Copp's Coup

Cross-posted to the E-Group.

I imagine that, with her extensive experience, Sheila Copps has a lot to say about political workings in Canada -- but is she a writer?

Browsing through the Friday version of the National Post, I saw that Copps has won the honour of becoming a newpaper columnist. Swell.

A short while ago, I had lamented a lack of women in Canadian media, so how could I possibly complain about Sheila's coup? What's more, how could I possibly do that without sounding like I'm seriously gnashing my teeth on little metallic bits of envy? I'll give it a try.

First of all, she used the "c" word without even attempting to define what she means by it: "What really counts in culture is the content." Worse, she used two "c" words without defining what she means by either.

"What really counts in culture is the content." Sounds nifty. What's it supposed to mean? Apparently, it means having things like a prime minister, winters, hockey and beer. Somehow, I'm guessing, culture is something more, and I think it also involves people, some of whom don't even drink beer.

But, "Enough about beer and culture: What about the Cabinet?" as Sheila writes. Wow. Check out the powerful linkage in those two sentences. Never. Saw. Anything. Like. It.

No. Really.

Next, Copps throws a left at Barbara Yaffe (I do mean a left) and a right at Ken Dryden for being a hockey player. She rams Canada's national sport, takes a run at Ralph Klein, invents a new territory, seems to trash all men, slips in a little about the cabinet, and then expects us to consider the question she poses in medias res: "Why are experienced women and minorities losing ground while hockey players rule?"

In her new territory, Canadonia, "We would have to leave our men behind. And I for one know that, without Ken Dryden, Canada would never have beaten Russia in the only Canadian game that really counts - hockey." She must realize, of course, that we have a truly great women's hockey team and that, in Canada, geography juts out as a rather important concern.

I had to read the article a second time because the first time through I missed the point. The second time through, I realized, sadly, that it was pointless. If she wants to take on the crucial issue of gender imbalance and unfairness, she'll need to sharpen her pencil a little more.

Here's my question: "Why are experienced writers and creativity losing ground while political stars rule?"