Shocking: Canadian magazine publishers are outraged their government is cutting $16 million of its $32 million in annual subsidies to their industry. (That’s Canadian dollars.) The subsidy, it seems, is in return for giving U.S. magazine publishers greater access to the Canadian market. I think a better idea would be to use the approach the U.S. government takes towards the country’s farms: Increase subsidies for NOT publishing a magazine. This would help the Canadian publishers net out at about the same level as they would still get their subsidy but wouldn’t have all that overhead associated with actually producing the magazine. After this proves successful in Canada, I think we should consider it here. I suggest the first subsidy be given to this company if it agrees not to publish any new gambling-related, upscale magazines for men. (For the record, I say this in jest, as everyone knows I’m really a big fan of government subsidies for magazines targeting upscale male gamblers.)

Addicted to crackpot research: I’ve been wanting to comment on Harvard psychiatry instructor Edwar M. Hallowell’s psuedo-research that led to his misinterpretation of invalid data about information “addiction.” However, Doc Searls has already said what I wanted to (except that comment about magazines). I’m giving Hallowell a little break as I suspect the reporter is bending his quotes and research to fit into a desired story angle.

More on mag moblogging: Last week, I mentioned the complaints Japanese magazine publishers have about camera cell phones in bookstores. Joi Ito, as I hoped, has posted more insight on this phenomenon. Later: There are lots of interesting comments on joi’s post.

Man behind the links: As I link to his stories perhaps more than to anyone else’s, it’s only appropriate that I link to this interview with Keith Kelly conducted by Mediabistro.com’s Jesse Oxfield.

Traveling: I’m traveling today. I’ll blog later. Right now, I’m trying out some Starbucks wi-fi in downtown DC. Free offer from T-Mobile.