Canadian Entertainment, Music and Catch All II

[Xelebes]

This is a continuation of the previous thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95736). Please proceed.

[MonctonRad]

Link to the previous archived thread:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95736

[elly63]

I find we tend to remember commercials and program's intros and extros because they are repeated.

This program's intro has always rung in my head and I wonder if anyone remembers it. The Australian kid show The Lost Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Islands) had a lengthy intro that basically told the whole story of the show. It had a run on Canadian TV in the mid/late 70s?

UtVJqFqrnMw

[elly63]

Kevin McCorry (https://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/index.html) has managed to log something I think is amazing and invaluable to an amateur TV historian like me. He has created 15 pages of TV schedules (1971-87) (for the Maritimes) which include CBC, CTV and other Canadian stations plus the US networks when cable came online. Most of the Canadian stations and US primetime should apply across the country so it shouldn't be too exclusive to those outside the Maritimes.

Boy, some of these shows bring back memories.

Television Listings For Canada's Eastern Maritime Provinces: 1971 to 1972 (https://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/lifestorytvlist1.html)

I don't see where he links to the TV schedule pages but if you use the link above and change the url from lifestorytvlist1.html to lifestorytvlist2.html and lifestorytvlist3.html up to lifestorytvlist15.html, you get the idea.

This page has been up for a long time, but I didn't realize it was 15 pages worth. Now I have to save them before they're gone.

[elly63]

Found a very cool clip of an early US made Friendly Giant. Not many people know that along with Fred Rogers and Ernie Coombs (via Rogers) CBC's head of youth development Fred Rainsberry recruited Bob Homme from Wisconsin (https://www.thewhig.com/opinion/canadian-ingenuity-music-books-respect-with-the-friendly-giant)

The show moved to Toronto where original puppeteer Ken Ohst was replaced by Rod Coneybeare

What a beautiful, quiet little show, a shame there is nothing like it today.

3DXEhv8PRwM

[manny_santos]

Kevin McCorry (https://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/index.html) has managed to log something I think is amazing and invaluable to an amateur TV historian like me. He has created 15 pages of TV schedules (1971-87) (for the Maritimes) which include CBC, CTV and other Canadian stations plus the US networks when cable came online. Most of the Canadian stations and US primetime should apply across the country so it shouldn't be too exclusive to those outside the Maritimes.

Boy, some of these shows bring back memories.

Television Listings For Canada's Eastern Maritime Provinces: 1971 to 1972 (https://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/lifestorytvlist1.html)

I don't see where he links to the TV schedule pages but if you use the link above and change the url from lifestorytvlist1.html to lifestorytvlist2.html and lifestorytvlist3.html up to lifestorytvlist15.html, you get the idea.

This page has been up for a long time, but I didn't realize it was 15 pages worth. Now I have to save them before they're gone.

Back in those days schedules varied a lot across the CBC and CTV networks. CBC owned stations in the largest cities, but they also had many private affiliates, many of which did not clear the full network schedule and often had additional local or syndicated programs. In London, CFPL was a CBC affiliate up until 1988, but it aired a much different schedule than the CBC-owned station in Toronto. As an example, Midday was aired at 2pm in London instead of at noon as was done on the network schedule, as CFPL did its own local news and agricultural report during the noon hour. CFPL aired American game shows in the afternoon such as The Price is Right that were not provided by the CBC network.

CTV did not own any of its stations back then, so programming sometimes varied widely. As late as the mid-90s, the affiliates in Kitchener and Toronto (CKCO and CFTO, respectively) had radically different schedules. And in BC, BCTV aired weekday Canucks games and bumped CTV network programs to CHEK, which itself was also a CTV affiliate but didn’t always air network shows at the same time as BCTV.

[elly63]

I had a short stint in traffic back in the day, as well as continuity and sales, production and news, so I saw it all at one time or another.

There would be programs that would air in the mornings and in the afternoons in some markets. Quad tapes would be bicycled across the country (I did that too)

One thing that fascinates me now was between the two main networks (pre cable) they seemed to manage to be able to air almost every major American program. Not saying there aren't any, but I can't remember thinking boy I wish I could see that show.

I do recall in the mid 70s going to friend's houses that had cable and seeing shows that CBC and CTV didn't carry (particularly US game shows), Family Feud comes to mind. But that wasn't a real game breaker.

CHSJ in Saint John NB was an affiliate that often deviated from the CBC sked. NB didn't have a CBC O&O until 1994.

Back to the schedules, a real work of love by that guy and very useful, I downloaded them this aft.

[elly63]

CTV did not own any of its stations back then, so programming sometimes varied widely.I love when you get a good Google preview. CTV The Network That Means Business (https://books.google.ca/books?id=6c3FkFx0-uoC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=ctv+kidstuff&source=bl&ots=gWr-0DXUCh&sig=92tExsnOutXwP7YA0sFp_cmSLcE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=ctv%20kidstuff&f=false) by Michael Nolan gives a good look into the formation of CTV, something that is not so well documented.

[harls]

*sigh*

Alarmforce is listed on the TSX.

[MolsonExport]

Rusty the old clucker in a bag.
0BCB0Q-SiPM

Doesn't Rusty sound like the lead singer of Canned Heat?
NvMVQ_DgEJY

or maybe the guy (Valair) with the weird voice in this video?
kXf3wx5nPXU

[SignalHillHiker]

Quick note that if you've done AncestryDNA, they've updated their results again (obviously, your DNA doesn't change, but as more people participate, they're able to identify more specific geography for your ancestry, and moreso, the path your ancestors took to where you are now).

They've ALMOST zeroed in on my genes coming from Waterford, like almost every Newfoundlander whose ancestors came from Ireland.

https://i.postimg.cc/zGFFdRjS/Screenshot-2023-10-27-172501.png

For example, whoever my ancestors were in 1750, a lot of people also descended from them came here, and a lot stayed behind. :haha:

https://i.postimg.cc/13bsjf3X/Screenshot-2023-10-27-172842.png

[Gresto]

or maybe the guy (Valair) with the weird voice in this video?
kXf3wx5nPXU
One of the classic Internet vids. Too bad it's fake. For me it always calls to mind the below hilarious vid from a real Danish game show.
"Have I really been smelling a stinking ass?! (Retch) Ugh, and it was hairy!"

Q5DhQ0qvHZs

[MolsonExport]

^you found a video of bnk nosing Trump's rectum

[Gresto]

^Except bnk enjoys getting his nose into Dump's dumps. The poo of one's idol smells like roses.

[Djeffery]

Friends star Matthew Perry passed away this evening, apparently drowning, perhaps also as a result of another medical issue.

[elly63]

Friends star Matthew Perry passed away this evening, apparently drowning, perhaps also as a result of another medical issue.Nothing that I can find so far at CBC (no surprise). Not Canadian but another TV personality Richard Moll (Night Court) has died as well

[Tvisforme]

Nothing that I can find so far at CBC (no surprise)....

You've mentioned elsewhere that you worked in news in the past, so I assume you already know that one of the primary responsibilities of a news organization is verifiability. When the news first broke, the report came from TMZ - hardly a reliable source:

TMZ: Jerry Lee Lewis is not dead ... as we previously reported. (https://www.tmz.com/2022/10/26/jerry-lee-lewis-not-dead/)

We're told the rock 'n' roll legend is alive, living in Memphis. Earlier today we were told by someone claiming to be Lewis' rep that he had passed. That turned out not to be the case.

TMZ regrets the error.

To quote HBO's The Newsroom, from the episode that covered the shooting of US politician Gabby Giffords:

"It's a person. A doctor pronounces her dead, not the news."

CBC posted their initial story at 7:41 PM.

[elly63]

I assume you already know that one of the primary responsibilities of a news organization is verifiability. When the news first broke, the report came from TMZ - hardly a reliable source:I had thought they might wait to verify but every other outlet including CTV and CNN posted the story hours before CBC. I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise.

Also for that kind of story TMZ might be a better source. I don't think we need to detail all of MSM's false reporting. When The View (and their in show corrections) is part of ABC News then I know it's lost the plot.

[elly63]

CBC posted their initial story at 7:41 PM.Is that Pacific time? The story, I am seeing from the AP (on the CBC website) is 10:41 Eastern. The story is also using the LA Times and TMZ as sources

[elly63]

To verify Sainte-Marie's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffy_Sainte-Marie#cite_note-Agoyo_2023_indianz-60) early Mi'kmaq identity claims, her younger sister took a DNA test (https://indianz.com/News/2023/10/25/canadian-documentary-focuses-on-icon-who-based-career-on-native-identity/) that showed she had "almost no" Native American ancestry and she says she is genetically related to Sainte-Marie's son, which would not be possible if Buffy was adopted as she claimed

[MonctonRad]

Friends star Matthew Perry passed away this evening, apparently drowning, perhaps also as a result of another medical issue.

Nobody drowns in a hot tub (except perhaps a toddler or infant).

There has to be an underlying cause.

It might have been a medical issue such as a cardiac arrhythmia, heart attack or stroke.

Or, Perry could have relapsed in his drug abuse problems, and was stuporous to the point of being defenceless.

Either way, this is all very sad.

[Djeffery]

Nobody drowns in a hot tub (except perhaps a toddler or infant).

There has to be an underlying cause.

It might have been a medical issue such as a cardiac arrhythmia, heart attack or stroke.

Or, Perry could have relapsed in his drug abuse problems, and was stuporous to the point of being defenceless.

Either way, this is all very sad.

His last instagram post shows him in a spa. Now this was several days ago so who knows if it was the same one he died in. But, when you say "hot tub", I think of the thing I have in my back yard where it's comfortable for me and my wife to get in. The jacuzzi he was in was larger than the pool at my last house and only his head was above water. When I posted last night, it was only a few minutes after TMZ came out with the story and I did qualify my comments with perhaps a medical issue caused the drowning as it was way too early to actually know.

[MonctonRad]

His last instagram post shows him in a spa. Now this was several days ago so who knows if it was the same one he died in. But, when you say "hot tub", I think of the thing I have in my back yard where it's comfortable for me and my wife to get in. The jacuzzi he was in was larger than the pool at my last house and only his head was above water. When I posted last night, it was only a few minutes after TMZ came out with the story and I did qualify my comments with perhaps a medical issue caused the drowning as it was way too early to actually know.

Thanks for clarifying. This changes things quite a lot. It could very well have been an accidental drowning then.

RIP.

[MolsonExport]

Nothing that I can find so far at CBC (no surprise). Not Canadian but another TV personality Richard Moll (Night Court) has died as well

It was high up on the CBC list of stories early this morning.

Nothing political about it, so I am not sure why you are stating "no surprise".

[Nouvellecosse]

They're saying "no surprise" because many conservative leaning people write off the CBC as being bad because they don't agree with all of its reporting or coverage choices. And once you write something off as bad, you'll assume it's bad overall meaning that it's faulty in other areas too. That's because they assume the disagreements they have with it can't be mere differences in opinion or philosophies, or heaven forbid, that they might be wrong themselves. No, the disagreement must be due to other party being crazy and/or incompetent because if they weren't, they'd have programming that they consider "correct" ie indulging conservative narratives. :P

[elly63]

They're saying "no surprise" because many conservative leaning people write off the CBC as being bad because they don't agree with all of its reporting or coverage choices. And once you write something off as bad, you'll assume it's bad overall meaning that it's faulty in other areas too. That's because they assume the disagreements they have with it can't be mere differences in opinion or philosophies, or heaven forbid, that they might be wrong themselves. No, the disagreement must be due to other party being crazy and/or incompetent because if they weren't, they'd have programming that they consider "correct" ie indulging conservative narratives. I would say that's fairly close to the truth except for the part about indulging conservative narratives.. Why you often see conservative leaning people perturbed by coverage is because of what they see as a lack of fairness. CBC has always had a "liberal" leaning but it was tolerable because the coverage seemed fair. The same applies to left leaning people who use Fox News as a pejorative and roll their eyes. The news division has some very good journalists and the commentators (like other outlets) are just that. You have to distinguish between the two.

There are far more activists than journalists at Mother Corps. Personally, I have brought attention to stories I've seen as fair, frankly because I am surprised they are there. I thought it was very courageous (a much overused word these days) for one of their radio hosts to really grill her own boss (the President of the CBC). I think the BSM story took some courage because it seems to both fight and coddle CBC's ultra native and alphabet agenda but my real interest in the story is the mystery and personal element not the political. I can find enough of that here.

[Nouvellecosse]

I would say that's fairly close to the truth except for the part about indulging conservative narratives.. Why you often see conservative leaning people perturbed by coverage is because of what they see as a lack of fairness. CBC has always had a "liberal" leaning but it was tolerable because the coverage seemed fair. The same applies to left leaning people who use Fox News as a pejorative and roll their eyes. The news division has some very good journalists and the commentators (like other outlets) are just that. You have to distinguish between the two.

I realize what you meant, but when conservatives say "lack of fairness" what it actually tends to amount to is someone not indulging conservative narratives. They believe their perspective is correct and therefore it's unfair for someone to say otherwise even if their perspective is verifiably incorrect. They expect an outlet to "both sides" an issue when the actual facts of the issue clearly support a conclusion they don't like. Or increasingly, to not even "both sides" it and just give them the angle they want.

And it's definitely not like when people call out Fox News for partisanship or factual inaccuracies because the actual facts matter. The issue isn't whether two groups each claim a certain news outlet has factual inaccuracies. It's whether or not the outlets in question actually have factual inaccuracies. And Fox News is notorious for blurring the lines between their news reporting and their commentary. Not that everything the news personnel say is incorrect. Just that there are enough inaccuracies to make it unreliable.

That's been known for a good decade now after a well-known study (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/?sh=124e0d954fd8) was conducted of various news viewers in the US. It's asked them a series of questions on current events while controlling for other variables such as party affiliation and the use of other news sources. While the results varied, Fox News viewers were uniquely poorly informed to the point that they were less knowledgeable than people who watch no news at all. And notably, also less knowledgeable than viewers of any of the other outlets including ones accused of being liberal. While MSNBC also didn't do well (though better than Fox) NPR did the best despite it regularly being maligned as having a left-leaning bias.

So no, the "same thing" most certainly does not apply.

[elly63]

One thing Conservatives often ask themselves is "what if" or put the shoe on the other foot. What if Poilievre wore the blackface would the coverage be the same? What if Poilievre made claims about being a feminist supporter and have four? women leave his caucus would he get the same treatment or much worse? These are the questions many Conservatives ask when it comes to fairness.

As I said before I don't need to get into a game of gotchas here because I am pretty sure my side is gonna be happy next election. I'm not totally against Liberals (I used to be one) I'm just against this particular group. But anything could happen, I thought Trump was down and dusted and now he is leading the polls but I don't see that happening to JT

[Nouvellecosse]

One thing Conservatives often ask themselves is "what if" or put the shoe on the other foot. What if Poilievre wore the blackface would the coverage be the same? What if Poilievre made claims about being a feminist and have four? women leave his caucus would he get the same treatment or much worse? These are the questions many Conservatives ask when it comes to fairness.

Wait, so it's all just speculation about hypotheticals rather than a critique of the actual coverage?

But yes, I can imagine what would happen if the shoe were reversed in many cases. Like if Pierre had intentionally appoint an equal number of male and female MPs to cabinet and 4 women left. Conservatives would have claimed it was just what happens when you try to appease the woke left by appointing people who aren't qualified. We know this because many did claim that the government appointed people who weren't qualified, assuming that's an inevitable result of equal representation. And if Pierre was found to have worn black face they would have whole heartedly defended him by pointing out it was a long time ago and it wasn't an important issue.

And as a Black person I was frustrated by the dialogue surrounding the blackface incident with people claiming Trudeau was given a special pass because of favouritism or some such. In reality, people like me didn't think it was that important because Trudeau was otherwise fairly strong on social issues so there was no indication it was due to actual racism rather than just poor judgement. But for someone with a different track record, that might not have been so clear. Let's say we place everyone on a scale of say, 1-100, with 1 being the most racist person possible who commits hate crimes, has a swastika tattoo, etc, while a 100 is the most perfectly anti-racist person possible. Under say, 30 points would be low enough to be a problem and over 70 would be exceptionally good. Most people would fall somewhere in between.

When you first meet someone before you know anything about them, you default them to a 50. Neither racist nor anti-racist. Then as you learn more about them that knowledge might position them differently. Discovering they did blackface in their younger years would make for a big deduction of say 25 points. So someone who was previously a 75 would drop to a 50. Not much of an issue. But someone who was already a 50 would drop to a 25. A bit of a problem. But in both cases the people are being treated equally. They were assigned their prior point position based on the same criteria which, for a politicians often means points are added or deducted based on their policies and public statements, while the same number of points were deducted for the transgression. The fact that the final total is different is not any form of inconsistency or unfairness and it makes a lot of sense that one would be scrutinized more closely than the other. But a big part of the problem is that some people aren't capable of such nuance.

[elly63]

Just came across this, he really has the soul of a comedian much like another Ottawa guy. RIP Before she got introduced I thought Pam was a celebrity, resembles Sigourney Weaver? Had to look it up, but the story Letterman tells about Tony Danza on The Love Boat (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0636694/)is true.

x5-wuiqXUnM

[harls]

he really has the soul of a comedian much like another Ottawa guy.

Who would that be?

[Tvisforme]

....Also for that kind of story TMZ might be a better source. I don't think we need to detail all of MSM's false reporting. When The View (and their in show corrections) is part of ABC News then I know it's lost the plot.

Arguing that a daytime talk show (The View) is indicative of the failings of all mainstream news organizations, just because it is produced by ABC's news division, is nonsensical. As for TMZ being a good source, I'd suggest that they subscribe to the "publish first, apologize later" school of journalism...

With regards to your initial post, the reason I called you out on it is that your shot at the CBC was clearly less about their coverage and more about your dislike for the network as a whole. That's counterproductive - and it potentially weakens posts where you might put forward valid arguments against them.

[harls]

Arguing that a daytime talk show (The View) is indicative of the failings of all mainstream news organizations, just because it is produced by ABC's news division, is nonsensical. As for TMZ being a good source, I'd suggest that they subscribe to the "publish first, apologize later" school of journalism...

With regards to your initial post, the reason I called you out on it is that your shot at the CBC was clearly less about their coverage and more about your dislike for the network as a whole. That's counterproductive - and it potentially weakens posts where you might put forward valid arguments against them.

Maybe elly63 should not me arguing with someone as Tvisforme as a handle.

[elly63]

Arguing that a daytime talk show (The View) is indicative of the failings of all mainstream news organizations, just because it is produced by ABC's news division, is nonsensical. As for TMZ being a good source, I'd suggest that they subscribe to the "publish first, apologize later" school of journalism...

With regards to your initial post, the reason I called you out on it is that your shot at the CBC was clearly less about their coverage and more about your dislike for the network as a whole. That's counterproductive - and it potentially weakens posts where you might put forward valid arguments against them.You seem to be making several incorrect assumptions in this post and I noticed you haven't mentioned again about the original issue of the time CBC posted the story which was several hours after everybody else and using TMZ as a source via an AP story posted to CBC.

And you were wrong again about my motive concerning the Perry story, they were way behind when everybody else had published, again the reason I posted. I do have a dislike for their present leftist activist leanings, far more prevalent on the website than on the few shows I still continue to occasionally see. For instance I watched a story on Israeli and Palestinian restauranters that I thought was fair. But if you want to believe Conservatives suddenly have an issue with the CBC for no valid reason even when they are not in power, and the ruling party should be under the microscope then hey, you be you.

[elly63]

Maybe elly63 should not me arguing with someone as Tvisforme as a handle.Mods cheer lead now?

[harls]

Mods cheer lead now?

Nope, just figured the name meant something.

[elly63]

Nope, just figured the name meant something.My apologies

[elly63]

Who would that be?Norm MacDonald of course :) Did some people think I meant JT (he's not funny) After my initial thoughts of Norm I wondered there must be another comedian from Ottawa so I looked it up. There was the guy who was acknowledged at one time as Canada's greatest comedian, Mike MacDonald. He had a funny routine about that. He was kind of like to Canadian comedy like what the Hip was to Canadian music. JMO.

I did know (and forgotten) about Tom Green and there was Dan Aykroyd and Rich Little but I was thinking pure standups primarily.

If you listen to Perry, his delivery and thought processes seem like what a standup would do, IMO.

[Acajack]

Norm MacDonald of course :) Did some people think I meant JT (he's not funny) After my initial thoughts of Norm I wondered there must be another comedian from Ottawa so I looked it up. There was the guy who was acknowledged at one time as Canada's greatest comedian, Mike MacDonald. He had a funny routine about that. He was kind of like to Canadian comedy like what the Hip was to Canadian music. JMO.

I did know (and forgotten) about Tom Green and there was Dan Aykroyd and Rich Little but I was thinking pure standups primarily.

If you listen to Perry, his delivery and thought processes seem like what a standup would do, IMO.

Isn't Norm MacDonald more of a Québec City guy? At least officially?

[Acajack]

Maybe elly63 should not me arguing with someone as Tvisforme as a handle.

AFAIK Elly is a TV guy as well.

[MolsonExport]

Conservatives love to point out that Trump/Poilievre, etc. "live rent free" (I loathe that expression) in the minds of those on the centre/left, but man, I think they not only pay the rent for Trudeau, they bribe him to take up residence.

[Acajack]

I have been a staunch defender of the CBC (and Radio-Canada) since my teen years and while some here think otherwise, I don't identify as a "conservative" like Elly does and won't be voting for the CPC in 2025.

That said I definitely sense some bias in the CBC and it has been growing in recent years. Not so much in terms of political parties (the Buffy Ste-Marie story isn't directly damaging to the Liberals, though perhaps it is to some of the ideology they defend) but definitely there are some ideological slants they seem to prefer over others.

Anything that some of us would call "woke" generally gets favourable or sympathetic treatment, and stuff that runs against those tenets is not typically portrayed in a positive light.

Admittedly you get this more in longer, talk-oriented programming on the CBC as opposed to newscasts, though the selection of what is covered by the news and what isn't, and what gets top billing and what gets a passing mention also tends to reflect this penchant.

With respect to the Buffy Ste-Marie story it's hard to see where it fits in to all of this, as on the one hand it has brought down one of the progressive movement's earliest and biggest shining lights, whereas on the other it is ironically very consistent with wokism's fondness for witch hunts, ideological and ethno-racial "purity" (masked as authenticity) and cancel culture.

[isaidso]

I used to be a strong backer of the CBC as well but stopped watching 8-9 years ago. Actually, I tuned out 95% of mainstream media around the same time. It became too focused on the US, UK, monarchy, and celebrity. There's a whole big world out there beyond that narrow focus so I eventually got fed up and turned it off.

It takes far more effort on my part, but I stay informed about the world by doing my own digging online and talking to people from around the world. I'll never go back to being a sheep consuming what ever mainstream media shove in front of me. I have a laptop and mouse and can sort out what's what myself.

Buffy Ste Marie. I have nothing against her but have ZERO interest in what she said, what she didn't say, or what colour coat she's wearing today. CBC and mainstream media. I don't care about what they have to say either.

[Acajack]

Wait, so it's all just speculation about hypotheticals rather than a critique of the actual coverage?

But yes, I can imagine what would happen if the shoe were reversed in many cases. Like if Pierre had intentionally appoint an equal number of male and female MPs to cabinet and 4 women left. Conservatives would have claimed it was just what happens when you try to appease the woke left by appointing people who aren't qualified. We know this because many did claim that the government appointed people who weren't qualified, assuming that's an inevitable result of equal representation. And if Pierre was found to have worn black face they would have whole heartedly defended him by pointing out it was a long time ago and it wasn't an important issue.

And as a Black person I was frustrated by the dialogue surrounding the blackface incident with people claiming Trudeau was given a special pass because of favouritism or some such. In reality, people like me didn't think it was that important because Trudeau was otherwise fairly strong on social issues so there was no indication it was due to actual racism rather than just poor judgement. But for someone with a different track record, that might not have been so clear. Let's say we place everyone on a scale of say, 1-100, with 1 being the most racist person possible who commits hate crimes, has a swastika tattoo, etc, while a 100 is the most perfectly anti-racist person possible. Under say, 30 points would be low enough to be a problem and over 70 would be exceptionally good. Most people would fall somewhere in between.

When you first meet someone before you know anything about them, you default them to a 50. Neither racist nor anti-racist. Then as you learn more about them that knowledge might position them differently. Discovering they did blackface in their younger years would make for a big deduction of say 25 points. So someone who was previously a 75 would drop to a 50. Not much of an issue. But someone who was already a 50 would drop to a 25. A bit of a problem. But in both cases the people are being treated equally. They were assigned their prior point position based on the same criteria which, for a politicians often means points are added or deducted based on their policies and public statements, while the same number of points were deducted for the transgression. The fact that the final total is different is not any form of inconsistency or unfairness and it makes a lot of sense that one would be scrutinized more closely than the other. But a big part of the problem is that some people aren't capable of such nuance.

With all due respect I do think that political leanings and even personal affinities (does someone rub us the right or wrong way?) play a huge role in how much slack we're willing to cut to people.

Just thinking about Jacques Parizeau (not sure what your views on him are) but he had a pretty exemplary record and was even married to a concentration camp survivor for 35 years who was the mother of his children, and he refers - totally accurately, in fact - to "money and (some) ethnic voting" once and he's tarred and feathered as a horrible racist, fascist and even a Nazi.

[MolsonExport]

Whatever his get-out-of-jail-card (married to a Holocaust survivor), Parizeau was out of line in the manner that he singled out ethnic people (and/or those with money, but that is not what provoked the negative reaction). He even admitted this years later, saying that his remarks "were most unfortunate and meriting the disapproval that they received". Singling out an ethnic group or groups as a scapegoat for electoral failure is irresponsible, especially when emotions are running high. It also has the effect of implying (which was the point) that these "ethnic" people are thwarting the will of "Nous"--i.e., the Quebecois de souche--and that by extension, are less "Quebeckers" than "Nous".

I don't think Parizeau is any more racist than Trudeau or for that matter Poilievre (which is to say, none of them are racist), but he used his bully pulpit to incite anger towards ethnic minorities. There were incidents of very foul language and vitriol received by some ethnic minorities in the aftermath of the referendum result. Parizeau should have known better. It was, and quite rightly so, a smear on an otherwise impressive professional career.

[Acajack]

Whatever his get-out-of-jail-card (married to a Holocaust survivor), Parizeau was out of line in the manner that he singled out ethnic people (and/or those with money, but that is not what provoked the negative reaction). He even admitted this years later, saying that his remarks "were most unfortunate and meriting the disapproval that they received". Singling out an ethnic group or groups as a scapegoat for electoral failure is irresponsible, especially when emotions are running high. It also has the effect of implying (which was the point) that these "ethnic" people are thwarting the will of "Nous"--i.e., the Quebecois de souche--and that by extension, are less "Quebeckers" than "Nous".

I don't think Parizeau is any more racist than Trudeau or for that matter Poilievre (which is to say, none of them are racist), but he used his bully pulpit to incite anger towards ethnic minorities. There were incidents of very foul language and vitriol received by some ethnic minorities in the aftermath of the referendum result. Parizeau should have known better. It was, and quite rightly so, a smear on an otherwise impressive professional career.

Mostly agree, with the caveat that Parizeau only re-stated what members of a whole bunch of communities had already said themselves, ie "all Jews must vote Non!", "all Italians must vote Non!", "all Greeks must vote Non!", etc.

About this historical moment, he also later said this:

«Je n'ai mis personne en prison et on m'a traité de fasciste et d'intolérant. C'est ça l'image. Pierre Trudeau a fait mettre 500 personnes en prison et c'est un grand démocrate. Je ne veux plus jouer ce jeu-là!»

Just noticed BTW that today is the 28th anniversary of that speech.

[Nouvellecosse]

With all due respect I do think that political leanings and even personal affinities (does someone rub us the right or wrong way?) play a huge role in how much slack we're willing to cut to people.


People tend to have a political affinity for people who do/say more things they approve of compared to people they disagree with. If say, someone cares about the rights and respectful treatment of a particular minority group then they're likely to affiliate with politicians and parties they feel are best in that regard. And if they feel a politician or party is best in that regard based on their prior track record then yes they'll give the person/party more leeway because of that history. But the fact that the politician/party garnered the person's trust and support to begin with tends to be because of things the person/party said and did. Obviously there are people who vote a certain way solely out of tradition or that's how their friends and family vote, but I'd be surprised if that's a very big percentage.

[Acajack]

People tend to have a political affinity for people who do/say more things they approve of compared to people they disagree with. If say, someone cares about the rights and respectful treatment of a particular minority group then they're likely to affiliate with politicians and parties they feel are best in that regard. And if they feel a politician or party is best in that regard based on their prior track record then yes they'll give the person/party more leeway because of that history. But the fact that the politician/party garnered the person's trust and support to begin with tends to be because of things the person/party said and did. Obviously there are people who vote a certain way solely out of tradition or that's how their friends and family vote, but I'd be surprised if that's a very big percentage.

Agreed, though none of this precludes cutting people more or less slack for the exact same "sins" depending on whether someone is or isn't from the same ideological or political family.

For an example from the relationships world, think of the newlywed still madly in love with her hubby who thinks it's cute how he leaves his dirty underwear in a ball on the floor of the bathroom, versus the frustrated middle-aged wife who thinks her husband of 25 years is the worst asshole in the world for doing the exact same thing. (Actually the exact same person is capable of having the same reaction vis-à-vis the same husband at different stages of her life.)

[Nouvellecosse]

Agreed, though none of this precludes cutting people more or less slack for the exact same "sins" depending on whether someone is or isn't from the same ideological or political family.

For an example from the relationships world, think of the newlywed still madly in love with her hubby who thinks it's cute how he leaves his dirty underwear in a ball on the floor of the bathroom, versus the frustrated middle-aged wife who thinks her husband of 25 years is the worst asshole in the world for doing the exact same thing. (Actually the exact same person is capable of having the same reaction vis-à-vis the same husband at different stages of her life.)

To be clear, I'm not saying such a thing isn't possible. I'm just saying I don't think it's a factor in this case.

Also I'm not sure your example is the best one for what you're describing. In the case of newlyweds vs a long married couple, yes the wife will be more annoyed once she's been subjected to years of annoying bahaviour. But that is based on things the husband has actually done over the years affecting how she reacts to him and that dynamic would be consistent with any other partner she had. If the new spouse had done annoying things around her for 25 years she would be equally annoyed with him so there's nothing really inconsistent about her reaction. A better example would be something like, a person treating two of their partners differently when the two partners' track records of current and past behaviours were exactly same because one partner was taller or better looking than the other, or a different race etc. So she was just showing favouritism toward one based on things the partner had no control over.

[Acajack]

The Buffy kerfuffle is a pretty good example of what I'm saying.

People who would normally be all reverential and hold all things specifically and uniquely Indigenous as sacrosanct are all pissed at the CBC for going after Buffy.

Why is that? Because they like Buffy and what she stands or stood for.

It doesn't matter what she did. What matters is that it's her that's involved.

Now, people should know that I am of the view that culture is mostly acquired as opposed to innate. So I happen to believe that people like Buffy should be able to become full-fledged members of an Indigenous nation.

Heck, I even think that there maybe should have been a way for someone as passionate as Rachel Dolezal to be considered a full-fledged member of the African-American community. (Minus all the fraud and deceit of course - actually, it wouldn't have been necessary in that case.)

But our times don't allow for such things.

[Acajack]

To be clear, I'm not saying such a thing isn't possible. I'm just saying I don't think it's a factor in this case.

Also I'm not sure your example is the best one for what you're describing. In the case of newlyweds vs a long married couple, yes the wife will be more annoyed once she's been subjected to years of annoying bahaviour. But that is based on things the husband has actually done over the years affecting how she reacts to him and that dynamic would be consistent with any other partner she had. If the new spouse had done annoying things around her for 25 years she would be equally annoyed with him so there's nothing really inconsistent about her reaction. A better example would be something like, a person treating two of their partners differently when the two partners' track records of current and past behaviours were exactly same because one partner was taller or better looking than the other, or a different race etc. So she was just showing favouritism toward one based on things the partner had no control over.

I know you're not saying this directly but I don't see how anyone honest could claim that under a scenario where the Justin Trudeau Blackface thingy never happened but all of the rest of our political history remained the same, that if the exact same photos of Pierre Poilievre came out and that the same explanations were given, that millions of people who gave Trudeau a break on that one would be going apeshit on Poilievre, and we'd be hearing about it every single day until 2025.

And under the rules of political engagement, they'd be perfectly correct and justified to do so. I just find it dishonest that people claim they wouldn't.

[Nouvellecosse]

The Buffy kerfuffle is a pretty good example of what I'm saying.

People who would normally be all reverential and hold all things specifically and uniquely Indigenous as sacrosanct are all pissed at the CBC for going after Buffy.

Why is that? Because they like Buffy and what she stands or stood for.

It doesn't matter what she did. What matters is that it's her that's involved.

Now, people should know that I am of the view that culture is mostly acquired as opposed to innate. So I happen to believe that people like Buffy should be able to become full-fledged members of an Indigenous nation.

Heck, I even think that there maybe should have been a way for someone as passionate as Rachel Dolezal to be considered a full-fledged member of the African-American community. (Minus all the fraud and deceit of course - actually, it wouldn't have been necessary in that case.)

But our times don't allow for such things.

I'm not sure the two bolded lines really work together. They like her and what she stands for, but that isn't because of anything she said or did? How can someone stand for something without doing anything?

That's the whole problem with these discussions. The idea that every event should be taken in complete isolation without considering the person's track record or other behaviour makes no sense. It's like if a court refused to consider prior offenses during sentencing, Or the police refusing to consider prior warnings when deciding if they should issue a ticket. I can't comment specifically on the Buffy stuff since I don't know any of the details but in general the "every incident in isolation" doctrine as being a path to fairness doesn't make sense.

[Acajack]

I'm not sure the two bolded lines really work together. They like her and what she stands for, but that isn't because of anything she said or did? How can someone stand for something without doing anything?

That's the whole problem with these discussions. The idea that every event should be taken in complete isolation without considering the person's track record or other behaviour makes no sense. It's like if a court refused to consider prior offenses during sentencing, Or the police refusing to consider prior warnings when deciding if they should issue a ticket. I can't comment specifically on the Buffy stuff since I don't know any of the details but in general the "every incident in isolation" doctrine as being a path to fairness doesn't make sense.

Apologies if you don't have all the info but it seems fairly clear.

A - Buffy Ste-Marie was an advocate for Indigenous rights and culture for 60 years, bringing the "cause" to millions of people who otherwise would have remained ignorant of all that.

B - Buffy Ste-Marie, it appears, also lied about her Indigenous origins and weaved a complex web of deceit with more and more contradictions that eventually caught up with her. She also intimidated (often viciously) people who threated to expose her.

Her supporters are quite adamant that B should be overlooked and not even discussed, because of A.

[elly63]

Isn't Norm MacDonald more of a Québec City guy? At least officially?He spent his early life in Quebec. From Wikipedia: He attended Quebec High School before his family moved to Ottawa, Ontario. In Ottawa, Macdonald attended Gloucester High School. He claimed to have dropped out at sixteen, but may in fact have graduated two years early. He studied mathematics and philosophy at Carleton University in Ottawa before dropping out. Macdonald was later also briefly enrolled in Algonquin College's programs for journalism and broadcasting-television, following his elder brother Neil Macdonald's footsteps. He worked a variety of manual labor jobs in between periods of school and before starting in comedy.

Macdonald's first performances in comedy were at stand-up clubs in Ottawa, regularly appearing on amateur nights at Yuk Yuk's in 1985.

The infamous Cosby/Ottawa story

WA5C4HNtBUs

[Nouvellecosse]

Apologies if you don't have all the info but it seems fairly clear.

A - Buffy Ste-Marie was an advocate for Indigenous rights and culture for 60 years, bringing the "cause" to millions of people who otherwise would have remained ignorant of all that.

B - Buffy Ste-Marie, it appears, also lied about her Indigenous origins and weaved a complex web of deceit with more and more contradictions that eventually caught up with her. She also intimidated (often viciously) people who threated to expose her.

Her supporters are quite adamant that B should be overlooked and not even discussed, because of A.

I think you're right in most cases where people say something is good if one person does it and bad when another person does it. Especially if they only think something is good or bad based on whether or not they like a person. I was referring to cases like the JT blackface where everyone agreed it was bad but opinions differed on how bad it was with people like me not being as worried since they didn't believe it indicated that he was racist while others pretending to be outraged out of political expediency. A case like that is context sensitive since it isn't as much about the actual act as it is what it says about the person committing it. There is a long history of racist people conducting minstrel shows by donning costumes w/ blackface to mock and denigrate black people. It unfortunately still occasionally happens and is still a sore point. So when someone does it nowadays, it can mean one of four things (from least worst to worst).

1) They were unaware of that history and just wanted to make a convincing costume that looked like a POC character (ignorance)
2) They were aware of the history but didn't care about it or how their actions would be perceived (racial insensitivity)
3) They were aware of that history and intentionally wanted to do it to be provocative and edgy (more severe racial insensitivity)
4) They were racist and wanted to continue the tradition of mocking Black people. (Racism).

The context is necessary to inform which interpretation is most suitable with people's reactions being increasingly worse the further down the list one goes.

Based on your description of the Buffy stuff, there could also be room for interpretation. Behaviour B could be be due to,

1) A greedy, selfish person who doesn't care about indigenous people but who wanted to promote or indulge themselves by fabricating a connection to the indigenous community
2) A person who genuinely cared about indigenous people and perhaps once believed she was one. Then reacted poorly to the discovery she wasn't, going too far to avoid embarrassment.

The two interpretations would warrant different reactions, and context A would help to inform which interpretation is best. But neither would be good or acceptable. The general public is certainly capable of such things, but fortunately I don't think there's a problem with the CBC in that regard.

[elly63]

Just came across this, he really has the soul of a comedian much like another Ottawa guy. RIP I'm not sure what to think now :)

bIM9lX-ImWE

[someone123]

2) A person who genuinely cared about indigenous people and perhaps once believed she was one. Then reacted poorly to the discovery she wasn't, going too far to avoid embarrassment.

Setting aside the specifics of this case it's too bad that inter-cultural appreciation has become a bit of a minefield. There is nothing wrong with a white person earnestly loving African American culture per se.

I don't think it actually is cultural membership or genetic background that creates the toxic environment, it's the social status and privilege. Typically status for a few chosen people, although Indian status and band membership cause wider dynamics. Nobody cares if a random person fakes being Italian in Canada because there is no consequence.

The JT approach of doing things like picking cabinet members based on group membership, aside from adding constraints and making it harder to find specialists (while dooming bad picks to subpar performance in some cases), will tend to create a toxic environment where people have to focus on and police race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, etc. In that world there's an incentive to find group memberships and strip competitors of group memberships. I don't think he is racist but I wonder if he has a weird relationship to this stuff as a very privileged person who engaged in what at the time was some cringey behaviour.

[elly63]

Not sure if I posted this before, Norm's homage to Wayne and Shuster. Interesting to see SNL's Lorne Michaels as the last guest. He was Frank Shuster's son-in-law.

You can hear Johnny and Frank in the background

7jzzPUJeSd0

[Acajack]

I think you're right in most cases where people say something is good if one person does it and bad when another person does it. Especially if they only think something is good or bad based on whether or not they like a person. I was referring to cases like the JT blackface where everyone agreed it was bad but opinions differed on how bad it was with people like me not being as worried since they didn't believe it indicated that he was racist while others pretending to be outraged out of political expediency. A case like that is context sensitive since it isn't as much about the actual act as it is what it says about the person committing it. There is a long history of racist people conducting minstrel shows by donning costumes w/ blackface to mock and denigrate black people. It unfortunately still occasionally happens and is still a sore point. So when someone does it nowadays, it can mean one of four things (from least worst to worst).

1) They were unaware of that history and just wanted to make a convincing costume that looked like a POC character (ignorance)
2) They were aware of the history but didn't care about it or how their actions would be perceived (racial insensitivity)
3) They were aware of that history and intentionally wanted to do it to be provocative and edgy (more severe racial insensitivity)
4) They were racist and wanted to continue the tradition of mocking Black people. (Racism).

The context is necessary to inform which interpretation is most suitable with people's reactions being increasingly worse the further down the list one goes.
.

Being an extremely close contemporary of Justin Trudeau (we're very close in age) and like him having grown up mostly in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle with a foot in both francophone and anglophone Canada, I've always said I can't believe that an explanation for the blackface incidents (at least three of them) was innocent ignorance.

There isn't anyone like Justin and I who wouldn't have known and that rules out (1) for me. (In one photo he also has a banana stuck down the front of his pants. He needed a place to store fruit while keeping his hands free?)

In his case it's likely a (2) or a (3). Unlikely to be (4) though.

[MolsonExport]

Mostly agree, with the caveat that Parizeau only re-stated what members of a whole bunch of communities had already said themselves, ie "all Jews must vote Non!", "all Italians must vote Non!", "all Greeks must vote Non!", etc.

About this historical moment, he also later said this:

«Je n'ai mis personne en prison et on m'a traité de fasciste et d'intolérant. C'est ça l'image. Pierre Trudeau a fait mettre 500 personnes en prison et c'est un grand démocrate. Je ne veux plus jouer ce jeu-là!»

Just noticed BTW that today is the 28th anniversary of that speech.

ok, maybe but the October Crisis and other terrorist incidents perpetuated by the FLQ was an entirely different manner. Pierre Laporte and James Cross were kidnapped, and the former was murdered. The Montreal Stock Exchange was bombed, and so too was a Canadian Army recruiting centre. There were over 160 violent incidents, and a total of eight people were killed (with many more injured).

[Nouvellecosse]

Being an extremely close contemporary of Justin Trudeau (we're very close in age) and like him having grown up mostly in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle with a foot in both francophone and anglophone Canada, I've always said I can't believe that an explanation for the blackface incidents (at least three of them) was innocent ignorance.

There isn't anyone like Justin and I who wouldn't have known and that rules out (1) for me. (In one photo he also has a banana stuck down the front of his pants. He needed a place to store fruit while keeping his hands free?)

In his case it's likely a (2) or a (3). Unlikely to be (4) though.

That was basically my take as well, although without the benefit of your background I wasn't confident in ruling out #1

[1overcosc]

2) A person who genuinely cared about indigenous people and perhaps once believed she was one. Then reacted poorly to the discovery she wasn't, going too far to avoid embarrassment.

A social worker in my social circle had an interesting theory that is a version of this.

Part of the story is that Buffy alleged sexual abuse from her brother.

This social worker friend of mine has worked with survivors of childhood sexual abuse and told me that it's common for them to become compulsive liars as adults as a sort of trauma response. She thinks it's quite plausible that Buffy, as a consequence to being sexually abused by her own family, convinced herself that her family can't actually be her family and came up with this alternate identity as an adopted indigenous woman as a result.. and the trauma of it all made her a compulsive liar that had to keep the story publically accepted, explaining how vicious she was to those who threatened to expose her.

[Nouvellecosse]

A social worker in my social circle had an interesting theory that is a version of this.

Part of the story is that Buffy alleged sexual abuse from her brother.

This social worker friend of mine has worked with survivors of childhood sexual abuse and told me that it's common for them to become compulsive liars as adults as a sort of trauma response. She thinks it's quite plausible that Buffy, as a consequence to being sexually abused by her own family, convinced herself that her family can't actually be her family and came up with this alternate identity as an adopted indigenous woman as a result.. and the trauma of it all made her a compulsive liar that had to keep the story publically accepted, explaining how vicious she was to those who threatened to expose her.

If it's true then that is really tragic. Sometimes it's hard to imagine what some people have to go through. Would be hard for something like that not to permanently scar a person.

[elly63]

Her brother (and early on her uncle) were contacting and telling media she was a phony. Doesn't pass the common sense test that the brother would call attention to himself if he was guilty of something.

Her accusation of abuse came at a time when she was financially vulnerable and needed work. Her brother didn't shy away from the accusation as a guilty person might, he wanted to fight it but noting she had already lawyered up he would have to match that and she was better situated relative to that. They had no relationship issues until the critical moment when PBS put two and two together.

I believe the poison letter was not her idea but she had to play along or her life would have been shattered. As she had already disengaged publicly (but not yet privately) from the family by saying she was adopted, I am assuming she could grudgingly accept the letter.

Her whole story just isn't believable when weighed against the other side.

She said she had documented abuse in her diary. I can believe her brother may have picked on her or was nasty to her. My older brother and I never got on as kids as he was always beating me up. We weren't very close but time heals all wounds and we are quite close now. But I have to question how she riddles everything and her brother was open about everything. I'm just not buying her story, she has done nothing but chaff and redirect as the behavioural guys say.

[Architype]

It's hard to believe that she was able to pull off this imaginary identity for so many years, decades, since there must have been many people who were aware of her actual birth. I am not sure if there ever was a pattern of Canadian babies being adopted into far away states around that time, but her basic story did not seem credible without more detail and explanation. Her inconsistencies occurred long ago, claiming origin from three different geographically distant tribes; all three could not be true. Her native like appearance is likely a characteristic of her Italian heritage, but these days you can easily prove or disprove ethnicity using DNA tests; that should be the first recourse for anyone in that situation. The bottom line is that it's sadly a disappointment to many who looked up to her and admired her work.

[elly63]

The bottom line is that it's sadly a disappointment to many who looked up to her and admired her work.Indigenous Women's Collective calls for Buffy Sainte-Marie's 2018 Juno to be rescinded after CBC investigation (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/buffy-saint-marie-mislead-indigenous-people-indigenous-women-s-collective-1.7012847)
Advocacy group says evidence that contradicts songwriter's claims to Indigenous ancestry 'overwhelming'
CBC News October 30, 2023

[Acajack]

That was basically my take as well, although without the benefit of your background I wasn't confident in ruling out #1

Today is Halloween. I am in my mid-50s and I've never in my life been to a Halloween party either as a child, teen or adult, where a white person got made up in blackface like Justin Trudeau was in those photos.

(Though I've seen lots of white people dressed up in ethnic costumes like Indigenous, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc.)

When Trudeau did that (around 1990 I am guessing) you wouldn't have gotten cancelled for it with your life ruined like you might today, but it would still have been an extremely cringeworthy thing to do.

[shreddog]

When Trudeau did that (around 1990 I am guessing) you wouldn't have gotten cancelled for it with your life ruined like you might today, but it would still have been an extremely cringeworthy thing to do.While it didn’t cancel Ted Danson in 1993, it was very cringeworthy. I think that I can easily say that anyone in this age bracket (I too am in those “50’s”) knew that this was wrong in any context.

Now in the 80’s ….. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Man_(film)

[Acajack]

While it didn’t cancel Ted Danson in 1993, it was very cringeworthy. I think that I can easily say that anyone in this age bracket (I too am in those “50’s”) knew that this was wrong in any context.

Now in the 80’s ….. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Man_(film)

Even so, there is a difference between actually doing it in real life and portraying it or parodying it in a film.

I would think that if someone made a movie about Al Jolsson today that it would be perfectly acceptable for the lead actor to don blackface, to show things as they really were at that time.

[MolsonExport]

The Trudeau blackface incident: (a) was a long time ago, when such things were considered less reprehensible than they rightly are so today, and (b) demonstrated very poor judgment on the part of JT, and was extremely cringe-worthy. But does anyone really think, in light of his very public record, that he harbours racism and/or prejudice? Now had he worn Blackface as a member of parliament, or as PM, well...

Given that it is Halloween, I figure every politician will have some skeleton in their closet. This, to me, is quite minor, and I believe he did own up to it and apologize. Unlike the Trumpster fire with his continuing racist pronouncements and long history of making racist remarks, ethnic stereotyping, and endless misogyny.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Trudeau. The blackface episode is not a worthy one.

[Acajack]

I think even Justin Trudeau back then probably had a hunch that it was wrong or at least distasteful, but he had grown up in a very privileged environment where one supposes he could get away with almost anything with few consequences.

Certainly more so than you and I.

That wasn't my upbringing as I've said, but I did know some people who were Silver Spoon types and they were often the most likely to exhibit socially reprehensible behaviour. Along with those at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum - in their case it was because they felt they had nothing to lose.

[MolsonExport]

I think even Justin Trudeau back then probably had a hunch that it was wrong or at least distasteful, but he had grown up in a very privileged environment where one supposes he could get away with almost anything with few consequences.

Certainly more so than you and I.

That wasn't my upbringing as I've said, but I did know some people who were Silver Spoon types and they were often the most likely to exhibit socially reprehensible behaviour. Along with those at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum - in their case it was because they felt they had nothing to lose.

Yes, I think there is much truth in this.

[elly63]

That wasn't my upbringing as I've said, but I did know some people who were Silver Spoon types and they were often the most likely to exhibit socially reprehensible behaviour.Reminded me of Prince Harry and the Nazi costume. What was he thinking, especially being a British soldier. Maybe the problem some years ago was that you thought you would be afforded some privacy being among your friends and not have people exposing their private photos on the Internet.

[elly63]

When I was a kid the only blackface we would do would be to rub old carbon paper on our faces for about five seconds to live the black experience. More worried about the cancer than the cancelling now :)

[thurmas]

Hadn't followed the story past few days but seeing the birth certificate shows she is talian is pretty daming.

[MonkeyRonin]

The Trudeau blackface incident: (a) was a long time ago, when such things were considered less reprehensible than they rightly are so today, and (b) demonstrated very poor judgment on the part of JT, and was extremely cringe-worthy. But does anyone really think, in light of his very public record, that he harbours racism and/or prejudice? Now had he worn Blackface as a member of parliament, or as PM, well...

Given that it is Halloween, I figure every politician will have some skeleton in their closet. This, to me, is quite minor, and I believe he did own up to it and apologize. Unlike the Trumpster fire with his continuing racist pronouncements and long history of making racist remarks, ethnic stereotyping, and endless misogyny.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Trudeau. The blackface episode is not a worthy one.


At a policy or political level, JT's blackface incident(s) aren't particularly meaningful - certainly, there is no indication that that affects his leadership or that his government has operated in a racist way. But, it sure is a pretty damning indictment of his personal character; and speaks to him being out-of-touch and oblivious, if nothing else (characteristics which have also been evident in his political career).

[MonkeyRonin]

Re. Buffy Sainte-Marie: I don't really care and have no stake in the controversy either way, but one thing that jumped out at me from CBC's "exposé" (https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/buffy-sainte-marie) that I haven't seen addressed is that - Indigenous or not - she obviously looks quite different from even her family members.

Case in point, this is her brother circa the 1960s: https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/content/images/_image_1920/Alan_airforce.jpg
And Buffy around the same time: https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/content/images/_image_1920/Phillip_Harrington___Alamy_%281964_Greenwich_Village%29.jpg

Whether acknowledged by the family or not, there's certainly a strong possibility that she was either adopted or at least the product of an affair, and at least would have some reason to believe so.

[elly63]

she was either adopted or at least the product of an affair, and at least would have some reason to believe so.I had thought that but her sister had a DNA done which lined up with Buffy's son so she couldn't have been adopted. I think she only began to really "look native" was when she went to university. Great mystery story though.

In an effort to confirm the “part Micmac” lore (https://indianz.com/News/2023/10/25/canadian-documentary-focuses-on-icon-who-based-career-on-native-identity/), another family member — Sainte-Marie’s younger sister — shared online that she took a commercial DNA test through Ancestry.Com, the largest for-profit genealogy company in the world. In discussing the results, she said she is biologically “related” to Wolfchild’s son, a scenario that would be impossible if her famous sibling’s “Big Scoop” narrative were factual.

The sister revealed that she uploaded the DNA data files from her Ancestry.Com test to GEDMatch, a popular website used for genetic genealogy and family tree research. In one of her posts on social media, she even shared the unique identifier associated with her “kit” — as the results are known on the site.

Using the unique identifier, the sister’s DNA kit was viewed by Indianz.Com. The results show almost no American Indian component in the Sainte-Marie family’s genetic makeup, undercutting the claim of being “part Micmac” that appeared in the 2012 biography and in early news stories about the singer known around the world as “Buffy.”

[elly63]

Hadn't followed the story past few days but seeing the birth certificate shows she is talian is pretty daming.The birth certificate (https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/content/images/_image_1920/buffy_birth_certificate.jpeg) didn't say she was Italian, it said she was white. Both her parents were born in Boston, her paternal grandparents were born in Italy.

[thurmas]

The birth certificate (https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/content/images/_image_1920/buffy_birth_certificate.jpeg) didn't say she was Italian, it said she was white. Both her parents were born in Boston, her paternal grandparents were born in Italy.

Yeah it said her last name is Santamaria an Italian last name?

[elly63]

Yeah it said her last name is Santamaria an Italian last name?Could be anything, there is Santa Maria island in Portugal, El Puerto de Santa Maria in Spain. We know it's Italian because we know that's where her paternal grandparents are from (not indicated on the birth certificate)

[Acajack]

Re. Buffy Sainte-Marie: I don't really care and have no stake in the controversy either way, but one thing that jumped out at me from CBC's "exposé" (https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/buffy-sainte-marie) that I haven't seen addressed is that - Indigenous or not - she obviously looks quite different from even her family members.

Case in point, this is her brother circa the 1960s: https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/content/images/_image_1920/Alan_airforce.jpg
And Buffy around the same time: https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/content/images/_image_1920/Phillip_Harrington___Alamy_%281964_Greenwich_Village%29.jpg

Whether acknowledged by the family or not, there's certainly a strong possibility that she was either adopted or at least the product of an affair, and at least would have some reason to believe so.

There is a photo of her as a teen or very young adult that looks to be from a high school yearbook or photo sitting, where she most definitely looks like she could be your standard Italian-American girl from the NE US at the time.

Biological family members also don't always resemble each other that closely - especially not on photos.

[elly63]

There is a photo of her as a teen or very young adult that looks to be from a high school yearbook or photo sitting, where she most definitely looks like she could be your standard Italian-American girl from the NE US at the time.https://i.imgur.com/q5CuUXS.png

[hipster duck]

That wasn't my upbringing as I've said, but I did know some people who were Silver Spoon types and they were often the most likely to exhibit socially reprehensible behaviour. Along with those at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum - in their case it was because they felt they had nothing to lose.

Yes, this is the social class equivalent of the famous political horseshoe theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20horseshoe%20theory%20argue,have%20criticized%20the%20horseshoe%20theory.), which posits that the far left and the far right closely resemble each other.

As you say, it all comes down to having nothing to lose.

In modern society, "losing" ultimately is going to prison, getting a criminal record, and being condemned to spending the rest of your lifetime on the margins of society and not having access to meaningful employment.

But some people are part of a social class that is so powerful that they don't lose (they can live off passive income, and they rub shoulders with people in powerful positions that can get them out of a jam), and some people have nothing to lose.

"I ain't afraid of jail!" kind of leads to the same kind of anti-social behaviour as "He killed that girl in a drunken boating accident in Muskoka, but his lawyers got him off".

[MolsonExport]

https://i.imgur.com/q5CuUXS.png

Reminds me of Laverne from "Laverne & Shirley"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Penny_Marshall_1976.jpg

[Acajack]

Reminds me of Laverne from "Laverne & Shirley"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Penny_Marshall_1976.jpg

The lovely Penny Marshall. Her family's original name: Masciarelli.

It all fits.

[elly63]

Reminds me of Laverne from "Laverne & Shirley"Laverne DeFazio. I was going to say that it was interesting that you made the comparison but I thought Penny Marshall was a Jew playing an Italian.

But she wasn't Jewish, her father, Anthony "Tony" Masciarelli was of Italian descent, his family having come from San Martino sulla Marrucina, Chieti, Abruzzo. He changed his last name to Marshall before his son Garry was born.

Trivia time: Yeah, the earliest episodes of Happy Days are rather different from the rest when you revisit them, especially when it comes to Fonzie. But the Fonz was almost far, far different. He almost wasn't "The Fonz."

Series creator Garry Marshall had another name in mind when he first whipped up the show — his family's (https://www.metv.com/stories/the-fonz-was-originally-named-the-mash).

Before Marshall was born, his father, Arthur (sic) Masciarelli had changed his Italian surname to something more American sounding. As a tribute to the creator's roots, the character of Fonzie was originally named Arthur Masciarelli. The obvious shortener nickname for the guy? "The Mash."

There was just one problem. A ranked-number-four-on-TV problem: M*A*S*H.

[elly63]

Suzanne Somers has died. She was the wife of Alan Hamel, who for those old enough to remember, had a popular afternoon talk show on CTV.

Hamel was also part of the cast of the influential 60s CBC program Nightcap. As per Wikipedia: Montreal Gazette television critic Bernard Dubé described the series as "wild, corny, raunchy, lively and irreverent". Roy Shields, a Toronto columnist, panned the series as "the worst TV show in the world."

Anything, I have ever read or viewed about Nightcap was that it was inventive and influential, certainly far from "the worst TV show in the world." Found a very cool clip of Nightcap, there are several on Youtube. It has Bonnie Brooks singing a popular Petula Clark song of the time. Brooks is also known for playing Sally Anderson, Tracy's ditsy cousin, who was also Doug's frequently annoying secretary on the classic The Trouble With Tracy.

In his book, TV North: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Canadian Television, Peter Kenter says "The Trouble With Tracy is universally considered the worst Canadian TV show of all time, especially by those who have never seen it." This is also true, it was far from being the worst and actually quite enjoyable for its time, although it would be woefully dated now.

Wikipedia has a very fair article on The Trouble With Tracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Tracy) discussing its successes and failures

JCcUHGYrRM4

[elly63]

Brooks is also known for playing Sally Anderson, Tracy's ditsy cousin, who was also Doug's frequently annoying secretary on the classic The Trouble With Tracy.Start at 4:37
Tracy: "Horse, that's under H isn't it"
Sally: "Yeah, I think so"

That was a good line. Show is not as dated looking as I thought.

YM72dO6lg6s

[elly63]

Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Tracy) The series was produced as a daily show. The economic and time pressures of producing 130 episodes in a single season (seven shows were filmed every five days) meant cheap, wobbly sets, no outdoor filming, a laugh track instead of a live studio audience, the use of single takes, the reuse of 25-year-old radio scripts, and other shortcuts that resulted in a poor-quality show. Even flubbed lines and bloopers sometimes ended up airing, because the show could not afford retakes.

Noticed a couple of things in the video above

Tracy (7.00) After I raced him I was thirsty, so he got me a glass of water and just as I was going to take it from his paw (not hoof)

At 8:24 there is a guy's head at the bottom right of the picture

[SignalHillHiker]

We knew this, but it's nice to see the media call it out.

Also, St. John's treats pedestrian streets as special events, like a festival. They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for security guards at EVERY. SINGLE. INTERSECTION. Meanwhile, most cities do nothing but throw up a barrier of some kind.

The capital city charges nearly six times as much for a sidewalk patio than Canada’s largest city.

That’s according to a new report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on concerns surrounding municipal business policies in the Atlantic region.

According to CFIB’s Atlantic Municipal Report, the cost of a sidewalk patio permit in Atlantic Canada ranges from $131 in Moncton, to $2,690 in St. John’s—for an average of $995 across the region.

If St. John’s were not factored in, the average permit cost drops to $657. That’s still higher than the price of a sidewalk permit in Toronto which is $458.

https://vocm.com/2023/11/02/new-report-sidewalk-patio-costs-six-times-as-much-more-in-st-johns-than-toronto/

[manny_santos]

At 8:24 there is a guy's head at the bottom right of the picture

Surprisingly something like this happened in Seinfeld too. However it’s only once the snow started airing in HD that it became visible.

It was a crew member visible at the right hand edge of the scene where Jerry is in Elaine’s apartment dropping off the cigar store Indian.

[P'tit Renard]

Bringing this topic over from Federal Politics as KW suggested..

You're missing the point. It may be a drop from the GTA. But it is better than the average American town (at least in border states).

I would qualify that with states bordering "Ontario". There isn't such a gap for coastal and near-coastal border states. The US Midwest has arguably one of the weakest culinary scenes in the US, and the regions abutting Ontario are basically treated as the hinterlands of America.

Given Toronto's preeminence as the country's alpha metropolis, I think a more apt comparison to Guelph would be Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Tacoma, Princeton, New Haven, which are just outside the edge of their neighbouring American megalopolises. Having visited all of them, I don't think the culinary gap between these towns and Guelph is noticeable at all. If anything Guelph would probably be one of the more dissapointing locales.

[P'tit Renard]

Guelph was disappointing IMO, but KW has some decent places. Kingston has pretty good food offerings as well. Ditto Peterborough. And of course PEC, though that is more in the GTAs orbit these days - including the chefs. But yes, even the latter is a bit of a step down from the GTA aside from a few places.

But In general I've found a lot of Ontario food to be best when it isn't trying to emulate good Toronto restaurants. Echoing kw this is actually a good topic for another thread

Maybe I've tried the wrong restos and got the wrong recommendations, but I honestly don't get the hype about PEC. I've had much better culinary experiences in Oakanagan and Vancouver Island, as well as way more memorable restaurants I would want to return to in Gaspésie, Charlevoix and Eastern Townships.

Kingston is probably the best of the lot, but honestly if I had to choose I would rather go back to Halifax and New Brunswick, where I had arguably better food offerings.

I always thought the steep drop-off in culinary experience from GTA to the rest of Ontario was strange in a Canadian context. IMO, it reinforces the idea that Toronto is its own city-state and functions as its own island.

[elly63]

Anybody remember this, doesn't ring a bell for me at all. Possibly because my CBC affiliate wasn't an O&O and didn't carry it.

Delilah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(Canadian_TV_series)) is a Canadian situation comedy television series which aired on CBC Television from 1973 to 1974.

Premise
Delilah marked the CBC's first situation comedy in prime-time, having aired its previous sitcom Toby in daytime.

Delilah (Terry Tweed) moves out of the city and becomes a small community's first female barber. Her barbershop was intended to be given to her younger brother Vincent (Miles McNamara), but he must first graduate from school.

Other series characters include Delilah's Aunt Peggy (Barbara Hamilton), the town's newspaper editor T.J. (Eric House), family friend Franny Tree (Peter Mews), Frances (Kay Hawtrey), Mavis (Joyce Gordon) and Isabel (Paulle Clark).

Production
Delilah was recorded before a live studio audience. Six of the episodes were written by Bryan Barney under script editor Jean Templeton.

Scheduling
This half-hour series was broadcast on Thursdays at 9:00 p.m. (Eastern) from 4 October 1973 to 3 January 1974.

Reception
The series generally received poor reviews and negative audience reception. It was cancelled after a single 13-episode season. However, CBC's next sitcom, King of Kensington, fared much better and became a multi-year success. Toronto Star television critic Jim Bawden declared the series as "Worst Canadian Sitcom", declaring the scriptwriting to be "appalling" and discovered an absence of laughter from the audience when he attended a taping of an episode.

https://i.imgur.com/OHAYS1Z.png

[Metro-One]

A new video of mine exploring the variety of film locations throughout southern B.C. Besides the movie clips all the shots are my own taken over the last few years:

GVblwfiWE8s?si=B0xaQUGTPiOLFNVh

[elly63]

Donald Shebib, director of landmark Canadian film Goin' Down the Road, dead at 85 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/obit-shebib-canadian-film-1.7020573)
Shebib, a film school contemporary of Coppola, returned to make his mark on Canadian film, TV
Chris Iorfida CBC News November 7, 2023

I can still remember the review from an old Leonard Maltin Movie Guide I had.

https://i.imgur.com/7fRoQbd.png

JIpD-UD8Wlw

[MolsonExport]

^that is too bad. I love that movie. I watch it every couple of years. It is a gem.

[elly63]

^that is too bad. I love that movie. I watch it every couple of years. It is a gem.Let's not forget the SCTV tribute. (Start at 6:30)

I7XZGilwgEE

[Gresto]

Sad to hear about Shebib. Truly one of Canada's preeminent directors.