As the Ontario provincial election seemingly tightens at the midway point of the election, Warren Kinsella is becoming more and more desperate.
It's actually rather ironic. Earlier in the campaign, "desperate" was his favourite word. He took to Twitter to declare the deseperation of the Tim Hudak-led Progressive Conservative Party.
Now, it's Kinsella and Premier Dalton McGuinty who are becoming desperate. But mostly Kinsella.
In a posting on his blog, Kinsella wails about the federal Conservative Party's treatment of a video taken at a barbecue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford held in July.
The guest of honour at the barbecue was Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who spoke about the upcoming Ontario election, and rallied guests to support Tim Hudak in defeating the Liberal government of Ontario.
Harper spoke of the need for a conservative hat trick in Ontario.
Kinsella's desperation in raising this video becomes clear when one considers that this non-story first came up in early August and it is now late September.
Frankly, it is precisely that: a non-story. There is nothing reasonably controversial about this video. Unless, of course, one is a Liberal voter or war room worker.
It's reminiscent of a past story in which a left-wing partisan snuck a video camera into a Conservative Party event in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed that -- *gasp!* -- he and his party were working toward winning a majority goverment.
The story was not only a non-story, it was non-news. Everyone knew that Harper and the Tories had been working toward a majority government. Harper coming out and saying so was threatening only to left-wing partisans. Treating a video in which he said what everyone already knew as if it were remarkable or scandalous was nothing more than blowing the left-wing dog whistle.
Harper's words simply alert Kinsella and the left-wing partisans he's counting on to something only they will perceive as dangerous.
Now, in the middle of an election campaign, Kinsella is offering up video of Harper saying he'd like to see a conservative government in Queen's Park. In other words, video in which Harper simply says what everyone already knows. Kinsella is simply blowing the left-wing dog whistle, and in his desperation he's blowing it hard.
It's certainly Kinsella's hope that Harper's "conservative hat trick" comment will scare NDP voters into the Liberal fold. Looking at the poll numbers, looking at the embarrassing incidents his party has fallen victim to, Kinsella knows, as many other people know, that this is his party's best hopes of holding onto even a minority government, let alone holding on to their majority.
As for the federal Tories' efforts to shut the video down, chalk that up to an effort to discourage left-wing activists from resorting to the creepy means of hidden cameras in search of "gotcha" non-stories.
For Warren Kinsella, desperate times seem to call for desperate measures.
Showing posts with label Warren Kinsella. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warren Kinsella. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2011
Saturday, April 24, 2010
What Frank Graves Is Not:
Moderate
Ever since it was revealed that EKOS President Frank Graves recommended to the Liberal Party that they start a culture war, a great deal of intellectual and rhetorical energy has been expended trying to figure out precisely what Graves is.
Very little such energy has been spent trying to elucidate what Graves is not.
So much so that Graves himself doesn't seem to know, as revealled by some of his recent comments.
“Whether or not I am a centre-moderate in my political beliefs – which I am, which I didn’t think was a matter of great shame in this country – is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I can conduct myself as a sociologist or pollster in a fair and neutral fashion,” Graves insisted.
After suggesting that the Liberal Party spark a culture war for political gain, Frank Graves has the temerity to insist that he is a moderate.
No one who would so much as dare recommend turning Canadians against one another for political gain is a moderate.
One need only look south of the border to see the divisive and destructive nature of what Graves has recommended to the Liberal Party: partisan ideologues casting vapid aspersions of racism at fellow citizens simply because they dislike and actually fear what those citizens have to say.
It takes a particularly dangerous brand of ideologue to look at that conflict and believe that we need the same in Canada, just so their political party of preference can govern.
"In reflection, it was inappropriate and I should have used more measured terms and I don’t think the Prime Minister’s racist or a homophobe, nor do I think members of his cabinet or his caucus are," Graves continued. "I do believe, and this gets more subtle, that there is a higher incidence of people who are less tolerant to homosexuals and more wary of other races, within the Conservative Party. I can demonstrate that empirically."
First off, this reminds one that Graves work is now highly suspect. Graves has revealled himself to be a consumate cultural warrior. When one is examining polling to determine whether or not it's biased, it isn't at all unreasonable to start with the evident bias of the individuals crafting the polling questions.
This becomes especially apparent when one considers the extent to which the questions asked during a poll influences the results that poll will produce -- the very same complaint that Graves levied against a recent poll commissioned by the Manning Centre.
Moreover, some Canadians may even recognize the insinuation present in Graves' words.
It's nearly precisely the same phrase Warren Kinsella wrote about Preston Manning in Web of Hate. Kinsella remarked that Manning had done a great job of removing any racial supremacists from the ranks of the Reform Party. But he continued to cast aspersions against Manning based on the number of racists that his party had attracted, despite the fact that it became clear that their beliefs were not welcome in that party.
Some of the efforts to attribute racism to the Reform Party were actually rather remarkable. In Slumming it at the Rodeo, Gordon Laird put then-Reform Party MP (now embattled and disgraced former Conservative MP) Rahim Jaffer into the spotlight with an account of alleged racism at a Reform Party Stampede barbecue that reads as if it were fictionalized.
(The account is written as if it were a first-hand account of an event that Laird makes it clear he would not be caught dead at, and declined to identify any sources who had been present.)
But this has proven to be the remarkable quality of such accusations. When one doesn't have to name any names, one can claim nearly anything. The sources referenced could be anyone... or no one.
Likewise, the "empirical evidence" that Graves cites could be conclusive or largely inconclusive.
Because Frank Graves has made his motivations perfectly clear in this matter, there is simply no reason to trust his data on this subject. Many pollsters have demonstrated, time and time again, that they can get the results they want -- both in a general and more specific sense.
After all, it's clear that Frank Graves is not at least one other thing:
An impartial pollster.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Montreal Simon - "Frank Graves and the Con Homophobes"
Officially Screwed - "Liberal Pollster Frank Graves (or Frank Graves’s) Mistake"
Lee Hamilton - "Morning Brew: 'Invoke a Culture War'"
Edmund James - "A Culture War in Canada?"
Ever since it was revealed that EKOS President Frank Graves recommended to the Liberal Party that they start a culture war, a great deal of intellectual and rhetorical energy has been expended trying to figure out precisely what Graves is.
Very little such energy has been spent trying to elucidate what Graves is not.
So much so that Graves himself doesn't seem to know, as revealled by some of his recent comments.
“Whether or not I am a centre-moderate in my political beliefs – which I am, which I didn’t think was a matter of great shame in this country – is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I can conduct myself as a sociologist or pollster in a fair and neutral fashion,” Graves insisted.
After suggesting that the Liberal Party spark a culture war for political gain, Frank Graves has the temerity to insist that he is a moderate.
No one who would so much as dare recommend turning Canadians against one another for political gain is a moderate.
One need only look south of the border to see the divisive and destructive nature of what Graves has recommended to the Liberal Party: partisan ideologues casting vapid aspersions of racism at fellow citizens simply because they dislike and actually fear what those citizens have to say.
It takes a particularly dangerous brand of ideologue to look at that conflict and believe that we need the same in Canada, just so their political party of preference can govern.
"In reflection, it was inappropriate and I should have used more measured terms and I don’t think the Prime Minister’s racist or a homophobe, nor do I think members of his cabinet or his caucus are," Graves continued. "I do believe, and this gets more subtle, that there is a higher incidence of people who are less tolerant to homosexuals and more wary of other races, within the Conservative Party. I can demonstrate that empirically."
First off, this reminds one that Graves work is now highly suspect. Graves has revealled himself to be a consumate cultural warrior. When one is examining polling to determine whether or not it's biased, it isn't at all unreasonable to start with the evident bias of the individuals crafting the polling questions.
This becomes especially apparent when one considers the extent to which the questions asked during a poll influences the results that poll will produce -- the very same complaint that Graves levied against a recent poll commissioned by the Manning Centre.
Moreover, some Canadians may even recognize the insinuation present in Graves' words.
It's nearly precisely the same phrase Warren Kinsella wrote about Preston Manning in Web of Hate. Kinsella remarked that Manning had done a great job of removing any racial supremacists from the ranks of the Reform Party. But he continued to cast aspersions against Manning based on the number of racists that his party had attracted, despite the fact that it became clear that their beliefs were not welcome in that party.
Some of the efforts to attribute racism to the Reform Party were actually rather remarkable. In Slumming it at the Rodeo, Gordon Laird put then-Reform Party MP (now embattled and disgraced former Conservative MP) Rahim Jaffer into the spotlight with an account of alleged racism at a Reform Party Stampede barbecue that reads as if it were fictionalized.
(The account is written as if it were a first-hand account of an event that Laird makes it clear he would not be caught dead at, and declined to identify any sources who had been present.)
But this has proven to be the remarkable quality of such accusations. When one doesn't have to name any names, one can claim nearly anything. The sources referenced could be anyone... or no one.
Likewise, the "empirical evidence" that Graves cites could be conclusive or largely inconclusive.
Because Frank Graves has made his motivations perfectly clear in this matter, there is simply no reason to trust his data on this subject. Many pollsters have demonstrated, time and time again, that they can get the results they want -- both in a general and more specific sense.
After all, it's clear that Frank Graves is not at least one other thing:
An impartial pollster.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Montreal Simon - "Frank Graves and the Con Homophobes"
Officially Screwed - "Liberal Pollster Frank Graves (or Frank Graves’s) Mistake"
Lee Hamilton - "Morning Brew: 'Invoke a Culture War'"
Edmund James - "A Culture War in Canada?"
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
"Paper Holes", Not "Bullet Holes"
Liberal Party response to photo controversy not a pretty pictureIn some sectors of the Canadian media, the response to the outrage swirling around the Liberal Party's "Anywhere but Copenhagen" contest has been anything but torrid.
On the National Post's Full Comment blog, Jeff Jedras offered the same response as Warren Kinsella: the Stephen Harper-as-Lee Harvey Oswald photo was bad, but the Conservative party has been just as bad.
Jedras and Kinsella both pointed to an image that appeared ont the Conservative Party website during the 2008 election, in which Stephane Dion appears in front of a red background peppered with what they had described as "bullet holes".
That the bullet holes in question don't resemble bullet holes as most Canadians would recognize them is just one problem with this attempt at a diversion. As Tim Powers points out in the Globe and Mail, the second problem it is that simply has no basis in truth:
"Warren's prop today was a picture of Stéphane Dion surrounded by paper holes depicting his flawed policy initiatives - like the carbon tax - along with comments from Liberals. But according to the Liberals these were bullet holes and this was therefore a terrible thing - as offensive as their assassination photo.And to make matters worse, the "headshots of possible shooters" were actually the headshots of people who had been challenging and questioning Dion's Green Shift policy (poking holes in it, if you will -- perhaps even paper holes).
It was prepared by purchasing an iStockphoto image called 'Paper Holes.' That’s right, paper holes. The supplier (a Canadian company, by the way) describes the image as 'black hole [sic] in paper.' Check it out here."
Moreover, if one were to actually take time to read the text in question, they'll find this all makes perfect sense.
Of course, it's very unlikely that Jeff Jedras, Warren Kinsella, or anyone else from the Liberal Party will stop peddling their rhetoric even after it's shown to be demonstrably false.
Other bloggers writing about this:
Lord of the Universe - "Liberals and Fake Harper Assassination Pic: Idiots of the Day"
Kitchener Conservative - "Hey Libs, You Screwed Up... Just Admit It!"
Friday, November 27, 2009
Take a Fucking Chill Pill, Buddy
Murray Dobbin doth protest far too much
In a recent column published on the ideologically parochial Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin decries the "Republicanization of Canadian politics".
He claims that recent efforts by the Conservative Party to minimalize the increasingly-suspect testimony of Richard Colvin and recent mailings by the Conservative Party accusing the Liberal party as anti-Semitic are the signs of an unprecedented level of nastiness in Canadian politics:
The truth is that there's far more afoot on either one of these issues than Dobbin would like to let on. Just like any good ideological fundamentalist, he's more than happy to omit any little facts or details that don't support his worldview.
Most obvious about Dobbin's rantings is the absurdity of opposition parties trying to tar the Conservative Party with torture allegations in the first place. Individuals like Dobbin expect Canadians to conveniently forget that it was the Liberal Party who had negotiated the prisoner transfer agreement under which these abuses were allegedly taking place. ("Allegedly" being the key word.)
Dobbin is much closer to a justifiable argument on the anti-Semitism issue. Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are both known as good international friends of Israel. Irwin Cotler's efforts in support of Israel, as well as in support of the effort to bring Nazi War Criminals hiding in Canada to justice, are well-known and well-documented. To accuse the Liberal Party of being institutionally anti-Semitic simply stretches credulity.
But, then again, many of Dobbin's contemporaries have delighted in accusing the Reform Party -- one of the predecessors of the modern Conservative Party -- of being instituionally racist. They did this despite the fact that the Reform Party consistently presented the most racially-diverse caucus in the House of Commons, and did so without any kind of nomination quotas.
This particular fact didn't stop Gordon Laird, one of Dobbin's premier contemporaries, of fictionalizing racist incidents in his book Slumming It at the Rodeo.
In fact, accusations of racism have often proven to be very effective bread-and-butter issues for critics and opponents of the Conservative Party. To date, Dobbin's objection to this have been slim and none.
Perhaps Dobbin considers anti-Semitism to be a special and privileged breed of racism, of which no one may be accused if those accusations cannot be justified. Or perhaps he's simply content to smile wistfully to himself while similar accusations -- which are similarly unjustified -- are flung at his ideological rivals.
One of the leading purveyors of racial outrage for political benefit has been Warren Kinsella. Kinsella has specialized in an "even if they can show they aren't racist we can still peddle innuendo" argument.
Furthermore, Kinsella has written not one, but two books -- Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics and The War Room -- bragging about his role in bringing US-style attack politics to Canada.
Kinsella was also willing to dabble in a form of bigotry that Dobbin himself was extremely eager to engage in -- anti-religious bigotry.
For Kinsella, the target was Stockwell Day. For Dobbin, it was Preston Manning.
To pretend that the Conservative Party has never indulged in attack politics current Conservative Senator and former Party President Doug Finley is perfectly willing to admit to this.
"We built our brand while trying to damage theirs," Finley recently said. "Stephane Dion was a candidate from heaven. I would say our brand has gone from 17% (core support) to 30%. In other words, that percentage of voters will wake up in the morning and say they will vote Conservative. The Liberal brand has fallen from the mid-30s (core support) to about the mid-20s. As you can see, we have successfully branded Michael Ignatieff as out of touch and in it for himself. We have stopped him right in his tracks. And he hasn't helped himself with some of the gaffes he has made. He's a typical academic. He puts his nose up and talks without really thinking of the consequences of his words. I don't think they did due diligence on this guy."
But considering the depths to which Dobbin and his contemporaries on Canada's far left -- and among the campaign teams of Canada's mainstream left -- are willing to stoop, it's impossible to take him seriously.
After all, it's definitely wrong to baselessly accuse one's political opponents of being anti-Semitic. But it's also wrong to baselessly accuse one's political opponents of plotting to transform Canada into a military police state.
Dobbin's response to that? Again, slim and none.
Fortunately, the ad proved to be the death knell for the 2006 Liberal campaign. But previously, Canadians had swallowed this particular bit of fear mongering.
These facts made Gerard Kennedy's accusations that the Conservative party was campaigning based on fear purely laughable. And they make the next portion of Dobbin's rant seem even more so:
The truth is that the political thuggery that often characterizes Canadian politics already has been emulated by its former victims -- its former victims being the Conservative Party, both prior to and after the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance.
Certainly, that doesn't excuse the Conservative Party from following the same path. But, then again, there's a big difference between pointing out the lack of leadership skills of a Party leader (Stephane Dion) and impugning the citizenship of another (Michael Ignatieff). The latter is certainly far worse than the former.
But, by the same token, there's a bigger difference still between impugning the citizenship of a political leader and insinuating that one is planning to implement a military police state. Whether or not the latter is worse is a matter of some debate.
In a recent column published on the ideologically parochial Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin decries the "Republicanization of Canadian politics".
He claims that recent efforts by the Conservative Party to minimalize the increasingly-suspect testimony of Richard Colvin and recent mailings by the Conservative Party accusing the Liberal party as anti-Semitic are the signs of an unprecedented level of nastiness in Canadian politics:
"Watching the sickening performances of the Harperites in the House of Commons this week -- out right lying, bullying, slander, contempt for the public and parliament, and a stunning disregard for the public good -- brings home a hard reality: we are witnessing the Republicanization of our political culture. And it's not just the torture issue -- it's the Conservative labeling of Liberals as anti-Semitic -- a kind of shit-house rat politics virtually unknown in Canadian political history. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Karl Rove is on the PMO's payroll; his disciples certainly are."But the truth is that Dobbin, like any good ideological fundamentalist, doth protest way too fucking much.
The truth is that there's far more afoot on either one of these issues than Dobbin would like to let on. Just like any good ideological fundamentalist, he's more than happy to omit any little facts or details that don't support his worldview.
Most obvious about Dobbin's rantings is the absurdity of opposition parties trying to tar the Conservative Party with torture allegations in the first place. Individuals like Dobbin expect Canadians to conveniently forget that it was the Liberal Party who had negotiated the prisoner transfer agreement under which these abuses were allegedly taking place. ("Allegedly" being the key word.)
Dobbin is much closer to a justifiable argument on the anti-Semitism issue. Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are both known as good international friends of Israel. Irwin Cotler's efforts in support of Israel, as well as in support of the effort to bring Nazi War Criminals hiding in Canada to justice, are well-known and well-documented. To accuse the Liberal Party of being institutionally anti-Semitic simply stretches credulity.
But, then again, many of Dobbin's contemporaries have delighted in accusing the Reform Party -- one of the predecessors of the modern Conservative Party -- of being instituionally racist. They did this despite the fact that the Reform Party consistently presented the most racially-diverse caucus in the House of Commons, and did so without any kind of nomination quotas.
This particular fact didn't stop Gordon Laird, one of Dobbin's premier contemporaries, of fictionalizing racist incidents in his book Slumming It at the Rodeo.
In fact, accusations of racism have often proven to be very effective bread-and-butter issues for critics and opponents of the Conservative Party. To date, Dobbin's objection to this have been slim and none.
Perhaps Dobbin considers anti-Semitism to be a special and privileged breed of racism, of which no one may be accused if those accusations cannot be justified. Or perhaps he's simply content to smile wistfully to himself while similar accusations -- which are similarly unjustified -- are flung at his ideological rivals.
One of the leading purveyors of racial outrage for political benefit has been Warren Kinsella. Kinsella has specialized in an "even if they can show they aren't racist we can still peddle innuendo" argument.
Furthermore, Kinsella has written not one, but two books -- Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics and The War Room -- bragging about his role in bringing US-style attack politics to Canada.
Kinsella was also willing to dabble in a form of bigotry that Dobbin himself was extremely eager to engage in -- anti-religious bigotry.
For Kinsella, the target was Stockwell Day. For Dobbin, it was Preston Manning.
To pretend that the Conservative Party has never indulged in attack politics current Conservative Senator and former Party President Doug Finley is perfectly willing to admit to this.
"We built our brand while trying to damage theirs," Finley recently said. "Stephane Dion was a candidate from heaven. I would say our brand has gone from 17% (core support) to 30%. In other words, that percentage of voters will wake up in the morning and say they will vote Conservative. The Liberal brand has fallen from the mid-30s (core support) to about the mid-20s. As you can see, we have successfully branded Michael Ignatieff as out of touch and in it for himself. We have stopped him right in his tracks. And he hasn't helped himself with some of the gaffes he has made. He's a typical academic. He puts his nose up and talks without really thinking of the consequences of his words. I don't think they did due diligence on this guy."
But considering the depths to which Dobbin and his contemporaries on Canada's far left -- and among the campaign teams of Canada's mainstream left -- are willing to stoop, it's impossible to take him seriously.
After all, it's definitely wrong to baselessly accuse one's political opponents of being anti-Semitic. But it's also wrong to baselessly accuse one's political opponents of plotting to transform Canada into a military police state.
Dobbin's response to that? Again, slim and none.
Fortunately, the ad proved to be the death knell for the 2006 Liberal campaign. But previously, Canadians had swallowed this particular bit of fear mongering.
These facts made Gerard Kennedy's accusations that the Conservative party was campaigning based on fear purely laughable. And they make the next portion of Dobbin's rant seem even more so:
"There is no obvious way to deal with overt and unapologetic political thuggery. Fighting back in the same manner actually plays into the thugs' hands because part of their broader objective is to poison the well of public discourse. The ferocious partisanship of the Harper Conservatives -- who should really be called the Libertarian Party as there is nothing conservative about them -- is designed to drive ordinary citizens away from politics. I can barely stand to watch and listen to the vitriol and lies and I have spent my whole life observing and analyzing politics. I try to imagine what people who have very limited for it must think when they see this performance. But there is no question that it partly explains the fact that 42% of Canadians didn't vote in 2008 -- a huge advantage for the Libertarians."It takes a special kind of demagogue to pass off that kind of incoherent nonsense as high-minded commentary. Not to mention the fact that Dobbin has to omit huge swaths of recent Canadian political history in order to make that argument.
The truth is that the political thuggery that often characterizes Canadian politics already has been emulated by its former victims -- its former victims being the Conservative Party, both prior to and after the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance.
Certainly, that doesn't excuse the Conservative Party from following the same path. But, then again, there's a big difference between pointing out the lack of leadership skills of a Party leader (Stephane Dion) and impugning the citizenship of another (Michael Ignatieff). The latter is certainly far worse than the former.
But, by the same token, there's a bigger difference still between impugning the citizenship of a political leader and insinuating that one is planning to implement a military police state. Whether or not the latter is worse is a matter of some debate.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Gutter Politics, Defined
Harper not to blame for "gutter politics" -- at least not alone
In a blog post appearing on the website of Vancouver's Georgia Straight, Charlie Smith derides Stephen Harper and the Conservative party for allegedly indulging themselves in "gutter politics":
But in order to make the argument that Harper, and Harper alone, are responsible for the rise of gutter politics in Canada would be a facetious argument ad extremis.
It would ignore the Liberal party's long, somehow proud history of engaging in gutter politics, embodied in some savagely personal and pernicious attack ads being aired against Harper.
One can say what they will about the "Just Visiting" ads. They don't accuse Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff of plotting to summarily declare martial law upon winning power. While the move to impugn Ignatieff's citizenship based on time spent out of the country is atrociously irresponsible, at least they stay on the right side of accusing a political opponent of plotting treason.
Then, of course, there is the matter of Canada's undisputed king of gutter politics, Warren Kinsella. Even against the testimony of Liberal Senator Noel Kinsella that Harper consumed the allgedly-missing communion wafer, Warren Kinsella has been utterly shameless about using this non-scandal for his party's advantage.
Among the other media sources peddling "Wafergate" as if it were a scandal of any political consequence is the Huffington Post.
Even feverish arch-Liberal blogger Darryl Raymaker is unshockingly eager to get in on the act.
Classy.
Yet, if one were to ask Charlie Smith, it's Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper alone, who's responsible for "gutter politics" and the "decline in political literacy" that comes with it.
Those who have actually payed attention to anything over the past 20 years in this country know better. Harper certainly hasn't shied away from gutter politics, but he certainly didn't pioneer it.
In a blog post appearing on the website of Vancouver's Georgia Straight, Charlie Smith derides Stephen Harper and the Conservative party for allegedly indulging themselves in "gutter politics":
"This week, I stumbled across another piece of garbage sent through the mail by a Conservative MP.Smith is perfectly right to note the irresponsibility and recklessness of the Conservatives' "Just Visiting" campaign.
This one featured a 'pop quiz'. It asked how long Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was away from Canada.
On the flip side, it contained the Conservative slogan 'Ignatieff: Just visiting'.
There was not a word about public policies, plans, or issues--just a vicious personal attack on the Opposition leader.
I wonder what thoughtful conservatives think of these tactics, which are so typical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Harper seems to think that if you treat the public like they're idiots, you have a better chance of getting reelected.
It's time for people like Senator Hugh Segal, former federal cabinet ministers John Crosbie and John Fraser, and former prime ministers Kim Campbell and Joe Clark to stand up and condemn this nonsense.
Harper is debasing our political culture. As we've seen in the United States, whenever this occurs, there's a corresponding decline in political literacy.
That's likely followed by reckless policies that can bankrupt the nation and lead it into perpetual war.
It's time for conservatives to say enough is enough. The ends don't always justify the means."
But in order to make the argument that Harper, and Harper alone, are responsible for the rise of gutter politics in Canada would be a facetious argument ad extremis.
It would ignore the Liberal party's long, somehow proud history of engaging in gutter politics, embodied in some savagely personal and pernicious attack ads being aired against Harper.
One can say what they will about the "Just Visiting" ads. They don't accuse Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff of plotting to summarily declare martial law upon winning power. While the move to impugn Ignatieff's citizenship based on time spent out of the country is atrociously irresponsible, at least they stay on the right side of accusing a political opponent of plotting treason.
Then, of course, there is the matter of Canada's undisputed king of gutter politics, Warren Kinsella. Even against the testimony of Liberal Senator Noel Kinsella that Harper consumed the allgedly-missing communion wafer, Warren Kinsella has been utterly shameless about using this non-scandal for his party's advantage.
Among the other media sources peddling "Wafergate" as if it were a scandal of any political consequence is the Huffington Post.
Even feverish arch-Liberal blogger Darryl Raymaker is unshockingly eager to get in on the act.
Classy.
Yet, if one were to ask Charlie Smith, it's Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper alone, who's responsible for "gutter politics" and the "decline in political literacy" that comes with it.
Those who have actually payed attention to anything over the past 20 years in this country know better. Harper certainly hasn't shied away from gutter politics, but he certainly didn't pioneer it.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Picking A Strange Hill to Die On
In a post on his blog today Warren Kinsella is promoting a strange video suggesting that Stephen Harper doesn't like Brian Mulroney very much.
Not a great secret.
Presented in the form of a storybook, replete with "The Dance of the Sugar Plum fairy" playing in the background, the video chronicles Stephen Harper's turn away from the Mulroney-era Progressive Conservatives. Harper had worked for then-Calgary West MP Jim Hawkes as a Parliamentary aide, but would quit over concerns about Mulroney's fiscal policies.
Harper would run unsuccessfully against Hawkes as a Reform party candidate in the 1988 federal election before defeating him in 1993.
After a falling out with Reform party leader Preston Manning, Harper left the party to become the President of the National Citizens Coalition. The video highlights Harper's criticisms of Mulroney and Harper's suggestion that the then-governing Liberal party not settle Mulroney's libel lawsuit out-of-court so the RCMP could continue investigating the matter.
"Not nice," the video muses, complaining that Harper has rarely been there to help Mulroney.
Yet when Kinsella's Liberal party called for a judicial inquiry into his dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber -- who promised startling revelations regarding the Airbus scandal, but only if he wasn't extradited to Germany -- Harper initially refused.
Not exactly the actions of someone pursuing a grudge against a former political opponent.
The video is an interesting exercise in branding and counter-branding. It seeks to brand Brian Mulroney as largely an innocent victim of Stephen Harper's malice and lack of niceties. Meanwhile, it tries to counter-brand Harper as a vindictive and petulant individual for whom personal hatred of Mulroney is motivating his government's actions vis a vis Mulroney, as opposed to the persistent demands of the opposition parties.
It's unsurprising that Warren Kinsella would be so eager to help promote such a piece of online tripe. The video in question banks on the short memories of its viewers, hoping that they'll separate the Oliphant inquiry from its real-world context -- the demands by then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion that Mulroney be investigated.
This is unsurprising from someone who demands that the sponsorship scandal be separated from its context. He has long railed against holding Jean Chretien responsible for the sponsorship scandal, but refuses to acknowledge the simple fact that the sponsorship program was run out of his office, by his personal staff.
Then again, Warren Kinsella has a history of pcking strange hills to die on. One recalls Kinsella's recent accusation that several conservative bloggers covertly receive paycheques from the Conservative party -- an odd accusation from an individual who has, in the past, accepted paycheques from the Liberals.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Farce As Art...
In political blogging, as in anything else, there are good weeks and there are bad weeks.
When one specializes, as Kinsella does, in not-so-thinly veiled drive-by smears, bad weeks tend to be very, very bad weeks.
Kinsella's bad week began a few days early when his infamous "BBQ cat" remarks transcended the typical blogosphere controversy into the mainstream media.
That forced Kinsella to pony up this sincere (if worried) looking apology to the Chinese Canadian community.
In the days since, however, Kinsella has grasped at any possible straw to deflect attention to the wholesale discrediting of his mantle as one of Canada's foremost racism fighters.
On Wednesday Kinsella published a post claiming that numerous high-profile Conservative bloggers haven't donated to the Conservative party. Moreover, Kinsella insists that some of them are secretly recieving money from the Tories.
Kinsella insisted that Pierre Bourque, Stephen Taylor, Kate McMillan, Ezra Levant, Steve Janke, Craig Smith, Jarrett Plonka, Damian Penny, Gerry Nicholls and Victor Wong haven't donated any money to the Conservative party.
There are serious problems with Kinsella's post, however.
For one thing, as Raphael Alexander notes, the post isn't even correct.
As it turns out, Stephen Taylor has donated money to the Tories. He just donated less money than is required to be divulged to Elections Canada:
"I did in fact donate to the Conservative Party in 2008. Warren, you don’t appreciate that cheques for less than $200 are not publicly disclosed by Elections Canada. I suppose that Warren thinks that folks that write cheques for less than $200 aren’t 'putting their money where their mouth is'. I suppose Warren might say that only those that cut big cheques are allowed to have a voice!"Taylor isn't alone amongst the bloggers that Kinsella has apparently smeared.
Victor Wong seemed positively bemused by the allegations:
"“As for this 'covertly paid' business, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of it. I certainly don’t get paid for blogging; and I suspect that few Blogging Tories (if any) make any sort of cash from writing on their own site. (It is somewhat reassuring, however, to know that somebody thinks I’m getting paid for the stuff I write.)"As Damien Penny notes, based on what Penny's had to say about the federal budget, if he were really a paid hack for the Conservative party he'd probably have to return the cheque:
"…I can’t speak for anyone else on this list, but I have never been paid a cent by the Conservative Party (you’ve probably noticed how enthusiastic I’ve been about the recent Conservative budget), nor do I receive any blogging material from the Party or the PMO (unless spam e-mails count)."Kinsella recently warned Tim Powers while appearing on CTV's Power Play that he has a very good lawyer, and recently claimed that the two of them have never lost a case.
If Kinsella wishes to maintain that distinction, he may want to avoid making comments that can be proven libelous with little more than a voided cheque.
A day later, Kinsella indulged himself in some art criticism, as he took the opportunity to skewer Borque over one of his paintings.(If Kinsella were really qualified to criticize art as any kind of an expert, he'd probably recognize Borque's work as fusing abstract impressionism with minimalism. Whether or not Kinsella himself actually likes it is up to himself to decide.)
Kinsella's behaviour has proven to be so bizarre recently that it was even used against Michael Ignatieff in the House of Commons this week.
As far as farce goes, Warren Kinsella has made an art of it this week. One would have to think that Kinsella's sincerest hopes are that Canadians will have forgotten about his racist comments about Chinese Canadians.
Whether he has been this fortunate is one thing. Whether or not he should be so fortunate is another entirely.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Russ Campbell - "Liberal Mouthpiece Smears Blogging Tories"
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Old Joke, New Outrage
Jane Cornelius steps in it, tracks it into the house
Make no mistake about it: Jane Cornelius, the president of the St Catharine's Liberal riding association, is watching her political career go down in flames today, struck by the heatseaking missile that is her own hubris.
In a controversy quickly tearing its way through the blogosphere, Cornelius printed what has turned out to be an extremely ill-advised "joke" in Peaking Liberally, the St Catharines Liberal newsletter:
If Cornelius is at all surprised by the outrage the printing of this joke has generated, she needs to have her head examined. (She may need it examined regardless.)
For a political party to print a joke about the assassination of a competing political leader is one thing. To suggest that Canadian troops, or the troops of one of our allies could be responsible for it, is entirely another. It's purely outrageous.
But some of the outrage may be overblown.
For example, Warren Kinsella has suggested the RCMP should be alerted.
While the spirit of the joke is outrageously disgusting, to take it quite this seriously is another matter. This is actually a very old joke, and has been told time and time again about any number of politicians.
All the "Little Johnny" jokes are. And let's not forget that Little Johnny is a bit of a little jerk.
Of course, never before has it been offered up under the guise of legitimate political discourse. And while numerous individuals have taken certain delight in poisoning Canada's political discourse, for the representative of one of our two major parties to do so quite like this is simply beyond the pale.
At least politics -- at least on any formal level -- isn't something that Jane Cornelius will have to worry about for much longer. If Stephane Dion doesn't act quickly to remove her from the presidency of the St Catherine's riding association (and maybe even expel her from the party) he needs to have his head examined, too.
Make no mistake about it: Jane Cornelius, the president of the St Catharine's Liberal riding association, is watching her political career go down in flames today, struck by the heatseaking missile that is her own hubris.
In a controversy quickly tearing its way through the blogosphere, Cornelius printed what has turned out to be an extremely ill-advised "joke" in Peaking Liberally, the St Catharines Liberal newsletter:
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes.Ironically, this was printed in an article accusing the Conservative government of poisoning Canada's political discourse, and suggesting that Liberals need to "wash their hands" of that.
They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the PM if he would like to lead the discussion on the word “tragedy”. So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a “tragedy”.
One little boy stood up and offered: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy.
“No,” said Harper, “that would be an accident.”
A little girl raised her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.”
“I’m afraid not,” explained Harper. “That’s what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Harper searched the room. “Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?”
Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand... In a quiet voice he said: “If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Harper was struck by a “friendly fire” missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy.”
“Fantastic!” exclaimed Harper. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?” “Well,” says the boy,
“It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn’t be a great loss ...and it probably wouldn’t be an accident either”."
If Cornelius is at all surprised by the outrage the printing of this joke has generated, she needs to have her head examined. (She may need it examined regardless.)
For a political party to print a joke about the assassination of a competing political leader is one thing. To suggest that Canadian troops, or the troops of one of our allies could be responsible for it, is entirely another. It's purely outrageous.
But some of the outrage may be overblown.
For example, Warren Kinsella has suggested the RCMP should be alerted.
While the spirit of the joke is outrageously disgusting, to take it quite this seriously is another matter. This is actually a very old joke, and has been told time and time again about any number of politicians.
All the "Little Johnny" jokes are. And let's not forget that Little Johnny is a bit of a little jerk.
Of course, never before has it been offered up under the guise of legitimate political discourse. And while numerous individuals have taken certain delight in poisoning Canada's political discourse, for the representative of one of our two major parties to do so quite like this is simply beyond the pale.
At least politics -- at least on any formal level -- isn't something that Jane Cornelius will have to worry about for much longer. If Stephane Dion doesn't act quickly to remove her from the presidency of the St Catherine's riding association (and maybe even expel her from the party) he needs to have his head examined, too.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Top Ten Jerks in the Known Universe -- Nexus Style
Counting down the top ten not according to Warren Kinsella
In a recent post on his blog, Warren Kinsella outlines his "top ten jerks in the known universe". It turned out to be a very predictably partisan list.
Well, we at the Nexus (of Assholery) would probably be remiss if we didn't compile our own list of the top ten jerks in the universe. After all, considering the blog's name, we should know a thing or two about that topic.
Unsurprisingly, Kinsella makes the list (he's number five). More interestingly, positions one through three proved to be very closely packed. Who managed to take #1? Read on and find out.
10. John Rocker - Just when you thought this washed-up former Major League Baseball pitcher had disappeared off the face of the earth, he drags his racist, homophobic, sexist carcass out of the grave just long enough to savour some sour grapes by helping to bring down Major League Baseball as we know it.
Well, OK. So maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. And maybe Bud Selig himself only barely dodged making this particular list himself. But Rocker apparently isn't content to have ruined his own career with his public embarrassment of his sport and mediocre play. He just might bring his sport down with him.
9. Gordon Laird - So far as Canadian political analysis goes, Gordon Laird tends to writes really good fiction.
Laird actually makes this list almost exclusively for his 1998 book Slumming It At the Rodeo, in which he takes various swings at former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, and former Leader of the Opposition Preston Manning, and the rather astounding lengths which he goes to invest practically any issue with undertones of racism.
In perhaps the most amusing section of his book, Laird relates the story of a Reform party barbecue held during the Calgary Stampede. While himself clearly being an individual who would not be in attendance at the event, Laird suggests that Rahim Jaffer was the subject of various racial jokes which suddenly stopped when he showed up.
Except that Laird wasn't there. And that's a story that would be considered unlikely to be told by those in attendance at that event even if it did happen in the first place. So how is one to treat this alleged episode other than as complete fiction?
The idea that Laird would try to pass it off as fact, despite the episode remaining largely unsubstantiated, speaks volumes about him.
Alberta Politics Uncovered author Marc Lisac would duplicate that very same feat in what basically amounted to an ad hominem attack on former Alberta premier Ralph Klein in the course of his book. Not only is Laird easily dismissed as a jerk for perpetuating that fiction in the first place, but he clearly set a very bad example for other would-be authors.
8. Scott Reid - Mr "beer and popcorn" himself. When he isn't demonstrating his complete contempt for the Canadian electorate or musing about nefarious Conservative party conspiracies while sparring with Tim Powers on Mike Duffy Live, one can imagine he's hunkering somewhere in the basement of the Toronto Star trying to figure out how to do these things even better.
Perhaps what really solidifies his status as one of the top ten jerks in the known universe is the fact that Reid represents everything that is wrong with the federal Liberal party -- he's obnoxious enough to say absolutely anything he thinks his party will get a quick political charge out of, and arrogant enough to think he can do so and be entitled to a free pass.
Why the Liberal party continues to put this guy on TV is anyone's guess, but this guy's more a boon to the Conservative party than an asset to the Liberals.
7. Robert Spencer - Robert Spencer's website, Jihad Watch, has one overwhelming theme: "be afraid of Islam. Very afraid. Oh, and by the way, buy my book."
Of course, Spencer isn't alone in the post-9/11-booming industry of Islamophobia profiteering. But he is the industry leader in cherry-picked examples of the violence he alleges to be inherent in Islam, and in offhandedly dismissing any evidence that suggests otherwise.
He promotes himself as one of the world's top experts on Islam, and that certainly must help to inflate his book sales. However, he's never studied Islam -- his Master's Degree is in the study of early Christianity.
Last but certainly not least, Spencer's work is parroted by thousands of those leading the Islamophobic post-9/11 charge. Not only is he a massive jerk in his own right, but he also enables other jerks to be even jerkier.
Just what the world needs.
6. Sean Avery - Considered by many in the hockey world to be a synonym for "creep", Sean Avery has refined being a jerk to a fine art.
Whether it's cracking racial slurs at Georges Laraque, mocking Jason Blake for his leukemia, or generally running his mouth while refusing to drop the gloves -- unless he holds a serious advantage over his opponent -- Avery is a hockey pest that gives all hockey pests a bad name.
5. Warren Kinsella - It should be far from surprising that the man who inspired this list should make it. While he's been at the forefront of one particular very important social battle -- the fight against racism -- he's also proven to be one of the anti-racist movement's biggest liabilities, as he constantly bends over backward to find any excuse to label his political opponents as racist.
Kinsella is a leading factor in the ficklization of racism as a social issue. While his book Web of Hate reminds us all who the enemy is in terms of the battle against racial extremists, he's proven to be extremely content to undermine that entire battle whenever it might benefit him politically.
But where Kinsella really takes a turn for the irredeemably obnoxious is in the closing pages of Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics wherein he grades the Canadian media of the day -- and indulges his inner political warhorse by giving passing grades to those who support his beloved Liberal party, and failing grades to those who oppose them.
When Alan Fotheringham -- the "wicked wit of the west" and a political journalist whose boots Kinsella is unfit to so much as lick -- rates a mere "is he still alive?", it becomes immediately apparent that Kinsella is barking up the wrong tree.
4. Anonymous - If you were to believe Anonymous in its recently-declared War on Scientology, they're merely a band of would-be online superheroes trying to balance the scales in the name of justice and truth.
But Anonymous has been on the proverbial radar screen far before their recent crusade against Scientology. One particular news story proved to be particularly damning:
Long before Anonymous turned its online sights against Scientology, at the very least, various members were making asses of themselves harassing people who were more or less innocent, and doing it just for kicks.
Meanwhile, their war on Scientology has, even not purposefully, stirred up some predictable religious bigotry against the church. While some members of Anonymous probably legitimately feel very strongly about some of the church's practices, sometimes even the most well-intentioned campaigns can gather some flies.
3. Rush Limbaugh - Rush Limbaugh is only barely not #1 on this list. Limbaugh is an individual who has proven to be so despicable that even those who had decided that they maybe -- just maybe -- like him enough to marry him have changed their minds and thought "hmmmm. Maybe I don't like this guy very much."
His most recent episode suggesting that Michael J Fox was exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms has provided more than enough impetus to write this guy off as one of the most reprehensible people on the planet today.
He's an individual who will do or say almost anything to benefit his political allies. Unlike Canadian blowhard Scott Reid, however, Limbaugh has never been blessed with the good sense to apologize when he crosses the line -- or even admit he was wrong.
2. Canadian Cynic - By all accounts, this guy could also very well have been number one. He's only barely number two. Like the Nexus' #1 biggest jerk in the known universe, he's a hateful demagogue propped up by an equally vicious and hateful flock of sheep (but more on this later).
Cynic first managed to pop up on the Nexus' radar back in July when he indulged himself in telling Wanda Watkins, the mother of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan "fuck you and your grief". She had the nerve to suggest that the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan wanted Canadians to support the mission.
Cynic has, under the guise of being "progressive", plied his trade as a blogger by viciously attacking his political opponents, often resorting to ad hominem attacks in order to do so. His blogmates, Lulu and Lindsay Stewart (aka Pretty Shaved Ape) are disturbing in their own right in that they share his hatred of anyone who disagrees with them and his inability to contribute anything of any value to any kind of debate. But they're really just small potatoes.
The seemingly endless ability of Cynic's coterie of fellow hateful demagogues to defend him no mater how many lines he crosses only serves to underscore precisely how powerful a gospel hate can be -- and, sadly, Canadian Cynic preaches it well.
1. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church - There really is only one person in all existence who could justify pulling down number one on this list. While Canadian Cynic may find himself a little disappointed that he didn't manage to pull in that ignominious honour, at least he can take comfort that it was claimed by someone with whom he shares a lot in common.
Like Cynic, Fred Phelps hates virtually anyone and everyone. And like Cynic, Phelps does absolutely everything he can to convince anyone he can reach out and touch (so to speak) to hate them as well.
In particular, there's each individuals' stance on dead soldiers. Cynic's Wanda Watkins episode has been well-documented across the blogosphere (and within this very post). Phelps, on the other hand, protests at the funerals of dead soldiers. Both encourage hatred of soldiers and their families, but Cynic settles for doing it for political reasons. Sadly, this is what we've come to expect from the most hateful political actors. Phelps, meanwhile, does it for religious reasons, and perverts the meaning of his very own religion in order to do it.
For that, he edges Cynic out (if only slightly).
Then, there's Phelps' congregation. Like Cynic's merry band of sycophants, these are some of the sickest people one could ever encounter. At least Phelps' congregation has a decent excuse should they ever decide to make use of it: most of them are related to Phelps, and as such, their hatefulness and craziness could at least be argued to be genetic.
They're the group of people responsible for this particular artistic "masterpiece":
(On a personal note, I much prefer this:)
Of course, giving Phelps and his flock any attention whatsoever is almost certainly affording them more credibility than they deserve. By the same token, it is important to remind people that: yes, there are people in the world who are so hateful that virtually everyone should be more than a little bit concerned.
In a recent post on his blog, Warren Kinsella outlines his "top ten jerks in the known universe". It turned out to be a very predictably partisan list.
Well, we at the Nexus (of Assholery) would probably be remiss if we didn't compile our own list of the top ten jerks in the universe. After all, considering the blog's name, we should know a thing or two about that topic.
Unsurprisingly, Kinsella makes the list (he's number five). More interestingly, positions one through three proved to be very closely packed. Who managed to take #1? Read on and find out.
10. John Rocker - Just when you thought this washed-up former Major League Baseball pitcher had disappeared off the face of the earth, he drags his racist, homophobic, sexist carcass out of the grave just long enough to savour some sour grapes by helping to bring down Major League Baseball as we know it.Well, OK. So maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. And maybe Bud Selig himself only barely dodged making this particular list himself. But Rocker apparently isn't content to have ruined his own career with his public embarrassment of his sport and mediocre play. He just might bring his sport down with him.
9. Gordon Laird - So far as Canadian political analysis goes, Gordon Laird tends to writes really good fiction.Laird actually makes this list almost exclusively for his 1998 book Slumming It At the Rodeo, in which he takes various swings at former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, and former Leader of the Opposition Preston Manning, and the rather astounding lengths which he goes to invest practically any issue with undertones of racism.
In perhaps the most amusing section of his book, Laird relates the story of a Reform party barbecue held during the Calgary Stampede. While himself clearly being an individual who would not be in attendance at the event, Laird suggests that Rahim Jaffer was the subject of various racial jokes which suddenly stopped when he showed up.
Except that Laird wasn't there. And that's a story that would be considered unlikely to be told by those in attendance at that event even if it did happen in the first place. So how is one to treat this alleged episode other than as complete fiction?
The idea that Laird would try to pass it off as fact, despite the episode remaining largely unsubstantiated, speaks volumes about him.
Alberta Politics Uncovered author Marc Lisac would duplicate that very same feat in what basically amounted to an ad hominem attack on former Alberta premier Ralph Klein in the course of his book. Not only is Laird easily dismissed as a jerk for perpetuating that fiction in the first place, but he clearly set a very bad example for other would-be authors.
8. Scott Reid - Mr "beer and popcorn" himself. When he isn't demonstrating his complete contempt for the Canadian electorate or musing about nefarious Conservative party conspiracies while sparring with Tim Powers on Mike Duffy Live, one can imagine he's hunkering somewhere in the basement of the Toronto Star trying to figure out how to do these things even better.Perhaps what really solidifies his status as one of the top ten jerks in the known universe is the fact that Reid represents everything that is wrong with the federal Liberal party -- he's obnoxious enough to say absolutely anything he thinks his party will get a quick political charge out of, and arrogant enough to think he can do so and be entitled to a free pass.
Why the Liberal party continues to put this guy on TV is anyone's guess, but this guy's more a boon to the Conservative party than an asset to the Liberals.
7. Robert Spencer - Robert Spencer's website, Jihad Watch, has one overwhelming theme: "be afraid of Islam. Very afraid. Oh, and by the way, buy my book."Of course, Spencer isn't alone in the post-9/11-booming industry of Islamophobia profiteering. But he is the industry leader in cherry-picked examples of the violence he alleges to be inherent in Islam, and in offhandedly dismissing any evidence that suggests otherwise.
He promotes himself as one of the world's top experts on Islam, and that certainly must help to inflate his book sales. However, he's never studied Islam -- his Master's Degree is in the study of early Christianity.
Last but certainly not least, Spencer's work is parroted by thousands of those leading the Islamophobic post-9/11 charge. Not only is he a massive jerk in his own right, but he also enables other jerks to be even jerkier.
Just what the world needs.
6. Sean Avery - Considered by many in the hockey world to be a synonym for "creep", Sean Avery has refined being a jerk to a fine art.Whether it's cracking racial slurs at Georges Laraque, mocking Jason Blake for his leukemia, or generally running his mouth while refusing to drop the gloves -- unless he holds a serious advantage over his opponent -- Avery is a hockey pest that gives all hockey pests a bad name.
5. Warren Kinsella - It should be far from surprising that the man who inspired this list should make it. While he's been at the forefront of one particular very important social battle -- the fight against racism -- he's also proven to be one of the anti-racist movement's biggest liabilities, as he constantly bends over backward to find any excuse to label his political opponents as racist.Kinsella is a leading factor in the ficklization of racism as a social issue. While his book Web of Hate reminds us all who the enemy is in terms of the battle against racial extremists, he's proven to be extremely content to undermine that entire battle whenever it might benefit him politically.
But where Kinsella really takes a turn for the irredeemably obnoxious is in the closing pages of Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics wherein he grades the Canadian media of the day -- and indulges his inner political warhorse by giving passing grades to those who support his beloved Liberal party, and failing grades to those who oppose them.
When Alan Fotheringham -- the "wicked wit of the west" and a political journalist whose boots Kinsella is unfit to so much as lick -- rates a mere "is he still alive?", it becomes immediately apparent that Kinsella is barking up the wrong tree.
4. Anonymous - If you were to believe Anonymous in its recently-declared War on Scientology, they're merely a band of would-be online superheroes trying to balance the scales in the name of justice and truth.
But Anonymous has been on the proverbial radar screen far before their recent crusade against Scientology. One particular news story proved to be particularly damning:
Long before Anonymous turned its online sights against Scientology, at the very least, various members were making asses of themselves harassing people who were more or less innocent, and doing it just for kicks.
Meanwhile, their war on Scientology has, even not purposefully, stirred up some predictable religious bigotry against the church. While some members of Anonymous probably legitimately feel very strongly about some of the church's practices, sometimes even the most well-intentioned campaigns can gather some flies.
3. Rush Limbaugh - Rush Limbaugh is only barely not #1 on this list. Limbaugh is an individual who has proven to be so despicable that even those who had decided that they maybe -- just maybe -- like him enough to marry him have changed their minds and thought "hmmmm. Maybe I don't like this guy very much."His most recent episode suggesting that Michael J Fox was exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms has provided more than enough impetus to write this guy off as one of the most reprehensible people on the planet today.
He's an individual who will do or say almost anything to benefit his political allies. Unlike Canadian blowhard Scott Reid, however, Limbaugh has never been blessed with the good sense to apologize when he crosses the line -- or even admit he was wrong.
2. Canadian Cynic - By all accounts, this guy could also very well have been number one. He's only barely number two. Like the Nexus' #1 biggest jerk in the known universe, he's a hateful demagogue propped up by an equally vicious and hateful flock of sheep (but more on this later).
Cynic first managed to pop up on the Nexus' radar back in July when he indulged himself in telling Wanda Watkins, the mother of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan "fuck you and your grief". She had the nerve to suggest that the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan wanted Canadians to support the mission.
Cynic has, under the guise of being "progressive", plied his trade as a blogger by viciously attacking his political opponents, often resorting to ad hominem attacks in order to do so. His blogmates, Lulu and Lindsay Stewart (aka Pretty Shaved Ape) are disturbing in their own right in that they share his hatred of anyone who disagrees with them and his inability to contribute anything of any value to any kind of debate. But they're really just small potatoes.
The seemingly endless ability of Cynic's coterie of fellow hateful demagogues to defend him no mater how many lines he crosses only serves to underscore precisely how powerful a gospel hate can be -- and, sadly, Canadian Cynic preaches it well.
1. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church - There really is only one person in all existence who could justify pulling down number one on this list. While Canadian Cynic may find himself a little disappointed that he didn't manage to pull in that ignominious honour, at least he can take comfort that it was claimed by someone with whom he shares a lot in common.Like Cynic, Fred Phelps hates virtually anyone and everyone. And like Cynic, Phelps does absolutely everything he can to convince anyone he can reach out and touch (so to speak) to hate them as well.
In particular, there's each individuals' stance on dead soldiers. Cynic's Wanda Watkins episode has been well-documented across the blogosphere (and within this very post). Phelps, on the other hand, protests at the funerals of dead soldiers. Both encourage hatred of soldiers and their families, but Cynic settles for doing it for political reasons. Sadly, this is what we've come to expect from the most hateful political actors. Phelps, meanwhile, does it for religious reasons, and perverts the meaning of his very own religion in order to do it.
For that, he edges Cynic out (if only slightly).
Then, there's Phelps' congregation. Like Cynic's merry band of sycophants, these are some of the sickest people one could ever encounter. At least Phelps' congregation has a decent excuse should they ever decide to make use of it: most of them are related to Phelps, and as such, their hatefulness and craziness could at least be argued to be genetic.
They're the group of people responsible for this particular artistic "masterpiece":
(On a personal note, I much prefer this:)
Of course, giving Phelps and his flock any attention whatsoever is almost certainly affording them more credibility than they deserve. By the same token, it is important to remind people that: yes, there are people in the world who are so hateful that virtually everyone should be more than a little bit concerned.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Really Not Funny
South Park Conservativism run tastelessly amok
So, one may wonder what this particular post is about.
It turns out that Kate McMillan managed to pull one over on Warren Kinsella recently, as she managed to convince Kinsella to display a cleverly-doctored photograph on his blog.
Presumably, it was of a numbered tattoo on the arm of a Holocaust survivor. Instead, it turned out to be the serial number off the engine block of McMillan's motorcycle photoshopped onto a photo of someone's arm.
At first glimpse, it almost seems like an amusing prank.
But the Holocaust isn't something people should be making light of. Six million human lives snuffed out in the name of mere hatred: it's not a laughing matter.
Kinsella asked for permission to post the photo on his blog, as it would encourage others to "fight the good fight".
Well, as someone who has fought the good fight, I find it necessary to take exception.
McMillan's prank is juvenile, and at first glance, seems like it should be written off as such. Then one remembers what is at stake.
When the historical memory of travesties such as the Holocaust begin to fade, we put ourselves at risk of allowing such atrocities to reoccur. It all relates to one of western society's most basic proverbs: history, forgotten, repeats itself.
Ridiculing such episodes has the precise same effect. McMillan really ought to be ashamed of herself. Whether this was meant as a joke or not, it simply isn't funny. As a matter of fact, it's the exact polar opposite from funny.
So, one may wonder what this particular post is about.
It turns out that Kate McMillan managed to pull one over on Warren Kinsella recently, as she managed to convince Kinsella to display a cleverly-doctored photograph on his blog.
Presumably, it was of a numbered tattoo on the arm of a Holocaust survivor. Instead, it turned out to be the serial number off the engine block of McMillan's motorcycle photoshopped onto a photo of someone's arm.
At first glimpse, it almost seems like an amusing prank.
But the Holocaust isn't something people should be making light of. Six million human lives snuffed out in the name of mere hatred: it's not a laughing matter.
Kinsella asked for permission to post the photo on his blog, as it would encourage others to "fight the good fight".
Well, as someone who has fought the good fight, I find it necessary to take exception.
McMillan's prank is juvenile, and at first glance, seems like it should be written off as such. Then one remembers what is at stake.
When the historical memory of travesties such as the Holocaust begin to fade, we put ourselves at risk of allowing such atrocities to reoccur. It all relates to one of western society's most basic proverbs: history, forgotten, repeats itself.
Ridiculing such episodes has the precise same effect. McMillan really ought to be ashamed of herself. Whether this was meant as a joke or not, it simply isn't funny. As a matter of fact, it's the exact polar opposite from funny.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
What Is It With Warren Kinsella and Racism?
Kinsella falls back on old standby in campaign against John Tory
If there's any accusation against conservative political candidates that has become predictable in Canada over the last 15 years, its racism.
All one need do is consider a recent accusation levied against Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory by Canada's king of the hatchet job, Warren Kinsella. In an 18 July post, Kinsella posts a picture of Tory meeting PC candidate Randy Hillier, who Kinsella describes as "anti-gay, anti-native, anti-urban".
Gotcha.
We said we’d get a photo of anti-gay, anti-native, anti-urban Randy Hillier with his leader, John Tory. And we did.
(And check out the sign. That's Tory about to speak to, or having just spoken to, a rabidly far-right-wing group. It means these two have been pals for a long time. Interesting, no?)
Reproduced here, for the readers' benefit is the photograph in question.
Now, the fact that the photo seems to feature the back of Hillier's alleged head notwithstanding (the individual presumed to be Hillier is wearing red suspenders, just as in the other photo), the banner that Kinsella refers to actually promotes the Ontario Landowner's Association, a group that promotes property rights.
While indulging themselves in gloomy talk about all sorts of injustices ,whether real or imagined, ("Throughout human History there are eras when every society experiences the darkness of injustice and the long shadows of oppression blanket the landscape...") the allegedly "rabidly far-right-wing group" is really nothing more than a group of farmers standing up for their own interests, many of which are directly linked to the land on which they earn their living, and depend upon for their livelihood.
What is most intriguing is Kinsella's accusations of racism, particularly Hillier being allegedly "anti-native". Yet, Hillier's actual comments on natives are much more revealing:
"The owner or direct user is the one who knows best on how to take care of their property, land and how to solve a problem.
Example... An example is our native North Americans, who have for over 5000 years trapped and fished as a way of surviving. Then some bureaucrats in Ottawa or Toronto suggest that they knew better, and imposed rules and regulations as to hunting and trapping without consequence to the bureaucrats but certainly to the aboriginals.
The aboriginal who hunts and fishes everyday to survive is a far more knowledgeable than a bureaucrat who does not."
Seems much more pro-native and anti-bureaucrat than anything.
Yet, accusations of racism have been very typical of Kinsella.
Consider, for example, his very worthwhile book, Web of Hate. While mostly a very valuable source of information about racial extremists in Canada, Kinsella often goes out of his way to use the book to lob accusations of racism at the then-premier opposition to the then-governing Liberal party, the Reform party.
P.243 Along with an anti-Semitic column by former Texas KKK Grand Dragon Louis Beam Jr., the August 1992 issue [of Up Front] carried a lengthy account of Wolfgang Droege's involvement with the Reform party. In late February 1991, Bill Dunphy exposed in the Sun the fact that Droege and four other Heritage Front activists maintained memberships in Toronto-area riding associations. Immediately after, Reform leader Preston Manning ordered the group expelled. (The following year, Manning also expelled Northern Foundation president Ann Hartmann for her racist views.) Two of the racists had been appointed to the executive of the party's Beaches-Woodbine riding association; one of these, Alan Overfield, had acted as security at various Heritage Front rallies and--as police learned in November 1992 when they raided his home--maintained a huge stockpile of weapons. ...Overfield had hired Droege to act as bodyguard for Manning at at least two Reform Party rallies in Toronto. Also involved in the riding association were Heritage Front members James Dawson and Nicola Polinuk, Don Andrews' estranged wife.
The expulsions enraged the Heritage Front, which saw the Reform Party's policies as very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, its own. How could a party that went on record opposing immigration policies that "radically alter" Canada's ethnic make-up turn around and shun a group like the Heritage Front, Droege asked, when the Heritage Front supports the very same approach?
...In a lengthy article about the Reform Party controversy, Up Front stated that Manning and his followers were a pro-white organization that lacked the courage of its convictions. 'The Heritage Front threatened the cozy power position of the establishment which Preston Manning and his sycophants now enjoy.' The article featured a cartoon of a smiling Droege beating Preston Manning in a boxing ring."
Kinsella's loaded musings in this passage ignore a number of fundamental facts. Consider the following passage, from Preston Manning's The New Canada, referring to the resolutions reached by the party's April 1991 Assembly:
P. 273 (The New Canada):"The party had already committed itself to a "balanced and positive immigration policy," which rejected the use of racial criteria designed to maintain a French-English ethnic balance in Canada. At Saskatoon, delegates made clear their disapproval of any appeal to race or creed in setting immigration policy. They also declared their support of a policy "accepting the settlement of genuine refugees who find their way to Canada. (A "genuine refugee" was defined as "one who has a well-founded fear of persecution and qualifies under the requirements of the United Nations Convention.")
It should be noted that the racial immigration policies the party rejected were actually originally drafted by Kinsella's own party, by the pen of Clifford Sifton.
However the Heritage Front could have drawn the conclusions they claimed to have drawn should be beyond anyone familiar with Reform party policy (actual Reform party policy, not the fictional Reform party policy hysterically concocted by its critics).
Yet, Web of Hate's commentary took an absurd turn in the book's conclusion:
P. 351 "Also joining the ranks of haters are a few members of ostensibly mainstream political organizations such as the Reform Party, some of whose activists are inreasingly associated with extreme expressions of bigotry and intolerance. To his credit, Reform Party leader Preston Manning expels these individuals whenever the media bring their existence to his attention. But the question Manning has yet to answer, of course, is this: if this party is not racist, why are so many racists attracted to it?"
Kinsella works very hard to turn this passage of the book addressing Manning's efforts to rid the Reform party of racism into a partisan attack. Kinsella refuses to allow Manning's efforts to demonstrate a lack of tolerance for racism.
It's a simple credo for Kinsella: the opposition can do no right, no matter what.
While not only overlooking his own party's many instances of racism--Sifton's being the best historical example--Kinsella overlooks the fact that subverting new political organizations has always been a key tactic of far-right racists. Whether or not the Reform party held any direct appeal for racists, racists would have tried to hijack the party nonetheless. Kinsella's accusations of racism are not so well founded, and are merely partisan.
Which is unsurprising, considering that he devoted an entire section in his book Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics to narcissitically grading his fellow media commentators, giving those who best criticized opponents of the Liberal party As, and those who criticized the Liberals poor grades.
Kinsella has refined the accusation of racism into a mere political tactic. By reducing it so, he only degrades the import of racism to all Canadians. Kinsella should remember that, as all of Canada's political parties have produced racist incidents, racism is not a political issue--it's a social issue.
If Kinsella were really so concerned about racism, he wouldn't work so hard to use a political party leader meeting one of his candidates--how unthinkable!--as ill-defined proof of racism that doesn't seem to really exist.
If there's any accusation against conservative political candidates that has become predictable in Canada over the last 15 years, its racism.
All one need do is consider a recent accusation levied against Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory by Canada's king of the hatchet job, Warren Kinsella. In an 18 July post, Kinsella posts a picture of Tory meeting PC candidate Randy Hillier, who Kinsella describes as "anti-gay, anti-native, anti-urban".
Gotcha.
We said we’d get a photo of anti-gay, anti-native, anti-urban Randy Hillier with his leader, John Tory. And we did.
(And check out the sign. That's Tory about to speak to, or having just spoken to, a rabidly far-right-wing group. It means these two have been pals for a long time. Interesting, no?)
Reproduced here, for the readers' benefit is the photograph in question.
Now, the fact that the photo seems to feature the back of Hillier's alleged head notwithstanding (the individual presumed to be Hillier is wearing red suspenders, just as in the other photo), the banner that Kinsella refers to actually promotes the Ontario Landowner's Association, a group that promotes property rights.
While indulging themselves in gloomy talk about all sorts of injustices ,whether real or imagined, ("Throughout human History there are eras when every society experiences the darkness of injustice and the long shadows of oppression blanket the landscape...") the allegedly "rabidly far-right-wing group" is really nothing more than a group of farmers standing up for their own interests, many of which are directly linked to the land on which they earn their living, and depend upon for their livelihood.
What is most intriguing is Kinsella's accusations of racism, particularly Hillier being allegedly "anti-native". Yet, Hillier's actual comments on natives are much more revealing:
"The owner or direct user is the one who knows best on how to take care of their property, land and how to solve a problem.
Example... An example is our native North Americans, who have for over 5000 years trapped and fished as a way of surviving. Then some bureaucrats in Ottawa or Toronto suggest that they knew better, and imposed rules and regulations as to hunting and trapping without consequence to the bureaucrats but certainly to the aboriginals.
The aboriginal who hunts and fishes everyday to survive is a far more knowledgeable than a bureaucrat who does not."
Seems much more pro-native and anti-bureaucrat than anything.
Yet, accusations of racism have been very typical of Kinsella.
Consider, for example, his very worthwhile book, Web of Hate. While mostly a very valuable source of information about racial extremists in Canada, Kinsella often goes out of his way to use the book to lob accusations of racism at the then-premier opposition to the then-governing Liberal party, the Reform party.
P.243 Along with an anti-Semitic column by former Texas KKK Grand Dragon Louis Beam Jr., the August 1992 issue [of Up Front] carried a lengthy account of Wolfgang Droege's involvement with the Reform party. In late February 1991, Bill Dunphy exposed in the Sun the fact that Droege and four other Heritage Front activists maintained memberships in Toronto-area riding associations. Immediately after, Reform leader Preston Manning ordered the group expelled. (The following year, Manning also expelled Northern Foundation president Ann Hartmann for her racist views.) Two of the racists had been appointed to the executive of the party's Beaches-Woodbine riding association; one of these, Alan Overfield, had acted as security at various Heritage Front rallies and--as police learned in November 1992 when they raided his home--maintained a huge stockpile of weapons. ...Overfield had hired Droege to act as bodyguard for Manning at at least two Reform Party rallies in Toronto. Also involved in the riding association were Heritage Front members James Dawson and Nicola Polinuk, Don Andrews' estranged wife.
The expulsions enraged the Heritage Front, which saw the Reform Party's policies as very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, its own. How could a party that went on record opposing immigration policies that "radically alter" Canada's ethnic make-up turn around and shun a group like the Heritage Front, Droege asked, when the Heritage Front supports the very same approach?
...In a lengthy article about the Reform Party controversy, Up Front stated that Manning and his followers were a pro-white organization that lacked the courage of its convictions. 'The Heritage Front threatened the cozy power position of the establishment which Preston Manning and his sycophants now enjoy.' The article featured a cartoon of a smiling Droege beating Preston Manning in a boxing ring."
Kinsella's loaded musings in this passage ignore a number of fundamental facts. Consider the following passage, from Preston Manning's The New Canada, referring to the resolutions reached by the party's April 1991 Assembly:
P. 273 (The New Canada):"The party had already committed itself to a "balanced and positive immigration policy," which rejected the use of racial criteria designed to maintain a French-English ethnic balance in Canada. At Saskatoon, delegates made clear their disapproval of any appeal to race or creed in setting immigration policy. They also declared their support of a policy "accepting the settlement of genuine refugees who find their way to Canada. (A "genuine refugee" was defined as "one who has a well-founded fear of persecution and qualifies under the requirements of the United Nations Convention.")
It should be noted that the racial immigration policies the party rejected were actually originally drafted by Kinsella's own party, by the pen of Clifford Sifton.
However the Heritage Front could have drawn the conclusions they claimed to have drawn should be beyond anyone familiar with Reform party policy (actual Reform party policy, not the fictional Reform party policy hysterically concocted by its critics).
Yet, Web of Hate's commentary took an absurd turn in the book's conclusion:
P. 351 "Also joining the ranks of haters are a few members of ostensibly mainstream political organizations such as the Reform Party, some of whose activists are inreasingly associated with extreme expressions of bigotry and intolerance. To his credit, Reform Party leader Preston Manning expels these individuals whenever the media bring their existence to his attention. But the question Manning has yet to answer, of course, is this: if this party is not racist, why are so many racists attracted to it?"
Kinsella works very hard to turn this passage of the book addressing Manning's efforts to rid the Reform party of racism into a partisan attack. Kinsella refuses to allow Manning's efforts to demonstrate a lack of tolerance for racism.
It's a simple credo for Kinsella: the opposition can do no right, no matter what.
While not only overlooking his own party's many instances of racism--Sifton's being the best historical example--Kinsella overlooks the fact that subverting new political organizations has always been a key tactic of far-right racists. Whether or not the Reform party held any direct appeal for racists, racists would have tried to hijack the party nonetheless. Kinsella's accusations of racism are not so well founded, and are merely partisan.
Which is unsurprising, considering that he devoted an entire section in his book Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics to narcissitically grading his fellow media commentators, giving those who best criticized opponents of the Liberal party As, and those who criticized the Liberals poor grades.
Kinsella has refined the accusation of racism into a mere political tactic. By reducing it so, he only degrades the import of racism to all Canadians. Kinsella should remember that, as all of Canada's political parties have produced racist incidents, racism is not a political issue--it's a social issue.
If Kinsella were really so concerned about racism, he wouldn't work so hard to use a political party leader meeting one of his candidates--how unthinkable!--as ill-defined proof of racism that doesn't seem to really exist.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Just to Reiterate: Scott Reid is Still a Clown
We remember This too, bud
Man. I just finished watching Scott Reid on Mike Duffy Live, and I can't get over how this guy proves more and more that he is a clown every time he's on TV.
Conservative strategist Tim Powers was seemingly gracious enough to stop PWNING Reid on TV this week (as he has been prone to do for consecutive weeks, if not months). Instead, the esteemed mr. Reid was given an opportunity to collide with Geoff Norquay.
Clearly never missing an opportunity to prove that he is, in fact, a friggin' clown, Reid took the opportunity to launch himself into conspiracy theorist mode, trying to hold the Conservatives responsible for an RCMP pension scandal that actually took place while the Liberals were in office, all the while claiming that the RCMP "screwed" the Liberal party by investigating the income trust leak.
This all despite the fact that former commissioner Juliano Zaccardelli was known to be extremely close to Jean Chretien.
So, just to reiterate: Scott Reid is a clown. As far as third-rate Warren Kinsella wannabes go, mr. Reid certainly does take the "intellectual" out of "intellectual coward".
Man. I just finished watching Scott Reid on Mike Duffy Live, and I can't get over how this guy proves more and more that he is a clown every time he's on TV.
Conservative strategist Tim Powers was seemingly gracious enough to stop PWNING Reid on TV this week (as he has been prone to do for consecutive weeks, if not months). Instead, the esteemed mr. Reid was given an opportunity to collide with Geoff Norquay.
Clearly never missing an opportunity to prove that he is, in fact, a friggin' clown, Reid took the opportunity to launch himself into conspiracy theorist mode, trying to hold the Conservatives responsible for an RCMP pension scandal that actually took place while the Liberals were in office, all the while claiming that the RCMP "screwed" the Liberal party by investigating the income trust leak.
This all despite the fact that former commissioner Juliano Zaccardelli was known to be extremely close to Jean Chretien.
So, just to reiterate: Scott Reid is a clown. As far as third-rate Warren Kinsella wannabes go, mr. Reid certainly does take the "intellectual" out of "intellectual coward".
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Bob Rae: Bush is Hitler, Harper Bad
Three cheers for the Munich Pact!
I told myself I was going to back off the Liberals for a little while.
I reminded myself I am trying to be non-partisan, for better or worse, and that the Liberals are suffering enough without my "help".
Then Bob Rae compared Stephen Harper's softwood lumber deal with the United States to the Munich Pact.
Fuck. And here I go:
Yes, you probably read that correctly. On May 10, Bob Rae -- yet another lousy candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal party -- compared the Canada/U.S. softwood lumber agreement (under which the American government accepted Canada's most important conditions) to the Munich pact (under which Adolph Hitler and then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed that Germany would be allowed to annex Czechoslovakia), not only comparing Harper to one of the weakest political leaders in history, but also compared U.S. President George W. Bush to Adolph Hilter.
Coming from a former leader of the NDP, that's about as subtle as blitzkrieg.
Naturally, many Liberal party members have wanted to distance themselves from these comments. A phonecall made by Warren Kinsella, howver, was able to confirm that Rae did in fact make these comments.
On his website, www.warrenkinsella.com (yes, Warren named his website after himself -- subtle!), Kinsella wrote: " I am told: 1. [Rae] did, in fact, compare Harper to Chamberlain"; 2. He did, in fact, mention "Munic" but not the word "pact". Those are what some of us call a distinction without a difference. Do you think the analogy is appropriate? I sure don't."
Kinsella went on to suggest -- stop the presses! -- Rae owes Harper an apology: " Do you think Bob Rae should apologize? I sure do. Do you think he will? Don't hold your breath."
Even Warren Kinsella thinks Rae fucked up. Mister Rae, this is the best indication that you have, in fact, fucked up.
However, Rae has yet to take responsibility for his comments. On his website, www.BobRae.ca (he also named his website after himself), Rae makes no mention whatsoever of what he and his supporters would probably call a "minor blunder".
Many observers would speculate that what the Liberal party currently needs in a leader, more than anything else, is an individual who can look back at all the mistakes the party made over the past 15 years and learn from them. Evidently, Bob Rae is one of many who are incapable of doing this. After the embarrassment the party suffered with their infamous "a Harper election will make Bush happy" commercial (although not nearly as humiliating as their "troops with guns in our cities" ad), and the adverse effect it had on the party's ability to be elected, one would have thought that all Liberals -- even one as inept as Bob Rae -- would have been smarter than this.
Considering their reputation for being rampantly anti-American, the Liberal party may have wanted to show they can pursue a more productive relationship with Canada's largest trading partner -- then again, maybe not.
With a statements like this, Bob Rae may as well be telling people to vote for Osama bin Laden for the federal Liberal leadership.
I told myself I was going to back off the Liberals for a little while.
I reminded myself I am trying to be non-partisan, for better or worse, and that the Liberals are suffering enough without my "help".
Then Bob Rae compared Stephen Harper's softwood lumber deal with the United States to the Munich Pact.
Fuck. And here I go:
Yes, you probably read that correctly. On May 10, Bob Rae -- yet another lousy candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal party -- compared the Canada/U.S. softwood lumber agreement (under which the American government accepted Canada's most important conditions) to the Munich pact (under which Adolph Hitler and then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed that Germany would be allowed to annex Czechoslovakia), not only comparing Harper to one of the weakest political leaders in history, but also compared U.S. President George W. Bush to Adolph Hilter.
Coming from a former leader of the NDP, that's about as subtle as blitzkrieg.
Naturally, many Liberal party members have wanted to distance themselves from these comments. A phonecall made by Warren Kinsella, howver, was able to confirm that Rae did in fact make these comments.
On his website, www.warrenkinsella.com (yes, Warren named his website after himself -- subtle!), Kinsella wrote: " I am told: 1. [Rae] did, in fact, compare Harper to Chamberlain"; 2. He did, in fact, mention "Munic" but not the word "pact". Those are what some of us call a distinction without a difference. Do you think the analogy is appropriate? I sure don't."
Kinsella went on to suggest -- stop the presses! -- Rae owes Harper an apology: " Do you think Bob Rae should apologize? I sure do. Do you think he will? Don't hold your breath."
Even Warren Kinsella thinks Rae fucked up. Mister Rae, this is the best indication that you have, in fact, fucked up.
However, Rae has yet to take responsibility for his comments. On his website, www.BobRae.ca (he also named his website after himself), Rae makes no mention whatsoever of what he and his supporters would probably call a "minor blunder".
Many observers would speculate that what the Liberal party currently needs in a leader, more than anything else, is an individual who can look back at all the mistakes the party made over the past 15 years and learn from them. Evidently, Bob Rae is one of many who are incapable of doing this. After the embarrassment the party suffered with their infamous "a Harper election will make Bush happy" commercial (although not nearly as humiliating as their "troops with guns in our cities" ad), and the adverse effect it had on the party's ability to be elected, one would have thought that all Liberals -- even one as inept as Bob Rae -- would have been smarter than this.
Considering their reputation for being rampantly anti-American, the Liberal party may have wanted to show they can pursue a more productive relationship with Canada's largest trading partner -- then again, maybe not.
With a statements like this, Bob Rae may as well be telling people to vote for Osama bin Laden for the federal Liberal leadership.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Stephen Harper and John Tory to Shake in Boots
Liberal boys making big noise -- but over what?
One almost has to feel sorry for the federal Liberal party. With the business of governing the country firmly out of their hands, they've largely turned their attentions to provincial politics in order to keep themselves amused.
Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (the federal leader of the Conservative party) endorsed Ontario Conservative leader John Tory as " the next premier of Ontario. A strong Canada needs a strong Ontario... John Tory is a nation-builder."
This sparked a litany of complaints from all levels of the Liberal party. A ballroom full of Liberal party members at a fundraiser for incumbent Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty chanted "shame, shame" (though to whom, it cannot be said -- Harper was not present). Even Liberal party leadership candidate Bob Rae added his two cents, noting " What Mr. Harper and his entourage are doing is injecting a totally partisan approach to the entire enterprise of being prime minister."
It should be noted that just as McGuinty hopes to hold his ground against John Tory, Bob Rae hopes to be the man to attempt to unseat Stephen Harper in the next federal election.
Despite Harper and McGuinty having had what the Ontario premier described as "a good get-together" less than an hour previous, Rae said of the prime minister: " Clearly, he's insulting the premier of the province and it's not an accident. It's intended to give the back of the hand to [the] province."
Naturally, as many Liberals often do (if one can honestly consider Rae a Liberal -- he is a failed NDP premier of Ontario, who was lambasted in James Laxer's In Search of a New Left -- a book considered by many to be the unofficial NDP membership handbook -- for betraying New Democratic Party ideals) Rae has forgotten that the Ontario Liberal party is not Ontario, and Stephen Harper doing his job as Conservative party leader is not an insult to Ontario. Underscoring this is the fact that in January's federal election, 40 of Ontario's seats went to the Conservatives, 54 went to the Liberal party, while 10 Ontario ridings elected NDP Members of Parliament -- the Liberal party is hardly synonymous with Ontario.
Embittered Jean Chretienite Warren Kinsella has tackled this subject with no small amount of glee, stating: "As one young partisan said to me, 'John Tory has put his party's interests ahead of Ontario's. He's finished.'" ...Uh, yeah, Warren. They're called "partisans" for a reason. Furthermore, when one considers Harper's promise to address the fiscal imbalance that McGuinty has complained about for years, one that Liberal prime ministers Chretien and Paul Martin wouldn't even acknowledge...
Back to the whining and grandstanding. " Is it appropriate for the prime minister of this country to hide his meeting with Ontario's premier, the elected representative of our province, while publicly courting [Quebec premier] Jean Charest and playing politics with John Tory?" asked current federal Liberal stand-in John Graham.
Somehow, making complaints regarding the unjust partisanship of Harper's move in this context falls flat on its face. Graham may want to confer with his handlers, who would doubtlessly remind him that Charest is also a Liberal, before saying such things.
Enough dilly-dallying. It's time to get to the point. Is Harper's move partisan? You bet it is. It's also his job.
As the leader of the federal Conservative party, it is Harper's right to endorse any provincial Conservative leader as fit to lead. It's also his responsibility to do so. It's also his responsibility to ensure that anyone he gives his endorsement to is befitting of it. If John Tory is fit to govern, then it is Harper's right to endorse him as such.
It's no question that the Liberals are feeling vulnerable. They currently find themselves out of power for the first time in fourteen years. Their Ontario stronghold is not only under siege from two parties, but it appears to be slipping out of their grasp. And the great duplicitous David Emerson has defected, proving that they are not the only ones capable of poaching MPs from opposition parties (at least the Conservatives are capable of poaching MPs with some degree of competence).
Suggesting that trifling with the Liberal party of Ontario will have grave political consequences for Harper (potentially even graver than trifling with the fedeal Liberal party) only reveals this party's position of utter weakness. The Liberals currently resemble that kid on the schoolyard who mouths off at their nemesis from behind the biggest kid in school -- only they're too blind to notice that the support of their traditional muscle is far from absolute.
At this rate John Graham, Dalton McGuinty and Bob Rae may all be in for a shock in Ontario's upcoming election. The change of Conservative party fortunes in Ontario was considered by many to be key in delivering the Conservative party to victory in the federal election, all this sabre-rattling over such a minor matter will certainly send Ontario voters the wrong message.
One almost has to feel sorry for the federal Liberal party. With the business of governing the country firmly out of their hands, they've largely turned their attentions to provincial politics in order to keep themselves amused.
Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (the federal leader of the Conservative party) endorsed Ontario Conservative leader John Tory as " the next premier of Ontario. A strong Canada needs a strong Ontario... John Tory is a nation-builder."
This sparked a litany of complaints from all levels of the Liberal party. A ballroom full of Liberal party members at a fundraiser for incumbent Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty chanted "shame, shame" (though to whom, it cannot be said -- Harper was not present). Even Liberal party leadership candidate Bob Rae added his two cents, noting " What Mr. Harper and his entourage are doing is injecting a totally partisan approach to the entire enterprise of being prime minister."
It should be noted that just as McGuinty hopes to hold his ground against John Tory, Bob Rae hopes to be the man to attempt to unseat Stephen Harper in the next federal election.
Despite Harper and McGuinty having had what the Ontario premier described as "a good get-together" less than an hour previous, Rae said of the prime minister: " Clearly, he's insulting the premier of the province and it's not an accident. It's intended to give the back of the hand to [the] province."
Naturally, as many Liberals often do (if one can honestly consider Rae a Liberal -- he is a failed NDP premier of Ontario, who was lambasted in James Laxer's In Search of a New Left -- a book considered by many to be the unofficial NDP membership handbook -- for betraying New Democratic Party ideals) Rae has forgotten that the Ontario Liberal party is not Ontario, and Stephen Harper doing his job as Conservative party leader is not an insult to Ontario. Underscoring this is the fact that in January's federal election, 40 of Ontario's seats went to the Conservatives, 54 went to the Liberal party, while 10 Ontario ridings elected NDP Members of Parliament -- the Liberal party is hardly synonymous with Ontario.
Embittered Jean Chretienite Warren Kinsella has tackled this subject with no small amount of glee, stating: "As one young partisan said to me, 'John Tory has put his party's interests ahead of Ontario's. He's finished.'" ...Uh, yeah, Warren. They're called "partisans" for a reason. Furthermore, when one considers Harper's promise to address the fiscal imbalance that McGuinty has complained about for years, one that Liberal prime ministers Chretien and Paul Martin wouldn't even acknowledge...
Back to the whining and grandstanding. " Is it appropriate for the prime minister of this country to hide his meeting with Ontario's premier, the elected representative of our province, while publicly courting [Quebec premier] Jean Charest and playing politics with John Tory?" asked current federal Liberal stand-in John Graham.
Somehow, making complaints regarding the unjust partisanship of Harper's move in this context falls flat on its face. Graham may want to confer with his handlers, who would doubtlessly remind him that Charest is also a Liberal, before saying such things.
Enough dilly-dallying. It's time to get to the point. Is Harper's move partisan? You bet it is. It's also his job.
As the leader of the federal Conservative party, it is Harper's right to endorse any provincial Conservative leader as fit to lead. It's also his responsibility to do so. It's also his responsibility to ensure that anyone he gives his endorsement to is befitting of it. If John Tory is fit to govern, then it is Harper's right to endorse him as such.
It's no question that the Liberals are feeling vulnerable. They currently find themselves out of power for the first time in fourteen years. Their Ontario stronghold is not only under siege from two parties, but it appears to be slipping out of their grasp. And the great duplicitous David Emerson has defected, proving that they are not the only ones capable of poaching MPs from opposition parties (at least the Conservatives are capable of poaching MPs with some degree of competence).
Suggesting that trifling with the Liberal party of Ontario will have grave political consequences for Harper (potentially even graver than trifling with the fedeal Liberal party) only reveals this party's position of utter weakness. The Liberals currently resemble that kid on the schoolyard who mouths off at their nemesis from behind the biggest kid in school -- only they're too blind to notice that the support of their traditional muscle is far from absolute.
At this rate John Graham, Dalton McGuinty and Bob Rae may all be in for a shock in Ontario's upcoming election. The change of Conservative party fortunes in Ontario was considered by many to be key in delivering the Conservative party to victory in the federal election, all this sabre-rattling over such a minor matter will certainly send Ontario voters the wrong message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)