"Lord Beaverbrook" by David Adams Richards with an introduction by John Ralston Saul
David Adams Richards is a well-known novelist from New Brunswick. In this "Extraordinary Series" book, he gives us a brisk outline of Max Aitken, later Lord BEaverbrook. Aitken was New Brunswick lad who went on to fame anf fortune in Canada and then Great Britain.
Some of Aiken's triumphs in the business world were full of tricks and sleaze. Still by 1910 before he was even 30, he was a multimillionaire, owner of the massive Canada Cement Company and husband to a lovely woman named Gladys Drury. Alas, Aitken cheated on her many times.
Then having outraged business classes in the Maritimes, Aitken fled to Montreal. Then after having put together the Canada Cement Company, he took off to Great Britain. It was about l910 and Britain still ruled the waves. Aitken became a member of the Conservative Party. He befriended prominent Liberals like Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George. He helped make Lloyd George Prime Minister in the midst of world War One. Then six years later he did the same thing for Bonar Law.
But Aitken, a small man with a big mouth received no thanks for this. The English elite looked down on him as a crude low class colonial. They took his money but never liked him. To them, Aitken was trash.
"He was a financial genius," writes Richards of Aitken who was now Lord Beaverbrook, "and a brilliant revolutionary newspaperman. He hated to be outmanoeuvred. It made for many bad days."
It did indeed. As a newspaper owner, Beaverbrook made even more money owning newspapers like the very popular "Daily Express". Then came World War Two. Winston Churchill, now Britain's Prime Minister, made Beaverbrook Minister of War Production. Beaverbrook did a great job. He turned British industry into a war making machine that saved Britain from a Nazi invasion.
But once again he fought with so many people that Churchill tired of his friend. He sent him travelling to Russia where he got on well with Josef Stalin, and the U.S, where he befriended its president F.D.R.
"He never could sit still," writes Richards. This intense energy lay behind Aitken's fortune-making, womanizing, and his failed push for free trade within the then-British Empire.
In 172 pages, Richards brings back to life, a man now long forgotten, except for his home province of New Brunswick.
Reviewed by Dave Jaffe
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Monday, 26 March 2012
Animal Liberation
'Animal Liberation' a book by Peter Singer. Avon Book, l975. Revised version l990.
"this book is not about pets," writes Australian-born philosopher Peter Singer in the preface to his book 'Animal Liberation'. What the book is about, is how we people mistreat and torture animals of all kinds.
Singer attacks what he calls 'speciesm' or the belief that we humans see ourselves as better than animals and can do with them what we want. When the book came out about 40 years ago, some people thought it was a joke. Others dismissed it as an extremist tract. But the book that mixes philosophy with horrific tales of animal torture in the end won a wide audience.
The philosophy and the torture scenes makes the book hard to read at times. Still, quite a few people, including the author, became vegans. Some did it after reading the book.
For a more up-to-date pitch for veganism, check out 'Diet For A New America' by John Robbins. But Singer's book did revive the debate about how we hurt animals. Journalists dubbed the book "The Bible of Animal Liberation". Forty years on, it still is.
"this book is not about pets," writes Australian-born philosopher Peter Singer in the preface to his book 'Animal Liberation'. What the book is about, is how we people mistreat and torture animals of all kinds.
Singer attacks what he calls 'speciesm' or the belief that we humans see ourselves as better than animals and can do with them what we want. When the book came out about 40 years ago, some people thought it was a joke. Others dismissed it as an extremist tract. But the book that mixes philosophy with horrific tales of animal torture in the end won a wide audience.
The philosophy and the torture scenes makes the book hard to read at times. Still, quite a few people, including the author, became vegans. Some did it after reading the book.
For a more up-to-date pitch for veganism, check out 'Diet For A New America' by John Robbins. But Singer's book did revive the debate about how we hurt animals. Journalists dubbed the book "The Bible of Animal Liberation". Forty years on, it still is.
sisters and brothers - a film review
Sisters and Brothers - a film by Carl Bessau. Starring Cory Monteith, Amanda Crew, Dustin Mulligan and Camille Sullivan.
The Metro Vancouver rain-soaked landscape may just spawn dysfunctional families. After all, Douglas Coupland, I think, wrote a book called 'All Families Are Dysfunctional'. Now along comes director Carl Bessau with his third film on dysfunctional and angry twosomes.
In 'Sisters and Brothers' three-and-a-half twosomes slug it out on screen or just put angry vibes out there. Nikki played by Amanda Crew is an actor who hopes to be a star. While her half sister, played by Camille Sullivan, just came out of rehab to stay with Nikki. What do you expect? After all, this is Vancouver, the drug-plaged city by the sea.
Justin played by Cory Monteith is the big star in L.A. His brother Rusty played by Dustin Mulligan
goes nowhere trying to help poor black people somewhere. Then there's Louise played by Gabrielle Miller who tries to help her schizophrenic brother played by Ben Ratner simply survive. Jay Brazeau plays an aging flake, who Jerry thinks may be or not be a lawyer. In fact, he isn't.
Last but not least a calm, non-abusive Gabrielle Rose plays a single, middle-aged mother. Her young daughter just abuses her mom every chance she gets. Things get worse when Rose's other forgotten daughter, played by Leena Munro shows up from India.
In interviews, or false ones, the main characters explain themselves or their siblings. There's comic style pictures too that link one episode to anothetr.
"I f-----d that guy," Magge tells Nikki as they see the chunky balding sleaze, played by Tom Scholte, on t.v. And they both giggle. For Scholte tries to lue Nikki to a supposed starring role in Los Angeles. But the journey ends with Nikki throwing Scholte out of her car, leaving him to hitchhike alone to Hollywood.. In the end, love or at least co-existence, wins the day.
So is 'Sisters and Brothers' worth coughing up $12.50 to see. I think so. But only if you're prepared for nearly 90 minutes of anger and lots of Vancouver's rain-drenched scenery in the background.
The Metro Vancouver rain-soaked landscape may just spawn dysfunctional families. After all, Douglas Coupland, I think, wrote a book called 'All Families Are Dysfunctional'. Now along comes director Carl Bessau with his third film on dysfunctional and angry twosomes.
In 'Sisters and Brothers' three-and-a-half twosomes slug it out on screen or just put angry vibes out there. Nikki played by Amanda Crew is an actor who hopes to be a star. While her half sister, played by Camille Sullivan, just came out of rehab to stay with Nikki. What do you expect? After all, this is Vancouver, the drug-plaged city by the sea.
Justin played by Cory Monteith is the big star in L.A. His brother Rusty played by Dustin Mulligan
goes nowhere trying to help poor black people somewhere. Then there's Louise played by Gabrielle Miller who tries to help her schizophrenic brother played by Ben Ratner simply survive. Jay Brazeau plays an aging flake, who Jerry thinks may be or not be a lawyer. In fact, he isn't.
Last but not least a calm, non-abusive Gabrielle Rose plays a single, middle-aged mother. Her young daughter just abuses her mom every chance she gets. Things get worse when Rose's other forgotten daughter, played by Leena Munro shows up from India.
In interviews, or false ones, the main characters explain themselves or their siblings. There's comic style pictures too that link one episode to anothetr.
"I f-----d that guy," Magge tells Nikki as they see the chunky balding sleaze, played by Tom Scholte, on t.v. And they both giggle. For Scholte tries to lue Nikki to a supposed starring role in Los Angeles. But the journey ends with Nikki throwing Scholte out of her car, leaving him to hitchhike alone to Hollywood.. In the end, love or at least co-existence, wins the day.
So is 'Sisters and Brothers' worth coughing up $12.50 to see. I think so. But only if you're prepared for nearly 90 minutes of anger and lots of Vancouver's rain-drenched scenery in the background.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
movie review of Jeff Who Lives T Home
Jeff Who Lives At Home' starringJason Segel, Ed Helms, Judy Greer and Susan Sarandon.
Directed by Maurice and Jay Duplass
Do you like slacker films about 20 or 30 something people that are going nowhere? If you do you'll
love Jeff Who Lives At Home. Jeff, played by Jason Segel is a 30-year old pot smoker living in the basement of his mother's house. His mother is played by Susan Sarandon a widow now for many years. [ In real life Sarandon is a veteran movie star who's got one hell of a social consciene - but not in the film].
"I can't help but wander about my destiny," says Jeff, as he sits on the basement couch, smoking the weed at the movie's start.
Mom and Jeff's older brother Pat, played by Ed Helms, see Jeff as a complete failed flake. But soon the film shows Pat as a man with problems to, especially with his wife played by Judy Greer.
Jeff is haunted or obsessed with what he calls 'destiny'. This leads Jeff to screw up a simple task that his mother asks him to do, namely buy some glue at the local Home Depot and fix a broken shutter.
For the next 80 minutes or so, Jeff, Pat and the female leads travel across Baton Rouge Louisiana. The film unrolls in just one day that,s full of fun, sadness, interacial violence, interracial same sex romance, near tragedy and just plain silliness.
"You and mom will never understand me," Jeff cries out to Pat from the cemetary where their father is buried. But at film's end perhaps Jeff's mother and brother do understand him. In any case, this is a movie about a slacker who finally does something worthy in his life. Brothers Maurice and Jay Duplass have co-wrote and directed one fine film.
Directed by Maurice and Jay Duplass
Do you like slacker films about 20 or 30 something people that are going nowhere? If you do you'll
love Jeff Who Lives At Home. Jeff, played by Jason Segel is a 30-year old pot smoker living in the basement of his mother's house. His mother is played by Susan Sarandon a widow now for many years. [ In real life Sarandon is a veteran movie star who's got one hell of a social consciene - but not in the film].
"I can't help but wander about my destiny," says Jeff, as he sits on the basement couch, smoking the weed at the movie's start.
Mom and Jeff's older brother Pat, played by Ed Helms, see Jeff as a complete failed flake. But soon the film shows Pat as a man with problems to, especially with his wife played by Judy Greer.
Jeff is haunted or obsessed with what he calls 'destiny'. This leads Jeff to screw up a simple task that his mother asks him to do, namely buy some glue at the local Home Depot and fix a broken shutter.
For the next 80 minutes or so, Jeff, Pat and the female leads travel across Baton Rouge Louisiana. The film unrolls in just one day that,s full of fun, sadness, interacial violence, interracial same sex romance, near tragedy and just plain silliness.
"You and mom will never understand me," Jeff cries out to Pat from the cemetary where their father is buried. But at film's end perhaps Jeff's mother and brother do understand him. In any case, this is a movie about a slacker who finally does something worthy in his life. Brothers Maurice and Jay Duplass have co-wrote and directed one fine film.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
I'm an old man.
Two of the 20th century's most famous feminist writers wrote books about being old. Simone de Beauvoir, France's gift to feminism wrote The Second Sex about women's second class status. Then as she got old, this long time unmarried partner of Jean Paul Sartre, wrote another path breaking book called Old Age. When it appeared in North America it was titled'The Coming of Age.' which shows you how Americans and Canadians fear getting old.
Betty Friedan was no slouch as an author either. The Peoria Illinois born Friedan went to Smith College in the l940's. Then in the early 1960's she wrote a book that literally changed the world. It was called 'The Feminine Mystique' and helped give birth to the second wave of feminism. Friedan too wrote a book about being old. Hers was called 'The Fountain of Age'. (At least that's how I recall the title.)
For De Beauvoir old age was a hell. For Friedan it was heaven. Who was right? I give the edge to De Beauvoir. But I'm an anxiety-ridden pessimist who as one woman once told me, "always see the worst side of things." So de Beauvoir's view of old people as mostly poor, ugly useless things struck the right chord when I read 'Old Age' way back in l974 or so.
I read both books again a few years ago. Friedan's book was a happy book. In some ways it was abreathless journey to some of the most high achieving old people I've ever heard of. "Where are the now retired cashiers, carpenters, middle school teachers?" I asked the woman who recommended the book to me. "All I see here are Nobel Prize winners and formerly high level scientists, doctors and company executives."
But now I can give a definitive answer to my questions of the past, because now I'm an old man. And as de Beauvoir predicted my teeth are crumbling, the hair on the top of my head has long vanished, arthritis racks my arms and fingers and I'm gulping down at least five pills a day. Medical expenses are eating away my meagre savings and like most old people I spend too much time looking backward and not too much time looking forward. Because not too far ahead- say four or five years or less- lies the dreaded spectre
of death. Okay maybe I've overdone it a bit but that's how I feel some days.
But then there's days when I feel great. There's no more big struggles that lie ahead except extinction. I've got enough money for now which certainly wasn't true until I turned 40. The wonderful Internet has opened a whole new world to me and billions of others. Then too I'm a watercolorist and finally I've found a subject to paint, namely trees. "My work is competent," I tell anybody who asks about my paintings. "They're no more than that. "
But I do enjoy painting.It's added a whole new dimension to my life that gives me joy as I watch some of my friends pass away. So both de Beauvoir and Friedan, who are now dead, got part of the truth about old age. They were both great writers who helped changed the world for the better. And I'll remember them both, until dementia or Alzheimer's diseases overwhelms my mind.
Betty Friedan was no slouch as an author either. The Peoria Illinois born Friedan went to Smith College in the l940's. Then in the early 1960's she wrote a book that literally changed the world. It was called 'The Feminine Mystique' and helped give birth to the second wave of feminism. Friedan too wrote a book about being old. Hers was called 'The Fountain of Age'. (At least that's how I recall the title.)
For De Beauvoir old age was a hell. For Friedan it was heaven. Who was right? I give the edge to De Beauvoir. But I'm an anxiety-ridden pessimist who as one woman once told me, "always see the worst side of things." So de Beauvoir's view of old people as mostly poor, ugly useless things struck the right chord when I read 'Old Age' way back in l974 or so.
I read both books again a few years ago. Friedan's book was a happy book. In some ways it was abreathless journey to some of the most high achieving old people I've ever heard of. "Where are the now retired cashiers, carpenters, middle school teachers?" I asked the woman who recommended the book to me. "All I see here are Nobel Prize winners and formerly high level scientists, doctors and company executives."
But now I can give a definitive answer to my questions of the past, because now I'm an old man. And as de Beauvoir predicted my teeth are crumbling, the hair on the top of my head has long vanished, arthritis racks my arms and fingers and I'm gulping down at least five pills a day. Medical expenses are eating away my meagre savings and like most old people I spend too much time looking backward and not too much time looking forward. Because not too far ahead- say four or five years or less- lies the dreaded spectre
of death. Okay maybe I've overdone it a bit but that's how I feel some days.
But then there's days when I feel great. There's no more big struggles that lie ahead except extinction. I've got enough money for now which certainly wasn't true until I turned 40. The wonderful Internet has opened a whole new world to me and billions of others. Then too I'm a watercolorist and finally I've found a subject to paint, namely trees. "My work is competent," I tell anybody who asks about my paintings. "They're no more than that. "
But I do enjoy painting.It's added a whole new dimension to my life that gives me joy as I watch some of my friends pass away. So both de Beauvoir and Friedan, who are now dead, got part of the truth about old age. They were both great writers who helped changed the world for the better. And I'll remember them both, until dementia or Alzheimer's diseases overwhelms my mind.
Monday, 12 March 2012
why crime rates go down,
"Everyone talks about the weather," goes one old saying. But everyone talks about crime also. Now along come two books that gives us a new view on crime. Steve Levitt is a journalist . Stephen J Dubner is an economist at the University of Chicago. Or mabe it's the reverse. But in any case they've co-authored two very interesting books.Both
One's called Freakonomics. The other that came out in 2009 is called Superfreakonomics.Both talk about crime. First off why did crime rates start to skyrocket in the early l960' and keep on rising until the l990's when crime rates started to fall.?
Crime rates, the authors say, shot up because of television. They started to fall and kept on falling because of abortion. "This is simply not true," said one police spokesperson when asked about Dubner and Leavittt's theory. The reason crime rates fell, he insisted, is because new policing methods drove crime rates down. Well okay, both theories may be true. But Dubner and Leavitt's theories are well worth looking at.
These two men's theories don't give any comfort to right or left wingers on why crime rates go up or down. As far as televisiob goes, the authors point out that it doesn't matter what young peo[ple watch or watched from the l960's to the l990's.They could watch Happy Days,Mr. Rogers or Kojak. If they watched t.v. period they, or mostly young males became more criminally minded. So nearly all the talk about how bad t.v. was right. Television was bad for the very young.
But the right wingers like present day Republicans or Stephen Harper's Conservatives loathe abortion. And they're dead wrong. Henry Morgenthaler, and his allies like Judy Rebick may be Canada's most effective crime fighters. But the left or rather bleeding heart liberals, like yours truly, were wrong too.
If we have better social programs they'll be less poverty,' I used to say. "And therefore there'll be less crime." Wrong, wrong, and simply wrong. In the l960's and l970's all levels of government spent far far more money on welfare, unemployment insurance and social housing than they'd ever spent before - or since. Yet crimes like murder, robberies and homicide just kept rising. In the l990's all levels of government slasheAd many social programs to the bone and beyond. But starting in about 2000 crime rates started to fall. And they're still falling .
So Vancouver used to have 30 or so murders a year. Now that number has fallen to 15 or 16. "Abortion is the reason " Dubner and Leavitt would say, I think.Now I'll continue to support more generous social programs. As I've said I'm a bleeding heart liberal. But after reading Dubner and Leavitt's books I won't say anymore "better social programs will bring down crime." Now I know that that statement just isn't necessarily sio.
One's called Freakonomics. The other that came out in 2009 is called Superfreakonomics.Both talk about crime. First off why did crime rates start to skyrocket in the early l960' and keep on rising until the l990's when crime rates started to fall.?
Crime rates, the authors say, shot up because of television. They started to fall and kept on falling because of abortion. "This is simply not true," said one police spokesperson when asked about Dubner and Leavittt's theory. The reason crime rates fell, he insisted, is because new policing methods drove crime rates down. Well okay, both theories may be true. But Dubner and Leavitt's theories are well worth looking at.
These two men's theories don't give any comfort to right or left wingers on why crime rates go up or down. As far as televisiob goes, the authors point out that it doesn't matter what young peo[ple watch or watched from the l960's to the l990's.They could watch Happy Days,Mr. Rogers or Kojak. If they watched t.v. period they, or mostly young males became more criminally minded. So nearly all the talk about how bad t.v. was right. Television was bad for the very young.
But the right wingers like present day Republicans or Stephen Harper's Conservatives loathe abortion. And they're dead wrong. Henry Morgenthaler, and his allies like Judy Rebick may be Canada's most effective crime fighters. But the left or rather bleeding heart liberals, like yours truly, were wrong too.
If we have better social programs they'll be less poverty,' I used to say. "And therefore there'll be less crime." Wrong, wrong, and simply wrong. In the l960's and l970's all levels of government spent far far more money on welfare, unemployment insurance and social housing than they'd ever spent before - or since. Yet crimes like murder, robberies and homicide just kept rising. In the l990's all levels of government slasheAd many social programs to the bone and beyond. But starting in about 2000 crime rates started to fall. And they're still falling .
So Vancouver used to have 30 or so murders a year. Now that number has fallen to 15 or 16. "Abortion is the reason " Dubner and Leavitt would say, I think.Now I'll continue to support more generous social programs. As I've said I'm a bleeding heart liberal. But after reading Dubner and Leavitt's books I won't say anymore "better social programs will bring down crime." Now I know that that statement just isn't necessarily sio.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)