Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Book Review: Black captures transcendence of FDR, if at length


Clocking in at over 1,100 pages, Conrad Black's biography on FDR eclipses the previous title-holder for the largest book I've ever read by about 50 pages.


It's no small feat when one considers that it was the Penguin single-volume History of the World.


At first glance, that the sum of all events across human civilization's twelve-thousand year odd history can be recounted on less paper than the 63-year-long lifetime of United States president Franklin Delano Roosevelt seems grossly disproportionate.


Yet if the reader of this grand epic accepts Black's opinion that FDR was not merely the restorer of America from the economic and psychological vagaries of the Depression - remaking the state apparatus in the process - but the absolute saviour of Western civilization against the mortal threats posed by a barbarous Nazi Germany and imperial Japan during the Second World War, its easy to justify the book’s length.

In Champion of Freedom, Black unearths the intimate details of Roosevelt’s personal and public life against the backdrop of the epochal events of the first half of the twentieth century.

Once into his presidency, Black retraces FDR’s New Deal platform throughout the 1930s. He incisively recounts the stages of the FDR administration’s magnanimous agenda, crediting the president and various members of his staff for virtually invented America’s welfare system from scratch.

He captures in detail the skillful – in his words “feline” – dexterity FDR possessed in masterfully navigating through domestic politics. All the while guiding American foreign policy through the country’s most tumultuous times since the Civil War.

The dense wording and complexity of some of the more detailed elements of the book are challenging to be sure. However, on balance, Black manages to capture and illuminate the incredible significance of FDR's impact on America and the world.

Roosevelt's peer and friend Winston Churchill eulogized in 1945 that there is born only one man of FDR's caliber and ability in a generation. However, it's difficult to contend that there will ever again exist a figure at such a critical time in history who commanded such prescient determination and sufficient resources to make the world a better place as FDR did.
His leadership in such difficult times was and remains awe-inspiring.

With this realization, it's little wonder why Black may have found it difficult to put his pen down.

-JS-



To reach a port, we must sail - sail, not tie at anchor - sail, not drift. - FDR

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Feature: 'New Philanthropy' all sizzle so far

Current perception of a national philanthropic reinvigoration is largely that, a perception
By James Sturgeon
11-28-2006


Any casually-informed person who has read a newspaper this past year has likely become aware of something on the rise. A movement that first appeared on news headlines across the world, but soon gained homegrown interest here in Canada.

In early June, U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett sparked massive attention by donating three quarters of his personal fortune to charity, while in September, U.K. industrialist Sir Richard Branson attracted the international spotlight with his pledge of a few billion to help curtail global warming.

Here in Canada the story continued - albeit on not quite the same scale, but still unprecedented.

Ontario real-estate developer Larry Tanenbaum donated $25 million to Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital in July and another $50 million to a host of other charitable causes. In August, mining executive Peter Munk pledged $37 million to Toronto General Hospital – the single largest medical donation in Canadian history up until then. Add to these sums Vancouver entrepreneur Michael Audain’s recent $2 million gift to the National Gallery in Ottawa, and one may surmise that some kind of movement was forming.

Since the colossal Buffett donation, philanthropy has been seemingly ubiquitous. National headlines have trumpeted “Canada charity comes of age,” while heralded “The nouveau philanthropy.”

As momentum in the media has built, two more elements have joined the story of an apparently reinvigorated philanthropic spirit in Canada. One has been the much-discussed transfer of wealth to baby boomers – on the cusp of retirement - from their frugal parents. The other focus is a purported shift in corporate philanthropy toward a more engaged role in the nonprofit sector as Canadian bluechips like EnCana corp., The Toronto-Dominion Bank and Royal Bank have recently rolled out comprehensive philanthropic strategies.

Alongside the mega-donations, a myriad of coverage has recently adorned both developments.

Yet despite the generous picture being developed through glowing media reports, critics and nonprofit executives are only tentatively allied in their agreement that Canadian philanthropy has been emboldened of late, while opinion is convoluted on why this is happening and even questioning whether the purportedly effusive movement is good for the state of philanthropy at all.

Lisa Hartford, media communications director for Imagine Canada, the country’s largest agency for philanthropic research and advocacy, believes “this is happening." Yet Hartford is quick to note that Imagine Canada’s reports haven’t caught up to what she feels is occurring right now, “It’s all anecdotal - it’s what you read in the newspapers.”

Julia Moulden, Toronto-based author of The New Radicals: How Boomers are Reinventing Their Work to Help Save the World is more certain. “Oh yes, absolutely, there’s definitely been a revitalization,” she says, “It’s been evidenced by all kinds of things.”

Ken Wymen, program coordinator for Fundraising and Volunteer Management at The Humber Institute of Advanced Learning and Technology, also agrees, “Certainly, there have been some amazingly large gifts that are totally unprecedented,” he says. Yet Wymen cautiously adds “there are several factors at play,” and that there remain several issues “not being sufficiently addressed.”

Much of this guarded optimism stems from the attention paid toward the tens of millions of dollars that have poured forth to institutions and nonprofit organizations from Canadians this year.

Alongside the gifts mentioned above, other notable donations have been real-estate development brothers Joseph and Wolf Lebovic, who trumped Munk’s donation in October with a $50 million commitment to Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, while Publisher Ken Thomson posthumously willed $50 million to the Art Gallery of Ontario last June.

In fact, according to the Globe & Mail, there have been no less than 120 multi-million dollar donations since the beginning of 2005.

“Certainly attention has been paid toward the major donations,” Wymen says, “That is mostly a good thing.”

Wymen likens this year’s major donations to a philanthropic ‘arms race’ among the rich, “If that person can get their name in the media by giving away just a few million, I can do that too,” he says.

But the current outpouring begs the question, why now?

Interestingly, both Wymen and Hartford point toward a fact that has played a dominant role in the recent run of enormous donations, but has remained outside of most media coverage – the elimination of the capital gains tax for nonprofits.

The measure, from last May’s Federal budget, allows for a tax-free transfer of public securities and other non-monetary donations to charities, who can then liquidate those assets without any taxation.

“That has clearly stimulated $50 million or more in giving.” Hartford adds that it “was quite a successful win for the nonprofit sector.” It was also a win, however, for wealthy Canadians looking to lower their taxable income. The facts behind affluent donor levels might not be as laudable as current events could lead one to conclude.

“The downside is that some people who are more generous in giving as a percentage of their income are not being championed as much as the people who can give spectacularly large gifts,” says Wymen.

In fact, the latest report from Imagine Canada indicates that the lowest-income households ($6-19,000) donate on average close to two per cent of their personal income while the most affluent ($100,000+) give a significantly lower 0.42. Wymen concludes that the current largesse witnessed among the rich “may not be as generous as one might think.”

Yet, to be sure, the current philanthropic ‘arms race’ among affluent Canadians is a positive and praiseworthy development – even indicative of an emergent ‘golden age,’ as some media have touted. But the attention paid toward these generous acts masks a disquieting issue in that the least fortunate Canadians routinely give more to the common good than the most affluent.

It’s a fact that has received little attention in the face of the more spectacular donations of late.

The second element being cited in this unprecedented period of giving is the story of how baby boomers are winding down their careers while simultaneously on the cusp of collectively inheriting over $1 trillion from their frugal, Depression-raised parents.

What does this mean?

It means that the largest demographic in Canadian history is at the peak of its earning potential and is about to receive the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth ever, just as the boomers are about to trot off into retirement.

Last year a Hamilton Spectator report labeled this phenomenon “the future of philanthropy,” while the Toronto Star this summer said the trend signaled “boom years” for the nonprofit sector.


“Boomers are waking up and saying ‘I’m not going to live forever,’ and have this sense that ‘I want to do something more,’” says Jula Moulden, who’s book is scheduled for release in early 2007.

She notes a subject in her book who ran a consulting firm until last year, when in his late-50s, he converted the entire business into a nonprofit firm focused on sustainable development. “There are so many examples of this,” Moulden says. In terms of donations from boomers, Moulden adds, “The number (of boomers) is huge, so there are many groups (benefiting).”

When ask if the boomer phenomenon was positively impacting the current uptick, Wymen’s response was “Clearly it does.” He adds “Many boomers have discovered over perhaps the last decade that they have more money than they ever imagined, and have started to think of what to do with it.”

Recent data shows that Canadian donations are indeed up, totaling over $7.8 billion last year, growing by just under 14 per cent from 2004.

Yet the number of Canadians who actually donated moved up by less than one per cent in the same survey, meaning virtually the same number of donors simply gave larger donations.

What’s Hartford’s opinion on the injection of boomer dollars into the nonprofit sector?

“I don’t know if the numbers reflect that,” she says. “We have fewer people giving to charity, despite that on average, they’re giving more,” that’s “a very bad thing,” citing that while more people are in a position to give, data isn’t reflecting that they are.


Hartford cautions, however, that it’s probably “far too early” to understand the effects of the boomer phenomenon. She says that Imagine Canada is seeking funding to exam the boomer affect on national philanthropy in its next report, which is scheduled for release in early 2009.

Aside from the claims of a reinvigorated generosity lauded upon the affluent and boomer demographics in this new philanthropy, there is a third issue of dubious authenticity.

In July a National Post article followed the story of 600 Toronto business leaders who took time out of their busy workdays to help build a new playground in the city’s poor Lawrence Heights neighborhood.

“Being good is the new citizenship,” it read, “particularly in the corporate world.” Other media have echoed this sentiment, reporting that a shift has taken place in the last couple of years toward “social investments,” and an emboldened corporate philanthropy.

Hartford agrees, “There’s a change happening in the last few years,” she says, “There’s much more of a true sponsorship and collaboration between business and its nonprofit partners.”

Hartford uses Imagine Canada’s Caring Company program as an example. In the program, companies pledge one per cent of their pre-tax profit to community programs outlined and developed through Imagine Canada.

In its first year of operation corporate giants like EnCana corp., Telus corp., Toronto-Dominion Bank, Shell Canada, ltd., and RBC have jumped on board.

Wymen agrees that there has been a corporate shift, but believes it isn’t a positive one. “Philanthropy is when corporations do good things because they are good. Corporate sponsorship is where (companies) do things that might happen to be good, but are primarily good for the corporation – like public relations.”

He warns “charities are now expected to deliver more marketing bang for the buck.” Wymen explains that this is leaving many less glamorous causes vulnerable to neglect, while inflating the visibility of corporate philanthropy.

But perhaps the most startling fact in light of this charitable awakening is the issue of funding. Imagine Canada’s own statistics reveal that despite the current perception that corporations are doing more, they’re not.

The latest figures reveal that fully one half of all nonprofit funding is attributable to various levels of government (and in turn, the taxpayer), while corporate Canada on average chips in an almost incomparable three per cent of nonprofit funding.

“It’s a growing program,” Hartford admits.



In June, the U.S. magazine Forbes predicted that “It’s Only Just Begun,” for an era where mega-donations, boomer support and corporate largesse would lift international philanthropy to lofty heights.

Canada has mirrored this story in kind, with a flurry of reports and stories exalting a ‘new era’ of generosity in this country, and indeed there have been some optimistic developments that deserve attention - the Federal tax measure, the unprecedented donations and overall growth in donor dollars.

However, before a ‘golden age’ can be declared, opinion must be stronger and reinforced by even stronger evidence. The most comprehensive report on the current climate will not be available until early 2009, where perception will give way to fact and a true measure of where philanthropy in Canada sits now will be revealed.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Politics: US right ebbs, will Canada follow?





As I sit here typing this, the Democrats have just captured a majority in Congress, securing both the House and Senate in the American mid-term elections.

It's about time.

Whether or not neo-conservatism ebbs in North America will largely depend on whether the the 110th American Congress can build enough national support for the Democratic party over the next year (and the following) to oust the Republican party from the White House.

This will largely depend on how the country perceives it's fortunes to be in 2008, and who is responsible for them. The Democrats must tread carefully here, for now that they effectively hold half the responsibility for what happens before the next presidential election, they are not absolved of the problems they now inherit. Come 2008, a strong Republican candidate (say, Sen. McCain) could use this election to their advantage.

At any rate, to the chagrin of many Canadians now, the spectre of neo-conservativism is currently haunting Ottawa as well. Despite a dip in public support for the Conservative party recently, they still narrowly lead in support against the centre-left Liberal party.

Here's an article that I wrote in mid-October for the Et Cetera during the final leadership debate for the Liberals, at Roy Thompson Hall in Toronto:



GRITS JOUST EACH OTHER, JAW HARPER
by James Sturgeon 10/15/2006

TORONTO -- It was a raucous affair at Roy Thompson Hall Sunday afternoon, as the eight candidates for the federal Liberal leadership exchanged barbs in the final debate before the party elects a new leader six weeks from now in Montreal.

The format – eight randomly-drawn debates between the candidates – allowed the leadership hopefuls to lay down their positions on a range of topics, from Canada’s role in the NATO Afghanistan mission to domestic matters such as the need for greater participation by women in politics.

Although all the televised debates were lively as candidates fiercely jostled with each other, the biggest highlights undoubtedly came between front-runner Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. The two butted heads on a range of issues, as they kneaded the weaknesses of each others arguments, most notably over Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan.

“Early on, you said you would vote against the extension of this [Afghan] mission, now you’re saying something different. I actually don’t know where you stand on this issue,” Ignatieff said. “You certainly do know. For a guy that’s changed his mind three times in a week with respect to the Middle East,” Rae shot back, referring to Igantieff’s flip-flopping stance on last July’s violent Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

After the debate, Ignatieff accused Rae of “stirring” things up between them, to which Rae said “well, this isn’t a tea party.”

While Ignatieff is still considered to be the front-runner, Rae has been gaining support as all three of the latest candidates to withdraw from the race have thrown their sides behind the former Premier of Ontario.

Rae is now expected to seriously challenge Ignatieff’s chances at the party’s so-called “Super Weekend” leadership vote on December 2nd.

Rae wasn’t alone in his open criticism of Ignatieff. Stephane Dion, the Chretien-era minister was vehement at times in his criticism of the Harvard academic-turned-politician. When Ignatieff stated that the Liberals could have done more for the environment in the previous administration, Dion shot back “It’s all very well to come forward with [Ignatieff’s proposed sustainability act] but you need to pay tribute to what the government was doing.” Dion continued “we will be back, and we will do the job,” to boisterous applause from the audience.


One area that did not elicit strong disagreement was opinion amongst the group toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative party agenda being pursued in Parliament.

All eight were resoundingly – almost personally - critical of the prime minister. Girard Kennedy said that Harper doesn’t have “five priorities, he has one, his reelection,” referring to the Conservative five-point platform from last January’s national election. Ken Dryden called him “the great divider.”

All said that the current climate in Ottawa is becoming increasingly divisive, and dangerously mirroring the American Republican party agenda in Washington, DC.

Rae called for a fresh “voice” of leadership, while accusing Harper's policies of being “an echo” of the developments south of the border.

During closing remarks, moderator Dominic LeBlanc asked the partisan audience for a “democratic renewal” for the Liberal party in the run-up to the next federal election. And in addressing the national television audience, asked for a similar renewal for the nation.



-JS-


"No one would have doubted his ability to reign had he never been emperor." - Tacitus

A&E: Still the same ol' G(eorge)


About a week ago I had the pleasure of sitting down with CBC's heir-apparent to uber-anchor Peter "the Bridge" Mansbridge, fellow Humberite George Stroumboulopoulos.


In addition to him graciously accomodating an interview after a presumably long day around CBC studios in Toronto, Stroumboulopoulos was an incredibly cool person to talk to. Here's the article from this week's Et Cetera:

THE MAN OF THE HOUR
by James Sturgeon 11/09/2006

One of Humber’s own collected not one, but two trophies at last week’s Gemini awards. George Stroumboulopoulos (radio broadcasting, ’92) took home the Gemini as best host of a general interest and lifestyle series, while his show, CBC’s the Hour, won best overall series in the same category.

Stroumboulopoulos is one of the college’s most well-known graduates, joining the CBC in January 2005 after six years as a popular VJ on Much Music, a national music television station.

The prestigious awards recognize the best in Canadian television programming as voted upon by industry members across the country.

“I didn’t think I was going to win,” Stroumboulopoulos said after a taping of the Hour last week in Toronto, he then conceded “ well, I thought about it sure. When you’re nominated there is a chance you could win but if you don’t, its not ‘oh no you don’t like me.’”

“You know who the Geminis are nice for?” Stroumboulopoulos breezily added, “they’re nice for my mom, they’re nice for my sister. They’re nice for the people who work on the show.”

The show, which began its third season at the beginning of October, has become a cornerstone for the CBC network, averaging 100-thousand viewers nightly.

Yet Stroumboulopoulos was hesitant to pigeon-hole the Hour into the award category it won for. “We do newsy stuff but we’re not a newscast, we’re not a comedy show but we do funny shit, we’re not a music show but we talk music” he said. He then added “we don’t do a lot of lifestyle stuff in the tradition of lifestyle."

"I don’t makeover rooms.”

Director of community relations, Orangeville Campus, Joe Andrews was Stroumboulopoulos’ instructor during his time at the school. “The way that George presents himself is no different than how he is. Raw, in-your-face, yet totally knowledgeable and researched,” Andrews said.

He has “become a spokesperson for our school (and) brings tremendous respect and cache to the (broadcast) program. He has done it his way and we are so proud of him.”
When asked if the latest accolades were beginning to go to his head, Stroumboulopoulos said “it’s never about me. All I’m striving for is to be good company at 11 o’clock.”

“I just want to be good company.”

-JS-

Monday, October 23, 2006

Mission Statement: "Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own."



Thanksgiving 2006


My goal is to become a paid member of the media at some point in the (very) near future.

My credentials? I hold an honours degree in history from Queen's University, and currently I attend Humber college's post-graduate journalism program here in Toronto, Ontario. And if you've read the previous post ("Adapt or perish, right?"), you'll know about my brief tenure with the Toronto Star.

I could go on about my zeal for worldly affairs, on how 'newsy' I am, or how I possess a "piercing sense of criticism that cuts to the bone of anything its runs over," but I will spare you the hyperbole.

Yeah, I firmly believe I have the tools to work in the fourth estate, but so do a lot of other people. Any good liberal humanities education inherently instills this, no?

So, what to do to get some attention, to separate oneself from thy competitors?

Answer: Start a blog.

Well, it may not be revolutionary, or even ahead of the pack (say, somewhere in the middle) but I look forward to publishing things on this site, and if it captivates - okay, merely interests - a potential employer for long enough to garner an interview or a chance at one, it's done its job.

Talk to you soon,
JS

"I am certainly not one of those who need to be prodded. In fact, if anything, I am a prod." - Winston S. Churchill

Saturday, October 21, 2006

On Why: Adapt or perish, right?


What's up everyone… This bit here inaugurates the birth of my online blogging life. The genesis for this endeavor came from an academic assignment on writing a how-to piece on something of interest, and I instinctively orbited toward creating a web log as my subject.

Why?

Ever since the brief eight-month stint I was privileged enough to have worked at the Toronto Star last year (2005), I've been following the so-called decline and fall of the traditional newspaper. The passing conversations with my editor over the Star's strategic push toward broadening its media formats beyond the traditional daily, struck me as an imperative for all newspapers the developed-world over. The ubiquity of the internet and proliferation of niche news sources (the so-called Long Tail theory), I would begin to learn, were shattering already-declining subscriptions across North America and Europe, not to mention drawing off significant advertising revenue.

It was a two-front assault and print news organizations in 2005 were grappling to reinvigorate their marketshare.

We're rapidly approaching 2007 and guess what? They still are.

Last month's leader in Britain's The Economist magazine, "Who Killed the Newspaper," is further proof that the threat to old media, and its ancillary stakeholders (i.e. me) is real.

As I've learned to live with the knowledge that I'm entering an industry very much in flux, where jobs are changing dramatically or are being eviscerated outright, I've realized I need to react, and converge with the behaviour of the organizations I'll be relying on for my livelihood.

Adapt or perish, right?

To start, a rudimentary, service-hosted blog will hopefully suffice. My focus is stated in the mission statement at the top of the screen under the flag (read: broad). Feel free to post and comment anything you deem relevant, any and all contribution is welcome.

JS

“Just as everybody has an e-mail account today, everybody will have a blog in five years. Journalism won’t be a sermon any more, it will be a conversation.”- Sabeer Bhatia, creator, Hotmail.com