Marni Soupcoff2013-06-18T00:59:52-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=marni-soupcoffCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Marni SoupcoffGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Week In Review: Finding Unfeigned Feeling on Father's Daytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.34482312013-06-15T21:24:39-04:002013-06-15T23:32:20-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/Dad-related content of all sorts, from gift ideas (believe it or not, some dads are hoping that package the kids left waiting for them on the kitchen table contains nose clippers) to moving accounts of losing -- and finding -- a father. Though, like any holiday, the day often comes with its share of pain - for fathers who have outlived their children, especially -- the opportunity to hear men articulate the unexpected ways parenting expands a life somehow makes the pangs of sadness (not to mention the awful greeting cards) worthwhile. What's the best way to fete a father today? Buy him a book? Turn his old tie into an iPod cover? Pump him for information on the family's medical history? Any of these might work, depending on the dad, but ultimately it's the quiet celebration of an authentic child/father connection that's most important. Which means: The perfect Father's Day gift is far more likely to be the heartfelt hug, handshake, or cuddle that evolves organically with no help from Hallmark -- or even HuffPost.
]]>Don't Block The Pirate Baytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.34373462013-06-13T17:14:28-04:002013-06-14T10:07:59-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/BBC News reported that an Irish court has ordered six internet service providers in that country to block users' access to popular file-sharing website The Pirate Bay. As usual (at least 10 other countries have implemented similar restrictions), the ban comes on the heels of complaints from big record labels that The Pirate Bay facilitates the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material.
It's not a shocking notion. The Pirate Bay, which was founded in Sweden about a decade ago by an anti-copyright organization, has long been known as a spot to snap up tunes without a credit card. If you type "free music" into Google, the entire first page of results references, or directs you to, The Pirate Bay. Three of the site's co-founders, along with a site financier, even did prison time after being convicted of copyright violations.
My contention isn't that The Pirate Bay has clean hands (though there is indeed some content on the site that can be shared without violating copyright laws). What I do believe is that resorting to blanket government Internet censorship is a bad way to handle the problem.
Punish those operating the site with full knowledge that it is a de facto illegal download factory? O.K. Go after the users who are knowingly downloading the copyrighted content? I guess (though seeking million-dollar judgments against midwestern moms seems a bad PR strategy for a music industry that has itself facilitated the copyright crisis by so stubbornly refusing to offer viable legal alternatives). But don't take a sledgehammer to free speech and declare a website off limits to the population of an entire country.
What about those in Ireland who were using (or would have used) The Pirate Bay for legitimate purposes? There's nothing inherently evil or illegal about file sharing per se, and one can imagine many legal reasons for visiting. Maybe a fledgling band wants to build a reputation and is trying to get its music into the hands of as many listeners as possible. Maybe a sociologist wants to study current music preferences or trends. Maybe a journalist wants to inform readers about what really is offered on the site. I visited The Pirate Bay in the course of writing this piece. (Canada is not among the countries that have blocked access.) And while my main conclusion from the visit was no weightier than that South Park is right -- the Internet is for porn -- I still very much appreciated the ability to judge the evidence for myself rather than rely on a court's decision that I'd be better off without access to this particular information because I'm too likely to steal some of it.
As chilling as I find the idea of top-down censoring of swathes of speech and data that are not problematic in themselves, there are other considerations that counsel against forced blocking too. First and foremost, it doesn't work. Users have demonstrated time and again that they will respond to such blocks with proxy sites that get around the restrictions. Block the proxies and they'll just create new ones. Unless a government plans on implementing the sorts of authoritarian levels of control of a country like China or Cuba, it's never going to win the battle to suppress access to online information.
That might be bad news for the record industry. But it's ultimately good news for the rest of us.
Though it may have the unfortunate consequence of facilitating copyright violation, an online world of info that is beyond government suppression also has the consequence of ensuring that people can inform the world of their struggles and ideas, debate and bring up controversial issues, and organize reform and rights movements. On the whole, the porn sharing is going to take up more of the bandwidth than these crucial, worthy endeavours. But that's the way free speech works. You've got to take the bad with the good, otherwise you'll soon have none at all.
You see, a government that blocks its citizens from accessing The Pirate Bay (or tries to) is one step closer to being a government that also blocks its citizens from accessing a website that threatens to foment insurrection by being critical of the ruling powers or political system. If the right to check out a file-sharing site doesn't get you excited, what about the right to check out a brutally revealing critique of your country's leadership? Isn't defending the former worth it to protect the latter? But we tend not to bother because we dismiss the whole matter as a debate about torrents and Daft Punk downloads. The key is to remember what is at stake. We're talking about our right to read, view, or listen to information. It is possible to defend copyright without taking such generous bites out of our freedom. It should be a priority to demand that governments enforce copyright in ways that don't penalize the innocent and that don't attempt to hide legal expression from view.
It can be done. But it won't be unless we make a stink.
]]>The Week In Review: A-Rod Should Be Free To Dope If He Wants Totag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.34096262013-06-08T21:24:44-04:002013-06-09T08:03:27-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/face 100-game suspensions for allegedly using banned substances and then lying to MLB investigators about the same. Though the league has to enforce the rules as they stand or risk losing credibility, you've got to wonder if keeping the ban on performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) is really worth the trouble. Given the lucrative salaries and endorsement deals that are at stake, players are always going to be seeking every competitive advantage they possibly can. So the usage of PEDs in baseball, which is inherently difficult to police, isn't going to end. It's just going to escalate further into a competition that rewards those who are savviest about beating drug tests.
Are PEDs an unnatural advantage? Sure. But so are many of the extreme training methods and nutritional regimens that are all now a regular part of almost all professional sports, including baseball, thanks to advances in human physiology and sports training. If PEDs were permitted, MLB could at least take the significant money it would save on expensive detection schemes, investigations and mediation (players' unions don't tend to take kindly to 100-game suspensions) and use it instead to educate players about the health dangers of PEDs and the doses at which they are safest. It'd cut out a healthy slice of hypocrisy and do more to level the playing field (level the diamond?) than substance bans every will.\
]]>Forget Boardrooms Full of Womentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33976952013-06-06T14:01:30-04:002013-06-06T22:24:13-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/Financial Post piece on Monday, TD Bank Group Deputy Chief Economist Beata Caranci wrote about a report from her bank which concluded that "slow progress in gender board diversity [in Canada] hints of 'market failure.'" In other words, TD Economics thinks that the low number of women on corporate boards in this country is an inefficient outcome that may need government correction.
Many people agree with this notion, including (surprise, surprise) the Ontario government. It has announced plans to create rules that would force companies to either set goals for getting more women on their boards -- or explain why they've failed to do so.
Such schemes are known as "comply or explain" approaches and strike me as both painfully condescending and revealing half-measures. If a government truly believes a matter is serious enough to warrant regulatory involvement, then it should be willing to take the heat of implementing a firm rule. If a government's instinct is to hedge and pussyfoot and treat those who don't comply like silly school children who have forgotten their homework for the third time in a week, then that's probably a good sign that the matter at hand is not one in which it should really be sticking its nose.
The composition of corporate boards falls in the latter category for a couple of reasons.
First, if gender diversity on a board really improves a company's performance, as is often argued, then companies will seek it out themselves without external prodding. Complain as we might about the profit motive, one thing an obsessive fixation on the bottom line is good for is cutting through racial, gender, and cultural prejudices.
As it happens, the evidence for diverse boards causally benefitting business performance is far from overwhelming. Which may explain why the percentage of female board members has long been stalled at 10% in the private sector for publicly traded Canadian companies, while climbing to 42% in Ontario's government agencies, boards, and commissions (where profit is rarely a prime motivator). But should more solid proof emerge of female directors actually offering a competitive advantage, there's every reason to believe public companies will adjust their recruiting and hiring accordingly.
The second reason board composition should be a no-go zone for government is that this is not a clear-cut social justice issue. It is possible that women are underrepresented in boardrooms because they face discrimination (overt and subtle). But it is also possible that women are underrepresented in boardrooms because they are more likely to decide (consciously and unconsciously) that they don't want to be there. I'm sure the reality is a complex interaction between these and other factors. Yet I don't think we're giving enough respect to the notion that women should be able to define success in a more nuanced way than society does without being written off as brainwashed dupes.
Why does being a director of a public company have to be the goal? What if women are more likely than men to see the pinnacle of work bliss as being a well-paying middle management position that allows them the flexibility to teach yoga and do volunteer work on the side? Is it a question of power? And if so, who's to say that the power exercised in a boardroom is any more or less important than the power exercised while exerting pressure on oppressive regimes through Amnesty International or volunteering on a political campaign?
In case you're wondering, I did read Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In. And I do agree with her to a point -- about the ways women inadvertently sabotage themselves and the ways they are perceived differently by their colleagues and bosses. But I also came away from the book with two conclusions: 1) Anyone who wants to reach the highest levels of the professional ranks has to sacrifice a huge amount of home time, personal time, family time, and me time; and 2) Despite all the lip service she gives to women making their own choices, and stay-at-home moms being totally respectable, Sheryl Sandberg clearly views success to mean being a powerful business executive.
There's nothing inherently wrong with either of those things. It's just important to keep them in mind when trying to figure out whether aiming to have equal numbers of males and females in boardrooms makes sense.
It's entirely possible that females are less likely than males to want to make extreme sacrifices -- and not just because they're the ones stuck doing the dishes at home. Because they have a healthier sense of different facets of their identity. Or because they're less caught up in ego wars. Or because they're not stuck with the heavy mental baggage men still carry with them left over from all those years as sole protectors and breadwinners.
I'm glad Sheryl Sandberg equates success with business leadership. We need smart men and women who do. However, for our society to function smoothly, we also need smart men and women who don't. And I'm not convinced that a campaign to recruit more women to Sandberg's view of success is helpful.
How about viewing success as achieving individual fulfillment and contentment? That's not something the provincial government can measure. And because it differs for every person, it would likely mean living with "inequitable" divisions of genders in boardrooms, classrooms, operating rooms, and, more generally, life. From the view of the economists at TD, we'd be surrounded by market failure. Yet it seems to me a much more meaningful, salutary, and sensible goal than attempting to achieve forced gender parity in corporate directorships. At the very least, we'd all be a lot more likely to enjoy the ride.
]]>The Week In Review: Overpaid?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33730452013-06-01T21:15:27-04:002013-06-02T00:31:04-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/released its list of the 20 best-paid bank CEOs in North America. To populists' chagrin, Canada was well represented, with six of our bank heads appearing on the list, three of them in the top ten.
Given the stratospheric nature of the compensation at issue -- RBC's Gordon Nixon was paid the equivalent of US$12.6-million in 2012, for example -- it's easy to get outraged. But massive numbers shouldn't be offensive in themselves if the CEOs earning them are actually making comparatively good money for their shareholders and bringing in a comparatively solid return on investments. Viewed through that filter, Gordon Nixon's US$12.6-million does happen to be a significant overpayment. But the US$9.2-million Bank of Montreal's William Downe was paid is an underpayment given BMO's performance under his leadership. According to Bloomberg Markets' calculations, the guy's well worth it.
Before, anyone gets carried away with declaring all Canadian bank CEOs' compensation unthinkably obscene and calling for some kind of pay cap, remember that Tom Cruise makes about US$75-million a year; boxer Floyd Mayweather takes in about US$85-million. Yet we rarely complain about these astronomical incomes.
When it comes to sports and entertainment, we seem to accept that extraordinary talent, skill, looks, ability (or whatever it is we happen to admire about celeb actors and star athletes) deserves to be rewarded with as much as people are willing to pay for the privilege of enjoying it. The same should be true of our bank CEOs. Don't knock them because they get paid a lot more in a year than you and I will make in a lifetime. Knock them if -- and only if -- they haven't earned it.
]]>Is the Meth-Mouth/Diet-Soda Study Really Science?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33610392013-05-30T14:17:22-04:002013-05-30T14:38:06-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/
"Yes!" says a new study published in the General Dentistry journal -- and the dozens and dozens of headlines eagerly referencing the same.
Does that finding sound a little suspect?
It did to me.
I know at least a couple serious Diet Coke swillers (breakfast, lunch, and dinner!) who may be consuming obscene quantities of caffeine and aspartame, but still have gleaming pearly whites. They certainly aren't afflicted with meth mouth. So what gives?
Your acquaintances constitute a sample of two, I told reminded myself. That's hardly a scientific examination of the phenomenon.
Whoever did the study that all these articles are alluding to would have examined reams of subjects and data, right? Otherwise the surprising findings wouldn't be appearing on so many media outlets, including CBS News, ABC News, Fox News, MSN.com, The Toronto Sun, NPR, and, yes, The Huffington Post.
Not right.
If you read past the headlines, you'll learn that the "study" everyone is talking about happens to be barely more scientifically rigorous than my "but I have a couple friends..." analysis.
The diet-soda-is-like-meth conclusion was arrived at based on a total sample of three people. There was one meth user, one cocaine user, and one person who drank more diet soda than even my Diet Coke-addicted pals -- about 2 litres every day for three to five years. All three individuals experienced similarly severe, disgusting tooth erosion that required having all their teeth extracted. And... well, and that's about it. Oh, except for the added detail that none of them went in for regular dental care -- the diet soda drinker hadn't seen a dentist in over 20 years.
This is not science, people. It's an interesting anecdote. The fact that it's being reported on as though it's definitive proof of diet soda being as bad for teeth as meth is troubling. Our instinct to see the word "study" and assume that whatever follows is a scientifically established conclusion is going to get us into serious trouble one of these days.
In the grand scheme of things, people drinking less diet soda because they mistakenly think it's been proven to cause all their teeth to fall out, isn't going to do much harm to anyone but the beverage industry. And the beverage industry will survive. But the lazy and credulous thinking that underlies such conclusions -- and the behaviour choices to which they lead -- carries over into more crucial decisions too, such as whether to vaccinate a child or to grow genetically modified rice with Vitamin A that could save millions of lives. (In these areas, fears based on shaky claims -- of vaccine-autism links and GMOs causing birth defects -- have led to the resurgence of measles and preventable cases of blindness, respectively.)
The critical eye needed to distinguish dramatic individual incidents from evidence-based proof of general causation is being lost. Colourful examples are being confused with comprehensive data. The result? We're becoming a society that fails to take positive actions because our heads are so easily turned by anecdotal horror stories. And we turn to dubious quick fixes for the same reason. ("Carol's brother's cancer was cured completely by homeopathic remedies and he never had a recurrence.")
Why this is a problem: In more and more areas of life, we're complaining about people not making "smart choices." We want people to eat better so we won't have to deal with the costs of an obesity epidemic. We want people to exercise appropriately so our healthcare system won't be overrun with cardiac care costs or hip replacements. We want people to vote for politicians who propose sound environmental policies so that we can maintain healthy planets and economies. We want people to sit as responsible jurors who weigh evidence carefully so that guilty people are convicted and innocent people are not.
But people can't do any of these things successfully unless they have a baseline of scientific literacy with which to critically evaluate the claims that bombard them. Whether it's a defense attorney insisting DNA findings exonerate his client, or a TV ad for a nutritional supplement promising dramatic weight loss, the bottom line is that without a basic understanding of what qualifies as objectively persuasive, credible evidence, people are doomed to make damaging decisions. When these decisions involve carbonated beverages, there's little harm done. When they involve sending an innocent man to prison or exposing a vulnerable population to rubella, there's a real problem.
Maybe we can use this diet soda meth mouth story as a wake-up call about how apathetic we've become about questioning what we're told. The next time we read about a study with a shocking finding, perhaps our first move will be not to write a hysterical headline or email, but instead to pause and ask things like, "How big was the sample?" and "What factors did they control for?" and "Were the subjects chosen at random?" Regardless of the answers we come up with, it'll be good exercise for the critical thinking muscles we need to responsibly navigate modern life.
]]>The Week In Review: Rob Ford Is God's Gift to Stephen Harpertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33375992013-05-25T21:08:47-04:002013-05-26T05:20:17-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/senate scandal in Ottawa. First there was Ford's sudden ousting of Chief of Staff Mark Towhey - a move a source told The Toronto Sun was precipitated by Towhey urging Ford to go to rehab. Then, there was Ford's public statement adamantly denying doing crack or being a crack addict ... in the present tense. The Toronto mayor even made The Daily Show, for goodness sake.
Not wanting to be left out of the party, The Globe and Mail came out with a Saturday front-pager on the Ford siblings' alleged past misdeeds, complete with super-silly pseudonyms and an account of Doug Ford's alleged Hashish dealing in the 1980s (though no on the record named sources). It's all fine and well to follow along with this Ford fiasco -- how can we not? But as taxpayers and citizens, we should be careful that we don't become so distracted by the local guy squirting mustard on our shirts that we fail to notice the gentlemen from Ottawa carefully picking our back pockets while we fuss.
]]>Abercrombie & Fitch Owed Us No Apologytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33279292013-05-23T14:59:01-04:002013-05-25T19:37:54-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/back with another apology, is it?
That's probably to be expected.
Going on the record as a brand that wants attractive, skinny, popular kids in its clothes (and by inference would rather the fat loners of the world buy and wear something else) is the sort of thing that causes people to take offense.
I get that.
But honestly, I feel a bit sorry for A&F CEO Mike Jeffries, whose recently recirculated 2006 remarks are of the root of the current controversy. Because all he did was say out loud, and without apology, what the vast majority of clothing lines out there already seem to be thinking and practicing.
"We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends," Jeffries told Salon writer Benoit Denizet-Lewis. "A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong."
Mean, cynical, and a recipe for poor self-esteem?
Probably.
But take a little cyber stroll over to the websites of virtually any of A&F's competitors and you'll find a visual depiction of exactly what Jeffries articulated. Aéropostale's home page is a parade of slim, cheerful, conventionally attractive young men and women in shades. Not a wrinkle or love handle in sight. Over at American Eagle Outfitters, the models are similarly smiley, social, and devoid of the acne, sags, and bags (not to mention mopey moments and isolation) that make self-acceptance such a challenge in the real world. The "cool kid" scene is similar, if just a teensy titch older (we're talking 23 instead of 18), in the J. Crew and Banana Republic online realms, despite the fact that these brands are presumably marketing to a wealthier and older crowd.
We know this, right? The reason we're attracted to the glossy clothing catalogues featuring naturally beautiful 19-year-olds sipping cafe au laits (that happen to be the exact same creamy shade as their flawless skin) is because somewhere in our reptilian brains we believe that if we put on the same pair of capris, we'll suddenly acquire the sleek bodies, photogenic friends, and worry-free lives being pictured. It's not logical. It's partly based in a sense of dissatisfaction with ourselves, our shapes, and our circumstances -- a dissatisfaction that is compounded with every page flip to another lithe model casually stretched out on an artfully cluttered chaise lounge. (Wow, if I get a trainer, buy those ballet flats, and learn to be more stylishly messy, that could be me.) But come on. Who hasn't been swayed toward a purchase by this kind of brand image play? And -- perhaps more to the point -- what brand doesn't make use of this technique on a near-constant basis?
At least Mike Jeffries is being upfront about it. Usually clothing companies make awkward gestures toward inclusivity that are, if you ask me, more insulting and depressing than anything Jeffries said.
I remember flipping through a J. Crew catalogue a few years ago when I was hitting my mid-thirties and wondering whether I was getting too old for the brand (there was suddenly a lot more lamé than I could make sense of).
"It's ok," a little voice inside my head said. "You can be like the old one."
It was true. There was always an "old" model hanging out there among the 20-year-olds, and she looked fantastic. Just as happy, self-possessed, and perfect as the others. If I bought the white linen tuxedo pants and wore them with classic sneakers, I could be her.
"Are you nuts?" another voice inside my head replied. "The 'old' one is Lauren Hutton -- LAUREN FUCKING HUTTON! She's been on the cover of Vogue 25 times. You're not going to look like her just because you're both closer to menopause than childhood."
The same goes for the "ethnic" ones or the "fat" ones who show up occasionally in clothing marketing. They're supposed to be evidence of the brand's inclusivity, but it's not like seeing an impossibly gorgeous and perfectly coiffed Asian woman who wears a size 8 instead of a size 00 is all that helpful or empowering to a painfully shy, overweight teen, struggling to find her place. Or to most of us, when it comes right down to it.
It's like Tina Fey said in her book Bossypants, when discussing the fact that female celebrities no longer have to be skinny white women to be considered attractive:
"All Beyonce and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful. Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits."
What the cool kids look like may change, but it'll still always be the cool kids clothing lines go after because the cool kids are who most of us want to be in our heart of hearts. We can reason with ourselves and work toward overcoming this tendency with our intellects. We can, and should, help young people in particular to realize that there are many profound satisfactions to be had in life that do not rely on achieving a certain appearance or level of popularity (a fact that becomes comfortingly obvious as we age, yet is often difficult to grasp in high school). But we shouldn't blame A&F for being honest enough to articulate an omnipresent elitist marketing strategy no one else wants to own up to. We are, after all, the ones that make such strategies pay off.
]]>The Week In Review: What Mike Duffy, Rob Ford, and a Bulldozed Pyramid Have In Commontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33003832013-05-18T21:38:31-04:002013-05-18T23:41:52-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/was bulldozed in an effort to obtain crushed rock for a road-building project. In Toronto, Gawker and The Toronto Starpublished details of a video alleged to show the city's mayor, Rob Ford, inhaling from what two Star reporters who saw the video say "appears to be a glass crack pipe." Meanwhile, in Ottawa, expense scandals led to Senators Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy leaving the Conservative caucus.
]]>The Agony and the Ecstasy of Cottagingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32884582013-05-16T17:08:02-04:002013-05-16T18:03:49-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/
Some of the best times of my life have happened at "the cottage." (There were actually two cottages -- one on Ada Lake that my parents bought when I was three years old, then another about 15 minutes away on the Moon River, which we moved to when I was 16 and which is currently having the toilet issues -- but in my mind, they pretty much meld together as "the cottage.")
As a kid, I spent whole summers up there, swimming by day and playing Ghost In the Graveyard with my friends by warm evening. In high school, I studied for my exams up at the cottage -- the rustling trees and cheerful bird calls alleviated some of the monotony of memorizing the date of the Wilmot Proviso. And I took full advantage of my new driver's license by cruising the windy Moon River Road over and over again. (I only ended up in the ditch twice.)
I got married at the cottage. Or at least very close to it. And my husband and I spent our honeymoon there during a heatwave, which we handled by making frequent trips into town to get sundaes. A couple years later, our baby son hung out on a blanket on the cottage deck, cooing happily at the canopy of leaves above him. Four years after that, our twin baby daughters did the same thing.
So, I have wonderful memories of the cottage. Absolutely. It's just that I also have other memories of the cottage. Like the time it got hit by a hurricane (trees crushed the roof and deck). Or the time someone robbed it and stole my worthless model car collection that I still happened to like a lot. Or the time I got into bed and found that an uninvited creature had left a neat pile of acorns under my pillow, which led to my spending the rest of the night half-awake, expecting him to return and mistake my head for a nest.
Uninvited creatures actually make up a good part of my problem with the cottage. On several different occasions, mosquito bites to the face have caused my eyes to swell completely, painfully shut. The first time it happened, my parents drove me to the emergency room an hour away, but I subsequently learned to just rely on Benadryl and time. Yet those dramatic puffed out eyes were nothing compared to the mundane agony of having a mosquito buzzing in my ear all night, which is a regular occurrence at the cottage (though only during the months that the weather is pleasant). I've gotten into the habit of thrusting my arm in the air, pointing to my flesh, and yelling, "Just take what you want and leave me alone!" Which is about as helpful as you'd expect.
Birds -- phoebes I think -- often made nests in or near the garage of our old cottage. That resulted in jumpy mama birds swooping down and attacking my head every time I ventured onto our lawn. The screams those blitzkriegs elicited from me were rivalled only by the ones I let out the time my next-door neighbour and I made the mistake of heading out on the water in our old runabout at dusk -- and got dive-bombed by what felt like dozens of bats. Creepiest feeling ever? I thought so. Until later that summer when my legs got head-butted and nibbled at by fish who apparently didn't appreciate my swimming near their eggs. Pretty sure I screeched then too. But I didn't scream the time I saw a bullfrog sitting casually and contentedly with a smaller frog's leg hanging out of its mouth. I was so grossed out, I lost my voice entirely.
Couple those encounters with the near heart attacks I've suffered every time a mouse has scrambled toward me while I was minding my own business on the cottage couch (Why always toward me? Why do I attract kamikaze mice?), or a stick I've been looking at in the water has started to slither and revealed itself to be a snake, and you should be getting some idea of my ambivalence about my family's second home. And those are just the live animals. I've lost track of how many dead ones I've come across: splattered frogs all over the road everytime it rains, tiny dead mice embedded in a comforter wrapped in plastic for the winter, pancaked snakes in the driveway, unblinking fish washed up on the beach, countless insect carcasses scattered inside and out. The cottage brings one closer to nature. And nature is, let's face it, pretty disgusting in a lot of ways.
And it's not like immersing ourselves in the disgustingness is free. It costs money: There's always a water tank that needs replacing, or a septic tank that needs pumping, or a deck that needs painting -- or, yes, a toilet that needs fixing. It also costs time: Driving to the Moon River takes nearly two and a half hours when the traffic and children are good. When either or -- God forbid-- both act up, we're talking hours of desperate attempts to drown out crying and yelling by cranking up Imagination Movers tunes on the iPad because we forgot to bring any music the kids like in a format that we can play on the minivan stereo.
What's the point of all this?, you might wonder.
I'm sharing my cottage experience to make you feel better about the long weekend no matter your plans. Because if you're going to a cottage, you'll be making enduring memories of special time spent with family and friends. But if you're not, you'll be saving yourself an untold amount of aggravation, revulsion, and cash. When you look at it that way, it's a win/win.
]]>20 Things You Need For an Office Finale Partytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32817702013-05-16T08:23:50-04:002013-05-16T09:24:37-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/The Office. How will you spend it? Well, in front of your TV, of course. But why not make the experience a bit of a celebration? Invite some friends over, serve some Scotch with Splenda, and play a little Dunderball. It's easy -- especially when you've got a handy list. Here, courtesy of Office Tally, are 20 things you need to hold an Office finale party that would make Michael dance badly. (Episode references are in parentheses.) You can find the complete Office Tally list here.
Savory Foods
McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwiches (Hot Girl)
Ham and cheese sandwiches (The Secret)
Tuna fish sandwiches (Gay Witch Hunt)
Grilled cheese sandwiches (The Client)
Caprese salad (Frame Toby)
Sweet Food
Ice cream sandwiches (Health Care)
Donuts (Michael's Birthday)
"Fudgie the Whale" ice cream cake (Survivor Man)
Peach pie (Survivor Man)
Chocolate pudding cups (The Injury)
Drinks
Grape soda (The Secret)
Peach iced tea (The Secret)
Scotch with Splenda (Two Weeks)
Coke in cans (Drug Testing)
Espresso drinks (Cafe Disco)
Decorations
Brown, black, and grey balloons, only partially filled, and a sign saying "It is the finale."
Activities
Flonkerton (Office Olympics)
Charades (Dinner Party)
Sumo Wrestling Suit (Beach Games)
Dunderball
]]>The Week In Review: Between Ariel Castro and Tory Backbenchers, We Can't Avoid an Abortion Debatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32610242013-05-11T19:27:37-04:002013-05-11T23:43:35-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/held captive in a Cleveland home for about a decade. The prosecutor in the case has revealed that he may seek aggravated murder charges against the alleged captor, Ariel Castro, because Castro is accused of repeatedly beating and starving one of the women in order to force several miscarriages. This particular detail has caused quite the stir, not because of the vile nature of the alleged abuse (there's a disturbingly long list of equally loathsome things said to have been done to the women), but because it casts a fetus in the role of a murder victim. And this, despite fetal homicide laws having been on the books for years in the U.S., always makes pro-choice advocates profoundly uncomfortable.
I think it's for the same reasons that expressing opposition to sex-selective abortion raises such anxiety here in Canada. (If you're wondering what I'm talking about, just ask Mark Warawa.) Both discussions force all parties to actually focus on the fetus and what's being done to it, rather than focusing on the mother. (Margaret Somerville was quick to point this out in the Canadian context last year.) This shift in turn leads to tacit admissions that on some level, few of us can honestly say we don't think of a fetus as at least some kind of human being, even if we don't favour criminalizing abortion.
Rather than dodging the hard cases - the forced miscarriages and sex-selective abortions -- by pretending no harm has been done to anything worth recognizing or protecting, we should welcome them as a chance to bring honesty and painful nuance to a debate that is too often characterized as far simpler than it really is.
]]>The Week In Review: Will Loblaw Let Thoughts of Bangladesh Fade Away?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32162812013-05-05T01:47:26-04:002013-05-05T01:47:32-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/vocal about its plans to compensate victims' families and to make checking the structural integrity of factory buildings part of its future audits of suppliers. (Loblaw owns Joe Fresh, which had clothing made for it at the collapsed factory.) However, the problem of unsafe labour conditions for global garment workers is far bigger than one apparel company, which is why the conversation on HuffPost quickly turned to broader long-term solutions.
Most of our bloggers were in general agreement that a boycott of Bangladesh would do more harm than good. As Peter Fragiskatos put it, "the plight of garment workers -- as bad as it is -- would be even worse back in the rural villages where so many of them once lived." A more useful course of action might be that championed by Kevin Thomas: urging companies such as Loblaw to participate in a comprehensive, independent fire and safety inspection program in Bangladesh rather than relying on company-controlled audits.
How realistic is this? Obviously no business is going to make a decision that destroys its profitability. But the fact that PVH Corp, the company that owns Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, has chosen to take the independent inspection route in Bangladesh suggests that it's not an unworkably expensive choice. Certainly, the reputational harm a company experiences from being associated with the preventable death and injury of workers isn't exactly cost-free itself. So beyond the obvious moral reasons for making this kind of change, there's a market argument to made for getting it right as well.
The interesting part of this story will come in a few months, once the news cycle has moved on from the disaster in Dakha. Will Loblaw have the fortitude to get out there and remind us all of the disturbing incident in order to update us on the details of its follow-through -- exactly how much compensation it has given to whom, and in what precise ways its audits have changed? Or will it be content to let its customers' thoughts of the collapse quietly fade away, as they are bound to do? I think we'll be able to tell a lot more about the company from that answer than we can from its immediate post-tragdey PR strategy.
]]>CBC Should Have Stuck With "Any Race Except Caucasian"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31859402013-04-30T11:42:11-04:002013-04-30T14:42:27-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/
You may find that last bit a tad unclear. The casting agency that ran an ad for the position apparently did. In the original posting for the position on the Larissa Mair Casting & Associates website, as well as on Craigslist, potential hosts were asked to submit audition tapes only if they were "Any race except caucasian."
This did not go over well.
Twitter lit up with outraged comments.
The ad was quickly removed from Craigslist and modified on the Larissa Mair website so as to make no mention of race. The casting agent took the fall and apologized. "We were asked to seek a cast of diversity," Larissa Mair said, according to the National Post. "We mistakenly took that to mean that the production was not seeking Caucasian actors. This was a mistake that was made entirely by the casting company."
I'm not sure, though, that the fault was entirely Mair's. According to the same National Post story, the CBC provides casting agents with a letter that says the following:
"At CBC, inclusion and diversity is a priority. This means reflecting Canada and its regions as well as the country's multicultural and multiracial nature....
"As a part of our commitment to this priority, we are now reaching out to our partners in production to ensure that a concerted and documented effort be made ... to cast actors who reflect Canada's diversity."
How do you interpret that directive?
Make a concerted and documented effort to cast performers of different races and cultures -- just don't be blunt about it to the outside world? Always consider race and culture in your casting decisions, but pretend you're equally open to everyone? Keep a tally of the regional, racial, and cultural makeup of on-air personalities -- just don't show the public the scorecard?
I read it as a translucent plea to casting agents to bring in more non-Caucasians, with an unwritten expectation that said agents won't be gauche enough to actually articulate this strategy. "Heck, everyone's welcome to apply!" casting ads should declare. No need to put it in writing that only those who happen to be of an underrepresented ethnicity will get callbacks.
At least the original ads were honest. If CBC is looking for a host to balance some kind of cultural and racial diversity goals and/or requirements, then it should come out and say so. That would be more respectful of potential applicants, as well as of the taxpayers who fund the public broadcaster. If CBC isn't comfortable honestly setting those diversity goals and requirements out there in front of us, then that could be an indication they should be reconsidered.
On his website, blogger and National Citizens Coalition director Stephen Taylor, who was one of the first to spot and publicize the casting post in question, juxtaposed the original ad with quotes from Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney articulating the government of Canada's position on discriminatory hiring in the public service. "While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service based on race or ethnicity," says Day. "It's OK to encourage people from different backgrounds to apply but in our judgment it goes too far to tell people that if they are not of a particular race or ethnicity they cannot apply [for a job] that is actually funded by their tax dollars," says Kenney.
I take Taylor's point to an extent. There's something definitely off about excluding someone from a government job because of his race -- particularly when the government has gone on record as being opposed to such discrimination. It flies in the face of the equal treatment all citizens are supposed to receive at the hands of the state. But we also have to remember that what we're talking about here is casting an entertainer in a dramatic enterprise, not staffing a position in the bureaucracy. If CBC were airing a biopic of Lincoln Alexander, I think we'd all raise a few eyebrows if they issued a casting call for the lead that requested anything but black male actors. Race, age, ethnicity -- they're legitimate considerations for dramatic roles. Less so for television "hosts," I should think. But still of more potential consequence there than for normal public service jobs.
I suppose this is one reason I'm not comfortable with government involvement in the arts and entertainment -- subjective calls about artistic merit and messaging will always be in some ways inherently discriminatory, and thus best left to private actors. But as long as CBC remains our public broadcaster, the next best thing would be for it to have the courage and decency to make its casting choices transparent. If it sees a value in exposing kids to minorities who aren't well represented on television, and therefore wants to hire a non-white kiddie host, then tell us so. And be there with the guts, data, and fortitude to stand behind that decision. Don't throw the casting agency under the bus and point to vague diversity language. Doing so only confuses all concerned. It also leaves paranoid notions to fester about what kinds of discrimination Caucasians must be experiencing from CBC behind closed doors.
So, to Larissa Mair, stop apologizing. You've done us the favour of exposing a conversation and clarification our public broadcaster owes us all.
]]>The Week In Review: HuffPost Bloggers Bravely Commit Sociologytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31715732013-04-27T20:43:25-04:002013-04-28T00:38:42-04:00Marni Soupcoffhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/marni-soupcoff/Power & Politics Thursday, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre took a literalist approach, declaring the root causes of terrorism to be terrorists. In HuffPost blog posts, the analysis ran a little deeper, with some bloggers suggesting a link to the West's oppressive foreign policy, and others rejecting such characterizations as illogical rationalizations of violence. "The root cause [of terrorism] is only depravity," wrote blogger Lauryn Oates. "The line between seeking to understand this depravity, and seeking to justify it, is fine and must be tread upon with care." Whatever one's perspective, or tendency to commit sociology, that's advice worth heeding.