David Akin’s On The Hill

I've got a pretty good day job but, if truth be told, it's my professional dream to be a theatre critic. I tried once. While covering city hall at the Orillia Packet & Times when I was young and single, I volunteered to travel all over southern Ontario to review about two dozen summer theatres — from Ganonoque to Gravenhurst to Grand Bend, I used to say — along with the fall and winter seasons in Toronto. CBC Radio's Ontario Morning would put me on once a week in the summer to talk about the plays I'd seen and they were kind enough to send me a hundred bucks or so every month for the privilege.
Later, when I moved up the Thomson newspaper chain from Orillia to the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, I tried to carry on with my tryout to be a real theatre critic but there just wasn't a whole lot of theatre in Northwestern Ontario — and it was a six-hour drive to the Guthrie in Minneapolis (which, for the two seasons I saw there, is vastly overrated and doesn't hold a candle to the work done at Stratford and Shaw, but I digress …)
But it's tough to crack the professional theatre critic lineup. Indeed, I would say it's easier to become a professional actor than to become a professional newspaper critic in Canada if only because there might be two dozen professional theatre critics in this country — and I may be overestimating here — but there's got to be at least a few thousand professional actors. (When I say professional here, I'm talking about earning all or most of your annual income by reviewing live theatre or performing live theatre)
And so we come to John Barry who writes theatre criticism for a newspaper in Baltimore. He doesn't make a lot of money but perhaps he'll get some great notoriety for this charming from-the-heart essay on reviewing theatre:

Okay, it was a crappy production. Tom Stoppard's going to take the bullet. Not that I have anything against Stoppard. It's just that if he hadn't written the play, I wouldn't have wasted my rainy night trying to squeeze something useful out of an amateur production. I start to type: Stoppard is funny. He's smart, he makes you think, he makes you drink. The problem is that unless someone puts a cork in the Merlot at some point, he won't shut up…
That's it, Tom. Take that cork and shove it. And another thing. If I'm only getting paid $55 for a sidebar review, don't tell me to bone up on Richard Feynman if I want to get the jokes. And the actors themselves. Think of them. They have day jobs. You know what a day job is? Did they ever teach you that at Oxford?
It happens every time. I can't slam bad community theatre. I want to. I want to be contrarian. I want people to hang on my next word. The dream will never die: getting drunk on martinis at Sardi's after closing down a Disney-sponsored Broadway production, and possibly, later in life, getting a chance to rant on a weekly basis in the opinion pages of the New York Times [Read the rest of the piece]

As I've always said, the issue of “are bloggers journalists” matters not (or at least it should not matter) a whit to bloggers, journalists, or their viewers/readers but it is a very big deal to the 'gatekeepers' of the world. Bush's gatekeepers recently decided that the J-tent, if you'll let me call it that, was big enough for another ten to enter. And the new ten in the tent just happen to be bloggers:

President Reaches Out to a Friendly Circle in New Media
The day after his prime-time speech on Iraq, President Bush sat down for a round-table interview not with traditional White House reporters but with bloggers who focus on military issues, including two participating by video link from Baghdad.
Judging from some of the accounts of the Friday meeting, the president offered up little news. Here is what one of the 10 bloggers, Ward Carroll of Military.com, described from his notes as some of Bush's most notable comments:
• “This strategy is my strategy.”
• “I'm defining a horizon of peace.”
• “I don't mind people attacking me. . . . That's politics . . . but I do mind people impugning the integrity of our generals.”
Still, the hour-long meeting in the Roosevelt Room offered Bush another opportunity to break through what he sees as the filter of the traditional news media, while also reaching out to the providers of a new source of information for soldiers, their families and others who follow the conflict in Iraq closely… [Read the rest of the story]

Wouldn't it be great if Canada's fighter planes — the CF-18 — could be deployed to Afghanistan where they might be able to play a supporting role to the 2,500-odd Canadian troops there? You're right, it would. But, sadly, Canada's CF-18s are shut out of any theatre of war where our allies are are operating because Canada's fighter jets simply don't have the right gear.

If you want to put your fighters into the same theatre as U.S. and U.K. forces, your fighters must — and I underline, must — be equipped with what I'll call “smart bomb” technology. Remember in Gulf War I when we saw video of a missile zeroing in on a target and then explode? Well, that's smart bomb stuff. The U.S. have it. The U.K. has it. Even the French have it. (That's why they were able to deploy Mirage fighters into Afghanistan recently to support NATO troops there.) But Canada's fighter jets don't have it.

We know we need it, mind you. Five years ago, Canada's Air Force generals started the ball rolling to put these systems on our fighter jets.

But now, as my colleague Graham Richardson reports tonight, we seem to be a ways off from getting it.

Bureaucrats at Public Works and Government Services Canada awarded a $150-million contract to upgrade our fighter jets so that they would have this capability to Lockheed Martin. This will be Lockheed Martin's first contract to upgrade CF-18s with this capability.
Meanwhile, Northrup Grumman, which also bid on the Canadian contract and have done lots of these upgrades, is appealing the PWGSC decision and, so far, is doing very well with that appeal.
Northrup, I might add, has won this contract against the same competitors in six other countries — including the U.S. and Australia — versus the same competitors but couldn't do it in Canada.

So, to recap: In 2009, Canada's ground forces combat configuration in Afghanistan almost certainly will end. If the government is thinking about sending Canadian fighter jets post-2009 over there to help, forget about it. They can't go until they get the mandatory piece of kit that just about every other one of our allies has. And the work of getting that kick has been delayed by some bureaucratic bungling.

Oh — and here's the kicker: Canadian taxpayers have already forked over $140-million for the smart bombs that we can't yet fire because our planes haven't got the smart bomb firing system installed yet.

You have to a be Facebook member — and be accepted as Rick's Friend — in order to see this but, darn it, this is just too cute for words so I've copied it and pasted it here. Rick, forgive me, and please provide context and analysis.

Elections Canada has just published the preliminary estimates of voter turnout in advance polls for the three by-elections in Quebec.
Voting day is next Monday in Outremont. St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, and Roberval-Lac St. Jean.

In Roberval — a riding where the Bloc Quebecois is playing defence — nearly 4,000 people have already voted, according to Elections Canada estimates, with nearly a week to go until polling day. In the last general election, only 3,416 people voted in advance polls.

Advance poll turnout is also good in St. Hyacinthe, the other riding where the Bloc is playing defence. There, 3,190 have already put an 'x' beside someone's name, compared to 3,571 who did so in an advance poll in the last general election.

Calls are in to readers of political tea-leaves to see what they make of this. In Roberval, the Conservatives have high hopes of unseating the Bloc. In St. Hyacinthe, the other parties think they'll have a tough time beating the Block but the other federal parties want to have a strong second.

Meanwhile, in Outremont — a riding that's been Liberal for a century plus — the number of ballots already cast stand at 2,328 with a week to go, compared to 3,726 advance ballots in the last general election.
In that riding, the Liberals hope to fend off a strong challenge from the NDP.

Next February, a year before Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan is to end, Canada's top general, Rick Hillier, is scheduled to retire. Normally, Canada's Chiefs of Defence Staff serve for three years and then that's it.
But L. Ian Macdonald, a former speechwriter for Brian Mulroney who now edits Policy Options and does some commentary work for CTV and others, wonders if Hillier's tenure will be extended.
Writing in The Gazette Friday, MacDonald says:

So there are two questions, of equal importance, around this. On the one hand, is Hillier essential to the mission? On the other, if he is extended for another year, would that be an admission he is indispensable? One man bigger than the mission? That's not a good story line . . . So Harper is on the verge of two important decisions: What to do about Afghanistan after February 2009, and whether Hillier is the man to lead the Canadian Forces until then.

Macdonald also points to two heir apparents, Hillier's good friend and vice-chief Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk and the youngish-looking 50-year-old up-and-comer Lt. Gen Andrew Leslie. Like Hillier, Natynczyk and Leslie are 'tankers', if I understand the term correctly, (and please be gentle in your corrections if I've messed this up) meaning that they are of that special Army breed that thinks a tank or other armoured vehicle is a highly useful, perhaps, the most useful, device a commander could have.

And, helpfully, a reader has sent me a note to clarify this issue of who’s a tanker and who isn’t. I am grateful for the corrective:

Gen. Hillier and LtGen. Natynczyk are armour officers, They both have commanded the Royal Canadian Dragoons in the past. LtGen. Leslie is an artillery officer. That being said, you do not get to command LFWA [Land Force Western Area] and then become Chief of the Land Staff without an appreciation and understanding of the capabilities and uses of  tanks on the battlefield.

Macdonald notes Natynczyk's service in Bosnia and Kosovo but doesn't note that Natynczyk also served with U.S. forces in Iraq, an experience which might be a bit of a help in Afghanistan.
The gossip in Ottawa — outside National Defence Headquarters, anyhow — is that Leslie is the most likely among the top generals, Hillier included, to go a long way in politics, if he so desires. But Leslie will likely want to make CDS before he jumps into a political career.
Now traditionally, the chances of either man succeeding Hillier should be discounted. That's because the top job in our combined forces normally rotates through the three services — Army, Air Force, Navy. Hillier, an Army man, succeeded Gen. Ray Henault, an Air Force man. But get this: Henault succeeded Gen. Maurice Baril, also an Army man. So the Navy guys could rightly be thinking that they got passed over once when Hillier was appointed and they might be thinking they are overdue for a turn at the top. (I've met the top Air Force general, Lt. Gen Angus Watt, just once and though he seems like a smart guy, he just started that job last month. He just might be on track, though, in terms of timing to succeed the guy — and it will be a guy, not a gal — who succeeds Hillier) The top navy guy in the forces is Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson. Can't say Robertson has a big profile on “The Hill” (or, just as plausibly, I'm not hanging out in the right committee rooms.) and I've never met him. So if I was a betting man, and if Hillier was to retire on schedule in February, I'd say an Army general stands to be elevated, tradition be damned.

The leaders, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper (at the back on the left in this photo from APEC’s site), donned some ceremonial garb for their annual “family photo” taken today on the steps of the Opera House in Sydney, Australia.

Here’s the skinny on what they’re wearing:

All the leaders are wearing Driza-Bone (TM) jackets. The first Driza-Bone (as in “dry-as-a-bone”)  jackets were sewn more than 100 years ago by sailors. The sailors would use old windjammer sails as the material for these jackets. You’ll note that while the jackets are all the same colour, each leader has a colour lapel. The leaders were free to choose that colour and it looks like our man Harper chose blue.

The blue, APEC organizers say, is a slate blue, representing Australia’s vast coastline. The mustard yellow colour represents Australia’s sun and sand; the red ochre represents the colour of outback sand; and the green represents the famous Australian eucalyptus.

At lunch, on the of this photo, the leaders ate lunch at Guillaume at Bennelong. On the menu:

Barramundi with endives, mushrooms, pearl of vegetables, yabbies, scallops and a light ginger emulsion followed by Roasted Saddle of Lamb with field mushrooms, kipfler potatoes, confit of tomato and thyme jus and a selection of Australian fruit and cheese

The winelist (I’m pretty sure Harper drinks wine) 2004 Mount Pleasant ‘Maurice O’Shea’ (a single bottle costs about 50 Australian dollars) and 2004 Tyrell’s ‘Vat 47’ from the Hunter (about AUS$40 a bottle).

Now that was just lunch. Here’s what’s going down for dinner, which will be held at the Opera House itself:

The dinner setting features traditional Lady Jane Silver Cutlery and simple Waterford Crystal Glasses, dinner will be served on a classic white Villeroy & Boch dinner service.

 A cream and gold Jacquard table runner will run the length of the table over a white line table drop, which is complimented by golden Kingsgrove Jacquard dining chairs covered in an elegant Florence Broadhurst design especially adapted for this occasion.

The finishing touch of a gold tassle on the rear of each chair completes the setting. Flower arrangements give the setting an Australian native feel.

The Tracey Wan Quartet will perform for Leaders as they dine on a feast of Rolled Yellow Fin Tuna, Western Australian yabbies and Sterling caviar and Grainge Angus Black Label Wagyu Beef Striploin and on a bed of ratatouille and salsa verde.

2006 Cullen Sauvignon Blanc Semillon, 2004 Tarrawarra Chardonnay, 2004 Henschke Tappa Pass Shiraz, 2005 Stonier Reserve Pinot Noir and 2007 Mt Horrocks Cordon Cut Riesling will be served. Vanilla and nougatine semifreddo and raspberries and candied orange will be served for desert.

And when Prime Minister and Mrs. Harper leave Australia, they’ll be carrying back these gifts (which, incidentally, become the property of the Canadian people and not the personal property of the Harpers, according to the rules).

• Three limited edition prints by Australian artists. Selected with the assistance of the National Gallery of Australia, the artists are Tim Djandjomerr, Pamela Griffith and Peter Kingston.
• A specially designed and handcrafted identification pin by renowned jeweller Margaret Kirkwood. The pin is worn by Leaders whilst in Sydney and is an interpretation of the APEC Australia 2007 Star.
• An Akubra felt hat, the only complete fur-felt manufacturer left in Australia.

Keith McArthur was a colleague of mine at The Globe and Mail’s Report on Business. While I was there, he did some top-notch work reporting on Air Canada and other transportation matters. Keith recently left the Globe to join the communications and government relations firm Veritas Communications Inc., where he’ll be working on that firm’s new social media division.

In Veritas weekly newsletter “Touchdowns and Fumbles”, Keith takes a look at Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s recent musings on how the puffin ought to the official bird of his party:

Every once in a while a story comes along that forces you to stop and check if you're reading a serious publication or a satirical one like The Onion. Millions of Canadians went through this last week when reports came out that Michael Ignatieff, the former-next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, suggested that the Atlantic Puffin should be his party's official bird. Why? Well, it has good family values, Ignatieff said. Puffin couples stay together for 30 years. Oh, and another thing: They “hide their excrement.” Really. He said it. Conservative bloggers, predictably, are having a field day with the comment, tying puffin poop to the sponsorship scandal, the human resources “boondoggle” and so on. Another take we're seeing is that the Chrétienites and the Martinites should have done a better job of hiding the fecal matter between them. At the risk of sounding obvious, this puffin business serves as a reminder of one of the most basic rules of talking to the media: Think about what you're going to say before you say it. Or as my colleague Janine Allen put it: “Note to self: do not include word “excrement” in any context when speaking to media.”

Last night, on CTV National News, we showed an excerpt from some extended interviews Lloyd Robertson did with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Mulroney had some harsh things to say about Trudeau. Today, Liberal leader Stephane Dion issued this statement in reaction to Mulroney’s comments:

It is regrettable that, after attending Prime Minister Trudeau’s funeral and praising him as “an exceptional individual who served his country effectively and well … a gallant political warrior who loved his country,” Mr. Mulroney would seem to be at such odds with his own views.

One wonders whether Canadians will gain any genuine insight from Mr. Mulroney's book if the former Prime Minister himself is unable to provide a reliable account of his public sentiments towards past rivals such as Mr. Trudeau.

Finally, while Mr. Mulroney's track record in politics may indeed explain his frustrations with Prime Minister Trudeau, they do not qualify him as a historian.

Adversary or not, one cannot ignore Mr. Trudeau's contributions to Canada. In bringing us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Prime Minister Trudeau ensured that the human rights of all our citizens would be protected.

Surely Mr. Mulroney wouldn't dispute that in so doing, Prime Minister Trudeau earned the respect of all Canadians.