A Canadian Mennonite's sodden sermonizing on movies, music, miscellaneous.
WP,That article by Stephen Marche that you linked to was brilliant (in the English Version of saying "brilliant"). How he tied Atwood to Cherry was seamless. I'm sure she didn't take kindly to the match. I'd have to say, though, that if the two of them were to duke it out, old-time Hockey style, I'd put my loonies down on the scribbler not the sartorially splendiforous one.Hey!? Speaking of Mr. Cherry, is there a photo coffee table book of him in all his many costumes? Now, that would be a great Christmas present for the true Canadian.
Much to be said for humility, but this guy Marche's appreciation is a pitiful shame. Talk about faint praise.Would love, by the way, to know how he discovers 'display of power so naked & imperial' in D.C. Is he overwhelmed by many business suits? All the museums too much for him?
Not trying to get nasty or anything, but is it just me or is Don Cherry's head out of proportion with his body? Is it his ever-expanding ego that has caused this imbalance to happen or simply his diet?Just woinderin'Oh, Yeah. Now that Barry Melrose has deserted the ESPN broadcast booth so as to stand as the target behind the Tampa Bay Lightning's bench, I'll be missing the near-frays that Melrose and Cherry had during last year's Stanley Cup.
DV - I doubt there exists a coffee-table that could withstand the bulk of such a book, never mind a living room coordinated to endure the gush of clashing colors. It's kind of a matter/anti-matter issue, I think.And, yes, I do believe Atwood's birdy little hands would introduce Mr. Cherry to painful vulnerabilities he didn't know he had. But when it comes to head/body proportions, Cherry has nothing on Atwood. That woman is all head.PB - Washington tends to take Canadians by surprise. I have a friend who spent some time at various Canadian embassies, and when it came to Washington he said you could always tell who the new Canadian White House beat reporters were: when the President walks into the room, the Canucks are the ones still sitting, with baffled looks on their faces as everyone else in the room stands at attention. Make of that what you will. BTW, the Finance Minister is the Canadian equivalent of the Vice President ... only with actual power, 'cos he's holding the purse strings. I have to say I'm driven to wonder just how accurate Marche's reportage really is. I mean, "economy class" is already pushing credibility -- but the security check to boot?!
WP,I don;t know if I agree with you on the security check thing.I mean, come on, there is a resemblance to potential "ruin-our-lifestyle-not-have-a-good-day"niks, don't you think?Only difference seems to be Flaherty's got a shirt on over his t-shirt while Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was caught in mid-dress.One comment I'd like to make about Washington D.C. and Paul, please let me know if I'm off base on this.D.C. is, without a doubt, the most confusing, unforgiving city I've ever driven in. For a city laid out, allegedly, so rationally I blow a steam gasket whenever I drive there. God forbid you make one wrong turn! You can never correct your error without driving out to Alexandria or West Virginia when you can make a reversing turn. I've driven in Paris, NYC, Boston, Philly among other major cities and have never been as frustrated as driving in D.C. The only thing that would relieve all that frustration is riding through the city on a bike. Except I'd be terrified of getting run over by car drivers like myself who are quickly losing their minds trying to vend their vehicular way through our nation's lovely capital.
My experience with cities isn't as varied as yours, DV, so won't contradict you. But I used to drive regularly across from College Park to Northeast to see a girl, through Catholic U. etc., and once I had it down it didn't seem that bad. A lot of tight neighborhood streets off the thoroughfares, and mostly normal city traffic. But when I get into D.C. these days, it's Metro and foot, mostly.D.C.'s no worse than Baltimore for driving, anyway my take. But that's certainly not saying much.Formal, rational, Washington certainly wants to be, through & through art, architecture, political style, whatever. But it's a deep rooted classicist & republican formality, surely. Can undoubtedly be argued that republican & enlightenment symbolism is nothing but the mask of raw power & imperialism, but still naked power & imperialism? You'd think there was military hardware all over the place, ubiquitous police presence, triumphal arches looming over grand boulevards, blunt towering skyscrapers, outsized polished statuary of conquering figures, so on & on. We know that imagery well enough. But D.C. is conspicuous, if anything, for absence of all this. I'm not trying to be Mr. Pro-America here. I just think Marche's expression entirely misses D.C. as D.C.Wait a year. With Obama in office, I bet, this kind of characterization of Washington will largely disappear from popular political talk foreign & domestic.
I haven't yet driven through Washington DC -- but how could its civil engineering be any worse than this?
WP,...at least there's a sign indicating "oncoming confusion" dead ahead. In D.C.? Make sure your tank is filled to the brim. Oh, and bring along a screwdriver in case you get so frustrated that you'll simply stop the car, screw off your plates, and hop on a metro. Call in to your insurance company that your car's stolen before you hop on the subway.Paul, I wish the answer to the D.C. thing was as easy as voting in the alternate party, whichever party it is. For me, the logistics of D.C. is the best Live-you experience it! extension of what goes on in all of those government buildings. A morass of madness, the slowly driving you crazy kind. When any relatives come to visit form the old country, I gladly volunteer to drive them up and through NYC, Philly, Baltimore, Boston. But D.C.? I give them some moolah for Amtrak and Metro fares and let them discover D.C. on their own. Now with the Supreme Court decision re. D.C.'s Gun Control law, I throw in some extra money so they could be packing.
D.C. is best by far on foot, I think. Especially if you're just there to enjoy history, art, neighborhoods. It'd be awfully tough to exhaust the art & architecture, if your tastes aren't extravagant and if you're moving slow enough to take it in.I don't think I'd want to live there, though. 'Power' may not be so frankly on display as Marche would have his readers think, but it does seem to me there's a kind of pervasive tenseness of the political arena in the air somehow, socially. Unpleasant, to my mind. To tell the truth, right here on this Canadian blog is as close as I comfortably get to the political life. : )
It sounds to me like you need to make a trip to Ottawa, PB -- preferably in mid-February. A quick skate on the canal, fortified by poutine and Canadian beer just might get you expressing some political opinions after all!
Ah, I'd do it in a second. But I'm thinking the canal, the chow, the beer and a good snooze in the corner while the wind blows & the fur flies (somewhere across the room).
Post a Comment