weight the word carries in itself. One need not say more - "discrimination" carries its own 'recriminations'. But is the abolishment of difference the answer to a millennium or more of the persecution of difference? Is the answer a making-homogeneous? Or rather a time to "celebrate difference" to use the cliched saying that seems to be the banner of the same people who are actively out to erase differences of any kind.

Speaking again of the questionnaire, its job is to go beyond politics (something I will not say with certainty that it does) and deal with medical realities. Some of the questions on the questionnaire pointedly ask where you have been in your lifetime or recent travels, with the countries listed being some of the poorest in the world and not simply by coincidence. I myself, a frequent blood-giver in my youth (I'm a grizzled old man now) was prohibited from giving blood for a year because of my travels in Central America, due to the prevalence of tropical diseases. A friend of mine who accompanied me once to give blood was also rejected, something about using cocaine not being cool?!? I dunno where that came from, but I'm no doctor. Certainly these examples too are discrimination. Not to mention, we also had to pass by the table of cookies (mmm fudgios) with a certain sadness in our hearts knowing that we couldn't help those who needed it. I managed to survive by realizing it wasn't personal, it was statistical, my friend returned to doing blow to get over his grief.

From HealthCanada's perspective, it couldn't take the risk after blood scandal upon blood scandal, including the giving of HIV-infected blood to patients, effectively signing their death certificates, the cardinal sin of the medical profession. Which begs the question - for whom is giving blood? Us donors or the receivers? If giving blood is some kind of 'right' of the giver, then perhaps I could understand one's desire to give blood regardless of their suitability to the operation (which one should note is expensive given the blood screenings and would become more so the less 'pre-discrimination' is required) much like how people who have nothing important to say (ie. me) have the right to blab on blogs. But if giving blood is not a right of the donor then what's the fuss? Last I checked giving blood wasn't an equity issue.

As to the science behind the questionnaire, if it is poor, advocate for its change. The strategy of evicting HealthCanada and a blood donation station from Students' Union property seems to me a serious blunder that seeks to propel a new group of "politically-correct" experts above the medical ones - to the detriment of blood recipients. As to strategies of lying on the questionnaire in order to give blood, I can only refer to that as an appalling lack of self-restraint and misguided desire to help.

In sum, I can say I applaud the McGill students' union for stirring the pot as to the legitimacy of the questions asked by Health Canada, but the motives of and actions undertaken by the students' union are extremely questionable and concretely detrimental to hospital patients. Furthermore, the politically-correct agenda taken to extremes, as in this instance, reveals the paradoxical nature inherent in any rational or 'progressive' model pushed to its limits. In this case, the attempt to subvert medicine to the dictum of equality start to become absurd - and while I'm no fan of the power of medicine, the idea that it should take its marching orders from the McGill Students' Union is somewhat unsettling.

This issue appears as the flip-side of the coin, the heads to the tails that the Bush administration is using to discriminate and persecute people at his leisure. But to return to the notion of "discriminating taste" as a refinement of the palette to detect even the most subtle degrees of difference, I would argue that what we need now is more discrimination, not less. More as in that heightened ability to seek the smaller differences that separate not just ethnicity from ethnicity, gender from gender, (that's for amateur's) but terrorist from tourist. A difficult task for certain, but one that re-embraces the notion of difference rather than suppressing it. It is in this way that we can truly "celebrate difference".

The Golden Dogs Set Your Foot A-tappin'

Not being able to resist sharing the great tunes here's a new one for everybody. Its "Dynamo" care of The Golden Dogs, another Torontonian band. With connections to local favourites Cuff The Duke and the Hylozoists these guys could hardly disappoint.

Dynamo is clearly pop in the best sense of the word. It does everything right to be catchy and infectuous, from the initial foot-tapping beat to the multi-vocal cheer of the chorus-line.

The band credits influences ranging from the Beatles and the Beach Boys to modern acts Elliot Brood and the New Pornographers.

Take a read from this blurb on New Music Canada and give the track a twirl. Let me know what you think (for a change).

On their new record, Big Eye Little Eye, it’s impossible not to stomp your foot to the frantic opener, “Dynamo,” and it’s even harder to avoid shouting along to the chorus of “Saints At The Gates,” a passionate track about playing live. If you’re not in the mood to air guitar, don’t worry, Big Eye Little Eye, which some critics are already calling the best disc of the year, has more to offer than just intensity. Intimate moments like the stripped down “Wheel Of Fortune,” the only song not recorded in the studio, puts listeners in Dave and Jess’ basement, while Theresa’s Beach Boys-style vocals is a touching tribute to one of the bands’ heroes, Brian Wilson. On Big Eye Little Eye, it looks like The Golden Dogs have done everything right. Naturally, after the critically acclaim of their debut album effort 'Everything in 3 Parts', the group was anxious to record. They teamed up with Paul Aucoin, a prolific producer (The Old Soul/the Heavy Blinkers/Cuff the Duke) and founder of the instrumental pop group The Hylozoists, and headed into a bonafide studio for the first time. Listen to the rapid snare hits on “Construction Worker,” or the wild insanity on “Life on the Line” and you’ll see that life as a Golden Dog is just fine.

Listen to The Golden Dog's Dynamo.
Visit their New Music Canada site: New Music Canada:The Golden Dogs
Visit their homepage: http://www.thegoldendogs.com

PS. Listen to another side of The Golden Dog's with their air-guitarring number 1985.

Bitches and Bastards & Sun Media

Double-standard on B-words

by John Gleeson, Editor of the Winnipeg Sun

Back in March 1999 I penned a column for the editorial page in which I described then-PM Jean Chretien as "a mean-looking bastard." It was a purely subjective description. I also said he "had dead eyes."

No one afterward seemed to find the strong language particularly offensive. No one demanded Sun Media silence me or fire me or that other media outlets not hire me or use my work. And certainly no one suggested that by calling Chretien a bastard, I was saying that all men are bastards (though I have known some women who adhere strictly to that point of view).

This week we heard the shrill voices of feminists calling for the head of commentator Norman Spector after he characterized MP Belinda Stronach as "a bitch" on a Vancouver radio talk show.

What struck me as amazing about this feminist outrage was how old-fashioned, almost Victorian, it sounded. Basically they were saying, "That's no way to talk about a lady." And they were apparently saying it with straight faces. Have neither of these women seen Sigourney Weaver in Alien?

We can all lament the drop in standards of public discourse during our lifetimes. For decades the movies we've watched, first in theatres and then in our own livingrooms, have been so full of the F-word that we now have many young (and not so young) people who can't utter a single sentence without using it. Like it or not, the English language has devolved, reflecting nastier cultural norms.

"Bitch," as unsavoury as it might sound to some ears, has become so commonplace in most quarters that it hardly packs a punch. Men and women use it routinely to describe women who are hard-headed, hard-hearted or just plain difficult. Gays also use it to describe gay men who display similar tendencies. It's all over mass media and there was even a book published this year by author Sherry Argov called Why Men Marry Bitches.

Feminists like Black and Alphabet demand equal treatment with men -- until the going gets tough. And then they fall back and demand to be treated like "ladies" again. Too frail and vulnerable, and ultimately just "too good," by virtue of being female, to be called bad names.

Many Liberals were proud that Chretien was a bastard. A strong leader pretty well has to be a bastard -- at least some of the time.

The same applies to women. With notable exceptions like Mother Teresa, very few highly successful women get that way without being bitches -- at least some of the time.

It's a bastard of a world and life's a bitch.

And the equality train's already left the station.

Excerpts from John Gleeson's article in the
Winnipeg Sun's Thursday Editorial page.

These articles aren't really uncommon, so I don't know why I feel the need to write about it. When I read it this morning it didn't particularly raise an eyebrow but as I was walking around campus it rolled on back through so I thought if it made enough impact to merit a second thought I might have enough energy to blog about it. I've gotten this down so far so that's a good sign - generally I'm either apathetic about politics or moved to rant in an outrageously violent fashion until it passes (neither of which are conducive to the relative calm act of typing into an inanimate text box).

As to the article, like I said, nothing uncommon here. I'm sure editors write one like this defending their views on a similar scenario two decades ago and then pull it out, blow off the dust and reprint it. That's what being a journalist these days is all about. My comments on this article are simply:

1) Reporters as Shills. Now, everyone's got a perspective, whether they admit it or not. As one of my very first rants on this blog mentioned, people nowadays shop for ideologies and once signed up generally hold onto their party card for life. Truth with the capital 'T' may have been thrown out by the lazy over-educated nihilists of academia years ago but they were only the last on the boat. People dropped truth for ideology long ago and journalists sooner than most. Most, like John Gleeson of the Winnipeg Sun have no problem continually shilling for their party of choice no matter what the issue. In fact, Gleeson tries to establish his "objective" stance by mentioning he's got no problem attacking Liberals of any gender. Now that's intensive journalism if there is any.

Now my point is not defend the Liberals, Jean Chretien or Belinda. It may well be that she's a bitch and he's a bastard, its just an irritation to hear the same people defend whatever comes out of the mouth's of their party officials as true and good. For instance, the Conservatives actually did something very-unconservative lately by levelling a tax on income trusts. The first out the door to chastise them? Liberals. Even the NDP couldn't help but applaud and criticize at the same time - trying to have their cake and eat it too.

2) Bitches & Feminism. I'm just going to be honest and say that John Gleeson knows as little about feminism as he does about investigative journalism. A low blow perhaps, but I'm not published in a province-wide newspaper nor syndicated on a popular online site. My responsibility toward actually knowing whether Mr. Gleeson is another pathetic rightwing douchebag or an upright journalist full of integrity is less than his responsibility to know what the hell he's talking about, I admit it, and I'll exploit it.

To establish at least a minimum of similarity between us, I think we can suppose that when Mr. Gleeson talks of equality for women he means a change of some kind. I seems pretty sensical to imagine that women or any group wouldn't campaign for equality if it didn't entail a difference. Thus, we can suppose from Gleeson's article that women in "inequality" were not called bitches and that this has been the result of the 'equality train' leaving the station, as he puts it. Thus, now that women have reached, at last, the realm of equality we are finally free from our noble restraint to call them bitches and to stop treating them as ladies, as we have through history. A solid argument, something akin to saying that as Black / African-American people reach equality we will be free to call them niggers. If they spit and sputter, we can always just sit back and say "hey, that's the equality train choo-chooing along my savage friend".

Now far be it for me to lecture some dude from the progressive capital of Canada (and who writes for Sun Media Corp.), but I would suggest that because two words start with the same letter does not give them equivalence. If it did, I'd sure love to hear someone call Scott Brison a Butt-fucker in parliament. After all, gays and lesbians may be a bit further down the equality train track but that only means they've been shielded too long from the equality that b-words carry. Time to stop treating them like ladies and usher them into full democracy.

As for "bastard", I think in all serious that term is about as meaningless as democracy itself. Calling someone a "bastard" in any forum doesn't really call for chops, its not even gender-specific anymore. It has no connection with its historical definition. When Gleeson boldly called Jean Chretien a bastard from the writing desk of his cubicle somewhere in Winnipeg I doubt he was calling into doubt Chretien's parentage. He was just trying to add some sauce to another otherwise worthless and insightless piece of political drivel. As he mentioned, "bastard" has become synonymous with leadership ability. "Bitch" not quite so. Thus, I'd suggest that if Gleeson wants to show he's got the chops to really expose himself as the bitter partisan he is, he should make a qualitatively-equal gesture toward men in politics by pulling out his slang dictionary and writing about the time he donkey-punched Paul Martin.


This is Jason Harman, reporting live from somewhere in the Mediterranean.

Happy Halloween with Emily Haines

Anyone who has bothered coming back to my blog is probably bored with the lack of "content" and the excess of "form" (ie. music). Right now its a convenient way of expressing my right-brain as my left is trying to prevent information overload from the books and philosophies its juggling.

Besides, these are great songs so I'm hoping its not just me who is listening to them. You're getting the very best of Canadian indie music served straight-up with a slice of lime every week(ish). Now, without further ado, here's a Halloween track from Emily Haines's (the popular front-women of Metric) solo side-project.

The song of choice is Dr. Blind a piano-driven haunting number from her equally dark album Knives Don't Have Your Back. The faint strains of strings in the orchestric backing by the Soft Skeleton provide the type of eerie semi-silent ambience one might expect in an Edgar Allen Poe film. Haines' raspy almost-spoken-word vocals intwine with her unique brand of seemingly random imagery for lyrics helps complete the picture.

Emily Haines is an artist that defies labeling. Frontwoman for Metric, she is proud to release her debut solo album, Knives Don’t Have Your Back this fall on Last Gang Records. Written and recorded over the past four years in Los Angeles, Montreal, Toronto and New York,the record sites contributions from the likes of Scott Minor from Sparklehorse, Broken Social Scene’s Justin Peroff, Stars’ Evan Cranley and Metric’s Jimmy Shaw. A distinct contrast from Metric’s bold, danceable sound, Knives is an intimate and subtle collection of mellow, piano-driven tunes complimented by soft string and horn arrangements.

The song is Emily Haines & The Soft Skeleton - Doctor Blind.

More information about Emily Haines and her new solo album.

The music video for Doctor Blind.

Devil's Paintbrush Road

The Wailin' Jennys have been a staple of Canadian folk/country scene for a number of years now. I didn't listen often, their sound generally too country for my tastes. Their latest album, Firecracker, is no exception and it wouldn't make it on my personal list for best albums of 2006. Devil's Paintbrush Road, the intro track to the album, however, could easily make my top ten for best songs of the year. In the style of Copperhead Road this piece has a rocking pace despite being nestled in the same acoustic countrified instruments that normally accompany the Jennys' signature sound.

The lyrics also separate Devil's Paintbrush Road from the rest. Unlike Blood Meridian's Get Someplace Else which was motivated by the anguished vocals of its lead singer which often times obscured the words, D.P.R. rests solidly on lyrics about straddling the line between life and death. Warning: this song is addictive, from the harmonica riffs to the seductive chorus of Ruth, Nicky and Annabelle.

Once more, the song is Devil's Paintbrush Road.

Give it a listen and tell me what you think.

More on the Wailin' Jennys:

The Wailin’ Jennys are Annabelle Chvostek, Nicky Mehta and Ruth Moody—three distinct voices that together make an achingly perfect vocal sound. Winning fast fans all over the world with their powerful singing and thoughtful rootsy songwriting, they have become “one of the most exciting new folk bands” (Barnes & Noble). The Wailin’ Jennys have toured throughout North America, Europe and Australia, and their first full-length album 40 Days won a 2005 Juno Award for Roots & Traditional Album of the Year. The Wailin’ Jennys have a fresh folk-pop sound with stunning 3-part vocals and an eclectic mix of accordion, banjo, harmonica, mandolin, violin, guitar and percussion. Coming from a wide variety of artistic backgrounds, they embrace many musical styles including alt-country, Celtic, rock and traditional. The Wailin’ Jennys are all established singer-songwriters in their own right and unique in their individual expressions, but together their voices forge a unified sound that is unforgettable, breathing fire and grace into each note.

New Music Canada

The Wailin' Jennys homepage: http://www.thewailinjennys.com/

Amy Millan "Top Ten Artists To Watch"

You might know Amy Millan from her day job singing and writing in dreamy indie-rock band Stars, or from her moonlighting gig in fellow Canadian collective Broken Social Scene, or perhaps from the nifty little profile we did on her in our special “Ten Artists To Watch” issue. But last month, Millan stepped out on her own, releasing a stripped-down, countrified album called Honey From the Tombs (which we reviewed in this very magazine and talked up on Rock Daily previously). Ms. Millan brought her show on the road and played Joe’s Pub in NYC last night.

Rolling Stone Rock and Roll Daily » Blog Archive » Why We Dig On Amy Millan: An Un-Edited IM Concert Review

Now that I'm back on the wagon, may as well mention that Amy Millan's Honey From The Tombs, one of my top 10 favourite albums from 2006, was mentioned in Rolling Stone. I kinda thought Amy would be flying under the radar for most mainstream mags so I'm happy that she not only got covered but spotlighted as one of the "Top Ten Artists To Watch".

I couldn't even pick one song as the best on her record as I rotate between 3/4 of them, but I'd recommend:

• Losing You
• Skinny Boy
• Baby I
• Headsfull
• All The Miles

Amy Millan's website is: http://www.arts-crafts.ca/amymillan/
Two of the aforementioned songs are available to be streamed at: http://newmusiccanada.com/

Back in the Saddle Again... with Blood Meridian

So its been a few months since I added anything to my regular blog. Still trying to get the tremendous amount of photos I took in Europe off my chest and into posterity on the Travel Journal (www.jasonharman.com). In the meantime I've been visiting and re-visiting this blog trying to come up with some idea of what to start posting with. I don't want to bore people with the usual details of my life if I can help it. Suffice it to say for now that I've moved to Toronto and am having a good time in the Social & Political Thought program at York University.

Back in the Spring I tried doing album reviews but I'm notoriously lazy and genuinely don't like reviewing/criticizing music in particular (entire genres or industries are fair game though). However, I would still like music to play a part in this blog, especially the discovery of new music which constitute some of the best moments of my day/week/month.

So what I plan to do is share with you in quick posts any song(s) I find and hopefully be able to post you a link to that song so any interested individual can post their feedback. I intend the music to be non-mainstream (I want to bring something that other people might not have already heard to the table).

I've been doing this on the side through emailing my favourite tunes spontaneously to three or four friends but this will save the space on gmail!


Blood Meridian - Get Someplace Else
from Kick Up The Dust (2006)

It wasn't until I checked their bio on newmusiccanada.com that the final piece fell into place. Prior to that, I had heard of Blood Meridian on and off via CBCRadio3 and the first time this song came on the air I wasn't paying any attention, in fact I was reading a book on Deleuze or maybe Hegel or Adorno for class. I went to mute it when I suddenly stopped to give it another listen. The voice seemed so reminiscent, a pained and haunting sound with lyrics, which I didn't follow but nonetheless seemed sad and anguished. A voice from the grave was stirring in this melancholy number which made me search it out (it turns out I had actually downloaded the album but had yet to give it a listen. Blood Meridian is friends with or perhaps even made-up of two other great indie Vancouver bands called Pink Mountaintops and Black Mountain which are already personal favourites).

I won't blow the moment of realization for any of you like I did for those poor few I emailed (probably the same poor few who read my blog :(). I will add though that the last piece of the puzzle was this:

we like sailing....and the meat puppets... and the
13th floor elevators.....and the stones....and
whiskeytown...and other stuff...

Their song is Get Someplace Else and is hosted here.
To read more about Blood Meridian their webpage is: http://www.bloodmeridianmusic.com/

Comments welcome.

Alert: Code Red - Quit Day T-Minus 0 Days

Its here, its here. After all this time its finally over. My last day at Access Justice. The clock is veritably spinning as the last minutes of my servitude quickly elapse.

Now is probably a good time for sentiment but to be honest these last few weeks have been extraordinarly long - I should have quit weeks ago - that would have been poignant, touching, memorable for all involved. Instead I have sat my parasitic being in this chair and ineffected the whole office with my dejected rambling like a visiting relative long overdue for a kick out the door.

Regardless, no time to sit and wallow in the past. My freedom is only two-hours away (in true style I won't even work the whole day and instead leave at noon - 5 hours before my QD timer hits 0:00:00). Then its one last stop at Ass-Cheap-Pizza, our local $1/slice (actually $1.17 and its more like 2 slices to the slice in terms of quality) before I motor off into the noon-day sun.

I hope to have left Access Justice in a better condition than it was when I arrived, but I am almost certain that the reverse is true - though not necessarily because of my presence. Its sad to see something that, if you don't love you at least respect, go slowly down the drain - strangled by poor management, limited foresight and petty infighting. Directed more out of pride and "ego-tripping" than by true purpose, logic or even (as distateful as it is) pity.

The only light I can see for Access Justice is the broom that an almost complete change-over in staff will bring this organization - and the knowledge that the Executive Director, once thought irreplacable (through his very attempts to lock-in control and entrench himself) is expendable. The Society could persist and, in time, thrive without him as he continues to isolate himself from connections within the legal community. How this severance will happen, one can only wonder.... or ask Jimmy.

Anyway, I have used this blog as a bitching-HQ for many things, especially Access Justice but I want to take this time to thank all my wonderful colleagues - I truly couldn't imagine a more interesting work place environment. In truth we may never see each other again but I hope that, as we all become feeble Internet-surfing minions of the corporate world, we may stay in touch as much as possible.

So, to the brave boys and girls of Access Justice, I salute you.













Sincerely,


Jason M. Harman

"My Bags are Packed I'm Ready To Go..."

In reality this title is a falsehood. I haven't packed my bags and am not ready to go. Even for exciting things like a trip to another continent I can rarely get going enough to plan and pack in advance. Part of the problem is that until the event is pressing - as in a day or two off - it doesn't seem like a reality. Even now, a week before I board a plane to Munich by way of Toronto, it seems a distant fantasy - like a remembered dream that has faded to the inner recesses of the mind.

I'm sure that some of the problem is rooted, naturally, in still being at work - which plods along at its predictably slow and cumbersome gait toward my day of freedom, as the counter to the right indicates.

It could also be other factors. This weekend I have to look forward to not one but two Pearl Jam shows, back-to-back on Saturday/Sunday at the beautiful Gorge outdoor venue in Washington. With no opening band and being the last nights of the North American tour I can't imagine these shows will disappoint. Still though, even they seem far off... Saturday is a million miles away.

This sort of space-cadetness is something I absolutely detest about my personality. It can come in handy at times - not being stressed out about impending doom or whatnot, but I really do yearn for some good old-fashioned keenness. I used to be a great keener but thats a different story for another time.

Anyway, so I'm posting that if there are any interested individuals who'd like a postcard from either Germany, France or Italy they can send an email to c3apollyon at gmail.com with their mailing address and country of choice and i'll do my best to fork out the costs for cards and postage.

In the meantime check out my Travel Photo Blog at http://jharman.blogspot.com. I've uploaded some of my favourites from my previous trips to Mexico, Central America and Costa Rica and will add new posts for Europe rather than doing the mass-email thing (dial-up users beware, all pictures are huge mother-f*#$ers)

Adios

Codifying Childhood: Conservative's Legislative Agenda

"This is common sense legislation. This protects Canadian children, and I believe that even Liberals would agree with that."

Canadian Justice Minister Vic Toews

Strategem

Defn: "Common sense": the most sinister phrase in the English language, a strategic siege of cognitive space. The consolidation of a certain arrangement of power and knowledge as hegemonic, in that the knowledge has become to be deemed truth and the power relations implied consented to...

Strategy: "even Liberals would agree with that": Constructs standard playing field "us" v "them". Defines Conservatives on the side of Canadian children and "common sense" which "even Liberals" could be a part of - but important to note, are likely not to be.

Effect: Silences discussion by deflecting criticism against the ironclad shield of "common sense". The usage of Canadian children, highly idealized and strategically victimized in this legislation, will act to polarize the situation. Critics will be linked to pedophilia or child-hating...

Creation of 'Childhood'

New arrangements of power/knowledge depicted as "common sense" fundamentally rely upon an ahistorical viewpoint and strategic and usually consensual "forgetting". Unlike philosophical argument, logical reasoning is never cited, rather an a priori knowledge is implied - that humans the age of 14 and 15 in this case specifically are in need of a special protection (in lieu of certain freedoms) because they are intrinsically vulnerable and unable to make moral choices in regards to their choice of sex partner (as this legislation does not criminalize sexuality at this age but consensual sex with partners 4 + years older). This piece of legislation finds itself within a moral code that speaks confidently about what sex is, and thus importantly helps to prefigure the subjectivities of a youthful sexuality along a relatively new (in terms of size and importance [morally and academically]) axis: childhood.

By saying that childhood is a relatively new concept is not to say there was never a division between children and adults but that such a division has become problematized in the modern era, resulting in profuse legislative and moral codes designed to control and examine the behavior of "children." Examples abound from the Catholic / Christian crusade against "self-pollution" that was consuming the idle hands of its ewes. One can also reference the proliferation of new laws both 'aiding' and 'restricting' the activities of young people, including the introduction of 'child' labour laws, mandatory public schooling and a bevy of age-limited prohibitions on sex, alcohol, drugs, firearms and perhaps the most dangerous - voting.

Seen within this matrix of an evolving domain of moralities, the age of consent can be plotted with the extension of childhood into the teen years. In the recent Globe & Mail article where Justice Minister Vic Toews was quoted, the original age of consent was stated as 12, which was raised to 14 in 1890. Future predictions would recommend a further hike to 18 in approximately a century.

"Grow up!"

The obvious irony after all these years of being the juvenile generation, shirk responsibilities, refusing McJobs to sleep-in, is that the very people that want us to "grow up" have subsequently been delaying and elongating the length of childhood. A situation that has been increasingly paradoxical by the fact that exposure to the 'negative' aspects of adulthood: low-paid (slave) labour, rape, violence and poverty has steadily infiltrated youth cultural through parental and governmental neglect while rights, responsibilities and privileges have been denied or sabotaged (an easy target since the target demographic cannot vote),

Simultaneously, we have witnessed a similar shirking of "adult responsibilities by those already in adulthood. The Jackass generation - no longer children but not adults either - has become a new biological middle-class. Having grown-up through the longest childhood in history there is no longer an incentive to cross-over.

Even trends seemingly indicating the opposite - increasing numbers of young people entering the work force, for example - cannot be read as a reversal of the infantization of our population. Driven to work by eroding standards of living which are grossly ill-proportioned due to materialist obsessions, young people have abandoned the Generation X attitude of "F#$ it" for Nike's ubiquitous three-word mantra only to be received by attempts to sabotage and profit from their labour by discriminating either explicitly or implicitly by age (see the lowering of minimum wage introduced by the BC Liberals after the 2001 election). Furthermore, whereas the past linked jobs with responsibility, the necessary foundation for settling down, acquiring separate accommodation and starting a family, new jobs provide 0 benefits and low wages: they satisfy immediate material needs (sometimes) and feed addictive consumptive behaviors. This is not a transitory stage - instead this new biological middle-class has fallen into minimum-wage hell where life is saving up nickels for 5c candies at corner store.

Sexuality

Context, the background of the Canadian Conservative party is as well-known as its roots. It is, sometimes unabashedly and other times secretly a protestant evangelical socially conservative organization. In this respect it is difficult to dismiss charges of interest in seemingly "common sensical" legislation. One can easily finger patriarchy (a miniaturization of women into children and thus female children into ???), an overconfidence in law and order to establish moral reform and a predilection for neo-conservative capitalism and its (often times contradictory) patterns of social development with a end-goal in returning to a fairy tale collection of vaunted simulacra that includes the idealized child, the feminine mother and the masculine father.

This imagery is founded on a manufactured history that ignores the sexual proclivities of young people as well as the sanction of those acts by both society and, the case of Western history, the church. Indeed, the actions that are today considered criminal and morally repugnant were previously both common place and respectable. Adulthood gauged by one's (men's) ability to take certain actions that were deemed a civil (responsible) - finding employment, a partner - rather than mandatorily by age. As such, many new families sprouted up with at least one parent (usually the female) a scant decade or so older than their first child. Today, these same women are 'undeniably' children themselves, morally / legally banned from taking part in the 'corrupting' processes of sex.

Pedophilia and Moral Panic

Much has been made that the primary purpose of this legislation is to combat pedophilia. In this case that would mean relationships where the partners span 4-5 years or more. The Conservatives have made known that they do not intend to attempt to crimininalize youth under the age of 19 from engaging in consensual sex. Thus, whereas one can legitimately consent to sex with an 18 year old at 14 years of age, the addition of a couple months would, essentially alter the relationship into one of pedophile and victim.

Moral Panic: The Fabrication of a Crisis. I've already made much of this subject so I'll not pay it too much attention, suffice it to say the grounds for this new legislation rests on the belief in an increase or pervasiveness of pedophilia. This has not been the case and even advocates of the instances of pedophilia and rather will force teenage sexuality underground. Politically, however, the moral momentum (translated into electoral support) gained by the collective moral-backslapping of supporters will last beyond the introduction of this bill into law and will likely help the Conservatives into the future. Strategically then, as an attempt to reform Canadian moral values this "common sensical" piece is significant in recruiting support and laying the groundwork of the moral dilemmas that are certainly to be cited in future bills (such as a revisitation of the same sex marriage issue).

Female Sexuality

Regardless of the wording of the bill, it is clear that it is targeting young female sexuality and not that of their male peers or even the actions of adult pedophiles. The legislation does not read as a prohibition of older men of having engagements with young people but rather focuses particularly on when a person - a woman - of 14 or 15 can be considered to be a consenting entity. By collectively disagreeing that 14 and 15 year-olds can be considered individuals capable of making informed consent we strip them of rights over their bodies by belittling their minds. Females are said to mature quicker than men, often entering and exiting puberty years earlier. Thus 14 and 15 year-old females are older, in terms of maturity, perhaps 16 or 17 in terms of sexuality. Thus again, this legislation targets a precocious female sexuality from engaging with partners equaling (or approximating) their maturity.

---

Note: Timely article just popped up re: Adults Becoming More Immature.

---

Excerpt from: "5-Year 'sex gap' should be lower"

"What kind of 19-year-old thinks it's OK to have sex with a 14-year-old? While a five-year age gap may seem irrelevant for people in their 30s or 40s, it may as well be a lifetime when we're talking about the teen years.

A 14-year-old is just starting high school. A 19-year-old is generally finished high school and has moved on to college, university or the working world. A 19-year-old can drink, drive (though not at the same time, of course), vote, smoke, and die for his or her country.

A 14-year-old can't do any of those things.

A 14-year-old is still a child.

Rather than allowing a five-year age gap, three years should be more than enough.

Some may argue that a five-year age gap can be perfectly acceptable (probably because Grandma Betty was 15 when she met and fell in love with Grandpa George, who was five years her senior, and they'll be celebrating their Golden Anniversary next month).

Sorry, folks. Times have changed.

Should Romeo and Juliet be four or more years apart, the star-crossed lovers can bide their time holding hands, kissing and text-messaging until the younger lover becomes of age.

The proposed legislation is a step in the right direction, but falls short.

So Harper's Conservatives get one thumb up and one thumb down. That's a lot better than the two fingers I gave the Liberals when they were in office.
"

Lydia Lovric of the Winnipeg Sun

---

What I'd like to discuss from this article is the author's definition of adult and child. She defines the worlds of the former is radically different than that of the latter's due to the fact that "a 19-year-old can drink, drive (though not at the same time, of course), vote, smoke, and die for his or her country." Each of these symbols of maturity or adulthood is a legal entitlement conferred automatically, regardless of intelligence, ability, experience or merit. Maturity is then inferred from these un-earned privileges. According to the author a "14-year-old is still a child" simply because "a 14-year-old can't do any of those things." Not to mention that her statement that "a 14-year-old can't do any of those things" is misleading. A 14-year-old cannot do those things because they are forbidden by law from doing those things - history has shown that the capacity to engage in any of those activities, except perhaps voting, is there regardless of age. One can note how ridiculous the argument is if one looks to other countries which confer such privileges at earlier or later dates - obviously the distinction between "adult" and "child" is tenuous at best, at least in terms of defining it by age or legal statutes. Further, what is revealing is that how a circular logic - in thise case one of legal statute, age and maturity - is reinforced by organic intellectuals such as Lydia Lovric in order to strengthen "common sense". To the casual viewer, this article subconciously becomes another building block in a new rational moral order whose self-referential logic will become less glaring as the rationale becomes increasingly 'common' and thus a priori factual.