Defund the CBC?

Two enormously polarizing stories with heavily contrasting ends involving the CBC have been making the rounds lately.

Most recently, on Monday, November 28, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation asked for additional funding of $318 million a year in order to go completely ad-free.

As an ardent fan of the CBC(a position I will do my best to unbias myself from in writing this), I wanted to yell at the radio… not because there aren’t valid reasons to justify the additional costs, but because the undercurrent of Libertarian politics that oppose a government mandated arts and news program are destined to speak publicly out against these kinds of increases, and gain especial strength in doing so.  And people are going to respond, because while the impact on the average taxpayer that this would make isn’t enormous, it is significant at $46 per person per year rather than the current $34.

There are a great many defences for adding funding to the CBC, but few of these are going to matter to the people who choose not to engage with the programming that they offer.  And that begs the question: within a world with easy, global access and a constant commercial demand for premium, paid-programming, can there really be a need for a publicly funded broadcaster?  Especially when that broadcaster, as a celebration of arts and culture, by definition of its governmentally mandated existence automatically leans to the more social side of politics?

It isn’t ridiculous that the Conservative party tends to hold an opposition to such a machine, and from that side of the conversation, the timing is perfect: after Maxime Bernier and Kellie Leitch spoke at the recent Conservative leader’s conference, they reflected on the need to defund or scrap the CBC respectively.

This gives Bernier and Leitch, both candidates for the Conservative party leadership, a superficial political relevancy that is not only going to strengthen each of their brands, but it is also going to greatly damage and polarize reactions to the CBC’s request for additional funding in the months and years to come.

Regardless of which side our subjectivity lies, the concern is real.  By living in a society, we need to provoke conversation from both sides, not allow one voice to shout over the other with contradictory premises.

But let’s not forget that the CBC is inherently linked to our modern way of life.  It gives us Hockey Night in Canada, The National, Dragon’s Den, and The Hours.  It gives us a slew of thoughtful radio programming.  It forces jobs by creating an industry and filling it with voices and promotion for home-grown Canadian products in art and music.  It gives us (or is supposed to) truth and news without a political skew.

From one side of the conversation, the problem with the CBC is that it abandons its necessary objectivity and holds a distinct Liberal bias.   This is despite the fact that series like Dragon’s Den absolutely embody and celebrate the right-wing virtues of capitalism.

The CBC is based on viewership and where advertising will best fit in, and that influences the kind of programming that they are permitted to air(although not to the same ends as more obviously agenda-based, corporate funded conglomerates like CNN and Fox News).

By adding this additional funding to the CBC, these arguments could be absolutely dissuaded.  In doing so, they would be alleviated of the need to cater to a certain demographic.  Even while the network makes efforts to keep themselves without a bias, this would create a much freer environment within which they would be able to more directly represent all Canadians of every sex, creed, demographic, and political alignment.

Leitch claims that the CBC needs be to dismantled because of the impact that it has on the industry.  “For Canadian democracy to thrive,” she has said, “we need to hear from the different voices in the press.”

The fundamental value that she is choosing not to see in a publicly funded broadcaster is in the centralization of accountability.  Despite functioning mostly ad-free, the broadcaster is still accountable to the different outlets that buy in.  This forces an adjustment to perspectives and programming allotments in order to facilitate prime spots for advertising.  This influences content.

Primarily, the CBC is a news outlet.  The news is supposed to be the truth, and the truth should not be influenced.

Examining Leitch’s ideal situation turns the news and the conversation between the country into a product.  Sponsored media is subject to innumerable biases and needs in order to align with the agenda of those footing the bill.  This is the absolute benefit of a publicly funded media conglomerate: it, by necessity, has to align with the needs of the people.  The fact that this is even a topic of conversation illustrates that many Canadian citizens do not feel accurately represented by the CBC, which tells us definitively that there are changes that need to be made.  But you don’t rush into divorce just because of a fight; this is an opportunity to reform the CBC in aligning with our goals as a nation.

By providing additional funding to the corporation, we’d be creating 7,200 jobs while detaching the voice of Canada from the needs of sponsorship.  It’s only in doing this, and thereby making the varied voices of Canadian citizens the only responses that matter, that we have a chance of equitably representing all of us.

The Definitive Canadian Coffee, and Why It Isn’t Tim Hortons

Despite the ubiquity of the classic, simple logo of red, rolling letters spelling out the name of the coffee giant, the Tim Hortons brand is a poor icon for Canadian coffee and an inaccurate representation of what it means to be Canadian.

Advertising beats the point into our culture over and over.  Speak to an American, and they will associate such terms as ‘double-double’ or ‘timbit’ with the average Canadian identity, right alongside hockey sticks, poutine, and maple syrup.  In an episode of the television series ‘How I Met Your Mother’, the one scene set in Canada takes place entirely inside a Tim Hortons.  Tim Hortons even iterates this same stereotype, labelling themselves ‘Canada’s Favourite Coffee’.

And it isn’t as if real life absolutely dissuades this stereotype: thanks to the insane profits in selling a cup of cheap java, the convenience associated with the omnipresence of the restaurant is virtually irresistible.  The national average across Canada, considering a figure of 3,650 stores against a population of 35.16 million people, is one Tim Hortons for every 9,632 Canadian citizens.

Operating off of unskilled labour in order to turn a massive profit from cheap, mass-produced products, Tim Hortons embodies the sort of blind, subservient capitalism that is commonplace in the industry.  In store, they generally pay minimum wage or very close to it, with limited opportunities for advancement within the company.   While profitable and effective, it’s a mentality that combats the more ethereal, transitive definition of what it means to be Canadian.

Canada, just like America, is founded as a land of opportunity.  But, more than that, Canada fundamentally embodies a progressive, multicultural attitude that embraces diversity and global consciousness.

Even where it doesn’t actively fight against them, neither of these ideals are contained within an enormous, sold-off, American-operated corporation.  This isn’t to say that there is no ethical representation within the company – in fact, many of their initiatives are in place to celebrate diversity(at the corporate level) and develop industry ethically outside of Canada for their coffee farmers.

Tim Hortons was founded in 1964 in Hamilton, Ontario by hockey player Tim Horton and Jim Charade. Ron Joyce took over after Horton passed away and grew the brand nationally.  The company was then bought by Wendy’s, and was later sold off to Burger King into a brand sanctioned as Restaurant Brands International.  Headquarters for the new conglomerate were set up in Oakville, Ontario by the Brazilian Investment Firm 3G Capital in order to pay lower tax rates.

What remains is figuring how this plays into being Canadian.  While 30% of the board of Tim Hortons now has to be made up of Canadian citizens, that leaves a whopping 70% of the publicly traded company in unrelated hands for general control.  Ironically, this aligns with the Canadian virtue of globalization.  That’s what makes attempting to define what being Canadian actually is, and therefore what the definitive coffee of Canada is, a little bit more difficult.

So what does it mean to be Canadian?  Are we just the nicer America?  Are we the embodiment of cultural acceptance and diversity?  If so, where does the line on that end?  Is there room for some kind of nationalism inside of that identity?

The Modern Canada doesn’t want to be the Capitalist cousin, or ‘America’s Hat’.  More reactionary politics have turned us into a state that generally respects and celebrates diversity, although this can only be sustained through a self-sufficient state.

This is what the global reach of Tim Hortons, with profits that flow through whatever streams of commerce are the most profitable combats.  This is why Tim Hortons is only Canadian as a service to the brand.  There is a historical precedent in the latest acquisition of Tim Hortons by the cost-cutting methods of 3G Capital that could hurt the average Canadian taxpayer and consumer.  When a brand becomes entirely about the profit at the cost of the product and the consumer, its relationship with its people becomes contrived and illegitimate.

Of course, this is the ethos of Capitalism and is based off of a fundamental string of virtues.  The only issue is that these virtues do not align with a genuine national identity, especially when that identity is subliminally created and maintained by branding for the mere purpose of profit.  One thing that is certainly unCanadian, and probably contrary to how most countries would consider their nationalistic brand, is exploitation.

So what is the definitive Canadian coffee?  The question is flawed from the beginning because Canada is about so much more than a single brand.  Ironically, while our country leans to the political left, it also celebrates the cult of the individual.  That’s what gives us a richer nucleus, with different types of people expanding their worlds and creating relationships with those totally unlike them.  It’s about acceptance and understanding and diversity.

Then what makes coffee Canadian?  With a far less tangible identity than the Tim Hortons advertising suggests, wouldn’t then virtually any independent coffee shop qualify as the definitive Canadian coffee?  Supporting your neighbours, keeping your dollars localized to your community… Canada is about creating its own national identity in practice.  It’s about blending different cultures and ideologies together smoothly, keeping them intact, and building communities and lives within those newly created lines.  Canada is the globalized community that still needs to recognize itself as a singular entity if for no other reason than as a force against the necessary nationalistic ideals popping up all over the world. Any product to represent our great nation must be crafted, thoughtful, passionate, and must not be exploitatively ‘Canadian’ or a total embodiment of broken, modern, trickle-up Capitalism.

Canada needs to remain an inclusive entity, and our coffee needs to embody that same ideal.

Leading the Blind

On Friday November 25, 2016, the controversial socialist dictator Fidel Castro passed away.  Much of the left-leaning world was confused on how to react.  Generally, it was considered a cause for celebration: after all, Castro was a major opponent to the United States, embodying a violent, reactionary brand of anti-capitalist(and therefore fundamentally anti-American) socialism.

But in Canada, let’s not understate the fact that our government tries extremely hard to remain totally neutral.  When Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Trudeau avoided reactionary statements or contradictions of the perceived misogyny and racism that most of Canada sees Trump as a representative of in order to maintain a peaceable connection.  And, considering what an erratic, thin-skinned person Trump has shown himself to be, it makes sense: Canada depends hugely on the USA, and that relationship is more important than virtually anything the President-Elect could say.

This creates an uncomfortable point of contention between us and our neighbours down south.  Canada has always had a peaceful connection with the country, while America just today had its first commercial flight to Havana in over fifty years.  But Castro and the late Pierre Trudeau were friends.  Castro was a pallbearer at his funeral.  The left-leaning agenda of our current leader, mixed with that personal connection, demonstrates how Justin Trudeau could have made such a strange statement.

Regardless, such a statement was controversial and, honestly, a little bit blind to what Canada actually thinks.  Yes, there are reasons behind it; it isn’t as if our leader is an erratic, simple, emotional man who flies by the seat of his pants.  But it’s one thing to offer explanations, and another entirely to offer excuses.  The PM said:

“On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

This is a blind, thoughtless, foolish statement that reflects a disconnection between the figurehead and his people.  The general response to Castro’s passing has been in expressions of disdain for a horrible, Soviet crony.

The fundamental error here is in offering condolences from all Canadians.  While the Prime Minister is elected to represent all Canadians, we have avenues for discussion and representation that much better reflect Canada.  In saying what he did, by ignoring the general consensus of his country, Trudeau has sparked a contentious topic that’s only going to divide him further from his opposition.  This may even put a few cracks between him and his most vehement supporters.

That’s what this post is here to address, and it’s something that has been especially prominent in American news lately: an unprecedented, modern misconception that as a supporter one has to agree with anything and everything that their chosen political representative says and does.  It leads countries and especially communities within those countries into weird, radicalized bureaucracies that defy what we used to consider common sense.

Personally, I like Justin Trudeau.  I agree with him on most issues, and I especially like his idealized version of a globally conscious Canada.  I didn’t vote for him in the last election, but if things continue as they generally have, there’s a good chance that I’ll vote for him in the next one.

That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with his statement on Castro.  That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to bother me.  That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a downright foolish thing to say.  It’s good that we can take note of things like this and be disappointed by them, and it’s good that we can make jokes about it, like the trending #TrudeauEulogies hashtag.

Let us remember Jack the Ripper as a great benefactor who worked tirelessly to get female prostitutes off the streets. #trudeaueulogies

— Natalie Faulk (@NatalieFaulk) November 27, 2016

"We mourn the passing of Henry VIII. A man who always kept his head, while all around were losing theirs" #TrudeauEulogies

— Gavin John Adams (@gavinjohnadams) November 26, 2016

A quiet loner with a quick wit, Osama Bin Laden inspired tremendous advances in air transportation security methodologies. #TrudeauEulogies

— Chris D. Lewis (@ChrisLewisLLS) November 26, 2016

Anyway you look at it, the fact that Trudeau has offered condolences for an arguably horrible man dying shows either a sliver of empathetic weakness, or a disconnection between the Prime Minister and his people(or, most likely, a bit of both).  This is one of the most beautiful things about modern social media is that it gives us the opportunity to air our grievances and voice our concerns about and even to our governing figures.  This is how we can teach one another and learn from one another.

And, at least for most, this isn’t a make or break issue.  It’s something to be mindful of and something to be concerned about; it’s something to look at analytically and inform our perceptions.  It’s a valid clue toward the kind of leader that he is: it’s something to be aware of.

But, taking a look at general reactions, people seem to follow our modern political path of either rationalizing and defending his stance, or using it as ammunition against him.

This is regressive behaviour.

Justin Trudeau came out today outright clarifying that Fidel Castro was a very flawed dictator.  He didn’t apologize for his earlier statements, but his update does demonstrate that he is not so far from understanding the controversy as his earlier statement implied.

Of course, the main figure in divided, blind politics right now is President-Elect Donald Trump, a figure nearly as polarizing as the deceased Cuban dictator.  Because what Trump represents is so fundamentally different from anything in recent politics, he’s grown a following that defies logic: people feel a visceral connection with the man.  It’s something that (arguable) debate losses, connotations of racism, a total lack of backing from his party, and an inane internet presence haven’t been able to even slightly dissuade.

As David Simas, Obama’s political director, recently said in an interview with The New Yorker:

“The base of the Republican Party is also different from what we thought. For movement conservatives, the assumption is that Democratic or Republican voters are ideological on issues. The Trump candidacy shows otherwise. They rally around the team and the antipathy to Secretary Clinton… (h)ad Donald Trump said the things he said during the campaign eight years ago—about banning Muslims, about Mexicans, about the disabled, about women—his Republican opponents, faith leaders, academia would have denounced him and there would be no way around those voices. Now, through Facebook and Twitter, you can get around them. There is social permission for this kind of discourse. Plus, through the same social media, you can find people who agree with you, who validate these thoughts and opinions. This creates a whole new permission structure, a sense of social affirmation for what was once thought unthinkable. This is a foundational change.”

What this best illustrates is the negative effect we can have on one another in the especially casual discussions of politics that the internet has given a ground.  On one hand, this creates an environment free of subliminally inserted, contrived ideals.  On the other, this gives free-reign to regressive, paranoid thoughts, allowing them to flourish and become a genuine, significant form of political ideology with absolute backing.

This constructed ideology seems to come with an inherent weakness: the idea that the concepts one subscribes to are objectively true, and the figurehead of that movement is inherently perfect.  The reactionary politics of the new American Republican are unquestioning and unwavering, defending the every word of what a popular Facebook page refers to as ‘God Emperor Trump’.  When Trump suggested that the voting system was rigged, myriad Facebook pages and right-wing news outlets latched onto the idea that voter fraud was happening all over America in support of Clinton.  When the cast of Hamilton reached out with their concerns about the future of America to Vice-President Elect Mike Pence, the same groups rallied behind Trump’s tweet demanding an apology from the cast, trending the hashtag #BOYCOTTHAMILTON, and ironically classifying the theatre as a ‘safe space’(despite the fact that Pence himself did not take public issue with the cast).

This piece is not intended as an anti-Trump rant.  To be fair, the internet has more than enough of those.  And while I would not call myself a supporter, there are parts of the President Elect’s platform(specifically in economic policy) that I can at least partially get behind.

What it comes down to is that the internet has created a new sort of political climate, and it’s one that we’re using in the wrong way: our leaders, now more than ever, have to be more directly accountable to the public.  The modern political situation is more transparent than it ever was, and we need to use that to be aware and to be involved with the way our countries develop.

Instead of using this new technology to foster and validate our weak and paranoid thoughts, let’s use it to stay conscious and involved.  Instead of supporting a figure in the blind, binary (or, in Canada, ostensibly binary) mentality provoked by a two party system, let’s be aware of what our leaders do right and what they do wrong.  A politician, from the common perspective, is merely an avatar of a changing, fluctuating ideology.  Let’s not forget that we are not linked to any one person or even any one party; let’s develop our own opinions.  Let’s support our leaders when they do right, and voice our concerns when they do wrong.  Let’s be conscious of their innate, human ability to be wrong.  This is what our modern, interconnected world allows us to do, and we’d be damn foolish not to take advantage of it.

McDonalds Season’s Cravings

Biting into the new Potato Rosti & Bacon Hamburger from McDonalds, one can’t help but feel a strangely warm, comforting glow of disappointment radiating through their entire body.

That kind of disappointment is what the fast food giant best represents: an illusory connection, routinely shattered, between childhood and high-calorie sustenance.  This effect is compounded by the advertisements that so desperately try to convince you that the McDonalds you remember has grown along with you: they’ve changed, they’re better, and yet they’ll always be there, reminding you that you two have a history that transcends the years.  McDonald’s wants you to think that she’s worth giving it another shot.

Foolishly, I fell for her charms once again.

Attemping to reinvent the classic bottom of the barrel hamburger is a task that McDonalds undertakes virtually every couple of months, trying to distinguish themselves as the top of a market that keeps growing and growing.  It’s a difficult task: is anybody in the developed world really going to say that a quarter pounder with cheese is better than even the most basic sandwich from 5 Guys Burger & Fries?

For a while now, McDonalds has been doing a terrible job. In a way, they’ve become the Nicolas Cage of hamburgers:  beat down from art films and Academy Award nominations to every few months releasing poorly recieved, straight-to-DVD features like a quarter pounder with cheese that also has bacon and lettuce and tomato on it. Is that really supposed to be some sort of accomplishment?  Adding lettuce to an existing hamburger?

In the past year, they’ve also put out the ‘Create Your Taste’ promotion, known colloquially as ‘you can get extra or fewer pickles on your hamburger’.  Do people not realize that you’ve always had the option to customize your sandwich?

Anyway, after all of that, they’ve finally lured me back in.

I saw an advertisement for the new Potato Rosti Bacon Hamburger online: a hamburger with a hash brown on it.  Considering the availability restrictions on their delicious breakfast options, I have to admit that I was tempted.  And when I saw that it came with waffle fries, the absolute pinnacle of crispy potato achievement, I knew that I had to break my monogamous relationship with Wendy and the perfection of her classic double to try it out.

As soon as I sank my teeth in, I could remember why it had been so long.

The flavours in the hamburger mingled together with a bland, warm sauce that I think was supposed to be cheesey; the beef was boring, the potato was tasteless; I got a little hint of smoky something from the bacon.  The bun was… decent, I guess.  Inoffensive.  Firm enough to keep everything inside, not sloppy, a decent container for a sandwich that otherwise tasted like a slightly less unpleasant Baconator.  The whole thing was a bland, over-caloried lump.

Where the burger was a disappointment, the waffle fries were even worse: first bite was cold, flavourless.  Same as McDonalds french fries that’d been left sitting around for an hour and a half.  I got an old batch, and half my container was just filled with regular fries,which was somehow actually a plus.  I stuck them all in the microwave, and they came out almost palatable.  Not crispy, not tasty, just soggy little biscuits to smother in ketchup and swallow.

Had I more restraint, I probably would have thrown the whole thing away.

Note: I skipped on the last Holiday item, the Turtles Sundae with Pecans because that’s about the most boring, regular dessert I’ve ever heard of.  They should be ashamed of themselves for thinking that was worth advertising.

‘Meal’ with a drink was just over $10 with tax

2/10, would not eat again.