Leafs blame Residential Schools for decades of losses, demand reparations

(CONTENT WARNING: Satire) Yesterday, Maple Leaf President Brendan Shanahan held a press conference to announce the findings of a five year investigation by the Maple Leaf organization into the cause of the Leafs’ decades of incompetence, ineptitude and simply lousy hockey.

Standing outside of the former Maple Leaf Gardens on Carlton Street – now Loblaws, a fancy fruit and produce emporium – and flanked by former Leaf legends Wendel Clark and Doug Gilmour – Shanahan  laid the blame for the Maple Leafs’ horrible decline since the 1960s on the notorious Catholic Church-sponsored residential school system.

According to the Shanahan, up until 1968 (1967 being the last year that the Leafs won the Stanley Cup) the Leafs had won thirteen Stanley Cup championships, second only to the twenty-four championship, won by their arch rival, the Montreal Canadiens.

But apparently during the 1968 hockey season, then Leaf captain George “the Chief” Armstrong (whose mother was part Ojibway) often spoke in the locker room about the experience of his distant second cousin by marriage. As a young Ojibway man, several decades prior to the 1968 hockey season, Armstrong’s cousin was a day student at the residential school near George’s hometown.

This school was run by Catholic nuns and they demanded that George’s cousin wear a jacket, shirt, tie and grey flannel pants every day to class, be on time, do his homework and study every night. The nuns would rap his knuckles every time he failed to do or complete his homework. Furthermore, the nuns would not let his cousin play his beloved hockey unless he successfully completed his studies.

According to Shanahan, Armstrong’s teammates were shocked by this blatant mistreatment of George’s second cousin. Over the subsequent years, Armstrong would retell this horrible tale again and again to his distraught teammates.

And after awhile, consistent with the Leafs’ oral tradition, even after Armstrong’s retirement as a Leaf,  this apocryphal story would be passed on, season after season to subsequent Leaf teams.

According to Shanahan, the impact of this residential school story on the Toronto Maple Leafs has been profound, the damage seemingly permanent.

Since 1968 the Toronto Maple Leafs have never won a Stanley Cup championship. Since 1969 the same Leafs had never even made it to the final series of a Stanley Cup championship.

The Leafs’ historic culture of fishing for the puck around the net and aggressively hunting for goals has been dramatically transformed to a culture of  defeat and dysfunction. A never-ending cycle of dependence on booze (beer commercial endorsements) and drugs (to deaden the pain of perpetual defeat and vicious cross-checks by opposing players,) especially among the younger players on the Maple Leaf teams.

Shanahan did admit that the white British colonizers (the Weston family, owners of Loblaws) brutally taking the hallowed lands of the Leafs – the Gardens on Carlton – in part contributed to the Leafs’ downfall.

The loss of CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada dealt another blow to the Leafs’ fortunes.

Accordingly, Shanahan issued a set of 94 demands which must be implemented immediately by the NHL and the Wynne and Harper governments.  Prominent among the demands:

A full apology by the Pope to current and past Leaf players and their victimized fans.

A full restoration of funding to the CBC and the return of Hockey Night in Canada.

The replacement of hockey host George Stromboulopoulos with the dynamic duo of Don Cherry and Rod McLean.

The press conference concluded as hundreds of Leaf Nation survivors gathered around Shanahan, Clark and Gilmour in healing circles, locked hands, swayed and chanted together: “Go Leafs, Go.”

Ex Machina makes artificial life look lovely

The newly released sci-fi thriller Ex Machina captures and stimulates the imagination on so many levels.

The premise is simple, but I warn you – writer/director Alex Garland has much more on his mind as he deftly navigates the filmgoer through the windowless corridors of his evil genius’ lair.

Software coder Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), an employee at Bluebook – a popular search engine company a la Google, with the power of IBM and intrusiveness of  Facebook – has won an in-house company contest to spend a week with the company’s reclusive founder, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), at his private Alaskan compound in the middle of nowhere.

Caleb is clearly intelligent and painfully single, geeky, nerdy and in apparent need of female companionship – human or otherwise.

Nathan, a heavily bearded eccentric genius with a bulked up body of a mixed martial arts fighter, possesses the massive ego of a Jobs and a Zuckerberg. In his highly secretive post modern lab, Nathan has developed the latest in female androids.

Nathan has chosen Caleb to interview and assess Nathan’s latest creation, the almost life-like female robot, Ava, as to the level and sophistication of Ava’s artificial intelligence.

Ava, played by beautiful Swedish actress and dancer Alicia Vikander, is clearly an artificial creation, very far from the pneumatically perfect dream girl cyborg Kelly LeBrock of John Hughes’ Weird Science.

Ava possesses Alicia’s beautiful face atop a sexy silver, mesh-like exoskeleton which clearly discloses her inner wiring and other bells and whistles.

Yet over the course of a few days, the lonely Caleb gradually falls in love with Ava. Ava in turn confides to Caleb her loneliness, her desire to be free, her suspicions about her creator and her apparent yearning for Caleb.

Or does she?

Has Nathan programmed Ava to be cunning, empathetic, loving and sexually attractive to Caleb, or has Ava developed these human-like qualities on her own in learned response to Caleb’s needs and wants – and to her own confinement?

Nathan appears in complete control of his environment, his Ava and his beautiful but silent Asian girlfriend. The writer/director Garland clearly poses the question as to whether man can ever be truly in control – of his employees, his lovers or even of his own artificial creations?

Garland also raises important questions about what we as Google users or Facebook friends, sacrifice in terms of our personal information, privacy and identity and control of our lives to the Nathans or Zuckerbergs of the world.

The film drags a bit, in the middle, as Caleb interrogates Ava, exploring his relationship with her as Ava learns more about Caleb.

But don’t despair, the film ultimately takes a few very interesting twists and turns, and what was initially an apparently misogynistic fembot fantasy becomes a thrilling feminist revenge flick.

Hooray for Girl Robot Power!!!

Same Sex Marriage Between Jewish Canadian and Palestinian Women – More Uplifting Than Fiction

The American writer, Mark Twain, famously wrote, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.”

For me, the word, “strange” denotes weird, with certain negative connotations.

But there is nothing strange or weird with the wonderful same sex relationship and marriage of Jess Salomon and Eman El Husseini, seen in this photo. (and note the link to an interview Jess and Eman gave recently on CBC radio).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/palestinian-jewish-comedy-1.3251867

Full disclosure. Jess is not only a Facebook friend, and a friend, but I am also very proud to say that she is my second cousin from Montreal. A very successful human rights, international war crimes lawyer, turned brilliantly funny stand-up comedienne.

Think a wittier, smarter, bi-sexual red-headed Amy Schumer whose had a kick-ass international legal career. Who is not only laugh out funny, but in her spare time writes devastatingly smart political satire and political commentary.

Reminiscent of her more politically conservative,(but socially libertarian and libertine) and even stranger male cousin, moi. ( Hey, it’s in the genes, we’re family, after all)

Eman is also a brilliantly funny and smart stand-up comic and a terrifically, warm, passionate and compassionate person.

I was initially introduced to Eman as Jess’ partner, a few years ago, at the shiva ( Jewish funeral) of Jess’ grandmother and my great aunt, Nicki.

Admittedly, that was a gutsy move. But what better time to introduce one’s partner, one’s significant other, to the greater, extended Salomon clan. ( for those trying to keep score, my grandma Fanny and Nicki’s husband, Joel aka, Babe, were brother and sister, of a total of 9 siblings, Oy Vey!)

As to the very large and tight Salomon clan, who all stayed and lived in Montreal. And produced children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Think the Sopranos, as if the Sopranos, were manufacturers of men’s wear on Montreal’s The Main.

Both Jess and Eman headline and perform in Yuk Yuks comedy clubs throughout Canada.

Whenever they are in Toronto, I try to catch their individual performances. Both are amazingly funny and quick. They are both a delight.

Now they are making the move to The Big Apple, to seek fame and fortune and who knows, maybe their own show on Comedy Central.

Move over Amy Schumer (who I believe is a cousin of our very own Harvard-Radcliffe classmate, Fran Schumer) and Sarah Silverman, you now got some serious competition, from two brilliantly funny and awesome comics and performers.

jess and eman 2jess and eman

shad is out, Khadr is in at CBC

(WARNING: MATURE LANGUAGE. And satire.)

Politically correct hip hop artist shad was shown the door today by CBC senior brass after barely two weeks hosting “q,” the troubled Radio One chat show formerly known as “Q.”

shad’s last day at CBC was announced by Executive VP Heather Conway.

In a written press release, Conway thanked the apparently shocked shad for his service. She further stated, “Although shad was only with CBC for one week, shad at CBC helped significantly unify Canadians by sharing Canadian melodies and lyrics with fellow Canadians, and showcasing Canadian music by a plethora of aboriginal throat singers, Cape Breton fiddle players, and Winnipeg klezmer bands. “

Conway continued, “We at the CBC wish shad the best and hope our payment to him of $5 million dollars of taxpayer money will soften his transition. But frankly, shad’s numbers were not there. He could not hold onto (former host Jian) Ghomeshi’s more youthful and robust audience of horn dogs and alleged sexual abusers.”

“So we have decided to go another direction and we welcome well-known celebrity and convicted killer Omar Khadr, aka, ‘khad’ to the CBC family.”

“khad promises to shakes things up at “q”. khad promises to go after our growing local population of Taliban and ISIS freedom fighters and sympathizers – a terrific growing market for CBC’s new and improved multicultural programming.”

According to khad, his solution for preventing any further incidents of sexual harassment or abuse at CBC is simple.

“Get rid of all female employees! Those dirty, slutty, menstruating whores should be at home tending to their jihadi babies and their jihadi men.”

Personally, though I only listened to shad a bit during his highly abbreviated sojourn at CBC “q,” I am really going to miss that dude. He was cool and dope, as the kids say these days.

As shad headed out the door, he improvised this following rhymed farewell:

“The gig was rad

I know I weren’t bad

I’m shad.

I’m shad.

Now I’m sad.

Who’d da frack

That khad?”

While We’re Young: The Best Feel Bad Film of 2015

When you travel to Noah Baumbach country, it is certainly no day at the beach.

A good Baumbach film is not a fluffy rom-com, where disbelief is suspended from the nearest and tallest oak tree;   where the attractive hero and heroine wittily banter until they jump in the sack, fall in love, then fall out of love, then fall in love again and presumably live happily ever after as a married and successful couple with children.

In a Baumbach film, the hero and heroine, though attractive and ambitious, are usually bitter and disappointed with their careers, with themselves and with their relationship.  But Baumbach has an amazing way of squeezing humor out of darkness, disappointment, bitterness and failed dreams.

With his latest film, While We’re Young, he successfully delivers.

Josh Shrebnick, (Ben Stiller) and his wife, Cornelia (Naomi Watts) are your archetypical Baumbachian characters.

Josh and Cornelia are both forty-something New Yorkers – intellectual, hyper-articulate, self-centered and painfully self-aware.  Josh writes, directs and produces documentary films; Cornelia produces documentaries, primarily in association with her very successful and well-known writer-director father (played by Charles Grodin).

Josh once made a very entertaining and successful documentary, but for the last ten years he has been struggling to complete his second film, an esoteric, disorganized, painfully boring and non-commercial commentary about the American power elite.

Cornelia, whose own producing career is too dependent upon her famous father, is between jobs.

Years ago, Cornelia and Josh nearly worked together on a film of which they were both passionate, but then Josh preferred going it alone; the project was stillborn and Cornelia never forgot or forgave Josh for that missed opportunity. Cornelia and Josh have also repeatedly failed at conceiving a child, and their childlessness has created a gulf between them and their married friends with children.

They are stagnating both together and apart.

Fortunately, Josh and Cornelia meet up with two young twenty-something New York artistic hipsters, Jaime (Adam Driver) and Darby (Amanda Seyfried).

Jaime is an aspiring film maker. He shoots hours of film, literally and figuratively from the hip, then thinks later. Jaime is bursting with creativity out of his oh so tight jeans. Darby makes natural and organic ice cream. To Josh and Cornelia they represent their former energetic youth, vanished idealism and – perhaps – surrogate children.

Initially, Jaime wins Josh over. He is charming and deferential to Josh; he appeals to Josh’s vanity and professional insecurity. He wants Josh to be his mentor and advise him and assist him on Jaime’s own film project.

But things are not what they appear, and Jaime is more manipulative rake than devoted student to Josh.

Driver as Jaime is very well cast. As in his role of Adam (Lena Dunham’s dynamic and emotionally unstable boyfriend on Girls) he exudes a powerful and explosive energy. He is very effective as a charming, ambitious and single-mined hustling film maker, who will fabricate, manipulate and take advantage of his wife, Josh, Cornelia and even Cornelia’s famous father in order to make and complete his film and become famous in the process.

Admittedly, I was a little reluctant to enter Baumbach country, but I was rewarded with flawed and complex characters created by a director at the top of his game, as he deftly touched on subjects like youth, age, ambition, creativity , honesty, authenticity and how documentary films have been transformed from honest portrayals of reality to manipulated personal statements of the writer/directors.

As for Ben Stiller, one can devote an entire article, just to his craft. Unlike Woody Allen, Stiller refuses to play sympathetic and likeable characters who win the beautiful girl at the end.

In this film, he is neurotic, narcissistic, self-centred, insensitive and single-minded. Uncharacteristically, Stiller as Josh opens himself up to working with Jaime and he is predictably punished and humiliated in the process. Stiller’s Josh is cringe-worthy, but it is impossible to turn away from Stiller and his purposely pathetic performance.

On the other hand, Naomi Watts is certainly worth the price of admission, even at Cineplex’s grossly inflated VIP ticket rates.

Naomi Watts is a brilliant actress who has played some very strong and complex roles, like the Russian-British midwife in Eastern Promises, the American CIA agent/suburban housewife in Fair Game and a hysterically funny Russian hooker with a heart of gold opposite Bill Murray in St. Vincent.

Watts’ Cornelia, barren and professionally frustrated, also tries to recapture her youth by doing hip hop with Darby and experimenting with hallucinogens. She’s caught between her love and loyalty to the stubborn and uncompromising Josh and the intoxicating lure of success with the flawed but creative Jaime.

Even Cornelia’s “old school” filmmaker dad is taken in by Jaime’s film making style and entertaining though fabricated product.

Enter Baumbach country at your own risk. You may or may not leave entertained but Baumbach’s complex themes and messages will stay with you whether you’re young or not so young.

The Feel-Good Film “Hector” is in Search of an Audience

Finally, spring has sprung.

Canada has emerged from its winter of discontent. So instead of ranting and raging, Lear-like, against the usual forces of darkness: the bloated CBC, the fiscally irresponsible Kathleen Wynne, and The Unbearable Being of Nothingness known as Trudeau Jr., I thought I would post something warm, fuzzy, and life-affirming. Instead of dark, depressing, and soul-destroying.

So, here goes a brief commentary of a very under-rated but enjoyable film, based upon a deceptively smart and wise screenplay. It is beautifully written with depth, complexity, and understanding. The film? Hector and the Search for Happiness.

It stars Simon Pegg (The World’s End and Hot Fuzz) as Hector, and Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl; but more about her later) as his long-suffering girlfriend. Hector is directed by Peter Chelson and the screenplay was written by the said Chelson, along with Maria von Helad and Tinker Lindsay.

Full disclosure of my conflict of interest. I am terribly biased. I wish I could say I was paid thousands of dollars to shill (or to Lang) for this film a la CBC’s infamous Amanda Lang. Or that I am in a deeply romantic/erotic sado-masochistic relationship with Rosamund, but alas, neither are the case.

I do however, consider myself a friend of one of the screenwriters, Tinker Lindsay. Tinker and I were at Harvard together in the 70s. And like most callow college men on campus, I had a crush on the very beautiful, elusive, and seemingly ephemeral Tinker (pictured below). She was a legend among us men in the Harvard Yard: adorable, smart, artistic, a tough spiritual, and totally out of our league.

Tinker Lindsay10

But this was many decades before Facebook. The legend of Tinker Lindsay spread by word of mouth, as opposed to through cyberspace.

Post Harvard, we had heard she had “gone Hollywood,” married some well-known actor, and became a writer. Years later, I learned that Tinker had helped write Hector and I tracked her down through Facebook, thus renewing our friendship. Brilliant and talented, Tinker shared with me her experience of writing this film.

In effect, she gave me an insider peek into this film. So, of course, when it was released in Ontario I went to see it a few times. What struck me about this film was how superior the actual movie was to its trailer. I have come to believe that this was one of the key problems that impeded Hector’s success and shot at more widespread popularity. The trailer was perhaps too upbeat, too feel-good, and too warm and fuzzy. It was one of those trailers that seemed to show all the best jokes and reveal the essential story-line. So why bother going to see the actual film?

In fact, the actual film, which I urge one and all to check out on DVD or Netflix, was much darker, sexier, and disturbing.

Unlike the superficial trailer, the dialogue crackled. The main characters were complex and flawed; they were more unlovable than portrayed, and thus more interesting and compelling. Some scenes and language resonated for me the first time, some more so on the second and third viewing.  As the main characters evolved, there were subtle changes in their personalities.

Rosamund Pike was a revelation. In some ways, she gave a more chilling performance, both literally and figuratively, than in her psychotic and sociopathic Gone Girl role. And though I am not a big fan of Simon Pegg, he gradually won me over with his honest portrayal of a stunted man-child, throwing himself into crazy situations (clearly outside of his comfort zone) in order to force himself out of the predictable and boring life he had created for himself.

The above is just an amuse bouche. A tempting mouthful. But I guarantee the full film will leave you fulfilled.

I do not know about you, but I feel pretty happy about this effort.

“Fifty Shades of Grey” More Like Fifty Shades of Bland

I would like to say that I was blindfolded and dragged, handcuffed, to the opening of Fifty Shades of Grey by my woman friend. But that would be wrong.

Though I did not actually read the original and very popular BDSM (bondage, dominance, sadomasochism) novel by the same name, I was caught up with the Hollywood hype about the film. Who would be cast as the virginal Anastasia and the dangerously handsome Christian Grey? And, of course, how would the supposedly erotic dominance/submissive content be portrayed?

So, truth be told, I was the one who begged my woman friend to attend a viewing of Fifty Shades. She, in turn, was not that interested. She is very literary and intelligent, and had read the book during a business flight. Though she admitted to being mildly titillated by the BDSM sex scenes, she thought the film would be, like the book, a woman’s sex fantasy film. In other words, a pseudo-romantic chick flick with flogging, bonds, nudity, and stilted dialogue. Which, I must confess, all work for me.

Upon entering the suburban theatre for the afternoon show, my friend’s estimation of the film’s appeal was bang on. The theatre was packed with about a hundred excited women of all ages. Some clutched their well-read copies of the book. A few sheepish men were also in attendance. (I told you my woman friend was whip smart.)

Overall, the film itself was enjoyable and will do well in both domestic and foreign box offices, but it had serious flaws. Flaws I would like to nail down.

But first: the positives.

I really liked Dakota Johnson, who played the sweet college lit major—virginal but ultimately strong-willed—Anastasia Steele, the object of Christian Grey’s steely interests.

Dakota is the daughter of actor’s Don Johnson (I loved him as the sexy, wild, white-suited and sockless drug detective in Miami Vice) and Melanie Griffith (the crazy chick in Something Wild, and porn actress in both Body Double and Working Girl). Dakota comes by her free-wheeling, bosom-baring role very naturally. It is clearly in her genes … or lack thereof.

I feel I must warn you: before you see this flick, you will have to suspend your disbelief … from the highest tree.

Long-haired, smart, and great-looking Ana, is a twenty-two-year-old college senior and virgin? Not very likely, in my opinion. Putting that aside, Johnson as Ana is very believable as an independent, strong-willed woman who attracts the billionaire Grey yet retains her strong sense of self.

I understand the film is a bit more humorous than the actual novel. And Johnson has some of the best lines. When Christian is about to introduce Ana to the infamous Red Room (the room with the whips, chains, handcuffs, and other BDSM paraphernalia), Christian refers to said area as his “playroom.” To which Ana quickly queries, “is this where you keep your Xbox?”

Though the film as a whole is not very memorable, some of the sex scenes were fairly erotic at the time of viewing. Yet upon reflection, they were a bit too wholesome and sweet for my tastes. (Like Christian, my tastes are very singular.)

I don’t want to give away the best parts of the film (or of Johnson’s anatomy), but Christian’s first deflowering of Ana had its moments. Christian, with an ice cube in his mouth, running it slowly down a blindfolded, supine, and tied-up Ana’s bare chest to her navel was pretty hot.

On one level, Jamie Dornan—the Armani underwear model/actor—was adequate as the handsome, wealthy, smart, articulate, but emotionally distant twenty-seven-year-old billionaire Christian Steele. What woman wouldn’t be attracted to a billionaire who owns his own company? With his name emblazoned on his own skyscraper and a sumptuous office with tons of models running around as his assistants, not to mention a massive penthouse suite that overlooks the Seattle skyline and owning his own helicopter and a fleet of sports cars, what’s not to like?

Even the standoffish and independent Elizabeth Bennett was attracted to Mr. Darcy’s palatial country estate. 

But as my woman friend astutely observed, Dornan was miscast. He is too pretty, too GQ. The role of Christian Steele called for a powerful, dominant, and potentially dangerous man who was clearly older than Ana. At times throughout the film, Ana and Christian reminded me of a Radcliffe senior and her Harvard B School beau bickering over a latte in Harvard Square.

Rather, Christian Steele should have been portrayed by an actor who was strong, tough, and dangerous, with unconventional good looks. Charming, but with a killer instinct. In other words,  more like a young, disturbing Mickey Rourke pushing Kim Basinger’s sexual boundaries in 9 ½ Weeks. Released in 1986, the film is still considered one of the most erotic and sexually charged to be made in the last fifty years. I urge you to compare this film’s hot ice-cube scene (for your viewing pleasure) with the much tamer and less memorable ice-cube scene in Fifty Shades.

Another negative observation? Grey’s scary Red Room isn’t that scary.

Some of the most important scenes take place in Christian’s playroom, the Red Room of pleasure and pain. It is a very large and brightly lit sterile room, chock full of whips, belts, chains, handcuffs, benches, tables, and steel hanging apparatus. A potpourri of bondage tchotchkes or knick knacks. Upon entering this room of horrors, Ana, a bit scared and curious, breathes deeply. Frankly, to me, this was as about as scary as the weight room at my local gym. And not as intimidating. This pleasure/pain palace should have been darker, smaller, creepier, and dirtier—both physically and psychologically.

The penultimate scene is when Ana, frustrated by Christian’s emotional distance, pushes him to show his real dark side, to punish her. Christian then orders Ana to lie face down on a bench as he whips her six times, apparently on the buttocks though the actual flogging on the bare flesh is unseen. Ana counts out loud each blow and cries out in pain.

The problem with this scene, as with most of the film, is that the film fails on its own terms.

This scene is supposed to be disturbing and brutal, but it is neither. Christian, as portrayed by Dornan, is a wuss. His forehand and backhand flogging is weak and limp-wristed. My forehand smash in ping pong is more powerful.

Here is where the director and Dornan as an actor fail miserably. As Christina is whipping Ana, his face is emotionless. Is he turned on? Is he expressing some inner darkness based upon his unhappy childhood? Or is he ashamed at what he is doing? What are his demons, if any? Christian has a need to punish and beat Ana, but why?

So many questions. But there are no answers. And the film literally peters out and ends limply after that scene.

My woman friend advised me that one of the high points of the book is the self-revelation by Ana that though she has submitted to Christian’s will, she ultimately realizes, paradoxically, that she is in control of the situation and of Christian.

There are hints of this interplay of dominance and submission through the back and forth between the characters, but there is no cathartic revelation for either party. Which is too bad for all concerned—the actors and the audience.

Ironically, by the director and actors in Fifty Shades pulling their punches (on the floggings, bondage, and disturbing and dangerous behavior), they made the film more mainstream, more palatable, and probably more massively popular. But definitely less memorable and noteworthy.

I doubt, thirty years from now, we will remember this film as we remember the more memorable and better crafted 9 ½ Weeks … or one of the most disturbing bondage and sadism films in history,  The Story of O (1975).

fifty shades of grey film

On Kimmel’s Show, Ford Was the Epitome of Grace Under Pressure

Initially I had my concerns with Mayor Ford agreeing to be a guest on Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show.

But I should not have worried. Despite facing a barrage of good-humoured jokes, embarrassing videos of past foibles and probing questions, Ford comported himself calmly and coolly with good humour. Grace under pressure.

And Ford even had the self-confidence under the hot Hollywood lights, to launch a few zingers himself at his City Council critics and his enemies in the press.

This was great TV. It was edgy, no holds barred, two guys flying without a net — and laugh out loud funny.

Kimmel was in fine fighting form. He might have even been training for this bout with Ford for months. He was lean, he was quick and he was very well prepared.

Kimmel admitted half-jokingly, “In a way I feel that I’ve been waiting for this night my whole life.”

But Ford was ready for this match too. Ford strode out confidently, dressed in black with a bright tie and matching handkerchief. He looked more like lovable family man, Salvatore “Big Pussy” Bonpensiero, of The Sopranos fame, than a magician, as Kimmel joked.

And then Ford started chucking Ford Nation T-shirts into the crowd.

For a big man, Ford is very agile and athletic. (Later in the show, Kimmel showed a brief video of Ford on a football field, falling backward on his ass, trying to throw a football.)

This was a good, aggressive start for Ford. He had come to play. The home town crowd loved the free T-shirts.

Right from the opening intro, Kimmel was jabbing Ford with a left, then a right, then a quick combo left/right to the face and to Ford’s stomach.

Kimmel asked, “Why are you on this show? What good could come of this?”

Kimmel was clearly the quick-witted Muhammad Ali, to Ford’s more slow-moving, but very solid George Chuvalo.

If Ford was a little surprised by this comical assault, he quickly recovered and responded that he came on the show because Kimmel had personally called him on his cellphone.

Then Ford counter-punched with a brief defence of his political career, by saying that for 14 years, 10 years as councilman and four years as mayor, he always responded to the people. He takes their calls, listens to their problems and if required, he goes out to visit them at their homes to solve their problems. In effect, he gives out his number, because Toronto residents are his bosses.

Kimmel was temporarily thrown by the sincere honesty of Ford, the consummate retail politician.

Then Kimmel tried to hit Ford below the belt, by quoting Ford haters who were angry with Kimmel for having Ford on his show. These trolls claimed that Ford was racist, homophobic and other outrageous things.

Ford kept his cool. His smile never leaving his face. Calmly Ford replied, quickly and adroitly, “Is that all you got?” to the approval of the Kimmel crowd. They might have felt, as I had, that Kimmel had blindsided Ford.

Then Ford, keeping his cool, started promoting Toronto as a fantastic place. To the effect that it is booming with tonnes of cranes all over the city (accurately implying that there is still a construction boom in Toronto).

Ford stated that he wanted people to come to Toronto to see how good the city was.

Just as Ford was about to promote Toronto’s film industry, citing the success of TIFF, Kimmel cut him off, which is unfortunate.

In a earlier CBC radio news report, prior to the Kimmel show, Ford had talked with a CBC reporter at length about the fact that Toronto had a very successful film and television industry. With millions of dollars being invested annually in film and television productions, this creates thousands of well-paying industry jobs. Ford was trying to use his profile to promote Toronto as a great place to do film and television business.

In the second round, after the break, Kimmel tried to sucker-punch Ford, by moving him off the comfort of the couch to a large TV screen, in order to have Ford comment on some of his most embarrassing videos:

  • Ford’s rant against an unknown enemy, (Ford admitted not remembering that video);
  • Ford accidentally knocking down fellow councilor Pam McConnell in the council chambers;
  • Ford speaking Jamaican patois at the infamous Steak Queen fast food restaurant (Ford explained that this was a private meeting with friends and that he has a lot of Jamaican friends, undermining claims that he is truly a racist.)

Fortunately for Ford, he laughed off these very embarrassing videos and when he returned to the couch, he
defended his record as mayor:

According to Ford, he’s tamed the unions, stopping further strikes by the city garbage union and the TTC, privatizing garbage services, saving Toronto taxpayers over $800 Million and keeping tax increases to below 2 per cent annually. Yet Toronto is still booming.

Ford concluded with saying “90 per cent of what I said I was going to do is done.” Ford caught Kimmel flatfooted with that legitimate claim.

In the last round, Kimmel was easier on Ford and suggested that he may want to get help for his drinking. Ford, true to form, countered that he was not elected to be perfect. Which of course was true then, as it is now. Ford never represented himself as a paragon of virtue or a model for Toronto’s children.

Kimmel concluded that “Ford is the most wonderful mayor I have ever witnessed in my many years.” I sensed that deep down, Kimmel, like the famous Ali toward Chuvalo, respected Ford, for being such a good sport.

And for surviving this tough 16-minute comic onslaught, still on his feet, with good humour.

Verdict: Kimmel may have won on comic points, but Ford did not embarrass himself. Nor did he embarrass the city of Toronto.

And, typical Ford, he controlled the media for the last several days.

I still think Ford is the man to beat.

Hollywood Actress Scarlett Johannson Joins Harper in Fighting Against Global Anti-Semitism

Famous Hollywood actress Scarlett Johannson, was until recently, the global spokesman for Oxfam International.

Oxfam International (Oxfam) is an international aid organization that tries to alleviate poverty and help the poor and the needy.

About a month ago, Johannson also became a global brand ambassador forSodaStream International Ltd., an Israeli public company, which manufactures soda pop makers, so that you can make your own fizzy soda pop at home from plain tap water.

SodaStream has over 20 factories around the world. But one factory is located in the established Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim in East Jerusalem in the West Bank.

And there is the rub.

Apparently, when Oxfam learned of Johannson’s involvement with SodaStream, it advised Johannson to cut her ties with SodaStream.

Because according to Oxfam: “While Oxfam respects the independence of our ambassadors, Ms Johansson’s role promoting the company SodaStream is incompatible with her role as an Oxfam Global Ambassador….Oxfam believes that businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support.”

Ms. Johannson, through her representatives, publicly criticized Oxfam for its support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. And decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years.

Her publicist stated, “She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. She is very proud of her accomplishments and fundraising efforts during her tenure with Oxfam.”

By publicly outing Oxfam’s support of the anti-Israel BDS movement, I believe thatJohannson has created potentially serious problems for Oxfam, especially here in Canada.

Recall that Prime Minster Harper in his recent historic “Fire and Water” speech in Israel, declared that those who support “Israel as an apartheid state” and the BDS movement, are expressing the new anti-Semitism.

As has been discussed in the Huffington Post, these anti-Semitic views are totally unacceptable to the current Canadian federal government, the Federal Liberal Party and the all the provincial parties of the Ontario Legislature.

In 2009, a Canadian charity known as Kairos was linked to the anti-Israel BDS movement. As a result, the Harper Government cut off its federal funding, notwithstanding Kairos claimed that it did not support sanctions against Israel.

Apparently, Kairos argued unsuccessfully that it only supported sanctions against products and services linked to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Kairos argument is the same one being used by Oxfam Canada.

Recently, Oxfam Canada executive director Robert Fox released a statement outlining a position similar to that of Kairos.

“Oxfam does not and has never supported a boycott of trade with Israel….Oxfam opposes trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank because these settlements are illegal under international law. We believe these settlements exacerbate the injustice and poverty that Oxfam addresses in its ongoing programs.”

As we say in the hills of my hometown, Westmount, “Ce chien ne sera pas chasser” (that dog won’t hunt”).

SodaStream is an Israeli company that is licensed to operate a factory by the Israeil government in the Israeli-controlled East Jerusalem settlement of Maale Adumin. SodaStream is producing these products, not Israeli settlements.

A boycott of products produced by Israeli SodaStream, is of course a boycott of Israel. There is no real distinction between the Jewish state of Israel, its Jewish people and the Israeli SodaStream, producing Israeli state authorized products in a factory located in an Israeli-controlled East Jerusalem settlement.

For Oxfam to suggest anything to the contrary is disingenuous and especially hypocritical.

Apparently, Oxfam claims that SodaStream contributes to impoverishing Palestinians and the denial of their rights.

The reality is that in this West Bank factory SodaStream employs 1300 employees — 442 are Palestinian Arabs, 237 are Israeli Arabs and the rest are Israeli Jews. All employees are treated equally, earn equal pay, receive identical social benefits, and are eligible for the same workplace perks.

It is beyond dispute that the SodaStream Palestinian Arab employees earn wages at least three to four times the wages paid to Palestinian Arabs in a similar Palestinian business.

Assume each SodaStream Palestinian employee feeds 10 people. Therefore, approximately 4,400 Palestinians are fed as a result of the SodaStream West Bank factory. Note it is also beyond dispute that the Palestinians suffer 30%-40% employment in the West Bank.

As has been stated by Ben Phillips, the director of policy for Oxfam, in a recent interview, Oxfam would rather see the SodaStream factory closed, and 442 Palestinian Arabs unemployed, and approximately 4,400 Palestinians potentially impoverished and with little food.

What a hypocritical position to take for an organization whose mandate is to fight poverty and feed the needy!

But I believe that Oxfam and Oxfam Canada appear to be guilty of a far worse crime: supporting the new anti-Semitism, that is, targeting Israel as the sole cause of all Palestinians’ ills. And supporting the BDS movement, which seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel.

The watchdog NGO Monitor, which checks for bias in nongovernmental organizations, concluded in its recent report that Oxfam “distorts economic analyses of the West Bank and Gaza, repeatedly arguing that the sole impediment to Palestinian development is Israeli policy, ignoring intra-Palestinian limitations and factors.”

“Oxfam consistently paints a highly misleading picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict, departing from its humanitarian mission focused on poverty.

Most Oxfam statements erase all complexity and blame Israel exclusively for the situation, and these distortions and their impacts contribute significantly to the conflict.”

Since Oxfam Canada’s anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic activities are contrary to Canadian principles, as enunciated by Harper and Ignatieff, I believe that the Canadian government should cut off all further government funding to Oxfam Canada, approximately $16 million dollars in Canadian taxpayer money and should revoke Oxfam’s charitable status.

Oxfam Canada certainly has the freedom to express its anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic views, but we Canadians are not obligated to support Oxfam with our hard-earned tax dollars.

A Christmas Miracle, Kosher Style

Christmas heroes come in many different sizes and forms.

This current holiday season, Toronto police, Hydro workers and firemen, came to the rescue of many Toronto citizens caught without power during our recent crazy ice storm.

Many Toronto residents, pitched in, and gave warm sanctuary to cold and power-starved Toronto citizens. Sometimes whole families. Sometimes complete strangers.

These people are all heroes in my book.

But here is another funny/sweet Toronto story that is worthy of mention.

This is the Christmas story of my friend Phil, the accountant. A pudgy, unremarkable, sort of dorky guy, who came to the rescue of a beautiful blonde damsel in distress. And gave this beautiful woman, her best Christmas, in a very long time.

I have known Phil for many years. We hang out in a midtown Toronto restaurant/ bar, where not only every one knows your name. But they know the names of your ex wives, the lovers of your ex wives and your current and former girlfriends.

Sort of like the famous “Cheers”, except bartender Sam is played by a foul-mouthed, gossipy Jewish Lady Macbeth, affectionately known as “Sweet Sue”.

Phil is of the Hebraic tradition, and the last time he celebrated Christmas, was when he was 10 years of age. His parents, bowing to peer pressure, brought home a Hanukah bush, ( a short stubby tree). And gave Phil his first and last Christmas, that Phil still remembers nostalgically.

Apparently, early on Dec. 23, Phil received a frantic call, from one of his clients. A very well-known local Toronto publicist, aka “D”.

“D” is a woman in her 40s. She is single, beautiful, funny and strangely, has never been married.
Phil often refers to her as his Wasp Goddess.

Phil is also a single, in his 50s. Has never been married. Truth be told. He is a bit of a nebbish. But a nice guy, nonetheless. I think he has a secret crush on the delightful “D”.

It seems that “D” has had a string of eligible men friends over the years. But not one of these, UCC-educated, B&R/Toronto Lawn clubbies, banker/biz types, has ever bought “D” a Christmas tree for her place.

“D” suspects that these Rosedale suitors associate Christmas trees with marriage, family and children. And not with hot blonde party girls, who seem to prefer Tiffany bling to stringing Taffy apples and tinsel on the Christmas tree.

Except for this blonde chick, who has been secretly storing a treasure chest of Christmas balls and baubles, in the hope that one day her Prince Charming would come a calling with a Christmas tree.

But once again no Christmas tree this year for “D”. Which would have been tolerable, because “D” was planning to escape Toronto for her parents’ place in the Windsor area. To celebrate Christmas, with tree, turkey and all the trimmings.

But the ice storm struck. A large maple tree fell on “D”‘s garage. Her car was taken hostage. And “D” was left stranded in Toronto.

Hence “D”‘s frantic early morning call to Phil, in Montreal, (who was enduring another forced family holiday with his dysfunctional relatives).

Phil thought he heard a “cri de coeur” from “D”. She was heartbroken. She was not going to see her mother and father. There would be no family dinners, Christmas tree, exchanging of gifts, or the traditional family fight between her and her younger sister. In other words, no Christmas, at the Inn this year.

Phil confided to me that he felt his Jewish heart was suddenly struck with the spirit of Christmas. He was going to save Christmas for “D”.

So from Montreal, Phil called his Home Depot contact at the Richmond Hill store. And ordered the last remaining Christmas tree.

He then powered up his trusty grey Hyundai Accent and drove like a madman from Montreal to Richmond Hill to pick up the last remaining Christmas tree.

Upon arriving at Home Depot at around 2 pm, Phil faced his next test of manhood. Apparently, Phil’s tree was in a little tree farm in the back of Home Depot. In order to free this tree, he had to cut it down with an axe.

Phil, like most Jewish men, myself included, not very handy with tools. Not very good with manual stuff. Our hands were for playing the violin, ball hockey, golf and tennis. Not for cutting down trees. Luckily, Phil was able to retain some red flannel-shirt wearing, tattooed, woodsman, or woods person, on staff, to cut down Phil’s tree and mount it on his Hyundai.

About two hours later, Phil drove up to “D”‘s petit Rosedale manse and with his short, stubby, Hanukah bush-like tree.

Phil, drawing upon reserves of strength, he thought did not exist, manfully carried “D”‘s tree up to her second floor loft.

“D” was shocked. Stupified. And then this hard-edged, tough TO publicist, cried like a newborn babe.

She hugged Super Phil. Gave him a kiss smack on his lips. Then “D” brought out an array of Christmas tree tchotskes, that she had lovingly saved from her childhood ( balls, baubles, angels, coloured lights, miniature Santas, Pillsbury dough boys, and dollhouses)

Phil told me they trimmed the tree for hours. “D” was beaming like a schoolgirl, recalling her warm family times around the tree as a kid. The little child in “D” suddenly shone through. And they drank lots of wine.

This was Phil’s best Christmas ever, and one of “D’s” best.

Phil has rejoined his gym. And “D” has promised to take Phil to Harry Rosen for some new threads.

I am not sure romance is in the air. But for a brief moment, Phil was a hero. “D” saw him in a new and more attractive light. And two totally different people, felt the wonder and humour of Christmas.