That’s what Portland filmmaker James Winters did. Winters got his kids and nephew to reenact the Beastie Boys 1994 video for “Sabotage” (directed by some guy named Spike Jonze) in honour of Adam Yauch (aka MCA) who passed away May 4.

Please note the suitcase of cocaine has been replaced with a much more kid-friendly suitcase of Pop Rocks.

All the stage Moms on Toddlers & Tiaras could really learn a thing or two from Winters.

Check out the kids playing cops and robbers. One, two, three … Awwww.

P.S.: RIP MCA

This week the Green Party launched an anti-attack ad criticizing other parties for their sensational advertisements. The meta attack ad aims to benefit from Canadians’ supposed distaste for ad hominem vilification and mudslinging.

It’s commonly believed that the first attack ad was the iconic 1964 “Daisy Girl” commericial, which threatens American voters with the prospect of nuclear war (another long-held American political tradition). Attack ads returned in 1988 with the George HW Bush “revolving door” spot suggesting a candidate’s prison reforms led to an increase in violent crime.

That same year featured Canada’s NAFTA election, in which the Liberal party ran ads suggesting Canadian sovereignty was at stake. You can read about it in a CBC interactive feature documenting 10 prominent attack ads from the English-speaking world.

A 1993 Kim Campbell ad mocked Jean Chretien’s facial Bell’s palsy. Political figures decried the ad as “political desperation” and “totally inappropriate and in poor taste.” It’s a shame the same terms apply to today’s political discourse.

Conservative Senator Doug Finley, a “genius of political attack ads,” was interviewed by the Globe and Mail last month. Responding to those who believe negative ads turn off voters, his response: “Politics is an adversarial business. Kellogg’s doesn’t make their money by telling everybody General Foods are a great product.”

There’s little consensus on the effectiveness of attack ads. A 2007 psychological study suggests that although negative political ads make us want to turn away, we remember their negative messages. Some studies suggest negative and positive ads both have the same effectiveness.

Attack ads have made a lot of inroads south of the border. A study of the 2008 US presidential campaigns found that almost all McCain ads were “negative,” with many focusing on Obama’s personality over his politics. It’s gotten to the point where the hilarious “demon sheep” ad was actually used to sway voters, before it went viral and generated a spinoff.

In the past five years, attack ads have gained worldwide prominence.

An ad from the 2006 Mexican election compares one candidate with Hugo Chavez. Australia, a country with some really broken political discourse, saw the rise of attack ads in last year’s national election — including one monumentally stupid commercial.

Although such ads remain uncommon in UK elections, there’s been a recent increase in Europhobic ads — the word works for both definitions — attacking EU policy by airing stereotypes of continental neighbours.

TV ads in the 2006 São Paolo mayoral race speculated on a candidate’s supposed homosexuality. The tactic is eerily similar to a homophobic Tamil-language radio ad that aired in Toronto’s recent mayoral election.

The rollin’-in-dough Conservative party financed comparatively civil attack ads with funds allegedly arranged through the now infamous “in and out scandal” (that ironically focused on accountability and transparency). While it’s tempting to pin attack ads on one party or political persuasion, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP take part too.

These ads have repercussions on our democracy as a whole. In the 2008 election, the Conservatives made the daft choice of posting their pooping puffin ad online. The ad itself was intellectually (and otherwise) insulting. But more troubling: the Toronto Star ran a frontpage story about it.

Rick Mercer’s 2009 rant on the issue makes some pretty poignant points (and his parody ads are pretty funny, too). Attacks ads are bad for democracy. Instead of helping us debate serious issues as a society, it creates poisons our discourse with character assassination, the politics of fear, and a culture of sound bites over substance.

Ryan Walker of Torontoist captured the same event from ground level:

In a separate incident on Sunday, outside the detention centre, Global TV recorded this scene, in which an officer fires what appears to be a tear-gas pellet into a loud but peaceful demonstration, striking a young woman:

Late on Sunday, Toronto Police Services Superintendent Jeff McGuire held a press conference outside police headquarters to talk about police activities on Sunday, including an incident in which hundreds of individuals—some protesters but also many journalists, bystanders, and tourists—were boxed in by a police cordon at the corner of Queen and Spadina for hours in torrential rain. McGuire defends police actions, but is unconvincing and evasive, invokes vague “threats” that he cannot enumerate, and repeats the same talking points ad nauseam. While it’s not in the linked video, during the Q&A McGuire was asked whether the statement constituted an apology to those people; he responded with: “I cannot apologize to them and I won’t.”

Then, of course, there was the video of choice for large media outlets, the burning police car. These are the images that many outside Canada will see in relation to this weekend’s events—if they see any news coverage of it at all:

You can also read the liveblog that I was furiously pecking out on an iPhone at the back of the room; of course, it was a little difficult to keep up with the pace of discussion on a three-inch keyboard.

Thanks to everyone who came out last night, to our partners at Rabble, the magazine’s board of directors and interns who did much of the organizing, and of course to the speakers: Robert Fox, Josephine Grey, Judy Rebick, and Antonia Zerbisias. The videos are below.

Judy Rebick:

Antonia Zerbisias

Abdelkader Belaouni, who spent nearly four years living in church sanctuary before being granted status. Illustration by Todd Julie.

Free at last. After three years and nine months thwarting a deportation order in the sanctuary of a Montreal church, Abdelkader Belaouni became a Canadian citizen in October 2009.

Belaouni was one of the refugees I spoke to for my article “Gimme Shelter” in This Magazine’s July-August 2009 issue. At the time, he was living in the shelter of a century-old house on the grounds of Saint Gabriel church, in the Pointe-St-Charles neighborhood in Montreal. [That article is nominated for a National Magazine Award, by the way! – Ed.]

In June 2009, after almost four years of tireless campaigning on the part of his supporters (and just after the issue went to press) victory came in the form of a telephone call. Belaouni’s lawyer Jared Will, called to say the Quebec government was going to allow him to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds.

First though, he would have to complete a medical examination in Tunisia, which borders his native Algeria. The Canadian government demands such examinations for all immigrants in an effort to prevent strain on Canada’s health care system. Belaouni was worried that he might not pass the examination; he is legally blind and suffers from diabetes.

Nonetheless, he began fundraising for the trip. With the support of his friends, Belaouni collected over $10,000 from donors across Canada. He flew to Tunisia on September 23. Four weeks later, Belaouni received a call from the Canadian embassy in Tunisia. He had passed the medical examination and his Canadian visa was ready.

On October 22, he was back in Canada, now his home. His almost four year stay in sanctuary paid off. He joins the more than 150 refugees who’ve avoided deportation with a stay in church sanctuary.

The congregations act as safety nets for what they see as holes in Canada’s immigration system, namely the lack of a formal appeal system in the refugee determination process. A bill (C-291) that would see a formal appeal system implemented was being tossed around parliament at the time “Gimme Shelter” went to print. But in December 2009, it was defeated at third reading in the House of Commons. The vote was tied. The speaker broke it with a vote against.

Belaouni is grateful for the safety net his friends at Saint Gabriel’s church provided. He and his supporters say he was unfairly treated by the refugee determination system, and that a stay in sanctuary was the only remaining option. Today he lives in Saint Hubert, just east of Montreal, in a one-bedroom apartment. He looks healthier than the last time I saw him. He tells me he lost 10 lbs—credited, he says, to his daily exercise routine and raw-food diet.

He is also fulfilling many of his dreams. The album he completed while living in sanctuary is now available on iTunes. He has two books in the works, one about his life and the other about the Algerian revolution. He is also set to start work at an immigration center in Montreal at the end of May.

I caught up with him on May 17, the day before his 43rd birthday. Here are a few minutes of our chat.

John Greyson, filmmaker and York University professor, posted this short film on his Vimeo site a few days ago. Greyson’s video has touched upon a spirit of creative resistance that has been present throughout many of the anti- or alter-globalization demonstrations of the past.

G20 leaders fight over the cheque. Copyright Oxfam 2008.

There was that time in 2001 when a group protesting the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City constructed a teddy bear catapult. Oxfam has repeatedly used giant papier mache heads to stage hilarious photos that carry a message (word has it, we’ll see those heads on the streets of Toronto when the G20 arrives,) and the odds are very good that come June, an army of rebel clowns will descend upon the city, possibly looking for tiny cars to pile into and then emerge from, (perhaps to illustrate how damaging car culture can be?)

Greyson’s call to arts is a nice reminder that the possibilities for actions of creative resistance are infinite.

Finally, an ad about tampons spoofs stupid ad lingo—”down there,” “sanitary napkins,” “that time of the month”—and dares to actually say the word vagina (you know, where it goes) in a television commercial.

The run-down: “How do I feel about my period? I love it!” says the 20-something actress. As another woman dances in the waves in the sunset, she explains, “I like to twirl, maybe in slow motion, and I do it in my white spandex.” Across the screen, dropping the t-bomb in pink block letters, appears “Why are tampon ads so ridiculous?”

Another upcoming spot says, “I’m going to tell you to buy something. Buy the same tampons I use. Because I’m wearing white pants, and I have good hair, and you wish you could be me.” Block letters ask “Why are tampon ads so obnoxious?”

Both ads have three major (unnamed) US networks seeing red: two of them immediately vetoed the campaign. The producers even re-shot to include the unbearable “down there” instead, but the ads were declared too bitchy—also irritable and prone to outbursts—for any time of the month.

“The whole spot is about censorship,” said Merrie Harris, global business director at JWT, the agency that produced the ads. Luckily, there’s a smear-happy place called the Internet where crude euphemisms—”beaver dam!” “Taking Carrie to the prom!”—cannot be censored.

The stakes always seem high when you’re a teenager and it’s that kind of atmosphere that lends itself to hero worship. For me, that was Pearl Jam. For eight years Eddie Vedder and company were probably the most important people in my life and probably had as much impact on the person I was during that time than any person I knew in real life. But today, when I hear those songs I just hear the echoes of worship—a reminder of absolute devotion—but no gravity to the songs themselves.

As an adult it seemed unlikely I would ever find a song that could make me feel that way again. There are plenty of musicians I admire and there is a wealth of inspired music out there to be discovered, but it never seems to strike quite at accurately and absolutely as it did it the early nineties. It isn’t the bands fault, I just figured I wasn’t capable anymore. That is until “End of Poverty” by Tomboyfriend.

This video got a great bump from the New York Times about a year and a half ago—yes, it’s old, but it’s gorgeous. The collection of homemade videos of young people dancing is just the remedy for a case of the grown-ups. But Emily Gould of the New York Times says it much better than I ever could.

As I watched, I suddenly remembered this part of being a teenager. Half the time they’re doing something incredibly bad — tying another kid to a pole with the belt from their school uniform or smoking pot in the alley. That’s what teenagers are famous for. But you forget the side of them that just lives in the moment and laughs all afternoon and feels a rock song the way adults never can and spends all day looking for the most original way to shout out: “I am here! I am me!”

And it’s true, every aspect of the song attached to it, “End of Poverty,” radiates with the wonderful and unique exuberance it is to be young and confused. Finally, after a decade without one, my “all time favourite song” had found me.

“End of Poverty” immediately made its way to heavy rotation, becoming the soundtrack for everything from weekend grocery shopping to late night dance parties. But soon curiosity won out and I had to know more. The problem is there was nothing else to hear. Tomboyfriend created 5 minutes of pop perfection and then went silent.

But a few weeks ago rumours of their debut full length, Don’t Go to School, began to bear fruit and the band previewed the album’s first track “Almost/Always.”

This song builds on the epic scale “End of Poverty” started. It’s a dystopic Dickensian fairytale about love and fear that seems to raise the stakes again, to teenage heights.

Then, another surprise. The band’s myspace is streaming another song, “Goldfinch Gluespoo” as well. While these two new releases can’t dethrone “End of Poverty” from “all time favourite song,” they certainly add dimension to the group. When Don’t Go to School does come out I think I’m going to crank my stereo, hit repeat, and tell my parents they don’t understand me—just for old times sake.

Most videos on YouTube are total fiascos, but at least they’re entertaining fiascos. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s debut on YouTube—in which he responded with carefully prepared talking points to carefully screened video questions in a carefully pre-taped appearance—was dull because there was nothing at stake. It was like watching a man walk a tightrope across his own bathtub. But at This Magazine, we bravely suffer so you don’t have to. Here are the semi-notable bits you missed, even though you knew exactly what was going to be asked and what the answers would be. Behold!

Afghan detainees!

Q: Why is the government not more open about the Afghan detainee issue?

A: Yeah, well, first of all it’s important to say I don’t agree with the premise of the question.  First of all, this, you know, this issue has been bandied around now for nearly four years.  And yet we have no evidence that Canadian soldiers have done anything wrong. […] I think our men and women in uniform and other public servants have been doing a, you know, a good job in Afghanistan under extremely difficult conditions.  I think they do deserve our support.

Climate change!

Q: Climate change is obviously affecting the weather here in Canada.  Is your government willing to take the strong measures necessary to adequately deal with climate change?

A: [W]e said we needed a treaty that covers all emissions, and that’s the agreement we got at Copenhagen.  Now, it’s not perfect, but at least for the first time, we have virtually every country in the world saying they will be part of an effort that will include their emissions.  So we’re obviously making commitments under that agreement, and further negotiation will go forward internationally in the next year or so to try and hammer out some more details and that. […] This is, you know, this is not an easy area.  I think what all your viewers should realize is what causes emissions is economic activity.  You know, all emissions virtually are caused by either people heating themselves or moving around or engaged in economic activity of some kind.  So to change our energy use carbon footprint over time requires the development and adaptation of a new generation of technology, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

Childcare!

Q: Offering families $1200 a year for childcare doesn’t even make a dent in the actual cost of childcare, and that plan, to be quite frank, is an insult to any family that actually relies on it.

A: First of all, Canadians want to make their own childcare decisions.  I think probably my own family was not a typical…we used a combination.  You know, sometimes we looked after the kids at home, sometimes we used, or part of the time we used a daycare.  We also used family members or we paid babysitters, so…and I think you’ll actually see that a lot of Canadians have a lot of different childcare needs. […] [W]e had a previous government that promised to create a national childcare system for many years.  They spent billions of dollars.  Canadian parents never saw any of that.

The Demon Weed!

Q: A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults, just like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals?

A: I know some people say if you just legalized it, you know, you’d get the money and all would be well.  But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they’re illegal. […] The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad.  And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people.

Here’s the video in full if you’re interested.

One of the great redeeming aspects of big, multi-day, city-wide music festivals like Canadian Music Week/Fest is the opportunity for discovery.

It’s very rare these days that one gets the opportunity to hear something truly great, for the first time, in a live setting. Generally, if I’m going to a show where I’m unfamiliar with the band I’ll at least check out their Myspace page, if not snag the whole album online prior to the performance to see what they’re like. But in a setting with literally hundreds of bands playing on dozens of stages, where itineraries are changed more often than undergarments, it is an inevitability that you’ll be stumbling in on some unfamiliar territory.

So for this edition of Tuesday Tracks, I’d like to share a few discoveries: performances I saw by sheer chance and loved every moment.

First up: Everything all the Time benefits by being comprised of a selection of this country’s best musicians, with members contributing to Feist, Sarah Harmer, the Hidden Cameras and Jason Collett. Of course, they also benefit from having one of the most swoon-worthy voices fronting them ever put to tape. But hyperbole aside, don’t be fooled by the precious voice you hear on “Lazy Days” below, Alanna Stuart’s voice is as powerful as it is versatile.

Secondly: Dan Mangan shares a lot with another troubadour from the west, Chad VanGaalen. Both employ unconventional subject matter in their songwriting, but where VanGaalen swerves to the absurd Mangan stays sure footed. When Mangan sings “Robots need love too, they want to be loved by you,” there is such an earnestness in his voice that you take him seriously.

Finally: Parlovr (pretend the “v” is a “u” when you say it) was perhaps my favourite surprise at CMW/F. Hailing from Montreal, they’ve forgone the eight-plus member standard the city has become known for in its band output and culled a trio with a violent and aspirational stage presence.

Even without an extended back up, the simple guitar, keyboard, drum structure creates enormous, passionate music. Parlovr sing, scream and whisper their magnetic affirmations both to and from the crowd. The wonderful, sobering element to their performance is that amongst all the sloppy pop they mash out, it’s impossible to miss the genuine adoration and excitement painted all over their faces. Even in a tiny club, playing for 30 people, they’re living the dream.