Gen X at 40

Canada's Favorite Blog


Comments are locked. No additional comments may be posted.

Gordo -

Ugh, it needs editing. You can hear his robot voice as you read the piece. Anyone but the PM would have had it rejected or edited heavily. Rewrite!

Paul of Kingston -

Whoa, talk about your slow news days.

Personally I reject the notion that my identity as a Canadian is governed primarily by hockey and Tim Hortons. Watching "Hockey - A People's History", one might think that the reason we went to war in '39 was becasusis were against hockey. And therefore I reject the usefulness of yet another quasi-academic coffee table read about hockey in Canada.

Ben (The Tiger) -

Why <i>The Star</i>?

Harper's a Torontonian. This is the subject of some debate, but my experience growing up here was that The Star had the best sports section of the major papers. (Though The Sun isn't bad either. The Globe, on the other hand, sucked.)

Some things are more important than politics -- one has to reach one's sporting audience.

Matt Fletcher -

To defend Harper a little here:

It is my understanding that he was working on the hockey history prior to running for the CPC leadership an prior to becoming prime minister. Gaining top political office should not be a reason to drop one's previous hobbies, interests and projects.

It is quite common for authors to test drive portions of their work that they intend to turn into a book in the press prior to publication to create interest and gain feedback - no reason for Harper not to do the same.

Why The Star? The Star has the largest readership in the country, and as Ben said its sports section is the best. Of course this piece wasn't published in Sports, or even deeper in the paper but on the front page bellow the fold - that is certainly a result of the story having been written by the PM.

I didn't think the piece was that badly written. Gordo provides no examples of why he thinks it is poorly written other than the fact that it was written by Harper. Alan's criticisms of the political slant within the interpretation are at least reasonable - though I personally didn't find Harper was taking a particularly heavy-handed intellectual position - no moreso than any other writer would have.

Alan -

Excellent analysis, especially:<blockquote class="smalltext">Gordo provides no examples of why he thinks it is poorly written other than the fact that it was written by Harper.</blockquote>Remind me to include your education in the inventory of Royal Bloggish Society of Knowledge, Matt. What is your focus? I trust it is not 19th and 20th century Russian political history as Ben has already claimed the <i>samovar</i> for his office on the fourth floor.