Friday, October 30, 2009
The Fun Theory
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Controversial McGwire Hired as Hitting Coach
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Playboy's Newest Cover Girl

I’m confused.
I just don’t understand your rationale for choosing Marge Simpson as this month’s cover girl. I know sales have been low and I know that Hugh is no longer the suave young stud he once was, but Marge? Really?
First of all, you’re providing ammunition to two groups who tend not to like your magazine very much already; feminists and Christian family groups.
Marge is traditionally viewed as a pro-feminist cartoon character. The Guardian’s Sarah Churchwell reminds us that when Bart took pictures of Homer dancing with a stripper, Marge forced the father to take his son to meet the nude dancer, so as to teach his son a lesson about not treating women like sex objects. The bottom line is that if Marge actually existed, she probably wouldn’t be posing on your cover, as hardcore fans will no doubt tell you.
In addition, a prominent American Christian family group has publicly stated, “Using an animated character on the cover of a pornographic magazine is deceptive and harmful because it will attract the attention of children. It’s inexcusable… to use a cartoon character to hawk pornography.” Have fun adequately responding to that one.
Yes, I’ve heard the phrase ‘any publicity is good publicity’ but in this case I don’t think Marge is going to help your sales numbers, for the simple reason that she isn’t real! I know your editorial director said, “This cover and pictorial is just another example of how we're evolving our editorial content to continue to reach men in their 20s” but I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that most 20-something men who are considering purchasing a Playboy would rather buy a Jessica Alba cover than a Marge Simpson one.
But, good luck to you and your sales. After all, I know this whole editorial decision was pretty tongue-in-cheek. I’m sure the many men with blue hair fetishes will be lining up in droves to buy their copies.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Raging Against Guantanamo
There is no chance that I will be a recording artist.
I just wasn’t dealt those cards.
But I can imagine the thrill an artist feels when their songs are played publicly. …Unless of course they’re played at the notorious prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And not just played, but used as a torture method, being repeatedly blared in detainees’ ears at dangerous volumes.
Rage Against the Machine, Nine Inch Nails, REM, and Pearl Jam are among a group of artists who recently launched a “formal protest of the use of music used in conjunction with torture” at the prison, according to the National Post. They are supporting an effort to declassify secret government information regarding how music was used as an interrogation device at Guantanamo.
The bands are understandably angry that their music was used in such a way, not only from a reputation perspective but also from a personal standpoint. Says Tom Morello of RATM, “Guantanamo is known around the world as one of the places where human beings have been tortured- from waterboarding to stripping, hooding and forcing detainees into humiliating sexual acts- playing music for 72 hours in a row at volumes just below that to shatter eardrums. …Guantanamo may be Dick Cheney’s idea of America, but it’s not mine. The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me.”
Other songs that have been reportedly used for torture purposes at the prison include:
-Tracks by AC/DC, Britney Spears, the Bee Gees, and Marilyn Manson
-The Meow Mix cat food jingle
-The Barney theme song
While I sympathize with the artists’ anger, I’m not sure there’s much they can do aside from publicly voicing their disapproval. Once art is made public, creative control is no longer in the hands of the artists who created it.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Male Achievement Academy

It’s in the news once again thanks to Dr. Chris Spence, the Toronto District School Board’s new education director. He’s calling for the creation of an all-male school, or “Male Leadership Academy,” in the city of Toronto. It would include mostly male teachers, “boy friendly” teaching tactics, and obviously- no girls.
His rationale stems from widespread male disengagement at school which he argues leads to increased violence, lower test scores, and more suspensions.
When I was 14 and my Dad suggested I attend an all-girls high school, I passionately disagreed, mainly for social reasons. I was never boy crazy but I definitely liked having them around. Educationally speaking, I was succeeding in a co-ed school, why change? But the more time I’ve spent in classrooms since my secondary school days, the more I understand his rationale for proposing such a move.
Boys and girls are socialized differently and as a result, learn differently; act differently; participate differently; and prioritize differently. As such, it’s a huge challenge for a single teacher to be able to adequately and simultaneously engage the minds of thirty boys and girls, each with individual learning styles. Granted that is a teacher's job, they are being paid to do just that, but splitting boys and girls would benefit educators and students alike. It would enable teachers to tailor their teaching strategies to their particular group thus increasing student engagement and facilitating learning.
BUT (and this is a big but) schools are institutions of socialization. They are where students learn about themselves, difference, relationships, and human interaction. They should be microcosms of the communities in which students live. The value of boy-girl interaction cannot be underestimated. Outside of schools, men and women co-exist as employees, neighbours, friends, lovers, and partners. Putting kids in all-male or all-female settings is artificial and its academic benefits may be muted by its social shortfalls.
My answer? Single-sex classes in co-ed schools. This set-up would prioritize what matters: engaged students and healthy relationships.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Je ne pense pas, Sirois

Typically I root for the under dogs- those discriminated against by the powers-that-be, but I just can’t support ex-NHLer Bob Sirois’ argument that the NHL is biased against French-Canadians.
In his new book, loosely translated as ‘Quebec Bodychecked: Discrimination against Quebecers in the NHL’, Sirois uses draft lists and rosters over the past decade to make his case. He notes that roughly 19 per cent of Quebec players who made it to the NHL were not drafted, compared to a rate of 10 per cent among the rest of the league’s players. He criticizes GM Bob Gainey for only drafting two Quebeckers during his eight-year stint in Dallas.
I’m reluctant to agree with Sirois because I believe that the NHL and its teams care too much about winning and profit-earning to pass up a quality player because he is French. It simply doesn’t make any sense- financially, athletically or otherwise.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Come on, Richardson's not THAT bad
