LFR's half-assed predictions for 2012

Occupy will stay underground and grow its infrastructure and goals. More and more organizations and individuals will pledge allegiance to the movement. The media will interpret this lack of visibility to the failure of Occupy and continue to treat supporters as dirty fucking hippies. The year of Occupy will have to wait until 2013. Instead of Occupy, social media and specific protests around the country will propel a new wave of protests, freeing Occupy to manifest itself in the following year.

The Conservatives will retain their domination of politics and media coverage - most of it fawning, some of it critical but only as a token effort at balance. Stephen Harper will step back and let the younger rising stars soak up the limelight.

Michelle Rempel will lose any sense of individuality and be pushed into a Sunshine Girl role in the Conservative party. Expect her on lots of covers next to Leah Costello, Krista Erickson, Kathryn Marshall and other right wing rising blonde stars. The blurring of the separation of Sun Media and the Conservative party will continue.

Jason Kenney will discover he's no closer to being the next leader of the Conservatives. The party isn't that stupid.

The Liberals will be no further ahead than they are now. The faithful will be disappointed in the new leader.

The NDP will hold firm but gain little. The faithful will be disappointed in the new leader.

Sun TV News, after revelations of a sexual scandal and questionable broadcasting business ethics charges, will fold.

After the US rejects the Keystone pipeline, rightbloggers will rush to push China as a reformed ally. Who cares about the charges of human abuses? After the Iraq invasion, everybody does it!

Activists in BC will be the story of the year, especially in regards to plans for pipelines ending on the Pacific Coast. Nothing regarding any major pipeline will be accomplished thanks to the protests.

Patrick Ross will be located.

Arianna Huffington/AOL will rethink her Canadian version of The Huffington Post. The Frum family factor will be greatly diminished, with David remaining a contributor.

CBC will stand. Fans of the network and its history will come to its defence, overwhelming the Sun/Conservative propaganda against the network.

Maxi prisons will be put on hold.

A new media blitz demonizing marijuana will be initiated by the government.

Sidney Crosby will retire.

BC Lions will repeat as Grey Cup winners.

Bruins will repeat as Stanley Cup winners.

The Conservatives propensity for scandal will continue. Canadians will continue to be indifferent. 2013 will be the year of the Conservative Scandal of all time. We will just have to wait one more year.

As 2012 ends, the economy will be worse and Canadians will begin to look more sceptically at the Conservatives. 2013 could be a breakthrough year for the opposition. Will it be ready?

2012 will be no more a reason for optimism than was 2011. Expect 2013 to be huge for progressives, but not because of the opposition but despite it.

Wordpress takes down anti-Muslim site. Rightbloggers blow fuse.

Can't wait for the reaction from the Blogging Tories. "Free Speech!" "Sharia!"

A site promoting violence against Muslims, Bare Naked Islam, was removed by Wordpress at the request of CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations). Apparently, the site contained threats of violence against mosques and comments like, ""I want [Muslim] blood on my hands."

[NOTE: "Bare Naked Islam" was one of the major promoters of the campaign to pressure Lowe's to drops its ads from TLC's "All-American Muslim."] 

Last month, CAIR called on the FBI to investigate the threats of violence targeting mosques posted on the blog and urged WordPress.com to remove it for violating the hosting company's terms of service (TOS), which prohibit blogs that "contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities." Articles and comments posted on "Bare Naked Islam" urged attacks on and desecration of American and European mosques.

Meanwhile, conservative blogs in the US are screaming "censored" and "sharia"! You know, the usual outrage. This is not a 'free speech' issue. It is a combating hate issue. Congrats to Wordpress.

Rob Ford's 911 problem

Classy! (Photo from Dammit Janet.)

There's something wrong with Rob Ford. We all know he's trash. But there's an undercurrent of rage surrounding the man that's almost Alec Baldwinish. Marg Delahunty is one thing; drunken threats another.

On Christmas, Ford’s mother-in-law called police between 4 and 5 a.m. to report that the mayor had been drinking and was taking his children to Florida against the wishes of his wife, Renata. 

The Toronto police Youth and Family Violence Unit, which handles all domestic disputes, including incidents that are strictly verbal, is still investigating both events. No charges have been laid. 

This man should not be mayor, let alone husband or parent. Then again, Rob Ford is king of Toronto; he gets to do what he wants.

Exactly how many calls have been made is unknown. 

The calls leave police in an uncomfortable quandary. Ford is the city’s chief magistrate. The mayor — or a designate acting on his behalf — has a seat on the police board. In fact, four of the seven board members are appointed by city council. Police Chief Bill Blair reports to this civilian oversight board.

X-posted at Sister Sage's Musings.

"When we pick a president, we are in fact choosing a minister of God"

I didn't write that. This idiot did.

American's third Pearl Harbor: Newt Gingrich's failure to get on Virginia ballot

9/11 has rightly been referred to as the US's second Pearl Harbor. Now we have a third instance, although this one is much more comical and sad than real.

Ah, the heights of campaign hubris and presidential fantasies. Not making the Virginia ballot had Newt’s campaign director Michael Krull opining on Mr. Gingrich’s Facebook page that it was tantamount to December 1941.

It's the Japs! No, it's Muslims! Holy shit, it's Newt Gingrich! Run!

I hate to quote the almost equally pompous ass Charles Krauthammer but he nails the ridiculousness of Newt pretty well:

I’m not sure the analogy does justice to the grandness, the immensity of Newt,” Krauthammer said, tongue in cheek. “I think the better analogy is 1066 — the Battle of Hastings. And I think King Harold is dead and William the Conqueror has landed. And Newt is going pick up the crown of the last king of the Saxons and lead a trusty band of Saxons fueled with money from Freddie Mac and will retake Britain from William and change the course of European history. I think that that kind of analogy captures the cosmic importance of the Newt campaign.” [...] 

“Look, you can’t really — it’s hard to make a parody of Newt in the way he imagines himself,” Krauthammer said. “Even if he thinks its Pearl Harbor, you don’t say it out in public and you don’t have your national campaign director trumpet it. It compares a bit of the grandiosity of Newt and it’s good that every once in a while he injects a little humor into the campaign.

Globe & Mail editors pick Harper majority as story of the year

Globe & Mail editors relax in Florida for prescribed vacay following another Con victory party

To celebrate, Globe editors put aside their crutches and patronizing air to low five each other over cocktails and wienies. No report on the obligatory congratulatory call from Stephen Harper although rumours of an army of nurses in attendance have yet to be established.

X-posted at Sister Sage's Musings.

Siobhan Reynolds, RIP

One of the leading Americans fighting against the under-treatment of pain by the medical community has died. As with people who fight for the rights of patients to have access medical marijuana, Reynolds was a tireless campaigner against the misinformation about pain and its under-treatment, mostly stemming for the North American Judeo-Christian war on pleasure or any medication that might seem like it has addictive properties, even if unproven. One can't blame the medical community alone as the fear of repercussions from government harassment against that community compounds the ignorance. For dying people, this concern is not only ludicrous but cruel.

There aren’t very many people who can claim that they personally changed the public debate about an issue. Reynolds could. Before her crusade, no one was really talking about the under-treatment of pain. The media was still wrapped up in scare stories about “accidental addiction” to prescription painkillers and telling dramatic (and sometimes false) tales about patients whose lazy doctors got them hooked on Oxycontin. Reynolds toured the country to point out that, in fact, the real problem is that pain patients are suffering, particularly chronic pain patients. And because of the government’s harassment, there are increasingly fewer doctors willing to treat them. After Reynolds, the major newsweeklies, the New York Times, and a number of other national media outlets began asking if the DEA’s war on pain doctors had gone too far.

Just another day on the religious war front

Woke up the day after Christmas to read to following headlines:

National Review: "Silent Night", Mark Steyn on the 'War on Christians'.  

Associated Press: "Nun's remains miraculously healed New York woman, Vatican says".  

Reuters: "Islamists kill dozens in Nigeria Christmas bombs". 

Atlas Shrugs: "EGYPT'S MAIN PRO-SHARIA ISLAMIC SUPREMACIST PARTIES TAKE 65% OF VOTES IN SECOND ROUND".

Ottawa Citizen: "A prayer for brothers and sisters".

Hot Air: "California atheists block out nativity scenes".  

Hot Air (again): "A Miracle and a New Saint".

Quick Note: These are just the result of a quick perusal of Memeorandum today. There's lots more. Welcome to the new post-political world. Lord knows what the headlines will be next year in Canada alone under Stephen Harper's impending religious crusade.

"Why do all the girls have to buy princesses?"

Charming video of a little girl railing against gender stereotypes in products for kids, especially for girls.



The more cynical of us might say the little girl was coached. I find her too sincere to be anything than what she is: fed up with the cool stuff offered boys, separated from the 'pink stuff' condescendingly marketed to girls.

How I learned to hate Justin Bieber

Look, I've got nothing against the guy. He's got a pleasant enough voice, he knows how to use it and he seems like a good and generous person. I could hear a Bieber song on the radio or on TV and it would be no better or no worse than 90 percent of the rest of music that is popular today.

(Let's put it this way - he's no James Blunt, a singer with a voice that has been known to send me to thoughts of suicide. Beiber is no Blunt.)

Then came this Christmas holiday with my family, two delightful teen-aged nieces and an iPod. For hours and hours, the stereo has been playing Bieber holiday music to the exclusivity of all other artists save his duets with mostly it seems Mariah Carey, a singer whose talent I find at best elusive.

On the second day of Bieber at Christmas eve dinner, after sitting silently while Justin played in the background and my nieces sang merrily along, I began to unravel. It was fine for the first hour, even the second one was tolerable. But sometime during the second (or was it third?) night and several hours later of the same loop, I began to snap.

I suppose you could say Bieber sings with a tone that is pleasing to the female ear. I don't usually subscribe to the idea that the sexes hear differently. But in Bieber's case - and Blunt's and Carey's - I think this might be the case. The sound of his voice (and what sounds suspiciously like auto-tuning - although much discussion among my insulted nieces and a single nephew came up empty on the subject) began to send me around the Blunt-end. I don't think my brother-in-law and nephew enjoyed it, either.

More than anything I began to realize to a person of my advanced age, Bieber began to remind me of something more sinister. I was reminded of a time when music was little more than a Valium to the ears. I refer to it as the Before-the-Beatles era. Bieber sounds to me like he could fit in with the 50's Patti Page and pre-'rock' Pat Boone. I was nearly driven to distraction then and my ears tell me that era is being replicated now with Justin Bieber.

Like I said, I have nothing against the kid personally. He is a giant talent. He's just not my cup of tea. He's like Tim Tebow in a weird way. Anything that is shoved down one's throat can cause a build up of irritation and eventually resistance. (I won't go into the perverse religious aspect of both stars but I sense there's a tie-in somewhere to the mediocrity of the presentation vs. the actual result.)

Variety is the spice of life. I like spice. I like sweet, too. But too much of one without the other is damaging to one's taste buds. It can also drive a man up the wall.

Text of 1997 speech by Stephen Harper to US right-wing think tank

For anyone surprised by Harper's moves and plans now that he has a majority, it is enlightening to read this speech our current PM made when he was VP of the 'United Citizens Coalition' to the Council for National Policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world. 

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians. 

But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize. 

I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective. 

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States. 

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance. 

That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country. 

Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of misimpressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country. 

While it is a French-speaking city -- largely -- it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community. 

This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional. 

Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking. 

Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario. 

The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. 

So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States. 

But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference. 

As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada. 

Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization. 

The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience. 

It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?'' And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.'' 

I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven.'' 

In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society.
Second, the civics, Canada's civics. 

On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court. 

However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister. 

Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system. 

And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process. 

So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances. 

What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison. 

What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates. 

In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity. 

But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already. 

If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system. 

Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject. 

We had a two-party system from the founding of our country, in 1867. That two-party system began to break up in the period from 1911 to 1935. Ever since then, five political elements have come and gone. We've always had at least three parties. But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances. 

Let me take a conventional look at these five parties. I'll describe them in terms that fit your own party system, the left/right kind of terms. 

Let's take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men. 

This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions. 

Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology. 

The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical. 

There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don't belong to that particular organization. 

The second party, the Liberal party, is by far the largest party. It won the election. It's also the only party that's competitive in all parts of the country. The Liberal party is our dominant party today, and has been for 100 years. It's governed almost all of the last hundred years, probably about 75 per cent of the time. 

It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values. 

In the last Parliament, it enacted comprehensive gun control, well beyond, I think, anything you have. Now we'll have a national firearms registration system, including all shotguns and rifles. Many other kinds of weapons have been banned. It believes in gay rights, although it's fairly cautious. It's put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest. 

There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social-conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party is often quite liberal on economic issues. 

Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron. But actually, its origin is not progressive in the modern sense. The origin of the term "progressive'' in the name stems from the Progressive Movement in the 1920s, which was similar to that in your own country. 

But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters. 

In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. 

They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country. 

At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power. 

The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican, which I'll get to in a minute. 

The Bloc Quebecois, which I won't spend much time on, is a strictly Quebec party, strictly among the French-speaking people of Quebec. It is an ethnic separatist party that seeks to make Quebec an independent, sovereign nation. 

By and large, the Bloc Quebecois is centre-left in its approach. However, it is primarily an ethnic coalition. It's always had diverse elements. It does have an element that is more on the right of the political spectrum, but that's definitely a minority element. 

Let me say a little bit about the Reform party because I want you to be very clear on what the Reform party is and is not. 

The Reform party, although described by many of its members, and most of the media, as conservative, and conservative in the American sense, actually describes itself as populist. And that's the term its leader, Preston Manning, uses. 

This term is not without significance. The Reform party does stand for direct democracy, which of course many American conservatives do, but also it sees itself as coming from a long tradition of populist parties of Western Canada, not all of which have been conservative. 

It also is populist in the very real sense, if I can make American analogies to it -- populist in the sense that the term is sometimes used with Ross Perot.\ 

The Reform party is very much a leader-driven party. It's much more a real party than Mr. Perot's party -- by the way, it existed before Mr. Perot's party. But it's very much leader-driven, very much organized as a personal political vehicle. Although it has much more of a real organization than Mr. Perot does. 

But the Reform party only exists federally. It doesn't exist at the provincial level here in Canada. It really exists only because Mr. Manning is pursuing the position of prime minister. It doesn't have a broader political mandate than that yet. Most of its members feel it should, and, in their minds, actually it does. 

It also has some Buchananist tendencies. I know there are probably many admirers of Mr. Buchanan here, but I mean that in the sense that there are some anti-market elements in the Reform Party. So far, they haven't been that important, because Mr. Manning is, himself, a fairly orthodox economic conservative. 

The predecessor of the Reform party, the Social Credit party, was very much like this. Believing in funny money and control of banking, and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things. 

So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It's the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense. 

It's also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theocon party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues. 

The party is led by Preston Manning, who is a committed, evangelical Christian. And the party in recent years has made some reference to family values and to family priorities. It has some policies that are definitely social-conservative, but it's not explicitly so. 

Many members are not, the party officially is not, and, frankly, the party has had a great deal of trouble when it's tried to tackle those issues. 

Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that, but made a terrible mess of the debate. In fact, discredited itself on that issue, not just with the conventional liberal media, but even with many social conservatives by the manner in which it mishandled that. 

So the social conservative element exists. Mr. Manning is a Christian, as are most of the party's senior people. But it's not officially part of the party. The party hasn't quite come to terms with how that fits into it. 

That's the conventional analysis of the party system. 

Let me turn to the non-conventional analysis, because frankly, it's impossible, with just left/right terminology to explain why we would have five parties, or why we would have four parties on the conventional spectrum. Why not just two? 

The reason is regional division, which you'll see if you carefully look at a map. Let me draw the United States comparison, a comparison with your history. 

The party system that is developing here in Canada is a party system that replicates the antebellum period, the pre-Civil War period of the United States. 

That's not to say -- and I would never be quoted as saying -- we're headed to a civil war. But we do have a major secession crisis, obviously of a very different nature than the secession crisis you had in the 1860s. But the dynamics, the political and partisan dynamics of this, are remarkably similar. 

The Bloc Quebecois is equivalent to your Southern secessionists, Southern Democrats, states rights activists. The Bloc Quebecois, its 44 seats, come entirely from the province of Quebec. But even more strikingly, they come from ridings, or election districts, almost entirely populated by the descendants of the original European French settlers. 

The Liberal party has 26 seats in Quebec. Most of these come from areas where there are heavy concentrations of English, aboriginal or ethnic votes. So the Bloc Quebecois is very much an ethnic party, but it's also a secession party. 

In the referendum two years ago, the secessionists won 49 per cent of the vote, 49.5 per cent. So this is a very real crisis. We're looking at another referendum before the turn of the century.
The Progressive Conservative party is very much comparable to the Whigs of the 1850s and 1860s. What is happening to them is very similar to the Whigs. A moderate conservative party, increasingly under stress because of the secession movement, on the one hand, and the reaction to that movement from harder line English Canadians on the other hand. 

You may recall that the Whigs, in their dying days, went through a series of metamorphoses. They ended up as what was called the Unionist movement that won some of the border states in your 1860 election. 

If you look at the surviving PC support, it's very much concentrated in Atlantic Canada, in the provinces to the east of Quebec. These are very much equivalent to the United States border states. They're weak economically. They have very grim prospects if Quebec separates. These people want a solution at almost any cost. And some of the solutions they propose would be exactly that. 

They also have a small percentage of seats in Quebec. These are French-speaking areas that are also more moderate and very concerned about what would happen in a secession crisis. 

The Liberal party is very much your northern Democrat, or mainstream Democratic party, a party that is less concessionary to the secessionists than the PCs, but still somewhat concessionary. And they still occupy the mainstream of public opinion in Ontario, which is the big and powerful province, politically and economically, alongside Quebec. 

The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level. 

The goal of the secessionists is to transform our country into two nations, either into two explicitly sovereign countries, or in the case of weaker separatists, into some kind of federation of two equal partners. 

The Reform party opposes this on all kinds of grounds, but most important, Reformers are highly resistant philosophically to the idea that we will have an open, modern, multi-ethnic society on one side of the line, and the other society will run on some set of ethnic-special-status principles. This is completely unacceptable, particularly to philosophical conservatives in the Reform party. 

The Reform party's strength comes almost entirely from the West. It's become the dominant political force in Western Canada. And it is getting a substantial vote in Ontario. Twenty per cent of the vote in the last two elections. But it has not yet broken through in terms of the number of seats won in Ontario. 

This is a very real political spectrum, lining up from the Bloc to reform. You may notice I didn't mention the New Democratic Party. The NDP obviously can't be compared to anything pre-Civil War. But the NDP is not an important player on this issue. Its views are somewhere between the liberals and conservatives. Its main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums. So it really doesn't fit in. 

But I don't use this comparison of the pre-Civil War lightly. Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform party has spent a lot of time reading about pre-Civil War politics. He compares the Reform party himself to the Republican party of that period. He is very well-read on Abraham Lincoln and a keen follower and admirer of Lincoln. 

I know Mr. Manning very well. I would say that next to his own father, who is a prominent Western Canadian politician, Abraham Lincoln has probably had more effect on Mr. Manning's political philosophy than any individual politician. 

Obviously, the issue here is not slavery, but the appeasement of ethnic nationalism. For years, we've had this Quebec separatist movement. For years, we elected Quebec prime ministers to deal with that, Quebec prime ministers who were committed federalists who would lead us out of the wilderness. For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier. 

This has not worked. The sovereignty movement has continued to rise in prominence. And its demands have continued to increase. It began to hit the wall when what are called the soft separatists and the conventional political establishment got together to put in the constitution something called "a distinct society clause.'' Nobody really knows what it would mean, but it would give the Supreme Court, where Quebec would have a tremendous role in appointment, the power to interpret Quebec's special needs and powers, undefined elsewhere. 

This has led to a firewall of resistance across the country. It fuelled the growth of the Reform party. I should even say that the early concessionary people, like Pierre Trudeau, have come out against this. So there's even now an element of the Quebec federalists themselves who will no longer accept this. 

So you see the syndrome we're in. The separatists continue to make demands. They're a powerful force. They continue to have the bulk of the Canadian political establishment on their side. The two traditional parties, the Liberals and PCs, are both led by Quebecers who favour concessionary strategies. The Reform party is a bastion of resistance to this tendency. 

To give you an idea of how divided the country is, not just in Quebec but how divided the country is outside Quebec on this, we had a phenomenon five years ago. This is a real phenomenon; I don't know how much you heard about it.\ 

The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things. 

What was significant about this was that this constitutional proposal was supported by the entire Canadian political establishment. By all of the major media. By the three largest traditional parties, the PC, Liberal party and NDP. At the time, the Bloc and Reform were very small. 

It was supported by big business, very vocally by all of the major CEOs of the country. 

The leading labour unions all supported it. Complete consensus. And most academics. 

And it was defeated. It literally lost the national referendum against a rag-tag opposition consisting of a few dissident conservatives and a few dissident socialists. 

This gives you some idea of the split that's taking place in the country. 

Canada is, however, a troubled country politically, not socially. This is a country that we like to say works in practice but not in theory. 

You can walk around this country without running across very many of these political controversies. 

I'll end there and take any of your questions. But let me conclude by saying, good luck in your own battles. Let me just remind you of something that's been talked about here. As long as there are exams, there will always be prayer in schools.

"You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it". Heh. Indeedy. Scared yet? You should be. This is extreme stuff.

H/T: Nadine Lumley

The Magnificent Seven: Stephen Harper's seven new Senators leaked

STARRING:  Shotgun * Blogging T * Wenthataway * Ezzy * Huffer * The Poet * Blatched

The Conservatives' new best friend, the Canadian wing of the Huffington Post, has a take on who will be Harper's new Senators come January. LFR has its own sources. Funnily enough, the new Senators are almost all media folks. Even more curious, they're all female. Must be part of that new Conservative feminism.

Here's the scoop from Stephen Harper's very own statements *exclusive* to LFR:

1. Margaret Wente. "In the service of the Conservative party, I can think of few who have battled harder to support and promote the views I hold so dear to my heart", Prime Minister Harper wrote of the Globe & Mail columnist. 

2. Christie Blatchford: "As a long-time representative of the 1 percent, Christie has toiled long hours to diminish our opposition and colour our policies to look palatable to Canadians sitting on the fence of common sense and Conservative radicalism. That she sides with the latter makes her an ideal candidate for Senator", added Mr. Harper. 

3. Ezra Levant: "Ezra is another long-time Harper supporter", the PM advised. "He has proven again and again to not look into both sides of an issue. He is an extreme propagandist and lies like a champ. Of course, "Ezzy" as we call him, along with his new duties of Senator, will continue with his fine work at my pal Kory's new venture." 

4. Danielle Crittenden: "Although she lives in Washington DC, is married to David "Axis of Evil" Frum, is the step daughter of Peter "The Conservative Sun" Worthington, and exists in a stable of Conservative writers, Danielle has managed to wrest the Canadian version of the liberal Huffington Post from its centre-left axis and placed it firmly into our evil hands", Harper enthused. "Great job, Danielle. We expect more great things from you!" 

5. Tasha Kheirridan: "Tasha rides shotgun like no other". 

6. Stephen Taylor: "The Blogging Tories have been an integral force in the spread of Conservative principles and memes", Stephen Harper observed. "Without Stephen's army of racists and evangelicals, coupled with his unquestioning devotion of my rise to power no matter the facts or truth, Taylor is the ideal Harper Conservative. He's a born leader. Plus, he has an honourable first name." 

7. Kathy Shaidle: "Speaking of unbridled racists", noted Harper, "Kathy is the most notable. Her devotion to the advancement of white, fundamentalist peoples and the suppression of all non-whites - at least those not sworn to Conservative principles - is satisfying. We look forward to Kathy's eloquence as Senator. She will bring poetry to the Conservative cause".

In an aside to LFR, the source told us that the PM would have chosen someone from the Globe & Mail's editorial board, but the PM had difficulty finding out who they are. The source advised Harper knew they were very old and very conservative so he has all the admiration in the world for the fine work they have done to promote war, poverty, income equality, ignorant US presidents and of course, Stephen Harper.

UPDATE: In reply to inquiries, yes this is satire.

X-posted at Sister Sage's Musings.

Hey Chris Massa, ORNGE you glad you're boss?

Pays well, doesn't it?

ALERT: LFR apologizes for this post. It was written in the holiday company of nieces and nephews and one uncle who specializes in that unfortunate 'old uncle humour'. 

What does it take to be a Sun News Network host?

C'mon Sun Newsfan, you know you want it

Apparently, this.

Jacqui’s television credits include co- hosting “Argos Access” with Michael “Pinball” Clemons, hosting “Dancing at the Palais” on Women’s Television Network, host/reporter on Sportsnet Ontario, co-hosting a late night talk show on Toronto One and until recently she anchored the daily Current Affairs show “Canoe Live” on Sun TV before being promoted to her current position with Sun News Network. Not to mention, after too many appearances to count, she is notably one of Michael Landsberg’s all time favourite guests on “Off the Record”.

Having a nice pair doesn't hurt. What's next, a Hustler model? (Don't laugh.)

To be fair, ugly redheads are welcome, too.

UPDATE: I'm in Toronto this week and this post reminded me to try the network (my cable provider in Vancouver doesn't carry it). Coincidentally, it's Jacqui Delaney's shift.

I tuned in to a field reporter on skates with hair in her face, stuttering and stammering, introducing a youtube clip from a Republican Congressman on ... taduh! ... the War on Christmas! I've been tuned in now for two minutes and already the right-wing memes are flying. Except - get this - the video can't be located. Oh well, back to the field shot.

Jacqui comes on to help out the poor reporter as the latter has her back to a little girl trying to get the reporer's attention. Said reporter can't locate the girl no matter how much Jacqui helps her. There, she found her! Hilarious. A commercial for a Christian dating service saves them both.

Phew! I've been watching the network for all of five minutes and I've already encountered the War on Christmas, a youtube video that couldn't be located, the Republican party, an incompetent field reporter having trouble both speaking English and showing her face, a Christian dating commercial and Jacqui giggling at her own network's ineptitude. That's all I need to see. To be perfectly honest, SNN is worse than I even anticipated. John Doyle's been far too nice.

UPDATE: 4:34 pm - just took another peek. Only lasted two minutes this time. Erickson and Levant were ranting about Chiquita bananas. I didn't realize it was still an issue. (I thought it was old news.) Man, Krista has a harsh, stern delivery. I find it hard to believe she had a career at CBC with this kind of pissed-off attitude. It's like something is really bugging her. Must be liberals. Ezra is very soft. Not good TV. More like propaganda than news. Does SNN do straight news, too?

XXX-posted at Sister Sage's Musings (under slightly different title).

There's something about the name 'Koch': Minn gay community apologizes to disgraced ex-Majority Leader for her failed marriage

If you don't know the story of Minnesota's ex-Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, it's a simple tale of another family values Republican caught having an affair with a subordinate. Today the gay community of Minnesota owned up to Ms. Koch, apologizing for "ruining the institution of marriage and causing her to stray from her husband and engage in an 'inappropriate relationship'."

"On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage," reads the letter from John Medeiros. "We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry." ​ 

The letter comes on the heels of Koch's own apology, released yesterday, in which she expressed her deep regret for "engaging in a relationship with a Senate staffer." Although the letter did not specify the identity of the other participant in the "inappropriate relationship," it is widely rumored to be former communications chief Michael Brodkorb, who lost several positions with the GOP in the wake of the scandal.

Hilarious.

$200K payout to Chretien bad news for Liberals

That's all the Liberals need, as bad a shape as they are in, to have the 'sponsorship scandal' dredged up again.

Funny, the Conservatives are living a scandal-a-day and yet you just know the big news for the next month will be Sponsorship. Adscam. Scandal.

*Sigh*

Bob Dylan - Stick With Mono

Amusing commercial for the mono box of Bob Dylan albums. Everyone knows stereo corrupts. C'mon!

Anonymous publishes personal/credit card info of Florida Family Association supporters

In moves partially to avenge the Occupy movement, three separate internet postings last week from Anonymous attacked both the website of the anti-gay, Islamophobic Florida Family Association and released personal information on thousands of police officers who evicted Occupiers from all over the US.

Granted this news comes from the virulently right-wing Washington Times but if true, this is surely a bold, if not ill-advised, blow against the establishment forces who have bullied Occupy, gays and Muslims.

In the case of the police officers, I'm not so sure this is a good idea. While I can see the value in outing the details of the prominent offenders in the law communities (Lieutenant Pike and Anthony Bologna come to mind), releasing such details on so many officers could endanger them in their general duties protecting the public.

“I hope the individuals behind these cyberattacks understand the consequences of what they are doing,” said John Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “There are very dangerous criminals out there who might seek retribution” against any of these police officers.

Then again releasing details like this could, although unlikely, deter such strong-arm tactics used against peaceful Occupiers in the future (and you can bet there will be a very active future, especially when the summer rolls around). At least it might give some police officers pause.

As to the assholes who support the Florida Family Association, I concur wholeheartedly with Anonymous' actions. Best of luck to you, Anonymous. Keep up the good work.

Stunning. Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal criticizes GOP leadership over payroll tax issue.

OK Mitch, it goes like this, "a onea, a twoa... NO!"

Stunning because it rarely ever happens. The editorial board is fully Murdoch operational, meaning that is never criticizes the GOP, especially its leadership. That's how radical the current GOP has become. WSJ editors go as far as to call the leadership a circle jerk 'circular firing squad'.

Of course it's not the people who will suffer the most from the GOP's 'devastating' intransigence that the editors are worried about. It's the threat to the health of the Republican party that bothers them.

The House GOP’s decision to vote down the Senate’s two-month extension of the payroll tax holiday on Tuesday by claiming that it makes no economic sense was a grave mistake, as “no employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs,” the board wrote. 

“The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics,” it said. 

And as for the one small victory that the GOP was able to secure – pushing Obama to agree to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days – “Republicans are drowning out that victory in the sounds of their circular firing squad,” the board said.

The sad thing about the bad place that the GOP currently resides is that all it has to do is wait. The Dems will cave in January. They always do.

Republicans, the Winston Churchill bust and wingnut symbolism

As the Republicans are about to hold hostage the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits, last night they did do something remotely constructive - they commissioned a bust of Winston Churchill. You may well ask, why with all the pressing issues threatening the middle and lower classes, have the Republicans spent their efforts on such a 'frivolous' endeavour?

That's easy. I'll let Gawker explain:

Anyway, this is all about race. 

The reason Boehner and Co. are doing this is not merely because they admire Winston Churchill's speech before Congress 70 years ago. It's more the climax of a nearly three-year right-wing crusade against Barack Obama, whom they believe got rid of a White House bust of Winston Churchill upon assuming office in a fit of uppity anti-colonial rage.

Simple. It's always been about race. It will always be about race. People like Obama, a fact that makes the GOP hate him all the more. And the Republicans (and British press/Conservatives) don't care if you know it.

Income inequality grows in Happy Harperland

Emily Dee points out the sickening reality of living in Fatherland. The rich are getting richer, the middle class is being crunched and the poor, well they just keep getting poorer. 

We don't really need statistics to tell us that we are worse off today then we were five years ago. 

Household debt is at a record high. Income disparity is rising faster that many developed countries. 

Poverty is on the rise and when a report was presented to Stephen Harper that outlined ways to decrease poverty, he threw it in the trash. Not his problem. 

Compare those headlines with this one: Scotiabank, CIBC Top Bonus Increases After Record Bank Profits.

And so it goes. Read the whole thing. It's a worthy read. Bring a hanky. It looks like the Daddy State is here to stay.

Canadian Museum For Human Rights one long clusterfuck

My God, this thing looks like a diaphanous church, not a friggin' museum

You'd think that a museum named for Human Rights would be a huge plus for both liberals and conservatives. Human rights are universal. Immigrants, the oppressed of the world, the Holocaust, the plight of Canadian Aboriginals, African victims of starvation and genocide, and so many more could fit nicely into such a museum. OK, we want to keep it Canadian. So why did Izzy Asper want the space to actually be essentially a Holocaust museum?

In the beginning, it was all about Israel Asper. He wanted a public space for a Holocaust gallery in the nation’s capital, specifically in the Canadian War Museum. Since CanWest’s conductor once enjoyed the ear of Prime Minister Chretien, the trade seemed certain. But after Canadian veterans objected, and Liberal fortunes fell, those best-laid plans were prostrated. 

Showing chutzpah, the project’s boosters regrouped and launched a well-financed campaign promoting a museum for Winnipeg, not un-coincidentally the home of the Asper Foundation. Since CanWest outlets obligingly touted a pro-Conservative lullaby, and we all know that he who pays the piper calls the tune, this artifice worked. Prime Minister Harper’s team rewarded their fealty by funding this Canadian Museum for Human Rights, permanently attached to the public teat. 

If this national museum was really committed to telling human rights stories, particularly Canadian ones or those less well known, it might be worth it. But it’s not. The final report of the Content Advisory Committee confirms that a disproportionate share of the museum’s permanent exhibit space will emphasize Jewish suffering in the Second World War, elevating that horror above all other crimes against humanity. That partiality is demonstrated by 48 references to the Holocaust compared to one on the genocidal Great Famine of 1932-33 in Soviet Ukraine. Adding insult to injury, Holodomor is misspelt “Holodomar.” Just a typo? Perhaps. 

In any case, it looks like God and Canadians have not turned a generous eye on the whole operation. Delayed now until 2014 (building commenced in 2009), with cost overruns, ethnic outrage and top staff departures, the whole thing is looking as something of a blunder. It's so bad now that not even Harper's Conservatives seem willing to lend a monetary hand for such a controversial project.

Mr. Hughes said fundraising has been challenging given the economic climate and the bad publicity. But he said the fundraising group is exploring new potential sources of donations and the museum is looking into corporate sponsorships. 

“We’ve got a lot of things to do all at once and I think personally what we have never lost focus of is we are putting together an incredible museum for all Canadians,” he added. 

Supporters of the project said the federal government has frequently covered cost overruns for its national museums in Ottawa, such as a recent $216-million overhaul at the Museum of Nature that went over budget. “We’re not talking about a lot of money,” said Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. “We’ve come so close and it really just needs one final push and the government seems to be backing off.”

Looking at the museum website now, it seems to be inclusive of human rights for all. Let's hope it turns out that way and proves itself worthy of its name. Looking at its iffy history, who knows? Now, more than ever, Canada needs an acknowledgement of human abuses throughout history around the world and in this country. Perhaps we could start with a large display of the modern history of Attawapiskat when the museum opens.

Survey: BC Liberals under Christy Clark slipping. NDP holding strong. Cons gaining on Libs.

'Cannibal' John Cummins takes the news cycle (Postmedia version)

The big news in BC is the current dominance of the NDP in a new poll, which puts the party at 34 percent support. The Liberals and the Conservatives are split at 23 percent. Of course that would be the big news to all but to Postmedia, which puts it this way:

B.C. Liberal Premier Christy Clark has failed to stem the growing appeal of the provincial Conservatives to centre-right voters, a new poll suggests. 

The survey by Forum Research Inc. found that 34 per cent of British Columbians support the NDP, with the governing B.C. Liberals and the Conservatives in a dead heat at 23 per cent. The Green party trails with 15 per cent. 

Clark’s backers in the B.C. Liberal nomination contest earlier this year believed she could revive the party’s brand, which had been battered under her unpopular predecessor, former premier Gordon Campbell. 

But the Forum Research survey found that Clark has been unable to stop a shift of previous B.C. Liberal voters to the resurgent B.C. Conservatives under new leader John Cummins. 

“The Conservatives are really cannibalizing the B.C. Liberals right now,” said Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff. 

“It looks like the NDP could come up the middle.”

Now folks, sit back and savour the Vancouver Sun's spin on this. The NDP is leading both the Liberals and the Conservatives by a whopping 11 points each. This article says they're 'coming up the middle'. But to the Sun, the news is that the Conservatives are 'cannibalizing' (choice quote from the pollster) and 'resurgent' with the 'growing appeal' of the party.

Sure, those terms have a bite of truth but c'mon, the Cons tying the centre-right Liberals in BC? That's the meat of this article? What you been tokin', Doug Ward? (I can't blame the Sun totally. It does attempt to bail out young Mr. Ward with its headline announcing NDP's strength, accompanied by a picture of Adrian Dix next to Christy Clark.)

As to Clark's fate, my take is that the only salvation for the province's Liberals from a total annihilation from the NDP and a close fight from the 'resurgent' Cons is to resist with all force that party's disastrous and freedom-robbing Bill C-10.

Fighting any Alberta pipelines that will end up on the Pacific via BC will also be imperative. If Cark wants any chance, she has to stand up to Harper, the Conservatives and the Alberta tar sands elite. Fighting the NDP will only the enhance Jack Layton's baby in British Columbia.

In fact, all of this should be a lesson to the federal Liberals. If the party wants to be taken seriously again, feeding the centre-right is not the way to go. Canada needs to regain the centre with a left kick. But that doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon.

Marginaizing bloggers - even those like Stephen Taylor and Ezra Levant, who no doubt have Breitbart and O'Keefe dirty tricks up their sleeves for the upcoming Biennial Convention - is the absolute worst thing that the party could have done. In fact, it reeks of Harperism. If the Liberals continue to refuse to join the 21st century, don't become inclusive once again and won't stand up for those in the centre and the left, they are in bigger trouble than I ever imagined.

Too bad they couldn't give two shits about what some blogger has to say from Vancouver or anywhere else in Canada for that matter. It might help them set them on a true course to relating to Canadians once again.

Personally, I'd love to see a Barack Obama vs. Ron Paul presidential slugfest

Ron Paul is causing big waves in Iowa, threatening to take the whole thing. The rest of the Republican field is aghast and right-wing pundits are clutching their pearls.

It's not Paul's anti-Semitism or racism that bothers them so much as his view on drugs and war. Paul's evisceration of America's history for warmongering and his call for the decriminalization of drugs are driving much of his current popularity - especially among the youth - and spreading fear among the GOP.

Like Obama's youth movement of 2008, Paul seems to be on the verge of monopolizing the message for great gains. His performance during debates is at once stolid and pithy. He takes on all comers and more often than not makes them go away with their tails between their legs, helped in large part by hordes of youths scattered in the audience and at every GOP event. The rightblogger establishment is appalled - "they're just young".

Not that it will ever happen - the GOP bigwigs will ensure it doesn't - but if Ron Paul ever managed to win the nomination, what a great thing that would be for the country. Youth vs. youth and the old fogies left on the sidelines licking their wounds. I still think Obama would win; he just has more moderating talking points that would appeal to fence sitters and older folks.

Not that I can't sit back and smile at the possibility of a dovelike America with legalized drugs. It's too bad about all the rest of that Ron Paul libertarian shit that would hit the fan in Paul's wake. Nobody wants that, least of all the GOP.

Politifact RIP

Krugman is justifiably outraged over Politifact's "Pants on Fire Lie of the Year". Of course, the 'lie' chosen by the red state fact-checking company is attributed to Democrats, not to any Republican.

Consider for a second the outrageous lies spewed over the past year by the likes of Bachmann, Gingrich, Boehner, Palin and a host of other Republicans and then consider that Republicans have in truth voted to end Medicare, a fact that Politifact not only mistakenly disputes but assigns the Democrats' correct claim as the lie of the year!

It's not even a close call. Politifact's editors have a lot to answer for in this bit of bending over backwards to appear to be non-partisan. This is one of the more obvious examples of how the endless cries of 'liberal media' from the right distort the delivery of facts from the media at large - news organizations are scared shitless of being called 'liberal'.

No wonder balance and fairness is so elusive in the 21st century media - even the fact checkers, partially in response to the unyielding pressure from the right and partially because of their own political leanings, are instrinsically dishonest.

New York Magazine sums up the intent of Politifact this way:

Of course, it’s pretty clear that drawing complaints from liberals is basically the point here. Politifact is a group that requires roughly equal criticism from right and left in order to maintain its credibility. Indeed, it cites such criticism in order to make the case that we should treat it seriously – see, both sides are complaining! But it’s not a partisan issue. Politifact had some genuine Democratic lies to choose from. Politifact is just a plain shoddy, not-very-smart group, and this is true when they’re calling Republicans liars as well.

Humoroursly, Fred Haitt's very own fact checker at the right-wing Washington Post gives Politifact's choice a thumbs up. Surprise!

John Doyle's most irritating TV people of 2011

I'm beginning to think that John Doyle is Canada's best social critic. His job may be to cover TV but his columns cut through the bullshit of so much more. It's as if he's talking for those of us on the outside without any national voice, a voice currently dominated by the very people Doyle skewers. He covers all the annoying curmudgeons - well, let's just say it outright - assholes who occupy our television screens with pomp but very little circumstance.

Doyle hits all the big ones - Krista Erickson, Brian "I Hate CBC" Lilley, Peter Kent, the blowhards of Dragon's Den. But it is his evisceration of compatriot Rex Murphy that glows the brightest. It's brilliant.

Harrumph, harrumph. One thundering denunciation after another, delivered with alliteration. Climate scientists are halfwits. Everyone is an eejit. Celebrities should shut up about everything except the movie or CD they’re promoting, because they know nothing about nothing. Rexy, shudduppa yourself – enough with the alliteration and overuse of “balderdash.”

Harper's statement on death of Kim Jong-il is eerie, like he's peering into a mirror of his own future

Harper image from Dammit Janet

Harper's 'scathing' comments about the deceased North Korean leader sound chillingly like Harper talking about himself and his plans for Canada. Creepy.

"Kim Jong-il will be remembered as the leader of a totalitarian regime who violated the basic rights of the North Korean people for nearly two decades,” Mr Harper said in a statement. 

“We hope his passing brings positive change allowing the people of North Korea to emerge from six decades of isolation, oppression and misery. The regime’s reckless decisions have resulted in North Korea being an impoverished nation and a country isolated from the international community because of its dangerous nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile programs.

MacKay being used as scapegoat to clear path for Jason Kenney as next Conservative leader?

Interesting article in the Straight about Kenney's ascension in the Conservative ranks. The writer Charlie Smith feels that Kenney is the logical successor to Harper, with the scandals plaguing former favourite Peter MacKay all but eliminating the very elite Minister of National Defence from contention.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has revealed that MacKay spent $1,452 a night for a two-night stay in a Munich hotel, and another $770 per night for three nights in a luxurious hotel in Istanbul. 

In the past, MacKay has come under fire for the use of a military helicopter to retrieve him from a fishing trip. And the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has also hammered MacKay for the cost of his flight to the recent Grey Cup game in Vancouver. 

The founder of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is Jason Kenney, who is probably the cabinet minister closest to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

As Harper's parliamentary secretary, Kenney criss-crossed the country to forge deep ties with groups representing new Canadians. Later, Kenney was promoted to oversee the immigration ministry. 

[NDP leadership candidate] Cullen and I both surmised that these revelations about MacKay are designed to put Kenney at the front of the line as Harper's successor as Conservative leader. As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Kenney is well-positioned to make the types of connections that will help him in a future leadership race.

UPDATE: In related news, the world awaits the outcome of Kim Jong-il's son succeeding his father and what it will mean to South Korean and the rest of the region.

The alternative Christopher Hitchens

Both left and right blogospheres have been full of tears and praise for Christopher Hitchens since his passing. And that's the way it should be. He was a brilliant intellectual, an incomparable rhetorician, a reliable atheist, a raconteur, an unyielding debater, a self-hating Anglo, a convenient contrarian, a fine writer, a sturdy wit, a proud Americanophile and most of all, a colourful curmudgeon of Dicksenion proportions. In short, he was a firebrand cherished by writers of all stripes. He was one of their own and a magnificent example of the genre.

Myself, I found the man to be all those things and a lot more. He was also pompous, dismissive of the have nots, a warmonger, a proponent of genocide, a drunk, a misogynist, an Islamophobe of Gelleristic stature, and true to his British roots, a loyal anti-imperialist imperialist.

In his wake, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead aided by Hitchens' blindered support, nay celebration, of Bush's own private Iraq war, a folly to which the author bled loyalty to his dying day. He derided Arabs and belittled American Aboriginals (Christopher Columbus to Hitchens should be "celebrated with great vim and gusto" for the attempted extermination of Natives).

But none of that matters to his hagiographers. To the left he was a rare atheist and a brilliant mind. To the right he was a reliable hawk and an elusive racist. His eloquence had both factions by the balls. He hypnotized those who read his words. His intellectual heft was literally mind-blowing.

Unfortunately for Hitch, intellectualism requires an equal amount of intuition to be effective beyond mere showbiz. This is where Hitchens falls down. History is full of great writers and brilliant minds. They burn bright while they're around and fall out of view once they're gone if they do not have a sense of the world and how it works. Only those who touch the pulse of the world's longer, more sustained themes survive history.

Hitchens knew nothing of the world beyond intellectual exploration. He had no feeling for the shared greater good of the world. He was easily led and often easily fooled. He learned nothing from his mistakes; that is, if he ever admitted to committing any.

But he could write like a motherfucker and opine like a philosopher. He was formidable in the former but was nothing of the latter. He was master at countering an argument with a pithy, personal put down. That was very much his style. And style, cheap retort or not, was what propelled Hitch's career. Substantial qualities do not matter to those who treasure a neatly-turned phrase or outrageous wit. In these days, the delivery is far more important than the goods. Just ask Christie Blatchford or Rex Murphy.

FUBAR III: Breitbart, CNN analyst use anti-Semitic Nazi cartoon in right-wing blog

Here's the version used by Breitbart's Big Journalism blog, as edited by CNN's Dana Loesch, used on multiple occasions:

Here's the original 1942 German cartoon:

I guess Andrew, Dana and the Big Journalism crew hate Jews. Who knew?

So that's where the right-wing whine of 'media bias' originated. Figures.

UPDATE: In typical Breitbart/Loesch/Big Journalism fashion, the culprits remain defiant, accusing the accusers of anti-Semitism. Here's Breitbart's classy response:

“I’ll apologize – again – for accidentally posting innocent cartoon w dubious origin, if George Soros publicly apologizes for aiding Nazis.”

Note to Andrew - accidents happen once. Four times is a pattern.

“We’re in the business of getting Conservatives elected and ending Liberal careers. We’re good at it.”

I love this quote. It comes from Nick Kouvalis of Market Research, the firm used by Conservatives - including Speaker Scheer - to get elected at any cost. What makes this quote especially noteworthy is that it encapsulates the Conservative mindset brilliantly. It's not just about winning to these people. It's not just about squashing any opposition either; it's about humiliating and destroying that opposition, until there is nothing left of dirty effing hippies - or, in Conservative parlance, liberals.

A few days ago Alicublog found a post on right-wing Pajamas Media advising conservatives how to deal a deathly blow to liberals when conversing with them. It's not so much the idea of presenting a counter argument to a liberal one; it's the end result of publicly humiliating liberals with such cartoonish relish that is so disturbing.

A word of warning: the more you say, the more the liberal’s response will turn to enraged apoplexy. By the time you’ve finished lucidly expressing your views, the liberal will react like a shrieking, psychopathic hyena being laced into a straitjacket. 

Remarkably, this goes on for hundreds of words, with phrases inserted about the similarly ridiculous reactions to be expected when you talk to liberals as she advises: "Let the liberal experience the panic attack," "expect a temper tantrum," "The liberal will become irate, perspire profusely, then shout," etc. 

I used to marvel at the longevity of this genre, but no longer. It's getting clearer all the time that what these guys want more than anything is to humiliate their opponents in public. But these chances don't come often in real life even when you're not champing at the bit for them, and thus might have the sangfroid to pull it off; for someone who's so invested in such scenarios that she must indulge fictional encounters that inevitably prove her superiority in argument, it must be nearly impossible.

While I'm guilty as the next liberal of mocking and making fun of conservative overreach, I don't actually want to induce a panic attack. I don't want to promote my values so that it ends the career of someone with whom I disagree. To publicly do so would be even worse. Most of all, I would never feel superior, happy or even brag about doing so. Then again, I'm a liberal; I guess it's just not in my jeans.

UPDATE:

The Parrett jeaneology. Dirty Fucking Hippies back generations.