Hugo (adopted Wednesday, April 2, 2008; deceased Monday, June 15, 2009) was “a nice old man” black and tan rooroo hailing from the Candycane Forest with an exceptionally moosey disposition and a great fondess for carnuba waxes in all their forms.

We were hopeful when I came across a sign announcing Thimble Cakes, a “cupcakery” catering to “special diets.” Obviously, the primary “special diet” to which it caters are mounds of people who don’t get measles vaccines for their children, put homeopathic flavour tabs in their mouths, and avoid gluten. Thimble Cakes also, apparently, makes “sugar free” cupcakes. Frankly, if you want a “low cal” cupcake, then you are just an idiot. Splenda should not be mistaken for an actual baking ingredient.

Despite a long-promised opening that never came, Thimble Cakes finally opened this past week. A number of articles that we saw made reference to their gluten free and sugar free options. They also referred to dairy free, egg free cupcakes, which all sensible people take to mean to “vegan.” We finally made it to Thimble Cakes today. (We tried yesterday, but I don’t carry cash and they won’t have debit for some time–really, in 2011?) Upon entering, I asked the woman behind the counter if they had any vegan options. She pointed out two selections: banana vanilla and chocolate coffee. The cupcakes weren’t labelled as vegan. All the options available, however, were labeled as gluten free. The women behind the counter explained to me that “the owner did not allow [them] to use the v-word, but it was okay because [I] did.” The woman behind the counter explained, “because no one would buy them if they knew they were vegan.”

I can understand this being the case if the only vegan cupcake you’ve ever had came from Auntie Loo’s: her baking is a serious disservice to vegan cooking. However, if the cupcakes in question were from Sweets from the Earth, you’d have no excuse not to be obese; these cupcakes are suitably good such that one should, finances allowing, have one with every meal.

Returning to Thimble Cakes. Being of a certain sort, I refuse to eat banana. It isn’t worth asking why. As a result, I had the chocolate coffee and Blythe had the banana vanilla. The latter were significantly larger than the former and neither type of cupcake made much icing on it. Indeed, the icing was nearly invisible. What little icing there was on the cupcake was of suitable quality: better than Auntie Loo’s, but not as good as Sweets from the Earth. The banana cake, from what I understand, was too dense for a cupcake and more appropriate to a banana loaf. The chocolate cake was somewhat weird: it was as though there was a skin (like a soup skin), but the innards were good enough. If the cupcakes weren’t nearly $4/each, that is, if they sold at a reasonable price, perhaps $2.75, then it might be worth a return visit. However, when you get four cupcakes that are vegan but the “v-word” isn’t to be used for about $14, it just isn’t worth the cost or the trip (horribly and inconveniently located at Bank and Gilmour in a former gym).

Bottom line: at this point, it is likely better just to make your own cupcakes from “Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World.” At least if you live in Ottawa. Otherwise, hold out until you are in Toronto and can get good quality baked goods from Sweets from the Earth. Better yet, get a Sweets from the Earth cupcake as dessert when you eat at Fresh.

Lefort was a huge, albeit not entirely visible, influence on my thought. It is unfortunate that his work has been excessively looked over in the English language political theory. People interested in his work might want to consult a special issue of Thesis Eleven on him. His books in translation, currently in print, are Complications and Writing: The Political Test.

From Le Monde:

Le philosophe Claude Lefort est mort dimanche 3 octobre à l’âge de 86 ans. La disparition du philosophe, dont l’œuvre importante s’est concentrée sur la critique du totalitarisme, a été annoncée dans Libération.

Né en 1924, agrégé et docteur en philosophie, enseignant à l’université de Caen, puis directeur d’études à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, Claude Lefort inaugure son œuvre en 1968 avec La Brèche, écrit avec Edgar Morin. Il devient marxiste dans sa jeunesse sous l’influence de son maître Maurice Merleau-Ponty, ce qui le conduit du côté des trotskistes, avant de s’en éloigner progressivement. Déjà à l’œuvre lorsqu’il fonde la revue Socialisme ou Barbarie, avec Cornelius Castoriadis, cet éloignement sera définitif quand il découvrira L’Archipel du goulag d’Alexandre Soljenitsyne, auquel il consacrera un livre, Un homme en trop (Seuil, 1973).

Il établit alors des liens très serrés entre le phénomène totalitaire et les carences de la démocratie. Pour lui, la démocratie, fruit de l’Histoire, est une société “sans corps”, où règne une radicale indétermination, constamment en déséquilibre, et qui exige de tous l’invention, comme il le développe dans son ouvrage L’Invention démocratique (Fayard, 1981). La démocratie n’était pas non plus “bonne par nature” et ne garantissait pas spontanément liberté et justice à tous les citoyens.

From Libération:

Claude Lefort ou l’énigme du politique
Le philosophe, dont l’œuvre s’est concentrée sur la critique du totalitarisme, était né en 1924.

Par ROBERT MAGGIORI
Il n’est pas exagéré de dire que, durant toute sa vie de philosophe, Claude Lefort, qui vient de mourir à Paris à l’âge de 86 ans, a tenté de résoudre l’énigme du politique. Agrégé et docteur en philosophie, d’abord chargé d’enseignement à l’université de Caen, puis directeur d’études à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, il est l’auteur d’une œuvre importante, qu’inaugure en 1968 la Brèche, écrit avec Edgar Morin.

Trotskistes. C’est à son maître Maurice Merleau-Ponty qu’il doit, d’une part, l’attachement qu’il portera toujours au «corps», à l’enracinement de l’homme dans le monde réel, et, d’autre part, ses premières approches de Marx, lesquelles ne le conduisent pas au Parti communiste mais du côté des trotskistes. Son éloignement du marxisme sera progressif. Il est déjà à l’œuvre lorsqu’il fonde, avec Cornelius Castoriadis, la revue Socialisme ou barbarie et sera effectif, ou définitif, lorsque, déjà auteur d’un Machiavel, le travail de l’œuvre (Gallimard, 1972), qui renouvelle la lecture du penseur florentin, il reçoit comme événement essentiel la description que fait du goulag Alexandre Soljenitsyne (auquel il consacrera un Homme en trop, en 1973, au Seuil). Dès lors, au nom de Claude Lefort, comme à celui de Hannah Arendt, sera associée la critique du totalitarisme. Lefort établit des liens très serrés entre le phénomène totalitaire et les carences ou les «péchés» de la démocratie.
La société traditionnelle, jusqu’à la Révolution française, se représentait elle-même comme une unité organique, en s’identifiant aux «deux corps du roi», selon le concept de l’historien Ernst Kantorowicz, terrestre et divin. L’avènement de la démocratie et la destruction du corps symbolique du roi ont provoqué un éclatement du corps social en unités individuelles, fragmentées, ainsi que l’effacement de l’identification Etat-société. Aussi la démocratie, pouvoir du peuple souverain, est-elle aussi une société «sans corps», où règne une radicale indétermination. Le totalitarisme est une réponse à cette fragilité structurelle, à cette «fragmentarisation», à cette incertitude – et recompose une unité sociale perdue. Mais, dans le communisme comme dans le fascisme, à un terrible prix. C’est à l’évaluation de ce «prix» qu’est consacré le travail de Claude Lefort : la société comme peuple uni, identifié au parti et à son chef, la société comme gigantesque «automate», composé de micro-organisations qui sont autant d’engrenages faisant fonctionner le tout, la société comme «entre soi», à savoir la constitution raciste d’un «corps pur» qui se réalise par la production, la désignation, l’exclusion et l’expulsion de l’autre, de l’«ennemi». Le totalitarisme annihile toute individualité dans la société absolutiste gouvernée par l’Egocrate, ou le pouvoir écrasant du corps sacré du parti.

«Lieu vide». Mais la démocratie, même dans sa version libérale, n’en est pas l’exact contraire, comme Lefort va s’attacher à le montrer dans la suite de ses travaux. La démocratie n’est pas «bonne» par nature parce qu’elle correspondrait à une propension de l’homme à s’associer «d’égal à égal», pas plus qu’elle ne garantit spontanément liberté et justice à tous les citoyens. Le pouvoir n’y est ni personnel ni collectif, mais est en une sorte de «lieu vide», «inappropriable». Comment le «peupler» ?

Aux yeux de Claude Lefort, la démocratie, fruit de l’histoire, suit de cette dernière les fureurs, est constamment en déséquilibre, et exige, de tous, l’invention (l’Invention démocratique, Fayard, 1981). «S’il est vrai qu’elle a la capacité d’accueillir le conflit, la divergence des intérêts, l’hétérogénéité même du social, cela signifie qu’elle a une capacité qui lui est propre, de donner accès au réel», écrivait-il en 1989.

In unrelated news, in the coming weeks I’ll be posting reviews of Andrew Linzey’s Why Animal Suffering Matters (sorry for taking so long, Andrew!), Stanley Cavell et al’s Philosophy & Animal Life, Piers Beirne’s Confronting Animal Abuse, and Paolo Cavalieri’s The Death of the Animal. My book buying budget is taped out for near future, but if Jean Kazez or her publisher wishes to send me a copy of Animalkind or Cary Wolfe and his publisher wishes to send me a copy of What is Posthumanism?, I am looking forward to reading them.

Geneviève Bergeron
Hélène Colgan
Nathalie Croteau
Barbara Daigneault
Anne-Marie Edward
Maud Haviernick
Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz
Maryse Laganière
Maryse Leclair
Anne-Marie Lemay
Sonia Pelletier
Michèle Richard
Annie St-Arneault
Annie Turcotte

Montreal Massacre on Wikipedia

One of the very few articles in the Canadian English media this year

CBC Digital Archives

]]> http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2009/12/national-day-of-rememberance-and-action-on-violence-against-women.html/feed 1 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2009/11/a-movie-review.html http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2009/11/a-movie-review.html#comments Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:42:24 +0000 Craig http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/?p=863 Due to a string of unfortunate events, it was no longer possible to watch “Twilight” as we had originally planned on Friday evening; Friday nights being “Falafel Friday,” which is usually sustained with sub-par cultural offerings such as “Dollhouse” or, worse, “Numbers.” Occasionally we watch one of those “newsmagazines” wherein a potentially dreadful crime is examined: murder most foul or just plain bad luck? Traditionally, Saturday is known as “Samosa Saturday” and, because there is nothing on TV, we usually watch a movie: an ideal setting, indeed, for “Twilight.”

With the exception of getting up once (perhaps twice) to refill my drink, I remained transfixed to the television screen through the entire duration of the movie. This is a rare feat. We generally do not watch movies when they play “live” on television because more often than not, these movies suck and the movie must be watched in manageable lengths. “Crash,” for instance, likely took about three days to get through. Let me put this in perspective: the last two movies we watched without breaks were “Role Models” (a classic in the “Apatow Cannon,” albeit unrecognized as such) and “Death Race.” To put this in another perspective, “Role Models” is possibly the funniest, most amusing movie featuring Paul Rudd (c.f., “The Forty Year Old Virgin,” which while funny was not that funny) and “Death Race” is definitely one of Jason Statham’s finest accomplishments trumping even the heights achieved in “The Transporter” series. Needless to say, that I only walked away from the TV once and only in order to refuel, this is high praise indeed for this film.

Admittedly, I was skeptical of the movie. After all, Bill Compton once said of Edward Cullen, “He’s a pussy! He’s the Slim-Fast, Diet Coke of vampires.” And Bill Compton is a real vampire. Of course, as far as vampires go, Bill Compton is no Erik Northman, nor a Godric, nor even a Spike, but he is certainly more of a vampire than Angel, but perhaps less than Angelus. Needless to say, Bill Compton’s opinion on other vampires is worthy of careful consideration.

Like many of you, all I knew about “Twilight” was gleaned from seeing the books at the checkout aisles at drug stores and, of course, from stoney321′s Livejournal overview of “Twilight” as, in essence, Mormon propaganda (on the novels; on the movie–in high school I had a Mormon friend, he never accepted that when he said “Oh, fiddlesticks” or “Oh, frick” or “Oh, fudge” that these words were performing the same semantic function of “fuck;” why look like an idiot and say “fuddy-duddy” when what you meant to say was “fuck.” He also lent me a book on what happens to us after we die. I found it strange, but, in retrospect, I suppose that I should have been honored that he deemed me worthy of conversion.). The picture of the dog in the wheelchair, by the way, looks like our new dog, Gordon. And, like many of you, I was curious as to how the “rainbow sparkles” would be represented. Admittedly, I was disappointed with this vital aspect of the movie: either the rainbow sparkles were completely underwhelming or the TV I inherited from my parents was not up to the task. In truth, it was very difficult to discern Edward’s usual pallid complexion from his rainbow sparkles enhanced complexion. Fortunately, the producers of the movie were considerate enough to have “rainbow sparkles music” so as to alert me to the presence of the rainbow sparkles.

While the pace was plodding, the dialogue stilted, the characterization banal, and the events inexplicable, I found myself deeply drawn to this film to such an extent that the first thing I did upon getting to my computer after seeing “Twilight” was look at the listings for the cheap theater in the next town over (something like $3 per adult). Now, for many of you who are inclined to engage in regular social activities, you might not find this surprising in the least. After all, what is more normal than going to see a movie at a theater? I should provide you with the following tidbit: the last movie I deemed worthy of seeing in the theater was “Snakes on a Plane.” (I also saw the Keanu Reeves movie “Sweet November” and the John Cusack movie “Runaway Jury” because the local theaters–or someone else with a genius flair for marketing–determined that the best way to guarantee a successful launch of a movie was to send free tickets to sociology departments at the local universities.)

Overall, in my estimation, despite the aforementioned flaws in the film, I am confident in my assessment that it is the best screen adaptation of an overly long tween novel about supernatural phenomena and beings since the “Harry Potter” series. Am I a “Twi-hard?” No, but I am most certainly a “Twi-lite.”

Phillip supervised my M.A. thesis. I hadn’t gotten around to looking at his book until now.